The sad truth is that no matter how much evidence is given for Christianity, for many, it will never be enough. I pray for eyes to be opened, hearts to be softened and that many will come to experience the unbelievable love of God our Father, through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Amen.
If the evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then the evidence is flawed. Nothing Turek has said ever stands up to scrutiny. If You god is omniscient, it knows what it would take to convince me of its existence. If your god is omnipotent it has the power to do it. Your god hasn't..... Or maybe your god doesn't exist.
Mart TL1000S great intellectuals like Bart erhmans mentor, Metzger who is called a great researcher of these manuscripts, far more studies and access to the evidences than anyone on here most likely does, and you’re telling him Jesus never existed? I don’t understand friend. Such people have access to all of these evidences to make their own determination and ones like Metzger after a career of it arrive at Jesus’ existence and people like you somehow think you know better. God bless you and have a great day❤️.
Mart TL1000S Romans 1:19-20 King James Version (KJV) 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: The evidence for God is all around you. He is no bigot and in Him is only good. You are made in His image and He loves you. May He bless you and open your eyes to the truth that is Jesus Christ❤️. Romans 5:8 King James Version (KJV) 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
For you atheists and skeptics out there, ask yourself this question, and I mean search yourself with everything that you have, “Why are you watching, commenting (and most of the time with venom)? If God doesn’t exist or some other belief/religion is true, there should be no reason why you’re here. If either of these propositions is true, who cares what Frank Turk says. I have a sneaking suspicion that either you’re seeking truth or you’re just angry with God. I could be wrong in some cases, especially of those who just want to engage in an honest dialogue and do not spew anger. But then again, if you’re engaging in honest dialogue, you could be seeking truth. And I admire that. I think we all do, no matter what side of the fence you find yourself.
confident atheist here. I am happy to address your questions in order. First of all, Why am I watching this video? because a passionate born again Christian who I know and respect and who I often engage in thought provoking conversations with asked me to - he quotes frank turek often, and I figured the best way to understand where he's coming from is to see where he's getting his information from.....he literally shared this exact video with me, and that's why I'm here. As to why I'm commenting....well the honest truth is I type 130 words per minute and keyboard warrioring is an odd hobby of mine that I can't fully explain. So I don't know why I'm commenting, I guess just to engage in thoughtful dialogue, as you said. Secondly - if god doesn't exist or some other religion is true, there is no reason for me to be here? well....obviously incorrect since there is very obviously no god of any description, all religions are wrong, but people like this Frank Turek are making it their life mission not only to disemminate the teachings of god, but also to try to use a scientific process to prove his very existence and the existence of his miracles. This brings atheist skeptics such as myself to the source of the misinformation....and that is very literally what brought me here to this video. Thirdly, your sneaking suspicion that I'm seeking the truth or angry with God are both incorrect. I can't possibly be angry at God since there isn't one. It'd be like saying the only reason you are investigating the origin of santa claus is because you must somehow be mad that you didn't get the presents you asked for last Christmas. There is no santa, there is no getting angry with him - there is no god, there is no getting angry with him....same same. no easter bunny, tooth fairy, cupid fairy, santa clause.....none of it is real, and thus there is no logic to being angry at the make belief. I love the irony of trying to use the SCIENTIFIC process, to PROVE the existence of god. To try to say that the actual original documents of the new testament are actually real, to try to identify who wrote the bible and when in an attempt to prove the authenticity of the stories within the bible to therefore prove without a shadow of a doubt that your make belief friend is real and everyone else's is fake.....is hilarious. you're using the very process you despise (science) to try to prove the existence of the non-existent, and despite centuries of failure in doing this you hang in there. I must commend your faith and your resolve in being able to do this. but let me ask you a few questions. First of all, what purpose do you believe religion fills? I don't just mean YOUR religion....I mean the concept of religion, the hundreds of religions that exist around the world in all the different cultures and geographical locations....every human since the dawn of time has wondered where we came from, why we're here, what the stars are, what controls the weather, what happens when we die, why do good things happen to bad people and vice versa.....these questions have existed since the dawn of time and every single culture in the world has come up with their own answers to them....these answers were framed into religions, and they take various forms. So what is the purpose of religion? My next question, is what is the purpose of science, and the scientific process? I think you'll find that your answers to those questions will be the same. both are seeking the truth. but in one, we are coming from the perspective that we do NOT know everything, and our minds are completely open books. We look at evidence, we process evidence, we then draw conclusions based on the evidence that we've been able to gather. We then come up with hypotheses that we then put up for peer review and evaluation and we are constantly re-evaluating what we know to be true according to this process and even if millions of people are able to recreate an experiment or a finding.....if a single person is able to definitively disprove the hypothesis/theory using the same reproduceable process.....then the hypothesis and theory are completely and utterly thrown out in favor of something new. What we know and what we understand to be true is constantly changing based on the EVIDENCE that presents itself through a non stop critical evaluation of reality. …..with religion....you start off knowing the truth, and you then spend the rest of your existence reinforcing and never questioning this truth, and when evidence contradicting your truth presents itself you turn it into a test of your faith. Continuing to believe in the absence of any evidence what so ever is the very definition of what it means to have faith.....and this profound and deliberate state of ignorance is where you guys prefer to exist. Why continue to pursue the truth....when it's all spelled out for us clearly in the bible? I guess the underlying question is why? why have faith in something that is obviously untrue. why take evidence to the contrary and use it as a test of faith. Why commandeer the scientific process that you obviously hate so much and twist it into a process of defending what is obviously scientifically incorrect. Why, when we know the answers to SO many things that we didn't used to understand.....why continue to argue that we already know everything there is to know? just.....why?
Blake Thank you for your thoughtful dialogue. Atheist such as yourself are a breath of fresh air. And it is very evident that you do type 130 words per minute as your reply is definitely full. First of all, I don’t despise science. I think that might be pigeonholing me into a false category. I don’t blame you for the misnomer as many Christians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries cornered theirselves into this false science vs. religion dichotomy. I actually hope as a science minded person that you are seeking for truth or else I would argue that you’ve already abandoned science and it’s methods. I agree with you that what we know or at least perceive does change over time from one paradigm to another through open scientific testing and observation. If you’ve ever taken a course in the philosophy of science, you’ll know that a good majority of paradigm shifts occur when scientists allow themselves to think outside of the empirical box. While I agree with you that we can’t empirically prove God’s existence, we do have other avenues to acquire knowledge such as logic to name one. I would also argue that in our attempts to approach the search for truth all of us come to the table with certain presuppositions that act as paradigms. Where each of us acquired these presuppositions varies from each persons varied experiences. And so just as in the history of science, I would argue, non of us will experience a paradigm shift until we think outside of our current presuppositions or paradigms. I’m willing to do so. The thing that you might not guess about me, is that I’m naturally skeptical. So I don’t take every biblical or scientific claim at face value. Now to the idea that somehow I just continue to hold on to my faith in spite of its falsehood... I could be wrong here, but I would argue that I believe that you’ve probably narrowed you’re understanding of knowing to empiricism alone or that somehow empirical knowledge is the only way that we can have certainty. If the latter is the case, then I would point out your correct observation that the history of science shows us that what we once thought was certain, is no longer certain. So it goes, what we know view to be certain will probably not be certain according to what we discover via the scientific method in the future. So empirical proof can never be the sole basis for us knowing. I would also dare to say that there are many things in the way you live life that defy exact empirical evidence I order to live it. I’m sure you know the arguments. Lastly, to answer your question, about the role of all religious belief or pursuit throughout the world’s history, I would say that there is something inside us all, a God shaped hole if you will, that humans are trying fill. I actually hypothesize that this is a designed mechanism (it could be an indirect design of which the reason I won’t go into here) by our Creator. Again I appreciate your dialogue and would enjoy fire discussion as well.
@@OURUSSELL the limits to our empirical knowledge are a function of our never-ending quest to find it. We will never know everything and anyone with any sense would accept that we don't know everything about everything. What you describe as a God sized hole, I describe as a never-ending quest for truth. I believe in a system of critical evaluation and empirical measurement to draw conclusions which will naturally evolve over time. You believe in the supernatural, miracles, spirits, afterlife.... Etc... And it is through a series of stories legends and fables that you ( religious people as a group) then pretend to know everything. Religious people know the origin of everything from the tiniest ant to the very universe and concept of time itself. Religious people know the purpose of life they know what happens after we die they know what controls our very fate. To that end I would say I am jealous of their confidence and I am jealous in the sense of security they must have knowing that there is nothing left to discover. No questions left to be asked.... We know the answer to everything and that answer of coursw.... Is God and his word. Promise of miracles, divine intervention, and post mortem heaven/rewards is what encourages good behavior and threats of eternal damnation are used to control negative behavior. Look I don't have a problem with people who are religious, I don't have a problem with any belief system and that includes Islam to Satanism to whatever random beliefs are held by tribes people in the middle of the amazon. I do not care what a person believes I care what they do.... It is that simple. But why try to use science to prove the objective empirical measurable quantifiable existence of God and the stories his Bible tells. That just enters the realm of the ridiculous.... Like seeing those TLC specials on people looking for bigfoot, the loch ness monster or the like. Fine, believe in whatever you want to believe in but don't piss on my head and call it rain.... There IS no objectively measurable God anywhere and if there was trust me our scientists would be talking about it. If there was a single being in control of everything we would have worked it out by now.... But instead we keep finding evidence to suggest that there is no actual being or deity in control of anything. We keep solving little riddles here and there and slowly but surely we are piecing together the puzzle of where we came from how we got here where were headed.... Etc... Remember that science was only uncuffed from the confines of religion only about 100 years ago.... And in that time the progress has been immense.... And it will continue... And it will do so through science. Not divine intervention.... Believe in what you like to defend your behavior and morals and values... Etc... But our physical reality is not the result of supernatural or divine intervention.... It's the result of a natural process were still trying to understand and it is with science that we further this understanding.
Blake Again I applaud the thoughtful dialogue. Here are some thoughts. Those who subscribe to empiricism believe that we should not believe the truth of some X based on a competent authority. We are only justified in believing some X if we have empirically verifiable evidence supporting the truth of X. It goes without notice that this principle itself is not empirically verifiable, and thus empiricism is self-refuting as a COMPLETE THEORY of knowledge. There are several different ways of gaining knowledge of the world empiricism, logic (rational thought), existential knowledge, moral knowledge, experiential knowledge, and historical knowledge which is more of a mix of those knowledge listed above. But neither of these ways of knowing can STAND ON THEIR OWN because ultimately they would prove to be logically circular (self refuting or at the very least SELF WEAKENING). So can we know anything? So can we prove anything with absolute certainty? I would argue that we can know a great many things and in order to do so, we CAN NOT rely on one particular avenue of gaining knowledge in order to truly know something. Using only one road to gain knowledge breaks down and prevents us from really knowing anything with confidence. Confidence by its very etymology means “with faith, with trust, with assurance or belief. Instead of relying solely on empirical data which is not only limited by data, assumptions, our instruments in measuring and is at least self weakening (self refuting), we should rely on a more robust avenue for knowing mainly a combination of all methods of gaining knowledge. This is actually how we live life no matter how committed one is to strict empiricism or not. A strict empiricist or naturalist doesn’t go around asking their beloved family member or friend if they have the chemicals that produces love in the brain today. No, they just trust in the fact that their friend or beloved due to a variety of knowledge trustworthiness, past memory, familial connection, etc... that has nothing to do with empirical data. There may be an element of chemistry involved, but that doesn’t solely explain the love or experience, nor-should it. You mentioned that theists pretend to know everything. If you mean absolute certainty in a strict empirical way, I would actually disagree. There may be some arrogant theists out there, but I think what you’re sensing is confidence, especially in Christians. There is no certainty as in what scientist, who hold to strict empirical certainty, strive for. As we discussed, the history of science has shown that scientific theories come and go and will continue to do. And empirical certainty in and of itself is self refuting. So empirical certainty will always fail. I would argue that, we are too finite to grasp that kind of certainty. Does that mean that we can’t have some sense of the way the world works through scientific empiricism? By no means, I think science does provide some frame work or confidence for the way the world works, but never certainty. By the very nature of the scientific method, which is inductive and measures past variables, the constant over-turning of scientific theories throughout history, would render science alone as solely unprovable. Can God be proven with certainty using strict scientific empiricism. No. But neither can anything else. Is there strict 100% empirical proof that subatomic particles exist. No. There is very good evidence for their existence. Using math (an immaterial/rational... not empirical... method) with some empirically known parameters we have confidence (not certainty) that subatomic particles exist. Can God be disproven via sola empiricism as you suggest? Not hardly. There are very few things that can be disproven through using empiricism alone. The burden of proof is too high to disprove most anything, let alone God. Without writing a whole book, there is so much written, from scientists and philosophers both theists and atheists, I’ll rest with full confidence that science has not disproven God. Among the hundreds of books and journals on this that you can at least get reference through the internet, I’ll leave you with the book by the agnostic scientist Amir Aczel “Why Science Does Not Disprove God”. There are literally thousands of journals and books by PhD level scientist and philosophers from atheists to Christians that argue against the hypothesis that God has not been disproven. Can God be evidenced or be known in a similar way as subatomic particles? Yes, in a sense, but obviously not exactly in the same way mathematically or empirically. However, among dozens of pieces of rational and empirical evidences, the best evidences that would come closer to your preferred avenue of gaining knowledge would be the teleological arguments (fine tuning of the universe) and the Kalam cosmological argument, as well as the argument micro-design in organic informational systems such as DNA. Consider William Lang Craig, Stephen C. Meyer and John Lennox and others I can cite if you want for these type of arguments. If you’re open to consider thinking outside of strict empiricism would be several varieties of the ontological argument and moral arguments consider Alvin Plantinga, J. P. Moreland, William Lang Craig and others. Let me address another statement you made. You said, “Remember that science was only uncuffed from the confines of religion only about a 100 years ago.” I would agree and disagree with this statement. Don’t take my word on it, but do some research on the history of science. Much of the progress of science as we know it today owes its origin to ancient greek influenced Christian thought and theology, especially from the Reformation. Again, I can’t go into, what would be the equivalent of a dissertation here. Here are some thoughts on this: Of course, some would say that Christian (related to Jewish ideas) thought has ancient greek influence written all over it, therefore it can not be from a Christo-centric origin, but from a morphed version of the three philosophies. But could it be that Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and Pythagorus, etc, had discovered truths or pieces about metaphysical reality? Maybe not, but if you’re a theist is is very plausible. Remember the idea that truth can be objective and known and the search for a rational God’s order and how His creation works is a natural outpouring of the idea that we have dominion over God’s creation. This is opposed to other ancient religious pantheistic or panantheistic thought that nature is God and we don’t have permission nor the means to investigate nature in such a way. The idea that truth can be investigated and known stands in opposition to such eastern ideas that reality is illusory. The idea that human rationality reflects the image of God; therefore, though we take it for granted, we have the ability to to rationalize, investigate, explore and to conclude is a minor miracle in and of itself. The doctrine of the priesthood of the believer is the idea that we can appeal to and communicate with God individually. That is to say that we don’t have to go through a priest, as the Roman Catholics espoused. The individualistic culture that we now have in the west, where each person counts and has rights (including searching for and concluding on truths) is an offspring of such a Christian doctrine. It seems foreign now because our world is so secularized, but much of roots of freedom to discover truth come out of Christian thought. Galileo, Newton, Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Pascal, Kelvin, Boyle, Kepler, etc... were all professing scientists. I’m assuming that when you say that science came uncuffed from religion only 100 years ago, you’re pointing to the creationists vs. Darwinian scientific debate at the time. And because scientific darwinianism won the day among scientist; therefore, science is the better for it and its rapid progression since is further proof that religion is either contrary, not linked or irrelevant to science. While I would not agree, if this is your conclusion. I would agree that sometimes when we don’t let science help us interpret our beliefs about religion or specifically the Bible, then we can reach a quagmire in either both science and/or religion. And to maybe a few degrees lessthan you would conclude, I would conclude that’s what happened in the late 1800’s. But science and theology do not have to be in contradiction. Maybe sometimes there’s friction, but they both can help us flesh out the discovery of reality. Last, but not least...Let me go on a limb here, and I could be wrong. I commend your honest assessment that you experience some jealousy at the fact that belief in the supernatural or the transcendent provides meaning, hope, purpose and ultimately confidence. I just ask that you consider the possibility that your conscience may be providing or crying out for you to explore another avenue of knowledge outside of strict empiricism. If pure naturalism is not true, this could be the case. With all humility and care for your soul, I encourage you to consider the rational possibility that we are not purely naturalistic meat machines. And that there is a rational and loving God that not only created this amazing scientifically exploitable universe, but that He actually wants to be known and wants to know you in a familial way. Thanks for the discussion
@Beren c Again, you have provided no proof of your god that stands up to scrutiny. If your god is omniscient, it knows what it would take to convince me. If your god is omnipotent, it has the power to do it. But it hasn't, which means: 1) Your god is lazy 2) Your god doesn't think I'm worth saving even though I have worked hard to improve other peoples lives and make the world a better place. That makes your god a thin-skinned bigot. 3) Your god wants me to believe before showing bevidence. That makes your god an extortionist. 4) There is no god.
Dr. Turek is not a Doctorate degree holder as recognised by any universally accreditted university, he is a con man spiv ex Sailor,of the USA navy, not a solider or even soldier of any unproven superstitious mythical entity of whom there is no Irrefutable, undeniable, indisputable, empirical, conclusive,unfalsifiable scrap of evidence of ever existing, just as there are none of a creator,creation, first cause,causator, all are assertions without evidence.
Hi Frank, I’ve been a firm believer ever since I can remember anything. I was raised by a single Mom who at times lived with her parents, my Grandparents, who were Seventh Day Adventists. I was introduced to your videos in Dec 2021 and have been a devote FAN of you ever since - LOVE YOU and I’m sure Jesus Himself if very proud of you !!! What I’m so desperately needing though Mr Turek, is further clarification on the Sabbath Day. I’ve had a personal struggle with the Sabbath Day issue for a very long time. I think it is a massively important topic and in fact, even before it was an official Commandment issued to Moses, it appears in Genesis 2:2 and kind of (in my mind) makes it the very first Law of God’s contained within of the Bible. So and with HUGE respect for you Frank, I point to your Session 5 where the references you made at about the 51:12 mark to Paul’s Colossians Chapter 2 where you infer that Paul states “Don’t let anyone tell you that you have to obey any Sabbath Day”. I argue that this is NOT what Paul says at all and this is so NOT what he meant. Jesus says all throughout the Gospels to follow God’s Laws and obey the Commandments. Just because Commandment #4 does not appear in Revelations, does not make it obsolete. I’m so thankful that the New Covenant (our salvation and God’s Grace) was given through the blood of Jesus Christ but again, I argue that OT teachings and the 1st Covenant Laws (10 Commandments) still apply. Finally and as with any Covenant or legal document or agreement, the binding content CANNOT be changed, altered or omitted unless the revisions come directly from the originating Authority and to the best of my knowledge and reckoning, nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus Christ Himself say that the EVER IMPORTANT Sabbath Day shall be on the Sunday as opposed to the original Saturday. Sabbath was changed in AD 321 to Sunday by Roman Emperor Constantine .. a HUMAN governed by God’s Law the same as any other Human. Please Frank, educate me ? Please provide clarification on this the way only you can do. God Bless. Thank for you teachings and again, you are awesome !
The Bible teaches its readers to _"Sell what you own and give the money to the poor"_ Can anyone show me anytime multi-millionaire Frank Turek has preached that part of the Bible?
Dear Brother, Jesus was asked what are the most important Laws, and he summarized them into two: Believe in the ONE true God and love thy neighbor. The Sabbath is your time dedicated to God, it doesn’t have to be a day as we don’t follow Jewish traditions, hope that helped
@@yahshuanazareno6186 Yes, you are correct with this "Believe in the ONE true God and love thy neighbor" for if you keep even those two then I believe you would in essence, be following all God's laws. However and back to the point of the Sabbath.....It was made for MAN and established very early (sanctified in fact) in GEN 2:2 & 3.......then there's another great quote " Sabbath was made for MAN, not man for the Sabbath" ...... Sabbath was not made for the Jew but rather, for MAN. The Sabbath was made for MAN long before Mount Sinai.... Jesus Christ himself followed this law and as He is the only one on earth with the authority to change this law, never once did he state or even imply that any of God's laws were changed.... In fact, Jesus states that he did NOT come to change any of God's law but rather, to fulfil them...... Emmanuel 🙏🙏🙏
@@dean366 and he did fulfill all of them! He also broke “the law” on a sabbath and told the Pharisees to stop trying to be so overly sensitive with the law when they lack the LOVE for God. Reflect on that
@@yahshuanazareno6186 Not much reflection needed there 😂 Do we punish our policemen or rescuers for breaking the law speeding to their scene ? Absolutely not ! So too is also true for the Lord of the Sabbath 🙏 The Pharisees arguments were both week and petty vs our Lord when you think about it. I mean, bringing forgiveness, salvation, healing and showbread (wheat from the field for the disciples) on the Sabbath ? What arguments can truly be brought against our Lord ?
Depend if you consider yourself christian or not. It always feel good to consider our group of reference as right, this feeling have no weight considering the actual veracity. The thing is our brain tend to substitute hard question ( is this person telling the truth ? ) with easier one ( Am I pleased with what this person is telling ? ).
Evidence is not true when written by no one knows whom, without source, verification and corrobrated, the gospels given as proof would be laughed out of any civil court.
Laying out WHAT evidence???? , all he has to go on is the four gospels issued in the "new testament" gospels that are not original documents, not written by any claiming to know the supposed Jesus of, not written first hand, not signed, not written by those acreditted with doing so, the only one taking them as evidence of anything are indoctrinated believers that were indoctrinated with that bullshit before their minds were formed and GROOMED throughout their formative years is such rubbish, them and no others. "They are true because I believe them to be true" is NOT EVIDENCE.
@@buck_maize111 Only if you sing waltzing Matilda with me. I come from a Greek family and during holidays we sing Greek folk songs, an American song called "Good Night Irene" and "waltzing Matilda."
I feel sorry for folks that believe there is no HIGHER POWER. I can tell you they’re in for a rude awakening one day. Because of how my life is now I know there is someone bigger than us humans. No matter how much I go to church a pastor didn’t change me I come out the same way I went in. But the FATHER ALMIGHTY change me HIMSELF when I wasn’t even attending church or pray that night. But I wrote in my journal for 4 months for the MOST HIGH to change me but I stop writing 18 months before I came to the LIGHT of the FATHER when I forgot about writing; but the all knowing FATHER didn’t forget.
@@Allen_Sherry Nope, Atheism is the rejection of fairy tales as truth. fair·y tale /ˈferē tāl/ noun a children's story about magical and imaginary beings and lands. something resembling a fairy tale in being magical, idealized, or extremely happy. modifier noun: fairy-tale "a fairy-tale romance" a fabricated story, especially one intended to deceive. The bible has a talking snake. The bible has an impossible flood. Your god created life with magic. Jesus "turned water into wine" Atheism is simply not believing in any god.
@@Allen_Sherry Oh how original. Atheism is the rejection of religion, it is NOT religion. Grow up or shut up, frankly, I do not give a shit which. Your pithy little quips are not original, not convincing and only serve to show off your own stupidity.
@@joy-tx7ub if I go to School I learn science and teach no lies without proof that immoral Science is the truth language of life Not a magical invented lucrative character you are erong
Why did he die for sins while we are still commiting fuckery? Get logical, people including "god" doesn't die. God is too high to be a low leveled puny human.
itsatz really, insults? I pray that you see the error of your ways before it’s too late. “Every idle word you speak will be judged”. “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering (patient) to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come repentance”.
Mark Anthony Biggera “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” 1 Corinthians 1:18
@@Bigeartheory Yeah, and Mary had a little lamb. You actually believe that? "Every idle word will be judged." You don't see through that phony threat? Your god exists as much as the Muslim god or the Jewish god. Proven make believe.
@@urasam2 i am not a scientist nor a learned person sir. But what i know is that God himself created this world n this entire universe. He created all living things on this planet. He is the source of life for all living things. Science nor any other studies cannot prove how life developped on earth. How there are so many living creatures, birds, animals, plants etc. N they all form part of a system. Its only the bible who tells us everything. We just need to see those wonders in creation to acknowlege existence of one true God. N i know only one God..the God of Abraham, Isaac n Jacob. The holy n mighty God of Israel.
@@kunalramjunum1207 Well, science knows exactly how life developed on Earth so you are wrong about that. Science also understands how the stars and planets were formed, Yes, there’s much we don’t know but you can’t claim to know that there is a god because as you know there is no evidence. You don’t know there is a god, you just can’t admit that there are things we can’t explain yet and you are not comfortable saying “I don’t know”
@@urasam2 can you explain to me how life began sir,? How we hav so much a variety of living creatures on earth? I dont think science has an exact n precise answer to this. I think all this discussion is futile sir. We share different beliefs. You believe in science. And i believe in God. Thank you for your replies sir. May God bless you n ur family. N i hope that God touches ur heart n open ur eyes n mind to see n understand him.
@@kunalramjunum1207 Hello Kunal, thank you for your honest reply. No discussion is futile if both parties are willing to learn from the other person. I do not "believe in Science" any more than I believe in Geography, Mathematics, Chemistry and Music. Science is a process that studies the natural world, testing hypotheses through repeated testing and experimentation and drawing conclusions and making predictions. Your belief in God is not based on any evidence that can be examined or falsified, and I suspect that your belief is based on a fallacy - you do not understand abiogenesis and evolution and so you appeal to a bigger mystery - that a god did it by magic. Life began on Earth with the formation of nucleotides from hydrogen cyanidide, ammonia, ribose and phosphates which joined to make polynucleotides, from whence self-replicating single-strand ribonucleic acid (RNA) joined with lipids to form the first protocells, called micelles. After millions of years RNA became a double strand molecule called DNA. Evolution by means of natural selection is the process that led to the variety and diversity of life on the planet today. Evolution is an observed and well supported fact, and there is so much evidence for it that if it were to be shown to be wrong it would be as world changing as the discovery that the Moon is made of green cheese. Learn some science, my friend, and stop believing in magical anthropomorphic deities.
On 51:30 I have a question if in the New Testament there is not repetition that indicates we should keep the Sabbath ¿Where is in the New Testament a statement that says we should keep the 《Sunday》?
The early Christians and the apostles the early church worshipped on the first day of the week which is Sunday. One reason is that we give God and Jesus our very best we start the week by giving him our attention and our worship.
The ceremonial Law was nailed to the cross... Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; Colossians 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: The Sabbath day observances are no longer needed...nor commanded. BUT, if you are going to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy keep the WHOLE Law! *****James **2:10******* James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. ---> That means NO fires "kindled" on the Sabbath.. Do not start a vehicle. No furnaces etc... Exodus 35:3 Ye shall kindle NO FIRE throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day. ---> No more than a Sabbath days journey. .57 of a mile Acts 1:12 Exodus 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, LET NO MAN GO OUT OF HIS PLACE ON THE SEVENTH DAY. NOW! ---> If you or someone you know breaks the sabbath in order to "keep the Sabbath Holy" you will have to stone them. (capital punishment) Or you are not keeping the Law. Nor are you keeping the Sabbath Holy. Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: WHOSOEVER DOETH WORK THEREIN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH. No, the Sabbath was fulfilled IN Christ. He fulfilled the ceremonial Law. He IS our rest. We now give Jesus FIRST place. The "preeminence". *****Colossians **1:18******* Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
The sabbath is rest coming from the work of Jesus. Before he was crucified, the work of Jesus was the Creation, done in six days, and the seventh he rested (as the Son, Jesus participated in Creation.) After the resurrection, the work of Jesus became the outpouring of grace, acting everywhere, anytime. That's why we have no holiday. That's why every day is a holiday.
I love Frank's enthusiasm, passion and humor, but you do realize, as Frank presents his argument and position, the answer could also be essential oils, really sharp steak knives or the juice weasel..
@@Ozzyman200 Lmao. He’s the leading Christian apologist in the world precisely because he’s expertly answered every question he’s been asked. Provide an example of him being “owned”.
@@sly8926 He is? They're all pretty terrible but I think there are one or two better. Watch the video, or watch his debates. See him against Hitch for example. Notice in this video how he can';t answer the question. He's a talented charming speaker, certainly, but his content is nonsense. He has no idea what atheists are for example, but he knows he can still sell books because his audience are clueless.
@@Ozzyman200 Sometimes I think human beings must experience things differently than I do because I’ve watched his debate with Christopher many times...and I’m actually a huge fan of Christopher Hitchens...and it was clear to me that Hitch was just out of his depth. He couldn’t even begin to defend his atheism because, indeed, it’s indefensible. An atheist claims that there is no God. Obviously that claim could never be supported by any evidence of logical reasoning or objective rationale (not to mention scientifically). It’s my one problem with Hitch’s public work. He was always, on any topic or any debate, willing to follow logic to it’s end no matter how offensive or absurd it sounded. Yet when it came to God, he wouldn’t. It’s the one subject I’ve heard him speak on where he clearly is just avoiding the logical process and instead trying to prove his personal belief.
It really depends what we mean by the first question. Do we have an accurate copy of the first more widely distributed complete New Testament, yes we kind of have but do we have accurate copies of the individual books in the New Testament, the answer is likely no. There’s therefore no contradiction in Bart Ehrmans statements.
"People don't invent lies in order to make themselves look bad." This sounds good but it's not reality. When it comes to Christianity, this is in fact the norm rather than the exception. Paul attests to this when he, in effect, says "I will do whatever it takes to get you to believe 'my' gospel." Another Similar claim is: "A person will not knowingly die for a lie." Since the disciples (all of them is implied) died as martyrs, therefore their claims were true. Both of these assertions require the one making them to have full knowledge of the operations of the mind of each individual involved. But, no man on earth has such ability. Consequently, these are just two, of innumerable quantities, of Turek's inclusions, which fail the validity test.Furthermore, Turek is taking advantage of the ignorance of the people, who (mostly) don't read/study the Bible. Jesus and the disciples were Jews by birth only. Jesus became and led the disciples to become apostates from Judaism. Jesus said and did things which led to his crucifixion. Under early Christianity, those, who did what Jesus did were called heretics and in those cases where the Christian leaders had police powers, heretics were killed the same as Jesus was. What the Jews called blasphemy, Christians called heresy. In both cases, death was the penalty when police powers were available. If the truth matters, then let it be told. Finally, please consider this. The US government released Osama Bin Laden's body to a government official, who asked for it. He then decently and honorably buried it in Arlington National Cemetery making him a visibly hero and martyr forever. A few days later it was reported by hundreds of people, who saw him, that Bin Laden was seen alive and taking flying lessons in a Jumbo Jet. The US Government did nothing!!! It astounds me that these apologists take us today for idiotic fools. Sadly, the evidence that we are is ever clear and convincing. Not only that, they, in effect, tell us that the Romans (I/e: Pontius Pilate) were soft hearted Jew-loving fools as well. The news got to Pontius Pilate and Herod that Golgotha had become a crime scene with the Roman Seal shredded to pieces, the vaunted guard scattered and Jesus, the arch (crucified?) enemy, was seen by hundreds of people walking about and eating fish. This would have been a personal insult to Pontius Pilate because his reliable Centurion had assured him that Jesus was dead. The highly touted professional Roman killers were not so professional after all. They had met their match in a lil ole carpenter's son. I am sorry Turek. Your submissions are sorely lacking in any semblance of credibility.
@@ic.xc. : My answer is yes. Circumstances can bring this about. In the case of the disciples, my studies suggest that no one knows for sure how, when and where they died or the attending circumstances. The apologists would have us believe that each apostle was killed for his belief and that each was given the opportunity to recant and thereby save his life and in each case, refused to do so. But, that's a bald faced and deceptive lie. Besides traditions, no one knows. But beyond that, let's get real. Is the perfect God, who created the universe so ignorant, needy, slip-shod, careless and clueless that he needs and uses apologists? If that's the case, then there is really no difference between him and heathens and idol worshippers. Take your pick. In any case, one not less well off.
I really dont agree with your logic when you say "circumstances" can bring people to actually want to die for a lie they made up. Can you explain or give an example what type of "circumstances" the apostles of Jesus were into that led them to want to travel around the world with basically no supplies/money to preach/inform people who are suffering or whatever that there is a "loving creator" who cares for them, and you say they want to die? In those times, Christians didnt just die, they were persecuted and tortured when Rome found out they were Christians. And there werent many apostles, so they had to travel individually or if lucky in pairs. I dont think i will ever know an individual do what the apostles did and all because they want their "lie" to be justified?? These men were Jews which means they believe in the "thou shall not lie" commandment as well as suffering in the eternal hellfire if they did. And im sure they had families they had to leave. I'm sure it didnt come easy for them to lie and want to die because of a "lie" they made up... just doesnt make any sense.
@@Allen_Sherry Imagine a rally of anti-Trumpers - how many of them don't believe that Trump exists? NONE. You cannot oppose a person or thing unless you acknowledge their/its existence. That is idiotic.
@@JMUDoc Let me try to get this so I am not misquoting you. You're saying that the Anti-Trumpers are opposing Donald Trump, not because of lack of the knowledge of his existence. That is true. And that is kind of what I said too. Atheists are not opposing God because of the lack of knowledge.
@@Allen_Sherry I think I see the disonnect, here. Another hypothetical, which I hope will illustrate the point: Let's suppose there really is a villain called The Litterman, who sees it as his job to create as much litter as possible. He goes around in the dead of night throwing garbage out of his car. *I don't believe in the Litterman;* I think he's a fairytale, an urban legend. But I happen to see a piece of trash he threw, pick it up, and put it in a bin. Do you consider me to be against The Litterman?
Correct, however Christ had to reveal the new testament to someone after his death. Review Romans 16:25. Paul is our God given apostle. THE BOOK OF ROMANS: OUR SPIRITUAL DISCERNING POWER OF GOD . The book of Romans is what would have us wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. Paul says to mark and avoid them which cause divisions and offences contrary to his doctrine in Romans! Romans is made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, during this present dispensation of grace, until the rapture. If you want to KNOW the will of God today, and if you want to KNOW what is good from evil in this world, then study, learn, understand, and obey the book of Romans! . . ROMANS GENERAL OUTLINE: . JUSTIFICATION - chapters 1-5 IDENTIFICATION - chapters 6-8 DISPENSATION - chapters 9-11 WALK AS A SON - chapters 12-16 . . . Proof Text Provided Below. . . . Apostle Paul Writes To The Church The Body Of Christ: . Romans 16:17-19 (KJV): “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. 19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.” Romans 16:25-27 (KJV): “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.” Ephesians 3:1-5 (KJV): "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed ..." 1 Corinthians 3:10 (KJV): "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon." Colossians 1:21-27 (KJV): "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: 25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:" Titus 2:13-14 (KJV): "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." Philippians 3:17-21 (KJV): "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. 18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) 20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 (KJV): "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 2 Timothy 2:7 (KJV): "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things." 2 Timothy 2:15-16 (KJV): "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." 2 Timothy 2:17-26 (KJV): "And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. 22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." 1 Corinthians 14:37-38 (KJV): "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 2 Corinthians 5:10 (KJV): "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." . . ======================== SHARE COPY PASTE EDIFY
Mark says Jesus didn't call his first disciples until after John the Baptist was arrested. Gospel of John says Jesus called his disciples, went to Galilee, changed water to wine, went to Jerusalem, cleansed the temple, then started competing with John the Baptist for followers all before his arrest. Which gospel is true?
@April Hudson So I think what you're saying is that in John, Peter and Andrew start following Jesus in Judea, then they go with him to Galilee and meet Philip and some others then they go back to Jerusalem for the temple cleansing, then they go out and baptize near JohnBap -- after this they leave Jesus and return to their fishing boats. Then after John Bap is arrested Jesus goes back and finds them fishing and tells them to start following him again. Eventually they go back and cleanse the temple a second time? Btw, my John 3:22 is clear that Jesus was baptizing. In 3:26 JBap's disciples complain that Jesus is baptizing more people than John. In 4:1 Jesus knows he is baptizing more than John. Then in 4:2 we have an editorial correction -- a scribe inserted a note saying Jesus himself didn't actually baptize but his disciples did. But either way they were competing with John Bap for followers for a while. You can't read John any other way, can you?
Constantine did not officially change the sabbath to Sunday. He actually adopted Sunday as a sabbath to celebrate their idol Greek gods of mythology. Constantine did not want to change the Christian faith. He wanted to adopt it to strengthen his own and did not care if it was God of Greeks or Christians. He just wanted everyone to be on the same page so he took some things from his culture and then the Jew and made his own doctrine for his faith. Over time the Protestants to on those same beliefs and then in return made it law and tradition for a Christian’s. Remember, Jesus said he is the sabbath and that is why he never mentions which day to celebrate it on. Matthew 12:1-8 So yea at the time Jesus observed the Sabbath as to fulfill the law, but then after fulfilling that law, it made it so that Jesus is our new resting place. My question to you is this, what are supposed to do on the sabbath if we are to keep today? If that law is kept why not all the other 638 laws are not kept
Oh holy hell...attempting to "discredit" Bart Ehrman?? really ...?? Frank Turek needs to revise his book title to : "I do not have Enough Critical Thinking Skills to be an Atheist"
@Alex Frank Turek: "You won the sperm race" Chino Hills CA July 2015..... Alex, going to have to ask you to not mention critical thinking skills anymore.
Galatians 2:12-13 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Well if... "You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories......" - Dan Barker Can anyone really be surprised if some people don't believe this?
@@berenlevia8486 Well............... "And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod. And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it." - Exodus 4:2-3 (KJV)
@@MrSitemaster2 that was not use of magic, that was God changing the structure of an object which since He is Sovereign and Creator can do . Since God holds His spoken and word.above His Holy Name, He makes Himself subject to His own standard of behavior and Law- one of those laws is the forbidding of the use of any kind of witchcraft or conjuring of ' spirits'. I stopped.readingj.the.KJV translation years ago.
Wasnt it the First Council of Nicea that also congregated to discuss Arianism and then conferred different text with other text to form what we now know as The New Testament? I think history also reveals details & evidence that helps us to understand how everything was assembled to further prove ones stance as a believer.
Go through these same "7 Es" for, say, Mormonism, and you'll see that the historicity of Mormonism is much, much better attested. And yet, we can almost certainly dismiss the LDS church claims to miracles as false.
@@cabletelcontar5440 Just step through the same criteria used by Frank Turek in this video and apply them to the miracles of the early Mormon church. By every standard, the Mormon church is much, much better attested (to the point where it's almost silly to compare them), or at least just as good (like the very flimsy 'criteria of embarrassment' or 'excruciating testimony'). 1. Early Sources. Christianity: Some letters 20 decades after the death of Jesus. Maybe a few lines of a creed 2-3 years after. Mormonism: Multiple signed documents written on the day of the miracles described. Hundreds of documents from within weeks of the miracles they describe. 2. Eyewitness Details Christianity: Two of the gospels say they are sourced from eyewitnesses (not eyewitness themselves). Acts has some details that are probably sourced from eyewitnesses. Mormonism: Multiple independent, first-person, actual eyewitness accounts (from people who we have mountains of detail about), detailing the events they saw, and saying that they saw them with their own eyes. Much more than Christianity. 3. Embarrassing Stories Christianity: The gospels sometimes make the disciples out to be foolish (not even the author themselves). Jesus is sometimes cast in a very non-Messianic light (but always implied to be 100% right in the end). Mormonism: Multiple explicit censures from God to the individual leaders of the Mormon church. A multitude of accounts of mistakes, indiscretions, and bad judgements, admitted to by the early church leaders. Etc.
@@cabletelcontar5440 Oh, yes... *way* better than we have for Christianity. Non-christian reports about early Christian beliefs are all from decades after the life of Jesus, and barely mention the basic beliefs of Christianity in a few lines in passing. Non-mormon reports about early Mormon beliefs are rife and early, even full newspaper articles, sermons from opposing churches, accounts from defectors from the church, etc, written within only a few years (or even months) of the miracles described. It's so much that the non-Christian references don't even compare, in number, detail, or date of writing.
Where did Jesus go after he was supposedly resurrected? He just walked off into the sunset and nobody tracked what happened after that? Where is his grave today? He was mortal after all so had to die at some point.
Ron, do you bang your head against the wall regularly to be so stupid? Did you ever read the first verse of the bible about the supernatural creation done by the supernatural creator, God? If you want to mock God, then you should have great evidence that creation happened all on its own. There is NO proof of that. Only a fool will even think that and accept it. Once that's accepted, then all the rest of foolish thoughts not caring about details will follow. Here is a great example of what a fool accepts. They started it by accepting a natural creation and is not embarrassed to show their ignorance from that point on. So if you want to pretend you know what the bible says and took it in a sequential manner to understand it (which generally how books go), then show what a real bible expert you are and how much you love reasoning by giving evidence that creation happened differently from how the bible says it happened.
Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
The Sabbath was Never done away with. Paul always honored the Sabbath day. Paul said: But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call Heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, Believing All Things Which Are Written In The Law & The Prophets. For Not the Hearers of the Law are just before God, but the Doers of the Law shall be Justified. Do we then make Void the Law through Faith? God forbid: yea We Establish the Law. Your (so called) Jesus said: Think Not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets, but to Fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven & Earth pass, not one jot or tittle shall in No Wise Pass From the Law, till all be Fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, & teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Sabbath was made for Man, & Not man for the Sabbath. Plus God (YAH) said: remember the Sabbath day & keep it Holy. It is a Sign between me(YAH) & the children of Israel FOREVER! Everyone should know what the word Forever means.
Paul did not "honor" the Sabbath day once he got saved in Acts 9. A matter of fact, he down played it. Col 2:16 KJV Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Rom 14:5 KJV One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Rom 14:6 KJV He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Rom 14:7 KJV For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. Rom 14:8 KJV For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
Jesus was being stoned not for calling himself god but gods son. John 10:30,31 “30 I and the Father are one. “31 Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” “36 do you say “to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”
Yeah, but they love their three gods too much and then lie it's only one god. It's impossible to have three 100% gods somehow be one god but they don't care. They'll make up any nonsense they want.
He was stoned for claiming to be YHWH, not God the Father. "The son of man coming with the clouds of heaven" and "seated at the right hand of power" are _divine_ titles given to YHWH. Even Jews believed the Son of Man was YHWH.
I remember 9 11 I was hung over because I ? But the wife woke me against protocol, and I was watching this with terrible sadness in my heart , and then in front of my eyes a second plane hit ! That went from sadness to being enraged! What I hate is people like Justin Bieber lies about remembering! I don’t remember to many big things , for instance as a very young child I and my brother saw a child as young as we were get run over by a woman backing up , I don’t remember it , but I remember they brought in a big truck to throw dirt on the blood to clean it up , I saw it but thank God it was blocked , my parents said we had nightmares for some time , but maybe suppressing it changed me
If we don't have a true copy of the Holy Bible, then God has made it impossible to serve Him faithfully. Without the bible, man does not know how to live , or to please God. I have the Holy Spirit in my heart, so I know the bible is true.
@@MartTLS, unlike you, other people find using their time more wisely than you. You prefer to bang your head against the wall on a regular basis so you can remain so stupid. Although that takes dedication, it's......still stupid. No, there is no original manuscript. To a bozo the clown dumbass like you though, that's all you need and want to know. For others, we see that we have enough. www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html alwaysbeready.com/bible-can-it-be-trusted/ www.truthortradition.com/articles/the-bible-you-can-believe-it www.bibleone.net/print_SF10.html www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html truthfaithandreason.com/case-making-101-how-does-the-bible-compare-to-other-ancient-documents/ Don't let any of this upset your love for being stupid. Continue to be your pretend bible expert. Don't forget, dumbass, I am still waiting for your science to counter mine how your view of creation happened naturally. Too bad you want to be so stupid because the FIRST verse of the bible says God did creation supernaturally. That fits ALL the science. But, go on being the dumbass you love being.
2fast2block So you have nothing outside of the bible just some empty claims and circular reasoning . So tell me what’s the earliest manuscript you have and what contemporary evidence outside of the bible can you present ? There is nothing in the first century no one outside of the bible even mentions Jesus and therefore nothing to corroborate he even existed . Talk about being gullible don’t you ever bother thinking for yourself? “The first verse of the bible says god did creation supernaturally. That fits all science” HOW ? Something supernatural isn’t science and the bible is a book it’s not an eyewitness account . The story of Genesis and creation is an allegory it’s not intended to be taken seriously and most Christians don’t even take it literally only fundamentalist simpleminded creationists like you . Grow up only three year olds still believe in an imaginary friend . I’ve already replied to your other demented rant on the other blog and eviscerated your puerile arguments . You’d do better educating yourself on modern science and not pseudoscience and nonsense you’ve read in some 2000 year old book written by some goatherds who knew nothing about the universe so they had to invent a god to explain everything.
2fast2block Why so angry little dumbass creationist? You reveal your ignorance in just about every sentence you spout. And nice strawman arguments. Atheism says nothing about how the universe started that would be the astrophysicists , it’s the lack of belief in a god or gods. Just because someone doesn’t believe in your sky magician it doesn’t follow that they believe everything came from nothing that’s a false dichotomy. There are many theories with which you should appraise yourself before making ignorant claims then you won’t come across as the typical creationist buffoon . Please show me where anyone claims the universe comes from nothing I prefer to leave such things to creationists. And where does science say that everything you’ve denied like fine tuning ,(which isn’t an argument for your or anyone else’s god), or abiogenesis, is impossible and could never have happened on their own ? If that were true it would infer a creator and science or indeed scientists have never expounded that possibility. While you’re at it please explain how a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being, which is the best description of nothing that I’ve heard, interacts with anything. “None of you bozo the clowns can get round the info I gave”. Well we’ll see about that it hasn’t proved too difficult so far especially when you’ve lied and made up most of it because you clearly don’t understand any of it but that’s understandable it’s the creationist’s default setting. You’ve ruled through your next paragraph presumably because you believe it’s nonsense so I will ignore it too. “Then the extreme order we have in our universe that defies all physics “ You referred to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in one your previous posts but clearly you’ve never bothered to read it . What do you think entropy is ? I suggest you go and educate before posting any more nonsense.
2fast2block Scientists don’t yet know how life began and don’t claim to know UNLIKE creationists but they’re working on it UNLIKE creationists who have an old book written by ignorant Bronze Age men and expect everyone else to believe its nonsense based on their blind faith based belief . I refer to your first video suggestion regarding James Tour I won’t bother with the others they are all irrelevant too . And this is what he had to say : “Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.” Oh and by the way neither does he subscribe to intelligent design . “I’ve kept this very basic and brief” But of course you have little creationist because that’s the limit of your knowledge and understanding of science . I wouldn’t expect anything more from you or the Discovery Institute from whom you borrow your irrelevant information. What kind of science research do you think they are carrying out ? The answer is none because they’re not interested in finding out answers in science only denying it . Let’s see if you can find out how many peer reviewed articles regarding intelligent design that the Discovery Institute has posted in say the last ten years . I’ll give you a clue what’s less than one ? Well that’s not quite right . This was one by Michael Behe Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010). * Jerry Coyne has a good summary, he writes “this paper gives ID advocates no reason to crow that a peer-reviewed paper supporting intelligent design has finally appeared in the scientific literature. The paper says absolutely nothing-zilch-that supports any contention of ID “theory.” - Fail So instead of regurgitating irrelevant nonsense you’ve seen on some creationist site go and educate yourself .
The Church has not replaced Israel so the rapture is pre-trib. Reading Revelation it is written very odd if the church is in the trib given the complete absence of any reference to the church once the future events kick off.
Hunter Chase there are a bunch of scriptural evidence that support a pre-trib rapture and I would be happy to share as many as I know about with you, let me know if you want more. Here’s one- The Church is being addressed in the book of Revelation in chapters 1 through 3. The last sentence of chapter 3 is “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” Then chapter 4 opens “After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.” John sees a door open in heaven, and the Lord tells him He is going to show him things which must happen after. After what? After the rapture, the door opens, the church age ends, and God’s focus returns to Israel. You will not find the term “the church” in the rest of the book of Revelation. Because the prophetic events described from 4 to 22 are to wake up Israel and the rest of the Christ rejecting, sinful world. Study the 70 weeks of Daniel. Search “DTBM Daniel 70 weeks”. Dr. John Barnett does a couple great studies on it. The church is the bride of Christ. We are not “appointed unto wrath. Whom He loves He chastens, but He does not pour out His wrath on His bride. Blessed hope, brother. Study up and pray, and know God is good!
OK so Jesus does so that we might live. The bible says that God told Adam that i the day that h ate the forbidden fruit, h would die, yet he continued to live for about another 800 years. That means that Adam SPIRITUALLY DIED and that this seems to imply PHYSICAL DEATH has nothing to do with sin - That all of us would have PHYSICALLY DID anyway. Hlop me to understand where I might be wrigglers because leaving out adjectives leaves room for misinterpretation.
Many people die for lies. Besides, the apostles did not decide if they would die, their executioners did. Trouble-makers were not spared in those days. Jesus was executed for "cleansing" the temple. Once convicted, he was not spared.
Love you Frank. Correction though. Jesus did not take away the "sins" of the world. He took away the "sin" of the world. Sins still exist but all sin was paid for. See the difference. Read the KJB, it gets it right. If He took away the "SINS" of the world we would not see sin happening today, but we do.
One of the downsides to listening to turek’s material , is that you have to hear his awful jokes over and over again . Other than that, he is a great apologist
All religious texts are fables and allegory meaning they never happened. The bible is to get the moral of the story, same with Torah and Quran unfortunately people take it too literal.
First off, the Torah is part of the Bible. Second, the Qur'an tells men to strike their wives if they fear disobedience and fight those who speak against Allah. I don't think that qualifies as morals. The Bible is uniquely coherent with historical evidence. Every other religion quickly falls apart under scrutiny.
I believe the Tanak is Gods "INSPIRED" word that was written on stone. The NT is a spiritual allegory written in the spirit, not literal. Jer. 31. Rome literalized it leading most to think Jesus was a literal man and he was not. John the baptist was the annointed one with the spirit of Elijah that came to lead the people back to the LORD (Yhwh). Jesus is metaphor for the old man (1st Adam) that must die to our own will and arise transformed by Elohiems spirit, the new man the last Adam. All sons born from Gods seed are the son of Elohiem. The trinity is the mystery religion of Babylon of worshipping a man as Elohiem the Almighty, an abomination. The crucifixion was spiritual not literal. The whole Christian religion is pure paganism which is why we told to COME OUT. The Revelation of Jesus Christ in the last book reveals this false christ created by Rome. This is revealed 3.5 years before the end of the age. We were warned about this false christ that would come to claim to be God in the flesh and lead to god-man worship. The trinity doctrine. The 1st commandment never changed and no one else died for YOUR SINS. But this truth will be rejected by most because they love to have an excuse to continue in thier sins. A HUGE MISTAKE. The mark of the beast is the trinity doctrine and human sacrifice for sins. Both an abomination to Yhwh. It was indeed a strong delusion.
@@sly8926 Haha, nice try bud. We’ve always lived at least to 25. Some used to live a whole lot longer than we do now. What are you even talking about right now. When have humans “not lived to 25” , generations were not 10 years back then they weren’t having kids at 10 years old then old by 20 you blatant fool. Do you get how daft you sound rn?
@@dazdavis7896 For the vast majority of human existence, a majority of human beings didn’t live to 25. That’s just a fact. What is your objective reasoning for saying a generation is 25 years? The use of “generation” in the Hebrew society in which Jesus lived was 35-40 years, generally.
The historical dude Jesus and the entire new testament being true are not one in the same. There is a very broad spectrum of possibility in terms of how much of the NT could be true. It's not an all or nothing deal. All historical documents like the Bible are subject to bias, revision and a romanticized view as time passes.
It is a good talk, but Frank Turek is trying to convince people, based on rational argumentation, that Christianity is true. Conviction is not the same as faith, and the latter does not grow from the former. In fact, faith does not require any rational argumentation at all, it simply is. Faith can exist despite any rational argumentation against it, as has been demonstrated many times. Trying to prove something that is irrational by its very nature with the help of rational reasoning, is a contradiction, it seems to me.
It is only fitting that Frank Turek should mention Aristotle (43:20) when talking about the Trinity - the Trinity has its origin in Greek philosophy. Even before Aristotle, Heraclitus talked about the 'logos.' Logos went through several iterations with first Socrates, then Plato and later Philo of Alexandria (a contemporary of Jesus) who was most likely first to assign it a personality. It is impossible for John not to have known about the concept of the logos. Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who wrote much and lived at about the same time. In John, the logos (a Greek word meaning 'word') refers to Genesis 1. Jesus was the emissary from God who faithfully and accurately relayed God's word. In that sense God's word became flesh. The Greek words used to render what Jesus said in John 8:58 (Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic and the Greek is a translation), ego eimi, were used many times in the New Testament - for example in John 9 the blind man whom Jesus had healed used them, and Pilate used them to deny being a Jew (who knows, maybe he denied being God, too) - but only here seen as a claim to being God. catholic-resources.org/John/Themes-IAM.htm How strange. Jesus explicitly (Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied - www.thefreedictionary.com/explicit) said only the Father is God in John 17:3. That mandates the conclusion that neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit is God. Why is the Holy Spirit unnamed? Jesus also said that the Father is his God and our God. biblehub.com/john/20-17.htm The inescapable conclusion is that Jesus is not our God and that the God of Jesus is not the tripartite conglomerate of most of Christianity. Paul also said, 'for us, there is only one God, the Father and one lord, Jesus Christ.' biblehub.com/1_corinthians/8-6.htm It cannot be any clearer that the Father is the only God. The Greek word used for lord, kyrios, means just that, a master or owner; properly, a person exercising absolute ownership rights; lord. biblehub.com/greek/2962.htm The Greek word is used 722 times in the New Testament and is often used for humans. biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2962.htm John said he wrote his gospel, '...so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God...' NOT so that we can believe Jesus is God. When Peter said to Jesus, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (biblehub.com/matthew/16-16.htm) Jesus did not say, "no, no, no Peter. I AM the living God." Instead, Jesus said that Peter had been right. biblehub.com/matthew/16-17.htm Jesus also said to the Samaritan woman at the well that the Jews knew God. biblehub.com/john/4-22.htm The Jews were strict monotheists. They didn't pray to a three-headed conglomerate. Likewise, when asked about the greatest commandment Jesus quoted (biblehub.com/matthew/22-37.htm) the shema in Deut 6:5. 'Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.' biblehub.com/deuteronomy/6-5.htm Note that the word LORD here is YHWH in the Hebrew and does not mean the same as the Greek kyrios. The Jews did not understand that as being a triple deity and Jesus said the Jews were right. There is much, much more in the Bible that makes nonsense of the Trinity idea which comes from heathendom. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity All or nearly all the Church Fathers were into Greek philosophy. Here are more Biblical passages that fit the Unitarian belief much better than they fit the Trinity nonsense. www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith And, of course, 1+1+1=3 and not 1. No, multiplication is not used for addition. Don't be stupid. Trinitarians get past the masses of clear evidence making nonsense of their belief by just ignoring it. Can anyone supply any EXPLICIT evidence from the Bible for the Trinity like John 17:3 saying explicitly only the Father is God? Or what Paul said, or... Are you going to make the blind man in John 9 God? The Trinity idea is most likely the stupidest thing humanity has ever come up with. There is no clear evidence for it anywhere in the Bible and it mandates that 1+1+1=1 - something which even a grade-school pupil knows is nonsense. Can anyone refute any of this with fact or adult-level logic? Not emotional responses.
Enough for a cherry pie there. Oops that's emotive, although, somewhat less so than, "three-headed conglomerate". If you impose rules, you should stick to them. You might or might not want to study 2nd Temple Judaism. You seem to be taking the post Talmudic definition of Shema and anachronistically redacting that back to the time of Christ. You confuse monotheistic trinitarianism with polytheism. Your phrase, "adult-level logic" is a pre-emptive ad hominem attack. You present evidence but set a higher requirement of 'facts' needed to refute you. I expect your skeptometer will be set at eleven. You seem to believe the inability of Christians to find a mathematical proof to a philosophical problem holds some significance. Perhaps you can prove Monet was better than Picasso using scientific falsifiability, according to the ideas set out by Karl Popper. There are so many answers in the actual quotes you use, if only you could be bothered to read them contextually. However, you clearly state that your mind is made up. This is something you must do on your own if you really are seeking an answer to a question. I hope you are, rather than a troll on a fishing mission. God bless you.
@@agnesdei2846 One is one and three are three, whichever way you cut it. And three and one are not the same. OK, now trot out obfuscation, diversion and whatever crooked reasoning techniques you have. Why don't you give the answers to the quotes instead of just insisting they are there? Is that because those 'answers' are clearly bad answers which even a three-year-old can ridicule? I have not seen any of the mathematical proof about which you talk. I've seen attempts, but they all involve collections with, as collections have, individual members still adding up to x individuals. And of course, the different states of one substance - the favourite is water, ice and steam. But that is modalism, which most Trinitarians reject. Artists feel they don't think. They are not to be consulted in matters where fact and reason matter. When the crowd accused Jesus of claiming to be a god he corrected them and said he had claimed to be the son of God. biblehub.com/john/10-36.htm
@@grasonicus I too am skeptical. I don't believe you are real. I think you are a troll bot. You restate irrelevant arguments, create a straw man argument; in fact you act just as a programmed troll would do. You need to prove you are a real person.
>And, of course, 1+1+1=3 and not 1. No, multiplication is not used for addition. Don't be stupid. Оf course, Chris. You, for example, have 1 reason ability, 1 will ability, 1 emotional ability. Therefore, you're 3 people. Sun radiates heat (1), rays of light (1) and is a star (1). Therefore, there are three suns in our solar system. (it was irony of course). Trinity doesn't mean there are three gods inside of it. We call God the Son, God the Father and God the Spirit by their common name - God. They are God (not three Gods which is absurd). Yes, they can perform independently of each other, but so are your legs and hands - they also can move independently of each other. So there are three coexistent Нуpostases or Persons in One God. No one says that God is one Person. No one says that God is a unity of three separate but related gods, because it is not a unity of independent Persons, it is the unity of Hypostases consubstantial and co-dependant Persons. They are independent from the world, not from each other (they can behave independently but always act according to their unity). I suggest that before you start to talk about nonsense like 'even a grade people knows is nonsense' you should probably read some early Church Fathers. They specifically warned that the Trinity IS NOT a mathematical equation - you can not add it up, for it is absurd and totally contradicts the idea of Three Divine Persons in One Holy God. P.S. And yes, the triads of gods were known before Christianity in ancient Hinduism, Greek philosophy and so on. It doesn't make them Trinity. For example Trimurti is translated as 'three forms' and is a unity of three aspects of pantheistic deity Brahman - Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver, he, who binds all things together) and Shiva the Destroyer). These godly aspects act independently but appear in the course of time (not eternal) and fade into nothing when each world cycle ends - return into Brahman (cease to exist). The neo-platonic triad is a triad of three deities - the One (the pantheistic deity) who emanates (throws out of himself) the Nous (Mind or Reason) and then the Nous emanates the World Soul. These are also not co-existing, co-eternal Persons but a triad of three non-personal divine Beings. There are even 7-formed unities of gods like in Zoroastrianism, such unities are not necessarily triads of gods ("Game of Thrones" religion of the Seven was based upon this concept).
@@Raiseflag_Surrender "Trinity doesn't mean there are three gods inside of it." You can lie all you want but when you conclude all three are 100% each God, dumbass, you have three Gods. Shove your stupid examples up your dumb ass. At least other dumbass trinitarians admit it's good to be confused by their garbage. "The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid StatementsAUGUST 27, 2009 C Michael Patton 155 Comments . . . and other stupid statements, Theology, Theology Proper, TrinityAlternate title: “Trinitarian Heresy 101” “The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg: three parts, one thing.” Ever heard that? How about this, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like a three leaf clover: three leaves, one clover.” Or how about THIS, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like water: three forms (ice, steam, liquid) one substance.” But the greatest I ever heard was by a guy in one of my classes. He said that he thought that the Trinity was like 3-in-1 shampoo: three activities, one substance.” Stupid statements. Creative, but stupid. Don’t use them. Any of them. Ever. Explanation coming… Hang with me. Last week I taught a group of kids about the doctrine of the Trinity here at the Credo House as part of our Theology for Kids series. The ages were anywhere from 7 to 13. Though I regularly teach this subject to adults, this was the first time that I taught the doctrine of the Trinity to kids. I was surprised that it went well. It is confusing enough for adults, how much more for kids? Teaching the Trinity, I have found, is more about giving basic principles of what it is and then shooting down illustrations about what it is not. Proper Trinitarianism is about a delicate balance between the unity and diversity in the Godhead. Christians believe in one God, i.e., one essence, who eternally exists in three separate persons, all of whom are equal. We often employ illustrations that help us to make the ineffable, effable, the abstract, concrete. But when it comes to the nature of God, especially with regard to the Doctrine of the Trinity, illustrations should only be used to show what the Trinity is not. Let me list the three major heresies or departures from orthodoxy with regard to the Trinity: 1. Modalism: The belief that God is one God who shows himself in three different ways, sometimes as the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Holy Spirit. It describes God in purely functional terms. When he is saving the world on the cross, he is called Jesus. When he is convicting the world of sin, he is called Holy Spirit, and when he is creating the world, he is called Father. The error here is that this is contrary to what we believe: one God who eternally exists in three persons, not modes of functionality. It is not one God with three names, but one God in three persons. 2. Tritheism: The belief that we have three Gods, all who share a similar nature, but not the exact same nature. In this, the nature of God is either distinguished or divided, which destroys the unity of God. We don’t believe in three persons who share in a species called “God,” but three persons who share in an identical, united nature. 3. Subordinationalism: This is a subset of tritheism, but deserves its own category. In other words, if you are a subordinationalist, you are also a tritheist by definition, even if you don’t recognize it. The subordinationalist says that there is one God in three persons, but the essence of each person exists in a hierarchy. For example, many believe that God the Father is the greatest and the most powerful. Coming in second is God the Son, followed by the second runner-up, the Holy Spirit. Orthodox trinitarianism confesses an essential equality among all the members of the Godhead. None are greater in essencethan the other. Here is a “Trinitarianism Heresy Test Chart” I have created. Keep this by your bed. Notice: If equality is denied, on the opposite side it points to subordinationalism. If diversity is denied, the result is modalism. If unity is denied, the result is tritheism (or polytheism -many gods). With this in mind, let me now cover the “stupid statements” and why they don’t pass the test: 1. The Trinity is like 3-in-1 shampoo. This can only point to modalism or tritheism. It is modalistic if you are saying the shampoo performs three functions, yet is one substance. But you can also break down the various elements that perform each function and see them separately. That is tritheism since all of the elements are not the same. They may work together to perform a specific goal, but they are not really the same substance. 2. The Trinity is like an egg. This is most definitely tritheism. While the egg is one, each of the substances that makes up the parts (shell, white stuff, and yoke), are most definitely distinct. The yoke is completely separate in nature from the shell. 3. The Trinity is like water. This is a modalistic illustration. Ice, steam, and liquid are examples of the same nature which at onetime or another has a particular mode of existence. Sometimes it is liquid, sometimes it is ice, and sometimes it is steam. God is not sometimes Son, sometimes Father, and sometimes Spirit. He is eternally each, always at the same time. 4. The Trinity is like a three leaf clover. This is a form of tritheism. Each leaf of the clover is a separate leaf. It does not share in the same nature as the other leafs, but only has a similar nature. In the Trinity, each member shares in the exact same nature. 5. The Trinity is like a man who is simultaneously a father, son, and husband. This is an often used illustration, but it only serves to present a modalistic understanding of God that is false. Father, son, and husband only describe various functions of one person. Each function cannot exist in a simultaneous relationship with each other, can’t talk to each other, and cannot exist in an eternal relationship with each other. 6. The Trinity is like a person who is one, yet has a spirit, soul, and a body. This one, like the first, can commit either a tritheistic or modalistic error, but cannot be used to illustrate the orthodox definition of the Trinity. It is modalistic in that the spirit, soul, and body are three functions of one conscience or person. But it can also be tritheistic when one considers that the spirit is not the exact same nature as the body (or the soul if you are a trichotomist-another lesson). In the end, I do not believe that there are any true to life illustrations that can or should be used to teach or describe the Trinity. The Trinity is not a contradiction (i.e. one God who eternally exists as three separate Gods), but it is most definitely a paradox (a truth that exists in tension). This graph is helpful in describing the Trinity. It is called the “Shield of the Trinity.” It is always best to remember that the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Son is God, but they are not each other. One more thing. I often tell my students that if they say, “I get it!” or “Now I understand!” that they are more than likely celebrating the fact that they are a heretic! When you understand the biblical principles and let the tensions remain without rebuttal, then you are orthodox. When you solve the tension, you have most certainly entered into one of the errors that we seek to avoid. Confused? Good! That is just where you need to be.
@@stephengendang1250 Two different stories for how Judas died. One gospel has a host of dead rising from their graves when Jesus is resurrected, something the other 3 gospels do not mention, nor is it reported by any Roman source. Different dates for the Birth of Jesus. Different dates for the Crucifixion. How many women went to the Tomb?
@@garywalker447, Oh, my, so you think your a bible expert. Did you ever read the first verse of the bible about the supernatural creation done by the supernatural creator, God? If you want to mock God, then you should have great evidence that creation happened all on its own. There is NO proof of that. Only a fool will even think that and accept it. Once that's accepted, then all the rest of foolish thoughts not caring about details will follow. Here is a great example of what a fool accepts. They started it by accepting a natural creation and is not embarrassed to show their ignorance from that point on. So if you want to pretend you know what the bible says and took it in a sequential manner to understand it (which generally how books go), then show what a real bible expert you are and how much you love reasoning by giving evidence that creation happened differently from how the bible says it happened.
@@stephengendang1250 no contradictions, you're just failing to do your research and understand JUDAS DEATH: There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. The Second Law of Logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction, (LNC) says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. It is not a contradiction to describe something differently: Judas was hung and Judas fell down. Both are possible since neither negates the possibility of the other. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are said to be true. So, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out. Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does. DIFFERENT DATES OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS: Since John was born on Passover, the 15th day of Nisan (the 1st Jewish month), Jesus would have been born six months later on the 15th day of Tishri (the 7th Jewish month). The 15th day of the 7th month begins the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:34-35), also known as Sukkot. Jesus was born on the 1st day of the Feast of Tabernacles! In the year 5 BCE, this fell in the month of September.” “It is probable, because of the circumstances shown in Luke 1, that Mary conceived during the last two weeks of Elizabeth’s sixth month. Thus, John was born in the spring of 4 BC, probably between March 18 and 31. By projecting forward another six months to Jesus’ birth, the most probable time for His birth occurred between September 16 and 29.” “From the 15th day of Nisan (John’s birthday), we add six months to arrive at the 15th day of the 7th month, Tishri - the first day of the festival of Sukkot.” “Theologians have also suggested that Jesus was born in the spring, based on the biblical narrative that shepherds were watching over their flocks in the fields on the night of Jesus’ birth - something they would have done in the spring, not the winter.” JESUS CRUCIFIXION TIMING: At what hour was Jesus crucified? The answer is easy when you realize that there were two different time systems being used. The third hour, Mark 15: 25, “And it was the third hour when they crucified Him.” The sixth hour, John 19:14-15, “Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” 15 They, therefore, cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.'” Most probably, John was using the Roman measurement of time when dealing with the crucifixion. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for the most part, used the Hebrew system of measuring a day: from sundown to sunup. The Roman system was from midnight to midnight. “John wrote his gospel in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and therefore in regard to the civil day, he would be likely to employ the Roman reckoning. REGARDING THE WOMEN IN THE TOMB, CHECK THIS ARTICLE: humblesmith.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/how-many-women-were-at-jesus-tomb/ Regarding Matthew stating the saints rose from the dead, just because there are no other sources doesn't mean it didnt happen, Matthew tells us that they entered the holy city, and many people saw them. They may have had immortal bodies. Remember that Jesus’ new immortal body was recognized by the apostles after He opened their understanding (Matthew 28:10-11; Luke 24:14-16, 31). Therefore these saints may have also been recognized, but we cannot be dogmatic. Just imagine that someone saw a friend who had died years ago. Maybe a mother saw her dead son or a wife saw her deceased husband. This must have been a very emotional surprise and shock to many people in Jerusalem. They had to know that it was connected to Jesus’ death and resurrection. Most likely these resurrected saints did not remain on the earth very long since the New Testament does not refer to them again. This was a pre-rapture event.
That was Lazarus at the cruce. Actually Lazarus wrote John. Read the scripture carefully you will know. Either his name is John Lazarus or some John completed the gospel which was written by Lazarus.
Jesus cleared up that he didnt call himself God. He refers to God aka the Father separetly many times. If God is all powerful he would never be less powerful even if he was reborn as a human lol
Even if you believe that the New Testament is true as Frank says, what about the people who have never laid eyes on this book called the Bible? Is their unwanted ignorance going to cost them dearly as in going to Hell because of unbelief? Doesn't make sense. If the God of the Bible is real you'd think that He'd use the internet or a more modern way of communication, rather than just through printed words
No - all souls that have ever lived since Christ’s Ascension, and, as He said, all those who lived before Him - from any tribe - will be judged by Jesus alone and He will be the arbiter of perfect justice. Look what He did to the one thief on the cross next to Him at the 11th hour of life? … Judged the crook in a split second (of our time) and told him “Tonight you’ll be with me in paradise”. Job done. Nice try though.
My OpenMind, don’t listen to Itsatz, he’s clearly a scoffer. The Gospels were written by the authors that are named. Matthew was an apostle (also called Levi) Mark was a disciple of Peter. Luke was a doctor, and mainly followed Paul, I believe, and he also wrote the book of Acts. John was one of the twelve, and was part of the “inner circle” of Peter, James, and John. John also wrote the book of Revelation. Hope this helps.
@@Bigeartheory The gospels are proven fairytales. They were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Nobody knows who wrote them. Those names do not appear in them. (Did you ever read them?) They were given those names in the year 175CE by a guy called "Ireneaus." Proven fairytale. czcams.com/video/rhM5lbVBgkk/video.html
itsatz I don’t trust Bart Ehrman, he is a self proclaimed liar. Your “proof” wouldn’t get past a simple hearing in a court of law. If you were interested in the truth (which obviously you’re not) you would study it on your own instead of watching one video. If Christianity were true would you be a Christian?
Travis Hadley your wrong. Even the Catholic Church and most seminary schools of other religions tell us that the gospels were not written by the people who’s names they bear. As for Bart Erhman, he’s just citing mainstream academics Christian scholarship. There’s nothing controversial is his observations regarding the authorship of the gospels.
LDS are Christians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. The Book of Mormon is not an addition to the Bible its another testimony to Jesus Christ. We only Worship God and Jesus. Ask me a question and ill give you an answer to your antimormon question.
I've never read the Book of Mormon. Does it align with the Bible? What do you believe about Jesus? I'm honestly asking because I've never had a conversation with a Mormon before.
@@MP-kc8sl "I've never read the Book of Mormon. Does it align with the Bible?" Do you ever research on your own? Do you want people to put answers in your lap? "What do you believe about Jesus?" Who gives a rat's ass what I believe?! I want to believe what the evidence shows, not what I want to believe or care what others believe. "I'm honestly asking because I've never had a conversation with a Mormon before." You're not honestly looking. You're honestly lazy.
That can't be the box with Jesus of Nazareth because Jesus comes from the Greek word Laceous , Jesus's real name was Yahshua H'amashiach (the messiah) the name Jesus was invented only 500 yrs ago
Timothy Wayne Jesus name was translated into English it would be translated as Joshua hence the Yashua which is the modern Hebrew pronunciation; not the Aramaic and not the ancient Hebrew either. We don’t truly know if this name had the same sound as the modern only that it’s very close. The name Jesus isn’t a made up name but an amalgamation. Likewise I don’t think it was 500ad more likely 351ad. This is still in flux by linguist and biblical archaeologist.
@Dd S That's the first. Most times when I ask this question, people say no. So if by some way you get clear evidence that God does exist, you bow your knee and worship Him?
@Dd S Well... you said that there is probably no God, so you probably kept yourself open. The question that I have is: what kind of evidence are you looking for?
I honestly don’t think this guy is being dishonest. He is saying false things, but that doesn’t mean he is not honest. I think he believes every word of what he is saying here. I just think he is just dealing with cognitive dissonance and that leads him to believe in things that aren’t true. It is very clear to me that he doesn’t understand at all why people become atheists. And instead of actually trying to understand why, he comes up with absurd theories and falsehoods that comfort him. It is far easier to for him to say “Bob became an atheist because Bart Erhman lied to him about the Bible” than to say “Bob became an atheist because the Bible was altered and mistranslated.” This way he doesn’t have to confront the uncomfortable reality that the Bible he considers to be inerrant was altered and mistranslated. “If you think you know everything, you’ll never learn anything,”
Most of the new Testament is PAULS words, yet JESUS said, "Go and do what I...say!" Sure, Paul had good things to say, but PAUL isn't the one whom provides our salvation, it is JESUS! So what did JESUS say? What are the "words in red?" I think what JESUS specifically said is most important to follow, not Paul.
saxman jpr “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ”(Galatians 1:12). “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”(1 Corinthians 15:37).
@@philipfarnam6013 you consider my comment to be "fantastic" only because you believe in nothing extraordinary. Science is a young endeavor compared to religion. Too many assert that their "discoveries" are truth after observing phenomenon under laboratory conditions. Labs aren't real life. Some of your discoveries are more "fantastic" than any religious assertions could ever be.
@@rosalindbutler1160 Well, here are two "fantastic" discoveries from science: #1 virgins don't have babies #2 dead people don't become alive again. Believe whatever you want. Logic and reason keep me apart from such nonsense.
@@philipfarnam6013 a virgin can become pregnant. If you used that big brain of yours for several seconds you could figure out how. Nevertheless, I do not believe Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. She and Joseph obviously jumped the broom prematurely. I know the Bible says otherwise, but the men who wrote it did not tell the truth. I never understood why Mary had to be a virgin for Jesus to be the Messiah.
@@philipfarnam6013 Have all of life's mysteries been solved? Rising from the dead is improbable you, but you are a song person. I don't recall anyone conferring perfect knowledge on you or any other human.
Well as Jesus said, he didn’t come to change the Old Testament so I presume that it’s still a sin to wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shellfish, stone naughty children and all the other ridiculous pronouncements in the silly old book of multiple choice.
The Bible has been written translated written translated Rewritten translated Rewritten translated Rewritten translated Rewritten translated Rewritten I could go on and on and on and on and on how many times the book has been Rewritten it couldn't possibly be the same book
Virtually all modern bible translations are translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek manuscripts and anyone can go see the early documents for themselves to see how well they align. You're just regurgitating misinformation.
It has been translated a whole bunch of times you mentioned four times and your own statements anytime you translate something from 1 language to another you always lose something just a fact the original manuscripts or supposedly written in a language nobody even speaks anymore
Acts was written after Luke. Gospel of Luke contains details of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 including the seige (21:20). So Luke and Acts were both written after 70 CE. Real scholars (not Turek) date it to 80-90 CE. Acts does not mention the deaths of Paul and Peter because they were killed by the Romans--something the NT writers were trying to sweep under the rug, not because they were not dead yet as Turek claims. Why evangelical preachers make up this nonsense is a puzzle to me. Why base your preaching on obviously false data?
Jesus told him the details of how Jerusalem would be destroyed in luke 21:20, it's what that conversation is about. Also the scholars that I've come across generally put the books at 65-67 ad. If you have them, I'd like to look at the source, always open to more details.
@@SeekWatman Jesus died sometime in the early 30s. He would have had no idea that Jerusalem would be destroyed in 70. To the contrary Jesus was leading a Messianic rebellion that he thought would succeed. He anticipated that God and the heavenly hosts would destroy the Roman occupation and an independent kingdom of Israel would be restored, much as prophesied in Psalms of Solomon 17. In general, evangelicals date the NT books far earlier than most historians and biblical scholars apparently because they suppose an early composition date improves perceived trustworthiness. You can google any NT book and find consensus date ranges for them.
Firstly, the idea of God destroying the Roman's and remaking Israel is a Judaic read of the text, now I'm not Jewish I'm Catholic just to be clear. I read that passage through the lense of Christ so I come away with different theological ideas. Secondly, ok let's say Jesus is just some dude, he's a guru who knows the law pretty well, there is no way he knows about the temple being destroyed. Luke does, because he is writing after the fact (there's a question of age here but we will ignore this for now) and in this conversation with Christ to make him look mystical and stuff, has Jesus say the detail to add evidence to his claim. Luke only has Jesus say it will be destroyed, That's a pretty weak claim if we look at it. No details, no "the Roman's will do it" no comment on how it will collapse, just that it will. Now if I'm trying to prop Jesus up as some God man why would I just stop at saying it'll fall, would I not add details that you wouldn't know unless you were there? Maybe I didn't because I didn't want to over sell Jesus's powers (despite writing about other miracles) but I'll need some evidence that that is what luke was doing or an example where he has downplayed Jesus to create a similar effect. Otherwise this is just a one off example of luke writing about history and saying jesus predicted it. So I'm gonna stick with Jesus can see the future on that one. Thirdly, sorry but I don't accept google as a reliable source, no academic does, I know St Google gives me 70-80 but the scholars I've read and my lectures in church history at uni give me 60-67 (I say 65). Still if you could give me the guys name or the organization that says 70, I'd be more than happy to do wider reading.
@@SeekWatman Nobody thinks google is a "reliable academic source," it is just an online index that lets you find a wide variety of academic and non-academic resources fairly quickly. It is up to the user to assess the value of each listing that it locates. You make an astute point that the text does not say "the Romans will do it." In general, NT writers are careful not to blame the Romans for anything, simply because they are trying to survive under Roman rule. Notice that Acts has no problem recounting the stoning of Stephen by the Jews, but the entire NT and early church fathers are silent on the execution of Peter and Paul by the Romans. Not a peep about the Neronian persecutions, and not a peep about the Roman responsibility for the destruction of Jerusalem. It was bad politics back then for Christians to make the Romans look evil. They even went overboard trying to make Pilate look like a nice guy. Are you suggesting Jesus knew enough to prophesy in advance that Jerusalem would be destroyed but he didn't have a clue that the Romans would do it? Who else would it have been? Most scholars date Acts in the later 1st century based on a sequence of assumptions: (1) Mark was composed in 65-70, most likely after the death of Peter, (2) Luke used Mark as a source, (3) Luke is much more evolved ideologically than Mark, so it is likely that another decade or two elapsed between them, (4) Luke is aware of the destruction of Jerusalem. Collectively those observations suggest a probable date in the 80 to 90 range, but nobody knows with certainty. The early church fathers and even Marcion are completely silent on the existence of Acts until Iranaeus quotes it in 180 CE. So the latest possible composition date is some time prior to that.
@@fotoman777 "You can google any NT book and find consensus date ranges for them." and "it is just an online index that lets you find a wide variety of academic and non-academic resources fairly quickly. It is up to the user to assess the value of each listing that it locates." Are not exactly the same in what they argue, the former seems to say it's a known fact while the other leaves open the assertion "well you're just using the wrong sources". But this is beside the point, the subject of google only came up because i was asking for your source on the information, the response i received was "You can google any NT book and find consensus date ranges for them." but i'm looking for the source that you specifically like so i can learn from it. Firstly, Pilate was a nice guy. The problem of Jesus was a jew problem, not a roman problem, he had to reach to come to some reason why they should crucify him (and in the worst of the worst sense, not the normal sense of using rope). A point you brought up is this, the reason that the early writers didn't write about peter or paul or who destroyed the second temple is simply politics. You don't say bad things about your oppressor when you are oppressed, it's just logic. Acts 16:35-38 (Luke writes about the romans mistreating romans) Acts 22:22-30 (Luke writes about romans not knowing that they mistreated a roman) Acts 10:1 (A CENTURION WHO IS DEVOUT TO GOD) I'm focusing on luke, but there are other and many instances where things were written that would have been sensational to the romans, the idea that early Christians were afraid of controversy is wild. When practising Eucharist they would be called cannibals by the romans and hunted as such, do you think we stopped saying "This is the body of Jesus", of course not. Secondly, the claim I was fighting was this. Luke knows the temple is destroyed and that is why it is in the gospel of Luke. So the Spiritual Catholic would say Jesus is God, of course he knows the temple will be destroyed, he knows everything, that's why he said it. I put forward a potential (and i think strong in this case, I don't know i'm generally bad at iron manning) argument of why luke inserted it there (because it isn't anywhere else in lukes writing) and described why i think it's wrong and how you have to make a couple leaps about the author to make it sound correct. Thirdly, I'm going to give you a excerpt from 'Warren J. Moulton' from 'The Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' published by 'Journal of Biblical Literature' 1918 He (Prof. Torrey) supposes our present Book of Acts to have been composed in Rome in 64, while the Gospel of Luke may have been written in 60, on the basis of material gathered by that evangelist while Paul was kept prisoner at Caesarea. Torrey anticipates two objections to his conclusions that seem to call for refutation. The first is the one already touched upon in speaking of the view of Harnack, namely, Luke's supposed allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem (21: 20-24). It is replied that nothing here goes beyond the predictions of the Old Testament (for example, Zech. 14: 1 ff.; Dan. 7: 25 and 12: 1, 7) and Jerusalem's previous experiences with besieging Roman armies. The second is the not infrequent contention that Luke knew and used the Antiquities of Josephus, a work which cannot have been written earlier than 93 or 94. Torrey shows anew in a concise but convincing way that such a conclusion is unfounded. I don't really want to wall of text you with the rest of it but he puts forward the argument and it's sound. Funny you should mention Marcion too, he was a bit of a odd character wasn't he.
Why do we have reasons to be skeptical? How about this for now on every time you try to tell someone about Jesus, first you need to say this as a disclaimer. The first 4 gospels that we rely on for salvation and to tell us who is God was written by for anonymous people that we have no clue who they are, but since having four Anonymous letters doesn’t seem trustworthy so we decided to give them names as according to Matthew, mark, Luke & John. Also one of the biggest writers of our New Testament never actually met Jesus but claimed he did in a vision ( Paul has the same amount of credit as someone like John Smith) and the actual followers of Jesus who learned from Jesus himself they didn’t trust Paul and had problems with him. I believe Jesus would had went to Peter and tell him He was choosing a new apostle for the Gentiles but Peter north James new anything about.
I am grateful to say that I am a born again Christian and have been since I was 19.......the reason I believe we have ppl who are atheists in this society is because of the fall of sin and the deceit of Satan! folks if you don’t know Christ as your savior then it burdens my soul to think that you are headed for a terrible place called Hell where the Bible says the fire is never quenched and the worm dies not!! If anyone is looking for real evidence of God then I believe creation is the proof! Look outside at the sun the moon the stars the blue sky the trees the mountains etc we know that everything created has a creator just like buildings have a builder and it’s pretty clear that nothing just suddenly appeared by chance or evolve out of nothing! Read your Bible and you will learn just how this universe got started and really it is not me but the Holy Spirit that I pray reveals to you the truth of his precious gospel......Folks you are not promised tomorrow! If you want to know how to be saved from this horrible reality then please by all means don’t hesitate to comment right back so I can lead you to the savior! 2 Corinthians 6:2 clearly states “now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation!” And Hebrews 3:15 clearly states, “Today if you hear his voice don’t harden your heartsJohn 3:16 says for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes on him will not perish but have everlasting life! V 17 says then V 18 says whoever believes on the son is not condemned but whoever does not believe on the son is condemned already because he has not believed on the son whom God has sent! Also Acts 16:30-31 what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house I am not threatening anyone but just warning them what will happen if they reject this precious gift of eternal life! Christ died a horrible criminals death! He was beaten brutally mocked spit upon and endured countless hours of torture pain for all of our sins! Ppl go to hell because they reject that pardon for their sins! And Jesus is saying to them in Matthew 25:41 depart from me you cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels! Hell was only prepared for Satan and his angels! It is not God who threatens anyone it is the craziness of rejecting the free pardon of salvation! It’s like if you’re in court you’ve committed a crime say you murdered someone! Now if you say to that Judge hey I know I’ve done a terrible thing of murdering that person but I hear you’re a good judge and so I know you’ll be fair to me...... the judge is going to reply well yes you’re right about one thing I am a good judge and because I’m a good judge I’m going to see to it that you’re punished and that justice is served! Well then all of a sudden someone you don’t even know comes forward and says you know what I know he’s committed the crime he’s committed and he deserves to go to jail but I really don’t want to see him go to prison so I’ll just go to prison for him so he can go free! So if you accepted that offer you’d be free to leave the courtroom but if you didn’t well you’d be crazy and go to prison yourself! Well that’s exactly how it was 2,000 years ago! He is God in human flesh and he came to this earth lived a perfect sinless life and even though he knew that we had sinned and because of our sins deserved to die miserably but he said no I don’t want to see them suffer so I will go and take their punishment for them! Even though he did absolutely nothing wrong still he chose to take the punishment for our sins so we can be set free from the power bondages and consequences of our disobedience to God! Romans 5:8 says For God commends his love toward us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us! 1 John 2:2 says he was made to be the propitiation for our sins! And not just for our sins but the sins of the whole world! 2 Corinthians 5:21 He who knew no sin became Sin for us that we would be made his righteousness! The truth is if you had to get to Heaven by your own effort then you cannot do it! Because Romans 3:10 says there is not one that does good! No Not One! Romans 3:23 says For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God! Romans 6:23 says For the wages of sin is death! But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our lord! But the good news is Romans 10:9 If we confess with our mouth and believes in our hearts that Christ died for our sins then was raised from the dead we will be saved! V 10 For it’s with the heart we believe and it’s with the mouth confession is made unto salvation! God gave us 10 commandments to follow and we’ve broken every one of them! And because God is a good God he cannot allow our disobedience to him to go unpunished! Well then like I just mentioned above his son Jesus stepped forward and said no I don’t want to see them punished so I will take their punishment for them! And also like I said he died a terrible substitute criminal’s death for us on a cross so now all we have to do is accept that payment for our sins and we can escape the terrible wrath of God that is to fall on them who do not accept this atonement that was sacrificed for our sins! Praise the lord Romans 10:13 says Whoever calls on the name of the lord shall be saved! And 1 Peter 1:4 you’re an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you! Christ clearly said in John 14:6 I am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the father but through me! Acts 4:12 clearly states that there is no other name given unto Heaven or earth by which we must be saved as there is salvation in no other! Jesus clearly states that there is clearly only one way to Salvation and it’s him that’s it! There is no other way! God Bless everyone who reads!
Here's a summary of Mormon (we do prefer to be called members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) beliefs: 1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. 2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. 3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. 4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. 5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. 6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. 7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth. 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. 9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. 10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. 13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
The only contradictions come from those who comment without reading the source. They arrogantly suggest they know more than the creator who's hand wrote the Bible, and designed them.
jim ledsome So if I pointed out one genuine contradiction in the Bible would you agree that the Bible is false or have you already determined to follow Christianity blindly?
Raphael I’d be glad to. There are contradictions in the Bible. There are so many of them, and yet it only takes one to disprove the entire Bible. I know many can be explained away, but others simply cannot. The biggest contradiction, in my opinion, deals with the very core of Christianity. God’s love. Some verses says that he loves everyone, earnestly wishing that everyone would be saved. Others however, says that he does not and the Bible goes so far as to say that he only loves the elect (which is the few) and that the vast majority of people he predestined to go to hell. Verses that prove God DOESN’T love everyone: John 15:16, Acts 15:17-18, Romans 9:11, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, Proverbs 16:9, Romans 9:15-23, Acts 13:48, Romans 9:21-23 Verses that prove God DOES love everyone: John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 4:8, Romans 11:32, 1 John 2:2 And if somehow you have an answer, then my next question is, if God loves everyone (in any way, shape or form) then why did he create people he KNEW would end up in hell. Is he an evil god that loves to watch people burn?
@@jennifercarrico681 All the above texts the you said that prove God doesn't love EVERYONE, and the following that you said prove that God does love EVERYONE are not a contradiction. The contradiction is in your understanding. You don't understand the Bible because first of all, you are not a born-again Christian (read I Corinthians 2:14). You must first have the Spirit to guide you to understand (John 16:13) the message you are reading. You cannot just pick verses and judge them by your own understanding. God didn't create people to be punished in hell. Read 2 Peter 3:9. Has God created people to be punished in hell? If so, then why did he want them to be saved according to 2 Peter 3:9? Where did you read that in the Bible?
Ron, do you bang your head against the wall regularly to be so stupid? Did you ever read the first verse of the bible about the supernatural creation done by the supernatural creator, God? If you want to mock God, then you should have great evidence that creation happened all on its own. There is NO proof of that. Only a fool will even think that and accept it. Once that's accepted, then all the rest of foolish thoughts not caring about details will follow. Here is a great example of what a fool accepts. They started it by accepting a natural creation and is not embarrassed to show their ignorance from that point on. So if you want to pretend you know what the bible says and took it in a sequential manner to understand it (which generally how books go), then show what a real bible expert you are and how much you love reasoning by giving evidence that creation happened differently from how the bible says it happened.
@@2fast2block I would love to respond to your comment, but either English is not your first language and it would be unfair to engage you in logical arguments in English, or you are a deluded, brainwashed primitive superstitious person who would not understand logic anyway.
The sad truth is that no matter how much evidence is given for Christianity, for many, it will never be enough.
I pray for eyes to be opened, hearts to be softened and that many will come to experience the unbelievable love of God our Father, through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Amen.
I think you're confusing evidence for arguments
If the evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then the evidence is flawed. Nothing Turek has said ever stands up to scrutiny.
If You god is omniscient, it knows what it would take to convince me of its existence. If your god is omnipotent it has the power to do it. Your god hasn't.....
Or maybe your god doesn't exist.
Mart TL1000S great intellectuals like Bart erhmans mentor, Metzger who is called a great researcher of these manuscripts, far more studies and access to the evidences than anyone on here most likely does, and you’re telling him Jesus never existed? I don’t understand friend. Such people have access to all of these evidences to make their own determination and ones like Metzger after a career of it arrive at Jesus’ existence and people like you somehow think you know better. God bless you and have a great day❤️.
Mart TL1000S
Romans 1:19-20 King James Version (KJV)
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
The evidence for God is all around you. He is no bigot and in Him is only good. You are made in His image and He loves you. May He bless you and open your eyes to the truth that is Jesus Christ❤️.
Romans 5:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Tony Mitchell the evidence stands up to scrutiny. How do you think Christianity has remained the same and so prominent for 2000 years?
For you atheists and skeptics out there, ask yourself this question, and I mean search yourself with everything that you have, “Why are you watching, commenting (and most of the time with venom)? If God doesn’t exist or some other belief/religion is true, there should be no reason why you’re here. If either of these propositions is true, who cares what Frank Turk says.
I have a sneaking suspicion that either you’re seeking truth or you’re just angry with God. I could be wrong in some cases, especially of those who just want to engage in an honest dialogue and do not spew anger. But then again, if you’re engaging in honest dialogue, you could be seeking truth. And I admire that. I think we all do, no matter what side of the fence you find yourself.
confident atheist here. I am happy to address your questions in order. First of all, Why am I watching this video? because a passionate born again Christian who I know and respect and who I often engage in thought provoking conversations with asked me to - he quotes frank turek often, and I figured the best way to understand where he's coming from is to see where he's getting his information from.....he literally shared this exact video with me, and that's why I'm here. As to why I'm commenting....well the honest truth is I type 130 words per minute and keyboard warrioring is an odd hobby of mine that I can't fully explain. So I don't know why I'm commenting, I guess just to engage in thoughtful dialogue, as you said.
Secondly - if god doesn't exist or some other religion is true, there is no reason for me to be here? well....obviously incorrect since there is very obviously no god of any description, all religions are wrong, but people like this Frank Turek are making it their life mission not only to disemminate the teachings of god, but also to try to use a scientific process to prove his very existence and the existence of his miracles. This brings atheist skeptics such as myself to the source of the misinformation....and that is very literally what brought me here to this video.
Thirdly, your sneaking suspicion that I'm seeking the truth or angry with God are both incorrect. I can't possibly be angry at God since there isn't one. It'd be like saying the only reason you are investigating the origin of santa claus is because you must somehow be mad that you didn't get the presents you asked for last Christmas. There is no santa, there is no getting angry with him - there is no god, there is no getting angry with him....same same. no easter bunny, tooth fairy, cupid fairy, santa clause.....none of it is real, and thus there is no logic to being angry at the make belief.
I love the irony of trying to use the SCIENTIFIC process, to PROVE the existence of god. To try to say that the actual original documents of the new testament are actually real, to try to identify who wrote the bible and when in an attempt to prove the authenticity of the stories within the bible to therefore prove without a shadow of a doubt that your make belief friend is real and everyone else's is fake.....is hilarious. you're using the very process you despise (science) to try to prove the existence of the non-existent, and despite centuries of failure in doing this you hang in there. I must commend your faith and your resolve in being able to do this.
but let me ask you a few questions. First of all, what purpose do you believe religion fills? I don't just mean YOUR religion....I mean the concept of religion, the hundreds of religions that exist around the world in all the different cultures and geographical locations....every human since the dawn of time has wondered where we came from, why we're here, what the stars are, what controls the weather, what happens when we die, why do good things happen to bad people and vice versa.....these questions have existed since the dawn of time and every single culture in the world has come up with their own answers to them....these answers were framed into religions, and they take various forms. So what is the purpose of religion?
My next question, is what is the purpose of science, and the scientific process?
I think you'll find that your answers to those questions will be the same. both are seeking the truth.
but in one, we are coming from the perspective that we do NOT know everything, and our minds are completely open books. We look at evidence, we process evidence, we then draw conclusions based on the evidence that we've been able to gather. We then come up with hypotheses that we then put up for peer review and evaluation and we are constantly re-evaluating what we know to be true according to this process and even if millions of people are able to recreate an experiment or a finding.....if a single person is able to definitively disprove the hypothesis/theory using the same reproduceable process.....then the hypothesis and theory are completely and utterly thrown out in favor of something new. What we know and what we understand to be true is constantly changing based on the EVIDENCE that presents itself through a non stop critical evaluation of reality.
…..with religion....you start off knowing the truth, and you then spend the rest of your existence reinforcing and never questioning this truth, and when evidence contradicting your truth presents itself you turn it into a test of your faith. Continuing to believe in the absence of any evidence what so ever is the very definition of what it means to have faith.....and this profound and deliberate state of ignorance is where you guys prefer to exist. Why continue to pursue the truth....when it's all spelled out for us clearly in the bible?
I guess the underlying question is why? why have faith in something that is obviously untrue. why take evidence to the contrary and use it as a test of faith. Why commandeer the scientific process that you obviously hate so much and twist it into a process of defending what is obviously scientifically incorrect. Why, when we know the answers to SO many things that we didn't used to understand.....why continue to argue that we already know everything there is to know? just.....why?
Blake Thank you for your thoughtful dialogue. Atheist such as yourself are a breath of fresh air. And it is very evident that you do type 130 words per minute as your reply is definitely full.
First of all, I don’t despise science. I think that might be pigeonholing me into a false category. I don’t blame you for the misnomer as many Christians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries cornered theirselves into this false science vs. religion dichotomy.
I actually hope as a science minded person that you are seeking for truth or else I would argue that you’ve already abandoned science and it’s methods.
I agree with you that what we know or at least perceive does change over time from one paradigm to another through open scientific testing and observation. If you’ve ever taken a course in the philosophy of science, you’ll know that a good majority of paradigm shifts occur when scientists allow themselves to think outside of the empirical box.
While I agree with you that we can’t empirically prove God’s existence, we do have other avenues to acquire knowledge such as logic to name one.
I would also argue that in our attempts to approach the search for truth all of us come to the table with certain presuppositions that act as paradigms. Where each of us acquired these presuppositions varies from each persons varied experiences. And so just as in the history of science, I would argue, non of us will experience a paradigm shift until we think outside of our current presuppositions or paradigms. I’m willing to do so. The thing that you might not guess about me, is that I’m naturally skeptical. So I don’t take every biblical or scientific claim at face value.
Now to the idea that somehow I just continue to hold on to my faith in spite of its falsehood... I could be wrong here, but I would argue that I believe that you’ve probably narrowed you’re understanding of knowing to empiricism alone or that somehow empirical knowledge is the only way that we can have certainty. If the latter is the case, then I would point out your correct observation that the history of science shows us that what we once thought was certain, is no longer certain. So it goes, what we know view to be certain will probably not be certain according to what we discover via the scientific method in the future. So empirical proof can never be the sole basis for us knowing. I would also dare to say that there are many things in the way you live life that defy exact empirical evidence I order to live it. I’m sure you know the arguments.
Lastly, to answer your question, about the role of all religious belief or pursuit throughout the world’s history, I would say that there is something inside us all, a God shaped hole if you will, that humans are trying fill. I actually hypothesize that this is a designed mechanism (it could be an indirect design of which the reason I won’t go into here) by our Creator.
Again I appreciate your dialogue and would enjoy fire discussion as well.
Blake sorry about the typos. I typed this out on my phone. My last typo meant to read, “I would enjoy future discussion”
@@OURUSSELL the limits to our empirical knowledge are a function of our never-ending quest to find it. We will never know everything and anyone with any sense would accept that we don't know everything about everything. What you describe as a God sized hole, I describe as a never-ending quest for truth. I believe in a system of critical evaluation and empirical measurement to draw conclusions which will naturally evolve over time. You believe in the supernatural, miracles, spirits, afterlife.... Etc... And it is through a series of stories legends and fables that you ( religious people as a group) then pretend to know everything.
Religious people know the origin of everything from the tiniest ant to the very universe and concept of time itself. Religious people know the purpose of life they know what happens after we die they know what controls our very fate. To that end I would say I am jealous of their confidence and I am jealous in the sense of security they must have knowing that there is nothing left to discover. No questions left to be asked.... We know the answer to everything and that answer of coursw.... Is God and his word.
Promise of miracles, divine intervention, and post mortem heaven/rewards is what encourages good behavior and threats of eternal damnation are used to control negative behavior.
Look I don't have a problem with people who are religious, I don't have a problem with any belief system and that includes Islam to Satanism to whatever random beliefs are held by tribes people in the middle of the amazon. I do not care what a person believes I care what they do.... It is that simple.
But why try to use science to prove the objective empirical measurable quantifiable existence of God and the stories his Bible tells. That just enters the realm of the ridiculous.... Like seeing those TLC specials on people looking for bigfoot, the loch ness monster or the like. Fine, believe in whatever you want to believe in but don't piss on my head and call it rain.... There IS no objectively measurable God anywhere and if there was trust me our scientists would be talking about it. If there was a single being in control of everything we would have worked it out by now.... But instead we keep finding evidence to suggest that there is no actual being or deity in control of anything. We keep solving little riddles here and there and slowly but surely we are piecing together the puzzle of where we came from how we got here where were headed.... Etc...
Remember that science was only uncuffed from the confines of religion only about 100 years ago.... And in that time the progress has been immense.... And it will continue... And it will do so through science. Not divine intervention....
Believe in what you like to defend your behavior and morals and values... Etc... But our physical reality is not the result of supernatural or divine intervention.... It's the result of a natural process were still trying to understand and it is with science that we further this understanding.
Blake Again I applaud the thoughtful dialogue. Here are some thoughts. Those who subscribe to empiricism believe that we should not believe the truth of some X based on a competent authority. We are only justified in believing some X if we have empirically verifiable evidence supporting the truth of X. It goes without notice that this principle itself is not empirically verifiable, and thus empiricism is self-refuting as a COMPLETE THEORY of knowledge. There are several different ways of gaining knowledge of the world empiricism, logic (rational thought), existential knowledge, moral knowledge, experiential knowledge, and historical knowledge which is more of a mix of those knowledge listed above. But neither of these ways of knowing can STAND ON THEIR OWN because ultimately they would prove to be logically circular (self refuting or at the very least SELF WEAKENING). So can we know anything? So can we prove anything with absolute certainty?
I would argue that we can know a great many things and in order to do so, we CAN NOT rely on one particular avenue of gaining knowledge in order to truly know something. Using only one road to gain knowledge breaks down and prevents us from really knowing anything with confidence. Confidence by its very etymology means “with faith, with trust, with assurance or belief. Instead of relying solely on empirical data which is not only limited by data, assumptions, our instruments in measuring and is at least self weakening (self refuting), we should rely on a more robust avenue for knowing mainly a combination of all methods of gaining knowledge.
This is actually how we live life no matter how committed one is to strict empiricism or not. A strict empiricist or naturalist doesn’t go around asking their beloved family member or friend if they have the chemicals that produces love in the brain today. No, they just trust in the fact that their friend or beloved due to a variety of knowledge trustworthiness, past memory, familial connection, etc... that has nothing to do with empirical data. There may be an element of chemistry involved, but that doesn’t solely explain the love or experience, nor-should it.
You mentioned that theists pretend to know everything. If you mean absolute certainty in a strict empirical way, I would actually disagree. There may be some arrogant theists out there, but I think what you’re sensing is confidence, especially in Christians. There is no certainty as in what scientist, who hold to strict empirical certainty, strive for. As we discussed, the history of science has shown that scientific theories come and go and will continue to do. And empirical certainty in and of itself is self refuting. So empirical certainty will always fail. I would argue that, we are too finite to grasp that kind of certainty.
Does that mean that we can’t have some sense of the way the world works through scientific empiricism? By no means, I think science does provide some frame work or confidence for the way the world works, but never certainty. By the very nature of the scientific method, which is inductive and measures past variables, the constant over-turning of scientific theories throughout history, would render science alone as solely unprovable.
Can God be proven with certainty using strict scientific empiricism. No. But neither can anything else. Is there strict 100% empirical proof that subatomic particles exist. No. There is very good evidence for their existence. Using math (an immaterial/rational... not empirical... method) with some empirically known parameters we have confidence (not certainty) that subatomic particles exist.
Can God be disproven via sola empiricism as you suggest? Not hardly. There are very few things that can be disproven through using empiricism alone. The burden of proof is too high to disprove most anything, let alone God. Without writing a whole book, there is so much written, from scientists and philosophers both theists and atheists, I’ll rest with full confidence that science has not disproven God. Among the hundreds of books and journals on this that you can at least get reference through the internet, I’ll leave you with the book by the agnostic scientist Amir Aczel “Why Science Does Not Disprove God”. There are literally thousands of journals and books by PhD level scientist and philosophers from atheists to Christians that argue against the hypothesis that God has not been disproven.
Can God be evidenced or be known in a similar way as subatomic particles? Yes, in a sense, but obviously not exactly in the same way mathematically or empirically. However, among dozens of pieces of rational and empirical evidences, the best evidences that would come closer to your preferred avenue of gaining knowledge would be the teleological arguments (fine tuning of the universe) and the Kalam cosmological argument, as well as the argument micro-design in organic informational systems such as DNA. Consider William Lang Craig, Stephen C. Meyer and John Lennox and others I can cite if you want for these type of arguments. If you’re open to consider thinking outside of strict empiricism would be several varieties of the ontological argument and moral arguments consider Alvin Plantinga, J. P. Moreland, William Lang Craig and others.
Let me address another statement you made. You said, “Remember that science was only uncuffed from the confines of religion only about a 100 years ago.” I would agree and disagree with this statement. Don’t take my word on it, but do some research on the history of science. Much of the progress of science as we know it today owes its origin to ancient greek influenced Christian thought and theology, especially from the Reformation. Again, I can’t go into, what would be the equivalent of a dissertation here. Here are some thoughts on this: Of course, some would say that Christian (related to Jewish ideas) thought has ancient greek influence written all over it, therefore it can not be from a Christo-centric origin, but from a morphed version of the three philosophies. But could it be that Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and Pythagorus, etc, had discovered truths or pieces about metaphysical reality? Maybe not, but if you’re a theist is is very plausible. Remember the idea that truth can be objective and known and the search for a rational God’s order and how His creation works is a natural outpouring of the idea that we have dominion over God’s creation. This is opposed to other ancient religious pantheistic or panantheistic thought that nature is God and we don’t have permission nor the means to investigate nature in such a way. The idea that truth can be investigated and known stands in opposition to such eastern ideas that reality is illusory. The idea that human rationality reflects the image of God; therefore, though we take it for granted, we have the ability to to rationalize, investigate, explore and to conclude is a minor miracle in and of itself.
The doctrine of the priesthood of the believer is the idea that we can appeal to and communicate with God individually. That is to say that we don’t have to go through a priest, as the Roman Catholics espoused. The individualistic culture that we now have in the west, where each person counts and has rights (including searching for and concluding on truths) is an offspring of such a Christian doctrine. It seems foreign now because our world is so secularized, but much of roots of freedom to discover truth come out of Christian thought. Galileo, Newton, Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Pascal, Kelvin, Boyle, Kepler, etc... were all professing scientists.
I’m assuming that when you say that science came uncuffed from religion only 100 years ago, you’re pointing to the creationists vs. Darwinian scientific debate at the time. And because scientific darwinianism
won the day among scientist; therefore, science is the better for it and its rapid progression since is further proof that religion is either contrary, not linked or irrelevant to science. While I would not agree, if this is your conclusion. I would agree that sometimes when we don’t let science help us interpret our beliefs about religion or specifically the Bible, then we can reach a quagmire in either both science and/or religion. And to maybe a few degrees lessthan you would conclude, I would conclude that’s what happened in the late 1800’s. But science and theology do not have to be in contradiction. Maybe sometimes there’s friction, but they both can help us flesh out the discovery of reality.
Last, but not least...Let me go on a limb here, and I could be wrong. I commend your honest assessment that you experience some jealousy at the fact that belief in the supernatural or the transcendent provides meaning, hope, purpose and ultimately confidence. I just ask that you consider the possibility that your conscience may be providing or crying out for you to explore another avenue of knowledge outside of strict empiricism. If pure naturalism is not true, this could be the case. With all humility and care for your soul, I encourage you to consider the rational possibility that we are not purely naturalistic meat machines. And that there is a rational and loving God that not only created this amazing scientifically exploitable universe, but that He actually wants to be known and wants to know you in a familial way.
Thanks for the discussion
Frank is the modern great...
I would love to meet him someday
Will be praying for him
2 Timothy 5 "They will avert their ears from the Truth and they will turn to extravagant tales."
Ironic quote
@@Itsatz0 and you have evidence that we Christians suck farts out of pigeons ?
And I'm still waiting for one single piece of proof for the Christian god that stands up to scrutiny.
@Beren c Again, you have provided no proof of your god that stands up to scrutiny. If your god is omniscient, it knows what it would take to convince me. If your god is omnipotent, it has the power to do it.
But it hasn't, which means:
1) Your god is lazy
2) Your god doesn't think I'm worth saving even though I have worked hard to improve other peoples lives and make the world a better place. That makes your god a thin-skinned bigot.
3) Your god wants me to believe before showing bevidence. That makes your god an extortionist.
4) There is no god.
@Beren c Christ never experienced insults. He never existed. There is not one eyewitness account for him, nor any miracle.
GOD bless you frank a solider for the LORD.
Dr. Turek is not a Doctorate degree holder as recognised by any universally accreditted university, he is a con man spiv ex Sailor,of the USA navy, not a solider or even soldier of any unproven superstitious mythical entity of whom there is no Irrefutable, undeniable, indisputable, empirical, conclusive,unfalsifiable scrap of evidence of ever existing, just as there are none of a creator,creation, first cause,causator, all are assertions without evidence.
Conman of the stupid, the gullible, the desperate, the already indoctrinated, they that are his audience of whom he makes a lucrative living off.
Hi Frank,
I’ve been a firm believer ever since I can remember anything. I was raised by a single Mom who at times lived with her parents, my Grandparents, who were Seventh Day Adventists. I was introduced to your videos in Dec 2021 and have been a devote FAN of you ever since - LOVE YOU and I’m sure Jesus Himself if very proud of you !!! What I’m so desperately needing though Mr Turek, is further clarification on the Sabbath Day. I’ve had a personal struggle with the Sabbath Day issue for a very long time. I think it is a massively important topic and in fact, even before it was an official Commandment issued to Moses, it appears in Genesis 2:2 and kind of (in my mind) makes it the very first Law of God’s contained within of the Bible. So and with HUGE respect for you Frank, I point to your Session 5 where the references you made at about the 51:12 mark to Paul’s Colossians Chapter 2 where you infer that Paul states “Don’t let anyone tell you that you have to obey any Sabbath Day”. I argue that this is NOT what Paul says at all and this is so NOT what he meant. Jesus says all throughout the Gospels to follow God’s Laws and obey the Commandments. Just because Commandment #4 does not appear in Revelations, does not make it obsolete. I’m so thankful that the New Covenant (our salvation and God’s Grace) was given through the blood of Jesus Christ but again, I argue that OT teachings and the 1st Covenant Laws (10 Commandments) still apply. Finally and as with any Covenant or legal document or agreement, the binding content CANNOT be changed, altered or omitted unless the revisions come directly from the originating Authority and to the best of my knowledge and reckoning, nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus Christ Himself say that the EVER IMPORTANT Sabbath Day shall be on the Sunday as opposed to the original Saturday. Sabbath was changed in AD 321 to Sunday by Roman Emperor Constantine .. a HUMAN governed by God’s Law the same as any other Human. Please Frank, educate me ? Please provide clarification on this the way only you can do. God Bless. Thank for you teachings and again, you are awesome !
The Bible teaches its readers to _"Sell what you own and give the money to the poor"_
Can anyone show me anytime multi-millionaire Frank Turek has preached that part of the Bible?
Dear Brother, Jesus was asked what are the most important Laws, and he summarized them into two: Believe in the ONE true God and love thy neighbor. The Sabbath is your time dedicated to God, it doesn’t have to be a day as we don’t follow Jewish traditions, hope that helped
@@yahshuanazareno6186 Yes, you are correct with this "Believe in the ONE true God and love thy neighbor" for if you keep even those two then I believe you would in essence, be following all God's laws. However and back to the point of the Sabbath.....It was made for MAN and established very early (sanctified in fact) in GEN 2:2 & 3.......then there's another great quote " Sabbath was made for MAN, not man for the Sabbath" ...... Sabbath was not made for the Jew but rather, for MAN. The Sabbath was made for MAN long before Mount Sinai.... Jesus Christ himself followed this law and as He is the only one on earth with the authority to change this law, never once did he state or even imply that any of God's laws were changed.... In fact, Jesus states that he did NOT come to change any of God's law but rather, to fulfil them...... Emmanuel 🙏🙏🙏
@@dean366 and he did fulfill all of them! He also broke “the law” on a sabbath and told the Pharisees to stop trying to be so overly sensitive with the law when they lack the LOVE for God. Reflect on that
@@yahshuanazareno6186 Not much reflection needed there 😂 Do we punish our policemen or rescuers for breaking the law speeding to their scene ? Absolutely not ! So too is also true for the Lord of the Sabbath 🙏 The Pharisees arguments were both week and petty vs our Lord when you think about it. I mean, bringing forgiveness, salvation, healing and showbread (wheat from the field for the disciples) on the Sabbath ? What arguments can truly be brought against our Lord ?
Thankyou Lord Jesus Christ Ji🙏🙏
Really enjoyed this video. Hard not to smile when Turek is laying out the evidence
Depend if you consider yourself christian or not. It always feel good to consider our group of reference as right, this feeling have no weight considering the actual veracity. The thing is our brain tend to substitute hard question ( is this person telling the truth ? ) with easier one ( Am I pleased with what this person is telling ? ).
I find it hard not to laugh hysterically when Turek lays out what he considers evidence.
Tony Mitchell you’re welcome to refute it all, Tony
Evidence is not true when written by no one knows whom, without source, verification and corrobrated, the gospels given as proof would be laughed out of any civil court.
Laying out WHAT evidence???? , all he has to go on is the four gospels issued in the "new testament" gospels that are not original documents, not written by any claiming to know the supposed Jesus of, not written first hand, not signed, not written by those acreditted with doing so, the only one taking them as evidence of anything are indoctrinated believers that were indoctrinated with that bullshit before their minds were formed and GROOMED throughout their formative years is such rubbish, them and no others. "They are true because I believe them to be true" is NOT EVIDENCE.
This is awesome!!
September 11.. I was delivering news papers on my 5am paper boy round.
The attack happened at 8AM, isn't clutterbuck a Peter Sellers character?
@@Itsatz0 I live in Australia.. so there's a time difference.
@@buck_maize111 gotcha.
If you get the chance see the Peter Seller's movie, "the Party." One of the character's name is "Clutterbuck."
@@Itsatz0 I googled him and seen the movie come up so I'll check it out. Cheers!
@@buck_maize111 Only if you sing waltzing Matilda with me. I come from a Greek family and during holidays we sing Greek folk songs, an American song called "Good Night Irene" and "waltzing Matilda."
I feel sorry for folks that believe there is no HIGHER POWER. I can tell you they’re in for a rude awakening one day. Because of how my life is now I know there is someone bigger than us humans. No matter how much I go to church a pastor didn’t change me I come out the same way I went in. But the FATHER ALMIGHTY change me HIMSELF when I wasn’t even attending church or pray that night. But I wrote in my journal for 4 months for the MOST HIGH to change me but I stop writing 18 months before I came to the LIGHT of the FATHER when I forgot about writing; but the all knowing FATHER didn’t forget.
I feel sorry for the folks that believe in religion, wasting their time, energy and intellect on fairy tales that have NO basis in reality.
@@garywalker447 The biggest fairy tale here is Atheism.
@@Allen_Sherry Nope, Atheism is the rejection of fairy tales as truth.
fair·y tale
/ˈferē tāl/
noun
a children's story about magical and imaginary beings and lands.
something resembling a fairy tale in being magical, idealized, or extremely happy.
modifier noun: fairy-tale
"a fairy-tale romance"
a fabricated story, especially one intended to deceive.
The bible has a talking snake.
The bible has an impossible flood.
Your god created life with magic.
Jesus "turned water into wine"
Atheism is simply not believing in any god.
@@garywalker447 Atheism is a senseless religion though. I do not have enough of faith to be an Atheist.
@@Allen_Sherry Oh how original.
Atheism is the rejection of religion, it is NOT religion.
Grow up or shut up, frankly, I do not give a shit which. Your pithy little quips are not original, not convincing and only serve to show off your own stupidity.
God bless you, in the name of Jesus Christ!
He is a stipend lier he can talk but steel belives on magic there is no stupid god this guy only belives on money your money he is full of crap
@@josegaleano1530 I believe you in to go back to school
@@joy-tx7ub if I go to School I learn science and teach no lies without proof that immoral
Science is the truth language of life
Not a magical invented lucrative character you are erong
@@josegaleano1530 sure kiddo just take english classes too
@@josegaleano1530 Is there scientific proof that science is the only objective fact?
JESUS IS LORD!!!!
If that's true, then why does he not take up his seat in the House Of Lords?
Why did he die for sins while we are still commiting fuckery? Get logical, people including "god" doesn't die. God is too high to be a low leveled puny human.
Amen! 🙌💜
Please send me a link to pastor Collins teachings. Thank you
Is there a part 6 it just ends in the middle?????
Some one please reply.
czcams.com/users/TurekVideo you can try to find it here
Do we have to watch you knit over the final minites of his speech??
This is awesome. This information needs to be in teens before they graduate high school.
Exactly! 🙏
His power is in my life.
What a zero you must be.
itsatz really, insults? I pray that you see the error of your ways before it’s too late. “Every idle word you speak will be judged”. “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering (patient) to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come repentance”.
Mark Anthony Biggera “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” 1 Corinthians 1:18
@@Bigeartheory Yeah, and Mary had a little lamb. You actually believe that? "Every idle word will be judged." You don't see through that phony threat? Your god exists as much as the Muslim god or the Jewish god. Proven make believe.
itsatz how are they proven make believe?
23:00 , 7:27 48:46
49:24 Sorry, this is not Caravaggio. This is Luca Giordano.
Blessed are those who have not seen but have believed in Jesus Christ
Why would you think that believing something without evidence is a good thing? It’s just gullibility, that’s all
@@urasam2 i am not a scientist nor a learned person sir. But what i know is that God himself created this world n this entire universe. He created all living things on this planet. He is the source of life for all living things. Science nor any other studies cannot prove how life developped on earth. How there are so many living creatures, birds, animals, plants etc. N they all form part of a system. Its only the bible who tells us everything. We just need to see those wonders in creation to acknowlege existence of one true God. N i know only one God..the God of Abraham, Isaac n Jacob. The holy n mighty God of Israel.
@@kunalramjunum1207 Well, science knows exactly how life developed on Earth so you are wrong about that. Science also understands how the stars and planets were formed, Yes, there’s much we don’t know but you can’t claim to know that there is a god because as you know there is no evidence. You don’t know there is a god, you just can’t admit that there are things we can’t explain yet and you are not comfortable saying “I don’t know”
@@urasam2 can you explain to me how life began sir,? How we hav so much a variety of living creatures on earth? I dont think science has an exact n precise answer to this. I think all this discussion is futile sir. We share different beliefs. You believe in science. And i believe in God. Thank you for your replies sir. May God bless you n ur family. N i hope that God touches ur heart n open ur eyes n mind to see n understand him.
@@kunalramjunum1207 Hello Kunal, thank you for your honest reply. No discussion is futile if both parties are willing to learn from the other person. I do not "believe in Science" any more than I believe in Geography, Mathematics, Chemistry and Music. Science is a process that studies the natural world, testing hypotheses through repeated testing and experimentation and drawing conclusions and making predictions. Your belief in God is not based on any evidence that can be examined or falsified, and I suspect that your belief is based on a fallacy - you do not understand abiogenesis and evolution and so you appeal to a bigger mystery - that a god did it by magic.
Life began on Earth with the formation of nucleotides from hydrogen cyanidide, ammonia, ribose and phosphates which joined to make polynucleotides, from whence self-replicating single-strand ribonucleic acid (RNA) joined with lipids to form the first protocells, called micelles. After millions of years RNA became a double strand molecule called DNA.
Evolution by means of natural selection is the process that led to the variety and diversity of life on the planet today. Evolution is an observed and well supported fact, and there is so much evidence for it that if it were to be shown to be wrong it would be as world changing as the discovery that the Moon is made of green cheese.
Learn some science, my friend, and stop believing in magical anthropomorphic deities.
Almost all the embarrassing details fall under the category of what the law could not accomplish, grace did.
1:00:16 is solid evidence
*"Is solid evidence"*
Solid evidence of..what ??!
Where do yo see or call evidence at 1:00:16 ?
On 51:30 I have a question if in the New Testament there is not repetition that indicates we should keep the Sabbath ¿Where is in the New Testament a statement that says we should keep the 《Sunday》?
The early Christians and the apostles the early church worshipped on the first day of the week which is Sunday. One reason is that we give God and Jesus our very best we start the week by giving him our attention and our worship.
The ceremonial Law was nailed to the cross...
Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Colossians 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
The Sabbath day observances are no longer needed...nor commanded. BUT, if you are going to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy keep the WHOLE Law! *****James **2:10*******
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
---> That means NO fires "kindled" on the Sabbath.. Do not start a vehicle. No furnaces etc...
Exodus 35:3 Ye shall kindle NO FIRE throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.
---> No more than a Sabbath days journey. .57 of a mile Acts 1:12
Exodus 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, LET NO MAN GO OUT OF HIS PLACE ON THE SEVENTH DAY.
NOW! ---> If you or someone you know breaks the sabbath in order to "keep the Sabbath Holy" you will have to stone them. (capital punishment) Or you are not keeping the Law. Nor are you keeping the Sabbath Holy.
Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: WHOSOEVER DOETH WORK THEREIN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH.
No, the Sabbath was fulfilled IN Christ. He fulfilled the ceremonial Law. He IS our rest. We now give Jesus FIRST place. The "preeminence". *****Colossians **1:18*******
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Paul was actually from the tribe of Benjamin if I'm not mistaken.
Naldo
Yes, he is (see Romans 11:1).
Did you know that Archeologists use the bible to locate places. That’s great news
And sometimes the places actually exist.
And did you know that Harry Potter factually describes Kings Cross Station, apart from the magical portal to another dimension... What's your point?
@@urasam2 did Harry exist?
@@12steps2JESUS Did Yahweh exist?
@@urasam2 well we were talking about Jesus, who claimed Yahweh was his father
I want to go to the Israel museum!! 😫😫😫😫
The sabbath is rest coming from the work of Jesus.
Before he was crucified, the work of Jesus was the Creation, done in six days, and the seventh he rested (as the Son, Jesus participated in Creation.)
After the resurrection, the work of Jesus became the outpouring of grace, acting everywhere, anytime.
That's why we have no holiday. That's why every day is a holiday.
Paul was not an eye witness, theres no second witness to any of Pauls writings save other writings by Paul .
What do you mean?
Dude, what? Acts, Peter?
I love Frank's enthusiasm, passion and humor, but you do realize, as Frank presents his argument and position, the answer could also be essential oils, really sharp steak knives or the juice weasel..
Yeah, he's a good speaker, but if anyone actually listens to what he says, it's nonsense. If you watch him in Q&As, he gets destroyed.
@@Ozzyman200 Lmao. He’s the leading Christian apologist in the world precisely because he’s expertly answered every question he’s been asked. Provide an example of him being “owned”.
@@sly8926 He is? They're all pretty terrible but I think there are one or two better. Watch the video, or watch his debates. See him against Hitch for example. Notice in this video how he can';t answer the question. He's a talented charming speaker, certainly, but his content is nonsense. He has no idea what atheists are for example, but he knows he can still sell books because his audience are clueless.
@@Ozzyman200 Sometimes I think human beings must experience things differently than I do because I’ve watched his debate with Christopher many times...and I’m actually a huge fan of Christopher Hitchens...and it was clear to me that Hitch was just out of his depth. He couldn’t even begin to defend his atheism because, indeed, it’s indefensible. An atheist claims that there is no God. Obviously that claim could never be supported by any evidence of logical reasoning or objective rationale (not to mention scientifically). It’s my one problem with Hitch’s public work. He was always, on any topic or any debate, willing to follow logic to it’s end no matter how offensive or absurd it sounded. Yet when it came to God, he wouldn’t. It’s the one subject I’ve heard him speak on where he clearly is just avoiding the logical process and instead trying to prove his personal belief.
@@Ozzyman200 Let me ask you one thing;
If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?
It really depends what we mean by the first question. Do we have an accurate copy of the first more widely distributed complete New Testament, yes we kind of have but do we have accurate copies of the individual books in the New Testament, the answer is likely no. There’s therefore no contradiction in Bart Ehrmans statements.
frank turek makes a fantastic word soup
"People don't invent lies in order to make themselves look bad." This sounds good but it's not reality. When it comes to Christianity, this is in fact the norm rather than the exception. Paul attests to this when he, in effect, says "I will do whatever it takes to get you to believe 'my' gospel." Another Similar claim is: "A person will not knowingly die for a lie." Since the disciples (all of them is implied) died as martyrs, therefore their claims were true. Both of these assertions require the one making them to have full knowledge of the operations of the mind of each individual involved. But, no man on earth has such ability. Consequently, these are just two, of innumerable quantities, of Turek's inclusions, which fail the validity test.Furthermore, Turek is taking advantage of the ignorance of the people, who (mostly) don't read/study the Bible. Jesus and the disciples were Jews by birth only. Jesus became and led the disciples to become apostates from Judaism. Jesus said and did things which led to his crucifixion. Under early Christianity, those, who did what Jesus did were called heretics and in those cases where the Christian leaders had police powers, heretics were killed the same as Jesus was. What the Jews called blasphemy, Christians called heresy. In both cases, death was the penalty when police powers were available. If the truth matters, then let it be told. Finally, please consider this. The US government released Osama Bin Laden's body to a government official, who asked for it. He then decently and honorably buried it in Arlington National Cemetery making him a visibly hero and martyr forever. A few days later it was reported by hundreds of people, who saw him, that Bin Laden was seen alive and taking flying lessons in a Jumbo Jet. The US Government did nothing!!! It astounds me that these apologists take us today for idiotic fools. Sadly, the evidence that we are is ever clear and convincing. Not only that, they, in effect, tell us that the Romans (I/e: Pontius Pilate) were soft hearted Jew-loving fools as well. The news got to Pontius Pilate and Herod that Golgotha had become a crime scene with the Roman Seal shredded to pieces, the vaunted guard scattered and Jesus, the arch (crucified?) enemy, was seen by hundreds of people walking about and eating fish. This would have been a personal insult to Pontius Pilate because his reliable Centurion had assured him that Jesus was dead. The highly touted professional Roman killers were not so professional after all. They had met their match in a lil ole carpenter's son. I am sorry Turek. Your submissions are sorely lacking in any semblance of credibility.
So would someone die for something they knowingly knew was a lie?
Yes, many have. Joseph Smith for one , he of all people knew it was bullshit
@@ic.xc. : My answer is yes. Circumstances can bring this about. In the case of the disciples, my studies suggest that no one knows for sure how, when and where they died or the attending circumstances. The apologists would have us believe that each apostle was killed for his belief and that each was given the opportunity to recant and thereby save his life and in each case, refused to do so. But, that's a bald faced and deceptive lie. Besides traditions, no one knows. But beyond that, let's get real. Is the perfect God, who created the universe so ignorant, needy, slip-shod, careless and clueless that he needs and uses apologists? If that's the case, then there is really no difference between him and heathens and idol worshippers. Take your pick. In any case, one not less well off.
@@ronlabouliere6298 Joseph Smith? Was he executed or what?
I really dont agree with your logic when you say "circumstances" can bring people to actually want to die for a lie they made up. Can you explain or give an example what type of "circumstances" the apostles of Jesus were into that led them to want to travel around the world with basically no supplies/money to preach/inform people who are suffering or whatever that there is a "loving creator" who cares for them, and you say they want to die?
In those times, Christians didnt just die, they were persecuted and tortured when Rome found out they were Christians. And there werent many apostles, so they had to travel individually or if lucky in pairs. I dont think i will ever know an individual do what the apostles did and all because they want their "lie" to be justified?? These men were Jews which means they believe in the "thou shall not lie" commandment as well as suffering in the eternal hellfire if they did. And im sure they had families they had to leave. I'm sure it didnt come easy for them to lie and want to die because of a "lie" they made up... just doesnt make any sense.
All that talk and he still looks like an infomercial for steak knives lol.
Does anyone have a video or recorded response of Ehrman of want Frank pointed out?
There are only two choices, for God or against God. God's own words the end!
Does not believing he exists count as being against him?
How?
@@JMUDoc It is not believing He exists counts to be against Him. It says that we are enemies of God through our wicked works.
@@Allen_Sherry Imagine a rally of anti-Trumpers - how many of them don't believe that Trump exists? NONE.
You cannot oppose a person or thing unless you acknowledge their/its existence. That is idiotic.
@@JMUDoc Let me try to get this so I am not misquoting you. You're saying that the Anti-Trumpers are opposing Donald Trump, not because of lack of the knowledge of his existence. That is true. And that is kind of what I said too. Atheists are not opposing God because of the lack of knowledge.
@@Allen_Sherry I think I see the disonnect, here. Another hypothetical, which I hope will illustrate the point:
Let's suppose there really is a villain called The Litterman, who sees it as his job to create as much litter as possible. He goes around in the dead of night throwing garbage out of his car.
*I don't believe in the Litterman;* I think he's a fairytale, an urban legend. But I happen to see a piece of trash he threw, pick it up, and put it in a bin.
Do you consider me to be against The Litterman?
Wow, he really does speak fast. NJ fast.
Pastor Shadilay Sent Me o7
The New Testament started at the death of CHRIST, HEBREWS 9:15-17
Correct, however Christ had to reveal the new testament to someone after his death. Review Romans 16:25. Paul is our God given apostle.
THE BOOK OF ROMANS: OUR SPIRITUAL DISCERNING POWER OF GOD
.
The book of Romans is what would have us wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
Paul says to mark and avoid them which cause divisions and offences contrary to his doctrine in Romans!
Romans is made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, during this present dispensation of grace, until the rapture.
If you want to KNOW the will of God today, and if you want to KNOW what is good from evil in this world, then study, learn, understand, and obey the book of Romans!
.
.
ROMANS GENERAL OUTLINE:
.
JUSTIFICATION - chapters 1-5
IDENTIFICATION - chapters 6-8
DISPENSATION - chapters 9-11
WALK AS A SON - chapters 12-16
.
.
.
Proof Text Provided Below.
.
.
.
Apostle Paul Writes To The
Church The Body Of Christ:
.
Romans 16:17-19 (KJV): “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.”
Romans 16:25-27 (KJV): “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.”
Ephesians 3:1-5 (KJV): "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed ..."
1 Corinthians 3:10 (KJV): "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon."
Colossians 1:21-27 (KJV): "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"
Titus 2:13-14 (KJV): "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."
Philippians 3:17-21 (KJV): "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself."
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 (KJV): "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
2 Timothy 2:7 (KJV): "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things."
2 Timothy 2:15-16 (KJV): "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."
2 Timothy 2:17-26 (KJV): "And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
1 Corinthians 14:37-38 (KJV): "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
2 Corinthians 5:10 (KJV): "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
.
.
========================
SHARE COPY PASTE EDIFY
Mark says Jesus didn't call his first disciples until after John the Baptist was arrested. Gospel of John says Jesus called his disciples, went to Galilee, changed water to wine, went to Jerusalem, cleansed the temple, then started competing with John the Baptist for followers all before his arrest. Which gospel is true?
@April Hudson So I think what you're saying is that in John, Peter and Andrew start following Jesus in Judea, then they go with him to Galilee and meet Philip and some others then they go back to Jerusalem for the temple cleansing, then they go out and baptize near JohnBap -- after this they leave Jesus and return to their fishing boats. Then after John Bap is arrested Jesus goes back and finds them fishing and tells them to start following him again. Eventually they go back and cleanse the temple a second time?
Btw, my John 3:22 is clear that Jesus was baptizing. In 3:26 JBap's disciples complain that Jesus is baptizing more people than John. In 4:1 Jesus knows he is baptizing more than John. Then in 4:2 we have an editorial correction -- a scribe inserted a note saying Jesus himself didn't actually baptize but his disciples did. But either way they were competing with John Bap for followers for a while. You can't read John any other way, can you?
Constantine did not officially change the sabbath to Sunday. He actually adopted Sunday as a sabbath to celebrate their idol Greek gods of mythology. Constantine did not want to change the Christian faith. He wanted to adopt it to strengthen his own and did not care if it was God of Greeks or Christians. He just wanted everyone to be on the same page so he took some things from his culture and then the Jew and made his own doctrine for his faith. Over time the Protestants to on those same beliefs and then in return made it law and tradition for a Christian’s. Remember, Jesus said he is the sabbath and that is why he never mentions which day to celebrate it on. Matthew 12:1-8
So yea at the time Jesus observed the Sabbath as to fulfill the law, but then after fulfilling that law, it made it so that Jesus is our new resting place. My question to you is this, what are supposed to do on the sabbath if we are to keep today? If that law is kept why not all the other 638 laws are not kept
Oh holy hell...attempting to "discredit" Bart Ehrman?? really ...?? Frank Turek needs to revise his book title to :
"I do not have Enough Critical Thinking Skills to be an Atheist"
@Alex Frank Turek: "You won the sperm race" Chino Hills CA July 2015..... Alex, going to have to ask you to not mention critical thinking skills anymore.
Nope. The title is right. "I Do Not Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist." I should know. I used to be one until God rescued me.
This lecture should be one word.
"No."
Moving on.
You could have, SHOULD have moved on w/o taking the time to comment.
@@Kman. i wouldnt have to comment were it not for legions of religious knuckleheads that can't tell sophistry from shinola.
I thought they didn’t use nails on crucifixion . Only Jesus being killed that way was seldom done ? So why bring up that foot with nail holes ?
Galatians 2:12-13 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
James half brother of Jesus? Where in the Bible does it say he was born from Mary?
Speculating a little bit ha ha ha
Well if...
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories......" - Dan Barker
Can anyone really be surprised if some people don't believe this?
It not magical though. Magic is an illusion.
@@andrewwilhelms1978 "MAGIC - having seemingly SUPERNATURAL qualities or powers" -
merriam-webster(dot)com/dictionary/magic
@@MrSitemaster2 as God forbids the use of conjuring spirits , and witch craft , there is nothing in His word that agrees with those practices.
@@berenlevia8486 Well...............
"And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod. And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it." - Exodus 4:2-3 (KJV)
@@MrSitemaster2 that was not use of magic, that was God changing the structure of an object which since He is Sovereign and Creator can do .
Since God holds His spoken and word.above His Holy Name, He makes Himself subject to His own standard of behavior and Law- one of those laws is the forbidding of the use of any kind of witchcraft or conjuring of ' spirits'.
I stopped.readingj.the.KJV translation years ago.
Wasnt it the First Council of Nicea that also congregated to discuss Arianism and then conferred different text with other text to form what we now know as The New Testament? I think history also reveals details & evidence that helps us to understand how everything was assembled to further prove ones stance as a believer.
Go through these same "7 Es" for, say, Mormonism, and you'll see that the historicity of Mormonism is much, much better attested. And yet, we can almost certainly dismiss the LDS church claims to miracles as false.
Can you explain further on the historicity of Mormonism? I'm struggling to understand your point.
@@cabletelcontar5440 Just step through the same criteria used by Frank Turek in this video and apply them to the miracles of the early Mormon church. By every standard, the Mormon church is much, much better attested (to the point where it's almost silly to compare them), or at least just as good (like the very flimsy 'criteria of embarrassment' or 'excruciating testimony').
1. Early Sources.
Christianity: Some letters 20 decades after the death of Jesus. Maybe a few lines of a creed 2-3 years after.
Mormonism: Multiple signed documents written on the day of the miracles described. Hundreds of documents from within weeks of the miracles they describe.
2. Eyewitness Details
Christianity: Two of the gospels say they are sourced from eyewitnesses (not eyewitness themselves). Acts has some details that are probably sourced from eyewitnesses.
Mormonism: Multiple independent, first-person, actual eyewitness accounts (from people who we have mountains of detail about), detailing the events they saw, and saying that they saw them with their own eyes. Much more than Christianity.
3. Embarrassing Stories
Christianity: The gospels sometimes make the disciples out to be foolish (not even the author themselves). Jesus is sometimes cast in a very non-Messianic light (but always implied to be 100% right in the end).
Mormonism: Multiple explicit censures from God to the individual leaders of the Mormon church. A multitude of accounts of mistakes, indiscretions, and bad judgements, admitted to by the early church leaders.
Etc.
@@inotterwords6115 and non mormon sources? Are those available?
@@cabletelcontar5440 Oh, yes... *way* better than we have for Christianity. Non-christian reports about early Christian beliefs are all from decades after the life of Jesus, and barely mention the basic beliefs of Christianity in a few lines in passing. Non-mormon reports about early Mormon beliefs are rife and early, even full newspaper articles, sermons from opposing churches, accounts from defectors from the church, etc, written within only a few years (or even months) of the miracles described. It's so much that the non-Christian references don't even compare, in number, detail, or date of writing.
@@inotterwords6115 Oh I see. You mean the history of Mormons from Joseph Smith.
No , It'a all just a 1st century fairytale .
@YoDaZ_K1ngBurg3r You know with historical certainty ? How ? By what historical record are you basing this claim ?
@YoDaZ_K1ngBurg3r I'm asking you to provide proof that Jesus existef
It's love
Is lie
Is lies
Where did Jesus go after he was supposedly resurrected? He just walked off into the sunset and nobody tracked what happened after that? Where is his grave today? He was mortal after all so had to die at some point.
Ron, do you bang your head against the wall regularly to be so stupid?
Did you ever read the first verse of the bible about the supernatural creation done by the supernatural creator, God? If you want to mock God, then you should have great evidence that creation happened all on its own. There is NO proof of that. Only a fool will even think that and accept it. Once that's accepted, then all the rest of foolish thoughts not caring about details will follow. Here is a great example of what a fool accepts. They started it by accepting a natural creation and is not embarrassed to show their ignorance from that point on.
So if you want to pretend you know what the bible says and took it in a sequential manner to understand it (which generally how books go), then show what a real bible expert you are and how much you love reasoning by giving evidence that creation happened differently from how the bible says it happened.
Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
The Sabbath was Never done away with. Paul always honored the Sabbath day. Paul said: But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call Heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, Believing All Things Which Are Written In The Law & The Prophets. For Not the Hearers of the Law are just before God, but the Doers of the Law shall be Justified. Do we then make Void the Law through Faith? God forbid: yea We Establish the Law. Your (so called) Jesus said: Think Not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets, but to Fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven & Earth pass, not one jot or tittle shall in No Wise Pass From the Law, till all be Fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, & teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Sabbath was made for Man, & Not man for the Sabbath. Plus God (YAH) said: remember the Sabbath day & keep it Holy. It is a Sign between me(YAH) & the children of Israel FOREVER!
Everyone should know what the word Forever means.
Paul did not "honor" the Sabbath day once he got saved in Acts 9. A matter of fact, he down played it.
Col 2:16 KJV Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Rom 14:5 KJV One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 KJV He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Rom 14:7 KJV For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
Rom 14:8 KJV For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
Jesus was being stoned not for calling himself god but gods son.
John 10:30,31
“30 I and the Father are one.
“31 Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.”
“36 do you say “to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”
Yeah, but they love their three gods too much and then lie it's only one god. It's impossible to have three 100% gods somehow be one god but they don't care. They'll make up any nonsense they want.
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Finish the Work haha he quoted the texts yet didn’t even see that the answer Is right there infront of him. Glory be to the LORD. GOD bless you
He was stoned for claiming to be YHWH, not God the Father. "The son of man coming with the clouds of heaven" and "seated at the right hand of power" are _divine_ titles given to YHWH. Even Jews believed the Son of Man was YHWH.
Before Abraham was - I AM.
I remember 9 11 I was hung over because I ? But the wife woke me against protocol, and I was watching this with terrible sadness in my heart , and then in front of my eyes a second plane hit ! That went from sadness to being enraged! What I hate is people like Justin Bieber lies about remembering! I don’t remember to many big things , for instance as a very young child I and my brother saw a child as young as we were get run over by a woman backing up , I don’t remember it , but I remember they brought in a big truck to throw dirt on the blood to clean it up , I saw it but thank God it was blocked , my parents said we had nightmares for some time , but maybe suppressing it changed me
If we don't have a true copy of the Holy Bible, then God has made it impossible to serve Him faithfully. Without the bible, man does not know how to live , or to please God. I have the Holy Spirit in my heart, so I know the bible is true.
Peter Thiessen
Have you got an original manuscript?
@@MartTLS, unlike you, other people find using their time more wisely than you. You prefer to bang your head against the wall on a regular basis so you can remain so stupid. Although that takes dedication, it's......still stupid.
No, there is no original manuscript. To a bozo the clown dumbass like you though, that's all you need and want to know. For others, we see that we have enough.
www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html
alwaysbeready.com/bible-can-it-be-trusted/
www.truthortradition.com/articles/the-bible-you-can-believe-it
www.bibleone.net/print_SF10.html
www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html
truthfaithandreason.com/case-making-101-how-does-the-bible-compare-to-other-ancient-documents/
Don't let any of this upset your love for being stupid. Continue to be your pretend bible expert. Don't forget, dumbass, I am still waiting for your science to counter mine how your view of creation happened naturally. Too bad you want to be so stupid because the FIRST verse of the bible says God did creation supernaturally. That fits ALL the science. But, go on being the dumbass you love being.
2fast2block
So you have nothing outside of the bible just some empty claims and circular reasoning .
So tell me what’s the earliest manuscript you have and what contemporary evidence outside of the bible can you present ? There is nothing in the first century no one outside of the bible even mentions Jesus and therefore nothing to corroborate he even existed . Talk about being gullible don’t you ever bother thinking for yourself?
“The first verse of the bible says god did creation supernaturally. That fits all science” HOW ?
Something supernatural isn’t science and the bible is a book it’s not an eyewitness account . The story of Genesis and creation is an allegory it’s not intended to be taken seriously and most Christians don’t even take it literally only fundamentalist simpleminded creationists like you .
Grow up only three year olds still believe in an imaginary friend .
I’ve already replied to your other demented rant on the other blog and eviscerated your puerile arguments .
You’d do better educating yourself on modern science and not pseudoscience and nonsense you’ve read in some 2000 year old book written by some goatherds who knew nothing about the universe so they had to invent a god to explain everything.
2fast2block
Why so angry little dumbass creationist?
You reveal your ignorance in just about every sentence you spout.
And nice strawman arguments. Atheism says nothing about how the universe started that would be the astrophysicists , it’s the lack of belief in a god or gods. Just because someone doesn’t believe in your sky magician it doesn’t follow that they believe everything came from nothing that’s a false dichotomy. There are many theories with which you should appraise yourself before making ignorant claims then you won’t come across as the typical creationist buffoon .
Please show me where anyone claims the universe comes from nothing I prefer to leave such things to creationists. And where does science say that everything you’ve denied like fine tuning ,(which isn’t an argument for your or anyone else’s god), or abiogenesis, is impossible and could never have happened on their own ? If that were true it would infer a creator and science or indeed scientists have never expounded that possibility.
While you’re at it please explain how a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being, which is the best description of nothing that I’ve heard, interacts with anything.
“None of you bozo the clowns can get round the info I gave”. Well we’ll see about that it hasn’t proved too difficult so far especially when you’ve lied and made up most of it because you clearly don’t understand any of it but that’s understandable it’s the creationist’s default setting.
You’ve ruled through your next paragraph presumably because you believe it’s nonsense so I will ignore it too.
“Then the extreme order we have in our universe that defies all physics “ You referred to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in one your previous posts but clearly you’ve never bothered to read it . What do you think entropy is ?
I suggest you go and educate before posting any more nonsense.
2fast2block
Scientists don’t yet know how life began and don’t claim to know UNLIKE creationists but they’re working on it UNLIKE creationists who have an old book written by ignorant Bronze Age men and expect everyone else to believe its nonsense based on their blind faith based belief .
I refer to your first video suggestion regarding James Tour I won’t bother with the others they are all irrelevant too . And this is what he had to say :
“Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.”
Oh and by the way neither does he subscribe to intelligent design .
“I’ve kept this very basic and brief” But of course you have little creationist because that’s the limit of your knowledge and understanding of science . I wouldn’t expect anything more from you or the Discovery Institute from whom you borrow your irrelevant information. What kind of science research do you think they are carrying out ? The answer is none because they’re not interested in finding out answers in science only denying it .
Let’s see if you can find out how many peer reviewed articles regarding intelligent design that the Discovery Institute has posted in say the last ten years . I’ll give you a clue what’s less than one ? Well that’s not quite right .
This was one by Michael Behe
Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
* Jerry Coyne has a good summary, he writes “this paper gives ID advocates no reason to crow that a peer-reviewed paper supporting intelligent design has finally appeared in the scientific literature. The paper says absolutely nothing-zilch-that supports any contention of ID “theory.” - Fail
So instead of regurgitating irrelevant nonsense you’ve seen on some creationist site go and educate yourself .
Dude can answer ever question under the sun. Yet I can’t find one video on when he thinks the rapture will be
Because nobody knows
willie true, scripture looks like it will be at the second coming but idk. After reading Mathew 24, not sure to believe pre trib.. hope I’m wrong
@@hunterchase6583 we have an idea of signs to come but nobody knows the date nor the hour. Just the way it is
The Church has not replaced Israel so the rapture is pre-trib. Reading Revelation it is written very odd if the church is in the trib given the complete absence of any reference to the church once the future events kick off.
Hunter Chase there are a bunch of scriptural evidence that support a pre-trib rapture and I would be happy to share as many as I know about with you, let me know if you want more. Here’s one- The Church is being addressed in the book of Revelation in chapters 1 through 3. The last sentence of chapter 3 is “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”
Then chapter 4 opens “After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.”
John sees a door open in heaven, and the Lord tells him He is going to show him things which must happen after. After what? After the rapture, the door opens, the church age ends, and God’s focus returns to Israel. You will not find the term “the church” in the rest of the book of Revelation. Because the prophetic events described from 4 to 22 are to wake up Israel and the rest of the Christ rejecting, sinful world.
Study the 70 weeks of Daniel. Search “DTBM Daniel 70 weeks”. Dr. John Barnett does a couple great studies on it. The church is the bride of Christ. We are not “appointed unto wrath. Whom He loves He chastens, but He does not pour out His wrath on His bride. Blessed hope, brother. Study up and pray, and know God is good!
OK so Jesus does so that we might live. The bible says that God told Adam that i the day that h ate the forbidden fruit, h would die, yet he continued to live for about another 800 years. That means that Adam SPIRITUALLY DIED and that this seems to imply PHYSICAL DEATH has nothing to do with sin - That all of us would have PHYSICALLY DID anyway. Hlop me to understand where I might be wrigglers because leaving out adjectives leaves room for misinterpretation.
Many people die for lies. Besides, the apostles did not decide if they would die, their executioners did. Trouble-makers were not spared in those days. Jesus was executed for "cleansing" the temple. Once convicted, he was not spared.
Love you Frank. Correction though. Jesus did not take away the "sins" of the world. He took away the "sin" of the world. Sins still exist but all sin was paid for. See the difference. Read the KJB, it gets it right.
If He took away the "SINS" of the world we would not see sin happening today, but we do.
MM was not a prostitute.
Jesus (Rabbi Immanuel) was not Killed, He may have been semi flogged, but I believe ALLAH Saved Him from Death per Prophecy, (Matthew 24:37)
One of the downsides to listening to turek’s material , is that you have to hear his awful jokes over and over again . Other than that, he is a great apologist
The first 6 Es are all based on the bible, so he is committing a Circular Argument. It is true because the bible says it.
All religious texts are fables and allegory meaning they never happened. The bible is to get the moral of the story, same with Torah and Quran unfortunately people take it too literal.
Very interesting claims.
Can you give us any evidence? In fact we need a 1st century evidence ,to believe in your claims.
Jay Silva 'All religious texts are fables and allegory meaning they never happened' where is your source of information to substantiate this claim?
First off, the Torah is part of the Bible. Second, the Qur'an tells men to strike their wives if they fear disobedience and fight those who speak against Allah. I don't think that qualifies as morals.
The Bible is uniquely coherent with historical evidence. Every other religion quickly falls apart under scrutiny.
I believe the Tanak is Gods "INSPIRED" word that was written on stone. The NT is a spiritual allegory written in the spirit, not literal. Jer. 31. Rome literalized it leading most to think Jesus was a literal man and he was not. John the baptist was the annointed one with the spirit of Elijah that came to lead the people back to the LORD (Yhwh). Jesus is metaphor for the old man (1st Adam) that must die to our own will and arise transformed by Elohiems spirit, the new man the last Adam. All sons born from Gods seed are the son of Elohiem. The trinity is the mystery religion of Babylon of worshipping a man as Elohiem the Almighty, an abomination. The crucifixion was spiritual not literal. The whole Christian religion is pure paganism which is why we told to COME OUT. The Revelation of Jesus Christ in the last book reveals this false christ created by Rome. This is revealed 3.5 years before the end of the age. We were warned about this false christ that would come to claim to be God in the flesh and lead to god-man worship. The trinity doctrine. The 1st commandment never changed and no one else died for YOUR SINS. But this truth will be rejected by most because they love to have an excuse to continue in thier sins. A HUGE MISTAKE. The mark of the beast is the trinity doctrine and human sacrifice for sins. Both an abomination to Yhwh. It was indeed a strong delusion.
If isn't God or Jesus isn't real then yes, humanities future is truly fucked, because as of now we headed down hill...
The easiest way to tell if Frank is lying is to just whether or not he is talking.
I thought a generation was 25 years. Nobody is on average 40 years old when they’re giving birth. More like 25.
That’s not what a generation is
@@sly8926 k. A generation is 25 years and always has been. Period.
@@dazdavis7896 always? Even when humans didn’t live to 25?
@@sly8926 Haha, nice try bud. We’ve always lived at least to 25. Some used to live a whole lot longer than we do now. What are you even talking about right now. When have humans “not lived to 25” , generations were not 10 years back then they weren’t having kids at 10 years old then old by 20 you blatant fool. Do you get how daft you sound rn?
@@dazdavis7896 For the vast majority of human existence, a majority of human beings didn’t live to 25. That’s just a fact.
What is your objective reasoning for saying a generation is 25 years? The use of “generation” in the Hebrew society in which Jesus lived was 35-40 years, generally.
My 11 year old just asked me if he was a comedian
Jeez these kids nowadays are watching the wrong things if Frank looks like a comedian.
Tell your kid that Frank is a used cars salesman and that his comedy routine about God is just a hobby.😂
Frank has made a lot of money saying the answer to question number 1 is yes.
And Richard Dawkins does the same saying the opposite. That doesn’t have any effect on the truth of what they claim.
Only a reprobate would hear this and say Christ never existed
The historical dude Jesus and the entire new testament being true are not one in the same. There is a very broad spectrum of possibility in terms of how much of the NT could be true.
It's not an all or nothing deal. All historical documents like the Bible are subject to bias, revision and a romanticized view as time passes.
It is a good talk, but Frank Turek is trying to convince people, based on rational argumentation, that Christianity is true. Conviction is not the same as faith, and the latter does not grow from the former. In fact, faith does not require any rational argumentation at all, it simply is. Faith can exist despite any rational argumentation against it, as has been demonstrated many times. Trying to prove something that is irrational by its very nature with the help of rational reasoning, is a contradiction, it seems to me.
NO!!
It can't all be true, given the internal contradictions.
Why do you yell?
Turn down your phone volume,pretty simple
He gets his point across and holds people’s attention. It obviously is his personality too-He’s ex-military. I like his style, he’s passionate.
He's from New Jersey.
It is only fitting that Frank Turek should mention Aristotle (43:20) when talking about the Trinity - the Trinity has its origin in Greek philosophy. Even before Aristotle, Heraclitus talked about the 'logos.' Logos went through several iterations with first Socrates, then Plato and later Philo of Alexandria (a contemporary of Jesus) who was most likely first to assign it a personality. It is impossible for John not to have known about the concept of the logos. Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who wrote much and lived at about the same time. In John, the logos (a Greek word meaning 'word') refers to Genesis 1. Jesus was the emissary from God who faithfully and accurately relayed God's word. In that sense God's word became flesh.
The Greek words used to render what Jesus said in John 8:58 (Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic and the Greek is a translation), ego eimi, were used many times in the New Testament - for example in John 9 the blind man whom Jesus had healed used them, and Pilate used them to deny being a Jew (who knows, maybe he denied being God, too) - but only here seen as a claim to being God. catholic-resources.org/John/Themes-IAM.htm How strange.
Jesus explicitly (Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied - www.thefreedictionary.com/explicit) said only the Father is God in John 17:3. That mandates the conclusion that neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit is God. Why is the Holy Spirit unnamed? Jesus also said that the Father is his God and our God. biblehub.com/john/20-17.htm The inescapable conclusion is that Jesus is not our God and that the God of Jesus is not the tripartite conglomerate of most of Christianity.
Paul also said, 'for us, there is only one God, the Father and one lord, Jesus Christ.' biblehub.com/1_corinthians/8-6.htm It cannot be any clearer that the Father is the only God. The Greek word used for lord, kyrios, means just that, a master or owner; properly, a person exercising absolute ownership rights; lord. biblehub.com/greek/2962.htm The Greek word is used 722 times in the New Testament and is often used for humans. biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2962.htm
John said he wrote his gospel, '...so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God...' NOT so that we can believe Jesus is God. When Peter said to Jesus, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (biblehub.com/matthew/16-16.htm) Jesus did not say, "no, no, no Peter. I AM the living God." Instead, Jesus said that Peter had been right. biblehub.com/matthew/16-17.htm
Jesus also said to the Samaritan woman at the well that the Jews knew God. biblehub.com/john/4-22.htm The Jews were strict monotheists. They didn't pray to a three-headed conglomerate. Likewise, when asked about the greatest commandment Jesus quoted (biblehub.com/matthew/22-37.htm) the shema in Deut 6:5. 'Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.' biblehub.com/deuteronomy/6-5.htm Note that the word LORD here is YHWH in the Hebrew and does not mean the same as the Greek kyrios. The Jews did not understand that as being a triple deity and Jesus said the Jews were right.
There is much, much more in the Bible that makes nonsense of the Trinity idea which comes from heathendom. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity All or nearly all the Church Fathers were into Greek philosophy. Here are more Biblical passages that fit the Unitarian belief much better than they fit the Trinity nonsense. www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
And, of course, 1+1+1=3 and not 1. No, multiplication is not used for addition. Don't be stupid.
Trinitarians get past the masses of clear evidence making nonsense of their belief by just ignoring it.
Can anyone supply any EXPLICIT evidence from the Bible for the Trinity like John 17:3 saying explicitly only the Father is God? Or what Paul said, or... Are you going to make the blind man in John 9 God?
The Trinity idea is most likely the stupidest thing humanity has ever come up with. There is no clear evidence for it anywhere in the Bible and it mandates that 1+1+1=1 - something which even a grade-school pupil knows is nonsense.
Can anyone refute any of this with fact or adult-level logic? Not emotional responses.
Enough for a cherry pie there. Oops that's emotive, although, somewhat less so than, "three-headed conglomerate". If you impose rules, you should stick to them.
You might or might not want to study 2nd Temple Judaism. You seem to be taking the post Talmudic definition of Shema and anachronistically redacting that back to the time of Christ. You confuse monotheistic trinitarianism with polytheism. Your phrase, "adult-level logic" is a pre-emptive ad hominem attack. You present evidence but set a higher requirement of 'facts' needed to refute you. I expect your skeptometer will be set at eleven. You seem to believe the inability of Christians to find a mathematical proof to a philosophical problem holds some significance. Perhaps you can prove Monet was better than Picasso using scientific falsifiability, according to the ideas set out by Karl Popper.
There are so many answers in the actual quotes you use, if only you could be bothered to read them contextually. However, you clearly state that your mind is made up. This is something you must do on your own if you really are seeking an answer to a question. I hope you are, rather than a troll on a fishing mission. God bless you.
@@agnesdei2846 One is one and three are three, whichever way you cut it. And three and one are not the same. OK, now trot out obfuscation, diversion and whatever crooked reasoning techniques you have.
Why don't you give the answers to the quotes instead of just insisting they are there? Is that because those 'answers' are clearly bad answers which even a three-year-old can ridicule? I have not seen any of the mathematical proof about which you talk. I've seen attempts, but they all involve collections with, as collections have, individual members still adding up to x individuals. And of course, the different states of one substance - the favourite is water, ice and steam. But that is modalism, which most Trinitarians reject. Artists feel they don't think. They are not to be consulted in matters where fact and reason matter.
When the crowd accused Jesus of claiming to be a god he corrected them and said he had claimed to be the son of God. biblehub.com/john/10-36.htm
@@grasonicus I too am skeptical. I don't believe you are real. I think you are a troll bot. You restate irrelevant arguments, create a straw man argument; in fact you act just as a programmed troll would do. You need to prove you are a real person.
>And, of course, 1+1+1=3 and not 1. No, multiplication is not used for addition. Don't be stupid.
Оf course, Chris. You, for example, have 1 reason ability, 1 will ability, 1 emotional ability. Therefore, you're 3 people. Sun radiates heat (1), rays of light (1) and is a star (1). Therefore, there are three suns in our solar system. (it was irony of course). Trinity doesn't mean there are three gods inside of it. We call God the Son, God the Father and God the Spirit by their common name - God. They are God (not three Gods which is absurd). Yes, they can perform independently of each other, but so are your legs and hands - they also can move independently of each other. So there are three coexistent Нуpostases or Persons in One God. No one says that God is one Person. No one says that God is a unity of three separate but related gods, because it is not a unity of independent Persons, it is the unity of Hypostases consubstantial and co-dependant Persons. They are independent from the world, not from each other (they can behave independently but always act according to their unity).
I suggest that before you start to talk about nonsense like 'even a grade people knows is nonsense' you should probably read some early Church Fathers. They specifically warned that the Trinity IS NOT a mathematical equation - you can not add it up, for it is absurd and totally contradicts the idea of Three Divine Persons in One Holy God.
P.S. And yes, the triads of gods were known before Christianity in ancient Hinduism, Greek philosophy and so on. It doesn't make them Trinity. For example Trimurti is translated as 'three forms' and is a unity of three aspects of pantheistic deity Brahman - Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver, he, who binds all things together) and Shiva the Destroyer). These godly aspects act independently but appear in the course of time (not eternal) and fade into nothing when each world cycle ends - return into Brahman (cease to exist). The neo-platonic triad is a triad of three deities - the One (the pantheistic deity) who emanates (throws out of himself) the Nous (Mind or Reason) and then the Nous emanates the World Soul. These are also not co-existing, co-eternal Persons but a triad of three non-personal divine Beings. There are even 7-formed unities of gods like in Zoroastrianism, such unities are not necessarily triads of gods ("Game of Thrones" religion of the Seven was based upon this concept).
@@Raiseflag_Surrender "Trinity doesn't mean there are three gods inside of it."
You can lie all you want but when you conclude all three are 100% each God, dumbass, you have three Gods.
Shove your stupid examples up your dumb ass. At least other dumbass trinitarians admit it's good to be confused by their garbage.
"The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . .
And Other Stupid StatementsAUGUST 27, 2009 C Michael Patton 155 Comments . . . and other stupid statements, Theology, Theology Proper, TrinityAlternate title: “Trinitarian Heresy 101”
“The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg: three parts, one thing.” Ever heard that? How about this, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like a three leaf clover: three leaves, one clover.” Or how about THIS, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like water: three forms (ice, steam, liquid) one substance.” But the greatest I ever heard was by a guy in one of my classes. He said that he thought that the Trinity was like 3-in-1 shampoo: three activities, one substance.”
Stupid statements. Creative, but stupid. Don’t use them. Any of them. Ever.
Explanation coming… Hang with me.
Last week I taught a group of kids about the doctrine of the Trinity here at the Credo House as part of our Theology for Kids series. The ages were anywhere from 7 to 13. Though I regularly teach this subject to adults, this was the first time that I taught the doctrine of the Trinity to kids. I was surprised that it went well. It is confusing enough for adults, how much more for kids?
Teaching the Trinity, I have found, is more about giving basic principles of what it is and then shooting down illustrations about what it is not. Proper Trinitarianism is about a delicate balance between the unity and diversity in the Godhead. Christians believe in one God, i.e., one essence, who eternally exists in three separate persons, all of whom are equal.
We often employ illustrations that help us to make the ineffable, effable, the abstract, concrete. But when it comes to the nature of God, especially with regard to the Doctrine of the Trinity, illustrations should only be used to show what the Trinity is not.
Let me list the three major heresies or departures from orthodoxy with regard to the Trinity:
1. Modalism: The belief that God is one God who shows himself in three different ways, sometimes as the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Holy Spirit. It describes God in purely functional terms. When he is saving the world on the cross, he is called Jesus. When he is convicting the world of sin, he is called Holy Spirit, and when he is creating the world, he is called Father. The error here is that this is contrary to what we believe: one God who eternally exists in three persons, not modes of functionality. It is not one God with three names, but one God in three persons.
2. Tritheism: The belief that we have three Gods, all who share a similar nature, but not the exact same nature. In this, the nature of God is either distinguished or divided, which destroys the unity of God. We don’t believe in three persons who share in a species called “God,” but three persons who share in an identical, united nature.
3. Subordinationalism: This is a subset of tritheism, but deserves its own category. In other words, if you are a subordinationalist, you are also a tritheist by definition, even if you don’t recognize it. The subordinationalist says that there is one God in three persons, but the essence of each person exists in a hierarchy. For example, many believe that God the Father is the greatest and the most powerful. Coming in second is God the Son, followed by the second runner-up, the Holy Spirit. Orthodox trinitarianism confesses an essential equality among all the members of the Godhead. None are greater in essencethan the other.
Here is a “Trinitarianism Heresy Test Chart” I have created. Keep this by your bed.
Notice:
If equality is denied, on the opposite side it points to subordinationalism.
If diversity is denied, the result is modalism.
If unity is denied, the result is tritheism (or polytheism -many gods).
With this in mind, let me now cover the “stupid statements” and why they don’t pass the test:
1. The Trinity is like 3-in-1 shampoo. This can only point to modalism or tritheism. It is modalistic if you are saying the shampoo performs three functions, yet is one substance. But you can also break down the various elements that perform each function and see them separately. That is tritheism since all of the elements are not the same. They may work together to perform a specific goal, but they are not really the same substance.
2. The Trinity is like an egg. This is most definitely tritheism. While the egg is one, each of the substances that makes up the parts (shell, white stuff, and yoke), are most definitely distinct. The yoke is completely separate in nature from the shell.
3. The Trinity is like water. This is a modalistic illustration. Ice, steam, and liquid are examples of the same nature which at onetime or another has a particular mode of existence. Sometimes it is liquid, sometimes it is ice, and sometimes it is steam. God is not sometimes Son, sometimes Father, and sometimes Spirit. He is eternally each, always at the same time.
4. The Trinity is like a three leaf clover. This is a form of tritheism. Each leaf of the clover is a separate leaf. It does not share in the same nature as the other leafs, but only has a similar nature. In the Trinity, each member shares in the exact same nature.
5. The Trinity is like a man who is simultaneously a father, son, and husband. This is an often used illustration, but it only serves to present a modalistic understanding of God that is false. Father, son, and husband only describe various functions of one person. Each function cannot exist in a simultaneous relationship with each other, can’t talk to each other, and cannot exist in an eternal relationship with each other.
6. The Trinity is like a person who is one, yet has a spirit, soul, and a body. This one, like the first, can commit either a tritheistic or modalistic error, but cannot be used to illustrate the orthodox definition of the Trinity. It is modalistic in that the spirit, soul, and body are three functions of one conscience or person. But it can also be tritheistic when one considers that the spirit is not the exact same nature as the body (or the soul if you are a trichotomist-another lesson).
In the end, I do not believe that there are any true to life illustrations that can or should be used to teach or describe the Trinity. The Trinity is not a contradiction (i.e. one God who eternally exists as three separate Gods), but it is most definitely a paradox (a truth that exists in tension).
This graph is helpful in describing the Trinity. It is called the “Shield of the Trinity.”
It is always best to remember that the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Son is God, but they are not each other.
One more thing. I often tell my students that if they say, “I get it!” or “Now I understand!” that they are more than likely celebrating the fact that they are a heretic! When you understand the biblical principles and let the tensions remain without rebuttal, then you are orthodox. When you solve the tension, you have most certainly entered into one of the errors that we seek to avoid.
Confused? Good! That is just where you need to be.
As the gospels are self and mutually contradictory, they cannot be a reliable source.
Evidence?
@@stephengendang1250 Two different stories for how Judas died. One gospel has a host of dead rising from their graves when Jesus is resurrected, something the other 3 gospels do not mention, nor is it reported by any Roman source. Different dates for the Birth of Jesus. Different dates for the Crucifixion. How many women went to the Tomb?
@@garywalker447, Oh, my, so you think your a bible expert. Did you ever read the first verse of the bible about the supernatural creation done by the supernatural creator, God? If you want to mock God, then you should have great evidence that creation happened all on its own. There is NO proof of that. Only a fool will even think that and accept it. Once that's accepted, then all the rest of foolish thoughts not caring about details will follow. Here is a great example of what a fool accepts. They started it by accepting a natural creation and is not embarrassed to show their ignorance from that point on.
So if you want to pretend you know what the bible says and took it in a sequential manner to understand it (which generally how books go), then show what a real bible expert you are and how much you love reasoning by giving evidence that creation happened differently from how the bible says it happened.
@@stephengendang1250 no contradictions, you're just failing to do your research and understand
JUDAS DEATH: There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. The Second Law of Logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction, (LNC) says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. It is not a contradiction to describe something differently: Judas was hung and Judas fell down. Both are possible since neither negates the possibility of the other. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are said to be true. So, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.
Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.
DIFFERENT DATES OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS: Since John was born on Passover, the 15th day of Nisan (the 1st Jewish month), Jesus would have been born six months later on the 15th day of Tishri (the 7th Jewish month). The 15th day of the 7th month begins the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:34-35), also known as Sukkot. Jesus was born on the 1st day of the Feast of Tabernacles! In the year 5 BCE, this fell in the month of September.”
“It is probable, because of the circumstances shown in Luke 1, that Mary conceived during the last two weeks of Elizabeth’s sixth month. Thus, John was born in the spring of 4 BC, probably between March 18 and 31. By projecting forward another six months to Jesus’ birth, the most probable time for His birth occurred between September 16 and 29.”
“From the 15th day of Nisan (John’s birthday), we add six months to arrive at the 15th day of the 7th month, Tishri - the first day of the festival of Sukkot.”
“Theologians have also suggested that Jesus was born in the spring, based on the biblical narrative that shepherds were watching over their flocks in the fields on the night of Jesus’ birth - something they would have done in the spring, not the winter.”
JESUS CRUCIFIXION TIMING: At what hour was Jesus crucified? The answer is easy when you realize that there were two different time systems being used.
The third hour, Mark 15: 25, “And it was the third hour when they crucified Him.”
The sixth hour, John 19:14-15, “Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” 15 They, therefore, cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.'”
Most probably, John was using the Roman measurement of time when dealing with the crucifixion. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for the most part, used the Hebrew system of measuring a day: from sundown to sunup. The Roman system was from midnight to midnight. “John wrote his gospel in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and therefore in regard to the civil day, he would be likely to employ the Roman reckoning.
REGARDING THE WOMEN IN THE TOMB, CHECK THIS ARTICLE: humblesmith.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/how-many-women-were-at-jesus-tomb/
Regarding Matthew stating the saints rose from the dead, just because there are no other sources doesn't mean it didnt happen, Matthew tells us that they entered the holy city, and many people saw them. They may have had immortal bodies. Remember that Jesus’ new immortal body was recognized by the apostles after He opened their understanding (Matthew 28:10-11; Luke 24:14-16, 31). Therefore these saints may have also been recognized, but we cannot be dogmatic. Just imagine that someone saw a friend who had died years ago. Maybe a mother saw her dead son or a wife saw her deceased husband. This must have been a very emotional surprise and shock to many people in Jerusalem. They had to know that it was connected to Jesus’ death and resurrection. Most likely these resurrected saints did not remain on the earth very long since the New Testament does not refer to them again. This was a pre-rapture event.
Jesus never claimed to be God
Wasn’t peter there at the cruce ? Didn’t Christ say he was Mary’s son ?
Peter was not at the cross and he was not related Mary.
No... that was John. Read the scripture
That was Lazarus at the cruce. Actually Lazarus wrote John. Read the scripture carefully you will know. Either his name is John Lazarus or some John completed the gospel which was written by Lazarus.
Jesus cleared up that he didnt call himself God. He refers to God aka the Father separetly many times. If God is all powerful he would never be less powerful even if he was reborn as a human lol
Even if you believe that the New Testament is true as Frank says, what about the people who have never laid eyes on this book called the Bible? Is their unwanted ignorance going to cost them dearly as in going to Hell because of unbelief? Doesn't make sense. If the God of the Bible is real you'd think that He'd use the internet or a more modern way of communication, rather than just through printed words
What do you think is happening right now?
No - all souls that have ever lived since Christ’s Ascension, and, as He said, all those who lived before Him - from any tribe - will be judged by Jesus alone and He will be the arbiter of perfect justice.
Look what He did to the one thief on the cross next to Him at the 11th hour of life? … Judged the crook in a split second (of our time) and told him “Tonight you’ll be with me in paradise”.
Job done.
Nice try though.
Who wrote the gospels?
No one knows. They were given the names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John in 175CE by Ireneus.
My OpenMind, don’t listen to Itsatz, he’s clearly a scoffer. The Gospels were written by the authors that are named. Matthew was an apostle (also called Levi) Mark was a disciple of Peter. Luke was a doctor, and mainly followed Paul, I believe, and he also wrote the book of Acts. John was one of the twelve, and was part of the “inner circle” of Peter, James, and John. John also wrote the book of Revelation. Hope this helps.
@@Bigeartheory The gospels are proven fairytales. They were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Nobody knows who wrote them. Those names do not appear in them. (Did you ever read them?) They were given those names in the year 175CE by a guy called "Ireneaus." Proven fairytale. czcams.com/video/rhM5lbVBgkk/video.html
itsatz I don’t trust Bart Ehrman, he is a self proclaimed liar. Your “proof” wouldn’t get past a simple hearing in a court of law. If you were interested in the truth (which obviously you’re not) you would study it on your own instead of watching one video. If Christianity were true would you be a Christian?
Travis Hadley your wrong. Even the Catholic Church and most seminary schools of other religions tell us that the gospels were not written by the people who’s names they bear.
As for Bart Erhman, he’s just citing mainstream academics Christian scholarship. There’s nothing controversial is his observations regarding the authorship of the gospels.
LDS are Christians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. The Book of Mormon is not an addition to the Bible its another testimony to Jesus Christ. We only Worship God and Jesus. Ask me a question and ill give you an answer to your antimormon question.
I've never read the Book of Mormon. Does it align with the Bible? What do you believe about Jesus? I'm honestly asking because I've never had a conversation with a Mormon before.
Here is a question: is St John still alive today?
@@Allen_Sherry Here's a question: why do dumbasses love to comment such stupid questions like, "is St John still alive today?"?
@@MP-kc8sl "I've never read the Book of Mormon. Does it align with the Bible?"
Do you ever research on your own? Do you want people to put answers in your lap?
"What do you believe about Jesus?"
Who gives a rat's ass what I believe?! I want to believe what the evidence shows, not what I want to believe or care what others believe.
"I'm honestly asking because I've never had a conversation with a Mormon before."
You're not honestly looking. You're honestly lazy.
@@2fast2block Because in the Mormonism belief, St John never died and still alive today.
That can't be the box with Jesus of Nazareth because Jesus comes from the Greek word Laceous , Jesus's real name was Yahshua H'amashiach (the messiah) the name Jesus was invented only 500 yrs ago
Timothy Wayne
Jesus name was translated into English it would be translated as Joshua hence the Yashua which is the modern Hebrew pronunciation; not the Aramaic and not the ancient Hebrew either. We don’t truly know if this name had the same sound as the modern only that it’s very close. The name Jesus isn’t a made up name but an amalgamation.
Likewise I don’t think it was 500ad more likely 351ad. This is still in flux by linguist and biblical archaeologist.
there is probably no god, if there is why doesn't he make himself known to me; he should know what to do to
Here is a question: If Christianity was true, would you be a Christian? If God were to show you that He is real, would you follow Him?
@Dd S That's the first. Most times when I ask this question, people say no. So if by some way you get clear evidence that God does exist, you bow your knee and worship Him?
@Dd S Well... you said that there is probably no God, so you probably kept yourself open. The question that I have is: what kind of evidence are you looking for?
@Dd S Sorry. That was the opener. Anyways, what evidence are you looking for?
@Dd S How do you know that I have no evidence for God?
I honestly don’t think this guy is being dishonest. He is saying false things, but that doesn’t mean he is not honest. I think he believes every word of what he is saying here.
I just think he is just dealing with cognitive dissonance and that leads him to believe in things that aren’t true. It is very clear to me that he doesn’t understand at all why people become atheists. And instead of actually trying to understand why, he comes up with absurd theories and falsehoods that comfort him.
It is far easier to for him to say “Bob became an atheist because Bart Erhman lied to him about the Bible” than to say “Bob became an atheist because the Bible was altered and mistranslated.” This way he doesn’t have to confront the uncomfortable reality that the Bible he considers to be inerrant was altered and mistranslated.
“If you think you know everything, you’ll never learn anything,”
Most of the new Testament is PAULS words, yet JESUS said, "Go and do what I...say!" Sure, Paul had good things to say, but PAUL isn't the one whom provides our salvation, it is JESUS! So what did JESUS say? What are the "words in red?" I think what JESUS specifically said is most important to follow, not Paul.
Paul never claimed to be the salvation, neither did he draw the blanket to himself.
saxman jpr
“For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ”(Galatians 1:12).
“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”(1 Corinthians 15:37).
Using science and history to prove that the NT is true is absurd. Jesus is our Savior. What more truth is needed?
"What more truth is needed?" Certainly more than your personal assertion of a fantastic claim.
@@philipfarnam6013 you consider my comment to be "fantastic" only because you believe in nothing extraordinary. Science is a young endeavor compared to religion. Too many assert that their "discoveries" are truth after observing phenomenon under laboratory conditions. Labs aren't real life. Some of your discoveries are more "fantastic" than any religious assertions could ever be.
@@rosalindbutler1160 Well, here are two "fantastic" discoveries from science: #1 virgins don't have babies #2 dead people don't become alive again. Believe whatever you want. Logic and reason keep me apart from such nonsense.
@@philipfarnam6013 a virgin can become pregnant. If you used that big brain of yours for several seconds you could figure out how.
Nevertheless, I do not believe Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. She and Joseph obviously jumped the broom prematurely. I know the Bible says otherwise, but the men who wrote it did not tell the truth.
I never understood why Mary had to be a virgin for Jesus to be the Messiah.
@@philipfarnam6013 Have all of life's mysteries been solved? Rising from the dead is improbable you, but you are a song person. I don't recall anyone conferring perfect knowledge on you or any other human.
Well as Jesus said, he didn’t come to change the Old Testament so I presume that it’s still a sin to wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shellfish, stone naughty children and all the other ridiculous pronouncements in the silly old book of multiple choice.
Bathseba was a Jew.
The Bible has been written translated written translated Rewritten translated Rewritten translated Rewritten translated Rewritten translated Rewritten I could go on and on and on and on and on how many times the book has been Rewritten it couldn't possibly be the same book
Virtually all modern bible translations are translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek manuscripts and anyone can go see the early documents for themselves to see how well they align. You're just regurgitating misinformation.
It has been translated a whole bunch of times you mentioned four times and your own statements anytime you translate something from 1 language to another you always lose something just a fact the original manuscripts or supposedly written in a language nobody even speaks anymore
I was just curious which version of the Bible do you believe in the Geneva Bible for the King James version
You put those two books together they don't match up
Do a little bit of research before you start speaking
Acts was written after Luke. Gospel of Luke contains details of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 including the seige (21:20). So Luke and Acts were both written after 70 CE. Real scholars (not Turek) date it to 80-90 CE. Acts does not mention the deaths of Paul and Peter because they were killed by the Romans--something the NT writers were trying to sweep under the rug, not because they were not dead yet as Turek claims. Why evangelical preachers make up this nonsense is a puzzle to me. Why base your preaching on obviously false data?
Jesus told him the details of how Jerusalem would be destroyed in luke 21:20, it's what that conversation is about. Also the scholars that I've come across generally put the books at 65-67 ad. If you have them, I'd like to look at the source, always open to more details.
@@SeekWatman Jesus died sometime in the early 30s. He would have had no idea that Jerusalem would be destroyed in 70. To the contrary Jesus was leading a Messianic rebellion that he thought would succeed. He anticipated that God and the heavenly hosts would destroy the Roman occupation and an independent kingdom of Israel would be restored, much as prophesied in Psalms of Solomon 17. In general, evangelicals date the NT books far earlier than most historians and biblical scholars apparently because they suppose an early composition date improves perceived trustworthiness. You can google any NT book and find consensus date ranges for them.
Firstly, the idea of God destroying the Roman's and remaking Israel is a Judaic read of the text, now I'm not Jewish I'm Catholic just to be clear. I read that passage through the lense of Christ so I come away with different theological ideas.
Secondly, ok let's say Jesus is just some dude, he's a guru who knows the law pretty well, there is no way he knows about the temple being destroyed. Luke does, because he is writing after the fact (there's a question of age here but we will ignore this for now) and in this conversation with Christ to make him look mystical and stuff, has Jesus say the detail to add evidence to his claim. Luke only has Jesus say it will be destroyed, That's a pretty weak claim if we look at it. No details, no "the Roman's will do it" no comment on how it will collapse, just that it will. Now if I'm trying to prop Jesus up as some God man why would I just stop at saying it'll fall, would I not add details that you wouldn't know unless you were there? Maybe I didn't because I didn't want to over sell Jesus's powers (despite writing about other miracles) but I'll need some evidence that that is what luke was doing or an example where he has downplayed Jesus to create a similar effect. Otherwise this is just a one off example of luke writing about history and saying jesus predicted it. So I'm gonna stick with Jesus can see the future on that one.
Thirdly, sorry but I don't accept google as a reliable source, no academic does, I know St Google gives me 70-80 but the scholars I've read and my lectures in church history at uni give me 60-67 (I say 65). Still if you could give me the guys name or the organization that says 70, I'd be more than happy to do wider reading.
@@SeekWatman Nobody thinks google is a "reliable academic source," it is just an online index that lets you find a wide variety of academic and non-academic resources fairly quickly. It is up to the user to assess the value of each listing that it locates.
You make an astute point that the text does not say "the Romans will do it." In general, NT writers are careful not to blame the Romans for anything, simply because they are trying to survive under Roman rule. Notice that Acts has no problem recounting the stoning of Stephen by the Jews, but the entire NT and early church fathers are silent on the execution of Peter and Paul by the Romans. Not a peep about the Neronian persecutions, and not a peep about the Roman responsibility for the destruction of Jerusalem. It was bad politics back then for Christians to make the Romans look evil. They even went overboard trying to make Pilate look like a nice guy.
Are you suggesting Jesus knew enough to prophesy in advance that Jerusalem would be destroyed but he didn't have a clue that the Romans would do it? Who else would it have been?
Most scholars date Acts in the later 1st century based on a sequence of assumptions: (1) Mark was composed in 65-70, most likely after the death of Peter, (2) Luke used Mark as a source, (3) Luke is much more evolved ideologically than Mark, so it is likely that another decade or two elapsed between them, (4) Luke is aware of the destruction of Jerusalem. Collectively those observations suggest a probable date in the 80 to 90 range, but nobody knows with certainty.
The early church fathers and even Marcion are completely silent on the existence of Acts until Iranaeus quotes it in 180 CE. So the latest possible composition date is some time prior to that.
@@fotoman777 "You can google any NT book and find consensus date ranges for them." and "it is just an online index that lets you find a wide variety of academic and non-academic resources fairly quickly. It is up to the user to assess the value of each listing that it locates." Are not exactly the same in what they argue, the former seems to say it's a known fact while the other leaves open the assertion "well you're just using the wrong sources". But this is beside the point, the subject of google only came up because i was asking for your source on the information, the response i received was "You can google any NT book and find consensus date ranges for them." but i'm looking for the source that you specifically like so i can learn from it.
Firstly, Pilate was a nice guy. The problem of Jesus was a jew problem, not a roman problem, he had to reach to come to some reason why they should crucify him (and in the worst of the worst sense, not the normal sense of using rope). A point you brought up is this, the reason that the early writers didn't write about peter or paul or who destroyed the second temple is simply politics. You don't say bad things about your oppressor when you are oppressed, it's just logic.
Acts 16:35-38 (Luke writes about the romans mistreating romans)
Acts 22:22-30 (Luke writes about romans not knowing that they mistreated a roman)
Acts 10:1 (A CENTURION WHO IS DEVOUT TO GOD)
I'm focusing on luke, but there are other and many instances where things were written that would have been sensational to the romans, the idea that early Christians were afraid of controversy is wild. When practising Eucharist they would be called cannibals by the romans and hunted as such, do you think we stopped saying "This is the body of Jesus", of course not.
Secondly, the claim I was fighting was this. Luke knows the temple is destroyed and that is why it is in the gospel of Luke. So the Spiritual Catholic would say Jesus is God, of course he knows the temple will be destroyed, he knows everything, that's why he said it. I put forward a potential (and i think strong in this case, I don't know i'm generally bad at iron manning) argument of why luke inserted it there (because it isn't anywhere else in lukes writing) and described why i think it's wrong and how you have to make a couple leaps about the author to make it sound correct.
Thirdly, I'm going to give you a excerpt from 'Warren J. Moulton' from 'The Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' published by 'Journal of Biblical Literature' 1918
He (Prof. Torrey) supposes our present Book of Acts to have been composed in Rome in 64, while the Gospel of Luke may have been written in 60, on the basis of material gathered by that evangelist while Paul was kept prisoner at Caesarea. Torrey anticipates two objections to his conclusions that seem to call for refutation. The first is the one already touched upon in speaking of the view of Harnack, namely, Luke's supposed allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem (21: 20-24). It is replied that nothing here goes beyond the predictions of the Old Testament (for example, Zech. 14: 1 ff.; Dan. 7: 25 and 12: 1, 7) and Jerusalem's previous experiences with besieging Roman armies. The second is the not infrequent contention that Luke knew and used the Antiquities of Josephus, a work which cannot have been written earlier than 93 or 94. Torrey shows anew in a concise but convincing way that such a conclusion is unfounded.
I don't really want to wall of text you with the rest of it but he puts forward the argument and it's sound.
Funny you should mention Marcion too, he was a bit of a odd character wasn't he.
Why do we have reasons to be skeptical? How about this for now on every time you try to tell someone about Jesus, first you need to say this as a disclaimer. The first 4 gospels that we rely on for salvation and to tell us who is God was written by for anonymous people that we have no clue who they are, but since having four Anonymous letters doesn’t seem trustworthy so we decided to give them names as according to Matthew, mark, Luke & John. Also one of the biggest writers of our New Testament never actually met Jesus but claimed he did in a vision ( Paul has the same amount of credit as someone like John Smith) and the actual followers of Jesus who learned from Jesus himself they didn’t trust Paul and had problems with him. I believe Jesus would had went to Peter and tell him He was choosing a new apostle for the Gentiles but Peter north James new anything about.
god spoke to me. I wrote a book. Thousands believe, and have given their lives, out of faith to protect gods word. Have faith in me?
I am grateful to say that I am a born again Christian and have been since I was 19.......the reason I believe we have ppl who are atheists in this society is because of the fall of sin and the deceit of Satan! folks if you don’t know Christ as your savior then it burdens my soul to think that you are headed for a terrible place called Hell where the Bible says the fire is never quenched and the worm dies not!! If anyone is looking for real evidence of God then I believe creation is the proof! Look outside at the sun the moon the stars the blue sky the trees the mountains etc we know that everything created has a creator just like buildings have a builder and it’s pretty clear that nothing just suddenly appeared by chance or evolve out of nothing! Read your Bible and you will learn just how this universe got started and really it is not me but the Holy Spirit that I pray reveals to you the truth of his precious gospel......Folks you are not promised tomorrow! If you want to know how to be saved from this horrible reality then please by all means don’t hesitate to comment right back so I can lead you to the savior! 2 Corinthians 6:2 clearly states “now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation!” And Hebrews 3:15 clearly states, “Today if you hear his voice don’t harden your heartsJohn 3:16 says for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes on him will not perish but have everlasting life! V 17 says then V 18 says whoever believes on the son is not condemned but whoever does not believe on the son is condemned already because he has not believed on the son whom God has sent! Also Acts 16:30-31 what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house I am not threatening anyone but just warning them what will happen if they reject this precious gift of eternal life! Christ died a horrible criminals death! He was beaten brutally mocked spit upon and endured countless hours of torture pain for all of our sins! Ppl go to hell because they reject that pardon for their sins! And Jesus is saying to them in Matthew 25:41 depart from me you cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels! Hell was only prepared for Satan and his angels! It is not God who threatens anyone it is the craziness of rejecting the free pardon of salvation! It’s like if you’re in court you’ve committed a crime say you murdered someone! Now if you say to that Judge hey I know I’ve done a terrible thing of murdering that person but I hear you’re a good judge and so I know you’ll be fair to me...... the judge is going to reply well yes you’re right about one thing I am a good judge and because I’m a good judge I’m going to see to it that you’re punished and that justice is served! Well then all of a sudden someone you don’t even know comes forward and says you know what I know he’s committed the crime he’s committed and he deserves to go to jail but I really don’t want to see him go to prison so I’ll just go to prison for him so he can go free! So if you accepted that offer you’d be free to leave the courtroom but if you didn’t well you’d be crazy and go to prison yourself! Well that’s exactly how it was 2,000 years ago! He is God in human flesh and he came to this earth lived a perfect sinless life and even though he knew that we had sinned and because of our sins deserved to die miserably but he said no I don’t want to see them suffer so I will go and take their punishment for them! Even though he did absolutely nothing wrong still he chose to take the punishment for our sins so we can be set free from the power bondages and consequences of our disobedience to God! Romans 5:8 says For God commends his love toward us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us! 1 John 2:2 says he was made to be the propitiation for our sins! And not just for our sins but the sins of the whole world! 2 Corinthians 5:21 He who knew no sin became Sin for us that we would be made his righteousness! The truth is if you had to get to Heaven by your own effort then you cannot do it! Because Romans 3:10 says there is not one that does good! No Not One! Romans 3:23 says For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God! Romans 6:23 says For the wages of sin is death! But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our lord! But the good news is Romans 10:9 If we confess with our mouth and believes in our hearts that Christ died for our sins then was raised from the dead we will be saved! V 10 For it’s with the heart we believe and it’s with the mouth confession is made unto salvation! God gave us 10 commandments to follow and we’ve broken every one of them! And because God is a good God he cannot allow our disobedience to him to go unpunished! Well then like I just mentioned above his son Jesus stepped forward and said no I don’t want to see them punished so I will take their punishment for them! And also like I said he died a terrible substitute criminal’s death for us on a cross so now all we have to do is accept that payment for our sins and we can escape the terrible wrath of God that is to fall on them who do not accept this atonement that was sacrificed for our sins! Praise the lord Romans 10:13 says Whoever calls on the name of the lord shall be saved! And 1 Peter 1:4 you’re an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you! Christ clearly said in John 14:6 I am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the father but through me! Acts 4:12 clearly states that there is no other name given unto Heaven or earth by which we must be saved as there is salvation in no other! Jesus clearly states that there is clearly only one way to Salvation and it’s him that’s it! There is no other way! God Bless everyone who reads!
I'm a Mormon and very much Christian 😊 44:04
Here's a summary of Mormon (we do prefer to be called members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) beliefs:
1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Pure deception. It is real but talking loes and fantasies.
So how do you explain the contradictions?
The only contradictions come from those who comment without reading the source. They arrogantly suggest they know more than the creator who's hand wrote the Bible, and designed them.
jim ledsome So if I pointed out one genuine contradiction in the Bible would you agree that the Bible is false or have you already determined to follow Christianity blindly?
@@jennifercarrico681 Show it then.
Raphael I’d be glad to. There are contradictions in the Bible. There are so many of them, and yet it only takes one to disprove the entire Bible. I know many can be explained away, but others simply cannot. The biggest contradiction, in my opinion, deals with the very core of Christianity. God’s love. Some verses says that he loves everyone, earnestly wishing that everyone would be saved. Others however, says that he does not and the Bible goes so far as to say that he only loves the elect (which is the few) and that the vast majority of people he predestined to go to hell.
Verses that prove God DOESN’T love everyone:
John 15:16, Acts 15:17-18, Romans 9:11,
1 Thessalonians 1:4, Proverbs 16:9,
Romans 9:15-23, Acts 13:48, Romans 9:21-23
Verses that prove God DOES love everyone:
John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 4:8,
Romans 11:32, 1 John 2:2
And if somehow you have an answer, then my next question is, if God loves everyone (in any way, shape or form) then why did he create people he KNEW would end up in hell. Is he an evil god that loves to watch people burn?
@@jennifercarrico681
All the above texts the you said that prove God doesn't love EVERYONE, and the following that you said prove that God does love EVERYONE are not a contradiction. The contradiction is in your understanding. You don't understand the Bible because first of all, you are not a born-again Christian (read I Corinthians 2:14). You must first have the Spirit to guide you to understand (John 16:13) the message you are reading. You cannot just pick verses and judge them by your own understanding. God didn't create people to be punished in hell. Read 2 Peter 3:9. Has God created people to be punished in hell? If so, then why did he want them to be saved according to 2 Peter 3:9? Where did you read that in the Bible?
Where is the original version of the Bible? Where? You are just diverting because you don’t have it. Period.
Ron, do you bang your head against the wall regularly to be so stupid?
Did you ever read the first verse of the bible about the supernatural creation done by the supernatural creator, God? If you want to mock God, then you should have great evidence that creation happened all on its own. There is NO proof of that. Only a fool will even think that and accept it. Once that's accepted, then all the rest of foolish thoughts not caring about details will follow. Here is a great example of what a fool accepts. They started it by accepting a natural creation and is not embarrassed to show their ignorance from that point on.
So if you want to pretend you know what the bible says and took it in a sequential manner to understand it (which generally how books go), then show what a real bible expert you are and how much you love reasoning by giving evidence that creation happened differently from how the bible says it happened.
@@2fast2block I would love to respond to your comment, but either English is not your first language and it would be unfair to engage you in logical arguments in English, or you are a deluded, brainwashed primitive superstitious person who would not understand logic anyway.
@@urasam2 " I would love to respond to your comment, but..."
but you're a wimp who can't.