วีดีโอ

The question remains: "Why did Joseph need another dream if he already has a healthy fear of Archelaus?"

If apostles no longer exist, neither can the offices of elders and deacons. Apostles were the only office that had authority to ordain elders and deacons and this authority was never delegated anywhere in scripture.

Objective morality must come from god there for god exist...circular reasoning you already assume there is god by saying "objective morality must come from god" 😂😂😂😂 your premise is beat up my guy! Another thing if you repent to jesus then your good....another stupid thing...

What about Goliath and his brothers?

1 Corinthians 15:10-22 [10]But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was 👉NOT in vain👈; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. [11]Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. [12]Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is NO RESURRECTION of the dead? [13]But IF there be NO RESURRECTION of the dead, then is Christ NOT risen: [14]👉And IF Christ be NOT risen, then is our PREACHING VAIN, and your FAITH is also VAIN.👈 [15]Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. [16]For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: [17]👉And IF Christ be NOT raised, your FAITH is VAIN; YE are yet in your sins.👈 [18]Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. [19]If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. [20]But now is Christ risen from the dead, and BECOME the firstfruits of them that SLEPT. [21]For since by man came death, by man came also the RESURRECTION of the dead. [22]For as in Adam ALL DIE, even so in Christ shall all be MADE ALIVE. KJV . . Calvinism is defined by T.U.L.I.P. There is NO (R) in T.U.L.I.P and because there is NO (R) in T.U.L.I.P there is NO (G) in T.U.L.I.P either. Since there is NO (R) and (G) then T.U.L.I.P is 100% VAIN, 100% false, 100% heresy. What God's word truly says: Romans 5:10 [10]For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, 👉we shall be saved by his life.👈 KJV What the word of God DOES NOT say: Calvinism 5:10 For if, when we were elected of, we were regenerated to God by the death of his Son, much more, being regenerated, 👉we shall be saved by his death.👈 T.U.L.I.P Calvinism Source): www.semperreformanda.com/doctrine-2/tulip-the-synod-of-dordt/ Limited atonement: The "Reformed Position: Christ's death was designed to actually secure the salvation of all of God's chosen people. Christ's 👉death secured and actually accomplished the salvation of all of God's chosen people.👈 God has determined that all for whom Christ sacrificed Himself 👉will be saved👈." . . The preaching of (limited atonement) Is VAIN. Why? Limited atonement teaches saved by his death for the elect, does not teach the RESURRECTION of Christ. Limited ATONEMENT teaching goes directly against Romans 5:10 as well as others passages of the scriptures. Here is another verse that the teaching of Limited Atonement goes directly against (Mark 12:27). [Why because Limited Atonement that God IS the God of the dead]. What the word of God truly says: Mark 12:27 [27]He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. KJV What the word of God 100% does not say: Calvinism 12:27 [27]He is not the God of the LIVING, but the God of the DEAD: ye therefore do greatly err. T.U.L.I.P So because there is NO (RESURRECTION) in T.U.L.I.P and because there is NO (RESURRECTION) in T.U.L.I.P there is NO (GOSPEL) in T.U.L.I.P either. Therefor, this is why the preaching and faith in Calvinism which is defined by T.U.L.I.P is 100% VAIN. Not only is Calvinism 100% VAIN and 100% HERESY. Calvinism is perverse and or perverted. Why? Because Calvinism is another gospel its not the Gospel of Christ, so therefore let calvinism be accursed. Galatians 1:1-12 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; 👉but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.👈 👉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.👈 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. KJV

GOD IS SPEAKING TO THE SONS OF GOD WHO ARE THEY?IT IS AN EVIDENCE THEY ARE THE ANGELS AND THE MEN IN LUKECH.3V38 ADAM IS CALLED SON OF GOD!!!THE BIBLE DIXIT!!!

If one pays strict attention to the text of Gen.6:1-4 (in any version) , the Giants (or Nephilim or space aliens or "whatever") were on the earth both before and after "those days". What were "Those days"? Those days were "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." The sons of God, according to the text, are distinguished from the "whatever". Also the men of renown, by extension, were not the offspring of the "whatever" and the daughters, but rather the union of the sons of God and the daughters. If the corruption were the result of a polluted fallen angel/human hybrid gene pool, for which God wiped out mankind, then why does the sin of mankind have any bearing on it at all? Verse 5 gives the reason "And God saw that the wickedness of MAN (not fallen angels) was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of HIS heart was only evil continually." Who then were the sons of God? Genesis 6:4 Give the first mention of "sons of God". If they are shown to be "fallen angels", the hermeneutical principle of first mention would require that that meaning must carry through the rest of scripture. In Job (1:6, 2:1 and 38:7) they are clearly angels. "and Satan came among them." (1:6 and 2:1) Ergo Satan (who is indeed a fallen angel) is not one of them. If I "come among the New York Yankees" it it is clear from the context that I am not a "one of them". Hebrews 1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? " Hosea 1:10 "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God." John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Romans 8:14 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." So we see then that, While Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, the sons of God are those humans (and angels) who are led by the Spirit of God. Clearly this excludes Satan and his fallen minions. Are not angels spirits? Luke 24:39 Did not Jesus say "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Dr. MacArthur would have us believe that angels, which don't have flesh and bones, actually have male genitalia capable of being used to copulate with human women? Do angels have male genitalia or human compatible DNA so that they are able to impregnate human women.? Would God create angels with the ability to do that? Lets say for the sake argument that these Sons of God are men possessed by a devil. Does that change their DNA so that their offspring are human/angel hybrid creatures? Really?

The Bible teaches that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus is unlimited, sufficient and effective for all people. The message of the Bible is directly in opposition with this doctrine and teaches clearly that Jesus’s atoning sacrifice is for the sins of all people; the whole world. And that God has in Christ reconciled the world to himself. Who is the ‘our’ that John refers to in the following verse? English standard version - 1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. International standard version 1 John 2:2 It is he who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world's. Does ‘our’ refer to only those to whom this letter was written? No. Only those who were saved at that stage? No. To all that were saved at that stage and all who were saved thereafter and also those who will still be saved in the future? Thus, limited to the saved? According to the doctrine of limited atonement the ‘our’ is limited to only those who were unconditionally elected to be saved and all other people are excluded. But John writes immediately after this ‘and not for ours only but’. He clearly says that the atonement is not for us, the saved, the unconditionally elected, only. He says it is NOT limited to the ‘our’ group, whoever the ‘our’ refers to, but there are other people to whom the atonement of Jesus also applies. Who are these other people? The ‘not ours only’? John answers clearly in the same breath: ‘they are the whole world’. Not only some people but the whole world. It is clear in this verse that atonement or propitiation is for two groups, ‘our’ and ‘the whole world’. There is no indication in this verse at all of an atonement that is limited to certain people only! Who is the ‘us’ that Paul refers to in the following verse? 2 Cor 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; Does ‘us’ refer to only those to whom this letter was written? No. Only those who were saved at that stage? No. To all that were saved at that stage and all who were saved thereafter and also those who will still be saved in the future? Thus, limited to the saved? According to the doctrine of limited atonement the ‘us’ is limited to only those who were unconditionally elected to be saved and all other people are excluded. But Paules writes that there is a ministry of reconciliation that was gives to us. And then he says that this ministry is about God, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. 2 Cor 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. He now talks about ‘their’ trespasses and ‘them’, another group of people which is not the ‘us’. Who are they, the ‘them’? Paul’s answer is ‘the world’. All the people in the world. The same as the whole world of John. God was also reconciling the world, not only ‘us’. Not limited to only some people but includes the whole world. It is clear in this verse that reconciliation is for two groups, ‘us’ and ‘them, the world’. There is no indication in this verse at all of a reconciliation or atonement that is limited to certain people only! Why an atonement for all, the whole world? Because the Bible teaches that it is the will of God that all people should repent, be saved and that not any should perish. And therefor Jesus was sent to die for all, to give himself as ransom for all and to be the atoning sacrifice for all. Why then should the atoning sacrifice of Christ be valid or effective for some people only? This does not mean that all people are saved or will be saved. 1 Tim 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 1 Tim 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Joh 12:47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 1 Joh 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Joh 4:42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” 2 Cor 5:15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. 1 Tim 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. Tit 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, Who is all people? Who is all? Who is any? Who is the world? Is it only the unconditionally elect? No, it clearly includes all people.

So the bible isn’t a story too?

Can you please say which ones to avoid from your standpoint?

Another of his preaching and teacher that is questionable.

He is completely wrong about this and a lot of other things. Why fo people think je is so smart?

Angels are spiritual beings and they cant have sex. Why doesn't John know this.

Why twist the msg?, giving to God is normal,word of God tells us to give Tith (the 10 percent,) to give offering,we give for Evangelisation,we give to support build churches,church projects,we support poor kids so is not only pastor Benny but all pastors bcoz its not their plan but its in the Bible to build the kingdom of God with our finances so how many times ppl will crucify pastor benny?

Well... he's wrong.

Romans 1:20" For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Psalm 19 1-4: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. I work the day shift. (Both are not 24 hours) Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” referring to the whole time of the six days, The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.

This is so Ham biased. This is taken out of context from another video from the John Ankerberg Show. Show the full video. Ham does not have a PhD in anything, much less science, yet he argues with a PhD astrophysicist? Mr. Ham earned a BAS in environmental science and taught a couple of years in High School in a small town in Australia back in the 1970's some 40+ years ago; that's it.

I couldn't agree more, but allow me to go even further on the subject of origin and to lay down the fact that the Biblical earth is a flat stationary topographical plane. If you believe you're spinning out of control on a sweaty ball rocket shooting through an endless vacuum of space, you're absolutely no different than William Lane Craig. And this is "not at all" compatible with the Bible. Study to show yourself approved, no matter how stupid something sounds!

John, while being accurate on many things scriptural, misses the point in this. The key quote is when he says, " that's a reasonable interpretation." Nevertheless, with this in mind he still is wrong on this point and misinterprets this scripture. Sadly many will believe what he states without question and without researching this topic.

Where is the full documentary?

Read the Holy Scriptures IN CONTEXT. God was clear in both cases of why He destroyed the world during the days of Noe and what the last days will look like before the return of Jesus Christ to the earth. Matthew 24:37-39, kjv 37. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Genesis 6:4-7, kjv 4. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Well he’s incredibly wrong about “this is where sin entered in with humanity” or how we ended up in a fallen world. The world was fallen before the sons of god decided to chase some tail. Sin was clearly already here. They taught man a lot of bad stuff sure but fallen angels or demons are not the reason humans are corrupted or fallen. They ate from the tree. God said not to. Therefore sin was into the world. MacArthur should know this…it’s weird he doesn’t seem to.

John's explanation misuses the term angel. Look up on your own how the term angel, demon, sons of God are used in the Bible. Easily understood is the fact that he says that angels are a creation of God. and that is true. However, his blanket use of the term of angels for Sons of God does not equal each other. For clarity on this look up videos by Dr. Michael Heiser on angels, demons and Satan.

I'm still looking for the alleged contradiction? He did say ''gloating over the misfortunes of other people'' but obviously hyperbolically or sarcastically, and didn't mean it literally, but let's say he did, for the sake of argument, would that qualify as him being evil? i don't think so. It would make him a dick tho, but it's a good job he was kidding.

Absolutely love, JM. Actually, one of my go too on theology, however I think you’re wrong in this case. And the Hebrew, the Sons of God the name is called Bené Elohim. Every time that term is used in the Bible is referred to the angels and the Old Testament. It’s used like three or four times every single time it refers to Angels you can find it a few times in the book of Job. I think this discussion is inconsequential. It’s a side conversation among Christian that ultimately doesn’t really matter. However, I think it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion That the sons of God were not ordinary men, and they did have relations with Women. I guess we’ll find out for sure in heaven thank you John for all the work that you do so much love for your brother

Neanderthals are bi-pedal primate animals. Neanderthals are very different from Humans. Neanderthals lived at the same time as Humans. Neanderthals had no tear ducts, very large sinuses, large barrel shaped chest, short arms, heavy bones, different braincase, different ear bones, and more. Neanderthals technology did not change over their whole time span. There is no “missing link” to humans from bipedal primates. The large brain evolution hypothesis has been falsified after the discovery of early hominin with larger brains than later hominin fossils.

Hughs argument makes no sense. He didnt decieve anyone. He told you what he did!

And bats had relations with cows and the produced flying pigs

Pastor MacArthur...thank you for clarifying this subject. Clearly, those Sons of God were created by God not man. Seth did not foster a Godly line...it was not until Jesus and salvation did we, the human race became "Son's" of God.

Those who believe in God and keep his commandments (TRUTHS) are the sons of God. Two sets of people are in the world at all times, the sons of man and the sons of God. Galatians 4:3-6; 3. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. We are under the law when we do not keep the law, just as if we broke a law of the country, state, or town that we live in. We will be punished under that law and be a servant of the state, a servant of sin, we are in bondage sold under sin, for sin is the transgression of the law. Those who are keeping the Law, through the Spirit of Christ, are not under the Law any longer. We are adopted into the family of Abraham and are the sons of God. 1 John 3:1; 1. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:

God did not every call angels sons of God

Turning aside to Jewish myths ...

my goodness having watched a few of these newton vids he is an absolute master at saying nothing at all with the maximum amount of flowery words

It amazes me that this man can be so horribly wrong about this issue! unless he is a false minister or masquerading in light when he is full of darkness

Those ‘secular stories’ are supported by causal evidence. We can test them directly and Lisle is of course lying.

Ya of course there is no mention of giants in the bible and Goliath was just a normal sized guy with a big reputation. The bible is not a supernatural book that's for sure right? Og just needed a big bed because he rolled around lots in his sleep...

Interesting conjecture brother JM, In saying the “sons of God” are demons then these creatures must be embodied in some form of a matter? Creating Nephilim/anuk with the daughters of men? Men of renown

No sir. You have succumb to semantics. Bad idea. Read the Hypostasis of the Archons and compare.

It doesn't say, "men, men, men". It says the son's _of God_ came in to the daughter's _of men._ The angels were all *generated* directly by God, which makes each one of them a 'son of God'. Adam was the only 'man' directly generated by God which made him a 'son of God'. Every man who was generated by Adam or came through Adam was a 'son of man'. Jesus also came _directly_ from God which made Jesus a 'son of God' and more specifically the *only **_begotten_* son of God. Jesus is the 'son of God' *and* the 'son of man' for this very reason. We can _become_ sons of God through God's Spirit, when we are directly generated by Him, born again, spiritually. The only two human (flesh and blood) men *directly* generated by God are Adam and Jesus. Going back to Genesis 6, the son's of God (those directly generated by God) came in to the daughters of men (those women directly generated by men). This mating produced nephilim off spring...immortal spirits in sinful human flesh. The flood killed the flesh, disembodying the spirits. This is where the evil spirits come from, those that seek to dwell in flesh. The angels were bound in chains. The spirits are roaming the earth. This co-mingling happened before and after the flood. It seems the co-mingling was less frequent after the flood. Early church fathers, like Irenaeus speak on this as do books like Baruch, Wisdom, Giants, and of course Enoch. I believe Jubilees does as well. It seems obvious that this is the truth from scripture. Other scriptures not discussed show the giants (post-flood) to be as tall as cedars.

⁠ ​​⁠ Hugh faith is in science My faith is in Jesus Christ and the word of God Hugh is a fraud who think science is the reason to believe

Adam was a son of God Luke 3:38 hence all man kind are sons of God. Then are we to conclude that we are all angels? No. I dont think God would allow an angel to become of human form to procreate as God told Adam and Eve to procreate. It would contradict his natural law. Just cause angels lost their heavenly being doesnt mean they came to earth as humans, they fell from light to darkness and are reserved for hell. Regarding Hebrews 13:2 it cant be in a literal sense for us today. It was referring to Abraham, however today as in Hebrews 1 states the Son, Jesus, has spoken to us and we have the gospel. We have God himself in the flesh why have or think of having or wanting someone else.The age of miracles, signs, wonders, etc. are no longer in effect. Christ is all we need. God Bless

Big bang/star trek cosmology is also a secular story.

That is a very limited view.

Making himself Wise he becomes a fool

Making himself Wise he becomes a fool

Making himself Wise he becomes a fool

It baffles me that Turek can have a PhD in something - philosophy? - and yet be so transparently wrong on every point.

Yet another false teacher who preaches 95% truth and 5% lies...who else do we know who does this?!!!

So our spirit is dead? Our soul can die?

This is one of the few times where MacArthur is completely wrong.