Abusing 2 Timothy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- This is not difficult. It is beyond absurd to suppose that a 66 book Bible can refer to itself before it even exists. And because it cannot refer to itself, it isn't self-authenticating. It is even more absurd to suppose 2 Tim 3:16 is about Paul informing Timothy that your 21st century 66 book Bible canon is inspired when the contextual facts inform us Paul is referring to something else. There are many who just refuse to be honest with the facts. How about you?
Thank you!
I´ve read the Bible cover-to-cover 15 times and now, after 40 years of attending church, the Spirit, through you and some other people, revealed me the Truth. I know I´ll have a high price to pay, but nothing is compared to "know the truth and the truth will set you free".
God bless you!
Amazing video... Years ago i would have had a big problem with this video, but as i lean more and more on the leading of the spirit, it now seems to me that we go astray when we put our faith in words/letters, black and white script rather than that which God speaks to us and to those who believe...
Keep them coming!!! So excited when I see new one pop up.
I absolutely agree. This is something that I've discussed over time with informed friends ...
At the end you quote the NT so which part can we rely on? Can we trust what it says about Jesus and at least the gospel writings? How else could we have known about his life if it were not for these writings?
Proverbs 30:5-6
Wicked men inspired by Satan have added and taken away from the truth…
Seek ye the truth brothers and sisters. Prove all things, rebuke and correct. Be guided by the Spirit Holy ( Father ).
God bless your wonderful work Kel.
John
Australia
The Father is not "the holy spirit!!!"
@@DjMakinetoryes he is
The Holy Spirit [God's Spirit] IS NOT a "Person."
You cannot literally divide "it"(neuter gender) into many pieces or distribute it as if it were a physical object.
For example, on one occasion Jehovah took a portion of the spirit that interacted with Moses and gave it to a group of Israelite elders standing before the tent of meeting (Numbers 11:24-29).
Jesus said: "God IS a Spirit," but not THE HOLY spirit."
The holy one is Jehovah.
@@DjMakinetor the Holy Spirit is not a person u are right it’s the spirit
Very well said. I have thought this for sometime but you fleshed it out. Thanks. People are so caught up in their church traditions that they will say something like this “ If the KJV was good enough for Paul then it’s good enough for me.” (Paraphrase from Dan Wallace) People one day will be judged by God not that they believed incorrect teachings but they will be judged unrighteousness because they never took the time to study and find the truth about Jehovah God and his Word. They were too busy doing relatively less important things
The author is referring to the ancient writings (Torah, prophets, psalms, histories, wisdom literature) when he writes in 2 Timothy 3:14-16 the following:
"Abide in things that you learned and were entrusted with, having known from whom you have learned, and that since childhood you have known sacred writings that are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus, each writing God-breathed and profitable towards instruction, towards reproof, towards restoration, towards training that is in righteousness"
2 Timothy 3:16 contains zero verbs, and is a continuation from verse 15. θεοπνευστος ("God-breathed") is an adjective meaning "divinely inspired" and is applied here by Paul when referring to the Tanakh (Old Testament) and possibly some Jewish apocryphal writings i.e. Ecclesiasticus and the books of Maccabees, etc.
Exactly, I'd also add book of Enoch (especially the book of the watchers and book of parables within) and Esdras and many others that the church calls "apocrypha"
Even parts of the OT are also corrupted by the scribes. Jer 8.8. it's pretty easy to find the major contradictions especially regarding animal sacrifices which God abhored.
it says ALL scripture,besides,there is already some new Testament SCRIPTURE written before that,your argument is weak and is found nowhere in scripture itself
@ManlyServant the new testament didn't even exist when Paul wrote those words.
@@ManlyServant What are you talking about?
One time a christian stared manifesting evil spirit when I mentioned that Jude mentions book of Enoch and that it must had been a book they all new as inspired by God, otherwise there would be stupid thing for him to mention it and even quote a sentence or two from it. This man went totally crazy accusing me for heresy and going mad saying that 66 cannon book is enough and you can't read other books. Oh my, that was insane.. there are many books which are mentioned in the bible that are not in the Bible. He went more insane when I said that Jesus is not Most High God whom we call our Father.
Jude actually quotes twice from non-canonical sources: Jude 1:9 and Jude 1:14.
@@TheTrinityDelusionYes, and Paul also said, "as even some of your own poets have said". Acts17:28
@@glennrobinson7193 these poets must have been second, and third from Adam. Enoch is only 7-th generation, so who cares what he knew and that it's big probability that he saw Adam and talked to him.
@@TheTrinityDelusion yep, nobody knows what book Jude had in mind in Jude 1:9. I would like to read that one.
@@Mckaule I care, you may not, but I care what he knew. I'm sure he must have been referring to poets such as Goethe and Aristotle maybe.
Whenever people tell me the Bible is 100% inspired by God, I like to show them Luke 1, where the author writes "...since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus".
They always fall upon mysticism in their final defense of their silliness. Something like - it was hidden and only revealed TO US, and God knew it even though Paul didn't know what he was saying... Something like that.. it will make your head hurt. But to look into their eyes as they repeat this nonsense and see the complete conviction of the babbling... is so sad. They are willingly lost and blind and lack any hearing. Why? Why do they do this? Spiritual captivity? The "KJV" only folks are....
Yes brother Kel, When you have the Truth in you and that’s why you can discern the Truth from the corrupt verses in the NT Bible.
Come on man, how can it be that my King James bible is not the preserved, inerrant word of god, it can correct the Greek text im told! To bad for all those who don't know, not just modern English, but an antiquated version no one speaks anymore. No salvation for them, right!
The leter kills, but the spirit gives life!
Why did the church need a man like Paul when Christ was living in them to teach and guide
Sometimes people need someone like Paul to teach them to listen and obey Christ in them. And that's exactly what he does.
Three reasons:
1. To preach the Gospel where it hadn't been preached. This was the primary mission of the apostles (see Romans 15:20-21).
2. Jesus (the truth) wasn't in all of the supposed members of the Church, because many were false believers who had joined the Church along with the genuine. As a result, disputes and dissensions would frequently occur over what the truth or the Way really was, and there needed to be people recognized as authority by all to resolve these disputes and set the record straight - see Acts 15 as an example.
3. On a similar note to number 2, many believers needed safeguarding from false teaching, not because Jesus wasn't living in them, but because Jesus wasn't yet "fully formed" in them (see Galatians 4:19). In other words, their faith was fragile, and because of this, they were susceptible either to deceit or discouragement. For this reason, they needed exhortations and reminders, and especially from those they recognized as authority. The apostles provided that (see 2 Peter 1:12-15; Philippians 3:1; 1 John 2:7,12-14).
@@TheTrinityDelusion it's too bad. Christ can't teach his people to obey on his own.
@@44place85Christ does nothing on his own but his God and Father works in him just as he works in all of his children.
In case someone might read my comment below and think I am just clinging to the "full inspiration" cliche; out of fear, I am not a naive' simpleton, I have studied God's word extremely diligently for 53 years. This is a far more slippery slope than most people have any clue about. The 66 books have a profound spirit witness when they are read with an open heart. They are not straw, they are wheat. They have a stamp of God Himself within them. Not because someone said so, but by diligent, careful study they all agree unlike the other "inspired" books like Enoch, et al. BTW, a great translation is the Emphasized Bible by Joseph Rotherham. It is likely the most literal translation available short of using a difficult to read Greek or Hebrew interlinear.
Peace be upon you.
This is one of, if not "the", most valuable instruction on youtube (especially pertaining to walking in the spirit, which is incorruptible, unlike any and all writings).
God be with you, as I know the spirit of the Father in me testifies that he is.
Im only 6 minutes in and and you’ve broken down what I have been thinking in such a clear way. It was only about a week ago that I started to see this with 2 Timothy 3:16. And after I posted my video (the one you commented on) I started looking into the apocrypha and found what you said, books were taken out during the reformation. I think I might make a video covering this material similarly. Do you have sources for which books have been corrupted? I haven’t seen evidence of that apart from some mistranslations and a few differences in the manuscripts.
Modern "churchanity" downfall - The trinity, the "word" = KJV, Gaurenteed salvation.
Just put a penny in the plate and coast on through, Brother!
Hello Brother Kel. Thanks for this video. It was good to look at 2 Tim 3:16 in the Greek, and in context. I agree with your view that "those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" and that the indwelling Spirit of God is our comforter and will lead us into all Truth
Question, however: What hard evidence do you know of that proves the claim that the NT of our 66 Book Bible has been corrupted?
When I Google it, pretty much all non-muslim sites will say something to the effect of: "there are slight differences but the overall gist remains the same"
I'm yet to find any scholastic evidence of major corruption
Would you kindly share some evidence that convinced you that the NT writings have been corrupted, please?
Thank you. Thank you for your awesome videos, may our Lord continue to bless you & your ministry, and I wish you all the best.
The Johannine comma for starters. Look it up. Also the NIV and NKJV (amongst other new translations) are owned by Rupert Murdoch. Look him up, he’s not the sort of man who you want in charge of Yahs word.
I compared many verses between the genever/KJv and the NIV and there are clear contradictions. I will name a few verses to start you off...
Acts 8:37
John 1:18
Gen 32:22
Luke 4:8
John 6:47
Matt 18:11
Matt 9:13
Ephesians 3:9
Matt 20:16
Mark 15:28
Matt 27:35
1 John 5:7
Phillippians 2:6
P.S. there are over 60,000 words less in the NIV opposed to the KJV.
Hope this helps ❤
I feel triggered… but in a good way😅 Thank you brother Kel
I think the author is treading on thin ice. The history of the early church, as well as the history of the creation of the NT canon, is influenced by the results of NT-textual criticism: or what we have in hand today as the (reconstructed) text of the NT (Bible).
On this subject, there is a great deal of scholarly literature and the classic work, the introductory study, can be considered Der Text des Neuen Testament // Greek New Testament by Kurt and Barbara Aland.
The controversy that the author has with 2. Tim. 3:16 and the conclusions he draws from it do not and did not have any influence on the formation of the NT canon. If Paul was writing to Timothy sometime around 70 AD, then from our perspective we know that John was writing the text of Revelation sometime in the 90s of the first century. Apparently it was also the last - chronologically speaking - book of the NT. We retroactively count the Apocalypse in the NT canon and apply the statement in 2 Tim. 3:16 to it. Why? Because John was commanded to send this text to the 7 churches. Thus, including the Apocalypse, for example, in the interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16 is not problematic if we start from the history of the early church. The history of the early church, the transition from Greek to Latin (in the West) and around 200 AD beginning translations into Coptic, Syriac, is completed sometime around 250 AD: the Church of the West becomes the Latin Church = all this validates and also preserves the NT text = the NT canon is formed. It is this situation, when Christianity spreads "explosively" from Palestine and, in less than 100 or 150 years, reaches the whole Mediterranean and the whole European continent, that is of special significance for us.
Very many epigraphic monuments, even from the time of Jesus, have survived to this day. A typical representative is the bilingual (Greek and Latin) inscription Res gestae Divi Augusti from 14 AD.
Nothing similar to this was created by Christians, or if they attempted it, no such monument has survived. It is a pity. But the early Christians took a different tactic: instead of building walls and carving text or casting bronze tablets and engraving them, they used cheap material: papyrus, parchment, or perhaps clay tablets. This allowed them to send out letters very quickly - just as we know from the opening of Revelation - while guaranteeing that if there was any tampering with the text in one or two churches, then there were other identical texts. And quickly more and more copies were produced. Proof: the papyrus referred to as P47 is considered a very important textual witness (quality category I) just for the text of Revelation. This find from Egypt and dated to the 3rd century, must have come out of Asia Minor, while being "lost" sometime in the 3rd century, in order to be preserved until the 1930s. But also later copies of the Greek text of Revelation, for example from the 13th century (Minuskel 2053), despite their very late origin, are extremely important for the reconstruction of the text, since they were based on very old manuscripts...
This brief description of what happened to the first letters of the apostles indicates that their immediate followers knew very well the value of these letters. They copied and circulated very quickly and in multiple places only those letters that had a legitimate purpose from the writers themselves (the evangelists, Paul, Peter, Jude, etc.) to eventually form a solid canon of NT texts = what John saw on Patmos was given to the churches, but also to us. The fact that we read Revelation is a direct result of Jesus' command to John.
On the other hand, we also need to know that the NT text is composed of many different textual witnesses. This should lead Christians not to quibble over words. I do answer the physical state of the NT text with words ap. Paul's words about "the weakness of God being stronger than man" (1 Cor. 1:25). Although the Bible is not preserved in its original form, is composed of torn, dirty bits or musty leaves, has become the folly and weakness of God, despite this poor physical condition, it contains ideas and messages that completely transcend what we have been left with and how it has been preserved.
We are totally dependent on the text of the Bible. This text of the Bible contains the "Spirit". Again, it is only a very weak force that operates from those words. It is very easy to overcome this force, this Spirit. But whoever submits to the Spirit that is in the text, then he has gained a hardened source of the Spirit of God. It is a weak but steady source until what has already happened once begins to be fulfilled (again): Acts 2:17: "And in the last days I will pour out my Spirit...".
"We retroactively count the Apocalypse in the NT canon and apply the statement in 2 Tim. 3:16 to it."
Is this what Paul expected Timothy to be thinking when he was reading 2 Timothy 3:16?
And what made you suppose that someone had a right to do such a thing with the Apocalypse?
@@TheTrinityDelusion Peter writes of Paul's letters as being part of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Thus, in the time of the apostles, a corpus is being formed that (most likely) ends with Revelation.
Alongside this there is the oral tradition of eyewitnesses, which naturally had less and less influence. In terms of cultural anthropology, the example of 3 generations is given, and you can easily check it out for yourself: you've probably heard someone who personally experienced, say, the Great Depression or even WWI. If you were to tell this information to, say, a grandchild who is now in their 20s and who is very interested, then this grandchild, sometime around 2080, will tell you that they experienced someone who knew personally those who lived through the events between 1920 and 1935...
None of you will need anything in writing. They know it from talking. But for later generations, it will have to be preserved in writing...
Let me put the question another way: how did Timothy respond to the text of Revelation? Let's assume that even 20 years after he received Paul's letter, Timothy was still alive, and reading John's Revelation. Did he understand it to be part of the Scriptures? He probably did. He must have understood the term "Scripture" then as we do: it is a communication from God through reliable men.
The history of the early church suggests this.
Sometime around 170 A.D., Irenaeus of Lyons(! from France!) writes an extensive treatise and quotes consistently from Revelation and even writes about textual variants. There is no indication that Revelation is not a canonical book - he appeals to it as authority.
Several times Irenaeus refers specifically to eyewitnesses who heard and saw those who saw and heard Jesus. For him, the oral tradition that was confirmed by the text was valid.
So it is a gradual process where generations of eyewitnesses confirm the authenticity of the texts, and the text itself becomes increasingly important to subsequent generations, just as the eyewitnesses diminish and the oral tradition becomes less and less accurate. Again, you can check this for yourself: if you probably have personal and reliable information about the situation before WWII from people who experienced it personally, you probably don't have that experience anymore with the Napoleonic Wars.
The NT canon emerges gradually, as a "social compact" where each generation, guarantees the values passed on.
@@Bo__M "Peter writes of Paul's letters as being part of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16)."
No, that's not what it says.
Most likely is a reference to the writing Torah, thank you Brother Kel this makes lots of sense
Good to see you brother. May Yahweh continue to keep you well and sharing the loving truth of His word 🙏🙏❤️🙏🙏
You nailed it
I watched the video so i just had read the commets 🤔 now my head hurts thanks guys
You: No, that's not what it says.
I do: If you look at some of the standard, academic commentary on passage 2. Peter 3:15-16, such as The International Critical Commentary (ICC) on 2 Peter (Ch. Bigg; Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude - the work is freely available on the web), then you will find arguments both for and against. Pages 299 to 303 discuss in detail which letters of the Apostle Paul, Peter may have had in mind, which may have been available to him or to the recipients of his letter; the position of Paul's letters in relation to the OT is also discussed, etc., etc.etc.... I think everyone can make up their own mind (and my opinion that Peter considered the letters of the Apostle Paul, as part of the Scriptures, is not so without argument...).
But the main point I am making is that if there are a multitude of arguments, both pro and con, then the issue becomes one of faith. Very many elements of the NT canon formation process, are subject to faith rather than rational evaluation of the arguments. Or to put it another way, I think that on a rational level, there are multiple and more substantial arguments in favor of there being something wrong with the NT text: the original has not survived, we don't have full copies, the text is reconstructed, variant readings of the text allow for different interpretations, the process of the formation of the canon meant the exclusion of some writings based on obscure rules, etc. etc., and all this in contrast to Almighty God: how could Almighty God allow such a situation, which for generations of Christians, represents a great challenge to the reliability of the Scriptures?
But not only the origin of the NT canon, but also its content, is a matter of faith. How can one rationally explain the change of water into wine, Jesus' walking on water, or the resurrection of the dead? These all become objects of faith. But: faith, too, is the same cognitive process as observation or judgment. If we examine the concept of "faith" (Greek "pistis") in the NT, we find that this concept, especially in the Gospels, corresponds more to our concept of "trust" than to "belief". One of the earliest occurrences of the term "pistis" in the NT has to do with the healing of the centurion's servant in Capernaum. It is the familiar story where the centurion tells Jesus to cause his servant to be healed without going to him. There is nothing in his "belief" about God, about religion, about the synagogue, about the scriptures. The centurion is drawing from the army experience, not the synagogue experience. Jesus refers to his attitude as "faith" or "trust." This story also serves to clarify the notion of "faith": that it is a repeated experience of something that we then carry over to other areas of our lives (whether in terms of past, present, or future) without being able to see, hear, or otherwise be affected by it personally. Such an "ultimate" representative of a "trust" is a will: a dead person assumes the fulfillment of his will without being able to make any personal provision for its fulfillment...
So I personally fill in the missing arguments in favor of a credible OT and NT canon with "faith". Or to put it another way: if I didn't have "faith"="trust", it would probably be a personal crisis (acute or long term) of faith, where rational arguments prevail and confirm the interpretation for the plausibility of the books of the Bible.
Yea, brother Kel, It’s like saying that you can find America in Prophecy, that would be stupid because America didn’t exist yet, do you understand me?
So how are we to know which scriptures are God breathed
Yes that's a good question isn't it?
"Listen to him".
I had met a monotheist as we are/do here... he made a distinction of "the testimony of Yahweh" (The Most High). I have not tried to unearth each and every reference to this.. but the concept is "thus saith the LORD (Yahweh)". Ex 9:1 ... I just checked the phrase and it appears 413 times in KJV ... You shared more details about this verse I was unaware ...
I made a short video on this about 6-8 years ago and people weren't very happy. Mine was much shorter. You're heading down the historical path of reading and towards preterism just like many of us already did. Essentially, we realized we were reading someone else's mail from 2000 years ago.
God added to the torah,right! So God added to old testament, with the new testament, and so on, until He got the whole canon!
And you got your information from where?
2 Corinthians 3:1,are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or like some, do we need commendatory letters to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, inscribed on our hearts, known and read by everyone. It is clear that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
That's a good relevant passage. "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual ones but as to fleshly ones, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not fleshly? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe-as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted, Apollos watered, but God makes it grow.
John C. Poirier - The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture (The Library of New Testament Studies): 640
Thank you!
When Paul studied scripture...what do you think he studied? Torah! Tanakh! He also went into Jerusalem and Peter taught him of the Mashiach....and look at the story of Stephen in Acts 6-7 what did he teach? Read it and you will understand what they studied....they memorized the Torah! and the Tanakh Psalms and followed the Living Word!
Did the Lord quote scripture? Did he read from isaiah? or Samuel? and Psalms and Torah? Of Course! He, the very Son of God did studied and read these books and so should we! Follow it!!!
Peace!
Are you saying we should only follow the old testament...what has the HOLY SPIRIT told you...?
There's a fine line in this way of thinking, if the Bible is filled with large amounts of corruption, then who is to say which parts are good and which parts are corrupt? You quoted a number of inspiring words of what Jesus spoke, but according to your view point, even these might not be trusted. You see how dangerous your view can be? So instead of encouraging others with this line of thinking, you may be discouraging many in their walk altogether.
Our trust is not in a book but a person.
John 5: 41 ‘I do not accept glory from men, 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of My Father within you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name (Yahuah), and you have not received Me (Yahshua); but if someone else comes in his own name, (Jesus Christ) you will receive him, 44 How can you believe if you accept glory from one another, yet do not seek the glory that comes from the ONLY Most High?
Exodus 23:13 Pay close attention to everything I have said to you. YOU MUST NOT INVOKE THE NAMES OF OTHER gods; THEY MUST NOT BE HEARD ON YOUR LIPS.
Joshua 23:7 That ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you; NEITHER MAKE MENTION OF THE NAME OF THEIR gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them: ”And in all that I have said to you take heed. And make no mention of the name of other mighty ones, let it not be heard from your mouth.” (Shemoth [Exo] 23:13)
Psalms 16:4 The sorrows of those who run after another one are increased; I would not pour out their drink offerings of blood, Nor take up their names on my lips.”
lord = baal: name of a Semitic solar deity worshiped, especially by the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, "with much license and sensuality" [Century Dictionary], late 14c., Biblical, from Late Latin Baal, Greek Baal, FROM HEBREW BA'AL, LITERALLY "owner, master, LORD," a title applied to any deity (including Jehovah; see Hosea ii.16), but later a name of the particular Phoenician solar deity; from ba'al "he took possession of," also "he married;" related to or derived from the Akkadian god-name Belu (source of Hebrew Bel), name of Marduk.
~God~
H1408
Transliteration: gaḏ; Pronunciation: gawd
Root Word (Etymology): A variation of גָּד (H1409)
Outline of Biblical Usage:
●GAD = "GOD(DEITY) OF FORTUNE"
●A BABYLONIAN DEITY
amen:
‘Amen was the principal Egyptian state god in the New Kingdom, closely associated with Thebes at least as far back as the Middle Kingdom. He is known to have existed since at least the late Old Kingdom. Called "The Hidden One," he is associated variously with wind, water, and fertility, and was represented as a human, a goose, a ram, or a snake. He was often joined in the New Kingdom with the sun god Ra as Amen-Ra. Amen was a part of the Theban Triad which consisted of Amen, his wife Mut and son Khonsu, and their principal temples lay at Karnak. In his form of Amen-Kamutef, he was a member of the Hermopolitan Ogdoad.’
The hell doctrine is a RCC fallacy borrowed from pagan beliefs, as is the trinity. The ONLY reason people believe in it, is because they don't realize how heavily edited, our modern Christian bibles are. Word etymology shows this word was not in the ancient texts. This by far, isn’t the only change they made.
hell: Old Norse Hel (from Proto-Germanic *halija "one who covers up or hides something")was the NAME OF LOKI'S DAUGHTER WHO RULED OVER THE EVIL DEAD in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl "mist") It might have reinforced the English word "as a transfer of a pagan concept to Christian theology and its vocabulary" [Barnhart]. First use, 725 AD.
Sin; In Mesopotamian religion, the god of the moon. Sin was the father of the sun god, Shamash (Sumerian: Utu), and, in some myths, of Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna), goddess of Venus, and with them formed an astral triad of deities. Sin is considered a member of the special class of Mesopotamian gods called the Anunnaki.
Church: ‘Most English translations of the New Testament generally use the word church as a translation of the Ancient Greek ἐκκλησία (romanized ecclesia), found in the original Greek texts, which generally meant an "ASSEMBLY" or "CONGREGATION".
The etymology of this word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, kurios oikos (house of the Lord); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of the Greek. No doubt the word means ‘a circle.’
The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular (witness circular Stonehenge, the most ancient stone megaliths on earth).
Compare Anglo-Saxon 'circe', a small church, with 'circol', a circle. In Scotland it is called "Kirk" and in Gemany it is "Kirche," in England it is the word "Circe" (the "c" having a "k" sound).
"Kirke/Circe" was also the NAME OF A GODDESS. Kirke or Circe was the DAUGHTER OF THE SUN GOD, who was famous for taming wild animals for her circus. Ekklesia really means "a calling out", a meeting or a gathering. Ekklesia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew qahal, which means an assembly or a congregation. Neither ekklesia nor qahal means a building. Tyndale, in his translation, uniformly translated ekklesia as "congregation" and only used the word "churches" to translate Acts 19:37 for heathen temples!
In English, the fifth day of the week is Thursday which means "Thor's day." Now what? The Greek word for heaven in your Bible is ouranos, the name of a pagan Greek sky god. Now what?
2 Samuel 24:1
1 Chronicles 21:1
Compare these two verses which appear to be parallels.
I looked it up in 15 different bible versions.
I’ve always wondered about parts of the OT. Satan wants to be God. How do we know he didn’t pretend to be God in certain books where God is portrayed as not being the all loving, forgiving, merciful Father He’s supposed to be. Jesus never mentioned YHWH once in his whole time on earth according to the New Testament. Also Jesus stated this
Luke 11:11 - if a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Was Jesus referring to the Exodus and when they were in the desert? Was that the devil pretending to be God? It’s all very confusing! Peace be upon you ❤
@@jessjarvis4073 I have begun to record all the times Yeshua refers to OT scripture. He's the one who can rightly divide the Word for us. Many times he updates torah. For instance, "You have heard it said..." anytime he's says this, he follows up with "...but I say..." Such as 'You have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say, if your enemy strikes you on the cheek, turn your cheek so he can strike your other cheek too." No need to be confusing if we follow Yeshua like we follow popcorn in the forest. YHWH sent snakes to the children of Israel when they asked about food and water. What does that say about YHWH in this instance. Well let's just say it's not the same character as Yeshua.
❤
What is the problem of believing the whole bible is inspired by God.
What is the problem of believing the whole Koran is inspired by God?
@@TheTrinityDelusion Because it deny the Lordship of the messiah
@@robbobjahlove2771 So you decide what is inspired, or not, by a preconceived notion?
@@TheTrinityDelusion Brother Kel I beleive in the most part of the bible but i also think it is not fully inspired by God long before i watch this video. I have specific reason for that. I have asked you just because I want know your specific reason to say so. Sorry for my poor English.
@@robbobjahlove2771 OK
I previously have enjoyed your videos on the logos, John 1:1, and others, but I felt this one was really bad. What did you expect to accomplish in this teaching? All it would do is sow doubt in new believers that don't know how to discern things yet. In fact, I just did a video refuting this teaching of yours. I think there are rules about not posting a video link, but let me know if that is allowed and I will post it here. Otherwise you can click on my UA-cam channel and it's the video dated 7/7/2024. Please consider hearing a second opinion that answers your views.
I was listening to the video waiting for Kel to clarify himself, and he never did. So, I'm left with the impression that he thinks we should put the Bible on one side, because it's just a corrupt book. Yet at the same time he's quoting passages from it as authoritative. Very confusing to say the least. I hope he'll clarify if I've got the wrong end of the stick.
The problem with the idea of relying on God in us, is that we end up thinking God is telling us all sorts of things he actually isn't. If we lose trust in God's word, then we inevitably replace it with something else. And that's either going to be the words of men, or our own fleshly thoughts. This is why New Age ideas are so popular in the churches. Also why the modern church name it and claim it ideas do so well. We think we need prosperity in our lives, well it must be God speaking to us, right? He must be telling us to get the better job, and more possessions. And when we're unhappy, he must be telling us to leave our relationship or walk away from our responsibilities. Why not, since we have nothing anymore to tell us otherwise? And when the Bible teaches against adultery, or other sin, well that must be the corrupted section! We can ignore that, because we want to do that thing, and it seems to feel right, so God must be telling us it's okay, right?
The whole point of God's word is that we read it and it lodges in our mind. And then the spirit uses what's in our mind to guide us. The Spirit guides our steps by the word. The very same word which the spirit breathed into the prophets and apostles in the first place. if we have no Bible, what's going to guide us? Then there's nothing for our mind to draw from, and nothing for the spirit to speak to us with. Of course God can speak to us with other words, but without any reference point, how do we know it's him and not us?
" So, I'm left with the impression that he thinks we should put the Bible on one side, because it's just a corrupt book. Yet at the same time he's quoting passages from it as authoritative. Very confusing to say the least. I hope he'll clarify if I've got the wrong end of the stick. "
People are putting their trust in a book. Why are they doing this? Why are they doing such a thing? Our trust is to be put in Jesus Christ. Do you know the difference?
@@TheTrinityDelusion Thanks Kel for replying. For myself, I put my trust in the God who caused the book to be written. And therefore I can trust in his words, knowing man can only interfere so far. Textual variations don't detract from the overall message. You yourself have spent many years reading it and also doing many videos based on it. So, I guess you also trust it. And if you hadn't have trusted it, then you wouldn't have had a basis to reject Trinitarianism in favour of Unitarianism. This is why I find this video so confusing. For example, you yourself wouldn't believe Jesus was dwelling on the inside of you, unless you had read it in this very same book, and then trusted it was correct. Am I not right?
@@eddieyoung2104 God gives us His Spirit to teach us and guide us not a correspondence course. Men picked your books for you and the corruption problem is way bigger than "textual variants."
@@TheTrinityDelusion You're right, he gives us his spirit to teach and guide us, and I see that often in my life. But, how does that work in reality? Does he just use life experiences to teach us, and a nudge here and there in the right direction? And if so, what's the ultimate reference point for us to know what's his teaching and guidance, and what isn't. We have to base it on something. We have to have a foundation of knowledge whereon to build, and discern which is the right direction.
Otherwise we're liable to be led down every garden path we come across. And I've seen that plenty in other people, leading to a lot of confusion and heartache. Thinking they're guided a certain way only to find out it wasn't God's will after all. And all the time we have his words to help for every situation. Which, when I haven't understood, I've prayed for understanding of it, and God has never disappointed me. His words might only be on a page, but they're nevertheless still spirit and still alive. I'm not discouraged by corruptions, though many would wish me to be. I know God's in control, and I'm happy with the books he's chosen.
Having said all this, I'm still unsure how you can trust the Bible enough to quote it, and teach from it, yet also exhort us to distrust it. I genuinely would like to know your thoughts.
@@eddieyoung2104 "We have to have a foundation of knowledge whereon to build, and discern which is the right direction."
That foundation is a person, Christ himself, Christ in us. He is the chief cornerstone, not your book. Christianity is Christ-based not Bible-based. Not the same thing.
"I'm still unsure how you can trust the Bible enough to quote it, and teach from it, yet also exhort us to distrust it."
It's corrupted. Not a good idea to place your trust in a corrupted book when you can put your trust somewhere else - the Spirit of Truth that guides us into all the truth. This is uncorrupted, pure, perfect truth - the truth God wants you to know. I do not want my trust in a corrupted thing but in the risen Christ who is uncorrupted. Most people are actually putting their trust in their own interpretations of a corrupted book. Thats a far cry from trusting in Christ.
I intend to talk more about this in later videos, Lord willing. This is what I meant in my last video when I said there is no good starting place for this subject. There are just too many aspects to it. And this subject confuses people who have immersed themselves in Bible-based Christianity and there is just no good way that I know about to address everything at once.
What is Paul inspired by God?
For most people in the church system the answer is: "whatever books I have decided that I want to be inspired."
great video. lots of repetition and thus a little too long.... but important message. ❤
One question though wasn’t the canon established by Nivea?
No
Kel, over the past year and a half God began an extreme period of discipline/suffering in my life. I began indoctrinated(and stuck, because their proof texting bound me to those doctrines) to a Baptist free grace theology and little by little came to have the same exact conclusions as you. I feel more free than ever and closer than ever to knowing the Bible/God without subconscious cognitive dissonance in my head. It would be naive to just assume all Unitarians are going to be authentic godly people. Have you met any friends who share the same beliefs as you so that you can hang out with at least one person in unity? Also, do you know any sources to learn about adoptionism? All I see online are people calling it heresy with the same typical trinitarian mumbo jumbo.
There are few who genuinely know Jesus. No, I can't say I know any good websites.
It sounds to me Brother Kel that, contrary to what I had believed of you, you had really never repented of allowing "Finalcall 007" to be your mentor. To just spew out, without specifying where there is corruption within the 27 books of the New Testament, makes you guilty of bringing confusion to the "body of Christ." There is enough confusion & doubt regarding the Bible & you are not helping anything. As the Bible says "the heart of man is deceitful above all things" & many times, if it were not for the New Testament "Scriptures," we cannot discern who is speaking; is it my own deceived heart, or is it the Holy Spirit, which you are saying is all we need. If I go out into the wilderness for a while to commune with my Lord & Saviour, I suppose you suggest, like your mentor Mr. Jan, that I should go without my New Testament Bible. If you mention that there is corruption in the New Testament Bible then you need to explain how it came about & then make the right teaching on it instead of making such a wide brush sweeping statement. I never thought I would have to say this about you Kel. Is there something in the New Testament that you don't want to accept, such as the teaching on the sisters head veiling, which make you say these things? What is your response to me, brother Kel?
The Jeremiah passage is NOT referring to regenerate Christians (the only kind: John 1:12-13, Romans 8:9) who by definition have a transformed heart...since the Holy Spirit indwells!!
Is all of Paul's writings God breathed..how bout John's...which ones are from the devil? Can you list them?...
When Paul wrote 2 Timothy to Timothy, neither of them thought of that as "Scripture". What Paul meant by "Scripture" is what he spoke about just one verse earlier in 2 Timothy 3:15 - the sacred writings which Timothy grew up reading.
Now, I'm not saying that 2 Timothy is not inspired by God. I'm just saying that Paul was not talking about his own letter(s) in 2 Timothy 3:16. If Paul said, "Let me go read Scripture" in the 1st Century, no one would have understood that to mean "let me go read the letter that I wrote to Timothy".
And you don't have to believe that Paul was also talking about his own letters including 2 Timothy when he said "Scripture", in order to believe what is written in 2 Timothy 3 or other letters from Paul.
That is the error of the modern man. The modern man thinks that if he cannot rely on the bible, then he cannot rely on God. He thinks that the bible is the way, the truth and the life. He thinks that if the bible disappeared, God would also disappear. But that only shows how distant the modern man is from God.
The way to the Father is Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ is a living person that can respond if you call out to him. It is written, "All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", and not "all who have and know the correct Scriptures and have the correct interpretations of those Scriptures shall be saved".
The bible is a supplementary tool in the walk of faith. It is meant to confirm our faith, and not to be the source/author or object of our faith.
But it isn't even the best confirmation of our faith, because the true confirmation of our faith is our walk of faith itself. It is written: "If you continue in My word...you shall know the truth", and "He who has and keeps my commandments...I will love Him and disclose Myself to him".
Well said. Thank you. And here also is the best confirmation of our faith - We know BY THIS that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him 20 in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God... The one who keeps His commands abides in Him, and He in him. We know BY THIS that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He has given us. 1 John 3
God Himself confirms us.
@@TheTrinityDelusion Thank you, brother. Many are expecting to know the truth from their interpretations of the bible, not realizing that our interpretations of anything are our own thoughts, and count as our own wisdom.
The way that our Lord intented for us to come to knowledge of the truth was through obeying Him, which according to John 14:21, is what would lead to His full revelation of Himself to us by the Spirit. For even the Spirit, according to Peter Acts 5:32, is given to those who obey God (by obeying the Son of God, as God Himself directed not only in Deuteronomy 18:18, but even in the voice heard from heaven).
So obedience is a fundamental, or even the most fundamental component of faith, through which even the blind were made to see. For even the blind man sent to the pool of Siloam had to go there to wash his eyes before seeing. It is not through the water of the pool that he "saw" Jesus (double meaning intended), but through the obedience of faith.
But see how cunning the devil is, brother, that he has used the very words of Jesus' own apostles to keep people from knowing Jesus. For obedience to Christ is now counted as "works", and as a rival to faith. And then calling Jesus "Lord, Lord", or in their case "LORD, LORD", is what is now being preached as faith. This is what, to them, qualifies one as someone who knows and loves Jesus, which is the complete opposite of what their bible says. They are blinded by their own thoughts, their own interpretations.
Jeremiah 7:21,22, 8:8
HEY KOOL AID~
We know Eunice was a Jewess. We also know she and Lois were Christians. WE know toooooo that Peter calls Paul's writings "scripture." [ 2Peter THREE: SIXTEEN] New testament !!!
Moreover we know that "God [not man] knows the end from the beginning" so YES, I do believe My 66 book canon IS God-breathed.
Thank you very much.
(in my Elvis voice)😂
12:19 The word graphe in 2 Peter 3:16 also doesn't automatically denote scripture.
Great topic. One of the reasons to doubt Paul's authority is his strange attitude towards women, which is harmful to believers, since his epistles are perceived as inerrant
Okay neoliberal. Your viewpoint originated two centuries ago.
That’s actually not a reason to doubt. All the apostles were Hebrew men in their culture women were known to be covered and submissive. The law of Moses was given by God and had a lot of commandments that modern women would be offended by so most people are mad at Gods commandment not Paul
@@FollowingJesus_- , Mary sat at Jesus' legs when he was teaching , which would be unusual for that time. Paul's teachings on sex and women aren't always Torah-based. They are based on Oral Torah Jesus challenged
@@wserthmar8908 how so when Ruth layed at boaz feet didn’t seem uncommon to sit at a man’s feet it’s actually a sign of respect and humility
@@wserthmar8908 Also I’ve never seen Paul use the word “sex” but what do you believe he said that is offensive in that matter towards women?
You believe God is simply one, Jesus is his Messiah, the Church corrupted the message, and God revealed Scriptures that were corrupted by men. This is exactly what Islam says.
They can say what they want but they don't believe with their hearts what they say. They only want to win an argument. Trinitarians, JW, onenness pentecostals, and all religions of Satan declare that gods can become humans. They all believe there's incarnation. That's satanic lie. GOD can't become human being, or angel, or other being because HE IS GOD. Human being can't become another being because he is human being. The same is with all beings.
Why would I care what Islam says?
@@TheTrinityDelusion You seem to agree in the fundamentals.
@@ConquerModernity111 I don't care what Islam believes. So do you have a point of some kind?
@@ConquerModernity111Islam takes Jesus from the Bible (the perfect prophet who shows the world the love of God and is at God’s right hand) and replaces this honor with Muhammad. Then Islam strips Jesus of the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection(a necessity for the Israelite religion, the religion of the God of Abraham). Muhammad fulfills 2 Peter 2 very vividly when you look at how animalistic he lived his life even though the Muslims want to believe he was a man who lived like Jesus. Islam is a religion God has used/allowed to afflict his own people because they have turned from him, just like he let the philistines do in the Old Testament.
Nicea
One thing's for certain the book of Thomas isn't scripture. Thomas 1:14 says says that Peter said women are not worthy of life.
And the book of Enoch says some things that are beyond disgusting like fallen angels(who are spirits not physical beings) having sex with physical women.
And the book of Enoch would be correct in that. Do you not believe that happened? I most certainly do. It explains so much…
And that is not what Thomas 1:14 says…a simple google search proves otherwise. I’m not saying that the gospel of Thomas should be included, I’m just saying, that is not what Thomas 1:14 says.
@@jonathanfarmer6010Why would an angel who does not reproduce have reproductive organs to reproduce with human women?
Please look into the quran
That's what Mormons say about the Book of Mormon. The genuine children of God don't need to rely on a book of any kind.
Does The Trinity Delusion have a website?
Yes just Google it
@@bardowesselius4121 Cheers
Honestly, I don't even think this "all inspired scripture" was referring to the Jewish scriptures exclusively.
Paul was a learned man, taught Greek philosophy and Roman religious traditions, as well as the Jewish scriptures, and Timothy would have been part of that same culture, he would know many of the same scriptures.
So, if this epistle is to be taken as a genuine Pauline epistle, then I don't think it would be unfair to assume, that he probably was talking about "inspired scripture" as a category, that included a lot more than just the Jewish scriptures.
Pro_30:5a Every word of God is pure:... Every word and chapter and verse number in KJB is God's word. I have proof.
You have in mind masonic numerology which was put into Bible ?
@@Mckaule Never heard of masonic numerology. Please share...what is it?
We are God, who is inspired to write the mind within us.
@@bcamp4light241 God makes man in his image.... the image of Moses is the burning bush, the light is in him, not outside of him. Jesus is the image of you, he is your voice when he speaks 🤗
@@bcamp4light241 the visions are seen within the mind of the man.... it may appear to him the bush is on fire, but it also paints an image for the reader to see the state of moses..... just like the walking talking snake is Adam, the carnal man who ends up crawling on his own foundations with no rock to stand upon
@@bcamp4light241 well, the bible does state scripture is allegory....
How do you see Abraham dragging his son up the hill with knife in hand? Was this a good understanding of the most high?
So basically what you’re saying is it’s ok to read the Bible, just don’t put your faith in Bible. Don’t idolize it. Put your faith and trust in Jesus and let his spirit guide us. And also to be careful with some of the letters in the New Testament.
People tend to give no regard for being led by the Spirit of Truth and all their regard for their interpretations of a book. Those interpretations are also contrived to serve a creed, and the creed becomes their idol. In the end, they replace Jesus with something else.
thats how you get charismatic "the lord told me.." nonsense
If scripture is not the written authority then your own thoughts will lead you astray eventually because you have nothing to authenticate a thought but your own thoughts.
It is senseless.
But not you trust in Princes nor a SON OF MAN in whom there is NO SALVATION. Psalm 146:3.
ALL you trust, faith, worship and adoration should go the Father ALONE and HIM ONLY shall you serve. Matthew 4:10 as Jesus, the human man, told us. Not himself.
@@escapegulag4317 So the holy bible is written by men who are moved by the holy spirit, and now the holy spirit dwells in us. BUT we cannot trust the holy spirit in us, only in others, and only if they are no longer with us, and then again only if religious secular men say it is canon ...Sounds like you do no have the holy spirit or you would have learned to distinguish between hearing God and listening to your own soulish ramblings.
@@escapegulag4317 "thats how you get charismatic "the lord told me.." nonsense"
Only charismatics have the Holy Spirit?
"If scripture is not the written authority then your own thoughts will lead you astray eventually because you have nothing to authenticate a thought but your own thoughts."
The Holy Spirit is not "your own thoughts."
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, SO THAT we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in human words of wisdom but in teachings of the Spirit, spiritual ones discerning spiritual things.
-Paul
The 1611 KJV Bible is PERFECT and all of Paul’s doctrine is from the Revelation of the Mystery given him by the resurrected , risen Lord Jesus Christ , and all secrets of men will be judged by Jesus Christ according to Paul’ s Gospel ! John
I guess you didn’t understand the very essence of this video. Jesus himself said on the cross, « all is accomplished » and prior to His crucifixion, « And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. The word of God is found in the Old Testament, this is where Jesus and all the apostles get their information from. « These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so » they were searching the scriptures in the Old testament.
Paul never once quotes Jesus or YHVH not one time on any doctrine. Every prophet must proclaim the message is from GOD. Paul says it's "my" gospel. Paul teaches contrary to Jesus. Paul is the man of lawlessness. Jesus calls Paul a false apostle and the synagogue of Satan. John called Paul antichrist. Paul self admitted to lying to trick people into believing in Christ. Why would you take his word of Jesus?
@@forYAHSgloryevery other word Paul is quoting the Old Testament
@DaRealIceO That is not what I said. Every prophet who receives dreams or visions says thus saith the lord(KJV). Paul quoted other quotes. Every scripture Paul quoted he twisted to change the meaning. For instance Abraham was righteous because he followed the law not because of his faith. Paul changed the scripture. Genesis 15:6 (KJV) And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. The "he" being Abraham, so Abraham found the LORD righteous. What does the LORD actually say about Abraham? Genesis 26:4-5 (KJV) And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
@@DaRealIceOThe problem with Paul is that he does say things that indicate that we do good works, but he also says you are cursed if you do good works. The latter type of prescriptions negate the former and thereby cause confusion. It is gaslighting, bait and switch, and misdirection. To my mind, it is a form of wizardry and is intentional. He has many of the characteristics of one who might be referred to as a snake. His writings are a kind of seduction. Be good to yourself and jettison him completely. Don't try to harmonize him with the rest of scripture. It plays into his game.
Jeremiah 8:8. Wicked scribes corrupted old Hebrew Scriptures too. Yahweh is a false god