Give Me an Answer -
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Cliffe Knechtle has a good dialogue with students at Texas State University. Recorded in October 2017.
The "Give Me An Answer" ministry began as an outgrowth of the dialogues Cliffe Knechtle has had with students on various university campuses throughout the United States. These universities include the University of Maine, Harvard, MIT, University of Florida, University of Texas, University of Wisconsin, University of Minnesota, University of California Los Angeles, University of California San Diego, Berkeley, Stanford, University of Hawaii and the University of Washington. Cliffe spoke on these campuses in front of the Student Union or Library at noon for five to ten minutes. At the close of his initial remarks, he'd open up the time for questions and answers, which usually turned into a two to four hour dialogue with students. His crowd size ranged from 25 - 500 students at a time, and between classes, new students would join the discussion. This is an extremely effective way to reach a large number of university students with the Gospel of Christ.
This is so good! People cannot live out moral relativism!
Thank you Cliffe for fighting for our youth in the public square of achadamie!
If you've seen prior videos with the same students in this sessions, then this should bring tears to your eyes. 3 of the students who explained to the young man in blue on the concept of suffering, in prior videos had questions and didn't understand a lot of what Cliffe was saying. It's beautiful to see that they've actually come to understand.
The young lady in the flannel shirt seems really sweet and kind. May God bless her!
Amen
God bless you my brother Cliffe. You do an excellent job of explaining God and the Bible to these students. I have learnt a lot from watching your videos. God bless you and your family, and all my brothers and sisters in Christ 😃.
Praise YESHUA, the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
Cmon guys! Think!
I like the point that Heaven is the guarantee that good will win and Hell is the guarantee evil will lose. If you have a problem with Hell you have problem with evil losing. Its just that simple.
Thank-you Teacher. I appreciate the insert regarding disciplining our children on a biblical level. I have learnt so much about the Word by watching your videos - when I resd I am reminded of your discussions. So grateful to Holy Spirit for downloading so much into you so that you can preach and teach!. Love you Pastor! in Jesus name I declare this AMEN!
They're so polite... unlike college kids in any other videos I've seen (besides yours).
very nice !!! thanks Cliffe ...!!
This is very good content and I appreciate it all very much.
When God created the universe He knew we would go wrong, He created it with that knowledge, that is why we were created through Jesus... this means, that Jesus who is eternal was always willing to save us, before God went ahead with creation...
So what was the point of all this then...well, the main reason for creation is because God wanted to share His amazing love with us, through giving us life and being in relationship with Him, and the other reason is so God could display all the amazing attributes of His character.... His power through the ability to create this complex universe and life, His righteousness and love through His suffering and dying for His creation... His ability to be able to humble Himself and become part of His creation to maintain righteousness and show His love even though He was totally justified in punishing us because of our sin.
But as righteous as God is He is also love....His love is so pure, He took the punishment for us all....this is something satan could never do because he is too proud, that is what makes God, who He is because He can achieve things that no other Being can, all His ways are better and higher than any other.
That sounds right. God bless you.
3AD lord yes... I personally do because Noah's sons had wives who were mixed with other seeds this explains the diversity, we see in humanity.
King of Kings - Amen!
:) Possibly longer than that (to the comment about Cliff saying things multiple times over and over)! He's been doing this a long time. Keep in mind he is doing this to University students who likely hear him for only the first time each time he is out....just because one watches many of his videos, I don't think it's a fair criticism to make on how many times one hears him answer certain topics. Hear it, think on it, go forward or keep looking for truth if you are unsettled on a topic. You clearly know his views on topics and if you disagree or are unsure, you may need to hear from others and how they handle those topics. Ideally, search the Bible if you are at that point. God bless you!
hey thanks for the comment. I don't know anything about Hitler's military career... on a 2 second google search, looks like he may have been a military officer a some point in his career. I am not certain as to comment further, then to say That was Cliff's statement and I don't know him at all, but more details would be needed to confirm that claim (what year did this happen, etc). I would think if that claim was not true, then it's not like telephone...as it went from his father to him..not several people in between so perhaps a bad comparison...just a flat out incorrect story. So you are claiming Christian stories were embellished (in your opinion). Do you have anything to support that thinking or is it an opinion that suites you best? :) In my opinion if that is how you feel, start with the core items... Did Jesus die (it's a yes or no..can't really embellish can you?) Did he raise from the dead (it's a yes or no....can't really embellish can you?).
Awesome
I think the guy is saying that one would expect God to be fair, but hey it doesn’t seem fair to born a sinner and need to be punished for it.
I get that. I think he’s making a good point.
Could we possibly answer his question this way?
I’m going to beat around the bush, so hang in there.
The opportunity to create man is so fantastic God finds it irresistible.
Why?
A unique situation presents itself.
A planet called earth has become the temporary home of some invisible fallen angels.
They are evil angels.
If God creates man and puts him into this world inhabited by the these fallen ones, they will tempt man to rebel against God.
If man can survive the temptations he gets given eternal life by God. He gets a new life which is so fantastic that the mind of man cannot even begin to imagine how amazing it will be.
But in addition to that, in order for the deal to work, God has to become a man in the form of Jesus Christ, and be sacrificed.
But the deal for man is so great that God is willing to do it.
Now coming back to our guy who says it isn’t fair. Actually he would be right, if there wasn’t a way out. But there is a way out.
But actually the way out isn’t just the way out, it’s way out. Like fantastic and amazing way out, if you know what I mean.
The way out is mind blowingly amazing. It’s everlasting life with all the bells and whistles.
Even though God has to give everyone a chance, He knows that many will reject Him and His offer of everlasting life.
But that’s what free will is all about isn’t it.
You’ve got to give people a chance.
If God knew that nobody would take that chance He wouldn’t have bothered coming to earth as a Saviour.
However He knew some would grab the opportunity and run with it.
The some would represent few.
And the many would represent those that tell God to drop dead. They succumbed to the temptation to rebel against God.
Before God created mankind He weighed it up. And deems it worth it, even though there will be terrible losses.
He could have avoided the whole thing if He didn’t make us.
We wouldn’t be born into a world of sickness and death.
But by allowing those evil angels to live for a while longer before he destroys them in hell, he can use them as a tool to tempt man to see if he can overcome the temptations and therefore as an overcomer he will have the necessary wherewithal to be fit to be purified as an eternal being that loves and obeys God.
There is no plan B.
It’s either everlasting life in a new realm of gratefully loving God in grateful obedience, or destruction.
Why wouldn’t you accept God?
I love these videos
No free will, no humanity. If your free will is taken away from you, you cease to exist.
Those who deny that we have free will deny that they can deny that we have free will.
One of the problems is that gay people rationalise why their sexuality as OK the same way that promiscuous people rationalise their promiscuity. Neither are OK and the purpose of sex is to be shared between 1 woman and 1 man in the context of a life long commitment, in which children are born. Gay people often act as if they're the only ones who have to sacrifice in religion, when EVERYBODY has to sacrifice to commit to the religion. There are alcoholics who fight everyday against their addiction. And no, God doesn't "hate gays". He loves everyone, but doesn't love you *committing* that sin. The same way God doesn't "hate" alcolohics or sex addicts. He hates the sin, not YOU. I don't understand why homosexuals think their identity is solely based on their sexuality. Your sexuality is only supposed to be 1 component of you, not your entire being.
Well said.
Obedience is what Jesus Christ says God wants. Obedience because you love God, not out of fear or pleasing other people. “If you love Me, keep My commandments. “ Jesus teaching His disciples in John 14:15.
Just trying to me a little helpful, but how come there's no mike on the person asking the question. I like to watch on sunday mornings, but I can't hear the question or comments or subjects that people bring up. So I have no idea what Cliff's answer is in responds to. Because it's very difficult to hear the other person. Thank you.
Good discussion. I think the young girl who asks about same-sex marriage asks a good question. I would disagree with Cliffe who says if there is no God it's no different to having sex with a golden retriever. The issue I would have with that is, the dog hasn't (and cant) give his consent. If a same sex couple get married, clearly they are both consenting to being in a loving relationship, that doesn't even have to mean having sex. Sex isn't the be all and end all to marriage, I'd say it has more to do with sharing and being with one another because you love them.
@Trent Burbine, 'Sin' is an incredibly subjective word, it very much depends on what Christian you speak to as what constitutes sin. Human beings all over the planet have such a diverse mindset as to what is good and bad, it very much depends on the culture. Do we know what Gods thoughts are on a legally married man and woman enjoying anal sex? it doesn't prevent them having 'normal' sex and the woman becoming pregnant, she might find anal sex incredibly pleasurable and insist her husband performs anal sex on her a few times a week, and he may also find it a massive turn on, it doesn't stop them from having children whatsoever. What is stopping a homosexual couple from adopting children and bringing them up in a loving home? I know that Elton John and his partner have done exactly that, by all accounts these kids are perfectly healthy and loved tremendously by their 2 male parents, there are thousands of both gay and lesbian parents raising children in very happy homes both here in the UK, and in the US.
bonnie43uk Nice questions! They really got me thinking. I hope I at least somewhat answer your question. There are some topics where morality is subjective, but for this, part of it is objective, and some is kind of relative, which makes it tough. What's objective is that the purpose of sexuality is for a man and woman to reproduce. Not only is this a religious view, but also a view even atheists agree with, since that is the purpose we have those organs. So defying that with say, gay sex, is not only a religious sin, but also a "biological sin". However, humans have a unique ability to freely love and make a commitment (which I think is a piece of evidence for a loving God). With that being said, Christianity holds the value that sex can be shared for enjoyment within that commitment. So as for the anal sex with a married couple, I really don't know if it is sin, but it could be lust due to the wife telling the husband to do it and the husband finding a fetish to it, but I believe that is subjective, it doesn't really matter. As for a gay couple, regardless of Levitical laws, if they truly love each other and are committed to each other, it isn't really a sin. When they have gay sex it is because it perverts God-given sexuality and can spread STDs.
At least remember this sentence:
ANYTHING THAT PERVERTS OR TWISTS A GOD GIVEN GIFT IS SIN
Jesus defined sin as anything that doesn't have to do with helping others, which is serving God. When talking about the 2 most important commandments, loving God and loving others, he said if you you follow those two, you will find that you're following all the other commandments
@Trent Burbine, thanks for those comments Trent, i have a busy day ahead of me today, I will try and get around to some of the things you mentioned about sin and sexuality later, it's good food for thought.
@Trent Burbine, I agree with you to a point that the purpose of sex is to reproduce, that ensures future life, but sex is also a lot more complex than simply performing it for the act of reproducing, all of us know it's a highly pleasurable sensation, mankind has taken the act of sex to a whole other level, it comes in many forms, non of which have anything to do with solely reproducing. I can't really see any objection to those acts if it's performed by two people who both find it physically rewarding, they are both gaining a great deal of pleasure out of the act of sex, in whichever form that may take. Are you suggesting that sex should only take place between a legally married couple, and then, only for the purpose of creating new life? ... if so, virtually every single teenager on the planet will be committing sin by exploring their own body when their sex hormones are bouncing off the wall. So your sentence "Anything that perverts or twists a God-given gift is a sin" is highly debatable I think. Maybe think back to your teenage years and finding out the joys of sex, it's a very intense period of life for most teens which lasts long into adulthood. Do you think preventing sex disease by way of condoms is a bad idea?. If you ask any sexual health doctor, they highly recommend it for preventing not just STD's, but also unwanted pregnancies. The same goes for the Pill, which prevents the woman becoming pregnant, the pill and the condom have been highly successful in those area's, having sex without the fear of getting pregnant are surely good for mankind, esp given the current over population we are seeing, it's creating more and more serious issues.
As regards to gay sex, again, I don't have an issue with it, I think you'll find most gay people, whether male of female, are strongly drawn towards someone of their own sexuality obviously, that's what defines their sexuality, in an ideal world we'd all be heterosexual and 'being gay' would not even be an issue. Why would God make the anus one of the most sexually erogenous zones in the entire body?, for a God who only insists on sex between a man and a woman, that seems highly perverse, but of course, if that came about purely as a product of evolution, then it would make perfect sense.
I would have preferred bubble wrap
I would have LOVED to answer the kid in the blue shirt's questions!!!!! @_@
Go ahead Jeshie
"Why do bad things happen to good people?"
"Are there good people?"
"Is there anyone that is a good person? Is Job a good person?"
I'll answer all 3 questions with 1 answer. Cliff was correct in then asking: "Who is a good person?" - But after asking that question, there are only a few ways, that are most effective, to answer the question. This I believe is the most effective. Instead of pointing to Mark 7, I always go to Mark 10 or Luke 18. I would say to this man:
"Do you know the story of the rich young ruler? The rich young ruler came running up to Jesus and said: "Good Teacher, what must I do to be saved?" Now we knew that Jesus knew that you can't work your way to Heaven right? And Jesus said: "First of all, why do you call me good? For only God is good."
What He was saying to the rich young man is 'Don't compare yourself to your neighbor rich young guy, compare yourself to God, because He is the standard.'
Now if we have to compare ourselves to God, who doesn't meet the standard of good, He IS the standard of good... then who can be good? The answer: No one. No one is good.
In fact in Romans 3:10, God declares the evil of us all, saying: "There is no one righteous, not even one;"
The last two questions he asked were answered well.
Jesse waffles did you get your answer if not I'd like a chance to answer them but before I do can you text back on this thing to let me know and then I reply because it's late and I'm legally blind and it's going to take a couple minutes to decide and that my next time when I'm awake I can tell you because there's no not one not one is righteous except for Jesus Christ but yet in the eyes of God there were some people in the Bible that were taken after his own heart and that's an example explain to and so forth so let me know okay God bless you.
God should have given me a husband/partner that truly loved me enough to get me to heaven and take care of me and my son here on earth. God please give me this husband.
We don't die because of Adam's sin, that is we don't spiritually die because of Adams sin, we do die a physical death because of Adam's transgression. This is because of sin entering the world and with sin comes death!
We are not born, as in our soul, to sin but because of the sinful nature passed down from Adam. So when our nature calls out to us to do its bidding we obey out of ignorance as children that do not know any better!
We know this because of our ability to choose either goodness or evil, we don't have to do either but whatever one appeals to us we obey!
I was under the impression or belief that Jesus does gives us brief but detail description of heaven. It is in Revelation 21;10 thru Rev.22:5. Not only eternal life but also to live in a heavenly place is our hope and promise by our Lord and savior Christ Jesus. JEHOVA , my GOD.... YESHUA, my LORD and Savior... Ruach HaKodesH, fills me and completes all the promises...Amen!
Why do bad things happen to good people?
Who is good?
I don't know, you seem to be the authority on that.
My answer would have been, Don't punt now, you must have SOME idea on who is good or what a good person is to even ask the question, so again, who is good?
Yes, there is the world’s definition of good ( Satan’s definition) and then there is God’s definition of good. God is the only holy and righteous being in the universe, therefore we can say “ there is none good, but God.
I think Cliffe avoids the fact that God says that homosexuality is a sin. I think Francis Chan said it best, “If God said that marriage for Chinese people was a sin, I wouldn’t like it, but I would respect the fact that if He says it, I know I cannot get married without committing a sin. ANYTHING He says is sinful, is just that sinful regardless whether I like it or understand it.”
It’s not what Cliff says . It’s what God says. Stop judging Cliff’s performance, like God depends on Cliff’s performance. God tells us in Genesis 2:24 what type of sex He honors . It is very narrow by Satan and the world’s standards. Whose standards will you follow? The standards of a holy Righteous all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent God whose love knows no bounds or the standards of a usurper, liar, thief, murderer rebellious back stabbing traitor? Hmmm, I am going with the God whose love knows no bounds. “ But God demonstrates His own LOVE towards us in that while we were still sinners Christ DIED for us.” Romans 5:8.
the gay young lady looks like she struggling with her sexuality , hope she repents and god gives her new desires .
People can struggle their whole life with a sinful desire. There's no guarantee God will rid you of it
Cliffe, I think you need to talk more about Satan. Not to support him, of course, but so they'll see that it wasn't God and that it was Satan and that he is a big part of why there is evil in this world. Because the angels also had free will.
There is none good, but God. Therefore no one is like God to where they are free of sin, thus the good tgat is God is different then the God that is in mankind!
We can help an elderly person across the street, which is good but it will not allow you in the presence of God with the sin that is in us, which is immorality/iniquity.
See, God is morally perfect, we are not and this is the fishes in which we will be judged.
First second comment 😀
Damn, you beat me to it ! Fair play :-)
lol bonnie you like it here huh?
I guess he was ONESTEPAHEAD
I sure do Jack :-)
Mark 1:1
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Here's something I was thinking about the other day, Jews, we are told, are Gods chosen people, lots of stories in the New Testament confirm this. Now according to what Jews believe, they do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, I think they view him as a very holy man, and a great preacher,.. but definitely not the Messiah who died on the cross for our sins. Whereas in Christianity, Jesus is very much the savior, who God sent down in human form to die on the cross for our sins, that is accepted as fact by all Christians as far as i can tell. Jews, "He's NOT the Messiah", Christians "He IS the Messiah".
Surely these 2 major religions should be in agreement about Jesus, especially as Christians say in order to reach Heaven you must accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. What does God think about this I wonder?, is he ok with his chosen people not accepting Gods son as the Messiah? It seems quite a major problem to me, esp if you are a Jew. It makes me wonder why God himself doesn't get in touch with them and tell them "You need to start accepting Jesus as your messiah, it's quite important for your eternal souls."
I'd never really gave it much thought before. But it does seem an important point, given Gods favorable liking for the Jews in the Old Testament,
bonnie43uk The Jews are no longer God's "chosen people" anymore. After Christ, all who have faith in him are his people. A common misconception is that all Jews are God's people, yet God punishes them at times for sinning in the Old testament. That shows even during the Exodus, God does not treat every Jew with the same compassion, but rather rewards the Jews who TRUST him and obey him. The reason Jews are seen as God's chosen people is because after the first sin of mankind, he would need to bring Jesus into the world through a holy family lineage. That's the reason for the crazy, random, Leviticus laws. Everything had to be pure in order for Jesus the Messiah to be born. Like I said before, God doesn't treat each Jew the same, but rather if they trust in him, not a free pass to Heaven. God does not discriminate, but rather has open arms and doesn't care about your past, but rather how sincere you are.
Once Jesus was born, he converted many Jews into Christians and founded a new Covenant that all who trust in God will have eternal life. To sum it all up, the Jews were considered God's people because of their faith in him, and to bring Jesus into the world, but don't get confused and think all Jews have a free pass and automatically go to Heaven, which is a common misconception.
I see you a lot on Cliffe's videos and see you on AronRa's videos, but I wanted to answer your question with a deeper understanding and clear things up. Feel free to reply :)
@Trent Burbine, thanks for that reply Trent, good to hear from you. Yes, I enjoy watching Cliffe debate with the students on campus, obviously, I tend to side with them if you've seen any of my other comments. Yes, you raised lots of good points there, I'm still not convinced though. You spoke about mankinds first sin, obviously you are talking about Eve disobeying God in regards to eating from the tree of knowledge, I've commented about this quite a few times over the years, as I see it, the biblical creation story is highly flawed, especially from a scientific viewpoint, mankind is a fairly recent species when compared to the millions of creatures that lived way before man, just taking the dinosaurs as one example, they were here for a few hundred million years roaming the planet, long before mankind came along. But just going on the creation narrative, God knew beforehand without a shadow of a doubt that Eve would be tempted by the serpent that God himself placed there, a talking serpent no less, who spoke the exact same language as Eve ( just thinking about that for a minute.. the evolution of human speech has been a very gradual progression, it seems highly suspicious to me that the serpent and Eve had an intelligent conversation.. the bible says that snakes eat dust, they do not. Also a serpent does not have any vocal chords with which to speak) The creation story is exactly that it seems to me, a story, to try and make sense of mankinds surroundings. If mankind truly sinned and that in turn made the world turn bad, then it seems to me God himself is the main culprit. If i know something bad is going to happen, .. lets say i knew that hijackers were going to fly planes into the twin towers, and I let it happen, .. every court in America would find me guilty of a heinous crime, and quite rightly I would serve a long prison sentence. If this God is supposedly 'All loving' he would surely not send anyone to a place of torment that never ends, he would surely do everything within his power to correct mankind when they made mistakes, like any loving father would. If you saw someone blindly walking towards a cliff and they were about to plunge to their deaths, .. you'd surely do everything within your power to prevent it happening, rather than blame them. In human justice, when people are sent to prison, they are given a chance to reflect upon the things they've done and to make amends so they learn from their mistakes, they are not cast into a pit of everlasting damnation.
Anyhoo, there is a world cup soccer match I want to see now, Brazil v Serbia so I will leave it there, for now, thanks again for your reply Trent.
bonnie43uk I like your way of thinking and agree with you. The creation story in Genesis should not be taken literally. Cliffe addresses this in other videos, where he tells students to respect literary style. As we read in the New Testament, Jesus talks in parables and has to explain the meaning of the parables at times because his own disciples take it too literally.
Now, according to Jewish tradition, Moses wrote most of Genesis, which means the creation story. Moses had personal revelation from God, in which he was able to obtain knowledge about the creation of everything. Since Jesus spoke in parables, so does God. The creation story in Genesis is a parable, a symbolical text which was never meant to be taken literally. 6 day creationists like to argue that God commanded his followers to rest on the Sabbath day, but the 7 "days" are not literal days, but could be millions or billions of years. They are time periods. That's why I like people like Aronra, who disprove a literally 6 day creation. Of course there wasn't a literal snake talking, it's symbolical for the devil and his slick, clever ways.
My last point is that mankind didn't cause evil, it had been around since Satan had been roaming the Earth. Every animal around us is intelligent in it's own way, but can't comprehend the evil of the world. God originally made us ignorant to evil to protect us, but gave us a free will because he loved us. Eve was supposedly the first person to get their eyes opened to the evil. It was bound to happen to someone. Since humans have had their eyes opened to the evil, we have sinning ever since because we are attracted to it. As for why God allowed Satan to exist will be a philosophical question we will never know until after death.
You said why wouldn't God help us, but he has through Jesus Christ. And all who trust in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Thank you, it's a lot to read!
Also, I am not a 6 day creationist, but follow the scientific evidence and conclude evolution happened. I think it's narcissistic to think humans are these special creatures. Evolution is more humbling because it shows all life came from the same place and we are all intertwined. Just wanted to say that
@Trent Burbine, It's good to agree with you regarding evolution, I do think, however, this is another problem for Christianity, if you accept evolution that means, if I understand it correctly, that mankind came about via a very very long process that took several million years ( still a very small period of time compared to how long life has been around), why would God choose that method when the Bible narrative seems to suggest that we humans are special in the eyes of God and that we have dominion over the earth, the truth is, we could be wiped out by any number of deadly viruses. Also, there would have been a long period whereby mankind was not human, certainly not in our current 'homo sapien' species, the further you go back the more and more ape-like we were. Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent book a few years ago, "The ancestor's tale" which traces our past right back to way beyond any creature that resembled creatures that looked nothing like us whatsoever.. if you are a fan of Aronra, he speaks a lot about this.
With regard to Jesus talking in parables, I've always thought it would have been much better ( if Jesus was who he said he was, the Son of God) that rather than talk in parables which could easily be misunderstood, why not tell us things in crystal clear language which everyone could understand? When I think about it.. heh, i think about it a lot these days, what was stopping Jesus telling us in the most easy and clearly understood language that even a child could understand ie "Do not inflict unnecessary pain upon another person, regardless of race, color, or creed.. this also goes for any animal.. it is an abomination unto the Lord, and there will be serious consequences for anyone who disregards this command". I can think of lots and lots of other things that Jesus could have said in plain black and white language, so that nobody could be under ANY illusion whatsoever as to what he meant, .. ie: what was stopping Jesus from saying *Under no circumstances whatsoever* should ANYBODY use fire to kill another person, regardless of color creed or race". Think of how many countless innocent people were burned alive centruries ago. Jesus could have been 100% clear on his thoughts about slavery, abortion, homosexuality, lust, crime and punishment,... you name it. Parables are all very well in certain contexts, but I'd rather everyone be under no illusion what Jesus meant about certain things, than Christians having lots of varying opinions on what Jesus meant.. look at the Southern Baptist extreme views about "fags burning in hell", is that a worldwide Christian view? Jesus COULD have easily cleared up his views on that so that none of us could be in no doubt whatsoever. Good to hear your views.
Found this funny - s33.postimg.cc/dbpa29mf3/cfletcher.png
Glitch in related videos.
first
Jesus actually said to the thief: " _Truly i tell you today, you'll be with me in paradise_ " - Greek doesn't have comma and most bibles have a misplaced comma there and we know that because Jesus DID NOT go to paradise that day so it couldn't be that the thief was going to be with Him in there if he wasn't there, moreover Jesus also said that NO ONE has ascended to heaven.
Actually “Truely I say to you,”
is a legitimately used biblical Greek phrase. Jesus said it all the time. Now where in the Bible does it say “Truly I say to you today.“ This is not a grammatically used biblical statement and was not used in first century Greek. This is a lie that breaks the rules of Greek language. Any excellent Greek scholar can point that out. Yes, in English it can be twisted that way to try to change heaven theology, but in biblical Greek, NO! This is a lie.
@Mark Metternich I'm not gonna call you a liar, instead i'll just point it out the error in your argument.
1) Jesus did NOT went to heaven or paradise in that day.
2) To say that it cannot be " _i say to you today,_ " because it's not a common usage of the phrase, *EVEN IF IT'S TRUE* is an argument from silence.
3) To say that people die and go to heaven (OR HELL) not only contradicts what Jesus HIMSELF said; " _No one has ascend into heaven_ " but it completely nullifies the resurrection of the dead when Christ returns ( why would people already in heaven need to be resurrected ? ).
So if you feel the need to reply once more, you gonna need to address points 1 and 3. Thank you.
You can try to begin a complex theological argument dialogue here with me by implying me "a liar" which is totally immature to the extreme and does not lend to rational sound civil debate.
Then there is the fact that there is not even slightly enough room here on TH-cam to go into all the complexities of the argument of heaven (many books have been written on the controversial subject).
But dealing with your comment above. You are simply WRONG! You could not be more wrong. And I am expecting a backlash because most people do not enjoy being wrong especially when they have not done their research well.
The Koine Greek (or Alexandrian dialect, common Attic, Hellenistic or Biblical Greek) does NOT in any way say: "I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise." I believed that garbage back in the 80's when I was teenager because I had no Greek skills, real Greek knowledge and some cult folks tried to exploit their ignorance on me (The Way International and Christian Educational Services). At the surface it does seem to sounds really smart to people who no nothing about Koine Greek. But there is no usage of that phrase in the entire Bible or the Alexandrian dialect, common Attic, or Hellenistic. No biblical Greek in any ancient manuscript. It simply it breaks Greek linguistics, grammar, language rules, system and structure of the language syntax, morphology and semantics...
Maybe get your head around this fact: the PREFIX that can also easily be translated as:
"Amen, amen I say to you!"
"Very truly I say unto you!"
"Truly, truly I say to you!"
"So be it, I say this to you!"
"What I am about to say to you is extremely important!"
"Verily, Verily I say unto you!"
"Listen up, I am about to say something extremely profound, important and true!"
is the NORMAL, COMMON AND NATURAL PREFIX of Koine Greek that basically means:
"VERY, VERY importantly (and get ready to listen intently) what I am about to say to you is absolutely true!"
An overwhelming 76+ times in the New Testament, Jesus uses this clear phrase! When He says “Absolutely, I tell you the truth,” He is AFFIRMING WHAT HE IS ABOUT TO SAY! He is NOT AFFIRMING THE DAY HE IS SAYING IT! This is just plain silly! It is a very clear and precise declaration that what it about to be said is worthy of very special attention!
Common bible readers are far, far too used to hearing the english version of the Greek phrase to truly appreciate the astonishing seriousness or authority it expresses! And the solemn nature of the NEXT ANNOUNCEMENT that follows. In EVERY ONE (EVERY ONE) of the whopping 76+ times Jesus uses this natural, powerful introductory emphasis phrase, He simply says it and THEN HE MAKES THE STARTLING STATEMENT.
NOWHERE, NOWHRE, NOWHERE in the bible from Genesis to Revelation is the language skewed as to try to say something unnatural and unheard of in the language / ancient literature of the time.
Contending for the English statement: "I tell you the truth TODAY" by changing an english comma, is totally uneducated and even a bizarre attempt to change biblical Greek. It is obviously caused by people who think that changing a comma in the english language that was NOT in the original language, can change the meaning of Koine Greek. They simply don not know ancient Greek and they grossly break the clear linguistics and rules of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis.
Case closed. Go ask a seriously reputable ancient Greek scholar!
All that wall of text and your only argument is grammar. I would pay attention to what you're saying provide you can answer 1) and 3) from my previous message.
STREEEEEET
Although you seem to be trying to minimize the first powerful aspect of our debate (what the passage says in its original language, how it is used elsewhere and letting it speak for itself) and you seem to want to dictate where the conversation leads. I will first clarify where your position deteriorates and at best is very weak.
As far as your other two points (about heaven/paradise doctrine). I will address that after clarifying the main points of good biblical exegesis/hermeneutics of the verse at hand. If you want to continue to dialogue with me about heaven/paradise, I'll give you my email address (it will take up far too much space here). For about 30 years I have read and have listened to many scholars debate the ins and outs of the various views. It is a complex, yet interesting subject. Any well balanced, honest, reputable expert/scholar on the minutia of heaven, hell, eschatology and biblical language will admit the topic is incredibly complex and loaded with mystery and unknowns.
YES, the most basic fundamental issue in the passage we are discussing (and its distortion by some) comes down to naturally and competently reading/interpreting/understanding the original language of ancient biblical (Koine) Greek. What the natural, organic, untainted read of the original scriptures say for themselves without trying to fit them into our modern paradigms/theology or manipulating them to serve a hypothesis, is the precise point of this topic! There is NO argument from silence here as you suggest. IMO, your suggestion itself is almost a straw man (distort what someone is saying, and then build a case against what is not an accurate position).
For starters, the scriptures need to be read organically in the original language with a comprehensive understanding of how the ancients used language and would have naturally understood it. Then we also need to interpret that natural reading/meaning to other languages untainted, EVEN IF WHAT IS SAYS SEEMS PROBLEMATIC, challenging or even apparently contradictory to any given theology (no matter who, no matter what).
In other words, we need to let the natural language speak for itself (with no funking, tinkering, skewing, contriving or shaping) and then honorably/nobly STRUGGLE with the ramifications of doctrinal reconciliation later. BTW, you and I may have similar eschatological beliefs. I have not yet mentioned mine.
Again, and a point of fact, biblical scholarship should NEVER distort biblical language (in reading or translating) to try to fit it into any preconceived belief. If we allow that, then corruption (even potentially massive distortions) will almost certainly follow. The adjusting of things approach (such as some wanting to move the English comma in the discussed verse to make an entirely different meaning of this verse) does not make sense, and most competent scholars would contend the method is even dangerous. Respectively, we are dealing with sacredly held spiritual issues here!
To reiterate, we need to allow the original language to simply say whatever it says (no matter how difficult or even seemingly contradictory it may be) and then later we can struggle, wrestle and grapple with how to best understand or reconcile it, in the light of all the other information (verses) related to the same subject-matter. This approach is one of the golden rules of interpretation.
Now, in the original ancient language, we need to be exceptionally careful to study and consider prefixes, idioms, figures of speech and all other language tools used in the era of the writing! In this text at hand, we need to study the language tool explicitly designed to make a pointed emphasis. So many people error in this area of study and know little or next to nothing about common ancient literary devise/tools. Also, how these ancient language tools were understood by the original listeners or audience! In fact, I believe there are few experts in the world in this area of scholarship.
The emphasis device and texts we are discussing are clear to an ancient Koine Greek expert. They are not controversial, vague or abstract. I have rephrased it many times above. But they go exactly like this:
“Absolutely, even double absolutely what I am about to immediately say to you is first hand, absolute, profound and true!”
“Get ready, what I am about to say to you, I doubly (Amen, amen) swear is true!”
Literally, the phrase starts with the word Amen. Amen (or a double amen - amen said twice) used at the beginning of Jesus's phrases is claiming audacious, absolute first-hand knowledge of the immediate next thing he says.
Again, in modern English, if we were to use this same language tool, it would sound like this:
"Get ready to listen extremely carefully, because Extremely, Extremely true, essential and authoritative, is the very next thing I am going to say to YOU!
People who do not have language expertise (or are biased) too often prey on folks by misleading them into thinking that they can change a clear ancient saying (repeated many times over in scripture) by changing an entirely different language version (English) that it was not written in, by moving a comma to suit their proposed theology!
The argument that there are no commas is Greek works AGAINST those folks! Why? Because now we have to carefully study the original language, the exact statement and especially all of the usages in the book at hand (the Bible) and even all the places its used in any literature of its type, and time.
I have a QUESTION for you:
Is there ANY GRAMMATICAL EVIDENCE at all that this totally new saying (by moving the comma) exists in either the massive book at hand (the Bible) or any contemporary literature of its time?
If so, where?
What people (maybe good, very well-meaning people) are doing is using the English comma to change/distort/skew and change the natural Greek reading to make it fit their specific preconceived beliefs.
This approach to exegesis/hermeneutics makes no sense. As an example, groups like the Jehovah Witnesses or The Way International, or Christian Educational Services, and others (no matter good or how well-meaning they may be) do this all the time! Any expert in Greek biblical scholarship knows that the Jehovah Witnesses "New World Translation" is one of the worst, most botched and changed translations out there! Any expert in biblical Greek can show how the translators took massive liberties to wrongly translate, skew and distort many vital passages to FIT INTO THE FRAMEWORK of their pre-established theology.
What does make sense is finding out how the Koine Greek organically reads (outside theological beliefs and 21st-century paradigms) and especially in light of how it has been used before and how the ancients used it!
How it was used or understood is not ambiguous! It is easy for good Greek scholars to figure out. I propose here that there is no hermeneutical evidence that the Greek can go either way. All the evidence goes for the form of:
"Truely, Truely I say unto you."
EVIDENCE: aside from just reading the text naturally as it reads in light of ALL other literature of the same era, there are other reliable methods of interpretation, exegesis, or figuring out the meaning of an ancient phrase. I’ll hit on a couple universally accepted methods here.
If or when it exists, WHERE ELSE is the same phrase used in the Bible?
Some people call this “letting the Bible interpret the Bible.” This approach makes complete sense. God speaks through the Bible in repetitive ways with repetitive meanings. We could lay out many examples here. For example, the phrase “coming on the clouds of heaven.” Where did this symbolism come from? What does it mean in all the verses in the Bible about clouds and heaven? Where is it directly used? By understanding these fundamentals, we get a solid understanding of what Jesus proclaimed to his opposition during his trial! Every religious synagog attending Jew in the land of 1st century Israel would have known precisely what Jesus was audaciously declaring at his Sanhedrin trial! And by their extreme reaction, you get confirmation that they understood what He meant by the phrase!
*Another successful method of exegesis is, if or when it exists, WHERE ELSE is the exact same phrase or language tool used, in the literature of its time?
NOW having laid out those critical principals, NOWHERE (NOWHERE!) is your proposed alteration of the common "Amen, Amen" I say to you" saying ever used in scripture! Even though Jesus used the phrase at least 76 times in the Gospels and EVERY SINGLE TIME the main point or powerful declaration is made after the words "to YOU"! This is an unusual abundance of evidence of a specific important phrase. We have a GIGANTIC track record of how the Bible interprets the Bible here and precisely how Jesus used a literary device (phrase) to set people up to get ready to intentively hear a very important thing he would say next! This is SUBSTANTIAL and compelling evidence. This is NOT silence.
As far as the other reliable method mentioned above, would you please show me anywhere in ancient Greek of the era, or any other place in the entire Bible where the "day" in which the speaker is speaking is added as the emphasis phrase (is emphasized). If people of the time or in the Bible used this type of phraseology, please show me a clear example. We need sound linguistic evidence for your comma moving hypothesis.
There is none!
76+ times Jesus repeats the same phrase ("Amen, I say to you" - or "Amen, Amen I say to you") and never once is there a thing, date, time or anything else put into the emphasis before the important point following. The phrase you suggest does not exist the literature of its time or type and in the huge track record of his own words, He never used it.
If I may I’d like to make a small comment on atheism and this I think is something to really think about.
In India for instance, if that country became atheistic, it would be a dangerous place to be.
But because of its religions it’s a remarkably peaceful place and in many ways much safer than the USA.
It’s interesting that before the USA turned her back on God by subscribing to atheism, the US was very safe place and a beacon of God’s light to the rest of the world. But it’s now become a dangerous place to live in with untold craziness going on.
When Napoleon said that religion stops the poor from murdering the rich, he wasn’t too far wrong.
But presumably you would say, let the seas roar, let mankind turn into a seething caldron of mayhem, let kids shoot up the school, let everyone go mad but do not ask us to believe in God.
Could it be that God gives the mind of mankind some solace for recognising their creator?
And hence the reason for the relative goodness of the people from India.
This example, in my opinion, is more evidence of the creator’s existence.
But in selfishness the atheist doesn’t care, hence we have this madness on your hands.
Not sure about your assertions on safety there, Paul.
A 2017 report by Global Peace Index had claimed India to be the fourth most dangerous country for women travellers. Gender Vulnerability Index 2017 compiled by Ministry of Women and Child Development found Bihar, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand to be the bottom four in terms of safety. (yes, thats cut n paste)
As for the USA, 75% population are affiliated to a religion. And is it more dangerous now than, say, the 19th c?
Secular countries like Scandinavia, Iceland, Netherlands seem to indicate as some of the safest countries to visit and live in.
@rovert, absolutely correct my friend, Stephen Pinker wrote a bestselling book about this, you may well be aware of it, called "The better Angels of our nature" he compiled lots and lots of data and historical research, and found that, although people generally think the world is a much more dangerous and deadly place now, the stats actually show the opposite. Life was far more brutal and deadly in the past, even only going back a few decades, and the further back you go, the more violent and bloody it becomes.
And you're right about modern day countries with big atheistic populations, they are generally far more moral and peaceful than many religious countries, as you pointed out, Sacandinavian countries are a great example, they certainly don't have anything like the number of convicted felons in prisons as they do in the US.
rovert46 You probably do have a point regarding women travelling in India. I hadn’t thought of that. I was only thinking about men. Selfish of me really. Hopefully my apologies will be received that I now profusely offer to all those of the fairer sex.
However it goes without saying that it can be quite dangerous if the poor go off the rails. Obviously not all poor would be like this.
But it’s not the rich who beat the people up, is it. Mug em. Kill em. Take their stuff.
This is obviously so, because the rich aren’t getting beat up by a harsh life thats in the minds of the poor, and therefore they aren’t hanging out for their retaliation.
Wealth and poverty is relative isn’t it.
Maybe 80% of today’s poor in the West are richer than 100% of of middle class of the 50’s.
Today they have, TV’s, iPhones and iPads, micro ovens, cheap automatic cars with electric windows, power steering, power brakes, power seats, air conditioning. Better than what the Happy Days Fonz had. That’s today’s poor for you.
But the other guy has got more stuff. Or better stuff. And that’s the problem.
So it’s give me more and more. If only I had more stuff I could smile and whistle a happy tune when I see the other guy with less.
Today’s poor with are invariably richer than Henry the 8th who suffered a life of pain from being unseated from his horse in a jousting match. His medical condition could be fixed today in a jiffy.
Christ said the poor will always be with us.
Was he rich?
However, India has many poor people but on a whole they won’t turn on you because you have more.
Essentially they are a nation of good people, that is, if you define good as being reasonably law abiding types And they are hard workers with good attitudes.
Perhaps you are right about the those other countries such as Scandinavia and the Netherlands. I don’t know why this is so. Maybe they don’t have much of the poor mentality because of being highly civilised. I don’t know what the answer is.
If I went there for a look-see I would be able to perhaps make a more informed judgment.
The USA might say that 75% of the population is religious but I personally doubt that as a true statistic.
As for Christianity in the US, as a guess, I think there might be a solid core of maybe 15% but its probably less. And this 15%, this salt, this light, is holding back a flood of evil that would completely flood the USA and turn it into a banana republic.
A lot of behaviour in society is usually controlled by peer group pressure.
The off the charts divorce rates is happening because there is no stigma anymore for getting divorced.
But there used to be. And that stigma kept marriages together.
The ancient Chinese custom of foot binding whilst seeming cruel did serve the useful purpose of making it too difficult for the wife with her little feet, to run away when married life became intolerable.
There will times when married life will be unbearable but without the stigma of peer group disapproval the high divorce rate will continue.
And added to that stigma, women didn’t work so therefore they couldn’t really make it on their own, thus making divorce unaffordable for them to leave.
A man was a cad, a fink, a mutt, if he got rid of his wife. Marriage is partly about duty. You go to war to do your duty. You stay married because of your duty. Does rampant divorce help or hinder society? It wrecks society doesn’t it. That’s not rocket science is it. Do your duty to God and your fellow man and of course your family.
If we stick with the USA for a paragraph or two, I think we can say that there is a marked difference between their society’s behaviour today, compared to that of the yesterday’s of a previous era.
School shooting by school kids killing school kids. Road rage shooting. Drive by shootings. And plenty of other bad stuff that was completely unheard of in yesteryear.
This is called madness because it is mad. They have gone mad.
Are you happy with this?
You’re to blame with you’re atheism.
We didn’t do that kind of crazy Charles Manson, OJ Simpson stuff because our desire to look like decent citizens in the eyes of our peer group, made us restrain ourselves to indeed be those better. people. And we were better people.
You with your atheism have taken that away. You have removed this useful peer group pressure to do the right thing.
But you say “oh golly gosh if that’s true then that’s just way too bad isn’t it. Shucks too bad how sad”you say “but hey it’s survival of the fittest don’t you know.”
Thanks buddy. You’re a peach.
But regrettably you’re not wise enough to realise you’re to blame.
Now there is no one to stand up against and fight back against this unleashing of evil that is ruining the children of today. Such as pornography.
If you don’t actually realise that pornography is ruining society then hey Pal you’re definitely 2 or 3 sandwiches short of a picnic.
That’s why guys like you aren’t allowed to be in charge. It’s because you don’t know what you are doing which means you don’t know the harm you are doing.
You have destroyed the good effects that Christianity was producing in the USA, So instead of saying hey you know what, Christianity is a good thing it’s helping society, you say we gotta get rid of it. That’s how unwise you are.
You unwisely say that atheism is the way to go and look what you’ve done. You’ve ruined society but you’re probably unwisely proud of it. And you with the complete absence of wisdom want to rule the world. Another Hitler huh. Please give us a break. I think we’ve earned it.
Congratulations on the brilliant job you’ve done.
A smart person would say ok let’s fix this mess.
But you can’t do that. Because you’d have to admit that you’re wrong.
And you’d rather let the whole thing go down the tubes than admit that you are wrong.
So you say, let it be. Let it be.
Maybe that was ok for John Lennon.
But even he cared.
Thats lovely Paul, authentic back porch home spun philosophy, you take care.
rovert46 You take care too Robert46.
I think the difference between you and me, is, you say or imply that you think, or you are a thinker, because you say the wagging tail on the dog is it’s expression of happiness. And I agree, you are right.
But I go further than you do.
I say why does the dog need to express his happiness by wagging the tail.
You say it doesn’t matter.
And of course you are right.
From your perspective it doesn’t matter but if did matter and you could figure it out, be it home spun on the back porch or whatever, you wouldn’t say unwise things with tongue in cheek like ......oh that’s so lovely Paul, in a mocking way.
Instead you would understand what I said. But, as, you are in the dark, you don’t know if I’m right or wrong, you can’t verify it, one way or another, therefore in order to hide your
lack of understanding, you subtly rubbish what I’ve said. Plus you also subtly rubbish it, because if I am right it means you’d interpret yourself as being some kind of looser, and you don’t want to be that.
You remind me of the native speaking to Captain Cook about the clothing this great navigator wore.
I am taking some poetic licence here.
But the naked savage brazenly said with tongue in cheek of course, before he goes back to his mud hut and presumably beats the you know what out of his wife again for the 100th time that’s very lovely Captain, very nice, but too many clothes huh “
You my friend, because you have elected not to understand deeply why we do what we do, it’s therefore a mystery to you, and accordingly you have no clue as to whether I’m right or wrong. But like the native you give the parting shot.......that’s lovely Paul. Lovely homespun on the back porch musings but don’t forget to pick up the shavings from your whittling before you go inside for some more of Granny’s opossum stew.
After the native commented on Cooks clothing, all the accompanying naked natives broke out into shrills of laughter.
But the sophisticated people in the Captain’s entourage, knew the natives were just feeling inferior, and it was just their attempt to boost themselves, just as you were doing with the back porch comment.
You were trying to send a message to others like yourself, that actually, in your opinion, you are saying, I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Nice try, but no cigar.
I know you aren’t some kind of wife beating nut living in a mud hut, but in my opinion, in this instance, you are using the natives tactics, clumsy as they might be.
You would have garnered much more credibility with me and any onlookers if you said, hey maybe you’re right. Or I’ve never heard that before. That would have been the smart move.
Just a handy hint.