Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Taking the Monkey by ServantofJesus Taking the Monkey by ServantofJesus
Just to note, it was actually a pun on the phrase "Taking the Mickey" there ;)

*update* For the sake of argument, I've changed the word "primate" to "animal" - and hidden the comments relevant to it being called a "primate" so as not to be deceptive.


*update 2018* I've decided to re-do this using a quote I've found from an Evolutionary zoologist Desmond Morris' colourful expression of describing us. It's what he called us, not me!

Included in this update is a slew of articles from one of my all-time favourite sites, Crev.info

Misreading Evidence for Early Man


Remember, we are entitled to *Free speech* on here! :nod:

*edit* Just to note, I would consider 'animals' to be the "beasts of the earth" [eg. Genesis 1:30], whereas humans are created in the image of God - no other creature on the planet is created in His image, only Man. '45bSo it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual."' [1 Corinthians 15:44b-45]


Anyway, I took this photo when I went to Knowsley Safari Park [near Liverpool, UK], where we went through a monkey area - it was GREAT fun! =D

Here's the Safari Park's website: knowsley.com/s_park/default.as… :)

Genesis 1:26-27 

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:7 

Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


*FULL VIEW* please :thanks:
Add a Comment:
 
:icontruth-lover3712:
Truth-lover3712 Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2018  Hobbyist General Artist
Ape-ocalypse :trollface:
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2018
Lol, good one :p

Teaching Evolution in church would be an ape-ocrisy [hypocrisy] (hmm, don't think it's as good as yours :p ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )
Reply
:icontruth-lover3712:
Truth-lover3712 Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2018  Hobbyist General Artist
XD thanks

Errhmm...maybe not AS good, but I get what you mean.
Seeing as Hypocrisy can go to Hippocrisy (Hippo), why not Ape-ocrisy? 

So, still did a good try at least.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2018
Hmm, you've just reminded me, I don't think I've ever taken a photo of a hippo before.

Now that's gotten to make me think of a 'hippo doctor', which lives by the hippo-cratic oath XD 

Boy this conversation is getting.... odd, lol :lol:
Reply
:icontruth-lover3712:
Truth-lover3712 Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2018  Hobbyist General Artist
Hahahaha :XD: Well, odd, but those are sometimes the best conversations haha
Reply
:iconmenslady125:
menslady125 Featured By Owner Sep 27, 2018  Hobbyist Filmographer
Evolution is a BIG lie.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Sep 28, 2018
Indeed it certainly is!
Reply
:iconneaganan:
Neaganan Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
I do believe in a higher being and I 100% believe Jesus has walked the earth, since there has been proof.
You should know my dear friend, that humans did not evolve from monkeys or any other animal, since we are our own species

I completely respect the fact that you might be a creationist but I happen to believe in both.
What if God created humans the way we are and he created evolution

See it like this: People who have a darker skin most likely live, have lived, or their ancestors have lived in warmer lands, their dark skin protects them from the sun and the heath.
People with a whiter skin tend to live in colder places, because (in most countries) we don't need to protect ourselves from the sun.
If you have an African American person and a Caucasian person on the same beach, the chances are the Caucasian has to put sun screen on them, and the African American person most likely does not
(I'm speaking of a general public here, not every person has to be like this)

It is proven if a person with a dark skin decides to move to a colder place and he/she gets children, those children get children etc with the same race, they still will most likely get lighter and lighter skin.
The same story for a whiter person who moves to a warmer place but still gets children with people with the same type of skin, they will eventually get darker skin to protect themselves from the sun.


People may ask: But why are there so many Caucasians in hot countries like Australia and so many African Americans in cold countries in Europe?
Because evolution is very, very slow and it has to take at least 10 generations of the same race to show a slight difference.
There has been a video about a theory that at some point on this planets lifetime, everybody will be the same race.

The same story goes with any type of animal. Animals change themselves and their behavior on where they live and in what type of condition.
For example: Out of a recent research it is shown that wild animals like foxes are getting more and more used to cities, thus they are getting greyer fur to blend in and new hunting techniques.

Even if a person learns something, their brain slightly changes a form. You can see that in a brain scan (with all the moving parts and bits)
That would technically count as evolution.

I'm not here to proof anyone good or bad but how lovely would it be to believe in either both or not trying to convince people otherwise, since a ton of people believe in evolution and a ton of people in creationism.
There is almost no chance in changing someone's mind.


Also, first person who starts calling me a racist because I took Caucasian and African American people as an example, will get instant blocked.
Talking about race does not make you in any shape of form a racist. It's a proven fact about the changing skin color and that darker skin protects you from the sun.

I think it's racist to separate black and white people, if the only thing that really separates us is the climate we live in that causes our skin to be different coloured. 
Wow, a person with a slightly different tint of skin, lets make a big drama out of this.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2018
"I do believe in a higher being and I 100% believe Jesus has walked the earth, since there has been proof.

Huh? I never said you believed Jesus didn't exist, I said Jesus knew Adam & Eve were real!

You should know my dear friend, that humans did not evolve from monkeys or any other animal, since we are our own species"

You have literally just contradicted yourself there. Your whole previous block of text was all about how we "evolved" from other, "earlier" hominid life forms, and now you're telling me we are our own species?! Make up your mind, please!

"Dark skin... light skin... etc."

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Evolution whatsoever. If you knew even a *tiny* bit about biology, you would realise you're referring to a skin pigment called Melanin (to which the term malignant melanoma - or skin cancer - comes from, which is a type of cancer that develops from the pigment-containing cells known as melanocytes in the skin). Basically, how much melanin you have in your skin determines the colour of your skin. Simples.

That's not evolution, that's variation within the human [or animal] genome. FYI, Adam & Eve were most likely middle-brown, as all types of skin colour can come from that.
"‘Melanin’ actually comprises two pigments, which also influence hair and eye colour. Eumelanin is dark brown, whereas pheomelanin is reddish in colour. People tan when sunlight stimulates eumelanin production. Redheads, who are often unable to develop a protective tan, have a high proportion of pheomelanin. They have probably inherited a defective gene which makes their pigment cells ‘unable to respond to normal signals that stimulate eumelanin production’.4 Research has implicated variants of the melanocortin-1-receptor gene (MCR1) in this inability to tan, which also relates to the production of freckles in childhood and photodamage to the skin that manifests in adulthood.5 When exposed to UV light, and in the absence of sufficient eumelanin, pheomelanin produces free radicals that may cause skin damage, including cancer.6
~source
The same story goes with any type of animal. Animals change themselves and their behavior on where they live and in what type of condition.
For example: Out of a recent research it is shown that wild animals like foxes are getting more and more used to cities, thus they are getting greyer fur to blend in and new hunting techniques.

Again, that's not evolution, that's aminals adapting to whatever climate they are in. In fact, the changing of the fur colour is also due to the variety and amount of pigment within its fur colour, allowing it to adapt to its surroundings.

Genetics is conservative, NOT creative. The experiments with fruit flies prove this: no matter how many generations they put them through, a fruit fly is still a fruit fly!

Even if a person learns something, their brain slightly changes a form. You can see that in a brain scan (with all the moving parts and bits)
That would technically count as evolution.


Even evolutionists themselves would disagree with you on this (unless you use the most extreme wooden-literal definition of "evolution" purely meaning "change", then in that context its definition would have lost all of its meaning)
Reply
:iconlifeinjesus:
LifeinJesus Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2018
2 Tim 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

That is what I desire for all the evolutionists on here, and for all the Christians who face the mockery of the evolutionists, that we (the Christians) wouldn't quarrel with them, but correct them in humility, and that they (the evolutionists) may be granted repentance by God that they may know the truth, that they were created in God's image, have sinned, and need the redemption of Jesus.
Reply
:iconmynameisnotdave23:
mynameisnotdave23 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
...
Reply
:iconretizent:
Retizent Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
LOL!!!:laughing:
Reply
:icondeinonychusempire:
DeinonychusEmpire Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
That's right folks, rather let the Bible make DIRT out of you!
Reply
:iconpeepsicle:
Peepsicle Featured By Owner May 7, 2012  Student Digital Artist
I'd like to point out how much less agnostic/athiestic propaganda there is than christian or muslim or mormon or whatever you wish propaganda. Don't you think that people should be able to come to whatever means of coping with humanity they want, without biased messages being shoved in their faces?
I respect religion (to an extent) and I'm glad it's around to promote good nature in people, but the thing I always found disturbing is the blind faith people have in something with so many flaws. It's fine if you want to believe it on your own by yourself of your own volition(because that's none of my business), but when you push it onto others and offend others by asserting that the religion you believe in is FACT, that's where I draw the line. I kind of find this picture offensive, if not at least a little bit unnerving simply because its bad propaganda(like almost all propaganda is.) The idea that we evolved from simpler life forms doesn't change how we are today. If anyone is actually repulsed at the though of having evolved from a primate-like species millions of years ago than they need to get their priorities straight.

Oh also it's generally a good idea to keep your mind open to all schools of thought, not just the one you've been following the longest. I had a "discussion" with a respected peer about abortion that turned into her outright name calling me. You really can't discuss or debate anything if you refuse to believe in the possibility that the opposition is correct, or at least respect that the opposition believes what they are fighting for is correct but not a FACT. Sometimes I think people have a hard time deciphering what is opinion and what is fact...(that being said I have no interest in creating any athiest or agnostic propaganda whatsoever, because that would mean demeaning the opposition, which is usually what propaganda does, and I have nothing to gain by openly disrespecting any religion.)

Anyway, just thought I'd put my two cents in. This was not meant to be a personal attack, but merely a display of my thoughts on christianity and propaganda in general. Thank you for reading and hopefully you will have a response soon. (But you know you don't have to respond. I just felt like discussing this with someone and I stumbled across your gallery.)
Reply
:iconyoyo-rozzlo:
yoyo-rozzlo Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2011
My mother told me that i should be exposed to many major religions before i was able to pick one. My dad is Roman Catholic, so i learned christianity pretty fast. I love learning about heaven, hell, and the angels. My mother made me read Genisis, and the rest of the bible i learned in church. My best friends are jews, so they taught me judiasm, and my mother let me read buddhist books for fun.
I was always confused by god and such. I was yanked out of bible school becuase i said that there were certain breeds of lizards that could run on water, and i asked why god let little babies from good families die and why he let little girls get raped ( iw as 6 at the time) he would remain quiet or say "it's all apart of god's plan".

I say no. there cant be any god if he let my parents divorce when they were great people. My dad went to confessional and my mom did, too. But they split and my dad lives in shame because he is no longer catholic. All of his family died when he was little. His brother, sister, father, and his mother suffers from alltzimers. How's that for god? Me and my sister were apart of a set of triplets but our third died at three. Yeah, thanks, god.

But no more sappy things, kay? I went camping with some creationist kids, and they were freaky. I love fossils, and at my cristian preschool every two months we would go on a field trip to go fossil hunting. Trilobites were fun to catch, and i told my creationist friends at camp that they were millions of years old. (you know, over 5 forms of testing the age of fossils shows that) and they said that the earth is not that old. wth? they say they all died in the great flood. /*cough**cough* they were aquatic animals*cough**cough* I just played along. I learned that dinosaurs are still alive. psh.

I think that the bible was a book to unite people at war through a feeling that "if you're good you'll go to heaven and everything will be great" or "If you're bad God'll getcha!" Backthen it worked. Now it just makes people hold back progression.
Heck, the only reason war exists is religion.

"If you fly a plane into this building it'll make god realy happy!"

or "God doesn't care about those silly brown people, you can make money off of them!"

or even "God says you shouldn't have your own country!" as compared to "Your god is wrong! Our god is the right one and wants us to have our own country!"

psh psh psh.

I have more if you care to listen. But i bet you'l just give me some bible-bologna.

we're animals. there's proff. and if we found out earlier we wouldn't have as many problems as we do now.
Reply
:iconcarolina22:
Carolina22 Featured By Owner May 29, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
this is cool! nicely put! :clap:
Reply
:iconwingdiamond:
WingDiamond Featured By Owner May 15, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Too Late!
Reply
:iconvarjokani:
Varjokani Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2011  Professional Digital Artist
Hahahhahaha. :D I m just so agree with that. :)
Reply
:iconvectomon:
Vectomon Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2010
Ah, please remember that evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, but it stated that they had a common ancestor. There's a big difference.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2010
That was not the intent of this deviation. If you noticed, I never used the word "monkey" to describe what evolutionists believe are our "common ancestors".

The picture of the monkey and the rest of it are just puns on the phrase "you won't make a monkey out of me", yet at the same time tying it in to evolution - that believes man are nothing but animals only.

And that we are classed in the 'animalia' taxology, yet we are not completely animal (as used by the definition of 'beast' in my artists comments) - we are the only creatures made in God's image; there's a big difference in such classification itself, also.
Reply
:iconvectomon:
Vectomon Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2010
Ah, I see. I didn't realize there was such expression.

I a agree with you on the "not animals only" part, but obviously not in the same sense.
Reply
:iconquill-stroke:
Quill-Stroke Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
So...We just hopped out of the ground like Gnomes...

...

Why in the name of the Goddess do so many Christians believe word for word the story of Creation? If you give me a good enough answer then I'll consider it...
Reply
:iconchopsilverblood:
ChopSilverBlood Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2010
Lol, Nice Strawman ;)
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2010
You'll have to explain that out to us now; the other Evolutionists on here don't seem to think so (or haven't mentioned it like, ever).
Reply
:iconchopsilverblood:
ChopSilverBlood Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2010
......i don't follow.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2010
Basically, tell us why you think this is a Straw Man
Reply
:iconchopsilverblood:
ChopSilverBlood Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2010
"Don't let Evoluton make a monkey out of you". Who can take that seriously? XD It's funny.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2010
You make quite an ironic statement there ;)
Reply
:iconchopsilverblood:
ChopSilverBlood Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2010
....How?
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2010
I'll leave that for you to figure out =D
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconcubicdemigod:
cubicdemigod Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2010
If you asked God to create a stone he couldn't lift, what would happen?
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2010
Wow, this is a seriously old [and flawed] argument - the very question is a self-contradiction at best; It's what's called a Fallacy of contradictory premises.

It's like saying what's on this brief list of some things God cannot do, based on His other attributes:

1. cease to exist – a being whose very nature is being cannot cease to be; that’s logically impossible
2. love evil – a being who is all-good cannot love evil; that’s logically impossible
3. make a copy of himself – God is infinite, and two infinite beings cannot exist; that’s logically impossible
4. change his nature - an unchanging (immutable) being cannot change; that’s logically impossible

So why can’t he make a rock so big he can’t lift it? Simple. God is infinite, and there can only be one infinite being (see number 3 above). If there were two infinite beings, then neither would really be infinite because they would each be limited by the other. But an infinite being has no limits, so they can’t both be infinite.

If a rock is created that cannot be moved by an infinite being, then that rock must be infinite. But if we have an infinite being and an infinite rock, we have two infinite beings. That is, as we said a moment ago, a logical impossibility.
Reply
:iconcubicdemigod:
cubicdemigod Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2010
Hence, omnipotency cannot be attained, because it is based in the possibility of infinite creation. According to your premise three, infinite cannot create infinite. My point was beyond your explanation, thanks

I liked your condescending tone, also. It reminds me of all pastors I met, lovely aura of enlightnment. They all know so much.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2011
(sorry for the late reply)
There's something much more obviously wrong with the question "If you asked God to create a stone he couldn't lift, what would happen?" Are you suggesting God is limited by gravity in the first place? (which is the assumption in that loaded question) - which by the way, is a very earth-bound, small-minded view of an eternal, almighty Creator. For a start, there's no weight in space; but even then, of course, God is not confined to the physics of the earth, or this universe anyway. So for the second time around, your said question is still completely illogical (being based on an illogical assumption) to begin with.
Reply
:iconcubicdemigod:
cubicdemigod Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2011
What the question implies is "God, taking into account the notion of Earth gravity, can you create a stone that, according to the "laws" of gravity, you cannot lift?". It is not a matter of god being bound to gravity or not, it's the question that is limited to that point. You can go around god not being limited by this or that but, if inside those rules, something cannot be attained, than He is not omnipotent, hence the concept itself becomes obsolete.

Also, if your answer is going to go around the thing that "god is beyond our knowledge, there are flaws in science, blah blah", don't bother; that's vague gibberish
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2011
You're again using fallacious logic to base an already fallacious argument. What you're suggesting is like asking if God can draw a square using only 3 sides; you can't use an argument based on this broken logic.

I would recommend reading this 2-part article showing 'Logic Proves The Existence of God'
part 1: [link] part 2: [link]
Reply
:iconthaddman:
thaddman Featured By Owner Oct 30, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
i love these pictures i love the saying "did Darwin make a monkey out of you?" the best
Reply
:iconpristichampsus:
Pristichampsus Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2010  Professional General Artist
Don't let religion
:iconsheepplz:
make a sheep out of you!

Is my response.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2010
In fact, that's not a bad ideas for a deviation; I might try something like this!

Nice idea :)
Reply
:iconpristichampsus:
Pristichampsus Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2010  Professional General Artist
thanks!
Reply
:iconquill-stroke:
Quill-Stroke Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
I like your sig! Favorite line from that movie.
Reply
:iconpristichampsus:
Pristichampsus Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2010  Professional General Artist
:D
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2010
Amen to that!

Surprised? Just check my sig :)
Reply
:iconmngamojemo:
mngamojemo Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2010
Santeria's not just a religion like the others, but a relationship with the Orisha who intercede with Orunmila on our behalf, proving their power through doing good things for you if you offer them chickens in sacrifice.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2010
"proving their power through doing good things for you if you offer them chickens in sacrifice"

That is precisely the difference between this religion and Christianity (or any other) that makes Christianity unique. Not necessarily the animal sacrifice - nonono, don't get me wrong on this - but the "doing" of 'good works' which will please their god enough to get them enter into heaven when they die (or whatever form 'heaven' comes in).
'Even though they like to say that the sacrifices are effective today, they're wrong, because Jesus Christ already did clean our sins, and He did it once by His perfect sacrifice. Heb. 9:26, "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," (KJV). So, we do not need anymore blood sacrifices coming from animals today...

...thirdly, we do not need Orishas or emissaries. We have one God who rules the entire universe, and One Mediator, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). So, I ask: Do we need orishas to help us to guide or lead our lives? Do we need them in order to have a better spiritual life? No. Jesus is more than enough, and the only one.'
source: [link]

Just check out this chart for a better understanding of the differences: [link]
Reply
:iconmngamojemo:
mngamojemo Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2010
You really need a world religions course if you think Christianity is the ONLY faith which doesn't specifically care about works (and boy howdy, does THAT one depend on which Christians you're asking- both sides have a perfectly good argument in the New Testament, of course).

You fail to demonstrate that Christianity is anything other than a religion. I made my initial point because your sig suggests that the key difference is "personal relationship" with the higher power. The Santero's relationship with the Orisha is nothing if not personal.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2010
You really need a world religions course if you think Christianity is the ONLY faith which doesn't specifically care about works (and boy howdy, does THAT one depend on which Christians you're asking- both sides have a perfectly good argument in the New Testament, of course).

For the latter part, I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholics? Although they can't admit it, their traditions and doctrine is pretty corrupted - their "arguments" don't come from Scripture (eg. their worship and prayers to Mary is totally unfounded and unbiblical; it's based on man-made 'Traditions', rather than from Scripture).

For the former part, care to give us any examples (based on the context below)?

"You fail to demonstrate that Christianity is anything other than a religion. I made my initial point because your sig suggests that the key difference is "personal relationship" with the higher power. The Santero's relationship with the Orisha is nothing if not personal."

You've missed my point and its context. The Santeros' "personal relationship" is based on their 'good works' towards their god, rather than on what their god did to redeem them from 'falling short', by "trying their best" doing 'good works' [the animal sacrifices] in the hope they'll be accepted into their heaven (if that makes sense? It's difficult to adapt what Jesus did, and apply it as a question to a religion that has no concept of this).

I can only fit so much in my signature, otherwise I would have mentioned that "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." [Ephesians 2:8-9]
Reply
:iconmngamojemo:
mngamojemo Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2010
Roman Catholics are not the only Christians who believe Jesus approves of doing good in the community.

I admire Catholics for admitting that their religion relies on both scripture and tradition. Protestants claim a pure scriptural basis, but then go and claim that the Bible is evidence for an imminent Rapture, or speak of a complex and well-developed mythology of Satan that evolved almost entirely after the Bible was a complete work.

There are many forms of practice for all religions, and strong traditions in Hindu, Buddhism and Tao far more concerned with getting your soul in the proper state than with giving a beggar a quarter or a god a cigar.

You believe in a very real give-and-take between yourself and Jesus. You just give nothing physical. All you give is constant prayer, belief and emotional energy, but just because it isn't tangible doesn't mean you aren't giving something in exchange for something. If you cannot get saved without faith, then you must provide faith to get saved.

And just to prove my point that the other side of the faith vs. works argument has a very real grounding in the New Testament, here's James 2:14-26:

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Reply
:iconglaceon-rules:
glaceon-rules Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2010  Hobbyist Artist
You're not doing works to be saved, you do tham because you are saved. Because we want to, not because we have to.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconladypep:
LadyPep Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2010  Professional Filmographer
:XD:I love it!
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
April 26, 2008
Image Size
2.9 MB
Resolution
1280×960
Thumb

Stats

Views
3,247
Favourites
54 (who?)
Comments
360
Downloads
19