Hi! Thanks for your comment. I’m not sure where you get the idea of the Spirit being a third entity called ‘god the spirit.’ (Maybe this is more of a semantics thing, and I don’t know if you’re referring to God the Holy Spirit.) By this if you are referring to my comment that the “Spirit of Jesus was God’s Spirit” present during the time of Noah, then, yes, Jesus’s own Spirit proclaimed during the time of Noah. The only reason for adding God’s Spirit was that if we look at the Old Testament passages where the Spirit of God or the Spirit of the Lord is mentioned, is it always clear from the perspective of the Old Testament, or, for that matter, even from the perspective of the New Testament, which person of the Triune Godhead is at work spiritually (or in the Spirit), unless there is a clear mention of either the work of the Holy Spirit or some other person in the Trinity (as in Jesus’ Spirit in 1 Peter 3)? All of this is to say that the three persons of the Triune Godhead did participate together in the Old Testament. (Some may limit the work of the Holy Spirit to the New Testament, which I don’t agree with.) And even if the three persons of the Triune Godhead participated together in everything in the Old Testament, did they all equally participate together or was some activity of some person more pronounced than the other? I don’t know if I have a definitive answer to this.

@@brennankgangmei Thank you kindly for your reply. Myself, I do not see in scripture, old or new testament, a third entity/ deity outside of the Father and the Son. For now I would like to leave with you two texts to compare and collate if you may. They are on this matter of the Spirit of Christ being the same As the Spirit of God. The two texts are also in Peter's epistle. I find that the two explain and elucidate each other. They are... 1 Peter 1:11. 2 Peter 1 :21.

Thanks for your response. I hope the video was helpful. God bless!

@@InpuiInn Thanks for your response. I hope the video was helpful. God bless!

@@rajianlunggonmei God bless!

@@ConversationChrist Thanks a lot for the encouragement! God bless you!

@@dongaetano3687 Thanks for your comment, although I’m not sure what the video on working out has to do with persecutions per se. I’m not saying that I don’t understand your comment (biblically and experientially speaking), but I’m saying that I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with your comment. I assume maybe you’re thinking that tragedies, hardships, and persecutions prevent people from working out (using working out in a broad sense)? If that is so, then depending on what tragedies, hardships, and persecutions Christians face (which will look very different from one person to the other), a person may or may not be able to workout (using working out in a broad sense) and maintain some level of fitness. Anyways, the video is talking about when working out or weightlifting becomes an IDOL or can become MORE IMPORTANT than loving and glorifying God. It’s a matter of balancing our priorities in light of ETERNITY.

@@brennankgangmei Sorry for the confusion. I just threw in a reminder that no matter how good our selfcare, discipline, fitness training is, there ar no guarantees the Lord will not allow some real tragedies in our lives that may even cause great losses. I cpmpleted my 51st year in Christianity in June or July of this year. Had some heavy duty Nuero symptoms in summer of 2023. Looked like the end of my very active life, XCskiing, distance swimming, rollerblading, hiking, etc., etc. I was inactive for almost a year but now seem to be coming out of it. Lots oof good prayer time in that setback and some tears as well. Doing pretty well now and thankful Stay well yourself. Nice to meet you.

@@dongaetano3687 Ok. Thanks for sharing a bit about your Christian journey! I appreciate it! God bless you! 👍👍🙏🙏

​@@brennankgangmei Thanks again Brennan. I was an edgy, unruly kind of guy, but was captured by the words of Christ in Matthew's Gospel, especially the Sermon on the Mount. 2 things I did that helped immensely in my early Christian life: 1. I was struggling to read the word and it hit me that iit was spiritual food and I began to read the New Testament a chapter or more a day, someitimes a whole book in one read. I read it 13 times the first year,becoming very familiar with it. I read it in the morning before work. I'd just move the book mark and go straight through. I eventually added in the Old Testament in the evenings and did that for 40 years. My reading is still steady in the New Testment more sporadic in the old currently. 2. When I saw older men who exhibited the ability to teach and were solid in the scriptures, I asked if I could meet with one of them weekly or bi-weekly. I was in my 20's into 30's doing that with different men, none were pastors, all had stellar lives and families and were elders or deacons. The character of these men and the view of their very good marriages and believing children had a powerful effect on me and helped to soften the edgy side I had. As one of those men said to me, "The Holy Spirit will make a gentleman out of you." And He can in a short or longer time, I am living proof. Stay well Brennan

@@dongaetano3687 Amazing!!! The witness or living testimony of changed lives wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit can have a strong impact/effect/influence on people.

I’m not sure if you have listened to what I said in the video. The video is talking about when working out or weightlifting becomes an IDOL or can become MORE IMPORTANT than loving and glorifying God. It’s a matter of balancing our priorities in light of ETERNITY. And I’m not sure what you mean by “i wanna get big fast.” That statement seems relative to the individual. One has to factor in different body types (ectomorph, mesomorph, endomorph, etc.) and bone density as to how much muscle or fat one can gain or lose (depending on the person’s fitness goal(s)). For instance, a 6 feet, 300 lbs, person and a 6 feet, 230 lbs, person both might be considered big but in different ways. The former might be considered big due to more fat to muscle ratio, whereas the latter might be considered big due to more muscle to fat ratio (also factoring in bone density in both the cases).

@@brennankgangmei Yes thank you for your comment i wasnt expecting for a reply lol. I mean that those guys who are impatient enough to train longer naturally decides to take on some gear due to the internet's influence. My bad cuz i didnt specify what kind of individual

⁠@@Jocatoe Ok. Thanks for your response and the clarification!

Are you saying “matterless elements” are more plausible than a creator?

@@Empowered126 Yes. They are both matterless, but one of the two is not intelligent and isn't omnipotent (it's impossible to be, I just use the term because it's the most used in religion, so for the sake of simplicity), so in my opinion matterless elements are more plausible, but as I said this is highly speculative since we don't have a clue of what happened at the (non) time.

@@Empowered126 Also, I would like to point out that you used a logical fallacy, I'm not saying you did that on purpose, you used an appeal to incredulity (or appeal to common sense), my idea to you seemed absurd and so you concluded that it is indeed absurd and crazy (nothing against the conclusion, my idea could be absurd), yet you didn't use any argument to prove it wrong, you essentially said "It feels absurd, so it's wrong". Again, I'm not saying you did that on purpose, but be careful, an argument is stronger when it doesn't involve easily recognizable logical fallacies, in a debate a person could point this out and say that your conclusion is invalid (This is called a fallacy fallacy, the conclusion could be corrected even if the reason behind the why is poorly argumented by whoever is speaking/writing).

Indeed your statement that "God is defined" is very profound. Indeed the cause of God is the one who defined the statement - therefore created God.

Thank you!

Good point! “I know more fat pastors than jacked pastors.” 😂

Yes! Thank you!

Please watch the video carefully! I NEVER SAID that I’m not sure who should partake in the Eucharist. I said that only people who have professed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ should partake in the Eucharist. And I said that Christians differ over whether only a baptized believer should partake in the Lord’s Supper or a non-baptized believer can participate in the Lord’s Supper as well. I just said that I’m not taking a position on this. I’m just noting that Christians differ over this. There are definitely people in the church who have believed in Jesus Christ and who haven’t been baptized yet (for whatever the reason(s)), but they still partake in the Lord’s Supper. Should those people be barred from partaking in the Lord’s Supper before they are baptized, or can they partake in the Lord’s Supper (even before they are baptized)?

​@@brennankgangmei I have already answered that.

@@mahirsantal2867 I’m talking about SCRIPTURAL BASIS for whether a believer who hasn’t been baptized (yet) should be denied participation in the Lord’s Supper, not what practices were followed by Christians in different periods of church history. Does Scripture explicitly forbid a believer who hasn’t been baptized (yet) from partaking in the Lord’s Supper? (I’m asking for Scriptural basis because I take Scripture to be true in all that it teaches and that Scripture is the ultimate authority for evaluating what is true and false and right and wrong. Now if you believe that church traditions, church practices, and the church are as equally authoritative as Scripture and that we can get guidance for our faith and practice from these sources rather than from Scripture alone, then we’ll both have to disagree over the authoritative source that has the final say on this topic.)

​@brennankgangmei I also believe that the Scriptures are infallible and authoritative. I will be happy to show you where the Scriptures say who should take Communion... But before that you, please, show me where the Scriptures say that It "alone" is enough for all Christian piety. Show me where It says the Scriptures are enough, I mean, everything the Church needs is in the Scriptures. By the way, have you ever realized that the logic of your argument can be stretched to such an extent that the following questions can be posed: Show me where does the Scriptures explicitly say that abortion is a sin. (Christians believe it is a sin)/ Show me where the Scriptures explicitly say by how many immersion one should be baptized / Show me where the Scriptures explicitly say how Christians should prepare the bread and wine of the Communion. And so on...

@@mahirsantal2867 You’re comparing apples and oranges. My point is that if Scripture doesn’t explicitly either condemn or condone a particular practice (like whether only a baptized believer should participate in the Lord’s Supper or a non-baptized believer can also participate in the Lord’s Supper), then for someone to cite a particular practice that was followed in church history and assert that that practice is orthodoxy and therefore is binding on all Christians is to make a claim that doesn’t having the force and/or backing of Scripture, which is the ultimate/final authority for me as a Christian. The idea of the Bible being the ultimate authority comes from or is rooted in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Now if you don’t believe that Scripture alone is sufficient for all Christian piety, then we’ll both have to disagree over this. By the way, are you Catholic? I don’t mean to imply anything negative by that. It’s just helpful to know what branch of Christianity one is coming from so that one is aware of the working assumptions of the other person. Thanks!

Amen!

Glad it was helpful!

Glad you like it!

Thank you!

@@mahirsantal2867 Ephesians 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” I’m not sure what you mean by “cooperation with God”; if by cooperation you mean that one needs to exercise the faith that has been given as a gift to the person by God, then, yes, the person has to exercise that God-given faith by trusting/believing in the work of Christ for salvation. But if by cooperation with God you mean that we need to rely on our works (and not just on faith alone in Jesus) for our salvation, then salvation would no longer be by faith alone, and the point of Ephesians 2:8-9 (and many other passages) would be undermined. Our works are important in the sense that they are a reflection of the fact that we have truly been saved by faith alone in Jesus. Our works don’t save us; but we are saved by faith alone in Jesus so that we can do good works for his glory. Also, notice in Ephesians 2:8-10 (cited above) that we cannot be saved by our works, but we are saved by faith (which is a gift from God). The text doesn’t say that we have been saved by grace through faith and good works; it only mentions faith, and that’s why I said “by faith alone.” And after we have been saved, we start living for Jesus in which we do good works.

What is your understanding of James 2:22?

@@mahirsantal2867 Good question! James is not disagreeing with the apostle Paul (Romans 3:28). James is using “completed” (which means “bring to maturity” in Greek) to drive home the point that a mature, genuine faith is demonstrated by the good works it brings forth. Also, when James 2:21 says that Abraham was justified by works, James’s usage of the word “justify” differs from Paul’s usage of the word “justify.” Regarding verse 21, the ESV Study Bible writes: “On the surface James may seem to contradict Paul. I.e., Paul denies that Abraham was “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2), arguing from Gen. 15:6 that Abraham’s faith “was counted to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3). However, James’s assertion in this verse (that “Abraham [was] … justified by works”) is based not on Gen. 15:6 but on Gen. 22:9-10, where (many years later) Abraham began to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Thus James apparently has a different sense of the word “justify” in view here, as evidenced by the different Scripture passages, and the different events in Abraham’s life, to which James and Paul refer. The primary way in which Paul uses the word “justify” (Gk. dikaioō) emphasizes the sense of being declared righteous by God through faith, on the basis of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice (Rom. 3:24-26), whereas the primary way that James uses the word “justify” (Gk. dikaioō) here in James 2:21 seems to emphasize the way in which works demonstrate that someone has been justified, as evidenced by the good works that the person does (cf. Matt.12:33-37). Some others hold a similar view, which understands “justify” (Gk. dikaioō) here to mean to declare someone to be righteous because, at the final judgment, the person’s works give evidence of true saving faith.”

In James2:26, James very clearly states that faith and works are like the body and the spirit. As a body without the spirit is dead, so also is faith without works. A body without the spirit is not a fake body, it is a real body, and in principle, it can be animated by the spirit. So also, faith without works is faith but it doesn't save. The solution is not to replace that faith with a real faith, but to complete that faith with works of love. Such a "faith alone" is not sufficient for justification. Faith working through love saves.

@@mahirsantal2867 I’m not sure if you have read closely what I posted above. I explained the different senses of the word “justify” used by Paul and James (and how both the apostles are using different texts to base their arguments on). With regard to faith, real faith manifests in works of love. But if you keep insisting on the point that faith alone is not sufficient for justification (by the way, justification has a very specific meaning in Christian theology; I’m not sure if you are aware of that), please refer to the previous post where I explain the different senses of the word “justify” as used by Paul and James. Let me ask you this: When someone first comes to Jesus for salvation, is that person justified (declared righteous or made right before God by the perfect work and record of Christ) and saved before God by his/her faith and works [what work does that person have that he/she can offer at the moment of coming to faith in Jesus that can contribute towards his justification (being declared righteous before God) and salvation?]

Hi! Thanks for your comment! I don’t know if you have watched my video, and I’m not sure what you mean by “Enjoy judging.” The Bible is not against a right form of judgement; it cautions against passing hypocritical, untruthful, harsh, superficial, biased, prideful, judgmental, and unfair kinds of judgment. Also, the Bible talks about testing and discerning everything (which means that we have to engage in judgment in our daily lives), so that we can shun evil and make decisions that are good, true, and honoring to God. Having said all the above, I agree with you about the idea of effecting course corrections and growing into truth. I also agree with you that one should pursue truth bravely so that one doesn’t stagnate in the level one is in even if it is sin.

Thank you!

Hi! Thanks for your comment! I’m not sure if you have listened to what I said in the video. The video is talking about when working out or weightlifting becomes an idol or can become more important than loving and glorifying God. It’s a matter of balancing our priorities in light of eternity. With regard to passing judgment, the Bible cautions against passing hypocritical, untruthful, harsh, superficial, and unfair kinds of judgment. The Bible talks about testing and discerning everything (which means that we have to engage in judgment in our daily lives), so that we can shun evil and make decisions that are good, true, and honoring to God. And in commenting on my video, you are also rendering a kind of judgment. I don’t know if you noticed that. Thanks!

Amen!

He did not make a claim that fits this.(even if we know its implied)

From nowhere you came, you are alive, one day you will not be, Do you know of any better magic trick?

@@petergedd9330 word salad gibberish.

@@jacksfavorite4808 Hi! Thanks for your comment! Let me ask you a few questions. If God’s revelation of himself to humanity is revealed in nature (to some extent) and in the Scriptures (to a larger extent compared to nature), then what is illogical, ineffective, and inefficient about God revealing himself in the Scriptures through human authors? And what would those efficient, effective, and logical ways God would use to communicate with us, and how would we know that those ways are from God?

@@brennankgangmei There is no good reason to believe that a god reveals himself in nature nor any book. Those beliefs come from a religious indoctrination, probably in childhood. Often the main methodology of that indoctrination is fear, fear of being denied heaven for disbelief, and being condemned to a fiery eternity. As for the second question, the best way for a god to communicate is to appear personally. If there is a god, that should have been the plan at the dawn of humanity. Now there is widespread skepticism of what "his" desires are, and to a large extent, his very existence at all. But the oversight can still be corrected by simply instilling in newborns what he, the god, requires of his people. If a god wants to be a little more imaginative, he can align the stars into text, making it clear that he, God, is the author. Astronomers would have to admit that yes, the stars now actually form words. Widespread, and uniform belief would eventually follow.

@@jacksfavorite4808 seems you have conditions and demands which you are setting. If there were a God why shouldn’t he do the same?

@@markwilliams3994 I don't know what you are referring to. I was asked two questions, which I answered.

Amen!

First of all, the word cannot be spoken, it is where everything comes from and it is infinite and was not created and cannot be destroyed. Do you know where it can be found?

Amen!

Hi! Thanks for your response. I’m not sure whether you responded to me in good faith or not, but I think you could have worded your response a bit more respectfully. Anyways, here’s my response to what you posted: First, how did you come to that conclusion? Second, is it absolutely impossible that a person deemed too harsh cannot also have a less than too harsh side as portrayed in the gospels? Third, how did you come to that conclusion? You’re just making an assertion! Fourth, how do you know that Jesus wasn’t part of that line? Fifth, regarding your claim that the DSS contain nothing from the NT, I never said that it contains anything from the NT. I just quoted a scholar who made the tentative claim that the DSS “MAY CONTAIN” fragments of the NT based on the fact that there are definitely references to messianic beliefs which seem similar to those in the New Testament.

@@brennankgangmei Hi and thank you for your reply. My response was made in good faith, which is why I questioned whether you were dishonest or poorly informed and made no suggestion of which it might be. I have been countering religious apologists for many years and I have encountered your arguments over and over again. They have mostly been made by people I know full well were aware of the facts but lied in order to promote their views. I am happy to accept that you are not dishonest, simply misled by others. When you ask about my conclusion, I assume you refer to my point 1. I am therefore surprised I need to explain further. Your ‘evidence’ is that an object was found bearing the name of an individual. You, or others, then simply decided it must be the person of the same name mention in the gospels. But why? Do you imagine there was only ever one person with that name? Even Jesus’ real name was a common one at the time. “is it absolutely impossible that a person deemed too harsh cannot also have a less than too harsh side”. Impossible no. But highly unlikely. And I must point out that this is a well-known apologist trick, to find something which is not strictly speaking absolutely impossible and offer it as a genuine explanation. I’m sorry but that just wont do. We must also consider that there is no record of a custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover, or even of Romans respecting any Jewish customs. In fact, we do have evidence of the very opposite. They gleefully trampled on Jewish religious and cultural expressions because they were a military occupying force oppressing a defeated people. For the gospel account to be true, we must accept too many things as real: -- That an overly harsh military governor would even care about the internal religious wranglings of the Jews. -- That he would involve himself or let himself be involved in a religious dispute. -- That he would offer to release a convicted criminal for a non-existent Passover custom. -- That he would debate with a prisoner. -- Then refuse to condemn him. -- Then ritualistically cleanse himself of the responsibility (which entails caring what the Jews might think of him) -- That he would offer the mob a choice. -- And we must never forget the biggest lie of all, that a Jewish crowd would voluntarily ask to be blamed and for that blame to attach to their children. This single, ridiculous, lie is the root cause of 2000 years of antisemitism. Seen without the eyes of faith, the whole story is simply foolish. Far more likely is that a real itinerant Jewish preacher was arrested and executed for sedition and his followers invented stories about him after the fact. But we do not and cannot know the truth. “You’re just making an assertion!” What? You make a list of claims with no way to back them up but when I say we already know crucifixion was real and the existence of that method of execution does not make the Jesus story true, you accuse me of just making an assertion. Seriously? Do you honestly believe that just the existence of crucifixion is evidence for Jesus? I refer you to the history of the Roman state and in particular the way they treated captured rebellious slaves. They lined the Appian Way with thousands of crucified bodies. And no, that also does not make Jesus real. “how do you know that Jesus wasn’t part of that line?” I don’t know. But I do not have the burden of proof. You believe the gospel when it makes that claim but there is no way to prove it is true. You know of a stele which might (only might) have the name Bet David on it and you immediately not only believe it to be genuine evidence for King David and his descendants but you believe that Jesus was one of them. Why? Because the bible tells you so. But you are trying to prove the bible and therefore cannot, in all honesty, use the bible as a part of your evidence. On the final point, I owe you an apology. Having re-watched your video, I see now that you were indeed only quoting. In reality, whilst there are some similarities between what the authors of the DSS believed and what Jesus supposedly preached, there are also some major differences. All they really show is that Judaism was undergoing change, greatly influenced by Greek philosophy, and that a number of less traditional interpretations were in circulation. It is highly plausible that the real Jesus was one of these; an itinerant and apocalyptic preacher and rabble rouser who fell foul of the Roman authorities. However, that does not mean he was in any way divine.

Yes

@@davidmedianyc Thanks a lot, brother! 🙏🙏