Видео

Libro mismo ng lider nyo sir. QUOTE: From Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol I, p 50. "To a mormon, God is Adam. When our Father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body and brought Eve, one of his wives with him... He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do"

Amos 3:7 KJV Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. First by context, the verse is telling the israelites will receive Judgment unless the Lord tells it to His prophets. They will know. In relation naman satin mga gentile, you cannot fully understand God unless he tells it thru the prophets or apostles God will use. Ito na po ang 66 books ng bible. From genesis to revelation (thru Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah until matthew, mark Paul etc) Read 2 Peter 1:20-21, Romans 3:2, 1 Pet 1:10-12 In short, to know God is to know his words.

Are you saved No-Ja-Bez?

Napanood nyo po ba?

To be honest po, hindi naman po ako concerned talaga sa mga nagsusubscribe. Concerned po ako sa katotohanan na gusto ko malaman ng mga kapwa ko pilipino.

Hope you watched it.

May I know why you're asking?

@ Dr. Ruckman had a great friend named Dr. Dave Reese who was also a Baptist Pastor and he held to the Mid-Acts dispensational view: ruclips.net/video/cirzRIAM4U8/видео.htmlsi=_g5ZniARxi5chU9W Ruckman went on a missionary trip with Reese: ruclips.net/video/BMHgj1aErSk/видео.htmlsi=0ju9kTNFeyLz7Aou

eto sabi ng mga apostol, di ko po sinabi Apostol Pablo 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph 2:8-9 KJV) Apostol Pedro 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1Pe 1:5 KJV) Apostol Juan 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. (Jhn 10:28 KJV) Apostol Lukas 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Act 4:12 KJV) And si Hesus mismo Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Anong sinasabi mo Jonathan?

Pahingi naman verse sa inyong sinasabi sir. Wala naman sa bible sinasabi nyo po sa totoo lang.

Hindi ko sila pinaglalaban, dahil walang contradiction ang bible. Hindi mo sila pwede pagsamahin. Ang importante ay tama ang pinaniniwalaan mo para maligtas.

Medyo… ang hirap po intindihin ng gusto nyo sabihin. Simple lang naman po ang mensahe. Hindi sa gawa ng tao maliligtas kundi sa ginawa ni Hesus sa krus at pagkakatiwalaan lamang.

ung misyonero po ay elder po ng mormons

Ofcourse not sis. This is plain wicked! If this is done by a mormon missionary, this is so evil

Una ano muna definition natin kamatayan. Ang alam ng taong kamatayan ay humihiwalay ang kaluluwa sa katawan. Ito actually UNANG kamatayan. (Heb 9:27) Tapos ang Katawan ay nasa kabaong, ang kaluluwa ay may patutunguhan. Kung hindi ligtas ang tao, deretso impyerno ang kaluluwa nya, ito naman ung IKALAWANG kamatayan. (Rev 21:8) Ang sagot sa tanong mo, ayon sa bibliya YES, namamatay ang kalaluwa, ito ung pagkatapon sa lawa ng apoy ng impyerno (Rev 20:15). Pero hindi ito naglalaho parang bula, instead, habang buhay ito natutupok sa apoy hangang madeform at maging mala uod (Mark 9:44)

Tsaka di po ako pastor. :)

@@sincereseeker1611 aw sorry po. Ang galing nyo Po mag paliwanag.

@@JudahEzekiel Proper study lang, magagawa mo din ito. Bdwy Ikaw ba ay ligtas na? TIngin mo ba di mo dadanasin Ikalawang kamatayan?

@@sincereseeker1611 opo ligtas na Po ako tinnggap ko n po si Jesus Christ bilang aking tagapaligtas Ng aking Buhay. Pasensya na po sa abala sa aking pagtatanong po. Nag aaral parin po ako Ng salita Ng Diyos. Halos lahat Ng video nyo po napanood ko na. Salamat po.

Yes > Mormonism!

@@sincereseeker1611 ikaw ang false doctrine. Ayosin mo ang content mo. Paninira ang ginawa mo

like what? One sample please?

Don't get me wrong I love KJV 1611 too, especially the KJV Old testament based on masoretic texts. KJV New testament? Not so much.

@@YehovahsWorshipper I've checked the other versions and their root manuscript. You will know the reason why I chose KJV. Check the modern bible corruptions dito. ruclips.net/video/z31ZnckDAME/видео.html

@@sincereseeker1611 fair enough. marami ring dahilan kung bakit imperfect translation yung KJV. It is good but not perfect.

Bible Believing Christian maam. Kayo po, are you saved?

@@YehovahsWorshipper not all trinitarians are BIBLE BELIEVERS. I am a Bible Believer and I stand and use only 1 perfect bible. That’s the King James Bible. You dont just look at the translator where they be trinitarians or not. You should check which MANUSCRIPT it came from. All modern versions including the one you quoted belongs to an ALEXANDRIAN manuscript which is named Siniaticus and Vaticanus. My king james bible came from a better line.

@@sincereseeker1611 Really?!, King James Bible is a perfect translation? If the KJV is perfect why it contains spurious verses like 1 John 5:7 absent to many older manuscripts of the bible?

@@sincereseeker1611 Actually, I agree na we should check which manuscripts a Bible translation was based. That's why I believed that NWT and many other versions are more accurate than KJV. I tell you, KJV is not perfect. And King James is a queer/gay/homosexual.. did you know that? Hahahaha

@@sincereseeker1611 So, kayo lang Ang Bible Believers? really?

@@YehovahsWorshipper So tell me, can you even name a main line of manuscript where the modern bibles like NIV and other bibles you're quoting came from?

@@YehovahsWorshipper ofcourse its the Glory of The Father for they are ONE God. They share the glory as GOD. Jesus had this glory before human form, notice John 17:4-6 KJV I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. [5] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. [6] I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. What was the Glory of Jesus before the world was?

@@sincereseeker1611 The Glory that Jesus had before becoming a Human was being "The Archangel Michael, a glorious celestial being" , (Compare Daniel 12:1,2 and Matthew 24) he is "The Angel of the LORD" mention in the old testament (Zechariah 3:1,2 // Galatians 4:14 [Jesus, an angel of God] // 1Thess. 4:16) A glorious being, properly called "a god" (John 1:1) or even a "Mighty God" (Isa. 9:6) but NOT the Almighty God. In Galatians 4:14 Apostle Paul knew Jesus as an "Angel of God". John 17:1-5 does not says that The God the Father and Jesus share the same Glory. Where in the Bible did you find that? God has a Glory. Jesus has also glory given by the Father, but they did not share the same glory. Jesus reflects the Father's Glory, NOT shared.(Hebrews 1:1-3) God the Father gave or "crowned Jesus with glory and honour" (Hebrews 2:9) The Father is more glorious than Jesus Christ. In Isaiah 6, we can find Jesus standing in the midst of the throne of YHWH. If we read verse 6,7 "one of the seraphs", an angel of God , "touched" Jeremiah's mouth and said to the prophet, " your guilt is removed and your sin is atoned for". Now who is the only one created being God gave the authority to atone sin? John 1:29, It was Jesus. The seraph (God's angel) who atoned Jeremiah's sin is none other than the Pre-human Jesus.

@@sincereseeker1611 Yeshua (Jesus) never accepts glory from men that is rightfully given to the Father. Jesus says, " I do not accept glory from men" (John 5:41)

@@YehovahsWorshipper Wrong quotation, and wrong context John 5:41 Nung sinabi ni Hesus "I receive not honour from men." (John 5:41) is dahil sa mga unbelievers, hindi siya nakakatanggap ng nararapat na honor (its not even "glory of God") Here's a verse where he received WORSHIP from his disciples. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. (Mat 28:9 KJV) Hindi nya tinanggihan yan. Check the context.

@@YehovahsWorshipper So can you explain to me why Jesus said this very words? 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the ALMIGHTY. ... 18 I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Rev 1:8, 18 KJV)

@@YehovahsWorshipper Mukang mali references mo. Eto bigay ko sayo mga manuscrupt available siya. First John 5:7, from a King James Bible, will be found in Old Syriac versions (A.D. 150), Old Latin versions (A.D. 180), Cyprian’s writings (A.D. 250), the writings by Priscillian and Pithanasius (A.D. 350), at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 415), Jerome’s works (A.D. 450), Fulgentius’ quotations (A.D. 510), four different Waldensian Bibles (A.D. 600-A.D. 1400), a minuscule Greek manuscript (no. 88), and manuscript 61 (A.D. 1519).

@@YehovahsWorshipper ito pa kung gusto mo greek The last Greek manuscript (61) has affinities with the Old Syriac of A.D. 150-180, but no Syriac version was known in Europe until A.D. 1552 (Moses Mardin). From WHAT did manuscript 61 come? It has four chapters in Mark that have “coincidences” with the Old Syriac of A.D. 180 and the Old Itala of the same date. Two other Greek manuscripts contain the verse: one in its text (Codex Wianburgensis); the other (Codex 88) has it in the marginal notes.

Wag mo subokan ang mga saksi kong kulang ka sa sandata ng kaalaman. Hindi ito katulad ng mcgi na mumurahin ka. Sasagotin la nyan sa mabait na paraan. Daming naninira sa saksi sa youtube,pero ang saksi naka focus sa pangangaral hindi sa paninira. Goodock sayo

@@YehovahsWorshipper what I claim is if its in the bible. If it is then it is a bible doctrine. How about you, can you explain why you added “other” word in colossians 1:16 in the JW bible NWT?

@@sincereseeker1611 Sure, indeed. The Greek word "Panta" in Col. 1:6 can be translated as " all " or " all other " depende sa contexto. Even trinitarian Bibles like NIV translated "Panta" as "all other" in other bible passages. For example, Luke 13:2 (NKJV; ESV; NLT; etc) "And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than ALL THE OTHER (Greek: "Panta") Galileans just because they have suffered such things." "All the other" Yung ginamit Dito Kasi there were two groups of Galileans Ang pinag-uusapan Dito ni Jesus. Same thing sa Colossians 1, Jesus is the Firstborn of all things, meaning he is the first of all created beings, pagkatapos ay ginamit Siya ng Diyos as agent of creation, para malalang ang "all other" created beings/things. Other example: Acts 5:29 (King James Bible; Berean Standard Bible; NKJV; etc) "Then Peter and the OTHER apostles answering said, "We ought to obey God rather than men" There is a need to used the word "OTHER" here to indicate na apostle din si Peter. Pwede namang i-translate na "ALL" (Peter and All the apostles..) pero lalabas na Hindi apostle si Peter. Hebrews 11:32 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English) "And what more shall I say? For I have little will fail me if I tell of Gideon and about Baraq, about Samson, about Jephthah, about David, about Samuel and about the OTHER prophets" Again, here there is a need to used the word "OTHER" to indicate na may iba pang prophets na Hindi pinangalanan sa verse na ito. Marami pang verses na tulad into, I'll attached a video na Inexplain ito extensively. Begin in 8 minutes sa video. ruclips.net/video/YZWTMBDv_js/видео.htmlsi=e-CtYGbEfB-Xt_4C

@@sincereseeker1611 In addition, "ALL THINGS" does not always mean literally all things depending in the context. I'll give an example: Genesis 3:20 says, " And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was THE MOTHER OF ALL LIVING" Ang Tanong: Si Eve ba ang LITERAL na mother of "ALL LIVING" Kasama na Ang mga Buhay na angel, mga Buhay na hayop, Kasama na rin ng Buhay na Diyos, Kasama Rin si Adam? Siyempre Hindi. Ang tinutukoy diyan na ALL LIVING ay mga "All other human beings" lamang na mga descendants ni Eve at Adam. So clearly, "All things" does not always mean literal all things depende sa contexto.

@@YehovahsWorshipper what’s your proof its spurious? What if I show you how it consistent the johannine comma is?

@@sincereseeker1611 Not present in older manuscripts

@@YehovahsWorshipper Its either you're refusing to accept the proofs or you just dont know. Here, let me paste what I've shown on other threads. First John 5:7, from a King James Bible, will be found in Old Syriac versions (A.D. 150), Old Latin versions (A.D. 180), Cyprian’s writings (A.D. 250), the writings by Priscillian and Pithanasius (A.D. 350), at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 415), Jerome’s works (A.D. 450), Fulgentius’ quotations (A.D. 510), four different Waldensian Bibles (A.D. 600-A.D. 1400), a minuscule Greek manuscript (no. 88), and manuscript 61 (A.D. 1519). The last Greek manuscript (61) has affinities with the Old Syriac of A.D. 150-180, but no Syriac version was known in Europe until A.D. 1552 (Moses Mardin). From WHAT did manuscript 61 come? It has four chapters in Mark that have “coincidences” with the Old Syriac of A.D. 180 and the Old Itala of the same date. Two other Greek manuscripts contain the verse: one in its text (Codex Wianburgensis); the other (Codex 88) has it in the marginal notes. So, what are you saying wala sa older manuscripts?

​@@sincereseeker1611 You've quoted several non-bible manuscripts and works sir. Do you have copies of these texts for textual examination? can you give me a link where I can check it for myself? The "greek manuscript" you've quoted is a greek translation FROM later LATIN version. You've quoted a marginal note? Really? I need it in the MAINTEXT. Even your very own TRINITARIAN SCHOLAR Dr. James White admits that the TEXT is absent from every KNOWNED manuscripts. He said it is a "MASSIVELY LATE READINGS" compare to other knowned texts. "EXTREMELY LATE" and "IRRELEVANT" he added. According to Metzger Textual Commentary: "The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic) except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Agustine), or in the (b) Vulgate as issued by Jerome (Codex Fuldensis) Copied A.D. 541-46 and (Codex Amiatinus) copied before A.D 716 or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of Codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]. The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (Chap 4) , attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instatius. Apparently the gloss (an interpretation) arose when the original passage was understood to be symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the spirit, the water and, the blood), an interpretation that may have written first as a marginal note afterward found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the epistle, and from sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in Old latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars ( Example of intrusions into the latin text of 1 John see 2.17; 4.3 ; 5.6 and, 20.) B. Internal Probabilities. (1) as regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyist of greek manuscripts, and by translation of ancient versions. (2) as regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense. ......."""" Yung idol mo na si Priscillian is a spanish heretic pala according to Trinitarian historian themselves. Are you ready to be called a heretic by your fellow trinitarians?? Let me quote you, "Its either you're refusing to accept the proofs or you just dont know." The Comma Johanneum Examined by Dr. James White ruclips.net/video/Fs1jZc-JrP0/видео.htmlsi=bdLs3HzIYN5HiRK7 Hey Dude, you are being spanked in the butt by your very owned SCHOLAR !!! Spiritual spanking, I should say...Oucchh !! Listen to your SCHOLAR.

​@@YehovahsWorshipper Ang dali lang mag copy paste no? I gave you references to locate 1 john 5:7 then your answer is simply "You've quoted several non-bible manuscripts and works sir. Do you have copies of these texts for textual examination? " Eh kung ibalik ko kaya sayo tanong na to sa mga copy paste mo? Kung ling hinahanap mo sa internet, how are you even sure that you can validate all you've seen in the web to be factual? Kaya nga I suggest let's just stick with what bible we have and refer to that. My KJV as I believe to be the perfect word has it and NOT following your IDOLS the likes ni mga apostate Laodicean or Alexandrian Cults like Nestle, Aland, METZGER, Wescort and Hort. These all protect the FALSE and CORRUPT manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt. There was an unbroken succession of Witness from the Old Syriac (AD 170), Tatian (AD 180), Old Latin version (AD 200), etc.. even miniscule manuscript 88 (1150), miniscule manuscript 629 (14th cent) and so on. (Sabihin mo nanaman, ipakita mo mga yan? Eh kung ipakita ko ba sayo reference maniniwala ka padin? I doubt). Eto na lang common sense. If you remove the Johannine Comma, the genders of the witnesses in the first part of the verse DO NOT MATCH "Spirit, Water and Blood". Obvious removal. Stop talking like you know what you're talking about.

@@YehovahsWorshipper it seems you cant distinguish oneness vs jw’s arianism view of the Godhead. I have a video explaining this here. ruclips.net/video/pCcjBib5_bQ/видео.htmlsi=K5GIdRdu0h_NH71t Ito naman detailed about kay Kristo ruclips.net/video/d649N1bz9_c/видео.htmlsi=ukIYsTGdRloX7WgT

@@sincereseeker1611 What I meant by ONENESS is the Doctrine that their is only one God worthy of highest worship, and that's the Father, Not the Son, not the holy spirit. Siguro Ang oneness na tinutukoy mo ay Ang oneness na tinuturo ng mga Pentecostals, World Mission Society Church of God, Assemblies of God, etc., ....Hindi yan Yung oneness na tinutukoy ko, That's MODALISM (a.k.a Sabellianism) (The belief that God is one person with three modes) What I meant by Oneness is that the Almighty God is absolute one and indivisible. He cannot be divided into three persons..The Almighty God is only one person, and that's the Father as Jesus taught in John 17:1-3.

@@sincereseeker1611 I don't reject the Diety of Christ. But I will Argue that Jesus' godship is lesser than the FATHER. Just as the godships of the angels were lesser than the Father (Psalms 8:5; New American Bible) . The Father is the Sovereign Lord , while Jesus was "made lord" by God the Father. ( Acts 2:36) Jesus has a God above him during his Pre-human existence, he was brought forth by God into existence, meaning he had a beginning and origin (Prov. 8:12,22,23,30 The Wisdom speaking / 1 cor. 1:24 Jesus Christ is the Wisdom ) Jesus is the "beginning of the creation by God" (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is the Firstborn of all creation (Colossian 1:15) not only preeminence..but God's literal firstborn. Jesus said in John 8:42 that he was "proceeded forth and came from God" ... (Iniluwal siya ng Diyos).. Jesus also has a God above him during his life on earth (John 171-3; John 20:17; John 14:28) Even the Glorious Jesus, the resurrected Jesus still has a God above him. Revelation 1:6, "... He [Jesus] made us to be a kingdom, priests to HIS GOD and FATHER - yes, to him be the Glory and the might forever. Amen. "

@@sincereseeker1611 I am semi-arian by the way..I don't believed and agree in all Arius' teachings. My belief already existed prior to Arius.

Thanks for sharing the concept. Much welcome. Godbless your heart and desire in learning God’s words.