@@westisrael haha, I’ve wondered myself. But even more, I wondered why they added another syllable.

@@CMGigas1803 hey thanks for your reply and sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Yeah I agree a lot to unpack and Mark, beautiful gospel account. Much more than I can do in 25 minute videos. Mike Winger did a great job unpacking Mark. His first episode on KZbin is all about who wrote the book of Mark. Obviously it was written by Mark, but most of the evidence both internally and externally in church history show that Peter is responsible for the accounts in Mark. I’m not denying that Paul had any influence in it, perhaps he did. Interesting thoughts.

​@samwittke6684 I think all of the internal evidence actually undermines the credibility of the disciples, especially Peter. Notice in the Parable of the Sower: "Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away." First, notice the connection to ROCKY PLACES. Shortly before Simon is given the nickname "Peter" or "rock" by Jesus. Second , Peter like all the disciples initially receive Jesus' word with joy, but later when facing persecution denies and leaves Jesus. There are many examples throughout Mark casting the disciples and Jesus' family in a negative light. I find it very hard to think a Peter would be behind Mark's composition. Instead, Mark is actually teaching Paul's gospel and personal revelation in narrative form. In other words, Mark is not a historical eyewitness account it's designed to demonstrate Paul's theology. One more if many connections. Mark gives an account of the last supper almost exactly like Paul does. Interestingly, Paul does not claim to have learned this from the disciples but rather the risen Jesus directly!

@@CCMSeeker Jesus knew no sin, which came from knowledge of good and evil, right?

My distinction between him and the Pharisees is to say he lived by the commandments, his enemies by the knowledge of good and evil, this is glaringly apparent in his encounters with them

@@CCMSeeker that said, I definitely want to strive to be as accurate as I can moving forward and handle these vids with care :)

@@CCMSeeker I was aware it was Anthony Cuomo, and the Bible does say that we should be living in submission to governing authorities. Romans 13 and then the first Peter.

​@samwittke6684 My point is that the Bible does not provide relevant information for how modern people should interact with their government. Roman's and First Peter are heavily influenced by an apocalyptic view, as I stated. The writers viewed the time as short, with the present age soon passing. It is not a recipe for how modern humans should relate to their government. Case in point, the American founders ultimately chose not to obey the governing authorities. This is AGAINST the New Testament view.

@@CCMSeeker yes, I agree. I did say we should be under a teacher. Yet I think, putting too much weight on human teachers can lead us to error and divisions, as Paul says in first Corinthians. At the end of the day, I’m just trying to say that God speaks to us individually through his word. I think the challenge is in trying to either rely too much on human teaching or theology and never be able to trust our ability to understand scripture. Or to come completely out of the church and walk out the faith completely independent, and despise authority God has in place for his purpose. Both would be extremes. Definitely a paradox, hence the challenge when people can’t rest in the mystery of Godliness and need their solution as one size fits all. Also, like it says in Romans, eight those with the spirit of God, are sons with the minds of Christ. Not to be forgotten or minimized when finding that harmony between individual in interpretation and submitting ourselves to human teachers. Lastly, this video was way more on apologetics than on church Authority or the authority of teachers.

😂 I know, I have to do a video at the old setting. Much love bro

Not as sweet as the lamp of the Lord

Hype mom

Thanks so much for the encouragement, and God bless you!

Thank you, for this very interesting comment! Let me take a shot at this. I have a more condensed version of my argument, and then a larger version of my argument. A) there's only 1 reality in which we exist, and we do exist, and we must exit this reality. B) we exist in this reality with partial understanding, as temporal beings, hence differing interpretations of what reality is C) reality has higher and lower levels, dimensions, with life first existing in our own dimension, not in the lower dimensions D) since complex life exists in our own dimension, a higher level of complexity likely exists in living forms and dimensions above us, which we can't perceive unless they willingly make themselves known to us E) the higher and lower levels of reality indicate the existence of hierarchy, and thus a hierarchy of beings even in the levels unknown above us, which is described in Scripture F) Jesus showed this best in history, Genesis 1:1, John 1:1, and the word became flesh and made his dwelling among Us. Longer version A) there can be one reality, but multiple ways of interpreting reality, every person faces death and a crossing over into the unknown, leading to different interpretations of what constitutes reality B) in our reality there are things that can be known and things that can't be known C) what can be known are things within or lower than our sphere D) what cannot be known are both things within and above our sphere E) since it is likely that life, or being, only is known within our dimension and not below it, it is likely that life also exists in higher dimensions of reality, that are also more complex F) since they exist outside our notions of time and space, they are eternal G) what is higher could only make itself known by what is lower only of its own volition and will. H) God made himself known to us through the angels, beings existing and higher dimensions of whom he said he created, through the prophets, who are people who carried his message to the world, but most of all through his son as is written in John 1:1, Genesis 1:1, and the verse about the word becoming flesh and making his dwelling among Us. Also Hebrews chapters 1-2 In summation, a) the reality we exist in, we must exit, but it is a created reality, b) therefore the Creator does not need to bend to the rules that exist within his created reality, as he is not confined to time or space as we are. C) Jesus is the only historical character who corroborates the higher reality crossing over into the lower reality to show us the way and to provide the way through his death to the higher reality (kingdom of God). D) our hope is based on reality!! Thanks! God bless

@@samwittke6684 quote: A) there's only 1 reality in which we exist, and we do exist, and we must exit this reality. We can only communicate to beings within this reality. But we really do no know anything for sure outside this reality, this is why i said: i can imagine 2 types of realities. quote: B) we exist in this reality with partial understanding, as temporal beings, hence differing interpretations of what reality is accepted. quote: C) reality has higher and lower levels, dimensions, with life first existing in our own dimension, not in the lower dimensions that is an unwarranted statement. _dimensions_ has not been explained. i also don't see how this refers to my 2 types of realities. quote: D) since complex life exists in our own dimension, a higher level of complexity likely exists in living forms and dimensions above us, which we can't perceive unless they willingly make themselves known to us How does this refer to my 2 types of realities. Whether someone is bound to a reality does have nothing to do with the number of dimensions. quote: E) the higher and lower levels of reality indicate the existence of hierarchy, and thus a hierarchy of beings even in the levels unknown above us, which is described in Scripture As a pianter i must restrict my movements to the dimensions of a canvas. i can assume that the painting will be destroyed yet i will still have to leave the reality i live in. The number of dimensions adds nothing to the question. quote: F) Jesus showed this best in history, Genesis 1:1, John 1:1, and the word became flesh and made his dwelling among Us. i strongly reject this, because i had to state that he also showed his worst. Let me then ask the question differently if you could chose between a) and b) realities: - which would you choose - is the current reality the same as your choice - if not, why not?

@@iwilldi First, I wanted to say that I was addressing your initial comment unsure if you meant to say “exist” or “exit.” So I tried to address both through the analogy of dimensions (not a direct analogy). You were imagining 2 types of realities, one temporary and one eternal, If I’m understanding you correctly, however, I’m not sure if it has to be an “either or” circumstance, unless we are trying to fit the debate into the confines of either one or the other reality. I addressed dimension, not to be a direct analogy, but to explain the closest thing we know to a hierarchy of realities. Dimension has to do with your 2 realities because it explains best, using the scientific knowledge we have of dimensions, that these 2 realities do not necessarily need to contradict one another, they can exist simultaneously. We are subservient to time, but if there are higher dimensions than time, which physics points to, the time may in itself be a construct. What is outside of time would by what we understand to be eternal, the author of our reality. Time itself isn’t eternal, so far as we know. It had a beginning. Therefore, reality itself as you’ve defined needing to fit in one of your two options would not exist before the beginning. Lastly, if you are dismissing any argument a priori that doesn’t fit into the either or condition of your precept, there is either a) an existence where only we can exist and not God, or b) where only God can exist but not us. I don’t see how any reasonable ground could be covered toward an argument for theism based on strictly adhering to either of these parameters, which are interesting, but a false dichotomy, because they dismiss the possibility of a God creating his creation, and simultaneously existing outside of it-which dimensions point to, but don’t describe perfectly. As a painter you exist as a separate entity from your painting, just like God exists separately from us-his fate or existence is not dependent on the way in which we see reality. Genesis 1:1 was the creation event (the painting process); John 1:1 showed the word was with God (creative power and intelligence behind the painting); and the word becoming flesh and making his dwelling among us (shows that he entered into what he made)-thus bridging your a and b. So my refutation of your parameters doesn’t rest on my interpretation of which is likely correct, but what Jesus claimed about himself-which if untrue, likely grants your argumentative parameters more authority. But if I was to argue based on one or the other of your parameters, there would be no ability to argue for an eternal God, or subsequently our own existence-it would be like saying either you exist or the painting you create exists, but both cannot exist at once, or the fate of one is tied to the other.

@@samwittke6684 i meant exit, not exist. if you want a third type of reality: c) a reality where some live in a) and some in b) So in regards to the individual there are only 2 options. quote: What is outside of time would by what we understand to be eternal, the author of our reality. The author of genesis 1 knew that a mind must change in order to think, and change is the fundamental property of time. There is no mind outside of time, or every mind creates its own subjective time. But we divert, i want to come back to the questions of my previous comment: quote: there is either a) an existence where only we can exist and not God, or b) where only God can exist but not us. If you think that god has a mind, then god experiences a time-dimension. But you are much to much concerned about god. The question is, would you again chose a) or would you prefer a reality b) Why is that so difficult to answer?

@@iwilldi since the word is exit is possible, if there is pain and suffering, indefinitely, I would rather have a reality where an exit is possible, which again is corroborated by a both and interpretation rather than an either or interpretation. But that question is complicated, because I feel like you're tricking me into saying that I want a reality where there is death, or a reality in which I must exist in a creation we're suffering has emerged. So my answer would have to be I want a reality where death is overcome and eternal life is possible, but I also want a reality or suffering does not exist. I fail to see why my answer of which reality I would prefer has any bearing on the existence of God. Lastly, my arguments are focused on God, I'm arguing for the position of theism. And I didn't want it to seem like I was ignoring your last question, I forgot. In short, I don't desire death, but I do desire restoration