Her name was Tabitha Dorcas. Her NAME was Tabitha Dorcas. (Acts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- It’s been all about Saul for quite a while, but now Luke turns his attention back to Peter who’s in the middle of a road trip to check in on the Christians in Lydda. There’s a guy there who can’t walk, so Peter does what Peter does, and then the ante gets upped when an important woman in the church dies and people ask Peter to swing by and see what he can do. Normally the lame guy would stay lame, and the dead lady would stay dead, but strange things were afoot in Judea.
![ARGENTINA vs. CHILE [3-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 7](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/De3AWmXzhuA/mqdefault.jpg)
Iam tabitha. Same as written in bible, 5 years ago My life was hell.I stop going on church,lost concentration on study, failed board exam,lost hope, got depressed,tried to suicide..but Some how I realized God is the only way to get ride from hell.then I prayed a lot, cried,and began to go church..and now Iam graduated ..thank you God for everything...
Loved this presentation 👏
God bless thanks for sharing.
Oh my goodness, the death of Dorcas who everyone liked, followed by the epic fail music from Price is Right... I couldn't stop giggling and had to rewind to watch again as my family looked at me like I was from outer space. But also lent itself to great conversation afterward. Thanks Matt. We are enjoying this study.
+Scott McCausey I laughed myself silly over that in editing. Very glad it worked for you and provided an educational opportunity for your kids. Most the jokes I think of in filming and editing I end up talking myself out of. Glad this one made the cut :)
I busted a gut too. Sad that a death is so funny.
Never stop, dude, your material is comedy/theology gold.
I think it's good this guy is doing this, I couldn't do this nearly as lovingly as this guy.
Haha 😆 Dorcas, I go by Koidis now. Thanks for the video 🙏
LOL poor lady, Great video thank you. God Bless
I've never responded to a death announcement with laughter...thanks for that.
You really need to watch Larkrise to Candleford...can be found on PBS or Britbox. Just read this passage this morning very uplifting.
Great explanation 🙏👍
Love it...I enjoy your videos, keep it up!
+Transformational Student Life I appreciate it greatly - thanks!
I like how you almost said what your hometown was lol
The Dorcas jokes were killing meh 😂😭
Great video, as always :)
It is a rite of passage for all who grow up in an English speaking church to laugh at the name Dorcas
+James Craver I've got a few other things on that rite of passage list from growing up in an English speaking church. I'll omit them for the time being.
Excuse me! My name is Tabitha and it is a good name!!
Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen
I like the sound effects :). And there are people in this day and age with the name Dorcas, believe it or not.
Koketso Setlhodi in the Spanish church the dorcas are the ladies group name 👍
Looking down at some of the comments is genuinely making me cringe.
The stunted mentality and maturity with out the integrity to look at Scripture through unbiased lenses is very apparent.
I too since around 8 or 9 and more openly at age 12 would also call the Bible the “biggest fairy tale ever told/sold” and I habitually see Anti-theist/Atheist regurgitating things I myself use too say with out any interaction
Well done.
I came here for sermon inspiration. I left absolutely livid that M. Night’s live action ATLA was on anyone’s top movie list.... even as a joke 😡
First time reading the Bible(like actually reading it not just starting and giving up. So far*).
Me @3:56 is me all the time. Lol
I'm still struggling with your shirt choices...It seems like it would make more sense if @ 8:00 instead of "of course news spread" you said "The 'Heard it Through the Grapevine'" --Just sayin :D
Ahhhh Dorcas Tabatha, the first sewing Designer, of the Bible.Why has her sewing talents not been mentioned. Also all the beautiful garments she made for the poor and orphans.This was a vital part of her recognition.
I dont agree with the casual way Dorcas Tabatha, has been portrayed in this naff video
was Tabitha in Heaven while she was dead .. She died after the death and resurrection of Jesus
The Bible clearly states that the dead are asleep and not in heaven. Can you just imagine how upsetting it would be if you died and went to heaven and then someone came and resurrected you and brought you back down to this awful planet and you were forced to leave heaven?! I would have been totally upset. And by the way my name is Tabitha.
If I define God, is he a god worth worshiping? But if God defines me, why would I not worship him?
What is that on Reagan's face?
In this video, you mention tenminutebiblehour.com which no longer seems to be extant. Are you still doing the show in podcast form? Where?
worstchristianever.com
I don't know of any New Testament scholar who takes Acts as face-value history since it contradicts Paul's authentic letters at every turn. It's a historical fiction, from contradicting Paul in 1 Thessalonians as to whom he was with(out) when he was in Athens, through contradicting Paul in Galatians as to his meeting up (or not) with the apostles right after his "vision", right up to contradicting what Paul actually preached in his authentic letters. So why would you even take supernatural claims in a hagiography like that seriously?
+wimsweden Then respectfully, you don't know many New Testament scholars. The Pauline epistles don't contradict Acts at "every turn." That's a gross exaggeration on your part, but you're correct in pointing out that there are about half a dozen points of tension between the narratives. Few dispute that, but tension doesn't necessarily mean overt contradiction and lies. We don't think like that about other aspects of communication and history.
In the tensions you mention, there's no necessary contradiction regarding Timothy's whereabouts during the second missionary journey. We know he was in Berea and Thessalonica at least once, but there's no reason to think he wouldn't have been there twice which would completely explain the timelines in a reasonable way. A huge amount of time passed between Saul's conversion and his effective start in the ministry capacity for which he's known. He clearly did interact with other Christians but the heart of Paul's point has to do with receiving extended instruction from them. We've no record one way or the other on that point. Paul's theology is steady throughout the New Testament, although we do see him instruct Timothy to be circumcised even after teaching it wasn't necessary for salvation. Is that a contradiction or a practical strategic move between Paul and Timothy? People differ on that point. Could some of these tensions be more than tensions and even out and out contradictions between two accounts? Yep. I don't see it that way, but I acknowledge the possibility and my faith won't instantly crumble if the evidence ends up pointing me in the direction of seeing this differently than I see it right now at some point down the road.
I've read your comments, and I get the drill. You don't think there's a God. Cool. Lot's of people don't think that, and I don't find it threatening or problematic. Where I disagree with your approach more though is your assumption that only the sources you like seem to count, and only the critical reads that fit your presuppositions seem to count. I like the Bible and find it interesting and compelling, but I'm an historian by training and by trade (for big chunks of my life) and part of the reason I'm a Christian is that Luke's work stacks up so comparatively well considered in it's classical historiographic context.
Hi +The Ten Minute Bible Hour (Not sure what your actual name is),
Thanks for the response and thanks for not finding me "threatening or problematic". Here are my responses to some of your responses:
You say: "but tension doesn't necessarily mean overt contradiction and lies." Come on. Take Paul's first visit to Jerusalem. According to Acts that happened "many days" after his conversion when he had to escape from Damascus, after having consulted and lived with disciples like Ananias there, and flee to Jerusalem where he was introduced to the apostles by Barnabas (also called an apostle in Acts). In Galatians, on the other hand, after his “revelation” Paul explicitly says he did not consult with any “human being" (contradicting the story in Acts of him meeting with the Damascus disciples) and went to Arabia, later returned to Damascus and then three years after that went to Jerusalem and only stayed there for fifteen days and only met Cephas and James the Brother of Jesus (Cephas is claimed to be one of the original twelve, but James, like Barnabas, was not).
“We don't think like that about other aspects of communication and history.” Are you an inerrantist concerning the writings we're discussing here? If so, are you an inerrantist about any other communication in history?
“Where I disagree with your approach more though is your assumption that only the sources you like seem to count, and only the critical reads that fit your presuppositions seem to count.”Do you mean ancient sources? I only compared stories in the bible (Paul's letters vs. Acts). I’m not sure what sources I’m “liking”. What are my presuppositions? Aren’t they the same as yours? In this video and in the other one of yours I’ve watched, you explicitly state that we don’t see these kinds of miraculous events today (I wonder why?). We both have
the presupposition that any story that claims a miracle should be read very critically, so why would you suddenly believe miracles happened based on one particular brand of ancient hearsay that is indistinguishable from any other kind of ancient hearsay that includes miracle claims (which you presumably don’t believe either)?
“Luke's work stacks up so comparatively well considered in [its] classical historiographic context.”I think we would both agree that many scholars in the field (we can disagree on how many or which scholars should be taken seriously) think Acts is largely a historical fiction that should be taken with an incredible grain of salt, right? So an all-powerful being that is by necessity also a perfect communicator didn't inspire any better than a text that elicits a "Meh, kinda looks like other stuff written back then…" and "No way this happened!" from experts in the field in terms of historical reliability. Plus, there are works that stack up much better than Acts in terms of the historical methodology of the ancient author, right? Do you believe non-Christian miracle claims in those accounts? Why be less critical about Acts in this context unless you’re working with a presupposition that anything contained in the collection of books referred to as the bible is the exception? I don't have a different presupposition from you with regard to ancient sources generally, I'm just being consistent.
Wim
+wimsweden Again, your arguments make it clear that you've been very selective in which sources you've consulted. By sources I don't mean primary sources (of course we're both looking at the same source material), I mean secondary and tertiary sources offering cumulative research on the subject. You're only familiar with fringe liberal of criticism and unfamiliar with any other type of scholarship.
There's no necessary contradiction between Luke's account and Paul's account in Galatians 1 regarding the aftermath of his conversion. It's not even a particularly complex micro-tension at that. The two authors are making completely different points to completely different audiences who are asking completely different questions. Luke would have included details where Paul preached or founded churches because that was what Luke was interested in as an historian of the early church. Luke doesn't chronicle Paul, he chronicles the advent of the church and Paul happens to come up a lot in the process. Paul isn't writing a history to the Galatians, rather he's asserting his credibility be relaying to them events that show God was specifically instructive in his life after his conversion. Luke would have no use for details about Paul praying and reflecting in the Arabian desert for an extended period of time especially because something much more significant to his historical thesis was happening between Peter and Cornelius. The aspects of the story each include makes sense given their literary objective.
Again, in your final paragraph you reference critics you like, ascribe to them correctness and consensus while ignoring the masses on the other side of the issue, and then (citing only people you like) pronounce Acts an historical fiction that clearly demonstrates God to be fake or a bad author. That's hubris.
I think most miraculous claims are shady today because they don't happen publicly and can't be vetted. I think the miraculous claims in Acts are more credible even though they happened a long time ago because they were public and vettable. I'm unpersuaded by dismissing all the witness accounts from the 1st century on the grounds that everyone was just very dumb then.
The dividing line for me is the credibility of the claim not whether it's recorded in a book I like. I clearly don't claim to be able to tame, explain, or ultimately adjudicate the details of any miraculous claim, but I do have a framework that's more developed than just arbitrarily picking ones I like, and I cover that at length in the video I just did on miracles.
That is assuming that any of this stuff in your book of myths and fables and Chinese whispers is real. Also you can see videos of Peter Popoff here on youtube "healing" people left right and centre, and people believed that filthy con artist.
I believe there is a special place in eternity for Peter popoff. I have friends who have given thousands to him. He sent them letters and magic dirt and magic paper shoes and promised that unbelievable wealth was just around the corner. Kind of a get rich quick scheme but used the bible. I understand your skepticism about the bible, and I'd even agree that the old testament, while true, is not literal. Obi wan Kenobi told Luke "many of the truths we cling to depend on your point of view" when Luke found out Vader was his father, but was told that Vader killed his father. If you read the new testament however, I think you'll find that it's very credible, even literal, except when Jesus is obviously speaking metaphorically. Many stories are told by different people with slight variations, much like 3 different people describing a car accident. Different people see different things, emphasizing different areas, but tell the same story. Also, look at his 3 part videos about outside sources of the bible. Of course some people don't believe we went to the moon, so I don't know where you'll stand, but at least read the new testament and decide for yourself. The second half are actually letters, and not a narrative about something that happened, so it's hard to deny their authenticity. I actually grew up in a church but didn't realize that I didn't have a clue until I read the whole bible and actually studied the new testament. Good luck man!
+Andy Jones I do not believe there is *special* place for all eternity for Peter Popoff because I do not believe in infinite punishment for a finite crime like most of Christians are made to believe.
1 Corinthians 6:9
*9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous 2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality 3*
Your new testament is no better than the old. It is all a *man* made myth/fairy tale and you are lying to your self if you believe that it is coming from a omni-benevolent/omnipotent creator of the universe.
***** personally I don't believe God "sends people to "hell" in the literal lake of fire sense. Hell was literally a garbage heap that was burned. I believe hell is simply God letting people decide to reject Him, so the person is cut off from God eternally. This certainly doesn't seem like a bad thing for the atheist, since they don't believe there's a god anyway. On earth, God loves us all more than we can know, even the murderer, rapist, or Marilyn Manson! He never gives up on us, brings good out of bad situations, etc. When He turns His back on the unbelievers, it will be torture. Don't ask me to explain how the afterlife works. Beats me. It seems to me that the idea of God existing would be very compatible with science. In the interest in keeping this a reasonable length, I'll save the science for another post. These videos make an excellent case for the new testament being true from a historical, human perspective. I can't imagine all of the disciples being willingly tortured and murdered for a lie. All they had to do is say "Jesus didn't really rise from the dead" and they'd be living the good life!
As for your verse, its used by hypocrites that want to point to homosexuals. But let's look at the next 2 verses.
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
I hope it makes sense now. That list covers everybody! I'm innocent of the homosexual one but pretty sure I could put a checkmark next to the rest of them. The point is, we're all sinners who could never earn our way to heaven. Its only because of the sacrifice of Jesus that we have hope. The consequence of sin is death and separation from God, but God gave us a way out in accepting Jesus's sacrifice. It has nothing to do with what we do, rather what we believe(although belief compels us to be obedient)
Andy Jones
"Revelation 14:10-11
10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
Revelation 20:10 “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”
Revelation 20:14 “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”
Revelation 20:15 “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Luke 16:23 “And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.”
Luke 16:24 “And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.”
"so the person is cut off from God eternally."
In Psalm 139:8, David says to God, “If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.” Kinda hard to cut someone off from god when he is supposed to be everywhere, literally.
"When He turns His back on the unbelievers, it will be torture." I did not exist for the first ~14,5 billion years in this universe. I did not suffer, feel pain, anguish or anything. But you say that it will be torture for all eternity after I die. That is fuc*ed up on so many levels.
"Don't ask me to explain how the afterlife works. Beats me." Well you might want to find out, because you want to spend an eternity there and you don't even know what it will be like.
"It seems to me that the idea of God existing would be very compatible with science." Science works perfectly fine with out a god or god's.
"I can't imagine all of the disciples being willingly tortured and murdered for a lie. All they had to do is say "Jesus didn't really rise from the dead" and they'd be living the good life!" Not the first nor the last cultist to die for their crazy beliefs.
No it does not. Lumping of homosexuals in with criminals, alcoholics and the like is despicable. All it does is show that the bible was written by ignorant iron/bronze age desert dwelling men.
***** I figured I should respond. That was a good well thought out post. As you know, revelation is figurative. Whether or not it's a literal fire or its just describing the torture in a Godless existence I don't know. I don't believe in a literal heaven in the clouds where we learn to play harps or an underground fire where we swim laps with a guy with horns and pointy tail. As for David, I'll have to look into that. I always thought hell was a new testament concept, and David was referring to hard times and rough parts of life. After all, these were songs written by David, who was an adulterer and murderer in addition to being a king and definitely experienced "hell on earth". I never just pull out verses to prove points, because that's what a lot of hypocritical people do to prove they're right and you're wrong (the homosexual verse for example), but I try to understand context. (I'm not accusing you of this, I understand you're making a biblical case). Luke mentions hell too. I also believe this is figurative and it's why I think hell is without God. He's begging for water but gets nothing. On earth, you can be an atheist and when tragedy comes, you can call out to God and He'll be there for you. Hell is when you call out and are ignored. I know it sounds like I'm just interpreting the bible any way I see fit, but it actually comes from a lot of reading, studying and thinking. The bible is so metaphorical that the Jews didn't even recognize Jesus as the messiah because they were expecting a warrior. Paul called himself the worst sinner that ever lived, yet he was probably the greatest Christian. He told Timothy to drink wine to help his stomach. Obviously this doesn't sound like the "word of God". God didn't put people in a trance and control the pen. He simply used people and inspired them to write. Paul spent most of his time in prison getting beat, which had to suck, but if he wasn't, we'd be missing half the new testament because he wouldn't have wrote any letters. He said women shouldn't speak in church too. But it was written to a church in a time when women speaking would've been disrespectful. Context is very important. This is my own opinion here and not normal Christian view, but maybe a homosexual to Paul was a guy banging another guy at the public bath, showing no morals at all and just being a lustful disgrace. I honestly don't know, but he was equating homosexuality with sex outside of marriage (adultery) which seems fair since they couldn't be married anyway! If you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, and homosexuals weren't married, then it was wrong, but not any more wrong than sex outside of marriage, which I'm guilty of hundreds of times over.
As for the afterlife, I have no problem not knowing. The problem is when people think they have to know and make stuff up, like purgatory(a great money making scheme) or Mormon heavens with secret handshakes. When science talks about infinite universes, parallel dimensions, quantum entanglement (my brain abd consciousness could be linked somewhere else, etc, I can only guess where heaven is. I think hell is probably right here though.
I know this is long and you probably wanted something more than my personal opinions and interpretation but that's all I got. Its just a matter of faith. We're pretty clueless despite our arrogance. Oh, and yeah, people do die all the time for beliefs, but these were eye witnesses telling people what they saw, not people who just believed something. If they didn't see Jesus return from the dead, they wouldn't lie and be tortured and killed for a fake. So at minimum, they believed they saw him. I don't know how you could be wrong about your best friend coming back from the dead and hanging out with you and eating with you. All they had to do was deny it.
No, you didn't exist, but you do exist now! I assume you're banking on not existing if you get hit by a bus.
Great video, as always :)