what the fuck!!! how can you say these verses do not contradict each other??? you must be half blind. one says he didnt come to judge and the other says he came for judgement...what is hard to see in that??
This disagreement could probably be easily solved by looking at the Greek. In ProtMTH's interpetation, "judging" would be active, and in yours it would be passive. (The distinction is actually in English as well, and if your interpretation of the meaning is correct, we should have the passive "being judged" rather than the active "judging." Anyone out there who has access to the original text and knows enough Greek to figure it out?
@Naiant if you read the whole chapter of John:9 it's clear Jesus is the one being judged by the pharisees the whole chapter is about Jesus helping a blind man and being judged for it by the pharisees.
Well, Christians often do that too, that is, cut the Bible passages to suit their own agenda - a lot more than non-theists do. How about in Leviticus (I think), where it talks against homosexuality? Many Christians point to that bit to show that homosexuality is apparently wrong, and yet fail to realise that it goes on to mention that you shouldn't eat shellfish.
Also, the KJV uses such an archaic form of English, that it's hard to understand precisley what's being said most of the tmie.
@LostSubsForever yes i agree that all people site a point in a verse rather than the whole verse, ...but this video is about profMTH, i also agree that even for a scholar of theology it is difficult to completely understand scripture, i learned symbolism and mythology to help me, but i still struggle, i guess Jesus was right when he said that you would have to be born of spirit to truly know God.
Oh for sure a book written by god the creator of the universe, to explain how he wants you to live, should be full of verses that are open to interpretation, and made to appear as though it was written by bronze age mortals, with no knowledge of the universe or world outside of the middle east, Promyth must be dellusional to question it.
Your interpretation of John 5:30 seems to ignore verses 28 and 29, which speaks about people rising from their graves. The traditional Christian viewpoint says that on the day of judgment, Jesus will judge the dead, and this verse would probably be interpreted by most Christians as supporting that.
i explained every verse you posted, if you don't accept my explanation that's fine, but just because you might not accept my explanation doesn't mean i didn't explain them, I'm not a Christian, but it seems you support the Christan translation of the text...once again when Jesus speaks of the dead he means the dead in spirit, not the literal death of people...there are many verses that gives reason to support this, and i have posted them.
And no, I was not interpreting the text as referring to zombies, I was saying that the standard Christian interpretation of that passage would be that Jesus was judging the dead. The Bible in numerous verses describes judgment of people by Jesus (many Christians would say the judge in Revelation 20:11-15 is Jesus, as shown in the carvings at Notre Dame De Paris), yet John 3:17 and 12:47 say that that's NOT what he came to do.
the ancients used symbols and mythological stories to give spiritual meanings, the reason for this is it's difficult to explain a spiritual experience, so they used symbols (objects) built around mythological stories to give a spiritual happening meaning...like Jesus who spoke in parable...a parable is a made up story in order to give an example of a spiritual happening, but most traditional religious people and most nonspiritual people can't differentiate between this and what was real.
like you a lot of religious people read the spiritual text as literal, when infact it has nothing to do with a natural happening only a spiritual happening..an example is lots wife who turns into a pillar of salt, some believe this was an actual happening lol they think it really happened, it's symbolism, but all it meant was that she turn into a statue because she looked back on the city, she was in effect turning away from God's blessing and so she couldn't move forward because she looked back
That is what I particularly liked about your response here. You say you "explained" to him... So you have ALL the answers? You can definately tell us EVERYTHING god meant in that book?! He's not capable of figuring it out on his own without you "explaining all the answers to him?! PLEASE.., start to re-think some of YOUR (Free Choice!) thoughts, do some historical research and see if you can grow EVEN MORE! Best of luck! I'll be thinking about you!
resurrection of the dead...do you think that it means people who are literally dead are brought back to life, like zombies, does this make sense to you?
when Jesus said "you must be born of spirit, what do you think this means? that you die then get reborn literally? no it means the dead in spirit, are born of spirit, this is the resurrection, do you really believe that people who are dead get resurrected like zombies? this is hideous to believe.
john5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
tifforo1 you cut this verse.
when jesus said i hear and i judge he is talking about what he hears within him of the spirit he judges to be righteous, it's the spirit within him he is judging to be righteous because he seeks the will of the spirit within him, this has nothing to do with judging men.
the funny thing is biggy the naturalists are the first to say..natural has nothing to do with supernatural...yet they read a spiritual book with the natural mind set.
when he says he hears and he judges..what does he mean? hears what? he hears the will of the father through the spirit, and it's righteous, and with the authority of God Jesus speak and judges what is righteous, and in knowing what is righteous does the will of the father. he's judging what is right, Jesus has to speak what is right, because God committed him to do so. no judgment on man but judgment on what is right.
1. There isn't much in John 9 to indicate that Jesus was talking about HIMSELF being judged.
2. John 5:22;26-27;30 says: "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son...For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also...As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous."
So, implying that Jesus DOESN'T judge doesn't make the "blunder" go away.
tifforo1 i think what people fail to understand is the that on my video it was talking about judgment of people...the verses you posted are about judgment on what is right...tell me where in any of your verses Jesus says he judges man? i can explain each verse on that.
John 5: "all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous"
This seems to be about Jesus judging men, not actions. Granted, it seems to be about judgment after death. Still, it's about Jesus judging people by their response to his life, contrary to what John 3:17 and 12:47 say.
tifforo1 when jesus talks about the dead he is talking about the dead in spirit, not literally dead, that's why he said those who are in the grave will hear my voice this is ressurrection from dead in spirit, lol a literal dead person hears nothing, you make the same mistake that a lot of people do you read a spiritual book literally...the dead are the dead in spirit, once they are ressurected to life(spirit) only then are they subject to God, and only then do they answer to god...cont
how can God judge men..he can only judge their actions, which when resurrected from dead in spirit to life in spirit God will change you...but only them born of spirit will be subject to this...paul the apostle said "only the spirit is subject to God" this is what Jesus said aswell...only then born of spirit can know God...so only people who are born of spirit will face God not all people.
i explained John:30 to you...but you cut half the verse out, like promth does...jesus clearly says in john 12:47 i have not come to judge the world but save the world...once you are resurrected you are saved..tifforo1 the spiritual text has nothing to do with people who are not born of spirit...so only them that are born of spirit will know what this really means, because they are the ones who go through it.
22For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
no judgment of man but God committed all judgment on the son, judgment on what is right...give me a verse where Jesus actively judged a man on his life.
30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
jesus is saying himself is nothing but what he hears in him is what he judges to be right because what is in him is the father and Jesus does the fathers will of what is right.
the one tree that Adam and eve were told not to eat of is symbolic of bad and evil...that tree was always in the garden of eden...so this is symbolic of the fact that man and women was always capable of evil...they were told not to eat of it...once they did eat of it this is symbolic of acting on the evil they were always capable of.. and so they were outside of Gods protection...outside of God means out of the garden of eden and subject to evil.
well said, I believe god and the devil = good and evil, notice how the terms are so close.. there are many good moral teachings in the bible, and the quran for that matter, I choose to take all the good lessons from both.
actually I disagree it is not pure chance, fisrt off good and evil exist, so man coinc. makes two beings that symbolize both? and what ever group of people where responsible for creating the english lauguage also picked up on this hence the close translation. unless you believe that to be a coinc. for some reason.
the point I was trying to convey was that god and devil are metaphors for good and evil, not literal, what ever the word may be they are still metaphors, I was commenting how in our language they have so much in comming with the state they embody. non the less the bible and quran have many good moral teachings and I take the good things from them and put them in practise, as any other critical thinker should do, and read into the other metaphors.
Well, if you want to believe that, and it fits your philosophy (which i find very sympathetic, btw.), it's ok. Ethymologically, it doesn't make any sense, though.
"Good" comes from Proto-Germanic "gothaz" (fit, adequate) and "God" comes from P.Gmc. "Guthan" (God - and early Germanic Peoples didn't have necessarily "good" Gods...).
"Evil" comes from P.Gmc. "ubilaz" (bad, cruel), whereas "Devil" comes from Greek "Diabolos" (Accuser).
slow down your confusing yourself, I said they are metaphors for good and evil, so what you are doing is truly unnecessary, everybody knows they have different titles in every language..I hope, I was commenting on how they are metaphors in what ever language you would like to cite! in english it is not coincidence that the words good and evil are so similar to the entities that are said to embody these exact traits, so please understand what you are reading before you comment on it!
No. But i really am very sceptic about these kind of statements. There are a lot of words, which accidentally fit to certain concepts, but if you check the etymology, it doesn't work anymore. Most prominent example is the meaning of "universe", which some creationists translate as "one spoken sentence", which is demonstrably wrong. But it fits the concept of creationism oh so well...
and if you are postulating the biblical God and Satan are not the epitome of good and evil I would be forced to assume you have know idea what you are talking about, and "if you want to believe that and it fits your philosophy" then i completely disagree with you, and do not consider it "ok".
"butthurt much" not sure what it is your implying. I have a distaste for people who reply to me negatively as if to take credability away from a valid comment. other then that respect bro.
Well, imho, a critical comment does not necessarily have to be negative comment, and most certainly does not take away your credibility. I guess, you took it the wrong way. Sorry, if i offended you anyhow. I respect your openness (i already insinuated that, but i guess, it got lost between the criticism) to different religious approaches; i think, that's a very rare trait.
Oh, yes. I'm Taurus with ascendant Taurus. And although I don't believe in horoscopes, I'm really astonished, how i fit in the usual description of Taurus.
the fact that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was always in the garden of eden...means that the mind of man was always capable of evil...the serpent was symbolic of the temptation to do evil.
aaugoaa.. If man was always capable of of evil. Then your perfect God did not create perfection contradicting Gen.1;26 And God says let us make man in our image and after our likeness......
aagoaa. Your playing willfull ignorance here. You cannot have freewill if you do not know bett. right and wrong.Gen. 3;5 says that they did not know. the tree has nothing to do with it.
aaaugoaa.. Thats it God tell them do not do bad only do good that is assuming that they knew the diff. btt. good and bad. Adam & Eve did not., Gen. 3;5 is clear about that.
it is not to be taken literally...to be in eden is symbolic of the place of God, in the mind of man and women...the apple is symbolic of doing wrong by God..as in an act against God..to want to eat the apple is like being tempted to do wrong..then after she eats it, this is symbolic of actually doing something wrong. the tree that she ate of was always there...symbolic of the temptation of sin is always there...cont
so to think Adam and eve was not capable of knowing good and bad is error...the fact that the tree was always in the garden means God never kept the knowledge of good and evil from them....he just said ...do not eat of it. once they eat of it...they are separated from him, because of there sin..which is why they leave the garden of eden..thats why God told them not to eat of it...to be outside the garden of eden is to outside the protection of God..and subject to all that is evil.
so in other words..knowing bad and good is something all men and women are capable of knowing....but it doesn't mean you have to do bad or evil things...and if you do you are outside of God and subject to evil.
About anyone is capable of learning good from bad as long as you know the diff. bettwen the two. in this case Eve did know who was Good (God) and bad (Satan) she learned that after she ate from the tree.
also Just because the tree was always there does not mean she knew about it until God told her. and then Satan told the opposite.;
Symbolism or not make no diff. Christianity fail from the begining.
do mean you can blame the creator for the mess his creation is in?....you don't have to eat of it...that's the point. so you think free will should not have been? and if this was so, you would not have been in control of your own life...you would have been a puppet. some people say they hate the thought of a God in their life...so if there was no free will you would be forced to abide by God.
aaugoaa.. Your words So to think Adam was not capable of knowing good and bad is error?
Nothing is said about them being capable. Gen.3;5 says.That they shall know good from bad only after they ate of the fruit (Sin) They only learn that sin was bad after they sin. So far this is nonsense.
This like you learning that running a red light is bad after you ran it. thank;s
aaugoaa. It has nothing to do with a apple,it has to do with knowledge. You have to know the diff. bett. right and wrong before claiming you have the freewill to choose. Eve did not. That is why I say He (God) is responsible for the Eve sinning.
Aagoaa. In 9;39 .. Says For judgment i am come.... First of all The word Judgment is sigular not plural as in peoples would bring there judgments of him.
what if it had of said...for judgments i have come....you people would have said ooh no it's plural so he meant judgments of people lol, may i suggest you go and read the chapter of john 9...and you will understand it was Jesus who was being judged.
"because you have a preexisting theological stance that must be defended no matter what"
lol he does more theological videos than i do, and gives his opinion on the bible more than i do...lol his whole style is to rummage through the bible looking for contraditions...thing is i find him to be deceptive in his method...he only uses parts of the verses, not whole verses..maybe in oder to sway his audience.
"you said Jesus judged the pharisees in john 9:39"
No, that's not what I said. It's the TRANSITIONAL bit of the story that sparks the conversation between him and the Pharisees in which he goes on to judge them. I'm getting the unfortunate impression that I could sit here and go over this with you all day long and you *still* wouldn't get it -- not because you're incapable of understanding it, but because you have a preexisting theological stance that must be defended no matter what.
because hes a phony who just twists things to suit his argument augy. u can see he did it even on here. he quoted my sentence "who cares if its the same word"? but left out this part "words have different meanings"
hes a quote miner who twists quotes to suit his argument. then cant back it up.
41Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would have no sin; but because you now claim to have sight, your sin remains. [If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but because you insist, We do see clearly, you are unable to escape your guilt.]
this is the first and only time jesus spoke to the pharisees in the whole chapter of john 9...they asked him....are we also blind? jesus answered with this verse.
The passages all mention judgment. Jesus didn't come to judge, but to save. The one apparently contradictory verse He was speaking directly to those who would refuse to be saved. He is telling them about their judgment.
Arrogant people who don't believe in the Bible should just stay away from it. They are merely looking for a way to twist. Jesus said many things publicly and even the Apostles did not understand, but Scripture says that in private He explained to them what He meant. The true meaning was NOT for the hard of heart who He knew would never give in and believe.
2Pet 1:20, St. Peter said, "This then you must understand first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation."
You have to read the whole Bible and understand before you quote mine verses.
2Pet 3:16-17, St. Peter said, "...In these Epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable distort, Just as they do the rest of the scriptures also, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, since you know this beforehand, be on your guard lest, carried away by the error of the foolish, you fall away from your steadfastness."
i don't know what has happened to them, i and a few others were posting a while ago and made quite a few comments...maybe yours will show up later, i have experienced this on other channels before
Sorry, i didn't think it was you :), it seems YT has a bug lately, it happened on my clips as well. Showing all posts doesn't seem to help but what you said did :)
No you can't, disprove the fact that life always comes from life, just that, i ask nothing more than that. Can you back up the fairy tale that it doesn't ?
Debunked so many of you, it's not even funny anymore.
Life is made up of non-life as you guys would put it and CDK007 did a video on this called "The Origin of Life". The work he sited was demonstrated in a lab. Sorry man but you haven't debunked anyone.
And your only response is a conspiracy theory, go read the paper; this is a testable repeatable theory.
"I asked you a question you didn't answer..."
I did answer and now you run from the argument without refuting it. This is a typical creationists tactic. This is why you have to block people and censor comments. Oddly enough atheists don't do that.
`go read the paper; this is a testable repeatable theory. `
If it was actual proof it would be broadcasted worldwide, but it isn´t, based on Szostak who claims something, wow, great science...
So can you write something down here, my claim is no life without previews life because i see it all around me, PURE SCIENCE. You claim an exception, so please go ahead, write it down for me. And i wont even bother to respond if you come up with more names of people claiming unscientific things
He won a price for `pioneering work in the discovery of telomerase, an enzyme that protects chromosomes from degrading.` Explain what that has to do with the origin of life......the creation of the genome and so on...
`So viruses can pop into existence threw natural causes but life cannot.?`
Show me any evidence in which they come into existence without a host like us. From scratch...
So you didn´t refute my claim again, you´re stuck with it
And now you´ll try to twist and turn as much as you can to blind others, it is truly sad that you people say we´re blind but we actually use what we see all around us, you don´t. Ciao ciao, learn from this lesson.
augy also some translations use the word condemn not judge. so he could be saying i am judging but not condemning. judgment isnt necessarily bad. u make a safety judgments when u drive etc
lets just think for a minute what we think judging actually is..if Jesus speaks, does that mean he is judging...because if it does..how can he help people
in other words was he judging them or trying to help them?
This clip is so true sister, i also read the KJV and thought why not make a clip about it, but to be honest, everyone knows the way Profmth works. But you did a great job, 5 stars !!!
thanks lol you know i made a video response to the verses promth used, and i answered them...now all the atheists come here bringing up other verses that were not in profmth video for me to respond to...lol next one will be...well what about exodus chapter* and then what about mark chapter* blar blar blar ...lol
all u did was pick 3 quotes that have the same word in them and say its a contradiction. but its not even the same word depending on the translation. that doesnt even consider the issue of interpretation.
I suggest you invest in a concordance and Greek lexicon so that in the future you won't embarrass yourself as you have here by saying something so utterly stupid. It's the exact same word in Greek.
some translations say judge some say condemn. what is the greek word and what does it mean? and what is the original aramaic word from which the greek was translated. i wont lower myself to insult as u have done. when i was small my dad taught me about people like u who are educated beyond their intelligence.
profmth i think if you read the whole chapter of john 9, it talks about the pharisees questioning a blind man about Jesus making him see, they question him on who Jesus is, and that he works on a Sabbath day, and that they say we know that God spoken to moses, but not jesus...i think this sheds light on the verse John:39 where Jesus said..for judgment i come into this world, that they that not see, might see.
the pharisees had just been judging Jesus in light of the blind man.
john9:16Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. 17They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
18But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
Of course, Aaugoaa, John 9 does not have Jesus as a party to the conversation between the Pharisees and the formerly blind man. What is clear is that the story culiminates in Jesus judging the Pharisees of knowing sin and disbelief.
40Some Pharisees who were near, hearing this remark, said to Him, Are we also blind? 41Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would have no sin; but because you now claim to have sight, your sin remains. [If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but because you insist, We do see clearly, you are unable to escape your guilt.]
the pharisees asked him if they were blind...should he not answer?
only in verse 41 of john9...does Jesus answer them..because they asked him...are we blind?...the verse you put in your video is well before Jesus answered them...the verse John:39 is Jesus saying he was being judged, profmth you put verse John;39 in your video thats the one i responded to...however like i said should Jesus not have answered them?
and if he don't answer them..is he doing the right thing by them?
"the verse you put in your video is well before Jesus answered them"
Crack open your Bible and have another look, Aaugoaa. It's two verses before and sparks the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees in which he judges them. With all due respect, Aaugoaa, you're rather clumsily grasping at straws here and in the process -- quite unintentionally on your part, no doubt -- you're reinforcing the fact that the verse does *not* mean what you you wish it to mean.
35Jesus heard that they had put him out, and meeting him He said, Do you believe in and adhere to the Son of Man [b]or the Son of God ? 36He answered, Who is He, Sir? Tell me, that I may believe in and adhere to Him. 37Jesus said to him, You have seen Him; [in fact] He is talking to you right now. 38He called out, Lord, I believe! [I rely on, I trust, I cleave to You!] And he worshiped Him.
which verse...this is jesus talking to the blind man.
:: sigh :: I quoted verse 39, which is the transitional verse leading the to climax between Jesus and the Pharisees. Good grief! Do you have a substantive response, Aaugoaa, or is this verse-39-is-well-before-verse-41 nonsense the best you've got?
I know who he was talking to in verse 39, Aaugoaa. I've explained this several times to you now and won't bother repeating myself yet again. You demonstrate the truth of the old bromide: no one is so blind as the one who *will not* see.
lol don't be so shy...post the verse where jesus judged the pharisees, john9:39 jesus is talking to the blind man after the blind man was throw out the door by the pharisees.....lazy man lol
are u really a professor? hard to believe. u dont seem to know much about this subject. must be one of those tenured professional students that the universities are forced to keep around. thats another problem with the education system.
john12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. 45And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. 46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world
48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
are you going to do the same thing grits only post bits that you thing condemn him
where in any of this text does it suggest Jesus judge them.
The same is true after John 3:173:17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
No. It sounds like Jesus is saying that they will remember his words at the end of their lives and be convicted. If he refers to judgement at all, it seems to be in reference to God as separate from himself. That is, it isn't his job to judge people during their lives, but God's job to judge after life. What do you think?
I suppose if he did not speak he would have been disobeying God, if in fact God had commanded him to speak. From all of the interpretations I have heard and have attempted myself, Jesus was sent to save the world by taking on the sins of all people in a new covenant between humankind and God. I think that's what Jesus meant by saving the world and not judging. I don't see any scriptural contradictions with this idea.
what the fuck!!! how can you say these verses do not contradict each other??? you must be half blind. one says he didnt come to judge and the other says he came for judgement...what is hard to see in that??
kemetofold 9 months ago
@kemetofold go and read the whole of the chapter, john:9
the only person being judged in that whole chapter is Jesus.
aaugoaa 9 months ago
King james is mainly from the latin vulgate. The vulgate is not the best source for translation.
zacbouwens 1 year ago
This disagreement could probably be easily solved by looking at the Greek. In ProtMTH's interpetation, "judging" would be active, and in yours it would be passive. (The distinction is actually in English as well, and if your interpretation of the meaning is correct, we should have the passive "being judged" rather than the active "judging." Anyone out there who has access to the original text and knows enough Greek to figure it out?
Naiant 1 year ago
@Naiant if you read the whole chapter of John:9 it's clear Jesus is the one being judged by the pharisees the whole chapter is about Jesus helping a blind man and being judged for it by the pharisees.
aaugoaa 1 year ago
Well, Christians often do that too, that is, cut the Bible passages to suit their own agenda - a lot more than non-theists do. How about in Leviticus (I think), where it talks against homosexuality? Many Christians point to that bit to show that homosexuality is apparently wrong, and yet fail to realise that it goes on to mention that you shouldn't eat shellfish.
Also, the KJV uses such an archaic form of English, that it's hard to understand precisley what's being said most of the tmie.
LostSubsForever 1 year ago 4
@LostSubsForever yes i agree that all people site a point in a verse rather than the whole verse, ...but this video is about profMTH, i also agree that even for a scholar of theology it is difficult to completely understand scripture, i learned symbolism and mythology to help me, but i still struggle, i guess Jesus was right when he said that you would have to be born of spirit to truly know God.
aaugoaa 1 year ago
No one will even begin to listen to an argument that accuses someone of having an agenda.
Daruqe 1 year ago
Oh for sure a book written by god the creator of the universe, to explain how he wants you to live, should be full of verses that are open to interpretation, and made to appear as though it was written by bronze age mortals, with no knowledge of the universe or world outside of the middle east, Promyth must be dellusional to question it.
groovyengineer 1 year ago 7
Your "biblical defense mechanism" seems to be working beautifully, for you. Good luck w/ that. Best wishes and regards.
crazy4carolyn 2 years ago
Your interpretation of John 5:30 seems to ignore verses 28 and 29, which speaks about people rising from their graves. The traditional Christian viewpoint says that on the day of judgment, Jesus will judge the dead, and this verse would probably be interpreted by most Christians as supporting that.
tifforo1 2 years ago
i explained every verse you posted, if you don't accept my explanation that's fine, but just because you might not accept my explanation doesn't mean i didn't explain them, I'm not a Christian, but it seems you support the Christan translation of the text...once again when Jesus speaks of the dead he means the dead in spirit, not the literal death of people...there are many verses that gives reason to support this, and i have posted them.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
You're not a Christian? Could've fooled me...
And no, I was not interpreting the text as referring to zombies, I was saying that the standard Christian interpretation of that passage would be that Jesus was judging the dead. The Bible in numerous verses describes judgment of people by Jesus (many Christians would say the judge in Revelation 20:11-15 is Jesus, as shown in the carvings at Notre Dame De Paris), yet John 3:17 and 12:47 say that that's NOT what he came to do.
tifforo1 2 years ago
the ancients used symbols and mythological stories to give spiritual meanings, the reason for this is it's difficult to explain a spiritual experience, so they used symbols (objects) built around mythological stories to give a spiritual happening meaning...like Jesus who spoke in parable...a parable is a made up story in order to give an example of a spiritual happening, but most traditional religious people and most nonspiritual people can't differentiate between this and what was real.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
like you a lot of religious people read the spiritual text as literal, when infact it has nothing to do with a natural happening only a spiritual happening..an example is lots wife who turns into a pillar of salt, some believe this was an actual happening lol they think it really happened, it's symbolism, but all it meant was that she turn into a statue because she looked back on the city, she was in effect turning away from God's blessing and so she couldn't move forward because she looked back
aaugoaa 2 years ago
That is what I particularly liked about your response here. You say you "explained" to him... So you have ALL the answers? You can definately tell us EVERYTHING god meant in that book?! He's not capable of figuring it out on his own without you "explaining all the answers to him?! PLEASE.., start to re-think some of YOUR (Free Choice!) thoughts, do some historical research and see if you can grow EVEN MORE! Best of luck! I'll be thinking about you!
crazy4carolyn 2 years ago
resurrection of the dead...do you think that it means people who are literally dead are brought back to life, like zombies, does this make sense to you?
when Jesus said "you must be born of spirit, what do you think this means? that you die then get reborn literally? no it means the dead in spirit, are born of spirit, this is the resurrection, do you really believe that people who are dead get resurrected like zombies? this is hideous to believe.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
just like in nite of the living dead! haha
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
john5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
tifforo1 you cut this verse.
when jesus said i hear and i judge he is talking about what he hears within him of the spirit he judges to be righteous, it's the spirit within him he is judging to be righteous because he seeks the will of the spirit within him, this has nothing to do with judging men.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
preach sister! haha
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
well they read it literally biggy lol...how can a spiritual book be read literally.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
i know they dont get that huh?
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
the funny thing is biggy the naturalists are the first to say..natural has nothing to do with supernatural...yet they read a spiritual book with the natural mind set.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
ya theyre just trying to debunk it instead of learning from it
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
when he says he hears and he judges..what does he mean? hears what? he hears the will of the father through the spirit, and it's righteous, and with the authority of God Jesus speak and judges what is righteous, and in knowing what is righteous does the will of the father. he's judging what is right, Jesus has to speak what is right, because God committed him to do so. no judgment on man but judgment on what is right.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
oh and there is plenty of reason to believe jesus was talking about himself as being judged. in john 9....maybe you read it different to me.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
1. There isn't much in John 9 to indicate that Jesus was talking about HIMSELF being judged.
2. John 5:22;26-27;30 says: "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son...For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also...As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous."
So, implying that Jesus DOESN'T judge doesn't make the "blunder" go away.
tifforo1 2 years ago
tifforo1 i think what people fail to understand is the that on my video it was talking about judgment of people...the verses you posted are about judgment on what is right...tell me where in any of your verses Jesus says he judges man? i can explain each verse on that.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
John 5: "all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous"
This seems to be about Jesus judging men, not actions. Granted, it seems to be about judgment after death. Still, it's about Jesus judging people by their response to his life, contrary to what John 3:17 and 12:47 say.
tifforo1 2 years ago
tifforo1 when jesus talks about the dead he is talking about the dead in spirit, not literally dead, that's why he said those who are in the grave will hear my voice this is ressurrection from dead in spirit, lol a literal dead person hears nothing, you make the same mistake that a lot of people do you read a spiritual book literally...the dead are the dead in spirit, once they are ressurected to life(spirit) only then are they subject to God, and only then do they answer to god...cont
aaugoaa 2 years ago
how can God judge men..he can only judge their actions, which when resurrected from dead in spirit to life in spirit God will change you...but only them born of spirit will be subject to this...paul the apostle said "only the spirit is subject to God" this is what Jesus said aswell...only then born of spirit can know God...so only people who are born of spirit will face God not all people.
and it's not a judgment on them it's to be saved.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
i explained John:30 to you...but you cut half the verse out, like promth does...jesus clearly says in john 12:47 i have not come to judge the world but save the world...once you are resurrected you are saved..tifforo1 the spiritual text has nothing to do with people who are not born of spirit...so only them that are born of spirit will know what this really means, because they are the ones who go through it.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
22For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
no judgment of man but God committed all judgment on the son, judgment on what is right...give me a verse where Jesus actively judged a man on his life.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
john 5:26
26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
life meaning spirit. God had the spirit of life, so did Jesus 27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
authority to execute judgment over what is right.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
john 5:30
30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
jesus is saying himself is nothing but what he hears in him is what he judges to be right because what is in him is the father and Jesus does the fathers will of what is right.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
jesus goes on to say on
john5:34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
Jesus is sayin yet no one man has supported what he says is righteous, and yet the things he said were so man could be saved.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
That profMTH guy is an absolute jerk....
LordWhorfinX 2 years ago
Adam and eve is pure symbolism...and needs interpretation..if you don't believe that then you think an apple can give you knowledge of bad and evil.
the garden of eden is a place of God in the mind of man.
the trees and there fruit are symbolic of knowledge.
when you eat of the fruit then thats symbolic of acting on the knowledge.
the serpent is symbolic of temptation
Adam and eve are symbolic of all men and women.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
the one tree that Adam and eve were told not to eat of is symbolic of bad and evil...that tree was always in the garden of eden...so this is symbolic of the fact that man and women was always capable of evil...they were told not to eat of it...once they did eat of it this is symbolic of acting on the evil they were always capable of.. and so they were outside of Gods protection...outside of God means out of the garden of eden and subject to evil.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
well said, I believe god and the devil = good and evil, notice how the terms are so close.. there are many good moral teachings in the bible, and the quran for that matter, I choose to take all the good lessons from both.
aARIESsSs 2 years ago
The closeness of the terms is pure chance. There are literally thousands of other languages, in which these terms aren't close at all.
leungchaan 2 years ago
actually I disagree it is not pure chance, fisrt off good and evil exist, so man coinc. makes two beings that symbolize both? and what ever group of people where responsible for creating the english lauguage also picked up on this hence the close translation. unless you believe that to be a coinc. for some reason.
aARIESsSs 2 years ago
the point I was trying to convey was that god and devil are metaphors for good and evil, not literal, what ever the word may be they are still metaphors, I was commenting how in our language they have so much in comming with the state they embody. non the less the bible and quran have many good moral teachings and I take the good things from them and put them in practise, as any other critical thinker should do, and read into the other metaphors.
aARIESsSs 2 years ago
Well, if you want to believe that, and it fits your philosophy (which i find very sympathetic, btw.), it's ok. Ethymologically, it doesn't make any sense, though.
"Good" comes from Proto-Germanic "gothaz" (fit, adequate) and "God" comes from P.Gmc. "Guthan" (God - and early Germanic Peoples didn't have necessarily "good" Gods...).
"Evil" comes from P.Gmc. "ubilaz" (bad, cruel), whereas "Devil" comes from Greek "Diabolos" (Accuser).
leungchaan 2 years ago
slow down your confusing yourself, I said they are metaphors for good and evil, so what you are doing is truly unnecessary, everybody knows they have different titles in every language..I hope, I was commenting on how they are metaphors in what ever language you would like to cite! in english it is not coincidence that the words good and evil are so similar to the entities that are said to embody these exact traits, so please understand what you are reading before you comment on it!
aARIESsSs 2 years ago
lol have you read and translated them all then?
aaugoaa 2 years ago
No. But i really am very sceptic about these kind of statements. There are a lot of words, which accidentally fit to certain concepts, but if you check the etymology, it doesn't work anymore. Most prominent example is the meaning of "universe", which some creationists translate as "one spoken sentence", which is demonstrably wrong. But it fits the concept of creationism oh so well...
leungchaan 2 years ago
How you compare a valid metaphor to an invalid understanding of the etymology of another word baffles me.
aARIESsSs 2 years ago
and if you are postulating the biblical God and Satan are not the epitome of good and evil I would be forced to assume you have know idea what you are talking about, and "if you want to believe that and it fits your philosophy" then i completely disagree with you, and do not consider it "ok".
aARIESsSs 2 years ago
he does not understand what he is reading.
aARIESsSs 2 years ago
Butthurt much? Calm down, it's just the internets...
leungchaan 2 years ago
"butthurt much" not sure what it is your implying. I have a distaste for people who reply to me negatively as if to take credability away from a valid comment. other then that respect bro.
aARIESsSs 2 years ago
Well, imho, a critical comment does not necessarily have to be negative comment, and most certainly does not take away your credibility. I guess, you took it the wrong way. Sorry, if i offended you anyhow. I respect your openness (i already insinuated that, but i guess, it got lost between the criticism) to different religious approaches; i think, that's a very rare trait.
leungchaan 2 years ago
my bad im a hot headed aries, gods speed ;)
aARIESsSs 2 years ago
Oh, I'm used to that... I was raised by one!
And I'm Taurus, so i can handle it. ;-)
leungchaan 2 years ago
interesting, that is the strangest thing, when i read about aries it described my perfectly! I don't understand how.. same with you?
aARIESsSs 2 years ago
Oh, yes. I'm Taurus with ascendant Taurus. And although I don't believe in horoscopes, I'm really astonished, how i fit in the usual description of Taurus.
leungchaan 2 years ago
the fact that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was always in the garden of eden...means that the mind of man was always capable of evil...the serpent was symbolic of the temptation to do evil.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
aagoaa.. Where does it say that man was always capable of evil? chapter&verses
Thank;s
robertobrian6 2 years ago
do you believe that man has always been capable of evil?
aaugoaa 2 years ago
aaugoaa.. If man was always capable of of evil. Then your perfect God did not create perfection contradicting Gen.1;26 And God says let us make man in our image and after our likeness......
Perfection cannot create imperfection. thank you
robertobrian6 2 years ago
in Gods image is to know both good and evil.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
its acting on that knowledge that is totally symbolic of adam and eve.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
aagoaa. Your playing willfull ignorance here. You cannot have freewill if you do not know bett. right and wrong.Gen. 3;5 says that they did not know. the tree has nothing to do with it.
robertobrian6 2 years ago
aaaugoaa.. Thats it God tell them do not do bad only do good that is assuming that they knew the diff. btt. good and bad. Adam & Eve did not., Gen. 3;5 is clear about that.
robertobrian6 2 years ago
aaugoaa. Well then literal or not make no diff. b/c the story is simply false. and if do not know bett. good and bad then you don;t know.
Beside where does it says the story is a symbolism? Chapter&verse please.
No one has the right to decide when it is a symbolism and when it not unless the book tell you that. You can;t make things up
robertobrian6 2 years ago
if you don't believe adam and eve was symbolism...then you believe an apple can give you knowledge of evil ...i do not believe that.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
biggy what do you think to what robertobrain6 said.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
it doesnt make any sense because it could be singular or plural.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
yes biggy they call that something don't they...when a word can be understood as singular or plural
aaugoaa 2 years ago
aaugoaa. There is no need for name calling.
Answer this. Who Eve was suppose to believe God or Satan before she ate the fruit?
Since she could not aquire that knowledge until after she ate of the fruit.Gen.3;5 3;7
robertobrian6 2 years ago
what name calling?
Adam and eve text is full of symbolism.
it is not to be taken literally...to be in eden is symbolic of the place of God, in the mind of man and women...the apple is symbolic of doing wrong by God..as in an act against God..to want to eat the apple is like being tempted to do wrong..then after she eats it, this is symbolic of actually doing something wrong. the tree that she ate of was always there...symbolic of the temptation of sin is always there...cont
aaugoaa 2 years ago
so to think Adam and eve was not capable of knowing good and bad is error...the fact that the tree was always in the garden means God never kept the knowledge of good and evil from them....he just said ...do not eat of it. once they eat of it...they are separated from him, because of there sin..which is why they leave the garden of eden..thats why God told them not to eat of it...to be outside the garden of eden is to outside the protection of God..and subject to all that is evil.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
so in other words..knowing bad and good is something all men and women are capable of knowing....but it doesn't mean you have to do bad or evil things...and if you do you are outside of God and subject to evil.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
Aaugoaa. so in other words..
About anyone is capable of learning good from bad as long as you know the diff. bettwen the two. in this case Eve did know who was Good (God) and bad (Satan) she learned that after she ate from the tree.
also Just because the tree was always there does not mean she knew about it until God told her. and then Satan told the opposite.;
Symbolism or not make no diff. Christianity fail from the begining.
robertobrian6 2 years ago
aaugoaa. Did you ever think ,what if Satan had refuse to tempt Eve in the garden?
Answer; Satan would not have done God;s will. God is responsible for mankind sins. Since nothing can happen outside of his will (sauvreignity of God)
You cannot blame the creation for the mess the creator did. Thank;s
robertobrian6 2 years ago
do mean you can blame the creator for the mess his creation is in?....you don't have to eat of it...that's the point. so you think free will should not have been? and if this was so, you would not have been in control of your own life...you would have been a puppet. some people say they hate the thought of a God in their life...so if there was no free will you would be forced to abide by God.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
AAugoaa.. You do not have to eat of it....is false b/c she needed to know right from wrong..symbolism or not make no diff.
How can you have freewill if you do not know right from wrong? (Eve)
You cannot have freewill if you fear punishment.
Yes you are forced to abide by God b/c he say do it my way or else.
robertobrian6 2 years ago
aaugoaa.. Your words So to think Adam was not capable of knowing good and bad is error?
Nothing is said about them being capable. Gen.3;5 says.That they shall know good from bad only after they ate of the fruit (Sin) They only learn that sin was bad after they sin. So far this is nonsense.
This like you learning that running a red light is bad after you ran it. thank;s
robertobrian6 2 years ago
aaugoaa, You spell my name end with BRAIN instead of BRIAN, you need to appologize.
You calling it symbolism I call it lies. No one can decide what is a symbolism and what is not. Your trying to escape a deception.
Again I am asking Who was Eve to beleive when God and Satan told her the opposite of each other beforet eating of the fruit.?
Since she had no knowledge of right and wrong. Thank;s
robertobrian6 2 years ago
robertobrian6 i was not aware i had written your name that way honest i didn't know i spelled it wrong.
you think I'm lying...so you believe an apple can give you knowledge of evil and bad?
aaugoaa 2 years ago
aaugoaa. It has nothing to do with a apple,it has to do with knowledge. You have to know the diff. bett. right and wrong before claiming you have the freewill to choose. Eve did not. That is why I say He (God) is responsible for the Eve sinning.
and all humanity afterward. thank you
robertobrian6 2 years ago
Aagoaa. In 9;39 .. Says For judgment i am come.... First of all The word Judgment is sigular not plural as in peoples would bring there judgments of him.
sorry but it is a contradictory verse thank you
robertobrian6 2 years ago
lol oooh english grammar damns jesus...lol
aaugoaa 2 years ago
what if it had of said...for judgments i have come....you people would have said ooh no it's plural so he meant judgments of people lol, may i suggest you go and read the chapter of john 9...and you will understand it was Jesus who was being judged.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
profmth just takes things out of a context to create his own meaning then accuses others of having preexisting beliefs. hes a hypocrite.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
ya biggy profmth said to me..
.
"because you have a preexisting theological stance that must be defended no matter what"
lol he does more theological videos than i do, and gives his opinion on the bible more than i do...lol his whole style is to rummage through the bible looking for contraditions...thing is i find him to be deceptive in his method...he only uses parts of the verses, not whole verses..maybe in oder to sway his audience.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
*order*
aaugoaa 2 years ago
ya he butchers phrases to cheat the point to gain a group of idiot followers.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
"you said Jesus judged the pharisees in john 9:39"
No, that's not what I said. It's the TRANSITIONAL bit of the story that sparks the conversation between him and the Pharisees in which he goes on to judge them. I'm getting the unfortunate impression that I could sit here and go over this with you all day long and you *still* wouldn't get it -- not because you're incapable of understanding it, but because you have a preexisting theological stance that must be defended no matter what.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
like i said...why don't you post the scripture where jesus judged the pharisees..it would be easier.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
profmth why did you use john9:39 in your video as a example of jesus being judge...if you now say no thats not what you said.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
because hes a phony who just twists things to suit his argument augy. u can see he did it even on here. he quoted my sentence "who cares if its the same word"? but left out this part "words have different meanings"
hes a quote miner who twists quotes to suit his argument. then cant back it up.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
profmth
haha i proved you wrong so you blocked me coward.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
ya biggy you proved him wrong...he doesn't want people seeing that on his channel so he blocked you.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
i don't understand why profmth won't correct it so people will understand what paul really said.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
41Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would have no sin; but because you now claim to have sight, your sin remains. [If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but because you insist, We do see clearly, you are unable to escape your guilt.]
this is the first and only time jesus spoke to the pharisees in the whole chapter of john 9...they asked him....are we also blind? jesus answered with this verse.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
The passages all mention judgment. Jesus didn't come to judge, but to save. The one apparently contradictory verse He was speaking directly to those who would refuse to be saved. He is telling them about their judgment.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
Arrogant people who don't believe in the Bible should just stay away from it. They are merely looking for a way to twist. Jesus said many things publicly and even the Apostles did not understand, but Scripture says that in private He explained to them what He meant. The true meaning was NOT for the hard of heart who He knew would never give in and believe.
2Pet 1:20, St. Peter said, "This then you must understand first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation."
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago 3
You have to read the whole Bible and understand before you quote mine verses.
2Pet 3:16-17, St. Peter said, "...In these Epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable distort, Just as they do the rest of the scriptures also, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, since you know this beforehand, be on your guard lest, carried away by the error of the foolish, you fall away from your steadfastness."
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago 3
Great video
I gave it 5 stars
GodTheTruth 2 years ago
thanks glad you liked it xxx
aaugoaa 2 years ago
I know we had a dispute about something aaugoaa LOL, but I have to admit, great clip, 5 stars, you'll need it.
michaeljacksongone 2 years ago
thanks lol...yes i remember that video..very upsetting.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
My comment got deleted ? Wow
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
no bodies comments have been removed
i don't know what has happened to them, i and a few others were posting a while ago and made quite a few comments...maybe yours will show up later, i have experienced this on other channels before
aaugoaa 2 years ago
go to the bottom of the page and click show more comments...i just have and saw your earlier post.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
Sorry, i didn't think it was you :), it seems YT has a bug lately, it happened on my clips as well. Showing all posts doesn't seem to help but what you said did :)
Thanks again for the clip !
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
"My comment got deleted? Wow"
I wouldn't be talking.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
You should read the description before you comment, false statements are not allowed.
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
I can back up anything I say, you cannot.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
who was that to sweaty?
aaugoaa 2 years ago
CreationistsWON
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
No you can't, disprove the fact that life always comes from life, just that, i ask nothing more than that. Can you back up the fairy tale that it doesn't ?
Debunked so many of you, it's not even funny anymore.
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
"Life always comes from life"
Life is made up of non-life as you guys would put it and CDK007 did a video on this called "The Origin of Life". The work he sited was demonstrated in a lab. Sorry man but you haven't debunked anyone.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
I saw it, don't direct me to places where people claims things, come on, give me any evidence, scientific in which we see an exception.
I know you can't, so therefore you can consider yourself being refuted. It's not even funny anymore
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
Cdk007 writes :"This has been CONFIRMED in Dr. Jack Szostak's LAB. 2009"
OMG, you actually believe that LMAOOOOOO, i asked you a question, you didn't answer therefore i will leave you behind living in your own shadow.....
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
"OMG, you actually believe that"
And your only response is a conspiracy theory, go read the paper; this is a testable repeatable theory.
"I asked you a question you didn't answer..."
I did answer and now you run from the argument without refuting it. This is a typical creationists tactic. This is why you have to block people and censor comments. Oddly enough atheists don't do that.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
`go read the paper; this is a testable repeatable theory. `
If it was actual proof it would be broadcasted worldwide, but it isn´t, based on Szostak who claims something, wow, great science...
So can you write something down here, my claim is no life without previews life because i see it all around me, PURE SCIENCE. You claim an exception, so please go ahead, write it down for me. And i wont even bother to respond if you come up with more names of people claiming unscientific things
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
You didn't even watch the video, why are you creationists so afraid.
"Pure science"
And everything I referenced is testable and repeatable. He won a Nobel Price.
"My claim is no life without previous life"
So viruses can pop into existence threw natural causes but life cannot.? We are made up of dead matter all the rest is just chemestry.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
He won a price for `pioneering work in the discovery of telomerase, an enzyme that protects chromosomes from degrading.` Explain what that has to do with the origin of life......the creation of the genome and so on...
`So viruses can pop into existence threw natural causes but life cannot.?`
Show me any evidence in which they come into existence without a host like us. From scratch...
So you didn´t refute my claim again, you´re stuck with it
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
And now you´ll try to twist and turn as much as you can to blind others, it is truly sad that you people say we´re blind but we actually use what we see all around us, you don´t. Ciao ciao, learn from this lesson.
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
Deleted all my comments, there's good Christian honesty for you.
FlyingFree333 2 years ago
lol i have not removed anyones comments.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
your comment is still here click show more comments, and you will see it.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
here are couple of dictionary definitions of judging..
1 to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.
2 to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation.
sure there are bad definitions of judging too.
in your hearts what do you think jesus would have done?
because jesus said "people say what is in their hearts"
not his heart..but your heart.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
augy also some translations use the word condemn not judge. so he could be saying i am judging but not condemning. judgment isnt necessarily bad. u make a safety judgments when u drive etc
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
ya biggy thats what i mean...is judging taken out of context?
if someone is helping you is it judging or helping you.
what about parents, who give their children a hard time,is it out of love or hate.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
lets just think for a minute what we think judging actually is..if Jesus speaks, does that mean he is judging...because if it does..how can he help people
in other words was he judging them or trying to help them?
aaugoaa 2 years ago
This clip is so true sister, i also read the KJV and thought why not make a clip about it, but to be honest, everyone knows the way Profmth works. But you did a great job, 5 stars !!!
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
thanks lol you know i made a video response to the verses promth used, and i answered them...now all the atheists come here bringing up other verses that were not in profmth video for me to respond to...lol next one will be...well what about exodus chapter* and then what about mark chapter* blar blar blar ...lol
aaugoaa 2 years ago
The verses on the bible blunders video WERE out of context, weren't they?
grits011 2 years ago
No.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
what are u talking about? u didnt even complete the sentence!
bigusdikus0 2 years ago 2
"u didn't even complete the sentence!"
I quoted the pertinent parts and gave the citations. That's not taking anything out of context. Don't be silly.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
pertinent parts when u dont even finish a full sentence? get real
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
Clearly you're in your own private Idaho when it comes to the rules governing quotation and citation, Bigusdikus.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
ya i guess its a little much to ask to quote the whole sentence
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
all u did was pick 3 quotes that have the same word in them and say its a contradiction. but its not even the same word depending on the translation. that doesnt even consider the issue of interpretation.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago 3
I suggest you invest in a concordance and Greek lexicon so that in the future you won't embarrass yourself as you have here by saying something so utterly stupid. It's the exact same word in Greek.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
some translations say judge some say condemn. what is the greek word and what does it mean? and what is the original aramaic word from which the greek was translated. i wont lower myself to insult as u have done. when i was small my dad taught me about people like u who are educated beyond their intelligence.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago 2
"what is the greek word and what does it mean?"
I don't work for you, Bigusdikus. Look up the Greek word yourself, Your Laziness.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
original word
κρίνω
transliterated word
krinō
verb
to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose
that definition is relevant to the rest of the sentence which you butchered.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago 2
who cares if its the same word? a word can have many meanings.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"who cares if its the same word?"
LOL! Wow, your intellect is truly dazzling.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
i see ur good at misrepresenting meaning by using only part of a quote like u did with ur lame jesus vid
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
do u teach a class in misrepresentation through slicing and dicing phrases? haha
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
Now you have dodged 3 of my points mostly with ad hominem. Wow I wish I could match your intellect haha.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
actually 4.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
profmth i think if you read the whole chapter of john 9, it talks about the pharisees questioning a blind man about Jesus making him see, they question him on who Jesus is, and that he works on a Sabbath day, and that they say we know that God spoken to moses, but not jesus...i think this sheds light on the verse John:39 where Jesus said..for judgment i come into this world, that they that not see, might see.
the pharisees had just been judging Jesus in light of the blind man.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
john9:16Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. 17They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
18But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
like i said if you read all the chapter of john 9 from verse 1 to verse 41...it's clear jesus is the one being judged.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
Of course, Aaugoaa, John 9 does not have Jesus as a party to the conversation between the Pharisees and the formerly blind man. What is clear is that the story culiminates in Jesus judging the Pharisees of knowing sin and disbelief.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
40Some Pharisees who were near, hearing this remark, said to Him, Are we also blind? 41Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would have no sin; but because you now claim to have sight, your sin remains. [If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but because you insist, We do see clearly, you are unable to escape your guilt.]
the pharisees asked him if they were blind...should he not answer?
aaugoaa 2 years ago
only in verse 41 of john9...does Jesus answer them..because they asked him...are we blind?...the verse you put in your video is well before Jesus answered them...the verse John:39 is Jesus saying he was being judged, profmth you put verse John;39 in your video thats the one i responded to...however like i said should Jesus not have answered them?
and if he don't answer them..is he doing the right thing by them?
aaugoaa 2 years ago
"the verse you put in your video is well before Jesus answered them"
Crack open your Bible and have another look, Aaugoaa. It's two verses before and sparks the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees in which he judges them. With all due respect, Aaugoaa, you're rather clumsily grasping at straws here and in the process -- quite unintentionally on your part, no doubt -- you're reinforcing the fact that the verse does *not* mean what you you wish it to mean.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
35Jesus heard that they had put him out, and meeting him He said, Do you believe in and adhere to the Son of Man [b]or the Son of God ? 36He answered, Who is He, Sir? Tell me, that I may believe in and adhere to Him. 37Jesus said to him, You have seen Him; [in fact] He is talking to you right now. 38He called out, Lord, I believe! [I rely on, I trust, I cleave to You!] And he worshiped Him.
which verse...this is jesus talking to the blind man.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
"which verse"
:: sigh :: I quoted verse 39, which is the transitional verse leading the to climax between Jesus and the Pharisees. Good grief! Do you have a substantive response, Aaugoaa, or is this verse-39-is-well-before-verse-41 nonsense the best you've got?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
jesus was talking to the blind man in john9:39 not the pharisees promth...may i suggest you read it again.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
I know who he was talking to in verse 39, Aaugoaa. I've explained this several times to you now and won't bother repeating myself yet again. You demonstrate the truth of the old bromide: no one is so blind as the one who *will not* see.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
lol don't be so shy...post the verse where jesus judged the pharisees, john9:39 jesus is talking to the blind man after the blind man was throw out the door by the pharisees.....lazy man lol
aaugoaa 2 years ago
thats 2 points uve dodged so far.
interpretation
original aramaic
jesus wasnt greek
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
are u really a professor? hard to believe. u dont seem to know much about this subject. must be one of those tenured professional students that the universities are forced to keep around. thats another problem with the education system.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
@bigusdikus0 lol "educated beyond their intelligence". what does that even mean?
ajsharkmaniac07 1 year ago
and u didnt address the issue of interpretation. nice dodge.
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
I don't know. Even the next verse after John 12:47, which you cited as not mentioning judgement, mentions judgement.
'He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.'
John 12:48
grits011 2 years ago
john12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. 45And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. 46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world
aaugoaa 2 years ago
48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
are you going to do the same thing grits only post bits that you thing condemn him
where in any of this text does it suggest Jesus judge them.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
The same is true after John 3:17 3:17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
grits011 2 years ago
does this verse say jesus comdemns them grits?????
aaugoaa 2 years ago
No. It sounds like Jesus is saying that they will remember his words at the end of their lives and be convicted. If he refers to judgement at all, it seems to be in reference to God as separate from himself. That is, it isn't his job to judge people during their lives, but God's job to judge after life. What do you think?
grits011 2 years ago
well Jesus said...the words he speaks are from God..and that God commanded him to speak.
what if Jesus didn't speak grits...would that have been right?
well not for me it wouldn't have been.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
I suppose if he did not speak he would have been disobeying God, if in fact God had commanded him to speak. From all of the interpretations I have heard and have attempted myself, Jesus was sent to save the world by taking on the sins of all people in a new covenant between humankind and God. I think that's what Jesus meant by saving the world and not judging. I don't see any scriptural contradictions with this idea.
grits011 2 years ago