Відео

Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10, ESV)

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, (1 Peter 3:18, ESV)

if we are faithless, he remains faithful- for he cannot deny himself. (2 Timothy 2:13, ESV)

What about the Student bible of the Harper Collins NSRVUE? i was considering it for my teenage son. What are the differences exactly?

Original sin simply means we inherited the sinful nature, which is to say that flesh lusts after things of the flesh. We are definitely not being punished for Adams transgressions, although the mistakes of our parents do follow us in the sense that children sometimes have to endure the consequences of the sins of their parents. Parents who have not raised their children firmly in the ways of the Lord will produce (as a norm not a rule) children who are unable to discern what God requires of them. The Gospels focus is not on this sin, but on the salvation that comes from belief in the work of The Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. Despite our sin, whether intentional or unintentional, we have an intercessor in heaven - King Jesus. Lets pray to the Lord to exchange our hardened hearts for hearts of flesh and in doing so, quicken our sanctification

I don't think your approach is progressive so much as thought-out and sound theology.

im a lesbian and i say things like ...what if theres a homeless man whose hungry and everyone is just walking past him, but if my gf and i stop and give him something to eat and help me out. What would Jesus say? would he say, well it doesnt matter cause their gay so their going to hell, OR would he say when we fed the homeless man, we fed him?

How can you stem from the reformation al movement yet be affirming?

I AIN'T GAY! I AIN'T GAY! 🚫🚫🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

He’s right on this topic but it’s worth noting that there are in fact things god cannot do. God cannot sin because he is goodness. God cannot break his word because he would know in advance whether he could keep it or not. God cannot learn something new because he is omniscient and outside of time. God cannot cease to exist because of his aseity.

Now with Adam and Eve, they incurred the personal guilt (reatus culpa) of original sin and also the penalty (reatus poena). All their children (i.e. all human babies) receive only the penalty of sin (reatus poena), which is defined as being without grace, subject to suffering and death, etc. If you not convinced, simply note that human babies die, suffer, and become sick. As they attain the operation of reason and language, they universally commit sins. Lamentably, none of us are not living the life of paradise. Each baby is not guilty of eating the forbidden fruit, but each baby does receive the penalty of that sin. Adam and Eve received the personal guilt for the first sin. Babies are not strictly “culpable” for the first sin. However, babies do receive the penalty (reatus poena) of Adam’s sin. Babies do not come equipped with sanctifying grace, the preternatural gifts, they die, and they will sin when they are older.

There is no evidence that Paul departs from the unanimous Jewish conviction that homosexuality was sinful. Since Paul cites the tradition, he evidently passes on and concurs with the tradition. Nor does it work to restrict Paul’s comments to pederasty, for the text contains a general proscription of homosexual acts, and does not specify relationships between men and boys. Paul does not refer to homosexual relations between men and boys. Instead, he specifically speaks of ‘males with males’ in Romans 1 verse 27. Furthermore, verse 26 demonstrates the implausibility of the pederasty thesis. There, same sex relations between females is proscribed, but there is no evidence that women and young girls engaged in same sex relations in the Hellenistic world. It follows, therefore, that in both verses 26 and 27 Paul speaks against homosexual relations in general, and the attempt to limit his words to pederasty fails.

The original version was man shall not lie with boy

You wanna go down a REAL rabbit hole, pastor? Go back and take another look at Genesis. Is it *sinful* to be naive? Because Adam and Eve were *both* so naive as to be incapable of discerning that Satan was putting some manipulative stunts. Adam was no less deceived than Eve. He wasn't standing there being able to tell that Satan was manipulating anyone. Nor did Eve deceive him into accepting the fruit from her. Satan speaks to Eve only because he's wily enough to know how much enmity he can put between the most intimate ally -- the one flesh being that is Adam&Eve -- by using her. In any case, she's beguiled and she eats the fruit and....NOTHING HAPPENS. Her eyes aren't opened. She does NOT become wise and cunning. NOTHING HAPPENS. Only AFTER Eve hands the fruit to Adam and he eats too is the one flesh being Adam&Eve affected. Only then are their eyes opened. And what happens? The FIRST Sin happens. God asks Adam what happens and he blames GOD through Eve, scapegoating them *both*. "That *woman* YOU gave me...." Being deceived doesn't make you a sinner, it makes you a victim. The reason the first sin is laid at the feet of Adam and not Eve is because Adam is the only one who chooses to sin, and he does so *after* eating the fruit, not before.

He has the gift of tongues. 🥹

JESUS WAS SPEAKING TO FARMERS-- IN TERMS THEY COULD UNDERSTAND.

Yes, we desperately need some education on ancient near east texts and how to read them, because otherwise these texts either turn people away or get misused to create atrocities. Thank you for doing your part ❤

This is a false dilemma. God CANNOT SIN. God CANNOT DENY HIMSELF. There are things God cannot do. This is a dishonest and unsophisticated attempt to “expose “ something you don’t agree with. Try harder. Represent the opposition fairly and accurately. Use real arguments.

Can I get some recommendations for books to read with your 0-3 yr old 😊

Mist people do not read the Bible, in its entirety, nor do they actually dig into it because the Bible is a rabbit hole that will blow your mind.

some of what you said gave me some insight thanks

Okay, you correctly identify that Jerome's translation of the Greek to Latin is flawed in Romans 5:12 but look at Romans 5:19. Rom. 5:19 - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. This is even stronger support for a notion of "Original Sin" in that it comes out and says that Adam's disobedience is the reason that we are all sinners. But, I believe, the theology is put forward in order to emphasize how Christ's singular obedience is what makes the sinner righteous (i.e. just or justified). That said, however, you can't ignore the fact that it does say, "Adam's disobedience makes us sinners". The doctrine violates the established theology of, "The soul that sinneth it shall die", put forth by Ezekiel, to wit: Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Romans 5:19 is in conflict with that theology on its face and must be massaged in order for it not to break canon. This is where we go to work to make the bible say what we need it to say. It's deceptive but in some cases, it needs to be done because we can't have both of these things be true. We need to make it work. So, we justify the nullification of the first part of that verse to focus on the latter half - that Jesus' obedience makes us righteous. We can all get behind the last part. So how do we reconcile the first part? We are all of the family of Adam. Adam's last name is "Sinner Boy" and so we're all from that same family. Although you'll never find those exact words in the bible, the concept is there and it also exists within the context of Romans 5. Adam sinned and so, guess what, we're all part of that same family. But we are not guilty of HIS sin - God knows, we have enough of our own to worry about. So, we're CALLED sinners because of Adam's family heritage but the sin that we're held accountable for is whatever sin we happen to be personally addicted to. Enter Jesus... Jesus scrubs all that and we are now of the family of Jesus, the Son of God. Our last name changes from "Sinner Boy" to "The Righteousness of God". And this theology is detailed in the previous chapter, Romans 4. So, while Catholicism can use a verse like Romans 5:19 to put forward this unbiblical notion of "Original Sin", the whole theology of that doctrine does violence to the rest of the canon. It does not take into account Ezekiel's doctrine of "The soul that sinneth..." I think this is what Peter was talking about when he said that some of Paul's teachings were sometimes hard to be understood. I took a year one year to read Romans and when I was through, I read it again and again. Romans is a great book and most people have never done the leg work. This is why you get screwball preachers teaching the kind of bunk we hear from most pulpits.

Well done. Such a difficult topic to understand biblical violence and the loving example of Jesus. I have found the books The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Interpreting the Old Testament’s Violent Portraits of God in Light of the Cross, Volume 1 & 2 by Greg Boyd very helpful on this subject.

How True; but who were doing it bcuz after da flood no one were it until!?... Pt ♊ Da Caves of Treasure one of our hidden away holy book from da Apocrypha...👀 Thine holy book of Da 1st book of MAKKABIYM, which were also hidden in da Apocrypha... 👁️🪟da big🖼️

This is a beautiful way of putting it. Thank you.

This is all made up by people, and if it’s not, why would this god choose a method that appears so by so many people seeking the truth? Secondly, to say that this god had to allow jesus to be killed is simply untrue. This god could simply “forgive” his creation right now, or never “tested” adam and eve in the garden (another made up story), or he simply could have never created in the first place (which would be infinitely better).

Just read the bible in its entirety instead of hanging on every word by Spurgeon, Mcarthur, etc. You're literally doing the most complicated gymnastics to justify clearly evil acts. Yahweh is not Jesus' father, it's very clear he represents The Most High God and not "yahweh". For example, you're never going to try to justify yahweh sending 2 mother bears to maul 42 kids to death, for making fun of elisha's bald head.

I am praying for the Caucasian community. While others are praying for their communities ours need prayers and support during this time of attack. You are beautifully a d wonderfully made and Jesus loves you because you were created in his image. God Bless you. ❤

My goodness what a complete destruction of the gospel. We aren't by nature children of wrath, you'd posit, not dead in trespasses and sins and among those of whom it is said there are none righteous, no not one; indeed we are by contrast mostly good, just merely confused by the structure and social constructions around us; themselves merely the product of one single Augustinian mistranslation. You might read Ambrose in 'Jacob and the Happy Life'; that Ambrose who came before Augustine and whom the latter regarded as mentor; that same Ambrose who spoke on the Apostolic inheritance of, and at length on, not only justification of all men by Christ through faith, but the new freedom in that faith from the slavery in which we were born, enabling us to live to God for the very transformative good you would advocate we do. He speaks at length and repeatedly on the concupiscence inherited from Adam, which remains sin and is not merely the product of "mistakes", but their cause; itself sin made manifest by the word of Law.

The scriptural conundrum those who are ensnared by penal substitution is that with accordance to scripture as a whole anyone who dies under divine wrath are in a sinful state that is unforgivable. But also nowhere in the Law and teachings does God ever transfer the penalty of the offender to an innocent person.such is a perversion of justice according to scripture . to be declared guilty by God one must at first sin. Also Yeshua offered Himself to Father as a ransom to redeem but also for atonement, in fulfillment of the Animal offerings and sacrifices, where the animals had to be unblemished outwardly, Yeshua had to be morally unblemished inwardly. If at any point yeshua became a child of wrath as we are and were then yeshua in that full embodied corruption while offering himself to Father, Father would deem the offerer and offering abominable according to scripture. Thus God would reject the offerrer who in this case is the offering. Thus yeshuas spiritual state and position before Father would not redeem nor atone or even ratify the new covenant. As his blood would be in Gods eyes tainted. Because of Gods promise to not lose one child of Their election but to bring them to glory, God would not even allow one legit child to voluntarily be blotted out of the book of life in the place of another. As per example of Moses in exodus 32:30-33 how much more the eternal Son incarnate?!

As an Anglican we always pay close attention to what the Archbishop of Canterbury does. I feel Catholics should always read what the Vatican puts out.

Honestly a good deconstruction of how the Bible and any religious text really, is nothing but ancient propaganda that is not longer relevant to today's world. It should be done away with entirely.

Great stuff! Thank you. How can I join the discord server?

Soooo… Paul sucks?

Some of us Catholics were wondering if he was!

It’s almost comical that Protestants are saying that the Pope went against Catholic teachings, when not only are they not Catholic, but they are determining Catholic teaching to be something that the Church would call heretical.

You're wrong about the 'guilt' aspect in original sin. Read CCC 405. Orthodox make this polemic all the time but it's not true.

Catholics deny original guilt, I’m Orthodox.

The Pope is Catholic? What next? He's a Jesuit?!?!

He’s speaking Spanish! You got the right translation, however, “a little bit of us (somewhere in us)”

This was very helpful. Thanks.

Funny how there are so many different opinions. I don't believe in "the fall" as a transition from sinless to sinful. I think Gen 3 is a parable about human nature, basically, we act, sometimes irrationally, out of perceived self-interest. That's how we've always been. We are "fallen" by creation, not by a decision by some ancestor. Surely even back then they would have known that you can't inherit acquired characteristics. I think "total depravity" is an excuse made up to support a misinterpretation of the gospel, but there's something to it. People are capable of both good and bad. Said tendency to act out of self-interest makes us sinful at the core of who we are. But we also have the capacity for repentance, to learn to consider others and do good.

My meme says I'm angry, but I am happy to hear your thoughts.

What does the Bible mean when it says, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin?

If anyone needs more details, this linked video makes very similar points and critiques of PSA with a deep dive into the verses. ua-cam.com/video/7htAJWH53Xo/v-deo.htmlsi=zcFmWN4MF3Euu3rD

Beautiful, I listen to it before starting my study session every morning. God bless!

Jeremy - props on this presentation. So many characters to introduce and the drama of the story, to include the historical set up and conclude with a message of patient hope. My head spun a bit at all the threads. Nice work.

You’re absolutely brilliant. I swear this is probably the best way to explain revelation, and brings to light one of the key issues I’ve had with religion. Live the word - not recite it 🙏🏽

When is this

Great video. I couldn’t agree more. Keep it up. I am from Hong Kong.