Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@CrossExamined says : FREE Download fo the sermon I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist!: 👉📱https://cutt.ly/cInI1eo>> <<@ajgibson1307 says : God bless>> <<@Kokowiz22 says : He nailed it when he said people like to believe in myths they know never happened but dislike the one "myth" that has happened, with hystorical evidence, the death of Jesus Christ. That sums it up perfectly.>> <<@dasarath5779 says : christianity ruined my country and my ancestors. i will never forgive them for that>> <<@savedbymylovegodthelordjes8394 says : praise the only true living LORD and GOD bless you all glory be to the HOLY TRINITY forever and ever amen 💖✝✝✝...>> <<@alfredotrujillo4729 says : Maybe you "gain" something in today's society if you claim something outrageous but not in their day. Especially in their culture and in their context. Context: Mary and Joseph were pretty low in the socioeconomic sphere so if anything they had everything to lose by claiming virgin birth. Even when Jesus is an adult the rumors that his mother was a loose woman still lingered. The main thrust of the virgin birth was 1) Jesus had a miraculous and pure conception - completely different than ours which is a result of male/female copulation. 2) It was in fulfillment of prophecy made hundreds of years prior - the Messiah would be of virgin origin (Isaiah) - even in Genesis we find that the seed of a WOMAN would trample over the serpent. You and I know women don't have seed (sperm) only men do. 3) As stated in my first paragraph, the fact that Mary/Joseph/Jesus had to endure a lifetime of rumors when they had nothing to gain only lose (reputation) means that ALL evidence shows they were telling the truth. The only basis to doubt that is simply speculation/unbelief since there's nothing illogical only miraculous in the idea of virgin birth.>> <<@Penland1234 says : Pen, Paper, Modern Man. Amen.>> <<@glowheat4469 says : If only % 25 of pastors were as articulate as Frank, Christianity in the USA would be in a better place.>> <<@kneelanddonnelly4077 says : I had this discussion with a non believer friend. But if all religions are all alike, why is Christianity so persecuted and hated. Why do some cringe at the name of Jesus ?>> <<@kevinwesterville2115 says : Faith is a horrible avenue to the truth. A God should know that.>> <<@gareginasatryan6761 says : Surprised he didn’t do the posh accent>> <<@c.l.e.a.n.nation says : Beautiful>> <<@scottkunghadrengsen2604 says : Virgin births in Aztec, Roman, Chinese and other religions, only mentioned in 2 of the gospels and you find it the only believable one, why ? You didn't really present anything besides "Tolkien thought it was real".>> <<@ProjecthuntanFish says : Tolkien had a wicked mind and is now burning in hell!>> <<@celathianaaron6057 says : 🙌>> <<@embalmertrick1420 says : You can't deny that most writtets, scientists etc were Christians. Tolkien was no different, even the names of his places and characters are in the Bible. Actually it takes more faith to believe in science... Big bang and poof!!! Everything came to existence in perfect harmony 🤣🤣🤣>> <<@TheChristicMystic144 says : “Myth is not a falsehood. It’s an eternal truth wrapped in the garment of a story.” - Ron Dart>> <<@GorgeousRandyFlamethrower- says : " Why did Tolkien tell C.S. Lewis Christianity is the ONE true myth? " Because he was raised in Catholicism and didn't have the mental fortitude to think otherwise? "My religion is true. Yours is superstition" - every adherent of every religion ever>> <<@elekkr says : Blah blah blah ....blah blah blah blah>> <<@zerotwo7319 says : My story is beautifull, therefore it happed. Is anything more human tha stupidity and simplicity.>> <<@PeterMasalski93 says : Just because there are commonalities between world religions, doesn't mean one is borrowed from another. You do realize that if you go far back in time even alot of our language is shared (indo-European). It doesn't mean it's borrowed, but there are thousands of things we can trace from earlier common tribes and ancestors including way of life, habits, language, religious ideas, philosophies. Somehow, you are giving religion a free pass. When it comes to historical evidence. It's the victors who write the history. Why would you expect Christianity to write anything bad about themselves or cause them to lose their grip on power. Let's suppose that the Vatican had discovered evidence that Christianity was a sham, do you think that they wouldn't have suppressed it? How do you explain Islam, Buddhism , Hinduism and dozens of religions having developed all over the world.Guess what? they all have their scholars and evidence. Yet that religion where you were born and bread somehow is the right one. Foolish christians!>> <<@kokstv9104 says : Oh wow, I would like to see evidence for a virgin birth...>> <<@floogelhornzzz4770 says : Tolkien was Catholic, not Christian.>> <<@enriquetorres-duque6802 says : What evidence?>> <<@g.alistar7798 says : The Scripture is foolishness to the natural man. Apart from the inspiration from /by/through God, the unbeliever is without Christ, without hope and without eternal life.>> <<@deanodog3667 says : The bible basically plagiarised Tolkien wholesale!>> <<@manorfoodzonemfz8217 says : Taught or thought.The best book never written.>> <<@tonetone7693 says : There's so much controversy surrounding the virgin birth because many are misinterpreting what "of the Holy Ghost" actually means. First of all, the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is the the Spirit of the Most High God. The Most High God is Holy(Lev. 19:2; Rev. 4:8). The Most High God is a Spirit(Jn. 4:24). Again, the Holy Ghost(Spirit) is the Spirit of the Most High God. The term "of" in the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" is interchangeable with the term "from". So "of the Holy Ghost" can be read "from the Holy Ghost". Now that that's clarified, let's explain what the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" means. When you examine and read Isaiah 42:9 and Isaiah 46:10 you'll notice that these passages are revealing how the Most High declares that something will transpire before it occurs. This is what's meant by "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". When the Most High God declares that a particular event will happen in the future and it does, that event was from God or of God. That event was from the Holy Ghost(Spirit) or of the Holy Ghost(Spirit). An example of "of the Holy Ghost" would be the birth of Isaac. Sarai was barren. So Sarai decided that she would give Hagar, her handmaiden to Abram to be his wife. Abram went in unto Hagar and she conceived and bore a son who we know was Ishmael. The birth of Ishmael transpired because Sarai gave her handmaiden Hagar to her husband Abram. The Most High God wasn't involved with this act. Sarai came up with this idea on her own. This was an act of man(mankind), who is flesh(Galatians 4:23). However, in regards to the birth of Isaac, the Most High God was involved. The birth of Isaac was ordained by the Most High God Himself(Genesis 17:15-21). Issac was a child of promise(Galatians 4:23,28). The birth of Isaac was from the Most High God. The Most High God declared that Sarai would bear a child and the child's name would be Isaac. The birth of Isaac was of God. Isaac's birth was an act of God, who is a Spirit. Remember the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Most High God. So to be clear, what I'm saying is: The birth of Isaac was "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". So in regards to Mary and the birth of Jesus the Christ, Mary's pregnancy was also ordained by the Most High God. Similar to Isaac, Jesus the Christ was a child of promise(Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:31-33) as well. The Most High God declared that an "almah" virgin(young woman of marriageable age) would bear a Son and that's exactly what happened. A virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was a pre-announced event that the Most High God Himself ordained and declared. In other words, a virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was "of the Holy Ghost". Hopefully this will help.>> <<@tonetone7693 says : The Jews never questioned Mary and Joseph about how Mary was impregnated but yet the virgin birth doctrine is an essential belief for biblical believers? It's odd that there was a divide amongst the people over "where" Jesus the Christ was born but not there wasn't a divide over "how" Jesus the Christ was born and yet many adamantly assert that the virgin birth doctrine is essential and true. It's clear that there was no need for the Jews of that day to question Mary or Joseph about how Mary conceived because they obviously knew. If the Jews of Mary's day would've interpreted the term "virgin" mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 as a reference to virginity, they would've interrogated Mary about how she was impregnated. The Jews didn't bother interrogating Mary or Joseph about how Mary was impregnated because they didn't interpret the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 as a woman who had never engaged in sexual relations with a man before. They understood the term virgin to mean a young woman. I believe that the Jews understood the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 to mean, a young woman who had never had sex with a man before will eventually have sex with a man and as a result of that sexual act, she will bear a son. Again, "where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but "how" Jesus the Christ was born wasn't questioned. The people and/or Jews were not under the impression that the Messiah's birth would be miraculous(in the sense of being born without a earthly biological father). Simply put, the people and/or the Jews didn't think that the Messiah would come through the womb of a female who had never slept with a man before. If this isn't the case, why wasn't Mary or Joseph ever questioned about how Mary got pregnant? The Sadducees themselves say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit. Taking this verse into consideration, we know that the Sadducees would not have believed that Mary got impregnated without sexual intercourse. "How" Mary conceived would've been a point of contention for the Sadducees but it wasn't. "Where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but not "how" He was born.>> <<@mirandarogers3595 says : 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:>> <<@CupaCozy says : Frank Turek doesn’t know how the burden of proof works. Just because you really want something to be true Frank, doesn’t mean that I need to provide evidence disproving some impossible supernatural feat. Do you believe in miraculous healing without proof? Okay, now what if that person claims it was done by focusing their chi and not by God? Do you want proof now? My guess is yes, otherwise you’ll go on believing it didn’t happen. Christians want Christianity to be true at all costs to the point that they sacrifice their intellectual integrity.>> <<@NewsRedial says : Just because Christianity is true (which it is) doesn't mean myths weren't glommed on to it. The Bible never one states that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth. The correct translation is 'maiden' meaning unmarried woman. Even if they Bible did say 'virgin' (which it didn't) all virgins are virgins before they first make love. So God sending an Angel to tell a virgin that she will bear a child for him does not imply it will be sexless conception. Mary was a maiden and she conceived a child. The Bible does not say how. That is jus something Christians read into it because they believe sex is profane (even though sex was created by God and all beings engage in it to create life). So they didn't like the idea that Jesus came about by carnal means. Though they presumably don't' seem to mind accepting that he ate and peed and defecated and burped and sweated etc. If you want a clue to how Mary got pregnant, consider how her cousin Elizabeth (Pregnant with her husband Zacharias' child) was overjoyed to give Mary refuge and welcome her into their home then how Mary was cast out while heavily pregnant with Jesus some months later. Ask yourself this, what could cause her dear cousin to eject Mary and make her homeless when she was pregnant? Clearly someone in her household impregnated Mary and Elizabeth was not happy about it. Zacharias was the physical father of Jesus. It was not a sin if he was directed by God to impregnate her though. Both Zacharias and Mary were conduits for the lineages that God had been guiding and refining and preparing for centuries. Jesus was the product of those lineages.>> <<@victorthomas5402 says : Excellent comment section!>> <<@larrylacause1899 says : Thats , C orrect , actually , C S , actually jumped up and down , saying No , until , realizing , the Massish , was Correct , 4 some it takes some Time , , ,>> <<@tonetone7693 says : To all my brothers and sisters in the faith that subscribe to the orthodox virgin birth doctrine, I respectfully would like to say that I'm in disagreement with your position on the virgin birth. Let's me explain why. In Matthew 1:18, when the text says "before they came together", in my opinion, l interpret that to mean before Joseph and Mary officially became husband and wife, before Joseph and Mary were officially married and before Joseph and Mary began to live under one roof, Mary got pregnant. You'll notice in Luke 2:5 the text states, ".... Mary his ESPOUSED WIFE being great with child". This passage proves that Mary was pregnant before she officially married Joseph. Again, Joseph and Mary weren't officially married at this point. Hence, the phrase "ESPOUSED wife". "ESPOUSED wife" meaning that Joseph and Mary were engaged to be married but they weren't officially married at this point but sexual relations between the two had already transpired. Joseph and Mary jumped the gun. They had sex before marriage. Before you say am I saying that Joseph and Mary committed fornication, read Exodus 22:16. Those that make the argument about fornication need to realize that Jesus the Christ didn't come through a lineage of sinless men. Hence, David and Solomon. Consider rereading Romans 3:23; 5:12. When you reread those verses keep Joseph and Mary in mind. Here's the dilemma: Joseph and Mary had sex while they were still living at different locations. Mary was still living under her parents roof when her and Joseph had sex. A woman who commits such an act brings shame upon her parents(read Deuteronomy 22:21 and Ecclesiasticus 42:9-11 in the apocrypha). This is why Joseph was considering putting Mary away. Putting her away in the sense of sending her away to another town not divorcing her. Joseph understood that if he went forward with the custom of marriage, that during the marriage ceremony when the time came when the engaged or married couple would go into the marriage chamber to consummate the marriage, Mary would not have bled on the light colored sheet(token of virginity), which was a sign of a woman's virginity. Again, read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. See Joseph understood that this was a problem. Joseph was a just man and he wasn't willing to make Mary a public example. Meaning Joseph could've had Mary stoned. Once again read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. If Joseph was an unjust wicked man he could've easily had Mary stoned. Joseph could've said he didn't have sex with Mary and she would've been stoned for playing the harlot but Joseph was a just man so he was trying to find a way to prevent Mary from getting stoned. Okay let's say that the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary or Christ's birth was miraculous and Joseph didn't have sex with Mary, that would mean that Mary's hymen would still be intact. If that's the case they could've easily covered up her pregnancy or covered up their premarital sexual act simply by going into the marriage chamber and consummate the marriage. Think about it. They would've had sex, Mary would've bled on the light colored sheet(token of virginity) because her hymen would've broken and everyone would've assumed that Joseph impregnated Mary. A simple solution wouldn't you say? Listen! Christ took not on him the nature of angels but was made like unto His brethren. Question: How was Christ's brethren made? Christ's brethren came into being(existence) as a result of an sexual act that took place between a male and a female. So we can safely conclude that Christ was born and obtained a fleshly tabernacle just like His brethren did. Remember, it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren. The Spirit comes from the Father but the flesh comes from the seed(sperm) of man. In regards to Matthew 1:25 when the text says "And he (knew her not) til she brought forth her firstborn son....", in my opinion, this passage is simply saying that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary again until or after Jesus the Christ was born. Question: If Joseph didn't have anything to do with the birth of Christ, why is he mentioned not only in one but in both of Christ's genealogies? Many claim that Luke 3 is Mary's lineage but I'm not convinced. I could be wrong but again I'm not convinced. If Luke 3 is Mary's lineage, why isn't Mary mentioned in her own lineage? That's odd if you ask me. Could it be that the duty of an husband's brother was performed(Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Ruth 3:12-13; 6:5-8) or could it be that Luke 3 is Joseph's lineage on his mother's side? These are plausible explanations. Here's something else people are overlooking. Joseph is referred to as the son of David and of the house and lineage of David. This is recorded in the biblical text for a reason. That reason would be this: The Jews were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah and they knew He would come through the lineage of King David. Joseph is recorded as being the son of David and of the house and lineage of David to validate and solidify Jesus the Christ's Messiahship. The Jews, the author of the book of Luke and even Mary referred to Joseph as Christ's father(not stepfather). Read Matthew 13:55; Luke 2:48; 3:23 and Jn. 6:42. Question: If power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Joseph isn't the earthly biological father of the Christ, why is it that neither Joseph nor Mary understand that Jesus the Christ was referring to His and our Heavenly Father in Luke 2:49? If Joseph isn't the earthly biological father of the Christ it seems to me that both Joseph and Mary should've automatically known that the Christ was referring to His and our Heavenly Father when He said "... wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business...", but they didn't have a clue to what He meant. One last point. In reference to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving in Isaiah 7:14. The virgin mentioned there wasn't a woman who had never had sex before. With that being the case, how can one define the term virgin in Matthew 1:23 to mean a woman who had never had sex before? I know you may respond by saying prophecies are obscure until fulfilled but that won't work. Why? There's not one passage in the old testament that alludes to the Messiah having a birth that's uncommon to man or miraculous.>> <<@tonetone7693 says : Round brackets (also called parentheses, especially in American English) are mainly used to separate off information that isn’t essential to the meaning of the rest of the sentence. If you removed the bracketed material the sentence would still make perfectly good sense. With that being said read Luke 3:23 without reading the information contained within parentheses. It's clear when Luke 3:23 is read without reading the information contained in parentheses that Jesus the Christ was(is) in fact the earthly, biological son of Joseph. So in regards to the orthodox Christian doctrine on the virgin birth I would like to say I disagree with it. Let me explain why: In Matthew 1:18, when the text says "before they came together", in my opinion, l interpret that to mean before Joseph and Mary officially became husband and wife, before Joseph and Mary were officially married and before Joseph and Mary began to live under one roof, before Joseph left his father and mother (Genesis 2:24), Mary got pregnant. You'll notice in Luke 2:5 the text states, ".... Mary his ESPOUSED wife being great with child". This passage proves that Mary was pregnant before she officially married Joseph. Again, Joseph and Mary weren't officially married at this point. Hence, the phrase "espoused wife". Espoused wife meaning that Joseph and Mary were engaged to be married but they weren't officially married at this point but sexual relations between the two had already transpired. Joseph and Mary jumped the gun. They had sex before marriage. Before you say am I saying that Joseph and Mary committed fornication read Exodus 22:16. Those that make the argument about fornication need to realize that Christ didn't come through a lineage of sinless men. Hence, David and Solomon. Consider rereading Romans 3:23; 5:12. When you re-read those verses keep Joseph in mind. Here's the dilemma. Joseph and Mary had sex while they were still living at different locations. Mary was still living under her parents roof when her and Joseph had sex. A woman who commits such an act brings shame upon her parents(read Deuteronomy 22:21 and Ecclesiasticus 42:9-11 in the apocrypha). This is why Joseph was considering putting Mary away. Putting her away in the sense of sending her away to another town not divorcing her. Joseph understood that if he went forward with the custom of marriage, that during the marriage ceremony when the time came when the engaged or married couple would go into the marriage chamber to consummate the marriage, Mary would not have bled on the light colored sheet(token of virginity), which was a sign of a woman's virginity. Again, read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. See Joseph understood that this was a problem. Joseph was a just man and he wasn't willing to make Mary a public example, meaning Joseph could've had Mary stoned. Once again read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. If Joseph was an unjust wicked man he could've easily had Mary stoned. Joseph could've said he didn't have sex with Mary and she would've been stoned for playing the harlot but Joseph was a just man so he was trying to find a way to prevent Mary from getting stoned. Okay let's say that the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated or Christ's birth was miraculous and Joseph didn't have sex with Mary, that would mean that Mary's hymen was still intact. If that's the case they could've easily covered up her pregnancy simply by going into the marriage chamber and consummate the marriage. Think about it. They would've had sex, Mary would've bled on the light colored sheet(token of virginity) because her hymen would've broken and everyone would've assumed that Joseph impregnated Mary. A simple solution wouldn't you say? Listen! Christ took not on him the nature of angels but was made like unto His brethren. Question: How was Christ's brethren made? Christ's brethren came into being(existence) as a result of an sexual act that took place between a male and a female. So we can safely conclude that Christ was born and obtained a fleshly tabernacle just like His brethren did. Remember, it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren. The Spirit comes from the Father but the flesh comes from the seed(sperm) of man. In regards to Matthew 1:25 when the text says "And he (knew her not) til she brought forth her firstborn son....", in my opinion, this passage is simply saying that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary again until or after Jesus the Christ was born. Question: If Joseph didn't have anything to do with the birth of Christ, why is he mentioned not only in one but in both of Christ's genealogies? Many claim that Luke 3 is Mary's lineage but I'm not convinced. I could be wrong but again I'm not convinced. If Luke 3 is Mary's lineage, why isn't Mary mentioned in her own lineage? That's odd if you ask me. Could it be that the duty of an husband's brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Ruth 3:12-13; 6:5-8 was performed or could it be that Luke 3 is Joseph's lineage on his mother's side? These are plausible explanations. Here's something else people are overlooking. Joseph is referred to as the son of David and of the house and lineage of David. This is recorded in the text for a reason. That reason would be this: The Jews were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah and they knew He would come through the line of King David. Joseph is recorded as being the son of David and of the house and lineage of David to validate and solidify Jesus the Christ's Messiahship. The Jews, the author of the book of Luke and even Mary referred to Joseph as Christ's father(not step-father). Read Luke 2:48; 3:23 and Jn. 6:42. Question: If power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Joseph isn't the earthly biological father of the Christ, why is it that neither Joseph nor Mary understand that Jesus the Christ was referring to His and our Heavenly Father in Luke 2:49? If Joseph isn't the earthly biological father of the Christ it seems to me that both Joseph and Mary should've automatically known that the Christ was referring to His and our Heavenly Father when He said "... wist bye not that I must be about my Father's business...", but they didn't have a clue to what He meant. One last point. In reference to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving in Isaiah 7:14. The virgin mentioned there wasn't a woman who has never had sex before. With that being the case, how can one define the term virgin in Matthew 1:23 to mean a woman who has never had sex before? I know you may respond by saying prophecies are obscure until fulfilled but that won't work. Why? There's not one passage in the old testament that alludes to the Messiah having a birth that's uncommon to man or miraculous.>> <<@xaviorb1989 says : Love is patient,(I) love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.(J) 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking,(K) it is not easily angered,(L) it keeps no record of wrongs.(M) 6 Love does not delight in evil(N) but rejoices with the truth.(O) 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.(P)>> <<@iokepaduvauchelle6711 says : The speaker really went on a tangent there. He does not answer directly and contextually to why Matthew could not have psychologically projected a ”made up” account of Jesus’ virgin birth. Instead, he talks about how famous authors also came to accept this version of Jesus story, like Tolkien and Lewis. I know this is just a small clip from a longer message, but I find it amusing that the speaker implies that we have 0 evidence to support the fact that Matthew, and other writers, could have merely pushed the narrative of the Virgin birth of Jesus. It is fully known among theologians that the gospels of mattew, mark, and luke were written a whole generation after Jesus died. And John is not even in the argument. Knowing the importance of oral tradition in Jewish culture, there is at least some rationale to believe that the gospel story of Jesus Christ’ birth and his actual historical birth may differ. Oral tradition also has the ability to become misconstrued. Regardless, to me personally, the historical impact of Jesus in the gospels would not be diminished if he was born of natural intercourse, between Mary and a male. Jesus’ life and teachings are much more important than a virgin birth, but I think we should always carefully examine context and evaluate the times that the gospel writers lived in. Matthew could have simply been publishing the Virgin birth because that’s what he had been told and read in other writings. Since it is clear no one was alive anymore to be a fist-hand witness to Jesus “virgin birth” in Bethlehem at that point, Matthew had to rely on oral tellings and the writings of others. So, from those influences, I could see the possibility of “unconscious psychological projection” on Matthews writing, including the virgin birth supported by no physical evidence. I feel that the speaker in the clip says it is wrong to judge Matthew from our couch. Yet, it sounds like he is talking for Matthew and defending his writings from the podium. If this man is a pastor or theologian, it is their duty to allow people to wrestle with scriptures and voice their doubts, not project his truth on it. We become the Pharisees when this happens. This pastor is not a Pharisee. But Christian’s can become them if they seek to be the ultimate authority on truth.>> <<@johnwheat5199 says : I think Tolkien was actually saying "It's true, Christianity is no more than a myth" And I for one would tend to agree.>> <<@halfigliulo1019 says : Because it is a myth. Jesus is neither deity or mashiach. He is a blasphemous sinner and false prophet according to God's word>> <<@captainmarvel76927 says : Professor Tolkien was a devout Catholic Western Rite and firmly believed in the One Holy Catholic Apstolic Church. He attended mas DAILY at St. Aloysius Parish down from the bird and baby pub. You cannot seperate him from the LOTR or The Hobbit. He and his works are Catholic...This channel does the WWI combat veteran a great diservice if they do not distinguish that FACT in the video. More over its a lie to do so, and thus u are violating the 10 commandments, the commandments of Christ, and committing mortal sin. HONOR PROFESSOR TOLKIEN'S WORK AND HIS FAITH. TELL THE TRUTH>> <<@captainmarvel76927 says : And how about this one. ------------------ "The Lord of the Rings is, of course, a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision," Professor John R. R. Tolkien.>> <<@captainmarvel76927 says : Professor Tolkien was a staunch pre-vatican 2 Catholic Western Rite. It is disrespect to the author and his legacy to omit this clear unrefutable fact and if this channel does not make that clear they are utterly dosengenuois and not truthful. 9) The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church: by name in Scripture chapter/verse is declared in Acts 9:31, "[31] Now the church had peace throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria; and was edified, walking in fear of the Lord, and was filled with the consolation of the Holy Ghost." Catholic is derived from late Latin (Universa) via the Greek, "Katholikos," meaning universal. Katholikos comes from the Greek adjective, "Katholou meaning "on the whole," "according to the whole," "throughout all" or "in general." Universa means "for/of all nations" as in KJV Mark 11:17 "Is it not written my house shall be called of ALL NATIONS the house of Prayer?" Thus in Acts 9:31: we have Church: EKKLESIA "KATHOLES" Church of the Whole, aka Church Universal or the Universal Church. Our Blessed Lord said he would found "My Church" in Matthew 16, aka one Church. Thus formally, you have One (Matthew 16: singular unit) Holy ("consolation of the Holy Ghost," the soul of Christ's Church) Catholic (Katholes-Unvisersal) Apostolic (One who is sent, going back to the great commission of Christ to his Apostles (Matthew 28:16-20*)) Church (EKKLESIA). The word of the Lord. *"[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.">> <<@cmdesign01 says : What does>> <<@trippwhitener9498 says : Man will believe anything rather than believe in God. Especially their warm, cuddly, comfortable lie.>> <<@estebancojones7882 says : They were both Gnostics / secret papists.>> <<@sjhoff says : Tolkien's comment to Lewis reminds me of one question I always had about the TV show "The Big Bang Theory". In it the main character of Sheldon openly rejects Christianity as myth, mocking it on every occasion including ridiculing his own mother's beliefs, all the while saying he only stands for facts and science. However, he also totally immerses himself in the world of make-believe superheroes and science fiction to the point of idolizing, defending it, and devoting much of his time to it. Some will say yeah, but he KNOWS that stuff is make believe. Maybe, but he claims Christianity is Make believe and yet it is the one thing he rejects whole cloth.>> <<@SafeGuardYourSoul says : Matthew wasn't manufacturing anything in his psyche. He was taking from the prophets, which told us 700 years earlier that the Messiah would be born of a virgin in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). Only the Almighty knows the end from the beginning and this is how we know that the Bible is the only Holy Book on HIS planet. Prophecy: Birth of the Christ foretold: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14 Fulfillment: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Matthew 1:22-23>> <<@davidlawrence8051 says : The reason God chose Mary to bare his son is because everybody knew she was Chase and pure and if anybody could be pregnant and people believe she wasn't sleeping around(although some people did) it would be her.>> <<@jbmaine says : Wow and Praise the Lord God Almighty!!!>>