One can not dismiss the truth hidden within the visions of Hermas. I am reading it right now and I find no error in it yet. I dont think it is canon worthy yet, but I'm reading it like I read Pilgrims Progress. Full of truth, yet not canon. It should definitely be read by people who love Christ as Lord.

all I know is that we must believe that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, and that we must Love thy neighbor as ourselves!!!! also believe and be baptised in the name of JESUS Christ!!!! love this video tho great material!!!!

In Vision two: The young man which I assume is Jesus asked Hermas who do you assume who the elderly woman was Hermas replied Sibly young man said no THE CHURCH. So that could be indication and a reason why the Catholic Church left this book out.

The writer of "the shepherd of hermas" wrote in "the shepherd of hermas" that clement distributed "the shepherd of hermas" throughout the world. Do you see the issue? How does that, and Paul mentioning them as living people, prove it was written in the first century.

I'm 8 minutes in so far, and have not heard anything from the book yet... still waiting for the intro to finish up... 😞

SUBSCRIBE to this channel or visit our website: We are posting hundreds of free articles, books, and videos on our Global Impact Ministries website at ApostolicChristianFaith.com

Even if an angel appeared to you to preach to you another gospel, let him be accused... The Bible...

@davidortega357

2 ай бұрын

Roman catholic church hates the truth there in heresy RCC is anti christ

Global impact ministries have you ever thought about reading W.R.MORGANS book (Saint Paul In Britain 1888, p.g 58) according to Morgan Hermas was a pastor to a church that was named after Claudia’s daughter Pudentiana in Rome they also named it after Hermas’s testimony called it “Pastor” in English “Shepherd” you can still find its name as Saint Pudentiana in Rome

46:00 so that a will could be strong enough to overcome sin and be a perfect sacrifice. This you see the same spirit being blown/spread into the nostril of the disciple, or on Christ at his baptism, which of when Jesus was first said to be God's son, and not at birth.

So how do you feel, as an Apostolic, to quote this in a church setting, perhaps in a sermon?

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

Apostolic Ashley, First of all, I would not cite the Shepherd of Hermas with the same authority as NT Scripture. I would cite it to show what the earliest Apostolic Christians believed. If a Pastor desired to regularly teach from the Shepherd of Hermas, I would give some historical info about its background, including the historical fact that it was venerated as scripture by many of the earliest Christians. I would speak highly of the book, but I would not quote Hermas the same way I quote Matthew to Revelation.

@proud2badecon2

5 жыл бұрын

Apostolic Ashley I know when it comes to scripture some people feel anything outside the KJV shouldn’t be used as cannon. Word word said all scripture is good for doctrine, for edification, comfort. Automatically we this the Bible because of all it contains. There are many other writings that wasn’t chosen as cannon. It don’t mean there wrong nor inspired. A lot of me quote from other book as we’ll.

@johnplain1546

3 жыл бұрын

@Babd and it's a vision. There's a vision in the shepherd of hernas.

Interesting

Hi thanks, that was very informative

The thing I struggle with is if the catholic church has been the church's number one enemy hw can we trust their cannonizing of the Bible???

@globalimpactministries766

5 жыл бұрын

We cannot trust the RC canonization of scripture. We can trust the fact that the NT Scriptures were cited by many early Christian writers to show that the books that we now have in our NT Bibles are indeed scripture. However, we cannot rule out the fact that the RCC rejected some books that were being used as NT Scripture in the early days of Christianity.

@livepoetic390

5 жыл бұрын

Global Impact Ministries could you link me to a video speaking on the early 1st- 3rd century churches cannon of scripture?

@_Moses_The_Servant

6 ай бұрын

​@@globalimpactministries766He sadly passed away

@davidortega357

2 ай бұрын

Matthew 28 19 was changed by the Roman catholic church in second century it was originally written go ye and teach all nations baptizing them in my name that name is Jesus christ

so informative thank you

its not right that so many good books were thrown out because they didnt support man made theology.

@marecof864

4 жыл бұрын

To be honest they should make a restored scriptures just like it was originally 1560 Geneva Bible (older than KJV), (I’ll even go as far to even say New Testament scriptures for instance Clement 1st&2nd, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas and Shepherd Of Hermas because they were direct disciples of the Apostles though Barnabas is more pseudepigraphal in nature (anonymous writer) but it’s validity in supporting the current “cannon” makes it an incredible read (the book of Hebrews is also supported to be anonymous due to its opinion on the writings being more poetic and more modern than Paul according to scholars) “cannon” is a Roman rule that Nicene declared on what was to be BINDED together for a whole book so to speak the Codex Sinaticus 4th century AD codex our current Greek version of the New Testament contained in it the The Shepherd Of Hermas and Epistle Of Barnabas though later on it was taken away because of theology beliefs and just plain ignorance this video pretty much just proves how the council of Nicea and council of jamnia was not “moved by the Spirit” to create a binded book [codex], the Septuagint LXX 3rd century BC (which is our earliest oldest reference to Old Testament books including the Apocrypha is in it but missing the apocalypse of baruk and 3rd & 4th Ezra containing the 70 verses of 4th Ezra that was cut out due to a Catholic monks fear of those verses so does some editions have the psalms of Solomon which is pseudepigraphal a later writing attributed to be Solomon also some editions of the Septuagint containing 3rd and 4th Maccabees original translated from Hebrew to Greek that was ordered to 72 rabbis to due so) and the caves of Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls 1st to 3rd century BC older than the Septuagint clearly debunks the fact that we are limited to just 66 Books it was until the 18hundreds they remove the other books due to better faster and cheaper printing process also the Scottish removal did so for political issues for controlling the masses not because “God removed them because the catholic added books” by that statement they clearly never researched the matter with an unbiased interpretation good luck with just the 66 Books dilemma by the way there are many Codexes containing the amount of books they wanted in they’re “cannon” such as James, 2 Peter, 2 &3 John, Jude, and Revelation being popularly disputed among the scriptures (instead the Revelation Of Peter was preferable than the book of Revelation a good book by the way though its Hellenistic in nature and it’s absurd ending, you can speculate that it was tainted to support Catholic ideology but the full book made its way all the way to Ethiopia and a half version of a koine Greek manuscript is found this clearly justifies that men where adding and changing to New Testament literature due to both being different at certain contexts but same story just as the Ethiopic 3rd & 4th Maccabees is different in perspective than the Septuagint version in CONTEXTS but SAME story)

@marecof864

4 жыл бұрын

Hey man I want to apologize about mentioning Barnabas as scripture authoritative it’s too anti Semitic and it’s doctrine is obviously mid 2nd century “catholic” development, if it was an authentic writing from Barnabas it has been Romanized also Ignatius writings too but 2nd Clement is still way too hard to date

@joeydelrio

4 жыл бұрын

@@marecof864 i never knew that about barnabas, i never read it but i have read many quotes from it and many of the early church fathers site it as scripture. i also like the geneva bible but wish they would have kept their feelings out of it with their notes. i agree with them 100 percent that majority of the rulers were douchbags but it really has no place in holy writings.

@marecof864

4 жыл бұрын

joeydelrio yes, he was authoritative in its present time I do believe it could be authentic but if we can find an version that’s redacted from its so called original manuscript we have then I’ll be happy about it I personally love it but at the same time I am disappointed at the version we have that’s in our possession it was an common scribal choice to change scripture or add to it it is proven on the codexes that gave commentary on the verses that was changed, no one is looking through the old manuscripts and even searching for some to see if there’s anything different between these writings (Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, 2nd Clement and even 1st century Shepherd Of Hermas) let’s pray that’ll they look through their old libraries to find some and even excavate [dig] through their ancient and old churches and even finding lost works like the gospel according to the Egyptians and I’ll even go as far to say the gospel according to the Hebrews

Anyone who is in Christ and actually reads the Bible knows that Jesus is God the Holy Spirit.

@rkooyers

4 жыл бұрын

Pssst...God is Pretend. So is the Easter Bunny. No one told you?

@stevenvalett1231

4 жыл бұрын

No! UPC doctrine.

In my opinion they should make a restored scriptures just like it was originally 1560 Geneva Bible (older than KJV)to say sola scriptura is to support John Calvin’s Geneva Bible which contains the Apocrypha [deuterocanonical], (I’ll even go as far to even say New Testament scriptures for instance Clement and Shepherd Of Hermas because they were direct disciples of the Apostles “cannon” is a Roman rule that Nicene declared on what was to be BINDED together for a whole book so to speak the Codex Sinaticus 4th century AD codex our current Greek version of the New Testament contained in it the The Shepherd Of Hermas and Epistle Of Barnabas though later on it was taken away because of theology beliefs and just plain ignorance this video pretty much just proves how the council of Nicea and council of jamnia was not “moved by the Spirit” to create a binded book [codex], the Septuagint LXX 3rd century BC (which is our earliest oldest reference to Old Testament books including the Apocrypha is in it but missing the apocalypse of baruk and 3rd & 4th Ezra containing the 70 verses of 4th Ezra that was cut out due to a Catholic monks fear of those verses so does some editions of the Septuagint contained the psalms of Solomon which is pseudepigraphal a later writing attributed to be Solomon also some editions of the Septuagint containing 3rd and 4th Maccabees originally translated from Hebrew to Greek that was ordered to 72 rabbis to do so, and the caves of Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls 1st to 3rd century BC older than the Septuagint clearly debunks the fact that we are limited to just 66 Books it was until the 18hundreds they remove the other books due to better faster and cheaper printing process also the Scottish removal did so for political issues for controlling the masses not because “God removed them because the catholic added books” by that statement they clearly never researched the matter with an unbiased interpretation good luck with just the 66 Books dilemma by the way there are many Codexes containing the amount of books they wanted in they’re “cannon” such as James, 2 Peter, 2 &3 John, Jude, and Revelation being popularly disputed among the scriptures (instead the Revelation Of Peter was preferable than the book of Revelation a good book by the way though its Hellenistic in nature and it’s absurd ending, you can speculate that it was tainted to support Catholic ideology but the full book made its way all the way to Ethiopia and a half version of a koine Greek manuscript is found this clearly justifies that men where adding and changing to New Testament literature due to both being different at certain contexts but same story just as the Ethiopic 3rd & 4th Maccabees is different in perspective than the Septuagint version in CONTEXTS but SAME story)

@marecof864

4 жыл бұрын

I want to say this I do not believe Barnabas should be implemented as scripture it’s obviously been Romanized if it was an authentic original material from Barnabas but I do believe Hermas and 1st Clement, their writings deserve scriptural authority especially The Shepherd, Clements mentioning of the Phoenix can be debated whether or not the wording of his writing is taking out of place or lost its original sentence due to “scribal error” either way it’s easily understood in context of what he’s trying to convey in relation (comparison) the resurrection thank you

@_Moses_The_Servant

6 ай бұрын

​@@marecof864In all seriousness, you should present this idea formally to a publication company. I would love to see this.

a Minor dispute on some of your conclusions. Christ is Wisdom and is also that spirit of mercies also known in greek as logos (literally "The I said" or the logic of an argument or point) The Holy Spirit is prudence also known as the counselor, in Isiaiah it reads thusly Spirit of God shall rest upon him (the Christ (my addition), the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and godliness shall fill him. This is the spirit mentioned the fact that Wisdom remains the son, but he is filled with the holy spirit which is wisdom and understanding. There is a difference here between wisdom and wisdom and understanding.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

The Holy Spirit is definitely the Spirit of the Father who also came down from heaven to partake of flesh and blood as the Christ child (Hebrews 2:14; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:20; John 6:38). John 12:49 states that God the Father gave Jesus the commandments to speak to his disciples (“…the Father gave me a commandment what to speak.”) while Acts 1:2 states that Jesus “by the Holy Spirit gave commandments to his disciples whom he had chosen.” Since John 12:49 states that the Father gave Jesus the commands to speak, but Acts 1:2 states that the Holy Spirit gave those commands, the Holy Spirit must be the Spirit of the Father who indwelt Jesus (“…the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwells in me, He does the works” -John 14:10), led Jesus (“Jesus was led by the Spirit”- Matthew 4:1), and gave him the commandments to speak (“the word which you hear is not mine, but the Fathers” - John 14:24). Thus inspired scripture proves that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father who gave the man Christ Jesus the words and commandments to speak to his disciples. “Then Jesus was LED BY THE SPIRIT into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” Matthew 4:1 “Jesus, FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, returned from the Jordan and was LED AROUND BY THE SPIRIT in the wilderness.” Luke 4:1 NASB Like all true prophets, Jesus was so fully human that he was “full of the Holy Spirit” and “led around by the Spirit” of God.” These scriptural facts prove that Jesus as a child born and son given was not “God with us” as God, but rather, “God with us” as a true man who had the capacity to pray, be led by God, and be tempted by the devil. Since Jesus is God who became a man, the man Christ Jesus needed to have a God, pray to God, and be led by the Spirit of God or he would not have been a true man at all. "But if I cast out demons BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Matthew 12:28 Jesus was able to “cast out demons BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD.” Thus proving that the Holy Spirit of God not only filled and led him as a true man, but also did the mighty works in his ministry as a true man. Jesus clearly identified the Holy Spirit that led him, filled him, and did the mighty works in his ministry as our Heavenly Father Himself when he said, “… the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but THE FATHER THAT DWELLS IN ME, HE DOES THE WORKS.” John 14:10 Matthew 12:28 says that the Holy Spirit of God did the mighty works, but John 14:10 says that that Spirit is “the Father” who dwelt in Jesus to do “the works.” Let us now harmonize the scriptural data to identify who the Holy Spirit of God inside of Jesus really is. Luke 4:1 says that Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 12:28 says that Jesus “cast out demons by the Spirit of God.” Yet John 14:10 says, “the Father that dwells in me, he does the works.” Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” and he cast out demons by that “Spirit of God” within him. Yet Jesus said that it was “the Father” who dwelt in him that did “the works” in John 14:10. So who led Jesus Christ of Nazareth? The only scriptural answer is the Holy Spirit of our Heavenly Father. And who did the mighty works through Jesus? The only scriptural answer is the Holy Spirit of the only true God the Father.

@babd3121

7 жыл бұрын

You answer correctly, now how does this contradict the traditions of the Early Church, The Catholic and Orthodox traditions?

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

B Abd It clearly contradicts the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine of a trinity because they allege that the Holy Spirit is not the Father. It also contradicts those who hold to a Semi-Arian view like the Jehovah's Witnesses because Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Holy Spirit is only "an active force" rather than the Spirit of the Father who led Jesus and filled him with His Spirit. And it also contradicts the Semi-Trinitarian church fathers such as Justin and Tertullian because they believed that the Holy Spirit was a lesser third person rather than the later Trinitarian view of the coequality of the alleged persons.

@babd3121

7 жыл бұрын

this to a degree is true, however if one reads deeply in the dispute between the greeks and latins (eastern orthodox vs Roman catholicism) on the filoque you come across them both referring to the Father as the source of both. and its not well known that ultimately in their theologies they do preach co eternal of same nature however ultimately the father being a mystery beyond our comprehension , unknown to us except through the son, of whom was begotten from the father before all ages (Giest of their theology)

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

B Abd Jesus was begotten of the Father "before all (human) ages" because "God calls the things which be not as though they were" (Rom. 4:17). That is why almost all Messianic prophecies speak of events already happening in the life of Christ before they literally occurred. Example, "they pierced my hands and my feet" (Psalm 22). God spoke prophetically to David in Psalms 2:7, "this day have I begotten (yalad) you" concerning Christ. Yalad is the same Hebrew word for the births of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4:1. We know that no angels can be "born" (yalad). That is why Hebrews 1:5 says, "to which of the angels did He ever say, "You are My son this day have I begotten (given birth) to you." This proves that Christ could not have been a prehuman angelic creation.

Where does it say the only formula to pronounce in baptism is this? I don't think it does. Also I have seen many that are baptised using a formula where Jesus' name is spoken but they rise to be racist, backbiders and liers. Where is the power when these individuals exist in Apostolic organizations and are the norm not the minority?

36:24 The father made/begotten the son, then the son created the rest of creation. I can allow that the Holy spirt is the Son, and is added to each person to then become Sons/daughters of God yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 1 Corinthians 8:6 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Colossians 1:15‭-‬17

The Philip qautyya was added long after the great schism It's the sign of higher archy justifying there intervention between man and God. The monopoly of God Jesus faught against lol

I believe you should revise your thinking and interpltation on the Holy Spirit.

This would be non JW Arianism not an angel...

I started to watch this video with good expectations and an open mind, but thank God, He made it clear to me that what you are trying to prove is a false teaching most evidently. If you will delete my comment and don't face it, you will prove yourselves before all as not having a clear conscience and an open mind towards the the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, the corrector of all, and someone who is speaking in the name of Jesus Christ. I am writing this in the name of Jesus Christ. If anyone has the Holy Spirit and didn't left the truth will listen to the truth. This is a challenge and a test. I'm asking you to leave this comment here and don't prove your ways crooked. I will show that this teaching what you are doing is opposed to Jesus' and the apostles' teaching. You stated in the video a blasphemy against the Son of God, Jesus Christ: "Jesus is the Holy Spirit of God incarnated in a body, rather than an alleged second divine person called Son of God". You defamed Him, you talked about the one who gave his life for you as of some second unimportant notion that doesn't even exist. Aren't you afraid of God that you depreciate the person of His only begotten Son? Do you know him? You said that the Son of God, Jesus Christ doesn't exist literally as a person, he is just an incarnation of the Holy Spirit. You don't contradict trinitarianism or some kind of theology born in the centuries after Christ. You contradict John the apostle, Paul the apostle who have seen Jesus, were sent to preach salvation through Him, and himself also, Jesus Christ and the sound mind itself. Here it is what you contradict: John 1,1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." He talks about the Word, not the Holy Spirit, as being incarnate in the body of Jesus Christ. Further: "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth." The Word became flesh, not the Holy Spirit. You may say, that the Word, Logos is the Holy Spirit, because Jesus said that his words are spiritual (“the words that I speak to you are spirit and life”), but listen: "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." He who was preexistent with God the Father and than incarnated is once said to be the Word than to be the Son of God in the bosom of the Father. So the Word that incarnated in the body of Jesus is said to be the preexistent Son of God, not the Holy Spirit. And he says: the Word didn't become the Son of God through incarnation, he was the Son of God in the bosom of the Father. He was god. Where does he talk about the Holy Spirit as being incarnated in Jesus? Show me that from scripture. Show it evidently. Furter: 1 John 4, 1-3 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." If you say that who came in the flesh of Jesus Christ was not the preexistent person of the Son of God, you deny Jesus Christ, because it is proven above that who came in the flesh is the preexistent Son, the Word, you deny the Truth even if you say that the Holy Spirit incarnated in him. Because exactly the Holy Spirit is the one who testifies about the preexistent Son of God, and you nullify His work. You work against him. If the Holy Spirit testified about Himself, His testimony wouldn't be credible on legal basis. Paul says in 1 Timothy 3, 16 "He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit." He doesn't say, that the Spirit came in the flesh, but that he vindicated someone else who came. It is nonsense for a person to vindicate himself. This is what satan does, a boastful liar. Jesus also testified about his Father and didn't glorify himself. And the Father also according to Jesus' words and deeds was glorified by the Son of the Father. If someone has a clear conscience he accepts what is logical. Jesus promised that He will send the Holy Spirit to his followers while he is away. Was he lying to them?! He never lied. It is not in His character. In fact Jesus said of the Holy Spirit at the last supper: "He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” What you are saying through your teaching and putting indirectly in the mouth of Jesus is: “I will glorify myself.” instead of what he said: “He will glorify me”. If it wouldn't be true that the Son of God, Jesus Christ is a different divine person from the Holy Spirit, he would have said it and not tell his disciples tales about himself as if he were another person. He would have said the truth: "I am in fact the Holy Spirit, and I will come back to you in my original form." This is so evident. It is not the trinitarian theology that established the truth. Jesus established it. And also: Luke 4, 1 "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness". Was Jesus full of Himself? No, he was full of meekness. If His person was the Holy Spirit incarnate does it make sense that he was working together with himself? Was he leading himself? This doesn't make any sense. Was he misleading the people? God is not illogical, His mind is not confusing. This is clear as light. But you are making the light darkness and determining people to get lost from Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Beware. The Holy Spirit testifies about the Son of God, and you are working against Him. It is a dreadful thing to fall in the hands of the living God. Who is the living God? Jesus Christ, the resurrected only begotten Son of God. He is returning soon, and we will have to face His judgment seat, and all will give account of what they did and what they said. No blasphemers will inherit the Kingdom of God: Rev. 22, 14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” But if you repent, you will be forgiven: Luke 12.10 “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

Kovacs Emese - The video is entitled, 'The Theology of the Shepherd of Hermas." I clearly cited Hermas' view in which he taught that the Holy Spirit is the Son of God in two distinct passages. "The pre-existent Holy Spirit which created all things did God make to dwell in a body of flesh chosen by Himself." Hermas Parable 5:6 Later, Parable 9:1 says, “After I had written down the commandments and similitudes of the Shepherd, the Angel of repentance, he came to me and said, ‘I wish to explain to you what the Holy Spirit that spoke with you in the form of the Church showed you, for that Spirit is the Son of God.’” No, I never said that "Jesus Christ does not exist as a person." The man Christ Jesus is a distinct human person because our Heavenily Father'd divine Spirit Person (God as God who is a Holy Spirit) also came down from heaven to become a true human person (Emmanuel God with us as man). 1 Tim. 3:16 says that "God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit..." Since no verse of scripture ever says, "God the Son", we know that the God who was manifested in the flesh is God the Father. Hence the God who came down from heaven (the Father) to become a man was justified by the Spirit of the Father. Ephesians 4:4-6 says that there is only "One Lord ... One Spirit ... One God and Father above all, through all, and in you all." Here we see that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of the Father who became incarnate in the Hebrew virgin as a true human son. I do not have time to respond to every point in such a long post. There is an ontological distinction between God as God and God with us as a man because the human son was "granted" a beginning with a distinct human "life in himself" which is clearly stated in John 5:26. All of your questions and comments are clearly addressed in these three videos. The Distinction Between the Father and Son kzread.info/dash/bejne/Za6Ml5ujo7zgj6w.html Oneness Theology (One God Became one man) kzread.info/dash/bejne/X22KptiTc6m-dqw.html The Holy Spirit Speaks What He Hears kzread.info/dash/bejne/nIh9mKhtqJW3ZLA.html

@kovacsemese3266

6 жыл бұрын

I understand now, that you are interpreting the word of God in a totally different way. I see what you are trying. I tried to interpret those passages you cited in your way and to see if that interpretation is consistent, but it's not. You are tying to use inductive reasoning in the case of 1 Timothy 3:16. I was using deductive logic when I explained it. According to Aristotle inductive reasoning is not sure, the deductive one is sure even logically. From this verse it is evident to me, that in it the one who became flesh and the Spirit that justified him are not the same person, and I backed it up with direct logical reasoning. But maybe you didn't understand it or I don't know. And regarding Ephesians 4:4-6, it is evident to me, that there he speaks of the 3 different persons of the one Godhead: "one is the Spirit, one is the Lord (Jesus Christ the Son) and one is the Father" If you enumerate by one 3 things are they the same? Where do we know that he doesn't speak of the same person in 3 ways in the enumeration? Because beside these above mentioned three, there are other separate elements in the enumeration as "one body, one hope, one calling, one faith, one baptism". So according to your reasoning he also says: the Spirit, the Lord, the Father, the baptism, the hope, and all the other elements are not "one" in the sense of "the same thing for all as separate things" but one and the same as things. Is the Father the same with an act "baptism" or a notion "hope". Can't you see that you aren't interpreting scripture consistently? Probably not, because it's evident that you want to see your pre-interpretation into scripture. It's not my duty to convince anyone if he is wrong, but I tried at least to show that it is not consistently logical your way of interpreting scripture. But truth is another thing. It depends on the validity of the premises. One day you will face Him, Jesus Christ, God the Son, who according to Revelations 4:7-9 7 "And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" Who sat on the throne was the same as the Lamb, Jesus CHrist? Rev.4:3 "And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. (...) The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." If you can't see that a person cannot break in two pieces and be the same person and talk to himself, touch himself, love himself, it's worthless to talk anymore about this. This is in fact pantheism in another form. And I know where that lie comes from: satan. In fact all lies come from him. It's so simple in fact. God is 3 persons in total union. All 3 of them are uncreated and of the same essence. Like I am a human and you are a human also, you are the same as I in your essence, so is the Father the same as His Son and the Holy Spirit. All 3 are god, uncreated. That's how they can talk with each other and be the same as essence and in union and at the same time different persons. Thank the Holy Spirit that we could have this discussion, because I learnt a lot thinking about these things and it determined me to love the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, even more strongly, seeing that he is "the bread of life", that is his person, words, flesh, all that he is. Praised be the Lamb OF God the Father! :D

@scottmedhaug4107

2 жыл бұрын

it is good to study the history as most of them in the meeting that created the Nicene creed were Monarchians. In fact, Athanatius was a monarchian. These Monarchians didn't reject the creed as today Onesess isn't that same as Monarchianism of his time. They also didn't complain about the word trinity.

@P.A.O.

6 ай бұрын

I agree with you completely. The spirit of Hod that is within me agrees, and my conscience is soothed by this, because that spirit of God testifies to me that this is true. Jesus does not lie. When I was watching this video, my spirit started to feel very disturbed and troubled within me. It felt off, scripture were coming to my mind to refute the evil wicked claim that was being said in this video and by the person who wrote this work. The scripture that kept coming to my mind was when blessed Paul the apostle said that, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”. Thank you brother for laying this out a eloquent fashion, and addressing this heresy. God bless you, and have a great day

@_Moses_The_Servant

6 ай бұрын

​@@scottmedhaug4107 In the realm of theological discourse, it is imperative to discern between Dynamic Monarchism and Modalistic Monarchism. Dynamic Monarchism, akin to the teachings of Geno Jennings, holds sway, delineating nuanced distinctions, albeit caution is warranted against the simplistic attribution of the name Jesus without contextual elaboration. Brother Ritchie is preaching simultaneous Modalism.

Lots of United Pentecostal doctrines.

@scottmedhaug4107

2 жыл бұрын

created by a couple of KKK people to separate the church through race

Arianism changes this whole idea of Oneness.... Jesus the Holy Spirit is the Created Son who was in the Form of God, not coequal or coeternal.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

Hermas did not believe that Jesus pre-existed as a God the Son (Trinitarianism), or as an angelic son (Arianism), or just as a created man (Socinianism). According to Hermas Similitude 9:1 and Parable 5:6-7, Jesus pre-existed his birth as the Holy Spirit of God Himself before becoming the child born and son given. Since no text in the Shepherd of Hermas or in the Bible ever says that "the Holy Spirit" was created, Hermas could not have denied Christ's everlasting pre-existence as the Spirit of the "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6). Therefore the theology of Hermas was clearly Modalistic rather than Arian, Trinitarian, or Socinian.

@ArianismtodayLife

7 жыл бұрын

Global Impact Ministries your not listening JW's say Jesus is Micheal. Arians dont say that. And yes Jesus is the First creation... and the church was the first creation in that she is taken out of Christ the First creation like Eve os out of Adam...

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

You are not listening. I wrote, "Since no text in the Shepherd of Hermas or in the Bible ever says that "the Holy Spirit" was created, Hermas could not have denied Christ's everlasting pre-existence as the Spirit of the "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6)." You wrote, "Jesus the Holy Spirit is the Created Son." How could the Holy Spirit have been created when the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father who led Jesus and gave him the words to speak? John 14:24 says that Jesus spoke the words (logos) of the Father. John 12:49 says that the Father gave Jesus the commands to give to his disciples, but Acts 1:2 says that Jesus "had by the Holy Spirit given commandments to the disciples whom he had chosen." Jesus was also led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness in Matthew 4:1. Therefore the Holy Spirit could not have been created which leads us to believe that the theology of Hermas was Modalistic rather than Arian, Trinitarian, or Socinian.

@globalimpactministries766

7 жыл бұрын

The Kingdom of GOD and Christ (Arianism Today) The scriptures inform us that Jesus as the child born and son given was firstborn in the mind and plan of God just as God's elect were already born after the firstborn (Romans 8:29-30). This is evident because Jesus was already spoken of as "the Lamb slain from the creation of the world" (Rev. 13:8). Just as Jesus was not literally slain from the creation of the world, so Jesus was not literally born then either. The scriptures inform us that Jesus had his beginning by his begetting. "For to which of the angels said he at anytime, 'You are My son this day have I begotten you.' And again, 'I will be to him a Father and he will be to me a son (Heb. 1:5 cites Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam. 7:14).'" If Jesus was literally created "before the creation of the world (1 Peter 1:20 says that Jesus was "foreknown before the creation of the world")" then why did the Father say, "I will be to him (Jesus) a Father" during the lifetime of Samuel? We know that the title son was given because of his virgin conception in Mary. "The Holy Spirit will come upon you ... for this reason the holy child shall be called the son of God (Luke 1:35)." Jesus was "granted a life" by the Father (John 5:26) by being "made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4). Furthermore, if Jesus was literally created in heaven before his birth at Bethlehem, that would place him in the category of angels rather than "begotten" sons. Psalm 2:7 uses "yalad" for begotten just like "yalad" is used for the births of Can and Abel in Gen. 4:1-2.

@ArianismtodayLife

7 жыл бұрын

I like the whole trying to prove your point in here, but the bible says John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time the Only born God Who is in the bosom of the Father has been revealing him.... So It was Jesus representing the Father in the OT

Jesus is the Word that became flesh not the Holy Spirit become flesh.

@_Moses_The_Servant

6 ай бұрын

Leviticus 26:11-12 KJV - And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people. Leviticus 26:11-12 WLC_TR - וְנָתַתִּ֥י מִשְׁכָּנִ֖י בְּתֹוכְכֶ֑ם וְלֹֽא־תִגְעַ֥ל נַפְשִׁ֖י אֶתְכֶֽם׃ וְהִתְהַלַּכְתִּי֙ בְּתֹ֣וכְכֶ֔ם וְהָיִ֥יתִי לָכֶ֖ם לֵֽאלֹהִ֑ים וְאַתֶּ֖ם תִּהְיוּ־לִ֥י לְעָֽם׃ The Aramaic Bible, Targum Onqelos Leviticus, Leviticus 26:11-12 Then I will place My sanctuary in your midst, and My Memra will not reject you. And I will rest My Presence in your midst and be your God, whereas you shall be My people. - Strong's Concordance - nephesh: a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion Original Word: נֶפֶשׁ Part of Speech: Noun Feminine Transliteration: nephesh Phonetic Spelling: (neh'-fesh) Definition: a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion The footnote from the Targum Onqelos Leviticus, Leviticus 26:11-12 states, “The Hebrew, lit. ‘and My soul,’ had to be circumvented, which the Targum here accomplished by the use of the Memra”. Indeed, the discovery that the term “Memra” is employed as a substitution for “soul” in the Targums is quite intriguing. This revelation holds profound implications, particularly for individuals who have newly embraced the faith. It signifies that the early Second Temple Jewish-Christians held the belief that the Memra embodies the essence of the Soul, representing the inward Counsel of the Heavenly Father's Holy Spirit. This insight broadens our understanding of the theological perspectives prevalent during that era, offering a deeper appreciation of the conceptualization of the Memra within the context of the early Christian tradition. Q: Please explain why the Soul of God is substituted with His Memra in the Targums. Please refrain from side stepping my question. I'd prefer a direct answer.

An angel appeared to Mohammed too😅

Arian heresy

@scottmedhaug4107

2 жыл бұрын

actually it was in oppostion to the Arianism.