Great topic TJ!

Bs

It is so funny that the antichrists still use this pathetic lie, especially that Heavenly Father notes further in the chapter that "man has become as one of us, knowing good from evil." Man truly became an agent for themselves once they had the ability to differentiate between good and evil. They were no longer innocent, but accountable. Satan's lie was "you shall not die". We know spiritual death came on quickly, while physical death came later. The scripture in question has nothing to do with eternal life/becoming as our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are (although there are multiple scriptural and early Christian sources that document that truth), but not in that verse. As always, the antichrists prey on the ignorant, uneducated, weak, and lazy among those whom they peddle their deceptions. Also, great breakdown here Halestorm with the scriptures in the chapter.

"philosophies of men mingled with scripture"

I hate these type of holier than thou channels that do nothing but talk shit about fellow believers who are actually on the field of battle trying to reach the lost

Interesting that Frank misses as well (or avoids) that apostles and prophets (and thus continuing revelation and scripture) are to continue in the Lord's Church until everyone comes into a unity of faith.

Since Saul didn't write Ephesians, no he didn't say that. Nothing Saul did write is scripture and he sats so himself. Only the Tanakh is scripture.

Yahushua never started a new religion. Christianity is an apostate false religion.

Where are your beliefs in church history? Is it true that there were none saved from the apostles through Joseph smith?

This is just sad

I converted to the LDS Church twenty-six years ago. Every day I get more and more confirmation that I did the right thing.

You are fooled by a fake prophet. Don’t misuse scripture. You follow a FALSE religion. It is only through Christ and Faith in Him that we are saved. Repent, put Joseph Smith 6 ft under where he belongs and follow Jesus.

9:38 LITERALLY NO EVANGELICALS say you shouldn’t do good works. That’s a straw man argument. We acknowledge that we cannot be SAVED BY WORKS. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Mormonism is NOT CHRISTIANITY. it is false. You follow a false prophet if you follow Mormonism. Following Joseph Smith alone makes you a heretic since he was a heretic.

Without gatekeeping we end up with all these false Christianity like Mormonism and progressive Christianity and prosperity gospel and JW. This is eternal salvation we are talking about! It is vital to get it right! If it does not align with the Holy Bible it is false! It is your choice to believe or not but you do not have the right to water it down or alter it!!

LOL. No. Nice try,

Bro, you have no clue what you're talking about. When you say that Jesus referred to the Father being separate from him, you ignore so many other passages that put his words into context. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aorSf55-atCgjbM

@halestorm The research on theosis keeps getting deleted.

Christianity is not polytheistic. You might want to do a little research beforehand

Here is the Christian research I found noting the unscriptural nature of the Nicene Trinity. At least the members of Christ's restored Church do not call people who unknowingly believe this man made concept of God "not Christian". It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty. Wiles, Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 4. The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas. Wiles, Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 144. there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts. (in the New Testament) nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead. in John there is no trinitarian formula. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 14, 16, 29. These passages give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine. ...(Paul) has no formal trinitarian doctrine and no clearcut realization of a trinitarian problem, but he furnishes much material for the later development of a trinitarian doctrine. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 22-23. There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there....The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 32, 35. The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament. P. Achtemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary, p. 1099. This double series of texts manifests Paul's lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the OT a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of later development. J. Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch, p. 42. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. R.L. Richard, "Trinity, Holy," in New Catholic Encyclopedia 15 vols., 14:295. There is in them (the Apostolic Fathers), of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 44. The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople (381) was the formula of one God existing in three coequal persons formally ratified. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 87-88. Where the doctrine (of the Trinity) was elaborated, as e.g. in the writings of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1394. It (subordinationism) is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1319. Until Origen, the Apologists understood the Logos (Christ) to have become the Son only after his expression from the Father, contrary to the teaching of Nicaea, and they did not clearly distinguish between the Logos and the Holy Ghost. William G. Rusch, The Trinitatian Controversy, pp. 5-6. everyone must admit the Father is prior to and pre-exists the Son. the existence of the Son depended upon a specific premeditated act by the pre-existing Father. Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5.1.20; 4.3.7. Also see discussion in J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 224-26. to translate (John 4:24) 'God is a Spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 225. (the passage at John 4:24) is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because he gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" (1 John iv 8). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, p. 172. The God of the Hebrew Bible is very different from the supreme God of Plato or Aristotle. The former is an anthropomorphic being capable of anger, joy, and other emotions, who created the world and continues to direct human affairs. The God of the philosophers, however, was a much less human and much more abstract figure, incapable of emotion, and far removed from the daily concerns of humanity. Many Jews tried to combine these two conceptions, or, more precisely, to reinterpret the God of the Bible in the light of the ideas of the philosophers, especially Plato....This approach to scripture was developed even further by Origen, Ambrose, and other fathers of the church. Shaye J.D. Cohen, From Maccabees to the Mishnah, vol. 7 of the Library of Early Christianity, p. 44.

"Religious bullying" Yeah that's what channels like this are.

"Heaven is going to be a place where we work. and I think that we are going to be able to go from planet to planet, and from one part of the universe to the other, and I think we're going to be able to go as fast as thought. I think we're going to have other worlds to conquer. we're going to have tremendous enterprises that we are going to do on other planets. there are many indications in the Bible about this." Billy Graham on the Tonight Show. Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Sitting on the throne wirh Christ is being a god, just as is being co-heirs with Christ. By the way, Jesus said that the way to know a Christmas is to love one another and to keep His commandments. No mention of the trinity there.

8:35 some creedal Christians would try to stone jesus if he said those words today

6:39 That's not polytheism. If anything monarchy of the Godhead.

no we're not polytheists. We believe three aspects of one essence. It's derived from multiple verses in both the new and Old testament. But I don't think modern Protestants are equipped to answer this question. That's why I converting to orthodoxy

What's wrong with gatekeeping Christianity? I personally say if you don't believe in the Nicene Creed your not Christian. But I haven't watched the video yet so take that as you will

Colin Flaherty and Scott Adams are always right .

Everything after 2020 has just reinforced what Colin has been saying since at least 2011.

Well, here after your very kind comment on my comment on Brian Holdsworth's video on his experience with LDS Missionaries. BTW, until 2010, I lived about a mile south of the Mesa Temple, on Horne. Even in the most devout Catholic cultures in history, where you had large Catholic families with sons and daughters to give to the Church, vocations were a distinctly minority choice. No Catholic (including Orthodox with their strong celibate monastic traditions) was even remotely threatened by population collapse because of celibate religious and clergy. Leaving aside the purely contemplative religious orders (praying is their job, pure and simple) pretty much every non-ordained religious brother and sister, or ordained priest more than pulls their weight in the greater society. Their love of God must be expressed in love and service to their neighbors.

I'm a big fan of Flynn but this is a terrible interview. This kid is all across the board with one irrelevancy after another and doesn't drive it to the point of what's going on with Jim Jones. I'm stopping at the halfway point.

Wait wait… I can follow you sort of about how Adam and Eve didn’t know they were naked or what sex was (like children) and then after the fruit felt shame and hid…but your conclusion from just that is “they were not mortal”?! Then them hiding in shame from disobeying God proves they had became mortal? After all that talk about Mike winger not using the Bible, this conclusion seems like a big leap with not actual linking Bible words. It could have just been that they were like innocent children before then hid from shame. That’s exactly what mortal human children do : disobey then hide in shame because temptation caused them to miss the mark (aka sin)

Marriage in Genuine Orthodox Churche is a Holy Mistery - Holy Spirit is involved. It can't be compared with secular marriage which is not a marriage in God's eyes. Real marriage can start only through real genuine Orthodox priest or bishop, who can give them the God's Grace of the Holy marriage sacrament.

Hate book about America, you can write any history on every country or every tribe. Think about writing a history book about Maya from victim perspective. These people have destroyed the once proud, hard working nation that has listen humanity.

This day you will be with me in paradise - Christ's words After His resurrection Christ says I have not yet ascended to my Father. So he wasn't in the presence of God between when He and the two thieves died, and His resurrection three days later. Where was he? The spirit world. Interesting that this Pastor doesn't know the scriptures well enough to understand that and thinks they all just immediately went to the presence of God.

Just finished this book; it's excellent yet challenging to read. Thank goodness for Mr. Ibrahim!

1 Corinthians 1:17. OK check it. If u have to be baptised in order to be saved then you also have to be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect to be saved. We are under grace my friend. I'm not saying not to get baptised, but being baptised isn't what saves you, Jesus is. If u think u get to heaven by something u did, then u are in error. You can't even get credit for being saved cus u believed, because God gets all the credit. for we are saved by grace thru faith not by faith. That's why Paul knew the importance of saving faith, which is in Jesus, and not anything else.

Did u say the thief on the cross was already baptized 😂 And u have the audacity to say cliff was making a huge assumption. Wow smh.

Cheap grace is one heck of an attractor. When I was an Evangelical Christian many years ago, I realized that the end result of that doctrine was that people could continue to sin after being "saved" because the finished work of Christ takes care of everything and nothing we do has any effect on that. I relate that to having a magical get out of hell free card just for saying a sinner's prayer and inviting Christ in one's heart. However, many Christians do realize one's behavior should change, rather than accept the full import of the cheap grace doctrine. As you noted, the many scriptures that state what the Savior requires to accept His atonement led me to reject that quasiscriptural doctrine and eventually found the restored Gospel which takes into account all the scriptures related to this subject that I found nowhere else in Christianity.

I was in eighth grade during desegregation. The level of order and behavior went down the tank. The white kids continued to be punished. I personally witnessed horrific violent acts go unpunished when black on white. I personally carried brass knucks everyday henceforth. I realized it was easy to appologize.

LDS is not Christianity. They believe in a different Jesus.

This dude goes so far as to claim that non Christians getting married is a sin yet encourages men to live a life of sin and sexual deviance? He is a complete hypocrite

Nah. I like both Lauren and Andrew, but secular marriages fail more than they succeed. So in essence, if you remove Christ from the marriage, you likely will lose your kids, half your belongings that God entrusted to you and more. Almost like being half way committed to him by following his path without wanting him to be a part of it.

We were all gentiles (secular) at some point in time. Secular people can also change and their posterity can be religious

For those who are non LDS and love Jesus - Christ is very clear that marriage ends with death and no one will be married in heaven since we will be like the angels (Mark 12:25). This was in answer to the "who's wife is the woman who marries again after previous husbands die), so pretty straightforward. If you teach something other than this you are teaching something anti Christ.

Marriage is part of common grace - of course the marriage is valid. People got married before there were churches and preachers to marry them (isn't this obvious?). Marriage is declared good before the fall. Even if the marriage fails, any children born are legitimate. Even if the marriage fails, you can honor God through your witness of how you handle difficult life events. And you may be among the (moderate) majority where the marriage doesn't fail, meaning you have a partner for life. Just because parents are secular, does not mean the children won't come to faith - why would anyone assume that? Same goes in the opposite direction, children of Christian marriages may turn from the faith. That's not for anyone else to presuppose. The reality is, people generally live better lives to build a future for their children, than they would without children. Not hard and fast in cases, but there it is.

The consciousness of sin is the issue. Hebrews tells us we should not have a conscious of our sin. Jesus took our sin in his body, that body was crushed with sin in it, the body resurrected SIN DID NOT. If God no longer remembers my sin when I’m saved why should I???

-Even J Vernon McGee in the 70"s on "Thur the Bible" mention it is a sin for some people to get married and if you go through the entire Bible you would know this. Andrew just takes it too far claiming all unbelievers marriage is a sin which is not scriptural. It's the believer shouldn't marry an unbeliever is where marriage is a sin. God can bless even unbelievers who do good including marriage as Jesus pointed out God allows to sun to shine and rain to fall on the just and unjust. Christians shouldn't waste too much energy trying to get unbelievers to live like believers. As McGee put it we are told to "fish" for men and not told to clean up the pond. Still as Christians we still prefer the unbelievers embrace Jesus Christ teachings over someone else teachings like Muhammad. Very important Christian doctrine is death ends a marriage agreement. Baptism represent "death" to the world ending that agreement of sin and bond with the new, with Christ. Death to sin and now alive in Christ. Earthly marriage is a shadow of the real thing. The church as the bride of Christ , Israel as the bride to the Father. This is why we named the two parts of the Bible: the Old Testament (Covenant) and the New Testament (Covenant). The Old Testament (Covenant ) had to be fulfilled and how did God "Saved" us from the condemnation of the Old Covenant? Through the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Jesus had to die in order to fulfill the Old Covenant and set us free.

Marriage is NOT mandatory. The Bible says if you are single do not seek to be married and if you are married then do not seek to be single. It also says that it’s better for a man not to get married.

1 Corinthians 13 spoke it said love from God is an agreement to do some things all the time and some things so long as it's not provoked which is not easily accomplished, while unprovoked Love is a kindness that enacts to preserve and protect you and it never lies to you. I remember one time I had a dream out of the 8,000+ times I've been asleep a dream that has not happened before it has not happened since, and I've had the recipe to make it hundred a days before it happened and hundreds of days after it happened. I could have dreamed about anything, I dreamed about a dog, which is a symbol of unbelief in the Bible and Jesus part of Matthew 7:6 give not that which is holy unto the dogs, a dog could have done anything it dug a hole, it could have dug any kind of hole, it dug a very deep hole and anything could have been at the bottom of that hole but a few verses in the Bible come to mind and anything could have happened when I climbed out of that hole but part of Romans 10 said that you must believe that Jesus has been raised from the dead to be saved. In the beginning was the word and the Word was God in the word was with God John 1:1 the word" or the message of God" was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld the glory of the only begotten of the father full of grace and truth. John 1:14 Wisdom is the principal thing therefore get wisdom in and all that getting get understanding proverbs 4:7 Understanding is a Wellspring of Life unto him that has it but the instruction of fools is folly proverbs 16:22 I found it important that if somebody comes to me and says "there's nothing worth fighting for" "that doesn't require a fight." That to know their heart I would have had to stay the whole time and not just for the first part It is also the case that the hundred of days I prayed for help and saving have I ner been led to any other name. Not Buddha not ba'hai, not Shinto not Jehovah by himself, not Muhammad, not Hindu, none but he who sits at the right hand of the father. I also want you to study to see how deception can be so subtle. How one word missing or one word altered from the original idea and intent can change a conversation. But numbers 12:6 and if there be a prophet among you I shall make myself known to him and in a vision and in a dream. If you believe God's real like I believe God is real why don't you just start talking to Jesus and find out.

1:20 Your justification for marriage for a *secular* man is that it is one of the first mandates of God. The secular man doesn't care about God. He's secular for a reason. A secular man will not follow the 10 commandments because he doesn't believe in God. He cannot follow the first four commandments. You are asking the secular man who wants to stay secular to act in accordance with Christian beliefs. It's like asking a Christian to follow secular beliefs. They are incompatible and the notion of having to follow the other's belief system would be rejected. 2:06 The secular man does not want sanctification. If he did, then he would follow Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. 2:25 Better citizens - agreed. This is only true if the man wanted to be a father in the first place. The men largely being selected for sex are bad boys who end up becoming baby daddies who know only how to excite a woman but don't want or know how to be a husband/father. Instead we will get better citizens, if the men who are desired by women, given marriage, and frequent sex are the good, hardworking, faithful and stable men not the womanizer who is quick to abandon. When I was a Latter-day Saint I saw many YSA women across multiple states (especially in Provo), spend a lot of their dating time with men who only wanted to NCMO, soak, or were frankly out of their league. These were even the highly touted RMs participating in this. All while rejecting the stable good guy and then complaining about how they are treated poorly by men. We won't get better citizens if most of the men that are chosen for marriage and sex are exciting bad boys instead of stable, well adjusted good men. Most Christian churches nowadays and even the Latter-day Saint faith permit divorce and remarriage despite Biblical prohibitions against it (Luke 16:18, Matthew 19:9, Matthew 5:31-32, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Mark 10:11-12). This brings the secular issue of disastrous consequences to the husband combined with easy to execute divorce on the part of the woman (this isn't sexism, this is just looking at the 70% of divorces are initiated by woman, higher if they are college educated statistic) to the Christian world. The modern day "marriage" is disincentivized based on the consequence for divorce and dwindling quantity of traditional women. 2:38 - If the secularist doesn't reproduce then their belief system dies out. There was a time when Muslims owned the major cities in Italy and the native Italians were in the rural areas. Those Muslims died out because their reproduction rate was far below replacement, as most major cities across time tend to do, and thus their belief system was removed. He is recommending that only Christians reproduce so that there can be more authentic Christians exist in the future vs the secularist who hates God. 8:40 - Andrew is not a wokeist nor a leftist. 13:30 You say it's woke to believe in till death do us part. Read 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3. It literally says she is free to be remarried to another believer if her husband dies. "A wife is bound to her husband *as long as he lives*. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 1 Timothy 5:9 even prohibts the church from enrolling a widow who was the wife of one husband and known for good works under the age of 60 on to the support roll because she'll turn from her pledge and seek marriage again. A few verses later in 1 Timothy 5:14 encourages younger woman (both single and widows) to seek marriage, have children, manage their household, and give no opportunity for the enemy to accuse. 16:30 Marriage is for life only because Luke 20:34-35 says that there will be no marriage in heaven. I used to be a Latter-day Saint so I get the "work-around" that Latter-day Saints give stating that the dead can get married by proxy across the veil. That is not Biblical.