Indeed. However, as soon as religion is introduced the quality plummets as the comments are swamped by the online hordes of educational and intellectually sub-normal - 99% of whom are American with their laughable inability to provide any critical thinking, rationalism, proportion or even simple common sense.
I am a Christian because it allows me to answer 3 questions, with the smallest leaf of faith. 1. How do you get Something from Nothing? 2. How do you get Life from Non-Life? (most importantly) 3. What Happened To The Body (of Jesus)?
Ah, the common, 'argument from ignorance' combined with the 'argument from incredulity'. Try education, facts, reality, it's much more revealing and satisfying.
I like how he refers to his faith being based in the central Christian claims. All too often, we see hear and read of those who call themselves Christians but have manipulated to suit, for many different reasons, (but financial gain being a big one) true faith. In fact, the proliferation of such on RUclips is off the scale.
@@markwitcombe2119 Try justifying the comment - and my response to it instead of your vacuous and frankly puerile remarks (Ah, I see young Mark has since removed his comment)
Of course the HS revealed it. People are no way as rational as we pretend, and our bent is towards independence to which God is an impassible roadblock.
After 58 years....I still don't understand the concept of a god...? And how can we even begin to comprehend one's existence...but yet....we can make the rules and laws about this god? 8 billion of us...and not one of us has a clue....no one.....not one.......nobody.....nada.....zip.....We have no clue why we are here...and...we die.... are the only known facts.....Peace!
There are two different languages. There is the language of the atheist and there is the language of Yahweh. There is no communication between the two because the atheist does not want to communicate in the same way that Yahweh wants to communicate. For example, Yahweh says, “Let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet...” (Isaiah 1:18). The first thing on Yahweh's lists for discussion is your sin. However, for the atheist that topic is the last thing on the list. Also, it's not what you believe in, it's about what you love (Mark 12:33). The atheist's remedy to explain all his theories and to discredit the Genesis story is to add the construct of billions of years. But on the other hand, everything in Genesis is created in its adult form from the beginning. The trees, the animals, mankind are all created in their adult form. That also includes the universe. And an adult universe would and should appear to be billions of years old. Atheist do not understand that consciousness is not a chemical formula which could ever be created in a lab. When we talk about the elements we are talking about our experience of the elements through the miracle of consciousness. I would agree that the churches today are defective. In fact, the Apostle Paul pronounced a curse on most churches today because the main Christian denominations of today preach a different gospel than what Paul preached. To quote exactly what Paul said, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8). Both apostle Paul and Peter preached the same gospel and quote from the prophet Joel (2:32) saying, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved." (Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21). The English translations say “Lord” instead of “Yahweh.” But “Lord” does not translate “Yahweh” it is a substitution of a totally different word altogether. This substitution activates two additional curses because if you substitute a word you are both adding and subtracting at the same time. “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18, 19) We are commanded by Messiah that, “...repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47). In other words, we are supposed to preach the gospel that came out of Jerusalem and not preach the gospel that came out of Antioch, or Rome, or England, or New York, or Chicago, etc. By the time the gospel got to Antioch it had already been perverted as we read, “...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26). The problem with this is that YHWH spoke of a people called by His name (Deuteronomy 28:10; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Isaiah 43:6, 7; Daniel 9:19; Amos 9:12; Acts 15:17). YHWH did not choose the name “Christian” for Himself. The people of Antioch chose that name and all the so called main denominations of today embrace that name “Christian” for themselves. When Peter and Paul preached the gospel they quote the prophet Joel, “Whosoever shall call on the name of YHWH shall be saved.” (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). The English word "Lord" is not a translation for the name YHWH but is a substitution. I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none! Paul makes it very clear that the end result of him preaching the gospel was that the people would call on the name YHWH. He says in (Rom. 10:14,15), The preachers are sent. They preach. The people hear. The people believe. The people call on the name YHWH (Rom. 10:13). I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none! It took only one generation after the death of Joshua for the children of Israel to forget the mighty works of YHWH which He had worked through Moses and Joshua and to began to serve the idols of the people around them (Judges 2:7-13). It took only one generation. .....
I like what you have written. I have had brief thoughts about this myself, but haven't fully developed them as you have. It has bothered me that our English translation of the original documents have substituted His name with lord. I also think that the "gospel" I was taught wasn't the truth or partially true or half-truths mixed with corrupt motives. I left church many years ago, but I do continue to read the Bible, slowly, wanting to truly grasp and comprehend the true message from YHWH. "Repent, Believe, Follow" Yeshua.
All believers in heredity, and I am one of them as a Muslim, and when I grew up, I researched Islam (only) 😃 and made sure that it is true and the rest is false. If you want to be sure that you are right or not, you have to search in all religions and sects, and then we can say that you chose the correct one according to your understanding and conviction.
Weak argument, but fair belief. Most religions have weak arguments on logical basis, hence they are supplementing on faith alone. A bit disappointing to be honest, with all that buildup. I was expecting something more than I believe because I believe.
He says he was fully convinced of the resurrection and that the other central claims of Christianity are objective truth. That is 'I am convinced from objective reasons', not 'I believe because I believe'. He is responding to the question 'Why are you a Christian', not some other related followup question. What do you expect for 2 minutes?
@@davidhawley1132 Unfortunately. That is still a weak argument. Objective truth refers to something that has correspondence with reality and is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. And you measure that by consequences. If you jump out of an airplane that is flying at high altitude with no parachute and you land on concrete, gravity counts. Whether you believe in Appolo, Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha might matter to your state of mind.... just before impact. "He says he was fully convinced of the resurrection and that the other central claims of Christianity are objective truth." That's a good enough reason for him, but a weak argument for the rest of us, because not everyone believes the resurrection to be a physical phenomenon, but I'm sure many would acknowledge it as a matter of religious faith and one of the central aspects of Christian religious doctrine. "He is responding to the question, 'Why are you a Christian?" and not some other related follow-up question. What do you expect for two minutes? " I expected a more reasonable argument after his buildup. He said that he majored in philosophy in order to be a more effective Christian apologist and to understand other points of view. Great. But I would expect that someone who did that would have a more satisfying argument to make. His "reason" makes no difference from anyone else's for following some other religion. What I expect is that someone who has supposedly studied to be a Christian apologist will have stronger arguments and be more specific to the Christian faith than any other faith.
@@markwitcombe2119 That is not a satisfying reason for anyone else. It’s his personal belief? It’s a copout. I believe because I believe. A Muslim or communist can claim the same thing. I am a communist because....I am convinced of the religious doctrine. I man a Muslim because I'm convinced of religious doctrine. I am a Christian because I'm convinced of religious doctrine. That's not a satisfying reason. Why is he Christian and not a Muslim or Communist? What makes Christianity a faith worth following for him vs. the alternatives? That would be more satisfying answer. A small child when asked why are you a Christian would provide a similar answer? But he is not a small child, is he? And after claiming he went through all the trouble to be a Christian apologist, I would expect him to defend his position with little more vigor and intellectual merit than what he did.
@@markwitcombe2119 "The Resurrection of Christ preceded the doctrines concerning it. The First Believers in Christ had no doctrines to cause them to believe in the resurrection ( with the exception of Christ telling them that He would rise from the dead - which they seemed incomprehensible to them)" That sounds plausible, yes. "he question is: Is their any reason to accept the Biblical accounts of the Resurrection as reasonable or probable." I suppose it depends weather ones takes it literally or metaphorically and which parts. There is no evidence that resurrection is a real phenomenon, but in this context believing it could have happened would prompt someone to think of the person who has resurrected as more than mere human, would it not? On the other hand, from a theological point of view, it makes sense for the Christian doctrine that came in later years. But that took some time. "Of course if you take the attitude that the Bible is just a Book of Fairy Tales and not reliable History then I have nothing to offer you." No I don't. I am actually fascinated by the story of the bible and what the book has done for the people and civilization, but I don't take what is written in the Bible at face value. I don't even think all of it is meant to be taken at face value. The books of the Bible are full of cautionary tales, morality tales, collective human wisdom etc. They are often wrapped up in metaphor and myth, but beneath the surface there is a lot the Book offers. And clearly it has been a big influence directly and indirectly to millions of people over more than 2000 years. If the book was fairy tale with no value, it would not be so influential. Someone said. Fiction is a lie. Good fiction is truth hidden inside a lie. While I don't think all of the Bible is equally well authored, being a collection of many books and many authors one should not be surprised at varying degree of quality of the writing and many motives incorporated into the Bible. After all there are at least three Bibles and corresponding canon. The Catholic version the Orthodox version and the Protestant version. Beyond the parts that are the same, there are differences corresponding to the interest of the different branches of the Christian religion. For me personally, like I said, I am fascinated by the story of the Bible, more than the stories in the Bible itself. Those have been copied by others or can be found in other religions, like for example Hebrew Bible is more or less the old testament, so Christian Bibles are not entirely unique. What is unique is the influence Christian Bible had over such a long period of time on so many people and civilizations.
@@markwitcombe2119 " Do you think you could convince me in under 4 minutes why Atheism is true without making reference to subjective experience or the lack thereof ) ? " Convince you? I don't know how interested you are to be convinced. By the vibe of your question, I would say no. Because you already are a believer, are you not? Also, your premise for the question is a strange one. Nonsensical, really. Atheism is not a matter of truth, it’s a lack of belief in a supernatural or a deity. In other words, it’s a personal matter, not objective truth. Weather someone believes in a deity or not, does not change reality, only the person’s perception of it. Also atheism is not a religion, nor does it tell you anything about what a person believes in. Only what one does not believe in. Also atheism should not be mistaken with anti-theism. A common problem, atheists face.
The whole notion of Christianity is based on the need for a sacrificial savior..... No such idea is in the Torah. This begs the question, what sort of perverted god would need such a method for forgiveness of sin. = A pagan god. The God of the Hebrew Bible revealed to the Israelites and Prophets that His main objective in all His revelations was ethical behavior.
Why are the Israelites so bad at it? "There is no one who is righteous" 1 Kings 8. The NT was written almost entirely by Jews, not pagans. The vast majority of the heroes of the TaNaK have terrible failures. Also, the use of blood for atonement is all over Leviticus, and the Prophet Isaiah says that the messiah (introduced in chapter 11) will be a suffering servant (chapter 53). Many of the great heroes of the TaNaK are suffering servants who end up exalted and able to forgive others (Job, Daniel, Joseph, and David, just to name a few).
Here is an hypothesis. In the year 2323 There will be people like this man. Saying exactly the same thing he is saying now. The only difference we will have better technology.
@@Tinker1950 Your response indicates you're some kind of believer. Your writing very simple in brackets. Appears to be a mild insult. 'Hypothesis' has been described this way. 'supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence.'
@@billyroland2758 1. I fail to see any connection between my comment and your 'hypothesis' that I might be a believer (I'm a staunch atheist) 2. Merely making a statement or voicing an opinion hardly qualifies as an hypothesis - the word implies a quality of introspection and thought.
@@Tinker1950 What's your opinion of this Even simpler comment, In reference to the video? 'My guess is, In the year 2323 There will be people like this man. Saying exactly the same thing he is saying now. The only difference we will have better technology.
I don't understand why it is ok for powerful, influential and occasionally intelligent people to walk around saying they believe in a talking dead guy. But the guy holding a sign saying "The end is nigh" is off his meds? These people are completely unspooled, ANY other context and they are in a cell with padded walls. It's ridiculous we even listen to them.
@@PerversePoster : And: fyi: nearly 90% of the global population believe in God. Furthermore: the global population of atheists is shrinking. So I guess you are in the extreme minority. There is a reason for that. Continue with your search for truth. The only way to The Father is through Jesus. ✝️
@@mimilong3817 Religion, as it stands, is nothing but the refuge of a weak mind unable to reconcile existence without some concept of a higher power. If any proof is ever found I'll beat you to the front row on Sunday. Till then you've got less than a leg to stand on.
@@markwitcombe2119 they both entertain and integrate religion into public discourse. "Sirs" is accurate. I don't care why he believes that he is Christian. It is irrelevant.
Wilson fails to answer the core question? Simply put, a genuine Christian is someone born from beyond by God’s Spirit. Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John.
Yes. Simple rock bottom truth that I believe too.
Jesus is Lord.
Really?
And you 'know' how?
What evidence do you have?
I'm assuming you're familiar with the definitions of know and evidence?
Kathy:
Amen sister.🙏 100% Truth.
Jesus is Lord.✝️
Absolutely.
The content on this channel is of the highest quality.
Agreed
Indeed.
However, as soon as religion is introduced the quality plummets as the comments are swamped by the online hordes of educational and intellectually sub-normal - 99% of whom are American with their laughable inability to provide any critical thinking, rationalism, proportion or even simple common sense.
Hallelujah Jesus Christ is Lord ❤
A great conversation. Very much needed in the world today. Thank you. Cheers John Anderson, Sir! 😊
Beautiful
I am a Christian because it allows me to answer 3 questions, with the smallest leaf of faith.
1. How do you get Something from Nothing?
2. How do you get Life from Non-Life?
(most importantly)
3. What Happened To The Body (of Jesus)?
Ah, the common, 'argument from ignorance' combined with the 'argument from incredulity'.
Try education, facts, reality, it's much more revealing and satisfying.
These questions are not relevant to the here and now and even if they were, you still haven't answered them. Stop trying. Move on.
💫✨Jesus is my Lord and Savior✨💫✝️
I like how he refers to his faith being based in the central Christian claims. All too often, we see hear and read of those who call themselves Christians but have manipulated to suit, for many different reasons, (but financial gain being a big one) true faith. In fact, the proliferation of such on RUclips is off the scale.
How to prepare our youth and children for the rite of passage which God willing we will all face ....
Excellent, although the real reason is that God through the Holy Spirit revealed these truths to him
Really?
Then why did Allah not do the same?
@@markwitcombe2119 Try justifying the comment - and my response to it instead of your vacuous and frankly puerile remarks
(Ah, I see young Mark has since removed his comment)
Of course the HS revealed it. People are no way as rational as we pretend, and our bent is towards independence to which God is an impassible roadblock.
Doug sounds like a good Arminian that glorifies himself. A real Christian is chosen by God.
Amen
After 58 years....I still don't understand the concept of a god...? And how can we even begin to comprehend one's existence...but yet....we can make the rules and laws about this god? 8 billion of us...and not one of us has a clue....no one.....not one.......nobody.....nada.....zip.....We have no clue why we are here...and...we die.... are the only known facts.....Peace!
@@markwitcombe2119 How many gods are there?
There are two different languages. There is the language of the atheist and there is the language of Yahweh. There is no communication between the two because the atheist does not want to communicate in the same way that Yahweh wants to communicate. For example, Yahweh says, “Let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet...” (Isaiah 1:18). The first thing on Yahweh's lists for discussion is your sin. However, for the atheist that topic is the last thing on the list. Also, it's not what you believe in, it's about what you love (Mark 12:33).
The atheist's remedy to explain all his theories and to discredit the Genesis story is to add the construct of billions of years. But on the other hand, everything in Genesis is created in its adult form from the beginning. The trees, the animals, mankind are all created in their adult form. That also includes the universe. And an adult universe would and should appear to be billions of years old.
Atheist do not understand that consciousness is not a chemical formula which could ever be created in a lab. When we talk about the elements we are talking about our experience of the elements through the miracle of consciousness.
I would agree that the churches today are defective. In fact, the Apostle Paul pronounced a curse on most churches today because the main Christian denominations of today preach a different gospel than what Paul preached. To quote exactly what Paul said, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8). Both apostle Paul and Peter preached the same gospel and quote from the prophet Joel (2:32) saying, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved." (Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21). The English translations say “Lord” instead of “Yahweh.” But “Lord” does not translate “Yahweh” it is a substitution of a totally different word altogether. This substitution activates two additional curses because if you substitute a word you are both adding and subtracting at the same time. “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18, 19)
We are commanded by Messiah that, “...repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47). In other words, we are supposed to preach the gospel that came out of Jerusalem and not preach the gospel that came out of Antioch, or Rome, or England, or New York, or Chicago, etc. By the time the gospel got to Antioch it had already been perverted as we read, “...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26). The problem with this is that YHWH spoke of a people called by His name (Deuteronomy 28:10; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Isaiah 43:6, 7; Daniel 9:19; Amos 9:12; Acts 15:17). YHWH did not choose the name “Christian” for Himself. The people of Antioch chose that name and all the so called main denominations of today embrace that name “Christian” for themselves. When Peter and Paul preached the gospel they quote the prophet Joel, “Whosoever shall call on the name of YHWH shall be saved.” (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). The English word "Lord" is not a translation for the name YHWH but is a substitution. I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none!
Paul makes it very clear that the end result of him preaching the gospel was that the people would call on the name YHWH. He says in (Rom. 10:14,15), The preachers are sent. They preach. The people hear. The people believe. The people call on the name YHWH (Rom. 10:13). I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none!
It took only one generation after the death of Joshua for the children of Israel to forget the mighty works of YHWH which He had worked through Moses and Joshua and to began to serve the idols of the people around them (Judges 2:7-13). It took only one generation.
.....
I like what you have written. I have had brief thoughts about this myself, but haven't fully developed them as you have. It has bothered me that our English translation of the original documents have substituted His name with lord. I also think that the "gospel" I was taught wasn't the truth or partially true or half-truths mixed with corrupt motives. I left church many years ago, but I do continue to read the Bible, slowly, wanting to truly grasp and comprehend the true message from YHWH. "Repent, Believe, Follow" Yeshua.
All believers in heredity, and I am one of them as a Muslim, and when I grew up, I researched Islam (only) 😃 and made sure that it is true and the rest is false. If you want to be sure that you are right or not, you have to search in all religions and sects, and then we can say that you chose the correct one according to your understanding and conviction.
I am a Christian because God made one.
Doug gives himself the glory of why he is a Christian.
Any “Christian “ who supports Trump has departed company wit common sense, a faith that is true and worth having and the transcendent.
Weak argument, but fair belief. Most religions have weak arguments on logical basis, hence they are supplementing on faith alone. A bit disappointing to be honest, with all that buildup. I was expecting something more than I believe because I believe.
He says he was fully convinced of the resurrection and that the other central claims of Christianity are objective truth. That is 'I am convinced from objective reasons', not 'I believe because I believe'.
He is responding to the question 'Why are you a Christian', not some other related followup question. What do you expect for 2 minutes?
@@davidhawley1132 Unfortunately. That is still a weak argument.
Objective truth refers to something that has correspondence with reality and is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. And you measure that by consequences.
If you jump out of an airplane that is flying at high altitude with no parachute and you land on concrete, gravity counts. Whether you believe in Appolo, Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha might matter to your state of mind.... just before impact.
"He says he was fully convinced of the resurrection and that the other central claims of Christianity are objective truth."
That's a good enough reason for him, but a weak argument for the rest of us, because not everyone believes the resurrection to be a physical phenomenon, but I'm sure many would acknowledge it as a matter of religious faith and one of the central aspects of Christian religious doctrine.
"He is responding to the question, 'Why are you a Christian?" and not some other related follow-up question. What do you expect for two minutes? "
I expected a more reasonable argument after his buildup. He said that he majored in philosophy in order to be a more effective Christian apologist and to understand other points of view. Great. But I would expect that someone who did that would have a more satisfying argument to make. His "reason" makes no difference from anyone else's for following some other religion. What I expect is that someone who has supposedly studied to be a Christian apologist will have stronger arguments and be more specific to the Christian faith than any other faith.
@@markwitcombe2119 That is not a satisfying reason for anyone else. It’s his personal belief? It’s a copout. I believe because I believe. A Muslim or communist can claim the same thing. I am a communist because....I am convinced of the religious doctrine. I man a Muslim because I'm convinced of religious doctrine. I am a Christian because I'm convinced of religious doctrine. That's not a satisfying reason. Why is he Christian and not a Muslim or Communist? What makes Christianity a faith worth following for him vs. the alternatives? That would be more satisfying answer.
A small child when asked why are you a Christian would provide a similar answer? But he is not a small child, is he? And after claiming he went through all the trouble to be a Christian apologist, I would expect him to defend his position with little more vigor and intellectual merit than what he did.
@@markwitcombe2119 "The Resurrection of Christ preceded the doctrines concerning it. The First Believers in Christ had no doctrines to cause them to believe in the resurrection ( with the exception of Christ telling them that He would rise from the dead - which they seemed incomprehensible to them)"
That sounds plausible, yes.
"he question is: Is their any reason to accept the Biblical accounts of the Resurrection as reasonable or probable."
I suppose it depends weather ones takes it literally or metaphorically and which parts. There is no evidence that resurrection is a real phenomenon, but in this context believing it could have happened would prompt someone to think of the person who has resurrected as more than mere human, would it not? On the other hand, from a theological point of view, it makes sense for the Christian doctrine that came in later years. But that took some time.
"Of course if you take the attitude that the Bible is just a Book of Fairy Tales and not reliable History then I have nothing to offer you."
No I don't. I am actually fascinated by the story of the bible and what the book has done for the people and civilization, but I don't take what is written in the Bible at face value. I don't even think all of it is meant to be taken at face value. The books of the Bible are full of cautionary tales, morality tales, collective human wisdom etc. They are often wrapped up in metaphor and myth, but beneath the surface there is a lot the Book offers. And clearly it has been a big influence directly and indirectly to millions of people over more than 2000 years. If the book was fairy tale with no value, it would not be so influential.
Someone said. Fiction is a lie. Good fiction is truth hidden inside a lie. While I don't think all of the Bible is equally well authored, being a collection of many books and many authors one should not be surprised at varying degree of quality of the writing and many motives incorporated into the Bible. After all there are at least three Bibles and corresponding canon. The Catholic version the Orthodox version and the Protestant version. Beyond the parts that are the same, there are differences corresponding to the interest of the different branches of the Christian religion.
For me personally, like I said, I am fascinated by the story of the Bible, more than the stories in the Bible itself. Those have been copied by others or can be found in other religions, like for example Hebrew Bible is more or less the old testament, so Christian Bibles are not entirely unique. What is unique is the influence Christian Bible had over such a long period of time on so many people and civilizations.
@@markwitcombe2119 " Do you think you could convince me in under 4 minutes why Atheism is true without making reference to subjective experience or the lack thereof ) ? "
Convince you? I don't know how interested you are to be convinced. By the vibe of your question, I would say no. Because you already are a believer, are you not?
Also, your premise for the question is a strange one. Nonsensical, really. Atheism is not a matter of truth, it’s a lack of belief in a supernatural or a deity. In other words, it’s a personal matter, not objective truth. Weather someone believes in a deity or not, does not change reality, only the person’s perception of it.
Also atheism is not a religion, nor does it tell you anything about what a person believes in. Only what one does not believe in. Also atheism should not be mistaken with anti-theism. A common problem, atheists face.
Weakest argument I've ever heard
The whole notion of Christianity is based on the need for a sacrificial savior..... No such idea is in the Torah.
This begs the question, what sort of perverted god would need such a method for forgiveness of sin. = A pagan god.
The God of the Hebrew Bible revealed to the Israelites and Prophets that His main objective in all His revelations was ethical behavior.
Jesus is my Lord and Savior.✝️
Why are the Israelites so bad at it? "There is no one who is righteous" 1 Kings 8. The NT was written almost entirely by Jews, not pagans. The vast majority of the heroes of the TaNaK have terrible failures. Also, the use of blood for atonement is all over Leviticus, and the Prophet Isaiah says that the messiah (introduced in chapter 11) will be a suffering servant (chapter 53). Many of the great heroes of the TaNaK are suffering servants who end up exalted and able to forgive others (Job, Daniel, Joseph, and David, just to name a few).
boom
Here is an hypothesis.
In the year 2323
There will be people like this man. Saying exactly the same thing he is saying now.
The only difference we will have better technology.
Actually, that is not an hypothesis, it's a simple (very simple) statement.
@@Tinker1950
Your response indicates you're some kind of believer.
Your writing very simple in brackets.
Appears to be a mild insult.
'Hypothesis' has been described this way.
'supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence.'
@@billyroland2758
1. I fail to see any connection between my comment and your 'hypothesis' that I might be a believer (I'm a staunch atheist)
2. Merely making a statement or voicing an opinion hardly qualifies as an hypothesis - the word implies a quality of introspection and thought.
@@Tinker1950
What's your opinion of this
Even simpler comment,
In reference to the video?
'My guess is,
In the year 2323
There will be people like this man.
Saying exactly the same thing he is saying now.
The only difference we will have better technology.
@@billyroland2758
Perfect - and it'll keep pedantic farts of the old school like me very happy.
I don't understand why it is ok for powerful, influential and occasionally intelligent people to walk around saying they believe in a talking dead guy.
But the guy holding a sign saying "The end is nigh" is off his meds? These people are completely unspooled, ANY other context and they are in a cell with padded walls.
It's ridiculous we even listen to them.
Of the 7.4 billion people on planet earth, 2.5 billion of them are Christian. That 33% of the entire world population.
@@mimilong3817 And? 1/3 morons? Sounds about right to me.
@@PerversePoster :
You are the one who calls yourself Perverse.
@@PerversePoster :
And: fyi: nearly 90% of the global population believe in God. Furthermore: the global population of atheists is shrinking.
So I guess you are in the extreme minority. There is a reason for that.
Continue with your search for truth.
The only way to The Father is through Jesus. ✝️
@@mimilong3817 Religion, as it stands, is nothing but the refuge of a weak mind unable to reconcile existence without some concept of a higher power. If any proof is ever found I'll beat you to the front row on Sunday. Till then you've got less than a leg to stand on.
R O C K
These words are sick, shallow, and meaningless to humanity. You are lost sirs.
"You are lost sir' - singular.
It was only one man, a singular man justifying his ridiculous beliefs.
@@Tinker1950 how do you mean your comment. Please explain.
@@markwitcombe2119 they both entertain and integrate religion into public discourse. "Sirs" is accurate. I don't care why he believes that he is Christian. It is irrelevant.
@@markwitcombe2119
Troll - a word used to deflect dialogue away from a sensitive or uncomfortable topic.
@@blakejameson1114 Is your English that bad?
Jesus died to restore relationship which was lost with The Father by His Spirit.
stop messing with your mouth
Wilson fails to answer the core question? Simply put, a genuine Christian is someone born from beyond by God’s Spirit. Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John.