Відео

I’m just tuned in…Great insights coming….I can see

Feb 19 , 1013

Saying 22 in the Gospel of Thomas states that the least is like the greatest and that the outside should be like the inside and when you make male and female into a single one (unity instead of division or gender roles), so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, then you would enter the kingdom. In other words, love unifies, but hatred scatters and whoever has love will enter the kingdom because love never fails. This angered people full of hatred, like Origen, who said: “Men should not sit and listen to a woman . . . even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman.” Fragments on 1 Corinthians And that was almost the sole reason they rejected the Gospel of Thomas. Because they viewed women as domesticated animals unworthy of life. But if Mary Magdalene were to become male, then according to saying 22 which surely Jesus didn't forget, men were to become female as well (which to me means try to take the place of and empathize with women, and the opposite should be true), but this would render gender completely meaningless, nothing but a divider, a corpse that arose because of our fallen state, but if we were resorted to our original image, we'll mutually see each other as full humans worthy of love, and gender would be nothing but a physical attribute, and only the soul would remain. Here's the full (and very interesting) commentary on the connection between saying 22 and Mary "becoming male" (saying 114); williamgduffy.com/making-sense-of-logion-114-in-the-gospel-of-thomas/

🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

Vatican II was a Satanic masterpiece 😕

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of any god._* And here is the evidence I must consider when evaluating the claim by theists, and as to why I currently hold to such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the nearly 50 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacies or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation as to the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered the _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding any acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

"...it would seem there's nothing more important to know than whether or not there's a god..." Not necessarily. What if there is a god (a thinking being that made the universe) but this god not only didn't _intend_ humans, but is _utterly unaware_ that we exist? That would make _no_ difference to your life. I think what you _mean_ is that it's important if a _certain type_ of god exists (one that interferes in human affairs in some fashion). "...this has huge implcations for morality..." I'm not convinced it does. It has huge implications for _obedience to authority,_ potentially, but nothing more. "...with our belief in the existence of a soul, with life after death..." Why? What, exactly, prevents humans from _having_ souls, and even some sort of afterlife, but there not being a god of any sort in charge of that? "...possibility of miracles..." But not whether you should believe they happen. "...the possibility that a claim to revelation is true..." But, again, not whether you should believe any such claim or not.

Looks great!

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of any god._* And here is the evidence I must consider when evaluating the claim by theists, and as to why I currently hold to such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the nearly 50 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacies or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation as to the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered the _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding any acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of any god._* And here is the evidence I must consider when evaluating the claim by theists, and as to why I currently hold to such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the nearly 50 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacies or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation as to the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered the _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding any acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

2 Corinthians 11:14-15 KJVS And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. [15] Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Interested viewers (who are reading these comments) may also enjoy my interview with Joseph Pearce on the subject of CS Lewis and whether his views about hell align with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church: almostgoodcatholics.buzzsprout.com/1909216/10279000

Interested viewers (who are reading these comments) may also enjoy my interview with Joseph Pearce on the subject of CS Lewis and whether his views about hell align with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church: almostgoodcatholics.buzzsprout.com/1909216/10279000

Best class I’ve ever been privileged to sit in.

He said “ the Gnostics where inteligent and spiritual” So dont see this as a fairy tale whith real people. Its more about the true mesning behind this. Adam was the first. Pure divine, now you sperate him to seperate more the divine mind and create a woman Eve. Making her male meant making her be like the divine mind of adam, pure consciousness. Not making her be a man. But be divine as The first !

Watch ,,.,THE LADY OF HEAVEN Movie trailer 🎬👌,,, and thank you

I can't believe they are still lying... Catholic church had abused so many children, the church should be banned from this earth!

Catholic church is evil

“We are supposed to be GOING somewhere.” I wish for everyone to discover this truth.

Great talk

Excellent intro!

Usual Catholic Blind Bigot point of view !

When I click on the link for the website my browser says; "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to www.catholiccoursesinstitute.com. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details"

Most part of this excerpt has nothing to do with friendship. Everything from 2:30 on is centered around submission to the Church's teaching of what the natural laws are.

When the student is ready to learn, the teacher will appear. This appears to be true, and better late than never.

I’m somewhat confused about the reason (1:09) you give for the virtuous pagans being denied the beatific vision. You claim that their damnation was caused because they did not gave proper veneration to God. How could they? The Guardian of purgatory, or the Trojan priest in Paradiso certainly never knew Christ or that he was coming to redeem the world and yet their saved.

"black" I said panther

When I tried to get this lecture I received a message “There was no 404 CMS page found. . .“. No idea what this means.

A good perspective of life as a road, as fleeting, with clear and established outcomes.

_pathetic_

Es.posible.leer.datos.en.español

The catholic church doesn't want you to realize, you don't need a church. The kingdom of heaven is within you.

This is just straight garbage and he knows it!! I will challenge him any day...

ua-cam.com/video/gQDBZiKUVGw/v-deo.html&feature=emb_logo

In the gospel of Thomas in the last part of it that he spoke about, were Peter said send away marry she doesn't have the right to eternal life and Jesus answered about the women being male!, or becoming male, he wasn't talking about the women really becoming a male. He was talking about the women having the same rights as men to preach in church, to teach, to be prophets, to minister, after his resurrection in the new covenant just like men did in the old testament. Were it was only a man thing. It would be opened to women to under the new covenant. Back then women had no right in church. They were in the back of the church and basically had to shut up. The man was the one that did the teaching, preaching, prophecy, and stuff. The Gospel of Thomas was a gospel that did exist in Christian time in the Church until in was lost. And was a gospel written be Thomas and went deeper into biblical teaching. Were as the gospel of John gos deep into the teachings of Mathew, Mark, and Luke, Thomas gos deep into the teaching of John. The gnostic took some of the good books written at that time and put them in with the books they were writing.

In my opinion; and although I am not an artist, and will never pass from some music experiences, which were "vital" for my self development, but also lead me to the perception that sacred art can be an matter of directly Pleasing God also has an expression Worship and Faith; which is different from attempt to even "impress" others in society. Also in my opinion; sacred art has prevailed also due to the Historical context of what is Humanity through the ages, but nevertheless the statically acceptance of an majority of individuals through the decades, is different from the minorities new tendencies of art, which through time have even caught in an less statistically use, acceptance and even been known in the society(s) My sincere gratitude for any reply of your specialist authority will, regarding the following question. Is sacred art almost "Immortal" and still remains in opposition to the new tendencies?

Expert? Not. Learn the Gnostic TRUTH. Not gnosticism. "The Gnostic Truth, The Sacred Secret", ua-cam.com/video/CO9v3OIFnxM/v-deo.html

Expert? Not. Learn the Gnostic TRUTH. Not gnosticism. "The Gnostic Truth, The Sacred Secret", ua-cam.com/video/CO9v3OIFnxM/v-deo.html

so a time when people were put to death for their "heresies" and the Spanish Inquisition.... Was like totally not a dark age at all???!!!

Dr. Miller, thank you for this video and for sharing your knowledge. I appreciate that. I love learning all I can about the Roman Catholic Religion. I hope that you will continue to share your knowledge in utube videos. Thank you for making learning so very enjoyable. Your videos impact my life in many positive ways and helps me to be a more devout Catholic. I share what I learn from your videos with my Son and he enjoys your videos as well. As a result of viewing your videos, my Son and I have wonderful conversations and our faith in God deepens. Thank you for the blessing of sharing your knowledge with us. Respectfully, Mrs. Mary Vu (O.F.S.) Order Franciscan Secular

I would argue that Virgil probably as good as Dante Alighieri and the same could be said of Homer the three greatest works that inspire to this day the Odyssey The Iliad and the Aeneid if you were to say the four greatest poems ever composed then yes the Divine comedy would be number four and that's only because there's no one official author for the Norse Sagas

Good, just might try to use inclusive language....

me encanta oir al padre alfred por favor podrian poner la traduccion al español de esta presentacion sobre el apocalipsis, gracias

Prof Esolen is fantastic

Many Modernists, in approximating the Nestorian heresy, look at Luke 2.52 and fail to make the necessary distinction in interpreting the Greek word for wisdom (sophia) - ie. between having all (divine) wisdom, from, manifesting it as a human would, remembering that Christ's divine nature did not overcome His human nature -- even as a baby child. However, if I am right, the harmony of the hypostatic union, always present, did change *in its expression* as the Christ child's body allowed with growing maturity.

The vanity of our titles is amazing, as if assumed that a search would return your name. The crossover of human feelings, Christ, love, the church the arrow to the red rose. Clearly said - you are the best and worst but missing the target, you have hit a rose, but its blue. religion, POP and politics are all one, past, present and future. take a second and relate. If you have read and understood that then replay on this median. Im guessing i know where you got funding from. what is his/your next angle?

Catholic V Network www.catholictv.com Boston. MA on demand brought me here. I just watched the one about the meaning of the words and works of the Vatican Church. Loved it. I love History and this was right up my alley~! I might have to buy the dvd series now.

+Alphonsus Jr The course is sold through Tan Books so I think it would be acceptable to you.

Outstanding presentation!

I read "The Hobbit" when I was in the twelfth grade, and really liked it. I think it is better than the "Harry Potter" books and films.