This guy isa open faced Liar. because anyone who knows anything knows that thet hrone or David the Sceptre of Judah is set upon the Pillar of Jacob, which was carried to Ireland by A decendant of David, whom migrated their with Baruch.
Do you research if you don't believe me.
Anyone who listens to this person should check out the video where is the Ark of the Covenant today. His Name shall be called Wonderful Counsel the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
You are an idiot the word antichrist does not appear, but we have 100 of names for this entity. Like Son of Perdition. The Lawless One. The Destroyer. It is so simple only an idiot can miss it Lucifer is The Antichrist.
1.[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1.[48] And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
I watched carefully, knowing you would make your grand mistake. And you did when you said Jesus never claimed to be the father. He did more than once.
John.14
[8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
No, that's not what He stated. He stated he was God several times. You must deny this to put forth and have faith in your false religion. But denialism is not intellectual, it's emotionally driven.
The Word of God defeats your falicious claims so thoroughly that it makes you look very silly. Give up the worship of angels and come to Christ. I have no time for you and your kind. Goodbye.
that is realy interesting that reference of christs male lineage and i think your right -back then to be concieved before marriage was a definate death from what i read in old testament laws -so .
bigboy, who's that a quote from? That assessment is remedial and incorrect. During the Dark Ages "religion" did not "rule the world", but rather the corrupt Popes did. It would require using the intellect God gave us to see the difference, but the revelation of Jesus has little to nothing to do with the Popes or the teachings they impose. Anyone who actually watches this video will plainly see we don't support mindlessly following religious leaders or even the Church. Pleez watch, then comment.
Friend, if you would take the time to watch the entire video (and listen) you would have learned by now the meaning of the words Christ and antichrist & could answer your own questions. If you aren't able to accept even the possibility that much of the Bible is written as parable, then of course you'll see the whole thing as "fairy tale" as there aren't talking snakes or physical bodies rising from the grave.
He's going to teach us the understanding of the scriptures..........Or as I like to call them, The Bronze Age Fairytale Books. The only deceiver here, is the man talking in this video.
In all due respect, you are an eisogete, not an exegete, and you obviously have a limited understanding of the greek language. Sperma/spermatos means primarily seed. English has now taken that ancient term and used it in modern medicine. You are going backwards. That is dangerous. That leaves all your eisogesis on a bad foundation
There are no 2 ways of interpreting Romans 1:3 where Paul says "made of the seed [sperma] of David according to the flesh"... I'm sure you're familiar with the well reputed source of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible. Strong's also defines sperma/spermatos as "male sperm", & clearly in context, that IS the correct definition, as Paul says "made of". The "seed" of David in this context can ONLY be the male sperm. This is the correct exegesis.
molineadam, I think you mean *eisegesis*, not "eisogesis"? The latter is not a real word. So, how does your *correction* play through? It means "seed", and that contradicts our use of Romans 1:3 how exactly? How exactly is "seed" something other than sperm here? It would seem your understanding of these matters are as solid as your spelling skills.
vibes, where are you getting these ideas? didn't you watch the video? the "anti-christ" is only ever mentioned in john's letters, and he said "many are among us now" so we know this isn't referring to one personage, see? perhaps you may be mixing several different concepts up and referring to them all as anti-christ? maybe watch the video and then share.
Best Greek scholars in the world would agree that the prefix 'anti' has dual meanings, being 'against/opposed to' or 'in place of/instead of'. You are very wrong.
JCouraged said: "Islam and Baha'i has adopted the VEIL as its symbol".
Please provide one shred of evidence for this. Your grasp of these two religions tenets is utterly lacking in substance, and your attempts to marginalize them is rather sad. The amount of indignation and self righteousness in your comments is staggering. Why do is it necessary to tear these beliefs down to justify your own?
!people wake up! we are anit alah we are anti budhish..my advie, and the proper one:aplly the teacjing in bible or koran or whatever..but dont totally waste believing it cuz it's just scientifically false..any scientifically wrong events are deemed impossible..i mean wat christ is better than chriss angel?no way!!!there are better man than christ or muhammad or budhha...cmon they died..old people wrote this and they are still ignorant about science back then
Jermax, lets focus for a second on one thing at a time and work this out. Are you contending because these men "died" already, they have not value to us today? REALLY???
You seem hung up on certain *unscientific* aspects of the Bible? Your assertions makes generous assumptions that we know all there is to know about science. Moreover, you've left no room for certain things that are clearly symbolic in the Bible. You'd have us readily dismiss it, but you seem the one confused about its value.
Actually, Muhammad accepted Jesus as Christ. Buddha pre-dates Jesus, but spoke of him as another Promised One to come in the future. Neither of them were against Christ.
Besides that, you're missing the point of this video. To be "antichrist" is to be against CHRIST, which is a TITLE meaning the "anointed male-sperm descendant of King David".
Also, Jesus said that "if they're not against us, they're for us"
Muhammad & Buddha were never against Jesus OR the Christians.
Christ declared "Ye shall know them by their fruit's". David Korish,Jim Jones and many others were the AntiChrist Jesus spoke of. All of the major religion's are from God. They all agree if "Ye have a Seeing Eye" and a Hearing Ear. May God Bless You.
Actually, that's not correct. Jesus never "spoke of" the Antichrist. This was a teaching found in the Letters of John, who actually said the antichrists were among him then. His teaching on this is that those who are against Jesus being the Christ (male descendant of David), but rather taught of "another Jesus", like the man-god many believe in today, were enemies of Jesus' Cause, and he labeled the "Antichrist", or against the reality that Jesus was the long awaited descendant of David. See?
The "seed of the woman" doesn't refer to Mary, but is a prophecy of Zoroaster, the Perisan prophet Who's name literally translates "seed of the woman". The Persian expectation was that the Promised One of God would come forth from the female line of Zoroaster. The princess Dara of Zoroaster's line married the Exilarch Bostanai of the throne line of David, & from their union comes forth the line of Baha'u'llah down to this very day.
This video is about the Christ and Antichrist. Yet, for some reason you have chosen to fixate on generating sermons comprised of a clever mix of Bible verses intertwined w/ wishful fantasies you've woven together, but that have nothing to do with the subject of this video. Thanks for the sermon; care to comment on this video?
This proof by assertion you're employing is a fallacy. Repeating something is true again & again without any supporting evidence serves to convince noone but yourself. BOTH genealogies clearly state they are for "his father Joseph", so to repeatedly assert otherwise is willingly ignoring facts. Was Luke mistaken when he plainly stated in 3:23"And Jesus himself...the son of Joseph who was the son of Heli"? Luke said it's Joseph's lineage, yet you assert it's Mary's, and she's from Heli? Strange.,
If you accept Luke, who has given the ACCURATE genealogy of Jesus through JOSEPH, you must accept that Jesus is the sperm child of Joseph. Otherwise, he cannot be "Christ", as the definition of Christ is "anointed male-sperm descendant of David"
I agree that Jesus was without sin. HOW can you apply the verse from Samuel to Jesus then? It says "When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men" 2 Sam. 7:14
Surely this passage is NOT about Jesus Christ. You contradict yourself to suggest that it does.
I've read this "theology" before, & it's simply not true. There is no foundation for this argument. The backwards logic is based on the clergy's twisted notion of the meaning of the virgin birth. Because they CAN'T ACCEPT that Jesus had an earthly dad, they MUST concoct this BS about Mary to justify their anti-christ behavior.
"according to the flesh" refers specifically to Jesus' PHYSICAL LINEAGE, which Paul says is from the SPERM of David!
There is no way around this verse. Mary is NOT of the tribe of Judah, but of Levi, being the cousin of Elizabeth, of the daughters of Aaron (tribe of Levi).
ONLY Joseph is identified as being "of the house and lineage of David"
The Lukan genealogy is Joseph's accurate genealogy. Luke studied the records, whereas Matthew's account is not accurate. The primary importance of Matthew's account is that it defines Christ as the anointed descendant of King David, which is further enunciated by Paul where he says Jesus is "made of the seed [greek:SPERMA = male sperm!!!] of David according to the FLESH" Romans 1:3 KJV
Mary had an ovum, not sperm. You quoting the above is not proof, just another persons ignorance.
Where is your source for that information? Mary's genealogy is not given in the Bible, only Joseph's. The Luke genealogy is that of Joseph explicitly, & no false dogma or doctrine of the clergy can change that. Please supply your proof.
True, but then again Paul said "prove all things; hold fast to that which is good". What you're promoting is dangerous; we must all use the intellect God gave us, right? So what specifically about this video has you feeling deceived?
Do not get me wrong. I appreciate your labour for the sake of the Lord. However, I feel it necessary to make corrective critisicm when neccessary. Joseph is not David, and David is not Joseph. Joseph did not have sex with Mary. Jesus father is GOD, not Joseaph, who is his adioptove father. Mary, like Joseph, is of the house of david. it is through Mary, that Jesus is of the house of David. Thanks
Incorrect: Jesus was NOT related to Joseph 'in the flesh' But he was still related to David. How? Simple. Joseph was Mary's *Uncle*. Therefore, Mary is of the house of David, and Jesus is related to Mary genetically, or "in the flesh". Your statement that Jesus is of the house of David is correct, but not through the sperm of Joseph. Jesus came from Mary's egg.
I will answer your second question first. Jesus is made of the seed of David, because Mary is of the house of David. (Which I already said. If Mary is related to David, then so is Jesus. If you insist that Jesus comes from Joesphs sperm, then Joseph had sex with Mary). As for your first question, why don't you google it? I can't do everything for you. Some key words to look up? ancestry of mary, geneology of mary, etc. ) I will supply you with more info when I have the time.
Yes, according to the seed of DAVID, not the seed of JOSEPH. If Joseph had sex with Mary, then it would not be a virgin birth. Mary was of the house of David, so Jesus is too, as he is her son. As for the mary being Joseph's niece comment, it really doesn't change the fact that Joseph didn't have sex with her. Mary has the line of David....
Alos, when a jewish man dies, it is brothers repsonisibilty to marry her (Lord, this woman had 7 husbands, all borthers..who will be her husband in heaven?"
daome said "Your final comment "THE manifestation of Christ" makes no sense..."
Sure it does.;-)"
-that's called proof by assertion, a complete fallacy in any context. It doesn't make sense because we're not using the term "manifestation of Christ", so you rebutting a point we've never made MAKES NO SENSE. You clearly aren't aware of the historical context of the word Christ (it's a genealogical title by all accounts), which I would contend is the crux of your confusion about our position.
Rich, we've answered the questions you ask, so why re-ask them & accuse us of being "afraid of the truth"? You're obviously intolerant of views that diverge from your own, so why the daily barrage of posts? Are you waiting for us to convert?
This teaching effort of yours is a very curious approach; righteous indignation mixed w/ belittling insults & condemnation. Do you get extra brownie points for all the heretics you chastise daily? I bet you're making Jesus real proud. Keep up the good work.
Still avoiding the topic; why's that? There isn't a verse in the New Testament that attributes any of Isaiah visions to being fulfilled in Jesus. Like Adam said, aside from "to us a son is born" nothing he describes even remotely resembles Jesus. Peace? NO; he denied this one! Prince? NO! Everalasting Father? NO; he's the Son! Etc, Etc. What does Peter quoting Psalms and Joel have to do with Isaiah's visions being fulfilled in Jesus? In fact, not fulfilling them is precisely why Jew reject him.
Your final comment "THE manifestation of Christ" makes no sense & is not what Peter says.
Christ is a genealogical title that has been held by others beside Jesus. You must be aware of this. "Christ" does not mean "God" or "Saviour" or imply some kind of spiritual vibe. It is a title describing lineage.
Two of the descendants of King David are prophesied of, & anointed with the Holy Spirit.
Peter understood of course that Jesus was the Promised One of God for that age.
Still haven't learned the definition of Messiah? Your quotation of Matt. 22 makes it seem as though you think "Christ" means "Son" or something like that. Do you know what "Christ" means?
I'm glad you think I'm persuasive in my points, but it ain't rhetoric & we certainly haven't been interpolating any verses. The verses I've quoted have been directly from scripture. My comments are just that, comments.
In Matt.22:41-46,Jesus questioned the "genealogical title" belief held by the Pharisees and they had no answer.I suggest
you Google "Rhetoric" and pick the Def. which better suits my usage of the word.:-)
"Do you know what "interpolation" means?"
Huh Huh!You made the statement that
"Peter understood of course that Jesus was the Promised One of God for that age.",and my comment was "Oh!really?Which verse(s) in Acts 2 are you referring to."
The reference Matt 22 is of the Melchizedek priesthood, a station which is "without genealogy" (psalms 110). Jesus in no way ever denies that "Christ" is a title of genealogy, but is asserting to the Pharisees himself as their High Priest, who is over the King.
Peter makes it clear that he accepts Jesus as the Promised One of God in many passages. I clarify "for that age" as it is obvious that Moses was the Promised One of God earlier. Do you agree?
The verse from Matt. 22 which you quoted earlier is a DIRECT quote from psalms 110, which is about the Melchizedek preisthood! I understand that Hebrews 7 is also about the Melchizedek priesthood, but would you care to explain why you deny that the verse from Matt. 22 which refers to psalms 110, is also about the Melchizedek priesthood?
Again, 'Christ' is a title of genealogy & is not inherently linked to Melchizedek, which is a separate title from 'Christ'.
"...but would you care to explain why you deny that the verse from Matt.22..."
I'm not denying the quote or it' source.I'm denying it' application.The Pharisees understood the question and thus we have vs 46.If you disagree,can you explain why"...no one was able to answer Him a word,..."?
If you def. of Christ is correct,how do you explain Gen.48:10.;-)
Nice try. Earlier (in response to my assertion that Matt. 22 refers to Melchizedek) you wrote: "No!The Melchizedek priesthood is referenced in Heb.7.You're interpolating."
Now you back-peddle.
I think you mean Genesis 49:10, the famous "Shiloh" prophecy. This is fulfilled in the American Son of 'Abdu'l-Baha [The BRANCH (see Isaiah 11 & Zech. 3)], Charles Mason Remey Aghsan. He is the adopted Son of 'Abdu'l-Baha, grafted into the tree of the throne-line of kings.
You originally referred to Matt. 22:41-46, & in verse 44 is the quote "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool" which is DIRECTLY from psalms 110:1.
Have you even taken the time yet to turn to psalms 110 & read it? It's referring to the Melchizedek high-priesthood, NOT to the Messiah. Jesus was both, but they are separate titles.
In response to the explanation that 'Messiah' is a genealogical title, you wrote:
"Jesus,himself,deals with this rampant misunderstanding of Messiah in Matt.22:41-46."
He never denies being David's son, but challenges the Pharisees by asserting his authority over them by virtue of his High Priesthood, outranking them.
He asks them "HOW is he his son?" In what way [greek:POS]? Only physically. Spiritually, he is the Son of God.
about Psa.110,too much is being lost in translation.What i meant was "The assertion that the 6 other vs. of Psalm 110....".;-)
As for my def. of Messiah or Christ it's still "the anointed one" and the genealogies are clear that Jesus is a descendant of King David.Now,if the title Messiah is given to his male descendants etc...,how is it King David calls his descendant...Lord?
David calls the Messiah 'Lord' because the prophesied Messiah IS Lord. This does not change the fact that Jesus was an anointed male sperm descendant of King David as the Bible upholds. It seems like you're trying to use this verse to say that Jesus isn't a descendant of David, which the Bible clearly asserts that he is.
Matt.16:17.The Christ is the Son of God Not the Son of David.The partial quote of John 1:18 demonstrates that the "Jesus" of the Bahai is Not the Jesus of the Bible.;-)
John 1:18 declares Jesus as the "only begotten Son", referring to his baptism, when the Bible says Jesus first became the "begotten Son" of God. This verse in no way denies Jesus physical lineage from David through Joseph, which has been completely established. If you'd like to continue to deny that Jesus is Christ (anointed male-sperm descendant of David), go ahead.
"...when the Bible says Jesus first became the "begotten Son" of God".
Which of the 51 vs. of John 1 are you referring to as support for this statement?
Now,if you want to keep asserting that Jesus is Christ Because of his lineage to David,then Matt.22:41-46 speaks volumes in favor of the Pharisee' because they understood Jesus' line of questioning,hence vs.46,while the Bahai don't.
I'm addressing the title "only begotten Son" & showing from the Bible when this title was given to Jesus. John doesn't say "In the beginning was the Son", but "the Word" which is LOGOS, the Thought of God expressed in a Revelation. John 1:18 says nothing contrary to Jesus being the sperm descendant of David through Joseph.
But while we're still on the subject of "begotten Son", are you able to respond to the verses from Romans & Luke which I have explained above?
"The reference Matt 22 is of the Melchizedek priesthood,..."
The Pharisees could've said all of That and yet we have Vs 46.Your Theology dictates your use language and words i.e "Promised One of God".Is that the equivalent of "Christ"?
If yes,then your "title of genealogy" def. is wrong.If no,Why was new info. introduced?
Peter writes that David foresaw when Christ would be "raised up" to sit on the throne, as this occurs on the 2nd coming ONLY. Jesus Christ on the 1st coming was "given" the authority of the throne as an ambassador of the Father, but never physically sitting on the throne. It is only on his return AS the Everlasting Father, Baha'u'llah, that he is seated "upon the throne of David".
I'm not a bahai,so rhetoric is a no no when defending one' belief.Acts 2:16-36 is about Peter making his case for Jesus.He has No clue who you know 'who?' is.If you disagree make your case for your founder from the book of Acts if possible.
Who knew commenting on a channel/video would be So difficult.
The historical fact is that Jesus Christ didn't sit on the physical throne of David on his first coming. Peter is of course pointing out to the Jews that Jesus is from David as this is a necessity to receive the title "Christ".
It is also an historical fact that Baha'u'llah is in the throne line of kings from David, having inherited the throne & passed it on down to the current day, in fulfillment of the Everlasting Covenant to David.
Hi meaculpa, or should I say Richbee2? You were so clever to create a new user name so you could start trolling this channel again. You almost had me fooled that you were a brand new proselytizing fanatical intolerant evangelist, but then you didn't bring any new material. You said all this under your old username. Yawn.
Baha'ism advocates a subjectivism, asserting that "truth is continuous and relative, not final and absolute." This system of confusion cannot be from God (1 Corinthians 14:33).
Baha'is deny that Jesus is the final and FULLest revlation of God. Colossians 2:7-10 NIV
As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
Acts 2:29-32 "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
The second coming of Christ also can not refer to Baha'u'llah. Scripture indicates that the very same Jesus who ascended into heaven will one day personally return (Acts 1:9-11). The Bible also prophesies several dramatic and highly visible signs that will accompany the Second Coming (Matthew 24:29). None of these signs were present when Baha'u'llah arrived on the scene!!!
Hi meaculpa, or should I say Richbee2? You are so clever to create a new user name so you could start trolling this channel again. You almost had me fooled that you were a brand new proselytizing fanatical intolerant evangelist, but then you didn't bring any new material. You said all this under your old username. Yawn.
The Messiah, Isaiah wrote, would be not only the "Prince of Peace," and the "Wonderful Counselor" (NASB), but also "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father."
Why would Isaiah call the Messiah "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father," and "Immanuel," if He was not God?
meaculpa9r, did you decide to join Youtube yesterday (7/23/08) just to comment on these videos? What an honor; we're totally flattered and glad to have inspired you like this. We really appreciate the support because incessant flurries of commenting like you're doing help these videos rank high in searches. Thanks.
So, I wonder if you have any comments about all these verses you're posting? We too accept every single verse in the Bible, and believe in Jesus. What exactly is your point?
What is your point? Have you not read, Colossians 2:8-10
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
That's great man. If you want to reject our teachings it's no skin off our nose, but don't come here proselytizing your beliefs. Go make you're own video. We appreciate you trying to "save us" from ourselves, but we just don't accept your views. Thanks for sharing.
Well, that's one way to look at it. With a complete lack of anything solid to back it up, one can merely speculate who Isaiah saw. It's a matter of interpretation since its not explicit. We don't accept that all of Isaiah's visions were of Jesus, for much of his descriptions don't describe Jesus at all. They are mostly describing Reigning Messiah seated on David's throne, described as Prince of Peace, etc. None of this is accurate for Jesus, so logically it must be about the 2nd Messiah.
Yes, many do not who came the first time or who to look for on the return.
One & Only Son of God
The word translated "begotten" (e.g., KJV; NASB) comes from the Greek word monogenēs: monos, meaning, "alone" or "only" and genos, meaning, "kind" or "type." - "only kind," "unique one," or "one and only." (This verse alone demolishes false pretenders)
Nice redirection, but the main point that you conveniently avoided is there's nothing explicit in Isaiah's visions that meaculpa's referring to that indicate he's describing Jesus. He meets none of the details Isaiah's describing, yet Christians are famous for ascribing everything to Jesus. The contradictions abound: "Prince of Peace", yet Jesus said he came not for peace, but to turn brother against brother. "Everlasting Father", yet Jesus is the Son, etc, etc. Nothing explicit points to Jesus.
The Messianic nature of the book of Isaiah is so clear that the oldest Jewish sources, the Targum, Midrash and Talmud, speak of the Messiah in connection with 62 separate verses including Isaiah 9:6. "For unto us," Isaiah foretold, "a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"
Polycarp warned the Philippians that everyone that preached false doctrine was an antichrist.
John Chrysostom warned against speculations and old wive's tales about the Antichrist, saying, "Let us not therefore enquire into these things". He preached that by knowing Paul's description of the Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians Christians would avoid deception.
The definition you provide that "everyone that preached false doctrine was an antichrist" is not Biblical however. The passages referenced in this video cover every verse in the Bible where the word "antichrist" is used, attempting to clear up the many misconceptions about the antichrists. Nowhere does Paul say that the "son of perdition" is the antichrist. That is extra to the scriptures. The "man of sin" was however, placed in the temple BY the antichrists, the clergy.
That's cause the Knight on the White Horse isn't Baha'u'llah. That's the return of Jesus the High Priest, fulfilled by the Establisher of the Baha'i Faith, Dr. Leland Jensen.
Thanks for posting this important verse which clarifies that Jesus never sat upon the throne of David, but rather is seated "at the right hand of the throne"
This verse shows that the true believers will UNDERSTAND (forehead/forebrain) by investigating the proof & evidence that the "new name" is Baha'u'llah.
Again, the verses you quote don't say any of what you're saying at all. It doesn't say that the "saints" will have a new name, it says HIS name will be in their foreheads.
That's right. For Jesus was dependent on the Father for his Revelation which the Father gave to him. The knowledge of Baha'u'llah came to the believers of that time through Jesus Christ, who prophesied of the coming of Baha'u'llah.
According to the date prophecy of Daniel, the "close of the age" was in 1844, the beginning of the Baha'i Cycle. Many Christians had discovered this date previous to its advent, but missed the Baha'i Revelation 'cause they were looking up into the sky instead of into "heaven".
At the time of Jesus, the reigning king on the throne of David was Liunan bar Babutan living in Babylonian captivity who the Jews paid tithes to. Jesus Christ never sat, nor will ever sit on the throne. All throughout the Bible he is depicted as being "seated at the right hand of the throne". It is the FATHER, Baha'u'llah, that is depicted as being seated "upon the throne of David"
Baha'u'llah is a Jew (from the tribe of Judah) Who's family was of the Exilarchs (exiled monarchs of David) that had come up into Persia from Babylonian captivity.
Baha'u'llah came seated upon the throne of David in direct fulfillment of the prophecies for the Return of Christ.
Rich, thanks again for all your support of this channel. All your comments to it help it rank higher on searches done on the tags attached to it. We're ranking up in the top 10 now for searches done on all these tags, and it's supporters like you that will help us stay there. Thanks again for all you support; keep up the good work.
Rich, we've answered to your comments, so why re-ask them & accuse us of being "afraid of the truth"? You pitifully rely on Proof by Assertion. You're obviously intolerant of views that diverge from your own, but why the daily barrage of posts?
This teaching effort of yours is a very curious approach; righteous indignation mixed w/ belittling insults & condemnation. Do you get extra points for all the heretics you chastise daily? I bet you're making Jesus real proud. Keep up the good work.
Rich, we've answered the questions you ask, so why re-ask them & accuse us of being "afraid of the truth"? You're obviously intolerant of views that diverge from your own, so why the daily barrage of posts? Are you waiting for us to convert?
This teaching effort of yours is a very curious approach; righteous indignation mixed w/ belittling insults & condemnation. Do you get extra brownie points for all the heretics you chastise daily? I bet you're making Jesus real proud. Keep up the good work.
Rich, this teaching effort of yours is a very curious approach; righteous indignation mixed with belittling insults and condemnation. Did you learn these things in the Bible too? Do you get extra brownie points for all the heretics you chastise daily? I bet you're making Jesus real proud. Keep up the good work.
Rich, this teaching effort of yours is a very curious approach; righteous indignation mixed with belittling insults and condemnation. Did you learn these things in the Bible too? Do you get extra brownie points for all the heretics you chastise daily? I bet you're making Jesus real proud. Keep up the good work.
Rich, it's really a shame you can't find something productive to do with your time. I usually enjoy discussions with Christians here, but this isn't a discussion as you haven't once responded to any of our replies, but rather create endless strings of comments, often as if carrying on a conversation w/ yourself. BTW, we accept Jesus. Why you must recycle old posts 10 and 12 times each is strange & leaves me concerned for your well being. Manic-depression is treatable Rich; don't postpone joy.
Remember that Jesus Christ born from Virgen Mary, the Virgen Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit Matthew 1:18
Matthew 1:21 Jesus is the Gk form of the Hb name "Joshua," which = "The Lord saves" or "Yahweh saves." The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called Immanuel."—(Isaiah 7:14) The name Immanuel means "God with us."She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.
Your ideas about what these things reduce to are unfortunately contradicted by well-known facts. Almost every Jewish name makes reference to the presence of God; its a big stretch that because his name meant "God saves"/"God w/ us" that this is a proof he's god-incarnate. Historian Will Durant tells there were 110 "Joshua's" in Jerusalem in 30ad. Its mute. Furthermore the fact that a virgin got pregnant is not evidence of immaculate conception; google "virgins getting pregnant". It happens daily
Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ, He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either. Who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. The antichrist opposed the holy trinity: God Father, God Jesus Christ, and God Holy Spirit
king, have you watched this video? I ask because much of your comment is direct quotes from John's letters which are discussed at length in the video; didn't you notice? We absolutely agree.
Then your last line is a complete fabrication found nowhere in Scripture. The "trinity" did not originate in the Bible, nor did Jesus' alleged divinity. Please show ONE SINGLE VERSE that mentions "trinity", or states "antichrist opposes the trinity", or Jesus is God, or even God the Son. They don't exist.
Read the Bible-> God (Father), the Son (Jesus Christ)& the Holy Spirit.three Persons of the Godhead/Trinitarian nature of God. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19,the Spirit, the water & the blood; & the three are in agreement.1 John 51 Corinthians 2:2-5;12:4-6; 2 Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18-22;3:14-19; Ephesians4:4-6; Colossians 1:6-8;1Thessalonians 1:3-5 2Thessalonians 2:13-14;Titus 3:4-6
I have had a chance to read every word of the Bible; I didn't find the word "trinity" in there. Where did you find it? I also haven't ever seen "antichrist opposes the trinity". Where does it say that?
I did see in Matthew what you're referring to, but it doesn't say that Jesus or the H.S. are God, does it? In fact Jesus said that our God was his God also. "I am ascending to MY GOD, to your God". How is God also Jesus' God if in fact Jesus himself is God? That just doesn't make sense.
You've Bible. Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; You see God is plural. Jesus Christ is God => John 10:30-33 - "I and the Father are one." Exodus 3:14 - "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" John 1:1 Col. 2:9 Phil. 2:5-8.The Trinity is God exists as three persons but is one being. as God the Father, God the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ) & God the Holy Spirit.
king, you're just repeating tired old Church doctrines & not answering my ??? Since you can't show me where the word "trinity" is in the Bible, I'll assume that like me you can't find it in there, can you? Neither can you find "God the Son", can you? So why then do you keep using such phrases and make-up doctrines? The Bible makes no specific reference of "God the Son"; it's an invention of the Church. Proof by assertion is a fallacy, so please do yourself a favor and stop relying on it.
Rich, if Jesus is in fact God incarnate, ie the Almighty himself, why would he say "I am ascending to my father to your father; to MY GOD to your God." (Jn20:17)? How is God Jesus' God if Jesus himself is God?
"No man has seen God at any time".
"The father is greater than I".
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".
Please reconcile this dichotomy between your ideas and these explicit verses.
obviously we can be agreeable, and i hear yourpoints, however when jesus said after his ressurection to the apostles,go and forgive sins, i believe in that tradition, as for the eucharist, do this in memory of me, at jesus command we celebrate the eucharist, let alone the fact catholic saints have shown supernatural miracles. i do think your heart is good and truly seeking god, this is the main point i believe and i thankyou for hearing my beliefs, for which i would die.
with all due respect, one thing god in his infinate wisdom gave each of us is free choice, i place the destiny of my soul in thecatholic faith and in the holy eucharist of the mass, pope john paul was a great man in our time and inspired many to turn back to god.indeed i admire your scrutiny of the bible and taking all literally, however there was only one flawless and truthfull being that you could scrutinise with that type of specificity, jesus christ, and i believe in confession, mass.
That's great; goody for you. We don't believe what you do because they are inventions of the Church & not teachings of the Bible (i.e. confession, mass, eucharist, popes, etc) & as Paul instructed "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good" we are enjoined by this to reject these sacraments super-imposed upon Jesus' teachings which are void of such dogmas & rituals; if I'm wrong show me the verses. Otherwise lets just agree to disagree instead of being disagreeable with one another, ok?
emerald, I'm confused why have you completely ignored my reply? I responded to your concerns, & so those are our beliefs. To what end will you badger us with your's while providing nothing to back them up? I'd still like to see you reply to either the evidence & proofs put forth in this video (did you get to watch it yet?), or at the very least the points I took the time to address in your first comment. If you would merely wish to use this for your sermons might I suggest making your own video?
This is a follow up of Jesus' earlier warning that "many will come in MY NAME [Jesus} claiming to be the Christ". His name is 'jesus', & he says that there would be many false Christs claiming to be called 'Jesus' & we shouldn't accept them. But Baha'u'llah comes in the "New Name" prophesied of all throughout the Old & New Testaments, that of the Everlasting Father & Prince of Peace. He is the "Glory of the Father".
Actually,YOU said that the "many to come" in Matt.24:5 will say "I am Jesus".So...don't get it twisted.What i did say is that,"the many to come will say,I am Christ,and will base their claim on the Name or Reputation of Jesus".
daome said "the many to come will say,I am Christ,and will base their claim on the Name or Reputation of Jesus"
-Why are you paraphrasing and adding your interpolations? It makes no such ref. It says "many will come in my name saying I am the Christ", so Adam's point is valid that they will come "in his name" (Jesus), so that anyone claiming to be the Christ calling himself Jesus (in his name) is a fraud. By his own account he will come with a "new name"(Rev. 3:12), & revealed it in Mrk 8:38
"Why are you paraphrasing and adding your interpolations?"
Actually,the "interpolations" are the correct rendering of "in My name" as opposed to "claiming to be me...".Because if you're consistent,Matt 23:39 should read "...Blessed is He Who claims to be Me(the Lord)".:-o
"By his own account he will come with a "new name"..."
You said the same thing on the "tomb of Jesus" video.So here's the unanswered question
This guy isa open faced Liar. because anyone who knows anything knows that thet hrone or David the Sceptre of Judah is set upon the Pillar of Jacob, which was carried to Ireland by A decendant of David, whom migrated their with Baruch.
Do you research if you don't believe me.
Anyone who listens to this person should check out the video where is the Ark of the Covenant today. His Name shall be called Wonderful Counsel the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
Mrpl778 1 year ago
You are an idiot the word antichrist does not appear, but we have 100 of names for this entity. Like Son of Perdition. The Lawless One. The Destroyer. It is so simple only an idiot can miss it Lucifer is The Antichrist.
Mrpl778 1 year ago
@Mrpl778 In 1 John we read that there were already many antichrists alive at the time of John. So much for the concept of "The Antichrist".
adamjacob9 2 weeks ago
In the name of Jesus Christ, I forgive you.
I hope he'll do the same.
willardway 2 years ago
Agreed. God help them. Sheep led to the slaughterhouse.
Liffet35 1 year ago
how does one get salvation before chirsts birth? did all the prophets before chirsts birth all go to hell?
harunyahyadotorg 2 years ago
1Tim.3
1.[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
NephilimFree 2 years ago 2
Heb.13
1.[8] Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Mal.3
1.[6] For I am the LORD, I change not;
John.16
1.[3] And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
Isa.45
2.[5] I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:
NephilimFree 2 years ago 2
Luke.9
1.[48] And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
NephilimFree 2 years ago 2
I watched carefully, knowing you would make your grand mistake. And you did when you said Jesus never claimed to be the father. He did more than once.
John.14
[8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nephil,
Do you really not get that Jesus speaking of reflection? It's like light in a pure mirror.
adamjacob9 2 years ago
No, that's not what He stated. He stated he was God several times. You must deny this to put forth and have faith in your false religion. But denialism is not intellectual, it's emotionally driven.
The Word of God defeats your falicious claims so thoroughly that it makes you look very silly. Give up the worship of angels and come to Christ. I have no time for you and your kind. Goodbye.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Very convincing video to anybody with a grade school understanding of biblical scholarship.
richp860 2 years ago
that is realy interesting that reference of christs male lineage and i think your right -back then to be concieved before marriage was a definate death from what i read in old testament laws -so .
remarkquest 2 years ago
I hate to argue, but the abomination harlot thing is called the Great Whore of Babylon, not the antichrist. Just pointing that out.
thegreatcheesedemon 2 years ago
Comment removed
thegreatcheesedemon 2 years ago
"Religion once ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages"
bigboy45454545 2 years ago
bigboy, who's that a quote from? That assessment is remedial and incorrect. During the Dark Ages "religion" did not "rule the world", but rather the corrupt Popes did. It would require using the intellect God gave us to see the difference, but the revelation of Jesus has little to nothing to do with the Popes or the teachings they impose. Anyone who actually watches this video will plainly see we don't support mindlessly following religious leaders or even the Church. Pleez watch, then comment.
jeffmichaud999 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 2 years ago
bigboy45454545,
Friend, if you would take the time to watch the entire video (and listen) you would have learned by now the meaning of the words Christ and antichrist & could answer your own questions. If you aren't able to accept even the possibility that much of the Bible is written as parable, then of course you'll see the whole thing as "fairy tale" as there aren't talking snakes or physical bodies rising from the grave.
adamjacob9 2 years ago
He's going to teach us the understanding of the scriptures..........Or as I like to call them, The Bronze Age Fairytale Books. The only deceiver here, is the man talking in this video.
Science flies you to the moon.
Religion flies you into buildings.
bigboy45454545 2 years ago
I guess an atheist like you would dislike someone who says that the Word of God makes sense. Jesus said everything is in parables.
thegreatcheesedemon 2 years ago
In all due respect, you are an eisogete, not an exegete, and you obviously have a limited understanding of the greek language. Sperma/spermatos means primarily seed. English has now taken that ancient term and used it in modern medicine. You are going backwards. That is dangerous. That leaves all your eisogesis on a bad foundation
molineadam 2 years ago
moline,
There are no 2 ways of interpreting Romans 1:3 where Paul says "made of the seed [sperma] of David according to the flesh"... I'm sure you're familiar with the well reputed source of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible. Strong's also defines sperma/spermatos as "male sperm", & clearly in context, that IS the correct definition, as Paul says "made of". The "seed" of David in this context can ONLY be the male sperm. This is the correct exegesis.
adamjacob9 2 years ago
molineadam, I think you mean *eisegesis*, not "eisogesis"? The latter is not a real word. So, how does your *correction* play through? It means "seed", and that contradicts our use of Romans 1:3 how exactly? How exactly is "seed" something other than sperm here? It would seem your understanding of these matters are as solid as your spelling skills.
jeffmichaud999 2 years ago
The Anti-Christ has taken His Seat Just About 2000 Years Ago... All Are Liars and Deceivers.. The One GOD Knows all and Sees All..
vibesprofesser 2 years ago
vibes, where are you getting these ideas? didn't you watch the video? the "anti-christ" is only ever mentioned in john's letters, and he said "many are among us now" so we know this isn't referring to one personage, see? perhaps you may be mixing several different concepts up and referring to them all as anti-christ? maybe watch the video and then share.
jeffmichaud999 2 years ago
'Antichrist' = instead of Christ.
horstmanjeff 2 years ago
horstman,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the word "anti" means "opposed to" or "against", not 'instead of'.
adamjacob9 2 years ago
Best Greek scholars in the world would agree that the prefix 'anti' has dual meanings, being 'against/opposed to' or 'in place of/instead of'. You are very wrong.
richp860 2 years ago
Well which meaning do you think makes sense with the scriptural references to the actual word antichrist?
thegreatcheesedemon 2 years ago
JCouraged said: "Islam and Baha'i has adopted the VEIL as its symbol".
Please provide one shred of evidence for this. Your grasp of these two religions tenets is utterly lacking in substance, and your attempts to marginalize them is rather sad. The amount of indignation and self righteousness in your comments is staggering. Why do is it necessary to tear these beliefs down to justify your own?
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
!people wake up! we are anit alah we are anti budhish..my advie, and the proper one:aplly the teacjing in bible or koran or whatever..but dont totally waste believing it cuz it's just scientifically false..any scientifically wrong events are deemed impossible..i mean wat christ is better than chriss angel?no way!!!there are better man than christ or muhammad or budhha...cmon they died..old people wrote this and they are still ignorant about science back then
Jermaximum 3 years ago
Jermax, lets focus for a second on one thing at a time and work this out. Are you contending because these men "died" already, they have not value to us today? REALLY???
You seem hung up on certain *unscientific* aspects of the Bible? Your assertions makes generous assumptions that we know all there is to know about science. Moreover, you've left no room for certain things that are clearly symbolic in the Bible. You'd have us readily dismiss it, but you seem the one confused about its value.
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
any other religion besides chrisianity is anti christ.. what is anti?against ryt?are moslems w/ us?are budhhist? no!then they are anti christ!
Jermaximum 3 years ago
Jermaxi,
Actually, Muhammad accepted Jesus as Christ. Buddha pre-dates Jesus, but spoke of him as another Promised One to come in the future. Neither of them were against Christ.
Besides that, you're missing the point of this video. To be "antichrist" is to be against CHRIST, which is a TITLE meaning the "anointed male-sperm descendant of King David".
Also, Jesus said that "if they're not against us, they're for us"
Muhammad & Buddha were never against Jesus OR the Christians.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Christ declared "Ye shall know them by their fruit's". David Korish,Jim Jones and many others were the AntiChrist Jesus spoke of. All of the major religion's are from God. They all agree if "Ye have a Seeing Eye" and a Hearing Ear. May God Bless You.
ahester862 3 years ago
Actually, that's not correct. Jesus never "spoke of" the Antichrist. This was a teaching found in the Letters of John, who actually said the antichrists were among him then. His teaching on this is that those who are against Jesus being the Christ (male descendant of David), but rather taught of "another Jesus", like the man-god many believe in today, were enemies of Jesus' Cause, and he labeled the "Antichrist", or against the reality that Jesus was the long awaited descendant of David. See?
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
jcour,
The "seed of the woman" doesn't refer to Mary, but is a prophecy of Zoroaster, the Perisan prophet Who's name literally translates "seed of the woman". The Persian expectation was that the Promised One of God would come forth from the female line of Zoroaster. The princess Dara of Zoroaster's line married the Exilarch Bostanai of the throne line of David, & from their union comes forth the line of Baha'u'llah down to this very day.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
Muhammad was not anti-christ.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
This video is about the Christ and Antichrist. Yet, for some reason you have chosen to fixate on generating sermons comprised of a clever mix of Bible verses intertwined w/ wishful fantasies you've woven together, but that have nothing to do with the subject of this video. Thanks for the sermon; care to comment on this video?
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
jcour,
Do you DENY that Jesus is "made of the seed [SPERM] of David according to the flesh"?
adamjacob9 3 years ago
This proof by assertion you're employing is a fallacy. Repeating something is true again & again without any supporting evidence serves to convince noone but yourself. BOTH genealogies clearly state they are for "his father Joseph", so to repeatedly assert otherwise is willingly ignoring facts. Was Luke mistaken when he plainly stated in 3:23"And Jesus himself...the son of Joseph who was the son of Heli"? Luke said it's Joseph's lineage, yet you assert it's Mary's, and she's from Heli? Strange.,
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
jcour,
Thank you for pointing out that indeed the term "original sin" doesn't appear ANYWHERE in the Bible, but is a produced concept of the clergy.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
If you accept Luke, who has given the ACCURATE genealogy of Jesus through JOSEPH, you must accept that Jesus is the sperm child of Joseph. Otherwise, he cannot be "Christ", as the definition of Christ is "anointed male-sperm descendant of David"
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
Can you please point out where the term "original sin" appears in the Bible?
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
History & all factual evidence disagree with you, but I'm sure that won't stop your blind(ing) faith.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
I agree that Jesus was without sin. HOW can you apply the verse from Samuel to Jesus then? It says "When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men" 2 Sam. 7:14
Surely this passage is NOT about Jesus Christ. You contradict yourself to suggest that it does.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
If you really believe that these verses refer to Jesus, you are saying that you believe Jesus had INIQUITY (vs. 14). Is this what you believe?
Beside this oversight on your part, it is historical FACT that Jesus never sat upon the throne of King David.
The reigning Davidic King alive at the time of Jesus was Liunan bar Babutan, the Exilarch residing in Babylon in the Area of Pure Lineage.
Research, research, research!
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
I've read this "theology" before, & it's simply not true. There is no foundation for this argument. The backwards logic is based on the clergy's twisted notion of the meaning of the virgin birth. Because they CAN'T ACCEPT that Jesus had an earthly dad, they MUST concoct this BS about Mary to justify their anti-christ behavior.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
"according to the flesh" refers specifically to Jesus' PHYSICAL LINEAGE, which Paul says is from the SPERM of David!
There is no way around this verse. Mary is NOT of the tribe of Judah, but of Levi, being the cousin of Elizabeth, of the daughters of Aaron (tribe of Levi).
ONLY Joseph is identified as being "of the house and lineage of David"
Mary is NEVER referred to in this way.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
The Lukan genealogy is Joseph's accurate genealogy. Luke studied the records, whereas Matthew's account is not accurate. The primary importance of Matthew's account is that it defines Christ as the anointed descendant of King David, which is further enunciated by Paul where he says Jesus is "made of the seed [greek:SPERMA = male sperm!!!] of David according to the FLESH" Romans 1:3 KJV
Mary had an ovum, not sperm. You quoting the above is not proof, just another persons ignorance.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
Where is your source for that information? Mary's genealogy is not given in the Bible, only Joseph's. The Luke genealogy is that of Joseph explicitly, & no false dogma or doctrine of the clergy can change that. Please supply your proof.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Everyone ready?
yodastealth 3 years ago
don't listen to this guy.
Jesus said " do not let any man deceive you "
He got it wrong.
gutomkoimo 3 years ago
True, but then again Paul said "prove all things; hold fast to that which is good". What you're promoting is dangerous; we must all use the intellect God gave us, right? So what specifically about this video has you feeling deceived?
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
Do not get me wrong. I appreciate your labour for the sake of the Lord. However, I feel it necessary to make corrective critisicm when neccessary. Joseph is not David, and David is not Joseph. Joseph did not have sex with Mary. Jesus father is GOD, not Joseaph, who is his adioptove father. Mary, like Joseph, is of the house of david. it is through Mary, that Jesus is of the house of David. Thanks
Storm7773 3 years ago
Storm,
Mary is not of the house of David. She is of the tribe of Levi.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Incorrect: Jesus was NOT related to Joseph 'in the flesh' But he was still related to David. How? Simple. Joseph was Mary's *Uncle*. Therefore, Mary is of the house of David, and Jesus is related to Mary genetically, or "in the flesh". Your statement that Jesus is of the house of David is correct, but not through the sperm of Joseph. Jesus came from Mary's egg.
Storm7773 3 years ago
Storm,
1. Please provide evidence that Joseph is Mary's uncle.
2. How do you answer Paul's assertion in Romans 1:3 that Jesus is "made of the seed [greek:sperma:male sperm] of David according to the flesh"?
adamjacob9 3 years ago
I will answer your second question first. Jesus is made of the seed of David, because Mary is of the house of David. (Which I already said. If Mary is related to David, then so is Jesus. If you insist that Jesus comes from Joesphs sperm, then Joseph had sex with Mary). As for your first question, why don't you google it? I can't do everything for you. Some key words to look up? ancestry of mary, geneology of mary, etc. ) I will supply you with more info when I have the time.
Storm7773 3 years ago
Yes, according to the seed of DAVID, not the seed of JOSEPH. If Joseph had sex with Mary, then it would not be a virgin birth. Mary was of the house of David, so Jesus is too, as he is her son. As for the mary being Joseph's niece comment, it really doesn't change the fact that Joseph didn't have sex with her. Mary has the line of David....
Alos, when a jewish man dies, it is brothers repsonisibilty to marry her (Lord, this woman had 7 husbands, all borthers..who will be her husband in heaven?"
Storm7773 3 years ago
I will be happy to give you more links to the information tomorrow, if you can't find the time to research the subject yourself
Storm7773 3 years ago
Read the beginning of Mathew.
keytoothed 3 years ago
please provide evidence for everything that you have said in your videos.
Abuse0matic 3 years ago
Do you mean beyond what's already provided from the Bible itself? Please explain.
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
is there someone can tell me that they saw christ? hahaha
Rathalos013183 3 years ago
Rathal,
What?
adamjacob9 3 years ago
no i say i love christ ^^
Rathalos013183 3 years ago
You sound like another robot. It happens to everyone with religion after some time.
godequalsjesus 3 years ago
godeq,
What difference does it make how I 'sound' in the video? Have you ever recorded yourself in a video?
I take it then that you don't disagree with any of the content.
Glad you enjoyed it. Come again.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Fair enough. Sorry...
godequalsjesus 3 years ago
daome said "Your final comment "THE manifestation of Christ" makes no sense..."
Sure it does.;-)"
-that's called proof by assertion, a complete fallacy in any context. It doesn't make sense because we're not using the term "manifestation of Christ", so you rebutting a point we've never made MAKES NO SENSE. You clearly aren't aware of the historical context of the word Christ (it's a genealogical title by all accounts), which I would contend is the crux of your confusion about our position.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Rich, we've answered the questions you ask, so why re-ask them & accuse us of being "afraid of the truth"? You're obviously intolerant of views that diverge from your own, so why the daily barrage of posts? Are you waiting for us to convert?
This teaching effort of yours is a very curious approach; righteous indignation mixed w/ belittling insults & condemnation. Do you get extra brownie points for all the heretics you chastise daily? I bet you're making Jesus real proud. Keep up the good work.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
"Nice redirection,..."
Just my way of addressing Another verse which bahai' misuse in an attempt to validate the claims of you know 'who?'.
"...Christians are famous for ascribing everything to Jesus."
You know what's even more "famous"?
It's how we can go back in time,in the earliest moments of church history and Find the Apostle Peter doing the Same Thing.
Acts 2:14-47.;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
Still avoiding the topic; why's that? There isn't a verse in the New Testament that attributes any of Isaiah visions to being fulfilled in Jesus. Like Adam said, aside from "to us a son is born" nothing he describes even remotely resembles Jesus. Peace? NO; he denied this one! Prince? NO! Everalasting Father? NO; he's the Son! Etc, Etc. What does Peter quoting Psalms and Joel have to do with Isaiah's visions being fulfilled in Jesus? In fact, not fulfilling them is precisely why Jew reject him.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
"In fact, not fulfilling them is precisely why Jew reject him."
Wow!You obviously didn't bother reading Act 2:14-47.So you're definitely unaware of vs 23.
"Still avoiding the topic; why's that?"
Because your approach of Is.9:6 is rife with eisegesis.The Same eisegesis that make you unable to properly interpret Matt.24.5 or Matt.23:39 etc.
"What does Peter quoting..."
Peter didn't believe Jesus to be A manifestation of Christ.
Peter believed Jesus is THE manifestation of Christ.Acts 2:36.;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
Your final comment "THE manifestation of Christ" makes no sense & is not what Peter says.
Christ is a genealogical title that has been held by others beside Jesus. You must be aware of this. "Christ" does not mean "God" or "Saviour" or imply some kind of spiritual vibe. It is a title describing lineage.
Two of the descendants of King David are prophesied of, & anointed with the Holy Spirit.
Peter understood of course that Jesus was the Promised One of God for that age.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
"Your final comment "THE manifestation of Christ" makes no sense..."
Sure it does.;-)
"Peter understood of course that Jesus was the Promised One of God for that age."
Oh!really?Which verse(s) in Acts 2 are you referring to.
"Christ is a genealogical title..."
Jesus,himself,deals with this rampant misunderstanding of Messiah in Matt.22:41-46.
Rhetoric and interpolations are a No!No! when defending ones belief.Jesus is Not A promised...Jesus is THE Promised One of God for all ages.;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
Still haven't learned the definition of Messiah? Your quotation of Matt. 22 makes it seem as though you think "Christ" means "Son" or something like that. Do you know what "Christ" means?
I'm glad you think I'm persuasive in my points, but it ain't rhetoric & we certainly haven't been interpolating any verses. The verses I've quoted have been directly from scripture. My comments are just that, comments.
Do you know what "interpolation" means?
Don't you accept Moses as a Promised One?
adamjacob9 3 years ago
"...Do you know what "Christ" means?"
Anointed One.
In Matt.22:41-46,Jesus questioned the "genealogical title" belief held by the Pharisees and they had no answer.I suggest
you Google "Rhetoric" and pick the Def. which better suits my usage of the word.:-)
"Do you know what "interpolation" means?"
Huh Huh!You made the statement that
"Peter understood of course that Jesus was the Promised One of God for that age.",and my comment was "Oh!really?Which verse(s) in Acts 2 are you referring to."
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
The reference Matt 22 is of the Melchizedek priesthood, a station which is "without genealogy" (psalms 110). Jesus in no way ever denies that "Christ" is a title of genealogy, but is asserting to the Pharisees himself as their High Priest, who is over the King.
Peter makes it clear that he accepts Jesus as the Promised One of God in many passages. I clarify "for that age" as it is obvious that Moses was the Promised One of God earlier. Do you agree?
I always want an answer. No rhetoric.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
"The reference Matt 22 is of the Melchizedek priesthood..."
No!The Melchizedek priesthood is referenced in Heb.7.You're interpolating.
"...but is asserting to the Pharisees himself as their High Priest,..."
You said "Christ" does not...imply some kind of spiritual vibe"Care to clarify?
"...Do you agree?"
I would agree had you shown actual Biblical understanding of the subjects you've broached.
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
The verse from Matt. 22 which you quoted earlier is a DIRECT quote from psalms 110, which is about the Melchizedek preisthood! I understand that Hebrews 7 is also about the Melchizedek priesthood, but would you care to explain why you deny that the verse from Matt. 22 which refers to psalms 110, is also about the Melchizedek priesthood?
Again, 'Christ' is a title of genealogy & is not inherently linked to Melchizedek, which is a separate title from 'Christ'.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
"...but would you care to explain why you deny that the verse from Matt.22..."
I'm not denying the quote or it' source.I'm denying it' application.The Pharisees understood the question and thus we have vs 46.If you disagree,can you explain why"...no one was able to answer Him a word,..."?
If you def. of Christ is correct,how do you explain Gen.48:10.;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
Nice try. Earlier (in response to my assertion that Matt. 22 refers to Melchizedek) you wrote: "No!The Melchizedek priesthood is referenced in Heb.7.You're interpolating."
Now you back-peddle.
I think you mean Genesis 49:10, the famous "Shiloh" prophecy. This is fulfilled in the American Son of 'Abdu'l-Baha [The BRANCH (see Isaiah 11 & Zech. 3)], Charles Mason Remey Aghsan. He is the adopted Son of 'Abdu'l-Baha, grafted into the tree of the throne-line of kings.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
"...Now you back-peddle."
Can you tell me in which of the 46 vs. of Matt.22 is Psalm 110:4 being quoted or referenced?The Pharisees understood the question.The Bahai' don't.
"I think you mean Genesis 49:10,...";-)
So...,the adopted son of the return of A descendant of King David is being prophesied BEFORE the birth of the nation of Israel and the monarchy?
Oh!...reeeally?
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
You originally referred to Matt. 22:41-46, & in verse 44 is the quote "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool" which is DIRECTLY from psalms 110:1.
Have you even taken the time yet to turn to psalms 110 & read it? It's referring to the Melchizedek high-priesthood, NOT to the Messiah. Jesus was both, but they are separate titles.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
The assertion that the 7 vs. of Psalm 110 is "referring the Melchizedek high-priesthood"
is false.
"...NOT to the Messiah."
I'm not the one quoting Psalm 110:1 in reference to the Messiah.JESUS is.
"Jesus was both, but they are separate titles"
Do you know that Melchizedek was King of Salem and Priest of the Most High God "BEFORE the birth of the nation of Israel and the monarchy?".;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
I never said anything about verse 7 of psalm 110.
In response to the explanation that 'Messiah' is a genealogical title, you wrote:
"Jesus,himself,deals with this rampant misunderstanding of Messiah in Matt.22:41-46."
He never denies being David's son, but challenges the Pharisees by asserting his authority over them by virtue of his High Priesthood, outranking them.
He asks them "HOW is he his son?" In what way [greek:POS]? Only physically. Spiritually, he is the Son of God.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
"I never said anything about verse 7 of psalm 110."
I know.I said "...7 vs. of Psalm 110..." not 7th vs.;-)
Again,you miss the point.How about you answer Jesus' second question in Matt 22:45.Maybe if i paraphrase it'll be easier to understand.
How is David' descendant also his Lord?
Or,Who is the Lord of the King of Israel?
Also,Melchizedek makes the Biblical case for Christ' def. and identity that much stronger,
so let's try to stick to the claims and vs. used in this video.;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
In that case, how can you claim that psalm 110 DOESN'T refer to Melchizedek? It's right there in vs. 4!
Jesus never says that he isn't physically the son of David.
Paul clearly identifies Jesus as being "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" Romans 1:3
Do you deny that the title 'Messiah' & the title 'Christ' refers to the 'anointed descendant of David'?
What is your personal definition, since you don't accept the Encyclopedia Judaica or the Bible.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
aj9,
about Psa.110,too much is being lost in translation.What i meant was "The assertion that the 6 other vs. of Psalm 110....".;-)
As for my def. of Messiah or Christ it's still "the anointed one" and the genealogies are clear that Jesus is a descendant of King David.Now,if the title Messiah is given to his male descendants etc...,how is it King David calls his descendant...Lord?
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
David calls the Messiah 'Lord' because the prophesied Messiah IS Lord. This does not change the fact that Jesus was an anointed male sperm descendant of King David as the Bible upholds. It seems like you're trying to use this verse to say that Jesus isn't a descendant of David, which the Bible clearly asserts that he is.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
aj9,
Why does King David call Jesus his Lord?
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
Why wouldn't he? Jesus is the Christ. Jesus is Lord.
However, Jesus is not God in the flesh, as God "is a spirit" & "no man hath seen God at ANY TIME".
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Matt.16:17.The Christ is the Son of God Not the Son of David.The partial quote of John 1:18 demonstrates that the "Jesus" of the Bahai is Not the Jesus of the Bible.;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
John 1:18 declares Jesus as the "only begotten Son", referring to his baptism, when the Bible says Jesus first became the "begotten Son" of God. This verse in no way denies Jesus physical lineage from David through Joseph, which has been completely established. If you'd like to continue to deny that Jesus is Christ (anointed male-sperm descendant of David), go ahead.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
"...when the Bible says Jesus first became the "begotten Son" of God".
Which of the 51 vs. of John 1 are you referring to as support for this statement?
Now,if you want to keep asserting that Jesus is Christ Because of his lineage to David,then Matt.22:41-46 speaks volumes in favor of the Pharisee' because they understood Jesus' line of questioning,hence vs.46,while the Bahai don't.
Matt.16:16-17.;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
I didn't say it's in John, I said the term "only begotten" REFERS to his baptism.
In Hebrews 5:5 we read "but he [God] said to him [Jesus], Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee."
Now WHERE is Paul quoting from?
He is quoting from the most ancient text of Luke, the one he would have read. In the RSV Bible, read Luke 3:22. Notice footnote K, which says:
"other ancient authorities read "today I have begotten thee"
This passage in Luke is the ONLY place Paul could be quoting from.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
"I didn't say it's in John..."
So not only do you quote a verse partially,you quote a verse out of it' immediate context?
John 1:18 is about Jesus Being the Son as opposed to Becoming the Son.Actually,John 1 is about Jesus' superiority pre and postincarnation.;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
I'm addressing the title "only begotten Son" & showing from the Bible when this title was given to Jesus. John doesn't say "In the beginning was the Son", but "the Word" which is LOGOS, the Thought of God expressed in a Revelation. John 1:18 says nothing contrary to Jesus being the sperm descendant of David through Joseph.
But while we're still on the subject of "begotten Son", are you able to respond to the verses from Romans & Luke which I have explained above?
adamjacob9 3 years ago
"The reference Matt 22 is of the Melchizedek priesthood,..."
The Pharisees could've said all of That and yet we have Vs 46.Your Theology dictates your use language and words i.e "Promised One of God".Is that the equivalent of "Christ"?
If yes,then your "title of genealogy" def. is wrong.If no,Why was new info. introduced?
The correct answer to Jesus'second question
is given by Peter in Matt.16:13-17.;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
Peter writes that David foresaw when Christ would be "raised up" to sit on the throne, as this occurs on the 2nd coming ONLY. Jesus Christ on the 1st coming was "given" the authority of the throne as an ambassador of the Father, but never physically sitting on the throne. It is only on his return AS the Everlasting Father, Baha'u'llah, that he is seated "upon the throne of David".
adamjacob9 3 years ago
"Peter writes that David foresaw when Christ..."
You need to cut down on the interpolation.
It's bad for you.;-)
I'm not a bahai,so rhetoric is a no no when defending one' belief.Acts 2:16-36 is about Peter making his case for Jesus.He has No clue who you know 'who?' is.If you disagree make your case for your founder from the book of Acts if possible.
Who knew commenting on a channel/video would be So difficult.
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
The historical fact is that Jesus Christ didn't sit on the physical throne of David on his first coming. Peter is of course pointing out to the Jews that Jesus is from David as this is a necessity to receive the title "Christ".
It is also an historical fact that Baha'u'llah is in the throne line of kings from David, having inherited the throne & passed it on down to the current day, in fulfillment of the Everlasting Covenant to David.
The "throne" of Jesus is heavenly, not earthly.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Hi meaculpa, or should I say Richbee2? You were so clever to create a new user name so you could start trolling this channel again. You almost had me fooled that you were a brand new proselytizing fanatical intolerant evangelist, but then you didn't bring any new material. You said all this under your old username. Yawn.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
But Who is beelzebul?? is he the brother of satan??? coz he is the prince of the evil empire...
boibk90 3 years ago
A note of caution:
Baha'ism advocates a subjectivism, asserting that "truth is continuous and relative, not final and absolute." This system of confusion cannot be from God (1 Corinthians 14:33).
Baha'is deny that Jesus is the final and FULLest revlation of God. Colossians 2:7-10 NIV
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
1 Timothy 1:3-4 NIV
As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
Acts 2:29-32 "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
Baha'i is anti-Bibical and anti-Gospel and they deny the core doctrines that Christians hold as Holy.
Exalted to the right hand of God, he [Jesus] has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
Acts 2
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
Adam Jacob is a false teacher from Satan!
The second coming of Christ also can not refer to Baha'u'llah. Scripture indicates that the very same Jesus who ascended into heaven will one day personally return (Acts 1:9-11). The Bible also prophesies several dramatic and highly visible signs that will accompany the Second Coming (Matthew 24:29). None of these signs were present when Baha'u'llah arrived on the scene!!!
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
Luke 12:37-40:
You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Non-Christians will be caught "sleeping" - literally in the DARK because they foolishly thinak that their Baha'u''lalalala was the a "christ".
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
Hi meaculpa, or should I say Richbee2? You are so clever to create a new user name so you could start trolling this channel again. You almost had me fooled that you were a brand new proselytizing fanatical intolerant evangelist, but then you didn't bring any new material. You said all this under your old username. Yawn.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Who is the anti-Christ?
Neal Chase?
Ring a bell?
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
The Messiah, Isaiah wrote, would be not only the "Prince of Peace," and the "Wonderful Counselor" (NASB), but also "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father."
Why would Isaiah call the Messiah "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father," and "Immanuel," if He was not God?
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
meaculpa9r, did you decide to join Youtube yesterday (7/23/08) just to comment on these videos? What an honor; we're totally flattered and glad to have inspired you like this. We really appreciate the support because incessant flurries of commenting like you're doing help these videos rank high in searches. Thanks.
So, I wonder if you have any comments about all these verses you're posting? We too accept every single verse in the Bible, and believe in Jesus. What exactly is your point?
genraldisarray 3 years ago
What is your point? Have you not read, Colossians 2:8-10
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
That's great man. If you want to reject our teachings it's no skin off our nose, but don't come here proselytizing your beliefs. Go make you're own video. We appreciate you trying to "save us" from ourselves, but we just don't accept your views. Thanks for sharing.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Who can see? Who can hear? Who can discern the the truth?
John 12:40-41 "He has blinded their eyes
and deadened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them."
Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
Well, that's one way to look at it. With a complete lack of anything solid to back it up, one can merely speculate who Isaiah saw. It's a matter of interpretation since its not explicit. We don't accept that all of Isaiah's visions were of Jesus, for much of his descriptions don't describe Jesus at all. They are mostly describing Reigning Messiah seated on David's throne, described as Prince of Peace, etc. None of this is accurate for Jesus, so logically it must be about the 2nd Messiah.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
"...so logically it must be about the 2nd Messiah."
There is no such thing as a "2nd Messiah".
1J2:22 "...Jesus is THE Christ...".Not A Christ.
daome2012 3 years ago
Yes, many do not who came the first time or who to look for on the return.
One & Only Son of God
The word translated "begotten" (e.g., KJV; NASB) comes from the Greek word monogenēs: monos, meaning, "alone" or "only" and genos, meaning, "kind" or "type." - "only kind," "unique one," or "one and only." (This verse alone demolishes false pretenders)
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
Nice redirection, but the main point that you conveniently avoided is there's nothing explicit in Isaiah's visions that meaculpa's referring to that indicate he's describing Jesus. He meets none of the details Isaiah's describing, yet Christians are famous for ascribing everything to Jesus. The contradictions abound: "Prince of Peace", yet Jesus said he came not for peace, but to turn brother against brother. "Everlasting Father", yet Jesus is the Son, etc, etc. Nothing explicit points to Jesus.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
"Nice redirection,..."
Just my way of addressing Another verse which bahai' misuse in an attempt to validate the claims of you know 'who?'.
"...Christians are famous for ascribing everything to Jesus."
You know what's even more "famous"?
It's how we can go back in time,in the earliest moments of church history and Find the Apostle Peter doing the Same Thing.
Acts 2:14-47.;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
The Messianic nature of the book of Isaiah is so clear that the oldest Jewish sources, the Targum, Midrash and Talmud, speak of the Messiah in connection with 62 separate verses including Isaiah 9:6. "For unto us," Isaiah foretold, "a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
Polycarp warned the Philippians that everyone that preached false doctrine was an antichrist.
John Chrysostom warned against speculations and old wive's tales about the Antichrist, saying, "Let us not therefore enquire into these things". He preached that by knowing Paul's description of the Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians Christians would avoid deception.
meaculpa9r 3 years ago
meaculpa,
The definition you provide that "everyone that preached false doctrine was an antichrist" is not Biblical however. The passages referenced in this video cover every verse in the Bible where the word "antichrist" is used, attempting to clear up the many misconceptions about the antichrists. Nowhere does Paul say that the "son of perdition" is the antichrist. That is extra to the scriptures. The "man of sin" was however, placed in the temple BY the antichrists, the clergy.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
That's cause the Knight on the White Horse isn't Baha'u'llah. That's the return of Jesus the High Priest, fulfilled by the Establisher of the Baha'i Faith, Dr. Leland Jensen.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
We're no saying "here he is" or "there he is".
What we're saying is that
EVEN AS THE LIGHTNING WHICH SHINES FROM THE EAST EVEN UNTO THE WEST, SO IS THE COMING OF BAHA'U'LLAH
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
Thanks for posting this important verse which clarifies that Jesus never sat upon the throne of David, but rather is seated "at the right hand of the throne"
Thanks.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
This verse shows that the true believers will UNDERSTAND (forehead/forebrain) by investigating the proof & evidence that the "new name" is Baha'u'llah.
Again, the verses you quote don't say any of what you're saying at all. It doesn't say that the "saints" will have a new name, it says HIS name will be in their foreheads.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
The verse you quoted from Rev. 3:12 doesn't say that the brides name is the same "new name". You are saying that. The Bible doesn't proclaim that.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
That's right. For Jesus was dependent on the Father for his Revelation which the Father gave to him. The knowledge of Baha'u'llah came to the believers of that time through Jesus Christ, who prophesied of the coming of Baha'u'llah.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
Interesting that neither of the verses you present proclaim Jesus as "the glory of the Father", but rather as the glory of people.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
Where has anyone here rejected Jesus? Who's judge are you?
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
Baha'is accept Jesus as the Christ & accept all of his claims.
I just don't accept most of your personal ideas which are rehashed from a Babylonian Pagan church.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
According to the date prophecy of Daniel, the "close of the age" was in 1844, the beginning of the Baha'i Cycle. Many Christians had discovered this date previous to its advent, but missed the Baha'i Revelation 'cause they were looking up into the sky instead of into "heaven".
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
At the time of Jesus, the reigning king on the throne of David was Liunan bar Babutan living in Babylonian captivity who the Jews paid tithes to. Jesus Christ never sat, nor will ever sit on the throne. All throughout the Bible he is depicted as being "seated at the right hand of the throne". It is the FATHER, Baha'u'llah, that is depicted as being seated "upon the throne of David"
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
Baha'u'llah is a Jew (from the tribe of Judah) Who's family was of the Exilarchs (exiled monarchs of David) that had come up into Persia from Babylonian captivity.
Baha'u'llah came seated upon the throne of David in direct fulfillment of the prophecies for the Return of Christ.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich, thanks again for all your support of this channel. All your comments to it help it rank higher on searches done on the tags attached to it. We're ranking up in the top 10 now for searches done on all these tags, and it's supporters like you that will help us stay there. Thanks again for all you support; keep up the good work.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Rich, we've answered to your comments, so why re-ask them & accuse us of being "afraid of the truth"? You pitifully rely on Proof by Assertion. You're obviously intolerant of views that diverge from your own, but why the daily barrage of posts?
This teaching effort of yours is a very curious approach; righteous indignation mixed w/ belittling insults & condemnation. Do you get extra points for all the heretics you chastise daily? I bet you're making Jesus real proud. Keep up the good work.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Rich, we've answered the questions you ask, so why re-ask them & accuse us of being "afraid of the truth"? You're obviously intolerant of views that diverge from your own, so why the daily barrage of posts? Are you waiting for us to convert?
This teaching effort of yours is a very curious approach; righteous indignation mixed w/ belittling insults & condemnation. Do you get extra brownie points for all the heretics you chastise daily? I bet you're making Jesus real proud. Keep up the good work.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Rich, this teaching effort of yours is a very curious approach; righteous indignation mixed with belittling insults and condemnation. Did you learn these things in the Bible too? Do you get extra brownie points for all the heretics you chastise daily? I bet you're making Jesus real proud. Keep up the good work.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Rich, this teaching effort of yours is a very curious approach; righteous indignation mixed with belittling insults and condemnation. Did you learn these things in the Bible too? Do you get extra brownie points for all the heretics you chastise daily? I bet you're making Jesus real proud. Keep up the good work.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Rich, it's really a shame you can't find something productive to do with your time. I usually enjoy discussions with Christians here, but this isn't a discussion as you haven't once responded to any of our replies, but rather create endless strings of comments, often as if carrying on a conversation w/ yourself. BTW, we accept Jesus. Why you must recycle old posts 10 and 12 times each is strange & leaves me concerned for your well being. Manic-depression is treatable Rich; don't postpone joy.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Could please tell me What is Baha'is? Is a new religion? I never hear of ?
kingvoyager 3 years ago
Remember that Jesus Christ born from Virgen Mary, the Virgen Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit Matthew 1:18
Matthew 1:21 Jesus is the Gk form of the Hb name "Joshua," which = "The Lord saves" or "Yahweh saves." The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called Immanuel."—(Isaiah 7:14) The name Immanuel means "God with us."She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.
kingvoyager 3 years ago
Your ideas about what these things reduce to are unfortunately contradicted by well-known facts. Almost every Jewish name makes reference to the presence of God; its a big stretch that because his name meant "God saves"/"God w/ us" that this is a proof he's god-incarnate. Historian Will Durant tells there were 110 "Joshua's" in Jerusalem in 30ad. Its mute. Furthermore the fact that a virgin got pregnant is not evidence of immaculate conception; google "virgins getting pregnant". It happens daily
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ, He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either. Who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. The antichrist opposed the holy trinity: God Father, God Jesus Christ, and God Holy Spirit
kingvoyager 3 years ago
king, have you watched this video? I ask because much of your comment is direct quotes from John's letters which are discussed at length in the video; didn't you notice? We absolutely agree.
Then your last line is a complete fabrication found nowhere in Scripture. The "trinity" did not originate in the Bible, nor did Jesus' alleged divinity. Please show ONE SINGLE VERSE that mentions "trinity", or states "antichrist opposes the trinity", or Jesus is God, or even God the Son. They don't exist.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Read the Bible-> God (Father), the Son (Jesus Christ)& the Holy Spirit.three Persons of the Godhead/Trinitarian nature of God. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19,the Spirit, the water & the blood; & the three are in agreement.1 John 51 Corinthians 2:2-5;12:4-6; 2 Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18-22;3:14-19; Ephesians4:4-6; Colossians 1:6-8;1Thessalonians 1:3-5 2Thessalonians 2:13-14;Titus 3:4-6
kingvoyager 3 years ago
I have had a chance to read every word of the Bible; I didn't find the word "trinity" in there. Where did you find it? I also haven't ever seen "antichrist opposes the trinity". Where does it say that?
I did see in Matthew what you're referring to, but it doesn't say that Jesus or the H.S. are God, does it? In fact Jesus said that our God was his God also. "I am ascending to MY GOD, to your God". How is God also Jesus' God if in fact Jesus himself is God? That just doesn't make sense.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
You've Bible. Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; You see God is plural. Jesus Christ is God => John 10:30-33 - "I and the Father are one." Exodus 3:14 - "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" John 1:1 Col. 2:9 Phil. 2:5-8.The Trinity is God exists as three persons but is one being. as God the Father, God the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ) & God the Holy Spirit.
kingvoyager 3 years ago
king, you're just repeating tired old Church doctrines & not answering my ??? Since you can't show me where the word "trinity" is in the Bible, I'll assume that like me you can't find it in there, can you? Neither can you find "God the Son", can you? So why then do you keep using such phrases and make-up doctrines? The Bible makes no specific reference of "God the Son"; it's an invention of the Church. Proof by assertion is a fallacy, so please do yourself a favor and stop relying on it.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Rich, if Jesus is in fact God incarnate, ie the Almighty himself, why would he say "I am ascending to my father to your father; to MY GOD to your God." (Jn20:17)? How is God Jesus' God if Jesus himself is God?
"No man has seen God at any time".
"The father is greater than I".
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".
Please reconcile this dichotomy between your ideas and these explicit verses.
genraldisarray 3 years ago 2
obviously we can be agreeable, and i hear yourpoints, however when jesus said after his ressurection to the apostles,go and forgive sins, i believe in that tradition, as for the eucharist, do this in memory of me, at jesus command we celebrate the eucharist, let alone the fact catholic saints have shown supernatural miracles. i do think your heart is good and truly seeking god, this is the main point i believe and i thankyou for hearing my beliefs, for which i would die.
may the lord bless you
emeraldelvis 3 years ago
with all due respect, one thing god in his infinate wisdom gave each of us is free choice, i place the destiny of my soul in thecatholic faith and in the holy eucharist of the mass, pope john paul was a great man in our time and inspired many to turn back to god.indeed i admire your scrutiny of the bible and taking all literally, however there was only one flawless and truthfull being that you could scrutinise with that type of specificity, jesus christ, and i believe in confession, mass.
emeraldelvis 3 years ago
That's great; goody for you. We don't believe what you do because they are inventions of the Church & not teachings of the Bible (i.e. confession, mass, eucharist, popes, etc) & as Paul instructed "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good" we are enjoined by this to reject these sacraments super-imposed upon Jesus' teachings which are void of such dogmas & rituals; if I'm wrong show me the verses. Otherwise lets just agree to disagree instead of being disagreeable with one another, ok?
genraldisarray 3 years ago
no one has seen the father but the one who came from the father,NOT DAVID and no one comes to the father but through the one whom he sent.
are you listening? and oprah too?
jesus is the way the truth and the life, bet your own soul on something other than what jesus told us
trust in jesus and do the will of his father and you will merit eternal rewards in heaven, its that simple, why complicate?
the roman soldiers servant was cured because he accepted and revered jeus christs authority.amen.
emeraldelvis 3 years ago
emerald, I'm confused why have you completely ignored my reply? I responded to your concerns, & so those are our beliefs. To what end will you badger us with your's while providing nothing to back them up? I'd still like to see you reply to either the evidence & proofs put forth in this video (did you get to watch it yet?), or at the very least the points I took the time to address in your first comment. If you would merely wish to use this for your sermons might I suggest making your own video?
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Richbee,
This is a follow up of Jesus' earlier warning that "many will come in MY NAME [Jesus} claiming to be the Christ". His name is 'jesus', & he says that there would be many false Christs claiming to be called 'Jesus' & we shouldn't accept them. But Baha'u'llah comes in the "New Name" prophesied of all throughout the Old & New Testaments, that of the Everlasting Father & Prince of Peace. He is the "Glory of the Father".
adamjacob9 3 years ago
The proper exegesis of Matt.24:5 goes as follows,
"Who will the many to come claim to be? Jesus?No!
They will be"saying,I am the Christ..."Not Jesus.
The many,although,Do come in the Name of Jesus meaning the name of Jesus is used in the sales pitch or they come in using his reputation.
Does this sound like someone close to you?;-)
btw.I answered your reply on 'the prince of this world' video but it's not going through.
daome2012 3 years ago
daome,
Your "proper exegesis" is properly rubbish. Are you saying that Jesus' name was Christ? Like Joseph & Mary Christ of Bethlehem Lane? silly
adamjacob9 3 years ago
"Your "proper exegesis" is properly rubbish."
Your attempt at exegesis and reply is rubbish.
;-)
"Are you saying that Jesus' name was Christ?"
....What?
Actually,YOU said that the "many to come" in Matt.24:5 will say "I am Jesus".So...don't get it twisted.What i did say is that,"the many to come will say,I am Christ,and will base their claim on the Name or Reputation of Jesus".
As for the rest of your "reply"...silly .;-)
daome2012 3 years ago
daome said "the many to come will say,I am Christ,and will base their claim on the Name or Reputation of Jesus"
-Why are you paraphrasing and adding your interpolations? It makes no such ref. It says "many will come in my name saying I am the Christ", so Adam's point is valid that they will come "in his name" (Jesus), so that anyone claiming to be the Christ calling himself Jesus (in his name) is a fraud. By his own account he will come with a "new name"(Rev. 3:12), & revealed it in Mrk 8:38
genraldisarray 3 years ago
"Why are you paraphrasing and adding your interpolations?"
Actually,the "interpolations" are the correct rendering of "in My name" as opposed to "claiming to be me...".Because if you're consistent,Matt 23:39 should read "...Blessed is He Who claims to be Me(the Lord)".:-o
"By his own account he will come with a "new name"..."
You said the same thing on the "tomb of Jesus" video.So here's the unanswered question
...Again.
So....you know "who?" is Jesus? ;-)
daome2012 3 years ago