Thứ Sáu, 30 tháng 6, 2017

Youtube daily was Jun 30 2017

Not Anushka Shetty but this actress was the first choice for Prabhas's Saaho?

Baahubali fame Prabhas and his co-star Anushka Shetty are teaming up once again for the action thriller, Saaho. But, Anushka was not the first choice for the film.

Latest reports suggest that it was actress Sonam Kapoor, who was firstly being considered to play Prabhas's leading lady but things didn't work out and the projects fell into Anushka's lap.

After the grand success of Baahubali 2, movie buffs were rooting to see the beautiful chemistry between Prabhas and Anushka once again and thus, Saaho is going to be visual treat for them.

A source revealed that the makers gave brief idea about the film to Sonam and asked her to meet. The actress, who was impressed with the script agreed for the meeting.

However, neither the meeting happened nor the makers approached the actress with a concrete script. Later, Anushka was signed for the film. It is yet to be seen if these reports are true.

Prabhas and Anushka's chemistry was loved and appreciated by the audiences in Baahubali 2. In fact, it was being said that the popularity of the jodi was the reason behind casting Anushka opposite Prabhas.

Ever since, the teaser of Saaho was released, speculations about different actress playing the female lead started doing rounds. But, Anushka finally bagged the role.

Written and directed by Sujeeth, most of the scenes of Saaho will be shot in Mumbai. The movie also stars actor Neil Nitin Mukesh as an antagonist.

For more infomation >> Not Anushka Shetty but this actress was the first choice for Prabhas's Saaho? - Duration: 2:09.

-------------------------------------------

While No One Was Looking, Trump Just Passed Bill That Will Help Every American Win Big - Duration: 1:44.

While No One Was Looking, Trump Just Passed Bill That Will Help Every American Win Big

For more infomation >> While No One Was Looking, Trump Just Passed Bill That Will Help Every American Win Big - Duration: 1:44.

-------------------------------------------

Not Anushka Shetty! This B-Town Lady Was The First Choice For Prabhas' Saaho; But What Went Wrong? - Duration: 2:05.

Not Anushka Shetty! This B-Town Lady Was The First Choice For Prabhas' Saaho; But What Went Wrong?

After the stupendous success of Baahubali: The Beginning and Baahubali: The Conclusion, all eyes are now glued to Prabhas next film Saaho. Another reason why everyone is eagerly waiting for this flick is because of the hit pairing of Prabhas- Anushka Shetty.

But do you guys know that Anushka was never the initial choice to play Prabhas romantic interest in the film? Yes, you heard it right! One hears that the makers had earlier approached a Bollywood actress for this role.

However, things strangely didnt materialize. Sonam Kapoor Was The Initial Choice For Prabhas Saaho. As per a DNA report, Sonam Kapoor was the original choice to play Prabhas leading lady in Saaho.

Sonam Was Given A Brief Idea. The daily quoted a source as saying, The filmmakers gave Sonam a brief idea of the film, and she agreed to meet them..

But Then Came A Twist. The source further added, But neither did the meeting happen nor did the makers return with a bound script. And that was that as far as the film is associated with the Kapoor girl.

How Anushka Shetty Won The Game. Other B-Town actresses like Shraddha Kapoor, Disha Patani, and Pooja Hegde were also leading contenders, all of whom couldnt do the film for various reasons.

Had the filmmakers not gone incommunicado, Sonam would have ended up romancing Prabhas in this movie.

For more infomation >> Not Anushka Shetty! This B-Town Lady Was The First Choice For Prabhas' Saaho; But What Went Wrong? - Duration: 2:05.

-------------------------------------------

"I was so relieved - Queen's was the place for me" - Duration: 2:28.

For more infomation >> "I was so relieved - Queen's was the place for me" - Duration: 2:28.

-------------------------------------------

While No One Was Looking, Trump Just Passed Bill That Will Help Every American Win Big - Duration: 2:21.

While No One Was Looking, Trump Just Passed Bill That Will Help Every American Win Big

By Stacy Law

There are other ways to reform the American healthcare system, that are not directly related

to the bill the Senate is currently working on.

If you or a loved one has had any health problems, you know how expensive treatment is, whether

it�s fees, medications or just about anything. And, of course, there�s the rising cost

of health insurance!

Our representatives in the House are trying to help. One of the reasons, according to

California GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, that healthcare costs continue to rise so much is that �we

spend billions every year on unnecessary procedures, just to shield providers from possible lawsuits[.]�

To fix that, the House just passed the Protecting Access to Care Act. What the legislation does

is cap damages such a punitive damages, or those that are for the purpose of punishment,

at $250,000. The injured party can still recover measurable damages, such as medical bills

or lost wages.

Here�s a great explanation of why this bill is important:

Some doctors won�t like the bill, if they are making big bucks off of unnecessary procedures.

They should like the fact, though, that it will make medical malpractice insurance 25-30%

cheaper.

Attorneys, on the other hand, will not be pleased, as it limits the fee they can collect

from the verdict. Personally, I like the bill, and I�m a lawyer. I like that the House

is attacking the rising cost of healthcare in this fashion. I certainly don�t want

unnecessary procedures being performed on me, just to cover my doctor�s behind!

The bill still must pass the Senate, then move to Trump for his signature.

If you agree and are happy that your rep is helping reduce the cost of your healthcare

in this way, please SHARE this everywhere and COMMENT your thoughts.

For more infomation >> While No One Was Looking, Trump Just Passed Bill That Will Help Every American Win Big - Duration: 2:21.

-------------------------------------------

Warum ich nie wieder auf eine Esoterik Messe gehe (Folge 3: Was ist dran an Esoterik?) - Duration: 10:08.

For more infomation >> Warum ich nie wieder auf eine Esoterik Messe gehe (Folge 3: Was ist dran an Esoterik?) - Duration: 10:08.

-------------------------------------------

2017 Nissan Micra Review – As Good As The Last One Was Bad – Car Keys - Duration: 5:22.

For more infomation >> 2017 Nissan Micra Review – As Good As The Last One Was Bad – Car Keys - Duration: 5:22.

-------------------------------------------

What's inside a Tesla Battery? - Duration: 5:45.

(smash)

(people cheering)

- Welcome back to What's Inside?

I'm Lincoln, this is Dan,

and today we're gonna see what's inside

a Tesla Model S battery.

- This is our car that, sadly,

we are getting rid of tomorrow.

We bought this guy off of- - Ebaaay!

- Underneath your Tesla car it has 15 of these cells.

That's where a lot of the weight comes from on the Tesla.

We did cut open an actual engine from a Jeep recently.

Yes!

But for this, it's basically a battery

and then you have the drivetrain

that's built into the tires.

They really wrapped that well in that plastic.

I have a friend, I have a neighbor,

he drives only Nissan Leafs,

he has solar panels on his house,

this guy knows a lot about batteries.

- John has a website called johnsavesenergy,

teaches you lots of really cool tips,

how to build your own car.

You wanna build your own electric car?

He's done it.

Not once, but twice.

Here's our battery. - Wow.

That is a thing of beauty.

21.5 volts.

I think a fully charged one should be about 24 to 26 volts.

- A few things that we've determined

is that this right here, this is the actual battery,

and it has around 450

is what we determined are inside of this

without taking off the top layer.

This is very well-protected.

It has plastic that is glued on,

it has the metal tray on the top.

It's not like there's a couple of screws

that you undo and you get into this thing.

But right here, what we assume this is,

the actual coolant right here.

- It's amazing that even just one module

has a computer on it.

So it's just taking all these measurements all the time.

- Here's the deal:

You have all these batteries that are underneath your car,

if you're lookin' to buy an electric vehicle

that might scare you a little bit to think,

"What if a metal bar is bouncing on the road

"and it comes up and punctures your battery?"

- Well what if you did that to your gas tank?

It would go boom!

- Yes.

If it happened to a gas tank and there was a spark

that would happen too.

- That's what's mostly startling to me,

is like 250,000 cars burn to the ground every year.

- 250,000?

- Yes, in the United States.

And no one's startled.

- I've got an idea that involves a metal-tipped arrow

and the Tesla battery.

I wanna see if we can shoot it and hit one of the batteries.

We've already determined that there's some power in here,

there's some juice in here.

So I would expect some type of fire,

but what happens when you puncture a battery pack

with 450 batteries at 21.5 volts?

- So here's the setup.

We have a Tesla battery on top of this,

arrow block?

I don't really know what to call it.

And then we have the safe door from the bank video.

- That's solid. (knocking)

That's solid.

So the idea is we take the arrow

and we try to shoot it right in between here or here.

There's a lot of things that could go wrong here.

I'm gonna be honest.

But the goal is we hit the batteries,

it goes through and punctures a few of 'em-

- It goes kaboom!

- And hopefully there's some kaboom.

Don't try this at home.

(dramatic music)

(clank)

- Ohh! - Whoooa!

What happened?

Ohh, it went right through there.

It went through,

oh, is there heat comin' off this?

I'm not feeling any heat.

We clearly have punctured it.

Oh man.

It ate the tip.

Oh look, there's some black stuff went down there.

Not what I expected.

I expected a kaboom.

(elevator muzak)

(smash)

(slow-mo smash)

Ohh!

- [Lincoln] Do you hear that sizzling?

- It's still sizzling.

It's smoking.

But I really feel like it needs one more drop,

so I'm gonna take the chance

of running in my house up the stairs

out London's room,

to throw it back off the roof again

and hopefully it doesn't explode on my trip through there.

This is sketchy.

(dramatic music)

(smash)

Ohh ha ha! - Whooaa!

(slo-mo smash)

- Batteries everywhere!

It just came down, just smashed,

and poom!

- Here's your coolant rack right here.

If I pull on this it should just drop the batteries out.

(cracking)

What I think is cool

is how the coolant is weaved in between every one of them.

So it's getting both sides, but it's just metal and plastic.

I mean, this metal,

look at that, it can come off,

it's pretty thin.

(ripping)

See that?

There's a layer of that metal.

It's pretty light.

(clanking)

There's some battery acid comin' out of it right there.

It's probably super hot right now.

Kudos to Tesla for making a battery

that really doesn't explode all that easily.

We gave it multiple times,

with a hatchet, with a bow and arrow.

That was fun.

And batteries are dangerous,

don't mess around with batteries like we do.

We had some people helping supervise this.

You may not see it,

but they're behind you right now.

- Two people. - Watching.

We are going to take these to a battery store,

they know how to properly dispose of these.

We're getting rid of our Tesla,

and we're getting rid of these Tesla batteries.

That was a nice way to send it out.

- So go and watch our family channel,

then we can explain why we're getting rid of our Tesla.

- Yeah.

- Yeah.

- For sure. - Yeah.

- That's it. - Yeah.

- Goodbye. - Goodbye.

- Yep. - Yeah.

For more infomation >> What's inside a Tesla Battery? - Duration: 5:45.

-------------------------------------------

2pac RESPONDS to 'John Singelton' RUMORS That he Was Violated by Another Man in Jail. - Duration: 3:57.

with this Jordan tower JD well we got to puck responding to John Singleton I said

I know you're saying that title is crazy the first of all I found when I

apologize for taking the past few days off the whole prodigy passing ring kinda

got to me a little bit after a while but I still got more footage coming on that

so make sure you check to that but anyways Tupac okay so John Singleton had

rewritten the script allegedly by in and this is kind of come out by LT Hutton

and embeddable may accuse John Singleton of rewriting the script when he was on

the project and he put in there that like Tupac got raped in jail and this

had been a rumor but had been dispelled by Tupac and kupaka respond to this is

there that there is audio this but let's first attack John Singleton okay he said

that two pots and library reading and several several other prisoners small

amount of guards come and they dismiss most of their inmates Tupac rises to

leave gar to Shakur Tuesday guard one special privileges guard - yeah yeah you

get the VIP treatment treatment Madonna coming for you number one album special

packages guard one you're number one then they back away to puck still stands

he sent to something off lab wrenches the guards uh sure in one by one about

six inmates their faces predatory and degenerate these are the worst prisoners

in the facility one of them licks his lips and eyeing Tupac - pod casually

steps away and picks up a chair of the guards back away from the door then

locked the library as they walk away we see six men rushed towards Tupac in

fighting them off from the glass doorway and the camera pulls away and down the

hallway as we hear the horror sounds of the prison of the man in their cells and

then dissolve to to puck lies crying a carpeted floor surrounded by debris is

prison-issue uniform is ripped to shreds barely covering

his frame so this is supposedly supposed to be the scene where he got raped but

that doesn't say rape in here I got to say that but uh you know it's maybe just

beat up but anyways um Tupac responds to this I basically gears this entire move

on so called we will visualize well these motherfuckin is worse than the

niggas this straight David said if I had to grow wise to be

crying saying you gotta break again I'm so sorry that's right there is what feel

the anger that will never die having a fish eye to write letters to a thousand

Lucci explains it that I was dead before motherfucker would like me and you know

that so so LT hadn't released this on his Instagram page kind of refuting that

Tupac got raped in jail the movies still doing well it's at like 45 million so

far I think it's two weeks away you know it's been out for two weeks they might

recoup you got to do double they spent forty million on the movie so they got

to make eighty million I think they'll do eighty million worldwide and that'll

be a win for the studio because they at least make their money back anything

above that is good so anyways that this is your rehab so check for more news

later that hasn't been a lot of news lately

I'm going to release some more prodigy stuff later on today I just didn't want

us I had to take a few days away from all this stuff for personal stuff

anyways check you on the next video peace

For more infomation >> 2pac RESPONDS to 'John Singelton' RUMORS That he Was Violated by Another Man in Jail. - Duration: 3:57.

-------------------------------------------

Venus Williams was the cause of a horrible car accident that killed a 78-year-old man - Duration: 1:57.

<Commercial>You know what time is its Worldwide Spotlight .com black celebrity gossip it's

your boy Traymaticz in the building giving you the hottest videos when it comes to black

celebrity gossip Celebrity gossip hot topics so make sure you guys hit that subscribe button

because is no other channel like mine I got some hectic celebrity gossip going down right

now is Venus Williams going to jail please let me know in the comments below but I checked

out what worldwide spotlight .com has to say about the whole thing.

Worldwide Spotlight has just received shocking news that Venus Williams was the cause of

a horrible car accident that killed a 78-year-old man.

The wife of the man that died said that Venus Williams drove right into the middle of the

intersection causing her to slam into the side of Venus' car.

The 78-year-old man suffered major trauma head injuries but was later released from

hospital.

According to a Florida newspaper the man died from his head injuries two weeks later.

The source also mentions that Venus Williams was the cause of the accident for violating

the right of way.

In the police report it states that Venus Williams was not under the influence of alcohol

or drugs plus there was no indication that she was using a cell phone at the time.

Worldwide spotlight black celebrity gossip page will let you know if Venus Williams is

looking at some serious jail time or not, do you think she should be sent to jail for

this?

That is your hot black celebrity gossip video for the moment I got some more hectic black

celebrity gossip videos coming up next make sure you guys hit that subscribe button or

you're not going to know when this hot celebrity gossip is popping off see you guys in a bit.<commercial>

For more infomation >> Venus Williams was the cause of a horrible car accident that killed a 78-year-old man - Duration: 1:57.

-------------------------------------------

WHEN MOUSEHOOD WAS IN FLOWER - Duration: 6:13.

For more infomation >> WHEN MOUSEHOOD WAS IN FLOWER - Duration: 6:13.

-------------------------------------------

Saaho: Not Anushka Shetty, but Sonam Kapoor was approached for Prabhas's film - Duration: 1:38.

Saaho: Not Anushka Shetty, but Sonam Kapoor was approached for Prabhas's film

Basking in the blockbuster success of Baahubali 2: The Conclusion, Tollywood star Prabhas is teaming up with Sujeeth Reddy for Saaho. Ever since the project was announced, it looks like the makers had tough time in finalising the leading ladys role.

While Bollywood actors like Shraddha Kapoor, Disha Patani and Pooja Hegde were the names doing the rounds, it was reported that Baahubali girl Anushka Shetty has been cast opposite Prabhas after much speculation.

However, reports now suggest that diva Sonam Kapoor was their first choice. According to a report in DNA, a source was quoted as saying, The filmmakers gave Sonam a brief idea of the film, and she agreed to meet them.

But neither did the meeting happen nor did the makers return with a bound script.. Made on a lavish budget of Rs 150 crore, Saaho has music by Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy, while Sabu Cyril will be the production engineer.

Directed by Sujeeth Reddy of Run Raja Run fame, Saaho teaser was well received by fans and the film is expected to release next year.

For more infomation >> Saaho: Not Anushka Shetty, but Sonam Kapoor was approached for Prabhas's film - Duration: 1:38.

-------------------------------------------

What Meghan Markle's potential royal title could be and was Diana really a 'princess' - Duration: 3:21.

Meghan Markle's relationship with Prince Harry is sailing towards a spring engagement, with

the Suits actress having spent a number of weeks at the royal's residence in Kensington

Palace and allegedly accompanying him to Pippa Middleton's wedding in May.

As things continue to heat up between the 35 year old US actress and the 32 year old

British royal, speculation is brewing over what Markle's title would be if she were to

marry Harry.

It is known that the Toronto based actress has already met Harry's father Prince Charles

and brother and sister in law, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

She has even spent time with William and Kate's two children, Prince George and Princess Charlotte,

and is said to have been "taken" with them.

It is not known if Markle has met the Queen, but if and when she does, it will mean serious

business for the couple.

If Harry introduces a partner to his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, it is expected that the

relationship would result in marriage.

Her Majesty will have to sign off on the union or the prince could lose his place in the

line of succession; currently, he is fifth in line to the throne.

This is due to the 2015 Succession to the Crown Act which places limits on a rule from

the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, proving the ruling monarch with the right to approve marriages

of all distant royal relations.

Only the first six in line to the throne require the Queen's consent to marry, so Harry better

stay on his grandmother's good side if he wants to get hitched any time soon.

As wives in the United Kingdom automatically take their husband's title, Markle would be

HRH Princess Henry of Wales.

Like Kate Middleton who is a duchess Markle would not be Princess Meghan.

The title "princess" is given to females born of the monarch, or of one of the monarch's

direct male issues, like Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

Princess Diana was never in fact "Princess Diana".

She was Diana, Princess of Wales by marriage after marrying the heir to the throne, Prince

Charles of Wales.

Speaking to IBTimes UK on what Markle's potential royal title could be, royal expert Richard

FitzWilliams suggested that it could be the Duchess of Sussex.

He said: "The Queen is the font of honour.

This would be a matter for her it is too early to speculate.

If Prince Harry is created a Duke, there has to be a vacancy so it might be Sussex.

Prince Harry's wife would be a princess by marriage," he added.

On the same subject royal historian Marlene Koenig told Marie Claire: "Most likely, he

[Harry] will be created a Duke.

Sussex is available so [Markle] would be HRH the Duchess of Sussex.

Her rank would be a princess by marriage of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, and Northern

Ireland.

tell us your thoughts in comments below.

thanks for watching.

please like,subscribe and share my videos.

For more infomation >> What Meghan Markle's potential royal title could be and was Diana really a 'princess' - Duration: 3:21.

-------------------------------------------

Digitale Barrierefreiheit – Was ist das - Duration: 6:03.

For more infomation >> Digitale Barrierefreiheit – Was ist das - Duration: 6:03.

-------------------------------------------

Mariah Carey: "Alles, was man über sie liest, ist wahr" - Duration: 3:43.

For more infomation >> Mariah Carey: "Alles, was man über sie liest, ist wahr" - Duration: 3:43.

-------------------------------------------

15 Christ is Risen! Part 6. Who was the first witness? The Resurrection of the Body. - Duration: 48:15.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!

Christ is Risen from the dead, trampling down death by death

and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.

Well let's continue our discussion of 1 Corinthians 15,

which I told you is the oldest written account of

the Resurrection appearances of Christ.

We will touch on a few areas of discussion that I did not have time to address last time,

including some of the points made by St. John Chrysostom.

Let's remind ourselves of what St. Paul said.

He began this chapter right away by reminding the Corinthians of

what he had preached to them when he first met them.

"Moreover brethren, I declare to you the Gospel

which I preached to you, which also you received in which you stand,

by which you are also saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you,

unless you believed in vain". (1 Cor 15:1-2)

Now notice that he says there in verse 2,

"which you are saved if you hold fast to what I taught you."

What does he mean then by "saved"?

Because here he says clearly that they are saved.

We would never deny that they are saved, or that we are saved.

Definitely we are saved.

It's not incorrect to say that, because Christ died once and for all.

He rose from the dead and we are saved, we're baptized and we are saved.

But we are also being saved, and we also will be saved.

Now here Paul says that they are saved if they continue the apostolic faith.

Isn't that interesting?

Because when you say someone is saved, and he says they are saved,

that's an unconditional statement: "You are saved."

But then he adds immediately a condition:

"If you hold fast to that word which I preached to you."

What is the condition for their continued salvation?

That they maintain the apostolic oral tradition.

Isn't that interesting?

That's a pretty big "if." That's a condition.

So here there is no hint of the popular Protestant doctrine, "Once saved, always saved";

Those words are not found anywhere in the Bible— that is a tradition created by men.

That's not apostolic and it's certainly not biblical,

and here we have Paul telling us that their salvation depends on

their adherence to the apostolic tradition.

This is referring to an unwritten tradition, because

this is now the first time it is being written down,

and it is preserved here for us in 1 Corinthians 15.

So we can say categorically and unconditionally that we are saved by the death of Christ

because Christ died for all people for all times.

It was complete: Christ saved.

There is nothing more to be done by Christ, but there is plenty more to be done by us

to accept this gift of salvation and to continue to grow

in our relationship with Christ, our life in Christ which was created

when we were baptized, when we became a member of the Body of Christ— the Church.

So when he says, "in which you are saved if you hold fast,"

it means they are saved, but only if they continue to maintain the apostolic faith;

otherwise they have believed in vain, right?

Now remember, I told you that the word "delivered" here,

when Paul says, "I delivered to you," in the next sentence, "I delivered to you"

is the verbal form of the noun "tradition"; and this means that they received something

that they were to preserve, that they were to keep.

Paul said to them in verse 3 "for I delivered to you, first of all,"

or, "as of first importance," "that which I also received."

And I told you that Paul was catechized.

He's passing on to them the Apostolic Tradition.

So if you hand something over to someone, that means they received it

and they were to preserve it, to keep it.

That was their charge, as like it is our charge today to preserve Apostolic Tradition.

St. John Chrysostom makes the same point, even a better point, because he notes that

when Paul says to the Corinthians and reminds them that they received this tradition,

it means that they believed it, and they became witnesses themselves.

Here are Chrysostom's words from Homily 38 on 1 Corinthians:

"See how he calls them witnesses of the things spoken?

And he says, not which you "heard," but which you "received,"

demanding it of them as a kind of deposit, showing that not in word only, but also

by deeds and signs and wonders they received it,

and that they should hold it safe."

So here Chrysostom is saying that the Apostolic testimony,

being eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, was confirmed by the miracles

that the Corinthians witnessed, which Paul and other Apostles performed—

because they performed a great many miracles.

We also said last week that Paul reminded the Corinthians of

what they had been taught, what they had accepted

as a true apostolic tradition, and that the form in which this is stated

by Paul reads like an early Creed, because he lists it.

He says this is what I delivered to you, this is what I handed over to you,

this is what I "traditioned" to you: "That Christ died for our sins

according to the Scriptures, He was buried, that he rose on the third day

according to the Scriptures, that he was seen by Cephas and by the twelve,

by 500 all at once, then by James and by all the apostles."

And the way that he lists it sounds like an early Creed.

Now St. John Chrysostom notes the fact that Paul says that the risen Lord

appeared to Peter first, the person whom Paul refers to as Cephas,

which was the name "Peter", only in the Hebrew,

(in Greek it's "Petros" and we get the English name from that),

but in Hebrew the word for rock is "Cephas."

So what does Chrysostom have to say about this?

How does he explain that Christ appeared to Cephas first?

Chrysostom says the following: "Therefore he appears to Peter first,

for he that first confessed Him to be Christ was justly also counted worthy first to

behold His Resurrection, and not on this account alone does he

appear to him first, but also because he had denied Him,

more abundantly to comfort him and to signify that he is not despaired of.

Before the rest, He vouchsafed him even this sight

and to him first entrusted His sheep."

So first of all he says that He appeared to Peter first because Peter

was the first one to confess Him to be the Christ,

and this is recorded in Matthew 16, and also because he had denied Him and

he knew that Peter was very distraught over this and he wanted to comfort him.

This fits in with what we were saying before about

Chrysostom explaining why the Lord appeared

in certain ways to certain people at certain times, etc.

This is how he explains the variety of experiences.

He also said that He allowed him to see Him risen from the dead

and because of this also gave him first to be entrusted with his sheep.

Now notice that Chrysostom says that Peter was first entrusted with his sheep.

This is at the very last chapter of St. John's Gospel.

But he says, He first entrusted His sheep, not that He exclusively entrusted His sheep,

because the gifts that were given, and the authority that was given to Peter—

including for example to bind and loose sins— was given first to Peter because of

his great confession of Christ when he said, "You're the Messiah, the Son of God."

He was the first person to say that, and so Christ blessed him;

and he was, because of this, one the leading Apostles or the leading Apostle.

Christ also first entrusted to Peter the authority to bind and loose sins,

but that was later given to all of The Twelve.

Here also, Chrysostom is saying that Peter was entrusted with the care of the sheep,

which is in the last chapter of the Gospel of John,

and that this was also was given to all of the twelve.

Now, what else does St. Paul say?

In verse six, that the Lord was seen by "over 500 brethren at once,"

most of whom are still alive at the time that Paul was writing this,

but some have "fallen asleep."

We also mentioned last time that this expression is the traditional Christian way of

referring to death, that one has "fallen asleep";

Christ used this expression.

It was also used by St. Paul in more than one place in his epistles.

But I like what Chrysostom has to say ] about this little expression.

He notes that Paul does not say that some of those 500 have died, but that

they are "fallen asleep," and by this expression also, again,

Paul confirms the Resurrection.

I think that's a very nice touch, because he's saying that

to say that "one has fallen asleep" means that they will wake up.

They will rise again; and even this little detail,

and the manner in which Paul expresses, confirms the Resurrection.

Then in verse 7 Paul tells us that the Lord was seen by James

and by "all of the Apostles."

So this is the earliest written account of the resurrection appearances of Christ.

But there is something quite important that is missing from

Paul's recitation of this oral tradition, isn't there?

And Chrysostom notes this also.

He's very aware of the fact that there seems to be some disagreement here

between Paul's account and the Gospels.

And what is it?

Who were the first people to see the risen Christ?

According to the Gospels, it was the women, the myrrh-bearers.

Now, Paul only mentions Peter at first.

So why does Paul omit them, the women, from his creed?

You should be able to figure this out by now, because I have mentioned it quite a few times:

it was due to the status of women in Jewish society.

Because Paul says that these people he mentions first:

Peter, and then the twelve, and then the 500, and then James and all the Apostles, etc.—

these are all men. Or predominantly men.

(I would think there would be some women in there.)

Paul says that these are witnesses to the Resurrection,

and a woman could not be a witness under Jewish law.

Now you might think, "Well, Paul is recording history here.

He's telling us that Christ was first seen by this person and this person."

And after all Paul is a saint, right?

And Paul was not a misogynist— that's someone who hates women.

Paul instead had a lot of women who were very close coworkers of his.

Among them were Priscilla, who was always mentioned first in the book of Acts

before her husband Aquila, and Chrysostom says that

she was always mentioned first because she was the more important of the two.

She was a leader and a teacher in the early Church.

There was Phoebe, the deaconess of Cenchrae.

There was Junia, who was always listed in Romans 16 and specifically mentioned

as an Apostle, and Mary Magdalene who was definitely an apostle

and one of the leading apostles.

So, all of these women were very important in the early Church.

And Paul was not someone who thought lowly of women.

So why doesn't he mentioned them?

Because you cannot remove Paul from his time.

You can't expect Paul to think like a twenty-first century Westerner,

an American, an Australian, a German, a South African, wherever you live—

you can't expect Paul to think like you today.

Paul was a first century Jewish man.

So, on the one hand, he can say these beautiful words

inspired by the Holy Spirit, that "in Christ there is no male or female," etc.

But, on the other hand, he still conforms to

many of the norms of his culture, and we see this not only in the fact that

he omits the witness of the women— because it didn't count— but also in other ways.

For example, he writes to Philemon about Philemon's runaway slave Onisimus

and never chastises Philemon for having a slave.

Many people are very disappointed with this.

Somehow they expect Paul to rise above his culture and

make a statement on the evils of slavery.

But that's not the way people thought in those days.

It's quite unfair to criticize Paul for being a man of his time.

We do the same in a thousand ways.

We accept the norms of our culture and we don't see how it is an accepted norm,

but it may not be true.

Now, not so long ago in America 150 or 160 years ago,

at least half of the people in America believed that slavery was okay.

One hundred years ago it was routine for children to be

employed in America in factories, to have child labor.

Not so long ago people routinely beat their children.

All those things were accepted in the culture.

Today, we also have certain things we accept in our culture about which

a hundred years from now people will say, "How could they think that!?

How could they do that!?"

So it's quite unfair for us to judge Paul against the standards of our times,

because he, in many ways, did conform to the standards of his times.

So Paul does not list the women— the testimony of women was

not acceptable under Jewish law, so why should he bother?

And do you know where else we see this? It's quite interesting.

When the Gospels give us the genealogy of Christ, whose genealogy do they list?

Do you realize that Matthew's Gospel begins with the genealogy of Christ,

but whose genealogy is it?

It's the genealogy of Joseph! It ends with Joseph.

It says that he was "the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary

from whom was born the Christ," and then it goes on to tell you that

Joseph is not the father of Christ! So why give the genealogy of Joseph?

To us that doesn't make any sense, but to Matthew and any first century Jewish male

it made perfect sense, because you would never give the genealogy of a woman!

That was absolutely unthinkable!

It was so unthinkable as to be ridiculous, for reasons we can go into.

Perhaps some other time we'll discuss the genealogy.

But the fact is, they had a very different way of thinking about things.

And if we wish to understand the Bible, we have to understand it in its historical context.

So it is quite impossible that Paul did not know about the women witnesses,

or the empty tomb, or any of these, even though he doesn't mention it.

And there are other appearances Paul doesn't mention,

which he must have known about, such as the appearance on the road to Emmaus,

the appearance by the sea of Tiberius, etc.

Thus, neither do the Gospels list everything that happened,

nor does Paul mention everything that happened— because neither Paul's epistles nor

the Gospels were intended to be an absolutely comprehensive account of

everything that happened. Nobody wrote like that in those days.

So we have to accept them in the way in which they were intended

and not think or allow people to tell us that, "Oh there's a discrepancy there in the accounts."

Now Chrysostom mentions the fact, he notes the same thing—

that Christ actually appeared to the women first, but Paul doesn't mention them.

So what does he say?

"Thus since he had mentioned the proof from the Scriptures"…

By that he means the statements of Paul that Christ rose according to the Scriptures;

"he adds also that by the events producing as witnesses of the Resurrection,

after the Prophets, the apostles and other faithful men.

Yet surely the Gospel says the contrary, that He was seen of Mary first.

But among men, He was seen by him first who did most of all long to see him."

So, Chrysostom simply takes this exactly as I said: that here Paul is listing only the men.

He perhaps did not know that women weren't allowed to testify in court

under Jewish law, but he recognizes that this is a listing of men,

and the first man who was permitted to see the risen Christ was

the one who longed to see him the most: St. Peter.

The following is Chrysostom's observation in connection with this, when he talks about

the different appearances to different people at different times:

"He appears also to each at intervals and at one time to fewer at another to more,

hereby making them witnesses and teachers of each other."

And this goes along with what he had said previously,

in some of His comments I cited earlier about why Christ appears at different times

and different places to different people: that He gives them what they need.

Peter was mourning Christ so much so that He appeared to him first among the men.

Also about Mary, that the women see the angels but the men do not.

So each of the appearances is tailored to what the person needs.

Sometimes they recognize Him, sometimes they do not.

Now here Chrysostom says that He appears at different times

and different places to different people because He wants them to

witness to each other and to teach each other.

Isn't that interesting?

After all, we're talking here about the apostles!

So they are to be witnesses and teachers of each other.

I think that's a beautiful image.

It's something that we could also learn from.

If the apostles themselves were to be witnesses of the Resurrection,

to share with each other what they had experienced and to also teach each other,

shouldn't we also continue to do that?

We should be teaching each other in the Church and sharing with each other what we have learned.

Isn't that a nice concept?

In 1 Corinthians 15, verses 8 and 9, is Paul's testimony that

Christ was also seen by Paul, who was "one born out of due time."

And we said that this is Paul's way of saying that

he was not among the original apostles. He also was not one of The Twelve.

He never knew the earthly Christ and didn't follow His ministry,

and also that he was "the least of the apostles"

because he was "not worthy to be called an apostle"

since he had "persecuted the Church."

Chrysostom also talks about this and the way Paul expresses it,

and here are Chrysostom's thoughts: "This blessed man first

declares his own misery and then utters that lofty expression.

This then he does partly to abate the offensiveness of speaking about himself,

and partly that he might hereby recommend to their belief

what he had to say afterwards.

For he that truly states what things are discreditable to him

and conceals none of them, such as that he persecuted the Church

and that he laid waste the faith does hereby cause

the things that are honorable to him also to be above suspicion."

So first Paul talked about his faults, that he was the least of the apostles,

that he's not worthy, that he persecuted the Church,

thereby saying the truth about himself, and saying that

if he's going to say the truth about himself and the things he had done,

then they should also believe the truth of what he was saying about

his experience of the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.

Then Paul continues by saying, "But by the grace of God, I am what I am

and His grace towards me was not in vain but I labored more abundantly than they all

yet not I but the grace of God which was with me";

and in verse 11: "Therefore whether it was I or they,

so we preach and so you believed."

So Paul was not one of the original apostles but he includes his own experience of

the risen Christ, because he wants to be considered an apostle

and wants to affirm that his experience of the risen Christ is

in line with the other apostles that Christ rose from the dead.

His testimony is the same as theirs.

Maybe he wasn't one of the original, but he says, "Whether I or they, so we preach",

that is, that we preach the same thing and so you believed our testimony.

I think it's beautiful there that Paul says, "by the grace of God, I am what I am

and His grace towards me was not in vain."

This is something that we all ought to think about, because

God has also shown great grace towards us and we should be wondering whether

His grace towards us has been in vain or not.

Certainly sometimes it is, but hopefully not over the course of our lives.

But it certainly wasn't with Paul.

The grace that God showed him certainly wasn't in vain.

And Chrysostom comments about this. And here's what Chrysostom has to say:

"For if he labored more, the grace was also more.

But he enjoyed more grace because he displayed also more diligence,

and these things, when we hear, let us also make open show of our defects,

but of our excellencies let us say nothing.

Or if the opportunity force itself upon us, let us speak of them with reserve

and impute the whole to God's grace, which accordingly the apostle also does ever,

and ever putting a bad mark upon his former life,

but his after state imputing to grace, that he might signify the mercy of God

from every circumstance.

For His having saved him, such as he was, and when saved,

making him again such as he is.

Let none accordingly of those who are in sin despair

and let none of those in virtue be confident, but

let the one be exceedingly fearful and the other forward,

for neither shall any slothful man be able to abide in virtue,

nor one that is diligent be weak to escape from evil."

There are so many things mentioned in that beautiful statement of St. John Chrysostom.

First let's mention the first thing that he says; let's note this.

He says that because Paul worked harder, he also received more grace,

and the more grace he received the more diligence he showed.

Now what Chrysostom is expressing here is a very, very important concept

in Orthodox theology called synergy— that we cooperate with the grace of God,

and the more effort we put in the more God blesses us with His grace;

and it is a relationship that is constantly growing.

And how much we respond to God also affects how God responds to us,

and this is a very important concept.

Perhaps we'll have the opportunity to discuss it more in the future.

This is something which is extremely important.

It's presumed in much of Orthodox theology and certainly in our spirituality,

but how this works isn't usually spoken of directly.

It is a great mystery how it works, but we don't impute everything to our efforts

and we certainly don't say that our efforts count for nothing.

But somehow there is a relationship, a "co-working" (that's what the word "synergy" means)

between us and God.

So Chrysostom is referring to that here.

Paul received a great deal of grace but not just because of God only.

God gave him the grace but then also Paul used that grace,

he displayed more diligence, etc.

And also Chrysostom notes how Paul speaks.

He openly confesses his weaknesses, his past life,

but is reluctant to take credit for any of the good things he has done.

So there we see the humility of St. Paul, how everything bad

he attributes to his own mistakes, and yet everything good he attributes to God.

And lastly, in this quotation St. John Chrysostom reminds us that

even if we are in sin we shouldn't despair, and yet those of us who are virtuous

should not be confident and lazy, because the slothful man

will not be able to remain in virtue, nor a diligent man remain in sin.

A diligent man can "escape from evil"— that's what Chrysostom says.

Now let's read the next section of the text of 1 Corinthians 15

beginning with verse 12: "Now if Christ be preached,

that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that

there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead,

then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen,

then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.

Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God because we have testified of God that

He raised up Christ whom He did not raise if in fact the dead do not rise.

For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.

And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile,

and you are still in your sins.

Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable."

So let's begin with that first verse, "Now if Christ be preached, that

He rose from the dead, how say some among you that

there is no resurrection of the dead?"

This goes back to what I was saying before, and Chrysostom makes the same observation:

That it is very clear from this passage that the Corinthians believed that

Christ rose from the dead, and of course every time I say,

"rose from the dead," I mean in the body.

There is no such thing, and Chrysostom makes this point also,

of rising from the dead with His soul, or His spirit rises, or His spirit lives on

but not the body, because it's the body that dies.

So when we say that Christ rose from the dead, implicit within that is

the concept of the resurrection of the body— let's just make that perfectly clear.

Chrysostom also makes this point.

So it's clear that the Corinthians believed all of the apostolic witness that Christ rose,

but they did not believe that they themselves will rise.

They didn't believe in the general Resurrection.

And the reason for their disbelief was because of the prevailing conceptions

about the soul and body in Greco-Roman society.

This period of history is called the Hellenistic Age.

This means that even though the Romans were ruling the world

(this is the Roman Empire now), Greek thought ruled the thoughts of people.

Greek thought, Hellenism, had influenced the way people thought,

so the Romans adopted Greek thought, Greek philosophy,

Greek culture, the Greek gods, Greek architecture.

This is called "Hellenism.' The Hellenistic era

means society is not directly under Greek rule,

but it is so influenced by Greek thought that we call this the Hellenistic Age.

So during this period of time, Greek philosophy was very, very influential

in determining how people thought about things, what kind of presumptions operated in society.

And Greek philosophy served for them pretty much the same function

as science does for us today.

So for them an idea had to fit the concepts they had assumed as part of

their Hellenistic way of thought.

These concepts really came from Greek philosophy,

but they didn't necessarily identify it as "philosophy."

They just accepted these things as givens, as obvious.

"Of course it's a fact that the body can't rise!"

"There is no such thing— it's an obvious fact."

In the same way that we have trouble accepting an idea

if it doesn't seem to fit our norms of science or history,

if we can't find absolute proof, then we have trouble accepting it—

in those days they had the same problem.

Some day, our ideas of science will be found to be not scientific

and someday people will say, "Oh, I can't believe that

people thought this way back then, a 100 years ago or 200 years ago!"

They will have trouble understanding how we could

believe some of the things that we accept today.

But science changes; and in antiquity the reigning mode of thought

was Greek philosophy, especially Platonism,

and this very strongly influenced the Greeks' belief

that a body could not rise.

Now, Platonic philosophy was basically dualistic, and

Platonism just was the dominant way of conceiving about the natural world.

Dualism was the belief that the physical world was

an imperfect copy of the spiritual world, where everything was perfect.

The physical world, this life, was inferior to the spiritual world.

The body was inferior to the soul, because the body needs to be fed,

needs to be cleaned, it needs to rest, gets tired, it ages, it gets ill, it dies.

Meanwhile, the soul does not suffer from these kinds of ill effects.

Now, even though the Greeks believed that the body was inferior to the soul,

at the same time they were great admirers of physical fitness.

They had the Olympic games.

They had the beautiful statues as perfect physical specimens.

They admired the ability of the body to perform

and to be beautiful and healthy and all of these things.

Yet they recognize that the body is inferior to the soul because

it has certain needs: you get tired, you need to eat, you need to sleep—

all of these things.

The soul meanwhile doesn't suffer these kinds of limitations.

It is not encumbered, except by the body which houses the soul, or the mind.

So the mind can go places and do things even when the body is feeble, ill or old.

So the conception was that the body is like a prison for the soul, and when you die

it will be great, because your soul will be freed.

It is released from the constraints of the body and

it has nothing to hold it back.

So according to this view, which was the prevailing view of

the human person at the time, no one wanted a resurrection of the body!

They only wanted the soul.

They presumed that the soul lived on, but they certainly didn't want

the resurrection of the body, because then your soul would be trapped in the body again.

So this was what Paul was fighting against, and frankly

what all of the apostles had to contend with.

And so, earlier in this same book, 1 Corinthians, when Paul is talking about the crucifixion,

he says "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block for the Jews

and foolishness for the gentiles," or "the Greeks."

Why "foolishness"?

Because they couldn't believe in the resurrection of the body:

it was too foolish for them.

So when Paul went to Athens— and this story is told to us

in the book of Acts— he went to meet the Athenian council,

the rulers of the city of Athens.

They were meeting on the hill below the Acropolis, called the Areopagus.

Paul went and preached Christ to them and they were very open,

and they listened to him, and everything was going fine

until Paul mentions the Resurrection.

Then most of them started laughing at the Resurrection of Christ,

because it did not make sense. Why would you want that?

This is contrary to what they would think, that you would want a resurrected body.

Now, you didn't have to be a philosopher to operate with these kinds of presumptions.

Just as today, you don't have to be a historian or a scientist

to be influenced by that mode of thought.

Today we are always comparing beliefs and concepts to

what can be proven in science or by history, "Do we have any proof?"

We always think in terms of proof; proof of this, proof of that,

does it make sense scientifically.

So we measure everything against history and science.

But in those days they measured things against what people believed was absolute truth,

and that was not science but philosophy.

Everyone knew these concepts, they were general norms and

they were accepted in society as proven facts and almost no one questioned them.

They would think, "Well, everyone knows the soul is inferior to the body," and so on.

So these things were cultural norms. We also have our cultural norms.

They had their cultural norms and, at least in the Roman Empire, this was the norm.

Now let's move ahead a couple of centuries to the council of Nicea.

The Council of Nicea, the first Ecumenical Council,

affirmed the complete Divinity of Christ, that is that Christ was

perfect God and perfect man, fully human and fully divine, equal to the Father—

the Son was ὁμοούσιος (homooúsios); one in essence with the Father.

This was affirmed in the fourth century in 325 at the Council of Nicea.

The next question that was raised according to their minds, because

their minds were influenced by Greek philosophy, was

how the humanity and the divinity could be united in the one person of Christ,

since humanity and divinity are entirely different in their nature.

This was happening toward the end of the fourth century.

(There is a connection between this and the Resurrection, trust me.)

So at the end of the fourth century, the late 300s,

there was a bishop named Apollinaris, who said that—

in terms of the connection between the humanity and the divinity of Christ—

the Logos, that is the Son, the divinity of Christ,

had replaced the human mind or the human soul of Christ.

But this view was rejected, and the person with a very famous reply to that heresy

was St. Gregory the Theologian, whom the West calls Gregory of Nazianzus.

He said about this,

"What has not been assumed, has not been healed."

That is, if the Logos, the Son of God, did not take on human nature in its completeness,

the full human nature, if He was not incarnate as fully human with a human mind a human soul,

then our human minds and souls were not healed

by the Incarnation and the Resurrection of Christ. St. Gregory said,

"What has not been assumed, has not been healed."

He argued for the complete humanity of Christ, that Christ was fully human in every respect.

So what does this have to do with the Resurrection?

Well, it has to do with the Resurrection because to claim that only the soul of Christ rose

or the spirit of Christ and not the body— because this conflicts with our scientific

or historical sensibilities— we could apply the same point

that Gregory the Theologian had made.

Today, we have an entirely different problem from what Paul was addressing at Corinth,

and even what St. John Chrysostom was addressing when he was commenting on this chapter.

Because, you see, Paul is saying that

the Corinthians believe that Christ rose in the body.

They just didn't believe that they would rise.

But we don't have that problem.

And as a matter of fact, that was still the problem

at the time that Chrysostom was preaching and explaining this chapter,

so most of what Chrysostom says in his sermons (and he gave five sermons

on this one chapter in 1 Corinthians 15— five sermons),

was related very closely to what Paul was saying,

because Greek philosophy was operating in Chrysostom's time

and Chrysostom's culture.

Chrysostom was affirming the fact that Christ had a body, because there were many,

heresies that believed that Christ did not actually have a physical human body.

Today we don't have that problem.

Today, just about everybody believes that Christ existed as a human person,

but many people do not believe that He was God.

And today we also have the opposite problem of what the Corinthians had, because

the Corinthians believed that Christ rose in the body

but that they would not.

We have the opposite problem because many people,

including people who identify themselves as Christians, do not believe

that Christ rose from the dead in the body.

They say He rose in spirit; the apostles remembered Him,

maybe the soul rose but not the body, because

this conflicts with our ideas of science and history.

So we could apply the same rationale that St. Gregory had made when he said,

"What has not been assumed, has not been healed."

We can say, "What has not been raised has not been healed."

When the Logos was incarnate (λόγος; lógos is the Greek word for "Word";

that comes from the first chapter of the Gospel of John),

when the Word or the Son of God was incarnate,

He became fully human with a human soul and a body

in order to redeem, to sanctify, to elevate our human nature.

All of it! The whole of our human nature.

That's why he was incarnate as a whole person, an entirely human being,

he was hoomoousious with us, one in essence with us in our humanity,

the way in His divinity He was one in essence with the Father.

Now, if the body of Christ did not rise, then the whole man was not saved by Christ.

But we affirm continually in the life of the Church

that the whole person is sanctified by the grace of God.

So when we receive Holy Unction, it is for the healing of body and soul.

The whole person is also sanctified by Holy Communion.

Holy Communion is sanctification of the soul and the body.

We are united - body and soul to Christ through Communion.

When we baptize someone, we immerse the body.

Why do we do that rather than just having someone assent to certain beliefs

and then just call it baptism?

Or, you know, just say the Creed and you're a member of the Church.

No.

We immerse the body, because it's the temple of the Holy Spirit,

and the body is sanctified in baptism.

The whole person is healed, the whole person is saved.

Why?

Because the whole person is a creation of God,

and therefore the whole person must rise.

It's inconceivable that only the soul would rise—

either only Christ's soul or just ours.

So why should only the soul rise?

Because if you say that then you're suggesting that

only the soul was healed and the rest of us wasn't healed.

But Adam and Eve did not simply sin in the soul, they sinned in the body too.

They took the fruit and they ate it.

That was a deed. It was not just a rebellion in the mind.

And therefore the effects of the Fall of mankind were suffered by the whole man.

Not only did Adam and Eve's souls suffer, but there were physical effects from the Fall.

Now they had to work for their food,

"by the sweat of your brow shall you earn your bread."

Now Eve would experience pain in childbirth. Now women would be dominated by men.

Now there would be illness in the world, there would be death, etc.

So the effects of the Fall affect both the soul and the body, and therefore

it was imperative that Christ be incarnate as a full human being

with a human soul and a human body, and it was imperative that

He rise both in the soul and in the body.

The human being was created by God as what we call a "psychosomatic whole."

Either the whole thing rises, or nothing rises.

To deny the physical resurrection of Christ is to deny the humanity of Christ.

Can you see that?

So it's very important that when we talk about these things

we understand what we are talking about.

We can't simply speculate about such things.

We have to realize that to deny the physical resurrection

is to deny the humanity of Christ and therefore to deny our salvation.

There are consequences to what we say.

So it's important that when we think about these things,

that we should think about them, we should learn about them,

we should study theology.

But we should not engage in discussions on theological matters

or give our opinions if we don't know what we're talking about,

because this is not a pursuit to be entered into lightly,

like "armchair" theologians. This is not a matter of speculation.

We can't pick and choose and say, "Well, I'm a Christian but

I don't believe that Christ rose in the body."

This is serious business, because doctrine really matters;

there are many ideas that seemed logical at first sight,

many heresies which seemed to make sense when you first heard them, but they're heresies.

And a denial of the Resurrection is one such thing.

It has implications for our salvation, and if you don't understand that

then you really have no business expressing your theological views, because

if you lead someone astray with your argument then you are in fact responsible for that person.

So if Christ did not rise, then we also will not rise.

And if we cannot rise, then Christ also did not rise.

To deny our future resurrection is to deny Christ's resurrection.

And conversely, to deny Christ's resurrection is to deny our resurrection

and to deny eternal life itself.

I think this is probably a good place to stop.

There is much more to say about this, and I want you to understand that next time,

when we continue,

I'm going to continue along these lines on some of the theology of the Church.

I hope it is ok with you that we talk with you about the theology.

I think it's important to say what else Chrysostom has to say about

the theological effects of the denial of the Resurrection,

and we will also talk about some of the other parts of 1 Corinthians 15,

which are very interesting; for example, what Paul has to say about Christ

being the "first fruits" of the Resurrection.

Why does he say this?

Also Paul mentions a very peculiar thing when he talks about being "baptized for the dead."

What did Chrysostom have to say about this?

So I hope that next time we will complete our series by finishing up

with Paul and Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 15.

There's a number of very interesting issues to discuss next week,

and we will continue then with our discussion on 1 Corinthians.

But for now, let's close with our prayer.

"Christ is Risen from the dead, trampling down death by death

and upon those in the tombs bestowing life".

Ἀληθῶς ἀνέστη ὁ Κύριος! (Alithós anésti o Kýrios!)

Truly the Lord is Risen!

For more infomation >> 15 Christ is Risen! Part 6. Who was the first witness? The Resurrection of the Body. - Duration: 48:15.

-------------------------------------------

Schau mal was ist bassiert wenn du dein Finger im Kreis legst - Duration: 1:45.

For more infomation >> Schau mal was ist bassiert wenn du dein Finger im Kreis legst - Duration: 1:45.

-------------------------------------------

What Will Be Was Not - Duration: 42:55.

For more infomation >> What Will Be Was Not - Duration: 42:55.

-------------------------------------------

10 years ago, the iPhone was launched! - Duration: 1:22.

For more infomation >> 10 years ago, the iPhone was launched! - Duration: 1:22.

-------------------------------------------

Trump Mocks Mika Brzezinski; Says She Was 'Bleeding Badly From a Face-Lift' - Duration: 2:36.

Trump Mocks Mika Brzezinski; Says She Was 'Bleeding Badly From a Face-Lift'

President Trump faced a swift and bipartisan backlash on Thursday after he assailed the television host Mika Brzezinski in unusually personal and crude terms,

the latest of a string of escalating attacks by the president on the national news media.

Shortly before 9 a.m., as Ms. Brzezinski's MSNBC show "Morning Joe" was ending, Mr. Trump used Twitter to taunt Ms. Brzezinski and her co-host,

WASHINGTON — President Trump lashed out Thursday at the appearance and intellect of Mika Brzezinski, a co-host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe,"

drawing condemnation from his fellow Republicans and reigniting the controversy over his attitudes toward women that nearly derailed his candidacy last year.

Mr. Trump's invective threatened to further erode his support from Republican women and independents,

both among voters and on Capitol Hill, where he needs negotiating leverage for the stalled Senate health care bill.

The president described Ms. Brzezinski as "low I.Q. Crazy Mika" and claimed in a series of Twitter posts that she had been "bleeding badly from a face-lift" during a social gathering at Mr. Trump's resort in Florida

around New Year's Eve. The White House did not explain what had prompted the outburst, but a spokeswoman said Ms. Brzezinski deserved a rebuke because of her show's harsh stance on Mr. Trump.

The tweets ended five months of relative silence from the president on the volatile subject of gender,

reintroducing a political vulnerability: his history of demeaning women for their age, appearance and mental capacity.

"My first reaction was that this just has to stop, and I was disheartened because I had hoped the personal, ad hominem attacks had been left behind, that we were past that," Senator Susan Collins,

a moderate Republican from Maine who is a crucial holdout on the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, said in an interview.

"I don't think it directly affects the negotiation on the health care bill, but it is undignified — it's beneath a president of the United States and just so contrary to the way we expect a president to act,"

she said. "People may say things during a campaign, but it's different when you become a public servant. I don't see it as undermining his ability to negotiate legislation, necessarily, but I see it as embarrassing to our country."

Ms. Brzezinski responded by posting on Twitter a photograph of a box of Cheerios with the words "Made for Little Hands," a reference to a longstanding insult about the size of the president's hands.

MSNBC said in a statement, "It's a sad day for America when the president spends his time bullying, lying and spewing petty personal attacks instead of doing his job."

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét