What is the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

[Titus]

Acts 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

This is the same Philip that they laid hands on he received the power transferred by the Apostles for the first time.

Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.

Yes, same Philip but what was Philip receiving in Acts 6? Why did the apostles lay hands on him?
Acts 6:1, read on
- now in those days when the number of disciples was multiplying there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Helenists because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution

- then the twelve(apostles) summoned the multitude of the disciples and said it is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables therefore brethren seek from among you seven men of good reputation full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom whom we may appoint over this matter
And this saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit and  Philip Prochorus Nicanor Timon Parmenas and Nicholas a proselyte from Antioch

- whom they set before the apostles and when they prayed, they laid hands on them

Notice they prayed and layed hands on these 7 men to appoint them as the overseers of this particular work.
Not to impart the Holy Spirit as you read these men already had the Spirit.

But, I also have the Spirit but not miraculously.
All Christians must be filled with the Spirit as these men were.

Pay close attention and you will learn that these men at least Stephen and Philip already had the Spirit before the apostles laid hands on them in verse 6.
Notice back before the laying on of hands what is said about Stephen
Verse 5
- and the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen a man full of the Holy Spirit...

How could he be full of the Holy Spirit if it was the laying on of the apostles hands in the next verse that imparted Holy Spirit miraculous gifts to Stephen?

Conclusion on the laying on of hands by the apostles in Acts chapter 6:

This laying on of hands by the apostles was not to receive the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Is was a ceremony to appoint them over a work in the church.

As more proof I'm rightly dividing the word of God notice Acts 13:3.
Paul already filled with the Holy Spirit through the baptism of the Holy Spirit had hands layed on him as an
Acts 13:3,
- Then having fasted and prayed and laid hands on them, they sent them away

This laying on of hands was not to impart the gifts of the Spirit.

I WANT TO THANK YOU BECAUSE IVE LEARNED I MADE A MISTAKE IN WHAT IVE BEEN TEACHING ABOUT THE EXACT TIME WHEN THE LAYING ON OF THE APOSTLES HANDS FIRST TOOK PLACE.

I believe its possible that Acts chapter 8 is not the first time the apostles imparted spiritual gifts through the Holy Spirit.

I've known about Acts 5:12 but simply forgot what I've learned.
This happens if you get away from studying on specific subjects like laying on of hands.

It reads, Acts 5:12,
- and through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the  people

Now does this mean the apostles were doing signs and wonders among the people or were the people themselves doing the signs and wonders?
Seems the apostles did lay hands on them in chapter 5.

That would correct my mistake of teaching laying on of apostles hands did not occur until Acts 8.

None of this changes what I taught about only the apostles receiving Holy Spirit baptism.
Acts 8 proves that those who were already saved did not yet receive the HS until the apostles showed up and layed hands on them.

 

[Titus]

A

I'll teach how all christians have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit today.
This indwelling is not Holy Spirit baptism which was miraculous
Also it is not gifts of the Holy Spirit for that was also miraculous and could only be given through the laying on of the apostles hands.

No apostles today, therefore no miraculous gifts imparted.

How then does the Spirit indwell the christian today?

Only one way, through the word of God!

1Thessalonians 2:13,
- for this reason we also thank God without ceasing because when you received the word of God
Which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe


Thus the Holy Spirit works in us through the word that is in us.

You know how many people claim to have the Holy Spirit yet teach against what the Holy Spirit revealed in Gods revelation?

If anyone teaches contrary to what the Bible teaches they have proven that they do not have a miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the apostles did.

2Thessalonians 2:14,
- but we are bound to give thanks to God always for you brethren... because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth
- to which He called you by our gospel for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ

God used the Holy Spirit to reveal the gospel to us. This is how the Spirit is involved in our calling.
So we are called by the word of God which the Spirit revealed.

The Spirit is only in us as much of His revelation the word is in us.
Ephesians 5:18-19,
- ... but be filled with the Spirit speaking to one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord

How can we sing with the Spirit?
How can we speak to one another by being filled with the Spirit?
Answer
Colossians 3:16,
- Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord


The Spirit dwells in the christain when the word of Christ dwells in the christian!

No miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit today.
All miracles have ended, 1Corinthians 13

 

[Wick Stick]

They had no pope in power but they had Bishops. Here I will give you one...

The concept of the original sin was first alluded to in the second century by Irenaeus, (Bishop of Lyon) who was working for the Catholics and not for the apostle Paul.

Bishops are Biblical. Dispose of the high-falutin word, and they're just the overseers and elders of a church.

Irenaeus pre-dates what most would think of as the Catholic church. Irenaeus lived in France and was the student of Polycarp, who himself lived in Asia Minor and was the student of the apostle John. That is to say, he doesn't have a connection to Rome or even Peter. If his doctrine mostly falls in line with the Catholic church that's because they copied him... not the other way round.

As for original sin, the faulty doctrinal formulation of it comes from Augustine of Hippo, well after Irenaeus was dead. Prior to that such allusions are just referring to the story in Genesis.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
Perhaps in your declared ignorance, you are wrong about them. ???
Sometimes our task is to understand the other believer rather than prove them wrong.

Have you noticed I have never been nasty to you or attacked you personally? I have never told you or implied that you were ignorant or that you should learn how to read the Bible better or that you should read before speaking or any of the other negative insulting ways you have treated me. Wise men say that you lost the debate when you can no longer discuss the issues but find yourself attacking the other guy personally.

I apologize for the rough treatment. Will you forgive me?

Because I do not agree with what they believe. Nor do I understand it. Thus, I would not know where to begin to try to unravel their religious concepts.

I referred to your ignorance based on your statement that you don't understand Catholicism,

/

 

[Peterlag]

Bishops are Biblical. Dispose of the high-falutin word, and they're just the overseers and elders of a church.

Irenaeus pre-dates what most would think of as the Catholic church. Irenaeus lived in France and was the student of Polycarp, who himself lived in Asia Minor and was the student of the apostle John. That is to say, he doesn't have a connection to Rome or even Peter. If his doctrine mostly falls in line with the Catholic church that's because they copied him... not the other way round.

As for original sin, the faulty doctrinal formulation of it comes from Augustine of Hippo, well after Irenaeus was dead. Prior to that such allusions are just referring to the story in Genesis.

The concept of the original sin was first alluded to in the second century by Irenaeus, (Bishop of Lyon) who was working for the Catholics and not for the apostle Paul. Some two hundred years later another church father who went by the name of Augustine, (Bishop of Hippo) whose writings shaped and developed the doctrine of sin as he considered that humanity shared in Adam's sin. Augustine's formulation of the original sin after the year of 412 was popular among protestant reformer's such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated the original sin with a hurtful desire meaning that it persisted even after baptism and therefore completely destroyed the freedom to do good. At first Augustine, said that free will was weakened, but not destroyed by the original sin. But after the year of 412 this concept changed to a loss of free will except to sin, and it's this Augustine's concept that influenced the development of the western church and western philosophy and indirectly all of western Christianity.

 

[Godslittleservant]

Yes, same Philip but what was Philip receiving in Acts 6? Why did the apostles lay hands on him?
Acts 6:1, read on
- now in those days when the number of disciples was multiplying there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Helenists because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution

- then the twelve(apostles) summoned the multitude of the disciples and said it is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables therefore brethren seek from among you seven men of good reputation full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom whom we may appoint over this matter
And this saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit and  Philip Prochorus Nicanor Timon Parmenas and Nicholas a proselyte from Antioch

- whom they set before the apostles and when they prayed, they laid hands on them

Notice they prayed and layed hands on these 7 men to appoint them as the overseers of this particular work.
Not to impart the Holy Spirit as you read these men already had the Spirit.

But, I also have the Spirit but not miraculously.
All Christians must be filled with the Spirit as these men were.

Pay close attention and you will learn that these men at least Stephen and Philip already had the Spirit before the apostles laid hands on them in verse 6.
Notice back before the laying on of hands what is said about Stephen
Verse 5
- and the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen a man full of the Holy Spirit...

How could he be full of the Holy Spirit if it was the laying on of the apostles hands in the next verse that imparted Holy Spirit miraculous gifts to Stephen?

Conclusion on the laying on of hands by the apostles in Acts chapter 6:

This laying on of hands by the apostles was not to receive the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Is was a ceremony to appoint them over a work in the church.

As more proof I'm rightly dividing the word of God notice Acts 13:3.
Paul already filled with the Holy Spirit through the baptism of the Holy Spirit had hands layed on him as an
Acts 13:3,
- Then having fasted and prayed and laid hands on them, they sent them away

This laying on of hands was not to impart the gifts of the Spirit.

I WANT TO THANK YOU BECAUSE IVE LEARNED I MADE A MISTAKE IN WHAT IVE BEEN TEACHING ABOUT THE EXACT TIME WHEN THE LAYING ON OF THE APOSTLES HANDS FIRST TOOK PLACE.

I believe its possible that Acts chapter 8 is not the first time the apostles imparted spiritual gifts through the Holy Spirit.

I've known about Acts 5:12 but simply forgot what I've learned.
This happens if you get away from studying on specific subjects like laying on of hands.

It reads, Acts 5:12,
- and through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the  people

Now does this mean the apostles were doing signs and wonders among the people or were the people themselves doing the signs and wonders?
Seems the apostles did lay hands on them in chapter 5.

That would correct my mistake of teaching laying on of apostles hands did not occur until Acts 8.

None of this changes what I taught about only the apostles receiving Holy Spirit baptism.
Acts 8 proves that those who were already saved did not yet receive the HS until the apostles showed up and layed hands on them.

I overlooked Acts 5:12 myself it could be when the power gifts were transferred to Stephen and Philip but still yet it was by the Apostles hands not supernaturally like with the Apostles. That I do agree with.

 

[Godslittleservant]

I'll teach how all christians have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit today.
This indwelling is not Holy Spirit baptism which was miraculous
Also it is not gifts of the Holy Spirit for that was also miraculous and could only be given through the laying on of the apostles hands.

No apostles today, therefore no miraculous gifts imparted.

How then does the Spirit indwell the christian today?

Only one way, through the word of God!

1Thessalonians 2:13,
- for this reason we also thank God without ceasing because when you received the word of God
Which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe


Thus the Holy Spirit works in us through the word that is in us.

You know how many people claim to have the Holy Spirit yet teach against what the Holy Spirit revealed in Gods revelation?

If anyone teaches contrary to what the Bible teaches they have proven that they do not have a miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the apostles did.

2Thessalonians 2:14,
- but we are bound to give thanks to God always for you brethren... because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth
- to which He called you by our gospel for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ

God used the Holy Spirit to reveal the gospel to us. This is how the Spirit is involved in our calling.
So we are called by the word of God which the Spirit revealed.

The Spirit is only in us as much of His revelation the word is in us.
Ephesians 5:18-19,
- ... but be filled with the Spirit speaking to one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord

How can we sing with the Spirit?
How can we speak to one another by being filled with the Spirit?
Answer
Colossians 3:16,
- Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord


The Spirit dwells in the christain when the word of Christ dwells in the christian!

No miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit today.
All miracles have ended, 1Corinthians 13

This I can agree with to as how the indwelling spirit works in our lives but I think you missed the point as to how the indwelling was given.

The gospels of Matthew Luke mark and especially John all teach that the indwelling will only be given b after the crxoss. John said his baptism was void of the spirit and that Jesus would give the spirit That is what Peter preached when he preached the first complete sermon after the cross that the spirit is now given through the baptism in the name of Christ that john said Jesus would baptize with and in Acts 19:1-5 Paul verifies that it is true as to hoe the indwelling spirit could not be given by the baptism that John baptized with but only through the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

I know all that was short handed but I can show all the scripture if needed that shows when one receives the indwelling spirit. I totally agree with all the rest of your post on how the indwelling works but the bible is clear that in Acts 2:38 the gift of the holy ghost is indeed the promised holy spirit himself Yes it is salvation but also the giving of the indwelling spirit as a deposit to us until the final day.

 

[Wick Stick]

The concept of the original sin was first alluded to in the second century by Irenaeus, (Bishop of Lyon) who was working for the Catholics and not for the apostle Paul.

I don't know where you're getting this, but it's bad information.

The Roman emperor Constantine de-criminalized Christianity in the year 313. Prior to that, there was no Catholic church after the fashion of a political entity that had any power or the corruption that comes with it. The church that existed then was underground, sometimes literally, trying to avoid being martyred by the Roman empire.

It is impossible for Irenaeus to have been "working for the Catholics." He died in 202, more than a century before they existed.

Some two hundred years later another church father who went by the name of Augustine, (Bishop of Hippo) whose writings shaped and developed the doctrine of sin as he considered that humanity shared in Adam's sin. Augustine's formulation of the original sin after the year of 412 was popular among protestant reformer's such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated the original sin with a hurtful desire meaning that it persisted even after baptism and therefore completely destroyed the freedom to do good. At first Augustine, said that free will was weakened, but not destroyed by the original sin. But after the year of 412 this concept changed to a loss of free will except to sin, and it's this Augustine's concept that influenced the development of the western church and western philosophy and indirectly all of western Christianity.

Augustine came up with the doctrine of original sin. He did refer to Irenaeus' writings about Adam. But Irenaeus writings did not include the conception of inherited guilt that defines the doctrine, nor did he write at all about free will.

From Wikipedia:

Irenaeus was an early father appealed to by Augustine on the doctrine of original sin, although [Irenaeus] did not believe that Adam's sin was as severe as later tradition would hold and he was not wholly clear about its consequences. One recurring theme in Irenaeus is his view that Adam, in his transgression, is essentially a child who merely partook of the tree ahead of his time

 

[Berserk]

Most everyone says that the baptism talked about in Romans 6:3ff is the spirit baptism and I agree it is the one of Acts 2:38 a spiritual baptism where God is doing a spiritual work of transforming us from dead in sin to alive in Christ. We all agree it is a spiritual baptism but most cannot see that it is actually talking about the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ that he was to baptize with. That of Acts 2:38 the only only one he authorized his Apostles to do.

You just need to to read some academic Bible commentaries. All NT scholars agree that Romans 6:1-6 expresses Paul's theology of physical baptism.

Titus: "Those who claim this HS baptism is for all believers are too careless in their meditation on the scriptures. Really, they probably dont really mediate on Gods word."

Read some academic commentaries on Acts. The phrase "they were ALL together in one place" in 2:1 goes beyond the apostles by referring to the gathered 120 in 1:15 who were Spirit baptized on the day of Pentecost. Spirit baptism is an EXPERIENCE of "drinking" the living water of the Spirit and is intended for every believer:

"For we were ALL BAPTIZED IN ONE SPIRIT into one body... and were all made to DRINK of one Spirit (1 Corinthians 13:12)."

NT scholars agree that Paul is NOT referring to physical baptism here. The promise of receiving the Spirit (= Spirit baptism) is for every future believer (2:37-38). For Luke receiving the Spirit is an ecstatic experience because Luke never refers to the regenerating work of the Spirit.

 

[Godslittleservant]

You just need to to read some academic Bible commentaries.

If it is alright with you I would rather study under Gods word than that of man for he has said.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

No need to study other men's thoughts when the bible has all the answers

 

[Peterlag]

I don't know where you're getting this, but it's bad information.

The Roman emperor Constantine de-criminalized Christianity in the year 313. Prior to that, there was no Catholic church after the fashion of a political entity that had any power or the corruption that comes with it. The church that existed then was underground, sometimes literally, trying to avoid being martyred by the Roman empire.

It is impossible for Irenaeus to have been "working for the Catholics." He died in 202, more than a century before they existed.


Augustine came up with the doctrine of original sin. He did refer to Irenaeus' writings about Adam. But Irenaeus writings did not include the conception of inherited guilt that defines the doctrine, nor did he write at all about free will.

From Wikipedia:

During the persecution of Christians by Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor from 161 to 180, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyon. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the faith, sent him in 177 to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning the heresy of Montanism,[6] and that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits.

Irenaeus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Wick Stick]

During the persecution of Christians by Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor from 161 to 180, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyon. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the faith, sent him in 177 to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning the heresy of Montanism,[6] and that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits.

Irenaeus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Roman Catholic church traces their succession of Popes back to Peter. Do you also think that Peter was actually a Pope?

Assuming not... please apply the same logic to the rest of the "popes" that existed during the period in which Christianity was illegal, and the Roman empire was in the business of throwing Christians into the coliseum to battle lions and other wild beasts.

 

[Peterlag]

The Roman Catholic church traces their succession of Popes back to Peter. Do you also think that Peter was actually a Pope?

Assuming not... please apply the same logic to the rest of the "popes" that existed during the period in which Christianity was illegal, and the Roman empire was in the business of throwing Christians into the coliseum to battle lions and other wild beasts.

Now we are getting off of what I know well... the Scriptures. And we are getting into church history that I do not know well. So I would enjoy learning all that I can from you on this subject. Here's my take and I could be dead wrong on this history. Ready? I tried to trace the Catholics back as far as I could, but everything on Google or any place else says the Catholics started with Peter. I did find an historian that said he found Catholic letters and writings about holy water as far back as the year 80 or 90. We do know the Catholics were big in the 3rd century. But anything that would have been big then without Google probably started many years before. I think they got in early. Very early and I would not be surprised to learn that they may even have been involved in killing some of the Apostles. They may not have been organized yet or running with the Catholic name. I heard they took the world when the King of Rome joined the group.

 

[Wick Stick]

Now we are getting off of what I know well... the Scriptures. And we are getting into church history that I do not know well. So I would enjoy learning all that I can from you on this subject. Here's my take and I could be dead wrong on this history. Ready? I tried to trace the Catholics back as far as I could, but everything on Google or any place else says the Catholics started with Peter. I did find an historian that said he found Catholic letters and writings about holy water as far back as the year 80 or 90. We do know the Catholics were big in the 3rd century. But anything that would have been big then without Google probably started many years before. I think they got in early. Very early and I would not be surprised to learn that they may even have been involved in killing some of the Apostles. They may not have been organized yet or running with the Catholic name. I heard they took the world when the King of Rome joined the group.

I think you already have my take on it. From my reading, the church at Rome got off the tracks when the emperor legalized Christianity and claimed to have converted to it, in the early 3rd century. From that point on the church at Rome was unduly influenced by the secular rulers of the city/world.

That doesn't mean the Roman church was perfect before that. None of the early churches were perfect. Revelation contains 7 short letters to cities in Asia pointing out the flaws of each church. Paul writes to others to correct problems in their behavior and sometimes doctrine.

But before that event, the Roman church was earnest. Their members were literally risking their lives to be part of the church.

 

[MatthewG]

““Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of mankind and the seed of animals. And just as I have watched over them to uproot them, tear them down, ruin, destroy, and bring disaster on them, so I will watch over them to build and to plant them,” declares the Lord. “In those days they will no longer say, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, But it is the children’s teeth that have become blunt.’ But everyone will die for his own wrongdoing; each person who eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will become blunt. “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.””
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭31‬:‭27‬-‭34‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Jeremiah 31:34 They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for | New American Standard Bible - NA

They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for

bible.com

Today, evidence of the holy spirit is always intentions which are selfless, patience, kindness, rejoicing and joy in the Lord, faithfulness, bearing others burdens, forgiveness, thankfulness, mercy, not judging people because someone deems them bad because of a tattoo or they may cuss or listen to certain music or particpate church or other churches, or other activites unless it invovles a serious crime and offense which leads to the harm of others and possibly oneself, allowing wrongdoing to no longer be remembered though (if someone has issues with addictions it may be good for them to seek guidance) (sometimes trust is broken and you have to make wise decisions), self-control, having contentment in peace within oneself because of Jesus making one right with the Lord.

Those who learn about Jesus getting baptized can also freely decide if they would like to, i see no harm in that, there is harm in not doing things in an orderly way. In the end John, attested the baptism that people should look for is the one whom comes baptizing in the holy spirit and fire, which many people here who believe and trust God are given.

 

[Godslittleservant]

In the end John, attested the baptism that people should look for is the one whom comes baptizing in the holy spirit and fire,

And this is the one of Acts 2:38 which is in his name

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic.

My agnostic friend says: "I don't need it." - How would you respond?

/

 

[St. SteVen]

/

 

[amigo de christo]

/

I didnt watch the video as of yet , but a warning i do have .
The warning is , why is it so many are today talking of an encounter with jesus
and yet their jesus seemth to contradict THE JESUS in the BIBLE .
Thus the warning is , we better make sure WHAT JESUS WE BE A FOLLOWING and A LOVING .
cause any other jesus , any other gospel , Well it aint saving squat .

 

[St. SteVen]

I didnt watch the video as of yet , but a warning i do have .

Fair enough.
Watch the whole video and then tell me if he found the real Jesus, thanks.

/