This is what I asked an atheist friend of mine. You have to be absolutely bonkers to believe that early Christians died because of a lie, especially those closest to Christ.
@I'll be damned if I ain't handsome Not quite; context matters. Christianity was born in a time of strife. Christ met a gruesome death, and his followers had some too. It took centuries for Christianity to gain a foothold in the Roman Empire, with plenty of persecution in between.
@I'll be damned if I ain't handsome That answer doesn't mean anything. You say people won't die for what they perceive to be true, but this video is making the assertion that people wouldn't die for a lie or some charlatan's conspiracy, whether you're Jesus or one of His Apostles.
They wanted Him dead before He was even born. They never hated Him more then when he raised the dead. No one has ever been so hated as He, the Eternal Son of the Living God. Why? Because we are Sinners.
It has become common knowledge that many recent conspiracy theories have come to be known as conspiracy FACTS. Being accused of being a conspiracy theorist is something to be proud of. God bless
@6:50 He 100% WRONG about JFK… A bit disappointed he even tried to use this as an example… 😬🤦🏻♂️ JFK was killed by the CIA / in conjunction with the CIA it’s pretty mainstream now… 🤷🏻♂️ th-cam.com/video/pCFr6aR61f8/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/PAiRmhXvJHs/w-d-xo.html You think a HUGE corporate news media, would let their host indulge/inflame “conspiracy”? 🤔
Brian is awesome but he clearly hasn't done the research into many modern conspiracies. He lost me a little with his mention of the one in NY 20+ years ago. I don't know ANYONE who's looked into this fully, who believes the official narrative. It's a shame because I want to send this excellent video to people, but his credibility will drop with some, due to speaking out of ignorance.
@@crushtheserpent Solid post! 🙌🏼 You summarized my own sentiments with your thoughts… It’s too bad Brian is so ignorant when it comes to these issues… *Made me laugh 😂 a bit too, because NO one has ever linked “Russia -> JFK” it’s always been the CIA… **AND “They” have pretty much admitted it, with whistleblowers, documents said to be released than pushed to the side… The FACT that they “sealed” the report in the 1st place… Deep dives, magic bullet, eye witnesses of multiple shots/the grassy knoll, the FACT that the CIA and other depts. hated JFK, JFK was shaking things up in Government, Jack Ruby’s background/the FACT that he was a mess and drugged while behind bars… (he turned into a shell of himself/hard psychedelics used on him), blah, blah… Those that I’ve come across (even in my own family) who still think that Oswald just picked up a rifle, went to the top of the Book Depository building, made a PERFECT shot, etc, etc… They either don’t really care/are passive on knowing the truth… Most have never taken the time… The evidence is pretty overwhelming that Oswald was a patsy.
Thank you, dear Brian, not only for another Aristotelian argumentation with a convincing corollary, but also for giving us an insight into 13-year old Brian, a precocious wiseacre and nightmare of his teachers for sure😅🎉! Christus resurrexit, vere resurrexit. Happy Easter, everybody!
Exactly my thought. The US military industrial complex wanted to ramp up the Vietnam War but after the Bay of Pigs, JFK wasn't having it. The CIA was much more invested in installing a pro war president than KGB.
@@CanditoTrainingHQ There were a couple of naive moments in this otherwise excellent vid. Bit of a shame because it drops his credibility in some peoples eyes :(
I just used this defense the other day! Who in their right mind would CHOOSE to persist in following Jesus after he was brutally crucified? They had to have witnessed what they professed because they knew what their end would be. Viva Christo Rey!
What humans fail to understand in my opinion. Books are not the source of knowledge. Books are a resource where knowledge is documented. There are only two sources of knowledge, the Creator or the Creation. The Bible is beyond the capability of human authorship. It is the Creators knowledge documented by the creation. It is the worlds first hyperlinked document with some seventy thousands examples.
Christianity did not "descend" from Judaism. Judaism is a new religion because it rejected the Old Testament's and Moses' prediction of a Messiah. Christianity descends from the Old Testament, NOT Judaism. This is an important distinction.
Incorrect. The Disciples were Jewish, followed the Torah as well as Jesus. Yes many Jews rejected Jesus sure, but Christianity is the fulfillment of the law. Judaism is the imperfect version of Gods Word due to the rejection of Jesus.
@@artifexdei3671 true but they are closer than people realize. When Jews become Catholic for them it’s not a conversion but a fuller acceptance of the Word of God
The apostles and early catholics certainly have no incentive to believe in Jesus other than the truth. They have plenty of disincentives not to believe. They all died poor and horribly. Its very unlikely multiple generations of a wide variety of cultures would be masochists in such a huge scale of lasting psychosis. I certainly could not understand martyrdom even if i am a believer even at this time of civilization.
Timeline. The Gospels didn’t appear until many generations later. The original Christianity may have been very different. Pauls message is different than the Gospels. John’s Gospel is different than the first 3. It’s likely the first the New Testament is an amalgam carefully constructed to appease an intended outcome and the masses of the day. It needed a certain flavour of some believers of the time and a direction to steer it for the hand-off the falling Roman Empire to new Religious Empire from a Cesar to Priest. Many years past from the alleged Jesus of Nazareth to a Canon Bible. There were many writings of Christianity and the so call Christ that had to be credited and discredited. What was the original Christianity like? Outside of the Canon, and even within if you try, are many faces of Jesus. I can trust the parallel, and open my ears hear the message, but give faith to a flailing empire to trust in their Canon is another thing. Like Paul says, trust the spirit to be the teacher not a human being as a teacher. I can gain from the essence of the teachings not the doctrine that is assigned to the whole of the alleged Canon Story.
A couple of points missed: not only did the disciples expect (and receive) persecution, but also of the other claims regarding Mohammad and Joseph Smith, --that they received wealth and an abundance of wives, these things neither did the disciples receive. Their doctrine was strictly monogamous in a time when monogamy was scoffed at. I've even heard Jewish Anti-Missionaries admit that Christians were hundreds of years ahead of them in regards to the value of monogamy. Nor did they receive great wealth. In regards to the conspiracy theory, this is something that I've wrestled with a lot. There are three main counter-explanations to the Resurrection: The Swoon Theory, the Hallucination Theory, and the Conspiracy Theory. The Swoon Theory is the ridiculous notion that somehow Jesus survived Roman Crucifixion, was mistakenly assumed to be dead, then thrown into a grave, where after a few days He got better (with no food, water, or medicine). The Hallucination Theory is that the disciples (all 11 of them) experienced Post Mordum Hallucinations of Jesus, which they interpreted as Him being risen back to life. All 11 of them? Plus James and Paul who didn't believe in Him? I have come to the conclusion that the Conspiracy Theory is the best alternative to the Resurrection. But that many men who knew good and well that they were making up a lie, committed their lives to poverty in defense of that lie, made up this counter-flesh idea that one wife max (plus you can't look with lust at other women either), and willingly faced crucifixion, being burned, fed to lions and bears and dogs, and plenty of other gruesome deaths, -all for what they knew to be a lie. And somehow, these people got Paul and James (disbelievers) on board? Even if such a thing happened, then this itself is a marvel. This was the most successful and elaborate conspiracy of all time, despite being against all odds, and elevated the world in many beautiful ways. And many of the methods they used still hold up to scrutiny two thousand years later in a culture they could have never imagined, with advances of technologies they could have never fathomed, and scholarly approaches that they didn't even think of. Christianity has to be at least one of the following three: 1.) the most brilliant religion ever invented, 2.) the luckiest deception ever devised, or 3.) the truest message that has ever been taught.
To be a little bit of an advocatus diaboli here: how would you argue about fiction /lore developed by a multitude of people? Stuff such as the SCP foundation and to a smaller degree Warhammer 40k. Its not written by a single author alone…
I like this argument, but I think it could be improved in some points. Firstly, since the time of Spinoza IDK that it is commonly accepted that the scriptures really do have a fundamental and apparent coherence and consistency in the first place. It could rather be that we think they are coherent because we come to them with an interpretive tradition (such as Augustine's rules of Faith and Charity) which irons out the kinks. Secondly, while it is obvious that the prophets could not have conspired with one another to produce the holy text, the compilers, translators, scribes, and religious authorities could have. Not every scroll written by a Hebrew wise man was accepted into the canon of scriptures, and someone made the choice of which texts to keep and which to reject. Who those compilers are differs by your religious tradition, but each tradition has them. One would be a fool to think Abraham and Jeramiah conspired together, but what about the "seventy" who translated the Septuagint? Many would say an "conspiracy" (i.e., that the translators, if the existed, actually worked together on their compilation amd translations) is far more likley than the traditional, miraculous account given by Saint Augustine.
You do realize that the seventy who translated the Septuagint were all isolated and made to translate the texts separately because Ptolemy wanted an actually accurate translation without errors? There couldn't have been a conspiracy by the seventy that translated the septuagint.
Nice out together. I would add 2 points new (or maybe one, just stress the other) 1) you say bible was written by many people over long span of time. Yes, but it was compiled together into a single book by fewer man in a much shorter amount of time. That's an accusation I heard and made myself - thou I guess it just requires you to double check with the source material, and if some books were tinkered with in a significant way, then you have a smiling gun🤔 So it might not be the best point😅 2) In this line of reasoning, what also convinces me is that people who knew the guy, were willing to die for him/the faith. And let's face it - conspiracy, for early power and what not is not something I would see people, schemers, be willing to die for. The first batch, those who knew it's all a lie.
The fact that so much time passed between these writers makes it easier for lies and deception to happen, not harder. It makes it harder to prove or disprove their claims. No conspiracy between the writers of different time periods required.
But like he said the people that wrote the book that was with Jesus when he died still went along with his word knowing they would be persecuted they would only do that if they new 4 sure.
This is exactly what so special about Christianity (compared with most other religions): people really can’t just ignore it because it really requires supernatural explanations. You hit the point!
Brian, great video. I know you know this, but for the sake of your viewers who don’t, faith is a gift. When Peter answered Jesus’ question as to whom he thought he was, Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt. 16:17) You can’t prove God and the afterlife with science or history, although there are some convincing arguments out there. The gift of faith is so powerful, as you said, the early Christians were willing to die for it.
Absolutely false. Occam was a Nominalist who rejected Thomas Aquinas' (the Church's and humanity's greatest philosopher) synthesis of Reason and Faith. So please, stop with the vague reference to a person who believed that one could accept "two truths". One of Faith and one of Reason and that they could contradict one another. Next.....
@@Goodkidjr43 Even if it is not possible to reasonably believe two contradictory positions simultaneously, it is possible to both agree and disagree with different ideas that originate from the same philosopher.
The flaw in your theory, from my perspective, is that although the great mythical archetypes are preposterous, they nonetheless aren't fictions. This is pretty hard to swallow. But history is always a lie because it depends upon both personal interpretation and media control. Myth, on the other hand, is always true because it represents genuine human experience even if the narratives are preposterous. Why, for instance, are dragons always a feature of every mythological tradition? It must be that dragons actually existed at one time, but not now. I don't mean that we should change biology to accommodate dragons, but that something like dragons, with their unique characteristics of breathing fire, having whiskers and flowing hair or scales/feathers, actually existed in earthly skies during a past era. These were plasmoids, comets, etc.. Likewise for all the rest of the archetypes, as hard as that may be to believe. History is always a lie. Myth is always true.
BTW, Jacob L. Wright has essentially proved that the Torah and Tanakh were a "conspiracy" of tribal Hebrew scribes created mostly during and after the 4th century BCE in order to give the Hebrews an identity. There is no problem with a group collaboration in a scriptorium, especially if it's funded by wealthy people such as the family of tax farmers: the Alexanders. And having had experience with having done this in prior times, it wasn't difficult for the Flavian emperors, who were also tax farmers, to team up with the Alexanders, to do it all over again with Christianity... the proof being the typology that is revealed in reading Josephus along with the gospels, as Atwill makes quite clear. But the larger issue is that this method of typological prefiguration explains a lot more than Judaism and Christianity, but the propagation of myth itself... not as a "fiction" but as an adaptation of much more ancient archetypes to the needs of later elites and peoples... a careful string of human call and response. So no, you're wrong. You've been miseducated. Moreover, all of this is about to happen again as the Abrahamic faiths begin to disappear, and the old wine of mythology is poured into the new bottles of UFO religion.
there's actually Edomite documentation that talks about how the OT was changed by the hand/pen of man. And then the catholic church further did that to fit the narrative of Paul. The Bible is not coherent lol. There's also so many mistranslations. For example the word Isaiah uses for the mother of Jesus means a woman who is a child bearing age NOT a virgin. There's a reason it's not mentioned in 3 of the 4 gospels.
Indeed, the Koran was said to be the work of Allah because no person could have done such a beautiful work.such was the argument before. Any literate and logical person would have concluded otherwise upon reading it.
"The normal human reaction to a great cultural achievement like the Bible is to do what the Philistines did to Samson: reduced it to impotence, then lock it in a mill to grind our aggressions and prejudices but perhaps its hair, like Samson's, could grow again even there" Northrop Frye
Gotcha So 1000 years from now if people believe that Star Wars, the Marvel Universe, DC Comics, or Star Trek is true - many books, movies, consistent canon, etc. Then you're ok with that, right? Your argument Is weak. Obviously man's creativity is capable of creating something as mundane as the Bible. So many Jedi died believing in 'the force'. Must be true.
It is even worse as every story collection with a common topic is then "true" because of the consistency and such. So the editor who collects them make them true as long as they fit together. So 7 Harry Potter books in one makes it a true story because of consistency.
Islam is no longer an Abrahamic religion but paganic cult from one pagan arab claiming to be prophet. muhd had nothing familiar to jewish heritage, tradition, worship of Yhwh.
Interesting video as always, but as someone of Jewish descent, I have to throw a spoiler: ask a few rabbis why they don't believe that Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies. You may not find the answers convincing, but they are well reasoned and explain why the Jews did not convert en masse.
🇷🇺☦We should not disrespect the other 2 Abrahamic religions - our enemy is the Protestant faith and the reformation cults, not Islam and Judaism, which are our allies in our fight against the godless western world
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy I absolutely agree. Going with the descent model, Protestantism is Mordred to Catholicism's Arthur: conceived against his father's will and existing solely to destroy his father.
Hold on bro, why you need to lie , you pass yourself as a man who knows what his talking about but you go and discredit yourself by misrepresenting Islam ,the quraan and the prophet. Let me school you right quick . The quraan proves itself to be divine by stating facts on a variety of subjects unknown to man for at least a thousand years, how do you explain that smarty pants,in my opinion it's Almightys way of proving to us here in the distant future of its divinity. As far as it stating what's already mentioned in bible about divine history, why not , is it not from the same Almighty and you know the bible has changed a good few accounts of divine human history, the quraan rectified that. Islam means submission to Almighty, we all who profess to love and obey Almighty do just that so in effect its not Judaism, Christianity and Islam but instead Islam 1.0,2.0 and the final 3.0 , the quraan states ,O MANKIND, TODAY I HAVE PERFECTED RELIGION AND COMPLETED MY FAVOUR UPON YOU. This statement says it all when you consider what Jesus, peace be upon him said, " I have many things to say unto you but you cannot bare it now howbeit when the Spirit of Truth comes ,he will bring yourll to all truth ,he shall not speak of his own but what he hears . The Islamic narrative is that Almighty sent revelation with Gabriel(HG) to the prophet ,these revelations were written on whatever was available and largely memorized untill final compilation. The author of the quraan was Almighty, that makes it the one and only in existence that can make that claim and backs it up by its divine knowledge. It's a tangible miracle , and Jesus, peace be upon him said," THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE ". PEACE ALL❤❤😊😊😊😊😊
Jesus is Lord Who conquered death and is our salvation and set up His church but to believe the Catholic church has kept His approval other than as generally part of "whosoever believeth" after all these centuries and the major deviations is truly conspiratorial "thinking"
"That is a level of coordination and sophistication, that even if it was all a big lie I'd still want to follow these people because they know how to get things done" So basically, go along with a deception just because you're impressed with the people's ability to deceive you. Yeah, that's a big problem. And honestly, that's probably how most people think about things. It's also probably why Roman Catholicism has as many adherents as it does even though it's Vatican I Papal claims cannot be supported by the history of the Church in the first millennium.
Nice trying to take him out of context to make a point about the level of sophistication it would’ve required to validate the claims of Christianity. And your premise of Vatican I is false on top of that.
@@brianfarley926 Not trying to take him out of context, just making an observation. And no, my premise about the Vatican I papacy claims not being supported by the first millennium of the Church is correct. For example, look at canon 28 of Chalcedon. I know RC apologists will say that the pope never accepted that canon, but the fact is the Churches of the east did. It demonstrates that the Churches of the east didn't think Rome had a special divine charism not shared by the other Churches. This is directly opposed to Vatican I's claims.
@@justanotherlikeyou The Pope declared the canon in 382. And the East did accept the canon and also included a couple extra books. There was not a formal charge of authority to the canon like Luther did by calling books that were declared for centuries as Scripture to then be NOT Scripture. The East followed there own traditions by having the 2 extra books of Maccabees for example. The Orthrodox weren’t running around like Luther declaring OT books NOT Scripture so radically different on that end. And there is many example of the East accepting the claims of the authority of the Pope I’d also simply refer you to the 6th Ecumenical Council on the claims of Papal authority which the East accepted. Not to mention there many other examples of the Pope using his authority to settle disputes like on Baptism for example with Pope Stephen I which he used his authority to override what Bishops of the East we’re doing To my recollection Chalcedon was about the Nestorian heresy primarily I’m not some professional theologian either. I have an interest but am self educated no fancy college degree in it but here’s also what Pope Leo said at Chalcedon that I see as orthodoxy very much so: Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.
@@brianfarley926 Rome never accepted the premise of canon 28 of Chalcedon which was reiterated by 3 subsequent Ecumenical Councils. Nice try. And it is precisely the premise of canon 28 that invalidates the claims of Vatcan I. That the Roman Church only has the preeminent place in the Church because Old Rome was the seat of the empire, and not because of any special divine prerogatives bestowed upon her by God over and above any other Church, completely flies in the face of Vatican I's claims and has never been accepted by Roman Church. Also, the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I is a testimony against Rome's claims as well. It was convened, completed, and considered Ecumenical, orthodox, and authoritative by all of the eastern Sees for decades before Rome acquiesced to it. Furthermore, it was called out of communion with Rome, and its head, St. Meletios, a Saint, died out of communion with Rome, thus showing that the common RC apologist claim that Rome was necessary to validate a council as Ecumenical is false. What made a council "Ecumenical" was simply that it was called by the Emperor of the Ecumene (Roman Empire), which would subject its authority to everyone in the empire, and that its teachings were orthodox in nature. Any council that did not meet these two criteria could not be called Ecumenical in the true sense of the word. This is why you have Synods or Councils that were orthodox in nature but not Ecumenical because they weren't convened at the behest of the Emperor. It's also why you have a supposed Ecumenical Council that is considered a false council, and goes by the name of the Robber Council of Ephesus, because it was convened at the behest of the Emperor, but it didn't adhere to the orthodox faith. The RC claim that Rome's approval was necessary for a council to be considered Ecumenical just isn't true.
@@justanotherlikeyou what makes an ecumenical council is the Pope declaring it to be one and signing off on it so you’re premise again is false but nice try. Ecumenical Councils are declared so by the Pope and the Bishops of the world gather with him for the subject at hand. Orthodox for example since the split are incapable and have been unable to hold an Ecumenical Council. The Pope declaring the Council Chalcedon and is the 4th Ecumenical Council and is apart of the Catholic Faith so it was agreed upon Yes the Pope has the authority to declare or not declare something regarding the faith so you’re arguments are not convincing 431 Pope Celestine I, 422-432 Emperor Theodosius II, 408-450 Decisions: Condemned Nestorianism, which denied the unity of the divine and human in Christ; defined that Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos), a doctrine denied by the Nestorians and by most of today’s Protestants; condemned Pelagianism, which held that man could earn his own salvation through his natural powers. The Robber Council was a 2nd council of Ephesus Christological church synod in 449 AD convened by Emperor Theodosius II under the presidency of Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria.[1] It was intended to be an ecumenical council, and it is accepted as such by the miaphysite churches but was rejected by the Chalcedonian dyophysites. It was explicitly repudiated by the next council, the Council of Chalcedon of 451,[1] recognised as the fourth ecumenical council by Chalcedonian Christians, and it was named the Latrocinium or "Robber Council" by Pope Leo I;[1][2] the Chalcedonian churches, particularly the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions, continue to accept this designation, while the Oriental Orthodox repudiate it. That’s within the Purview of the Pope to do such. So not convincing Oriental Orthodoxy doesn’t have the claim of authority to infallibly declare by themselves the nature of Christ. If it goes against what the rest of the magisterium declared of the Bishops and also of the Pope so they were not correct here and it caused a schism
difference is Joseph Smith actually IS the prophet God chose to restore the true church of Jesus Christ ... the proof is there but if you wont consider whats provided then rest assured JESUS HAS THE FINAL SAY on what He has done and who He has chosen -- we all find out soon enough (and the Mormons believe youll still have a chance even then)
What about that time that God said that there were no Gods before him or after them, and then Mormonism taught that there are many Gods? Seems obviously false to me.
Joseph Smith was a convicted con man who never provided any evidence of his claims, many of which have been disproven by science, history, and the Bible itself (the location for the Garden of Eden is quite specific in Genesis and spoiler, it wasn't Missouri). Most Mormons are lovely people, so I say this not to insult them but to try to make them examine their theology: St Paul said that anyone who taught a different Gospel, even if he is an angel, is trying to destroy souls and is damned. That prophecy seems word for word the claim Smith made of how he received his "revelation."
Mormons aren’t Christian and it’s a false religion with zero evidence to its claims. Joseph Smith and his inner circle were liars. The Mormon Church has rejected and rejected their own church essential doctrines. Somehow you get to be your own God of some universe far far away ruling over… what exactly?
So we steal the body... We tell everyone He came back to life..... And we all get brutally murdered! Hooray!!
This is what I asked an atheist friend of mine. You have to be absolutely bonkers to believe that early Christians died because of a lie, especially those closest to Christ.
Peter... you ROCK! 🪨 😂
@I'll be damned if I ain't handsome Not quite; context matters. Christianity was born in a time of strife. Christ met a gruesome death, and his followers had some too. It took centuries for Christianity to gain a foothold in the Roman Empire, with plenty of persecution in between.
@I'll be damned if I ain't handsome That answer doesn't mean anything. You say people won't die for what they perceive to be true, but this video is making the assertion that people wouldn't die for a lie or some charlatan's conspiracy, whether you're Jesus or one of His Apostles.
@I'll be damned if I ain't handsome Which other religion grounded in history has at its roots martyrs rather than warlords?
Christ is King
th-cam.com/video/fmYgWWJ4enA/w-d-xo.html
Charles III is king. Yeshuah or Yoshuah is a dead preacher that was turned into a god by fan fiction storytellers.
Who’s Christ ?
Leftoid law says u can't say that.....
no evidence for him
They wanted Him dead before He was even born. They never hated Him more then when he raised the dead. No one has ever been so hated as He, the Eternal Son of the Living God. Why? Because we are Sinners.
It has become common knowledge that many recent conspiracy theories have come to be known as conspiracy FACTS. Being accused of being a conspiracy theorist is something to be proud of. God bless
@6:50 He 100% WRONG about JFK… A bit disappointed he even tried to use this as an example… 😬🤦🏻♂️
JFK was killed by the CIA / in conjunction with the CIA
it’s pretty mainstream now… 🤷🏻♂️
th-cam.com/video/pCFr6aR61f8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/PAiRmhXvJHs/w-d-xo.html
You think a HUGE corporate news media, would let their host indulge/inflame “conspiracy”? 🤔
Brian is awesome but he clearly hasn't done the research into many modern conspiracies. He lost me a little with his mention of the one in NY 20+ years ago. I don't know ANYONE who's looked into this fully, who believes the official narrative. It's a shame because I want to send this excellent video to people, but his credibility will drop with some, due to speaking out of ignorance.
@@crushtheserpent Solid post! 🙌🏼 You summarized my own sentiments with your thoughts… It’s too bad Brian is so ignorant when it comes to these issues…
*Made me laugh 😂 a bit too, because NO one has ever linked “Russia -> JFK” it’s always been the CIA…
**AND “They” have pretty much admitted it, with whistleblowers, documents said to be released than pushed to the side… The FACT that they “sealed” the report in the 1st place… Deep dives, magic bullet, eye witnesses of multiple shots/the grassy knoll, the FACT that the CIA and other depts. hated JFK, JFK was shaking things up in Government, Jack Ruby’s background/the FACT that he was a mess and drugged while behind bars… (he turned into a shell of himself/hard psychedelics used on him), blah, blah…
Those that I’ve come across (even in my own family) who still think that Oswald just picked up a rifle, went to the top of the Book Depository building, made a PERFECT shot, etc, etc… They either don’t really care/are passive on knowing the truth… Most have never taken the time… The evidence is pretty overwhelming that Oswald was a patsy.
@@crushtheserpentIt doesnt matter what you belief it matters what you can proof. No proof = false claim.
@@pears0094 So a handful of sebnators could not have killed Ceasar in the senate it must have been Aliens argument.
Thank you, dear Brian, not only for another Aristotelian argumentation with a convincing corollary, but also for giving us an insight into 13-year old Brian, a precocious wiseacre and nightmare of his teachers for sure😅🎉! Christus resurrexit, vere resurrexit. Happy Easter, everybody!
Brian, you are a scripture scholar inspired by the Holy Spirit!! ❤🙏
CIA is more likely.
Exactly my thought. The US military industrial complex wanted to ramp up the Vietnam War but after the Bay of Pigs, JFK wasn't having it. The CIA was much more invested in installing a pro war president than KGB.
That was a funnily naive moment for him to think KGB. Muh russia.
@@CanditoTrainingHQ It's a lot safer to pin it on the KGB than the far more likely source.
@@CanditoTrainingHQ There were a couple of naive moments in this otherwise excellent vid. Bit of a shame because it drops his credibility in some peoples eyes :(
Christ Conquers,
Christ Reigns,
Christ Commands!
christ saves
Brian are you watching The Chosen? I would love commentary video. I am surprisingly enjoying it much more than I thought as a traditional Catholic
Biggest thanks for sharing the jewel of Brian's voice & mind that shines with brilliance.
I just used this defense the other day! Who in their right mind would CHOOSE to persist in following Jesus after he was brutally crucified? They had to have witnessed what they professed because they knew what their end would be. Viva Christo Rey!
Have a blessed Easter, everyone
I would say, "First", but I am neither the Alpha nor the Omega.
Gods got me I’m not scared of anything but him
What humans fail to understand in my opinion. Books are not the source of knowledge. Books are a resource where knowledge is documented. There are only two sources of knowledge, the Creator or the Creation. The Bible is beyond the capability of human authorship. It is the Creators knowledge documented by the creation. It is the worlds first hyperlinked document with some seventy thousands examples.
A blessed Good Friday, everyone
Christianity did not "descend" from Judaism. Judaism is a new religion because it rejected the Old Testament's and Moses' prediction of a Messiah. Christianity descends from the Old Testament, NOT Judaism. This is an important distinction.
Well put
historians generally draw a distinction between "temple judaism" and "rabbinical judaism". You can guess which is which
Incorrect. The Disciples were Jewish, followed the Torah as well as Jesus. Yes many Jews rejected Jesus sure, but Christianity is the fulfillment of the law. Judaism is the imperfect version of Gods Word due to the rejection of Jesus.
catholicism is a continuation of temple Judaism, rabbinical Judaism is a different thing altogether,
@@artifexdei3671 true but they are closer than people realize. When Jews become Catholic for them it’s not a conversion but a fuller acceptance of the Word of God
You got nice hair dude
He and JP are competing for the best hair on YT.
Well articulated. And by the way love the vest and tie. So smart!
The apostles and early catholics certainly have no incentive to believe in Jesus other than the truth. They have plenty of disincentives not to believe. They all died poor and horribly. Its very unlikely multiple generations of a wide variety of cultures would be masochists in such a huge scale of lasting psychosis. I certainly could not understand martyrdom even if i am a believer even at this time of civilization.
Timeline. The Gospels didn’t appear until many generations later. The original Christianity may have been very different. Pauls message is different than the Gospels. John’s Gospel is different than the first 3. It’s likely the first the New Testament is an amalgam carefully constructed to appease an intended outcome and the masses of the day. It needed a certain flavour of some believers of the time and a direction to steer it for the hand-off the falling Roman Empire to new Religious Empire from a Cesar to Priest. Many years past from the alleged Jesus of Nazareth to a Canon Bible. There were many writings of Christianity and the so call Christ that had to be credited and discredited. What was the original Christianity like? Outside of the Canon, and even within if you try, are many faces of Jesus. I can trust the parallel, and open my ears hear the message, but give faith to a flailing empire to trust in their Canon is another thing. Like Paul says, trust the spirit to be the teacher not a human being as a teacher. I can gain from the essence of the teachings not the doctrine that is assigned to the whole of the alleged Canon Story.
Who wrote the books Matthew mark Matthew and Luke?
A couple of points missed: not only did the disciples expect (and receive) persecution, but also of the other claims regarding Mohammad and Joseph Smith, --that they received wealth and an abundance of wives, these things neither did the disciples receive. Their doctrine was strictly monogamous in a time when monogamy was scoffed at. I've even heard Jewish Anti-Missionaries admit that Christians were hundreds of years ahead of them in regards to the value of monogamy. Nor did they receive great wealth.
In regards to the conspiracy theory, this is something that I've wrestled with a lot. There are three main counter-explanations to the Resurrection: The Swoon Theory, the Hallucination Theory, and the Conspiracy Theory. The Swoon Theory is the ridiculous notion that somehow Jesus survived Roman Crucifixion, was mistakenly assumed to be dead, then thrown into a grave, where after a few days He got better (with no food, water, or medicine). The Hallucination Theory is that the disciples (all 11 of them) experienced Post Mordum Hallucinations of Jesus, which they interpreted as Him being risen back to life. All 11 of them? Plus James and Paul who didn't believe in Him?
I have come to the conclusion that the Conspiracy Theory is the best alternative to the Resurrection. But that many men who knew good and well that they were making up a lie, committed their lives to poverty in defense of that lie, made up this counter-flesh idea that one wife max (plus you can't look with lust at other women either), and willingly faced crucifixion, being burned, fed to lions and bears and dogs, and plenty of other gruesome deaths, -all for what they knew to be a lie. And somehow, these people got Paul and James (disbelievers) on board? Even if such a thing happened, then this itself is a marvel. This was the most successful and elaborate conspiracy of all time, despite being against all odds, and elevated the world in many beautiful ways. And many of the methods they used still hold up to scrutiny two thousand years later in a culture they could have never imagined, with advances of technologies they could have never fathomed, and scholarly approaches that they didn't even think of.
Christianity has to be at least one of the following three: 1.) the most brilliant religion ever invented, 2.) the luckiest deception ever devised, or 3.) the truest message that has ever been taught.
And your conclusion is?
@@paulthiele3102 That Christ is Lord
To be a little bit of an advocatus diaboli here: how would you argue about fiction /lore developed by a multitude of people? Stuff such as the SCP foundation and to a smaller degree Warhammer 40k. Its not written by a single author alone…
talkabout conspiracys not how you feel about religion
Does anybody know what in the name of the intro hymn for this show thanks
Like Joseph smith. Mormonism
Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat. Ave Christus Rex ✝️
I like this argument, but I think it could be improved in some points. Firstly, since the time of Spinoza IDK that it is commonly accepted that the scriptures really do have a fundamental and apparent coherence and consistency in the first place. It could rather be that we think they are coherent because we come to them with an interpretive tradition (such as Augustine's rules of Faith and Charity) which irons out the kinks. Secondly, while it is obvious that the prophets could not have conspired with one another to produce the holy text, the compilers, translators, scribes, and religious authorities could have. Not every scroll written by a Hebrew wise man was accepted into the canon of scriptures, and someone made the choice of which texts to keep and which to reject. Who those compilers are differs by your religious tradition, but each tradition has them. One would be a fool to think Abraham and Jeramiah conspired together, but what about the "seventy" who translated the Septuagint? Many would say an "conspiracy" (i.e., that the translators, if the existed, actually worked together on their compilation amd translations) is far more likley than the traditional, miraculous account given by Saint Augustine.
You do realize that the seventy who translated the Septuagint were all isolated and made to translate the texts separately because Ptolemy wanted an actually accurate translation without errors? There couldn't have been a conspiracy by the seventy that translated the septuagint.
Nice out together.
I would add 2 points new (or maybe one, just stress the other)
1) you say bible was written by many people over long span of time. Yes, but it was compiled together into a single book by fewer man in a much shorter amount of time. That's an accusation I heard and made myself - thou I guess it just requires you to double check with the source material, and if some books were tinkered with in a significant way, then you have a smiling gun🤔 So it might not be the best point😅
2) In this line of reasoning, what also convinces me is that people who knew the guy, were willing to die for him/the faith. And let's face it - conspiracy, for early power and what not is not something I would see people, schemers, be willing to die for. The first batch, those who knew it's all a lie.
Name of chant?
Look up Paul Jerberg- Brian has a link to his works in the description.
@@joan8862 thank you
@@sethlikes2lift No problem.
The fact that so much time passed between these writers makes it easier for lies and deception to happen, not harder. It makes it harder to prove or disprove their claims. No conspiracy between the writers of different time periods required.
But like he said the people that wrote the book that was with Jesus when he died still went along with his word knowing they would be persecuted they would only do that if they new 4 sure.
Brian, you and I have sparred in the past over Catholicism vs Protestantism. But I agree with everything you said in this video.
Jesus always seemed kind of like a wise-ass to me maybe they just liked his wicked sense of humor 😅
This is exactly what so special about Christianity (compared with most other religions): people really can’t just ignore it because it really requires supernatural explanations. You hit the point!
Brilliant, as always. Have a Blessed Easter.
It is a conspiracy to say the faith is a conspiracy
I like. this guy but I am shocked his wife can deal with him unless she sees it as self flagellation
Brian, great video. I know you know this, but for the sake of your viewers who don’t, faith is a gift. When Peter answered Jesus’ question as to whom he thought he was, Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt. 16:17) You can’t prove God and the afterlife with science or history, although there are some convincing arguments out there. The gift of faith is so powerful, as you said, the early Christians were willing to die for it.
1:12 Occam's razor is important to keep in mind!
Absolutely false. Occam was a Nominalist who rejected Thomas Aquinas' (the Church's and humanity's greatest philosopher) synthesis of Reason and Faith. So please, stop with the vague reference to a person who believed that one could accept "two truths". One of Faith and one of Reason and that they could contradict one another. Next.....
@@Goodkidjr43 Even if it is not possible to reasonably believe two contradictory positions simultaneously, it is possible to both agree and disagree with different ideas that originate from the same philosopher.
🐝🐝
@@gregoriotauro4469 That's what I get for not correcting autocorrect...
The flaw in your theory, from my perspective, is that although the great mythical archetypes are preposterous, they nonetheless aren't fictions. This is pretty hard to swallow. But history is always a lie because it depends upon both personal interpretation and media control. Myth, on the other hand, is always true because it represents genuine human experience even if the narratives are preposterous. Why, for instance, are dragons always a feature of every mythological tradition? It must be that dragons actually existed at one time, but not now. I don't mean that we should change biology to accommodate dragons, but that something like dragons, with their unique characteristics of breathing fire, having whiskers and flowing hair or scales/feathers, actually existed in earthly skies during a past era. These were plasmoids, comets, etc.. Likewise for all the rest of the archetypes, as hard as that may be to believe. History is always a lie. Myth is always true.
BTW, Jacob L. Wright has essentially proved that the Torah and Tanakh were a "conspiracy" of tribal Hebrew scribes created mostly during and after the 4th century BCE in order to give the Hebrews an identity. There is no problem with a group collaboration in a scriptorium, especially if it's funded by wealthy people such as the family of tax farmers: the Alexanders. And having had experience with having done this in prior times, it wasn't difficult for the Flavian emperors, who were also tax farmers, to team up with the Alexanders, to do it all over again with Christianity... the proof being the typology that is revealed in reading Josephus along with the gospels, as Atwill makes quite clear.
But the larger issue is that this method of typological prefiguration explains a lot more than Judaism and Christianity, but the propagation of myth itself... not as a "fiction" but as an adaptation of much more ancient archetypes to the needs of later elites and peoples... a careful string of human call and response.
So no, you're wrong. You've been miseducated. Moreover, all of this is about to happen again as the Abrahamic faiths begin to disappear, and the old wine of mythology is poured into the new bottles of UFO religion.
BRAVO!!!!!!!👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊
Excellent explanation. Thank you and God bless.
there's actually Edomite documentation that talks about how the OT was changed by the hand/pen of man. And then the catholic church further did that to fit the narrative of Paul. The Bible is not coherent lol. There's also so many mistranslations. For example the word Isaiah uses for the mother of Jesus means a woman who is a child bearing age NOT a virgin. There's a reason it's not mentioned in 3 of the 4 gospels.
Brian. I'm with you. Greetings from Belgium 🇧🇪
Indeed, the Koran was said to be the work of Allah because no person could have done such a beautiful work.such was the argument before. Any literate and logical person would have concluded otherwise upon reading it.
Yes. The "KGB"...
Look up The Roman Imperial Cult
Beautifully argued!
"The normal human reaction to a great cultural achievement like the Bible is to do what the Philistines did to Samson: reduced it to impotence, then lock it in a mill to grind our aggressions and prejudices but perhaps its hair, like Samson's, could grow again even there"
Northrop Frye
Starting with your conclusion is a logical fallacy
God bless you. Thanks be to God.
"even if it was all a big lie I would still want to follow these people"
then you need to read your bible again.
Great 👍
Gotcha
So 1000 years from now if people believe that Star Wars, the Marvel Universe, DC Comics, or Star Trek is true - many books, movies, consistent canon, etc. Then you're ok with that, right? Your argument Is weak. Obviously man's creativity is capable of creating something as mundane as the Bible. So many Jedi died believing in 'the force'. Must be true.
I love the comment so much lol
It is even worse as every story collection with a common topic is then "true" because of the consistency and such. So the editor who collects them make them true as long as they fit together. So 7 Harry Potter books in one makes it a true story because of consistency.
Islam is no longer an Abrahamic religion but paganic cult from one pagan arab claiming to be prophet. muhd had nothing familiar to jewish heritage, tradition, worship of Yhwh.
He had a connection to a gnostic group of Christians that lived in the area. If not steeped in the heretical religion, he was at least aware of it.
Interesting video as always, but as someone of Jewish descent, I have to throw a spoiler: ask a few rabbis why they don't believe that Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies. You may not find the answers convincing, but they are well reasoned and explain why the Jews did not convert en masse.
🇷🇺☦We should not disrespect the other 2 Abrahamic religions - our enemy is the Protestant faith and the reformation cults, not Islam and Judaism, which are our allies in our fight against the godless western world
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy I absolutely agree. Going with the descent model, Protestantism is Mordred to Catholicism's Arthur: conceived against his father's will and existing solely to destroy his father.
Hold on bro, why you need to lie , you pass yourself as a man who knows what his talking about but you go and discredit yourself by misrepresenting Islam ,the quraan and the prophet. Let me school you right quick . The quraan proves itself to be divine by stating facts on a variety of subjects unknown to man for at least a thousand years, how do you explain that smarty pants,in my opinion it's Almightys way of proving to us here in the distant future of its divinity. As far as it stating what's already mentioned in bible about divine history, why not , is it not from the same Almighty and you know the bible has changed a good few accounts of divine human history, the quraan rectified that. Islam means submission to Almighty, we all who profess to love and obey Almighty do just that so in effect its not Judaism, Christianity and Islam but instead Islam 1.0,2.0 and the final 3.0 , the quraan states ,O MANKIND, TODAY I HAVE PERFECTED RELIGION AND COMPLETED MY FAVOUR UPON YOU. This statement says it all when you consider what Jesus, peace be upon him said, " I have many things to say unto you but you cannot bare it now howbeit when the Spirit of Truth comes ,he will bring yourll to all truth ,he shall not speak of his own but what he hears . The Islamic narrative is that Almighty sent revelation with Gabriel(HG) to the prophet ,these revelations were written on whatever was available and largely memorized untill final compilation. The author of the quraan was Almighty, that makes it the one and only in existence that can make that claim and backs it up by its divine knowledge. It's a tangible miracle , and Jesus, peace be upon him said," THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE ". PEACE ALL❤❤😊😊😊😊😊
Incredible
Jesus is Lord
Who conquered death and is our
salvation and set up His church
but to believe the Catholic church
has kept His approval other than as
generally part of "whosoever believeth"
after all these centuries and the major
deviations is truly conspiratorial "thinking"
"That is a level of coordination and sophistication, that even if it was all a big lie I'd still want to follow these people because they know how to get things done"
So basically, go along with a deception just because you're impressed with the people's ability to deceive you. Yeah, that's a big problem. And honestly, that's probably how most people think about things. It's also probably why Roman Catholicism has as many adherents as it does even though it's Vatican I Papal claims cannot be supported by the history of the Church in the first millennium.
Nice trying to take him out of context to make a point about the level of sophistication it would’ve required to validate the claims of Christianity. And your premise of Vatican I is false on top of that.
@@brianfarley926 Not trying to take him out of context, just making an observation. And no, my premise about the Vatican I papacy claims not being supported by the first millennium of the Church is correct. For example, look at canon 28 of Chalcedon. I know RC apologists will say that the pope never accepted that canon, but the fact is the Churches of the east did. It demonstrates that the Churches of the east didn't think Rome had a special divine charism not shared by the other Churches. This is directly opposed to Vatican I's claims.
@@justanotherlikeyou The Pope declared the canon in 382. And the East did accept the canon and also included a couple extra books. There was not a formal charge of authority to the canon like Luther did by calling books that were declared for centuries as Scripture to then be NOT Scripture. The East followed there own traditions by having the 2 extra books of Maccabees for example. The Orthrodox weren’t running around like Luther declaring OT books NOT Scripture so radically different on that end.
And there is many example of the East accepting the claims of the authority of the Pope I’d also simply refer you to the 6th Ecumenical Council on the claims of Papal authority which the East accepted. Not to mention there many other examples of the Pope using his authority to settle disputes like on Baptism for example with Pope Stephen I which he used his authority to override what Bishops of the East we’re doing
To my recollection Chalcedon was about the Nestorian heresy primarily
I’m not some professional theologian either. I have an interest but am self educated no fancy college degree in it but here’s also what Pope Leo said at Chalcedon that I see as orthodoxy very much so:
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.
@@brianfarley926 Rome never accepted the premise of canon 28 of Chalcedon which was reiterated by 3 subsequent Ecumenical Councils. Nice try. And it is precisely the premise of canon 28 that invalidates the claims of Vatcan I. That the Roman Church only has the preeminent place in the Church because Old Rome was the seat of the empire, and not because of any special divine prerogatives bestowed upon her by God over and above any other Church, completely flies in the face of Vatican I's claims and has never been accepted by Roman Church. Also, the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I is a testimony against Rome's claims as well. It was convened, completed, and considered Ecumenical, orthodox, and authoritative by all of the eastern Sees for decades before Rome acquiesced to it. Furthermore, it was called out of communion with Rome, and its head, St. Meletios, a Saint, died out of communion with Rome, thus showing that the common RC apologist claim that Rome was necessary to validate a council as Ecumenical is false. What made a council "Ecumenical" was simply that it was called by the Emperor of the Ecumene (Roman Empire), which would subject its authority to everyone in the empire, and that its teachings were orthodox in nature. Any council that did not meet these two criteria could not be called Ecumenical in the true sense of the word. This is why you have Synods or Councils that were orthodox in nature but not Ecumenical because they weren't convened at the behest of the Emperor. It's also why you have a supposed Ecumenical Council that is considered a false council, and goes by the name of the Robber Council of Ephesus, because it was convened at the behest of the Emperor, but it didn't adhere to the orthodox faith. The RC claim that Rome's approval was necessary for a council to be considered Ecumenical just isn't true.
@@justanotherlikeyou what makes an ecumenical council is the Pope declaring it to be one and signing off on it so you’re premise again is false but nice try. Ecumenical Councils are declared so by the Pope and the Bishops of the world gather with him for the subject at hand. Orthodox for example since the split are incapable and have been unable to hold an Ecumenical Council. The Pope declaring the Council Chalcedon and is the 4th Ecumenical Council and is apart of the Catholic Faith so it was agreed upon
Yes the Pope has the authority to declare or not declare something regarding the faith so you’re arguments are not convincing
431
Pope Celestine I, 422-432
Emperor Theodosius II, 408-450
Decisions: Condemned Nestorianism, which denied the unity of the divine and human in Christ; defined that Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos), a doctrine denied by the Nestorians and by most of today’s Protestants; condemned Pelagianism, which held that man could earn his own salvation through his natural powers.
The Robber Council was a 2nd council of Ephesus
Christological church synod in 449 AD convened by Emperor Theodosius II under the presidency of Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria.[1] It was intended to be an ecumenical council, and it is accepted as such by the miaphysite churches but was rejected by the Chalcedonian dyophysites. It was explicitly repudiated by the next council, the Council of Chalcedon of 451,[1] recognised as the fourth ecumenical council by Chalcedonian Christians, and it was named the Latrocinium or "Robber Council" by Pope Leo I;[1][2] the Chalcedonian churches, particularly the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions, continue to accept this designation, while the Oriental Orthodox repudiate it.
That’s within the Purview of the Pope to do such. So not convincing
Oriental Orthodoxy doesn’t have the claim of authority to infallibly declare by themselves the nature of Christ. If it goes against what the rest of the magisterium declared of the Bishops and also of the Pope so they were not correct here and it caused a schism
337th viewer :)
difference is Joseph Smith actually IS
the prophet God chose to restore
the true church of Jesus Christ
... the proof is there but if you
wont consider whats provided
then rest assured JESUS HAS
THE FINAL SAY on what He
has done and who He has
chosen -- we all find out
soon enough (and the Mormons
believe youll still have a chance
even then)
what proof there is a total of 0 that ive found
What about that time that God said that there were no Gods before him or after them, and then Mormonism taught that there are many Gods? Seems obviously false to me.
Joseph Smith was a convicted con man who never provided any evidence of his claims, many of which have been disproven by science, history, and the Bible itself (the location for the Garden of Eden is quite specific in Genesis and spoiler, it wasn't Missouri).
Most Mormons are lovely people, so I say this not to insult them but to try to make them examine their theology: St Paul said that anyone who taught a different Gospel, even if he is an angel, is trying to destroy souls and is damned. That prophecy seems word for word the claim Smith made of how he received his "revelation."
Mormons aren’t Christian and it’s a false religion with zero evidence to its claims. Joseph Smith and his inner circle were liars. The Mormon Church has rejected and rejected their own church essential doctrines.
Somehow you get to be your own God of some universe far far away ruling over… what exactly?
Great 12 minute video and explanation of the true King Christ.