15 Teachings About Jesus You’ve Always Believed (But AREN'T Biblical)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- Answering The Question: What are some things people teach about Jesus that aren't actually biblical?
----
Are the things you’ve been taught about Jesus actually in the Bible? 🤔 Many popular beliefs-like Jesus being born on December 25th, always having long hair, or never claiming to be God-are actually not found in Scripture. In this video, we’ll debunk 15 of the most widespread misconceptions about Jesus using solid biblical evidence. 📖
🔎 Did any of these surprise you? Let’s dig into the truth together!
----
#SolvingGod #BibleTruth #JesusMyths #Christianity #BiblicalTeaching #JesusIsGod #BiblicalHistory #FalseTeachings #Scripture #Gospel #JesusChrist #BibleStudy #ChristianApologetics #BiblicalTruth #DebunkingMyths #JesusSaves #ChristianDoctrine #JesusFacts #Theology #BiblicalEvidence #Faith #GodsWord #TruthInScripture #BibleExplained #Misconceptions #JesusDebunked
December 25th is the day Jesus birth is celebrated, not the day he is believed to have been born.
I was expecting one of them to be “Jesus said God hates the sin but loves the sinner.”
I don't think anyone really thinks Jesus turned water into grape juice.
"Jesus was a gentle pacifist!"
Me, looking in the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus fashioned a whip, flipped tables and chased money changers out of the Temple courtyard: Are you sure about that?
Um did you watch the video?
@@eddieboggs8306 Not all of it, no. But no, Jesus was not a gentle pacifist, as Solving God states
@@voltekthecyborg7898
He took a bunch of cords and made a whip and whipped the money changers in the temple. No he wasn't.
@ Exactly.
@@eddieboggs8306 Jesus did not whip the money changers, that is a common misconception,
Jesus only used the whip to drive out the sheep the oxen and other animals that were in the temple,
Jesus NEVER used physical force against anyone.
@1:08 «…which suggests a warmer season…» - why do you think so? Check the wheater in other places in the North, where «shepherds were watching their flocks at nights» durong summers with temperatures you find in the Palestlne in the coldest season. So that argument is invalid. The Bible simply does not say the month and day of Jesus's birth. Period.
Amen! Thanks for the video! 📖🔎📖
The shroud of Turin shows Jesus with long hair along with his laceration.
Which is why it's false
Unfortunately, the Shroud of Turin is a fabrication. However, our faith is not in the Shroud of Turin, we're not the Shrouders of Turin. We're Christians: our faith is in Christ dying and resurrecting on the 3rd day for our sins.
@@MeMe-qc6ow
Jesus would not have looked like a 15th century European either.
Mary and Joseph were married.
They had sex too. Mathew 1:25.
Bible does not say those brothers and sisters were Mary's children. Church Fathers named their actual parents.
@@fantasia55
Are they the same ones that claim that there were three Wise Men? Even gave them names. No where does it say how many wise men . Joseph and Mary were married so they had sex. Read Mathew 1:25.
AI Overview Learn more The Greek word adelphoi (\(\delta \varepsilon \lambda \varphi \omicron \)) is a plural noun that means "brothers" or "brothers and sisters". It can also refer to people who are not biological relatives. Meaning Biological brothers: In the New Testament, adelphoi is often used to refer to male siblings. Spiritual kinship: In the New Testament, adelphoi can also refer to Christ-followers, emphasizing the unity and equality of believers. Close relationships: Adelphoi can also be used metaphorically to describe close relationships, such as fellow countrymen or members of a religious community.
This is not likely as the passage clearly refers to them as biological siblings, not as mere friends. Mary and Joseph would have had children after Jesus birth, as families were usually larger back then. This doesn't contradict anything in the Bible and is the most historically accurate.
@@Matteo-1
From the experience of the Church since apostolic times, Mary, mother of our Lord Jesus Christ has generally been understood as a perpetual virgin. So it is more likely that the brothers/sisters mentioned were not biological siblings.
For, "Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture..." (Cf., CCC.113)
*
Alternately, we say Jesus is both truly divine and truly human NOT because the Bible/New Testament says so, but because Jesus by his life, sufferings, death and resurrection has shown and proven himself to be so. The Bible/New Testament is just the written record/account of that, all written within 70 years, with some as early as within 20 - 30 years, from those events. Some years before the actual writing they were already there in oral form in her preaching and oral teaching.
Leading on by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and the Son, Christianity is a positive, dynamic ever evolving religion.
The Bible is the product of the experience of the Christian community.
Thus the People of God (the "Church") came first, followed by the records of their experience of God (Salvation history, OT) and their experience of God in Jesus.... first as Jesus of Nazareth, followed by their experience of Jesus as the Risen Christ (NT) from which came the Church and the full Bible canon
John 19:26-27: "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." Why if Jesus had many biological brothers and sisters?
@@sebastianyoon8051 the early church did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, this was a much later accretion. Although the word translated as brother can and has been translated as brethren referencing other believers or cousins, the word for sister is always a biological sister. Based on the context it is clear that Jesus had half brothers and sisters. The concept of Mary being a perpetual virgin stemmed from Roman culture, not Christian culture.
@@sebastianyoon8051 Mary's perpetual virginity was just a belief held by some early church people, but not by the apostles and the scripture.
Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 tell us that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and seeing that they first mention his Mother, Mary, these people are not likely to be cousins or other relatives. If they were, they would have used the word for cousins, or not mentioned Mary first.
It's very clear that Jesus had actual biological brothers from Mary, as in Galatians 1:19 Paul calls James the brother of the Lord. Pretty obviously not just a cousin.
If this is not enough evidence, Matthew has solid evidence. Matthew 1:24-25 says "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS"
The verse says that Joseph didn't "know her" (meaning sexual relations) TILL Jesus was born. This shows that Matthew and the apostles didn't hold Mary to be a virgin after Jesus was born, but that she had sex after Jesus was born.
The important thing is that she was a virgin before and while Jesus was being born, as Jesus is the son of God and a miraculous conception. This is all the scripture teaches, and it's not necessary to hold her to be a virgin after Jesus.
In the European way of thinking, December 25th is a cold, windy day with snow, but in Judea, December 25th is just a little chilly, between 8 and 14 degrees Celsius. In addition, the period from December to February is the time of the year when the grass grows long in the pastures and there is plenty of water for the sheep to drink, making it a good time to go out and graze.
During this good time, shepherds take their sheep out to the distant pastures and feed them to fatten them up. And a few months later, during the Passover of the month of Nisan, they can offer up the unblemished lambs born at this time as sacrifices.
Our common sense often betrays us.
Your presentation is well-structured and engaging, demonstrating a strong commitment to biblical accuracy. However, it leans heavily on sola scriptura, assuming that all Christian beliefs and traditions require explicit biblical proof. This approach often carries the risk of presentism-the mistake of interpreting historical events and theological claims through modern expectations rather than their original context. Many aspects of Christian practice-including feast days and theological formulations-have been shaped by historical tradition, theological reasoning, and ecclesiastical decisions, rather than direct scriptural mandates. While we will set this methodological concern aside, a broader perspective would provide a more historically and theologically comprehensive discussion.
Your argument that December 25 was chosen due to pagan influence overlooks its theological foundation. The early Church selected this date based on the March 25 Annunciation, linked to Jesus’ conception, crucifixion, and the creation of the world. Early theologians, including Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Augustine, held that Jesus was conceived on the same date He would later die-March 25-following the belief that significant prophetic figures completed their lives in full-year cycles. Since this placed His birth nine months later, December 25 followed naturally. This calculation predates the 274 AD establishment of Sol Invictus, countering claims that Christmas merely replaced a pagan festival. More importantly, Christian feast days, like Easter and Pentecost, were designated based on liturgical and theological considerations, not biblical mandates.
Your argument that Jesus had short hair, based on 1 Corinthians 11:14, assumes Greco-Roman grooming norms applied universally. However, Jewish men, particularly teachers, often had shoulder-length hair and beards, as seen in the Synagogue of Dura-Europos (3rd century AD). The Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:5) required uncut hair, demonstrating that long hair was not inherently disgraceful. Since Scripture does not specify Jesus’ appearance, assuming short hair remains speculative.
Your discussion of Jesus’ temperament rightly rejects the idea of Him being solely gentle and soft-spoken, highlighting His righteous anger and authoritative rebukes. He overturned tables in Matthew 21:12-13, called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” in Matthew 23:33, and used a whip to drive out money changers in John 2:15. However, His mission was not political revolution but a kingdom “not of this world” (John 18:36), balancing confrontation with humility and self-sacrifice.
Your treatment of Jesus and the Law (Matthew 5:17-18) is accurate but requires clarification. He fulfilled the sacrificial system (Hebrews 10:1-10), making temple sacrifices unnecessary, while moral principles remain binding (e.g., love your neighbor). Ceremonial and civil laws (dietary and purity laws) are widely seen as fulfilled and no longer obligatory (Acts 10:9-16, Galatians 3:24-25). Recognizing that different Christian traditions interpret this fulfillment differently would provide a more nuanced view.
Your position on Jesus’ siblings is thought-provoking but requires further nuance. The Greek word adelphoi (Matthew 13:55-56) typically means brothers, but in biblical and historical contexts, it can also refer to extended kin, including cousins or close relatives. In first-century Jewish culture, the distinction between biological siblings and extended family was not always explicit in language. Catholic and Orthodox traditions, based on early Church writings, hold that these adelphoi were either cousins (following the Aramaic tradition, where no specific word for cousin existed) or Joseph’s children from a previous marriage, supporting the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity-a belief attested in early Christian writings such as those of St. Jerome, Origen, and later Church Fathers. Protestant traditions, emerging in later centuries with a preference for a strictly literal interpretation, often take adelphoi to mean biological siblings, arguing that Mary had other children after Jesus. However, this interpretation contradicts early Church tradition, which was widely upheld by both Eastern and Western Christianity for centuries. While the Bible does not explicitly clarify the exact nature of these relationships, historical and linguistic evidence leans toward adelphoi being understood in a broader kinship sense, rather than necessarily implying biological siblings.
The argument that Jesus turned water into grape juice rather than wine lacks biblical and historical support. John 2:1-11 explicitly states that Jesus turned water into wine (oinos), the common Greek word for fermented drink. The master of the banquet even comments that the wine Jesus provided was superior to the earlier wine, indicating both quality and fermentation. Ancient Jewish culture used wine regularly in religious feasts, weddings, and daily meals. The claim that this was non-alcoholic grape juice is an anachronistic interpretation, often promoted by groups with modern temperance concerns. However, fermentation was the natural state of stored grape juice in antiquity, as refrigeration and pasteurization did not exist. Even 1 Timothy 5:23, where Paul advises Timothy to drink a little wine for his health, affirms the common use of real wine in biblical times. The miracle at Cana was about abundance and transformation, symbolizing the new covenant and the messianic joy foretold in the Old Testament (Isaiah 25:6, Amos 9:13-14). To downplay the actual nature of the wine risks distorting the message of the event.
Your case for Jesus’ divinity is on point but needs to expanded. In John 10:30, He declares, “I and the Father are one.” In John 8:58, He invokes Exodus 3:14 with “Before Abraham was, I AM.” John 20:28 records Thomas calling Him “My Lord and my God,” which Jesus affirms. While some skeptics argue that Jesus never explicitly said, "I am God", this misunderstands the Jewish context in which divine identity was expressed.
This expectation is an example of presentism in theological discourse-it assumes that Jesus, teaching within a first-century Jewish framework, would have expressed Himself in a way that conforms to modern Western clarity and direct speech, rather than in the culturally and religiously nuanced way that His contemporaries would have understood. In Jewish thought, God's name (YHWH) was so sacred that it was never spoken aloud, and divine identity was revealed through actions, scriptural allusions, and claims to authority over sacred laws. Instead of making a blunt declaration, Jesus demonstrated His divinity through His words and deeds, forgiving sins (Mark 2:5-7), accepting worship (Matthew 28:9, John 20:28), and declaring His unity with the Father (John 10:30). His audience understood these claims, which is why the religious leaders accused Him of blasphemy (John 5:18, John 10:33) and sought to stone Him. A direct statement saying "I am God" would not have been more effective and would have been theologically unnatural in Jewish discourse.
Your discussion of Jesus' descent into the dead could be refined. Luke 23:43 ("Today you will be with me in Paradise") indicates He did not descend into torment. 1 Peter 3:19 states He “proclaimed to the spirits in prison,” which suggests an active mission in Sheol (Hades), not Hell. Revelation 1:18 confirms His authority over death, reinforcing that His descent was a declaration of victory, not suffering.
Your point that Jesus’ death was intentional is well-supported. Isaiah 53:10 states, “It was the Lord’s will to crush him.” John 10:18 affirms, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.” The crucifixion was not an accident but a fulfillment of prophecy.
Your argument for a bodily resurrection is well-substantiated. In Luke 24:39, Jesus says, “Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones.” John 20:27 records Him inviting Thomas to touch His wounds.
Christian traditions do not require explicit biblical proof to be valid. Many foundational doctrines-such as the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, and the formulation of the Nicene Creed-were developed through Church councils, theological reflection, and historical tradition, not through proof-texting isolated verses. The same applies to feast days like Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, which the Church established for liturgical and theological reasons, not because they were biblically mandated.
By applying a historically informed perspective, rather than a literalist, proof-texting approach, one gains a clearer understanding of how Christian theology developed organically from both scriptural foundations and the lived faith of the early Church. Addressing these aspects would offer a fuller, historically grounded understanding of Christ and Christian tradition.
dude...
Sola Scriptura is true, assuming that scripture is not defined as only the Bible. Scripture is anything from that is inspired by God, and proven with evidence. Anything that goes against the known truths of scripture cannot be counted as true.
Councils and discussions could only decide what fits into the known truth given by God, and which texts were from reputable sources.
Some traditions are wrong, and cannot be counted as truth, while others may be true. The one thing that is for sure is that traditions cannot contradict the scriptures, and new traditions made by the church have far less authority than the proven scriptures.
@@Matteo-1 Your perspective on sola scriptura is interesting, especially in defining “scripture” as anything inspired by God and proven with evidence. But who determines what is “proven,” and by what authority is something recognized as inspired?
This is a fundamental issue for sola scriptura, as the canon of scripture was not self-evident-it was recognized and formalized by the Church through councils and theological consensus. If councils merely identified “known truth,” then an authoritative body must have existed to recognize and define it-which challenges the idea that scripture alone is the final authority. Since the canon was debated for centuries, an external authority-whether the Church or tradition-was essential in establishing it. If scripture alone were sufficient, how did early Christians determine which books belonged in it before the canon was settled?
Your point that traditions cannot contradict scripture is valid, but this assumes a universally agreed interpretation. Yet, Christian history is filled with doctrinal disputes over issues like the Eucharist, baptism, and justification, even among those holding to sola scriptura. If scripture were self-explanatory, why have such debates persisted?
You also argue that Church traditions have less authority than scripture, but how do we determine which traditions are valid? Key doctrines-such as the Trinity, Christ’s dual nature, and even the canon itself-were clarified through councils and tradition, not explicit proof-texts. Rejecting post-biblical tradition risks undermining essential Christian beliefs that were preserved and articulated by the early Church.
Scripture and tradition were never meant to be rivals-scripture emerged within a believing community that preserved and applied it. The real question isn’t whether tradition adds to scripture, but whether it serves as a faithful and authoritative interpretation of divine revelation. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to see scripture, tradition, and the Church’s authority as working together rather than standing alone?
@@wabisabi6248 Who defines what is prooven? Well the gospels came from eye witnesses and disciples that Jesus taught directly, so Jesus words are obviously true. Paul was also changed by God, and was given more things to add to scripture, which can be proven by the miracles he performed and the endorsment of the disciples, as well as the fact that he added to and didn't contradict scripture.
The Biblical canon debates consisted of obvious problems, such as heretical or false books, not written by their claimed author, or contradictory to the other prooved texts, and then which verified and inspired books should be in the final version.
While some books may be true, they may be mainly historical and add nothing necessary to the gospel or scripture, just repeating things. These books are verified and are scripture, but aren't canon.
The Bible is made of infallible texts, compiled by a fallible group of people. They cannot change the truth or which books are true, but merely find obvious falseties, and compile necessary books. God's words are kept by the Holy Spirit, not by tradition, as humans make mistakes.
Sola Scriptura has no problem with debating ideas. Just because we don't always understand and may disagree on minor things doesn't mean that the scripture alone is not enough. Our interpretations may fail, but the truth stands in the word, and sometimes what is passed down as tradition may be false.
Just because certain ideas such as the Trinity or Christ's dual nature were clarrified and put into simple terms by the church doesn't mean that scripture didn't already have those truths. If we decided that Jesus is not God based on our findings, then that tradition is still not more true than the original text.
I understand your point, and I agree to an extent. "Tradition" as understanding of scipture and truth that is passed down is important to help us learn and work together for God's Kingdom.
However, tradition as the Church, especially Catholic Church with the Pope, choosing and writing into law interpretations is problematic, as humans make mistakes, and the church is made up of humans, who may interpret wrongly.
For example, the Peter was a leader of the early church, and in Galatians 2, we see him acting contrary to the truth and making Gentiles become like Jews. If he was the original Pope, then his mistake being kept as a tradition could have lead everyone astray.
I think that in the end, scripture is obvious when examined, and false scripture or something that isn't verified can be easily found and ignored. This scripture is truth and while tradition may help our understanding, giving it too much power can lead small mistakes to become big problems. We all understand small things differently, but the gospel and salvation truths are the only thing that truly matter, as true faith overides small customs and ideas.
The Catholic Church let any Pope write into law what was tradition, leading to indulgences and murder of apostates being tradition.
Thanks for the worthwhile and respectful debate. We share the same faith, so any arguments, whoever is wrong, it doesn't hurt our salvation. May we find the truth together.
@@Matteo-1 Your perspective on sola scriptura is thought-provoking, particularly regarding how scripture is recognized as divinely inspired. However, the claim that scripture is self-evident raises key questions. The Gospels and Paul’s writings were divinely guided, but that does not explain how the Church discerned and formalized the canon. If scripture alone were sufficient, why did councils have to confirm which books were inspired?
The canon was not settled immediately. Early Christians used different texts, including the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, which were later excluded. The Bible does not list its own books, meaning an external authority was required to determine them. The New Testament canon was debated for centuries, showing that human discernment-guided by the Church-was necessary. The issue extends to the Old Testament as well. The early Church relied on the Greek Septuagint (LXX), which included books later rejected by Rabbinic Judaism. The Jewish canon was finalized in the late first or early second century, partly to counter Christianity, yet Protestant Reformers later accepted this post-Christian Jewish decision, rejecting books used by Christ and the apostles. If scripture alone is sufficient, why defer to a later Jewish canon rather than the tradition of the early Church?
Your assertion that scripture is infallible but compiled by fallible people assumes that human error disappears when recognizing scripture but remains when interpreting it. If God used fallible men to write scripture infallibly, why wouldn’t He also guide the Church in preserving it? The idea that the Holy Spirit keeps God’s word apart from the Church contradicts how Christ established a visible teaching authority (Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15).
Your argument that traditions cannot contradict scripture is valid, but scripture is not always self-evident. If it were, why have Christians disagreed for centuries on key doctrines like the Eucharist, justification, and baptism? The Arians, Sabellians, and Nestorians all appealed to scripture but reached different conclusions. The councils did not invent the Trinity or Christ’s dual nature but preserved the correct interpretation against heresies-something sola scriptura alone could not resolve.
Citing Peter’s actions in Galatians 2 as proof that Church leaders can err misunderstands individual fallibility vs. doctrinal infallibility. Peter’s mistake was personal, not doctrinal, just as popes can sin but remain protected from error in defining faith and morals. If personal mistakes invalidated authority, Paul-who once persecuted Christians-should not have been allowed to write scripture.
Your reference to indulgences as a Catholic error oversimplifies a complex issue. The Church always upheld indulgences as part of penance, rooted in Christ's authority to bind and loose sins (Matthew 16:19), but their promotion varied across dioceses. In some areas, particularly Germany, preachers like Johann Tetzel misrepresented the teaching. While this was not a universal problem, it fueled criticism. Many dioceses, particularly in Spain and Italy, had well-regulated indulgence practices without major controversy. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) reaffirmed the theological basis for indulgences while condemning their commercial abuse. This shows that tradition, under Church guidance, is self-correcting, just as scripture remains true despite misinterpretation.
Your concern that tradition can lead to error overlooks the fact that scripture was preserved through that very tradition. The early Church did not operate under sola scriptura but relied on apostolic tradition to interpret and apply scripture. If the canon was established by the Church, then sola scriptura itself depends on an external authority to define what scripture is. The existence of doctrinal disputes proves that scripture alone is not always "obvious" and requires authoritative interpretation.
Ironically, the doctrine of sola scriptura is itself not found in scripture. Nowhere does the Bible teach that scripture alone is the sole authority for faith. Instead, scripture affirms apostolic teaching, oral tradition, and the authority of the Church (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:18-19). If sola scriptura were true, it would need to be explicitly taught in scripture-yet it is not. This alone shows its insufficiency.
The real question is not whether scripture is sufficient but whether God intended it to function apart from the Church’s teaching authority. Wouldn’t a more biblical and historically consistent approach be to see scripture, tradition, and the Church as interdependent rather than in competition?
Thank you for this video. People were travelling to go pay their taxes, they certainly wouldn't be required to travel in winter.
Bible does not say that those were Mary's children. James, for example, was son of Clopas, brother of Joseph.
That's only one theory of several but there's no scripture to support it
@PigSaladSammich Early Christians believed it long before the Bible existed.
@PigSaladSammich Christians believed it long before the Bible existed.
5 was biological. Joseph was only married once, so they could not be from a previous marriage. It's also mentioned in mark. Mary absolutely was not a virgin her whole life. She absolutely 100% biblically had other children.
Jesus was born on Tekufah Tivet. A day which doesn’t always land on the Roman Calendars December 25, but does most times.
Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law is not by means of replacing sacrificial laws.
The giving of his Life to God fulfilled God’s wrath, and where our cups fall short in our INNER fulfillment of the ACTUAL LAW (Love) Jesus fills in the rest by our faith.
Jesus’ Law cuts way deeper than the Moral Mosaic Law.
Amen
Jesus did preach in hades. 1 Peter 4:6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.
It seems most accurate to say this verse implies that the gospel was preached to people who believed it and had since died. There would be no scriptural reason to preach to the dead because the Bible is clear; “It is appointed once for men to die, and then the judgment.” There are no intermediate opportunities for salvation. Peter is reminding the current readers that the power of the gospel in our lives does not end at death.
@geordiewishart1683 Where's your verse to back up your claim? For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison (Hades) who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built” the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead.” (I Peter 3:18-20, 4:6
I don't understand why people think that Jesus went to hell for that time. The thought of this is ridiculous. The demons are scared to death of Him. As if the demons could ever touch, let alone torment Him wherever He is. No.. Jesus would have had them all hiding in the corners.
Jesús was not tormented when he went to hell he took the keys of hell
@IsaiahDelarivaNavarro well many people believe that He was. Including my husband when we first got married. He said that's what his pastor taught. He was so sure about it I started crying bc I couldn't fathom something like that. Of course I hadn't read the Bible for myself at that point. He no longer believes that but doesn't know why his pastor taught it.
@@julianaallen8477 hopefully now you understand the difference
@PigSaladSammich I never thought Jesus was tormented in hell. That's a ridiculous thing to believe. I'm not sure what you mean by hopefully I know the difference.
You know what you are doing! God keep you from these devils!
There is only ONE Devil.
@@---zc4qt I only care about God being one, as for devils, they should take care of their own!
BALONEY, on a few points.
HE DECLARED GRACE ON HUMANITY, Christianity or not, LONG before the word was uttered by the apostles.
Mt. 12:31-32, denial is blasphemy.
Mk. 3:28, corroborated.
Lk. 12:10?.
And if Jesus was NOT dead 3 days and nights, 9 previous passages make him a liar. Any going to hades or anywhere else is AFTER QUICKENED by the spirit, AFTER RESURRECTION.
Resurrection of the dead is a basic tenant of Christianity. Let's not make Christianity bogus, or Jesus a liar by ANY IDEA, Jesus was ALIVE when dead! SATAN SAYS the dead live, NONE LIVE IN DEATH. Jesus was dead, until his own prophecy of resurrection.
May *God* remove all the self-confidence of us all. And give us faith in him and understanding of his instructions and its appropriate discretion, Amen:
*_Proverbs 3:5_*
*_International Standard Version_*
_5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,_
_and do not depend on your own_ _understanding._
*_Proverbs 19:11_*
*_King James Version_*
_11 The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression._
*_Proverbs 29:11_*
*_International Standard Version_*
_11 The fool vents all his feelings,_
_but the wise person keeps them to himself._
7 is ridiculous. You literally condemned the apostles creed which is highly regarded by all the churches. Also what do you think God meant by paying the debt of sin? The only way to do that is an eternity in hell.
who cares about anything that has not come from the word of God. It literally says TODAY you will be in PARADISE. Paradise referring to the garden of eden.
@@emanrn except youre going off the assumption that perception of time for god is equal to perception of time for man, we literally learn that time is different for God in scripture, plus youre telling me thousands of early church fathers wouldve missed something so obvious? No! Whats actually obvious is that youre interpretation of the scriptures is far enough from the church fathers (who were much closer to the actual apostles) interpretation of scripture that you end up blatantly contradicting them. You also profess the nicene creed every time you attend church, its a creed that is binding on all christians like scripture, so youre asserted view of the bible here where everything else is irrelevant contradicts all trinitarian accepting christians throughout history.
@@metalvenger2 look fam, if its between human tradition and human teaching, human culture, my own pre-existing ideologies. vs the word of God, its gone have to be the Word. Each and every single time. God is not the author of confusion. He gives prudence to the simple. Jesus did not rely on “church fathers” we have one Father. Call no man father or master. Jesus hadn’t even ascended yet and your taking things out of context. Jesus spent 40 days in the desert which were 40 days the same way u and i experience 40 days. anything other would diminish him, what he did, and what he had to suffer through. and u dont know me homie. I do not identify with human thought only the Word because once you start identifying with these confused religions or “denominations” of which there are thousands (proving it is confusion aka babylon) then once the Bible contradicts your beliefs, your heart starts deceiving you and coming up with ways to make the both coexist but you cannot serve 2 masters.
Jesus suffering and death on the cross was Jesus taking the punishment for sin on Himself, and being separted from the Father, as is the cost of sin. Then He said "it is finished" and died. He went to Hades, the realm of the dead, the place of waiting for dead souls. It is Hades, sometimes called Hell, but it isn't the lake of fire.
Jesus probably went to bring back the believing souls of the dead and declare victory over the demons awaiting their fate. God is apart from time, so for all we know, Jesus being detatched from the Father could have been eternity of Hell.
Jesus had to be God so He could pay the eternal debt. also 'it is finished'
The reason people depict Jesus‘s long hair is because Jesus was called the Nazarene. Not because of some European influence like this biased commentator stated
There's nothing to support that
@ READ MORE
Bro I love your content genuinely i love your videos I've watched some multiple times and even share them with friends and acquaintances alike they are a wonderful tool for spreading the word. But the first fact it wasn't brought up and kind of brushed over but mathematically we got Dec 25th from when John the Baptist was conceived and working from that point to the nativity. Saturnalia is from like the 15-17th if I'm not mistaken not the 25th or the 6th the other possible date worked out. Please don't take me at my word look into these things there is nothing pagan about the nativity only later traditions of men. God bless and thank you for taking the time to read this. Sincerely
May God bless you and help you make more useful videos like this!
This is not meant as a hate comment in any kind of way. I just wanted to point out that maybe you shouldn’t use that animation of Jesus since you also know He didn’t have long hair.😇
The suffering and death of Jesus on the Cross was directly caused by evil, not by God ... God allowed evil to triumph temporarily for God knows he could and he would bring about the Resurrection and with it even much more and greater good out of it.
*
What is that greater good?
Jesus could have sent legions of angels to smite the people who crucified him (cf.,Matthew 26:53) and come down from the Cross... but he chose to go through with it (cf., John 10:18) to enable the forgiveness of sins, to absorb our evil by turning it into an offering and sacrifice of love.
Note, not just to forgive sins (which should be relatively easy for the good and merciful God who is Love itself) but for something deeper : ...that deep internal healing of the human spirit, hurt and broken by sins. For although sins have been forgiven those deep, internal spiritual scars and wounds are still there which would inevitably show or manifest themselves again in various types of sin: lust, hatred, jealousy, greed, pride, anger, sloth, etc.
For what is sin? And what do we mean by Jesus "takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29) ?
Sin is not something like a blot present in us, rather it is something absent in us... something that is *not* there. It is the *absence* of Charity/God's Love in us. Thus the mission of Jesus Christ is to fill us with his love and grace. (See note)
It is a symptom, an external manifestation of some spiritual sickness and evil festering deep within the human spirit (cf., 1Peter 4:8)... and Jesus' suffering and death on the cross, out of love, heals our deep spiritual wounds which manifest in evil deeds we normally term as 'sin'.
That's what is meant by Jesus carrying our sin and taking away the sin of the world (cf., John 1:29).
*
How?
Action speaks louder than words. By his love which manifests itself in his suffering and death on the Cross, Jesus redeems or buys us back from sin and eternal death not just through forgiveness but also that deep inner spiritual healing (cf.,1John 4:9-11).
~ “We are healed by the punishment He suffered, made whole by the blows He received.” (Isaiah 53:5)
~ "... so that Christ may live in your hearts through faith, ... planted in love and built on love,... you will have the strength to grasp the breadth and the length, the height and the depth; so that, knowing the love of Christ, which is beyond knowledge, you may be filled with the utter fullness of God." (Ephesians 3:17-19; 1John3:16, 4:9-11; cf.,1Peter 4:8)
~ “We are healed by the punishment He suffered, made whole by the blows He received.” (Isaiah 53:5)
All these we call Redemption (redemption means to buy back) ... Jesus buying us back from sin through his love with his sufferings and blood.
God is not a distant, aloof God but One who loves us, as shown vividly in Jesus.
God does not make us slaves (as Islam teaches) but invites us to be his sons/ daughters, to be like Jesus, as what Jesus is by nature we are called to be by grace.
In Jesus the divine (God) became human to enable us (the human) to become divine. As revealed in the life, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus.
Right from the beginning God has destined mankind to share in the very life of God: to be like God (cf., Genesis 1:27) Yes, what God is by nature, we are all called to be by the grace and mercy of God. (cf.,John 1:12-13)
*
Jesus says that very clearly in John 17:21-23 ...
21. May they all be one, just as, Father, you are in me and I am in you, so that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe it was you who sent me.
22. I have given them the glory you gave to me, that they may be one as we are one.
23. With me in them and you in me, may they be so perfected in unity that the world will recognise that it was you who sent me and that you have loved them as you have loved me.
*
But how could it be? ... God is spirit, has no body ... we humans have both a spirit ( soul) and body.
Nothing is impossible with God. Right from eternity he already has this Idea of taking on a human persona/image, of inserting intimately into his own Creation, to be intimately one with his own creation - as a man. This Living Idea/Plan/Image is traditionally called the Word ('Logos' in Greek)
At a point in time, the Word actually took on our human nature, born of a human, Mary and is called "Son of God" (cf., Luke 1:35 ) as he was the living expression/image of God the Originator which we termed 'God the Father' : God from God; Father and Son, one same God with the one Spirit of Love, the Spirit of God/Holy Spirit. (cf., John 1:1-18)
Thus, "The Father and I are one."(John 10:30); “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”(John 14:6) and "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father,..." (John 14:9) and "only in him(Jesus) is there salvation; ... the only one by which we can be saved." (Acts 4:11-12)
*
Acts 4:11-12
11. " ... 'This is the stone which you, the builders, rejected but which has become the cornerstone. Only in him is there salvation;
12. for of all the names in the world given to men, this is the only one by which we can be saved.' " (Acts 4:11-12)
*
So, by taking on a human body in Jesus Christ God has significantly narrowed the chasm between God and us by made it potentially possible for every human to share in his divine life through his Son, Jesus Christ.
But still, human is created, finite and not eternal. Yes, by nature we are so BUT through our incorporation into the Mystical Christ, although by nature we are created and finite, by grace we could share in God's infinity, divinity and eternity through Jesus Christ. Thus again, "No one can come to the Father except through Me(Jesus Christ)" (cf., John 14:6) ... by our incorporation into Christ's Mystical Body (the Church) through our free-choice acceptance of God's invitation to share in his life (by baptism of water, or spirit/desire, or even blood). (cf., John 3:5; John 14:20; Romans 8: 14-17; Hebrew 3:13-14; 1John 1:3 )
So are we like God already? Not quite yet but many of the major obstacles have already been cleared by God through Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, namely:
1.Now God and human share the same humanity. Through Jesus Christ, God had become human to enable the human to become divine (cf., St Athanasius: On the Incarnation; also cf., Sts Irenaeus, Anslem, Thomas Aquinas, etc)
2.Through our incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ we share even more intimately in his divinity... his eternal-ness, his uncreated-ness. What Jesus is by nature we become so by God's grace and mercy.
Now, all that God could do to bridge that awful infinite gap between God and us he has done in his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ but there is one more quality which only we can do. We must also have God's Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Love without which we can never be assimilated into the life of God. For God is love (cf., John 3:5; 1John.4:16)
Galatians 4:4-9...
4. " ... when the completion of the time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born a subject of the Law,
5. to redeem the subjects of the Law, so that we could receive adoption as sons.
6. As you are sons, God has sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son crying, 'Abba, Father';
7. and so you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir, by God's own act.
8. But formerly when you did not know God, you were kept in slavery to things which are not really gods at all,
9. whereas now that you have come to recognise God -- or rather, be recognised by God -- how can you now turn back again to those powerless and bankrupt elements whose slaves you now want to be all over again?"
*
And this is the work of a lifetime. This is the most basic purpose of the Church, of all our prayers, good works, etc... to grow into the fulness of God, and fulness of love, in Christ.
*
Now, all that God could do to bridge that awful infinite gap between God and us he has done in his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ but there is one more quality which only we can do. We must also have God's Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Love without which we can never be assimilated into the life of God. For God is love (1John.4:16).
Thus Pope Francis' "all religions are pathways to God" ... I should also say all philosophies too, even the atheistic and agnostic ones, in so far as they teach true, genuine love for people and creation... not forgetting however that most of the major chasms that separate us from union with God has already been done through God especially in Jesus Christ by taking on our human nature, the Mystical Body of Christ - the Church, as shown above. Thus Vatican II, Nostra Aetate states:
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(2 Corinthians 5:18-19)".
In short, through Jesus Christ all the major physical factors separating us from God have already been overcome, except for one. It is love, and for this we have to open our hearts from within... to his Spirit
(cf., 1John 3:24) which is the Spirit of the Father and the Son... God can only knock on the door of our heart (Revelation 3:20), normally he won't force himself in... it is very much up to us whether we open it or not ... for, "God who made you without you, won't save you without you" (St Augustine of Hippo)... meaning we must do our part by being open to his grace.
*
Thus, no salvation except through Jesus Christ and Christ's Mystical Body the Church but also, "all religions are pathways to God".
A paradox? Not really.
❓❔❓❔❓❔❓❔❓
Sorry but the sceptics usually say that the Gospel of John is sus because he only seems to claim to be God in that account, but here is what we can respond with, psalms 110:1 The lord said to my lord sit at my right hand. Jesus says in Luke 22:69 the son of man will sit at the right hand of power of God. Daniel 7:13-14 I saw the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven and Heaven he came to the ancient of days and to him was given dominion and glory kingdom, that people of all nations and languages should serve him forever, Mark 14:62 they ask are you the Chist and he says I am and you shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven
you should change your depiction of Jesus to have short hair!!
James was son of Clopas, brother of Joseph, and he was older than Jesus, so saying they were siblings denies the virgin birth.
Joseph was previously married.
@BobbyMaler-fy6wh yes, according to several sources
False just a Catholic tradition not true
That's only a theory
@@PigSaladSammich It's stated as fact by early Christians from the area. They would know.
What is the Gospel. This is a 7 part series , each video is about 3-4 minutes, it is worth watching. And maybe you could do a video concerning this content.
ua-cam.com/play/PL6633489290EACF6B.html&si=5JnRv0vk2qepuPDg
Thank you.
Jesus never claims to be god, fact. He is clear however that he is at one with the old testament god and that he was with god from the beginning. He also refers to god as his father.
Even though everything you are, you've done and said is obvious that you are a human, because you've literally not said "I am a human", you are not a human.
Seriously?
But if you say "I'm a carrot.", even though everything you are, you've done and said is obvious that you are a human...you think you are actually a carrot?
only 1 God. only God is worthy of worship. Jesus accepts worship on multiple occasions.
in john 8:5-8 the pharisees were trying to trick Jesus to deny the Law. but He just went and drew on the dirt. how does this connect? He was indirectly saying that He wrote the Law. and the Law was 'written by the finger of God.' (exodus 31:18) so He does claim to be God.
@@emanrn There is no scripture that says that the son of god is not worthy of worship. There is no scripture where Jesus is being worshipped as god.
@@gekota3xyz Sorry but I can't take someone who quotes from a passage that most modern biblical scholars agree was added centuries after John was written, seriously.
Learn more, do better.
Thank you and God bless you and also myself and my family may we continue to benefit from His Grace, Mercies and Forgiveness and forever be saved in paradise...