According to Richard Carrier, and I agree with him, "the hypostatic union" predated the gospels. The idea that this is retrojection is predicated on the assumption that Jesus was a historical figure. This assumption is not valid and distorts the interpretation of the text.
Data over Dogma sounds clever but what a misuse of the term data. It's being used to project a sense of authority and truth regarding Dan's videos, however very little of this is "data," as data is objective. Nearly all of his videos are theory being called data. And I would argue in fact, biased theory. For example, he selectively addresses only part of the verse in Philipians saying it's a NIV translation error to say "very nature God" but doesn't discuss the rest of the verse or the numerous occurrences in the new testament that support calling Jesus, God. For example Colossians 2:9. Or the first paragraph of Colossians.
I believe an all powerful god wants to see us grasp for truth and life which allows for a deeper self and more substance to our character. That’s why I believe much of human life is a struggle between good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, faith and unbelief.
@@jaredhutchinson4629 Well you are allowed your opinion And you know what else another Christian will have a different opinion My opinion is God should have made it more clear so we wouldn't need your opinion You would just be able to read it Opinions Are like a******* everybody has one
I am more and more enjoying your videos as I continue to follow them. I've always wondered about something, and that's change in and of languages over time, and the issue of taking a word in one language from one particular time of having it put down in writing - whether old or current - and finding a pretty much exact word in the translated into language. I somehow don't think that there is always a one to one translation where in both languages the word means EXACTLY the same to both the writer and eventual reader. Not only that, but different cultures have different inferences applied to words, and over time, even those ideas of what a word actually means can change. New words are created and old words disappear, and the meanings change with them. I'm not sure how today we can truly know an ancient language (and this is not to put Dan's work down, just to suggest that people with hardly any linguistic background seem to think they are scholars at understanding ancient words) with the subtleties that exist in any one word, that often change meanings depending on the context, location, and knowledge of both the user and listener. And yet in all hubris, we, today, feel WE are the ultimate result of all of humanity before us, and therefore WE have the ultimate knowledge and understanding of all things. No...we don't . (because the next generation will be even smarter...well, no, they won't either.) Context, education, culture, influences, all affect word meanings, and 'time' tends to affect words the most.
Very interesting. I thought they had only manipulated Exodus 21:22 (between the 1978 and 1984 editions, because they'd had time to get mad about Roe). I'm shocked that people who supposedly believe in inerrancy had to make such "corrections".
There are hundreds of changes errors compared to original Hebrew Scripture Tanakh. Isaiah 7:14 "virgin in future tense"Just one modification church made to endorse their theology.
I’m Greek, and I’ve read the Greek bible. When I hear mono/genesis/theos. I break it down as I just did. Mono= only, single, one. Genesis= born, is born, birthed by… Theos= God, and everything that is identified, not of a man made deity, but life itself (pneuma) spirit. To bring it into context…one born of God, or…born of God, or only God born. Pretty much the 2nd psalm.
@gekksvide0 typo, monogenis. Apologies. Really respect your views. My comment I guess is more dumb down and not from an educational point. I have no background or study. I’m just looking at what the words mean to me. Obviously it’s not from an academic point of view, just an opinion. I wouldn’t dare claim it from an educational point, I don’t have the credentials. My apologies. I really do value your opinion.
@gekksvide0 I see a paradox here. that I don’t see the difference of what is meant by one of a kind reproduction of God, and only begotten son of God it’s just words being rearranged the grand paradox of all things. I really don’t see a difference. And I’m not saying this to be ignorant and rude, or trying to sound as though I know something more than someone else. I just don’t see the difference between one of a kind and only begotten I think they mean the same thing.
@gekksvide0 that’s why I appreciate it as a work of fiction with truth hidden in it like a parable or fable, to be seen when it’s seen and heard when it’s heard. But we do the same thing with comic books. Anyways, there are whole departments of scientist working on trying to figure out exactly how strong mathematically Superman is, or exactly how smart mathematically Batman is. So you see we’ve involved ourselves with fiction and made it a part of our reality and in all honesty it’s all just fiction and it’s open for interpretation there’s no logic behind trying to figure out the reality of a fictional character in a comic book, and the reality of a fictional character to this day that cannot be proven in a Bible that has been shoved down our throats, and we can’t appreciate it from the perspective of art imagination, and pure fiction.
So I checked my two Turkish versions and they go with Tattoo Man's reading (New Intl). Interestingly, one of my Persian versions goes against that reading, very clearly in fact, agreeing with Dan. But while I teach from that version, yet it has often struck me as a bit ... different. So I dug out my Peshitta and bingo, it is the strikingly identical to the Farsi version. Now I know why it seemed weird, it's drawing from the Peshitta. Now to go check my other 3 persian versions. Thanks Dan for this fun exercise!
In truth, I'd recommend something like Pure Land Buddhism to a guy like that. If he feels like he needs a Dogma then let's simplify it to an almost exact 1 to 1 scenario of a savior figure who will fix everything (Amitabha) and someone compassionate to make his life easy (Guan Yin). Then with a little mindfulness, he'd probably be good,. Yeah, he clearly did drugs, ran with gangs, probably had a rough past and needs a forgiveness doctrine. Now that I think about it, this is just the lazy way of overcoming deep seeded guilt. Instead of becoming a public servant, he'd rather preach but still get in people's faces about it if they don't agree.
@Dan I don't get any sense that Paul is envisioning some sort of divine intermediary and suggest that such a notion stretches paul's use of the term morphe vastly too far.
I appreciate the passion of the original poster as I once loved this kind of doctrine. I really love the dude’s camera work going from him face on to his POV bible & Sharpie - that’s shooting & editing done really well and v engaging along with the energy. That said, thanks again Dan
Hey Dan, like your work. What does this text mean? Is this Jesus calling himself God or just another renegotiation of the text? John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
It's an assertion of Jesus' divine pre-existence, who has transformed himself into a man. You see this at the very beginning of John where "The Word" exists from the very beginning of Creation. The author of John positions "The Word" as a sort of demiurge, the actor and force of Creation, as a response to Neoplatonists and Gnostics. That is, God the Father can remain transcendent and ineffable while "The Word" carries out Creation. Contra the Gnostics, the author argues that this Creation was good and according to the wishes of God the Father. Note that this is specific to John. The other gospels do not take this divine pre-existence stance.
The Bible calls Jesus an angel repeatedly (Malachi 3, LXX Isaiah 9:6, and many think he was the angel of the Lord) So.. the word 'am' was translated from a Greek word that also means 'exist' ... so it means that he existed before Abraham.
@@Natetoon12 Genesis 19:24 here the pre- incarnate Jesus is the visible YHWH of 2 YHWH's in that verse in the context of just having talked to Abraham and Sarah in the preceding chapters. He was called a man just like the other 2 angels in their physical manifestation to Abraham and Sarah. He is also called the Man of God in Judges ch.13.
I AM was what the lord the creator said he was called. So my understanding is he didn’t say before Abraham was I but rather he said was Am I and who in scripture refers to AM I ? But only the creator one true god himself? I understand all the confusion but I guess that why reading the entirety of it and relating past scripture text with other parts makes it a bit less confusing
Jesus' words in John 8:58 have been misinterpreted to mean that Jesus is claiming to be Jehovah of the Old Testament. Jesus is talking about his prehuman existence, not claiming to be God. The Greek expression in this verse (ego eimi) is very different from the Hebrew expression found in Exodus 3:14 where Jehovah says, “I am who I am” or, according to some versions, "I will be what I will be." Some Bibles correctly translate Jesus' words in John 8:58 to proper English as "Before Abraham existed, I have been" or "I existed before Abraham was born." In fact, in John 17:3, Jesus referred to his Father in prayer as the “only true God.”
Just a thought: MONOGENES means "only, unique, one-of-a-kind," so another possibility is to go with the rendering, "the unique god," which wouldn't be attended by any obvious difficulties in an ancient Jewish context, a context within which the "two powers" theology likely emerged. The idea of two powers was deemed heretical later, probably in the second century, but John was probably written in the first century.
Nice video! Can you do a video on the Nomina Sacra? I'd like to learn when it was put in use, who most likely established it for biblical usage, and how we know what the abbreviations actually mean.
I came here to ask this. In years past my go to translation was the New Oxford for the plethora of footnotes. But now Im thinking there's probably a better option for study.
@@jpizzleforizzle In other videos, Dan recommends the NRSV Updated Edition or the New Oxford Annotated (5th Ed). Those translations, for English, are the most up-to-date and accurate according to the academic perspective. The New Oxford is best for critical study.
Per Wikipedia (take that for what it's worth): Modern critical editions incorporate ongoing scholarly research, including discoveries of Greek papyrus fragments from near Alexandria, Egypt, that date in some cases within a few decades of the original New Testament writings.[28] Today, most critical editions of the Greek New Testament, such as UBS4 and NA27, consider the Alexandrian text-type corrected by papyri, to be the Greek text that is closest to the original autographs. Their apparatus includes the result of votes among scholars, ranging from certain {A} to doubtful {E}, on which variants best preserve the original Greek text of the New Testament. Critical editions that rely primarily on the Alexandrian text-type inform nearly all modern translations (and revisions of older translations). For reasons of tradition, however, some translators prefer to use the Textus Receptus for the Greek text, or use the Majority Text which is similar to it but is a critical edition that relies on earlier manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type. Among these, some argue that the Byzantine tradition contains scribal additions, but these later interpolations preserve the orthodox interpretations of the biblical text-as part of the ongoing Christian experience-and in this sense are authoritative. Distrust of the textual basis of modern translations has contributed to the King-James-Only Movement. * The bottom line is that no matter which version one is reading, it is a publication that has been filtered through someone somewhere. Because of that, they're all babble if you ask me, and we all know who is responsible for babble.
In the Bible, there are verses that explicitly state that Jesus is God. One of the clearest declarations is in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This verse refers to Jesus as the Word who is God. Another verse is in Colossians 2:9, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." These verses affirm the divinity of Jesus as God incarnate. Many bright scholars believe Jesus was God and part of the Trinity. Dan needs to debate William Craig Wallace or Greg Koukl (or numerous others) on these topics. Let’s see where the evidence leads us. I enjoy Dan, follow Dan and appreciate his criticisms of the Christian faith. He makes me think and read counter arguments to his views. So far my research supports the views of Classic Christianity.
this is a great video and response but kindly fix your audio... my volume is already in full and it's hard to understand you when you speak in that low tone of yours.
I don't know biblical Greek at all (or any Greek, really) but "morphe" in Aristotle could be reasonably translated "very nature" (usually translated "form" not as something's shape, but its essence or "what"). Any chance it's used in the same way here?
Also, the author of the pseudo epigraphic al book “letter to Timothy” could mean that, glory aside, Jesus means GodSaves same as Joshua means YahSaves and Hosea means Savior. So then “Joshua/Yeshua” means literally GodSavior which was a common Jewish name.
God had no son god create Adam as also without father or mother there is no other god except one allah allah have no partner Mohammad esha as prophet messenger of allah so pray to allah not jesus beleive in akhirat after the dead judgement day ok
I object that Ph 2 is an incarnation hymn. It speaks of Christ’s death (emptied himself). I disagree that heauton ekenosen is qualified by labon morphe duolu and genomenos en homoiomati anthropos genomenon. Rather, those are actions anterior to ekenosen, so they describe what happened before this emptying took place. Similar grammar is found in Gal 4:4 (God sent forth his son - aorist indicative - having come out of a woman - aorist participle - God sent his Son who came out of Mary - sent at roughly 30 years of age, not from heaven to earth. John B Lounibos also finds this to be the case in Ph 2 in his book Kenosis and the self emptying of Christ. Incarnation is being read into the text.
An excellent video and clear explanation, as always. However, my answer to this 'colourful' gentleman would simply be, yes, I reject scripture, along with everything else written by various men.
Mr McClellan …. I’m really wondering what your opinion on the question is broadly… yes or no? The question being of course does the Bible say that Jesus is god I hope you see this hehe, i find the stuff your sharing from your studies fascinating, thanks for the scholarly content
This man gives me some dark vibes since the 1st vid I saw of his something ain’t right with his intentions you can hear it in the voice like he’s almost holding laughter
Why would anyone be Christian. It's as he says, 'bunk'. If however you're interested in facts and actually well presented and informative material - you should treat him like...'the gospel' lol.
@@ErraticFaith He worked for the LDS. He is heavily biased towards the true Christianity practiced close to the time after Christ's ressurection. He's likely an atheist and/or anti-christian & a grifter.
1 Corinthians 1:18-20 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will confound.” Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
So... God/Jesus was praying to Himself? Does God/Jesus answer His own prayers? And why would God/Jesus even need to pray to begin with? Wouldn't He just be able to _do_ whatever, without resorting to prayer? And why would God/Jesus forsake God/Jesus? [Mark 15: 34, Matthew 27: 46] How would that even work?
“But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then those who are Christ’s [own will be resurrected with incorruptible, immortal bodies] at His coming. After that comes the end (completion), when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after He has made inoperative and abolished every ruler and every authority and power. For Christ must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be abolished and put to an end is death. For He (the Father) has put all things in subjection under His (Christ’s) feet. But when He says, “All things have been put in subjection [under Christ],” it is clear that He (the Father) who put all things in subjection to Him (Christ) is excepted [since the Father is not in subjection to His own Son]. However, when all things are subjected to Him (Christ), then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One (the Father) who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all [manifesting His glory without any opposition, the supreme indwelling and controlling factor of life].” 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 AMP
Jesus is not a son of god god create adam as also without father or mother there is no other god except one allah allah have no partner Mohammad esha as prophet messenger of allah so pray to allah not jesus beleive in akhirat after the dead judgement day ok
You know, it's funny and I say this because my brother is just like this guy and I've met with/worked with so many others. It's always these dudes who went to jail, had terrible drug habits, ran with gangs, didn't finish grade school and who lost hope in legitimately every other part of their life who push Christianity in the most overconfident, ignorant and belligerent of ways. These guys, who barely read mind you, will overconfidently and even arrogantly say to a Ph.D. in disciplines like Dan's or others like Richard Carrier or anybody else that doesn't agree with them, that those doctors have no clue what they're talking about. These guys will legit talk like the most street smart, smooth dudes no doubt while they tell you emphatically what the Bible says and how the scholar with the doctorate has no clue what they're talking about. It's that emphasis when they just get some verse that they like and they say it so unbelievably arrogantly. Sorry Dan, it's just legit, my brother has been in and out of jails and running with gangs, drugging it up for decades and he's just like this. I had an ex co-worker with a "ministry" (they all have ministries) who also did the same stuff as my brother. They all found Jesus and Jesus was the only thing that saved them from that life. I just wish these guys were strong enough to realize, they saved themselves from that life. All they had to do was find something positive to imagine. It shouldn't be their mission to try to pin everybody else down and force feed their mythology. We need way more addiction recovery houses ran by skeptics, atheists or even buddhists seriously. Get these guys on a different track than proselytizing and becoming the most arrogant, clearly illiterate apologists out there. Well, I say that, but then there's Ray Comfort so... I guess these guys are pretty smart by comparison.
@@emptyhand777 funny thing is that I've been here for like 10 years. I guess it's coz I'm a Christian and I understand God's saving grace and to see a man who most likely had a horrible past now follow Christ get slandered is genuinely heartbreaking
The aramaic; son of god = disciple of God. the word used is mar'a or in hebrew , maran. The translator should have wrote the correct translation Disciple instead of Son. this same case where they got wine mixed up with fine pure grape juice, and were too tipsy to do their translation accurately..
God had no son god create Adam as also without father or mother there is no other god except one allah allah have no partner Mohammad esha as prophet messenger of allah so pray to allah not jesus beleive in akhirat after the dead judgement day
nrsvue (With study bible from SBL) or nrsv (With study bible from oxford or harper collins). These study bible are all bias but atleast they include people from various denomination there are even jews and muslim.
If God does not exist in 3 separate persons as you state how would you mitigate 1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Thank you God bless
Hebrews 1:1-8 (KJV): "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." And if the King James Bible was good enough for Joseph Smith, then that's good enough for me.
So what do you say and would make Jesus a lunatic who just talks to himself. Also how many people can be at their own side? if jesus sits at the right hand of the ruler he cant be the ruler.
what do people not get about Yeshua being the Son of God in the literal sense born in the flesh not of the will of it but the will of God who is a spirit....
We don’t get it because it’s not true. He never credibly claimed to be God, to his credit. The decision to firmly decide he’s the ACTUAL God was made hundreds of years later.
When Jesus said I am in the Farther and he in me and if you send me you see the father Men were made in the image of god as in his character/emotions and such not look like him but rather we feel like he does So to know Jesus was to know god Also when a man leaves his family and becomes one with his wife Does that make them the same person as well? No But rather they became one in unity As that Jesus and anyone who follows god becomes one with him in unity People should read all of Isaiah’s chapters than go back to read the New Testament This is one big deceptive mess But once you learn the truth it will set you free
You mean Isaiah 53? The same Isaiah 53 that if it's read it in the context of the whole book of Isaiah you understand that is about the nation of Israel and not a person
7:15 the only begotten Son the being into the bosom εἰς τὸν κόλπον of the Father Compare to Lk 6,38 δίδοτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν μέτρον καλὸν πεπιεσμένον σεσαλευμένον ὑπερεκχυννόμενον δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑμῶν ᾧ γὰρ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε ἀντιμετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν „Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be poured ❗️into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.”“ Luke 6:38 John 1:18 seems to say that the Son is the inheritance of God.
God had no son god create adam as also without father or mother there is no other god except one allah allah have no partner Mohammad esha as prophet messenger of allah so pray to allah not jesus beleive in akhirat after the dead judgement day ok
A lot of the case for Yeshua being God himself hinges on whether you even give credibility (vis-a-vis its fidelity to the words of Yeshua himself) to the Gospel of John, or any of the Johannine literature - Inc. the Book of Revelation. The various Johannine communities collated their stories much later, in (IMO) a blatant attempt to promote the divinity of Yeshua as a competitive measure to heighten his profile over time. The case for any reference to Yeshua as God in any of the earlier Synoptic Gospels - or in particular Mark, which was the basic source material for the others - is much, much weaker.
I really wish you tagged these people in your responses. None of these people are educated in scripture, and just take a text that was translated and retranslated a hundred times over the centuries, at face value, and trust the translators to not have agendas. Your channel is the reason I'm not religious. If God created all these books with so many flaws in interpretation, then he must not be as powerful as his books say, or the Bible is just a fairy tale.
IMO scripture doesn't need to be perfect, univocal, or even unambiguously authoritative and articulate in order to help us seek the divine or find meaning in life. I find it sad that some people argue so incessantly that scripture is or must be infallible, because it so obviously isn't, and it was never meant to be.
@@trevorprice2490- people need to take a deep breath and realize there were Christians running around practicing Christianity decades before the New Testament was written. Maybe there is more to Christianity than was is in the NT.
This is an absurdist jump in logic. Please see the podcast ‘The Bible for Normal People”. One doesn’t have to be an inerrantist (treating the biblical text as an idol, tbh) to see Scripture as the Word of God.
Moses is also called God 💃🤖. So it really isn't the silver bullet against the entire point of the argument against Jesus being the God 💃🤖 anyway, Though, really since Yahweh makes the most sense internally as a *nation* 🏛 in the Bible ✝📖 anything that is a part of a nation makes sense to be called it in some contexts, e.g..: • Any of its citizens • Any paperwork of the nation, especially legal documents • The buildings • The structure, especially the structure Which makes the whole being God thing unimpressive. Any rando can be part of the USA. It doesn't make them have the USA's army.
@@DBPCINC I cant deny that there are lessons to be learned... I think most of those lessons can be more safely learned on saturday mornings from the looney tunes
9:00 I'm all in favor of "data over dogma", but the probability that "Jesus Christ" is referring to the "glory" of the L and S and not THE "L and S" is so remote it's non existent.
With Dan being associated (or formerly associated) with the Latter-day Saints, is there a reason that he rarely (if ever) critiques their beliefs & writings?
He easily talks about the scholarship that contradicts LDS doctrine. For example, Mormons believe that Elohim is God the father and Jehovah is Jesus. However, Dan readily explains that Jesus prays to Jehovah (Adonai). This biblical scholarship tears the fundamentalism within the LDS Church. I think it's possible he might get in trouble with the church
1. The LDS church is very antagonistic of people who critique their writings and beliefs. It's entirely possible that he would be shunned and ghosted by literally everyone in his personal life if he pissed off the church enough to become excommunicated. 2. Mormon faith is very niche and there's simply not that many people who believe in it to make his content worthwhile. Most of the world has some interaction with overall Christianity, but not with mormon specific theology, so his audience would be minimized for any content involved with that. 3. There's already been a massive amount of literature and dedication to the critique of mormon theology, with not much more to say for the most part.
@@SweetOdinsRavens Thank you for this reply. Although I do understand all that you've written, wouldn't most of that go against Dan's "Data Over Dogma" credo?
@Dustin Richburg possibly, but it doesn't really apply in this scenario. Dan isn't out here preaching mormon theology, nor is he doing what he's doing in order to convert or assert superiority, he's merely trying to give free educational awareness to people on the academics of wider Christianity, and this can and has been done, so far, unconstrained by his personal beliefs. Until he either shifts his focus to mormon theology or starts adding it into his academic evaluations, it stays removed from his overall body of work, which remains Data>Dogma.
Hey, I'm not going to ask you to do this for me as a favor, but I would really appreciate it if genuine scholars like yourself would stop referring to the author of the book of John as "John" and say instead "the author of the book of John." This custom is a very convenient verbal shortcut for people who understand what you're saying already, but the confusion that you're trying to dispel here is actually fed by the convention you're using and I for one would appreciate it if you academics would cut it out. Thanks, and I'm sorry to be overstepping my bows here; I get that I'm just a layman. I just think it's adding to the confusion. Really enjoy your videos. Please keep up the good work
I think the only "accurate translation" is done yourself with a concordance. Here you will see the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic definitions. I studied this mass of manuscripts for 30 years. There are no "accurate" translations.
Mark is the first gospel. It's the shortest of the Synoptics, and it was copied and edited by both the authors of Luke and Matthew to produce their gospels. There are many reasons for accepting that Mark was the first, but the general principle is called Marcan Priority. You can use that to look up further resources.
What Tacitus said. As to where the author got their information from, Paul's letters as well as riffing on Greco Roman literature. They took the theology of Paul and invented a story and personality for Jesus by borrowing from other works of fiction.
Your favored translation is even more consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity than the one you argue against. If ice is a form of H2O, ice is equivalent to H2O. So is water but with a different properties or nature. Likewise, when Paul is saying Jesus is a form of God, he is saying Jesus is God. The water analogy is more modalistic than Trinitarian but demonstrates the definition of form and nature in terms of which one means equivalence. The writer of Hebrews chooses instead to say Jesus is the exact representation of God which is fairly consistent.
He thinks there not one view on who Jesus is in the new testament but most of them go towards Jesus being an exalted human or divine figure that is bestoed the divine name and thus has God´s authority and power.
@@nito2137 You might do well reading his book on the topic where he explains it in a lot more detail, but to summarise there was an idea in 2. temple judaism which allowed God to let people use his titles or authority and manifest his presence by giving them his name
Exact translation from aramaic: ܘܡܸܠܬ݂ܵܐ ܒܸ݁ܣܪܵܐ ܗܘܵܐ ܘܲܐܓܸ݁ܢ ܒ݁ܲܢ ܘܲܚܙܲܝܢ ܫܘܿܒ݂ܚܹܗ ܫܘܿܒ݂ܚܵܐ ܐܲܝܟ݂ ܕ݁ܝܼܚܝܼܕ݂ܵܝܵܐ ܕ݁ܡܸܢ ܐܲܒ݂ܵܐ ܕ݁ܲܡܠܹܐ ܛܲܝܒ݁ܘܿܬ݂ܵܐ ܘܩܘܿܫܬ݁ܵܐ( John 1:14 - And on the *Word, flesh was made, and tabernacled with us; and we saw his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten who (was) from the Father (Lord), full of grace and truth
so God created somebody glorious for mankind at that time..... a messiah ! (to have a messiah arrive in your life on earth is a blessing for humans..it was also gloriois for them that had a spiritual leader to worship God)
I see the whole thing as the earliest conspiracy theory, it has all the hallmarks and its adherents are very susceptible to all the current conspiracy theories too
The very phrase "Son of God" identifies the resurrected Jesus as God unless Jesus is not an actual Son. The KJV says 30 times that the man Jesus is the "Son of God". Can it be proven from the text that the word Son is not talking about an ACTUAL Son in these 30 places? Because an actual son will progress and become fully like and equal to his father as Phil 2:6 predicted. Only by denying that the man Jesus was an ACTUAL "Son of God" can the Trinity speculation be protected. How could an immaterial body-less Spirit “Person” outside of time and space have an ACTUAL “Son”?
Son’s of god vs daughters of man was used in genesis and the mention of the offspring of Adam and Eve. So are you saying Cain is god? The term is also commonly used to to identify followed as Son’s of God. So even the more common herder for this description?
@@J_a_s_o_n awww. You are claiming English text was used in Hebrew and Greek? Maybe you think Phoenicia Hebrew also used capitals? That is a later adaptation made many centuries after the fact. The debate about the trinity didn’t even begin until around the 4th and 5th century. Before being added to the canon in the 6th. I really hope your comment was a failed attempt at sarcasm. If not, you’ve really shown how uninformed you are about the history of the texts.
The J.W’s have removed the brackets from their 2013 edition of the NWT and left them where it supports their theology. I guess no one noticed them anyway? Scribes are going to do what scribes are going to do.
The book of Isaiah if read and studied will reveal the mystery of this confusion All of the chapters must be read and underline words of who god says he is and reading about there righteous man the servant who knew he was predestined to save gods people This is why not just the New Testament but also the old must be read and studied
right, theres countless verses pointing to Jesus as God!! this guy should debate dr michael brown, bc he’s misleading many but maybe he’s not saying Jesus isnt God i haven’t figured this guy out yet
Jesus is not equal to God Almighty. God sent Jesus to die for humanity. God answered Jesus when he prayed to Him. God raised Jesus from the dead. God exalted Jesus to a position above every other name. 1 Corinthians 15:27,28 showed that God Almighty is greater than Jesus.
I'm no expert! But having watched a lot of his videos, I'd say being equal to is not being the same. There other instances of divine beings given the authority of God in order to accomplish or deliver something. So, in other words, they are equal to, in those instances, but not the same.
@@20quid are not the old testament prophecies pointing to Jesus ? “For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6 . is not john 1:1 also not pointing to Jesus as God ? or is that a reach? what about john 10:30 that says “I and My Father are one.” doesnt hebrews 1:6-8 also point to Jesus as God and isnt this also a old testament passage in psalms ? does not isaiah 43:11 proclaim that only God is our savior “I, even I, am the Lord, And besides Me there is no savior.” but maybe this is a reach too.. also Jesus is given titles that only God is like our Shepard and judge, also doesnt revelations call Jesus Alpha and Omega ?? maybe not but i thought it did, but Jesus also received worship and forgave sins and did all sorts of blasphemous things (indeed blasphemous if He wasnt God) why did He die if not he proclaimed to be God? but lastly does not Jesus claim to be Yahweh in john 8:58?
Jesus, a local construct for three primary purposes. 1. It evolved the Jewish religion the Romans were going to be in charge of. Christianity. 2. It roped the masses into coming to church for worshiping Jesus as if he was an idol. Easy to keep fearful masses on board. (Christianity is based in fear. Hell if you don't play) 3. It maintains the mono-myth template in yet another lineage from pre-technology culture. They nested secrets in stories that today, practitioners think are literal.
Jesus - Chosen? - Gods son - Seeks - Kingdom of Heaven Within - Uses miracles with Gods help Arthur - Chosen? - Only one who can extract Excalibur - Seeks - The Holy Grail - Uses magic with Merlin's help Etc, etc, etc Seems a tad spot on when read conceptually.
Mythicism, a local construct for two primary purposes. 1. It makes atheists look silly. 2. It ropes the masses into coming to church on the principle that if an evangelist can show Jesus existed, then mythicism is false and people will throw the baby (atheism) out with the bath water. Maybe your beliefs are the real conspiracy???
Sorry man but “ 🎼 WE ARE THE TROLLS MY FRIEND 🎶 AND WE’LL KEEP GETTING LULZ TILL THE END 🎵 “ :sung to the tune of we are the champions: What about when asked by the king if he was God and Jesus answer of “I am” would have been phonetically sounding like “ Adam” which means “ I am” ? 🤔 Forgot to add that Adam was created by? Example if I were to tell you “ I am king of kings” back then it would sound like this “ Adam Xerex “ get it? 😁 this is definitely a kewl Chanel . Keep on keepin on man.
Coming from the guy who tell people “quit looking for meaning from these words” and then goes on to make a video explaining the meaning of words in the Bible ?? Make it make sense
ONLY THOSE WHO BELIEVE JESUS’ EVERY WORD ONLY THOSE WHO BELIEVE JESUS’ EVERY WORD SHALL ENTER GOD'S KINGDOM. NO MAN CAN SEE GOD AND LIVE, YET MEN SAY JESUS IS GOD. THIS IS SO CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD; THEY ARE BLIND LEADERS OF THE BLIND AND BOTH SHALL FALL INTO THE DITCH [HELL] (MATTHEW 15:14). IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NATURAL MAN TO RECEIVE THE THINGS OF GOD. IT IS THE ROLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, FOR HE IS THE REVEALER OF GOD’S WORDS THROUGH JESUS (JOHN 14:26). THOSE WITHOUT THE HOLY GHOST SEEK TO FIND ANSWERS TO THEIR OWN BELIEFS BY AFFIRMING THEMSELVES WITH RANDOM VERSES TO PROVE JESUS IS GOD. INSTEAD, THEY ARE GOING AGAINST GOD AND HIS SON. THOSE WHO READ AND OBEY GOD'S WORDS THROUGH JESUS WILL BE WITH GOD (JOHN 8:47). IT APPEARS TO THOSE WITHOUT GOD'S SPIRIT THAT JESUS IS GOD BECAUSE THEY ARE BLIND TO THE TRUTH; TURN TO GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND RECEIVE HIS SPIRIT. ONLY THEN WILL YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF 1 CORINTHIANS 2:14.
@@MrMortal_Ra I ACT LIKE JESUS IS GOD? NO WHERE IN MY POST SO I SAY JESUS IS GOD. JESUS IS NOT GOD-JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD. ONLY THE FATHER CAN HOLD THE TITLE OF GOD. IF YOU QUOTE ANY SCRIPTURE OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE, IT IS NOT OF GOD. THE QURAN AND OTHER RELIGIOUS TEXTS DO NOT SPEAK THE WORDS OF GOD THE FATHER-THEY SPEAK AGAINST HIM. I KNOW THE FATHER IS SEPARATE FROM JESUS, THAT IS WHY HE TELLS US TO TEACH THE NATIONS OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY, NOT COLLECTIVELY (MATTHEW 28:19).
@@MrMortal_Ra THE BIBLE ISN’T CORRUPTED WITH LIES; THE PEOPLE WHO TEACH IT ARE. IT WARNS US AGAINST THOSE FALSE PROPHETS (1 JOHN 4:1). THE TRUTH IS THAT JESUS IS NOT GOD-IT IS A LIE THAT JESUS IS GOD; HE IS THE *ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.* THE SON WAS MADE MANIFEST, NOT THE FATHER (JOHN 1:14). IT IS PEOPLE WHO TWIST THE SCRIPTURE, BUT THE SCRIPTURE IS TRUE. PLEASE READ EPHESIANS 1 FOR IT TELLS US THAT IT IS JESUS’ FATHER WHO IS OUR GOD. JESUS SPEAKS ON BEHALF OF HIS FATHER-THE ONE WHO IS GREATER THAN JESUS (JOHN 14:28)-EVERYTHING JESUS SAID AND DID WAS COMMANDED BY HIS FATHER FIRST (JOHN 12:49-50). [2] GRACE BE TO YOU, AND PEACE, FROM *GOD OUR FATHER,* AND FROM THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (NOTE THE CLEAR SEPARATION) [3] BLESSED BE *THE GOD AND FATHER* OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, WHO HATH BLESSED US WITH ALL SPIRITUAL BLESSINGS IN HEAVENLY PLACES IN CHRIST… [17] THAT *THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE FATHER OF GLORY,* MAY GIVE UNTO YOU THE SPIRIT OF WISDOM AND REVELATION IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIM: [20] *…WHICH HE [THE FATHER] WROUGHT IN CHRIST, WHEN HE RAISED HIM [JESUS] FROM THE DEAD,* AND *SET HIM [JESUS] AT HIS OWN RIGHT HAND* IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES…
@@KaijuOfTheOpera MOST OF THE WORLD NEVER GETS IT RIGHT: BOTH THE BLIND AND THE LEADERS OF THE BLIND WILL FALL INTO THE DITCH OF HELL (MATTHEW 15:14). EVEN IN TIMES OF OLD, PEOPLE WERE AGAINST JESUS, ALTHOUGH HE WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD TELL US ABOUT THE FATHER. INSTEAD, THEY THOUGHT HE WAS CLAIMING TO BE GOD AND NEVER SAW THE TRUTH. HISTORY ALWAYS REPEATS ITSELF, ONLY THIS TIME MOST OF THE WORLD THINKS JESUS IS GOD. MOST CAN'T SEEM TO GRASP THE TRUTH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S STARING THEM STRAIGHT IN THEIR FACE. EVERYTHING JESUS SAID IS VERY CLEAR FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD. HERE ARE A FEW OF MANY VERSES JESUS SAID ABOUT THE FATHER: JOHN 14:28, JOHN 17:3, JOHN 5:26, JOHN 12:48-50, JOHN 8:54, JOHN 7:16-18, AND SO ON. THOSE WHO TRY TO CHANGE THESE WORDS ARE NOT OF GOD (MATTHEW 24:35).
@@MrMortal_Ra I KNOW WITHOUT ANY DOUBT GOD EXISTS. JESUS HIMSELF APPEARS IN THE ROOM WITH US COUNTLESS TIMES AND TELLS US WE ARE HIS; HE KISSES US, GIVES US FLOWERS, ETC. I CAN’T BEGIN TO TELL YOU ALL HE HAS DONE FOR ME AND MY FAMILY. I WAS ABSOLUTELY AMAZED TO SEE JESUS STILL LOOK UP TO THE FATHER WHEN HE PRAYS. JESUS HIMSELF IS THE ONE WHO TOLD ME TO WARN THE PEOPLE. IT WAS JESUS WHO SPOKE GOD’S WORDS TO MOSES. JOHN THE BAPTIST, WHO SPOKE WITH JESUS, EVEN SAID "NO MAN HATH SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, WHICH IS IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, HE HATH DECLARED HIM" (JOHN 1:18). GOD HAS NEVER SPOKEN DIRECTLY TO MAN, ONLY THROUGH JESUS BY WHO ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO HIM. HOW COULD JESUS BE GOD IF NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD OR HEARD HIS VOICE (JOHN 5:37)?
While your point of view is the mainstream academic consensus, that's not what Richard Carrier concludes. "On The Historicity of Jesus" is the best book in the field by a mile. Once you understand how the Jesus story developed, you see that the 'hypostatic union' is essential to it, because Jesus didn't start out as some dude.
@@derdonutkritiker7311 You have to understand Carrier's thesis first: no historical Jesus. In every case where Paul talks about Jesus's body, how the body was created or manufactured, he is talking about divinity clothing itself in flesh, i.e. hypostatic union. It's important to understand Carrier's thesis, because if you come at it reading the Gospels first, you'll just blindly assume Paul is talking about a historical figure. The tradition of the hypostatic union predates the gospels.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Jesus being divine and becoming a human is not the hypostatic union, the hypostatic union is a very specific philosophical concept which is nowhere to be found in Pauls writings or time.
No, the Bible does not , in fact the term "God the son" is a complete twist of words as it calls Jesus "SON OF GOD".....If Jesus is God then why did he say "I am going back to MY GOD and MY FATHER ? So WHO is the God of Jesus, and what is his name, when you find the answer to that question then you will see the TRUTH behind WHO God is ! Jesus backed up that belief when in prayer to his heavenly father said,...”"This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ. John 17: 3. Notice how he calls his father the ONLY TRUE GOD! The first century Christians taught the same when they preached for example 1 Cor 15: 24-28 where we see in Vs 24 that Jesus has a GOD AND FATHER and that in Vs 28 he SUBJECTS himself to his God & Father! SOME do say however, that Jesus does address God as his God and his father because he was A MAN however one of the clearest scripture which shows that Jesus is NOT God is Rev 3:12 where we see Jesus as NOT a man but back in heaven: "The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. New International Version So, please read Rev 1:1 which says: "a revelation from Jesus which GOD GAVE HIM" So WHO is the God Of Jesus, and what is his name ?
Jesus is identified as the Messiah. Jesus even said not to pray to him. But to the Father were Jesus' power came from. Jesus sits on the right hand of The Father.
Trinity is idolatory .. Calvary human sacrifice is paganism. Why are there hundred s of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources? Very odd.
@@derdonutkritiker7311 The entire Torah clearly states "I am not man "," There is no other besides Me".. 100% idolatry paganism Christian theology. No man God idol trinity human sacrifice calvary allowed paganism.. תודה רבה שלום
sor the covenant has numerous gods lets get real here there is even more than the trinity so if your not into the covenant i hope dearly i dobt go where you are going😂
OR you can ditch Christianity altogether. If Jesus is god, then he's culpable for all those immoral crimes that god committed or instructed. If he's not, then he's not a god--sacrifice that you thought. Game, set, match.
No ditching of anything is required to participate in these discussions. One does not have to believe that the Middle-earth is real to argue whether Balrogs have wings or not.
A few caveats: The Council of Nicaea was held in 325, (convened and payed by the Emperor) in order to solve this issue that divided the Christian churches. So you have almost three hundred years during which this issue had not been fully decided. Early, but not the earliest. The canon of the New Testament had not even been decided then - it was agreed upon the last decades of the 4th century. And many scholars doubt that Paul write all epistles attributed to him.
@@dorothysay8327 Indeed. I’d say most of the texts were previous (I haven’t heard anyone say the contrary). My point is: not all the believers had all the texts (they were not a hook, but separate scrolls), and not all of the texts that the believers had in front of them were included in the canon. Revelations almost didn’t make the cut. Moreover, through the centuries, there have been redactions and additions to the texts themselves, some through errors, some as “needed clarifications”. And we also have to take into account that not all denominations have the same canon, and that there have been translations and versions in order to make it more accessible and / or (at the very least). So the idea that one has to read “the whole book” in order to understand it makes an outside observer ask: which one? The OP has his own preferences, but other believers have others. Even if we ignore all of the above, the existence of so many Christian denominations, all adherent to the Creed of Nicaea, and accepting most of the canonical books, is ample evidence to the fact that not everyone interprets the Bible in the same way.
Jesus claimed divinity in multiple places. Right at the beginning of Matthew when Satan is testing him, he quotes Deuteronomy 6. "Don't test the Lord your God." Then in John when he told the Samaritan woman that he's the Messiah. Then also in Luke when he's asked if he's the Son of God (huios theos) to which he says, "I am" as he quotes Daniel 7 (and to some degree with the words "I am," also Exodus 3). And we know in context that this exchange with the pharisees was a divine claim, because the pharisees screamed that it was blasphemous and demanded death for it. Manuscripts can and have changed over time. But not a single one of those changes have affected the central doctrine and message of the gospel. So while we're on the subject of retrojecting, let's not retroject today's scholarly consensus onto Jesus' own claims for himself and try to explain them away as something other than what they quite clearly were: divine.
Your comment is trying to view divinity and humanity as two strict black and white groups but at the time there was a lot in between. Dan doesn´t deny Jesus claimed divnity he denys that the new testament identifies Jesus as YHWH the God of Israel. In Matthew chapter four Jesus quotes the torah as an explanation for why he isn´t doing what Satan asks him because he won´t test God not that Satan is testing God. Yes Jesus referes to Daniel 7 but he doesn´t take the roll of God but the son of man who is distinguished from God so non of these claims imply he is God himself.
