Видео

Do you actually wish to discuss anything in the video, or did you merely want to get that off your chest?

21:40 maybe like how Paul's chair still sits in a EO church undisturbed to this day?

I actually have a book that I haven't read yet that claims to trace the Baptist Church back to the Apostles historically. I'll be interested to see what they claim. I do think that at the very least Baptists reclaimed a more NT Church teaching that had gotten drowned out in the noise of Tradition over the centuries.

😅

​😅😅😂 @PastorMarc

@sokoyagbemiga8412 Unfortunately, critics don't drop it, and too often I hear people who struggle with their faith because when a citric brings up such allegations they were unprepared to process it. It is my belief that the best place for Christians to hear about these challenges is in church. That way they get addressed in a non-adversarial setting and Christians grow in their understanding of how to handle Scripture and be more sure of it's reliability. So in any text I preach, I try to anticipate skeptical challenges and address them.

Can you unpack that a little? I'm not sure why you think that.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're getting at?

That's interesting. I hadn't heard that tradition re John's mother. And can you give a reference for where Jesus mentions John's father's death? I couldn't find it.

Upon a little more digging, it seems that Jesus was referring to Zechariah the prophet, not JTB's dad.

Ah, yes, could be. May make more sense.

I'm a little hesitant to believe the "soaked with His blood" theory. It would certainly be plausible, but in Matthew 27:31 it explicitly says that they took the robe off of Him: "And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified." I wouldn't dismiss it outright, but there are still so many other possibilities. Even something as a simple as lighting. Inside vs outside? Clear sun vs cloudy in a shadow. There are just so many possibilities that it is pretty ridiculous to call it an error or contradiction.

@@PastorMarcHey there, not a bible skeptic, but wondering what the answer is myself. Just curious how you see the swapping Jesus’ clothes takes away from the other man’s theory? Thanks in advance and God bless.:)

@@II_Timothy It seems that he assumed that Jesus had walked the distance to Golgotha in the robe so that the color change was due to all of the blood loss along the way. But Mathew states that they dressed up and mocked Jesus, then took the robe off before leading Him away to be crucified.

Because of our sin. We took His gift of life and we have abused and misused it. Like in the example of the broken window in the video, we have "broken" God's creation. Our selfish hearts and the suffering we cause. Those who cause a damage have the responsibility to repair it. But we can't. Likewise, God being the sovereign Creator, we owe Him our worship and obedience, which we have not given.

@@PastorMarc If God made us, then isn't it his fault that we "broke" his creation?

@@MichaelGustavsonArchitect How so?

@@PastorMarc Huh?

@@MichaelGustavsonArchitect How would it be God's fault?

Why think that? The Bible seems pretty clear about their existence.

@@PastorMarc Your bible isn't an infallible source of information.

@@MrWeezer55 Even if not infallible, it is still as reliable enough as any other historical documents. And the vast majority of those indicate that mankind has been aware of spiritual beings -angels/demons - for as long as we've been around. The claim AGAINST their existence is actually the far weaker case. Besides which, I am a Christian pastor, so what the Bible has to say on the issue is fairly important to the matter.

That's interesting. Can you point to the different verses that describe that?

Ha, yeah. It's a play on my last name, Lambert. There's an old cartoon about a lion named Lambert who thought he was a sheep until one day a wolf attacked the flock. I thought it was fun, but it seemed kinda goofy, so I stopped using it.

Thanks for the comment. I personally have always found that to be a really bizarre perspective. The case for the resurrection of Jesus is about as airtight as you can get for an event in history, esp ancient history. I just don't have it in me to be skeptical enough to deny its veracity.

@@PastorMarc Thanks for the reply. If I remember the case for the resurrection correctly it basically boils down to this: 1. 4 early eyewitness accounts. 2. The names used in the accounts are accurate. 3. Geographical/cultural knowledge in the accounts are accurate. 4. Some details were embarrassing for the authors. 5. The eyewitnesses were willing to die for their beliefs. 6. About 6 or 7 extra biblical authors mentioned that Christians believed it. Now it has been a while, so correct me if I got something in the case wrong. Basically, I ask myself if a miracle happens today and this is the type of evidence is presented, would I be convinced? My answer to that is no. Let's say that someone says that a chair flew across the room at my university. I wouldn't believe it, but what if they say that they had 4 eyewitnesses? Would I believe it then? Still no. This approach reveals how some of this evidence can only count as proof when it comes to proving that something didn't happen. For example, if someone said that the witnesses used common South African names in their accounts, then it wouldn't prove that a chair flew across the room, just that the authors know South African names. That is it. However, if the authors only used common Chinese names, it would be proof that they were lying. I hope it makes sense now how evidence can only count in one direction. So I hope it now makes sense to you why much of the evidence doesn't add anything at all, in my book. The little that is left after this, just isn't enough to convince me.

@waldo..8021 The 6 points you mention are not themselves the reasons for believing the resurrection happened. They are basic criteria for determining historical reliability of sources which demonstrate that the documents aren't frauds or forgeries. They alone do not prove the resurrection, but they do prove the NT documents to be historically reliable, on par with (or better than) most any other historical documentation, such that to just dismiss them is a level of skepticism that is without justification. The case for the resurrection comes when you start looking at the facts that can be gleaned from those sources and how you make sense of those facts. Jesus lived He was crucified under Pilate Buried in a tomb The tomb was later found empty His disciples claimed to have seen Jesus bodily alive after His death Even enemies and skeptics claims to have seen Him alive again The willingness of those making the claims to suffer shame, torture and death for something they would have known to be a lie - with not a single person recanting There are more, but that is enough to show that these puzzle pieces only go together one way, and that is the necessary conclusion that Jesus did indeed raise from the dead. Barring bias against the supernatural or irrational skepticism, there is no other conclusion that makes sense of all the data.

What does he get wrong?

There is no need to counter or rebuttal an exercise. The test is merely a tool that provides insight and helps with bias. You could apply the idea to any number of concepts and beliefs that you hold no matter the country or culture and come up with solid results. I think it would be the ultimate faith in Jesus to have the courage to examine your beliefs from all angles. If you are reluctant to look closely at the bible and what makes it true then I would say you aren't a true Christian. No one ever stopped believing in dinosaurs after becoming a paleontologist. @@PastorMarc

@RyanC232 I agree we should be willing to examine our beliefs. If that's all the Outsider Test was, then I would have no beef with it. I encourage and seek to equip people at my church to do exactly that. The point Cameron was making is that the Outsider Test, as defined by Loftus, is faulty reasoning. It's a bad method for doing that examination.

@@PastorMarc which part of the reasoning is fallacious or faulty in your opinion? Maybe I missed it.

@@RyanC232 IN the video he quotes Loftus and the criteria Loftus gives for judging beliefs: Number of Rational People Who Disagree, Geographic locations of those who Disagree, Nature of the beliefs, How the beliefs originated, How they were personally adopted, and types of evidence. Aside from that last one, the others all require reasoning in ways that commit logical fallacies.

CAN not? Limits on God's ability... ??

What's that mean?

It's a really good one. She lays out the causes of what is going on so clearly, and most (if not all) of the experts and witnesses cited are pro-LGBT people. For anyone wanting to understand the transgender movement, this book is required reading.

My pleasure. It's a great story.

I am curious if you actually watched the video? I only ask because it seems odd that, given what was discussed in it, you would frame the issue as "defending slavery". If you did not watch it, I would recommend that you do. If you did watch, I would ask, what problem you find with it. As I point out, backed up with Scripture, is that what we typically mean by "slavery" is indeed forbidden under OT Law.

@@PastorMarcall forms of slavery are evil. No matter how you slice it slavery is evil including the slavery practiced and condoned in the Bible. Like i said, the whole exercise where you’re performing mental gymnastics as to how this slavery is different from that slavery is completely non existent in the Zoroastrian religion because Ahura Mazda is unequivocally clear that ALL slavery is evil. There is no such proclamation in the Bible which is why you’re here doing this exercise where you put lipstick on your biblical slavery pig. Maybe one day the abrahmic religions will figure out what Zarathustra figured out thousands of years ago, all slavery and bondage is evil. But sadly in 2023 y’all are still hopelessly lost on the topic because you’re too busy trying to make your Iron Age mentality correct

Christ is King

Why is the explanation in the video not sufficient to show that it's not?

@@PastorMarcbecause the entire book is full of contradictions like these The father of Joseph is both Jacob and heli

@Naimedclaiming To date in my experience, every alleged contradiction "like these" has turned out to not be a contradiction at all when you look closer. Is there anything in particular about the analysis of this particular allegation I got wrong in the video?

Re Luke 1:25, the Greek word used there is "anthrópos" and just like our English Word "Men" it can refer specifically to males or generally to all people. Most likely that verse is referring to all people, not just men. And the feedings of the multitudes were 2 different events in 2 different places with different groups of people and different details to the stories. And I am not really sure what you are asking about the sending out of the 70 and the 12. Those are indeed 2 different events, and I believe the 70 came after the 12. Though I am not sure how long after without looking into a little, and I don't really have the time to do that today.

I am not sure what you are asking about being accurate or not? I do notice that in the original KJV it appears to name the man, Melzar, whereas in the NKJV it merely refers to him as a steward, not by name. Is that what you are referring to? If so, the issue is what the word actually means. מֶלְצָר (mel-tsawr') is an uncommon word. The KJV translators take it to be a name, but most scholars now think that it is actually a word meaning something like guardian or steward. The name of the office, not the person. In the Hebrew, the term actually has a definite article attached to it, so it really reads something more like "the melzar" - which is why most translations do not take it to be a name but a title or position, ie Steward/Guardian. But there are compelling arguments made on both sides.

@@PastorMarc hello and thank you so much for your quick response, and thank God Halleluja! Is the word "eunuchs" also correct or edited within Daniel 1:11

@@Indifferenceful As far as I know, "eunuchs" is correct. The word used there in the original is a foreign word, not native to Hebrew. As I understand it there is debate as to whether it literally means "eunuch" or if it is referring to court officials and "eunuch" is implied because in ancient times male court officials who worked around the King's harem would have been eunuchs. It can be difficult because in ancient languages, they had small vocabularies, and words often served a lot of different meanings depending on the context. I am not certain on the literal meaning of the word, but given that it is referring to male servants working around the king's harem, they almost certainly would have been eunuchs.

The word translated "refuse" is literally "dung". Different translations word that differently, I guess depending on how crude the translators want to be. I think the original author was intending to be fairly provocative by using crude language. Like the reference to "him that pisseth against the wall." The original Hebrew word used there does literally mean "to urinate," so it seems there was some colorful Israelite idiom being used to refer to men (since women do not "piss against a wall"). Again, most translators seem to want to soften the language and just put in "every male" instead of referring to bodily functions. "Every male" is the point, but I think there's a reason the author chose the more crude language, and we lose a bit of the meaning when we soften it. That's why I tend to prefer more literal word-for-word translations, but they can be a hard read since Hebrew doesn't always translate to English directly.

As a church, we give out a "read thru the Bible in a year" plan and encourage everyone to join in, many do. Also, presently on Sunday evenings our "evening service" is merely Bible reading. No sermon or lesson. We as a congregation just sit together to hear the Bible read at length. The point of this particular sermon was that it is important to do those things and know the whole Bible so that you can have a deeper understanding of an issue when questions or doubts come up, giving practical examples of how that thought process works. If there is a better way to make that point, I am always open to constructive criticism.

It is a reference to the shame of their wickedness being exposed. They stand (figuratively) naked for all to see.

@@PastorMarc Keep doing those mental gymnastics. Having sex and worshipping other gods makes their jealous king baby toddler god mad, so he shames them, or rapes them, or strips them. Or all three. Big baby temper tantrums. No wonder males are so violent and immature. They follow this crazy religion. Thank goodness Abrahamic religions are dying.