A New Approach to the Divinity of Jesus 

Super! So proud of my son Mikel! Sean's questions are really thought provoking and Mikel's answers are easy to understand, even for a layman (except for ideas of those whose names would be unfamiliar to those who have not gone to seminary). There's no dull moment in this interview! Congratulations, Sean and Mikel! - Dr. Marlyn Del Rosario

When I first read the New Testament, at that time still being a sceptic, I immediately noticed that my assumption, that Jesus never claimed to be divine, was wrong. He says and shows it many times in many ways. Anyone who says otherwise is either not reading attentively or coming with a preset agenda that forbids him to admit it.

Nice! Btw, Bart Ehrman called himself an *atheist* in a recent interview with the Apostate Prophet. So he don't label himself as agnostic anymore.

Two wonderful apologists! Learning a great deal through your work in sharing the Gospel…and how to share the reason for the hope that I/we have (1 Peter 3:15)! 🙌🏻🙏🏼

The answer to the question is very simple. Jesus talks about his relationship with the Father. Jesus says that He and the Father are one.

Thank God for theology nerds! Great video and research by Dr. Mikel

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5 KJV

This is where Dr. Heisers work really makes sense. The Divine Council pulls all this together.

It is CRIMINAL that Mikel’s book isn’t available yet! 😂 thank you for the interview

I love nothing but my Lord , jesus who come to save me .

Thank you both so much for the insights that lay more foundation to the credibility of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Excellent interview and discussion. I feel Brad Ehrman has hurt the church greatly in many respects, but he has also drawn more attention to the type of scholarship that is needed at this time in history. In some ways, he reminds me of Saul before the experience on the road to Damascus. I pray he has a similar experience and changes his name to Paul.

I like the nuance of Mikel in this discussion. It is excellent and makes a very intellectually honest critic of Bart Ehrman. I almost did not listen to this because of the many bad faith arguments that I have heard continuously from a number of other apologists. Mark Chapter 2 is a sound counter to Dr. Ehrman. Intellectual honesty is very important if our Christian faith is taken to be reasonable. Great discussion and thank Dr. Sean McDowell for the nuance you have in this Theological discussions and others.

Great conversation...only problem is, they are both having to use faith that what was written in Mark's Gospel were actually Jesus' words(or even their accurate gist), and that the events recorded are even relatively accurate. Even if this was done just 20 years after the events,(and most scholars agree it was probably a lot longer after) I find it hard to believe.

I researched and looked and found that the new testament document are very very very accurate

Excellent. I can't wait for the book.

This prison of loneliness in the midst of billions; Lord how is this possible? God give us hospitality. God help me reach out when I'm at my lowest to invite others over to share Your fellowship even when I'm too tired to move. Move us God, and unite us in these times.

Really great conversation, thanks Sean and Mikel!

I feel a Paulogia counter video featuring Dr. Ehrman coming on. Looking forward to it.

I can’t exhort you enough to do a segment on “The Heresy of Orthodoxy” by Drs. Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger. To me that culturally captures the Ehrman influences and his effect on cultural Christianity.

Sean es un excelente entrevistador. Felicitaciones.

Thank you may God bless you both

Thanks for both of your guys share. God Bless.

Thank you😊

It would be great to see you talk about it with Ehrman.

1) I don't personally have issues whether the synoptic texts speaks of Jesus as being divine, even as being God Himself. I see the bible as a mythological text anyway, so I of the position that mythology can give account of Jesus being God Himself, some lower level god, or just human, etc. 2) what made it interesting for me was when Dr. Rosario said that given his technical understanding of the synoptic texts, Jesus being a lower level god still nicely within his training. This means that Jesus being God Himself would be a weak inference to adhere to.

Thank you!

My interest in the passage in Mark about forgiving the sins of the paralytic is what Jesus said in response to the Pharisees and Scribes. Jesus says: "Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Arise, take up your bed and walk'?" When I first encountered this passage I thought Jesus meant that it is easier to say "your sins are forgiven" than to say the other much longer thing, namely, "Arise, take up your bed and walk". But then recently I started to wonder how Jesus said both things in Aramaic; could there be a linguistic clue here? I don't know the answer to that. Now it seems obvious to me that Jesus was saying that the latter saying would be the easier saying since it's direct to the immediate visible needs of the paralytic and would not incur the ire of the witnesses. So Jesus chose the harder thing pronouncing that the paralytic's sins are forgiven, thus causing the offense and the murmurings and then explaining why He said what He said and consequently taking on more rebuke and accusations. So Jesus meant that it would be easier on Him if He had said "take up your bed and walk".

Well presented, but does the author comment anywhere in his dissertation on what might be considered the greatest counterexample to his thesis, namely, Mark 10.18? " And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." Here, Jesus seems to clearly be putting distance between himself and God. This is a far cry from Mark, chapter 14, where he is (perhaps?) identifying himself with the Son of Man in Daniel. Ideas, anyone?

Bart Ehrman's claim is that if Jesus really talked the way he does in the Gospel of John, why wouldn't the 3 Synoptic Gospels mention it?

Now Ehrman will say where does Jesus claim divinity except John and Mark!! -Bob

Didn't another disciple come to get Peter into the courtyard? Do we know where he was? Could he have been another source about what happened in the trial?

What would it take to see a Sean McDowell Bart Erhman debate on the problem of suffering ?

Cannot believe any christian would question or debate the divinity of Christ. Questioning Christ's divinity is evidence that, by definition, the doubter or questioner is not christian.

Sean, I’m sorry for not offering a great question here, but please, what software program are you using when doing these online discussions?

Why not have Bart on your program? Or better, debate Matt Dillahunty. I'd love to see you debate Matt. It would definitely dramatically make better my perception of you Sean. But there is no way you will do it. Matt would not let you get away with claim after claim without backing them up.

Dr. Mikel says that Jesus having all that authority can only show that He was God. While I do understand that Jesus is the Word of God incarnate, He became a man, and in agreement with the book of Hebrews, Jesus becoming a man, through the Holy Spirit, He communed with God the Father continuously and He received authority from God the Father to do and say what He did. We have to remember that Jesus also said, “ The Father is greater than I” and “ He who is sent is not greater than He who sends”. Jesus as a human being, God raised to a place of authority seating at the right hand of the Father. He was given glory as a man, glory that no man ever had, but having been transformed into a man, God crowned Him with power and glory above any other name of heaven or earth except the Father.

Fun Fact: None of the Gospels or New Testament epistles were written by people who knew Jesus personally.

You are missing too much for it to be coincidence. How are you confused about where Jesus gets his authority to do all these things? He states it explicitly so many times: Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works Joh 5:43 I am come in my Father's name Joh 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. Joh 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: Joh 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. Joh 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak Luk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father Luk 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my father.

As to Ehrman: this should say it all. 1John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." (ESV)

Peter Beschorne Fresh from their three odd years in close asociation with Jesus, what did the apostles raise their voices as one man and called upon God " Sovereign Lord, maker of heavan and earth and sea and everything in them..." and then went on "They did indeed make common cause in this very city against thy holy servant Jesus". ( Acts 4:25,27 NEB) Peter had already called Jesus God's servant' ( Acts 3:13). Thus no 3rd century notion of Jesus being more than their sovereign's servant. As for the 'trinity', nothing whatsoever mentioned by the true early apostles

I don’t know if either has thought of Matthew 18:18: ‘Truly I say unto you, whatever you (having been bound) bind on earth shall have (already having) been bound in heaven, and whatever you (having been) loose (loosed) on earth shall have been (shall having been) loosed in heaven.’ I understand this to mean that the apostles knew what Jesus had bound/loosed in heaven and in earth and did what Jesus had done in binding and loosing in heaven and in earth. This is parallel to what Jesus had done ‘the Son can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do’ John 5:19.

I’m sorry to say, but this is a very eloquently delivered case that simply doesn’t correspond to the facts. Before watching this, I predicted that the scribes’ words in Mark 2 that only God could forgive sins would be mentioned, but that the crowd’s interpretation - that God had given authority to men to forgive sins as recorded in Matthew 9 - would not be. This omission is very standard practice in evangelical literature. Note, however, that the scribes are portrayed negatively with their accusations of blasphemy, whereas the crowds are shown differently: “When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” (9:8) It’s generally accepted that Matthew was written after Mark and had Mark in front of him when he wrote his gospel. That means Matthew is adding this to Mark’s story in order to give a fuller and clearer picture. The crowd here is shown to be both “Godfearing” and glorifying God. That makes it appear as if Matthew wants us to side with their perspective about forgiveness of sins. Thus the synoptics give two positions about Jesus 1) that he is claiming to do something only God can do and 2) that God can actually give authority to forgive to a human being. Dr Rosario has changed 1) to mean that Jesus is claiming to be God and secondly he omits 2), which is a crucial part of the analysis. There’s simply no evidence from the synoptics that Jesus claims to be God. Another problem is that there seems to be a misunderstanding of what Ehrman thinks “divine” means. Claims of divinity don’t equate to claims to be God for Ehrman and all who subscribe to his position on this. As Sean mentions near the end of the video, even believers in God are ascribed aspects of divinity, including sitting on God’s throne. The first reply from Dr Del Rosario is that nobody had ever made Jesus' claims before, which was not particularly convincing. Dr Del Rosario’s second counter-argument comes a little later: “Jesus claims to do all kinds of things that are prerogatives of God.” He also particularly mentions authority over heaven and earth. The problem is, forgiveness, authority in heaven and earth, sitting on God’s throne, judging and doing works greater than those of Jesus - ALL of these are predicted to apply to believers in the future. Thus, while there is every reason to interpret Mark as portraying Jesus as a divine being, there is no reason to interpret him as portraying Jesus as God Himself. The direct claims to divinity (as recorded in John) and even the resurrection itself are simply not a priority for Mark. Notably, the divinity claims are also not a priority for Matthew and Luke, despite the Trinity being regarded as an article of faith necessary for salvation. This creates a situation where evangelists need to look for evidence in Mark that doesn’t exist. Lastly, the idea that the claims of Jesus are unique isn’t true. Any student of world religion should know this. The Bhagavad Gita, for example, is a classic case of claims to divinity that transcend the claims of Jesus at least in terms of clarity with regard divinity. There are others. If you don’t know the Bible very well, or haven’t studied comparative religion, or aren’t familiar with Bart Ehrman, the case presented in this video will sound very convincing. However, it appears to lack real expertise in every issue it deals with. I really encourage viewers not to trust what they see (including what I write) or hear, and to check everything out for themselves. PS I'm a New Zealand born half Filipino! :)

It’s hearing the guest doesn’t realize the import of the words ‘for he whom God sent speaks the words of God; for he does not give the Spirit sparingly. The Father loves the Son and has entrusted all things into his hands.’ With the Spirit comes the gifts of the Spirit - prophecy, word of: wisdom, knowledge, and faith; discerning of spirits; gifts of healings; and others - and many have misunderstood thinking that Jesus was God because he walked in the Spirit (Spirit’s gifts) unsparingly (‘on a need to know’ to complete the task given him: ‘save his people from their sins’ Matthew 1:21).

An excellently researched, historically and theologically important piece of academic work. I think it’s top rate… Thank you so much for your hard work, diligence, intelligence and focus, young man. Laser sharp - and for a passionate believer in Christ through non cerebral yet equally profound channels of being, this program was heartwarming and reaffirming. Thanks to you both. God Bless.

For some reason this points to the very same conclusion as Greg Stafford, Christian Witnesses of Jah.. But the conclusion shown here leads to the idea that he is part of a trinity… but the conclusion assimilates a lot the the JW position of Jesus Christ. That he is Unique son of God. No one similar to Jesus. Being Jesus as a God representational, functionally but not ontologically. Jesus authority being given.. by the father.. that allows him to do so much for the glory of God the father… The question isn’t if Jesus is God, it is: What kind of Divine being is he?

Very thought provoking, thank you both. Didn’t Jesus do this as fulfillment of OT, the dark powers were overseeing ALL this. Jesus came to die, it’s Not like anyone killed Him. Jesus is Yahweh. Thank you Lord

Isn´t it quite pointless to use the gospels as evidence? They were written a generation after Jesus´ death and are influenced by the religious thinking of Paul, who never know Jesus personally. I guess, if it were a criminal case, most judges would dismiss the gospels as compromised.

In Dn7 it says that One like a son of a mortal came into the Transferred(Ancient) of days, and they brought him near before Him. Notice that the Deity is on the throne and the one like a son of a mortal arrived before the Deity. There are two distinct beings here. The Deity is not a son of a mortal.A son of a mortal is the Messiah. Then the Deity grants to the Messiah jurisdiction and esteem and a kingdom . This agrees totally with the NT truth already pointed out that Christ receives all his authority reign and kingdom from God the Father. DN7 does not teach that the Messiah is God. In the context of Mk14 notice that Christ calls himself the son of mankind 3 times before he again identifies himself as the son of mankind before the high priest. Christ was going to be killed. God was going to smite the shepherd. God is a different beings here than the shepherd. Mk14:27 Then Christ prats to his God. Mk14:32-39. All is possible to the Father. Not true of Christ. Mk14:36. Christ submits to God's will. Mk14:36. God's will is not the human will of Christ. Again showing two different beings in view. Christ was put to death. God is immortal spirit and cannot die or be killed or be crucified. Mk14:56. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God , the blessed. Christ is not identified as the Deity. I am who? To Christ, anointed by my God. I am the Son of God, therefore I am not God. The Son of mankind will be sitting at the right hand of power(God) . Christ is not the power or God. Christ sits at Gods right hand. Trinitarians constantly confuse and misrepresent who God and Christ are . Here and throughout the NT Jesus is the son of mankind, and he is never called the Deity or the Godman or God the son or eternally begotten or the second person of the Trinity. Trinitarianism is fabricated human religion tradition philosophy and vain reasoning. I

Jesus gave his disciples the authority to forgive sins on earth In heaven and to retain sins on earth in heaven John 20:23 as I understand it. If Jesus could, and did, give authority to others God could give the Son the same authority ‘the Father loves the Son and has entrusted all things to his hands’ ( wouldn’t this include authority to forgive sins?).

After Jesus sets things right in the New Creation which he has all authority to do THEN he turns everything over to his Father so his Father is everything.

I think the continued reiteration of "highly evidenced" is a bit of a red herring here. The "highly evidenced" is not actually as such in terms of what substantive evidence is. Attestation is weak evidence, lack of source material a huge issue, and contradictions (that require sophistry to resolve) is highly suspect confirmation bias. What's interesting is Ehrman is recognized as a scholar in these topics (which doesn't make him automatically correct), but Mikel is not debating Ehrman here, so this is really just marketing for a position. Sean does the cause he promotes a disservice by not calling out these questionably logical claims. I appreciate both of these folks believe what they are selling/have been sold. I do not think they will bring anyone into the fold selling magical thinking as an underlying basis for their argument which is itself not knowable.

There will be somebody who will be the only for christ .

And Jesus gives Peter the power to forgive and retain sins.

Devil's advocate question: John the Baptist taught baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin. Does this mean that John claimed to be divine, or was forgiveness so readily available that when Jesus forgave the man's sin, it was nothing remarkable?

I think the flaw in this "new approach" is that for nonbelievers the Gospels are not reliable history. No one knows what Jesus (Yeshua) taught and did. What we have in the 4 canonical Gospels are reports from anonymous writers telling stories about Yeshua. Often times the stories in the different Gospels contradict each other. So using the Gospel stories as evidence of what Yeshua said is problematic for nonbelievers. For believers who already believe that Yeshua was divine, one problem is that the writer of John's Gospel has Yeshua saying things that none of the other writers reported. That makes the statements attributed to Yeshua in John's Gospel suspicious. While Dr. Del Rosario's work may reinforce the beliefs of those who already believe that Yeshua was god, his arguments do not move the needle for nonbelievers. There is no indication in the Jewish scriptures that the Messiah would be god himself or some part of that god. The idea that god, YHWH, had a literal son is antithetical to the ideology of the Tanach.

I have a question for you, or any other Christians in the comments. I'm sure that you don't hate atheists just because of their (lack of)religion. But what is your opinion on Paganism?

EVEN MORE FASCINATING: When you read the story of Jesus healing the man lowered from the roof in Matthew 9:1-8, the point seems to be that God has given the authority to forgive sins to men [mankind], not just Jesus. See verse 8 of Matt. 9 where it says: "When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority [to forgive sins] to man." So...the authority to forgive sins [in Matthew] is not proof of Deity...unless Deity is something everyone has.

What the gospel of Nicodemus?

How can you claim Jesus did all from his own authority? (at 11:00). Have you never read inter alia Joh 5:30 KJV I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Ehrman is right.

In Daniel 7 the Aramaic phrase Bar Enosh is translated son of man which much like the similar phrase in Hebrew Ben Adam means a human being as a descendant of Adam like a Ben Yisrael means a Jew as a descendant of the patriarch Yakov whose other name was Yisrael. Most likely the idea behind that usage of Bar Enosh (which Jesus as an Aramaic speaker probably used instead of the Greek translation of that used in the Greek NT) portrays him as the last Adam and as true man and the representative of humanity as the one coming to die as the ultimate sin offering for sinful humanity (which doesn’t violate the mitzvah in Torah against human sacrifice because he is not merely a human but he is divine also and which also doesn’t violate the precept of Torah that G-d is not a man because it’s not a man becoming divine but G-d becoming a man). The precept in Torah means G-d is not a mere sinful man that lies or changes his mind in the way humans do (because at times in Tanakh the anthropomorphic idea of G-d changing his mind is used like in the case of the flood and the destruction of Nineveh in Yonah even though HaShem knows the end from the beginning so he knew that Nineveh would repent and that he wouldn’t destroy it at that time and he knew that humanity would go corrupt in the Yomim Noach) it just describes G-d in a human way of changing his mind because it makes it easier for us to understand. Note that it doesn’t say G-d couldn’t become a perfect man to redeem humanity. In Isaiah 43 G-d says he alone is our savior so a mere human couldn’t save us

Puts Bart Ehrman in the thumbnail. Doesn't debate Bart Ehrman. Why am I not surprised.

The divine name is not I am. It is " I shall come to be just as I am coming to be. Ex3:14. In the context of Mk14 Christ identifies himself as : I am the Christ, the Son of God. He did not say: I am God. Saying: I am the Christ, the son of mankind, the son of God is not saying: I am God. Notice how the trinitarians constantly read their false doctrine into all these texts. They assume what needs to be proven .

BGT Genesis 50:17 οὕτως εἴπατε Ιωσηφ ἄφες αὐτοῖς τὴν ἀδικίαν καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν αὐτῶν ὅτι πονηρά σοι ἐνεδείξαντο καὶ νῦν δέξαι τὴν ἀδικίαν τῶν θεραπόντων τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ πατρός σου καὶ ἔκλαυσεν Ιωσηφ λαλούντων αὐτῶν πρὸς αὐτόν NAS Genesis 50:17 'Thus you shall say to Joseph, "Please forgive, I beg you, the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they did you wrong."' And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father." And Joseph wept when they spoke to him. GT Exodus 10:17 προσδέξασθε οὖν μου τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἔτι νῦν καὶ προσεύξασθε πρὸς κύριον τὸν θεὸν ὑμῶν καὶ περιελέτω ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὸν θάνατον τοῦτον NAS Exodus 10:17 "Now therefore, please forgive my sin only this once, and make supplication to the LORD your God, that He would only remove this death from me." BGT 1 Samuel 25:28 ἆρον δὴ τὸ ἀνόμημα τῆς δούλης σου ὅτι ποιῶν ποιήσει κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου οἶκον πιστόν ὅτι πόλεμον κυρίου ὁ κύριός μου πολεμεῖ καὶ κακία οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται ἐν σοὶ πώποτε NAS 1 Samuel 25:28 "Please forgive the transgression of your maidservant; for the LORD will certainly make for my lord an enduring house, because my lord is fighting the battles of the LORD, and evil shall not be found in you all your days.

Obviously, the Catholic Church has muddied the waters with the heresy of "the 3 Gods of the Trinity"--but Jesus was/ is the Son of God, not God himself. Since there are NOT two Gods. And to complicate matters, the Bible tells us there are many other "sons of God", although none had a human mother like Jesus such as Adam who was also a son of God.This demonstrates that Jesus was absolutely unique in this aspect. But then, Paul in Hebrews 1:13 says: "to which of the (other?) angels said he as any time Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool!" And again in Hebrews 3: 2 Paul wrote:"Who was faithful to him that MADE him. as also was Moses faithful in all his house." But the King James translators replaced the word "Appointed" for the original word "made" which is found in the KJ margin ( 2, Appointed: Greek Made) Since by definition God is un-created, not even Yahweh Himself can make a god. like Himself. He is absolutely unique. the one and only God of heaven and earth.THERE IS NO ONE LIKE GOD. He said HImself, "I know of no other." there are many Elohim (gods) in the Divine counsel of heaven, all of them were created. but there was one and only special son of God, who was given the delegated authority by the Father.But Jesus was given another title, "the son of man" which I believe was a way of showing that He was a partaker of our human flesh and HAVE A SOUL UNLIKE ANGELS and a partaker of His Father* Divine nature which was the only way He could represent mankind and His father at one and the same time. When Jesus said, "whosoever sees me hath seen the father." I find it impossible to get around the fact that While God has a soul, but that neither Satan of the angels have souls. which I believe is expressed in Hebrews 1:3 whereby our Lord is said: "Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person." God according the bible does indeed have a soul and is capable of expressing a full range of emotional feelings. in the person of His son Jesus, which I further believe is the great mystery of the God head. Amen

New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) Watch the RU-vid videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.

God is not a visible man. Christ is a visible man..El is not a man that He should lie, or a son of humanity that He should feel regret. Num23:19 Yet Christ is a man and a son of mankind . MK2:10 Jn5:27 Christ plainly said that he is a man.Jn8:40. SS shows a clear consistent distinction between the Deity and the Christ. They are two different beings. Yet they work together as one to fulfill God's purpose. Jn19:30 Jn5:17 2Cor5:19 MK2 and Mk14 actually disprove and refute the so called deity of Christ. The phrase " the Deity of Christ" is never mentioned or taught in the NT.

Bart is doing wrong ,one day he will cry for our Lord but that will be hard for him

I look forward to the video, but you should at least link BE's content (book, video or whatever) if his work is the topic of your show. I'm sure you'll cite it in the video regardless.

So you two have doctorates in non-sciences....if the scientific method means zero in theology why does it matter what you say.

John 18: 15-16 - there was a disciple that entered into the high priests court. It states this explicitly.

For me the greatest proof that Jesus though 'divine' in the 'homousious' sense that he was 'begotten' and the 'image' of the father, yet he still came TOTALLY to the earth, ( Not some 'incarnation' 'human nature') No the "Word BECAME flesh. This proves that he was not God himself or part of God would have been dead for three days!. Jesus said "I came to give my SOUL as a ransom in exchange for many" ( matt 20:28) Jesus the TOTAL son of God, came to earth & died for us! What love! God displayed, and how this love is great diminished by suggesting that 'The Son didnt really come to earth and die, it was just a 'hologram' of what he REALLY is, safe and sound in his divine nature in heavan!

“Highly evidenced.” By what standard? None of the gospels were written by eye witnesses to the events they claim to depict. Nobody even knows who the authors of the gospels were. The earliest (Mark) was written in Greek (as were the other three), decades after the events it describes.

Wrong again. God gives Christ his authority. Mt28:18 Jn17:2 Everything the Son possesses is given to him by his God. Christ has a derived authority. It is not innately his. God gives Christ his lordship and kingdom and reign. Ac2:36 Lu1:32,33 Christ clearly teaches,: and from myself I am doing nothing. Jn8:28 The Son can not be doing anything of himself. Jn5:19 I can not do anything of myself. Jn5:30 Now the Father, remaining in me, He is doing His works. Jn14:10 Jesus the Nazarene, a man demonstrated to be from God for you by powerful deeds and miracles and signs , which God does through him in the midst of you Ac2:22 Jesus from Nazareth, as God anoints him with holy spirit and power , who passed through as a benefactor and healer of all those who are tyrannized over by the Adversary , for God was with him. Ac10:38. Nevertheless he is living by the power of God. 2Cor13:4 Now, if by the spirit of God , I am casting out demons , consequently the kingdom of God outstrips in time to you. Mt12:28. The spirit of the Lord is on me on account of which He anoints me to bring the evangel to the poor. Lu4:18 All of these plain explicit straight forward truths of SS absolutely disprove and refute the so called deity of Christ claim by the confused contradictory trinitarians. It is abundantly clear that christ did not possess innate authority in and of himself. God places His spirit authority glory and power in the Son making him God's chief representative, who speaks and acts for God, in order to fulfill and accomplish God's purpose and intention for His creation. Jn3:34 Jn13:20 Jn 12;44,45 Jn 13:31,32 Jn14:1,7,9,10 2Cor5:19 Ep3:20:21 Ph4:19 Heb7:25 etc. Christ is the chief representative and spokesman for his God, Christ is not the Deity.

WHY A DIVINE JESUS BEST SERVES THE INTERESTS OF THEOCRATIC FASCISM In the earliest Christian writings (Paul's letters and the Synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke) it's very clear that Jesus never saw himself as divine, and he most certainly never thought he was God, not in any way! Jesus talked ABOUT God in the third person, and TO God in the second person, but never did he talk, as God, in the first person. The same holds true of the very earliest documents we have about Jesus--the letters of Paul, written in the 50s or early 60s CE. It's true that Paul believed God EXALTED Jesus to His Right Hand, meaning, that once he ascended to Heaven, God promoted him, which had a lot of appeal to Jews, with their religious history in which, time and again, a patriarch like Joseph or a prophet like Daniel, is promoted by a Pharaoh or King to become Second in Command. By the time we get to the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, written around 70 CE and Matthew and Luke around 85 CE), Jesus is inching toward divinity, but not quite. It's only in the Gospel of John, written toward the end of the 1st Century where we see Jesus portrayed as divine, though still not quite God Himself. What then, can we say, with any sense of likelihood, that Jesus believed he was God, or divine? Well, if he did, he sure kept it to himself most of the time, and denied it completely, at least on one occasion (Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19)! However, all the evidence we currently possess (which is scant) points to a man who grew up within Pharisaic Judaism, became a successful healer as well as a reformer of Judaism with a gift for speaking and engaging the religious authorities of his day with considerable adroitness! In keeping with what more than a few, objective, biblical scholars are convinced of, it's possible Jesus came to believe he was the Messiah king predicted by the Jewish prophets, but this would assume he let his popularity go to his head. However, Jesus initially believed God had called him to lead the Jews of Palestine to repentance in order to pave the way for the Messiah to come to set up the literal, independent Jewish government, known as the "Kingdom of God," which he would live to see happen. At the peak of his popularity, when he had 1000s of people thronging to see him perform miracles, and as word of his seeming divine powers spread, so many people became convinced he must be the Messiah, Jesus may have become swept up by all the adulation. There’s considerable attestation in the Synoptic Gospels pointing to a Jesus who didn’t mind taking advantage of the platform of popularity the Messianic hopes of the masses provided him to call the Jews to repentance with the aim of bringing about enough change that God would, upon seeing their general repentance, send a king to free them. But as time went on, Jesus saw that mission falling far short, and the hope for successful, political/national kingdom as a pipe dream! Jesus’ messaging about the future then changes as he, ultimately, becomes convinced God was calling him to martyrdom, and that his death would be the catalyst for a movement of people repenting of sins and turning to God on an individual basis and, thus, a "kingdom" of changed hearts and lives would emerge and spread throughout the world. Thing is, that plan was foiled when, shortly after his death, he was repeatedly seen alive again, so it didn't take his disciples very long to conclude his death and resurrection was God's plan all along to convince the Jews he was, indeed, the Expected Messiah who would, at any moment, come out of seclusion and seize the Throne of David. Then, of course, that didn't happen. But the beauty is that, his message--that no one is beyond the Grace of God and, therefore, may become liberated from sin and know the joy of leading a life of doing good--in spite of how it has been so very misunderstood by so many for so long, has survived. Tragically, though, there are still many today (especially in the leadership of the Neo Evangelical churches) who much prefer the view of Jesus that emerged many decades after his death, once the Jewish wing of the Jesus [is the] Messiah Movement fell apart and was replaced by the Gentile Jesus [is a] God Movement. Unlike the Pharisaic Jews of Jesus’ day who had hoped for a literal, theocratic nation to enlighten the world, and Jesus’ ultimate hope for a “nation” of individuals to enlighten the world, the Gentile Christians hoped only for admission, after death, to a better spirit-world, and for everyone else to be condemned to eternal retribution. It’s this last interpretation that best serves the interests of those today looking to overthrow democratic states and replace them with theocratic, fascist dictatorships, such as what American Neo Evangelicals are now actively advocating. While a Gentile version of a Warrior King to come and take over the world is certainly quite welcome among Neo Evangelicals, and they continue to promote the apocalyptic notion of an imminent “rapture” to Heaven that, eventually, results in a violent world take over, the idea that God is looking for a select few to literally conquer everyone else who are his enemies, whether on a future earth, or in a spirit world, if not both, helps exasperate the frustrations of those who already feel culturally isolated into an easily-manipulated political body, fueled by great anger which they constantly feed, in order to help them seize power. Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Rightly-Dividing-Word-Properly-Interpret/dp/B091LSMD9N

I always figured John was present when Jesus was questioned since he apparently was close to the high priest (see John 18:15ff). Maybe you only pay attention to what is in Mark and not John? But it makes sense to me. The gospel of John does not state that John was inside where Jesus was being questioned, but I assume he would want to be in there and if he was close enough to the high priest to not feel endangered, it seems natural that he would be in there. People have assumed John was quite young, and it is possible that the high priest would have wanted his young (relative?) to be there to see how wrong Jesus was.

Not true that Only God forgivies sin. God can entrust human authorities to forgive sin as in the case of passages cited-these are annointed firgures. Also JEsus has given his Twelve the right to forgive sin see Matt 18: 18-35 and Jhn 20:23. Also when Jesus proves his authority to forgive sin by performing a more diffuclt task-perform a miracle- he did not say that you may know that I am divine and have the right to forgive sin but rather that you may know that "The Son of Man" has authority to forgive sin. Jesus proves he is the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13-14 by his perfirming miracles- these shows he has all authority in heaven and on earth (cf Mt 28:19-20; cf Luke 24:46-48). His death is portrayed as the Son of man going to the ancient of Days to receive the kingdom son in Matt 28:19-20 when he returned, he can say all authority in heaven and on earth is given to me in fulfilment of Daniel 7:14.

15:00

Bart Ehrman….oh brother

Jesus the god was ALL-OK with all the actions of Yahweh in the OT.

Jesus is never called God once in Mark. Jesus is the Son of God Most High. Mk5:7 Jesus is not God Most High. Thou art the Christ the Son of God. Mk8:29. Jesus calls himself the son of mankind repeatedly. Jesus is a man, not God. Jesus represents his God. Mk9:37 God is the Maker. Christ is not the Maker. Mk10:6 No one is good except one, God. Mk10:18 Only God the Father is good in an absolute sense . Creatures are good in a relative way. Mk6:20. God gives goodness to Christ and angels and saints . James1:16 Gal5:22,23 God is ONE, not three. God is one divine Person, the Father. All is possible with God. Mk10:27 God is the Almighty. Christ is not the Almighty. God's spirit power and anointing operates in Christ enabling him to do the miracles. Jn14:10 Ac2:22 Ac10:38 God is in and with Christ. Jn 14:10 Ac10:38 Therefore Christ is not the Deity. God is with and in His saints and angels to yet they are not God. The Father determines what happens, for He is the only Deity. Mk10:40 It caught s the Father Who ultimately forgives offenses. Mk11:25,26. The God of the OT is the Father. Mk12:24-27. The Father us the absolute God Who us the Source of life. The shema is only applied to God the Father. The Lord our God is one Lord. . . He is one and there is no other more than He. God is one, not three. The words God and three are never once connected in SS. Only God the Father is Yahweh. Dt6:4. The Shema is never applied to Christ. God creates the creation. Mk13:19. The Father us the only Creator of the All. Rv4:11 Ep3:9 Rom11:36 Heb1:2 The Father is the only Source of the all. Rom11:36 1Cor8:6 The Son sources nothing. Only the Father knows the day and hour of the Sons return. The Son doesn't know therefore he is not omniscient. He can't be the Deity. The Son prats to his God. Mk14:36 . Christs human will us subject to the divine will of the Father. They crucify Christ. God can't be crucified. Mk15:24. God forsook Jesus on the cross. Mk15:34. This man was the son of God. Mk14:39. Therefore Mark disproves and refutes the so called deity of Christ claim by the confused error ridden trinitarians. MK2 and Mk14 teach that Christ is not the Deity.

🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭

The trouble with your position fellas is that all your data is draw from the gospels which were not written by Jesus or people who even knew him. They were written by people who were promoting a religion to the gentiles.

Best description of Bart Ehrman - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:3, KJV)

@ 19:00. Bart Erhman claiming that Jesus was forgiving sins in the capacity of a Jewish priest. Yeah right. Using this line of reasoning is akin to a drowning man in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean grasping at a piece of floating plastic. And he does that a lot. And he gets away with it because he almost always is speaking to an amateur skeptical public (cheer leaders).

👎

I knew he was a pinoy!... 😂

Hello Jesus is the Messiah The Son of God The Son of David The Son of man The man God has chosen to be his anointed king The man God will judge the world through The man God raised from the dead Jesus has a God There is no triune god in scripture Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

Thank you!!!