Видео

Nuff Thanks Idren. I man a fight prostate cancer,stage 4 but I man nuh frighten as Jah RasTafari Iyesus Kristos has shown I , I will come through and do more works for H.I.M. More strength to the I for the I faithfulness.

@thenowchurch6419 oh my wonderful friend Ras Ber I... I shall include the I in my Deepest extensive prayers & Meditation. Blessings to the I Give thanx n praise

Well you have great taste and knowledge obviously. Rasta Bless.

Thank you much for checking out my other vids. Much Blessings Sista!

Iriei I! I probably saw him 8 or 9 times, opening for him once. Jah Bless up to the I and fam as well.

@@thenowchurch6419 Max Respect

@@thenowchurch6419 I think I beat you cause I've been on earth longer than U, Enjoy 💚

True King. Spear has been working non-stop for I an I.

I give thanks that you fulljoyed it. Please suggest other artists I should give tributes to. Joseph Hill of Culture?

I give thanks for your comment. I am glad you enjoyed it Idren. Rasta Blessings.

Yes I. Infinite Raspectful Freedom, Equal Rights and Justice For All.

Jah Jah know. Gratitude is the best attitude. More strength and wisemind to the I.

Raspect to the I as well for the apprecilove.

Iyah I, Selassie I ! Yeah Rasta. Jah is downloading crucial content into I. Bless up and Thanx!

I pray thee, please elaborate on what that means to the I.

@thenowchurch6419 I saying that Jah shows the love for I threw others & animals..... those of us who "love" one another is proof of the MOST HIGH love

@@3sotericCompassionist1976 Yes I king. I fully agree with that but would add that Jah also loves us through our Holy Guardian Angel and Nature as a whole.

Hail the I this new day! As I overstand it the Philosopher's Stone would represent the Pineal Gland fully activated. The alchemical transmutation of lead into gold is a lower level correspondence of the same process. Only a scientist who studied Alchemy in extreme detail, which is very hard to do as the names and symbols for the chemicals and processes changed over time and different alchemists would use different ones, would be able to tell whether any of them actually turned lead or some base metal into gold or produced a Philosopher's Stone healing medicine. As for the spiritual version, we can examine the lives of those associated with Rosicrucian doctrine and the evidence supports the idea. Swedenborg, Sir Isaac Newton and Jakob Boehme would be good examples. Bless King.

Yes I. Nuff Thanx and Praise for a new day to work for Equal Rights, Justice and Peace and just enjoy Jah Creation.

Yes I. Grizzly is among the top drummers in any genre. Very inspiring warrior drumming of Rastafari. Raspect to Mystic Revealers band as well.

Yes I Idren! I man saw them a few times over the years. The best one was the first time around 1984 in Trinidad. It became standing room only. Those of us with seats stood on them. Jah herb was shared freely while audience members jumped up on stage next to the band as they were performing. I an I in the audience sang along to everything and danced all night. It was a little taste of what it might have been like to catch Bob Marley and the Wailers before Bob transitioned. Good times!

​@thenowchurch6419 what's thee I thought of "Ras Ben" ?

@@3sotericCompassionist1976 Who is Ras Ben?

@thenowchurch6419 The I has a channel here on RUclips.

@@3sotericCompassionist1976 OK, I have seen him before. The little I can tell from memory and what I see now is that the brother like Ital Iman has good intentions but is confusing the planes or levels of reality. There may or may not be extraterrestrial ships visiting earth but those are not the Ingels of Jah and I wont say they are evil spirits either. I an I salvation comes from the Most High who is Spirit AKA Irit and neither H.I.M. nor the Ingels need physical ships to travel on or to take I an I any where. It is easier for the material minded ones to believe in extraterrestrial technology as the fulfillment of scripture rather than spiritual transformation and astral travel so the Ras has many fans and followers. I do not like to be overly critical of I brothers but in love I say I cannot get on board with his worldview. I like his focus on Khemet but again his interpretation is always on the lower planes. May Jah bless and enlighten him.

Raspect every time Iyah, Africa and Africans must come to realize the greatness of their culture and legacy which was gifted to the world before I an I were captured and kidnapped.

I Give much Thanks Sistren. I do have an Instagram. It is lionpower5. Hit I up over there. Bless up.

Yes I King. Keen observation.

I just replied to your email. So let I know where I can help.

Sure, I usually have my email address in the info section. It is khepratoil@mail.com

Thanks! That means a lot. Keep up the Great Work.:)

I give thanks for your taking time to watch and comment. Please feel free to look at all the videos and to suggest episode ideas. I have upped my rate of uploading so there will be lots of new vids coming on line in the days and weeks ahead. Bless.

@@thenowchurch6419 Thankyou I’ve uploaded some music on my channel to blessed love ❤

Bless up. The tune in the background is Big Youth's Mosiah Garvey (extended), a remix and dub of Burning Spear's classic Marcus Garvey Words Come to Pass. It is here on RUclips. Keep tuning in. I have lots more in store. RasTafari.

@@thenowchurch6419 Thank you so much for telling me that. I will, indeed, tune in. I watched a few of your other videos earlier today, and I love what you're doing. You're speaking about what you believe in, and you're sharing wisdom. I can't wait to hear more from you. Take care. ❤💛💚

Peace and blessings queen. Thank you for the encouraging words. I agree; leaving Peter Tosh out of any major role is a travesty. Jah Love and Blessings to you and yours.

Greetings bro. In respect to my channel please let us keep this in one thread. Please do not just reply apart from the thread we have started. Thank you. From the beginning of our discussion to now you have ignored a key point. The doctrine that Christ is the Archangel Michael has implications for salvation because it can imply that He is not God. This is a case where you presuppose and assume that they are the same person and reason from there, explaining away any discrepancies. The passages in Jude as I have taken pains to explain is not consistent with a being that is God and if that is the case you are demoting Christ from divine to a created being. This is why this issue does not seem to you to be essential to salvation but it is. I am not sure how you can be claiming that your method is not about finding verses. That is just a matter of course. If one is using scripture one must locate verses that support your point. So I really do not get your denial there. I acknowledged that your method is based on the whole Bible; I actually use that phrase in my point. If something is not clearly stated it is not seen, correct? That is the meaning of "hidden". Your method is to use the entire bible to reveal something that was not previously clear. So I do not get your denial of that either. No, I did not misrepresent your position. Here are the scriptures referring to the Divine Council: "Psalm 89:5-7 says, “The heavens praise your wonders, LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings? In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him.” These verses present a divine council: heavenly beings referred to as “the council of the holy ones.” Psalm 82:1 also indicates that “God has taken his place in the divine council” (Psalm 82:1, ESV). The “divine council” is also called the “great assembly” (NIV), “heaven’s court” (NLT), and “His own congregation” (NASB)." The definition of a Prince is a son of a monarch, nominally or originally. The Divine Council beings are called "Sons of Yahweh". In Psalms 82:6 the Council members are called "sons of Yahweh". They are heavenly princes. We do not use scripture alone to understand scripture, we must understand history, culture and language and also use God given logic. So are you saying that Yahweh is not the ultimate Protector and Guard of Israel? Michael is a protector of Israel but possibly as a delegated authority. That title cannot be used to say he is the Lord. You would have to prove using other scriptures that Michael is the Lord since Monarchs can and do delegate duties and works to others. No where did we agree that on this point we are only talking about celestial battles. That may have been what was in your mind but we never made such an agreement. Are you saying that Israel's battles are not the Lord's battles? Israel never was formed based on any man's will but God's decree to glorify Himself so any battle they fought, for example the battle to capture Jerusalem, were the battles of the Lord. The Lord did not always join the battle but had delegated men to do it. The same applies to Michael leading angels into battle. God is orderly and consistent so I did not change the topic. It is your logic that is not sound concerning the Voice of the Archangel and the Voice of Christ at the 2nd Coming. Are not all the special declarations by angels given them by the Lord, ultimately the Voice of the Lord? So there is no contradiction between the Voice of the Archangel waking the dead being called the Voice of the Lord, yet they are separate persons. You just do not seem to understand or agree with the delegation of powers which is done by the Lord. Ezekiel for example presents King David as the Messiah in the new Kingdom but the Messiah is Iyesus Kristos not David. That is one of many examples. The Lord is a priest after the order of Melchizedek yet He is the Lord of Melchizedek. Only those with the light of the Holy Spirit can comprehend these paradoxes. You say that the scriptures make the point that Michael=Jesus, but no one but one person in ancient history and the SDA and Jw's have deciphered what is so obvious in scripture, when the entire Bible is studied, according to you. That is not very convincing but sounds more like heresy. I have accused you of going hard for what you say is a non-essential doctrine and maybe it is because I and others have accused your doctrine of blasphemy. The reason I accuse the doctrine of that is because it dangerously demotes Christ from being the God of Creation, for reasons I have already explained. It is not enough to say " the Bible is God's word. Let that be your guide". There are a few different canons and several different translations and hundreds of different interpretations. It does not clarify anything to take that advice. The Bible contains the essentials of salvation and has great guidance but it cannot explain itself. It is a collection of books and words in various human languages. Human languages change over time and cultures do as well. We also must have and depend of the Holy Spirit to explain it. We have to take into account the authority of the ancient tradition of the Church, which started before there was a New Testament or a consensus on the canon. The Tewahedo Ethiopian Orthodox Church for example has 81 books in its Bible including the book of First Enoch. After you reply to this, let me know if you want to discuss the nature of the 2nd Coming because that is the crux of the differences between my understanding and that of the SDA. Bless up.

@@thenowchurch6419 Sorry, I did reply in the other thread but they were not showing. If you sort your video by newest they may show. I'm not sure why it does that. I'm heading out now so will get back to you when I get time.

@@thenowchurch6419 However, I should say upfront that there are some critical flaws in your response.

Brother I can tell it would be a waste of time to continue discussing with you. Not only are you determinedly stuck to your presupposition but you do not comprehend my points. Based on my argument it matters not whether the Lord or Michael would "rail" against a being or not. My whole point was based on an understanding of "dare". If dare means what I am saying it means then it cannot apply to God. If you cannot see that the action of railing or not railing is not pertinent to my point it makes no sense to continue. Thank you for finally responding to to my "dare" point since that was the overarching issue for my point that Michael is not God. Your delving into use of repent etc for God in the Bible can be and has been rationally explained, showing how His connection to the term is different from that of a human. God repenting is not changing His mind from sin, so it is different from the Bible's use of that term for humans. For example God resting in Genesis is not the same as a human who needs to rest because of our finite bodies. But use of dare is pretty straightforward. The Greek word is Etelmesen and that combined with the word "not" (ouk) in front of it clearly means " did not dare". You can ascribe that to the Lord God Almighty but I will refrain from the appearance of blasphemy. Your argument that Jude was so focused on his contextual point that he would find it unnecessary to mention that Michael is the Lord is quite illogical to me. It is similar to your doctrine that Sunday keeping in the Jacob's trouble is the Mark of the Beast 666 though the Bible nowhere confirms that. You have been convinced of that by arguments of dualistic correspondence and cherry picked verses and then you read it into the whole Bible. I pray that you find the Light one day soon. Please make one more reply if you feel the need and let us stop the dialogue. Thank you.

@@thenowchurch6419 You said: From the beginning of our discussion to now you have ignored a key point. The doctrine that Christ is the Archangel Michael has implications for salvation because it can imply that He is not God. My response: The only implication that He is not God comes from those who insist Michael is a created angel, which is not my view. You said: This is a case where you presuppose and assume that they are the same person and reason from there, explaining away any discrepancies. My response: You have ignored my explanations that it is not a supposition, but derived from bible study. You said: The passages in Jude as I have taken pains to explain is not consistent with a being that is God and if that is the case you are demoting Christ from divine to a created being. This is why this issue does not seem to you to be essential to salvation but it is. My response: I have never stated a belief that Michael is a created being. That is your belief. You said: I am not sure how you can be claiming that your method is not about finding verses. That is just a matter of course. If one is using scripture one must locate verses that support your point. So I really do not get your denial there. I acknowledged that your method is based on the whole Bible; I actually use that phrase in my point. If something is not clearly stated it is not seen, correct? That is the meaning of "hidden". Your method is to use the entire bible to reveal something that was not previously clear. So I do not get your denial of that either. No, I did not misrepresent your position. My response: It's not about finding verses. It's about the whole bible and context. For example, you zero in on Jude 9 whereas I use the whole section for context. You make it sound as if I need to search for specific scriptures to support my point. The bible supports my point. You talk about things being hidden. I disagree, and Jesus disagrees. He was disappointed with His followers when they failed to understand the scriptures that talked about Him. Jesus didn't see these as hidden scriptures or meanings. Clearly, through study, we are expected to learn these truths that may not be clearly stated. Clearly stated does not mean hidden. You said: Here are the scriptures referring to the Divine Council: "Psalm 89:5-7 says, “The heavens praise your wonders, LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings? In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him.” These verses present a divine council: heavenly beings referred to as “the council of the holy ones.” Psalm 82:1 also indicates that “God has taken his place in the divine council” (Psalm 82:1, ESV). The “divine council” is also called the “great assembly” (NIV), “heaven’s court” (NLT), and “His own congregation” (NASB)." The definition of a Prince is a son of a monarch, nominally or originally. The Divine Council beings are called "Sons of Yahweh". In Psalms 82:6 the Council members are called "sons of Yahweh". They are heavenly princes. My response: Read Psalm 82 through carefully and with a clean lens my friend. Don't these sound like fallen angels? Do these really seem like beings that are faithfully serving their God? As I said, apart from Michael/Jesus. As I said earlier, the only other princes are human or satanic. You said: We do not use scripture alone to understand scripture, we must understand history, culture and language and also use God given logic. My response: Problem is that your God given logic is leading you astray because you are leaning on your own understanding and not on the word of God. You said: So are you saying that Yahweh is not the ultimate Protector and Guard of Israel? My response: Yahweh IS the ultimate protector of Israel of course. How does this relate to Michael and Jesus? You said: Michael is a protector of Israel but possibly as a delegated authority. That title cannot be used to say he is the Lord. You would have to prove using other scriptures that Michael is the Lord since Monarchs can and do delegate duties and works to others. My response: It is not a strong argument to say Michael 'possibly' has delegated authority. This is another example of you straying from what scripture says to try to get your narrative to fit. The bible tells us that Michael is Israel's protector, YOU would have to prove that it is a delegated authority since you made the assertion against what the bible tells us.

@@thenowchurch6419 You said: No where did we agree that on this point we are only talking about celestial battles. That may have been what was in your mind but we never made such an agreement. Are you saying that Israel's battles are not the Lord's battles? Israel never was formed based on any man's will but God's decree to glorify Himself so any battle they fought, for example the battle to capture Jerusalem, were the battles of the Lord. The Lord did not always join the battle but had delegated men to do it. My response: Yes, but God tells the Israelites that He will fight their battles. He doesn't send them out alone. He is with them. You said: The same applies to Michael leading angels into battle. My response: It does not apply because you have not shown where it applies. You present a Christ who sends others to battle for Him. This is not scriptural. You said: God is orderly and consistent so I did not change the topic. My response: You widened the focus of the conversation. In any case I have shown that God/Jesus do not send humans or angels out into battle alone. He is with them. You said: It is your logic that is not sound concerning the Voice of the Archangel and the Voice of Christ at the 2nd Coming. Are not all the special declarations by angels given them by the Lord, ultimately the Voice of the Lord? So there is no contradiction between the Voice of the Archangel waking the dead being called the Voice of the Lord, yet they are separate persons. You just do not seem to understand or agree with the delegation of powers which is done by the Lord. Ezekiel for example presents King David as the Messiah in the new Kingdom but the Messiah is Iyesus Kristos not David. That is one of many examples. The Lord is a priest after the order of Melchizedek yet He is the Lord of Melchizedek. Only those with the light of the Holy Spirit can comprehend these paradoxes. My response: That is because Jesus is from the line of David. David of course also being a priest after the order of Melchizedek, so there is a logic to the links. It's not some non biblical delegated authority argument that you are trying to use. You said: You say that the scriptures make the point that Michael=Jesus, but no one but one person in ancient history and the SDA and Jw's have deciphered what is so obvious in scripture, when the entire Bible is studied, according to you. That is not very convincing but sounds more like heresy. My response: You are obviously not aware of the many bible commentators who identify Jesus with Michael. The belief goes back to at least the 1600's, more than 200 years before the SDA movement. You said: I have accused you of going hard for what you say is a non-essential doctrine and maybe it is because I and others have accused your doctrine of blasphemy. The reason I accuse the doctrine of that is because it dangerously demotes Christ from being the God of Creation, for reasons I have already explained. My response: It does not, because I am not claiming that Michael is a created being. You said: It is not enough to say " the Bible is God's word. Let that be your guide". There are a few different canons and several different translations and hundreds of different interpretations. It does not clarify anything to take that advice. The Bible contains the essentials of salvation and has great guidance but it cannot explain itself. It is a collection of books and words in various human languages. Human languages change over time and cultures do as well. We also must have and depend of the Holy Spirit to explain it. We have to take into account the authority of the ancient tradition of the Church, which started before there was a New Testament or a consensus on the canon. The Tewahedo Ethiopian Orthodox Church for example has 81 books in its Bible including the book of First Enoch. My response: I'm sorry, it is tradition that skews the word of God and take man on his own course of understanding because the traditions are not rooted in God's word. You are correct that we need to depend on the the Holy Spirit. I would add prayer to that. But where tradition varies from the word of God, I want no part of that. You said: After you reply to this, let me know if you want to discuss the nature of the 2nd Coming because that is the crux of the differences between my understanding and that of the SDA. My response: No problem You said: Brother I can tell it would be a waste of time to continue discussing with you. Not only are you determinedly stuck to your presupposition but you do not comprehend my points. Based on my argument it matters not whether the Lord or Michael would "rail" against a being or not. My whole point was based on an understanding of "dare". If dare means what I am saying it means then it cannot apply to God. If you cannot see that the action of railing or not railing is not pertinent to my point it makes no sense to continue. My response: I already explained that you are applying it in human terms rather than in the context of the chapter. That is what you have ignored a few times now. You said: Thank you for finally responding to to my "dare" point since that was the overarching issue for my point that Michael is not God. Your delving into use of repent etc for God in the Bible can be and has been rationally explained, showing how His connection to the term is different from that of a human. God repenting is not changing His mind from sin, so it is different from the Bible's use of that term for humans. For example God resting in Genesis is not the same as a human who needs to rest because of our finite bodies. But use of dare is pretty straightforward. The Greek word is Etelmesen and that combined with the word "not" (ouk) in front of it clearly means " did not dare". You can ascribe that to the Lord God Almighty but I will refrain from the appearance of blasphemy. My response: You are rationalising repent, regret, relent when applied to God and acknowledge that it does not apply in the same way as it does a human. That is what I explained for 'dare' that it does not apply in the same way, and again you ignore it because of your presupposition. You said: Your argument that Jude was so focused on his contextual point that he would find it unnecessary to mention that Michael is the Lord is quite illogical to me. My response: Why? What relevance did it have to the message not to rail? Furthermore, you are supposing that Jude knows the identity of Michael and the people he was writing to don't know. You are assuming who has certain information and who doesn't. You said: It is similar to your doctrine that Sunday keeping in the Jacob's trouble is the Mark of the Beast 666 though the Bible nowhere confirms that. You have been convinced of that by arguments of dualistic correspondence and cherry picked verses and then you read it into the whole Bible. I pray that you find the Light one day soon. My response: I haven't made that point, and it is irrelevant to our discussion, just another attack I suppose. You said: Please make one more reply if you feel the need and let us stop the dialogue. My response: Let me know when you are done, or just stop responding, and I'll know you are done.

@@thenowchurch6419 You said: No where did we agree that on this point we are only talking about celestial battles. That may have been what was in your mind but we never made such an agreement. Are you saying that Israel's battles are not the Lord's battles? Israel never was formed based on any man's will but God's decree to glorify Himself so any battle they fought, for example the battle to capture Jerusalem, were the battles of the Lord. The Lord did not always join the battle but had delegated men to do it. My response: Yes, but God tells the Israelites that He will fight their battles. He doesn't send them out alone. He is with them. You said: The same applies to Michael leading angels into battle. My response: It does not apply because you have not shown where it applies. You present a Christ who sends others to battle for Him. This is not scriptural. You said: God is orderly and consistent so I did not change the topic. My response: You widened the focus of the conversation. In any case I have shown that God/Jesus do not send humans or angels out into battle alone. He is with them. You said: It is your logic that is not sound concerning the Voice of the Archangel and the Voice of Christ at the 2nd Coming. Are not all the special declarations by angels given them by the Lord, ultimately the Voice of the Lord? So there is no contradiction between the Voice of the Archangel waking the dead being called the Voice of the Lord, yet they are separate persons. You just do not seem to understand or agree with the delegation of powers which is done by the Lord. Ezekiel for example presents King David as the Messiah in the new Kingdom but the Messiah is Iyesus Kristos not David. That is one of many examples. The Lord is a priest after the order of Melchizedek yet He is the Lord of Melchizedek. Only those with the light of the Holy Spirit can comprehend these paradoxes. My response: That is because Jesus is from the line of David. David of course also being a priest after the order of Melchizedek, so there is a logic to the links. It's not some non biblical delegated authority argument that you are trying to use. You said: You say that the scriptures make the point that Michael=Jesus, but no one but one person in ancient history and the SDA and Jw's have deciphered what is so obvious in scripture, when the entire Bible is studied, according to you. That is not very convincing but sounds more like heresy. My response: You are obviously not aware of the many bible commentators who identify Jesus with Michael. The belief goes back to at least the 1600's, more than 200 years before the SDA movement. You said: I have accused you of going hard for what you say is a non-essential doctrine and maybe it is because I and others have accused your doctrine of blasphemy. The reason I accuse the doctrine of that is because it dangerously demotes Christ from being the God of Creation, for reasons I have already explained. My response: It does not, because I am not claiming that Michael is a created being. You said: It is not enough to say " the Bible is God's word. Let that be your guide". There are a few different canons and several different translations and hundreds of different interpretations. It does not clarify anything to take that advice. The Bible contains the essentials of salvation and has great guidance but it cannot explain itself. It is a collection of books and words in various human languages. Human languages change over time and cultures do as well. We also must have and depend of the Holy Spirit to explain it. We have to take into account the authority of the ancient tradition of the Church, which started before there was a New Testament or a consensus on the canon. The Tewahedo Ethiopian Orthodox Church for example has 81 books in its Bible including the book of First Enoch. My response: I'm sorry, it is tradition that skews the word of God and take man on his own course of understanding because the traditions are not rooted in God's word. You are correct that we need to depend on the the Holy Spirit. I would add prayer to that. But where tradition varies from the word of God, I want no part of that. You said: After you reply to this, let me know if you want to discuss the nature of the 2nd Coming because that is the crux of the differences between my understanding and that of the SDA. My response: No problem You said: Brother I can tell it would be a waste of time to continue discussing with you. Not only are you determinedly stuck to your presupposition but you do not comprehend my points. Based on my argument it matters not whether the Lord or Michael would "rail" against a being or not. My whole point was based on an understanding of "dare". If dare means what I am saying it means then it cannot apply to God. If you cannot see that the action of railing or not railing is not pertinent to my point it makes no sense to continue. My response: I already explained that you are applying it in human terms rather than in the context of the chapter. That is what you have ignored a few times now. You said: Thank you for finally responding to to my "dare" point since that was the overarching issue for my point that Michael is not God. Your delving into use of repent etc for God in the Bible can be and has been rationally explained, showing how His connection to the term is different from that of a human. God repenting is not changing His mind from sin, so it is different from the Bible's use of that term for humans. For example God resting in Genesis is not the same as a human who needs to rest because of our finite bodies. But use of dare is pretty straightforward. The Greek word is Etelmesen and that combined with the word "not" (ouk) in front of it clearly means " did not dare". You can ascribe that to the Lord God Almighty but I will refrain from the appearance of blasphemy. My response: You are rationalising repent, regret, relent when applied to God and acknowledge that it does not apply in the same way as it does a human. That is what I explained for 'dare' that it does not apply in the same way, and again you ignore it because of your presupposition. You said: Your argument that Jude was so focused on his contextual point that he would find it unnecessary to mention that Michael is the Lord is quite illogical to me. My response: Why? What relevance did it have to the message not to rail? Furthermore, you are supposing that Jude knows the identity of Michael and the people he was writing to don't know. You are assuming who has certain information and who doesn't. You said: It is similar to your doctrine that Sunday keeping in the Jacob's trouble is the Mark of the Beast 666 though the Bible nowhere confirms that. You have been convinced of that by arguments of dualistic correspondence and cherry picked verses and then you read it into the whole Bible. I pray that you find the Light one day soon. My response: I haven't made that point, and it is irrelevant to our discussion, just another attack I suppose. You said: Please make one more reply if you feel the need and let us stop the dialogue. My response: Let me know when you are done, or just stop responding, and I'll know you are done.

@@pdub332 Asking you to stop the dialogue means that I am done. Be well.

Greetings bro. I have responded to your post on Midnight Cry asking for you to contact me by my email and I left my email address. It seems that Midnight Cry Media has banned my posts because this has never happened to me before. We can continue the discussion here if you like. Let me know if that is cool and I will post a reply here. Bless up.

@@thenowchurch6419 It probably deleted the post because you put an email address in there. Not sure whether RUclips allows that. Happy for us to continue the discussion here.

@@pdub332 I cannot agree that putting an email address is the reason. I do that quite often with no problems. I will respond when I have a little more time.

@@pdub332 I apologize for the delay. I had a family gathering to attend and just got back. I will reply a bit later tonight. Thanks for your patience.

@@pdub332 I will make a quick reply now. 1.The fact that Michael would not rail against even someone who is not a dignitary, does not affect my point. It in fact strengthens it because it shows a deference that is not becoming of the Lord Almighty. My point is based on the use of a conjugation of the word "dare" which indicates a fear of punishment and need for great caution. The Lord does not need to consider the consequences of daring since He always thinks and acts perfectly. 2. I do not know if you misunderstood my statement but you certainly stated that my point implied or directly meant that the Lord would "dare" steal or murder or break the decalogue. I never implied that because the term "dare" cannot apply to Him and He acts in total Love which fulfills the Law, at all times, which is His nature. To state that my position was making a case that Christ would speak evil and then ask a series of questions based on similar premises is to state that my point made those cases as well. 3. In making your case you consistently presuppose that Michael and Christ are one. That is contrary to a debate or discussion of a debated point. Our discussion is not just about whether the Bible has a clear statement on the issue but about the truth or falsity of the issue. To discuss that honestly one must put aside one's presuppositions and argue as if it has not been proven to be true as yet. 4. My brother in humanity, regardless of whether Jude was quoting an apocryphal text or not it would not make sense for him to omit that Michael is the Lord pre-incarnate unless it was a secret or a mystery. The whole Bible is about Christ so any opportunity to identify some thing that He said or did in the past would only be natural and logical. To omit it would be strange. 5. Two translations and an allowance in a King James translation are not "several". I made no mistake in researching that the Hebrew word used in Daniel was Ahad which does not stretch to mean First. Echad can mean First but was not used. 6. The identity of the Angel of the Lord and the Messenger of the Covenant are not essential to salvation. Know who Christ is, is essential so that point is moot. 7. With all due respect your view of using the whole Bible and finding verses that you interpret as revealing the hidden nature of such a "Bible Thing" is the exact method and argument used by Pre-Trib repture proponents. 8. Please read Psalms concerning the Divine Council. Those are the many Heavenly Princes. 9. An authority who protects something can delegate another being to do the hands on job and both are said to protect the thing or person BUT the authority is the real Protector. That is all that I mean. Of course to guard is the protect but that does not make the guard the ultimate Protector. 10. It is not for us to question the ways of the Lord. Obviously the Lord delegates others to fight wars in His name. Israel's forces did that many times. Sometimes the Lord would join the battle at others He would not. Again the same argument holds for the Voice of the Archangel. Christ can delegate an angel to have powers to raise the dead in His name. It does not make the Archangel the same person as the Lord. 11. The Bible only makes the case for Michael=Jesus in the perception of someone who wants to see that or already believes it. No writer of scripture ever stated it and it is certainly not a doctrine needed for salvation so I ask why go so hard for such an obscure and non-essential doctrine? I feel that you are genuine but I have been where you have been, having been a believer in SDA doctrine for many years in the past. I look forward to more positive discussions. Peace and blessings in Iyesus Kristos the Lord Almighty.

Thanks for watching and commenting.

So technically we are probably Re-incarnated multiple lifetimes and the probability of being a different species, race and gender are extremely high.🙏🏼

I feel reincarnation is a tool the Most High uses but not in every case. As far as equality of "races", there is only one race of humans but we are divided by different lands and cultures. According to the Bible and Bhagavad Gita etc we are all children of the One. H.I.M. Emperor Haile Selassie 1 says no nation is inherently superior to any other. Marcus Mosiah Garvey also says all human groups have a equal place in the eyes of the Most High. The culture of the Euro peoples is barbaric and inhumane generally and must be changed or eradicated. As far as Ital Iman and his annunaki theory, I see it as delusional as well. He has been poisoned by elements of Nation of Islam propaganda and believes he is just trying to uplift black people to know their divinity.

Yes I. The end of the Babylon trance is upon us. Give nuff Thanks and Praises to the Most High Jah.

@thenowchurch6419 May I n I ask your thoughts on St. Germain ?

@@3sotericCompassionist1976 St. Germain has had so many legends made about him it is hard to know what is true but as far as I believe his teachings are consistent with Hermetic "As Above, So Below" doctrine and those similar to Paracelsus and I agree with those, for the most part. What is your view?

But what is a Sirius Trance? Won't you please tell me? I've never heard that phrase before.

@elizabethhann4028 is was meant to be taken like " we are in serious trouble" if we don't wake up from our babalonian trance

You do know I mentioned that in the video and said it was way too insignificant?

@@thenowchurch6419 yeah i wrote this right before you said it. but im not trying to debate with any fans of his and i raspect my elders so you got it. just wanted to speak my peace because i keep seeing people say peter, bunny, and cindy werent in the movie but they clearly were even if it was just a scene or two.

@@JayRasheed718 Their characters all had very minimal parts. I consider that disrespect in the context of a supposed biopic. Thanks for your comment.

@@thenowchurch6419 and thanks for your response. it is disrespectful I agree but it threw me off thinking they weren’t in it at all before I saw it. If you ask me I would say the real biopic should cover everything the documentary did. This movie was far too short compared to most biopics. But to cover all of that they would need a series on Netflix. That’s what they should’ve done but the writer only wanted to cover this period of his life…it’s not a real biopic, just a Bob Marley movie. I’m grateful that they made it at all bringing Jamaican culture to the big screen I just wish they would’ve went further in depth with his past like the days when he was with the wailers and they recorded with Perry. The early 70s is my favorite period of Bobs life and from the trailer I see they had a scene from that time. I’m just waiting for the blu ray with all the deleted scenes so I can see what was all cut.

@@JayRasheed718 Great points. Many Jamaicans say it is not true to their accent and culture, for example it is very rare that a Jamaican woman would box (punch) her man like the Rita character did to the Bob character, far less a Rastawoman to a Rastaman. Yes there should be a real biopic, perhaps a series.

Lets not leave out poor suggestions from the family.

I feel yuh. Someting not right in Ziggyland.

I think I know who you mean.