Eli_StayFocused

If you're going to make truth claims you have to prove to me why you're right. I won't be doing your job. The burden of proof is on you.

@Sniper2DaNecc I rebuke you BOT in the name of Jesus.

@Eli_StayFocused So we should police our citizens like the Bible says? Wouldnt that put us on the same level as a country ruled by Sharia Law? btw your fake book was translated numerous times by multiple men in multiple languages…

Women are not to have authority over men. They expressly cannot be pastors. It's in the bible. Agree?

@DanielvsBabylon Bible - "Flee from sexual immorality" Me -

Fear of God will have you running from sin.

@MalcangiSarah It's good to see other fellow, Biblically aligned, God fearing Zionists on here. Matti, is lost.

Only on here am I called these things. 🤡 If you think like Matti you have been deceived.

Your understanding of mideival history is WAY better than your understanding of the Bible. It's not even close. This is the same type of mindset that Satan used to lead Eve straight into deception. And then all of creation was cursed She was "innocent and had good intentions right? She thought she was doing "good". Sin is anything that goes in direct disobedience to God, period. What was the 1st commandment? You shall Love the Lord thy God and have NO OTHER GODS before me. " Ohh but they're doing it... Innocently". Acts 17:29-31 ESV [29] Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. [30] The times of ignorance God overlooked, BUT NOW he commands all people everywhere to repent, [31] because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” "But they're not inherently being evil, they're doing good things" Genesis 6:5 ESV [5] The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. I'm pretty sure that, in their wickedness, they thought they were just "good people at heart". Why don't you ask all the OF models? They all think they're doing "honest work". These people in other religions don't actually know who god is right? They just don't know the truth... Romans 1:18-21 ESV [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Please stop trying to teach about religion and learn the Bible. On your bio it reads that you're a latter day saint, even though I believe latter day saints, by every biblical standard are lost and not actual Christians (poly theists) you should at least know this much.

@shadmbrooks You do realize that was the exact kind of mindset that Satan used to deceive Eve in the garden right? "Did God really say? The fruit is good for you, you won't die trust me, God just doesn't want you to know the things He knows. It's not sinful though. You're just... Learning."

Believing in FALSE RELIGIONS or false doctrines that still lead you to do good IS NOT A SIN! Any belief that says different (that you deserve to suffer eternally for wrong but sincere benevolent held beliefs) IS OF THE DEVIL AND AN ABOMINATION!

David did, and he also killed a Lion. If my God is for me, who can be against me. If the fight is THIS bad, I might as well go down trusting in the might of Holy Spirit overtaking me 💯 1 Samuel 17:34-36 ESV [34] But David said to Saul, “Your servant used to keep sheep for his father. And when there came a lion, or a bear, and took a lamb from the flock, [35] I went after him and struck him and delivered it out of his mouth. And if he arose against me, I caught him by his beard and struck him and killed him. [36] Your servant has struck down both lions and bears, and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them, for he has defied the armies of the living God.”

6% Americans believe they can defeat a bear barehanded

@deusimpera It's actually not sloppy apologetics if you knew the history of where the Arabic Allah came from. It came from a pantheon of pagan gods in mecca. So although yes the term Allah means god, in the specific context of Islam it's referring to a satanic moon god. Context matters.

“Allah” simply means God in Arabic. Arab Christians refer to God as “Allah”. This sloppy apologetics needs to stop.

I made a whole video on this way back in the day when I actually started growing out my hair. I think the context has to do with a lot of things that went on in the old testament in reference to the women's head covering, hence his mention "for the angels". He's referencing Genesis 6 when the angels desired and slept with the daughters of men, which he's likely telling them to cover their heads so that they are outwardly portraying that they are symbolically and quite literally submitted under the covering of their husbands and belong to their husbands. This is why he starts off by saying - 1 Corinthians 11:3 ESV [3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. So he's referencing a hierarchy of headship and submission. The reason why the men don't cover his head is because, in marriage, the husband represent Jesus and the wife represents the church. Hence why the wife covered her head and the husband does not because Jesus is his covering. Paul explains that more in verse 7 1 Corinthians 11:7 ESV [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. The woman is the glory of man therefore she covered her glory, for her husband. He then confirms why the head covering is a symbol of her husband's authority over her in verse 10 - 1 Corinthians 11:10 ESV [10] That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Which is also where he references "the angels", which is likely a reference again the the Angels sleeping with the daughters of men. Now this issue about men's hair being a disgrace that is proven by nature, I think there is some missing cultural context there, but I don't think he means a man can never have long hair because most men, back then, did not have their heads shaved so closely to their scalp like they do today. Also part of the Nazarite vow is to allow your hair and beard to grow as well. We can also refer to Samson, who had long locks because he was born a Nazarite. Even if we look to "nature" male Lions have long hair, and the female lions do not and we all know they knew what lions looked like considering they called Jesus the Lion of Judah. So having long hair itself is not the issue, I think there is something else there.

I have to admit, Paul's writings on head coverings and hair length in 1 Corinthians 11 has me puzzled. Why such rules? Do men really have to take their hats off when praying? Do women really have to wear a head covering, otherwise shave bald? Is long hair really disgraceful for a man? I have to wonder if these sayings are idiomatic and we lost some context here. Where do you land on this?

@EternityInMindZ @usuallypregnant Amen, I'm glad to hear that. God bless you both with a long, fruitful and God honoring marriage! May you both do a mighty work in influencing kingdom marriages for the glory of God 🙏🏽 Lord knows we need it!

That's false, people quite often misinterpret this to the woman's desire to love and be clingy toward her husband. 3 problems with that: 1- that section is for Eve's curse. Adams curse starts in verse 17. Problem 2- Adam already had dominion and rulership before Eve entered the picture. Problem 3 is the biggest one, if you look into the actual Hebrew there the word means "against" hence the reason why the KJV and so many other translations have the word "against" in the footnotes. How do we know the word towards is not a good loving word to display affection? Because not even 1 full page later God uses the exact same phrasing when speaking to Cain and says the same thing. He says this: Genesis 4:6-7 NKJV [6] So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? [7] If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” Notice the last sentence, Sin's desire of FOR or toward Cain, but he must Rule, or dominate, over it. Did Sin have these lovey clingy feelings toward Cain? No. Sin desired Cain the same way a Lion desires a Gazelle, or the same way an employee trying to climb up the corporate latter desires the Manager. They want to overtake them. So Sin desired Cain the same way a woman will desire her husband. But Cain must Rule over Cain the same way a Husband must maintain his position of Rulership over his wife who is actively not submitting to his authority and wanting to do things her own way, getting him to conceed to her Also the word Husband did not exist until the 19th century. The word husband, not exactly in Genesis, but in most other places actually was the Hebrew word "Baali" which means "My master, or owner, my Lord". Hence why Sarah called Abraham Lord.

Karoline: "Women are naturally feminine and submissive." The Bible: "and you will desire to rule over your husband, but he will rule over you.” ––Genesis 3:16

Wait. I don't really understand this, if an ungodly man has the same conviction to be accountable and protective of women, why would he pervert and resent her? I'm speaking of the unodly man now keep in mind, still has the same conviction of the godly man is what it sounds like you're saying. Can you clarify?

men have a God-given conviction weaved deep within their souls to be accountable & protective of a woman— an ungodly men will pervert & resent the woman for this same conviction

@Tekeee Lol, was me like a day ago

Small accounts posting to absolutely ZERO engagement

@JoshuaBarzon I wonder if any of that KJV excitement looks anything like this 🤔 Nah, I joke, I'm a charismatic so I can't say much 😂

Just a reminder that this church exists 😂

@YourCalvinist By the way. I've literally had to expel demons from various people before. This isn't just some "made up" thing.

The reason this debate is even going on still is because people don't read their Bibles correctly. Also people of this persuasion are always misrepresenting the argument because they run with the word "possessed" which is not the word used in the Greek. The word is Daimonizomai, which simply means demonized. Possession mean to have ownership of, which is an entirely different greek word. Yes you are possessed by the Holy Spirit. But your body is a temple. We know that the temple has an outer court, an inner court, and the holy of Holies. The outer court is reserved for the animals and sacrifices (Your Flesh) the is where demons reside. The Holy Spirit resides in the Holy Of Holies, your inner spirit. Also much of the objection to this is the idea that Demonic spirits cannot reside next to Holy Spirits and we all know that's false. All we need to do is look at how Satan walked up into heaven and challenged God about Job. Satan literally was in the presence of Jesus in the wilderness. So the notion that two spirits cannot reside in the same space has been debunked forever now. Also your body is described as a house, that is either occupied or empty and swept clean. Houses AND temples have rooms. The Bible says give no "space", or "foot. Hold" to the enemy. A space is a room. A foothold is when you open a door to someone and they literally put their foot in the doorway to keep the door open. None of these demonic spirits have "ownership of you" but they say they influence you is not just outside influence, but by you giving them a "space" in the outcourts (your flesh) to dwell in. It's really not a hard concept to understand.

Can a Christian Be Demon Possessed?

@AlexJ_Andrews @GoodHavea @InspiringPhilos @TuckerCarlson 👍🏽

@Eli_StayFocused @GoodHavea @InspiringPhilos @TuckerCarlson You pointing out that there was a body and a Church before there was a Bible refutes your position.

I have all the reason I need to appeal to scripture because they themselves were divinely inspired and hold inherent authority. You however, because of your orthodoxy, hold to the false assumption that the "compilers" are the ones that "attributed" authority to them. I reject that belief.

Talk about heresy. It's called the body of Christ, not the body of "orthodoxy" those who believe and follow Jesus will be saved. You do realize that the followers of Jesus were saved and yet did not have the new testament with them at the time right? It wasn't even written down or compiled yet until way after the book of Revelation was written. Sounds like you follow the doctrines of men that Jesus warned about. Sounds much like the beliefs of the Pharisees to me, who thought they held all the authority and rejected the followers of Jesus because they didn't follow "their orthodoxy and man made doctrines". I pray you will repent of your heresy one day and come to Christ yourself, because from all I've just heard you belong to camp of the Pharisees at the moment. Just an observation. God bless.

Believing that they were divinely inspired because that’s what the scriptures say is psychological certitude and circular reasoning. That’s different from epistemic certitude to give a justification for why you should believe that. In Orthodoxy there’s a holistic worldview where we also believe the scriptures were divinely inspired and inerrant. But we also have the Church that Christ established via the apostles and their successors and the councils that were also divinely inspired. That’s the last thing I’ll say, it’s been a great conversation brother and I pray that you’ll consider the historicity of Christianity and someday join the body of Christ. God bless.

@Eli_StayFocused @GoodHavea @InspiringPhilos @TuckerCarlson Scripture is what’s in question. You can’t appeal to scripture if I’m questioning your epistemic justification for using it in the first place.

Can we now all accept @TuckerCarlson is a liar?

@AlexJ_Andrews @GoodHavea @InspiringPhilos @TuckerCarlson Re-read my comments. Address my points. Simple. I quoted you scripture. You don't care for it, then that's a personal issue

You said you knew where it came from it is very pertinent. First of all how do you know the Church compiled the New Testament properly with the right gospels and epistles? Excluding things like Thomas’s gospel. And since we don’t have the contemporary manuscripts from the authors of the New Testament except maybe a couple from Paul. You’re trusting that the Church copied and preserved the documents. These are just important things that need to be considered.

I told you that question does not matter and I'm not wasting my time going down the history of who compiles the books, because Again, which you continue to do for some odd reason, you continue to not address the fact that compilation does not equate to authordhip, or inspiration of scripture. You hold in orthodoxy that Apostles can basically continue writing scripture. I do not, and the scripture was sealed shut after the book of Revelation. Paul himself said we are to judge even him, and correct him if necessary, with the scriptures. You however hold to the idea that no one can correct an apostolic successor, let alone an apostle. That goes in complete opposition to what Paul PLAINLY said in scripture, no interpretation needed to understand that, just basic elementary level comprehension. So you can keep pressing me on the answer and I'll just continue not answering because you're not even dealing with the same point I am and I'm not not about to waste my time going off some trail. I'm going to continue holding to what I said. You're the one that needs to deal with what I've said.

@Eli_StayFocused @GoodHavea @InspiringPhilos @TuckerCarlson Where did you get it?

Dude I know where I "got my Bible" your entire premise and question is a complete strawman and misrepresentation of everything I've said from the start. That's why I'm letting this go. Because you can't be honest about anything I've said, you're pressing this question as if it changes anything I've said prior and it doesn't.

“I read the Bible” isn’t an answer. My question has to do with your justification of trusting said Bible if your position is that those who wrote, compiled, and preserved the documents are untrustworthy. But that’s fine, think about it and maybe look at the history of where you got that Bible. God bless.