Only brave to feminized men and women who don't understand the augment. 99% is gospel-driven CN as Owen defines it. So Owen is clubbing the troglodyte 1% and acting as though it is the 99%. Its a tactic of the left that he continues to double-down on.
What Kinism? Name one pastor of any consequence who teaches this? It's like preaching against chattel slavery like there's nobody really advocating for this is there?
RJ Rushdoony brought in Kinism into the modern day Church in the 1960s. Kinism is the belief that all the races should stay separate, for a more peaceful society. Rushdooney also was a theonomist, placing the Law of Moses on nations and cultures. Influential Greg Bahnsen was a follower of Rushdoony. Doug Wilson of Canon Press in Moscow Idaho is a kinist, theonomist who is head of 1,000 Church denomination and growing CREC, a Presbyterian denomination. Those prominent Pastors that align themselves with Bahnsen, Wilson are Jeff Durbin of Apologia Church, James White. Christian Nationalism is not the mandate of the Church, the Great Commission is.
It also seems to be a general belief held in modern day groups that we should stick to "our own" from whatever race or religion you hold. I've seen it from Caucasians, and African Americans too. It seems bizarre, but I do feel it should be publicly addressed like this. Systemic ideology based on race leads to divides in church lines. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.
@@bobnelson8254"general belief held in modern day groups" what are you talking about? This issue is statistically unheard of in biblical churches until this conference.
Cowardice, opportunism, platform building, “you must be this tall to ride”. In all seriousness though the first 3 for sure. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I wouldn’t identify as a Christian nationalist, but those guys have been done dirty by g3 and Owen.
Owen, you wrote a book on manhood. Be a man, put an end to the cowardice, and have a good faith discussion and conversation with literally any of the CN folks.
@@HearGodsWord Its not splitting hairs. There's truth and there's error. America is a constitutional republic with enumerated powers. Not a democracy nor a democratic republic (banana republic). Both you and Owen are wrong and a representation of what is wrong in Christianity and America by extension. Men who our educational system has simultaneously failed and puffed up.
@HusGoose yep, you sure are splitting hairs. You are highlighting what's wrong with you guys over in America. Seems there's more passion about politics than faith.
@@ozark8043 exactly the problem with CN guys. You think that you have to hate blacks in order to live your own. Believe it or not you can love your people AND love others as well. But CN guys are some of the most hateful people I’ve ever seen, unfortunately
Stephen Wolfe is certainly edgy, but after reading his book I do think Owen here does misrepresent what Wolfe says about ethnicity. If I remember correctly, Wolfe does refute the ideology of kinism.
Am I the first naysayer? Anyone else think this is weak argumentation? I detect bulverism, taking quotes out of context, and semantic sophistry. Stephen Wolfe states that it is not only lawful to love one’s own child more than a stranger’s by providing for him, but it is duty. “Anyone who doesn’t provide for his own family is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Tim 5:8 Stephen contends this is natural to love one’s kin more than orphans in Ukraine. This natural order becomes tainted by sin when we come to hate those who are different from us, when we wish them ill simply because of their differences. But this is then perfected by the gospel in that our affections are rightly restored. We are meant to love orphans in Ukraine, but not at our own family’s expense. Owen splits hairs when he insists that the Gospel ‘radically alters’ and doesn’t merely perfect or restore, as if Wolfe was suggesting the gospel’s impotence. But the logical end is a muddled uncertainty about the hierarchical nature of our affections. Should I abandon my family to take care of the poor in Somalia? Should my own children go hungry because I don’t want people to think I’m practicing favoritism amongst my kin? Owen would not suggest this outright, but the thrust of his argument leads to an eradication of borders both for the nation and the family. This seems to me at any rate untenable. And the monoethnic label seems an unfair and uncharitable comparison with Arianism and Nazi ideology which Wolfe ardently denounces.
"Should I abandon my family to take care of the poor in Somalia" - Maybe (depends what you mean by abandon)? "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" "this is natural to love one’s kin more..." - Absolutely! That's what Jesus says too. It is natural, but Christ calls us to supernatural living: "when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just"
But if I, as a white person, adopt an Asian child, I will express my love to that child in a way different than I express love to children in Somalia whom I have never met.
@@carolberubeebecause you have adopted that child, they have taken your name, and has become kin by adoption. Wolfe is merely admitting that ordered duty is real, and shouldn’t be done away with.
There is no way Owen read the Case for CN… No one who’s read it would come away thinking that the main thrust of Steven Wolfe’s CN vision is Kinism. This is crazy Straw Man Strachan.
Owen is accusing Wolfe of conflating race and ethnicity. I believe Wolfe has denied this thus requires Owen to prove the accusations. None of the examples quoted from Wolfe's are associated with race but deal with ethnicity,. I am willing to be corrected but from my perspective, Owen is bearing false witness.
FYI, a democracy and a republic are two different things. The USA is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. Thus, your statements about being for democracy and constitutional are contradictory.
I'm going to leave some important information below that many have never seen. It may make some angry or even confused as to why I'd post it on this video. If it does I do apologize but it really is that important. If it helps just one person it would be so worth it and if that person gets it they will share in my freedom and joy. Study is so important and one day a week is simply not enough. Buying into all the falsehoods of why it's not true or can't be His Word is deadly. With the amount of proof we now have in this age of abundance of information there's simply no longer any excuse or argument to be made. So here goes and for those that do read it please just think about what it means and will mean for you if you take it seriously: The case for Biblical accuracy and how we know we have the absolute, proven true Word of God in our modern Bibles if they maintain a word for word translation or as close as possible. First let's look at secular history and written sources that are taken as matter of fact. These other books and writings from antiquity are held up as truth and in some cases factual history. These other books/poems and there evidence/sources, data: Second most common manuscript document Homer's Iliad meaning there are more copies of it than any other secular writing/document from antiquity of which only 643 exist dating from 13th century AD. Homer is believed to have wrote it in the 8th century BC. The Gallic Wars of Cesar in 1st century BC, there are only 10 manuscripts of that in existence dating over 1000 years after they were supposed to have been written. Herodotus wrote of history and is known as one of the first historians 5th century BC and only 8 manuscripts exist and they are from more than 1300 years after he wrote anything. History of the Peloponnesian War written by Thucydides. There are only 8 manuscripts that are from 1300 years after he supposedly wrote his account. These are just a few examples but it doesn't get any better by adding more. Now let's look at Biblical proofs: There can be no doubt as to the accuracy of our current Bibles as it is proven via all the source fragments, scrolls, papyri, codex' and sources dating all the way back to before Christ around 700 BC for the OT and between 100 to 150 AD for the NT. There is no doubt and no room for any argument against these facts. We have more proof for God's Word than any other written word in history and it is by order of magnitudes more as in some 66,000+ such sources for Scripture. The early Church Fathers prior to 325 AD: Those known as the Anti-Nicene Fathers writings contain over 32,000 quotes from the New Testament from which we could reconstruct the entire/complete NT from just those. They also contain over 19,000+ quotes from the Gospels alone again from prior to 325 AD. All these sources allow us to be critical when it comes to the level of accuracy in our Bibles. The oldest manuscripts end The Gospel of Mark at chapter 16 verse 8. It is the perfect ending to Mark's Gospel when you think about it as there really was no more that needed said. There is a lot of evidence that anything after Mark 16:8 was added later gathering parts from all the other Gospels and even Acts. There have been many ideas put forward about why the rest was added but none truly fits, things such as knowing Mark's intent and inspiration and that had he been able he would have added to his Gospel. That after Peter was martyred he stopped short due to that but if you read his Gospel there's no need for anything to be added. There's also some idea that there's a lost ending but how can you think that if you don't even know if such an ending existed? So a bunch of endings began to appear, tacked onto the original Autograph. We have an abundance of evidence that prove anything after 16:8 was added later. 4th Century Church fathers Eusebius and Gerome both wrote that Mark ended after 16:8. Many, many other very early Church Fathers knew these alternate endings existed and didn't use them or just denounced them. This is a huge error in both the KJV and NKJV both of which are based on more recent manuscripts that the older manuscripts disprove. So those two translations have the added ending consisting of anything after Mark 16:8 in the Gospel of Mark. Newer translations may or may not include the additions after Mark 16:8 but if they do they're bracketed or mentioned in the notes in the margins, sidebar or at the bottom of the page. The external evidence, (oldest sources), indicates that anything after 16:8 does not belong in the Gospel of Mark because those additions simply do not exist in them. The internal evidence is that it is all borrowed from the other Gospel accounts and Acts. The transition from vs 8 to 9 is very awkward as in no transition from the story of the women, the use of a masculine pronoun, why would Mark also identify Mary Magdalene as the one whom Jesus cast demons from again, the angel spoke to Jesus' followers and told them He would appear to them in Galilee, the vocabulary is not Mark's there are 18 different words he never used, completely different structure to the writing, all these out of place themes, signs that don't appear in any of the other Gospels and the weird discussion of them like serpents and other such oddities are foreign to Mark. We don't know who these additions came from but we know where they got them: (below are not time stamps but Chapter and verses) .16:9 = is taken write out of Luke 8:1-3 .16:10 = John 20:18 .16:12 = Luke 24:13-32 .16:13 = Luke 24:14 .16:14 = Luke 24:36-38 .16:15 = Mathew 28:19 .16:16 = John 20:23 .16:17-18 = drawn from a lot of sources: Mathew 10, Mark 6, Luke 10, just a lot of stuff cobbled together. Acts 23-26 and Acts 28:3-6 Paul's encounter with the Asp/venomous snake. None of it after Mark 16:8 makes any sense and adds more than a little confusion with the discussion of signs/miracles and other such things. It is clear to see what was written after 16:8 was not inspired as the rest of his Gospel surely was. This was all done by someone or a group who thought Mark's ending was to brief. To help him get a "better ending" in their eyes because they couldn't accept how he had ended his. His True Gospel account of the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus and the awe and wonderment of it all. Why does Mark end the way he ends? It was just how he wrote, look at the beginning of his Gospel and all throughout it reads like a highlight real of Christ's Deity and that He is in fact the very Son of God. He made the point and was done he didn't need to go further. Mark's last words were about fear, a Godly Fear of our Lord and the pure awe and wonderment of Him. No other book in history has the proof the Bible does, it is not even close. As I've shown because of the over abundance of source materials we can even be critical of what we have and know for certain whether we have His Word or not. Biblical Historian/Theologian AT. Robertson said we have a vast array of Biblical Manuscripts/Sources that allow us to reconstruct the Bible with more than a 99.9% degree of accuracy. With the number of archaeological excavations, (25,000+ and counting to date). Then add the current excavations under way throughout the Middle East, it is only a matter of time until we see more ancient biblical texts uncovered. Given the recent search for more Dead Sea Scroll caves, this may be sooner rather than later. The Bible is the very Word of God and there's no longer any excuse for anyone to ignore that fact or to dispute it. The evidence simply does not support their arguments/views. Take care and God Bless...
Thanks dr strachen. I love hearing you. You are an excellent speaker- and are always ahead of things on current topics and keep them related specifically to the gospel and showing us how to view these things through the lens of the Word.
I live in Maine and the Pastor of our church is a reformed theologian, preacher and teacher. This physical church and the pastor are rare gems in a sea of new age secular social clubs masquerading as churches.
With all due respect to Owen and having personally read Wolfe’s book, I really don’t think he understood what Wolfe is saying. I see where the confusion lies, because Wolfe uses the term ethnicity in more of a way we’d use ‘culture’ or ‘social glue’ whereas we usually think of ethnicity’ when referring to skin color, genes, etc. Owen therefore is arguing against something that should be argued against due to a misconception. This can be damaging because though his intentions may be honorable, he’s painting someone as egregious and deters other people from having further conversations on the matter.
If Strachan misunderstood Wolfe, they fault lies in part with Wolfe for not being more specific and clear in his writing. He should not have used the term 'ethnicity' if he really meant 'culture'.
@@gregb6469 depends on whether he defined his terms in the book or other writings or not. I am 54 and in my 38 years of salvation and many decades of ministry, I have seen more than one "minister" go down because they were looking to distinguish themselves and did so at the expense of truth. be careful not to believe someone just becuz of who they are...whether Wolfe or Strachan. Strachan also decided to pin "christian Nationalism" in this very message on Dr J. White and others where they don't claim the title nor do they have anywhere near the beliefs of this Wolfe character. At this writing Strachan has been in the "Limelight" by this message and in causing such a stir is becoming a real star. I don't know. Is this the Lords will or no? I remain a Berean in the matter
@@gregb6469 I agree that Wolfe could have used different vocabulary for the sake of clarity. But I would also say Wolfe does define his terms in the book.
“Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the Lord, the God of Israel, they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers’ houses and said to them, “Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria who brought us here.” But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ houses in Israel said to them, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the Lord, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.”” Ezra 4:1-3 ESV
Wow, within the first 15 minutes Owen misunderstands Wolfe's first point about nations and then runs off about the gospel changing "systems" and misapplying the "such were some of you" passage. This has nothing to do with what a nation is nor does it address Wolfe's point. Really disappointing level of incompetence from Strachan.
Boy, it will be embarrassing when Owen eventually realizes Wolfe uses ethnicity to include different races living in the same nation. That's why you need to read his book rather than quote mine it.
Purely a personal opinion and NOTHING more….and I can’t put my finger on exactly why…but Owen causes the hair on my neck to stand a little. Something is just off putting about the guy…
36:21, Genuine question, didn't God tell the Jews not to marry gentiles? And didn't Paul warn to not be married to non-believers in 2nd cor? I do not intend to cause a stumbling block, just looking for some clarification. Also I see 38:32 as the pharasees creating new laws to hedge off from offence to the original laws, and Jesus was clear that we have no right to do so.
“He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.” ~ Proverbs 18:17 The response here seems like a good example of this verse: th-cam.com/video/AHyoPYcz_xk/w-d-xo.html I'm more theologically aligned (Pre-mil, baptistic) in several ways with Mr. Strachan, but I wish he'd go ahead and talk to his targets in person. Much good might come of actual debate.
That was very interesting. Honestly I was taken aback by the words from the book that you read. Certainly if he did not mean them he should have expressed differently. I do pray about all of this. Thanks.
Idolatry and idolaters in the church are not new “But every nation still made gods of its own and put them in the shrines of the high places that the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities in which they lived. The men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, the men of Cuth made Nergal, the men of Hamath made Ashima, and the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. They also feared the Lord and appointed from among themselves all sorts of people as priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places. So they feared the Lord but also served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among whom they had been carried away.” 2 Kings 17:29-33 ESV
It’s laughable that some think that Christian nationalism is a new thing, the name might be new but the sin is not. Personal sin will keep people blind to sins that have ruled and reigned in many church bodies in America. The way partiality plays out in the church makes me so thankful for Jesus who knows and sees alls and will right deal with all things in holiness and righteousness ❤ Lord thank you for Jesus and for sanctifying your church so we can discern our own hearts rightly, confess our own sins so we can see and discern what you see and discern and serve you in holiness and righteousness. #discernment
Owen Strachan is the personification of that verse that says Under three things the earth quakes, And under four, it cannot bear up: Under a slave when he becomes king, And a wicked fool when he is satisfied with food, Under an unloved woman when she gets a husband, And a servant-girl when she supplants her mistress. i would add under a short man when he achieves stature.
Stunning. Beautiful. Brave
How brave??
@@heisaltogetherlovely7235 I don’t want to over exaggerate, but Luther would probably be convicted of cowardice
Lol
Only brave to feminized men and women who don't understand the augment. 99% is gospel-driven CN as Owen defines it. So Owen is clubbing the troglodyte 1% and acting as though it is the 99%. Its a tactic of the left that he continues to double-down on.
Satanic. Blasphemous. Cowardly.
What Kinism? Name one pastor of any consequence who teaches this? It's like preaching against chattel slavery like there's nobody really advocating for this is there?
You are a man of God sir
RJ Rushdoony brought in Kinism into the modern day Church in the 1960s. Kinism is the belief that all the races should stay separate, for a more peaceful society. Rushdooney also was a theonomist, placing the Law of Moses on nations and cultures. Influential Greg Bahnsen was a follower of Rushdoony. Doug Wilson of Canon Press in Moscow Idaho is a kinist, theonomist who is head of 1,000 Church denomination and growing CREC, a Presbyterian denomination. Those prominent Pastors that align themselves with Bahnsen, Wilson are Jeff Durbin of Apologia Church, James White. Christian Nationalism is not the mandate of the Church, the Great Commission is.
It also seems to be a general belief held in modern day groups that we should stick to "our own" from whatever race or religion you hold. I've seen it from Caucasians, and African Americans too. It seems bizarre, but I do feel it should be publicly addressed like this. Systemic ideology based on race leads to divides in church lines. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.
brother, this is stirring up. watch for it.
@@bobnelson8254"general belief held in modern day groups" what are you talking about? This issue is statistically unheard of in biblical churches until this conference.
I don't get the point of this talk. At.all! Sounds like Owen is doing a lot of projecting. Pretty sloppy defense. At best!
If you don't know the point then it's difficult to offer a genuine critique, which is probably why you have said so little
Why won’t you visit Moscow, Owen
Everyone should stay away from Moscow, Idaho.
Cowardice, opportunism, platform building, “you must be this tall to ride”.
In all seriousness though the first 3 for sure. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I wouldn’t identify as a Christian nationalist, but those guys have been done dirty by g3 and Owen.
Owen, you wrote a book on manhood. Be a man, put an end to the cowardice, and have a good faith discussion and conversation with literally any of the CN folks.
He's not been a coward is he's standing up for what he believes
@@HearGodsWordOwen says in this very video that he believes in a democracy. The USA is not a democracy. I'm not so sure he knows what he believes in.
@@SHaddad655 it's a democratic republic, so you're just slipping hairs and deflecting on to something irrelevant
@@HearGodsWord Its not splitting hairs. There's truth and there's error. America is a constitutional republic with enumerated powers. Not a democracy nor a democratic republic (banana republic). Both you and Owen are wrong and a representation of what is wrong in Christianity and America by extension. Men who our educational system has simultaneously failed and puffed up.
@HusGoose yep, you sure are splitting hairs. You are highlighting what's wrong with you guys over in America. Seems there's more passion about politics than faith.
A year later and we can now see how correct Owen actually was. The CN movement definitely has elements that hate blacks
@@WillNelson73 Move to MLK Blvd then. I'm sure you'll be just fine.
@@ozark8043 exactly the problem with CN guys. You think that you have to hate blacks in order to live your own. Believe it or not you can love your people AND love others as well. But CN guys are some of the most hateful people I’ve ever seen, unfortunately
Dang! This Stephen Wolfe guy sounds really confused! It should be super easy to destroy him in a debate. You should do that! :)
Stephen Wolfe is certainly edgy, but after reading his book I do think Owen here does misrepresent what Wolfe says about ethnicity. If I remember correctly, Wolfe does refute the ideology of kinism.
@@designatedape3148Perhaps you didn't sense the dripping sarcasm from Junkdrawer lol
@@kylej.d. uhhh... yeah I did not... haha 🤦♂
@@designatedape3148 o ,
my bad
@@kylej.d. typo on my end lol.
Am I the first naysayer? Anyone else think this is weak argumentation? I detect bulverism, taking quotes out of context, and semantic sophistry.
Stephen Wolfe states that it is not only lawful to love one’s own child more than a stranger’s by providing for him, but it is duty. “Anyone who doesn’t provide for his own family is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Tim 5:8
Stephen contends this is natural to love one’s kin more than orphans in Ukraine. This natural order becomes tainted by sin when we come to hate those who are different from us, when we wish them ill simply because of their differences. But this is then perfected by the gospel in that our affections are rightly restored. We are meant to love orphans in Ukraine, but not at our own family’s expense.
Owen splits hairs when he insists that the Gospel ‘radically alters’ and doesn’t merely perfect or restore, as if Wolfe was suggesting the gospel’s impotence. But the logical end is a muddled uncertainty about the hierarchical nature of our affections. Should I abandon my family to take care of the poor in Somalia? Should my own children go hungry because I don’t want people to think I’m practicing favoritism amongst my kin? Owen would not suggest this outright, but the thrust of his argument leads to an eradication of borders both for the nation and the family. This seems to me at any rate untenable. And the monoethnic label seems an unfair and uncharitable comparison with Arianism and Nazi ideology which Wolfe ardently denounces.
"Should I abandon my family to take care of the poor in Somalia"
- Maybe (depends what you mean by abandon)? "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple"
"this is natural to love one’s kin more..."
- Absolutely! That's what Jesus says too. It is natural, but Christ calls us to supernatural living: "when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just"
But if I, as a white person, adopt an Asian child, I will express my love to that child in a way different than I express love to children in Somalia whom I have never met.
@@carolberubeebecause you have adopted that child, they have taken your name, and has become kin by adoption. Wolfe is merely admitting that ordered duty is real, and shouldn’t be done away with.
Owen, why won't you debate Stephen Wolfe who you continue to slander?
Love this!!!
Thanks for the video!
With respect: no thanks.
Here's a question--will the Gospel of the Kingdom of God be defeated in time and history, or will it be victorious?
Read the Bible!!
There is no way Owen read the Case for CN… No one who’s read it would come away thinking that the main thrust of Steven Wolfe’s CN vision is Kinism. This is crazy Straw Man Strachan.
Owen is accusing Wolfe of conflating race and ethnicity. I believe Wolfe has denied this thus requires Owen to prove the accusations. None of the examples quoted from Wolfe's are associated with race but deal with ethnicity,. I am willing to be corrected but from my perspective, Owen is bearing false witness.
For the record, Corey Mahler was removed from fellowship from his Lutheran church, and rightly so
Was the title of this video changed? It used to say Christian Nationalism now it says Christianity
Is it just me? Or did anyone else notice?
FYI, a democracy and a republic are two different things. The USA is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. Thus, your statements about being for democracy and constitutional are contradictory.
I'm going to leave some important information below that many have never seen. It may make some angry or even confused as to why I'd post it on this video. If it does I do apologize but it really is that important. If it helps just one person it would be so worth it and if that person gets it they will share in my freedom and joy. Study is so important and one day a week is simply not enough. Buying into all the falsehoods of why it's not true or can't be His Word is deadly. With the amount of proof we now have in this age of abundance of information there's simply no longer any excuse or argument to be made. So here goes and for those that do read it please just think about what it means and will mean for you if you take it seriously:
The case for Biblical accuracy and how we know we have the absolute, proven true Word of God in our modern Bibles if they maintain a word for word translation or as close as possible.
First let's look at secular history and written sources that are taken as matter of fact. These other books and writings from antiquity are held up as truth and in some cases factual history.
These other books/poems and there evidence/sources, data:
Second most common manuscript document Homer's Iliad meaning there are more copies of it than any other secular writing/document from antiquity of which only 643 exist dating from 13th century AD. Homer is believed to have wrote it in the 8th century BC.
The Gallic Wars of Cesar in 1st century BC, there are only 10 manuscripts of that in existence dating over 1000 years after they were supposed to have been written.
Herodotus wrote of history and is known as one of the first historians 5th century BC and only 8 manuscripts exist and they are from more than 1300 years after he wrote anything.
History of the Peloponnesian War written by Thucydides. There are only 8 manuscripts that are from 1300 years after he supposedly wrote his account.
These are just a few examples but it doesn't get any better by adding more.
Now let's look at Biblical proofs:
There can be no doubt as to the accuracy of our current Bibles as it is proven via all the source fragments, scrolls, papyri, codex' and sources dating all the way back to before Christ around 700 BC for the OT and between 100 to 150 AD for the NT. There is no doubt and no room for any argument against these facts. We have more proof for God's Word than any other written word in history and it is by order of magnitudes more as in some 66,000+ such sources for Scripture.
The early Church Fathers prior to 325 AD:
Those known as the Anti-Nicene Fathers writings contain over 32,000 quotes from the New Testament from which we could reconstruct the entire/complete NT from just those.
They also contain over 19,000+ quotes from the Gospels alone again from prior to 325 AD.
All these sources allow us to be critical when it comes to the level of accuracy in our Bibles.
The oldest manuscripts end The Gospel of Mark at chapter 16 verse 8. It is the perfect ending to Mark's Gospel when you think about it as there really was no more that needed said.
There is a lot of evidence that anything after Mark 16:8 was added later gathering parts from all the other Gospels and even Acts. There have been many ideas put forward about why the rest was added but none truly fits, things such as knowing Mark's intent and inspiration and that had he been able he would have added to his Gospel. That after Peter was martyred he stopped short due to that but if you read his Gospel there's no need for anything to be added. There's also some idea that there's a lost ending but how can you think that if you don't even know if such an ending existed? So a bunch of endings began to appear, tacked onto the original Autograph. We have an abundance of evidence that prove anything after 16:8 was added later.
4th Century Church fathers Eusebius and Gerome both wrote that Mark ended after 16:8. Many, many other very early Church Fathers knew these alternate endings existed and didn't use them or just denounced them.
This is a huge error in both the KJV and NKJV both of which are based on more recent manuscripts that the older manuscripts disprove. So those two translations have the added ending consisting of anything after Mark 16:8 in the Gospel of Mark. Newer translations may or may not include the additions after Mark 16:8 but if they do they're bracketed or mentioned in the notes in the margins, sidebar or at the bottom of the page.
The external evidence, (oldest sources), indicates that anything after 16:8 does not belong in the Gospel of Mark because those additions simply do not exist in them.
The internal evidence is that it is all borrowed from the other Gospel accounts and Acts. The transition from vs 8 to 9 is very awkward as in no transition from the story of the women, the use of a masculine pronoun, why would Mark also identify Mary Magdalene as the one whom Jesus cast demons from again, the angel spoke to Jesus' followers and told them He would appear to them in Galilee, the vocabulary is not Mark's there are 18 different words he never used, completely different structure to the writing, all these out of place themes, signs that don't appear in any of the other Gospels and the weird discussion of them like serpents and other such oddities are foreign to Mark.
We don't know who these additions came from but we know where they got them:
(below are not time stamps but Chapter and verses)
.16:9 = is taken write out of Luke 8:1-3
.16:10 = John 20:18
.16:12 = Luke 24:13-32
.16:13 = Luke 24:14
.16:14 = Luke 24:36-38
.16:15 = Mathew 28:19
.16:16 = John 20:23
.16:17-18 = drawn from a lot of sources: Mathew 10, Mark 6, Luke 10, just a lot of stuff cobbled together. Acts 23-26 and Acts 28:3-6 Paul's encounter with the Asp/venomous snake. None of it after Mark 16:8 makes any sense and adds more than a little confusion with the discussion of signs/miracles and other such things. It is clear to see what was written after 16:8 was not inspired as the rest of his Gospel surely was.
This was all done by someone or a group who thought Mark's ending was to brief. To help him get a "better ending" in their eyes because they couldn't accept how he had ended his. His True Gospel account of the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus and the awe and wonderment of it all.
Why does Mark end the way he ends?
It was just how he wrote, look at the beginning of his Gospel and all throughout it reads like a highlight real of Christ's Deity and that He is in fact the very Son of God. He made the point and was done he didn't need to go further.
Mark's last words were about fear, a Godly Fear of our Lord and the pure awe and wonderment of Him.
No other book in history has the proof the Bible does, it is not even close. As I've shown because of the over abundance of source materials we can even be critical of what we have and know for certain whether we have His Word or not.
Biblical Historian/Theologian AT. Robertson said we have a vast array of Biblical Manuscripts/Sources that allow us to reconstruct the Bible with more than a 99.9% degree of accuracy.
With the number of archaeological excavations, (25,000+ and counting to date). Then add the current excavations under way throughout the Middle East, it is only a matter of time until we see more ancient biblical texts uncovered. Given the recent search for more Dead Sea Scroll caves, this may be sooner rather than later.
The Bible is the very Word of God and there's no longer any excuse for anyone to ignore that fact or to dispute it. The evidence simply does not support their arguments/views.
Take care and God Bless...
Thanks dr strachen. I love hearing you. You are an excellent speaker- and are always ahead of things on current topics and keep them related specifically to the gospel and showing us how to view these things through the lens of the Word.
I live in Maine and the Pastor of our church is a reformed theologian, preacher and teacher. This physical church and the pastor are rare gems in a sea of new age secular social clubs masquerading as churches.
With all due respect to Owen and having personally read Wolfe’s book, I really don’t think he understood what Wolfe is saying. I see where the confusion lies, because Wolfe uses the term ethnicity in more of a way we’d use ‘culture’ or ‘social glue’ whereas we usually think of ethnicity’ when referring to skin color, genes, etc. Owen therefore is arguing against something that should be argued against due to a misconception. This can be damaging because though his intentions may be honorable, he’s painting someone as egregious and deters other people from having further conversations on the matter.
If Strachan misunderstood Wolfe, they fault lies in part with Wolfe for not being more specific and clear in his writing. He should not have used the term 'ethnicity' if he really meant 'culture'.
@@gregb6469 depends on whether he defined his terms in the book or other writings or not. I am 54 and in my 38 years of salvation and many decades of ministry, I have seen more than one "minister" go down because they were looking to distinguish themselves and did so at the expense of truth. be careful not to believe someone just becuz of who they are...whether Wolfe or Strachan. Strachan also decided to pin "christian Nationalism" in this very message on Dr J. White and others where they don't claim the title nor do they have anywhere near the beliefs of this Wolfe character. At this writing Strachan has been in the "Limelight" by this message and in causing such a stir is becoming a real star. I don't know. Is this the Lords will or no? I remain a Berean in the matter
If Wolfe uses the term ethnicity in more of a way we’d use ‘culture’, that is on Wolfe.
@@gregb6469 I agree that Wolfe could have used different vocabulary for the sake of clarity. But I would also say Wolfe does define his terms in the book.
@@gregb6469 Nor should he have used "blood kin."
“Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the Lord, the God of Israel, they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers’ houses and said to them, “Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria who brought us here.” But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ houses in Israel said to them, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the Lord, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.””
Ezra 4:1-3 ESV
Love your neighbor do unto others Love you enemy...the beatitudes
This is a good verse foe CN since King Cyrus wasn't a Christian either
Difficult to believe that ths is ALL the comments so far. Even from this hour here on the east coast 🤔
Wow, within the first 15 minutes Owen misunderstands Wolfe's first point about nations and then runs off about the gospel changing "systems" and misapplying the "such were some of you" passage. This has nothing to do with what a nation is nor does it address Wolfe's point. Really disappointing level of incompetence from Strachan.
Boy, it will be embarrassing when Owen eventually realizes Wolfe uses ethnicity to include different races living in the same nation. That's why you need to read his book rather than quote mine it.
Purely a personal opinion and NOTHING more….and I can’t put my finger on exactly why…but Owen causes the hair on my neck to stand a little. Something is just off putting about the guy…
36:21, Genuine question, didn't God tell the Jews not to marry gentiles? And didn't Paul warn to not be married to non-believers in 2nd cor? I do not intend to cause a stumbling block, just looking for some clarification. Also I see 38:32 as the pharasees creating new laws to hedge off from offence to the original laws, and Jesus was clear that we have no right to do so.
You are very Brave, Owen
So true, king
I enjoyed seeing & hearing Strachan this past September at the G3 National conference.
The idea that blood-relation trumps spiritual relation via the Gospel sounds like something Hitler would say.
“He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.” ~ Proverbs 18:17
The response here seems like a good example of this verse: th-cam.com/video/AHyoPYcz_xk/w-d-xo.html
I'm more theologically aligned (Pre-mil, baptistic) in several ways with Mr. Strachan, but I wish he'd go ahead and talk to his targets in person. Much good might come of actual debate.
Solid sermon! Owen hit the nail on the head! It’s time people saw the dangers of Stephen Wolfe’s CN.
Amen!!!!
That was very interesting. Honestly I was taken aback by the words from the book that you read. Certainly if he did not mean them he should have expressed differently. I do pray about all of this. Thanks.
Thanks for this review. Very helpful.
I think Owen honestly represents CN. I think he means to, but I don't think he does.
Brought to you by George Soros
So much that’s unbiblical is being promoted but that’s nothing new!
Idolatry and idolaters in the church are not new
“But every nation still made gods of its own and put them in the shrines of the high places that the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities in which they lived. The men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, the men of Cuth made Nergal, the men of Hamath made Ashima, and the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. They also feared the Lord and appointed from among themselves all sorts of people as priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places. So they feared the Lord but also served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among whom they had been carried away.”
2 Kings 17:29-33 ESV
Cringe.
Thank you for saying what has been on my mind.
Amen. Thanks for addressing this unbiblical push.
Exactly, kinism for Jews only
Well this was embarrassing lol
It’s laughable that some think that Christian nationalism is a new thing, the name might be new but the sin is not. Personal sin will keep people blind to sins that have ruled and reigned in many church bodies in America.
The way partiality plays out in the church makes me so thankful for Jesus who knows and sees alls and will right deal with all things in holiness and righteousness ❤
Lord thank you for Jesus and for sanctifying your church so we can discern our own hearts rightly, confess our own sins so we can see and discern what you see and discern and serve you in holiness and righteousness.
#discernment
So much separation, division. Religious and spiritual folks suffer ignorance of the Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience. 🙏😘
Owen Strachan is the personification of that verse that says
Under three things the earth quakes,
And under four, it cannot bear up:
Under a slave when he becomes king,
And a wicked fool when he is satisfied with food,
Under an unloved woman when she gets a husband,
And a servant-girl when she supplants her mistress.
i would add
under a short man when he achieves stature.