I apologise. I fully intend on going back to some of these older videos of mine and redoing them properly.

Amusing. my Church excommunicates Communists, so I can't be one.

'What the fuck are eucharistic miracles ?' When the Body and Blood of Christ become visible in the Eucharist, as opposed to only its nature metaphysically changing. 'If they were proven , the Vatican would announce it.' It did: www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2018-10/dicastery-communication-documentary-eucharistic-miracles.html dphx.org/revival/vatican-exhibit-of-eucharistic-miracles/ www.magiscenter.com/blog/approved-eucharistic-miracles-21st-century 'Scientists would test it.' They did: acmcasereport.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/ACMCR-v11-1976.pdf www.researchgate.net/profile/Dewi-Rahardja/publication/354957464_A_Review_of_the_Catholic_Theology_on_the_Eucharistic_Transubstantiation_and_the_Real_Presence_Doctrines_-_Why_They_Matter/links/61b53de14b318a6970d5354f/A-Review-of-the-Catholic-Theology-on-the-Eucharistic-Transubstantiation-and-the-Real-Presence-Doctrines-Why-They-Matter.pdf journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0021140012465035 'Ive never even heard of it' That's because you're ignorant of this topic, more focused on obsessing over a fantasy book written in 1900. 'As usual , no links , no evidence' Keep in mind how short a Short is. Do you expect me to provide every single source in full? It really isn't that hard to just look up 'Eucharistic Miracle' on Google, and then read the rest from there. Besides, this isn't the first time I've referred to or covered Eucharistic Miracles. Nor will it be the last.

@@gigantals Nowhere , does anything indicate that the red stain was "the body and blood of christ" FFS. You have a blood stain and you claim that its gods ? WTF ? Now , why doesnt god actually do something solid and substantial ? Appearing in from of the United Nations General Assembly might be a good start. Why does he supposedly drop little hints when no one is looking and the only people with access to this raw flesh on communion wafers are priests ? Popes are apologising because their priests rape children on a regular basis and covered up at the highest level ; BUGGERING children in their "flock" , so people are leaving the church in disgust. A little "miracle" always helps. In 1921 in Ireland huge crowds went to a church in a small town . This drew a huge number of British troops and paramilitaries to the town to control the crowds. This caused a huge problem for the local IRA and the local church was making a lot of money. The CinC of the IRA sent for one of the statues. It was smashed open to reveal an alarm clock and a fountain pen full of pigs blood. God should really try harder. Why didnt he have things written in the Bible that couldnt have been known 2000 years ago. The only things in the Bible was knowledge contemporary with the Iron age. It has NO MORE predictive knowledge than King Arthur and the Round Table , or any other mythology or religion from anywhere in the World. The blood was heart tissue of someone in extreme agony ???? The priest should be ARRESTED. if theres ANY truth in that. Why hasnt he been arrested ? *BECAUSE ITS NOT TRUE*

'Nowhere , does anything indicate that the red stain was "the body and blood of christ" FFS.' 'Red stain'? So you conveniently ignored the human DNA, blood type, and bodily tissues found? Of course you would, your arguments from incredulity rely on strawman-ing my arguments until they seem absurd. Though I think I can connect with you now, in that your strawman arguments to me that make no sense whatsoever are what metaphysical philosophy is to you. 'You have a blood stain and you claim that its gods ? WTF ?' Because: 1. God said the Eucharist was His literal flesh and blood. 2. It is the Eucharist that experiences this radical visible change, nothing else. Bread doesn't spontaneously produce human blood. 3. It conforms with Catholic teachings dating back to the Apostles. 'Now , why doesnt god actually do something solid and substantial ?' He did. He made Eucharistic Miracles which have been proven to be His literal body and blood. We even know His blood type (which has remained consistent across the centuries, despite us not knowing blood types even existed until recently) and that the cardiac tissue present indicates it came from a man in extreme physical stress. 'Appearing in from of the United Nations General Assembly might be a good start.' Last time He appeared in front of a group of politicians, they Crucified Him. Remember? They mocked Him and refused to listen. Much like you misrepresenting Christianity with your fallacies. I literally gave you scientific articles that said Eucharistic miracles contained real human blood and tissue, with consistent characteristics despite the centuries and locations, and you still try to dismiss them as 'red stains'. 'Why does he supposedly drop little hints when no one is looking and the only people with access to this raw flesh on communion wafers are priests ?' Firstly, Eucharistic Miracles don't just happen in front of priests. There have been instances where they occur in front of an entire Church during the Mass. And other times they happen in front of laity who then get the priest to confirm what's happening. Secondly, it isn't 'raw flesh on communion wafers'. The wafer *visibly becomes flesh*, much like the process behind the Transfiguration. The Transubstantiation changed the substance whilst maintaining the 'figure', if you will, whilst the Transfiguration changes the figure to reflect the substance. Thirdly, Christ has done plenty in public. Or at least, caused enough public scenes. He sent Our Lady to Fatima for the apparitions there, which resulted in 70,000 locals, dozens of non-locals miles away from Fatima, and a British warship by the Portuguese coast, seeing the Miracle of the Sun. There were the apparitions of Our Lady of Zeitoun in Egypt, seen by millions of Christians, Muslims, and other faiths. And then both Christians and Muslims saw the sky split open during the Battle of Lepanto, revealing Christ, Our Lady, and an army of Angels, just before the wind changed direction and delivered victory to the Christians. Regarding Miracles, we have the Tumaco Eucharistic Miracle (it's just called that, there was no Transfiguration of the Eucharist here) which occurred in 1906. After the most powerful earthquake in recorded history sent a tsunami towards the city, a priest carried the Eucharist in a Monstrance and held it out as the wave approached. The wave dissipated and the city was spared. There are no offshore geological features that could have dissipated the wave energy. We also have the Tilma of St Juan Diego from the Our Lady of Guadalupe Apparitions. Despite being on a fabric made from cactus fibres which would break down after a few decades, it's remained intact for over 500 years. The constellations on it are in the exact same positions as they were the day of its creation, something that would require an extremely skilled and experienced astronomer to replicate (which there were none at the time in Mexico). You can even use their positions to construct a piece of music. In the eyes of Our Lady on the image, you can see a different scene in each of them. Tint images of reflections showing different characters, which required modern technology to see. Let alone replicate. The image itself somehow maintains a constant average temperature matching that of the human body, and a stethoscope placed on its abdomen confirmed a rhythmic pulse of 115 beats per second (aka, a child in the womb). And the best part is that there are no colour pigments involved at all. When trying to zoom in on the image, the image itself vanishes 0.3 mm above the fabric of the cloth itself. So it's not actually on or touching it. 'Popes are apologising because their priests rape children on a regular basis' Regular? You must be talking about the Protestants. The Popes have apologised on a handful of historical cases, but not 'regularly'. Whereas the low standards of the Protestants allows for abusers to enter into ministry. 'and covered up at the highest level ; BUGGERING children in their "flock" , so people are leaving the church in disgust. A little "miracle" always helps.' Except that's not the case. Child abuse happens in all other churches and religions. It happens exceptionally rarely in the Catholic Church, so that's not why some apostatise. 'In 1921 in Ireland huge crowds went to a church in a small town . This drew a huge number of British troops and paramilitaries to the town to control the crowds. This caused a huge problem for the local IRA and the local church was making a lot of money. The CinC of the IRA sent for one of the statues. It was smashed open to reveal an alarm clock and a fountain pen full of pigs blood.' You mean the faked Templemore apparitions? You do realise that local clergy didn't approve of it, right? The Church overall was highly sceptical, and a priest was the one who told the IRA that people were making those fake statues in the first place. 'God should really try harder.' Except that wasn't Him, so there's no need to 'try harder'. Especially when reprobate individuals like yourselves would dismiss everything regardless or treat known fake miracle as of His doing for some reason. 'Why didnt he have things written in the Bible that couldnt have been known 2000 years ago.' He did. You do realise that one of the greatest pieces of evidence for the historicity of the Bible is that it uses names of people and places in languages that were later changed in general usage, right? For instance, there are names in their original Akkadian form, a language that was lost for thousands of years and regionally replaced with other languages. 'The only things in the Bible was knowledge contemporary with the Iron age.' Hardly. I already mentioned the usage of ancient names of people and places earlier. I can also use it to track the life of a certain 'Senenmut' who disappeared from Egyptian records in the early 15th century BC. If you properly know how to use the Scriptures, it's amazing what information they reveal. Like the identity of the Sea Peoples. 'It has NO MORE predictive knowledge than King Arthur and the Round Table , or any other mythology or religion from anywhere in the World.' And you, with no bias whatsoever, are the perfect judge of that. Right? 'The blood was heart tissue of someone in extreme agony ????' Yep. Remarkable, isn't it? According the a medical study on Christ's last few hours, His heart literally burst from the immense pressure it was under. It's known as a myocardial rupture. 'The priest should be ARRESTED. if theres ANY truth in that.' Why? Considering Eucharistic Miracles often take place in front of large crowds, wouldn't people see if the priest quickly exchanged the Eucharist for a piece of cardiac tissue? 'Why hasnt he been arrested ?' Because you can't prove that the heart tissue belonged to someone he killed? 'BECAUSE ITS NOT TRUE' Except it very much is true, no matter how much you deny it whilst typing in all-caps. Especially the fact that all the tested Eucharistic Miracles have the AB blood type, which is extraordinarily rare, meaning it couldn't be coincidence that they all have it. Especially since we didn't know about blood types until recently. Then for good measure, AB is also the blood type found on...The Shroud of Turin. And don't worry, if you want to go on a tangent about that topic, I'm well-versed with the arguments for and against it. It's amazing how much Shroud.com has revealed over the last 50 years studying it.

@@gigantals 6 catholic priests were arrested in a school around the corner. Two had been sent there from my old school.. Theyd be moved as soon as too many complaints accumulated to cover it up. The priest I knew has FORTY TWO statements of sexual assault when he was arrested. Long before he was arrested, he left the order and married the mother of one of his victims. I can give you the link and you can read it yourself. The Magdalene Laundries were basically slave labour for life. The crimes of the girls ranged from pregnancy , to being flirtatious. Roughly 1/3rd of the children on the road I grew up on were children taken from their mothers at birth. ALLLL of this was covered up by the Church. Now , the Church has NO ROLE in education in my country. The vicious celibate freaks buggered children and would likely say "God works in mysterious ways" Or be absolved in confession. They burnt people en masse in the Middle Ages . They burnt christians for emulating the Apostles. SATANIC , brutal and vicious. ------------------------------------------ You need more than a blood type or a piece of cloth to verify any Bible. It has nothing to do with a magical being or an iron age book.

'6 catholic priests were arrested in a school around the corner. Two had been sent there from my old school.. Theyd be moved as soon as too many complaints accumulated to cover it up.' I wish you'd provide a source for this. I gave you links to scientific articles, didn't I? Why can't you give the link to a news article? 'The priest I knew has FORTY TWO statements of sexual assault when he was arrested.' First we'd have to determine how many of those were actually genuine. Second is to recognise that you've narrowed your vision to the worst of the worst here. Taking into account the number of claimed abuse cases in total, most of the accused priests had maybe one or two accusations levelled at them. So your example is definitely an outlier. 'Long before he was arrested, he left the order and married the mother of one of his victims.' And that is exactly what I mean. He clearly wasn't in the right place of mind to a priest in the first place. Did he leave of his own accord or was he expelled? 'I can give you the link and you can read it yourself.' Please do. I don't know why you haven't already. 'The Magdalene Laundries were basically slave labour for life. The crimes of the girls ranged from pregnancy , to being flirtatious. Roughly 1/3rd of the children on the road I grew up on were children taken from their mothers at birth. ALLLL of this was covered up by the Church.' Nope. It was covered up by the *local* Church. The Church as a whole didn't know about the issue because of the Local Bishop. I love when people claim that the Catholic Church has some sort of Gestapo-level approach of spying and keeping everyone in order, but examples like the Magdalene Laundries show just how easy it is for a Bishop to hide something from his superiors. The Bible says that Bishops need to be trustworthy individuals. But it is possible for people to hide their true colours for a long time, using their reputation as a way to deflect suspicion. Yet the Church does have ways to deal with this level of corruption. Was the Archbishop approached? 'Now , the Church has NO ROLE in education in my country.' Hold on, what does a laundry business have to do with education? Were there schools in these laundries? And I can count over 100 Church-run schools in Ireland (assuming that's where you live). 'The vicious celibate freaks buggered children and would likely say "God works in mysterious ways"' Hold on, 'likely say'? So you admit you made that up? For dramatic and emotional effect? 'Or be absolved in confession.' By other corrupt priests. They formed rings of corrupt clergymen to protect each other. And that gave them the illusion that they were free from consequences. Even if nothing had been done and they died unaccused, they would find that their pride had truly blinded them from the horrors they would inevitably face. Celibacy isn't the issue by the way. We know it isn't because A: Eastern Catholic priests are married and rates of sex abuse in their Eparchies are non-existent, and B: Protestantism has a sex abuse rate dozens of times worse and they all reject clerical celibacy. 'They burnt people en masse in the Middle Ages .' No they didn't. You do realise that we have the records from the Inquisition still, right? Of the 150,000 people accused of heresy and blasphemy, only 3,000 of them were actually deemed guilty. And only a fraction of those were executed. Not by the Church, but by the state. Like Tyndale, who was executed by the Holy Roman Emperor on behalf of Henry VIII. Don't confuse the Inquisition for the Protestant witch trials, which killed over 100,000 people. Ironically, it was men from the Inquisition that would look over records from the witch trials and determine they killed innocent people. 'They burnt christians for emulating the Apostles.' Sometime tells me an Atheist like you has absolutely no clue how the Apostles acted or believed. If you really want to go down this road, be warned. Whatever Protestant propaganda you think you can use, was already refuted by the Counter-Reformation. The reason that the Protestants were so focused on following 'Bible alone' was because they had no historical evidence to back up their interpretations, so they dismissed the need for any. And of course, no amount of semantics will ever 'prove' that the Cathars and their death cult were legitimate Christians. 'SATANIC , brutal and vicious.' Again, you're hardly a judge of that. 'You need more than a blood type or a piece of cloth to verify any Bible.' We don't need it to verify the Bible. We've verified the Bible through using the philosophy it promotes, and by checking the factual information it provides. Do I need to lecture you about how it was the only proof we had of the Hittites until we dug them up 200 years ago, where the Bible told us they lived? 'It has nothing to do with a magical being or an iron age book.' Again with the strawman arguments? What is metaphysically defined as 'magic' applies to the demons and their perversions of Creation through supernatural means. You might as well try comparing the coder of a program to those that try to hack it, ultimately corrupting it. And the Bible, at least certain books in it, are far older than the Iron Age. You are aware that prior to writing, Oral Tradition was used to preserve information, right? We can trace Genesis thanks to its usage of Akkadian and other ancient names from languages that were lost soon after; Exodus thanks to Senenmut; the other three books of the Pentateuch thanks to their specific laws and item descriptions; Joshua through the Amarna Tablets; and the Judges thanks to historical relics. Are you aware that we found a seal showing Samson and the lion from his hometown, within the century of his lifespan? And that upon excavation of Temples of Dagon, they were indeed constructed with most of their weight borne by two relatively-close pillars in the centre of the Temple? Close enough to be pushed apart? And something you keep ignoring that, not matter how graphic Eucharistic Miracles are, they still happen in front of other people. Can you explain how what looks like a wafer can visibly become human flesh and blood without any physical intervention? How it consistently happens to the Eucharist alone and only within Catholic Churches, despite others like the East Orthodox also believing in the True Presence? Or how every single tested one had the same rare blood group despite us not knowing about blood groups until 1901? Priests aren't arrested because there is no sign of foul play nor that they did anything to it. So what insight do you have that they don't?

What, the Wizard of Oz? What does that have to do with religious people? Atheists were the ones who made this meme, not religious people.

@@gigantals Yes, You see it skewed. Atheists see a human creation. Religious see some magic wizard You think youre refuting this ? Its literally an Atheistic book , FFS Its called Allegory / metaphor. And you still see a magical wizard who had no real power Doroty herself had the power to make a wicked witch MELT with just water and expose the fraud running the whole show. Do you get it ? The Religious still insist that theres a Wizard up in heaven running the show even though youve never seen or heard him/her/it/they

@@gigantals Theres never been algal bloom in the Nile ? Not even scientists can assert that. Algal bloom is perfectly natural. Its not miraculous. Its far more believable than god turning it red. When was the last time he turned anything red ?

'Yes, You see it skewed. Atheists see a human creation.' So you admit you see it skewed in your own way? 'Religious see some magic wizard' Wizards are (hypothetically, since they don't actually exist) people who manipulate the fabric of reality using supernatural abilities. Whether it be through borrowing the power of spirits, or that they possess such power naturally. 'You think youre refuting this ? Its literally an Atheistic book , FFS' You sure about that? According to the writer of the book, he said regarding its inspiration: "It was pure inspiration. It came to me right out of the blue. I think that sometimes the Great Author had a message to get across and He was to use the instrument at hand"' Who is this 'great author'? It would be one thing if he claimed 'the universe' inspired him, but 'the great author' implies it was some king of conscious entity of great potential and actuality. Even if he subscribed to non-traditional Christian concepts, it seems pretty clear that he believed in an entity that in some way represented his understanding of God. 'Its called Allegory / metaphor. And you still see a magical wizard who had no real power' It's funny that you think comparing God to a 'wizard' is going to somehow provide credibility to your case. It actually shows that you either don't know what you're talking about, or you're attempting to reduce Him to something He is not so you can make the fallacious argument from incredulity. On the other hand, we have sources from not just the early Christians, but also the Jews and Romans that hated them, which says Christ had actual power. Some claim it was from the devil, but it was power nonetheless. Why would they agree with the Christians if there was nothing to agree with, and it would ultimately promote their case? 'Doroty herself had the power to make a wicked witch MELT with just water and expose the fraud running the whole show.' Dorothy had no 'power'. The witch's weakness to water is no different to sodium's tendency to react violently with water. It's part of their nature. Or are you trying to say that if someone else had thrown water at the witch, it wouldn't've melted her? Then we would be able to say that the water's potentiality in melting the witch could be fully actualised through the intervention of Dorothy with her metaphysical substance. Otherwise, it was just water, plain and simple. And Toto uncovered the fake wizard, not Dorothy. She wasn't the one who first pulled back the curtain. She took notice after Toto revealed him and exploited that breach of secrecy, but he was already been revealed by then. 'Do you get it ?' Probably better than you get religion, since you seem to treat a children's book about a tornado throwing a Kansas house to Australia as if it were some great philosophical work. Did you read any of his other books? 'The Religious still insist that theres a Wizard up in heaven running the show' Bit of a difference between a 'wizard' and a 'deity'. Compare Gandalf to Eru Ilúvatar. I know Gandalf is actually an angelic being in the Tolkien canon, but I clearly need to distinguish between mortal and divine for you to first understand, followed by the divine and those that can use power from the divine. 'even though youve never seen or heard him/her/it/they' We do see Him though. Aside from all the visions that mystics and visionaries receive (which I'm sure you'll conveniently ignore or dismiss), we have the Eucharist. Which every so often becomes a Eucharistic Miracle. 'Theres never been algal bloom in the Nile ?' *RED* algae bloom. There has never been a RED algae bloom in the Nile. Notice how you conveniently ignore the one word that could in any way connect algae with blood. I'm going to type 'RED' in all-caps from now on so you can see it and remember it. 'Not even scientists can assert that.' We can, actually. The species for red algae doesn't live in the Nile. They do live in the Mediterranean and Nile Delta, but that's because they're saltwater. So unless you think that some saltwater algae magically made their way up hundreds of kilometres of the Nile and then bloomed, they wouldn't have been responsible for the Blood Nile. Algae also doesn't make water undrinkable like the Egyptians found the Nile to be, nor can algae infiltrate water to reach closed pool and containers of water. 'Algal bloom is perfectly natural. Its not miraculous.' Never said it wasn't natural. I said that there has never been a RED algae bloom in the Nile. Not once in Egyptian history have we ever found a record of a RED algae bloom. 'Its far more believable than god turning it red.' Except that no RED algae live in the Nile, meaning it would actually be miraculous for there to be a RED algae bloom. 'When was the last time he turned anything red ?' That depends. Do you mean He changed an object to a REDdish version of itself? Or that He changed an object into another object that was RED? I can point to Eucharistic Miracles again.

@@gigantals God as a wizard ? Did you know that he was basically a genie who couldnt get down off the mountain until Moses built him a special box ? 'Then that genies power increased the more worship he got ? 40 years in a box in the desert until a temple could be created ? FFS Thats a genie / storm god. And that god who couldnt come down off the mountain without a box created the Universe ? Did you know that these superstitions are global ? They perfectly fit primitive humans. So , basic that the very creator has to be humanoid too. A "jealous god" who doesnt like images or people working on a Saturday ? HE ? SHe ? what colour hair does he have ? Do you know what he wants ?

Because they never learnt the Greek philosophy and philosophical terms that Transubstantiation is defined through. Without it, it's impossible to define the Transubstantiation in English.

​@@gigantalsyou miss the point, the majority of the world including many Christians, don't believe in these Eucharistic miracles, not just atheists

Doesn't matter. The truth is the truth regardless of how many people believe in it. And we have scientifically verified Eucharistic Miracles.

@@gigantals citation needed, I haven't seen a single scientist who agrees with that

You could just look it up yourself, but fine. acmcasereport.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/ACMCR-v11-1976.pdf

Right, because this cheap comment is going to somehow prove 3500 years of theology and philosophy wrong. 'Life is a mistake,' Hardly. Everything on this planet is geared for sustaining life. And then our place in the solar system, galaxy, and universe all show we're not a coincidence or a mistake. 'divine intervention is not real,' We can prove it is though, based on historical records and the scientific investigation of Miracles. Feel free to disprove Eucharistic Miracles, even though we've already verified them. 'neither is heaven.' This is one of those 'trust me bro' moments, right? 'Christianity is a cult' It's too big and too organised to be a cult. 'based on European politics' Christianity was established in the Middle East, not Europe. Most of the confusion about the Bible is specifically because it took place in a non-European culture. 'and fairy tales.' Clearly you've never read the Bible/Christian documents in general nor 'European fairy tales'. Try holding that opinion after reading St Augustine's works, and compare that to all of the scholarly works surrounding Hansel and Gretel.

@gigantals I KNOW you're not talking about "trust me bro" 😭 Life happened on a whim. The universe is REALLY BIG and REALLY OLD. you creationists seem to have this "now or never" attitude. Everything is the way it is because it all had plenty of TIME to happen. There are rules, everything just follows. Give me ONE example of divine intervention/ miracles that aren't in the bible or some other historical document based off of eyewitness testimony. Cults can get BIG. remember those "self help" cults? How about scientology? What about alien death cults? Try again.

'I KNOW you're not talking about "trust me bro" 😭 ' You're the one who claimed Heaven didn't exist, because...? 'Life happened on a whim.' Everything indicates that isn't the case. 'The universe is REALLY BIG and REALLY OLD. you creationists seem to have this "now or never" attitude.' Bold of you to assume I'm one. But then again, you need strawman arguments for your ad hominems, no? 'Everything is the way it is because it all had plenty of TIME to happen.' Nope. I covered this in another video of mine about Dan Brown's book called 'Origin', where I explained how the field of biochemistry proves it is impossible for natural forces to form even a few amino acids in a chain. Let alone a basic genome capable of coding proteins. For instance, the formation of uracil is impossibly without an organic source using metabolic activities. Do not confuse 'simple complexity' (crystals, repeating patterns with no information) with 'true complexity' (non-repeating genome, containing information). 'There are rules, everything just follows.' Given your erroneous statements, there are many you don't know of yet. 'Give me ONE example of divine intervention/ miracles that aren't in the bible or some other historical document based off of eyewitness testimony.' I can corroborate a miracle in the Bible with pagan sources. And that is Joshua's Long Day. We have two sources from Egypt. Herodotus records one of them which claims that, having been measured with water-clocks, there was once a day that lasted for two days, when the sun refused to move across the sky. Another Egyptian source translated by Fernand Crombette says: '"The sun, thrown into confusion, had remained low on the horizon, and by not rising, had spread terror among the great doctors. Two days had rolled into one. They made the moon stop at a small angle at the edge of the horizon. The sun itself, which had just risen at the spot where the moon was going, instead of crossing the sky, stayed where it was. Whilst the moon, following a narrow path, reduced its speed and climbed slowly, the sun stopped moving and its intensity of light was reduced to the brightness of daybreak."' Meanwhile, the Chinese recorded a 'long day' that lasted ten of their days, but the timing of this 'long day' of theirs is important. It was in 1448 BC, which is about 40 years before Joshua conquered Canaan and asked God to 'stop the Sun' from moving. Of course in actuality it would be the Earth that stopped rotating, but it's interesting that the Chinese recorded a long day so relatively close to Joshua. And in pre-Inca Peru, we have a source that claims during the reign of Titu Yupanqui Pachacuti II, the sun apparently was missing for 20 hours. What makes this interesting is that if Joshua 'stopped the sun' over the Middle East, we would expect the other half of the planet to be in prolonged darkness. And that's exactly what we end up reading. The best part is that this year of his reign was calculated to be in 1391 AD, not long after Joshua began his conquest of Canaan. That means we now have two sources from a 57-year window that the Biblical account falls within. We have sources from West Africa that claiming the sun either was stuck below the horizon; Asian sources speaking of a long day; American sources speaking of a long night; and a Fiji source claiming the sun sat on the horizon for a while before sinking. We can't date the Egyptian sources which is a shame, but their noticing of the sun sitting above the horizon in the morning allows for the sun to also sit on the horizon for the Fijians in the evening. Does that count? Or did you want evidence of a miracle that the Bible doesn't mention? I can point to the Miracle of the Sun in 1917 when during the Fatima Apparitions, the sun started to dance and spin in the sky whilst sending out multi-coloured light. It was witnessed by the 70,000 people present at Fatima. Other people who didn't even know what was going on at Fatima and lived miles away from it also saw the Miracle. Even those on a British warship off the Portuguese coast. They describe that at one point, the Sun appeared to rush towards the Earth before returning to its original position. Which sounds difficult to believe, but despite the ground at Fatima having been turned to mud by rain just before the Miracle, it was bone-dry after that part of the Miracle. As well as the soaked clothes of those who were present. And although the following happened in 1950, Ven. Pope Pius XII (who also approved of the Fatima apparitions in 1940) witnessed the Miracle of the Sun on four occasions in the Vatican before, during, and after he infallibly defined the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. 'Cults can get BIG. remember those "self help" cults? How about scientology? What about alien death cults? Try again.' Nope. Cults are defined by more than just their size. But they are always part of the minority. My friend has a complete list of characteristics, but the relevant ones are as follows: 1. Cults are a minority movement (2.4 billion Christians isn't a minority, whereas 40,000 Scientologists are) 2. Cults endorse in fringe beliefs of theology and philosophy against mainstream religious thought (hence them sounding so weird) 3. Cults rely on living revelation (making it convenient to change their beliefs) 4. Cults don't have Dogma (which would be infallible, unchanging teachings with divine assurance to their truthfulness, and are incompatible with the above point) 5. Cults engage in secrecy regarding their rituals and meetings (whereas anyone can walk into a Church and watch) So no, Christianity isn't a cult. You could've correctly classified it as a cult in its earliest days due to its small following (though some of the other characteristics wouldn't apply), but it outgrew that classification before long.

'Separation of church and state.' Not always a good thing, though it does spare the Church from political corruption. Like with what's happening to the Anglicans. 'Raise your families to be better than you.' Define 'better' without having a moral standard to compare to. 'Jesus wasnt white.' Well, duh. He was reddish-skinned as are people from the Middle East. Though there is nothing wrong with depicting Him according to one's culture. Whether it be the Africans depicting Him dark-skinned, Europeans depicting Him light-skinned, or the Asians depicting Him brown/yellow-skinned. Ever seen a Japanese Icon of Christ? Though it's interesting that even the European depiction of Jesus is actually based on the Semitic depiction. The earliest Iconography of Christ illustrated Him in the Hellenistic manner, being clean--shaven and with short hair. Then around the 6th century we se a major shift towards the Semitic manner, with long hair and having a beard. That was because of the influence of monks from the Monastic centres of Nisibis and Edessa who travelled across the Christian world and made Iconography. They were influenced by the Shroud of Turin, then known as the Image of Edessa. All the Europeans did was lighten His skin slightly. 'Jesus did not judge people.' He judged frequently. He judged the Pharisees as hypocrites, judged the Pharisees unworthy of carrying out the death penalty on the adulteress, and in John 7:24 tells us to judge correctly without being influenced by outward appearances or reputation.

@gigantals America is not a Christian nation now nor should it ever be. Raise your children to be good people. Do not use religion to create laws. Depicting Jesus as you want to creates a false image. Other issues will occur. God is for your home life not for governing the people.

'America is not a Christian nation now nor should it ever be.' It was literally founded upon Christian values. The Declaration of Independence specifies the existence of a Divine Creator. The Founding Fathers specified the necessity for Christian philosophy in establishing the government and its systems. 'Raise your children to be good people.' There is no standard of morality without religion. Unless our morality comes from a source that is beyond humanity, then there is no obligation to take one man's word over another. 'Do not use religion to create laws.' Religion is the best thing to use when creating laws. That's something we all take for granted with our modern systems, which were built on the writings of Christian philosophers from hundreds to thousands of years ago. 'Depicting Jesus as you want to creates a false image.' Good thing my Church is Apostolic then, because I don't have to worry about that. 'Other issues will occur. God is for your home life not for governing the people.' God is not for anything, we are for God. God created us with the opportunity to live and learn to love both each other and Him. God also allowed for the establishment of heads of states and government systems to maintain order. To fully embody the moral standards He has given to us, those states must establish and enforce laws that align with what He has taught us. To go against Him is to place the state in peril, something we see happening all over the West today. Ironically, we complain about the foolishness of the Ancient Israelites and Judaeans for taking advantage of God and then leaving Him to worship idols, when society is only repeating that. I don't blame you for your erroneous position It stems from an erroneous understanding of Judeo-Christianity.

@gigantals The Founding Fathers had a variety of religious beliefs, but they all shared a commitment to a secular nation without an established religion: This is only your first correction and I do not want to waste anymore time on your ignorance. Religion is not needed in government or for people to have morals.

'The Founding Fathers had a variety of religious beliefs, but they all shared a commitment to a secular nation without an established religion:' Were you meant to quote someone here? And no, the Founding Fathers were primarily Christian and/or were influenced by Christian philosophy. 'This is only your first correction and I do not want to waste anymore time on your ignorance.' You mean you don't want to continue with someone who will actually respond. 'Religion is not needed in government or for people to have morals.' Tell me you know nothing about religion without telling me you know nothing about religion. And the Atheistic Communist and Socialist states who have previously tried to suppress religion prove you wrong.

The comments? I suppose the algorithm doesn't like me very much.

Indeed. There can only be one...

If only our critics actually understood what we believed...

So you know nothing about either pagan mythology or Christianity? That's very brave of you to admit.

​@@gigantals Mythology: "a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition." EXACTLY what christianity is. Prove me wrong, show me empirical proof of your god's existence.

@@ivanberrios4109 'Mythology: "a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition." EXACTLY what christianity is.' Nope. Christianity encompasses so many cultures and has such a rich religious history that it can no longer qualify as mythology in the original sense. Within the same cultural pagan mythology there are competing mythologies, indicating that there were multiple authors who had very different intentions and ideas. Christianity on the other hand has no such contradictory themes and narratives. It's so consistent that when the Gnostics attempted to write later forgeries, they were easily singled out and condemned. Today in the Catholic Church, there are numerous cultural and religious traditions among all the Churches. Especially in the Eastern Catholic Churches. All of which are compatible with each other and the West, even if they aren't well-versed or prominent there. That is not how mythology works. 'Prove me wrong,' Something tells me you wouldn't accept anything I give you. 'show me empirical proof of your god's existence.' Using Newtons Three Laws, prove that the Incans existed. Without deviating to any other scientific fields or principles. See, your problem is that you're applying the wrong methodology to investigate something. There is nothing wrong with Newtons Three Laws. They're just not relevant in this context, when we would much rather have local historical documents and archaeological artefacts. In the context of empirical proof for God, sure, I can give you plenty of that, but it would be mixed in with multiple fields of science and other methodologies. Even raw data is useless without analysis, interpretation, and assurance of accuracy from a reliable methodology. The closest you could get to a 'pure' methodology of investigating God is through philosophical reasoning. And that makes sense, since science is all about measuring the observable universe around us. Science cannot be used for what we cannot observe or that which exists beyond the physical senses. Philosophers were using philosophy to understand the immaterial over 2000 years before Roger Bacon defined the scientific method. Hence why there are so many philosophical works about God and explaining why He exists. None of which I'm sure you're familiar with. So instead of asking for empirical proof, you should be asking me to explain the philosophical reasoning behind the Judeo-Christian God. I would then proceed to go on a chain of reasoning, explaining proof of the immaterial, then proof of theism, then proof of monotheism, and finally proof of Judeo-Christianity. Which is then reflected throughout the observable universe through science. And to prove why you need this chain of reasoning before anything else, I can give you solid proof that God exists. The problem is you won't have any clue of what to do with it or understand it. Don't believe me? Look up 'Eucharistic Miracles'. They've all been verified through scientific analysis as well, so they're irrefutable.

​@@gigantals Wow, so many thing wrong here I don't even know where to begin so let's just live it at christianity is a BELIEF not fact, ergo MYTHOLOGY, like all the rest. But hey, if believing the bearded man in the clouds makes you feel warm at night, you do you. just don't force others to believe your nonsense. Have a good one.

@@ivanberrios4109 'Wow, so many thing wrong here I don't even know where to begin' Alternatively, you just realised how badly you've messed up and so abandon all possible arguments. 'so let's just live it at christianity is a BELIEF not fact, ergo MYTHOLOGY, like all the rest.' Nope. Christianity is a truth. We know it is a truth, because we've verified not just the details of the Scriptures, but also the messages within them. No religion on this Earth is more robust. As I already said, it is Judeo-Christian philosophy and theology that science and Western civilisation are built upon. The same science that you try to misuse against it, and the same Western civilisation you take for granted. See? I told you that you wouldn't accept any evidence I gave you. Even though we have scientific reports on Eucharistic Miracles. 'But hey, if believing the bearded man in the clouds makes you feel warm at night, you do you.' A gross simplification, Mr. Random-chemicals-in-the-brain-constitute-who-I-am-as-a-living-meat-bag-with-no-soul. 'just don't force others to believe your nonsense. Have a good one.' You came into the comments of *my* reel, instead of just scrolling by. Who's really trying to force their narrative here where it isn't wanted?

My name is Gigantals, not 'Clearly'. And you're hardly convincing with such a short comment.

So then what does it look like?

Thank you

Thank you very much. May God bless you too.

The Krampus? I have no idea where that comes from. Some theories suggest that it originally started out as a helper of St Nicholas sometime in the mid-2nd millennium. Both were different sides of the same coin, St Nicholas rewarding good children whilst the Krampus disciplining bad children. But somewhere along the way, he became associated with some demonic evil creature. It's important to note it as a local cultural icon as opposed to something promoted by the Church. This weird dualism of the Germans and Austrians regarding St Nicholas and the Krampus is incompatible with Christianity. For Sol Invictus, that appears to be a rip-off of Christianity by the Pagan Romans. It originally began as the Arab-Roman god 'Elagabalus', which a Roman Emperor of the same name was named after. The Imperial Cult, which worshipped Emperors, would worship Elagabalus as a deity during his life but largely declined when he died. Probably as a result of pagan priests attempting to still retain influence in Rome as the underground Church in Rome became stronger, they convinced Emperor Aurelian to approve of the Cult of Sol Invictus (which is a heavily Latinised title for Elagabalus) in the late 3rd century. However, the first mention of any feast day associated with him was in the mid-4th century. As for the December 25th date, I assume you mean relating to Christmas and why that date was chosen? Simply put, it's the historical choice. St Theophilus of Antioch in the 2nd century wrote about Christ being born on December 25th, and Pope St Telesphorus established Midnight Mass earlier that same century. Midnight Mass is only ever celebrated on Christmas Eve, meaning that the Pope knew the date of Christmas and there is no evidence that the date of Midnight Mass ever shifted to a different date. The Gnostics heretics also wrote about the timing of Jesus' birth. It's important to note that these specific Gnostic writers and Pope St Telesphorus lived less than 100 years after Christ, barely even a generation after St John the Apostle died. Then comes the Jewish evidence. Early Christians used 'Integral Age', a concept that the Jews developed regarding the birthdays, death days, and conception dates of their Prophets. Mistakenly believing Christ to have been Crucified on March 25th (when it was actually on April 3rd), they believed He was conceived on that date. Nine months later, Christ was born on December 25th. We can back this up with Temple records. St Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century wrote to the Pope about the date of Christmas, and so the Pope checked through the records of the Temple that the Romans had brought to Rome after they destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. He wrote back to St Cyril, telling him that Christ was born on December 25th. I've also personally looked through the priestly rotations for the Temple around the time that St John the Baptist was conceived. He would've been conceived sometime around (or even on) the Feast of Trumpets in late September, which can then be used to calculate Christ's birth in December the following year.

@@gigantals Thank you! Appreciate your time and response.

You're welcome.

You'd be surprised how many people are praying for your success, even if you never meet them in this life.

If you go back enough generations, you'll find out that we are all distant cousins. You needed two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. You'll get to a point where it would be impossible for someone to not marry their distant cousin due to the limited human population size, considering we didn't get to 1 billion people until 1804.

You're welcome to accept a younger lifespan if 930 seems too much. But given the context, it would make sense that he lived so long. No processed foods, no accumulated genetic diseases, no harmful chemicals, etc. If it weren't for our pancreas, humans could live +120 years a lot more easily. It's amazing how much potential our bodies have. Or rather, had.

Hahaha, naw you just gotta choose if you want to die as a rich career criminal or holy.

Which is one of the issues with Protestant and Calvinist theology. It leads many among them to believe that conversions can always come after an indulgent lifestyle, and that would be a guaranteed way to Heaven.

@@gigantals John preached a baptism of repentance, which simply means to have a change of mind for the better. If a Calvinist or a Catholic does not turn first with their mind from sin then there is no forgiveness. Much like producing fruit in keeping with repentance. Great video my man.

You are in a very dangerous position, one that sees the truth as a non-requisite to following Christ. Catholicism is the fullness of truth revealed by God through the general revelation of the Scriptures and later theological conclusions by theologians and Councils. The Protestants deny many of our truths, picking and choosing which to accept. The Church teaches that Christ is both man and God, with a human nature and a Divine Nature joined through the Hypostatic Union. What do you say to the Protestants that promote Arianism, that Christ was just a man? Is not the confession that Christ is God important for Salvation? How about the Protestants that believe God the Son killed the original human soul of the body that He took over, to possess human flesh as Christ? Christ told us He is God and man though, so anyone who denies this is calling Him a liar. Will God tolerate liars that undermine His words in Heaven? Even those that go so far as to promote perverse blasphemies that twist His messages into paradoxes and contradictions? It's not enough to just 'accept Jesus into our hearts'. Even the Martyrs died for their faith. If we're not Martyrs, then we're Confessors. Our faith is demonstrated by the examples we lead in life and what we preach/teach. Are you really going to place all bets on the chance that just simply 'accepting Jesus' is all that He wants? Which Jesus? The human Jesus? The God Jesus? the God-man Jesus? The demigod Jesus? The Second God Jesus? Hence why we need theology to determine right from wrong, and why belonging to the right Church is necessary.

Some people trying to make the cross in a rush or discretely in public will shorten the lowest beam (?) to the breastbone.

Of course it's uneducated, and I find these on Facebook.

Did you even watch the video?

If they got into Heaven, it would be in spite of their art violating and desecrating the dignity of man, who is made in the Image of God. For their twisted state of mind and however many they led into temptation as a direct result of their work, they may as well remain in Purgatory until Judgement day comes.

@@gigantals Well pardon us talented folk and our creativity from your "Perfect God's" kingdom. Seriously though, It's like you're actually taking this seriously, lmao.

If it was a matter of talent, then shortcuts through eroticism would not be taken. As an example, Fifty Shades of Grey without its erotic contents is an atrocious book/movie franchise with a plot about grooming a woman. If the author had any genuine talent, she would not have needed to rely so heavily on eroticism for an audience. Compared to something like Lord of the Rings which is seen as a modern Epic and has won more awards than any other franchise (475/800). I'm reminded of one movie critic who recently complained that the Marvel movies were the equivalent of fast food compared to the masterpieces produced decades ago. Rule 34 content is even lower than that, the equivalent of smoking a cigarette to avoid feeling hungry. It is short-lived entertainment with no depth that is soon cast aside and replaced by more content, usually being more graphic and twisted, to try and maintain an audience. It's not healthy to the consumers of such material and its producers. Beyond the state of their soul, it has an impact on their mind and psyche. We've known about the consequences of pornography from decades of research. The difference between live-action pornography and Rule 34 content is thst the latter doesn't involve real people and so isn't hindered by legality. Which then opens the door to darker themes. It's no coincidence that of all my friends who work in psychology, the one who has the most sullen expression is the one that studies sexuality and works with pornography addicts. As for me taking this seriously, the whole point of this video was me saying that minors were being illustrated in inappropriate contexts by Rule 34 artists (let alone the rest that I know is out there). I don't care if they're fictional or not, someone produced that perversion with intent. How can I not be serious when people with such perverted minds live on this earth? Children need to be protected from those that would think lustfully of them.

@@gigantals Bro, quit your yapping. I ain't reading all that.

@@gigantals This is literally too dumb for me to care about.

In a nutshell, you have as poor an understanding of Iconography and idolatry, as an Atheist who thinks Christ is no different to a pagan god.

@@gigantals Show me one quotation from the Bible or the first 500 years of the church that clearly supports venerating icons, and I will change my opinion and apologize. Don't bother pointing out artwork without evidence of veneration, the bronze serpent which was destroyed as an idol, or the ark which was usually hidden behind a curtain and once failed the people of Israel when they tried to use it like an idol. Also, don't bother with the quote from Basil's 4th century letter on the Holy Spirit. That clearly has nothing to do with icons, but the trinity.

‘Show me one quotation from the Bible or the first 500 years of the church that clearly supports venerating icons,’ From the Bible? Sure. In Exodus 25, we read about God giving Moses instructions for the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple liturgical instruments. Because God wasn’t going to be physically present in a humanoid form among Israel, there would have to be Iconography compensating for it. Which is why He told Moses to have Cherubs on the top of the Ark with a seat between them, similar to God’s Throne being surrounded by Seraphs and Cherubs during Ezekiel’s and Isaiah’s visions. By respecting (venerating) the Icon, the Archetype was respected (worship). God could not give them instructions to make a humanoid statue however, since He knew full well how susceptible they would be to idolatry and so a humanoid Icon would be far too easily abused through idolatry. This issue was resolved by the time of the New Testament. God has revealed Himself to us in the flesh of a man, and we are not susceptible to idolatry. As such we can venerate a larger range of Icons. As for the early Church, I could point to the usage of Icons in the catacombs that the first Christians celebrated Mass in, or even in the ruins of the Churches mentioned in Revelation, which have Icons adorning the walls. Additionally, I could look towards the monastic centre of Edessa, famed home of the Image of Edessa (which was the Shroud of Turin folded up and placed inside of a trellis with only Christ’s face showing), where it was kept in a special Cathedral and have a specific Liturgical practise centred around its veneration during Pascha. The Syrian Church Fathers definitely venerated it because they wrote extensively about it, including St Ephrem of Syria in the late 4th century. We know he was speaking of the Shroud, because the Shroud was the only full-body Icon of Christ to show Him nude for almost a millennium. It was an example of the ‘Acheiropoieta’, Icons ‘made without hands' being created by God in some way. The Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is also in this category and both Images display supernatural properties. Based off of the Image of Edessa were the Keramidion, a class of Icons from the early centuries that were either painted onto wood or carved into tiles and metal. These illustrated the face of Christ and have been found as far as the Caucasus, carried there by Syrian monks who evangelised the region. They currently reside in Churches and are used during various Liturgies. Then there is the Hodegetria, the stereotypical depiction of the Infant Christ sitting on His Mother’s lap. The original was painted by St Luke the Evangelist (who was also a painter) and has been replicated more than any other form of Icon. The original was brought to Constantinople in the 5th century before being taken to Italy. The Second Council of Nicaea read an apocryphal letter of St Athanasius of Alexandria about the Icon of Beirut, which was used as an example of the Acheiropoieta (though in actuality it was a later copy of the Shroud of Turin). Their reasoning was that if God was creating Icons of Himself and letting Miracles happen through other Icons created by people, how could they be idolatrous? Would it not be a sign of His approval? And indeed it appears that way. Aside from Eucharistic Miracles which have been scientifically verified as confirming the True Presence, both Icons on the Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of St Juan Diego at Guadalupe display supernatural properties. Which I’m happy to detail. But you wanted quotes, right? Ok then. Here is from the pseudepigraphical Acts of John in the 2nd century: ‘The painter, then, on the first day made an outline of him [John the Apostle] and went away. And on the next he painted him in with his colours, and so delivered the portrait to Lycomedes to his great joy.’ It was made less than 10 years after St John the Apostle by Gnostic heretics. Although the Gnostics themselves hated Icons because they preserved the material image of individuals, and the material world was inherently evil according to them, they clearly mention the practise of Icon making by the early Church. This next quote is from a 3rd century inscription in the Grotto of Jerusalem: ‘Under the holy place of M[ary]. I wrote there the [names]. The image I adored of her.’ Not only is there Marian veneration here, but also veneration of her Iconography. Now we have the 4th century St Methodius of Olympus: ‘For instance, then, the images of our kings here, even though they be not formed of the more precious materials - gold or silver - are honoured by all. For men do not, while they treat with respect those of the far more precious material, slight those of a less valuable, but honour every image in the world, even though it be of chalk or bronze. And one who speaks against either of them, is not acquitted as if he had only spoken against clay, nor condemned for having despised gold, but for having been disrespectful towards the King and Lord Himself. The images of God’s angels, which are fashioned of gold, the principalities and powers, we make to His honour and glory (Discourse on the Resurrection, 2).’ Notice how he specifically refers to ‘honouring’ Icons. This ‘honour’ is the veneration that images of Saintly archetypes deserve. Also from the 4th century we have St Athanasius the Great: ‘And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor’s image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact ; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, ‘I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what you see in me, that you behold in him, and what you have seen in him, that you hold in me.’ Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance (Discourse Against the Arians, 3.5).’ Finally is from the 4th century St Basil the Great: ‘For the lawless mock the temple, mock the neighbour, mock the one created in the image of the Creator, and through the image “reproach” ascends to the Creator. For just as the one who desecrates the royal image is judged on an equal footing with the one who sinned against the king himself, so, obviously, the one who desecrates the one created in the image is guilty of sin (Commentary on Isaiah, 13.3).’ Those Iconoclasts are not in a good place for their disrespect to God, that’s for certain. ‘and I will change my opinion, apologize. Don't bother pointing out artwork without evidence of veneration,’ Hmm...What qualifies as ‘artwork without evidence of veneration’? Are you dismissing anything not found inside a Church, as all Icons in a Church inherently point towards the Liturgy being celebrated in it? ‘the bronze serpent which was destroyed as an idol,’ But it wasn’t an idol for the first 700 years or so of its history. It was venerated as a religious symbol alongside the Ark of the Covenant. Hezekiah only destroyed it after the apostasy of the Israelites led to them abusing its veneration, becoming an idol in their eyes. It appears the consensus of Nehushtan’s location was in the Temple courtyard, where all the Israelites would’ve had access to, allowing it to be an object of public veneration. As opposed to the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple itself. ‘or the ark which was usually hidden behind a curtain and once failed the people of Israel when they tried to use it like an idol.’ No they didn’t. How do you ‘use’ something as an idol? Are you telling me that idolatry is defined by carrying an object into battle to motivate you? I would love for you to then explain how the statues of Zeus and Athena at Olympia and Athens respectively, being 12 metres in height and covered in gold, were carried into battle for them to officially become idols for their worshippers. Something is only idolatrous if you treat it as if it were divine, not because it possessed the image of what was considered divine. It’s the same difference between your grandparents treating you as their grandchild, and them treating an image of you as their grandchild (complete with a doll they stick said photo to, carrying it around and conversing with it as if it were a normal person). The Ark of the Covenant was never treated as an idol. Being carried into battle as a symbol of motivation, which it had been used for previously, was not an inherently evil or corrupt move. God chose to allow the Ark to be taken by the Philistines to punish the Israelites for their sins, and an opportunity for God to both punish the Philistines with plagues and deter other foreigners from trying to steal the Ark in the future.

‘Also, don't bother with the quote from Basil's 4th century letter on the Holy Spirit.’ You mean this quote? ‘Because we speak of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us is not plural but one; because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead (On the Holy Spirit, 18.45).’ That clearly has nothing to do with icons, but the trinity. False, it has to do with both. If you read the full context of the quote, you’d see that St Basil was trying to explain how the Holy Spirit was a Person in the Holy Trinity and not a ‘second god’. All analogies of the Holy Trinity fail due to its supernatural nature, but St Basil was using the comparison of a King and coins with his image on them, to God the Father and the Holy Spirit. It does not take away any honour from the King to honour his image on coins nor does it become a second King, in the same way that honouring the Holy Spirit does not detract from the Father nor become a second deity. The difference being that the image on the coin physically imitates the King whilst the Holy Spirit has the same Divine Nature that God the Father has. Here is the full quote so you know I’m not taking this out of context: ‘For we do not count by way of addition, gradually making increase from unity to multitude, and saying one, two, and three - nor yet first, second, and third. For I, God, am the first, and I am the last (Isaiah 44:6). And hitherto we have never, even at the present time, heard of a second God. Worshipping as we do God of God, we both confess the distinction of the Persons, and at the same time abide by the Monarchy. We do not fritter away the theology in a divided plurality, because one Form, so to say, united in the invariableness of the Godhead, is beheld in God the Father, and in God the Only begotten. For the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; since such as is the latter, such is the former, and such as is the former, such is the latter; and herein is the Unity. So that according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the community of Nature, one. How, then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak of a king, and of the king's image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us is not plural but one; because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead. One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity. Of Him the intimate relationship to the Father and the Son is sufficiently declared by the fact of His not being ranked in the plurality of the creation, but being spoken of singly; for he is not one of many, but One. For as there is one Father and one Son, so is there one Holy Ghost. He is consequently as far removed from created Nature as reason requires the singular to be removed from compound and plural bodies; and He is in such wise united to the Father and to the Son as unit has affinity with unit.’

@@gigantals I commend you for trying to defend your position. I respect that you are adamant about this, albeit mistaken. Here is a concise reply. Comparing the ark to icons is preposterous. What would happen if you tried to kiss the ark like people kiss icons. The second commandment is clear. The Shroud of Turin? Seriously? It's a notorious hoax from the middle ages. No one doubts there was early Christian art. The issue is veneration. The only mention of veneration is in reference to gnostic heretics. You do mention a gnostic source, but I don't know why. You're basically showing icon veneration was introduced from gnosticism. There is no record of Luke painting icons at all until the 6th century. It's clearly a later tradition that was not part of the apostolic teaching. Partial inscriptions, where you literally have to fill in the text, are not particularly strong evidence. You finally get to some patristic arguments. They are rather late by the 4th century, but let's look at them. You have a pretty solid quote from Methodius. It seems like a winner on the surface, but there is one problem. The rest of this book is found in Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 234, yet the section you quoted is not. It is handed down to us only by John of Damascus, the man at the epicenter of the entire icon controversy. I looked high and low for the quote from Athanasius, but couldn't find it. I paged through the Discourse Against the Arians and just didn't see the reference you made. It could be me; perhaps you can clarify. Finally, the quote from Basil is clearly talking about Jesus, the image of God, the only icon we are ever called to worship. It is not at all in the context of icon veneration as it is practiced today. Here are a few earlier quotes from the church fathers about image veneration: Hippolytus (Saint) And [the Carpocratian heretics] make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time (during which our Lord was on earth, and that they were fashioned) by Pilate. (The Refutation of All Heresies 7.20 ANF) Irenaeus (Saint) [The Carpocratian heretics] also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 1.25.6 ANF) Clement of Alexandria But it is clear to every one that piety, which teaches to worship and honour, is the highest and oldest cause; and the law itself exhibits justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence from sensible images (Stromata 2.18 ANF) Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine. (Stromata 7.5 ANF) Aristides of Athens But the Christians, O King, while they went about and made search, have found the truth; and as we learned from their writings, they have come nearer to truth and genuine knowledge than the rest of the nations. . . . They do not worship idols (made) in the image of man (Apology 15) Origen “Insane” would be the more appropriate word for those who hasten to temples and worship images or animals as divinities. And they too are not less insane who think that images, fashioned by men of worthless and sometimes most wicked character, confer any honour upon genuine divinities. (Against Celsus 3.76) Arnobius Was it for this He sent souls, that, being made unmindful of the truth, and forgetful of what God was, they should make supplication to images which cannot move . . . ? (Against the Heathen 2.39 ANF) Lactantius Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. (The Divine Institutes 2.18-2.19 ANF) Here is one from the Methodius you mentioned: Methodius (Saint) And those artificers who, to the destruction of men, make images in human form, not perceiving and knowing their own Maker, are blamed by the Word, which says, in the Book of Wisdom, a book full of all virtue, “his heart is ashes, his hope is more vile than earth, and his life of less value than clay; forasmuch as he knew not his Maker, and Him that inspired into him an active soul, and breathed in a living spirit;” (Banquet of the Ten Virgins 2.7 ANF) These images are bad news, man. Stay away from idols.

I never lost the argument by stating it was not up for discussion. What authority do you have in dictating how the aspects and forms of rituals belonging to a religion that you are not not part of, are carried out? You lost by providing criticism and expecting for it to be taken seriously. If you were part of Catholicism, then you'd've still lost by completely ignoring the mountain of theology and philosophy behind the Dogma. What makes you think you would know better than 3500 years of religious authority and scholars? I find that those who laugh at me fulfil proverbs 29:9, so it doesn't particularly bother me. If they had a case, they would've presented it by then. I would love for you to elaborate how theology is childish. Does that come from your personal ignorance on the subject? Or are you only familiar with children's Bible stories? As for stupidity, I know that there are plenty of complicated terms and big words in theology and philosophy, but a simple Google search would suffice in providing a definition. Actually, it's not what God said so. It's what God said through the Magisterium He established on Earth. The same Magisterium which has never once succumbed to heresy or been proven wrong on anything it claimed was infallible. Such an immaculate track record of theology for almost 2000 years is certainly telling. I know everyone else's interpretation of the Bible is wrong because we don't rely solely on the Bible. That would be circular reasoning. The Bible didn't even exist for the first 349 years of Christianity. But the Magisterium and Apostolic Tradition existed. We used them to compile the Scriptures, and we still use them today. Isn't it amazing that, even despite differences between us and the other ancient churches like the East Orthodox, Orientals, and Copts, we all still agree on matters such as male-only ordination? So clearly there's no bias from our end. Even the Jews agree with us, rooting the custom back thousands of years further to the Patriarchs. But please, go ahead. I'm sure you've thought of a perfect argument no-one else has ever come up with in 2000 years of Christianity. Even the sheer mention of 'magical sky daddy' has the heavens shaking in fear.

Nothing at all, I don't even get enough views to monetise the video in the first place. By the way, how many bot accounts do you run? I assume this is one of several that you use to comment under all your cult videos to boost their performance, whilst posting irrelevant links and messages in random videos. I know you guys do that on Facebook too.

@@gigantals u can earn by bribing too, not only through monetization If u know what I mean

I don't. Unlike you, I'm not familiar with immoral financial funding.

@@gigantalslying is a sin, even a kid knows

So they why do your cult leaders lie about Christ's return? They know absolutely nothing about the Bible or theology, and stand in direct contrast to everything we've learnt in the last 2000 years. Are you gullible enough to believe something someone says without doing any research of your own beforehand?

I'm glad that they've not gotten to brainwashing you yet, and that you can see through their lies. I haven't worked on an anti-Cult video for a while now due to other projects taking precedence, but I intend to remaster some of these older videos soon. A friend of mine on Facebook runs an anti-Cult page that he frequently posts content on, including examples of their propaganda, missing persons, their brainwashing tactics, and lists of their bots. I have his link in my Channel information if you want to read more.

Yes please could you give me the face book page. I also found they don’t believe in the Trinity and that it is made up by man yet I provided biblical proof of its truth and meaning but they said people are trying to turn me away from God. I’ve been a born again Christian for over 30 years and I’ve daughter so much proof they are a cult, but I cannot deny the people in the fellowship are truly lovely caring people and filled a gap in my life since I sit from a husband and a lifetime of cheating and abuse. He turned all my friends against me and I’ve been lonely but I just cannot believe Christ has returned as an incarnate Chinese woman who fled China because she was hunted down and lives in America now. Anything you can direct me to do I k ow they ate a cult as I just can’t let go of my beliefs in our Lord and Saviour. Thank you for your videos. I really learn so much. 🙏🏻

My friend who covers the Eastern Lightning cult: facebook.com/WesternThunderJudgement His profile image is the Eastern Lightning cult's symbol, looked at through a sniper's crosshairs. He calls himself 'The Eastern Lightning Cult' not because he's one of them, but because the cult hates him using their name and the term 'cult' in the same sentence.

You are not alone bro we all are struggling through the same problem. Only self improvement could help.

Have you ever heard of an online program called 'Strive'? They help people deal with stuff like this, and have a three-week-long programme that you can follow.

You have no one to blame but yourself

What was the video about?

Thank you, I will.

Interesting. You seem to take my video on this 'not-so-serious' meme rather seriously. Do I have to run all my future videos by you first, to ensure they're not over-reactions? Aside from that, you're not me. You have not seen this meme being shared unironically across social media as I have. That is my motivation for making this video.

@@gigantals you're wasting your time. No one cares about it.

Are you sure about that?