Hannah Gibson

No it doesn’t. Ephesians 2:8-10 teaches we are saved by Grace through faith alone, not by works. James 2:14-26 talks about works coming from saving faith. He clarifies that, whilst we are saved by faith, good works come from that. That’s actually the beauty of finding God. We see the bad that we do and we choose to be better because we have been given the gift of eternal life. It cannot be earned because we all fall short.

@TalksWithHannah @WesleyLHuff Scripture teaches the exact opposite of what you’re saying.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, so that no one may boast.

@EstieMaddie Thank you for sharing this. So heartwarming 🩷

🥹 THIS IS WHY IM PRO-LIFE ✝️ BABIES ARE A PRECIOUS GIFT FROM GOD.

Actually brought tears to my eyes. Life is such a beautiful gift from God, and what a blessing to be able to share it with your husband. You can feel the love coming from all these people. Amazing 🩷

@DavidJHarrisJr Great clip. I really love the soft, respectful, and loving approach these women have. I hope to be more like them in future in my discussions.

AMAZING: Muslim women learn about salvation through Jesus Christ. 🙏🏾 We’ll never be enough on our own, and that’s exactly why we need Jesus. His grace covers what we could never earn. Such a powerful exchange. You can see the seeds being planted. 🥹👏🏾

I love their explanations here. I was having a discussion with a Catholic a few days ago about works. They were Adamant we are saved by works and faith. I tried to explain that works do not save us, that works actually come from being saved, and that having the choice is actually really important. I hope that I am able to be more like the women in this video in how I compose myself and talk to people who might disagree.

I’m going to respond to both comments here. My response hasn’t displayed arrogance. It has displayed humility. I haven’t claimed to know God’s hidden will, I’m submitting to what God has revealed. I agree that we cannot know God’s inner essence apart from grace. That’s exactly why I’m cautious about doctrines God has not explicitly revealed. The question isn’t whether God could do something, but whether He has told us He did. When you say ‘We cannot ignore the teachings of the Church taught for two millennia’ you are basically saying The Church has divine authority to define doctrine, That authority guarantees doctrinal continuity and truth, Therefore, disagreement equals rebellion against Jesus. This actually makes Scripture no longer the final authority and places the Church higher than the word of God. Now to address the use of Matthew 16:18 ‘The gates of hell will not prevail against it’. This verse is misplaced here. Jesus promises his Church will not be destroyed and death and evil will not extinguish his people. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist then. Jesus is not saying Church leaders will never err, Later doctrines will always be correct, or that Institutional structures are protected from corruption. If he had said that then his rebukes of Pharisees would make no sense, Paul’s warnings about false teachers from within the church (Acts 20:30) would be pointless, and the letters to churches in Revelation warning of apostasy would be contradictory. Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16:18 are tied directly to Peter’s confession of who Jesus is, not to the creation of a future institutional hierarchy. Peter is commended because God revealed the truth to him. If another disciple had confessed the same thing, the point would still stand. The Church is built on the revelation of Jesus Christ, not on a man elevated above the others. Scripture repeatedly warns us not to go beyond what is written, and it also warns that false teaching can arise from within the Church itself. Trusting Scripture as the final authority is not claiming to know God’s mind, it’s submitting to the limits God Himself has set.

@TalksWithHannah @MROmarketplace @EstieMaddie @NoblePhares I just want to point out that it is vitally important to remember that none of us can KNOW the mind of God. We can discuss, we can theorize, but don’t let arrogance get the better of you by claiming God must be “so” because that is how YOU see it.

🤯 THE MOST MIND BLOWING EXPLANATION OF JESUS AND THE ARK OF THE COVENANT! 🙏🏼 JESUS.

Questioning a doctrine is not limiting God’s power at all. God could have done many things He did not choose to reveal or do. The question is not what God could do, but what He has told us He did. Scripture never teaches that Mary was born without original sin, nor that God requires sinlessness before entering humanity. In fact, the New Testament consistently teaches that God’s presence sanctifies what it enters. I’m not questioning God, I’m testing doctrine by Scripture, which Scripture itself commands us to do.

@TalksWithHannah @MROmarketplace @EstieMaddie @NoblePhares So you are limiting God’s power then? Because if God wills that Mary be born without sin to use as a pure vessel for our Savior, who are you to question Him?

I understand that Catholic theology explains the Immaculate Conception as a preemptive application of Jesus’ merits, but the question isn’t whether God could do this, it’s whether Scripture says He did, which it doesn’t. The Bible literally warns about adding and taking away from Scripture. You started your reply by telling me I’m wrong in a number of regards and then proceed to only talk about one of my points. If you are going to tell me I am wrong about things, at least give your points like I did. I’m always open to discussion. The New Testament consistently identifies Christ Himself as the fulfillment of the Ark, the mercy seat, the sacrifice, and the priesthood. See Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9–10. Hebrews explicitly argues that the old system of sacred objects, sacred spaces, and restricted access has ended, not been reconfigured. While Mary is blessed and chosen, Scripture never presents her as a sinless vessel required for God’s presence, nor does it teach that grace must preserve someone from sin in order for God to dwell with them. In the New Covenant, God sanctifies by His presence. He doesn’t wait for pre-sanctification. For that reason, I don’t see biblical grounds for identifying Mary as the New Ark or for extending Ark theology to the Eucharist and tabernacle.

Wrong, in a number of regards. We do indeed believe Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin in view of the merits of Christ. It does not in any way undermine Divine Grace- because of her unique relationship with Christ that no other human being had- she received said grace at her Conception.

Mary was chosen by God & blessed but she is not the new ark. You say that Mary was prepared as a worthy dwelling & Catholics are taught about the immaculate conception, which says that Mary was born without the stain of original sin & lived a sinless life even though Mary herself said God was her saviour, not to mention nobody is born without the stain of original sin. These ideas actually undermine grace. There’s also no biblical rule that God can only dwell in something already sinless. In fact, the Bible actually says that Jesus sanctifies anything he enters & God’s holiness cleanses, not that something must be cleansed or sanctified before he can enter. This also ties in with your question, though seeming rhetorical, about why would God do less for the new covenant than he did when he prepared the Ark for the old covenant. They are actually fundamentally different things, which is made clear in Hebrews. The old covenant emphasised separation, fear, & distance. The new covenant emphasises access, mercy, & nearness. God no longer dwells in objects, he dwells in people. If Mary had to be sinless to carry Jesus then every believer must also be sinless because 1 Corinthians 6:19 says ‘Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit’. You would also do well to read Hebrews 9:11 - ‘Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, not through the greater and more perfect tabernacle made with hands’. This also leads me into your point about the Eucharist & Tabernacle. What you are basically claiming is: The Ark of the Covenant physically contained God’s presence. Mary carried Jesus physically, therefore Mary equals the New Ark. The Ark was kept in the Holy of Holies. The Eucharist is Jesus physically present, therefore the tabernacle (where the Eucharist is kept) equals New Holy of Holies thus meaning Catholic churches contain God’s physical presence the way the Temple once did. This is being used to justify real, localised divine presence, sacred spaces, priestly mediation & sacramental grace. If anything, this would point to regression, not the new ark. The old ark had 3 specific functions which were: 1 - It symbolised God’s throne (mercy seat). 2 - It functioned under a covenant of distance and fear. 3 - It was tied to blood sacrifice & restricted access. The Ark was dangerous because sin had not yet been dealt with permanently. The Bible actually tells us what the new Ark is, & it isn’t Mary. It is actually Jesus himself. Romans 3:25 ‘God presented Christ as a hilastērion (mercy seat)’. So biblically: The Ark was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, The mercy seat was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, The sacrifice was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, & the priesthood was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Your claim that ‘The Ark held the tangible signs of God’s presence… The Eucharist (housed in the tabernacle) is the real, physical presence of Jesus’ actually assumes 3 things the New Testament never teaches. 1 - that Jesus’ physical body is locally present on earth. Catholicism requires Jesus’ body to be in heaven & on thousands of altars simultaneously. The New Testament says that Jesus’ body is in heaven, & his presence with believers is by the Spirit, not by relocation of His body. 2 - That sacred space continues under the New Covenant. Jesus actually ends sacred geography as seen in John 4-21:24 & confirmed in Acts 17:24 & 1 Corinthians 3:16. So, under the New Covenant God does not dwell in objects or in buildings. God dwells in people. To say ‘the tabernacle is the new Holy of Holies’ actually reverses the entire direction of the New Testament. 3 - That the Ark model still governs access to God. The Ark system said: stay away, only priests, only once a year, & fear death. The gospel says: draw near, all believers, at all times, & with confidence. So when Catholicism reintroduces sacred objects, restricted access, mediating priests, & physical loci of grace, It’s not ‘continuity’ it’s regression. So no Mary isn’t the new ark.

Mary is the New Ark- full stop. The old Ark carried the Word of God written on stone, while Mary carried the Word of God made flesh. The old Ark held manna from heaven- Mary then carried the true Bread from heaven. The old Ark carried the staff of the high priest, Mary the carried the eternal High Priest. That’s why Scripture shows striking parallels: 📜The Ark was overshadowed by God’s glory (Exodus 40:34). 📜Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). 📜David danced before the Ark (2 Samuel 6:14). 📜John the Baptist leaped in Elizabeth’s womb (Luke 1:41). 📜The Ark stayed three months in Judah. 📜Mary stayed three months with Elizabeth. Mary was not chosen at random- she was prepared. Not because she needed to earn God’s favor, but because God was preparing a worthy dwelling for His Son. It’s not about “worshiping” Mary. It is about recognizing how seriously God takes holiness. If God prepared a holy Ark for His presence in the Old Covenant, why would He do less for the New Covenant? The Typological connection between the Eucharist and The Ark is clear- the Ark held the tangible signs of God’s presence in the Holy of Holies. The Eucharist (housed in the tabernacle) is the real, physical presence of Jesus in Catholic Churches.

What a great discussion here. Nobody should have to pay for someone else’s crimes. Every life created deserves to be born. It’s easy to say ‘my body my choice’ until you are actually confronted face to face with the reality of that.

Yes!

This is how Christians should respond when Jews try to quote our Scriptures to us.

No one here is saying the disciples didn’t struggle. Scripture is very clear that they did. The concern being raised is about how that struggle is framed when fictional elements are added, and whether that shifts the theological emphasis of the Gospel accounts. Also, calling people ‘delusional’ isn’t a counterargument. If you’re claiming scholarly credibility, it would be more helpful to engage the actual point being made rather than resorting to personal attacks like you did on my other post.

@ethereansinfo @TalksWithHannah @trad_west_ Quite the opposite, you are delusional for assuming that the disciples never struggled with anything. The text explicitly says they all struggled with things.

Jesus loves you frens

I’m not virtue signalling actually, and I’m not saying people shouldn’t watch it. I explicitly said I think it’s good that it brings people to God. My concern is about how Scripture is adapted. Thomas’s doubt in the Bible is about faith versus sight. By adding a fictional love interest and tying his doubt primarily to grief, it changes the theological emphasis of his struggle, which is what I said in my original comment about it changing the dynamic of his struggle with Jesus’s resurrection as people will now link it to Ramah. Artistic licence isn’t automatically wrong, but when it reshapes core biblical themes, it’s reasonable for Christians to be cautious. Scripture itself warns us to be careful about adding to or altering what God has revealed. You say God would stop it airing but, just because God doesn’t stop something, doesn’t mean it’s good. There are lessons for us in this life. There is literally evil everywhere and false teachings. Galatians 1:6-8 warns against altering the gospel, even subtly. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 talks about people preferring teachings that suit emotions rather than truth. Deuteronomy 4:2 “Do not add to what I command you”. Revelation 22:18-19 is a warning against adding to Scripture. You can appreciate the show and acknowledge that discernment still matters. There are multiple Bible verses telling us to be discerning about false teachings and things being added to the Bible.

No, there is absolutely no issue with it. It's not possible to make a TV show just on what is in the NT there is not enough details etc. You don't know if Thomas did or did not have a wife. It is an example to show people why good things happen or bad things happen in some cases. If God wanted people to not see the chosen, or if He wanted the show to be stopped, do you think it would be airing? Or do you think He needs you, on here complaining on Twitter? When is the last time you've gone out and helped some people in need? Sitting here virtue signaling about "keep the scriptures pure!!" Go do something

@ethereansinfo @trad_west_ I agree with you. I know Thomas struggled with Jesus’s resurrection and wanted to see proof, but this changes the whole dynamic of everything. I actually struggled to watch it for a while because of that.

@trad_west_ The Chosen is a good show but this really pissed me off. Ramah was not a real person, Thomas did not have these struggles, this whole story is fabricated and people who don't know any better believe it is true. Do not fabricate or change God's story!

This is honestly disgusting. I also saw a video a few months ago where a woman was saying her 1 and a half year old daughter identified as a boy. Mothers are supposed to protect their children, not bring harm to them. You cannot change your gender. You cannot change your children’s gender. These people should not be allowed to have children.

Piers is dead on with this one. This makes me sick.

This man gets it. So many women think men just make the decisions that benefit them and that their role is easy. It’s not any of those things. So many women would sit back and watch their man fail on a decision they didn’t agree with just so they could sit there and declare that they were right and they should be the ones in charge. It takes a true husband to make hard decisions for his family and a true wife to support him regardless of her stance on it. It shows actual love and commitment to the person you chose to marry, and it’s such a beautiful thing to see.

So many times I have been through things and I felt alone and I didn’t understand why those things were happening, but later on in life it made sense and I understood. I’ve learned to trust God in times of uncertainty because he always gets me through things, whether I felt him there or not.

Wise words. Applicable whether you are religious or not.