Видео

This dude on the left hand side is RUDE, OBNOXIOUS and a COMPLETE JERK, ARROGANT. I wouldn't put up with him for 10 minutes.

The Lords day is EVERYDAY, but the true day of rest or “Tne lords day” is on the Sabbath (Friday evening, into Saturday Evening) sir.

This guy is ranting about a ministers use of the word commandment based upon its mention by the apostle. His response is to quote some guy wearing a wig who CHANGES a word the apostle uses and replaces it with a word he likes, and i'm supposed to take this guy seriously. Try again. Psalm 1:1-2 KJVS - Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the SCORNFUL. 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

28:47 never thought I’d hear Joe use The Killers to defend the faith, love to see it

FAKE ADVENTIST . PROFESSOR . he is part of the problems

No. Way...My 2 Favorite Christian youtubers (Joe and Myles) in 1 video?!? God is good!! Love both your channels and learned (am still learning) so much. Keep up the terrific work! Greetings from a former sda. God bless you guys ✨😊

Matt started out strong and ended strong. His only main mistake was identifying the dead body with the soul. Aside from that good work Matt.

Joe is like from NBA vs from g league.

SDA is a man made you know..by EGW lol

Joe absolutely dominated in this debate. 🔥

I finally got to sit down and scan the comments--and no one caught something I thought should have been addressed. While Matt's comment about the soul of a person not coming into them until birth was ignored, I think if Mr. Heschmeyer thinks about it, it will make Adventism's theology of the nature of man even more confusing. The entire premise of why Adventist hospitals and the General Conference allowed abortion up until birth for 50 years is because Adventist doctrines do not believe an unborn child is a "living soul" until it's first breath. That is their doctrine and is in the SDA Beliefs book under the nature of man chapter. Think carefully about this. IF an unborn child is not a living soul but can see, hear, feel, and think--and is CONSCIOUS, then what does that do to SDA theology? The child is not "asleep" (dead) because the baby is conscious. But Adventist doctrine says it is not yet a living soul until its first breath. It's alive but doesn't have a soul because God has not yet breathed the Spirit into the unborn baby. Very strange. A conscious living unborn child with no soul. Fair game, according to Adventist theology until very recently, to kill him or her. This soul-less, spirit-less unborn child is conscious and yet those "asleep" in death, who are also soul-less and spirit-less according to SDA theology, cannot be conscious. Very mixed up theology.

I’m walking away from this even more confused on SDA views than when this started.

I was today years old when I realized that Lazarus was the only person named in a parable (that might not be a parable.)

These debates are powerful reminders as to why I was so confused growing up Adventist. This is why I personally believe Adventism is an anti Christian cult and should be avoided. May God continue to guide souls out of that delusional movement ✝️

The scripture teaches that a dead person (soul) has no consciousness or feelings. To say that a DEAD person is ALIVE in hell / purgatory is absurd and nonsensical. Cant have both at the same time. In every instance when the dead cries out, it is figurative and not literal. Matt's closing statement is biblical.

This was edifying though Matt was not fully engaging with questions asked instead going on tangent... It's also said seeing Matt turn to ad hominem attacks before their closing statement.

God made Adam a dead corps, and God breath into his norstrels and he became a living soul. Adam was a dead soul .

How do you then account for all the preachers out there claiming they know the word of God. And preach a lie as long as there leg. But the people trust them to be above board with the book they claim to know when in all truthfullness they are blind guides and all the world wondered after the beast.and false teachers. They are far from the message EWG has presented. at least she does hold the word of God with reverance for it. And not use it as a pay check.

You have a question ... then tune in to 3ABN or AWR 360°. Send in your question... and it will be answered..

I felt sorry for Matt - he seemed confused most of the time.

I had no idea that Joe had this debate. Thanks for posting.

The soul cannot fansion with out the body. And the body cannot fansion with out the soul.

This was difficult to watch… I truly feel bad for Matt, he was incredibly unprepared

Matt assumes that death being unconsciousness is being revealed by scripture, but that is what people think on a natural level. Any atheist will tell you as much. Many authors of various books of the old testament assume this as they write because again, thats what people tend to think if they go by what the senses can tell them. God allows this so we can understand part of ancient Israel. The new testament clearly teaches we are conscious after death, but Matt does all manner of gymnastics to side step and read Adventist beliefs into scripture, and does not seem to realize it

Matt doesn't even know what he believes. Please be prepared before representing an entire denomination in a debate, my man.

Two things are for sure: Humans make mistakes and majority opinions doesn’t make truth. Now the Bible in Exodus 20: 8-11. The 7th Day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. Sunday is the first Day, not the seventh, also the foods listed are proven to be a healthier option than the “unclean foods” listed in the Bible.

The level of how much SDA’s must read into the text to make it say what they need it to say, it’s crazy. Couple of years ago I would’ve never thought that the day will come where I will actually agree on something with a catholic. But being out of the SDA for more than 2 years now, I really wonder how I just accepted the SDAs explanations all my life and kept ignoring what the text clearly says. It truly is the power of the Holy Spirit that opens our eyes to see. All glory to Him 🙌🏼

DB is such a puppet.

I don't understand how everlasting punishment is so difficult to comprehend. I just recently discovered that there are Protestants who really struggle with this.

It’s evident that for the SDA church the Bible it’s just a big secret. They determine what can be taken literally and what is representative or metaphorical regardless of its context. It’s no wonder there’s so much confusion inside that church. “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭31‬-‭32‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Turns out the Bible is actually clear.

SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON FOLKS, this one has to go viral!! Wow what a feast this was!

If matt wants to say a part of Adam died when he fell, and whatever died was a part of him, where was it? Wasn't it, no more? So it's fair to say that when the body dies it is no more, and thus when the soul dies, it will be no more. Where was Jesus when He died? Was He just sitting in a chair waiting? Got up to heaven gave the Father a high five and stuck around 3 more days? Was He in hell with all the other people having to look at the torment of those people for 3 days? So matt just said paul ment spiritually dead when writing to the coriths? Were they spiritually sick to? He was literally talking about people who have taken the bread and drink in vain. And those were the consequences of it. So it doesn't matter if matt doesn't know if luke 16 is a parable or not? Umm, you have to determine if it is a parable or not. Otherwise you can take anything you want from it. Make it literal in one part, figurative in another when it doesn't suit your narrative. That thinking represents the word dishonestly, and that bumps up against the 3rd commandment. Ez 18 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Kinda says it all right there matt. Ez 18-4. Numbers 15-28, Prov 8-26, Prov 19-2. So we have 2 different places in the bible that say the same thing over, by standards, out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses will my word be established. Matt says, God could annihilate the soul, but he/we don't think God will do that. lol And then uses angels to make his point. The bible wasn't written to angels, it was written to humans, a totally new creation aside from angels. Our whole make up is different, therefore the results will be different. Wait, matt knows where adam and eve are and if they were saved or not? Wow. There would be no gift of eternal life if we already had it, where ever we might be. Is God going to allow a soul that sinned to live forever in a whatever state they are in, to allow them to continually stay in a sinnfull state for eternity? Well that would mean there is sin still in the universe. And He could not make it no more. There would be a place where sinful people would sit there and be forever sinning against God with their mouths, their thoughts, maybe actions, if you take luke 16 literal not everyone will act like the rich man. It's not rational to have this idea. What was the point? Just separate us all out and be done with it. But no, Jesus had to reclaim the eternal life of the human and it was up to us to choice eternal life or eternal death. They were consumed away by an eternal fire. Key word is consumed. For a short period they suffered for their rebellion but ultimately consumed away. To be no more. The towns were the type, eternity will be the anti-type. The individuals in the towns are still awaiting that anti-type to happen to them. Revelation, And all the wicked were raised and satan deceived them once again, whos number is the sand of the sea came up against the city and God rained fire down from heaven and consumed them up. They were from that point no more. Ok, lets say hell is burning right now with people in it, why does it talk about the sea giving up it's dead? And death giving up it's, and hell giving up it's. And besides that, if it continues after this point it says, hell and death were thrown into the lake of fire. So if hell is fire right now, it is thrown into more fire? No, the only logical conclusion is the lake of fire is the end of them all. It consumes those things away to be no more. Hell, death, the grave, sin, will not carry over into the new heaven and new earth in any form. What gives life goes back to God, we, body and soul dies. Hints the word die, life goes back. It's like the gas in a car, when the gas runs out the car dies. God is that gas that gives us life. No, the soul and body die, those 2 things have to have life again, that life will be given again at the resurrection. The second death is just that, there will be people resurrected to know why they are going to be in that state again, death. To be no more just as before. Paul is no more, he will have to have that gift of life given to him again by Christ to be alive soul and body again. What happens to your soul when you die? answer. Is has no more life and is no more. The only thing that can give it life again is Jesus Christ. At judgement God quickens the dead to be raised to acknowledge what He did for them, just to be no more again. He takes the gift of life from them again. 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Them that kill the body are those taking people's lives for what they believe, they are not able to kill the soul which is hidden in Christ, at resurrection, but fear HIM who is able to kill both body and soul, enterinal death. God leaving them in the state of being no more. Fear Him. The gas that makes the car run is from God. No gas the car doesn't run. Funny now that i think of it God says life is but a vapor. Gas to run a car turns into a vapor. Fun facts!! Again, is luke 16 a parable? So Lazarus is in the stomach of Abraham? There is a big gulf in earth? There is water in hell? All the parables before have to do with the rich and the poor. And the disciples get it, they say, if a rich man can't enter in, who can? Meaning they thought that if you are rich God has blessed you, and poor God has cursed you. Christ blows this belief out of the water. Does it matter if he names names or not? The guy was called the rich man. And the lazarus of the parable was not the lazarus He raised from the dead. The parable of the Father and son has no names just like the rich man, are you going to assume that was a real event also? People were involved. It does not matter if names were used. lol Matt says, why does it matter if its a parable to being real? Umm matt, the dead go into Abrahams stomach? There is your first clue, your next clue is the whole chapter having to do with the rich vs the poor. Amazing matt knows where adam and eve are but he has no interest in knowing what people believed in that day which was the rich were blessed and the poor were cursed. In Genesis chapter 6 verse 3, it lets us know that there are 120 years before the flood happens. In Genesis chapter 7 God tells Noah to build the ark. I think it's fair to say that Noah preached for about 120 years rain was coming. Yes, Noah was a prophet. He was the mediator between God and people. God told him about the flood that was to come.

You know what’s another contradiction I mean, you already know this, but the health message that she claims that we have to be vegetarians, but literally Paul says in first Timothy chapter 4 verse from one to four that those who teach you to abstain from food, have a spirit of deceit and are teaching demonic doctrines

So much of Adventist doctrine confuses bibical with EGW...I've been out 2 years and sorting out EGW and the Bible is hard...

1:24:34- Joe is wrong. That word (Strong's 2783) isn't only used there! It is used other places. In I Tim 2:7 and II Tim 1:11 it is used of Paul himself!

They never go over 2 corinthians chapter 3 why cuz it destroys there argument 😊

1:24:29 -Joe argues that the word used for "preacher" or "herald" may not mean he was a preacher!? The word is the noun form of preach! Definition: Herald, Preacher Meaning: a herald, preacher, proclaimer. Word Origin: Derived from the Greek verb κηρύσσω (kērussō), meaning "to proclaim" or "to herald." Also used in II Tim 1:11 of Paul. Was Paul not a preacher?

Was the scapegoat killed? It was a singular offering. Leviticus 16 is very clear that you are mistaken.

Such a tedious debate for non-SDAs, because Matt was like a cloud who could not be pinned down. I don't think Joe could have anticipated that the Adventist would be so evasive and confusing. It's almost like each side needed to have a pre-debate on definitions first so they could understand each other and get to where they disagreed.

An Adventist will say, "that's what the bible says" without realizing they are actually applying an interpretative grid to the text. What a deception!!

1:11:10 - Joe is wrong. Noah was preaching to those souls in the prison of sin. He was a preacher of righteousness! Matt was right on that one. Christ, throu the Holy Spirit, preached through Noah! II Peter 2:5 NKJV [5] and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

Matt's redefinitions, assumptions, and twisting of Scripture are atrocious! 😢

God told Adam dust you are and into dust you shall return h never told him yo are a spirit ,the spirit I gave you returns to me but you shall return to the dust .and we are the descendants of Adam we have the same faith.

I think this debate does a great job showing Adventist hermeneutics. Conclusions are formed off certain texts and any conflicting text on the subject is made to fit the preestablished conclusion. This is opposed to proper hermeneutics where ALL texts on a subject are examined THEN a conclusion is formed based on everything said on the topic. In Adventism, these set of text say that man IS a soul and there is no consciousness after the body dies so that's it, the end. Now that that has been established that there is no consciousness after death lets interpret these other texts on the subject that seem to contradict. Thats why the interpretation that that was really Samuel is not even an option to Adventist. That is automatically ruled out based on conclusions form by Genesis and any other text that supports it. Same thing with the text in 1 Peter. If you are already ruling out what a text can say before you even read it, you often end up reading things into to text and missing out what it's really saying. It gets even worse when the conclusion used to determine what is possible for the text to say is wrong (which it usually is since it was formed before taking all texts into consideration).

Great debate! Great closing arguments. Gen 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.”

Matt is scrambling all over the place. The SDA arguments and assumptions are so glaring and atrocious when they are properly interrogated. Joe is such a calm, gracious gentlemen. He easily shows the egregious errors of Matt and SDA theology on the state of the dead.

Great discussion. I’m a former SDA. It just hit me how willing the SDA are to read a flat out scripture and if it doesn’t align with EGW and the SDA doctrine, they will deny it. Incredible!

I would like to see this continue with the other verses. Also, the sda ending was very ironic when he said Christians are coming to scripture with a preconceived idea that's changing the view of the text. It's a perfect example of "pull the log out of your eye so you can see the splinter in someone else's eye" but literally "pull the sda goggles off so you can accurately criticise someone else's view."

As an sda i would never have thought i would side with a rc on any Biblical doctrine. But God...He saved me and, as a born again, redeemed FORMER led me to the contextual, chronilogical, progressively revelatory plan of salvation. Such sda twisting of scripture is so sad, at the least!

This was brutal. Like a toddler attempting to fight a prime Mike Tyson.