วีดีโอ

No Christian thinks that God will not fulfill the promises predicted in the Bible. I do not see that all the promises predicted as being apparent at this time. Has Jerusalem descended from Heaven onto the earth? I don't see this. Do you? To state that all prophecy has been fulfilled is to deny the reality we live in. I would say it is to think reality is an illusion. That is the belief of Hindus. Are you a type of Hindu?

The pigeon English is fun. Why are you using it? Just because I question does not mean I am not saved. If you want to know about the Christian belief I know for salvation, go to my channel and listen to The Gospel video.

This video is just about the Gospel and the Blood Covenant we as Christians remember at Communion. th-cam.com/video/xHyb3-EDJco/w-d-xo.htmlsi=li0aS4-xsy0DfAp7

Yes, I read Scripture. I'm glad to see you read it also.

@@DDFergy1 Hƿat ɗou ƿaſt ſaying iſ moꝛe ɗan an aſking, ɗou art boldly ſaying ɗat it iſ Gnoſtick to vſe ɗe ƿoꝛd infallible to ſpeak of ɗe book of ɗe LORD. AND ɗou ɗen putteſt foꝛþ no ſeeɗingſ at all. So yeſ, it iſ moꝛe ɗan enough to make one vnƿill of ɗy ſtanding ƿiþ ɗe Loꝛd Ieſuſ. Hƿy do I ƿꝛite like ɗis? It iſ fun, it haþ no outlandiſc ƿoꝛdſ in it, ɗe letterſ and ſpellingſ harken back to Engliſc befoꝛe all ɗe inminglingſ of tungſ happend in Engliſc after 1066, it iſ takeþ vp leſſ room on ɗe leaf (page), and ɗe folkſ of earþ are hard of hearing and cannot hear ɗe treƿþ noƿ, and I beleef ɗe Loꝛd moſtly haþ me to ƿꝛite like ɗiſ to boþ call aƿareneſſ to hƿat I am ſaying and alſo aſ a token ɗat ɗe folkſ of earþ cannot ſee and cannot hear and cannot read, efen ɗeir oƿn tung ƿiþ ɗe lateſt ſpellingſ and ƿoꝛdſtock.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you stating we should wander in the desert in tents like the Bedouin. Build a temple tent and do sacrifices? That is a hard thing for anyone to do today. Are you doing that? Have you found Moses out in the desert of Arabia? If you have, send some pictures. Thanks.

@ I’m stating do what Jesus commands

As I mentioned in the video, I was waiting for these fellows in their video to explain what Full Preterism FP is. They didn't, so I did a search on Google. I am only reporting what Google stated. It may not represent what you believe. But it is apparent that many in FP have different views on this issue of Christ's resurrection body. But there is another issue. The denial that Christ is to come back to set up His kingdom on earth. FPs state that He has. But only in the spiritual sense. This is a denial of reality. It is to see the world and reslity as an illusion. This is similar to Hinduism. What do you think of this?

@ Here’s a concise and persuasive response: It is a baseless claim to suggest that preterists deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Prominent full preterists affirm Christ’s bodily resurrection, and accusing them otherwise misrepresents their beliefs. If you wish to critique preterism, engage with actual preterist teachings rather than relying on inaccurate portrayals. Misrepresenting beliefs, often called “poisoning the well,” is unfortunately common among some futurists who attempt to dismiss preterism without addressing its scriptural arguments. Regarding Christ’s kingdom, preterists believe it is spiritual because that is what Scripture teaches. Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), affirming the spiritual nature of His reign. Preterists prioritize letting the Bible interpret itself, which often leads them to reject futurist eschatology because it imposes literal interpretations where Scripture uses metaphors. For instance, futurists often insist on literal interpretations of terms like “heaven and earth,” “sun, moon, and stars” in judgment contexts. Yet the Bible consistently uses these metaphorically to describe covenantal shifts or judgment on nations (e.g., Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7-8). If futurism claims to let the Bible interpret the Bible, it must demonstrate these terms being used literally in similar contexts. Preterists, however, align their interpretations with how Scripture uses this language. If you’re willing to submit your views to Scripture and discuss the nature of Christ’s kingdom based on what the Bible teaches, I welcome the conversation. Let’s base our dialogue on the text, not assumptions.

I can not read Greek. I read Brenton's English translation. It is not clear in the English what is happening in many places. For example, "and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities." Does it make sense that other's iniquities delivered the suffering servant? No. Other translations state, "yet he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" This is a translation from the Dead Sea Scroll Isaiah 53 from Scroll 1Q This is to point out what the translator can do. Because it makes more sense in the DSS translation I go with that translation. That is not to say that the Septuagint is wrong. The problem is the translator. So much is translated from context and from an understanding of theology. One needs to be aware of this.

One needs to be aware that word order is different in other languages. For example, the Hebrew states words in this order. "In the beginning created God." So was God created in the beginning? No. בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ

1 John 3:4: “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” (NASB) I am not stating that those in a state of sin do not break the law. But breaking the rules does not mean one is in a state of sin. The Law of God is the spiritual law of Loving God and Others. Rules are for those who do not love God or others because they do not know what love is or how to love. In truth, those who make a multitude of rules are creating systems outside of the spiritual law. This is done to enslave and entrap so one can rule over the other as a tyrant. Sin is lawlessness. Sin is a spiritual state of making one's own rules, making one's truth a false reality. It is justifying oneself, thinking one is entitled and above the law. This is the state of lawlessness. Many nations are in a state of sin when establishing their religion. Creating a denomination is like following in Adam's footsteps by eating the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, for it makes one's truth against God's established reality.

Thank you for your comment. I know these dogmas. The Filioque concerns the nature of the Trinity and who comes from whom. I disagree with their conclusion. The Bible does not state who existed first. The Persons of the Trinity have different roles. The Father is the Power and Glory, the Spirit is the Wisdom, and Jesus the Christ is the Word of Creation made flesh to be our advocate. The Father sent the Son to us, and the Son sent the Spirit to us. The Father gives the Son authority. The Son created the universe, being the Word which establishes all things. They interact by doing different things, but that does not mean one existed before the other. But in attempting to state things not revealed by Scripture or by God, I believe these wise scholars on this issue declare themselves fools. That is my opinion. I am sure they would not like my assessment, but they are dead now, and only those alive who considered these people wise would be offended by my conclusions. As far as the Solas of the Protestant Reformation. I get a kick out of their declarations. They say Sola Scriptural, yet they mean that others must agree with their limited and, at times, insane interpretation of scripture. The critic of their presumptions is a heretic to question their authority. I could go into an in-depth critique of these dogmas, but my expertise is the Westminster Confession, which is based on Calvinism. Calvinism is based on Zoroastrian, Gnostic, and Christian religions derived from Augustine of Hippo's writings. The Westminster Confession is not a Christian document. It demonstrates the eisegesis method of study, which was prevalent at the time. This has continued to this day.

Interesting quote. Who wrote it?

Sorry, my title is a bit misleading. In this talk, I do not discuss the narrative of the fall addressing the standard interpretation presented by Augustine and used by Christians. If I did, then the idea of God using entrapment as a ploy against Adam would become obvious. I will look at the quote you gave and give my assessment of it. Then, I would appreciate you to criticize that assessment.

@ The quote is a translation from an ancient religious record called the Book of Mormon. The man speaking, Alma lived 74 BC on the American continent.

@@UVJ_Scott Thanks for your reply Scott. I will spend some time considering the quote. I am sure it has some theology I know and can comment on. You might know the Book of Mormon has no archeology to verify its legitimacy. It is written from a dictation by Joseph Smith, and it is impossible to verify that it is not a work of fiction. From my study of the history of religion and philosophy, I learned that the Church of Latter-Day Saints is related to the Gnostic belief system. But that does not mean that I will dismiss you. In truth, I have found that variants of Gnosticism are in many world religions, and it has also infiltrated many groups that consider themselves to be Christian. I have found that Augustine of Hippo, though he debated against many heresies, was thoroughly indoctrinated into Manicheanism, a mix of Zoroastrian, Gnostic, and Christian beliefs. Because of this, he did not have the spiritual or mental clarity to recognize his indoctrination. Besides this, the historical culture which gives a clear interpretation of scripture was foreign to Augustine and the Christian Church at the time. People like Augustine tended to ignore the disciples of the Apostles' writings.

This dictation by Joseph Smith does not state anything that likely would displease or offend a Christian . The only thing that I noticed is he presents an understanding of law in the Bible that is not in line with the Torah but does conform to the typical Christian understanding. The law in the Torah is not for sentencing punishment to people who break rules. The Law in the Torah is to guide behavior and restore broken relationships caused by trespassing against others. But just following the works of the law does not renew broken relationships. Only the blood covenant made with Christ saves and restores.

Brahma is from Hindu philosophy or religion. But I am not sure if that interpretation you are using is of that religion. I have difficulty figuring out what you wrote. Could you explain yourself more.

If self is born why does one lose protection? And what is one unprotected from when they have self? These are a few questions on this. I need more explanation to understand. Though the idea that one gets consciousness from eating the tree is an merism interpretation. I think biblically, that mankind already had consciousness before eating of the tree.

In my study, I have determined that Gnosticism is NOT the answer.

I am restating what I think you are asking. Then i will comment on what I think you are asking. Your question is talking about people's memories of other lives. It is not necessarily about the movie. The testimony some people give of past lives sounds very convincing. Testimony to be considered true needs robust questioning. In courts, this is attempted to find the truth. But can these details of these testimonies be confirmed by cross examination? Usually, people giving these testimonies of past lives have a frail psyche. Robust questioning causes violent reactions or a breakdown. So I am not convinced by their testimonies. But in The Matrix, the trapped immortal spirits physical bodies die. Once released from the Demiurge's, or Architect's, creation, they would be moving chaotically in the Pleroma. The Architect would then use his abilities to recapture the immortal spirits to use their energy to continue to power his creation. According to the movie's Gnostic themes these immortal spirits would be recycled in the Architect's creation. Since they would be the same spirit whose material form had died in another life, they might be able to remember their past life in the Architect's creation.

Yes, this is normal. It was only a few years ago, after I was called an apostate by a four point Calvinist that I began my journey to know about Gnostics and their continued influence in today's world.

Wachowskis are pagan

You're worse than this guy who made this video if you get most of your news from Alex Jones.

@@gmac6503 Do you listen to his broadcasts, and decide if he's right or wrong, based upon actual news reports & documented facts, or simply accept the consensus pablum-propaganda promoted by the "Establishment"? Am I WORSE than anyone because I support the right of every individual to do, say, or possess, anything, as long as he or she does not infringe upon the rights of another? Listen to Alex Jones, and decide, based on objective logic, if he's credible.

@ yeah, I do my homework before I leave a comment. Unlike you I don't assume others who disagree as we don't study although that is the case in many instances. I've listened to Alex Jones and I've listened to him on Joe Rogan and I've done my homework. so your assumptions that I'm ignorant and unread are totally unfounded so have a great week. Oh also I wasn't denying the right and support of every individual to do, say or possess anything as long as he or she does not infringe upon the rights of another. So again your assumptions of me are totally unfounded and you just say things that are off the top of your head and assume that everybody else is stupid. You're the stupid one. Now you can move on. How anybody can come to the conclusion that I'm for censorship based on my comment on this unlearned person is just laughable. You are no longer worth any of my time

@@Pootycat8359 I doubt you've read the Hebrew bible and if you have you know he's a jealous and bloodthirsty and genocidal and condones slavery and doesn't mind the r@ping of women as well as other issues and by the way Jesus told the dude whose father died to let the dead bury their own dead because he wanted to bury his dad first. However, since you're a big fan of Alex Jones I don't think you do much reading

I understand that truth is to be searched. As I stated, the premises of truth are consistent, omnipresent, and eternal. So, any statement can be determined if it is truth when questioned using these premises. Who Christ is and what He says can be tested using the premises of truth. From what I know of Christ, He is God. Christ knows the Father and the Spirit. They do all things together, yet they have different roles. They are different persons.Though different persons they are One in essence and purpose. And when one grieves, they all grieve. When one rejoices, they all rejoice. Christ reveals the character, message, and kingdom of God for mankind. They created all things together using the words of truth. And with those words of truth, all things continue to exist.

Christ offers the kingdom of God to everyone. He does this by using a covenant. Our part of the agreement is to state we need His help to have life. For we do not know how to live. We do not know how to love Him or others. So we repentantly ask for His help. Once we ask, He gives His promise and His help, and Helper. That is the covenant that redeems us. It is the covenant done in Luke 23 between the Rebel and Christ. It is the covenant we all do as Christians. It is what we remember at Communion. That is what I know as truth.

Different understandings of fundamental issues exist in all gatherings of people. What is essential is that the group wants to know the truth and cares about each other. Some people think that they are a type of Jew, yet they are Pantheists. I asked one in a Chabad group if he knew his beliefs were the same as those of the Gnostic Hindu religion. He stated he did not know anything about Hinduism and had no interest in learning. I have been listening to Mel's Islamic Origins TH-cam channel, and he taught me that using historical evidence from the 6th and 7th centuries, Islam might have been created by a Jewish group from Persia. However, I do not know how the Sadducees could have been influential in creating the Catholic Church. Sadducees based their religion on performing the rites in the Temple and did not believe in the resurrection. Catholics have no interest in performing the Temple rites described in the Torah, and they believe in the resurrection. I do not mind reading your take on the NT.

​@@DDFergy1 Sorry to not get back to you sooner. My first response to this post turned into a novel. It is so hard to even know where to begin, but I would guess that the place to start is the idea that God stopped coming to earth with the Patriarchs, and He does not send Messiahs, for as the Tanakh tells us, God alone is our salvation. What He does do is send Prophets and Yeshua was the last Prophet He would send before He took away the Temple for misuse. The purpose of the Temple was to be a place where people of all nations could learn about the one true God, but the Temple priests had turned it into a meat market. The Pharisees did not believe in sharing God's word with Gentiles as you will find Rabbinic Judaism today is still based on the idea of the nationhood of the Jewish people with their own distinct God. So how do we get from Prophet to failed messiah to God incarnate? I contend that Yeshua, James the Just, James the author of the book of James, and the Righteous Teacher from the Dead Sea Scrolls are all the same person and Saul, Peter, and Paul are also all the same person, and that Yeshua did not die on a cross but was stoned in the Temple by Saul. Luke was hired by someone to track Saul down for this murder and a copy of all documents presented at Saul's trial was sent to his Herodian relatives to show why Saul had to be executed in Rome. And that these documents were added to by Sadducee priests before and after they fled the destruction of the Temple starting Christianity as we know it today. I know those are bold statements but hear me out. I believe the First-Century "Jesus" movement came about because the Synagogue system brought the Septuagint and the ability to read to common Jews. Instead of the Temple priests being able to control access to the Jewish scriptures ordinary Jews were finally able to take personal responsibility for what they believed about God. "Call no man Rabbi." To understand this evolution we must first "assume" an order that the NT books were written. Tradition has James first for many reasons but many scholars today claim James is a response to 1st Corinthians and/or Galatians without explaining a mechanism for James acquiring one let alone both of these letters. The most substantial evidence for James being first is that he knows nothing about the death, let alone the resurrection, of his brother or the need to participate in the Eucharist as proof of salvation. No, it is safe to assume that 1st Corinthians and Galatians are responses to the letter attributed to "James" arriving at churches Saul as Paul had started. I contend the "letter of James" was originally attributed to Yeshua himself and that the references to "James" being Yeshua's brother were added by Saul to invalidate them as coming from the Righteous Teacher. It was these very changes that put the "Book of James" into the court record and therefore into our Bible. There does seem to be a scholarly consensus that the next four books to be written appear to be 1st Thessalonians, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, and Galatians. Some of these appear to be collections as opposed to single letters. An obvious question is why do we have so many letters from Paul and no letters to Paul? Who collected these letters? And how did these letters get so widely circulated? My answer to the first two is that Paul did not keep letters that were addressed to him and Luke collected the letters Paul sent as Luke tracked Saul down. I contend the entire court record was sent essentially to the Sadducee priesthood long before the destruction of the Temple. Next, we must find a viable answer to the Synoptic problem. The copying in the Synoptics is an obvious problem. No Biblical Scholar that I am aware of has a viable solution the the Synoptic Problem, but the solution becomes obvious if we can step back from our bias for a moment and actually examine the texts with the idea that Christianity is the Anti-Jesus movement! The solution to the Synoptic problem begins with the Eucharist. Every Biblical scholar I am aware of agrees that the Eucharist originates in 1st Corinthians and then appears virtually word for word in all three of the Synoptics. I propose that Matthew and Mark began as eyewitness testimonies taken or gathered by Luke and were later modified by Paul to include the Eucharist, Apostles, and miracles. "The Lost Gospel of Paul," now known as "The Gospel of Luke," but should be called "The Gospel of Paul as presented to Theophilus by Luke) began as Saul's stories of a failed Jewish Messiah, and all three were blended by Saul before his arrest. The three Synoptics were presented to Theophilus in a modified form and became part of the court record. I would propose that all of the stories of John the Baptizer originate with the "Lost Gospel of Paul" as do all stories that require apostles as they are contrary to the "Call no man Rabbi" Movement. The healing miracles also originate with Paul. Further, we can "know" the John the Baptizer stories originate in the "Gospel of Luke" as Luke tells us in Acts that he was with Paul when Paul learned of John the Baptizer. It is important to recognize that another class of miracles was added to the Synoptics much later by the Temple priest that turned Jesus into God incarnate as they were fleeing the coming Roman destruction. This brings us to Acts, which begins as the story of Peter the Apostle to the Gentiles and ends with Paul being the Apostle to the Gentiles with the "stoning of Stephen" in between. The miracles of Jesus in the Synoptic are mirrored in the miracles of Peter in Acts. The story told around Stephen is because Saul was publicly accused of stoning Yeshua. Saul admits to being at a stoning but it was someone else, they deserved it, and even if he was at the stoning of Yeshua he only held the coats of those that threw rocks. He did not throw any stones himself. Next, we have the first version of Paul's blinding. Note this is the only harm Yeshua does to anyone, ever! It would appear that he found out he would be arrested on entry into Damascus and needed a disguise so he pretended to be blind. Saul realized that if he wanted to stop Yeshua's message from reaching the Jews all he needed to do was convince them Yeshua was a failed messiah who was killed by the Romans. From here on out Paul's defense will become the Romans crucified Yeshua like they did many other rabbis who would be messiahs. End of the story! Permanently shutting off Yeshua's message from Rabbinic Judaism and absolving himself of the murder. He also added the story of resurrection on the third day so that if any Jews believed in Yeshua's resurrection Saul would be absolved of the death, only for injuring Yeshua, under Jewish law. As further evidence that Paul had access to "Matthew," I would suggest that Paul mangles the Beatitudes at the end of Romans. If we look at many of the sayings that appear to move from Matthew to "Luke" we often see "Luke" turning the saying around. I would point to Matthew's saying that if you love your family more than God you are not worthy and "Luke" changing this to say if you do not hate your family you are not worthy. On my channel are what I believe to be the original versions of the Gospel. Jacob at History Valley was focused on the Synoptic problem when I found his channel a couple of years ago. Not a single scholar I have seen there appears to be able to answer many of the simple questions I pose answers to here. In this video, Jacob presents evidence that Paul killed James and he did it long before the 50s. The premise of this video is that Paul murdered James, Jesus' brother. th-cam.com/video/CAI_2zGCUsc/w-d-xo.html The letters attributed to Peter were likely written by Paul while he was in custody and were intercepted by Luke although 1st Peter made it to Jerusalem where someone penned a response under the name of Jude and this response made it back to Paul. 2nd Peter is his response to Jude. Both of these ended up in the court record. This ends the court record that was returned to Jerusalem. Many stories were added to the Synoptics by escaping Temple priest turning Jesus into God incarnate as well as "setting up" prophecy after the events were supposed to have happened. Hebrews, and everything attributed to "John" are the works of priests or rabbis that escaped Jerusalem. Revelation is a coded story of the destruction of Paul's "ministry" and the destruction of Jerusalem. Sorry, this is so long. There is a lot to consider. Shalom

I do not think that that scripture meant what you are implying. I understand it as the false teachers were reinterpreting Scripture to justify their abuse of others and using God for their own benefit. This I understand to be the context of Jeremiah's writing.

@@DDFergy1 Jeremiah's father was the High Priest Hilkiah under King Josiah. His father is the one who "found" the Torah scroll that changed the Temple practices which would lead to the downfall of the Southern Kingdom. Isaiah and Jeremiah are both actively trying to correct problems introduced into the Torah at this time. This is the beginning of the age of the Prophets whose sole purpose, in my opinion, is to correct the problems introduced by the scribes. These changes to the Torah are found in that many stories are told multiple times with significant enough differences to say they are in conflict with if not actually contradicting each other. These are known as doublets or triplets and how we deal with these inconsistencies forms the core of our Abrahamic Faith and the denomination within that faith. The Documentary Hypothesis addresses this as does the Supplementary Hypnosis more favored in Europe. One set of these doublets indicates that God never asked for any animal sacrifice. At this point in my studies, I believe that Hilkiah added the animal sacrificial system to the Torah along with Aaron as the sacrificial system requires a butcher class. Most of the prophets speak against the animal sacrificial system and that is why the Sadducees ignore the prophets. Jeremiah 7:22 directly addresses the slaughter that is Passover! My belief system about God begins with the idea that the only covenant that God has ever made with any man is found in Jeremiah 31:33-34. 31:33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” People generally call the Torah God has placed on our hearts a conscience. The thing is that for the vast majority of us, myself included, before we are accountable to God, while we are children, the Torah God gave us is overwritten by our parents, priests, and other teachers. The purpose of the original written Torah was to restore this Torah when we have been led astray by others. The Sadducees of Yeshua's day dealt with the problem of the doublets and triplets by only reading to the people the versions of these doublets that fit with a priestly class and an animal sacrificial system, ignoring the prophets completely. The Pharisees would just claim their Oral Law superseded anything and everything in the written Torah and could be changed by a council of men. Rabbinic Judaism still follows this practice to this day. Christianity in my opinion pretends the doublets do not exist. They pretend the purpose of the Prophets is to foretell of a coming messiah instead of recognizing that looking for a messiah, or thinking we have found one, is a test God tells us He will put before us. God sends Prophets to speak for Him, not messiahs, as God alone is our salvation. Shalom

Thank you for your comment and for presenting your thoughts on the history of the church. While we may have different understandings of what happened in the early church, our shared goal of seeking truth unites us. As I stated in my talk, we can use the premises of truth to question our presumptions and those of others to find the truth-those premises of truth being consistency, eternality, and omnipresence. Do you share my belief that the pursuit of truth involves challenging and questioning our own and others' assumptions? I'm not at all convinced that there was no Bible for the first three centuries. Though the church was persecuted, we have Greek, Aramaic, and Coptic scriptures in all parts of the New Testament. Though not complete, they exist in fragments. Many manuscripts were destroyed because of the persecution, and they were made of papri, which is less robust than documents written on hides. Also, those who knew the Apostles, like Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius of Antioch, wrote letters that included parts of the New and Old Testament. I understand that because Christ is called the Word, the Christian community made it a point for each believer to read and write. They had a very high literary rate compared to the general populace. At that time, they would use the Septuagint to have the Old Testament, though most church groups would likely not have all the Bible books. However, the theme of my talk was that one needs to use the premises of truth to understand what is written. One can have all books on all things but will not understand them if they do not search with questions of truth. Luther and Calvin claimed they used sola scriptura but read their presumptions into scripture. I agree with your statement on the Catholic church. From my understanding, the entire Christian church does not understand the Old Testament. Because of this, they do not understand the Covenant Christ makes with each believer. They know salvation as a corporate action by God rather than individual forgiveness by Christ to each believer who agrees to the Covenant He makes with them. I also agree with your statements on inerrancy. In other videos, I discuss what I consider the Gospel and criticize the current understanding of all theological schools on this. I understand that they use Zoroastrian and Gnostic theology to explain the Gospel.

From my understanding of Hebrew the Bible does not present the God of the Old Testament or from my understanding of the Greek the New Testament does not state God as having an infinite nature. From my study of the history of the church, Gnosticism and Zoroastrian theology and philosophy I have concluded that esteemed Theologians have redefined Christianity into Gnostic and Zoroastrian beliefs. Gnosticism and Far Eastern religions have a religion based on the concept that God is Infinite in nature. This God is the Monad who is at or is the Nirvana.

@@DDFergy1 thank you for your reply. Therefore, humanity does not need these little, jealous, insecure, and angry gods.

​ Yes there are way too many little gods. Everyone with their own 'truth'.

I agree that the Universe is NOT infinite. In Pantheism the assumption is that the Universe is infinite and it is God, having all things being determined by and incorporated as part of its existence. But I am not a Pantheist, and I believe that God is distinct, Holy. My point is people give God the quality of being infinite then logically the conclusion of this premise is God IS the Universe. They are preaching Pantheism even if they consider themselves Christian.

I think origins matter but do not necessarily define the religion or people who follow it in the present.

What do you think about in the issues I mentioned? Do you think I presented their position properly? Do you agree or disagree with my understanding on the issues involving salvation according to the Biblical narrative? Thanks for any comment. I seem to talk slowly, I recommend 1.5 speed.

Calvin was a push for INERRANCY in describing the Bible. But what he really meant was his interpretation was errant. But if one questioned his interpretation then he would state that person is questioning the validity of the Bible. Instead Paul writes that the Bible is to reprove, teach, and train people in righteousness. This is done by searching the Scriptures with questions, not by assuming to know what is written. To assume is to project one's own thoughts into Scripture.

Interesting. I have not heard that before.

Its not new , it's just taking some of the ancient texts a little more literal Thank you for your time and interest Godspeed

Thank you for for your comment. That is my goal to speak truth.

So what is it?

@@thefellowheirs you don't need a special book to talk to God.

@@dansaber5853 maybe not to talk to him. But to know his full plan you might

What does it mean when someone says Scripture is inerrant? It means that one thinks they know all that there is to know on Scripture. That to question their interpretation is to question the authority of Scripture. This is exactly the opposite of what Paul wrote the purpose of Scripture. Scripture is to be use to reprove the arrogant. To teach. To train in righteousness. Many think they know all about righteousness yet they have instigated the murder of their critics. The life of John Calvin is a excellent example of this. He was a strong promoter of the inerrancy of Scripture, which meant to not question his interpretation of Scripture.

@@DDFergy1 people want to have eternal life and know the future. And have a good life. If the Bible is true then all of these things are real and possible. Seems like a conflict of interest to me. What's unique about what people call Christianity is it redefines these Temptations which are just common to man as righteous and humble. I like the take Indiana Jones has on the subject. About the penitent man. And what true respect for God looks like.