wow man this man has a gift to reach university students

@kvo1532

2 жыл бұрын

@@majafleur9646 that’s true also

@thurzaheim

2 жыл бұрын

I never want the sermon to end. Whenever he says "we can't go into that now, there isn't time" I say NO, keep going! I binge listen to his sermons.

Summary here, three reasons to trust completely in Bible: 1. historically: a) Paul said many people who have seen Jesus's resurrection are still "alive." If this is false, you do not dare to say that eye witnesses are still alive. b) One might argue that it is a text written by authorities to control the mass, but it is so not true as the figures in the story are not glorious, are flawed. And even Jesus sometimes behaves confusingly (beg God to pass the cup, crying out about God have forsaken him). Also, the apostles doesn't look like heroes, they suffer and they are dislikable by the world. c) It's account of the story is too detailed. In that century, myth, epics never have this style of writing. d) The first witnesses of Jesus's resurrection are women. But at that time, women's testimony are not admissible to the court. If someone want to make up story about Jesus, they should use men. e) (in other lecture of Tim) A suddenly large conversion of Jews to Christianity is completely contradictory to the Jewish believe: unless hundreds of Jews saw Jesus. 2. Culturally a) It might not teach what we think it teaches. Example: In Genesis, Bible talks about polygamy and primogeniture. One might think bible supports this account, while in fact, all act of polygamy results in havoc in relationship. And in each generation, God favors the younger son. b) It might be misunderstanding due to your cultural blindness. Even Jews in Bible couldn't understand Jesus sometimes. Also, when people hears about slavery they say the bible treats slavery as a natural condition. But the slavery condition in the Greco Roman period, slave is more like servant. They are clothed similarly, waged similarly, and could have high education. Therefore Paul did say "if you can gain your freedom, do so," however he did not overthrown this institution. The slave we know of are more like the ones in 17th 18th century New World slavery. And this Christians do not tolerate. c) It might because of your unexamined assumption of your cultural norm. Example, biblical sexual view is offensive toward western individual society is offensive while biblical view about forgiveness is great. The same view would probably be reversed in the eastern culture where family honor precedes individualism. This is also a reason to say that Bible is God's words because it does not favor individual culture. 3. Personally a) Bible is not an account of you, it is an account of him who saves us. It is not about what you should do. If it is all about you, they you don't need him. He did everything that is required for you to be saved, he paid your debt with suffer and death. You need to come to him to understand the truth. b) If you have a God that is only partially true, and the truth is determined by you, then it doesn't have life to you. You don't have a relationship with this God. If it is completely authoritative over you, you get to really ask why and argue. It is more like a relationship with a person, we argue and we have discussion

@switzerlandful

6 жыл бұрын

Another odd note is how a woman was the first one to find the empty tomb. It would be an interesting choice to select a female for that part of the story since women's testimony was considered weaker than men, at least at that time. If it were made up, one would think whoever made it up would instead place multiple male witnesses to make their fiction more believable. Also, it sounds like Jesus bled blood which is known to be a medical condition when one is under horrific pain or anguish and some of the capillaries burst and you bleed through sweat pores.

@switzerlandful

6 жыл бұрын

This is an interesting web page too. It lists various scholars and historians who point out how Jesus is abundantly attested to in ancient sources. Many people excitedly claim that there is no evidence for Jesus. One thing they forget is that archaeologically there is most likely no surviving evidence for almost anyone back then that we can tell, unless you were someone important in the upper crust of society. Only then might we find an occasional inscription or some other bit of evidence. So it means nothing that no archaeological evidence survived of Jesus. reasonsforjesus.com/jesus-exist-scholars-agree-certainly-existed/

@christofferlindberg2287

6 жыл бұрын

Excellent summary!

@emilyp3150

3 жыл бұрын

H

@emilyp3150

3 жыл бұрын

He

Stunning wisdom.

awesome cheers

I think I get offended more often because prominent pastors don't untangle all of our issues with literalism. For example, untangling our issues with homosexuality. I understand why the six verses against homosexuality are constantly misinterpreted, and there are many online sources discussing this, but it's not ironed out in an actual sermon where more people would be more likely to access the information. No one goes out of their way to find online information that might confirm or deny their beliefs, but they would have no choice but to listen to a sermon in a church that they go to regularly.

Glorious

St Andrews Roseville 10.30 service 12 Dec21

zeer goed, very good is ter a verbatim copy of this.

@MrT-ty4ku

Жыл бұрын

goedendag mede-Nederlander in commentsectie

This lecture is not about Literalism, but about Reliability

@clementineslaughter6904

8 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I thought he was going to get all gnostic on me, lol. They're pretty wacky. The sermon was encouraging, I really enjoyed it. Really relatable.

@nathanaeleisnerafc.4594

8 жыл бұрын

Actually, it is very much about literalism. Its about believing everything The Holy Bible says, even those parts we don't like. It shows you can believe The Bible literally.

@DerpMuse

5 жыл бұрын

@@nathanaeleisnerafc.4594 if you believe it literally then theres talking snakes, 900 year old people, and magic. Please show me the existence of any one of those.

@MesserTAMU

4 жыл бұрын

@@nathanaeleisnerafc.4594 if I can believe the bible literally, were there one or two angels at the grave in the gospels?

@nathanaeleisnerafc.4594

4 жыл бұрын

@@MesserTAMU the answer is C: both! Matthew and Mark, who list a single angel, are true Synoptic Gospels. Luke, who lists 2 angels, gives similar events but at different times, and is therefore only 50% a Synoptic. You will see this exemplified in most areas of the book when compared to the 2 true Synoptics.

What I have a hard time with is the Old Testament though. Especially Genesis, as it doesn’t make sense scientifically.

@lilacDaisy111

4 жыл бұрын

In what way? Science proves life can not come from non-life. Here are some scientists who see how Genesis makes the most sense of science. Enjoy! :-) kzread.info/dash/bejne/gJ13x8Vxg8yqpaw.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/f6V4uMGGhLS5qMo.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/X6qEtrWrhcnahso.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/i2lns7KllrS5cdI.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/oIOsmrmBc6nfY9I.html

@j.gilmore275

4 жыл бұрын

Hi Maria! I recommend: "Zondervan Handbook to the Bible" - context on how the Old Testament came together and ways to interpret it, and the Bible in general The "Can I Push It Series" from Alfred Street Baptist Church, especially the episode on the Old Testament. See: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qqyVz5R9n6TOcrw.html

Having a lady's voice reading men's words at the start ... Find it so hard to concentrate on what she's saying.

@lawrenceheung9143

4 жыл бұрын

Lilac Milkshake beautiful voice I think

@maybe.yellow

3 жыл бұрын

I'm fine with Christians as long as they're not like this. Regressive af, you're the kind of christian that makes athiests hate y'all. This is coming from an athiest.

@lilacDaisy111

3 жыл бұрын

@@maybe.yellow My dislike (on that certain day a year ago) of a lady reading the words of a man upsets you? How strange that is. Why should anything upset you? On what grounds, since we are the product of billions of meaningless accidents, with no end purpose?

The absolutely most awful horrid story I read in the Bible is about when the dad gave the perverted men his daughter to rape and use all night and they did until she was dead and threw her on the doorstep the next day just so he could save some angels! I’m a believer but that was extremely hard and it’s still hard for me to understand why the angels let it happen,etc.

@kristiina1

Жыл бұрын

It's a good point. I myself have a veryvery difficult time understanding it, too... But what comforts me is seeing in other places that this kind of thing is not something that God condones in the slightest. So therefore, logically, there MUST be some other reason. Logically, there must be an explanation in accordance with God's just and perfectly good character, and I try to remind myself that. That just because I don't see or understand it yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But if anyone knows any good sources that tackle with this issue, please feel free to link 😅

But Sir, if the bible is teaching all about Jesus, let us know more about Jesus. It's nothing about us, does it means that we are not going to follow the teaching of bible to do good or bad? Because its not about teaching us to do good or bad, its telling us what Jesus had done for us.

@yiqingwang1437

6 жыл бұрын

Blaze Kyo what you said is a false contradictory. why it canat be that who Jesus is and what he has done for us, then you know the reason you ought to follow the teachings of the Bible

This guy doesn't present a very honest discussion of slavery in the Bible: 1) He completely ignores the definition of chattel slavery as defined in most dictionaries i.e. chattel slavery is when people can be bought and owned as permanent property 2) Leviticus 25 verses 44 to 46 explicitly tells Hebrews that they can buy non-Hebrews as permanent property i.e. chattel slaves. It also says that slaves could be held for life and that there was no requirement to release them .. ever 3) When Paul wrote to Philemon to plead for him to grant Onesimus his freedom, he wasn't making any general pronouncements against slavery. Instead it seems like he was asking for a special favor for his dear runaway-slave-friend. If Paul really thought slavery was evil, why didn't he help Onesimus escape instead of sending him back to his master? When Paul told Onesimus that he should seek his freedom, he obviously meant that he seek his freedom within legal means. And how does this indicate Paul was anti-slavery? If you tell an inmate to seek his freedom within legal means, does this imply that you think it was wrong for the inmate to be locked up? 4) The fact that kidnapping and then selling others was a capital crime (Exodus twenty one verse sixteen) doesn't mean the bible banned slavery. This is because kidnapping was just one of several ways that slaves could be obtained. The main ways that Hebrews were legally allowed to acquire slaves were through purchase or inheritance (Leviticus twenty five verses forty four to fourty six) or warfare (Deuteronomy twenty verses ten to eighteen). Slaves could also be obtained if a female slave gave birth since her children automatically became slaves as well. 5) Just like there were Mosaic laws which protected slaves against abuse, there were also American laws which did the same. We know that despite these laws, there were cases where African slaves were abused. The bible gives many examples were the Hebrews failed to obey the Mosaic laws, but for some strange reason apologists like this guy seem to think that the Hebrews always treated their slaves well and never abused them... yeah right! 6) He claims Biblical slavery wasn't race based. This is very misleading since the Mosaic laws had very different laws for slavery depending on whether Hebrews or non-Hebrews were involved. Ancient societies were very homogeneous with regards to race, culture, language and religion. So the laws did in fact discriminate by race, culture, language and religion - its just that these were all reflected in one label i.e. non-Hebrew.The American slavery laws were based on the Mosaic slavery laws, they just replaced non-Hebrew with non-European (i.e. African and native American)

@linusloth4145

4 жыл бұрын

@Xain'd Sleena you can interpret and do mental gymnastics all you want to fit the bible your presuppositions. However, you cannot explain away the historic fact that it was mainly Christians which returned to the bible in order to fight to abolish slavery at great cost. Besides, slavery was (and partly still is) a human universal around the world for all of history. In which frame of reference can you put moral blame on anyone who condones slavery?

@linusloth4145

4 жыл бұрын

@O G you are exposing your confirmation bias

A smart guy to be sure, but unfortunately he glosses over many issues, as most Christian apologists do. For one the slavery thing: If you look in the New Testament, then condoning slavery is more dubious. But you can't get away with that in the old Testament - the whole indentured servitude argument has been refuted. It's clear that the OT has rules on how to beat your slave, and in Lev 25 it states clearly that it's okay for the Israelites to be indentured servants, but when it came to other nations, they could make slaves for life. The myth argument doesn't stand up so well either. It's true that it takes longer to create a myth from scratch, but who ever said that it was completely made up? Many secular scholars believe wholeheartedly that Jesus existed, had disciples, was crucified and buried. It's the resurrection part where things get complicated. In the culture of that time, there were many eye witness stories of different resurrections, so the cultural elements were already in place for a story like that to be embellished. About 80 percent of the gospels could have been real - a real Jesus, real apostles, real Mary and Joseph. All they had to do was deify Jesus, and make him resurrected. Since such a story is not complete myth, it wouldn't have taken very long to add those extra elements. The 500 eyewitness account is not even in the gospels. It's in the epistles, and is only mentioned once. We know nothing about these 500 people, or where they came from. And only half of Paul's writings are really him. The other half are either forged or pseudepigrapha. The cultural blindness argument is probably the weakest. It's obvious that the bible favors the Jewish culture and was written for the people of it's time. So the writers knew exactly what they meant, when they penned it. How is it our fault, that I can't see something clearly in an ancient book because I'm culturally blind to it? I'm not going to apologize for living in the 21st century. If the bible disagrees with many different cultures, then the bible is the problem, not the culture. Seems to me that an "all powerful" God would be capable of writing the bible himself so everyone would understand it, and not entrust men in a certain time and a certain place to deliver his message for him. Makes no sense. Anyway, enough rambling. And lastly, I'm getting weary of this repetitive argument that if the bible doesn't make sense, then there must be something wrong with our understanding of it. "It may not mean what you think it means" So when I read about god ordering infants to be killed in the old testament along with women and children, does that not mean what it really says? So in other words, god didn't really tell Abraham to sacrifice his son - it just looks that way? Then I assume that hell may not mean what you think it means, and heaven may not mean what you think it means. After all, anything in the bible may not mean what you think it means!

@bruharry1

6 жыл бұрын

pwoods100 Christ is God. You can bet your life on what ever you want but I bet on Christ. There is no other God, philosophy, deity, spiritual guru like Him.

@pwoods100

6 жыл бұрын

"There is no other God, philosophy, deity, spiritual guru like Him." According to you, yes. I get that.

@jtalia5700

5 жыл бұрын

Imma be quick here but dude.... Slavery did indeed exist in the OT, but it was never a moral thing to do. No verse insinuates that. Some of the verses you were pulling came from the chapter of EXODUS - what is exodus about hmm? He states that the first witnesses of the resurrection were WOMEN. If they wanted to pull one over on everyone they wouldn't use women and if they decided to deify Jesus, they wouldn't have stopped at a few details. And not only that, but the controversy over whether or not gentiles should practice Jewish customs disproves your theory. If 2nd century church leaders wanted to solve that issue, all they had to do was to put that argument into Jesus' mouth via changing the texts. Ultimately, you miss the point that no one would've thought to put in "a few details" because that kind of subtle forgery was impossible for the time! The New testament flips the table on Jewish culture, and the fact you're unaware makes it obvious you don't know the new testament. If the Bible favored any one culture and looked down on the rest, that's not a God above the world that's a god OF this world. It would disqualify his divinity if he belonged to one group of people. The bible does make sense to people who look into it. But just because it irks you on the outset doesn't make it any less truthful. Some of the most prominent apologists of the 20th century were originally atheists who tried to disprove the bible but instead realized it's complex and consistent nature. Instead of being offended at the cherry-picked verses you use here, look closer. That's what Tim is saying. You're glossing over the text and are choosing to be outraged.