Відео

So what is the evidence for the original pronunciation being Adonai?

Most people have no clue that James White doesn't own this channel.

If God sought to help the ones who need it the most, like some say, Satan would be the first into Heaven. People prefer stories over what the Bible says.

Presupposing that there are errors in the apographs implies that the autographs are unrecoverable.

Ironic that he states the only thing that impresses him is consistency over time when that is exactly what Orthodoxy is.

Very interesting question. I wish more churches/Pastors would address these issues

Dr. White is creating a straw man argument and not representing Dr. Flower's position accurately. Dr. Flowers argues frequently that God works within creation to bring about salvation through a sinful people; evil is not meaningless in this sense. I am not saying that Dr. White is wrong and I am not saying that Dr. Flowers is right. I am saying that this is a manipulative presentation of the facts. I encourage you all to get your information first-hand. One of the hardest things in the world is to represent your opponent's argument in its strongest, rather than weakest form.

Romans 4:25 in the NKJV, as well as the Legacy Standard Bible, is a blasphemous reading, and you cannot defend it. Christ was not raised BECAUSE OF / ON ACCOUNT of our justification. He was raised FOR our justification. We are justified BECAUSE of the resurrection.

Professor James White writes, “We hang a person’s very salvation upon the acceptance of the (Trinitarian) doctrine… We must know, understand, and love the Trinity to be fully and completely Christian” (James White, The Forgotten Trinity, 1998, pp. 14-15). Is it humanly possible from a biblical standpoint to truly understand the Trinity? Scholars essentially say, “It has proved impossible for Christians actually to understand the doctrine or to explain it in any comprehensive way. The doctrine of the Trinity…surpasses our human ability to understand…” (Harold Brown, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, 2003, p. 128). Are you confused by the doctrine of the Trinity? Know this, “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33). Martin Luther preached, “It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man” (The Sermon’s of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406). Where in the Bible does it tell us that you must believe in the Trinity to be saved? “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT” [New Testament] (The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 1996, see “Trinity”). “Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts…It is fair to say that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity… In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that clearly states that there is one God who exists as three persons” (Professor Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 1999, p. 89). According to history, “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity-at any rate from him” (H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Vol. 2, p. 499). Are we to understand based on the revelation of God, or is it by the traditions of men, that the Trinitarian doctrine is thought so important to our salvation that believing the doctrine is essential to receiving eternal life? What of the apostles and disciples who never heard of the Trinity? How could our Lord and Savior neglect such a fundamental truth that Trinitarians say is required for our salvation? The Trinity doctrine must cease for Christians seeking to worship in spirit and truth.

The only grounds to take the plain meaning of the words to be something other, is the need to substantiate later accretion that _must be read into the text in order to justify the belief_ .

"We're western thinkers" So what? Doesn't mean it's not true Christianity Dr. White...

Calvinism makes God the author of evil and a puppet master. It is a smear on the character of God and not supported by scripture. It's purveyors need to repent.

Flowers kills his own arguments by not sticking to and explaining the text. His arguments are all external analogies..

100% disagree with White, especially post Oct 7 2023, radical Islam is spreading like wildfire in the west through indoctrination, colonizing and political victimhood narrative and lies. The whole religion is an extreme cult, it’s too dangerous to continue spreading and needs to be exposed as it blackmails innocent women and children into it. Fuck the kid gloves.

As someone who watched you as a 'baby christian', please debate @IsraelAnderson. I don't believe you have answers in a debate

THIS WILL BE EPIC !

YEHUSHA IS VERY CLEAR THAT SATAN COMES TO STEAL, KILL AND DESTROY. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YAHWEH DOES ALL THROUGH THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Our creator is holy,his name is set aside so keep worshipping Satan. I will not.

Genesis proves Yahweh is Satan. And when you do actually research the words,Jehova,Lord and God or aka Gadreel, you will plainly see that they're all Satan.

There has been an argument in philosophical and theological circles for ages: If God created everything and knows the future for everyone, then He knows every action everyone will take. Suppose that is the case (opponents argue). In that case, there is nothing we can do differently (if we were to do something differently, that would contradict the idea that God knew what we would do). In other words, our every action and choice has already been settled in advance in the mind of God. This argument tries to portray humans as pre-programmed robots carrying out pre-determined programming. This is a clever argument in man’s mind to put the blame for sin back on God. But God can and has given free will to humans and angels. Jesus said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” (Mark 10:27b NIV) It would be illogical to send a robot to eternal punishment for merely carrying out its programming. Also, God would not suffer death on the cross for robots. He wants people to choose to love Him because they want to, not because they’re programmed to. Free will and God’s sovereignty co-exist in tension. Even though God knows the outcome of our life through our own choices, He allows humans to choose good or evil without constant intervention. In other words, He allows us to be ourselves to reveal what we really believe and want through our life choices. This is important because only those who can control themselves and choose to live unselfishly (i.e. Alway others focused) can make it into heaven. Adam and Eve made the wrong choice and set of the corruption of sin into the human race. So the ONLY way to overcome inherent selfishness (i.e. the sin nature that we as fallen humans all have that was passed down from Adam) is NOT self control. We might use our focused willpower to do righteous acts for a short time. But eventually, in the quiet unrestrained moments in our lives, our sinful nature “sweeps us away” into selfish pleasures in opposition to God. This is because inherent sin is running in the background of our being always prompting us to make decisions that benefit “me, myself, and mine” without realizing and caring about the adverse effects on others. THE ONLY WAY to overcome the inherent selfish sin nature is to accept Christ so that the Holy Spirit would be able to enter into a person to remain resident in their being forever. It is only when a person has God's spirit inside of them that a human has the ability to overcome the sin nature. But is not automatic. The person must then follow the promptings of the spirit within them and fight against the selfish tendency that is resident in their physical body. I propose another important truth claim: Every human being was created with an inborn sense of right and wrong, with discernment of what is fair and unfair. We cannot violate this God-given morality without justification. We see this all the time because even unbelievers can recognize fairness versus unfairness, right from wrong, and justice versus injustice. That is why some people accuse God of being cruel or nonexistent because they correctly recognize unjust, unfair, and bad things happening, and God seems to do nothing about them. Therefore, people either deny that there is a God, or they create another god and make up their own religious rules. In either case, the result is that the inborn, innate morality is appeased or seared and overridden. The individual creates in their heart and mind justifying reasons that allow them to override the alarm bells in their God-given morality system caused by their selfish choices. That way, they can do what they want, which is selfish and wrong. In doing that, they sears their God-given morality and replace it with lies. That is bad enough for the person who initially starts the lies. Still, if they convince enough people to believe the lies, a false religion becomes established in society. That means the children and their future descendants will be taught to believe the lies and propagate them into the future. (There will be more on this in Chapter Five.) The existence of this internal, innate moral instinct demands an explanation. It could not have evolved by random processes. This universal moral grid system in every human being always points to the same moral laws. People do what is “right” by this moral law when they do what is unselfish; this means when they are “doing unto others as we would have them do unto us.” People are doing “wrong” by this moral law when they do what is selfish and, consciously or unconsciously, do things that benefit “me, myself, and mine” without realizing and caring about the adverse effects on others.

Leighton pretty much went to an open theistic approach with his analogy. He was claiming God went towards a redeeming scenario for Joseph's brothers. This implies God did not know what was going to happen in the situation with Joseph and his brothers.

@ 14:30 IF Jesus is Yahweh, then who does Jesus cry out to on the cross, who does Jesus pray to? And you base this claim on them both saying "I am"? That's insane, Shakespeare also said "I am" does that make him a god? This is an unsupported assumption on your part, the weakest of evidence. Their actions, their words, their fruit are on opposite ends of the spectrum, they could hardly be any more opposite, yet Jesus says he and his father or of the same mind.

Two very weak examples and name calling doesn't go far in refuting dozens of straight forward clear evidence. If you really thought you had the goods, the better, stronger evidence on your side, you would gladly engage in open debate. The fact you resort to name calling and refuse civil dialog shows you are very unsure or afraid of losing.

in Acts 2:38 repent is a transitive verb it demands an object( it asks the question repent of what) .The object in this vs. is not sin. It is Jesus Christ. Most get this wrong , It is a change of mind about Christ that saves , no sin. Acts 16 :31 makes this clear ..Here is a break down in the greek of the two verbs that tell the story about how to be saved.Dennis Bonny Jaconetta Jaconetta I like this vs. so much because it is so explicit in it's message... I will attempt to break it down in regard to it's verbs..from the original Greek text...The vs. says ,Believe on the lord Jesus Christ ,and thou shalt be saved....Believe is the main verb...it is a aorist active ,imperative of the greek verb Pistos ,to believe. The aorist tense is a point of time that you believe. This is a special aorist tense that takes this point of time and perpetuates it into infinity..The active voice ,the subject ,produces the action of the verb,you believe. The imperative mood is a command. Saved is sozo, a future passive participle .A participle is an auxiliary verb that supports the main verb..The future tense show a completed action the moment you believe . The passive voice unlike the active voice ,says the subject (the one believing in Christ)receives the action of the verb rather than producing this action...In this case he receives salvation. So based on the original text The vs.is more accurately translated. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and at that moment ,you are saved for ever and ever.. Notice repentance is not mention because a spiritual dead person is not capable of doing anything to save himself.

Jesus speaks of those with eyes but don’t see and ears but don’t hear. Is he speaking about physical eyes and ears? Nope. Spiritual eyes and spiritual ears will see and hear things of the spirit. “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” ‭‭ - 1 Corinthians‬ ‭2‬:‭14‬ In the same way, am I to eat spiritual food and spiritual drink with my physical mouth? Nope. We eat and drink the body and blood of Christ by believing in him! “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” ‭‭ - John‬ ‭6‬:‭63‬ Protestants believe in real presence in the Lord’s Supper. Since when is the spirit not real???? The Spirit of God is in our midst when we gather in his name. When we break the bread we remember his true body that was broken as true life-giving spiritual food for us. When we pour the wine we remember his true blood that was poured out as true life-giving spiritual drink for us! Praise King Jesus!

I would less to say "arrogant" and would rather to say "pretentious". I'm not saying I'm right about this; perhaps "arrogance" is better. I'll have to ponder the arrogance and pretentiousness of Rome more deeply.

Case closed.

"For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must PUT ON IMMORTALITY. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal PUTS ON IMMORTALITY, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” [1 Cor. 15:53-55]. The "immortality" that is "put on" at the 2nd Advent of Christ only applies to the saints (all believers from all time). The wicked are NEVER said to "put on immortality" ever...at any time. They will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgement, at their respective resurrection (after the Millennium). *Soli Deo Gloria*

“The just shall live by their faith” Habakkuk 2:4

Here come all of the 14 year old "OrthoBros" that have never actually stepped foot in an EO building

“If you’re the god man” is such a wild statement. To say anything but God is God is idolatry. Torah says “God is not a man that he should lie” Men lie. There’s thousands and thousands of men alive today who claim to be god in the flesh…we put those people in institutions for good reason. I think anyone who worships a man as god probably belongs there with them. Christ-INSANITY…one helluva drug

James white Has knowledge,revelation and humility in my opinion 🙏

surely 'spiritual death' can't be inherited from Adam - as if it were akin to genes or something.

The True CHURCH of God that was founded and built by Christ Jesus in the 1st Cent. A.D. never taught of murdering any of their Church members (Christians)... In R.C.C., Pope poisoning Pope, Cardinal strangling Cardinals, Bishop murdering Bishop, Priest killing Priest, Priest raping Nuns, molesting Children, etc... Facts and Truth, Historically attested... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

James white is a heretic

What do you do with “Faith without works is dead”? That means faith is of no effect if it doesn’t have works. If Jesus said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and I don’t get baptized, am I saved? Faith requires works. Faith requires obedience. Noah believed God and built an ark. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Being circumcised was the indication that he truly believed. If he had not been circumcised, could we say that Abraham believed God?

"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." 1 Cor 2 : 2 "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." John 9 : 35-38 The human being Jesus is the Son of God and he is the Son of God we should be putting our faith in and calling on...

Except that Orthodox don't say they were cousins. They say that they were children of Joseph from an earlier marriage.

Thats what we called little learning is a dangerous thing. The reason why God says my people perish because of lack of knowledge. This guy is a picture of a little child arguing with the mature person. Simple question can not give right answer sad, hope and pray that this guy will encounter true relationship in Jesus that his life will be transformed from being arrogant to being humble.

Scripture does not present our Lord with two natures. The Father did his miracles through Jesus. That was what Jesus said. In fact, he could not glorify himself with his own miraculous attributes. But he was deity always in his spiritual identity as the Logos made into a man. Amen? Chalcedon gave us a Jesus who did not know the time of his return in his human nature only! That is Nestorian.

Well, since that "eternal fire" went out before, then it is obvious that it will go out again.That is a very verse to explain. And now, here is another problem that ECT has. You think it is alright for the adolescents who reach the age of accountability, but who die shortly afterward, will ALSO have to spend an eternity in hell. Well, any normal person would realize how unrighteous that punishment would be. Job 34:10-12 10 “So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do evil, from the Almighty to do wrong. 11 He repays everyone for what they have done; he brings on them what their conduct deserves. 12 It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would pervert justice. Certainly, God will not punish such young adolescents who died in their sin with never-ending torment. That would definitely be a perversion of justice. Honestly, none of you ever mention that even though that is what you believe. And it is because it would make you look very heartless. - - And that is what the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is.

I’ve recently been studying this issue and my problem with his answer is just as he asserts that the conditionalist wants to add their desire to the text he too is adding his opinion. He can’t say clearly that somehow God would be wronged if he destroyed disbelievers completely, only God can make that determination.

John 3:16 is wrong then?

Curious if there is an opposing view out there that you won’t strawman…..smh

I’m a Protestant looking for information on Catholic teachings but this guy oozes anti catholic rhetoric so much I can’t even finish the video. Even if everything he’s saying is true, he seems so slimy that I don’t want to watch.

Leighton is so traumatized by John 6 that he's too dizzy to ever read it straight without bouncing from verse to verse.

Ha! That's so 5 years ago! Winger has more than put Calvinism on its head since then. Free will is a gift from God. We are not robots.

Show us your tats dude!

In Greek, omitting the article can change the meaning or nuance of a sentence. Greek, like many languages, uses articles (the equivalent of "the" in English) to specify nouns. Here are a few ways the meaning can shift: 1. Generic vs. Specific: Without the article, a noun can become more generic or abstract. For example: With article: "Το βιβλίο" (To vivlio) - "The book" Without article: "Βιβλίο" (Vivlio) - "A book" or simply "book" in a general sense 2. Indefinite vs. Definite: Greek doesn't have a separate indefinite article like "a" or "an" in English, but the absence of the definite article often implies an indefinite meaning. With article: "Το παιδί" (To paidi) - "The child" Without article: "Παιδί" (Paidi) - "A child" or "child" in general 3. Subject Emphasis: In some cases, omitting the article can place more emphasis on the subject or the essence of the noun. With article: "Ο άνθρωπος είναι θνητός" (O anthropos einai thnitos) - "The man is mortal" Without article: "Άνθρωπος είναι θνητός" (Anthropos einai thnitos) - "Man is mortal" (emphasizing mankind in general) Understanding the specific context in which the article is omitted is crucial, as it can subtly change the meaning or focus of the sentence. John 1:1 in the New Testament is a key verse often discussed in terms of its grammatical structure, particularly the use of articles in Greek. The verse reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In Greek, it is written as: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." Let's break down the relevant parts where the article is involved: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ" (En archē) - "In the beginning": The phrase does not have an article before "ἀρχῇ" (beginning), which is common in Greek when referring to abstract concepts or to emphasize the generality of the term. "ὁ Λόγος" (ho Logos) - "the Word": "ὁ" is the definite article, meaning "the". This specifies "the Word" rather than "a word". "πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" (pros ton Theon) - "with God": "τὸν" is the definite article, specifying "the God". "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" (kai Theos ēn ho Logos) - "and the Word was God": Here, "Θεὸς" (Theos) does not have an article before it. The lack of an article before "Θεὸς" has been a significant point of discussion. Without the article, "Θεὸς" is qualitative, meaning it describes the nature or essence of "the Word" rather than identifying "the Word" as a specific entity called "God". Thus, the phrase can be understood as "the Word was divine" or "the Word was of the same nature as God." In summary, the use of the definite article in Greek is critical for understanding specificity and definiteness. In John 1:1, the absence of the article before "Θεὸς" while it is present before "Λόγος" and "Θεόν" indicates a qualitative sense, emphasizing the divine nature of "the Word" rather than equating "the Word" as a specific entity named "God." This nuanced grammatical structure has been central to theological interpretations of the nature of Christ in Christian doctrine.

Can anyone give me an example from the Old Testament where God destroys...raises those He destroyed in death...and destroys them again? Yes, God does destroy in this lifetime, but nowhere in the OT is there a concept of raising those God destroyed from the dead, only to destroy them again. Not that i can find. Therefore, any attempt to use the OT as a means to defend annihilation is running into an illogical fallacy. Same for eternal conscious torment. These concepts are not in the OT. If a bridge cannot be formed in theology from the OT to the New Testament, then there should be some red flags and alarms. What we find in the OT is that God destroyed via a flood. Jesus later addresses those from the days of Noah and all who heard believed. We also find Sodom was destroyed, but the daughters of Sodom will be restored. How? There are zero descendants. Luke reports apokatastasis (restoration of all things) spoken of by all of the prophets of old. So which view of eschatology is it? It's impossible to hold on to annihilation or eternal conscious torment without putting scriptures in a bind. For example, Luke states all flesh shall see God's salvation. That's very specific. John states, He is the propitiation for our sins and not ours only, but the whole world. John the Baptist said Jesus came to take away the sins of the world. And Paul...Paul's whole message is ultimate reconciliation. The Jews had absolutely no concept of a partial Messiah. Add in the fact that the very first school of Christian theology (where they read, wrote, and spoke Koine Greek as their native language) were Christian Universalists (Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa) and you can see why they were reading 1 Corinthians 15 as the end of eschatology instead of Revelation.