Видео

“Medici fugue states don’t count!”

I'm also Catholic. By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone! 💯

As someone of the charismatic evangelical tradition.. I heartily agree. Some of it is fluffy experiential drivel.. indeed it's hard to even work out what religion they're about... and when they do mention Jesus, it feels tokenistic, in that if you swapped out the word Jesus for say, Horus, it would work just as well. Not good.

Mmmmm.. quite damning on Charles V.. but early or late Fleetwood Mac? OH... You Make Loving Fun... mmm.. It's a guilty pleasure.. rather than ironic.. is that allowed?

I thought Zwingli died in battle, not burned at the stake?

Who said he wasn't??? John and Jesus' disciples had been mass baptizing for years. People backslide, or he could have been convicted on a prior. Anyway he was a type of baptism into His death. He drank the same cup..

"Uhhhm actually evolution has been documented in - " (Provides an example of adaptation, an earmark of intelligent design)

It's not like Paula White "spoke in tongues" to the cadence of the chorus of the ketchup song or anything...

AI schlock

I just come watch this randomly and it always makes me laugh!

The following are various comments from theologians and scholars on the Greek grammar pertaining to the above verse from the Gospel of John. 1) The LINGUISTIC KEY TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Fritz Rienecker & Cleon Rogers on page 217 published by Zondervan States the following on the Greek grammar of John 1:1:- "theos,God. The word is with out the article and is the predicate emphasizing quality, "the word had the same nature as God" (s. Philip B, Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns," J[ournal of] B[iblical] L[iterature], 92 [March 1973], 75-78." 2) 'A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek N.T.' by Max Zerwick S.J. - Mary Grosvenor, Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico Roma 1996 on page 285 states:- "theos, "the Word was divine", pred. wt art., insisting on the nature of the Word § 175." 3) 'Those Incredible Christians' by Hugh J. Schonfield on page 247, and in his 'The Original New Testament on page 479 he reproduces John 1:1 as follows:- "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. So the Word was Divine." 4) Earnest William Barnes Sc.D. Camb., Hon. D.D. Aber. and Edin., Hon. LL.D. Glas, F.R.S. Bishop of Birmingham in his book 'The Rise of Christianity' page 94-95:- "The gospel opens with sentences familiar to, and beloved by every Christian. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. More accurately, as the definite article is absent from the Greek, the last phrase should read "and the Word was divine." The Word was with God and partook of His nature without being identical with Him." 5) Corresponding with the theology of the foregoing comments of various theologians is this comment of Origin's understanding of Jesus Christ in relationship to Jehovah form the book 'Christian Fathers' by Maurice Wiles page 36:- "The divine unity is preserved by firmly subordinating the Son to the Father; he is "god" and not "the god", as Origen puts it; "god" and not "God", as we may more freely translate him. The declaration of Jesus that "my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) is true, say Origen, in every respect of the Son's being in relation to the Father." 6) Newberrry Reference Study Bible (K.J.V.) N.T. page vii:- “THE GREEK ARTICLE … THE ABSENCE OF THE ARTICLE before a word in Greek, signifies, that this word is not to be understood as objective, but characteristic; that is it is not simply an object before the mind, but it expresses the character of something with which it is connected. For example John 1. 1, “The Word was with God. Here the word God with the article is objective. “And the Word was God.” Here God is without the article is characteristic; that is, it signifies the Word was divine” In view of the above comments the following is a very important point to meditate on concerning John 1:1-2, (K.J.V. & N.I.V. & Others) being that as this text only mention two persons so how can it prove that there are three as One or a Trinity? It explains the relationship between only two persons, God and his Son, Jesus, as their is no mention of a, so called, third person (Holy Spirit), e.g.:- "In the beginning was the Word [1st person], and the Word [1st Person] was with God [2nd person], and the Word [1st person] was God [2nd person]. 2 The same [1st person] was in the beginning with God [2nd person]." But if the Trinity doctrine was true then this text mentioned Four!? "In the beginning was the Word [1 person], and the Word [1 Person] was with God [3 persons*], and the Word [1 person] was God [3* persons?]. 2 The same [1 person] was in the beginning with God [3* persons?]." It could seem in reality 4 persons are spoken of?! *Father, Son & Holy Sprit or the Trinity. Here in John 1:1-2 we found it -the Trinity 3 persons- not to being inferred by this Bible text, or in any translation, so we therefore should concluded that this particular text does not prove the doctrine of the 'Trinity', it only revels the relationship of "The Word," (The Son) to "God" (The Father), which corresponds with John 14:28 which reads: "YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am." In the above verse the "I" is Jesus Christ or "the Word" in the "flesh", incarnated, (John 1:14) and "the Father" is the unincarnated Jehovah of whom Jesus as "the Word" is sent from to the earth (John 3:17; 7:29; Hebrews 3:1) and is the most important one of his all his God's sons.

•COMMENTS made by various scholars on John 1:1c: 1807, “and the word was [a] God” - Timothy Kenrick, An Exposition Of The Historical Writings Of The New Testament. Vol. II. London. Brackets his. 1879, “And the logos was a god” - Leicester Ambrose Sawyer, THE FINAL THEOLOGY, Vol 1, "Introduction to the New Testament, Historic, Theologic and Critical," USA. 1901, “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.” - J. Henry Thayer, author of THAYER'S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE N. T. - Chairman of N.T. Committee, ASV. 1903, “a God” - Paul Wernle, The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion, Professor of History, Univ. of Basel. Printed in London, Oxford and New York. 1932, “and the Word was of divine nature” - Ernest Findlay Scott, D.D., The Literature of the New Testament, Professor of Biblical Theology of the Union Theological Seminary, New York. 1938, Divinity professor John Martin Creed, D.D. - “The Prologue [John 1:1] is less explicit with the anarthrous [theós without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in English.” (The Divinity of Jesus Christ, p. 123. Cambridge) 1951, J. Gwyn Griffiths: “Taken by itself, the sentence καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος [and god was the word] could admittedly bear either of two meanings: (1) ‘And the Word was (the) God’ or (2) ‘and the Word was (a) God.’ It is possible to argue that translation (2) brings the predicative noun nearer to the position of an adjective.” ("A Note on the Anarthrous Predicate in Hellenistic Greek," The Expository Times 62, 1951, p. 315) 1962, Catholic theologian Karl Rahner: “In none of these instances [of theós, such as Romans 9:5; John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28; 1 John 5:20; and Titus 2:13] is 'theós' used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as 'ho theós,' that is, the Supreme God.” - The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of England, January 1962. 1962, Vincent Taylor: “We reach a more difficult issue in the Gospel of John. Here, in the Prologue, the Word is said to be God, but, as often observed, in contrast with the clause, ‘the Word was with God,’ the definite article is not used (in the final clause). For this reason it is generally translated ‘and the Word was divine’ (Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name. The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words ‘and what God was, the Word was.’” (“Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?”, Expository Times, 73, No.4 [Jan.1962], p. 118). 1965, Jesuit John L. Mackenzie, S.J.: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ’the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.’” - DICTIONARY of the BIBLE, p. 317. Brackets his. 1969, “Here ‘God’ is used predicatively, without the article: the Word, whom he has just distinguished from the Person of God, is nevertheless a divine being in his own right.” - Bruce Vawter, C.M., The Four Gospels an Introduction, p. 38, Doubleday Publishing.

Here are some interesting quotes on John 1:1c from scholars and researchers: Yale New Testament scholar Adela Yarbro-Collins notes that: “…the third clause of John 1:1 may be translated either ‘the Word was God’ or ‘the Word was a god’. Justin Martyr apparently understood the passage in the latter way. According to Henry Chadwick, ‘Justin had boldly spoken of the divine logos as ‘another God’ beside the Father, qualified by the gloss ‘other, I mean, in number, not in will.’” (Adela Yarbro-Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God), pp. 175 & 176 She and Henry Chadwick were referring to this comment by Martyr: “Then I replied, ‘I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them.'” _ John L. McKenzie: “Jn. 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”​ (Dictionary of the Bible, 1965), p. 317 - Jason David BeDuhn: “Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression… A minimal literal (‘formal equivalence’) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: ‘And the Word was a god.’” (Truth in Translation), p. 132 _ C.H.Dodd writes: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977. Trinitarian Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone,[QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p.60. _ J. W. Wenham, in The Elements of New Testament Greek, writes: “As far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed theos estin ho logos, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’. The interpretation of John 1.1 will depend upon whether the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than one god.” Thus, theology rather than grammar is the stated reason for preferring ‘The Word was God.'” _ "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos. ... "In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that [the.os'] and [ho the.os'] ('god, divine' and 'the God') were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was 'God' ([ho the.os']; cf. Joh 17:3); 'the Son' was subordinate to him (cf. Joh 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities." ~Ernst Haenchen (Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar) (1984). [John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, pages 108-10, translated by Robert W. Funk.] .... I am pretty well convinced that this word, with the article, is always definite, without it, always indefinite. I take the meaning to be, simply, "the Word was a Divine Being" but, as this is the more obvious meaning of the E. V., "the Word was God," I would not at present propose any change. I hope to give this subject a more thorough investigation at a future time, and in „a connection where the discussion of it more properly belongs. ~The Gospel by John .... "If a noun has no definite article in front of it, we would normally translate it as 'a'. (Exploring New Testament Greek: a way in, Escrito por Peter Kevern, Paula Gooder, pg. 60-61, 2004) .... “If a noun has no definite article in front of it, we would normally translate it as 'a'”. (Exploring New Testament Greek, Escrito por Peter Kevern, Paula Gooder, pg. 60-61, 2004) .... "It avoids using the definite article (ho theos) and simply says that the Word was theos-we should perhaps translate 'was divine'"(The Bible: the basics, Escrito por John Barton, pg. 87,88, 2010) "'God', without article, is predicate here and not subject. It is therefore not identical with ho theos mentioned earlier." (JESUS THE CHRIST, NEW EDITION, BY WALTER KASPER pg. 158, 2011) "The article can only be omitted before abstracts when they denote virtues, vices, etc." (Harless, on Eph. S. 320) .... "in fact sometimes the meaning of the English indefinite article a or an, cannot well be denied; and in conformity with this usage, the Greek article might sometimes be so employed en the New Testament. (Geseb. Lehrgeb, pg. 655. Stuart 163.4) .... "But are interested in the nature of the articular nouns as they differ from the anarthrous nouns. In the two clauses above... the first use of God (0eóc) is articular, and the second is not. So we might logically consider that the first use of 0eóc names or identifies God as divine personality, while its second use indicates something God-like or the qualities of God, whatever they might be." (Greek for preachers, Escrito por Joseph M. Webb, Robert Kysar, pg. 39, 2002) .... "When the predicate nominative precedes the linking verb, the noun preceding this copula emphasizes quality. So the predicate "God" (theos) preceding "was" indicates that the Logos is divine" (Magnifying God in Christ: A Summary of New Testament Theology, Escrito por Thomas R. Schreiner, cap. The centrai, 2010) .... "a or, Deity, Divine (wich is actually a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)" (The Great Book: The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Plain English, Escrito por Destiny Image Publishers, pg. 181, 2003) .... "Part of the explanation of why the author of the Prologue chose to use "God" without the article to refer to the Word while he used "God" with the article to refer to the Father is that he desired to keep the Word distinct from the Father. (An introduction to New Testament Christology, Escrito por Raymond Edward Brown, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary, pg. 187, 1994) .... "When QEOS is anarthrous, however, it may signify divine essence or divine attributes or activities. In short, it may mean "like God". (Greek for preachers, Escrito por Joseph M. Webb, Robert Kysar, pg. 38, 2002) .... "the non-use of the article with God stresses the qualitative character of the Logos, indicating that the Logos is divine." (Light from the Greek New Testament, Boyce W. Blackwelder, pg. 146, 1976) .... Origen appealed to John 1:1, which has no definite article in the expression "the Word [Logos] was God" and therefore could be translated "the Word was a God" (or perhaps "divine"). Christology: A Global Introduction By Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

My life is complete now I've seen the Canadia Badfinger tribute band. Are No It's OK That's Fine Finger, due to play anywhere in Britain in the near future? Best they keep away from South Wales lest they get lynched by friends and family of the band. Still, "I remember finding oot aboot yoo" was a treat I wasn't expecting. Patrick.

So many things wrong with what is a well intentioned song. 1) Of course there's no f***ing snow in Africa! Well maybe on top of Kilimanjaro. 2) As Simeon the Globeless rightly points out, Africa was Christian very early and has now more Christians in it than the UK and indeed Western Europe.. and>> 3) They have a FAR better grasp of what Christianity is than a load of luvvies.. however well meaning. 4) "And tonight thank God it's them (who is starving, without snow.. apparently) is a terrible terrible line.. even a luvvie should know better than that! Also Muslims celebrate Christmas kinda.. so even the Muslim Africans know it's Christmas, kinda. So thank you Rev Hans. For a German sounding American (like Eisenhower, we trust you.. well apart from Suez) you're quite the expert on British culture. Do pop round for tea some time. The Vicar.

As a Catholic, yes we do condemn homosexual acts BUT it’s absolute heresy to say God hates people who do them. God has unconditional love for everyone. Now does this mean you should continue commuting since, absolutely not. But remember, God loves everyone.

dibs on that relic! *spitlaugh*

I'm sorry but the church after Jesus failed after they accepted the the Trinity. A concept that you made video proving is a incoherent mess

Who came here from Redeemed Zoomer? 👇

😂😂

This needs to be shared more

THe Church of England contains a strain which likes to keep something of the profound, like a whiff in the air, then talk about anything else at all.. anything. That way we/they can pretend to each other we're 'doing Christianity' without any of the existential claims on our lives and the challenge to our worldview and behavioural change that would demand. So.. the snow and the ducks and the sheep etc.. ideal. Sadly. I am a vicar btw, so I'm talking from bitter experience here. But we do also have some cracking carols from England, so yah book sucks to you Fritzy! :P

What is bad about Calvinism?

still only 5 ppl. love joe satriani, but what is a cold play?

So you admit that all religions are evil lies created to deceive God’s creations. 👍 Catholics ARE Satanist. 🫡

So you admit that all religions are evil lies created to deceive God’s creations. 👍 Catholics ARE Satanist. 🫡

as a new believer at my first church (read: former church), they insisted my 7 year old son go to the children's bit, and after a few weeks of that he insisted to be in the main event with dad and never wanted to go back. so proud he figured that nonsense out before I did.

Such a sad commentary on how gullible people are to wicked men who put on a show & tickle their ears.

Blessed Saint Patrick, pray for us. Pray for revival in the church and across the land.

Patrick & Patrick make an ascertion that Jesus is the son of God, and then ask Patrick what his evidence is for not believing their assertion. Patrick & Patrick do not understand the burden of proof, or they conveniently pretend not too, and ignore it, and hope that we Patricks do not notice. Oh Patricks! Naughtie Patrickacha!

Special on the Rogaine this year eah Patraiic eah!

No, you got my name wrong!

the thief can be a quick way to disarm an opponent without having to explain their misinterpretation of the text... but tbf it is probably more thrown out there in my circles by those who haven't studied enough to correct anyone. it's lazy of us i know. fine. but this is low hanging fruit bros.

wait didn't luther piggyback huss? nvm. faithful to God's word? recognize metaphor. 🤣 semper reformanda brothers!

💯accurate

Tongues is a language not babbling, pretty clear in Acts and 1 Cor 12 - 14

Do lunatics run denominations?

I disagree about the first one being modalism. Sure, on a surface value, it looks like it, but once you look at phases of matter more in depth, the analogy works quite well. While you could say "ice and steam are forms of water" and people would generally agree, it doesnt really capture everything going on. Gasseous water has completely different properties than ice or liquide water. All 3 are water simultaneously and water is all 3 individually, yet none of each are the same as the other, each has unique attributes and a unique purpose. Over all though, the issue isnt a misunderstanding of the trinity, its a misunderstanding of phases of matter.

I guess only Jesus Himself can explain mystery or address the topic of "Trinity" properly 😂😀

The pope is a heretic! Pope Leo I was dope

Ooops, the reality is that it's a made up belief full of contradictions and arbitrary dogmatic rules and y'all are crazy

I'm a fan of Moscow and this sketch is gold.

This is great

You guys are not bright enough to light a six soda can cooler. You seem unable to distinguish between actual Bible and a wrong observation about it. That 1 Thessalonians 4 rapture text "caught up"" describes a shout and a trumpet. So Paul did not think that the rapture would be quiet or "secret". That secret idea is Wrong. It will not be secret. But the text is WHAT JESUS TOLD PAUL! So the event will happen. The rapture nust happen as the text says! That rapture will not fail to happen because someone mistakenly called it "secret". Was Jesus unreal because some people did not believe in Him? And this rapture will take the Church saints. That is what Jesus told Paul. So this must be a different event from the event in Matthew 24. You cannot dismiss truth because somebody said something wrong about it. The rapture must happen. Jesus told Paul that it would happen. Grow up

As a Presbyterian, I am deeply offended.

This is your reminder to slap a Jehovah's Witness.

HORUS!!!! WHY DID YOU BETRAY US, HORUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Still better than The Last Jedi

Yeah... You're taking 1 Corinthians 13 8 to 10 completely out of context. And this is why the Lutheran church is dying.

Every celebrity deconstructionist in a nutshell. "Now that I've got your money, I don't need you all anymore, so I'm gonna make social media posts about how God could let bad things happen like I was the person to first have that thought and how I can't reconcile that, even though I hurt people in my life too..."