0:17 0:45 Pentecostals

I have a question. Why do people still have sex? Sex is very gross, nasty, messy, and disgusting! I don't see how sex is a good thing. Why don't humans just remove sex from this world? Women can still get pregnant without sex (there's a lot of ways women can get pregnant without sex including artificial insemination). Sex is unnecessary.

Is there anywhere I can watch the rest of this lecture? Thanks

The other rider of the midnight ride. William Daws

Thought this was going to be educational not a sermon, disappointing. Had to look at what kind of "university" this was, a fake one.

Why was the name changed to “Nelson”?

What is a god in scientific terms?

If the brain can and does change based off our experiences then the I.Q. test is invalid.

Hmm. We humans Homo sapiens came into being about 1 million years ago because God willed it. About 6000 years ago we have documented religion of a small fraction of the world population that has now grown to most of the world’s population. The Old Testament which likely documented the morality of the times possibly going back to the beginning did not proscribe monogamy. Monogamy and sex only within marriage is a new social construct documented in religious teachings in about 1850. So it’s a new construct. To say that sex outside of marriage is harmful is foolish. We have a million years of history of sex outside of marriage and 200 years where it’s a requirement. There are very good reasons to confine sex to within marriage but not because of her arguments

Blessed are you John Glover. May You always be remembered in our hearts and minds with Love & Gratitude. From a Grateful Nation!

What seemed to escape many in that generation was that the abolition of slavery would have made the 3/5 clause of the Constitution meaningless. Instead of 3/5 slaves being counted towards Congressional representation, ALL blacks in the South would have been counted, thus INCREASING southern representation in Congress. This would have increased the Jeffersonian-Hamiltonian divide even further and still might have led to secession and war.

I chose SAGU because i have always wanted to be part of a Christian community where everyone has like interests, passion for God and a place that God is the foundation. I love the energy, the joy, the fulfilment that i see in those that are at SAGU and i like to be one of those testifying about my stay in SAGU soon.

I have watched the video and something did not seem right then I go to the latest comments and confirm that the conclusion of the presenter is really off simply because of bad reasoning. I would suggest reading FA God's words matters' comment below this person goes in depth. So instead of wasting time writing was was already written here is a paste of what they wrote that I agree with. "He reads three verses and then tries to convince his audience that we have to read in the proper context. But he only reads 3 verses??? How is that proper context? He concludes that because one does not prophesy to oneself that this is referring to church meetings. That is a lot to assume. Why not equally assume that Paul is saying that whenever you prophesy to one or more people anywhere at any time? Why restrict the meaning to a very specific location when location is never mentioned? He says that if prophecy is involved it has to do with church meetings, that is not a biblical exegesis of the passage. Then because of his first conclusion he then assumes that the prayer mentioned must be public prayer ergo in a church. This seems to have a snowball affect to the rest of his conclusions because then he quotes again verse 5 and simply assumes that a woman that prays or prophesies must mean it is happening in a church meeting. It is not obvious that this is all occurring in a church meeting as the necessary words to accept such an idea are not found and is concluded according to this man simply because one doesn’t prophesy to themselves."

Amen Father 💯🙏🙏🏻🌹💗💗🌺🌺❤️❤️💘✨💕💕💕

It helps to explain the dynamic between calling Jesus your Saviour versus your Saviour and your Lord👌

I don't understand why anyone would think this teaching was any good. The foundation that he lays is nonsensical. It is not based on Scripture just his beliefs. There no mention of Church services or meetings or gatherings but yet he somehow injects the idea, This in turn causes him to believe in other ideas.

😭😭😭thank you 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽I’ve always wondered why I would hold onto someone just because we did as little as kissing and I wouldn’t understand why I couldn’t get over them

One of the worst teachings I have ever heard. The logic he bases his conclusions are weak and come from no reasoning other than a bias of what he perceives as true. Imagine the idea that because one cannot prophesy to oneself is proof that this is referring to a church meeting? This is shockingly bad logic.

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11, I don’t think there is a separate verse that would null what Paul wrote in chapter 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

Genuinely had a really fun time there, a highlight of my summer!

The original form of all cherubim is actually a blue pokemon berry. They mislead you to say it's an angel when it's more of a food.

Dear lord let your spirit touch me today healing me completely let me sleep and awake fully healthy let me have this chance lord please I want to live I will serve you as you guide me I ask this in jesus mighty name Amen 🙏

Just stumbled across this. I am a native of Marblehead and Gen. Glover is well remembered there and honored every year, particularly during Memorial Day. He is buried in town at Old Burial Hill, there is a street named for him, and one of the elementary schools. There is also a Rev. War re-enactment group called Glover's Regiment. They have been active for decades and take part in many town celebrations.

Bullshit,!!!

Sad to see SAGU start down this path, Going away from the name Assembly of God.

I really love that,am actually fully motivated ❤❤❤

Yankee propagandist.

3 Weeks away 😊

This history of it is very important for every Christian of what took place already. The Holy Spirit has come and indwells in every born again believer who has been raised from the darkness into His marvelous light.

Cause no one wants to go, get more likes dude.

Incorrect understanding and explanation of the Cherubim in the scriptures of the Holy Bible

What a blessing!!. Thank you so much for sharing and to all you contributed to the making and distribution of this video. It truly is eye opening. May God bless you all abundantly!!!

If the Scriptures alone “tune people out” there are bigger problems in your congregation.

Excellent

No one gives the slightest fuck

Where't the tour of the dorm? That's just a room in the dorm.

I was there!

With all due respect this does not start out well. He reads three verses and then tries to convince his audience that we have to read in the proper context. But he only reads 3 verses??? How is that proper context? He concludes that because one does not prophesy to oneself that this is referring to church meetings. That is a lot to assume. Why not equally assume that Paul is saying that whenever you prophesy to one or more people anywhere at any time? Why restrict the meaning to a very specific location when location is never mentioned? He says that if prophecy is involved it has to do with church meetings, that is not a biblical exegesis of the passage. Then because of his first conclusion he then assumes that the prayer mentioned must be public prayer ergo in a church. This seems to have a snowball affect to the rest of his conclusions because then he quotes again verse 5 and simply assumes that a woman that prays or prophesies must mean it is happening in a church meeting. It is not obvious that this is all occurring in a church meeting as the necessary words to accept such an idea are not found and is concluded according to this man simply because one doesn’t prophesy to themselves. Then the presenter goes on a very long speech about location, trading, archeology etc all of which are somewhat interesting assuming they are 100 percent true (I say this because even he mentions that not all they gathered from writings are believed to be accurate) but it doesn’t really tie into the verses in question. When he finally “comes back to the text” he refers to the section on praying and prophesying but then verbally adds in the word “public” as though it were supposed to be understood that way. This is disingenuous and is, in a way, “leading the witness” so to speak. He then quotes 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 13 and puts in brackets the word “wife” next the word “woman” because as he puts it: “I don’t think it should be translated “every woman.” He goes on to try to convince the audience that it should really mean “wife” and not “woman” by noting that they are interchangeable and by some obscure “expression” by a Greek Middle Platonist philosopher, historian, biographer, essayist, and priest at the Temple of Apollo named Plutarch. In that the expression “to take the veil” means the same as to marry. First it doesn’t help that the Plutarch is not a believer and second, that we are to somehow allow ONE expression to define biblical meaning. But the translators of the KJV thought it best to use the word woman and that is because there is enough evidence to conclude the passage is referring to all men and all women. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man. Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women. “EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But EVERY woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” If you try to replace the word woman with wife or man with husband, you will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts. You will also have to deal with the implications of this idea in that therefore all the SINGLE men CAN wear a covering or all the SINGLE women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” The presenter then tries to convince the audience that the Roman married women allegedly covered their heads and quotes a book on “Roman clothing and fashion” that says that “no respectable woman would leave her home without her head covered….” He notably admits that “it is not a Christian book at all”. So what is the purpose of mentioning this? What is the goal here? Why should a believer care how ROMAN women dressed as they had their own reasons? The reason should be obvious in that it is to make one believe in the interpretation that women means wives and to cover means to cover in a veil. This is what he does when he reads again verses 5-6 but verbally adding in words wife, husband and veil basically to mean that is what Paul was really meaning to say. He also tries to convince the audience that in the part of the passage that states that the woman’s hair should be cut off, that this is tied into the alleged Roman local law (in the island of Cyprus) that a woman who was guilty of adultery should have her hair cut off and be a harlot. Except for the harlot part this is his interpretation to Paul’s meaning. In short, he is basically saying that the culture of the time dictated what a Christian was supposed to do. Most people who do not like the idea that Paul wrote this passage due to the culture of the time (like me) will find this utterly foolish. Especially since this was meant to be read to all believers and not once did Paul say this was cultural in basis. This also flies in the face of verses 8 and 9 that refer to creation order as the reason why men ought to be uncovered (have short hair) and women covered (in long hair). Therefore, Roman culture cannot play any part in this though many people will find stories to make one think this is what Paul meant. This explanation is far too easily disproved if one simply reads the entire passage and not just on a couple of verses that the presenter doubts the meaning of the words that he is literally reading. (aka woman).

Jesus hates theft.

I have absolutely nothing against religion but it would be nice to see a video like this without the injections of god/religion. It makes it so this video won’t translate to atheists as they’ll write it off as religious propaganda.

Great job, Erin!

The force is strong in P.C. Nelson's family! His mom has it. His uncle had it. His grandfather had it.

14 seconds in… Mrs Nelson: “I love you!” Mr Nelson: “I know.”

3:19 I thought of Nelson last night. My dad, Dave Laughlin, respected him so much. He graduated SBIin 1951 When I was 3 months old.

Nelson? Well, that doesn't remind me of a delicious tomato sauce like the old one did! 😉

I needed this.

Powerful

Amen ❤

touch your feet for making my mind a rock solid