I hope so,I like Mel Gibson,Johnny Depp, but the list of newly found evil ones is longer 🥺🇺🇸

In this case, hybrids can happen since Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.” See my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.” Thus, it wasn't a suspension of God's law of creation. The only reason to think that "Angels are 'ALL' immortal spirit beings (see Hebrews 1:14)" is one single wrongly translated English word. Again, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. Would you also assert "* Humans cannot create life; all life comes from God"? Acts 17:25-26 are very specific in referring to, "mankind...man...mankind." That's what God did yet, Angels took it upon themselves to create, "½ angel - ½ human." And yes, "mankind...man...mankind" includes, "Rephaim, Anakin, Philistine" who were 100% human. And I'm saying all of that whilst affirming that Gary makes a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians.

@@user-oq9hn7qk4j That was quite a leap when you say: "We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, 'AND WE CAN REPRODUCE WITH THEM' so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.” No, my friend, angels and humans cannot procreate with each other. ~ Luke 24:39; "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Jesus speaks of angels in heaven "neither marry or given in marriage." (Matt 22, Mark 12) Jesus also speaks of the days of Noah, people were eating, drinking, marrying and then the flood took them all away. (Luke 17) * Is Jesus being deceitful speaking of marriages and the flood but only telling 1/2 truths? He would know about angel/human/hybrids if true, right? There is only one bible verse where God defines the 'sons of God': ~ Romans 8:14; "For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." ~ Note this is a statement about those that are willing to be led by God, not a specific type of created being. The ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6:2 are revealed in Genesis 6:3. ~ Genesis 6; (2) ... the ‘sons of God’ saw that the ‘daughters of men’ were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. (3) ‘Then’ the LORD said, “My ‘Spirit’ shall not ‘ABIDE’ with ‘MAN’ forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless, his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” (ESV) Who does God immediately proclaim that He is removing His ‘Spirit’ from, angels? No, ‘MAN’! Was God’s Spirit ‘abiding’ with ‘MAN’ then? Yes! Again, “those being led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.” MAN!

@@larrymoore2571 Friend, note that the so called, “leap” was ignoring a full half of the facts upon which I based my argument: 1) Angels are always described as looking like human males 2) performing physical actions 3) and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. 4) We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them 5) and we can reproduce with them so 6) by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.” I’m unsure why you merely asserted, “No, my friend, angels and humans cannot procreate with each other” and then quoted Luke 24:39-especially since you didn’t elucidate. Seems you made a good point but missed it since, indeed, “Jesus speaks of ANGELS IN HEAVEN which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so. Even if we go with, “There is only one bible verse where God defines the 'sons of God'” that’s the case for the Greek from after MILLENNIA the Hebrew. Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth. So to, apparently, imply that one phrase can only ever mean only one thing and be used in only one way is not true of the linguistics of any language in all of history. Indeed, “the LORD said, “My ‘Spirit’ shall not ‘ABIDE’ with ‘MAN’…” because no matter what the Bible notes, it always gets around to how it pertains to humanity. The Gen 6 affair’s point was to affect us so the narrative goes on to noting how it effected us. Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible. The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”

If you recall, he actually wants Goliath's height to be more than 9'6" by plumping up the cubit that was being used. And also recall that the 6'6" height comes from the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls and Flavius Josephus.

It is not possible for a believer to reach the level of Ken. Their world view, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and sunk cost fallacy won't allow the truth in.

@@jimbob3030 1) you appear to assert that Ken is a unique human being who does not exhibit "cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and sunk cost fallacy." 2) that Nick exhibits "cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and sunk cost fallacy won't allow the truth in" is merely a list of assertions. 3) on Ken's world view there's literally nothing wrong with "cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and sunk cost fallacy" 4) on Ken's world view "truth" is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there's no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others do so.

@@user-oq9hn7qk4j 1. No, I assert that ken is correct, and his position isn't based on logical fallacies. 2. All evidence in the world demonstrates that ken is correct, it's not just an assertion. 3. ? That didn't make any sense. 4. No, truth is that which is demonstrably true and supported by facts and evidence, it is important to be able to tell truth from lies to vote wisely and avoid absolute disaster from manipulate con men.

Are you still in the industry?

Friend, have you read this comments section? 100% of Gary's fans (I mean talk about fawning all over him, "a man who has consistently demonstrated generosity and compassion to the world" wow!) are 100% biased, focus on what you emotively subjectively merely assert was not "a civil setting" due to me and "lashing out" while utterly ignoring Gary's behavior including accusations that I deny God's word. So, have you anything substantive to say because 100% of Gary's fans don't--no wonder they're his fans.

Likely because those Magi come from groups led by Daniel.

ME :D

Yes! I started watching the video called, "The Mysteries of the Magick Lantern Cycle" and they immediately said most of what he wrote was proven to be false. Suuuure it's all false lol 🙄

Yes! Let me know if anyone found a better documentary.

@@scottbentley2825I want to know too.

It's been utterly fascinating to keep tabs on this comments section since, somehow, Gary has managed to get himself a fan "type." Have you read this comments section? Literally 100% of you merely subjectively emote about how you feel and 100% ignore any substance. You're also shockingly biased as if Gary can do no wrong. And, of course, it's all about thus saith Gary so even when he utterly discredits himself you'll attack anyone who merely points out that he discredited himself. For example, did you miss that he's been merely asserting for DECADES that Nephilim were very "big" but one little question got him to have to admit, "we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were” (sic.). And did you really miss that he insists that he will keep referring to them as "giants" (by which he unbiblically means very subjectively unusually "big"): how does that make sense to him and you, to refer to the height of someone who's height is unknown and demand on being inconsistent? Now, rather than just emoting assertions, can you provide one example of me engaging in, "disrespect...throwing digs...rudeness" and then one by Gary, please? And I can't believe you'll listen to a debate, much of which dealt with the folly of using the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” and then make a comment about "giants": how does that make sense to you? The key questions are: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”? Do those two usages agree? See, without answering those questions then, "Giants before the flood, giants after the flood" tells no story since it's meaningless.

So then: Krishnamurti and Buddhism rigid dogma is, "I do not really know...i could be totally wrong, don't take my word for it , be your own leader , be a light to yourself" but they don't know that and could be wrong about it: that's rather odd. As for, "Neither believes in a God in the sky . But the sense of the Sacred is there": that reminds me of something that CS Lewis said: "One reason that many people find Creative Evolution [a Life Force] so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand. you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children. The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you. All the thrills of religion and none of the cost. Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?"

Wait, so are you asserting those things or just nothing things you "don't believe...to be so"?

Wait, so "No historical evidence for JC ..FULL STOP" based on thus saith nasserhameed3828? Then how come I personally chronicled hundreds of references to Him within the first few centuries? But actually, let's not play your anachronistic game of beginning with merely asserted conclusions based on merely implied hidden assumptions. The very first systematic critical thinking step is for you to justify your demand for evidence on your worldview.

Genetic fallacy lacking substantive defeater. Is there anything wrong with committing logical fallacies, on your worldview?