This video is funny...its arguing against the nonsense of The Davinci Code with the nonsense assumptions of Christianity. Dan Brown has the details wrong as does the bible itself. Humans wrote it and humans put it together.
@unomnacajit111 It kind of is. I love any sort of nonsense actually. Religion, homeopathy, alien abductions etc...the weirder and more unbelievable the better. I guess its due to curiosity and why people think what they think. Most people seem to have good intentions but can literally be fooled by anything. I find it absolutely fascinating.
@2 it's actually people like you who are fooled by anything. If you ever read the Bible (Job) you'll see that God anticipated the rise of fools like you and asked them a few interesting questions. One of them was - where do the laws of physics come from? If you can't answer that your whole house of cards crashes down. It's you who believes everything that comes out of the TV. I wss like you until recently but unlike you i chose not to believe and did my own research. The other way is prayer
@unomnacajit111 Are you serious? Did you even read what I posted? I am literally the most skeptical person you will find and have been since I can remember. I find that people around me (especially Christians) believe all the stuff that comes out of the t.v. but not me. I find myself interested in religion and history and wacky stuff not because its true, but I am fascinated by how people are fooled by garbage. I am AMAZED at how you misunderstood my post so gravely.
@unomnacajit111 I am 32. How old are you? We don't know where the laws of physics come from...and its o.k. to say that....ancient sheepherders didn't know either. Who created God? Wait....you don't have to answer that last one....I guarantee I know your answer. :)
@unomnacajit111 I agree. If you do like independant research then surely 2003SCT you have realised the world is not what people are taught in school or the mainstream media.
@2003SCT then explain to me how all 40 of the authors never made a mistake in the writing of it and all of them over 1500 years having most of them never spoken to each other still managed to be in complete agreement
@Cjfoucs Well there is no "over 1,500 years" if we are talking about the New Testament alone...complied by early church leaders over a few centuries and no sooner than 30 years after the death of Christ is what is commonly thought due to dates etc. Yes, most never spoke to each other BUT a number of them read the other corresponding texts and based theirs on other existing texts...biblical scholars believe this due to some paragraphs being verbatim and others completely different.
the davinci code is a work of fiction.i dont understand how people are believing a book written for entertainment. the problem is that there will always be people looking for anything to discredit the bible,Jesus and christianity. remember satan is the father of all lies
@annastesia67 People who take the fictional work called the bible as nonfiction are just as likely to take a fiction work, such as the Davinci Code, as nonfiction.
@Debordsbullet The Bible is not a fictional work. There is a tremendous amount of evidence to substantiate the New Testament's historical record as well as much of the Old Testament as well. In fact in virtually every historical post-Moses controversy between The Bible and the anti-Christian "Higher Critics" has seen the Christian position confirmed by archaeology. From Sargon (and the Assyrian Empire as well), to the existence of the Hittite Empire, the stones cried out in the Bible's favor
@BigBob76331 The bible may very well be intermittently dotted with actual historical events, but that's not to say all of the miracles and profoundly religious actions occurred as well. The Davinci Code is obviously fiction but that is structure around/with actually occurring events.
I like how no one in this video actually answers the question. Because to do so would to implicate themselves.
The scripture in its entirety was not picked by congregations and they all had a copy of the Bible. Ridiculous. The vast majority of Christians were illiterate, and the books of the NT used varied widely across the Empire. It was St. Athanasius, POPE Damasus and finally the Council of Carthage, ratified by POPE Innocent, that put together the modern Bible. No Protestants in that list.
@iamcupcakeable Oh, and though it's true all the approved (and some UNapproved) books were probably written in the first century, it's also totally true that NO church used the complete NT set until the 300s, centuries AFTER the RCC was founded. No use lying about that, video people.
The difference is that Catholics have nothing to fear from that fact, because our Church is not based on stealing that book and (contrary to historical evidence) claiming that's how the early Christians read it.
@iamcupcakeable For the record, the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today, did not exist until after the Nicene council, and ultimately gained universal authority over the Roman Empire because Emperor Constantine and his successors, enforced their rulings, some of them (such as observing the 7th day Sabbath, or the Passover) by the use of capital punishment. Prior to the Nicene Council there were many schools of thought and many different doctrines taught under the mantle of Christianity.
@iamcupcakeable If you think that the Christians who lived during the Roman empire were illiterate, think again. That might have been true during the Dark Ages after illiterate barbarian tribes conquered Rome, but during the Roman Empire literacy was widespread, as witnessed by the huge number of libraries located in many cities in the Empire.
Regardless of what the Davinci Code says, the only obvious bit is that humans did the picking and choosing as to what to put in the bible....as is evident with all religion. Humans write it, humans compile it and humans believe in it. Simple.
the very description that this is to address a novel shows its not a serious study. fuck. a bunch of christian apologist-- then this crap.. when will i find a good documentary in youtube thats not apologetic or trying to put some bias?
@taliesin939939 The problem in Christian circles is that some don't know their Bibles, so they are weak minded & R led astray by the fiction that others put out, like the DaVinci Code & Rob Bell's new Book about heaven. Fictional novels will lead many weak minded to hell. Well meaning Christians reference these novels so that those that have been swayed by them can be informed & hopefully see the errors in the novels and their own thinking. Pure Christianity is not injured by these fantasies.
@taliesin939939 Everyone has a bias, even U. Why do U watch such documentaries? What R U looking 4? Even videos of Dog admirers are bias, they like their dogs, better then cats, & vise versa. R U just looking for acceptance of an opposing Cyinical view or someone to argue with? What do U plan on proving by posting to a clip U disagree with? I'm just wandering if U R actually interested in Truth or just spreading discourse? I will try to help you with the Truth part if U R actually interested.
@GetAFuckinClue The problem in Christian circles is that some don't know their Bibles, so they are weak minded & R led astray by the fiction that others put out, like the DaVinci Code & Rob Bell's new Book about heaven. Fictional novels will lead many weak minded to hell. Well meaning Christians reference these novels so that those that have been swayed by them can be informed & hopefully see the errors in the novels and their own thinking. Pure Christianity is not injured by these fantasies.
(part-2)...were relegated to "APOCRYPHA" status, which is the Greek term meaning "HIDDEN" but conveniently translated to mean "NOT GENUINE" or "DOUBTFUL." I find something else very interesting: "....In all the departments [forgery] and [interpolation] as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a grand scale....." (The Catholic Encyclopedia; 445). It further says: "...The idea of a complete and clean-cut cannon of the New Testament existing from the beginning has no fundation in history" (469)
@pedrom41 One mistake U might be making is referencing the Catholic Encyclopedia. Christianity was around a wee bit before Catholicism came on the scene. Any doctrine of man is going to be flawed. Apocrypal books may contain some historical value, but not a complete exhaustive inspired text. Complete truth is only found in one place.
That still doesn't answer the question as to what criteria was used to determine which book was "inspired" and which wasn't. How do they know a particular book was inspired? What are the features that distinguish an "inspired" book from a non-inspired one? If I write a book of religious content and claim I was "inspired" by a higher power--who are you to argue that it wasn't so? It's quite interesting that many of the gospels that didn't survive the wrangling of the Church's hierarchy......
@pedrom41 Many of the gospels that didn't survive the wrangling of the Church's hierarchy R called the Gnostic gospel. They were not included because of their inconsistant content and the time period in which they were written. That is like saying many of the Wiccan tracts didn't make it into the Quaran. That is a catagorical error. Just because the word Gospel is in the title, doesn't mean it is Christian.
What about the bible prophecies that are coming true in this day and time? that seems to be the only thing i can believe since everything else cant be proven. The bible is so confusing, its contradicting..
@dixanna27 The Bible seems to be contradicting at times, but there are answers. Keep digging, there are great scholars that can answer much of the seemingly contradictions. There R people on both sides of every issue that say their point can be proven. Ultimately the authority on Scripture is the Holy Spirit that takes up residence in our lives to guide us into all truth when U know that Jesus paid the penalty for your sins. If U are on an honest quest for the truth, God will find U.
the bible is just a book of stories written by men, favoring men, and nothing else. it is a bunch of fairy tales, just like mother goose. none of it is true
Is there anyone watching this who buys the idea that the canonical books of the NT are part of the canon because they are "god-breathed" and not the product of political/theological forces imposing the orthodoxy of the time? What on Earth does god-breathed even mean in a sensible discussion!?
@Tapiola2007 You hit the nail with a mighty hammer my friend. Modern religion is solely spread through brain washed offspring rather than the tip of a sword, torture and burning villages like in ancient times. If you were not convinced of the almighty state religion then you were removed and made example of. Christians have a talking snake and a magic fruit tree but the Hindus have a giant space turtle carrying the universe. I think a lot of modern kids will go with the turtle.
@Tapiola2007 God breathed means that the men who held the pen brought their experiences into the thoughts of God. These thoughts were inspired "breathed" out by God. Just like if you are breathing,(&hopefully U R) U are said to be respirating. The thoughts of God got into these writing men through the presence of the Holy Spirit who takes up residence in our bodies when we know of Jesus' payment for our sins and so we then are declared innocent and set apart for God's service.
@onnarrowpath As I said in my comment, what does god-breathed even mean in "a sensible discussion"? How do you have the nerve to reply to with such nonsense as "the thoughts of God got into these writing men through ... the Holy Spirit ... residence in our bodies ... Jesus' payment for our sins ... set apart for God's service"? You have no knowledge that especially allows you to make those fantasy claims. Children may believe you but not grown ups. Please join the adult world.
@Tapiola2007 . I thought a sensible discussion is what U wanted. I guess I didn't read the sarcasm into the printed word. The things I said are not fantasy and I do have knowledge of such things & the things U have said are lies. Jesus is the truth and if anyone sounds like a child, it can be heard in how loudly U are stomping Ur feet and throwing a fit about my response to Ur hatred of the truth. I will pray that the scales will be peeled from Ur eyes so that Ur blindness can be removed.
@onnarrowpath A sensible discussion would be where two adults exchange thoughts on the topic relying on evidence, not infantile explanations such as "divinely inspired authoriatative books the moment they were written" or "a book is part of the canon because it is god-breathed". Men wrote the text that makes up the books of the Bible. Men chose which books to include and which books to leave out. You think their thoughts were guided by a Holy Spirit. How do you know that and I don't?
U asked "how do I know that & U don't". I can only guess, that U haven't done the work. If U are only interested in venting hostility or name calling I am not interested. If U are genuinely interested in gaining knowledge I would be glad to direct U. A good place to start an honest inquiry is with the short video on manuscript evidence and then let me know after that. Youtube won't let me post a link but you can search lee strobel.com for the video with Hank Hanegraff on Manuscript evidence.
@onnarrowpath Oh dear! Is that the sort of argument that you find convincing? If you think Lee Strobel and Hank Hanegraff are worth listening to, you are seriously in need of an education. These men are intellectually retarded. You may not like my hostility but so what? These men have no idea about the things they are claiming to have insight into and yet you would accept their claims because they share your faith. Bully for you. They are at best misguided and at worst liars. Think for yourself!
@Tapiola2007 How sad U must be with all the pent up anger in U. Ur ranting only shows how immature U really R. I thought U wanted to have a sensible discussion, but all U can do is spew hatred and lies. My faith is the one true faith and U have faith in how loudly U can bully other people with Ur hate speech. I will pray again 4 U tonight like I prayed last night 4 U. When U are ready to let go of Ur arrogance and submit to God, He will graciously save Ur sorry rear end. Good luck cuz U need it!
@onnarrowpath How can we have a sensible discussion when you introduce Lee Strobel as a source to help me if I am, as you put it, "genuinely interested in gaining knowledge"? The man is a buffoon. As for you, "one true faith", "hate speech", "pray for you", "let go of arrogance", "submit to god", listen to yourself! Clearly you're a believer but I wonder how many lies you have to convince yourself of everyday to maintain your faith...
@Tapiola2007 Both of us can't be right when U call Strobel a buffoon and I think the guy is making sense. I am concerned that I follow the true faith, that's why I have done so much digging into it. I think it is easy 4 U to just call people names rather than make the effort to listen and then discern what is good or bad. It does take time 4 truth to soak in sometimes when U have been fed lies all Ur life & the truth does irritate U, that should tell U that something is wrong in Ur beliefs.
@onnarrowpath Two YouTube videos that are examples of Strobel's buffoonery: 1) Can you still be an atheist after watching this and his bogus five Es as evidence for the divinity of Jesus, and 2) The fossil record proves creation. The first is merely the rambling apologetics of a believer preaching to the faithful and does nothing to advance real evidence for the proposition. The second is a shameful dim witted attempt to address evolutionary biology and only prove he knows nada (CONT...)
@onnarrowpath For example, he says that in the last 150 years science has failed to substantiate Darwin's idea of macroevolution (which is actually a stupid Creationist term that really means speciation but because he can't or won't talk proper science doesn't use it). Now the focus of his talk is fossils and claims that they show that all species "sprang forth" without transition and fully formed. This is simply the most retarded claim possible and contradicts the real science. (CONT...)
@Tapiola2007 Ur too funny. Does it really matter if Strobel doesn't use the word "speciation"? If U know what he is talking about then the point is still that these transitional forms have never been found in the fossil record. Species do not change from one into the other. That's the real fact of science. Science has to be observable otherwise it is only theory. The religion of Darwinism is all fantasy. I thought U were interested in knowing why U didn't know anything about a holy spirit.
@onnarrowpath Why do you insist on this foolishness? The physical evidence for transitions are found in just about every decent natural history museum in the world and freely available to view online. You choose to ignore this concrete evidence because it contradicts the fantasy you choose to base your life on. That's fine with me so long as you don't try to preach that rubbish publicly and expect to go unanswered. You claim you know the Holy Spirit. Get real! You think that but (CONT...)
@Tapiola2007 Ur hostility to the truth will never allow the scales to fall from Ur eyes. No matter how many times U tell me I know something isn't true, won't convince me of what I know. If I am ingorant of the supernatural presence in my life it is blissful. I know of God's salvation and eternal promises and they elude U because of Ur emnity towards Him and His revelation. All U need to do is submit to the truth & that U are decieved by the teachings of mere man. God will reveal Himself to U.
@onnarrowpath ...we both know you've never had any real encounter with any supernatural entity. Oh, you'll interpret your life experiences and put them down to God and the Holy Spirit moving in your life but that's all BS and you and I both know it. And you really need to get yourself a better education for public debate. Darwin published his book 150 years ago. The idea of evolution is many hundreds of years old. Darwin identified the mechanism of natural selection. (CONT...)
@Tapiola2007 Confession & humility are obviously words U do not have in Ur vocabulary. I have no clue why U continue this conversation with me, but as long as U'd like I can help U through Ur blindness. The Holy Spirit is available to U when U realize U are a in need of salvation, just like a cancer patient is need of a cure. U don't know U have the sickness until some1 points it out to U.Ur sickness is deadly and U will die from it. The only question is do U want to risk life without a cure?
@onnarrowpath Darwin rejected his faith when he realised it was all a sham. It certainly troubled him and he described the realisation that we are evolved and not created like "confessing a murder". It was not something he took lightly and there were times when he delayed publishing. As for the comment that Prothero's book is "dribble", sheer ignorance. What allows you to judge the work of a world-renowned scientist, admired within and across his field? I know - your fantasy allows you to!
@Tapiola2007 Have U ever heard of the Cambrian period? Darwin could never explain the explosion of life forms. The fact that transitional forms do not exist, is only covered up by the fantastical dreams of the museums and so called scientists that don't beleif in creationism. U'd be surprised how many scientists believe in God but are bullied into silence by hater's that think stomping their feet is the way to knowledge. I grew up with books wrought with errors-like Lucy and Brontasaurus.
@onnarrowpath Darwin didn't need to know everything so we could understand better - we know more now than he did. We know about the Cambrian Explosion. We have thousands upon thousands of fossils that demonstrate species in transition. Your insistence on ignoring such concrete evidence is tantamount to severe delusion behaviour. Who are these Creationist scientists you seem to know about? Don't just conjecture - name them. What do you mean "errors like Lucy and Brontasaurus"? Explain yourself.
@Tapiola2007 I’d never name names because the bully culture seeks to silence all opposition. Ur culture seeks to back honest people into corners & yell names at them & tell them how stupid they are until they feel little & after the attack U feel so big. The double standard U carry is too much. Darwin doesn’t need all the answers but Newton does??? It’d be too laughable if it wasn’t so sad. Ask God. He promises to answer if U seek Him earnestly. Don’t be afraid of what U don’t know.
@onnarrowpath You won't give names because you can't. You probably think Ben Stein's so-called film Expelled was a real expose of this bullying that takes place. Don't make me laugh. I don't understand what you mean by "Darwin doesn’t need all the answers but Newton does" What does that mean? Lucy is an extinct ape and an extremely important hominid find as she was fully bipedal, a feature only found in humans. As for your ramblings about the Brontasaurus, you're a joke. Did you hear that (CONT)
@Tapiola2007 LOL some joke, U seriously believe the bogus stuff that has been spoon to fed the public by the secular media and science. Why don't U listen to urself for a change. The stuff U beleive in is far more crazy than having faith in God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit. Do you know the probability of a protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10 to the 950th. Ur faith in evolution is like walking a tightrope of a single strand of hair across the Grand Canyon. I solute U for ur huge faith.
@Tapiola2007 U defend Darwin by saying,"Darwin didn't need to know everything so we could understand better-we know more now than he did" & before U made the argument that Newton was an alchemist & we shouldn't follow what he knew. It is a double standard to not give the same judgement or credit to each man. . Sad really, I suggest you channel all that anger into reading the Gospel of John, God can give U all the answers U are seeking-just ask! I'm here for U too!
@onnarrowpath No, you're confusing yourself. You stated that Darwin recognised flaws in his theory. I said that's fine because Darwin didn't need to provide all the answers, we now know far more than he did and can answer the flaws he couldn't. The point about Newton was a completely separate point where you tried to name distinguished scientists who were also Creationists as if that made Creationism more believable. I merely pointed out that being a scientist and holding (CONT...)
@onnarrowpath ...screwball views wasn't unusual. Newton gave us the Theory of Gravity but should we also accept his alchemy and astrology views. No, of course not. Nor should we wonder that despite his mathematical brilliance, he also bought into the prevailing religious views of his time. Why wouldn't he? I get the very strong feeling you haven't received a proper science education. That's fine. It happens and it's nothing to be ashamed of, billions haven't. (CONT...)
@Tapiola2007 Thank U for your almost polite reply. U continue to assume things about me that U do not know. I assume that is a defense mechanism 4 U. I understand it is probably incomprehensible 4 U to see the irony in ur arguments & the flaws in the standards by which U state ur case. There R certain things that will just not click 4 someone of ur loftiness. It's o.k. billions are deceived. I have enjoyed our banters U are persistant. Life won't last forever & then truth will prevail.
@onnarrowpath True, I know nothing about you. You also make assumptions about me. Perhaps that's now online discussion works. I'll give you some insight that might surprise you. About 15 years ago I was firm in my faith and regularly out on the streets of London witnessing the Good News of the New Testament, especially to Muslims. That was possible then. Today it would be extremely dangerous. However, the point is I've been where you are. I know what it is to believe. Now I don't. (CONT)
@onnarrowpath How I became backslidden (nice phrase used by most churches for apostates) is irrelevant. The point I depart from is that when questions are raised and one seeks answers honestly, arguing from the corner of faith at all costs is disingenuous and lying to oneself. Nobody who has faith can claim any certainty about any of the claims they make. We are all bound by the same single fact: uncertainty. However, science has peeled back the mysteries one by one and continues to do so.
@Tapiola2007 Thank U 4 ur sincerity. My belief is that once saved-always saved. U may doubt & say ur backslidden, but I beleive God never lets go. I still do beleive in a young earth, but I see the worth in the old earth discussion. At the risk of alienating U, Hank Hanegraff is promoting an old earth stance. I do believe that God created everything & is compassionate & loving, but not a pushover. I am curious at how U said U didn't know the Holy Spirit if U were testifiying of the Good news.
@onnarrowpath When one needs to, it's possible to be convinced of practically anything. Witnessing is a logical step once you're convinced you know something everybody else should also know. My problem isn't with belief itself, although I don't subscribe to any belief system. I don't even object to what I would describe as ridiculous ideas if that's what people want to believe in. I resist the promotion of those ideas as facts in public discourse. You want to believe in a young Earth (CONT)
@Tapiola2007 My friend, U do have a belief system, it is called evolution or darwinism. These are theories, U are convinced U know something and everybody else should too. I could tell U to keep that to Ur ownself also, but I beleive that everyone has the right to speak openly, that debate is good and healthy, that U like I, or the Muslims or the witches or anybody has the right to speak. Everyone also has the right to respond in open-the same thing U did in ur original post to this media.
@onnarrowpath Evolution is not something to be believed in - it's a fact. Do we say we believe in the Theory of Gravity? No. It's a fact that we accept. Do we say we believe in Germ Theory? No. It is a fact that we accept. Whether we like it or not there are fact that must simply be accepted and are not the subject of belief. You may reject such facts but that's then a separate issue. As for disseminating this information publicy. That's the role of public education and not the same as religion.
@onnarrowpath ...fine, good luck with that. However, if you want to teach that to people outside of your church or home, then I think that needs to be challenged. you only resist the fossil evidence and the mountains of real data on the natural world because and only because of your faith. Not because you have any firm counter evidence but because you must. I know, I've done it. But those things are simply not facts and if they're not, what else isn't true?
@Tapiola2007 My objection 2 evolution is not only tied 2 my faith in God. I've observed mountains sides of mud slide down into the ocean. I've witnessed the destruction of floods. I know of the creation of new rock and the covering of civilizations in days due to volcanoes. I've seen mammoth bones near the surface of the earth from mud holes. I know the power of nature and I think man is just a little part of it & most times our little minds just get it wrong & give ourselves too much credit.
@Tapiola2007 I don't resist the fossil evidence only man's deductions. I beleive in micro evolution. Humans R taller in stature now, than hundreds of years ago, but I don't beleive they changed species. Our minds R wicked all the time and evolution gives us reasons to act like animals & excuse our evil. If we evolved from apes why do we still have apes? They are just a different species. They might have been here first, but that doesn's mean we came from them. Elementary, my dear Watson.
@onnarrowpath You do resist the fossil evidence because you don't accept the explanations from experts in the field and moreover you can't provide an alternative that makes sense. There's no such thing as microevolution. That's just Creationist nonsense to cover themselves for the fact that we can easily demonstrate quick change in species. What you call microevolution is nothing more than evolution proper but on the short scale. Add a few million years and some interesting... (CONT)
@onnarrowpath ...environmental pressures and the full force of evolution by natural selection can be observed. We act like animals because we are animals. More specifically, we are apes, primates. There are other apes because we are cousins to the the great apes, not descended from them. We share common ancestry with them to a species may never be discovered but has been hinted at by Lucy, for example. Your statement "if we evolved from apes" is clear evidence you have (CONT)
@onnarrowpath ...misunderstood or been mislead about evolution. This, I fear, is the biggest problem in debates such as this. You are opposed to evolution by natural selection, you are prepared to make all manner of statements against and in favour of a clearly contradictory view, and yet you clearly don't understand the main mechanism for how it works. We were not once chimps and are now human. Chimps are a separate ape species to whom we are related but not descended. (CONT)
@onnarrowpath You know, evolution is not directly in opposition to faith or religion itself. There are many religious people who openly accept evolution but still seek answers through faith. Evolution is a fact of the natural world that only comes into conflict with religion when people start making claims that are factually impossible and out of step with everything we have learned about ourselves and our place in the natural order.
@Tapiola2007 I. U R right, I have been calling Evolution a theory, incorrectly. U believe evolution is a Scientific fact. SCIENCE itself is the study of the physical & natural world & phenomena, especially by using systematic observation & EXPERIMENT. Scientific Fact is an OBSERVABLE natural occurrence; Scientific Theory attempts to explain how the natural occurrence works; & Scientific Law can B expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.
@Tapiola2007 II. Empirical science requires that any object or phenomenon must B OBSERVABLE. (1)As we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by humans, such events R not suited to study by science. (2)The object of the study must B repeatable. Unique & unrepeatable events R the subject of history, not science. (3)Any explanations offered 4 observable & repeatable facts MUST B TESTABLE. This means that an experiment must B conceived & conducted to refute the theory if it were wrong.
@Tapiola2007 III.The evolutionist Paul Ehrlich stated, “The THEORY of evolution cannot B refuted by any possible observations & thus is outside of empirical science.” Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky found that even when evolutionary changes occur, they R by nature unique, unrepeatable, & irreversible. Dobzhansky states that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted."
@Tapiola2007 IV. U should B aware that EVOLUTIONISTS DO recognize 2 types of evolution -- micro, which is observable & macro which isn't. Macro evolution is a HYPOTHETICAL process of UNLIMITED VARIATIONS that is believed to transform 1 kind species into another. Obviously, no 1 has ever OBSERVED anything remotely like this actually happening. In truth evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable & thus DOESN’T QUALIFY as either a scientific FACT or THEORY.
@Tapiola2007 V. Evolution must B accepted with faith by its believers; Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many people believe it or how long they have believed it or even how many times it is said to B a fact. Just review the definitions. Intelligent design is immeasurably more REASONABLE 4 the explanation of the origin & the complexity of living things rather than evolution by mere chance (with the mathematical odds against it) & the intrinsic properties of nature.
@onnarrowpath Your last response is an example of why I bother to spend time on YouTube debating or even arguing. I don't know where you got all that BS but it is nothing more than propaganda. It tells me that you will oppose evolution by natural selection even when you yourself don't understand anything about it. For example, you say that ID is a better explanation for the complexity of living things rather than evolution by mere chance. OK. Let's debate that. 1) No matter how complex (CONT)
@onnarrowpath life on Earth is any god capable of creating it must be infinitely more complex. Where did god come from? Was god created or did god appear by chance? 2) You say "evolution by mere chance". Evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with chance. Nor is it directed. Evolution is undirected change taking place through non-random mutations. 3) You say evolution is not observable. Wrong. The fact that evolution happened is observable and the fact of evolution happening (CONT)
@onnarrowpath ...is seen and tested every day. Instead of running to your favourite Christian apologist text, read some science. Science is learning, knowledge, awareness. You can't be opposed to those things, can you? Or are you so blinkered by your faith that you refuse to look for fear of what you'll find? I've looked into faith and it doesn't work for me. It may be comforting but that don't make it true. It might make sense to you, but that don't make it true.
@Tapiola2007 Ur point #1 is completely true. God is infinitely more complex than all of His creation. Ur questions show U don’t know the Bible or God & probably never did. God exists eternally. He IS the Creator & was never created. Nothing came from nothing. Nothing ever could. Evidence of the Creator is found in his creation. The very evidence, that evolutionists contort to fit their warped deductions about origins, is what God provided so that we might seek Him & know Him.
@Tapiola2007 Jesus said, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light, because their deeds were evil. Every1 who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” I know I can’t argue U into the Kingdom, but I so believe that if U seek for God, He will reveal himself to U & Ur testimony will be great for him. Ur drive and persistence will then be focused upon truth, my friend.
@Tapiola2007 U said, “I've looked into faith and it doesn't work for me.” That is so profound that few Christians don’t ever get it. The Christian faith is not supposed to “work” for U. It is not supposed to protect U and keep back all the bad things of this world. It is no guarantee of only blessings. We live in this fallen world and are given light (knowledge) and a chance to choose God and hope. This hope does not disappoint. It will be known fully when this finite life comes to an end.
@onnarrowpath You may not wish to hear the Devil's lies as I'm sure your pastor warns you but please don't make comments on a public discussion board about science when you know next to nothing other than the propaganda handed to you by your church. I'm totally open to criticism of science and overhauling ideas and propostions that are wrong. If people lie and falsify evidence, they should be exposed. However, the scientific community is a tough and exacting one and bogus ideas don't last long.
@Tapiola2007 Do U seriously believe we came from slime? I don't have a pastor, even if I had 1 that spoke boldly against the popular lies of secular science, the public arena is an equal place for discussion. Christianity is over 2000 years old & will thrive in persecuted public. U remind me of the Apostle Paul who wrote 2/3 of the New Testament. Bold in his persecution of the beleivers until he was knocked off his horse & met the Lord Jesus. Ur testimony will be 1 of true power 4 redemption.
@Tapiola2007 Real delusional behavior is to stand on crumbling cliff of lies that is macro-evolution. I can’t tell if U have never heard Lucy –the missing like or the Bronasaurus hoax or if U R asking about the error. Lucy, an extinct ape was told farewell in the French magazine Science et Vie, 2/1999 issue as a hominid transition. Brontasaurus hoax was revealed (1970) as the skull of a Camarasaurus fixed on an Apatosaurus body. There's more too that have been called transitional & found false.
@onnarrowpath from some cheap con-artist pastor who spends his day lying to gullible fools and spends his nights partying with the money those fools give up in tithes and other donations. First of all, even if this stupid claim were in any way true, so what. What does it mean? However, you should first understand that Brontosaurus is not a real classification of dinosaur but merely a popular name given to a species of apatosaurus, which were walking all over this planet 150 million years ago!
@onnarrowpath Now, you can choose to believe Strobel or you can be a grown up and investigate the matter properly. I'll direct you to the book What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Donald Prothero, professor of geology and geobiology at Caltech. As you said about us only one can be right. Concerning fossils, do we believe Lee Strobel who is eminently unqualified on the matter and is clearly pumping his Creationist dogma or a respected and published professor in the field? (CONT...)
@onnarrowpath And that's just fossils. Strobel completely ignores the evidence of biology, genetics, geographical distribution of species, plate tectonics and continental drift, and just about every single scientific discipline that has ever, directly or indirectly, addressed the question of evolution. I'll stress the point in case you missed it: there is not a single field of science that does not work on the assumption that Darwin's idea is a fact. However, Lee Strobel thinks he knows better!
@Tapiola2007 Darwinism has only seen its rise in the last 100 years. Science, just about 6000. I can't figure out how anyone ever determined anything before evolution was dreamed up! Just a few names like Newton, Pasteur, Galileo, Kepler, Fleming. All beleived in God & His Christ. Even Darwin professed Christianity. Darwin even knew of his theory's own weaknesses. Your efforts and time should be spent getting to know the God of the universe instead of reading such dribble as Prothero.
@onnarrowpath As for your impressive list of great scientists who were also Creationists, so f******g what?! I think you'll find that in the 20th and 21st centuries scientists don't believe in Creationism and other bogus faith systems because they now know better. Newton was also an alchemist and astrologer, does that mean we should consider that ideas as valid today? Kepler was a devout Christian all his life but that has nothing to do with his laws of planetary motion. (CONT...)
@Tapiola2007 Why does it matter to U that I might abandon my faith in God through Ur arguments from evolution? Why do U want to be descended from apes so badly that Ur anger is inflamed? Will I make more moral decisions if I know that I came from primordial slime? Does the hypothesis of ape drawings in textbooks standing ever so taller make U reach out to people in their time of need? If I visit museums that have clay structures of imagined transitional forms does it mean I can be a racist?
usually when a prophecy is written or told, its done so during the time its needed. perhaps the books were written during the time when ppl were confusing what jesus really taught. ex. now many prophets are revealing heresy that preachers have been practising over the past 10 years or so. why didnt god reveal these things to the prophets 10 years ago? cuz. sometimes things need to get worse before ppl want to do something about it.
before I started my Bible class I never knew such a claim was made. I have heard of the Da Vinci code but I did not read it to see all the things they were saying. I am glad that I have heard it now so I can be ready if someone else talks about it.
I'm sorry, but this is utterly false. What really happened, we will never know, but these books were chosen at some point, long after the they were written. They were chosen for 3 main reasons... 1. They were popular at the time. 2. They got through an agenda that the people who put the Bible together wanted. 3. They were not well known as fiction (well more so than the rest of the Bible).
Dan Brown may be a writer of bad fiction, but at least he admits it. There was an actual debate about canonization. People had disagreements. Some books were included for reasons that we now believe to be incorrect, and political opinion and popularity mattered. This video makes me think you know just enough history to intentionally mislead. If history threatens your faith, your faith is shallow.
@whinda4702 If the "churches" ur talking about werent RCC (even though that is historically and theologically proveable) what on God's green earth are all u store front churches start by a man that completed some kind of bible study course so the owner of the property thats leases him a space can avoid paying state tax, "church and state are separate." What will u Protestants come up with next?
eljunior98 @whinda4702 U Protestants are ridiculous u dont know what to come up with. U write that before 95AD there already were Churches well I got news for u they were RCC churches that were all 1. It wasnt until they RCC councils that the Bishops of da Church were able to compile da NT that we have today. If u study history correctly first there were 22 canons and then there were 27 canons.The RCC Bishops used the Oral Tradition to validate if these canons were inspired by God or not.
Why does Bible talk bad about every one from Jesus to all the way up to Adam, but not a single word against the Descipels?
When we look at the history, the desciples forsake Jesus, and story about Jesus terlling them to do so, comes from the same few people/ would be conflict of interest?
Yeah, and that "Doubting Thomas" character is as fictional as they come. By the time Jesus was resurrected, I would have witnessed enough that I would NEVER doubt Him at that point. Christians are gullible DUMB fucks.
Thomas doubted, just like all the other disciples doubted. Once Jesus died, they abandoned their faith. "We had thought he was the Christ," Peter says.
It was unbelievable to think that someone could raise themselves from the dead. But he did, and that's just what changed them. Thomas included.
It would have been unbelievable to me until I saw Him resurrect Lazarus from the dead. The authors of the Bible put those ridiculously fictional doubters in there so that the reader might think, "Wow, there were other doubters just like me."
It's one thing to raise someone from the dead when you are alive. It is something altogether different to raise someone from the dead when you yourself are dead.
I can easily marvel at LeBron James's abilities while he's alive, but to think that he can do them in the grave is ridiculous.
And remember they didn't think the Messiah was supposed to die, they were expecting an earthly political king. Jews today still are.
Once you achieve the ability to raise someone from the dead when you are alive, you have already entered "The Realm Of Magical Bullshit That Never Really Happens". From there, ANYTHING is possible.
But these Jews, who thought this was the Messiah didn't see it that way. I understand your doubt. I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind what we believe. Dead people, traditionally, don't do anything, so there surprise is genuine. Although, it probably shouldn't be, as you pointed out.
Dear brother read bible where it talks about Jesus goes out and Mary is looking for him. She finds him in a temple. First of All he had nothing to learn from Temples and Rabbis, God Almighty taught him and gave him more knowledge than any of his contemporaries. Secondly the way he replies to his mother, is a direct insult to his solemn character. If my son replies in those words to his mother, he will be thrown out of the home. It is an insult to Jesus son of Mary. He was a gr8 man!
Jesus, was both God and man. He did need to be taught. The point was the God came in human form to learn what our life was like, as one of us. He was not an infant with the mind of God He learned as we learn. Eventually, when he was 12 it was revealed to him, or he discovered who he was. At this point, his mother left with the caravan heading home ahead of the men as was custom. Joseph assumed Jesus was with her. She assumed Jesus was with Joseph. The find him 3 days later.
So when Jesus was god according to U, then who was the God in the rest of the universe? He was an infant, and needed products of earth to grow up, what kind of god is the one who depends on others.
Believe in the Almighty God, who is self sufficient, does not need earthly provisions to stay alive, is in control of the whole universe, one who is not part time, does not sleep nor the tiredness gets Him. One, merciful to all the inhabitants of earth and whole universe, still unknown!
If there is a God, you have to admit that's he'd be more powerful than us, yes? He'd have to be more complex than us.
So, this is where the Trinity theology comes in. God the Father, who is outside of time, was still watching. Jesus was a part of him that was placed inside of time, with those time restraints.
How can U say that Jesus was part of God while U and me were not before we were born and we won't go back to Him, after we die?
These are theoreticals, nobody can prove nor reject! If Jesus did not have an earthly father, then Adam and Eve according to middle eastern religions did not have either, how do U expalin their birth and creation?
I never said it could be proven. I'm merely stating what we believe. Adam and Eve were created by God. They didn't have earthly fathers. Good connection, Jesus was created similarily without an earthly father. He, of course, had an earthly mother though.
God who has the powers and authority to create a pair without father and mother, has in His power to create another one, without father, from a mother alone as well! So if the ones without parents are not son and daughter of God how could the one from mother alone be SON OF GOD? Earth is a insignificant planet among the whole universe, why just one species should get a son, waht about rest of creation of God? Jesus had a genetic pattern, whose genes did he carry? THINK AND GET OUT OF FALSEHOOD!
These are very good questions. I guess we would say that Adam and Eve were created human. Jesus was created to be both. He was created to live a human life, so that God could understand and relate as well as fully pay for our sins as a perfect sacrifice.
I would say that he carried half Mary's genes and half of the Holy Spirit's genes.
@Chuber, God bless U and all from all faiths, who love and obey Him!
Biologically Mary alone could have a baby, does not need a man tohave one. He couldn't reproduce.
The gentic patterns are for, bodies, and as U say "Holy spirit" it is not a mass so no genetic pattern.
God Almighty is not answerable to anyone, the whole universe depends on His will. As staff of Moses was staff at His will and serpent at His will. God willed and Jesus came into existence.
Contd: All He has to do is to will, to forgive anyone. He does not have to sacrifice to forgive. Who can question Him? If we look at the life of Jesus son of Mary, he was ever repentful, and asked God Almighty to forgive people, those who repented. He did not say to forgive the money changers, rather he faced them with force. He did not turn the other cheek to them either.
Let us believe in God Almighty as did Jesus son of Mary himself.
There is a justice part of God which we believe here. Because we are sinful and separated from God, we needed Jesus to bridge that gap. In ancient days people gave sacrifice to atone for their sins, but now that Jesus has come this is no longer necessary. "No one can come to the Father except through me." - through his ultimate sacrifice.
I wanted to clear up the air, I am not arguing nor picking a fight with U or any other Christian brother. But I am just saying let us put our eggs where they belong. We get together with our belief in one God Almighty, God, Creator, Master of Jesus son of Mary, and not hold any parteners with Him, just because we do not understand or comprehend many of His actions and laws. We keep our eyes and ears open for any new find and any other factual thing that we get to find out.
@chuber1979 Doubtful, and yet still taken. Where is this going? To make a wet thread stands perhaps, put some hair gel on it, that might work. Translating peoples names, good for you, good luck believing.
Naturally, they were freaked out. They were irresponsible to leave him behind. His response was, "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" I don't see why you would kick your 12-year-old out for this. He wasn't being disrespectful with this comment. I suppose you could read it in a tone of voice that would sound this way, but he was merely saying where he was. Remember that this is translated from the original Greek language. Sometimes it doesn't translate as well into English.
@samhas because , bibically, the diciples were saved but just messed up or experienced doubt. the pharisees thought they were saved , yet LIVED sinful and hypocritical lives.
@therootofallprobs You mean the Bible writers, could have written anything they wanted to, isn't it? Why would they not write good about themselves, and bad for others?
I had mentioned, " There are bad things mentioned about the people of the past, including Jesus, himself and ones before him, WHILE THERE IS NOT A SINGLE BAD THING ABOUT THE DESCIPLES, Why?"
@samhas maybe i m not really understanding the question or i need to analyze this more. youre saying there were bad things written about Jesus? like him beinga lunatic? do you know the answer or is this a serious sincer question? plz tell me if you know. if not ill study it more when i have time.
@therootofallprobs Dear brother, if you read the holy Bible it says bad about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, David, Soloman, Moses, Jesus, st John the baptist and others. But it does not say anything bad about Desciples as if they were perfect people only, in the history of mankind. WHY?
God is the Master of the whole universe, stars millions of time bigger tan our planet earth, and trillions of years from us, how could Jacob have a wrestling match with Him? READ carefully!
@samhas Responding to the 1st question: can you explain what you mean by "bad" ? if i remember correctly, id ont think theres much said about the diciples, except that they walked with Jesus?
to answer the second question: i dont think everything said in the bible should be taken as a physically literal. also, the bible tells us that no one has seen God , excpet via Christ and the things he has created. wrestling match can refer to mental distress or spiritual warfare.
@samhas yeah i just read it. hmmm lol. ill have to have some quiet time reading it again. i believe it has to do with fear and lack of faith. aka. spiritual warefare. but i cant explain it in a theological sense right now.
Of course they are inspired the moment they are written. But Luther had no problem rejecting James, Revelation, and Hebrews. It is not self-evident that they are inspired. You need an authority to tell you which books are inspired.
2:03 "The Church" here is the Catholic Church. Some random Christians didn't get together and define the Canon. The Church was not setup as a democracy!
Luther was not an Apostle of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, what he rejected or accepted is irrelevant. The Catholic Church did not exist until Constantine came on the seen, and they made up there own stuff. The followers of Jesus, who were around before Constantine, recognized the Gospels and epistles we read today as inspired by God because of the apostolic authority behind them. Those writings were only *compiled* into one work after Constantine ended all persecution against followers of Jesus.
@ Demsome33 - The papacy, the bishops, ergo the Catholic Church existed long before Constantine. (cf. Early Church Fathers who were bishops)
The Apostles used the Septuagint. Luther and subsequently all Protestants rejected the Septuagint in favor of a shorter canon (Masoretic). Protestants do not accept the same Old Testament as the Apostles.
Any book after the 96 A.D Revelation, is false, so I am glad that God was responsible for keeping out the writtings which were not inspired by Him.
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus were written in second century CE. We can tell by the language, words and writing styles. So that is just three books written after the Book of Revelations.
God says that He gave a book called Injeel to Jesus son of Mary the Virgin. But the Bible does not talk about it. Then the writings of Barnabas, who was the first cousin of Jesus were discarded by king Constantine who chose , what books will be added to Bible.
Barnabas tells so many different ideas than rest of the books do.
Genesis is simply repugnant, U lose UR belief in God Almighty by reading that book! I do not know why pope does not take it out?
The New Testament is that Gospel (Injeel)! The Gospel of Barnabas is a medieval forgery! Anyone who's done any research on it at all knows that! The book of Genesis tells the ugly truth! Despite the extent of the ugliness its all TRUE. And your Islamic presuppositions dont change that. Satan brought Islam 700 years after everything was said and done. Islams only purpose is to combat the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Brother 333, Barnabas was cousin of Jesus s/o Mary the Virgin. His gospel was discarded by king Constantine, and he wrote about it too. Anyways, it does not bother me when, how and who wrote it.
I want to learn one thing from Bible. The book puts down Adam Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Mose, David, Soloman, Zakraya, Jesus [In the culture of Jesus, being rude to mother is a big deal] etc., but there is no defect or shortcoming in the writers of Gospels?
@whinda4702 So dont read the NT b/c the Roman Catholic Church was the One who put it together by determining what Gospels and letters were to go in. Get ur facts straight and be more specific with catholicism being pagan b/c u sound like a Herectic since only the RCC's Bishops can trace their chronology back to the Apostles.
@eljunior98 God inspires scripture not man. scripture was scripture long before the catholic church decided anything and people already accepted the books of the bible that were inspired. Remember john wrote the last book of the bible in about 95 ad and there were already many churches at the time. The roman catholic church did not even come about till 315 ad with their heresy. Peace to you in love.
@whinda4702 What the f? U got ur history and ur theology twisted! The RCC is the the ONLY Church where its Bishops can trace their chronology back to the Apostles so before the written NT was the RCC it just hadnt given itself the title yet just its followers didnt get the title Chrisitans right away. Not all scripture is inspired only those that are TRULY inspired by God stop pulling things out of context. Look up the councils of Carthage and Hippo Genius!
@eljunior98 8 Councils of Carthage, also referred to as Synods of Carthage were church synods held during the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries in the town of Carthage in Africa. 3rd, 4th, and 5th meaning 300, 400, and 500 years after Christ I'm confused as to what your rebuttal even means towards whinda4702. He is simple saying that the books of the new testament were written with in the first 100 years and john being the last at 95ad. What your talking about happened 300 years after Christ..........
@sammyallen2010 Ok genius u need to study history a little bit more and then talk? Although the text were written before the Councils OBVIOUSLY the 27 texts that we have today were NOT the ONLY ones in circulation like the Gospel of Felipe, Mary, Barnadas, the Gospel of Judas, etc. However the RCC Bishops rejected them and only approved 6 BOOKS and 21 LETTERS!! Read and stop repeating what the founder of ur SECT said!!!
@eljunior98 What your referring to is called the apocryphal gospels or apocrypha.
In fact, adding a time gap of two generations to Jesus’s death lands you in the second century, just when the apocryphal gospels begin to appear. These do contain all sorts of fabulous stories about Jesus, trying to fill in the years between his boyhood and his starting his ministry, for example. These are the obvious legends sought by the critics, not the biblical gospels.
This video is funny...its arguing against the nonsense of The Davinci Code with the nonsense assumptions of Christianity. Dan Brown has the details wrong as does the bible itself. Humans wrote it and humans put it together.
2003SCT 2 months ago 3
@2003SCT i'm sure that's why you are sooo interested in the topic...
unomnacajit111 1 month ago
@unomnacajit111 It kind of is. I love any sort of nonsense actually. Religion, homeopathy, alien abductions etc...the weirder and more unbelievable the better. I guess its due to curiosity and why people think what they think. Most people seem to have good intentions but can literally be fooled by anything. I find it absolutely fascinating.
2003SCT 1 month ago
@2 it's actually people like you who are fooled by anything. If you ever read the Bible (Job) you'll see that God anticipated the rise of fools like you and asked them a few interesting questions. One of them was - where do the laws of physics come from? If you can't answer that your whole house of cards crashes down. It's you who believes everything that comes out of the TV. I wss like you until recently but unlike you i chose not to believe and did my own research. The other way is prayer
unomnacajit111 1 month ago
@unomnacajit111 Are you serious? Did you even read what I posted? I am literally the most skeptical person you will find and have been since I can remember. I find that people around me (especially Christians) believe all the stuff that comes out of the t.v. but not me. I find myself interested in religion and history and wacky stuff not because its true, but I am fascinated by how people are fooled by garbage. I am AMAZED at how you misunderstood my post so gravely.
2003SCT 1 month ago
@2003SCT Garbage? It seems God asked a valid question there. Where do the laws of physics come from? Btw, how old are you?
unomnacajit111 1 month ago
@unomnacajit111 I am 32. How old are you? We don't know where the laws of physics come from...and its o.k. to say that....ancient sheepherders didn't know either. Who created God? Wait....you don't have to answer that last one....I guarantee I know your answer. :)
2003SCT 1 month ago
@unomnacajit111 I agree. If you do like independant research then surely 2003SCT you have realised the world is not what people are taught in school or the mainstream media.
ScriptureOnly 3 weeks ago
@2003SCT then explain to me how all 40 of the authors never made a mistake in the writing of it and all of them over 1500 years having most of them never spoken to each other still managed to be in complete agreement
Cjfoucs 2 weeks ago
@Cjfoucs Well there is no "over 1,500 years" if we are talking about the New Testament alone...complied by early church leaders over a few centuries and no sooner than 30 years after the death of Christ is what is commonly thought due to dates etc. Yes, most never spoke to each other BUT a number of them read the other corresponding texts and based theirs on other existing texts...biblical scholars believe this due to some paragraphs being verbatim and others completely different.
2003SCT 2 weeks ago
the davinci code is a work of fiction.i dont understand how people are believing a book written for entertainment. the problem is that there will always be people looking for anything to discredit the bible,Jesus and christianity. remember satan is the father of all lies
annastesia67 3 months ago
@annastesia67 People who take the fictional work called the bible as nonfiction are just as likely to take a fiction work, such as the Davinci Code, as nonfiction.
Debordsbullet 3 months ago
@Debordsbullet The Bible is not a fictional work. There is a tremendous amount of evidence to substantiate the New Testament's historical record as well as much of the Old Testament as well. In fact in virtually every historical post-Moses controversy between The Bible and the anti-Christian "Higher Critics" has seen the Christian position confirmed by archaeology. From Sargon (and the Assyrian Empire as well), to the existence of the Hittite Empire, the stones cried out in the Bible's favor
BigBob76331 2 months ago
@BigBob76331 The bible may very well be intermittently dotted with actual historical events, but that's not to say all of the miracles and profoundly religious actions occurred as well. The Davinci Code is obviously fiction but that is structure around/with actually occurring events.
Debordsbullet 2 months ago
@annastesia67 well said
MsProud2b 3 days ago
I like how no one in this video actually answers the question. Because to do so would to implicate themselves.
The scripture in its entirety was not picked by congregations and they all had a copy of the Bible. Ridiculous. The vast majority of Christians were illiterate, and the books of the NT used varied widely across the Empire. It was St. Athanasius, POPE Damasus and finally the Council of Carthage, ratified by POPE Innocent, that put together the modern Bible. No Protestants in that list.
iamcupcakeable 4 months ago
@iamcupcakeable Oh, and though it's true all the approved (and some UNapproved) books were probably written in the first century, it's also totally true that NO church used the complete NT set until the 300s, centuries AFTER the RCC was founded. No use lying about that, video people.
The difference is that Catholics have nothing to fear from that fact, because our Church is not based on stealing that book and (contrary to historical evidence) claiming that's how the early Christians read it.
iamcupcakeable 4 months ago
@iamcupcakeable For the record, the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today, did not exist until after the Nicene council, and ultimately gained universal authority over the Roman Empire because Emperor Constantine and his successors, enforced their rulings, some of them (such as observing the 7th day Sabbath, or the Passover) by the use of capital punishment. Prior to the Nicene Council there were many schools of thought and many different doctrines taught under the mantle of Christianity.
BigBob76331 2 months ago
@iamcupcakeable If you think that the Christians who lived during the Roman empire were illiterate, think again. That might have been true during the Dark Ages after illiterate barbarian tribes conquered Rome, but during the Roman Empire literacy was widespread, as witnessed by the huge number of libraries located in many cities in the Empire.
BigBob76331 2 months ago
I'll try. Thanks for the advice
dixanna27 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it was the catholic church!
jr400rl 5 months ago
Regardless of what the Davinci Code says, the only obvious bit is that humans did the picking and choosing as to what to put in the bible....as is evident with all religion. Humans write it, humans compile it and humans believe in it. Simple.
2003SCT 5 months ago
The very fact it has endured for over 2000 years, makes a statement that it must be true.No other book comes close to it.
WizzRacing 5 months ago
the very description that this is to address a novel shows its not a serious study. fuck. a bunch of christian apologist-- then this crap.. when will i find a good documentary in youtube thats not apologetic or trying to put some bias?
taliesin939939 6 months ago
@taliesin939939 The problem in Christian circles is that some don't know their Bibles, so they are weak minded & R led astray by the fiction that others put out, like the DaVinci Code & Rob Bell's new Book about heaven. Fictional novels will lead many weak minded to hell. Well meaning Christians reference these novels so that those that have been swayed by them can be informed & hopefully see the errors in the novels and their own thinking. Pure Christianity is not injured by these fantasies.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@taliesin939939 Everyone has a bias, even U. Why do U watch such documentaries? What R U looking 4? Even videos of Dog admirers are bias, they like their dogs, better then cats, & vise versa. R U just looking for acceptance of an opposing Cyinical view or someone to argue with? What do U plan on proving by posting to a clip U disagree with? I'm just wandering if U R actually interested in Truth or just spreading discourse? I will try to help you with the Truth part if U R actually interested.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
Are they retarded or do they not know that TheDaVinci is just a novel?
They even cite it and everything smfh...
GetAFuckinClue 6 months ago
@GetAFuckinClue The problem in Christian circles is that some don't know their Bibles, so they are weak minded & R led astray by the fiction that others put out, like the DaVinci Code & Rob Bell's new Book about heaven. Fictional novels will lead many weak minded to hell. Well meaning Christians reference these novels so that those that have been swayed by them can be informed & hopefully see the errors in the novels and their own thinking. Pure Christianity is not injured by these fantasies.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
(part-2)...were relegated to "APOCRYPHA" status, which is the Greek term meaning "HIDDEN" but conveniently translated to mean "NOT GENUINE" or "DOUBTFUL." I find something else very interesting: "....In all the departments [forgery] and [interpolation] as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a grand scale....." (The Catholic Encyclopedia; 445). It further says: "...The idea of a complete and clean-cut cannon of the New Testament existing from the beginning has no fundation in history" (469)
pedrom41 6 months ago
@pedrom41 One mistake U might be making is referencing the Catholic Encyclopedia. Christianity was around a wee bit before Catholicism came on the scene. Any doctrine of man is going to be flawed. Apocrypal books may contain some historical value, but not a complete exhaustive inspired text. Complete truth is only found in one place.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
That still doesn't answer the question as to what criteria was used to determine which book was "inspired" and which wasn't. How do they know a particular book was inspired? What are the features that distinguish an "inspired" book from a non-inspired one? If I write a book of religious content and claim I was "inspired" by a higher power--who are you to argue that it wasn't so? It's quite interesting that many of the gospels that didn't survive the wrangling of the Church's hierarchy......
pedrom41 6 months ago
@pedrom41 Many of the gospels that didn't survive the wrangling of the Church's hierarchy R called the Gnostic gospel. They were not included because of their inconsistant content and the time period in which they were written. That is like saying many of the Wiccan tracts didn't make it into the Quaran. That is a catagorical error. Just because the word Gospel is in the title, doesn't mean it is Christian.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
What about the bible prophecies that are coming true in this day and time? that seems to be the only thing i can believe since everything else cant be proven. The bible is so confusing, its contradicting..
dixanna27 8 months ago
@dixanna27 The Bible seems to be contradicting at times, but there are answers. Keep digging, there are great scholars that can answer much of the seemingly contradictions. There R people on both sides of every issue that say their point can be proven. Ultimately the authority on Scripture is the Holy Spirit that takes up residence in our lives to guide us into all truth when U know that Jesus paid the penalty for your sins. If U are on an honest quest for the truth, God will find U.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
the bible is just a book of stories written by men, favoring men, and nothing else. it is a bunch of fairy tales, just like mother goose. none of it is true
mitgraduate 10 months ago
Is there anyone watching this who buys the idea that the canonical books of the NT are part of the canon because they are "god-breathed" and not the product of political/theological forces imposing the orthodoxy of the time? What on Earth does god-breathed even mean in a sensible discussion!?
Tapiola2007 11 months ago
@Tapiola2007 You hit the nail with a mighty hammer my friend. Modern religion is solely spread through brain washed offspring rather than the tip of a sword, torture and burning villages like in ancient times. If you were not convinced of the almighty state religion then you were removed and made example of. Christians have a talking snake and a magic fruit tree but the Hindus have a giant space turtle carrying the universe. I think a lot of modern kids will go with the turtle.
kick08ful 10 months ago
@Tapiola2007 God breathed means that the men who held the pen brought their experiences into the thoughts of God. These thoughts were inspired "breathed" out by God. Just like if you are breathing,(&hopefully U R) U are said to be respirating. The thoughts of God got into these writing men through the presence of the Holy Spirit who takes up residence in our bodies when we know of Jesus' payment for our sins and so we then are declared innocent and set apart for God's service.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath As I said in my comment, what does god-breathed even mean in "a sensible discussion"? How do you have the nerve to reply to with such nonsense as "the thoughts of God got into these writing men through ... the Holy Spirit ... residence in our bodies ... Jesus' payment for our sins ... set apart for God's service"? You have no knowledge that especially allows you to make those fantasy claims. Children may believe you but not grown ups. Please join the adult world.
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 . I thought a sensible discussion is what U wanted. I guess I didn't read the sarcasm into the printed word. The things I said are not fantasy and I do have knowledge of such things & the things U have said are lies. Jesus is the truth and if anyone sounds like a child, it can be heard in how loudly U are stomping Ur feet and throwing a fit about my response to Ur hatred of the truth. I will pray that the scales will be peeled from Ur eyes so that Ur blindness can be removed.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath A sensible discussion would be where two adults exchange thoughts on the topic relying on evidence, not infantile explanations such as "divinely inspired authoriatative books the moment they were written" or "a book is part of the canon because it is god-breathed". Men wrote the text that makes up the books of the Bible. Men chose which books to include and which books to leave out. You think their thoughts were guided by a Holy Spirit. How do you know that and I don't?
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
U asked "how do I know that & U don't". I can only guess, that U haven't done the work. If U are only interested in venting hostility or name calling I am not interested. If U are genuinely interested in gaining knowledge I would be glad to direct U. A good place to start an honest inquiry is with the short video on manuscript evidence and then let me know after that. Youtube won't let me post a link but you can search lee strobel.com for the video with Hank Hanegraff on Manuscript evidence.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath Oh dear! Is that the sort of argument that you find convincing? If you think Lee Strobel and Hank Hanegraff are worth listening to, you are seriously in need of an education. These men are intellectually retarded. You may not like my hostility but so what? These men have no idea about the things they are claiming to have insight into and yet you would accept their claims because they share your faith. Bully for you. They are at best misguided and at worst liars. Think for yourself!
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 How sad U must be with all the pent up anger in U. Ur ranting only shows how immature U really R. I thought U wanted to have a sensible discussion, but all U can do is spew hatred and lies. My faith is the one true faith and U have faith in how loudly U can bully other people with Ur hate speech. I will pray again 4 U tonight like I prayed last night 4 U. When U are ready to let go of Ur arrogance and submit to God, He will graciously save Ur sorry rear end. Good luck cuz U need it!
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath How can we have a sensible discussion when you introduce Lee Strobel as a source to help me if I am, as you put it, "genuinely interested in gaining knowledge"? The man is a buffoon. As for you, "one true faith", "hate speech", "pray for you", "let go of arrogance", "submit to god", listen to yourself! Clearly you're a believer but I wonder how many lies you have to convince yourself of everyday to maintain your faith...
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Both of us can't be right when U call Strobel a buffoon and I think the guy is making sense. I am concerned that I follow the true faith, that's why I have done so much digging into it. I think it is easy 4 U to just call people names rather than make the effort to listen and then discern what is good or bad. It does take time 4 truth to soak in sometimes when U have been fed lies all Ur life & the truth does irritate U, that should tell U that something is wrong in Ur beliefs.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath Two YouTube videos that are examples of Strobel's buffoonery: 1) Can you still be an atheist after watching this and his bogus five Es as evidence for the divinity of Jesus, and 2) The fossil record proves creation. The first is merely the rambling apologetics of a believer preaching to the faithful and does nothing to advance real evidence for the proposition. The second is a shameful dim witted attempt to address evolutionary biology and only prove he knows nada (CONT...)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath For example, he says that in the last 150 years science has failed to substantiate Darwin's idea of macroevolution (which is actually a stupid Creationist term that really means speciation but because he can't or won't talk proper science doesn't use it). Now the focus of his talk is fossils and claims that they show that all species "sprang forth" without transition and fully formed. This is simply the most retarded claim possible and contradicts the real science. (CONT...)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Ur too funny. Does it really matter if Strobel doesn't use the word "speciation"? If U know what he is talking about then the point is still that these transitional forms have never been found in the fossil record. Species do not change from one into the other. That's the real fact of science. Science has to be observable otherwise it is only theory. The religion of Darwinism is all fantasy. I thought U were interested in knowing why U didn't know anything about a holy spirit.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath Why do you insist on this foolishness? The physical evidence for transitions are found in just about every decent natural history museum in the world and freely available to view online. You choose to ignore this concrete evidence because it contradicts the fantasy you choose to base your life on. That's fine with me so long as you don't try to preach that rubbish publicly and expect to go unanswered. You claim you know the Holy Spirit. Get real! You think that but (CONT...)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Ur hostility to the truth will never allow the scales to fall from Ur eyes. No matter how many times U tell me I know something isn't true, won't convince me of what I know. If I am ingorant of the supernatural presence in my life it is blissful. I know of God's salvation and eternal promises and they elude U because of Ur emnity towards Him and His revelation. All U need to do is submit to the truth & that U are decieved by the teachings of mere man. God will reveal Himself to U.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath ...we both know you've never had any real encounter with any supernatural entity. Oh, you'll interpret your life experiences and put them down to God and the Holy Spirit moving in your life but that's all BS and you and I both know it. And you really need to get yourself a better education for public debate. Darwin published his book 150 years ago. The idea of evolution is many hundreds of years old. Darwin identified the mechanism of natural selection. (CONT...)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Confession & humility are obviously words U do not have in Ur vocabulary. I have no clue why U continue this conversation with me, but as long as U'd like I can help U through Ur blindness. The Holy Spirit is available to U when U realize U are a in need of salvation, just like a cancer patient is need of a cure. U don't know U have the sickness until some1 points it out to U.Ur sickness is deadly and U will die from it. The only question is do U want to risk life without a cure?
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath Darwin rejected his faith when he realised it was all a sham. It certainly troubled him and he described the realisation that we are evolved and not created like "confessing a murder". It was not something he took lightly and there were times when he delayed publishing. As for the comment that Prothero's book is "dribble", sheer ignorance. What allows you to judge the work of a world-renowned scientist, admired within and across his field? I know - your fantasy allows you to!
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Have U ever heard of the Cambrian period? Darwin could never explain the explosion of life forms. The fact that transitional forms do not exist, is only covered up by the fantastical dreams of the museums and so called scientists that don't beleif in creationism. U'd be surprised how many scientists believe in God but are bullied into silence by hater's that think stomping their feet is the way to knowledge. I grew up with books wrought with errors-like Lucy and Brontasaurus.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath Darwin didn't need to know everything so we could understand better - we know more now than he did. We know about the Cambrian Explosion. We have thousands upon thousands of fossils that demonstrate species in transition. Your insistence on ignoring such concrete evidence is tantamount to severe delusion behaviour. Who are these Creationist scientists you seem to know about? Don't just conjecture - name them. What do you mean "errors like Lucy and Brontasaurus"? Explain yourself.
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 I’d never name names because the bully culture seeks to silence all opposition. Ur culture seeks to back honest people into corners & yell names at them & tell them how stupid they are until they feel little & after the attack U feel so big. The double standard U carry is too much. Darwin doesn’t need all the answers but Newton does??? It’d be too laughable if it wasn’t so sad. Ask God. He promises to answer if U seek Him earnestly. Don’t be afraid of what U don’t know.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath You won't give names because you can't. You probably think Ben Stein's so-called film Expelled was a real expose of this bullying that takes place. Don't make me laugh. I don't understand what you mean by "Darwin doesn’t need all the answers but Newton does" What does that mean? Lucy is an extinct ape and an extremely important hominid find as she was fully bipedal, a feature only found in humans. As for your ramblings about the Brontasaurus, you're a joke. Did you hear that (CONT)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 LOL some joke, U seriously believe the bogus stuff that has been spoon to fed the public by the secular media and science. Why don't U listen to urself for a change. The stuff U beleive in is far more crazy than having faith in God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit. Do you know the probability of a protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10 to the 950th. Ur faith in evolution is like walking a tightrope of a single strand of hair across the Grand Canyon. I solute U for ur huge faith.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 U defend Darwin by saying,"Darwin didn't need to know everything so we could understand better-we know more now than he did" & before U made the argument that Newton was an alchemist & we shouldn't follow what he knew. It is a double standard to not give the same judgement or credit to each man. . Sad really, I suggest you channel all that anger into reading the Gospel of John, God can give U all the answers U are seeking-just ask! I'm here for U too!
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath No, you're confusing yourself. You stated that Darwin recognised flaws in his theory. I said that's fine because Darwin didn't need to provide all the answers, we now know far more than he did and can answer the flaws he couldn't. The point about Newton was a completely separate point where you tried to name distinguished scientists who were also Creationists as if that made Creationism more believable. I merely pointed out that being a scientist and holding (CONT...)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath ...screwball views wasn't unusual. Newton gave us the Theory of Gravity but should we also accept his alchemy and astrology views. No, of course not. Nor should we wonder that despite his mathematical brilliance, he also bought into the prevailing religious views of his time. Why wouldn't he? I get the very strong feeling you haven't received a proper science education. That's fine. It happens and it's nothing to be ashamed of, billions haven't. (CONT...)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Thank U for your almost polite reply. U continue to assume things about me that U do not know. I assume that is a defense mechanism 4 U. I understand it is probably incomprehensible 4 U to see the irony in ur arguments & the flaws in the standards by which U state ur case. There R certain things that will just not click 4 someone of ur loftiness. It's o.k. billions are deceived. I have enjoyed our banters U are persistant. Life won't last forever & then truth will prevail.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath True, I know nothing about you. You also make assumptions about me. Perhaps that's now online discussion works. I'll give you some insight that might surprise you. About 15 years ago I was firm in my faith and regularly out on the streets of London witnessing the Good News of the New Testament, especially to Muslims. That was possible then. Today it would be extremely dangerous. However, the point is I've been where you are. I know what it is to believe. Now I don't. (CONT)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath How I became backslidden (nice phrase used by most churches for apostates) is irrelevant. The point I depart from is that when questions are raised and one seeks answers honestly, arguing from the corner of faith at all costs is disingenuous and lying to oneself. Nobody who has faith can claim any certainty about any of the claims they make. We are all bound by the same single fact: uncertainty. However, science has peeled back the mysteries one by one and continues to do so.
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Thank U 4 ur sincerity. My belief is that once saved-always saved. U may doubt & say ur backslidden, but I beleive God never lets go. I still do beleive in a young earth, but I see the worth in the old earth discussion. At the risk of alienating U, Hank Hanegraff is promoting an old earth stance. I do believe that God created everything & is compassionate & loving, but not a pushover. I am curious at how U said U didn't know the Holy Spirit if U were testifiying of the Good news.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath When one needs to, it's possible to be convinced of practically anything. Witnessing is a logical step once you're convinced you know something everybody else should also know. My problem isn't with belief itself, although I don't subscribe to any belief system. I don't even object to what I would describe as ridiculous ideas if that's what people want to believe in. I resist the promotion of those ideas as facts in public discourse. You want to believe in a young Earth (CONT)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 My friend, U do have a belief system, it is called evolution or darwinism. These are theories, U are convinced U know something and everybody else should too. I could tell U to keep that to Ur ownself also, but I beleive that everyone has the right to speak openly, that debate is good and healthy, that U like I, or the Muslims or the witches or anybody has the right to speak. Everyone also has the right to respond in open-the same thing U did in ur original post to this media.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath Evolution is not something to be believed in - it's a fact. Do we say we believe in the Theory of Gravity? No. It's a fact that we accept. Do we say we believe in Germ Theory? No. It is a fact that we accept. Whether we like it or not there are fact that must simply be accepted and are not the subject of belief. You may reject such facts but that's then a separate issue. As for disseminating this information publicy. That's the role of public education and not the same as religion.
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath ...fine, good luck with that. However, if you want to teach that to people outside of your church or home, then I think that needs to be challenged. you only resist the fossil evidence and the mountains of real data on the natural world because and only because of your faith. Not because you have any firm counter evidence but because you must. I know, I've done it. But those things are simply not facts and if they're not, what else isn't true?
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 My objection 2 evolution is not only tied 2 my faith in God. I've observed mountains sides of mud slide down into the ocean. I've witnessed the destruction of floods. I know of the creation of new rock and the covering of civilizations in days due to volcanoes. I've seen mammoth bones near the surface of the earth from mud holes. I know the power of nature and I think man is just a little part of it & most times our little minds just get it wrong & give ourselves too much credit.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 I don't resist the fossil evidence only man's deductions. I beleive in micro evolution. Humans R taller in stature now, than hundreds of years ago, but I don't beleive they changed species. Our minds R wicked all the time and evolution gives us reasons to act like animals & excuse our evil. If we evolved from apes why do we still have apes? They are just a different species. They might have been here first, but that doesn's mean we came from them. Elementary, my dear Watson.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath You do resist the fossil evidence because you don't accept the explanations from experts in the field and moreover you can't provide an alternative that makes sense. There's no such thing as microevolution. That's just Creationist nonsense to cover themselves for the fact that we can easily demonstrate quick change in species. What you call microevolution is nothing more than evolution proper but on the short scale. Add a few million years and some interesting... (CONT)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath ...environmental pressures and the full force of evolution by natural selection can be observed. We act like animals because we are animals. More specifically, we are apes, primates. There are other apes because we are cousins to the the great apes, not descended from them. We share common ancestry with them to a species may never be discovered but has been hinted at by Lucy, for example. Your statement "if we evolved from apes" is clear evidence you have (CONT)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath ...misunderstood or been mislead about evolution. This, I fear, is the biggest problem in debates such as this. You are opposed to evolution by natural selection, you are prepared to make all manner of statements against and in favour of a clearly contradictory view, and yet you clearly don't understand the main mechanism for how it works. We were not once chimps and are now human. Chimps are a separate ape species to whom we are related but not descended. (CONT)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath You know, evolution is not directly in opposition to faith or religion itself. There are many religious people who openly accept evolution but still seek answers through faith. Evolution is a fact of the natural world that only comes into conflict with religion when people start making claims that are factually impossible and out of step with everything we have learned about ourselves and our place in the natural order.
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 I. U R right, I have been calling Evolution a theory, incorrectly. U believe evolution is a Scientific fact. SCIENCE itself is the study of the physical & natural world & phenomena, especially by using systematic observation & EXPERIMENT. Scientific Fact is an OBSERVABLE natural occurrence; Scientific Theory attempts to explain how the natural occurrence works; & Scientific Law can B expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 II. Empirical science requires that any object or phenomenon must B OBSERVABLE. (1)As we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by humans, such events R not suited to study by science. (2)The object of the study must B repeatable. Unique & unrepeatable events R the subject of history, not science. (3)Any explanations offered 4 observable & repeatable facts MUST B TESTABLE. This means that an experiment must B conceived & conducted to refute the theory if it were wrong.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 III.The evolutionist Paul Ehrlich stated, “The THEORY of evolution cannot B refuted by any possible observations & thus is outside of empirical science.” Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky found that even when evolutionary changes occur, they R by nature unique, unrepeatable, & irreversible. Dobzhansky states that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted."
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 IV. U should B aware that EVOLUTIONISTS DO recognize 2 types of evolution -- micro, which is observable & macro which isn't. Macro evolution is a HYPOTHETICAL process of UNLIMITED VARIATIONS that is believed to transform 1 kind species into another. Obviously, no 1 has ever OBSERVED anything remotely like this actually happening. In truth evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable & thus DOESN’T QUALIFY as either a scientific FACT or THEORY.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 V. Evolution must B accepted with faith by its believers; Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many people believe it or how long they have believed it or even how many times it is said to B a fact. Just review the definitions. Intelligent design is immeasurably more REASONABLE 4 the explanation of the origin & the complexity of living things rather than evolution by mere chance (with the mathematical odds against it) & the intrinsic properties of nature.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath Your last response is an example of why I bother to spend time on YouTube debating or even arguing. I don't know where you got all that BS but it is nothing more than propaganda. It tells me that you will oppose evolution by natural selection even when you yourself don't understand anything about it. For example, you say that ID is a better explanation for the complexity of living things rather than evolution by mere chance. OK. Let's debate that. 1) No matter how complex (CONT)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath life on Earth is any god capable of creating it must be infinitely more complex. Where did god come from? Was god created or did god appear by chance? 2) You say "evolution by mere chance". Evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with chance. Nor is it directed. Evolution is undirected change taking place through non-random mutations. 3) You say evolution is not observable. Wrong. The fact that evolution happened is observable and the fact of evolution happening (CONT)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath ...is seen and tested every day. Instead of running to your favourite Christian apologist text, read some science. Science is learning, knowledge, awareness. You can't be opposed to those things, can you? Or are you so blinkered by your faith that you refuse to look for fear of what you'll find? I've looked into faith and it doesn't work for me. It may be comforting but that don't make it true. It might make sense to you, but that don't make it true.
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Ur point #1 is completely true. God is infinitely more complex than all of His creation. Ur questions show U don’t know the Bible or God & probably never did. God exists eternally. He IS the Creator & was never created. Nothing came from nothing. Nothing ever could. Evidence of the Creator is found in his creation. The very evidence, that evolutionists contort to fit their warped deductions about origins, is what God provided so that we might seek Him & know Him.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Jesus said, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light, because their deeds were evil. Every1 who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” I know I can’t argue U into the Kingdom, but I so believe that if U seek for God, He will reveal himself to U & Ur testimony will be great for him. Ur drive and persistence will then be focused upon truth, my friend.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 U said, “I've looked into faith and it doesn't work for me.” That is so profound that few Christians don’t ever get it. The Christian faith is not supposed to “work” for U. It is not supposed to protect U and keep back all the bad things of this world. It is no guarantee of only blessings. We live in this fallen world and are given light (knowledge) and a chance to choose God and hope. This hope does not disappoint. It will be known fully when this finite life comes to an end.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath You may not wish to hear the Devil's lies as I'm sure your pastor warns you but please don't make comments on a public discussion board about science when you know next to nothing other than the propaganda handed to you by your church. I'm totally open to criticism of science and overhauling ideas and propostions that are wrong. If people lie and falsify evidence, they should be exposed. However, the scientific community is a tough and exacting one and bogus ideas don't last long.
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Do U seriously believe we came from slime? I don't have a pastor, even if I had 1 that spoke boldly against the popular lies of secular science, the public arena is an equal place for discussion. Christianity is over 2000 years old & will thrive in persecuted public. U remind me of the Apostle Paul who wrote 2/3 of the New Testament. Bold in his persecution of the beleivers until he was knocked off his horse & met the Lord Jesus. Ur testimony will be 1 of true power 4 redemption.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Real delusional behavior is to stand on crumbling cliff of lies that is macro-evolution. I can’t tell if U have never heard Lucy –the missing like or the Bronasaurus hoax or if U R asking about the error. Lucy, an extinct ape was told farewell in the French magazine Science et Vie, 2/1999 issue as a hominid transition. Brontasaurus hoax was revealed (1970) as the skull of a Camarasaurus fixed on an Apatosaurus body. There's more too that have been called transitional & found false.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath from some cheap con-artist pastor who spends his day lying to gullible fools and spends his nights partying with the money those fools give up in tithes and other donations. First of all, even if this stupid claim were in any way true, so what. What does it mean? However, you should first understand that Brontosaurus is not a real classification of dinosaur but merely a popular name given to a species of apatosaurus, which were walking all over this planet 150 million years ago!
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath Now, you can choose to believe Strobel or you can be a grown up and investigate the matter properly. I'll direct you to the book What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Donald Prothero, professor of geology and geobiology at Caltech. As you said about us only one can be right. Concerning fossils, do we believe Lee Strobel who is eminently unqualified on the matter and is clearly pumping his Creationist dogma or a respected and published professor in the field? (CONT...)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath And that's just fossils. Strobel completely ignores the evidence of biology, genetics, geographical distribution of species, plate tectonics and continental drift, and just about every single scientific discipline that has ever, directly or indirectly, addressed the question of evolution. I'll stress the point in case you missed it: there is not a single field of science that does not work on the assumption that Darwin's idea is a fact. However, Lee Strobel thinks he knows better!
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Darwinism has only seen its rise in the last 100 years. Science, just about 6000. I can't figure out how anyone ever determined anything before evolution was dreamed up! Just a few names like Newton, Pasteur, Galileo, Kepler, Fleming. All beleived in God & His Christ. Even Darwin professed Christianity. Darwin even knew of his theory's own weaknesses. Your efforts and time should be spent getting to know the God of the universe instead of reading such dribble as Prothero.
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
@onnarrowpath As for your impressive list of great scientists who were also Creationists, so f******g what?! I think you'll find that in the 20th and 21st centuries scientists don't believe in Creationism and other bogus faith systems because they now know better. Newton was also an alchemist and astrologer, does that mean we should consider that ideas as valid today? Kepler was a devout Christian all his life but that has nothing to do with his laws of planetary motion. (CONT...)
Tapiola2007 6 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Why does it matter to U that I might abandon my faith in God through Ur arguments from evolution? Why do U want to be descended from apes so badly that Ur anger is inflamed? Will I make more moral decisions if I know that I came from primordial slime? Does the hypothesis of ape drawings in textbooks standing ever so taller make U reach out to people in their time of need? If I visit museums that have clay structures of imagined transitional forms does it mean I can be a racist?
onnarrowpath 6 months ago
usually when a prophecy is written or told, its done so during the time its needed. perhaps the books were written during the time when ppl were confusing what jesus really taught. ex. now many prophets are revealing heresy that preachers have been practising over the past 10 years or so. why didnt god reveal these things to the prophets 10 years ago? cuz. sometimes things need to get worse before ppl want to do something about it.
therootofallprobs 1 year ago
Comment removed
therootofallprobs 1 year ago
Comment removed
therootofallprobs 1 year ago
before I started my Bible class I never knew such a claim was made. I have heard of the Da Vinci code but I did not read it to see all the things they were saying. I am glad that I have heard it now so I can be ready if someone else talks about it.
kizzycutie1 1 year ago
Such bullshit
spareaxe 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but this is utterly false. What really happened, we will never know, but these books were chosen at some point, long after the they were written. They were chosen for 3 main reasons... 1. They were popular at the time. 2. They got through an agenda that the people who put the Bible together wanted. 3. They were not well known as fiction (well more so than the rest of the Bible).
google who wrote the bible and watch it.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
Dan Brown may be a writer of bad fiction, but at least he admits it. There was an actual debate about canonization. People had disagreements. Some books were included for reasons that we now believe to be incorrect, and political opinion and popularity mattered. This video makes me think you know just enough history to intentionally mislead. If history threatens your faith, your faith is shallow.
Cadfan17 1 year ago
Brilliant!
TheSowerMedia 1 year ago
Doubtful, and yet still taken. Where is this going? To make a wet thread stands perhaps, put some hair gel on it, that might work.
hairillj 1 year ago
@whinda4702 If the "churches" ur talking about werent RCC (even though that is historically and theologically proveable) what on God's green earth are all u store front churches start by a man that completed some kind of bible study course so the owner of the property thats leases him a space can avoid paying state tax, "church and state are separate." What will u Protestants come up with next?
eljunior98 1 year ago
eljunior98 @whinda4702 U Protestants are ridiculous u dont know what to come up with. U write that before 95AD there already were Churches well I got news for u they were RCC churches that were all 1. It wasnt until they RCC councils that the Bishops of da Church were able to compile da NT that we have today. If u study history correctly first there were 22 canons and then there were 27 canons.The RCC Bishops used the Oral Tradition to validate if these canons were inspired by God or not.
eljunior98 1 year ago
Ignorance is bliss I guess.
Breezewontspeak 1 year ago
This is not a myth, it's a bloody fact.
raoskaos 2 years ago
Why does Bible talk bad about every one from Jesus to all the way up to Adam, but not a single word against the Descipels?
When we look at the history, the desciples forsake Jesus, and story about Jesus terlling them to do so, comes from the same few people/ would be conflict of interest?
samhas 2 years ago
Yeah, and that "Doubting Thomas" character is as fictional as they come. By the time Jesus was resurrected, I would have witnessed enough that I would NEVER doubt Him at that point. Christians are gullible DUMB fucks.
lotanddaughters 2 years ago
@lotanddaughters
Thomas doubted, just like all the other disciples doubted. Once Jesus died, they abandoned their faith. "We had thought he was the Christ," Peter says.
It was unbelievable to think that someone could raise themselves from the dead. But he did, and that's just what changed them. Thomas included.
chuber1979 2 years ago
It would have been unbelievable to me until I saw Him resurrect Lazarus from the dead. The authors of the Bible put those ridiculously fictional doubters in there so that the reader might think, "Wow, there were other doubters just like me."
I am STILL doubting...with GOOD REASON.
lotanddaughters 2 years ago
It's one thing to raise someone from the dead when you are alive. It is something altogether different to raise someone from the dead when you yourself are dead.
I can easily marvel at LeBron James's abilities while he's alive, but to think that he can do them in the grave is ridiculous.
And remember they didn't think the Messiah was supposed to die, they were expecting an earthly political king. Jews today still are.
chuber1979 2 years ago
Once you achieve the ability to raise someone from the dead when you are alive, you have already entered "The Realm Of Magical Bullshit That Never Really Happens". From there, ANYTHING is possible.
lotanddaughters 2 years ago
Okay, I can agree with that.
But these Jews, who thought this was the Messiah didn't see it that way. I understand your doubt. I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind what we believe. Dead people, traditionally, don't do anything, so there surprise is genuine. Although, it probably shouldn't be, as you pointed out.
chuber1979 2 years ago
@samhas
Where does the Bible talk bad about Jesus? I'm confused by your question.
chuber1979 2 years ago
@chuber1979
Dear brother read bible where it talks about Jesus goes out and Mary is looking for him. She finds him in a temple. First of All he had nothing to learn from Temples and Rabbis, God Almighty taught him and gave him more knowledge than any of his contemporaries. Secondly the way he replies to his mother, is a direct insult to his solemn character. If my son replies in those words to his mother, he will be thrown out of the home. It is an insult to Jesus son of Mary. He was a gr8 man!
samhas 2 years ago
Jesus, was both God and man. He did need to be taught. The point was the God came in human form to learn what our life was like, as one of us. He was not an infant with the mind of God He learned as we learn. Eventually, when he was 12 it was revealed to him, or he discovered who he was. At this point, his mother left with the caravan heading home ahead of the men as was custom. Joseph assumed Jesus was with her. She assumed Jesus was with Joseph. The find him 3 days later.
chuber1979 2 years ago
@chuber1979
So when Jesus was god according to U, then who was the God in the rest of the universe? He was an infant, and needed products of earth to grow up, what kind of god is the one who depends on others.
Believe in the Almighty God, who is self sufficient, does not need earthly provisions to stay alive, is in control of the whole universe, one who is not part time, does not sleep nor the tiredness gets Him. One, merciful to all the inhabitants of earth and whole universe, still unknown!
samhas 2 years ago
If there is a God, you have to admit that's he'd be more powerful than us, yes? He'd have to be more complex than us.
So, this is where the Trinity theology comes in. God the Father, who is outside of time, was still watching. Jesus was a part of him that was placed inside of time, with those time restraints.
So, God was in two places at once, in one sense.
chuber1979 2 years ago 2
How can U say that Jesus was part of God while U and me were not before we were born and we won't go back to Him, after we die?
These are theoreticals, nobody can prove nor reject! If Jesus did not have an earthly father, then Adam and Eve according to middle eastern religions did not have either, how do U expalin their birth and creation?
samhas 2 years ago
I never said it could be proven. I'm merely stating what we believe. Adam and Eve were created by God. They didn't have earthly fathers. Good connection, Jesus was created similarily without an earthly father. He, of course, had an earthly mother though.
chuber1979 2 years ago
God who has the powers and authority to create a pair without father and mother, has in His power to create another one, without father, from a mother alone as well! So if the ones without parents are not son and daughter of God how could the one from mother alone be SON OF GOD? Earth is a insignificant planet among the whole universe, why just one species should get a son, waht about rest of creation of God? Jesus had a genetic pattern, whose genes did he carry? THINK AND GET OUT OF FALSEHOOD!
samhas 2 years ago
@samhas
These are very good questions. I guess we would say that Adam and Eve were created human. Jesus was created to be both. He was created to live a human life, so that God could understand and relate as well as fully pay for our sins as a perfect sacrifice.
I would say that he carried half Mary's genes and half of the Holy Spirit's genes.
chuber1979 2 years ago
@Chuber, God bless U and all from all faiths, who love and obey Him!
Biologically Mary alone could have a baby, does not need a man tohave one. He couldn't reproduce.
The gentic patterns are for, bodies, and as U say "Holy spirit" it is not a mass so no genetic pattern.
God Almighty is not answerable to anyone, the whole universe depends on His will. As staff of Moses was staff at His will and serpent at His will. God willed and Jesus came into existence.
CONTD.
samhas 2 years ago
Contd: All He has to do is to will, to forgive anyone. He does not have to sacrifice to forgive. Who can question Him? If we look at the life of Jesus son of Mary, he was ever repentful, and asked God Almighty to forgive people, those who repented. He did not say to forgive the money changers, rather he faced them with force. He did not turn the other cheek to them either.
Let us believe in God Almighty as did Jesus son of Mary himself.
samhas 2 years ago
There is a justice part of God which we believe here. Because we are sinful and separated from God, we needed Jesus to bridge that gap. In ancient days people gave sacrifice to atone for their sins, but now that Jesus has come this is no longer necessary. "No one can come to the Father except through me." - through his ultimate sacrifice.
chuber1979 2 years ago
I wanted to clear up the air, I am not arguing nor picking a fight with U or any other Christian brother. But I am just saying let us put our eggs where they belong. We get together with our belief in one God Almighty, God, Creator, Master of Jesus son of Mary, and not hold any parteners with Him, just because we do not understand or comprehend many of His actions and laws. We keep our eyes and ears open for any new find and any other factual thing that we get to find out.
samhas 2 years ago
@samhas
No problem. I love discussing. God bless you, brother.
chuber1979 2 years ago
@chuber1979 Doubtful, and yet still taken. Where is this going? To make a wet thread stands perhaps, put some hair gel on it, that might work. Translating peoples names, good for you, good luck believing.
hairillj 1 year ago
@hairillj I'm confused by your comment. What do you mean? Traslating people's names? What is doubtful? What are you even talking about?
chuber1979 1 year ago
Naturally, they were freaked out. They were irresponsible to leave him behind. His response was, "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" I don't see why you would kick your 12-year-old out for this. He wasn't being disrespectful with this comment. I suppose you could read it in a tone of voice that would sound this way, but he was merely saying where he was. Remember that this is translated from the original Greek language. Sometimes it doesn't translate as well into English.
chuber1979 2 years ago
@samhas because , bibically, the diciples were saved but just messed up or experienced doubt. the pharisees thought they were saved , yet LIVED sinful and hypocritical lives.
therootofallprobs 1 year ago
@therootofallprobs You mean the Bible writers, could have written anything they wanted to, isn't it? Why would they not write good about themselves, and bad for others?
I had mentioned, " There are bad things mentioned about the people of the past, including Jesus, himself and ones before him, WHILE THERE IS NOT A SINGLE BAD THING ABOUT THE DESCIPLES, Why?"
samhas 1 year ago
@samhas maybe i m not really understanding the question or i need to analyze this more. youre saying there were bad things written about Jesus? like him beinga lunatic? do you know the answer or is this a serious sincer question? plz tell me if you know. if not ill study it more when i have time.
therootofallprobs 1 year ago
@therootofallprobs Dear brother, if you read the holy Bible it says bad about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, David, Soloman, Moses, Jesus, st John the baptist and others. But it does not say anything bad about Desciples as if they were perfect people only, in the history of mankind. WHY?
God is the Master of the whole universe, stars millions of time bigger tan our planet earth, and trillions of years from us, how could Jacob have a wrestling match with Him? READ carefully!
samhas 1 year ago
@samhas Responding to the 1st question: can you explain what you mean by "bad" ? if i remember correctly, id ont think theres much said about the diciples, except that they walked with Jesus?
to answer the second question: i dont think everything said in the bible should be taken as a physically literal. also, the bible tells us that no one has seen God , excpet via Christ and the things he has created. wrestling match can refer to mental distress or spiritual warfare.
therootofallprobs 1 year ago
@samhas yeah i just read it. hmmm lol. ill have to have some quiet time reading it again. i believe it has to do with fear and lack of faith. aka. spiritual warefare. but i cant explain it in a theological sense right now.
therootofallprobs 1 year ago
1:29 He's selling you a bridge.
Of course they are inspired the moment they are written. But Luther had no problem rejecting James, Revelation, and Hebrews. It is not self-evident that they are inspired. You need an authority to tell you which books are inspired.
2:03 "The Church" here is the Catholic Church. Some random Christians didn't get together and define the Canon. The Church was not setup as a democracy!
legolasegb 2 years ago
Luther was not an Apostle of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, what he rejected or accepted is irrelevant. The Catholic Church did not exist until Constantine came on the seen, and they made up there own stuff. The followers of Jesus, who were around before Constantine, recognized the Gospels and epistles we read today as inspired by God because of the apostolic authority behind them. Those writings were only *compiled* into one work after Constantine ended all persecution against followers of Jesus.
Demsome333 2 years ago
@ Demsome33 - The papacy, the bishops, ergo the Catholic Church existed long before Constantine. (cf. Early Church Fathers who were bishops)
The Apostles used the Septuagint. Luther and subsequently all Protestants rejected the Septuagint in favor of a shorter canon (Masoretic). Protestants do not accept the same Old Testament as the Apostles.
legolasegb 2 years ago
If it wasn't for Constantine, YOU wouldn't be Christian........so much for "Divine Inspiration".
lotanddaughters 2 years ago
@lot, If you had watched the video, you'd know that it has nothing to do with Constantine at all.
Expeldarkness 2 years ago
I suppose that your God inspired this video as well.
lotanddaughters 2 years ago
Any book after the 96 A.D Revelation, is false, so I am glad that God was responsible for keeping out the writtings which were not inspired by Him.
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
hottamale02 2 years ago
Like the book of Mormons and Koran
chinaroseh 2 years ago
1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus were written in second century CE. We can tell by the language, words and writing styles. So that is just three books written after the Book of Revelations.
Christisms 2 years ago
@ hottamale02:
They're ALL false, you stupid asshole.
lotanddaughters 2 years ago
God says that He gave a book called Injeel to Jesus son of Mary the Virgin. But the Bible does not talk about it. Then the writings of Barnabas, who was the first cousin of Jesus were discarded by king Constantine who chose , what books will be added to Bible.
Barnabas tells so many different ideas than rest of the books do.
Genesis is simply repugnant, U lose UR belief in God Almighty by reading that book! I do not know why pope does not take it out?
samhas 2 years ago
Your comment is so ignorant I bet you haven't even watched this video.
Expeldarkness 2 years ago
Sir with due appology, what is ignorant about my comment? Have U ever read the history of new testament?
PLEASE READ BEFORE U PASS UR UNWANTED FALSE COMMENT!
samhas 2 years ago
If you believe the Book of Genesis, YOU are the one who's fucking IGNORANT.
lotanddaughters 2 years ago
The New Testament is that Gospel (Injeel)! The Gospel of Barnabas is a medieval forgery! Anyone who's done any research on it at all knows that! The book of Genesis tells the ugly truth! Despite the extent of the ugliness its all TRUE. And your Islamic presuppositions dont change that. Satan brought Islam 700 years after everything was said and done. Islams only purpose is to combat the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Demsome333 2 years ago
Brother 333, Barnabas was cousin of Jesus s/o Mary the Virgin. His gospel was discarded by king Constantine, and he wrote about it too. Anyways, it does not bother me when, how and who wrote it.
I want to learn one thing from Bible. The book puts down Adam Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Mose, David, Soloman, Zakraya, Jesus [In the culture of Jesus, being rude to mother is a big deal] etc., but there is no defect or shortcoming in the writers of Gospels?
samhas 2 years ago
almost nothing in this video can be proven...."God inspired this"..."God inspired that"......christianity is trash
davidaud777 2 years ago 2
@davidaud777 Do you not believe in Jesus? Please do not confuse christianity and catholicism. Catholicism is pagan at its core.
whinda4702 1 year ago
@whinda4702 So dont read the NT b/c the Roman Catholic Church was the One who put it together by determining what Gospels and letters were to go in. Get ur facts straight and be more specific with catholicism being pagan b/c u sound like a Herectic since only the RCC's Bishops can trace their chronology back to the Apostles.
eljunior98 1 year ago
@eljunior98 God inspires scripture not man. scripture was scripture long before the catholic church decided anything and people already accepted the books of the bible that were inspired. Remember john wrote the last book of the bible in about 95 ad and there were already many churches at the time. The roman catholic church did not even come about till 315 ad with their heresy. Peace to you in love.
whinda4702 1 year ago
@whinda4702 What the f? U got ur history and ur theology twisted! The RCC is the the ONLY Church where its Bishops can trace their chronology back to the Apostles so before the written NT was the RCC it just hadnt given itself the title yet just its followers didnt get the title Chrisitans right away. Not all scripture is inspired only those that are TRULY inspired by God stop pulling things out of context. Look up the councils of Carthage and Hippo Genius!
eljunior98 1 year ago
Comment removed
sammyallen2010 1 year ago
@eljunior98 8 Councils of Carthage, also referred to as Synods of Carthage were church synods held during the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries in the town of Carthage in Africa. 3rd, 4th, and 5th meaning 300, 400, and 500 years after Christ I'm confused as to what your rebuttal even means towards whinda4702. He is simple saying that the books of the new testament were written with in the first 100 years and john being the last at 95ad. What your talking about happened 300 years after Christ..........
sammyallen2010 1 year ago
@sammyallen2010 Ok genius u need to study history a little bit more and then talk? Although the text were written before the Councils OBVIOUSLY the 27 texts that we have today were NOT the ONLY ones in circulation like the Gospel of Felipe, Mary, Barnadas, the Gospel of Judas, etc. However the RCC Bishops rejected them and only approved 6 BOOKS and 21 LETTERS!! Read and stop repeating what the founder of ur SECT said!!!
eljunior98 1 year ago
Comment removed
sammyallen2010 1 year ago
@eljunior98 What your referring to is called the apocryphal gospels or apocrypha.
In fact, adding a time gap of two generations to Jesus’s death lands you in the second century, just when the apocryphal gospels begin to appear. These do contain all sorts of fabulous stories about Jesus, trying to fill in the years between his boyhood and his starting his ministry, for example. These are the obvious legends sought by the critics, not the biblical gospels.
sammyallen2010 1 year ago