Revelations 1:14-15 "His hair and his head were white like WOOL, and his eyes were like a blazing fire. His feet were unto fine brass as if they had burned in a furnace."
The depiction of him in this video is NOT how he looked like, but is based on Leonardo DaVinCi's supposed painting of Christ which was really of Cesare Borgia. If you think I'm lying, type in Cesare Borgia in Google Images and see if you don't find the White Images of Christ.Christ came from the Tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14)
i believe in god and jesus and love them both with all my heart because that is my religion i dont have to listen to anyone else except for myself and the bible if you dnt believe that is what you choose to do so we christians need to stop judging because the bible said we shouldnt and let all live their own life they way the wont.
i believe in god and jesus and love them both with all my heart that is me because that my religion i dont have to listen to anyone else except for myself and the bible if you dnt believe that is what you choose to do so we christians need to stop judging because the bible said we shouldnt and let all live their own life the way the wont.
@ToaoRaj . Ask him to reveal Himself to you with an open heart, then wait and trust....you will see the truth. Don't lean on your own understanding. He is risen.
The real spirit of Jesus Christ lives in the heart of those persecuted in his name and in the hearts of children - who truely believe without question or reservation. "Unless we become like little childen, we shall not inter the Kingdom of God."
they really believe jesus is gonna come flying down here out the sky. Christians are funny. and btw jesus wasnt ugly and white and gay looking and wimpy, waek looikng
I cant wait to meet him, i know hes in my heart, but i cant wait to see him in defacto, i see him by his people, but i cant wait to really meet him, we cant get all caught up in the world's perception of him, we have got to get to know him for ourselves
woah chill everyone. In Terms of trying to prove Christ through science, I don't really think you can do that with any historical figure. For example how can you prove through science that Socrates or Aristole lived? You can't, we just know that they existed because of their "writings". There are however wonderul miracles that still take place to this day, such as the Eucharistic miracles, people being healed, things of that nature, miracles attributed to Mother Mary, look them up if you'd like!
I don't mean to diss uploader , but vid is really unscriptural .... Jesus was'nt white & sure was'nt negro .... he was a coppertoned Isrealite Rev.1:14,15 - Dan. 10:6 , color of fine brass as burned in a furnace > dark tan or coppertone . The caucasion blue eyed Jesus is almost as offensive to me as the black hebrew Isrealite claims he was a negro .... I guess it was too hard to get a bunch of jews for the cast of this vid.... plus there are only male angels ; no females.... otherwise good vid
So many people complain about the way I talk to them here on these foolish discussions, but when I try to interject some actual rational and inoffensive conversation I get nothing in reply. So... what exactly is it people want? I think people here just want to have a forum to argue, so why should I bother to offer anything but words to argue with? @SirChilling I'm directing this comment primarily at you... hint, hint.
@TruGroovez How does having a well-thought-out view on the nature of life, the universe and everything make me "narrow minded"? I'm afraid I can't comment on your second sentence, because it isn't a sentence and doesn't make sense. Yes, I attack poor communication. Why? Because if people want to get a point across they should do so in a way that the person reading it can understand what is being said. If they do not, then they are only setting themselves up for being laughed at.
@TruGroovez My brother, Luke 3:14 state's that not even soldiers should be doing violence to any man. Not to provoke or insult you, but to remind you. Much love.
@narfanoid good on ya? correct english is; good on "you" please use your own standards when communicating.. my last comment as you may have noticed, has been removed. I wouldnt want to you enjoying a successful provoke - God Bless you nanfaniod.
@TruGroovez Nice try. You took a well-known manner of speaking (which I was clearly using intentionally), and tried to turn it around against me. Try harder next time. And I don't think I have ever had to remove a comment because I was afraid someone would find something in it that they could use against me. It must be terrible not being able to control your urge to just post whatever falls out of the ends of your fingers.
@narfanoid I didn't remove a comment because i was afraid. That my friend is where you are wrong.. if it makes you feel good to think that was the case, then so be it. I removed the comment because advice from a brother was taken on board - Hence my previous "chil pill" comment I made 1 day ago. - nice try ;).
@TruGroovez Errr... OK... then why did you say this? "my last comment as you may have noticed, has been removed. I wouldnt want to you enjoying a successful provoke " Sounds to me like you removed it because you were afraid I was going to find flaws in it.
@SirChilling Good communication begins with good writing skills. How can one take you seriously when you write the way you do? It's difficult enough to take you seriously when you fight to defend such a silly idea as the existence of a god. I'm actually very good at communicating with human beings. Are you? Or do you prefer to sit alone in your room with the door closed and talk to the ceiling?
@SirChilling Why don't you OPEN a door? Like, perhaps the door to a good science library. Why don't you open the covers of some well written books about where science is going these days? I don't mean those pseudo science books that claim research supports religion, those are complete foolishness, written mainly by people who are just trying to gain acceptance for their beliefs. No, I mean REAL science. The stuff that leaves the supernatural out of the picture.
@narfanoid Yo Atheist dude, I don't get what your invested interest is in trying to convince people who clearly believe and are going to believe no matter what you say. Also, how much of these books do you read yourself? Do you just follow the lead of Dawkins and Hitchens? The thing about "disproving" religion through science is, it's like trying to use a microscope to study astronomy. Theories and questions in spirituality are bigger than the scientific method, it deals with more than we know.
@TOMZAUGG The word "atheist" does not fully describe my view. It is too narrow. You are correct that science cannot (and does not) set out to disprove religion. However, science continually finds things that make religious beliefs more and more antiquated and less and less likely.
@TOMZAUGG My whole point behind my words is not to convince the believers, because I know I can't perform miracles. My point is to try to shake people up and make them stop thinking of those of us who don't choose to believe fairy tales as "evil" or "misguided" or some such foolishness. The world view I support, and which I share with MANY others, is completely rational and justified, based on years of research and consideration. Saying I'm just a bad person who rejects god is utter tripe.
@narfanoid I don't regard atheists as evil, also I never said u were a bad person. Also I didn't say what you believed was irrational, however what I take issue with is the concept that because of someone's faith and belief in God their perspective towards tackling some of the more cutting edge view on science are immediately discounted. I don't think science is a religion, it's a tool and method system. U should do some work on ur reading comprehension, I already told u I'm studying genetics.
@TOMZAUGG Yeah, well you're not the only person I've ever had a conversation with. What's your point? It's not impossible for a believer to also be a good scientist. It IS impossible, however, for a good scientist to use faith concepts within scientific research and have it pass the peer council. You seem to think I am saying science is religion, which is absolutely wrong. As long as research only contains facts, it's valuable. Conversely, facts within religion do not prove god.
@narfanoid I think your forgetting what u have said, "a person with a scientific mind shouldn't believe in anything" If your not treating science like a religion, why are you entering into a religious debate with it? From your perspective nothing in science supports the idea of God, but much of ID research is dismissed without being further studied, because your "prophets" Hitchens and Dawkins attribute ID to a waste of time. Rather unscientific of them. Anyway I don't have the energy for this.
@TOMZAUGG I see what your problem is; you are unable to separate concepts. As long as there are believers in gods and such there will be a percentage of scientists who are also god-believers. The point is to NOT let one way of thinking enter the other. If they can perform science in a truly scientific manner (no beliefs) then they are a good SCIENTIST. If they cannot perform their scientific duties without allowing belief to enter then they are a bad SCIENTIST. That's why ID can't work.
@TOMZAUGG ID is not generally accepted into the scientific community because it includes unfounded beliefs at its core. Science can only be performed correctly when one excludes all assumptions about ultimate causes. Science must explore the proximal, and then make conclusions in an unbiased way after the facts are in. ID goes at it backwards. That's why it is not acceptable as science.
@narfanoid You clearly know nothing about science. Every experiment/research study begins with a hypothesis. A hypothesis is formed and then experiments, research and analysis of data are conducted to see is if the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. The ANTI-God bias is so belligerent within certain circles of the scientific community that after all of the work put forward by Scientists from a hypothesis that points to ID, the research is rarely peer reviewed.
@TOMZAUGG I happen to know rather a lot about science, and I find your assertion that I do not to be nothing more than an attempt to make it seem as though I don't... probably because you don't. I repeat - and try to follow this time - science cannot include unproved ideas as part of its process. If one does so, one is corrupting science at its very core. Science only works if all the data are factual. God cannot be proved, therefore one cannot use this concept in science. Do you get it yet?
@narfanoid If the same belligerent attitude were held towards RNA replication, and any scientist that formed a hypothesis that RNA is capable of replicating itself, but their research was dismissed without being peer reviewed because scientific convention said it is an impossible concept to build off of, we wouldn't know almost anything that we currently do about the human genome. You think you know about science, but all you know is what Dawkins and Hitchens tell you, it's kinda sad.
@TOMZAUGG The difference between the god idea and the idea that RNA can replicate itself is dramatic. One can observe RNA replication. One can measure it. One can collect data on it. Let's see you do that with the god idea.
@TOMZAUGG Dawkins and Hitchens help to make science accessible to the layperson. They do so by speaking in terms that MOST people can understand. Obviously they are not able to reach all levels of understanding, or you too would comprehend why it is that a god cannot be included in scientific study. You are talking about LOOKING for god using science. That should not be the same as including the god idea in the data. Do you see the difference yet? I'm afraid it is you who are sad on science.
@TOMZAUGG More to the point - ID has found nothing to support the god idea. All it does it repeat what other scientists have studied and try to give it a spiritual slant. Interpretation can get a lot of different ideas out of one concept. The problem is that the interpretation that ID puts forth is one based on an idea that has yet to be proved.
@TOMZAUGG You are one of those people who thinks ID is rejected by the scientific community because scientists want to quench religion, aren't you? You'd be wrong. The simple reason it is rejected is because it starts with the idea that something exists which does not have proof, and it attempts to "prove" it. They do so simply by re-interpreting other people's science. It's bad science, plain and simple. If a person could do good science that demonstrated a god, that would get past the council.
@narfanoid u know, for someone that's trying to create the illusion they're intelligent you should try to say something other science. Science, is science is science is basically what your saying in every post. Anthropology and archeology are both science's. Anthropology is an analysis of findings by archeologists who have discovered ruins from a human civilization. To say it's not a science show's you have no idea what ur talking about and I doubt you have read much of anything.
@TOMZAUGG Archaeology is a sub discipline of Anthropology. I know this because I'm an archaeologist. Across the water they consider arch'y to be science, but in fact, arch'y uses scientific methods to obtain its data. It does not employ any one theoretical approach. Ultimately, arch'y is the study of humans from the past when you don't have written records. Many scientific methods are borrowed to do this. Would you care to continue your "argument"?
@TOMZAUGG Saying arch'y is a science is like saying building musical instruments is a science. In fact, it's an art that employs many scientific concepts along the way, making it not a true science in and of itself.
@TOMZAUGG You started out by not knowing what a science library is, you demonstrated that you don't know the difference between observation and opinion, you support ID as credible, you don't know the difference between "a science" and a discipline that makes use of various scientific methods, you made the assumption that I was comparing science with religion rather than contrasting them, you have not been able to support your claim that I know little about science. Do you have more?
@TOMZAUGG I've read rather a good deal more than Dawkins and Hitchens, but I gotta say... they certainly know what they're talking about. Unlike some people I could mention.
@narfanoid Also, a science library? DO YOU MEAN the scientific research and study section of the library? Who would you like to reference as totally disproving God through science? Bertrand Russel? Maybe Matt Ridley who wrote the book Genome? Maybe Evelyn Fox Keller for her work in the century of the Gene? Proving Evolution as a natural process in nature DOES NOT disprove the existence of God. In fact I find it speaks to the aw inspiring complexity of deity. Maybe ur not into science, Niche?
@TOMZAUGG No, I mean a science library. Have you never set foot inside a university? I'm not looking to disprove god through science. That can't be done. I'm talking about learning enough about where science is headed that a person can make a more informed and logical conclusion about our origins and whether it is likely that there could exist such an entity. I can always tell the people who follow just enough science to think it can support their religious views, when it cannot.
@narfanoid Yes I have set foot inside a university, if you couldn't tell from the books and author's I quoted to you, genetics. Could you support any of your assertions of God becoming less likely through scientific discoveries? Also you seem to be so opposed to the idea of God existing you don't even believe Jesus was a real person? What year is it again? Obviously you have been doing some rather passive research, as the historicity of Jesus Christ is an accepted fact confirmed by a science.
@TOMZAUGG I'm saying that the Jesus of the bible is not very likely. There may very well have been a man called Jesus, but are you willing to actually say this person was a son of god? Are you willing to actually insist that this person came back to life after three days in a cave? Are you convinced this human being would have actually been able to induce miracles? I ask you; what year is it again? We live in a time when logic and common sense should outweigh superstition.
@narfanoid Again tho, the historicity of Jesus Christ is absolutely confirmed through science. Anthropology to be specific, there are numerous non biblical reference's to Him from that time period, written by roman's trying to disprove his ministry. You want to debate whether or not He was God in the flesh, that an absolutely debatable point, but there is no debating on the historical figure of Christ. Which brings me back to my original point, u are simply opposed to the idea of God.
@TOMZAUGG I wouldn't say "absolutely confirmed". There is evidence that supports the existence of a person called Jesus, and even that he may have the man in question. But if you can show me one shred of evidence to support the idea that he was a deity then you're doing pretty good, because I've never seen a single hint of any research that reveals any kind of supernaturalism... period, end of sentence. That idea is based ONLY in belief.
@TOMZAUGG Where do you live that you consider Anthropology a science? What exact study are you referring to when you say that the existence of Jesus is confirmed? Are you confusing history with science? Are you aware that history is not always as accurate as it could be? In short, there IS debating the historical figure of Jesus. I'm debating it right now, because I have yet to see this "proof" you're talking about. Put your money where your mouth is, or fold your cards.
@narfanoid There are writings from roman scholars and philosopher's who wrote about Jesus, who were contemporaries of that time trying to disprove he was the son of God. Air go, since they were alive at the time and we were writing about Jesus, regardless of their opinion on deity, it is piece of evidence for the existence of Christ that is not found within the Bible. Watch expelled with Ben Stein to see how ID research is treated. I'm sure its nice not having to do things in ur life, but I do.
@TOMZAUGG Besides, I already conceded that there may well have been a MAN named Jesus. What I have yet to see any evidence that this person was a deity. Can you support THIS through science? I think unless you can show me the money you should give up on this argument. You already showed you can't tell the difference between history and science, so why would you think you have any leverage against my arguments?
@TOMZAUGG Ancient Egypt has been seen outside the bible too. So what? All that means is that the bible mentions some real world things. It doesn't say anything at all about the legitimacy of its wild claims about miracles and deities and angels and demons and talking animals and so on.
@TOMZAUGG Here's another one - you actually said these words, and I quote; "the historicity of Jesus Christ is absolutely confirmed through science". What science would that be? And where exactly is this research you are referring to? I think I asked you before but got no answer.
@TOMZAUGG That's historical reference... not science. You said his existence was confirmed through science. Well? I'm waiting. Now who's the one who knows nothing about science? Hmmm... I wonder if it could be the guy who confuses history for science. It just might be.
@SirChilling You started a sentence with a lower case letter. You left out the two commas in the first "sentence", even though you didn't use the form of a sentence. You misspelled "stream", and you didn't end your sentences with periods. Furthermore, your second "sentence", if it can be called such, does not really make sense. I don't know what it is you're trying to say. So, unless you can see fit to increase your ability to communicate in a public forum, I guess I'll have to just ignore you.
@B4BoomersBlockBoy7 "don't sorry about the typo's"... ? Huh? What does this even mean? You haven't even really sent a message, other than you can't use words properly.
This video offends the reality that Pixies rule the faith of the world!!! Pixies are real, and they will one day come to you as you lie in bed at night, and they will speak into your ear, and they will tell you the truth about the world, and they will reveal the true word of Pixie-dom. Pixies are the true faith!!!!
@SirChilling What I'm talking about is all the different versions of the bible that are out there. How can a person have faith in something if people are allowed to just pick and chose and modify the words as they see fit? The fact that there exists one version of the bible that can be said to be close to the original words is irrelevant. Obviously there had to be original texts. There also exist original texts from works that are widely accepted to be works of fiction.
@SirChilling Yeah, there are all kinds of "proofs" in religion, huh? If I ask a Muslim he will tell me something similar about his religion. If I ask any religious person to support his claim, no matter what the religion is, he will be able to show me some "proof". So I'm afraid your devotion to these old documents doesn't hold a lot of water. You still haven't shown me how proving these documents are relatively unchanged can say anything about the existence of a god.
@SirChilling True, the King James is probably the closest one will get to the originals, but since the originals are not to be found I guess we'll never know. Besides, just because the originals might say there is a god is no reason to put any more faith in it. Delusional beliefs are delusional beliefs, regardless of how old they are.
Choose as you beleive. Remember your words now then, so you will have no questions when Jesus returns and walks past those who deliberately went out of their way during their lives on Earth to recruit other men to deny the Lords existence.
@blownone1 What are you, a Quaker? You sound like a person from the Middle Ages. Talk like a modern person... you know, one who doesn't let superstition rule his life.
@narfanoid Not a quaker, a realist. But I'll give it a try, being modern. Here goes... Are you ready? Like, I'm not superstitious, dude. That's like a totally bogus diversion from what I'm sayin, dog. What I'm sayin is, if you and your boys dis Jesus, then you might think satan is rad, which might end up in Jesus dissin you and you missin out on heaven, which is gonna be sick!!! You feel me?
@blownone1 A "realist" would look at the natural world and ask the following: Is there any direct evidence from that which I can observe that indicates that there is a god? The answer would be "no", because everything we observe is perfectly within the realm of mundane natural events and conformity. Anyone who asks such a question and says "yes" is, by definition, not a realist.
@narfanoid We both have different realities. Some beleive in evolution, but can't explain why primates haven't evolved. Some believe in evolution but can't explain why 8, 9, 10 foot "plus" skeletons of man have been found, dating so far back, while no large primate skeletons have been found.
Even so... It doesn't matter. Please don't be so offended that I believe in God the father almighty and his son Jesus Christ as my savior.
@blownone1 First, a person with a scientific mind should not "believe" in anything. They should only look at facts and then draw logical conclusions based on models formulated from those facts. Second, primates have evolved. Modern day primates are evolved from their ancestors, which we share with them. Third, very few human remains have been larger than expected, and only by a small amt (i.e. not giant as such). Fourth, large primate remains HAVE been found. Where do you do your reading anyway?
@narfanoid Wow, here you go again trying to say that anyone who understands Science should not be able to believe in anything because, in your mind, science disproves God. It doesn't, so why are you continuing to propagate this lie? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence's, in order to find that extraordinary evidence you have to look actually look for it. If you don't look for the evidence you won't find it. U science isn't religion, so stop treating it like one.
@TOMZAUGG Here you go, continuing to prove my point. You ASSUME that I said something, so you run with it to try to make me look bad. If that's all you have to work with then you should give up now. I never once said that science disproves god. I only EVER said that the body of scientific data out there is sufficient to allow a rational person to conclude LOGICALLY that the probability of the existence of a god is very little. Science and religion conflict, no matter what people may say.
@TOMZAUGG I did say that nothing in science SUPPORTS the idea of a god. Is this where you got confused? If so, I can try to explain how that differs from what you think I said.
@TOMZAUGG You are correct. Science isn't religion. You are wrong about me treating it like one. In order for me to treat science like a religion, I must put blind faith in it. I don't choose to believe anything put before me unless I can verify it. This is true of any concept. Tell me that gravity pulls things toward the earth, I will test it and see for myself. Tell me there is a god and I will look everywhere for evidence to support this claim. I have been looking for years, and continue to.
@SirChilling Each person will have his/her own day in which there will suddenly be nothing. It's called death, and it comes to all of us. Kinda sad, but it's part of being a biological creature. Oh, and if you want to hold a discussion with someone like me you should learn to spell. You used the word "prey", which refers to hunting, or being hunted. I think the word you are looking for, and can't even spell correctly, is "pray". The "son of god" is a mythical character.
@SirChilling I don't do that because I am not the sort to talk to the ceiling. I'd be talking to nothing, and acting like a fool. That's why I don't do it.
This is just another "white washing " of the truth !..LoL...The real truth will come out in a couple of years ! People wont' be abled to lie anymore because we will all have the ability to read each others minds and know when the truth is being told and when a lie is being perpetuated !
2 points, 1 those are actors, which I find to be heinous misrepresentation of this video's title. 2 Jesus was and is black. It's not a big deal, but to constantly misrepresent our Saviour and King as white when he is in fact black is considered grossly neglect. Consult 1 Samuel 16 and notice that Jesse is the father of David, which is the lineage of Christ. Also consult the words of John the beloved who describes our Lord with hair like wool and feet of brass burned in a furnace.
@TOMZAUGG : There are known frescoes of Jesus Christ ( Yeshua Ben Yoseph ) in the Roman Catacombs. Been there and I have the Pictures of Him ! As we American's would say , He's a brother , No Doubt !
@narfanoid Also, speaking of people using just enough science to support their religious views look at yourself. Your religious view seems to be there is no God, a view that you say is supported by science when in fact, as you have stated it can't be done. You don't believe, that's your decision I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise. But to continually say science supports your view and then not offer anything to substantiate your claim other than the word science is frankly hilarious!
@TOMZAUGG Ah, another one of those people who thinks of science as a religion. Over and over again, science finds things in nature that contradict the bible - starting from flat earth to the nature of the universe. The very beginning of the Earth is contradictory to what the bible has to say. The nature of where animals come from is contradictory. The Noah's Arc story is ludicrous. Do you think Adam and Eve could have lead to the genetic diversity in the world today? And so on.
@narfanoid the bible does not say the world is flat, there's a big diff between the Vatican and the bible. Noah's Arc, was doubtfully the entire planet, Adam and Eve are father and mother of the covenant people, why else was there a city called Nod for Caine to move to after murdering able? God is usually presented in the western world in an over simplified manner, which is very misleading. And yes, I believe Jesus wis God in the flesh and did raise from the dead, after 3 days. 2011 AD hmmm?
@TOMZAUGG Yeah, you can contort the words of the bible all you want to try to make it fit some "modern" understanding of it, but that doesn't take anything away from the fact that at the very base of it the thing is telling people that there is a big ol' spirt, all-powerful, omnipotent, yadda yadda, entity out there in some place called heaven that created us and guides our lives. Absolutely nothing in the natural world supports this idea. One needs to choose to interpret it that way.
@TOMZAUGG Sure, go on trying to justify the words in the bible. You still can't find anything in the natural world to support a belief in a god. Plain and simple. The only place that says there is a god is in the bible... just like the only place that says there are pixies is in fairy tales.
@TOMZAUGG What I said was that science cannot be used as a tool to disprove religion. That is not the same as looking at the findings of science after the fact and coming to a logical conclusion.
@narfanoid I dunno if logical is the word I would use, but you came up with your own conclusion, that subscribes with your view of the world as you currently perceive it. I find it very insulting and irritating when I see atheists trying to say they have a corner on the market of logic. You arrived at your conclusion, I imagine, after a series of decision's/judgments you've made on information presented to you, but to contend that your conclusion is the only logical one is absurd & small minded.
@TOMZAUGG As I stated above; why should I not consider myself logical to conclude there isn't a god, when nothing in nature supports the idea? It is neither absurd nor small minded in the least to have reached a conclusion after years of thought and study. If you can say that about my position then what is your defense if I say your position is one of delusion and fear? And, by calling me an "atheist" you are trying to define me, which you cannot do, because atheism is too small a concept.
@TOMZAUGG Can you not see the difference between religion and science? Can you not see why they are fundamentally different? Is this a concept I need to educate you on?
Pixies ARE real. It's in people's folklore from many parts of the world. There are historical accounts of pixies! They are written about in books! They are real, I tell you.
Any face is suitable. Jesus isn't vain, man is. He won't be offended that man so loves he, they wish to delight upon a picture, and have a face in the picture. Any face will likely delight Jesus, as his father is the creator of every face and Jesus loves every face than man has, or man can dream of. Even images in the human mind are images his father created through man, whom Jesus loves.
I'm sure he's honored, glorified and praised through mans attempt to adore him.
@blownone1 Jesus is a myth. The mythical character of Jesus wasn't even born on christmas. The bible is the most heavily edited publication of all time. How can one trust a book that has been written and re-written so many times? If it was the word of god it would not have changed a bit since it first appeared. How many versions of the bible are there? How many times has your bible been edited and tweaked?
@narfanoid he IS real,jesus himself said before he returns certain events will happen on earth to announce his return,guess what,ALL these signs and events have now happened,world news reads directly from the bible,amazing for just a book writtern 2oooyrs ago by men! its not global warming as the scientists say,but rather global warning!,God is preparing us for jesus return,thing is will you listern to his voice,because today salvation has come to you,please call on jesus name and find peace
@andymcq2509 People have been saying that about jesus and his return for a long time, and it still hasn't happened. And guess what. It still won't happen. Do a little reading on how many times jesus was supposed to have returned only to have it not happen... over and over and over again. Get real.
@narfanoid you have just fullfilled bible prophcey by your words!,the bible states that people will say "where is his coming?,everything has carried on and nothing changed!",the reason hes takern so long is that God is waiting for the last person to call on him to be saved and loved,then Jesus will return,events in middle east are fast telling us jesus return is near,when damascus city is destroyed and armies from around the world surround city of jeruslum,Then Jesus will return! u have bin told
@andymcq2509 People have been asking where this Jesus person is for a long time. How is my contribution to that very appropriate question in any way an indication of a prophecy? You'll forgive me if I find it extremely difficult to believe that completely normal and natural events are indications of a "second coming"... assuming there was even a first. Are you prepared to eat crow when these so-called "prophecies" are "fullfilled" and then - BAM!! - nothing happens?
@warriorspikes51 well said,no one knows until the day he returns just what he looks like,people need not have so called images of him least they become charms or idols.
i understand the point you are making about the pictures but i dont think anyone is idolizing these pictures we all need to just listen to the song and think about all the blessings the Lord has given to us and how much we love him he would not want us all arguing over this song just listen to the words and feel his love. he just wants are love and us to love one another
This is nothing less then blasphemy and idolatry! There are no real pictures of Christ and these are in fact all lies! There is a very good reason that there are no pictures! One is that we don’t need to worship a person who is not the real Christ. Lets say that I died and you wrote a book about me and used someone else’s picture! I would call you a liar! One person commented that the artists make Him out to look like a homosexual! And that’s true! I hate these pictures!
@wezzyboy1234 thats my point little boy! Don't get mad at me? How would you like it if 120 years from now you wrote a book or did something wonderful and I showed everbody a picture of someone else that I drew up out of nowhere!...These are not pictures of Jesus!.......And to add to that how much more wonderful was Jesus then you or me! Take all pictures of Jesus and burn them! They are a lie! Simple and true!
@wezzyboy1234 Prove there was a jesus. Prove he sacrificed himself for us. Prove he was a son of a god. Prove his sacrifice saved us. Prove we wouldn't be here without him. If you can't do these things then please stop talking about jesus as though you know for sure he existed and that he was supernatural.
@narfanoid ....like the quote says, "I'd Rather live my life as if there's God, and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."
@Jibbel The bible would have us believe the world was created (according to some lunatics as recently as about 6,000 years ago). If the god you believe in would rather have you believe a complete and utter foolish falsehood like that than let you learn about what modern science has demonstrated, then how can you trust this god? There are so many problems with what the bible says it's silly. Would your god really rather have you believe silliness than be reasonable?
I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, but i don't think u should put pictures that u say are real when they don't even come near to what the Bible says Jesus look like. Hair like lambs wool, arms and feet like unto fine brass as if burned in an even. Take a penny and set fire to it and see what color it turns. it's time to be for real. When Jesus do come a lot of people are going to be shock. Acts 2:38 is still God's plan of salvation. Nice song! God bless you!
@whiskeyspray You have an evil mind. It does not. It shows love.Proverbs 6:16-19 16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
You are INSANE. That artwork does NOT show any biblical Jesus. The hebrew language never had J consonants, so the word "Jesus" could have NEVER even been pronounced by them w/ NO J letters in their alphabet. Your "Jesus" is the SUN, his 12 disciples were the 12 constellations. It is ALL solar rooted, this is why you worship on SUN-day. Even the Jewish sabbath of Saturday is solar, it comes from SATURN-day. We just take the "n" out of it. You are a brainwashed FOOL.
throughout the NT Jesus is often called "rabbi" by the people who saw Him. As such, the sides of his hair would have been long. And of course he wasn't Anglo. According to the gospel, "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. " 53:2
Isaiah. So he was ordinary looking. But it doesn't matter what he looked like. It matters who he IS.
Question to all those who accept the story of creation is simply a myth:
If Adam and Eve never existed as science has shown us, then inherently the story about "original sin" would also a myth. With that said, what was the purpose of jesus christ dying on the cross?
I would truly like to hear the feedback from anyone this question applies to. How does one reconcile with this fundamental problem?
i we didnt have god we wont be here I LOVE YOU GOD AND I WANT TO LET THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD TO KNIOW IT!!!!!!!!!
ilovepuppies954 2 weeks ago
i knew it . Jesus is White or of Euro Caucasion descent . case closed everyone .
honeybun33 1 month ago
Revelations 1:14-15 "His hair and his head were white like WOOL, and his eyes were like a blazing fire. His feet were unto fine brass as if they had burned in a furnace."
The depiction of him in this video is NOT how he looked like, but is based on Leonardo DaVinCi's supposed painting of Christ which was really of Cesare Borgia. If you think I'm lying, type in Cesare Borgia in Google Images and see if you don't find the White Images of Christ.Christ came from the Tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14)
synclair0718 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i believe in god and jesus and love them both with all my heart because that is my religion i dont have to listen to anyone else except for myself and the bible if you dnt believe that is what you choose to do so we christians need to stop judging because the bible said we shouldnt and let all live their own life they way the wont.
flyboys367 3 months ago
i believe in god and jesus and love them both with all my heart that is me because that my religion i dont have to listen to anyone else except for myself and the bible if you dnt believe that is what you choose to do so we christians need to stop judging because the bible said we shouldnt and let all live their own life the way the wont.
flyboys367 3 months ago
It's unfortunate that I appear to have to be the one to inform you all of this, but real photos of Jesus shouldn't exist for 2 primary reasons:
1. Photographs are produced by cameras, which would be anachronistic to have existed at the time of Jesus.
2. Jesus is but a myth, so pictures couldn't have been taken of him, as he is but a character within the plot line of a fictional story.
ToaoRaj 3 months ago
@ToaoRaj : Jesus is not a myth.
SummerSunshine1988 3 months ago
@ToaoRaj . Ask him to reveal Himself to you with an open heart, then wait and trust....you will see the truth. Don't lean on your own understanding. He is risen.
slappylippy 1 month ago
Jesus I love you and god a thou angels as always
jhenzabala 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't care what God and Jesus Christ looks like, for me I just believe in..
baboydurot0 4 months ago
Hahaha, yes. jesus was merely a european human. that walked arund talking to himself in a white robe. an absolute nutshell.
MusicRallys 4 months ago
is this jesus or not because people are saying jesus is white no offence and people are saying he is black i really wanna no
Ttlong36 5 months ago
The real spirit of Jesus Christ lives in the heart of those persecuted in his name and in the hearts of children - who truely believe without question or reservation. "Unless we become like little childen, we shall not inter the Kingdom of God."
AmoreNino47 5 months ago 3
this is fuuuucken stupid fuck geeeezus
gxrcix525 5 months ago
@alexcoolmen I'm sorry but I don't think you know what you are talking about...
kt2sweet 6 months ago
People this is what apologetics is for!
kt2sweet 6 months ago
they really believe jesus is gonna come flying down here out the sky. Christians are funny. and btw jesus wasnt ugly and white and gay looking and wimpy, waek looikng
wwnnn43 7 months ago
I cant wait to meet him, i know hes in my heart, but i cant wait to see him in defacto, i see him by his people, but i cant wait to really meet him, we cant get all caught up in the world's perception of him, we have got to get to know him for ourselves
joijoi02 7 months ago
whats with all the white washed angels, and mary, christ, and joseph??? this is not how the messiah looked. revelation 1:14, and daniel 10:5
nnamdi25nyc 7 months ago
God almighty grace and peace and love God is beautiful and so great and so gracious please Lord that you would forgive me please
xxcafe 8 months ago
woah chill everyone. In Terms of trying to prove Christ through science, I don't really think you can do that with any historical figure. For example how can you prove through science that Socrates or Aristole lived? You can't, we just know that they existed because of their "writings". There are however wonderul miracles that still take place to this day, such as the Eucharistic miracles, people being healed, things of that nature, miracles attributed to Mother Mary, look them up if you'd like!
LordShadowblade 10 months ago
no i dont i love him you should shutup
2alankelly 11 months ago
i think its FAKE....
alexcoolmen 11 months ago
why do other people, hate Christ/God, but he is the reason why they live here, on earth.
prettyamitaf19 1 year ago 9
Wow, it's really Heavy in here ! LoL
B4BoomersBlockBoy7 1 year ago
I don't mean to diss uploader , but vid is really unscriptural .... Jesus was'nt white & sure was'nt negro .... he was a coppertoned Isrealite Rev.1:14,15 - Dan. 10:6 , color of fine brass as burned in a furnace > dark tan or coppertone . The caucasion blue eyed Jesus is almost as offensive to me as the black hebrew Isrealite claims he was a negro .... I guess it was too hard to get a bunch of jews for the cast of this vid.... plus there are only male angels ; no females.... otherwise good vid
misipi6guns45 1 year ago
@narfanoid. What are you beliefs of the creation of the universe and humans?
TruGroovez 1 year ago
So many people complain about the way I talk to them here on these foolish discussions, but when I try to interject some actual rational and inoffensive conversation I get nothing in reply. So... what exactly is it people want? I think people here just want to have a forum to argue, so why should I bother to offer anything but words to argue with? @SirChilling I'm directing this comment primarily at you... hint, hint.
narfanoid 1 year ago
Comment removed
TruGroovez 1 year ago
@TruGroovez Bible prophecy is more foolish than believing in the bible itself. Prove me wrong.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TruGroovez How does having a well-thought-out view on the nature of life, the universe and everything make me "narrow minded"? I'm afraid I can't comment on your second sentence, because it isn't a sentence and doesn't make sense. Yes, I attack poor communication. Why? Because if people want to get a point across they should do so in a way that the person reading it can understand what is being said. If they do not, then they are only setting themselves up for being laughed at.
narfanoid 1 year ago
Comment removed
TruGroovez 1 year ago
@TruGroovez My brother, Luke 3:14 state's that not even soldiers should be doing violence to any man. Not to provoke or insult you, but to remind you. Much love.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG ok i hear ya bro.. - thanks for the reminder. ive taken the chill pill...
TruGroovez 1 year ago
@TruGroovez Personal threats. Looks good on ya. And, your point was not clear.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid good on ya? correct english is; good on "you" please use your own standards when communicating.. my last comment as you may have noticed, has been removed. I wouldnt want to you enjoying a successful provoke - God Bless you nanfaniod.
TruGroovez 1 year ago
@TruGroovez Nice try. You took a well-known manner of speaking (which I was clearly using intentionally), and tried to turn it around against me. Try harder next time. And I don't think I have ever had to remove a comment because I was afraid someone would find something in it that they could use against me. It must be terrible not being able to control your urge to just post whatever falls out of the ends of your fingers.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid I didn't remove a comment because i was afraid. That my friend is where you are wrong.. if it makes you feel good to think that was the case, then so be it. I removed the comment because advice from a brother was taken on board - Hence my previous "chil pill" comment I made 1 day ago. - nice try ;).
TruGroovez 1 year ago
@TruGroovez Errr... OK... then why did you say this? "my last comment as you may have noticed, has been removed. I wouldnt want to you enjoying a successful provoke " Sounds to me like you removed it because you were afraid I was going to find flaws in it.
narfanoid 1 year ago
That message was not directed at you ! Don't worry about how I use my words..LoL..from your comments you have enough of your own to worry about ! :-)
B4BoomersBlockBoy7 1 year ago
@B4BoomersBlockBoy7 Public forum... get used to it, or go home.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SirChilling Do you believe your god to speak to people, compelling them to do things?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SirChilling What was the reason your god authored the bible?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SirChilling OK, you want me to go beyond the "name calling" stage?
1. Do you believe the god of the bible exists?
2. Do you believe, as most christians do, that the power of your god is infinite?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SirChilling Good communication begins with good writing skills. How can one take you seriously when you write the way you do? It's difficult enough to take you seriously when you fight to defend such a silly idea as the existence of a god. I'm actually very good at communicating with human beings. Are you? Or do you prefer to sit alone in your room with the door closed and talk to the ceiling?
narfanoid 1 year ago
LoL
B4BoomersBlockBoy7 1 year ago
@SirChilling Why don't you OPEN a door? Like, perhaps the door to a good science library. Why don't you open the covers of some well written books about where science is going these days? I don't mean those pseudo science books that claim research supports religion, those are complete foolishness, written mainly by people who are just trying to gain acceptance for their beliefs. No, I mean REAL science. The stuff that leaves the supernatural out of the picture.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Yo Atheist dude, I don't get what your invested interest is in trying to convince people who clearly believe and are going to believe no matter what you say. Also, how much of these books do you read yourself? Do you just follow the lead of Dawkins and Hitchens? The thing about "disproving" religion through science is, it's like trying to use a microscope to study astronomy. Theories and questions in spirituality are bigger than the scientific method, it deals with more than we know.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG The word "atheist" does not fully describe my view. It is too narrow. You are correct that science cannot (and does not) set out to disprove religion. However, science continually finds things that make religious beliefs more and more antiquated and less and less likely.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG My whole point behind my words is not to convince the believers, because I know I can't perform miracles. My point is to try to shake people up and make them stop thinking of those of us who don't choose to believe fairy tales as "evil" or "misguided" or some such foolishness. The world view I support, and which I share with MANY others, is completely rational and justified, based on years of research and consideration. Saying I'm just a bad person who rejects god is utter tripe.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid I don't regard atheists as evil, also I never said u were a bad person. Also I didn't say what you believed was irrational, however what I take issue with is the concept that because of someone's faith and belief in God their perspective towards tackling some of the more cutting edge view on science are immediately discounted. I don't think science is a religion, it's a tool and method system. U should do some work on ur reading comprehension, I already told u I'm studying genetics.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Yeah, well you're not the only person I've ever had a conversation with. What's your point? It's not impossible for a believer to also be a good scientist. It IS impossible, however, for a good scientist to use faith concepts within scientific research and have it pass the peer council. You seem to think I am saying science is religion, which is absolutely wrong. As long as research only contains facts, it's valuable. Conversely, facts within religion do not prove god.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid I think your forgetting what u have said, "a person with a scientific mind shouldn't believe in anything" If your not treating science like a religion, why are you entering into a religious debate with it? From your perspective nothing in science supports the idea of God, but much of ID research is dismissed without being further studied, because your "prophets" Hitchens and Dawkins attribute ID to a waste of time. Rather unscientific of them. Anyway I don't have the energy for this.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG I see what your problem is; you are unable to separate concepts. As long as there are believers in gods and such there will be a percentage of scientists who are also god-believers. The point is to NOT let one way of thinking enter the other. If they can perform science in a truly scientific manner (no beliefs) then they are a good SCIENTIST. If they cannot perform their scientific duties without allowing belief to enter then they are a bad SCIENTIST. That's why ID can't work.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG ID is not generally accepted into the scientific community because it includes unfounded beliefs at its core. Science can only be performed correctly when one excludes all assumptions about ultimate causes. Science must explore the proximal, and then make conclusions in an unbiased way after the facts are in. ID goes at it backwards. That's why it is not acceptable as science.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid You clearly know nothing about science. Every experiment/research study begins with a hypothesis. A hypothesis is formed and then experiments, research and analysis of data are conducted to see is if the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. The ANTI-God bias is so belligerent within certain circles of the scientific community that after all of the work put forward by Scientists from a hypothesis that points to ID, the research is rarely peer reviewed.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG I happen to know rather a lot about science, and I find your assertion that I do not to be nothing more than an attempt to make it seem as though I don't... probably because you don't. I repeat - and try to follow this time - science cannot include unproved ideas as part of its process. If one does so, one is corrupting science at its very core. Science only works if all the data are factual. God cannot be proved, therefore one cannot use this concept in science. Do you get it yet?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid If the same belligerent attitude were held towards RNA replication, and any scientist that formed a hypothesis that RNA is capable of replicating itself, but their research was dismissed without being peer reviewed because scientific convention said it is an impossible concept to build off of, we wouldn't know almost anything that we currently do about the human genome. You think you know about science, but all you know is what Dawkins and Hitchens tell you, it's kinda sad.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG The difference between the god idea and the idea that RNA can replicate itself is dramatic. One can observe RNA replication. One can measure it. One can collect data on it. Let's see you do that with the god idea.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Dawkins and Hitchens help to make science accessible to the layperson. They do so by speaking in terms that MOST people can understand. Obviously they are not able to reach all levels of understanding, or you too would comprehend why it is that a god cannot be included in scientific study. You are talking about LOOKING for god using science. That should not be the same as including the god idea in the data. Do you see the difference yet? I'm afraid it is you who are sad on science.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG More to the point - ID has found nothing to support the god idea. All it does it repeat what other scientists have studied and try to give it a spiritual slant. Interpretation can get a lot of different ideas out of one concept. The problem is that the interpretation that ID puts forth is one based on an idea that has yet to be proved.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG You are one of those people who thinks ID is rejected by the scientific community because scientists want to quench religion, aren't you? You'd be wrong. The simple reason it is rejected is because it starts with the idea that something exists which does not have proof, and it attempts to "prove" it. They do so simply by re-interpreting other people's science. It's bad science, plain and simple. If a person could do good science that demonstrated a god, that would get past the council.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid u know, for someone that's trying to create the illusion they're intelligent you should try to say something other science. Science, is science is science is basically what your saying in every post. Anthropology and archeology are both science's. Anthropology is an analysis of findings by archeologists who have discovered ruins from a human civilization. To say it's not a science show's you have no idea what ur talking about and I doubt you have read much of anything.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Archaeology is a sub discipline of Anthropology. I know this because I'm an archaeologist. Across the water they consider arch'y to be science, but in fact, arch'y uses scientific methods to obtain its data. It does not employ any one theoretical approach. Ultimately, arch'y is the study of humans from the past when you don't have written records. Many scientific methods are borrowed to do this. Would you care to continue your "argument"?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Saying arch'y is a science is like saying building musical instruments is a science. In fact, it's an art that employs many scientific concepts along the way, making it not a true science in and of itself.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG You started out by not knowing what a science library is, you demonstrated that you don't know the difference between observation and opinion, you support ID as credible, you don't know the difference between "a science" and a discipline that makes use of various scientific methods, you made the assumption that I was comparing science with religion rather than contrasting them, you have not been able to support your claim that I know little about science. Do you have more?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG I've read rather a good deal more than Dawkins and Hitchens, but I gotta say... they certainly know what they're talking about. Unlike some people I could mention.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Also, a science library? DO YOU MEAN the scientific research and study section of the library? Who would you like to reference as totally disproving God through science? Bertrand Russel? Maybe Matt Ridley who wrote the book Genome? Maybe Evelyn Fox Keller for her work in the century of the Gene? Proving Evolution as a natural process in nature DOES NOT disprove the existence of God. In fact I find it speaks to the aw inspiring complexity of deity. Maybe ur not into science, Niche?
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG No, I mean a science library. Have you never set foot inside a university? I'm not looking to disprove god through science. That can't be done. I'm talking about learning enough about where science is headed that a person can make a more informed and logical conclusion about our origins and whether it is likely that there could exist such an entity. I can always tell the people who follow just enough science to think it can support their religious views, when it cannot.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Yes I have set foot inside a university, if you couldn't tell from the books and author's I quoted to you, genetics. Could you support any of your assertions of God becoming less likely through scientific discoveries? Also you seem to be so opposed to the idea of God existing you don't even believe Jesus was a real person? What year is it again? Obviously you have been doing some rather passive research, as the historicity of Jesus Christ is an accepted fact confirmed by a science.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG I'm saying that the Jesus of the bible is not very likely. There may very well have been a man called Jesus, but are you willing to actually say this person was a son of god? Are you willing to actually insist that this person came back to life after three days in a cave? Are you convinced this human being would have actually been able to induce miracles? I ask you; what year is it again? We live in a time when logic and common sense should outweigh superstition.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Fair view point narfaniod. Glad to see you not abusing or attacking somebody for grammer. Now you have my attention.
TruGroovez 1 year ago
@narfanoid Again tho, the historicity of Jesus Christ is absolutely confirmed through science. Anthropology to be specific, there are numerous non biblical reference's to Him from that time period, written by roman's trying to disprove his ministry. You want to debate whether or not He was God in the flesh, that an absolutely debatable point, but there is no debating on the historical figure of Christ. Which brings me back to my original point, u are simply opposed to the idea of God.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG I wouldn't say "absolutely confirmed". There is evidence that supports the existence of a person called Jesus, and even that he may have the man in question. But if you can show me one shred of evidence to support the idea that he was a deity then you're doing pretty good, because I've never seen a single hint of any research that reveals any kind of supernaturalism... period, end of sentence. That idea is based ONLY in belief.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Where do you live that you consider Anthropology a science? What exact study are you referring to when you say that the existence of Jesus is confirmed? Are you confusing history with science? Are you aware that history is not always as accurate as it could be? In short, there IS debating the historical figure of Jesus. I'm debating it right now, because I have yet to see this "proof" you're talking about. Put your money where your mouth is, or fold your cards.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid There are writings from roman scholars and philosopher's who wrote about Jesus, who were contemporaries of that time trying to disprove he was the son of God. Air go, since they were alive at the time and we were writing about Jesus, regardless of their opinion on deity, it is piece of evidence for the existence of Christ that is not found within the Bible. Watch expelled with Ben Stein to see how ID research is treated. I'm sure its nice not having to do things in ur life, but I do.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Besides, I already conceded that there may well have been a MAN named Jesus. What I have yet to see any evidence that this person was a deity. Can you support THIS through science? I think unless you can show me the money you should give up on this argument. You already showed you can't tell the difference between history and science, so why would you think you have any leverage against my arguments?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG ID is treated badly because it's BAD SCIENCE!!!!! Plain and simple.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Ancient Egypt has been seen outside the bible too. So what? All that means is that the bible mentions some real world things. It doesn't say anything at all about the legitimacy of its wild claims about miracles and deities and angels and demons and talking animals and so on.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG I suppose I am somewhat opposed to the idea of a god... in the same way I'm opposed to the idea of a unicorn, or a pixie.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Here's another one - you actually said these words, and I quote; "the historicity of Jesus Christ is absolutely confirmed through science". What science would that be? And where exactly is this research you are referring to? I think I asked you before but got no answer.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG That's historical reference... not science. You said his existence was confirmed through science. Well? I'm waiting. Now who's the one who knows nothing about science? Hmmm... I wonder if it could be the guy who confuses history for science. It just might be.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SirChilling You started a sentence with a lower case letter. You left out the two commas in the first "sentence", even though you didn't use the form of a sentence. You misspelled "stream", and you didn't end your sentences with periods. Furthermore, your second "sentence", if it can be called such, does not really make sense. I don't know what it is you're trying to say. So, unless you can see fit to increase your ability to communicate in a public forum, I guess I'll have to just ignore you.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid It's OK..don't sorry about the typo's, we all make them ! I't the message that deserve comment ! Or ,Maybe Not, Depending..LoL
B4BoomersBlockBoy7 1 year ago
@B4BoomersBlockBoy7 "don't sorry about the typo's"... ? Huh? What does this even mean? You haven't even really sent a message, other than you can't use words properly.
narfanoid 1 year ago
This video offends the reality that Pixies rule the faith of the world!!! Pixies are real, and they will one day come to you as you lie in bed at night, and they will speak into your ear, and they will tell you the truth about the world, and they will reveal the true word of Pixie-dom. Pixies are the true faith!!!!
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SirChilling What I'm talking about is all the different versions of the bible that are out there. How can a person have faith in something if people are allowed to just pick and chose and modify the words as they see fit? The fact that there exists one version of the bible that can be said to be close to the original words is irrelevant. Obviously there had to be original texts. There also exist original texts from works that are widely accepted to be works of fiction.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SirChilling I don't watch television. It rots the brain. In fact, television rots the brain in much the same way religion does.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SirChilling Yeah, there are all kinds of "proofs" in religion, huh? If I ask a Muslim he will tell me something similar about his religion. If I ask any religious person to support his claim, no matter what the religion is, he will be able to show me some "proof". So I'm afraid your devotion to these old documents doesn't hold a lot of water. You still haven't shown me how proving these documents are relatively unchanged can say anything about the existence of a god.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SirChilling True, the King James is probably the closest one will get to the originals, but since the originals are not to be found I guess we'll never know. Besides, just because the originals might say there is a god is no reason to put any more faith in it. Delusional beliefs are delusional beliefs, regardless of how old they are.
narfanoid 1 year ago
Choose as you beleive. Remember your words now then, so you will have no questions when Jesus returns and walks past those who deliberately went out of their way during their lives on Earth to recruit other men to deny the Lords existence.
blownone1 1 year ago
@blownone1 What are you, a Quaker? You sound like a person from the Middle Ages. Talk like a modern person... you know, one who doesn't let superstition rule his life.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Not a quaker, a realist. But I'll give it a try, being modern. Here goes... Are you ready? Like, I'm not superstitious, dude. That's like a totally bogus diversion from what I'm sayin, dog. What I'm sayin is, if you and your boys dis Jesus, then you might think satan is rad, which might end up in Jesus dissin you and you missin out on heaven, which is gonna be sick!!! You feel me?
blownone1 1 year ago
@blownone1 Sorry to tell you, but if you believe in an entity for which there is no direct proof, or even good evidence, then you are superstitious.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@blownone1 A "realist" would look at the natural world and ask the following: Is there any direct evidence from that which I can observe that indicates that there is a god? The answer would be "no", because everything we observe is perfectly within the realm of mundane natural events and conformity. Anyone who asks such a question and says "yes" is, by definition, not a realist.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid We both have different realities. Some beleive in evolution, but can't explain why primates haven't evolved. Some believe in evolution but can't explain why 8, 9, 10 foot "plus" skeletons of man have been found, dating so far back, while no large primate skeletons have been found.
Even so... It doesn't matter. Please don't be so offended that I believe in God the father almighty and his son Jesus Christ as my savior.
It's not worth trolling over.
blownone1 1 year ago
@blownone1 First, a person with a scientific mind should not "believe" in anything. They should only look at facts and then draw logical conclusions based on models formulated from those facts. Second, primates have evolved. Modern day primates are evolved from their ancestors, which we share with them. Third, very few human remains have been larger than expected, and only by a small amt (i.e. not giant as such). Fourth, large primate remains HAVE been found. Where do you do your reading anyway?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Wow, here you go again trying to say that anyone who understands Science should not be able to believe in anything because, in your mind, science disproves God. It doesn't, so why are you continuing to propagate this lie? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence's, in order to find that extraordinary evidence you have to look actually look for it. If you don't look for the evidence you won't find it. U science isn't religion, so stop treating it like one.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Here you go, continuing to prove my point. You ASSUME that I said something, so you run with it to try to make me look bad. If that's all you have to work with then you should give up now. I never once said that science disproves god. I only EVER said that the body of scientific data out there is sufficient to allow a rational person to conclude LOGICALLY that the probability of the existence of a god is very little. Science and religion conflict, no matter what people may say.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG I did say that nothing in science SUPPORTS the idea of a god. Is this where you got confused? If so, I can try to explain how that differs from what you think I said.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG You are correct. Science isn't religion. You are wrong about me treating it like one. In order for me to treat science like a religion, I must put blind faith in it. I don't choose to believe anything put before me unless I can verify it. This is true of any concept. Tell me that gravity pulls things toward the earth, I will test it and see for myself. Tell me there is a god and I will look everywhere for evidence to support this claim. I have been looking for years, and continue to.
narfanoid 1 year ago
Choose as you beleive. Remember your words.
blownone1 1 year ago
@SirChilling Each person will have his/her own day in which there will suddenly be nothing. It's called death, and it comes to all of us. Kinda sad, but it's part of being a biological creature. Oh, and if you want to hold a discussion with someone like me you should learn to spell. You used the word "prey", which refers to hunting, or being hunted. I think the word you are looking for, and can't even spell correctly, is "pray". The "son of god" is a mythical character.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SirChilling I don't do that because I am not the sort to talk to the ceiling. I'd be talking to nothing, and acting like a fool. That's why I don't do it.
narfanoid 1 year ago
This is just another "white washing " of the truth !..LoL...The real truth will come out in a couple of years ! People wont' be abled to lie anymore because we will all have the ability to read each others minds and know when the truth is being told and when a lie is being perpetuated !
B4BoomersBlockBoy7 1 year ago
@B4BoomersBlockBoy7 Ummm.... yeah.... right. Sure. Whatever.
narfanoid 1 year ago
2 points, 1 those are actors, which I find to be heinous misrepresentation of this video's title. 2 Jesus was and is black. It's not a big deal, but to constantly misrepresent our Saviour and King as white when he is in fact black is considered grossly neglect. Consult 1 Samuel 16 and notice that Jesse is the father of David, which is the lineage of Christ. Also consult the words of John the beloved who describes our Lord with hair like wool and feet of brass burned in a furnace.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG : There are known frescoes of Jesus Christ ( Yeshua Ben Yoseph ) in the Roman Catacombs. Been there and I have the Pictures of Him ! As we American's would say , He's a brother , No Doubt !
B4BoomersBlockBoy7 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Black or white, he was still very likely just a myth. Even if he was a real person, he would have been just a man... not a deity.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Also, speaking of people using just enough science to support their religious views look at yourself. Your religious view seems to be there is no God, a view that you say is supported by science when in fact, as you have stated it can't be done. You don't believe, that's your decision I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise. But to continually say science supports your view and then not offer anything to substantiate your claim other than the word science is frankly hilarious!
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Ah, another one of those people who thinks of science as a religion. Over and over again, science finds things in nature that contradict the bible - starting from flat earth to the nature of the universe. The very beginning of the Earth is contradictory to what the bible has to say. The nature of where animals come from is contradictory. The Noah's Arc story is ludicrous. Do you think Adam and Eve could have lead to the genetic diversity in the world today? And so on.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid the bible does not say the world is flat, there's a big diff between the Vatican and the bible. Noah's Arc, was doubtfully the entire planet, Adam and Eve are father and mother of the covenant people, why else was there a city called Nod for Caine to move to after murdering able? God is usually presented in the western world in an over simplified manner, which is very misleading. And yes, I believe Jesus wis God in the flesh and did raise from the dead, after 3 days. 2011 AD hmmm?
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Yeah, you can contort the words of the bible all you want to try to make it fit some "modern" understanding of it, but that doesn't take anything away from the fact that at the very base of it the thing is telling people that there is a big ol' spirt, all-powerful, omnipotent, yadda yadda, entity out there in some place called heaven that created us and guides our lives. Absolutely nothing in the natural world supports this idea. One needs to choose to interpret it that way.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Nothing in nature supports the idea of a god. Why should I not consider myself logical for concluding that there isn't?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Sure, go on trying to justify the words in the bible. You still can't find anything in the natural world to support a belief in a god. Plain and simple. The only place that says there is a god is in the bible... just like the only place that says there are pixies is in fairy tales.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG What I said was that science cannot be used as a tool to disprove religion. That is not the same as looking at the findings of science after the fact and coming to a logical conclusion.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid I dunno if logical is the word I would use, but you came up with your own conclusion, that subscribes with your view of the world as you currently perceive it. I find it very insulting and irritating when I see atheists trying to say they have a corner on the market of logic. You arrived at your conclusion, I imagine, after a series of decision's/judgments you've made on information presented to you, but to contend that your conclusion is the only logical one is absurd & small minded.
TOMZAUGG 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG As I stated above; why should I not consider myself logical to conclude there isn't a god, when nothing in nature supports the idea? It is neither absurd nor small minded in the least to have reached a conclusion after years of thought and study. If you can say that about my position then what is your defense if I say your position is one of delusion and fear? And, by calling me an "atheist" you are trying to define me, which you cannot do, because atheism is too small a concept.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@TOMZAUGG Can you not see the difference between religion and science? Can you not see why they are fundamentally different? Is this a concept I need to educate you on?
narfanoid 1 year ago
Pixies ARE real. It's in people's folklore from many parts of the world. There are historical accounts of pixies! They are written about in books! They are real, I tell you.
narfanoid 1 year ago
Any face is suitable. Jesus isn't vain, man is. He won't be offended that man so loves he, they wish to delight upon a picture, and have a face in the picture. Any face will likely delight Jesus, as his father is the creator of every face and Jesus loves every face than man has, or man can dream of. Even images in the human mind are images his father created through man, whom Jesus loves.
I'm sure he's honored, glorified and praised through mans attempt to adore him.
blownone1 1 year ago
@blownone1 Jesus is a myth. The mythical character of Jesus wasn't even born on christmas. The bible is the most heavily edited publication of all time. How can one trust a book that has been written and re-written so many times? If it was the word of god it would not have changed a bit since it first appeared. How many versions of the bible are there? How many times has your bible been edited and tweaked?
narfanoid 1 year ago
You speak of this jesus person as though he were real.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid he IS real,jesus himself said before he returns certain events will happen on earth to announce his return,guess what,ALL these signs and events have now happened,world news reads directly from the bible,amazing for just a book writtern 2oooyrs ago by men! its not global warming as the scientists say,but rather global warning!,God is preparing us for jesus return,thing is will you listern to his voice,because today salvation has come to you,please call on jesus name and find peace
andymcq2509 1 year ago 2
@andymcq2509 People have been saying that about jesus and his return for a long time, and it still hasn't happened. And guess what. It still won't happen. Do a little reading on how many times jesus was supposed to have returned only to have it not happen... over and over and over again. Get real.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid you have just fullfilled bible prophcey by your words!,the bible states that people will say "where is his coming?,everything has carried on and nothing changed!",the reason hes takern so long is that God is waiting for the last person to call on him to be saved and loved,then Jesus will return,events in middle east are fast telling us jesus return is near,when damascus city is destroyed and armies from around the world surround city of jeruslum,Then Jesus will return! u have bin told
andymcq2509 1 year ago
@andymcq2509 People have been asking where this Jesus person is for a long time. How is my contribution to that very appropriate question in any way an indication of a prophecy? You'll forgive me if I find it extremely difficult to believe that completely normal and natural events are indications of a "second coming"... assuming there was even a first. Are you prepared to eat crow when these so-called "prophecies" are "fullfilled" and then - BAM!! - nothing happens?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@andymcq2509 i agree.
TruGroovez 1 year ago
THANK JESUS PRAISE THE LORD
goldendrago1 1 year ago 7
Jesus Christ is my Savior and none of these pictures are pictures of the Lord.
warriorspikes51 1 year ago
@warriorspikes51 well said,no one knows until the day he returns just what he looks like,people need not have so called images of him least they become charms or idols.
andymcq2509 1 year ago
i understand the point you are making about the pictures but i dont think anyone is idolizing these pictures we all need to just listen to the song and think about all the blessings the Lord has given to us and how much we love him he would not want us all arguing over this song just listen to the words and feel his love. he just wants are love and us to love one another
malisajune 1 year ago
This is nothing less then blasphemy and idolatry! There are no real pictures of Christ and these are in fact all lies! There is a very good reason that there are no pictures! One is that we don’t need to worship a person who is not the real Christ. Lets say that I died and you wrote a book about me and used someone else’s picture! I would call you a liar! One person commented that the artists make Him out to look like a homosexual! And that’s true! I hate these pictures!
joshjames76 1 year ago 4
@joshjames76 don't you talk about jesus if he didn't sacafice hisself u none of us wouldn' be here
wezzyboy1234 1 year ago
@wezzyboy1234 thats my point little boy! Don't get mad at me? How would you like it if 120 years from now you wrote a book or did something wonderful and I showed everbody a picture of someone else that I drew up out of nowhere!...These are not pictures of Jesus!.......And to add to that how much more wonderful was Jesus then you or me! Take all pictures of Jesus and burn them! They are a lie! Simple and true!
joshjames76 1 year ago
@wezzyboy1234 Prove there was a jesus. Prove he sacrificed himself for us. Prove he was a son of a god. Prove his sacrifice saved us. Prove we wouldn't be here without him. If you can't do these things then please stop talking about jesus as though you know for sure he existed and that he was supernatural.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid ....like the quote says, "I'd Rather live my life as if there's God, and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."
Jibbel 1 year ago
@Jibbel I'd rather live my life as though ration and reason were valued, than to live my life in delusion.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@Jibbel The bible would have us believe the world was created (according to some lunatics as recently as about 6,000 years ago). If the god you believe in would rather have you believe a complete and utter foolish falsehood like that than let you learn about what modern science has demonstrated, then how can you trust this god? There are so many problems with what the bible says it's silly. Would your god really rather have you believe silliness than be reasonable?
narfanoid 1 year ago
i believe jesus i love him <3 i love jesus
MrRandomsniper 1 year ago 2
I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, but i don't think u should put pictures that u say are real when they don't even come near to what the Bible says Jesus look like. Hair like lambs wool, arms and feet like unto fine brass as if burned in an even. Take a penny and set fire to it and see what color it turns. it's time to be for real. When Jesus do come a lot of people are going to be shock. Acts 2:38 is still God's plan of salvation. Nice song! God bless you!
rossdaboss1959 1 year ago
magnificent!!!
filipinaphotogal 1 year ago
Shhhh.....be quiet and know that I am Lord! You are not alone my friend!
12345nicklee 1 year ago
real images ... ofcourse , they had cameras back than
7Spronge 1 year ago
Love and Praise our Lord -Jesus forever
gracemei65 1 year ago
Whoever believe HE is Jesus, HE is Jesus. HE is alive in Heaven and will RETURN
to JUDGE the world. NOT like other Prophets DEAD and burried.
Khalid
romanemoire 1 year ago
Do someone know who sings this song?..it is such a beautiful song I want to learn it :))
Joyfuldream 1 year ago
@Joyfuldream It's Freddie Ashby I think :)
SonicEther 1 year ago
It is so beautiful..this song is such beautiful..with so much feelings
Joyfuldream 1 year ago
This video is trying to depict Jesus as a homosexual
whiskeyspray 1 year ago
@whiskeyspray how dare you say such a thing. people like you are sick and twisted. shame on you
michael28759 1 year ago
@whiskeyspray You have an evil mind. It does not. It shows love.Proverbs 6:16-19 16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
MajesticBlueSky777 1 year ago
@whiskeyspray You're weird, sir.
narfanoid 1 year ago
You are INSANE. That artwork does NOT show any biblical Jesus. The hebrew language never had J consonants, so the word "Jesus" could have NEVER even been pronounced by them w/ NO J letters in their alphabet. Your "Jesus" is the SUN, his 12 disciples were the 12 constellations. It is ALL solar rooted, this is why you worship on SUN-day. Even the Jewish sabbath of Saturday is solar, it comes from SATURN-day. We just take the "n" out of it. You are a brainwashed FOOL.
EducatedRebellion101 1 year ago
jesus aint white
killabam415 1 year ago
@killabam415
whiskeyspray 1 year ago
@killabam415 Not only is jesus not white, he's not even real.
narfanoid 1 year ago
throughout the NT Jesus is often called "rabbi" by the people who saw Him. As such, the sides of his hair would have been long. And of course he wasn't Anglo. According to the gospel, "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. " 53:2
Isaiah. So he was ordinary looking. But it doesn't matter what he looked like. It matters who he IS.
DarkAdaptedEyes 1 year ago
@DarkAdaptedEyes thank you atleast some1 believes in him
bellabella2330 1 year ago
@bellabella2330
God bless you, may the Holy Spirit fill you with love forever and ever!
DarkAdaptedEyes 1 year ago
@Lyricalphysicist
Christ was not corruptible, he was God in the flesh and without sin
DarkAdaptedEyes 1 year ago
Question to all those who accept the story of creation is simply a myth:
If Adam and Eve never existed as science has shown us, then inherently the story about "original sin" would also a myth. With that said, what was the purpose of jesus christ dying on the cross?
I would truly like to hear the feedback from anyone this question applies to. How does one reconcile with this fundamental problem?
pokerslut530 1 year ago
im pretty sure jesus was a Hebrew from the middle east not some redneck from Alabama wearing a white robe
varoneezy 1 year ago