1 John 1:8-10 is in past tense, he was referring to the time before they were 'born again'.
This is supported by the next verse 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:" This suggests that in theory Christians need only be cleansed once, and from that point onwards they live perfectly sinless lives if they really believe, which they obviously do not...
one can be honest ,use ethical standards of semantics ,argument and logic OR one can make a serious stab at defending the gospels but it is clearly not possible to do both ..
theists ,who can be seen to be completely honest ,ethical and rational in other arguments ,will suddenly slip into their "nonsense ninja " outfits ,when being required to defend their odious "holy scriptures " and all the rules of honest and rational argument fall by the wayside ..UP can mean down ,blk could be white etc
PART 2... chronic disobedience to God's commandments, persistent lack of love for fellow believers—all indications of a lack of saving faith. You once again fail to understand the flow of reasoning with your eisegesis.
ESV Study Bible. 1Joh 5:16-17. Sin not leading to death is sin for which forgiveness is possible because (1) forgiveness is sought and (2) God is willing to grant it. Death and eternal life are present spiritual states as well as ultimate actual destinies (hell, heaven). Sin that leads to death is probably sin that is (1) unrepented of and (2) of the kind or nature that John has warned about throughout the letter: resolute rejection of the true doctrine about Christ, (see part 2)
ESV 1Jn 5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.
you really should be honest and read the scriptures in proper context and understand the FLOW of the reasoning that is being used.. ESV 1John 3:1-10 .. John is NOT saying Christians are sin free, the point John is making is that with Christians, its NOT A LIFESTYLE OF SINNING 1Jn 3:6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil,.....
The God spell of guilt & human sacrifice. The spell losses all its power when you find out the truth that the living God is just an alien, the creator God was a reference to a Planet, and that no one has dibs on the eternal spirit God.
People have fallen victim to the religions cycle of creator savior destroyer for thousands of years, Uranus/Cronus/Zeus Brahma/Krishna/Shiva Yahweh/Jesus/Satan. Setup, sucked in, spat out, all in the name of population control, body and soul.
To get around the contradiction of the sinless sinner, they arbitrarily move the goal post of what defines a continuous lifestyle of sin. For heinous crimes like murder, you get one strike and you are out. For adultery or grand larceny, you get two-three strikes. If you can't quit playing with yourself, it doesn't count as continuous as long as you feel sorry and keep asking for forgiveness while waiting for old age & disease to render you sinlessly impotent. Gluttony no longer counts as sin.
@ProfMTH The Catholic Church also gets around it by declaring that even imperfect contrition is enough to have mortal sins forgiven through Confession. If you're planning to go to Confession but die beforehand, the intent itself counts. Catholics plod on a treadmill of serial confession driven by fear of hell, just like the Protestant lifestyle is an endless cycle of sin, sorrow & praying for forgiveness. Christians live however they want. God just holds his nose so their sins don't stink.
@ProfMTH The Wesleyan/Arminian sects are no better, despite their hell fire & brimstone emphasis on sanctification and sin causing loss of salvation. Yet, if you pin them down, they can't give a specific number of sins which put a person over the invisible line separating saved from damned. They learn to swim in the gray area of blissful ignorance. If you shout & get goose bumps in church, things are probably okay. Sinning continues. You just have to keep working up the feeling of asssurance.
The word ABIDE is the key word. It means 2 REMAIN. 1 John 3:6 is clearly talking about abiding in Jesus. It's not talking about never making mistakes or never sinning but that on the whole the person abides in Jesus. It's ridiculous 2 take 2 verse + try 2 fit ur Human logic 2 it when the message of the Scripture is spiritually discerned. Common sense + reading the Scriptures shows us Christians aren't perfect + r capable of letting Jesus down. This is y Jesus is our Advocate with the Father.
I feel so sorry for the author of this video. As if this is some kind of new argument! Lol! His misunderstanding of scripture is not surprising seeing he is without the Spirit of God. As for 1 John 3 that says "he that sins has never seen God." refers to continual sinning. Keep it in context man!
@djvdiddy "As if this is some kind of new argument!"
When dealing with texts that are thousands of years old, coming up with a new argument is unlikely. The question isn't whether the argument is new, but rather whether it is sound.
"misunderstanding of scripture is not surprising seeing he is without the Spirit of God."
Spare me the "Christians have special knowledge" bullshit. If you did, you wouldn't be broken up into hundreds of different denominations.
this dude dont know anything he is talking about notice the word abide to stay in...not saying u wont mess up and sin but that u dont abide in sin run with it live in it omg get a clue and im not even a christion and i know that but in this case haters go to hell
this dude dont know anything he is talking about notice the word abide to stay in...not saying u wont mess up and sin but that u dont abide in sin run with it live in it omg get a clue
@The3in1trinity I'm certainly not going to go into a huge argument in the comments to a youtube video. All I can say is that if you don't know, then you haven't read ANY biblical scholars. Basically every single biblical scholar today believes this to be true. Just look it up. If you find some that don't believe this, then you are reading one of a very few fringe views that have no credibility.
@NSquarticsurface There's not point commenting back 2 me if u can't show any facts!!! I don't base my belief on either scholars or so-called scholars but on The Holy Spirit+the Word of God the Bible. The Bible warns that many would depart from the faith (Christianity): 1 TIMOTHY 4:1-10.U assume that all who say they r Christian must b? Only God knows who is following His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus says His sheep hear His voice+listen 2 Him+run from strangers (false doctrine). Who's is ur Shepherd?
@The3in1trinity I'm sorry that you've been brainwashed to the point that you reject all education in order to maintain your beliefs (apparently this includes writing/grammar as shown by your comment). Rigorous scholarly study actually does reveal some truth whether you believe it or not. Closing your eyes and plugging your ears to all outside influences shields you from truth. Instead, you should engage in it and decide for yourself.
@NSquarticsurface U assume that i have been brainwashed. Reading+ understanding the Scriptures+then repenting of sin+believing Jesus as my Saviour just implies that i have taken the time 2read what is stated+heeded it's warning. Ur brainwashed because u don't want 2repent+believe Jesus but think u can understand the Scripture. GET REAL MY FRIEND! If u want 2understand then u need 2read without trying 2distort the truth. My scholarly study is done with God's Holy Spirit+not man's wisdom...
@creepyoldman2 Unless u indicate in some way what u r referring 2 then it will b difficult 2 work out just what u mean. If u expect ppl 2 comment 2 u then at least put the point/s in ur comment so they can respond intelligently...Waiting 4 an intelligent response...
@The3in1trinity Maybe u shood spek in ful sentences if u want ppl 2 take u srsly. In all honestly, its painful to watch you butcher sentences that would easily fit into the box that Youtube has provided you. With that aside, here is a bit of your last comment.
"U assume that i have been brainwashed... "
"Ur brainwashed..."
Class is out of session for the day. Make sure to study your grammar skills over the weekend.
Americans are generally incapable of making simple distinctions. Consider the media, health care, etc. Americans are generally regarded as Neanderthals outside the U.S. See my health care video, so you can realize how stupid you really are. In fact watch all my videos.
@PHANTOMSLAYER777 Americans are generally incapable of making simple distinctions. Consider the media, health care, etc. Americans are generally regarded as Neanderthals outside the U.S. See my health care video, so you can realize how stupid you really are. In fact watch all my videos.
This is ridiculous. Believers understand, but you however do not, fulfilling God's Word when He says in 1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." A true believer has true natures - natural and spiritual. The old man is accustomed to sin, but the new man lives a life of holiness. A true believer does not live a life of sin, yet sins occasionally.
@MichaelGabrielR It is redundant to take Jesus to a mountain, then Jerusalem to head to the Temple, and then go BACK to the mountain to provide the same offer. Of course, the Bible itself does not state in either of them BOTH "mountains". So assuming that the event DID happen as you state, then the Gospel Writers must have purposely left the truth out in both accounts, knowing that they would cast doubt on God and "His word".
Did Jesus wanted to be understood by the mainstream, especially when He spake in parables? Also, many things where left out of the account about Jesus, because the point was to present the Gospel message, not to list all His actions. It's stated plainly in John 21:25, that there wouldn't have been enough space for this - the Bible is large enough. Besides, different authors wrote things from different perspectives and for different audiences, so the differences are understandable.
You seem to have the same problem that people have with the two Genesis creation accounts. There is no contradiction there, because one account simply goes to a greater detail when speaking of the creation of man. I've mentioned the parables, because they are quite relevant. The Bible clearly teaches that the natural man will not and cannot understand what God says (1 Corinthians 2:14), so I'm not surprised that many will stumble over simple passages and miss out on the Gospel.
@MichaelGabrielR There is actually quite a contradiction. One does NOT go "to a greater detail when speaking of the creation of man"; they literally present different orders of events AND different personalities for God. The former is a more-pure, spiritual, "clean" God while the latter is creative, physical "hands-on".
The parables are specifically Jesus' speeches, not his actions or the events that happen to him. So if something HAPPENS TO Jesus, it is not (at least not likely) a parable.
Different personalities? More spiritual? Where did you get those ideas from? What different orders? I would like to see a sound explanation of this.
The sedond part of your post.... read it again, because I have an impression that you just didn't care to read it. Hint - I was not talking about the parables, I've only mentioned them. I was talking how much you don't understand, which is evident from your reply. You give an impression that you don't even get what I'm writing to you.
@MichaelGabrielR From reading the text. From examining it with a theologian who translated it AND a philosopher. From discussion of the text. From comparison to other mythological tales.
Your quote: "I've mentioned the parables, because they are quite relevant."
The thing is it DOES NOT MATTER if they ARE relevant as parables BECAUSE they DO NOT HAVE RELEVANCE in Jesus' biographical account such as the scenerio(s) of Jesus and Satan being presented.
Over the ages, the two Genesis accounts where read normally, but then some 21st century people decide to read it differently with a biased attitude. That's not how exegesis is done. You're doing eisegesis and with that you can come up with all kinds of crazy stuff, like many of the todays cults do.
Yet again, as the people of Christ's day didn't get the parables, you don't get the Bible. Is that clear or you don't get it as well?
@MichaelGabrielR They were actually read with either one taking literal precedent over the other, or both conglomerated into one interpretation of two literary pieces. Which is good for a metaphoric god, but does NOT tackle a realistic one OR the knowledge and evidence we have against a literal account for either one.
The Bible is at BEST not fully literal. Some history, mythology, poems, laws, and philosophy from the time. Of course, what then is literal and describes the REAL God?
Women with Man, both after animals: Gen 1:27 [God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.]
Women after Animals, Animals after Man: Gen 2:22 [The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.]
As well as "The God said..." repeatedly in Genesis 1 as to "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground" in Genesis 2, and then similarly for animals.
@MichaelGabrielR The Hebrew there is "Elohim" or "sons of God". Referred to the celestial entities such as angels or demi-gods, also tracing to roots in polytheistic thought.
God created THEM [man and woman] EXPLICITLY AFTER the animals.
Of course then the order of animals is also posited contradictory between the two.
And that's just Genesis1-2. The same book, two chapters that follow each other.
I'll be brief. Harmonize both accounts. The 1st lists the order (days), the other gives the 6th day. You just reject the idea of it being literal, because it would shake your wold view. God is logical by nature, but none wants to worship Him, because of their rebellion and spiritual deadness. Holy Spirit makes one alive. The Gospels being all the same is pointless. Is it that hard to believe that they wrote their own accounts of Christ? BENE Elohim = sons of God, NOT Elohim.
@MichaelGabrielR First of all, Genesis 1 has MAN AND WOMAN created at the same time. Even assuming that they were created in some order, animals had already been created, Man not even being a thought.
Second, Genesis 2 has Plants, Man, Rivers, Animals [first Beasts, then Birds, but no Fish], and then ending with Woman.
Genesis 1 has Ocean (no rivers), Plants, Animals [Fish and Birds, then Beasts], then Man AND Woman.
And then there's the ACTUAL EVIDENCE such as fossils...
Give me a break. Only Genesis 1 speaks of time of creation. Do you really think that the people of Genesis 2 didn't believe in oceans (and fish) or the people of Genesis 1 didn't believe in rivers? Do you have a problem with the creation of man? All that a fossil can accurately tell is that a creature died and its remains where preserved - that's it. Macro-evolution is flawed by nature and only crazed pseudo-scientists that chop up the evidence to fit their whims keep it alive.
@MichaelGabrielR Genesis 1 does not mention ANYTHING about rivers, only the Ocean/"Sea". Genesis 2 negates the mention of Fish in the creation. And that still doesn't explain MAN BEFORE ANIMALS in Gen 2 while Man is EXPLICITLY AFTER ANIMALS [and NEVER before them] in Gen 1.
The fossils and the rock strata the fossils are found in are radiometrically dated in the field called Geology, independent of Biology.
Also, ALL fossils follow a trend showing changes in organisms.
"All that a fossil can accurately tell is that a creature died and its remains where preserved - that's it." When, What, and Where are answered by fossils. How and Why have already been answered by science.
With a line of fossils documenting changes from one organism to another [such as fish to amphibian or reptile to bird, as we have] we can predict what happened when. The same way we don't need to SEE a crime to know WHO or HOW they committed it.
"Macro-evolution is flawed by nature" Macro-evolution is at the SPECIES LEVEL OR ABOVE. This INCLUDES speciation WHICH HAS BEEN OBSERVED and specifically categorized into FOUR MAJOR TYPES based on physical, genetic, or behavioral factors.
Of course even without fossils, there is genetic evidence, vestigial and homologous structures, homologous embryologies, and other such proofs and facts.
In fact, the evidence is ONLY "chopped up" by liars such as you.
Read Genesis 2 again. Man is created. Then it mentions that God made the animals. Yes, made - past tense, past action, namely on the 6th day, before men as indicated by Genesis 1. The Gospels don't mention a lot of things Jesus, as a normal human being, would do. Therefore the accounts can't be trusted? Radiometric dating is flawed, fossils are only structured in textbooks and you're taking a huge leap of faith concerning evolutionary changes. You're way behind, study some more.
@MichaelGabrielR Read Genesis 1 again. God NEVER made ANY man BEFORE the animals. That it changes in Genesis 2 is a CONTRADICTION in the text.
If you want "it all happened on the sixth day", the I suggest you read BOTH Genesis 1 AND 2 again. 1:11-13, Plants and trees sprout on the third day. 2:5, no plant had sprouted yet. 2:7 "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground".
The Gospels, as with ANY biography, won't get ALL events. However, they are contradictory in events they share.
I agree that animals where first created, then man. Why do you sound like you where trying to disprove me on this? Weren't you paying attention or are you throwing in the towel on taking people seriously? You are seeing contradictions where there are none. If you see something that seems like one, then instead of dropping the ball, try to think, analyze and harmonize. No surprise, you have the plants wrong as well. V4-6 talks about day 3. The word "then" in v7 is not even there.
There is no point in further discussion with you, because you've locked yourself in your naturalistic little box and refuse to think outside of it. There is one thing to say that one dog breeds other dogs that, over time, would be unable to interbreed. That can be observed, tested and repeated - science. You give nothing but speculations and put faith in faulty assumptions. Organisms (d)evolve and there's no questioning that. I'm fed up with your lies and lack of understanding.
Disregarding the entire problems of the claims that are purely-faith-based, disregard reality, and conform to mythologic tales from before even Judaism, there are contradictions in events. To stay with the verses discussed, the ORDER is DIFFERENT in BOTH of the two gospels presenting it. If it DID happen, then there would be an agreement as to the order as Jesus would have TOLD SOMEONE concretely what happened ,otherwise it wouldn't have been known to have happened.
Denial of the truth isn't good for the mind. Radiometric dating is verified through other studies and metods as reliable. Not only that, the proposed decays have been observed and follow the calculus behind the technique.
Fossils are actually "layered" in reality as well as in textbooks. You will NEVER find lagomorphs in the Jurassic period; if someone did [and it weren't a hoax], then the fossil record would have to be discarded as evidence for the present tree of evolution.
Now, let's assume for a minute that the earth is less than 10000 years old, the fossil record isn't valid, and some random god shows itself to everyone. You would cheer, right? Guess what...
Evolution STILL wouldn't be disproved because species DO change over time (this is observed); and 'Macroevolution' STILL wouldn't be disproved because speciation IS OBSERVED.
So even assuming that your conditions ARE met, there is STILL ABSOLUTELY NO FAITH required. You should actually study.
@MichaelGabrielR "God is logical by nature" Your assertion isn't proof. However bringing up even one contradiction or unresolved paradox in what God says, does, or commands disproves this. Which then I bring up Epicurus for ease.
Also, I call up Deuteronomy 24:16, which rebukes the entire notion of Jesus being a "sacrificial lamb" to remove "original sin", as "original sin" was not valid.
"because of their rebellion and spiritual deadness" God made us that way, so God wants it that way.
"The Gospels being all the same is pointless." Neither me nor the video-poster are asking for "all the same". It's the BLATANT contradictions such as presented in the video...Let's use an example, neglecting the extraordinary nature of the claim that "Satan took Jesus to specific places".
Assume someone says I went to a deli and then a pet store, and another person that I went to the pet store then the Deli. Who is right? How did the other guy get his story wrong? Did I even go out?
And seeing as God MADE man, that means God WANTS man to not understand what God says. Which makes it futile to try to understand God or follow his laws.
@MichaelGabrielR do you realize the definition of "honour"? That verse literally means that the potter can make one of his pots either have value or not have value. Which ignores "one person's trash is another person's treasuer", for one.
And then does not explain your statement "The Bible clearly teaches that the natural man will not and cannot understand what God says" BECAUSE God MADE IT IN MAN'S NATURE to be unable to understand God's words. ALL MEN because IT IS THEIR NATURE.
@MichaelGabrielR Not to mention that the entire "different authors wrote things from different perspectives and for different audiences, so the differences are understandable" apologetics is pathetic.
Also, the two-source hypothesis presents Mark and a currently-undiscovered source as roots of Matthew and Luke. So two Gospels with data from the same "two" sources (one being a Gospel itself, the other a then-common collection), yet such a difference...
Is it absolutely true that apologetics is pathetic?
Don't ignore it just because you can't understand it. God gives wisdom for free (James 1:5-6; Heb 11:6). Faith isn't mystical, but quite boolean (believing something to be true or false). You're much a believer as anyone is - you just believe a lie, that you're a good person, but you're guilty under God's Law.
All what it takes to be saved is to believe the statement in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Faith in Christ is God's gift.
Faith is belief without evidence to support it. Belief itself is trust in something, differentiated by faith in that whereas faith has no evidence or proof, belief has some but not enough to logically conclude the "belief" absolutely.
Also, I LACK a belief, which is NOT a belief. Just like you lack a belief in Odin, Zeus, IPU, FSM, Ra, Marduk, Xenu, Allah, and the countless others (even some you don't know about).
Is it absolutely true that my brand of apologetics is pathetic?
You refuse to believe, even presented with evidence. The Bible calls it blindness. Also, you don't lack a belief, because why would you oppose something and argue over something you have no position on? You don't believe it, period. You believe it not to be true. You believe that the claims of the existence of deities to be false. Thus you have blind faith in the contrary and you will continue in your fanaticism.
@MichaelGabrielR Yes it is. You are trying to explain differences in what is to be a literal account by saying that "different people wrote differently". That DOES NOT answer the difference in the accounts of WHAT IS SAID TO HAVE HAPPENED, AND It also raises the question of the veracity of the Bible, that God ALLOWED such differences.
"You believe that the claims of the existence of deities to be false." Provide a logical deity that LOGICALLY calls for worship, and I'll worship it.
Oh, and about the Gospels "evolving" from one another - I beg to differ. The evidence clearly points to them being written in about the same time period. If anyone would take Q Theory seriously, one would have to admit that Mark (55-70AD) is not the oldest account but Matthew (50-70AD) is the likely candidate. Even then there are agreements between other accounts not present in Mark. Q is never mentioned and they actually knew the events, so what's the point of copying one another?
@MichaelGabrielR There is ALSO the 4-source hypothesis. The Augustinian hypothesis. The Farrer hypothesis. And the Parker hypothesis. Just to list a few.
Of course you don't know that the "Q-document" is hypothetical in the 2SH to explain the similarities between Matt and Luke without Mark. And the 2SH theory posits Mark and "Q" as the basis.
great video,, well said & done Promth! thanks alot for your video.
i hd learn alot, ~ "there's NO God, No Devil.. Bible is full of contradiction, & error text
i was once brainwashed in Jesus,, but now i'm free...everythings arose to our mind 1st.. thanks promth! also thanks for your rescue. thanks thanks thanks!!
the more you talk about against God the more God is taking u out of book of life.. I feel sorry for you and Hope you find Jesus to repent before it's too late God bless!
Not sure why you felt the need to ask the same question 3 times, but I'll answer despite this. If the accounts comported with one another rather than contradicting one another, that would enhance their credibility.
right... so they made up 66 books and made these obvious contradiction according to this video to control us. If it was written by men, don't you think they would of polished it better to make it more believable? I did these obvious contradiction stand through 2000 years? Just think about it.
now the first one sinless sinners? when we accept the 'new covenant' agreeement between the Christ and ourselves we are seen as sinless righteous before the throne If we Christians say we have no sin & therefore do not need a redeemer or that we too can be like Him and save ourselves because 'we have no sin' then we decieve ourselves and call God a liar My brother St John was very spiritual and sometimes was and is hard to understand esoteric thought and much symbolism towrds the end of his life
and so got the sequence wrong, Luke being a doctor would have interviewed many people and pasted together his gathered stories of 'eye witness' accounts ProMTH, a belief in a God from the Bible does not mean we take each and every thing literal either, at least we shouldn't. the relationship is and should be personal I would encourage everyone to READ & STUDY for theirself including science and history to make for a better understanding of spiritual things divide the flesh from the spirit
But then that brings up what to take literal. Do you stay away from unclean animals and force a women to marry her rapist? What about witches and homosexuals dose not the bible say to kill them? The bible seems more human like then God like if you ask me.
@aimeersd in every case of "marriage", the man needed the permission of the brides father. Even in the (if a man seduces an un married woman) verse. So there is no law that says, A. you can rape, and B. you MUST marry anyone that has sex with you regardless of circumstance. Also, witches and gays were only to be killed if it was performed in Israel. So if an Israelite didnt want to obey the laws of the land, he could leave and have all the gay sex he wanted in another country and get no penalty
He has to ask her father which means she still has no say in what happens to her. Women were treated like property and it shows big time in the bible. Did the gays or witches kill anyone hurt anyone? If they did not and were killed they were killed for all the wrong reasons.
@aimeersd they shouldve just not had gay sex. If they were biologically predisposed to have gay sex, they couldve done it in a country that wasnt a theocracy . the women needed permission of the fathers so that men couldnt just take a woman by force. Men are naturally stronger and smarter than women . this is a fact. So whether evolution or God made it this way, it still demonstrate the need for the male leader in the household (which is why every civilization was modeled similarly)
@aimeersd if the bible was human, it would have laws like all teh other places. In the Bible, if you had a slave, and was attracted to her, you were allowed to have sex with her etc, but from then on she must be set free and can never again be a slave, even if you dont end up staying with her. Why didnt the more advanced americans have this law during their slave having times ? There were MANY laws regarding slaves that the modern whites didnt have
@aimeersd . Well good or not, it was sometimes necessary (what do we do with these surrendered soldiers? do we kill them? let them go back home and rebuild and continue? ) and other times it was in fact a good thing (let me serve you because i am hungry and without a home). "Slave" is a bad translation due to what white people did to the blacks . The slaves in the Bible werent allowed to be mistreated ,raped , etc and they werent slaves because of their skin
@aimeersd nowadays they would imprison war captees , which is worse than being a "slave" by the biblical standard for what it was to be a slave. It would be like a loose house arrest
hmmm, very good study great for making people think especially Christians I am one and so because I am also a thinking one I have already come upon some understanding of these points let me start with the second, Matthew lived with Jesus and was a numbers man. A good CPA will get things to be as correct as possible. Luke probably did not 'meet' Jesus in person he interviewed those who did, Maybe Matthew, maybe not but instead someone who had heard or read Matthew's account
if the bible is the inspired word of GOD then it only makes sense if GOD is a Liar, then all the contradictions can be explained as GOD Just bullshitting to the different authors.
or the whole thing is just a badly written fairy tale.
@donotweep Yep ProfMTH knows its ALL bullshit :) cant wait for u to find your brain back :) and be like ProfMTH :) then you will see the full meaning of your delusion :)
Thanks for showing me, how delusional you people are, not only that, thankyou for showing me how rude you are also :) by saying you will talk to yourself on behalf of me, without my permission :)
donotweep, on behalf of the rest of the world, we wish you a speedy recovery from your mental illness and your rudeness :) Get Well Soon
I wish you well on your recovery from talking to yourself and to every brain cell that has be eroded in you brain my condolences to each one of them :)
And that you are filled with a brain with reasoning once cured :) and that when people show you mistakes, that your brain sees those mistakes and does
not blank them :)
A mind is a terrible thing to waste .Promoting stupidity should be a felony.Falling for it , a misdemeanor.
Funny I never asked you to do anything, thus going against a persons will ...nothing will happen :), but then you are talking you yourself so you get the same effect :)
This is really quite funny, actually. So let me get this straight...You believe that since you didn't ask for prayer "nothing will happen" and that because it's against your will that "nothing will happen"? Perhaps I should paraphrase...do you think that it is in the power of your mind to make God either real or not real? or my prayers to HIM being answered (or not) only because you yourself believe they will or will not be?
Hmm, I see what you mean. It seems to me though in Job, Satan wasn't tempting G-d to sin so much as accusing Him of giving Job the good life for free. At least in Judaism we make that distinction.
Well, there was also an enticement of God. See, e.g., Job 2:3, which has God saying that Job enticed or incited him to move against Job. The same word is used to describe those who tempt Israelites to off to worship gods other than Yahweh (Deut 13:6) and Satan's enticing (or tempting) David "to number Israel" (1 Chronicles 21:1).
I agree that both words mean entice. I guess I just have trouble understanding in context of Judaism's view of Satan. As a Jew the thought of Satan enticing G-d to worship him is analogous to a rubber tire enticing the owner of Goodyear to bow to it.
I hope to hear some feedback from you on my messages as well.
I'm not saying anything about God being enticed to worship Satan, but rather Satan enticing God to do what Satan wants. That's what the Book of Job portrays.
I understand the distinction, nevertheless I see the relationship between Satan and G-d more of a prosecution-Judge relationship (respectively). As opposed to Satan's relationship with man as a more well for lack of a better analogy snake-Eve relationship. So when satan entices G-d to me it is more of the prosecution moving for punishment/sentence. Do you see the difference that I'm trying to portray?
But the evil satan does not seem to have existed in the Jewish mind and is not to be found in the biblical writings. The serpent of Genesis 3 is never identified as Satan and In Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3:1-2 Satan is depicted as a member of God's court whose basic duty it was to 'accuse' human beings before God.
Also the ancient Israelite did not have the concept of hell as we know. It was one place were everyone went no matter how good or bad you were. Sheol was the name.
I wouldn't agree with the "contradictions" you speak of,..But I would definitely agree that true Christians do not sin,...But when is the last time you have met a "real" christian,...
But living a righteous life is more than simply following rules. But if it is just that,..then at least you save yourself from alot of misery and pain in this life.
Please tell me how you can have logical morals, if you can't explain logically were you get your morals,...hmm
My morals come from The word of God,..Which most governing laws like Americas are still based on today. Not necessarily God Himself, but His written instruction. Not the instruction that were given specifically to the Israelites only, although some are still very practical today. I feel when Jesus came, He taught us how we ought to live our lives.
A lot of equivocating and qualifying there: "from the word of God" but "Not necessarily God Himself" but "Not the instructions that were given specifically to the Israelites" and so on. As for Jesus, the only moral principle he taught was that one should do to others as one would have other do to one. This wasn't unique or original to Jesus. So if you're following Jesus' moral instruction, you're following an instruction people followed way before Jesus and still follow quite apart from him.
Only Christ will bring you salvation. A person can prove the God shown in Christ at John 14:21 and 23.
If Christ is lord of your life, it also comes with benefits not found anywhere else. Others can claim they do benefit you, but only Christ himself transforms a person and he does the work in a person's life to make them perfect.
You get no where when you act with superiority over others.
I am almost 30 and I have considered in my life being a atheist, a Muslim, a heathen, I know there is God for fact and I told you how to see Christ. below.
Now you can laugh at me, but I tell you the truth that God is living and a person can know him.
I have been married, divorced, bankrupt, many other things also.
I did not just wake up one day and think what some book says is true.
Now ''consider'' reading the Pyramid Texts,The RigVeda,Coffin Texts,Ugaritic Texts for a start.All religion is based on astronomy.Confront life on your own without the bonds of [any] system.
Dude you need deprogramming quick.What ''god'' are yout talking about? Do you you have a personal relation ship with dog? and know him? You know dog don't you??? =/
Keeps your mind healthy.Remember that when you feel you need a ''god'' again and remember Osiris rose after three days and was called ''Lord of the Wine Preparation''.Good luck =D
After we leave this world, there are only two destinations, one with God and the other without God.
If you reject God here, you will have no where else to go but to hell.
And we all where made with a purpose which is to know God. We are like leaves that have detached from the tree, we already are dead apart from the tree, but it takes a little bit before the leaves wither and you see it physically die.
With God and our life, we have to turn to him and believe in the gospel. Then we have life.
1 John 1:8-10 is in past tense, he was referring to the time before they were 'born again'.
This is supported by the next verse 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:" This suggests that in theory Christians need only be cleansed once, and from that point onwards they live perfectly sinless lives if they really believe, which they obviously do not...
acdenh 1 month ago
Another implication here: if we live on a sphere, how could JC see ALL the kingdoms of the world? Did he see the Chinese kingdoms?
Manifestatheist 3 months ago
It takes a certain amount of illiteracy to understand the bible.
MunkyDrag0n 4 months ago
@MunkyDrag0n hahahhaha epic comment!
linkuei83 2 weeks ago
one can be honest ,use ethical standards of semantics ,argument and logic OR one can make a serious stab at defending the gospels but it is clearly not possible to do both ..
theists ,who can be seen to be completely honest ,ethical and rational in other arguments ,will suddenly slip into their "nonsense ninja " outfits ,when being required to defend their odious "holy scriptures " and all the rules of honest and rational argument fall by the wayside ..UP can mean down ,blk could be white etc
woodenmajor 4 months ago
The bible is self-contradictory? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!
mikefromwa 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its because there is no such thing as sin...
conrad0614 5 months ago
The devil looks a bit like george michael, lol.
Kimmyloca0 5 months ago
@teeggarscott nice way to avoid the argument
DavidNeff2011 7 months ago
RE:Matt & Luke. I see nothing wrong with this.
FROM. "the big book of bible difficulties by Norman L. Geisler.
it could be that Matthew describes these temptations chronologically while Luke lists them climactically, that is topically.
rbmath 10 months ago
PART 2... chronic disobedience to God's commandments, persistent lack of love for fellow believers—all indications of a lack of saving faith. You once again fail to understand the flow of reasoning with your eisegesis.
rbmath 10 months ago
ESV Study Bible. 1Joh 5:16-17. Sin not leading to death is sin for which forgiveness is possible because (1) forgiveness is sought and (2) God is willing to grant it. Death and eternal life are present spiritual states as well as ultimate actual destinies (hell, heaven). Sin that leads to death is probably sin that is (1) unrepented of and (2) of the kind or nature that John has warned about throughout the letter: resolute rejection of the true doctrine about Christ, (see part 2)
rbmath 10 months ago
ESV 1Jn 5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.
rbmath 10 months ago
you really should be honest and read the scriptures in proper context and understand the FLOW of the reasoning that is being used.. ESV 1John 3:1-10 .. John is NOT saying Christians are sin free, the point John is making is that with Christians, its NOT A LIFESTYLE OF SINNING 1Jn 3:6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil,.....
rbmath 10 months ago
The God spell of guilt & human sacrifice. The spell losses all its power when you find out the truth that the living God is just an alien, the creator God was a reference to a Planet, and that no one has dibs on the eternal spirit God.
People have fallen victim to the religions cycle of creator savior destroyer for thousands of years, Uranus/Cronus/Zeus Brahma/Krishna/Shiva Yahweh/Jesus/Satan. Setup, sucked in, spat out, all in the name of population control, body and soul.
Php48 10 months ago
To get around the contradiction of the sinless sinner, they arbitrarily move the goal post of what defines a continuous lifestyle of sin. For heinous crimes like murder, you get one strike and you are out. For adultery or grand larceny, you get two-three strikes. If you can't quit playing with yourself, it doesn't count as continuous as long as you feel sorry and keep asking for forgiveness while waiting for old age & disease to render you sinlessly impotent. Gluttony no longer counts as sin.
MySocksSmell2 1 year ago
@MySocksSmell2 "they arbitrarily move the goal post of what defines a continuous lifestyle of sin"
Indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH The Catholic Church also gets around it by declaring that even imperfect contrition is enough to have mortal sins forgiven through Confession. If you're planning to go to Confession but die beforehand, the intent itself counts. Catholics plod on a treadmill of serial confession driven by fear of hell, just like the Protestant lifestyle is an endless cycle of sin, sorrow & praying for forgiveness. Christians live however they want. God just holds his nose so their sins don't stink.
MySocksSmell2 1 year ago
@ProfMTH The Wesleyan/Arminian sects are no better, despite their hell fire & brimstone emphasis on sanctification and sin causing loss of salvation. Yet, if you pin them down, they can't give a specific number of sins which put a person over the invisible line separating saved from damned. They learn to swim in the gray area of blissful ignorance. If you shout & get goose bumps in church, things are probably okay. Sinning continues. You just have to keep working up the feeling of asssurance.
MySocksSmell2 1 year ago
@ProfMTH you are "stupid"
teeggarscott 8 months ago
@teeggarscott "you are 'stupid'"
I'm curious as to why you put 'stupid' inside quotation marks.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProfMTH because you really are "stupid"
teeggarscott 8 months ago
The word ABIDE is the key word. It means 2 REMAIN. 1 John 3:6 is clearly talking about abiding in Jesus. It's not talking about never making mistakes or never sinning but that on the whole the person abides in Jesus. It's ridiculous 2 take 2 verse + try 2 fit ur Human logic 2 it when the message of the Scripture is spiritually discerned. Common sense + reading the Scriptures shows us Christians aren't perfect + r capable of letting Jesus down. This is y Jesus is our Advocate with the Father.
The3in1trinity 1 year ago
I feel so sorry for the author of this video. As if this is some kind of new argument! Lol! His misunderstanding of scripture is not surprising seeing he is without the Spirit of God. As for 1 John 3 that says "he that sins has never seen God." refers to continual sinning. Keep it in context man!
djvdiddy 1 year ago
@djvdiddy "As if this is some kind of new argument!"
When dealing with texts that are thousands of years old, coming up with a new argument is unlikely. The question isn't whether the argument is new, but rather whether it is sound.
"misunderstanding of scripture is not surprising seeing he is without the Spirit of God."
Spare me the "Christians have special knowledge" bullshit. If you did, you wouldn't be broken up into hundreds of different denominations.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH you are an "idiot"
teeggarscott 8 months ago
@teeggarscott "you are an 'idiot'"
I'm wondering why you've put 'idiot' inside quotation marks.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProfMTH that is because you really are an "idiot"
teeggarscott 8 months ago
The wages of sin is death, but sometimes people sin on a purely voluntary basis!
djhalling 1 year ago
this dude dont know anything he is talking about notice the word abide to stay in...not saying u wont mess up and sin but that u dont abide in sin run with it live in it omg get a clue and im not even a christion and i know that but in this case haters go to hell
simonsteven41 1 year ago
this dude dont know anything he is talking about notice the word abide to stay in...not saying u wont mess up and sin but that u dont abide in sin run with it live in it omg get a clue
simonsteven41 1 year ago
I just don't believe bible god, I have my own god My mother god is Oxygen, my father god is the earth(land) My people believe that
Qulabican 1 year ago
Since both Matthew and Luke just copied Mark, it seems likely that one of them just mis-copied. I don't remember which one agrees with Mark.
NSquarticsurface 1 year ago
@NSquarticsurface In what way have Matthew + Luke copied Mark? What Scripture supports ur views?
The3in1trinity 1 year ago
@The3in1trinity I'm certainly not going to go into a huge argument in the comments to a youtube video. All I can say is that if you don't know, then you haven't read ANY biblical scholars. Basically every single biblical scholar today believes this to be true. Just look it up. If you find some that don't believe this, then you are reading one of a very few fringe views that have no credibility.
NSquarticsurface 1 year ago
@NSquarticsurface There's not point commenting back 2 me if u can't show any facts!!! I don't base my belief on either scholars or so-called scholars but on The Holy Spirit+the Word of God the Bible. The Bible warns that many would depart from the faith (Christianity): 1 TIMOTHY 4:1-10.U assume that all who say they r Christian must b? Only God knows who is following His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus says His sheep hear His voice+listen 2 Him+run from strangers (false doctrine). Who's is ur Shepherd?
The3in1trinity 1 year ago
@The3in1trinity I'm sorry that you've been brainwashed to the point that you reject all education in order to maintain your beliefs (apparently this includes writing/grammar as shown by your comment). Rigorous scholarly study actually does reveal some truth whether you believe it or not. Closing your eyes and plugging your ears to all outside influences shields you from truth. Instead, you should engage in it and decide for yourself.
NSquarticsurface 1 year ago
@NSquarticsurface U assume that i have been brainwashed. Reading+ understanding the Scriptures+then repenting of sin+believing Jesus as my Saviour just implies that i have taken the time 2read what is stated+heeded it's warning. Ur brainwashed because u don't want 2repent+believe Jesus but think u can understand the Scripture. GET REAL MY FRIEND! If u want 2understand then u need 2read without trying 2distort the truth. My scholarly study is done with God's Holy Spirit+not man's wisdom...
The3in1trinity 1 year ago
@The3in1trinity lol, your comeback was, "no.... you're brainwashed!" good one.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 Unless u indicate in some way what u r referring 2 then it will b difficult 2 work out just what u mean. If u expect ppl 2 comment 2 u then at least put the point/s in ur comment so they can respond intelligently...Waiting 4 an intelligent response...
The3in1trinity 1 year ago
@The3in1trinity Maybe u shood spek in ful sentences if u want ppl 2 take u srsly. In all honestly, its painful to watch you butcher sentences that would easily fit into the box that Youtube has provided you. With that aside, here is a bit of your last comment.
"U assume that i have been brainwashed... "
"Ur brainwashed..."
Class is out of session for the day. Make sure to study your grammar skills over the weekend.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
Americans are generally incapable of making simple distinctions. Consider the media, health care, etc. Americans are generally regarded as Neanderthals outside the U.S. See my health care video, so you can realize how stupid you really are. In fact watch all my videos.
PHANTOMSLAYER777 1 year ago
Dude, how stupid can you be? Any Christian can see, that the distinctions are based on spiritual vs physical conditions.
You are nuts.
PHANTOMSLAYER777 1 year ago
@PHANTOMSLAYER777 LOL! What a well reasoned refutation.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@PHANTOMSLAYER777 Americans are generally incapable of making simple distinctions. Consider the media, health care, etc. Americans are generally regarded as Neanderthals outside the U.S. See my health care video, so you can realize how stupid you really are. In fact watch all my videos.
PHANTOMSLAYER777 1 year ago
@PHANTOMSLAYER777 "In fact watch all my videos."
If they're anything like your comments, I could not be bothered wasting my time with such drivel.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@PHANTOMSLAYER777 Dude, how stupid can you be? Answer: Far less than yourself.
PHANTOMSLAYER777 1 year ago
This is ridiculous. Believers understand, but you however do not, fulfilling God's Word when He says in 1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." A true believer has true natures - natural and spiritual. The old man is accustomed to sin, but the new man lives a life of holiness. A true believer does not live a life of sin, yet sins occasionally.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR AMEN + GOD BLESS 2 U...
The3in1trinity 1 year ago
1.Mountain
2.Jerusalem
3.Pinnacle of Temple
4.Mountain
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR It is redundant to take Jesus to a mountain, then Jerusalem to head to the Temple, and then go BACK to the mountain to provide the same offer. Of course, the Bible itself does not state in either of them BOTH "mountains". So assuming that the event DID happen as you state, then the Gospel Writers must have purposely left the truth out in both accounts, knowing that they would cast doubt on God and "His word".
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Did Jesus wanted to be understood by the mainstream, especially when He spake in parables? Also, many things where left out of the account about Jesus, because the point was to present the Gospel message, not to list all His actions. It's stated plainly in John 21:25, that there wouldn't have been enough space for this - the Bible is large enough. Besides, different authors wrote things from different perspectives and for different audiences, so the differences are understandable.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR First, HOW Jesus SPOKE to others has NOTHING to do with the tales presented by other people on WHAT HAPPENED.
Second, it's at most a two-verse addition: 'Satan took Jesus to a high mountain...Satan took Jesus to another high mountain.'
Third, it could ALWAYS have been added in other translations to make the tale coherent.
Fourth, "different perspectives" DOES NOT change the FACTS. If Satan did Mountain-Temple-Mountain with Jesus, then BOTH accounts would express it.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
You seem to have the same problem that people have with the two Genesis creation accounts. There is no contradiction there, because one account simply goes to a greater detail when speaking of the creation of man. I've mentioned the parables, because they are quite relevant. The Bible clearly teaches that the natural man will not and cannot understand what God says (1 Corinthians 2:14), so I'm not surprised that many will stumble over simple passages and miss out on the Gospel.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR There is actually quite a contradiction. One does NOT go "to a greater detail when speaking of the creation of man"; they literally present different orders of events AND different personalities for God. The former is a more-pure, spiritual, "clean" God while the latter is creative, physical "hands-on".
The parables are specifically Jesus' speeches, not his actions or the events that happen to him. So if something HAPPENS TO Jesus, it is not (at least not likely) a parable.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Different personalities? More spiritual? Where did you get those ideas from? What different orders? I would like to see a sound explanation of this.
The sedond part of your post.... read it again, because I have an impression that you just didn't care to read it. Hint - I was not talking about the parables, I've only mentioned them. I was talking how much you don't understand, which is evident from your reply. You give an impression that you don't even get what I'm writing to you.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR From reading the text. From examining it with a theologian who translated it AND a philosopher. From discussion of the text. From comparison to other mythological tales.
Your quote: "I've mentioned the parables, because they are quite relevant."
The thing is it DOES NOT MATTER if they ARE relevant as parables BECAUSE they DO NOT HAVE RELEVANCE in Jesus' biographical account such as the scenerio(s) of Jesus and Satan being presented.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Over the ages, the two Genesis accounts where read normally, but then some 21st century people decide to read it differently with a biased attitude. That's not how exegesis is done. You're doing eisegesis and with that you can come up with all kinds of crazy stuff, like many of the todays cults do.
Yet again, as the people of Christ's day didn't get the parables, you don't get the Bible. Is that clear or you don't get it as well?
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR They were actually read with either one taking literal precedent over the other, or both conglomerated into one interpretation of two literary pieces. Which is good for a metaphoric god, but does NOT tackle a realistic one OR the knowledge and evidence we have against a literal account for either one.
The Bible is at BEST not fully literal. Some history, mythology, poems, laws, and philosophy from the time. Of course, what then is literal and describes the REAL God?
onijester56 1 year ago
Women with Man, both after animals: Gen 1:27 [God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.]
Women after Animals, Animals after Man: Gen 2:22 [The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.]
As well as "The God said..." repeatedly in Genesis 1 as to "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground" in Genesis 2, and then similarly for animals.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
God formed man out of the dust - true. (Genesis 2:7)
God formed men by pronouncing them into existence - true. (Genesis 1:26)
God created man as male and female - true. (Genesis 1:27)
God made the animals - true. (Genesis 2:19)
God made the woman out of Adam's rib - true. (Genesis 2:22)
God is plural being (a Trinity) - true. (Genesis 1:26)
God is one - true. (Genesis 1:27)
Where do you see a problem? "[...] The Scripture cannot be broken"(John 10:35)
Now, I want to go to sleep.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR The Hebrew there is "Elohim" or "sons of God". Referred to the celestial entities such as angels or demi-gods, also tracing to roots in polytheistic thought.
God created THEM [man and woman] EXPLICITLY AFTER the animals.
Of course then the order of animals is also posited contradictory between the two.
And that's just Genesis1-2. The same book, two chapters that follow each other.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
I'll be brief. Harmonize both accounts. The 1st lists the order (days), the other gives the 6th day. You just reject the idea of it being literal, because it would shake your wold view. God is logical by nature, but none wants to worship Him, because of their rebellion and spiritual deadness. Holy Spirit makes one alive. The Gospels being all the same is pointless. Is it that hard to believe that they wrote their own accounts of Christ? BENE Elohim = sons of God, NOT Elohim.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR First of all, Genesis 1 has MAN AND WOMAN created at the same time. Even assuming that they were created in some order, animals had already been created, Man not even being a thought.
Second, Genesis 2 has Plants, Man, Rivers, Animals [first Beasts, then Birds, but no Fish], and then ending with Woman.
Genesis 1 has Ocean (no rivers), Plants, Animals [Fish and Birds, then Beasts], then Man AND Woman.
And then there's the ACTUAL EVIDENCE such as fossils...
[cont]
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Give me a break. Only Genesis 1 speaks of time of creation. Do you really think that the people of Genesis 2 didn't believe in oceans (and fish) or the people of Genesis 1 didn't believe in rivers? Do you have a problem with the creation of man? All that a fossil can accurately tell is that a creature died and its remains where preserved - that's it. Macro-evolution is flawed by nature and only crazed pseudo-scientists that chop up the evidence to fit their whims keep it alive.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR Genesis 1 does not mention ANYTHING about rivers, only the Ocean/"Sea". Genesis 2 negates the mention of Fish in the creation. And that still doesn't explain MAN BEFORE ANIMALS in Gen 2 while Man is EXPLICITLY AFTER ANIMALS [and NEVER before them] in Gen 1.
The fossils and the rock strata the fossils are found in are radiometrically dated in the field called Geology, independent of Biology.
Also, ALL fossils follow a trend showing changes in organisms.
[cont]
onijester56 1 year ago
[cont]
"All that a fossil can accurately tell is that a creature died and its remains where preserved - that's it." When, What, and Where are answered by fossils. How and Why have already been answered by science.
With a line of fossils documenting changes from one organism to another [such as fish to amphibian or reptile to bird, as we have] we can predict what happened when. The same way we don't need to SEE a crime to know WHO or HOW they committed it.
[cont]
onijester56 1 year ago
[cont]
"Macro-evolution is flawed by nature" Macro-evolution is at the SPECIES LEVEL OR ABOVE. This INCLUDES speciation WHICH HAS BEEN OBSERVED and specifically categorized into FOUR MAJOR TYPES based on physical, genetic, or behavioral factors.
Of course even without fossils, there is genetic evidence, vestigial and homologous structures, homologous embryologies, and other such proofs and facts.
In fact, the evidence is ONLY "chopped up" by liars such as you.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Read Genesis 2 again. Man is created. Then it mentions that God made the animals. Yes, made - past tense, past action, namely on the 6th day, before men as indicated by Genesis 1. The Gospels don't mention a lot of things Jesus, as a normal human being, would do. Therefore the accounts can't be trusted? Radiometric dating is flawed, fossils are only structured in textbooks and you're taking a huge leap of faith concerning evolutionary changes. You're way behind, study some more.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR Read Genesis 1 again. God NEVER made ANY man BEFORE the animals. That it changes in Genesis 2 is a CONTRADICTION in the text.
If you want "it all happened on the sixth day", the I suggest you read BOTH Genesis 1 AND 2 again. 1:11-13, Plants and trees sprout on the third day. 2:5, no plant had sprouted yet. 2:7 "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground".
The Gospels, as with ANY biography, won't get ALL events. However, they are contradictory in events they share.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
I agree that animals where first created, then man. Why do you sound like you where trying to disprove me on this? Weren't you paying attention or are you throwing in the towel on taking people seriously? You are seeing contradictions where there are none. If you see something that seems like one, then instead of dropping the ball, try to think, analyze and harmonize. No surprise, you have the plants wrong as well. V4-6 talks about day 3. The word "then" in v7 is not even there.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR "I agree that animals where first created, then man. Why do you sound like you where trying to disprove me on this?"
Genesis 2. Verse 7. NASB, not that the translation should affect the message. Man BEFORE animals.
[6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.]
Man BEFORE in Gen 2. Man AFTER in Gen 1.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
There is no point in further discussion with you, because you've locked yourself in your naturalistic little box and refuse to think outside of it. There is one thing to say that one dog breeds other dogs that, over time, would be unable to interbreed. That can be observed, tested and repeated - science. You give nothing but speculations and put faith in faulty assumptions. Organisms (d)evolve and there's no questioning that. I'm fed up with your lies and lack of understanding.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
[cont]
Disregarding the entire problems of the claims that are purely-faith-based, disregard reality, and conform to mythologic tales from before even Judaism, there are contradictions in events. To stay with the verses discussed, the ORDER is DIFFERENT in BOTH of the two gospels presenting it. If it DID happen, then there would be an agreement as to the order as Jesus would have TOLD SOMEONE concretely what happened ,otherwise it wouldn't have been known to have happened.
[cont]
onijester56 1 year ago
[cont]
Denial of the truth isn't good for the mind. Radiometric dating is verified through other studies and metods as reliable. Not only that, the proposed decays have been observed and follow the calculus behind the technique.
Fossils are actually "layered" in reality as well as in textbooks. You will NEVER find lagomorphs in the Jurassic period; if someone did [and it weren't a hoax], then the fossil record would have to be discarded as evidence for the present tree of evolution.
[cont]
onijester56 1 year ago
[cont]
Now, let's assume for a minute that the earth is less than 10000 years old, the fossil record isn't valid, and some random god shows itself to everyone. You would cheer, right? Guess what...
Evolution STILL wouldn't be disproved because species DO change over time (this is observed); and 'Macroevolution' STILL wouldn't be disproved because speciation IS OBSERVED.
So even assuming that your conditions ARE met, there is STILL ABSOLUTELY NO FAITH required. You should actually study.
onijester56 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR "God is logical by nature" Your assertion isn't proof. However bringing up even one contradiction or unresolved paradox in what God says, does, or commands disproves this. Which then I bring up Epicurus for ease.
Also, I call up Deuteronomy 24:16, which rebukes the entire notion of Jesus being a "sacrificial lamb" to remove "original sin", as "original sin" was not valid.
"because of their rebellion and spiritual deadness" God made us that way, so God wants it that way.
onijester56 1 year ago
[cont]
"The Gospels being all the same is pointless." Neither me nor the video-poster are asking for "all the same". It's the BLATANT contradictions such as presented in the video...Let's use an example, neglecting the extraordinary nature of the claim that "Satan took Jesus to specific places".
Assume someone says I went to a deli and then a pet store, and another person that I went to the pet store then the Deli. Who is right? How did the other guy get his story wrong? Did I even go out?
onijester56 1 year ago
[cont]
And seeing as God MADE man, that means God WANTS man to not understand what God says. Which makes it futile to try to understand God or follow his laws.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"(Romans 9:21)
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR do you realize the definition of "honour"? That verse literally means that the potter can make one of his pots either have value or not have value. Which ignores "one person's trash is another person's treasuer", for one.
And then does not explain your statement "The Bible clearly teaches that the natural man will not and cannot understand what God says" BECAUSE God MADE IT IN MAN'S NATURE to be unable to understand God's words. ALL MEN because IT IS THEIR NATURE.
onijester56 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR Not to mention that the entire "different authors wrote things from different perspectives and for different audiences, so the differences are understandable" apologetics is pathetic.
Also, the two-source hypothesis presents Mark and a currently-undiscovered source as roots of Matthew and Luke. So two Gospels with data from the same "two" sources (one being a Gospel itself, the other a then-common collection), yet such a difference...
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Is it absolutely true that apologetics is pathetic?
Don't ignore it just because you can't understand it. God gives wisdom for free (James 1:5-6; Heb 11:6). Faith isn't mystical, but quite boolean (believing something to be true or false). You're much a believer as anyone is - you just believe a lie, that you're a good person, but you're guilty under God's Law.
All what it takes to be saved is to believe the statement in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Faith in Christ is God's gift.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR I said YOUR brand of apologetics is pathetic.
Faith is belief without evidence to support it. Belief itself is trust in something, differentiated by faith in that whereas faith has no evidence or proof, belief has some but not enough to logically conclude the "belief" absolutely.
Also, I LACK a belief, which is NOT a belief. Just like you lack a belief in Odin, Zeus, IPU, FSM, Ra, Marduk, Xenu, Allah, and the countless others (even some you don't know about).
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Is it absolutely true that my brand of apologetics is pathetic?
You refuse to believe, even presented with evidence. The Bible calls it blindness. Also, you don't lack a belief, because why would you oppose something and argue over something you have no position on? You don't believe it, period. You believe it not to be true. You believe that the claims of the existence of deities to be false. Thus you have blind faith in the contrary and you will continue in your fanaticism.
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR Yes it is. You are trying to explain differences in what is to be a literal account by saying that "different people wrote differently". That DOES NOT answer the difference in the accounts of WHAT IS SAID TO HAVE HAPPENED, AND It also raises the question of the veracity of the Bible, that God ALLOWED such differences.
"You believe that the claims of the existence of deities to be false." Provide a logical deity that LOGICALLY calls for worship, and I'll worship it.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Oh, and about the Gospels "evolving" from one another - I beg to differ. The evidence clearly points to them being written in about the same time period. If anyone would take Q Theory seriously, one would have to admit that Mark (55-70AD) is not the oldest account but Matthew (50-70AD) is the likely candidate. Even then there are agreements between other accounts not present in Mark. Q is never mentioned and they actually knew the events, so what's the point of copying one another?
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
@MichaelGabrielR There is ALSO the 4-source hypothesis. The Augustinian hypothesis. The Farrer hypothesis. And the Parker hypothesis. Just to list a few.
Of course you don't know that the "Q-document" is hypothetical in the 2SH to explain the similarities between Matt and Luke without Mark. And the 2SH theory posits Mark and "Q" as the basis.
onijester56 1 year ago
great video,, well said & done Promth! thanks alot for your video.
i hd learn alot, ~ "there's NO God, No Devil.. Bible is full of contradiction, & error text
i was once brainwashed in Jesus,, but now i'm free...everythings arose to our mind 1st.. thanks promth! also thanks for your rescue. thanks thanks thanks!!
wutee64 1 year ago
the more you talk about against God the more God is taking u out of book of life.. I feel sorry for you and Hope you find Jesus to repent before it's too late God bless!
argy24 1 year ago
@argy24 writes, "[T]he more you talk... against God the more God is taking [you] our of [the] [B]ook of [L]ife."
How does it work, Argry24: does God erase one letter of my name each time I "talk against" him? I didn't realize it was a gradual thing.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
So, if every biblical account as "identical," it would be "believable?"
GOTTshua 1 year ago
@GOTTshua
Not sure why you felt the need to ask the same question 3 times, but I'll answer despite this. If the accounts comported with one another rather than contradicting one another, that would enhance their credibility.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I did not feel the need to ask the same question 3 times. The internet was acting up, dear sir.
GOTTshua 1 year ago
I see. Well, I'm sorry you were having trouble there.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
GOTTshua 1 year ago
Comment removed
GOTTshua 1 year ago
Is there any human being among us who leads a perfect, sinless life?
(eg. never lies, never lusts, never steals, never hates, never gossips, never covets, et cetera)
GOTTshua 1 year ago
@GOTTshua
Yeah, there are called stillborn births, but they're not baptized to prior to 2000, they went to Limbo; according to the Vatican.
Enganacious 1 year ago
god never existed, the bible was written by men, to control other people, these facts are true
FlawedUniverse 2 years ago
@FlawedUniverse
right... so they made up 66 books and made these obvious contradiction according to this video to control us. If it was written by men, don't you think they would of polished it better to make it more believable? I did these obvious contradiction stand through 2000 years? Just think about it.
hapedro126 1 year ago
@hapedro126 So your position is that contradictions are indicative of divine authorship or inspiration?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Well, he says that men would have been clever enough to "polish" the whole thing, but god was not XD
SonicRainbowStar 1 year ago
@hapedro126 contradiction proves that the book is right? Now that doesn't make any sense at all to me. Sorry.
GaolisVideoLog 1 year ago
now the first one sinless sinners? when we accept the 'new covenant' agreeement between the Christ and ourselves we are seen as sinless righteous before the throne If we Christians say we have no sin & therefore do not need a redeemer or that we too can be like Him and save ourselves because 'we have no sin' then we decieve ourselves and call God a liar My brother St John was very spiritual and sometimes was and is hard to understand esoteric thought and much symbolism towrds the end of his life
babznme 2 years ago
and so got the sequence wrong, Luke being a doctor would have interviewed many people and pasted together his gathered stories of 'eye witness' accounts ProMTH, a belief in a God from the Bible does not mean we take each and every thing literal either, at least we shouldn't. the relationship is and should be personal I would encourage everyone to READ & STUDY for theirself including science and history to make for a better understanding of spiritual things divide the flesh from the spirit
babznme 2 years ago
But then that brings up what to take literal. Do you stay away from unclean animals and force a women to marry her rapist? What about witches and homosexuals dose not the bible say to kill them? The bible seems more human like then God like if you ask me.
aimeersd 2 years ago
@aimeersd in every case of "marriage", the man needed the permission of the brides father. Even in the (if a man seduces an un married woman) verse. So there is no law that says, A. you can rape, and B. you MUST marry anyone that has sex with you regardless of circumstance. Also, witches and gays were only to be killed if it was performed in Israel. So if an Israelite didnt want to obey the laws of the land, he could leave and have all the gay sex he wanted in another country and get no penalty
pianokid100 2 years ago
He has to ask her father which means she still has no say in what happens to her. Women were treated like property and it shows big time in the bible. Did the gays or witches kill anyone hurt anyone? If they did not and were killed they were killed for all the wrong reasons.
aimeersd 2 years ago
@aimeersd they shouldve just not had gay sex. If they were biologically predisposed to have gay sex, they couldve done it in a country that wasnt a theocracy . the women needed permission of the fathers so that men couldnt just take a woman by force. Men are naturally stronger and smarter than women . this is a fact. So whether evolution or God made it this way, it still demonstrate the need for the male leader in the household (which is why every civilization was modeled similarly)
pianokid100 2 years ago
@aimeersd if the bible was human, it would have laws like all teh other places. In the Bible, if you had a slave, and was attracted to her, you were allowed to have sex with her etc, but from then on she must be set free and can never again be a slave, even if you dont end up staying with her. Why didnt the more advanced americans have this law during their slave having times ? There were MANY laws regarding slaves that the modern whites didnt have
pianokid100 2 years ago
The bibles laws are human. To have anyone as a slave at all is a horrible thing. There is no way being a slave was a good thing. Even in the bible.
Man has tried so get people to follow a certain believe. They used all kind of horrible things to do it. The bible is one of them.
aimeersd 2 years ago
@aimeersd . Well good or not, it was sometimes necessary (what do we do with these surrendered soldiers? do we kill them? let them go back home and rebuild and continue? ) and other times it was in fact a good thing (let me serve you because i am hungry and without a home). "Slave" is a bad translation due to what white people did to the blacks . The slaves in the Bible werent allowed to be mistreated ,raped , etc and they werent slaves because of their skin
pianokid100 2 years ago
@aimeersd nowadays they would imprison war captees , which is worse than being a "slave" by the biblical standard for what it was to be a slave. It would be like a loose house arrest
pianokid100 2 years ago
@pianokid100 women were treated as property in the sense, that someone was responsible for them
pianokid100 2 years ago
hmmm, very good study great for making people think especially Christians I am one and so because I am also a thinking one I have already come upon some understanding of these points let me start with the second, Matthew lived with Jesus and was a numbers man. A good CPA will get things to be as correct as possible. Luke probably did not 'meet' Jesus in person he interviewed those who did, Maybe Matthew, maybe not but instead someone who had heard or read Matthew's account
babznme 2 years ago
if the bible is the inspired word of GOD then it only makes sense if GOD is a Liar, then all the contradictions can be explained as GOD Just bullshitting to the different authors.
or the whole thing is just a badly written fairy tale.
eventh0zi0n 2 years ago
Wow, ProfMTH, you really know a little something.
You seem to be studying the Word quite a bit.
Praying you get saved, then you will be able to see the full meaning of what you are reading. Can't wait.
Peace.
donotweep 2 years ago
Been there, done that, Donotweep. But I appreciate the sentiment.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@donotweep Yep ProfMTH knows its ALL bullshit :) cant wait for u to find your brain back :) and be like ProfMTH :) then you will see the full meaning of your delusion :)
devante11 2 years ago
Again, thanks for letting me know how to pray for you, devante11.
donotweep 2 years ago
@donotweep
Thanks for showing me, how delusional you people are, not only that, thankyou for showing me how rude you are also :) by saying you will talk to yourself on behalf of me, without my permission :)
donotweep, on behalf of the rest of the world, we wish you a speedy recovery from your mental illness and your rudeness :) Get Well Soon
devante11 2 years ago
You're a trip, dude.
The exchange has
been fun.
Still praying for ya.
:)
donotweep 2 years ago
@donotweep
@donotweep
I wish you well on your recovery from talking to yourself and to every brain cell that has be eroded in you brain my condolences to each one of them :)
And that you are filled with a brain with reasoning once cured :) and that when people show you mistakes, that your brain sees those mistakes and does
not blank them :)
A mind is a terrible thing to waste .Promoting stupidity should be a felony.Falling for it , a misdemeanor.
devante11 2 years ago
@donotweep
Funny I never asked you to do anything, thus going against a persons will ...nothing will happen :), but then you are talking you yourself so you get the same effect :)
Still wishing you are speedy recovery :)
devante11 2 years ago
This is really quite funny, actually. So let me get this straight...You believe that since you didn't ask for prayer "nothing will happen" and that because it's against your will that "nothing will happen"? Perhaps I should paraphrase...do you think that it is in the power of your mind to make God either real or not real? or my prayers to HIM being answered (or not) only because you yourself believe they will or will not be?
donotweep 2 years ago
FYI, you are not powerful enough to make God nonexistent :) Still praying for you :)
donotweep 2 years ago
Yes he is real in the mind of the delusional, correct :)
And correct, people who are in a delusion, who ask for something, magically they think it is granted
I didnt believe that I didnt ask for prayer/talking to yourself. I just didnt ask for it :)
devante11 2 years ago
I'm confused. How does satan 'tempt' G-d? Does G-d not have everything, that Satan could tempt him? Is this a common theme in the NT?
applshmpoo 2 years ago
Actually, Appleshmpoo, the notion that Satan tempts God goes back at least to the Book of Job.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Hmm, I see what you mean. It seems to me though in Job, Satan wasn't tempting G-d to sin so much as accusing Him of giving Job the good life for free. At least in Judaism we make that distinction.
applshmpoo 2 years ago
Well, there was also an enticement of God. See, e.g., Job 2:3, which has God saying that Job enticed or incited him to move against Job. The same word is used to describe those who tempt Israelites to off to worship gods other than Yahweh (Deut 13:6) and Satan's enticing (or tempting) David "to number Israel" (1 Chronicles 21:1).
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I agree that both words mean entice. I guess I just have trouble understanding in context of Judaism's view of Satan. As a Jew the thought of Satan enticing G-d to worship him is analogous to a rubber tire enticing the owner of Goodyear to bow to it.
I hope to hear some feedback from you on my messages as well.
applshmpoo 2 years ago
I'm not saying anything about God being enticed to worship Satan, but rather Satan enticing God to do what Satan wants. That's what the Book of Job portrays.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I understand the distinction, nevertheless I see the relationship between Satan and G-d more of a prosecution-Judge relationship (respectively). As opposed to Satan's relationship with man as a more well for lack of a better analogy snake-Eve relationship. So when satan entices G-d to me it is more of the prosecution moving for punishment/sentence. Do you see the difference that I'm trying to portray?
applshmpoo 2 years ago
Yes, I see it. I just don't think it works. But it's not implausible.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean by it not working, but I guess either way its a moot point. Neither of us believe in the veracity of the New Testament.
applshmpoo 2 years ago
lol True enough.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
But the evil satan does not seem to have existed in the Jewish mind and is not to be found in the biblical writings. The serpent of Genesis 3 is never identified as Satan and In Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3:1-2 Satan is depicted as a member of God's court whose basic duty it was to 'accuse' human beings before God.
Also the ancient Israelite did not have the concept of hell as we know. It was one place were everyone went no matter how good or bad you were. Sheol was the name.
aimeersd 2 years ago
@Aslapacrosstheface -- lol, hes done 'em all...
jcwebguy 2 years ago
It is true what you say but it is very minor. There are far worse contradictions in the bible.
Aslapacrosstheface 2 years ago
Did you know? We Christians are not made perfect until Jesus comes back (Phil 1:6, 1 John 3:1-3)
If we think we are perfect (without sin) we lie.
If we go sin (you willfully transgress God's Law) we should ask if we really know God.
So a christian does not live out sin, they live for God.
SRobacker 2 years ago
Who's on third base??? =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
This is a CLEAR case of "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." But we are called to live a righteous life after conversion,...
USNavyman09 2 years ago
I wonder why you ignore the 2nd argument?
jarjarbinks77 2 years ago
Way to miss the point entirely!
JonathanClement140 2 years ago
Would you be so kind as to explain it to me?
USNavyman09 2 years ago
It's that the bible contradicts itself and that in places, it clearly says the true christians do not sin.
JonathanClement140 2 years ago
I wouldn't agree with the "contradictions" you speak of,..But I would definitely agree that true Christians do not sin,...But when is the last time you have met a "real" christian,...
USNavyman09 2 years ago
What's the point of trying to live a righteous life if, according to Evangelicals, "works" or good deeds are not important to God?
I'll stick with my secular, and therefore, logical and honest morals.
dbonanno 2 years ago
Yes,.."works" won't save you,..that is true,..
But living a righteous life is more than simply following rules. But if it is just that,..then at least you save yourself from alot of misery and pain in this life.
Please tell me how you can have logical morals, if you can't explain logically were you get your morals,...hmm
USNavyman09 2 years ago
USNavyman, where do your morals come from?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
My morals come from The word of God,..Which most governing laws like Americas are still based on today. Not necessarily God Himself, but His written instruction. Not the instruction that were given specifically to the Israelites only, although some are still very practical today. I feel when Jesus came, He taught us how we ought to live our lives.
USNavyman09 2 years ago
A lot of equivocating and qualifying there: "from the word of God" but "Not necessarily God Himself" but "Not the instructions that were given specifically to the Israelites" and so on. As for Jesus, the only moral principle he taught was that one should do to others as one would have other do to one. This wasn't unique or original to Jesus. So if you're following Jesus' moral instruction, you're following an instruction people followed way before Jesus and still follow quite apart from him.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
100% correct Prof.Many of Jesus' sayings are taken from Brahmanic wisdom scriptures.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Only Christ will bring you salvation. A person can prove the God shown in Christ at John 14:21 and 23.
If Christ is lord of your life, it also comes with benefits not found anywhere else. Others can claim they do benefit you, but only Christ himself transforms a person and he does the work in a person's life to make them perfect.
John 5:36, Phil 1:6
You will not know - if you look at it only as a joke, see your comment below.
SRobacker 2 years ago
Translation:''I believe what is in this book and will repeat what is in it as fact and will then claim victory'' =D
lipoicacid 2 years ago
I told you the truth.
You get no where when you act with superiority over others.
I am almost 30 and I have considered in my life being a atheist, a Muslim, a heathen, I know there is God for fact and I told you how to see Christ. below.
Now you can laugh at me, but I tell you the truth that God is living and a person can know him.
I have been married, divorced, bankrupt, many other things also.
I did not just wake up one day and think what some book says is true.
SRobacker 2 years ago
Now ''consider'' reading the Pyramid Texts,The RigVeda,Coffin Texts,Ugaritic Texts for a start.All religion is based on astronomy.Confront life on your own without the bonds of [any] system.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
And so you have a personal relationship with God? and know him? and he also is in your life now?
I do still study up on other religions just along the way I have chosen Christ.
Christ is alive even now and it is not writing in stars that seem as fate.
I do freely think and I did freely choose that is why I choose Christ.
I go out and live my life, just I know Christ Jesus and he is part of my own life now.
SRobacker 2 years ago
Dude you need deprogramming quick.What ''god'' are yout talking about? Do you you have a personal relation ship with dog? and know him? You know dog don't you??? =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
You make a lot of jokes. Good bye.
SRobacker 2 years ago
Keeps your mind healthy.Remember that when you feel you need a ''god'' again and remember Osiris rose after three days and was called ''Lord of the Wine Preparation''.Good luck =D
lipoicacid 2 years ago
If you have such a close relationship with God, perhaps you can enlighten us as to why hell exists...
JonathanClement140 2 years ago
Hell is for the Devil and his kind (Matthew 25:41)
All have sinned and fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23)
The payment we receive is death for our sin. (Romans 6:23)
Everyone that decides to live for sin and not for God is a child of Satan (1 John 3:4-10)
God will Judge the world through Jesus (Acts 17:31)
The very person that sins will die (Ezekiel 18:4)
Fear God that can destroy you sending you to hell (Matthew 10:28)
Know that there is no fear of hell if you accept Christ (John 3:16)
SRobacker 2 years ago
I mean what's the POINT of hell?
JonathanClement140 2 years ago
After we leave this world, there are only two destinations, one with God and the other without God.
If you reject God here, you will have no where else to go but to hell.
And we all where made with a purpose which is to know God. We are like leaves that have detached from the tree, we already are dead apart from the tree, but it takes a little bit before the leaves wither and you see it physically die.
With God and our life, we have to turn to him and believe in the gospel. Then we have life.
SRobacker 2 years ago
Why can't God make it so you can choose to repent at any time throughout eternity?
JonathanClement140 2 years ago
nice one =)
Zuddybear 2 years ago
We are only able to choose him while we are here. But God does have perfect timing for when he has brought each person he choose to himself.
SRobacker 2 years ago