Відео

Yes, that it true. But this council was not an ecumenical council, only a regional council. It is during this same time period that Jerome protests the inclusion of these books in the Vulgate. The debated position of these books was not settled officially by the catholic church until Trent.

@ so in order for something to be doctrine it has to be promulgated by an ecumenical council and universal acceptance by the whole church until the 16th century is not enough for it to be a binding doctrine on the believer? Jerome in his writings in “against Rufinus” acknowledges that his view is the minority view, opposed to the Church’s view, and possibly wrong even potentially sinful. He also submitted to the authority of the Pope and the “judgement of the churches” and translated the books he opposed. Why would he submit to the Pope and the church’s judgment if it was just a regional declaration?

@@TheKj85 Jerome's translation of those books in no way indicates he considered them Scripture. Luther translated the apocryphal books as well, and so have many in the protestant tradition. If you have further questions you can refer to Peter Williams' work: "The Bible, the Septuagint, and the Apocrypha" or consider this lecture over the same material: "ua-cam.com/video/xhmMKwl3KeE/v-deo.html"

What are you asking about specifically?

"For my part, however, I continue to think that even if we cannot be 100 percent certain about what we can attain to, we can at least be certain that all the surviving manuscripts were copied from other manuscripts, which were themselves copied from other manuscripts, and that it is at least possible to get back to the oldest and earliest stage of the manuscript tradition for each of the books of the New Testament." - Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, pg. 62.

@ruahchurch One of his "false things" I suppose... Right?

You might consider watching the video. 10:17

This might be helpful. 10:17

We agree. 10:17

It seems that there isn't much different between what you are saying and what is said in this blog. There has been much debate over the issue of concupiscence in christian history.

What verse are you referring to?

@@thaumaston 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

@@brittanyrenee8478 that’s written by Paul, not Jesus. Moreover, the Corinthians were committing these very sins: sexual immorality, drunkenness, reviling, greed - the same sins listed right here along with homosexuality. Read the book. Despite their present actions and sinful habits, Paul says they have been “washed”, “sanctified”, and “justified” in the eyes of God because God sees them in Christ. Their actions and lack of repentance is one thing. Their identity and redemption in Christ is another. That is how Paul sees the redemptive nature of Christ’s death for their sins.

⁠@brittanyreneee8478 that’s written by Paul, not Jesus. Moreover, the Corinthians were committing these very sins when Paul wrote to them: sexual immorality, drunkenness, reviling, greed - the same sins listed right here along with homosexuality. Read the book. Despite their present actions and sinful habits, Paul says they have been “washed”, “sanctified”, and “justified” in the eyes of God because God sees them in Christ. Their unrepentant actions are one thing. Their identity and redemption in Christ is another. That is how Paul sees the redemptive nature of Christ’s death for their sins. Happy to share the gospel with you.

@@thaumaston are you seriously insinuating that homosexuality is okay with God? No sin is okay with God all must be repented of and forsaken to come to Christ

What do you mean? I ask because I’d love to discuss, not fight. 😁

We'd be willing to have you point to scriptures that don't validate these ideas.

Amen! “Love is love” is a lie from Lucifer.

@@dawnricherson2604 Amen no love is love love is a choice made by people the " in love feeling" that is promoted by that is exactly that a feeling and emotion a fleeting moment in time feelings and emotions come and go like the tides of the sea but God's truth stands forever. Yes as these guys like to proclaim Jesus in a sense replaced the law, but looking at what Paul wrote on the matter the law was there to teach us what is sin and what is not right that was the whole purpose of the law and the repentance was then done with offerings well Jesus became the offering and the way to God nowhere did it say that Jesus completely nullified the law and as in Lev18 it lays the law clearly on these matters so you are so right inthat this is a lie from Satan.

@@spearouys you might consider the ending of this video: 10:41

Linguistically Allah Elahi Eloah Alaha are all linguistic cognates for the one God not "gods" ilah is generic God in Arabic Allah is The One God in Arabic eloh is generic God in Hebrew Elohim is plural so can be used for Gods Eloah or Eloheinu is The One God in Hebrew Hebrew prayers still use Eloheinu e.g. Baruch ata Adonai Eloheinu 2. Aramaic Hebrew Amharic and Arabic are all within the same family Semitic modernly or Afro-Asiatic 3. Factually Prophets such as Joshua Isaiah Elijah all praise YHWH ( btw YaHuWa in Arabic means "Oh He Is" or "Oh He Is the only one who ever was , is , and will ever be." HU and HUWA are referring to the Most High) 4. but what about all the -el prophets names in the Bible? Such as Ezekiel Daniel Ishmael these names praise Eloah or Alaha/Ilahi or Allah s.w.t. 5. Michael Gabriel also the Angels of heaven have -el names only 6. There are at least 72 names of God in Judaism and at least 99 in Islam many are identical Ar Rahman ArRachaman HaShem Hashim El Kodesh Al Quddus Ahad Echad Eloheinu Allah

Wrong, if you ask a 4 year-old Jewish child to say the number “one” in Hebrew - he’s simply going to say “Echad”. Because it just means ONE. You Christians have to twist basic language around in order to desperately defend your un-Biblical & Church-fabricated doctrines such as the Trinity, whereas God and the prophets have never taught such a thing, but rather the exact opposite (as Jesus himself affirmed in Mark 12:29-34). What makes a unity “compound” is NOT the word “Echad” but rather the NOUN to which it is attached. One person? Simple unity. One family? Compound unity. One particle? Simple unity. One football team? Compound unity. So the “compound nature” is from the NOUN it describes, not the word Echad which simply means ‘one’. Islam is so simple & beautiful - “God is the one & only (Ahad); God the Eternal & Absolute, who neither begets nor was begotten, and who has no equal.” ~ Sūrah 112

@@celestialknight2339 first off yes God is one, The context of the way echad is used in the bible literally, unity made of parts. Ecahd is used genesis 2:24 and talks about the husband and wife joining into one flesh. we are not twisting scrpiture

@@jhfghgh4606 Yes you are twisting Scripture. Because _Echad_ is simply the Hebrew word for ONE, as I already explained. It’s not some special word. It literally just means “one” like in English. In fact, not a single Lexicon or Scholarly Dictionary of Hebrew will ever say that ‘Echad’ means ‘a compound unity’. If you find one-I will personally record myself converting to Christianity on live camera. Because you will NEVER find it. It’s nothing more than an apologetic myth. As for Genesis 2:24, it’s specifically using a metaphor for how husband & wife join together, and their flesh becomes united as “one”. But once again, it’s the NOUN and CONTEXT that tells us they were originally “two”. But nowhere does the Bible say this with God. He is always just ONE. Not a Trinity. Just a few verses earlier in Genesis 2:21, it says that Eve was created by “one” (echad) of Adam’s ribs. Does this mean that a single rib is a compound unity? Of course not. Also in Malachi 2:10, we are told that God the FATHER is “ONE” (Echad). So do you believe that the Father Himself is a compound unity? Of course not. These passages refute your false interpretation.

@@celestialknight2339 first off in hebrew the same one is not used, its ’a-ḥaṯ, and its used in genesis 11:6, genesis 27:38 and exodus 12:49. And in the hebrew lexicon its an adjective aswell as more than one meaning, there are 8 out of line meaning, the biblical meaning is compound unity . Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one Father? this verse is talking about multiple people being united under God.God is one, the trinity is in the bible and your a heretic if you reject it. And genesis 2:24 is not a metaphor.its meant to mean since eve came from adams rib their flesh and soul are together in a covenant with God

@@jhfghgh4606 Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. The word ‘a·ḥaṯ still derives from the Hebrew echad (אֶחָד) - it’s simply the feminine absolute form of it, due to the grammatical nature of the verse. Both share the same meaning: _ONE._ You’re trying to confuse the issue by saying “Echad has multiple meanings” - but you fail to realize that this only proves my point, which is that NONE of the multiple meanings are ever ‘a compound unity’. Saying “It’s the Biblical meaning” is about as useful as me telling you “It’s not”. Your personal opinion doesn’t matter. I’m going to take the word of EVERY single Hebrew & Bible scholar in existence who translates _’echad’_ as “one”. _Because that’s what it means._ The Bible literally NEVER teaches the Trinity - it was developed by the later Church over time due to Hellenistic pagan influence, which is why it was highly rejected by many Christians groups (including Unitarians today), and why scribes literally fabricated verses to support it, such as 1 John 5:7 (The Johannian Comma). The doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t even fully established until the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., followed by the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., which included the Holy Spirit as co-equal. Yet the Bible clearly states that God is ONE (Mark 12:29), that there is NO OTHER BESIDES HIM (Isaiah 45:5), and that He shares His glory with NO ONE ELSE (Isaiah 42:8). You are in deep, deep misguidance my friend. And I humbly urge you to please come back to the truth, and serve God alone-Christ’s Lord and your Lord. P.S. Genesis 2:24 still doesn’t help your case, because once again you just proved that it’s the context (of bonding & God’s covenant) that makes the flesh “one” (Echad), and not simply the word “Echad” itself. So thanks for agreeing! I hope you wake up & realize that God is one & only, and does NOT have a son or daughter. He is Self-Sufficient & Independent; and if God truly had a son, I would be the first one to truly worship him. But glory be to God alone-the Lord of honor & majesty-above what you say. If you were correct, then the Bible would have clearly said so from Abraham to Moses and the prophets beyond. Yet it never does, until Paul & the later Church corrupted the message beyond repair. God is One. So simple. So profound. All praise be to Him ❤️ He will judge between all His servants in the end.

It’s not comical or upsetting at all. They are both the word of God which we respect - but the Bible has undoubtedly undergone corruption & change by the hands of men, so the Qur’an preserves, clarifies, and summarizes the core lessons & message of the Bible: which is to worship the one Creator, and do good to His creation. It is as clear as glass - as many ex-Christian converts to Islam have come to realize :) ❤ As for ‘dependence’, the Qur’an never plagiarizes the Bible, but rather they come from a common source (God) - who can speak any language He wants. Also, there wasn’t even an Arabic Bible in the early 7th century to begin with. On top of that, the Qur’an often leaves out the offensive stories of the prophets such as David (who allegedly committed adultery), Lot (who supposedly slept with his own two daughters), or Noah (who reportedly lay unclothed under a tent) - which a charlatan ‘self-appointed prophet’ WOULD never remove, so as to prop up & bolster his own image. This proves the sincerity of the Prophet & the Qur’an. Moreover, the Qur’an corrects errors or misinterpretations of the Bible. For example whereas Exodus says that God felt “refreshed” after creating the universe, the Qur’an says: *_”We have created the heavens and the earth in six days; and there touched Us NOTHING OF FATIGUE.”_* ~ Qur’an 50:38 Or how the Qur’an refers to the leader of Egypt at the time of Joseph as “king” (which is historically correct) while the Bible strangely calls him “Pharaoh” - which is a historical anachronism, since the title referred to the royal household & palace, rather than the ruler himself as it did in the New Kingdom Dynasty. The Qur’an couldn’t have copied the Bible, because it _CORRECTED_ the Bible. Overall, we believe in God, and what was revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Patriarchs; and what was given to Moses and to Jesus, and what all the prophets received from their Lord. We do not discriminate between any of them; and to God we surrender ourselves in full devotion ❤ Peace. And I sincerely hope you come back to the truth before it’s too late 🙏🏼 Because Judgement Day is coming, and God’s warning is real.

@celestialknight2339 I have come into truth since I left a lie. Thank you for your concern So why is Allah incapable of protecting his words? He sent the injeel and Torah, and he was overpowered by mere humans to corrupt his own words. Then we have the Quran that ended up producing 7 ahruf and over 10 qira'at and needed to be burned and corrected by Uthman. Why does Allah have such a poor track record? The Quran is reliant on the bible because it is referencing biblical stories and characters, how can we validate the truth claims of the Quran, if the very books that predate it are corrupted? We know that without the bible, there wouldn't be a Qur'an I find it strange that you claim the bible is from the same source (highlighting dependance) as the Quran, yet Allah failed to protect it, and had to send down the Quran to correct his own shortcomings As for your example of pharoah and king, I'm surprised you use that example because that's one of the many failures of the Qurans. You say that the Quran got the title of king right, 600 years later lol but what you fail to see is that the authors of the Quran thought pharoah was a NAME and not a TITLE. Otherwise it would have used "AL-Firawn". To denote the title, but it simply says "Firawn" as a noun. Show me where in the Quran the name of the pharoah being referenced is demonstrated then i can agree that Allah did a good job correcting his previous mistakes 600 years later

I do not know why you represent yourself as ex- Muslim 😂 , this lie no longer works , seriously without lie Christianity will die

@@Asqwasqwa1212 because I am an ex Muslim and have nothing to do with Christianity. Let me make it simple for you bud. I'll convert to Islam now Ashahdu ana la illaah illa Allah wa ashadu ana Muhammad rasulallah Now I'm Muslim, let me leave Islam again I bear witness Allah is a false god and Muhammad is a false prophet I hope that helped clear things up buddy

@@thenun1846 😂😂😂you know nothing about Islam , just follow your holy sprite , he is inside you now

The Queen

Which john? John son of zebedee? John father of peter? John son of annas?

@@servantofgod3058 Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Quran 36:13-17 talks about John, Peter and Paul as apostles of Allah. Now guess which John could it be? Paul is an even bigger problem for you Islamists

​@@tymon1928 Brother I just read the Tafsir and it talks about the previous messengers who came. Are you saying Paul John Peter are also messengers.

@@tymon1928 complete utterly lie. Coming from a life long Muslim lol

​@tymon1928 when I was a Muslim, I was shocked when I first learned this. The more you learn about Islam, the more you realise how hopelessly dependant the Quran is on the bible

For having the largest masjid in Indiana and a PhD in hadith and Quranic studies, Nasser was unaware of that hadith. I know about that hadith and I do not know much.

@@TexasHoosier3118i mean, the hadith corpus has over ten thousand ahadith. To ask about one specific hadith out of ten thousand and expect him to know it is a bit rash. also he doesn’t have a PhD in hadith sciences. he has a PhD in Usul-ad-din (principles of the religion) and comparative religions. Misunderstanding the hadith literature and blatantly lying are two completely different things

@@TexasHoosier3118 as a Muslim I also didn’t hear about it. If you just googled and read the answer on islamqa, you’d realize why. It’s not what the guy meant. Even putting that aside, if Muslims just went to heaven by “ransoming” others, why do we pray 5 times a day, wake up before sunrise to pray, fast a whole month, give away 2.5% of wealth? Why? Just use your brain and think for a second.

He didn't "dance" around, he answered the question, it's just you didn't like it (the answer he gave) why didn't the other two Muslims didn't respond to your statement, that's what I want to know 👆

No, your mind simply danced around his answer because you didn’t like it. He answered it perfectly. Also, the word ‘Tawheed’ isn’t mentioned in the Qur’an, but the concept of His absolute & unchanging oneness is unmistakable.