Видео

Heiser should stick to the topics he knows about and is so helpful on. Stuff about the structures and content of the early chapters of Genesis and the insights into the (possible) hierarchy of spiritual beings from clues in the bible. He clearly is willing to subject the clear teachings of scripture to his logical thought frames. This is neither wise nor helpful. It is SUPREME arrogance to assume that the reason the church fathers have held to the solid doctrine of corporate representation by Adam (unmistakably and directly taught in Romans 5) is simply unquestioning subservience to "church leaders." Heiser is neither correct nor helpful in this denial of clear biblical teaching, AND it would be far more honest to interact with the body of that teaching rather than attempt a "refutation" while simultaneously showing you are either a) unfamiliar with it or b) ignoring it. It is FALSE that the doctrine of original sin means all infants dying are going to hell. His point is also very illogical, because the text CLEARLY teaches that all who die ARE sinners. Therefore, any infant who is saved (and I believe there is real grounds to believe they are saved, another topic) is saved FROM THE SIN THAT CAUSED THEIR DEATH by Christ's imputed righteousness, not from some imagined "innocence." Again, Heiser should stick to what he understands.

No matter how educated you are IF you do not have the grace of God you will be blinded to what is right before your eyes... There are MANY scriptures that prophecy about Israel's return to the land. For example Ezekiel 11:17. Isaiah 27:6 said that Israel will fill the world with fruit and they are #7 in the world. Also you can calculate the time of the return from Ezekiel's 430 year prophecy. If you take the remaining time of judgement after Babylon ie 360 years from 537BC and multiply by 7 as promised in Levitius 26 because of disobedience in judgement, you get 2520 years. If you use the 360 day calendar you get 907,200 days. If you add those days to 537BC you get the year 1948. Also God has used the 50 year Jubilee to show that He is working to restore Israel. In 1917 Balfour Declaration +50 is 1967 when Israel took back Jerusalem +50 when Jerusalem was named Israel's capital. You also have 1897 with Herzl +50 is 1947 when the UN voted in the Jewish State. I teach this stuff so I just gave you a tip of the iceberg of prophecies that Israel fulfilled.

Hi everyone, in Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as 'full of grace.' While grace can abound alongside human imperfection, being *full* of grace suggests a complete absence of sin, as grace, like light, supernaturally dispels darkness. This understanding has led the Church to affirm Mary’s sinlessness throughout her life. It’s a perspective that challenges reformist views about Mary but is grounded in authentic readings of scripture. Such debates remind us of the rich and infinite possibilities in interpreting the Bible.

Tom you are not Wright about this.

The proof that Islam was invented by Catholic Church! Catholic believe Mary is sinless like Muslims believe that she was never was touched by devil what means she was sinless! 🤯shocking realization

If our Government didnt lie and manipulate into wars than we would never even have to ask ourselves whether or not we should support our Military Civil War was unnesacery. The South had every right to succeed and the war had nothing to do with freeing the slave and everything to do with DC loosing 75% of their income from southern ports collecting Tariffs Spanish american War was a false flag event Wilson purposely sent our ships into water to get attacked by Germany who had every right to engage FDR coerced Japan into attacking and even ignored the nees we had of when the attack was coming We entered Bietnam over the Golf of Tonkin event was admitted by DC to be fake We all know about Iraq wars and tge other recent ones

I sin. You sin. What the heck is sin? What the heck is original sin? a high-quality sin?

How can anyone think the Chosen people were European? The Bible is a Hebrew book. Hebrews were black.

John 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents... Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments... Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance...

Me thinks it is not guilt that is inherited, but rather the inclination towards sin that is inherited. That is the spiritual death (depravity, distance from God) that Paul is talking about.

NTW's smug, self-satisfied confidence in his cloistered theological understanding fails woefully to grasp the depth and complexity of the meanings in biblical prophecy. He may well have some surprises coming as history unfolds!

I love this, except for the part where everyone is going to sin, it's inevitable kind of thing. There are righteous and perfect people other than Jesus in the Bible and even in the New Testament. The parents of John the Baptist were said to be perfect. So, not everyone automatically sins. That's not what the Psalmist was saying.

Love Dr. Heisers work, rip. However, I think he’s missing something, in that , abortion as a sin, isn’t so heinous because your committing murder. It’s heinous because you’re ALSO damning that soul to hell until the resurrection. THEY ARE IN HELL!!! THATS THE REAL REASON ABORTION IS SUCH AN AWFUL THING. People try so hard to remove the guilt and the punishments of god that they will literally lead themselves astray by their own philosophy. I should add that we’re talking about willful abortion, not a miscarriage. They’re not the same thing.

This is sooo important for sharing with MUSLIMS! They think that Jesus died only for original sin. They don't believe in original sin, so they see no sense in Jesus' death. When sharing with them, be sure you emphasize that Jesus died for ALL sin. Muslims need to hear and understand the Bible and gospel. For more on how to share with them, click on our green icon for a 2-minute intro.

Reformed Christian here! We don't believe that babies inherit Adam's guilt. We believe that they inherit a sin-nature (in other words, they will sin when able to). With regards to whether or not babies in unbelieving families go to heaven or hell, God's word does not reveal this. God is rich in mercy and just.

Well, well, Mr. N.T. Wright, you appear to be dealing with your past and present words and works coming up against God’s actual Word to us through the Bible. His Living Word is actually contradicting your “interpretation” of his Word. Repent, Sir. The Bible is clear. Those that try to talk all around what it says plainly, are endangering themselves. May The Lord capture your heart and mind with his unfailing love.

You are saved because of the Resurrection? You are saved by faith; that Christ died for you. He took your sin on the cross. The Resurrection, is so that we may believe, because we are dense. All the other miracles were not enough for us.

This is the Eastern Orthodox view. Rome really messed up things. Lol.

Man’s wisdom twisting scripture and discounting the law and the prophets that Paul said were the foundation of all he taught.

Palestine The term Palestine comes from the name of an idol-worshipping tribe: the Philistines. The word Palestine does not have Israelite or Islamic origin. The Philistines were a tribe of skilled ironworkers known as sea people who enslaved Israel for some time. The Philistines fought with Canaanites and Israelites in the area. King Nebuchadnezzar 2 destroyed them in 604 BC. The Philistines were exiled to Babylon and lost their unique ethnic identity. They vanished from archeological and historical records after the late fifth century B.C. However, the region was still named Palestine after them. The Inhabitants of the Disputed Territory: Palestine 1. Before 1500 B.C.: Canaanites (Idol worshippers) 2. 1500 B.C. to 1000 B.C.: Israelites (under Joshua to Saul). For a brief time, the Philistines ruled the Israelites. Islam was not born until 600 A.D. So who were the Philistines? The Philistines were an idol-worshipping tribe that attacked Israel. They were skilled iron workers and had better weapons than Israel. That's why they could rule that territory. 3. From 1000 B.C. to Jesus' time: Israelites. Different idol-worshipping pagan emperors ruled that region: Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and the Romans. They called the territory Palestine. The place was known by the name of a pagan, idol-worshipping tribe: the Philistines. Remember, Islam was not born at the time. 4. Jesus' time - Mohammad's time: Israelites (Jews and Jewish Christians). For the next 600 years or so, the Romans ruled Palestinian Jewish and Christian inhabitants. 5. After Mohammad -World War 2: Israelis and Arabs who invaded Palestine under Mohammad. The Romans conducted many unsuccessful crusades to *Free Palestine* from the Arab Muslim invaders. 6. After World War 2-Present: After winning the war, the Allied forces handed over the leadership of the region to the Israelites. The U.N. created a two-state solution so that Arabs could live peacefully under Arab leadership and Israelites could live under Jewish leadership. All the U.N. members agreed to the solution. Only the Arab Emirates did not accept it. Ever since they have been fighting to reclaim the territory. If you go by history, the original inhabitants of this historical place are Israelites, not Arabs. The Arabs invaded Palestine and exiled many Jewish tribes. (Some of them came to India also). Therefore, it is the Arabs who need to free Palestine so that the Israelites can live there peacefully, not the other way around. To those who want to go 4,000+ years backward, the natural inhabitants of the disputed Palestine region were idol-worshipping Canaanites, not Israel or Islam. Israelites conquered it from idol worshippers. Islam conquered it from the Israelites. Israel reconquered it with the help of their Christian friends. Therefore, when you talk about *Free Palestine*, don't forget that it is the Muslims who invaded the Jewish land (the land God Promised to Abraham's descendants, Israel). The crusaders attempted to recapture their land. They succeeded only after World War 2. Now, it is Israel.

Dr. Wright is very wrong here. He minimizes the OT prophets and has a made up theology that Jesus is Israel. Entirely fabricated. Israel is Israel. And Peter in his sermon in Acts 3.21 stated "Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." It's what the prophets declared that will be restored. And part of that is Israel saved and in the land, and with Gentile believers we become the "one new man" of Ephesians. But please note, the prophets NEVER called Israel Jesus, and they NEVER faded Israel out into the church. God is not finished with Israel. The prophets DECLARE IT!

I'm so glad to know my aborted sister will be raised and with the LORD at final judgment and afterward in the new Kingdom.

I greatly respect Dr heiser though I see in scripture that though we do not inherit Adam’s guilt, we do inherit his nature which is to chose the self over God, that is what son is, it isn’t just actively doing horrible wicked things but it’s a whole lifestyle that chooses the self over God. Once you understand that it makes sense that we did inherit a nature of choosing the self over God and thus through Adam all have sinned

Yeah That's what I thought, I agree it is a crystal clear, death is the result not a sin that can put you to hell.

Thank you Tom for putting this point across so clearly. Can’t thank you enough for telling it as it is, from facts not from nationalism.

Luke 21:24, 'They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away as captives among all nations. Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.' The 'they' here are the Jews. And what does this mean? Does the time of the Gentiles are fufilled mean until Israel is brought back as a nation? Because, then, the Gentiles cease to rule the land of Israel. Rev 11:2, 'But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.' Rev 12:6, 'The woman (Israel) fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1260 days'. Now I heard all the different interpretations for the 1260 days and none are satisfactory for me. 1260 days: 42 months; time, times and half a time, seem to be all the same event of time, all being the number three and a half. Three and a half is significant because it is symbolic of half of a complete (seven) time. Three and a half, then, is a time which is unexpectantly cut short, not running its complete (seven) time. Jerusalem was trampled underfoot by the Gentiles from 70 AD until 1948. Cheers

There is a fundamental flaw with Christianity. Apparently the death and resurrection of Jesus fixed God's problem. Is that the best solution he could come up with ?

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in order for man to commit sin there must be free will as well as the knowledge that an act is sinful. Yet they invented the concept of original sin so that all would feel guilt. This is purely an instrument of control. The message is that only the Church holds the means to forgiveness and salvation. If not even an infant is sinless, then everyone is guilty. This concept is deduced from a story in Genesis that is portrayed as factual, and yet not even in Genesis does God condemn the offspring of Adam to be conceived in sin.

From Article IX: _Of Original or Birth-sin_ "Original Sin standeth not in the following of _Adam,_ (as the _Pelagians_ do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of _Adam;_ whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated. (Etc.)"

This is arguing against a strawman, not the real doctrine of original sin

The later Western fathers and even later the Roman Catholic Church got it wrong. Not the Eastern fathers or early Western fathers. There is no inherited guilt. So what Heiser once thought wasn’t entirely correct.

Heists a very bad theologian. When everyone in history disagrees with you, you’re likely on the wrong side.

Jesus was a son of Adam? Man this is gibberish.

People go to hell according to scripture because they didnt repent and rejected the plan of salvation of Jesus Christ. They never recieved Him as their Lord and Savoior. So they were not adopted children of God. God seals us with the Holy Spirit when we are born again. We become new creatures in Him.

Dr Heiser was way to smart to have believe the Catholic Church invented that Mary was sinless. This has always been the belief of historic Christians

WOW! That sounds blasphemous too me! We didnt "inherited" guilt, its the inclination to sin!!

At 3:45 of the video the speaker says something about there being verses in the Bible that say we will remember things/people from this life. But Isaiah 65:17 says, "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

The kingdom suffers violence and the violent take it by force. Said by some random carpenter.

Mr. Wright passionately denies Scriptural basis for the timing and circumstances of the People of Israel returning to the Land of Israel, yet he can't cite a single Scriptural basis that is made by those holding the doctrine. - Such as the book of Daniel, the source for the famous phrase "the handwriting is on the wall." Mr. Wright is not so much a scholarly apologist, ready to "come, let us reason together" as Isaiah says, or as the New Testament repeatedly instructs believers, to prove all things, hold fast to the good and the true, but rather, he is a proselyte of his denominational dogma. A sad way to end one's long career, even if it avoids "rocking the boat" for his "good name" and "scholarship." Try citing a Messianic Jewish Christian scholar, Mr. Wright. Like Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum and his great work, "Israelology: the missing link in systematic theology". It's OK Mr. Wright, Luther was anti-semitic, even after breaking from the Catholic organization. Your desire to retain reputation as an Anglican scholar weakens every time you make such demonstrably false and unreasonable claims about a doctrine, derived with great care and study directly from Scripture - especially when you do it without familiarity with the actual claims and scriptures cited which do support it. It must be difficult to re-examine one's long held beliefs or acquiescence to truly non-Jewish perspective dogma. It is well worth the time and effort to study the works of others' views, and to not denigrate them in such a prejudiced, biased and passionate antagonism.

When I first found N T Wright I was excited. I though he was on the right track. Now I realize he is completely wrong. God concentrated evil in Jesus and then judged it? God punished Evil not Jesus? I guess the death of Jesus was just collateral damage. Sorry, Bart Ehrman is probably right. Jesus of Nazareth never taught atonement. Jesus taught repentance and forgiveness. There never was an atonement. That is why no one can explain it.

Why is he the lamb of God? What did the hebrews do to lambs?

in 2:34 he said "transmission of guilt moral guilt before" Does he mean sin? We do not carry Adams's guilt. we carry his sinful nature, not total depravity but we are in a fallen state. Why? We partake of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil.

But the Bible also says that there will be no more tears or sorrow in the coming new Kingdom. Perhaps, we will have the memory minus the feelings about the ordeal.

So, when you understand Jesus Jewishly you have a replacement Theology? You have to have a PhD to make sense of that. Paul doesn't supercede the position of the prophets. If he does, he's a false prophet. Full stop.

Romans 5:12 does not even say death spread to all because Adam sinned. It says death spread because all sinned, having nothing to do specifically with Adam except that Adam experienced the same thing.

Being born with a sin nature doesn't mean babies sin, it means they WILL sin some day. Until they do sin and their conscience bears witness of it, they are innocent. Sheesh.....Heiser acts like this is rocket science. I knew this stuff 10 years before he was born.

There is an error in the Genealogies. SOLVED: The Matthew and Luke Genealogy Conflict. Matthew 1:17 states: *_Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David (are) fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Transmigration fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian Transmigration to Christ fourteen generations._* It is a well known fact that the scriptures are missing a generation in the last set of 14 generations. Did Matthew err, or, is there a mistranslation? In the Hebrew language, a dot can change the meaning of a word. While translating Matthew into Greek a translator could easily miss a dot, and mistranslate a word. In the Hebrew language, a single dot changes the word from Father to Husband. The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew reads: *"Joseph the father of Mary."* The Greek text of Matthew 1:16 has the word "ton" in front of "andra" which literally reads in English as: *_"the Joseph the man of Mary"_* The English translators left out the definite article in front of Joseph and translated "ton andra" as "the husband." This is an error. The definite article changes the meaning of "andra" to a specific man of higher importance. It's acceptable to leave the definite article out in the English, as long as the effect it has on context is not ignored, which it was. *"The Joseph the man of Mary"* doesn't really work well for the western English speaking world, so it should have been translated as: *"Joseph the father of Mary"* (a different Joseph than is mentioned in Matthew 1:19). The expression "ton andra" (the man of) is never used for a husband of someone when the subject comes first accompanied with the definite article as in "the Joseph, the man of Mary." As proof, In Matthew 1:19 the writer makes a distinction between the Joseph of verse 16: *_Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was about to put her away privately._* In the Greek this actually translates word for word to English as "the Joseph, moreover the husband of her." The writer is making it clear that "the Joseph" in verse 19 is not the same Joseph mentioned in verse 16 by emphasizing that this Joseph is the husband of Mary using the Greek word "aner" instead of "andra." "Andra" and "aner" have similar meaning. Both can mean man, and both can mean husband. The context indicates how the word is translated. Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is the Son of Jacob, the man (father) of Mary, not her husband. *Evidence from the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew* (Revised English Version) In Matthew 1:16, the Aramaic word is "gavra" or "gawra," which means “mighty man,” “father,” or “husband." However, it was read by the Greek translator as 'gura' meaning husband. In Matthew 1:19 and Luke 3:23 the Aramaic word is "bala," which is “man” or “husband.” The Hebrew text preserves the truth. There is a difference between the “Joseph” of verse 16 (the “mighty man” of Mary), and the “Joseph” of verse 19 and Luke 3:23 (the “husband” of Mary). The ancient Aramaic text has Matthew 1:16 translated to English as follows: "Jacob was the FATHER of Joseph, who was the father of Mary. Mary was the mother of Yeshua [Jesus], who is called the Messiah." SEE the REV Bible commentary on Matthew 1:16 Now we can see that Joseph, the father of Mary, is 12th generation, Mary is the 13th, and Jesus is the 14th generation. The Matthew genealogy is the royal lineage of Mary, which fulfills the requirements for the Kingship of Judah. The Luke genealogy traces the royal lineage of Mary's husband all the way back to Adam. Jesus is the legal step son of Joseph, and therefore a legal heir to the throne of David. In addition, before Luke even lists the genealogical record, he gives an account of Jesus being divinely appointed as King of Israel. The result of the two genealogical records is that Jesus qualifies for BOTH kingships: King of Israel, and King of Judah (King of the Jews). Mike is just wrong on so many levels I wish he was still around to see my posts. However, I'm sure he is aware of his errors now.

Jesus is a descendant of David according to the flesh through MARY, not through any earthly father. Plopped into the womb of Mary? Man has artificially inseminated women for many decades and you don't think YHWH performed an insemination with a male seed He created in order to have a Son holy and without sin from birth? Your arguments are not only weak, they are nonsense....unBiblical...and you misrepresent Paul and the Biblical facts.

"Through Adam all sin." That's your verse that says the sin nature comes from the curse of Adam, not the curse of Eve. It's not a theological invention. You are ignoring the obvious and making stuff up. Eve's curse on women is much different than Adam's curse. The sin nature does not come through the mother. It comes through the father. Jesus was born holy and without sin because he had no genealogical connection to Adam. The male seed for Jesus was created by YHWH. This resulted in Jesus being born holy and without the fallen nature of Adam. Spiritually, Jesus had the same divine nature Adam had before Adam fell. Adam became mortal and Jesus became immortal. The process was reversed by Jesus. It's why Jesus had to be born Holy.....the second Adam. Adam was created holy, but he sinned. Jesus undid what Adam had done.

Jesus has no genealogical connection to Adam through an earthly father. Jesus was conceived by YHWH's Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. Obviously it is no stretch to say that YHWH made the male seed to join with Mary's seed to create Jesus. The curse of Adam is passed through the father, not the mother. That's why Jesus was born holy and without sin. I can't believe you don't know these facts. Jesus is called the Son of David because Mary is a descendant of David. Mary carried the bloodline of David and that's how Jesus is of David and qualified to sit on David's throne. Mary's father (also named Joseph) had no sons and because of an exception God makes for a man with no sons, his bloodline is passed through his daughter. Some people argue that Mary could not pass the royal bloodline to Jesus and cite 1 Chronicles 17:11 as proof. However, there is an exception provided by YHWH in Numbers 27:1-11. A group of five sisters came to Moses with a complaint-that their father died in the wilderness without sons. They believe it is unfair for his name to be removed from among his family (v4). Moses takes this problem to the Lord, and the Lord replies thus: “The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right.” God, therefore, grants that, if there be no male heir, the inheritance should pass to the daughter. Since Mary's father had no sons, Mary became heir and passed it to her son, Jesus. The bloodline of Mary's father(of the Tribe of Judah) was passed on to Jesus through Mary. The Old Testament law confirms both Mary and Jesus are of the tribe Judah. SEED OF THE WOMAN Genesis 3:15 tells us that the Messiah (bruiser of the serpents head) would be from the seed of a woman. In the Hebrew language, the word "seed" always refers to the descendent of a man. But in the case of Genesis 3:15, the seed is of a woman. The clear implication is that the one who was to bruise the head of the serpent had to be born of a woman while not being a descendant of an earthly father. Mary and her Son, Jesus, fulfills the Genesis 3:15 prophecy. For those who teach that a woman does not have seed: In Genesis 16:10 an angel says to Hagar, a woman, "I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude." Identification of the "seed of the woman" being Jesus goes back at least as far as Irenaeus (180 AD), who (along with several other Church Fathers) regarded this verse as "the first messianic prophecy in the Old Testament". Serapion, the Bishop of Thmuis, wrote the following: "The woman does not have seed, only man does. How then was that (Gen 3:15) said of the Woman? Is it not evident that there is here question of Christ, whom the holy Virgin brought forth without seed? As a matter of fact, the singular is used, "of the seed", and not the plural, "of the seeds". The seed of the woman is referred to again in Revelation 12:17.[16] "...........Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit." Jeremiah 16:19