Видео

Welcome

An interesting observation. Why would having a 10 min conversation result in a soul being lost? They are lost as it is. We use The Law as a schoolmaster to point people to Christ.

Its hard to get the Jehovah's Witness to appear on camera. I have had great conversations with some of them, but the majority won't do it. Recently a friendly one told me he would tell me what he personally thought, rather than him representing the Watchtower. That was a friendly and useful conversation. Also, I have a friend who is a Jehovah's Witness, and again he and I have had strong and heavy debates but keep a kind of friendship going. Depending on each congregation there can be all kinds of really nice Jehovah's Witnesses, and some really NOT friendly at all.

​@livingrockchurch5521 thast helful answer interesting debate i hope more are coming

Also I would recommend this RUclips Channel: ruclips.net/video/BDoDH_e90vc/видео.htmlsi=mcPeSelXli718rvy

@@livingrockchurch5521 thanks

You might see a couple of JWs around Tralee on Wednesdays or Fridays or Saturdays. They aren't great at answering questions but perhaps ask them, "Off the record, what is your personal opinion?" Of course the "BORG" does their thinking for them. But if there is any willingness to answer of their own opinion, that is a good sign.

I guess some people prefer to listen to hear say!

Im pretty sure others have been able to LIKE and SHARE videos from our channel.

Im planning on removing it, but so disappointed that the sound didn't work. And some of the best conversations not on video at all. It was a last minute decision to go to Listowel.

Well, if you could find someone who has no sin and no sim nature, and was unlike each one of us, who would that be. We can’t simply have another person as guilty as we are to take our place (and I get it that people will claim to have no guilt). Therefore God Himself provided the Perfect Sacrifice, who also Willingly took the place of those for whom He would die. So clearly this is not a matter of someone simply taking someone else’s place. Remember this is a short video and only covers the principle of substitution and penal atonement.

No one is saying that a man is god or god is a man (as per Mormonism). God taking on human form yet remaining God is another story. That’s why with Jesus we have a person with 2 natures: The Divine and The Human, existing in the 1 person. He who is God took on flesh (the Incarnation) see Phil.2:5-11. And retains that human body even today. But there is no time when He ceased being God. Men don’t become gods!

@@livingrockchurch5521 if men don’t become gods stop saying a man (Jesus) was God 🤣🤣

When did anyone state that Jesus BECAME a god, or BECAME God. Read your Bible: 'Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who , though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' (Philippians 2:5-11). Also read John 1:1-3 and Matt.1:21-23, and then answer the question, "Who then is this Jesus?"

An amazing response, and showing how different people interpret a two-way conversation. Although I actually don't get what is meant by this judgemental attack upon the preacher, who was asking someone questions and they willingly answered. Aren't we allowed to have "free speech"? And what is meant by "...who gives them the right to CHANCE anyones beliefs in life", is anyones guess!

@@livingrockchurch5521 look at the state of this world because of religion. It causes haterd and wars. If people like yourselfs stopped spreading false beliefs then maybe the next generation might live in a safer world. God does not have an ego he doesn't need people being reminded how great he is. No one knows anything btw it's time this madness stops.

We totally agree! As you would notice if you watch these videos, we ask people THEIR views. And a lot of people are "religious"! However, you can put ALL RELIGION in one category -"WORKS BASED" - as if to say that if a person does ENOUGH GOOD WORKS, they will outweigh their BAD WORKS! We try to address that and point out that NO ONE CAN EARN God's Favour, or Mercy, or Salvation! By the way, if you want to go live in a country void of ALL religion, by all means do so. But I'm quite positive that you are most likely living in a country where there is freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. What could be wrong with have a conversation about these issues without the control of ones who go around complaining that people shouldn't challenge one another's views!

@@livingrockchurch5521 I just want to apologise if I offended you are your faith. You sound like a good guy and have been very understanding of my view and explained yours very well also. Please forgive me and once again sorry. 😇

I am not that easily offended. But prefer to slow those kinds of conversations down a bit and get at the real issues. On one video, as I was talking generally, some dude passed by and made quite nasty remarks, or offensive remarks that had absolutely no call. So I eventually called the guy over and he made the same kind of argument, that I was out there shoving the Bible down people's throats (obviously in a figurative manner). So I asked him what give him that impression and he then says that he'd heard it from others. I said, that rather than listen to gossip, how about he tell me if I was actually doing that and how. In the end we had a really good conversation and probably got to the root of the problem, which was how he was raised and made to go to church etc. But in the end he realised that my approach was altogether different. I also have seen some street preachers approaching things in a way that would make me cringe! But who am I to tell them how they should do things. However, if they asked my opinion, I would likely say, "Just talk to them in a normal manner, and get to hear what they actually think about stuff like life, death, God, the Soul, Eternity, etc"

Doesn't seem to be recording my comment. What about other people?

It is set to automatically hold all comments, so we don’t get flooded with too many. Then if they are suitable and appropriate, then they can be approved.

We haven’t heard of Plus Nothing. Maybe we could get a few to check them out

I see something online called "Jesus Plus Nothing" - is that the one?

@@livingrockchurch5521 yes

Clearly @GwPoko doesn’t watch too many of these types of videos to come to that conclusion. So what were we discussing? The weather?

Never mind how they dress outwardly, surely that is irrelevant. It may be more appropriate to ask what goes on underneath it all, if you know what I mean!

@@livingrockchurch5521 that s0unds way creepier than y0u meant it t0

I was actually referring to their Magical Underwear! Google it!

Where is your evidence that a material universe exists? Well, you could say that you base that on your five senses. And no one surely would disagree. So we go to the next question. Where does the material universe come from? Has it ALWAYS existed, or did it COME INTO existence? I'd say that those are your only two choices. But the scientific world now know that the Universe has NOT ALWAYS existed, but came INTO existence. That's why they try to explain the COMING INTO EXISTENCE of the Universe with the Big Bang - which is simply an admission that there was A BEGINNING to the Universe (which is TIME, SPACE, MATTER, MOTION, and ENERGY). Are we in agreement with that so far? Ok, so, if the Universe came INTO existence, did it do this ON ITS OWN, i.e., SELF-CREATION, or did SOMEONE or SOMETHING, bring everything in the Universe (every created thing) into existence. As I see it, there are only two possibilities ties, unless you believe in SELF CREATION (SOMETHING being created out of NOTHING), and that is : 1) Something that ALWAYS existed, created the Universe. 2) Someone that ALWAYS existed, created the Universe. So which is it? 1, 2, or SELF CREATION?

@@livingrockchurch5521where is the evidence brother of these faiths are the only true and faithful paths? All those atheists walking around you preaching the trinity and your denigrating the faith of these young men. Dang, I think the Bible is full of men doing this to Christ😣

I am not sure how to interpret that comment. Who is a brother to who? Who is teaching only true and faithful paths? Is it wrong to ask questions and get clarification on what someone believes? Maybe we should just quote directly from Joseph Smith History 1:14-19 of The Pearl of Great Price, where Smith says, 'My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of ALL THE SECTS was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, that I asked the Personage, who stood above me in the light, which of ALL THE SECTS was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that ALL WERE WRONG) - and which I should join. I was answered that I MUST NOT JOIN NONE OF THEM, for they WERE ALL WRONG; and the Personage who addressed me said that ALL THEIR CREEDS were an ABOMINATION in his sight; that those professors were ALL CORRUPT; that: "they drew near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for DOC|TRINES the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." So it is quite clear that based on whoever this Personage was (which could vary with each account that Joseph Smith gave), that they were ALL WRONG, and that included ALL THEIR CREEDS and DOCTRINES! Therefore Joseph Smith, based on a so-called vision of some Personage (perhaps an angel of light), blasted every group that existed at that time. Now, all one has to do is work out the date of this so-called vision, and ask who were the various GROUPS or SECTS (something Mormons don't like being called), that were operating in the world, or even in Joseph's part of the world, at that time? Was there NO ONE SINGLE GROUP that taught A SINGLE DOC|TRINE correctly? They couldn't even get a SINGLE BAS|IC BIBLE DOC|TRINE right? Or does this sound like an attack on everyone else, in order to promote one's own beliefs? That would be the most likely scenario!

@@livingrockchurch5521 Are you telling God what he said was wrong? Lol. It was God, not Joseph Smith that claimed that men drew close to God with their lips but not their hearts. Joseph, who was Protestant, was 14 yrs old what did he know!?! Joseph Smith grew up in a time of great religious activity in the US as most Americans at that time were deeply religious and were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. I am related to many of these people. This is how the US was founded "In God We Trust", "with God's divine providence" and through whom slavery was ended. Everyone in the new villages was creating a church and preaching on corners their best understandings of scripture and trying to recruit the people to THEIR church or ministry. Joseph loved them all so he could not know which of all the many sects to join. After reading in the Bible one day he read the passage (James 1:5-6) "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that Giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him..." At 14yrs old, he went to the forest to be alone and to pray. God answer his prayer in the most extraordinary way! As part of this visit Joseph was told to not join any of them that the gospel of Jesus Christ had been corrupted over time but was about to be restored. This can be found online. LDS people love all faiths. There is great reverence for those of the early christian church (Catholics, etc) who did their best to live the gospel of Jesus Christ as he established it, for those who brought correction to the eventual corruption through the reformation (Protestants, etc al), ensured that men's faith would be guided by their conscience and not their King, founded a nation based on Godly principles of freedom. With these great Christian people and a land of religious freedom in place it was time to return what had been lost: The ability to act in God's name via the priesthood. For this reason Joseph was told to join none of the many, otherwise marvelous churches. They were impotent without God's direction and authority. Over many following years, God worked through Joseph Smith to restore the church that he set up when he was on earth. Jesus directs this church to this very day through a prophet and apostle structure like he did in days of old. He named the church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I just wanted to clarify your telling of events. More information on this can be found on official church sites. I hope folks go to the source.

Of course God is never wrong- we should and have every right to question those who claim to have heard from God (or in the case of Joseph Smith - whoever the Personage was who he claims spoke to him), or claim visions and dreams- that is our duty! So on a little bit of examination we discover that JS claims to have had his first vision in 1820. And ALL the DOCTRINES and CREEDS and ALL the GROUPS were WRONG! How convenient for starting your own group! But how about asking a few questions about the spiritual climate of the time. There had been The First Great Awakening of the 1730's and 40's and The Second Great Awakening that began in 1795 and lasted until about 1835. And many people heard the Gospel (as found in the Scriptures). So, to say that they were all wrong, in all that they taught and believed is a direct attack against all the "sects" as he calls them, including all those who would put themselves under the banner of "Christianity"! And then of course read the true history of Joseph Smith the story-teller and treasure seeker, and you'll see that what he really wanted was to be an opposing force to the good work that was coming through these Great Awakenings, with one goal - to establish himself as a prophet!

Right, you’ve made a comment but then quoted John 10. No exegesis of all 41 verses! So what was the point of it? Now of course if one knew the context of John 10, would you ever conclude that the “Other sheep” that Jesus had in mind were Americans? To a Jewish audience, anyone outside of Judaism were Gentiles. Can you not see that the other sheep were simply anyone outside of the fold of Israel? There is to be One Flock and One Shepherd. This will be made up from people from the Jews and Gentiles. It’s that simple!

@@livingrockchurch5521 Jesus was already visiting the Jews and the Gentiles during his earthly ministry - yet he still said, "other sheep I have..." Yes. One Flock, one shepherd. Jews and Gentiles - Jesus has sheep all throughout the world not just Israel, not just the Americas for that matter! We are all children of God. If you only read the Torah or Old Testament, you will only have one perspective of who the Lord's people are and about who the Messiah is. If you add in the New Testament (the record of Jesus Christ's earthly ministry in Israel) you'll get additional information or perspective of who the Lord's people are and who the Messiah is. If you read an additional testament (The Book of Mormon - a record of Jesus Christ's earthly ministry in the Americas) then you'll get even more perspective of who the Lord's people are and about who the Messiah is. All the books are "true", but if all we had was the Torah - we might think that only the Jewish people were God's righteous people, that the Messiah had not already come to earth, that the old laws were the only laws - which is not the truth. The Book of Mormon, as another testament, an additional witness, provides a fuller perspective on the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Wrong again! Jesus focus at the time of His earthly ministry, was predominantly to the Jews. It was to the Jew first. In fact Jesus said it quite plainly in Matthew 15:24, But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Were some Gentiles ministered to during that time? Yes. But by the end of Matthew, Jesus commissioned His disciples to go into ALL THE WORLD, which means going beyond the borders of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth (See Matt.28:18-20; Acts 1:8). It would take awhile before the Gospel would reach America. But what happened when it got there???? Mormons should read the accounts of The Great Awakening in America, because Joseph Smith would have been living around that time or known of it. So what did he do? He jumped on the bandwagon, and started his OWN SECT, since ALL THE OTHERS WERE ALL WRONG in their DOC|TRINES and C|REEDS and ALL were an ABOMINATION and CORRUPT, or so claimed Joseph Smith, the self-proclaimed "Prophet"!

Which guy was that?

Here is something to think about: 25 Biggest Problems with Joseph Smith’s First Vision: 1) Many people before and during Joseph Smith’s day claimed to have nearly identical visitations from God. It is very likely that Joseph Smith got the idea to claim a visitation from several others. It also makes Joseph Smith’s vision only one of many claims. Which was real/true? 2) Joseph Smith’s behavior prior to starting the LDS/Mormon church was deeply problematic, as he and his family were heavily involved in the fraudulent and illegal practices of treasure digging and folk magic, wherein Joseph would claim to have powers to find treasure that he actually never had. There are many good reasons why Emma’s parents did not approve of her marrying Joseph Smith, which is why they needed to elope. 3) There is no date for the first vision. For an event that historical, you would think that there would be a date (like with the founding of the church, or with the alleged granting of the Aaronic priesthood). 4) There is no evidence that Joseph told anyone the First Vision story, including his own family, until over a decade after it supposedly happened. He claims at one point to have told several ministers of his day, but there is no evidence of that either. Joseph did experience persecution between 1820 and 1830, but it was not because he claimed to see God and Jesus. Rather, it was because of his fraudulent and illegal treasure digging. 5) Joseph claimed that his idea to pray came as a result of unusual religious excitement in his home town. However, the “unusual excitement” or “revivals” that Joseph Smith references as a lead-up to the First Vision did not happen until the 1823-1824 timeframe….long AFTER he claimed to have received the First Vision. 6) Joseph changed the First Vision story significantly throughout his life. The story becomes significantly more embellished over time, and it also changes as his own theology changes. 7) Joseph’s own reported age at the time of the vision changes depending on which version he tells - vacillating between 14 and 16 years of age. If you were personally visited by God and Jesus in a vision, you would likely remember the precise age/year. 8) For the first several years he told the story, Joseph said that he was only visited by a single personage. 9) In the version of the story he tells his brother, William, it was only “an angel” who visited him - not God and Jesus. Even the name of the angel changes from Nephi to Moroni over time. 10) Later, the story grew from being “an angel” to being “The Lord” who visited him (still singular). There is no mention of God/Heavenly Father at all in the early versions. This fits with Joseph’s belief at the time, also found in the Book of Mormon and even in the Joseph Smith Translation of the New Testament - that God and Jesus were/are the same person (aka “Trinitarian view”). 11) Later, after Joseph’s own personal theology changed to believe that God and Jesus were separate beings, Joseph changed his story yet again to claim that he was visited by both God and Jesus. Incidentally, Joseph also updated the text of the Book of Mormon to reflect his changing beliefs in the Godhead - which should not have been necessary if the Book of Mormon was translated from an ancient record. 12) After Joseph changes his story to include two personages, the story also changes over time regarding the order of presentation. In the 1835 version two unidentified personages appeared in succession - one after the other. By the 1838 version the two personages (now named) appeared together. 13) In some versions of the First Vision Joseph claimed to struggle with Demonic powers during the vision. In other versions he didn’t make this claim. 14) In some versions of the First Vision Joseph claimed to have been surrounded by angels. In other versions he did not make this claim. 15) Joseph’s stated motivations for praying changed over time. Originally his motives were to obtain forgiveness for his sins. Only later did he change the motivation to be that of trying to figure out which church was true. 16) In the 1832 version Joseph states the he had already concluded that the all other churches were not true before he ever prayed, “…my mind became exceedingly distressed…and by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the lord, that man had apostatized from true and living faith and that there was no society or denomination that was built upon gospel of Christ as recorded in new testament.” In the 1838 version, Joseph changed the story, claiming that his intent for praying was to determine which church was true, “My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I right know which to join.” This is a crucial change. 17) In the original version of the First Vision, Joseph was not told to start a church. That was added later, only after his authority to start a church was challenged during the first Great LDS apostasy of 1838 (after the Kirtland Banking Scandal). This provides a crucial motive for the 1838 changes to the story. 18) The LDS church did not inform church members about the first vision until 1842, 12 years after the church was founded. 19) The 1838 First Vision account is NOT a first hand account of the story, though it is presented to members as such. Historians almost universally agree that earlier, first-hand accounts are more reliable than later, second-hand accounts. It is also not honest to portray a second-hand account as a first-hand account. 20) Several subsequent LDS prophets (including Brigham Young and John Taylor) referred to “an angel” appearing to Joseph Smith in the First Vision, not God and Jesus. 21) Joseph Smith’s behavior AFTER claiming to have seen God/Jesus was deeply problematic, including misleading people about his ability to translate ancient records (e.g., Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, JST, Kinderhook plates), defrauding people of their money (e.g., Kirtland Banking scandal), having multiple extramarital affairs, marrying girls as young as 14 years old, marrying orphans entrusted to his care, marrying other men’s wives after sending the men on missions, and overtly lying to both his wife (Emma) and the general church membership about his practice of both polygamy and polyandry. It is reasonable to assert that prophets are fallible, but such a lengthy history of deception certainly calls into question Joseph’s core credibility, and thus the credibility of the First Vision story (at least for me). 22) Knowing that the truth about the First Vision would be problematic to Mormons, Mormon apostle and eventual prophet Joseph Fielding Smith (as church historian) intentionally HID the 1832 account from members for decades by literally tearing the pages out of Joseph Smith’s journal and hiding them in a safe. 23) The church only “came clean” to its membership about the multiple versions of the First Vision after the Tanners exposed the church’s deception, and only more fully after Podcasts, MormonThink, CES Letter, Google, etc. forced them to do so. 24) The church’s new spin on the First Vision (via the First Vision Gospel Topics essay) does not own up to the core problems, and instead tries to gaslight its members by claiming that all the versions are consistent and in harmony. 25) The church has never apologized to its members for intentionally deceiving them for decades (via prophet Joseph Fielding Smith). What do you think? Is the First Vision story credible in your eyes? Why or why not?

To the one who has no imaginary friend, but clearly thinks that others do, well apparently letting Mormons tell their version of what they believe, is more popular that watching a video of mixing cement, which maybe ob2249 takes pleasure in doing.

Maybe OB2249 should just stick with studying cement! It is so easy to be set in ones ways and thoroughly mixed up!

OB2249 admits that the material universe exists! WOW! Now lets ask OB did the material universe come from pre-existing material (i.e. Not nothing, but something. And was that pre-existing material, material or immaterial? Well of course the answer is clear - something that is not part of this material universe, ie something immaterial, brought the material universe into existence!

Someone needs to get their keyboard fixed!

I'm glad to know someone thinks so, unlike someone I recently met in Tralee!

@@livingrockchurch5521 man can be incredibly wicked at times we dont know the half of it

Perhaps you are forgetting the Old Testament? How often is the OT quoted or referred to in the NT? How much of the NT confirms and shows it is built on the OT? What texts in the NT speak positively about “traditions”? The goal of the RC Church is not just to have “its” traditions, but to elevate them to not just on a par with Scripture, which would be bad enough, but to be superior to Scripture. But ask yourself why? Because she can’t stand on Scripture Alone otherwise she wound be exposed, thus the absolute dependency on its traditions!

@@livingrockchurch5521 I’m not RC, I’m Lutheran

@@livingrockchurch5521 I would credit the Catholic church and some of the traditions because us historical protestants affirm real presence, baptismal regeneration and infant baptism like the Catholics .

Not ALL Traditions are bad, not all are that great either. But its when a tradition has equal status with Scripture that we should be questioning, on what basis! But when the tradition has been exalted HIGHER in authority than Scripture Alone, we should reject that! Besides, all religious views within "Protestantism", just like within Catholicism or Orthodox, have their traditions. But we should be measuring those traditions against the Word of God and checking if they have any standing.

@@livingrockchurch5521 I will affirm many of the RC traditions because I don’t see it contradicting scripture, however orthodox and their double baptism is a sacrilege because scripture says one baptism

Yes there is some truth in that. Many people (maybe not "Every one") have their own "silly" little god! As John Calvin was known to have said, "The heart of man is an idol factory!" And we know that God made man in His own image and likeness (Gen.1:26-27), and it has been said, "And man has been returning the favour ever since!" The major "god" in most people's lives is themselves. There are religions such as Mormonism that teaches that the males in the church can even become a god themselves one day! And in the Faith/Prosperity "Gospel message", some call themselves "little gods"! But the problem starts where you ask these people to define what exactly they mean by "god". If someone says that they don't believe in "god", I would first ask what their definition is. It could be like one of those described above. But the God referred to in the Bible is: Eternal (having no beginning and no end) Immutable (not subject to change) Omnipotent (All Powerful) Omnipresent (Everywhere Present) Omniscient (All Knowing) Clearly then, no "god" could be created, and even the actual God cannot create another "god" with the same attributes (It would necessarily lack Eternality and Immutability) for starters!

That’s true! The meaning is usually a set of beliefs. But it has become a word that describes people’s efforts to live moral lives to earn favour with God or (the god that one believes in and whose rules the believer follows).

I think this is a mistaken view for the following reasons: Col.1:15 says πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως which means that Jesus is The Firstborn OVER all creation. So was Jesus The First One Born? No, that would have been Cain and Abel. Was He the FIRST ONE CREATED by God? That text doesn't say that; it says that Jesus is the FIRSTBORN which is a status. Just as in the Old Testament the LORD (YHWH) refers to Israel saying,Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,' (Ex.4:22). So, who is God's FIRSTBORN? Is it Israel or Jesus? And Revelation 3:14 says “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.' (NIV) But I prefer the Berean Standard Bible, which puts it this way: To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Originator of God’s creation.' As I said to someone who previously commented, go and check John 1:18 where you'll find the Greek word is μονογενὴς (monogenes) which should be translated as (mono) one and (genes) kind, and therefore meaning 'Unique, or One of a Kind'! Why it was ever translated as BEGOTTEN is anyone's guess. Check out the NLT, which says, "No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us." As for Psalm 90:2, no reference is made to God The Father, and although I agree that God is Eternal, having no beginning and no end, that verse doesn't exactly say that. But it may be as close as one can get!

@@livingrockchurch5521 The word "over" in Colossians 1:15 (I believe you are using the NIV) is not found in the Greek. The translators replaced "of" with "over", not because that is what the Greek says, but rather to avoid "of" since it appears to make Jesus part of creation. The Greek word "arkhe" in Revelation 3:14 means “beginning”. Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning. John uses various forms of "arkhe" more than 20 times, and they always have the common meaning of “beginning.” The NLT version you cite is playing fast and loose with the Greek at John 1:18. There is no justification for adding "is himself God". Cain was the first human born. Jesus was begotten as a spirit, the first of all of God's creation. Many Bible commentators agree that Jesus is being referred to as wisdom personified in Proverbs 8:22: "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,before his deeds of old" (NIV)

It sounds like the typical arguments from a jolly Jehovah's Witness. Its funny how they add 'a' to "god" in John 1:1, because of the lack of definite article in the Greek, and yet don't seem to realise that in doing so they produce 'a god', besides "God", making themselves false witnesses according to (one of their favourite verses) Isa.43:10, which states, "You are my witnesses, declared the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and understand that I am he. BEFORE me NO GOD was formed, nor shall there be any AFTER me." So at what point do they say God "formed" another "god" (i.e. the Word/Jesus)? Well, they jump over a load of verses and land nicely in Proverbs 8 and 9. Because there it talks about WISDOM who was there as the FIRST WORKS of God. But I wonder have they realised that WISDOM is referred to as if it is a WOMAN. Of course this cannot refer to THE WORD / Jesus, as He is not a WOMAN. These chapters personalise WISDOM just as Paul in 1 Corinthians personalises LOVE! Of course, when challenged about their belief in MORE than one god, based on their own translation, they will then begin to redefine the Greek word for God as having several meanings, such as a divine one - all done only when there is a challenge to the claim of the deity of Christ. There are some Jehovah's Witnesses who are bold enough to claim that they are polytheists, and others aren't so sure. They would have to check what the latest "LIGHT" from the Governing Body has to say on the subject!

That's a fair question. Jesus could have said, "“Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to OUR Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to My Father and you Father, to my God and your God. ' ” There seems to be a distinction between the Unique relationship that Jesus (The monogenes) has with the Father and therefore with God, and the relationship between Jesus' disciples who have been Adopted as sons of God. The relationship is different and yet with the same Person. By becoming sons of God, we will never have the same unique relationship with God as The Word has always had (See John 1:1-2). And yet God can call us His sons. Check the meaning of the Greek phrase "monogenes" where it is translated in John 1:18 as "only begotten" and you'll find it means one (mono) of a kind (genes).

Watch the FULL video from May 18 Pt.1 in the Videos Section!

I'm trying to figure out who you are. I know a few Bobbys or Roberts. Maybe you can let me know. We are heading to Bangor for this weekend!

In more ways than one!