Mark's reveal of the divinity of Christ is one of my favourite things in the Bible. Once you see it, it destroys the idea of a "developing Christology"
As a regular person, reading the English translation of Mark, I really don't see the issue. It's clear that Jesus is God by his own claims in the gospel of Mark
He claimed he was messiah only once in the whole book of Mark, so it should not be surprising if he claimed divinity only few times in that whole book of Mark. Jesus did claim divinity immediately after confirming Messiah: If Jesus claimed divinity, the Pharisees would accuse him blasphemy . This is exactly what happened and one of the ways we know that Jesus claimed divinity and thus was immediately accused of blasphemy when Jesus referred himself to a specific son of man prophesied in the old testament that is going to receive the service due to God alone in Mark 14:62, when Jesus says you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the power and Coming With the Clouds of Heaven. Pharisees knew the old testament. Jesus was referring himself to that son of man in the vision prophesy of the old testament book of Daniel 7: 13-14, this is an Old Testament section of the Bible by Prophet Daniel. Prophet Daniel sees in a vision and he sees in the sky one who looks like a son of man who Comes With the Clouds of Heaven and came to the Ancient of Days and presented himself. The last word in verse 13 in hebrew is haq-rə-ḇū-hî. transliteration: "qereb" "And was presented" ("to approach/come near/ present"). The question is: who "is approaching/was brought near/was presented"? The son of man is approaching/was presented. Immediately After this last hebrew word Concerning the approaching/presented son of man, the hebrew phrase "to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all people, nations and languages should "Serve" him. The special unique Hebrew/Aramaic word for "Serve" in this instance is the word "pelach". This specific word choice is used only for service reserved for God alone as worship, unlike other words for serve. Hebrew transliteration of the word: pelach, means only service to God. There are other words in Hebrew for "serve," but those other words for serve are not reserved for service to God alone. Those other words for serve are used to refer to service toward kings, elders, fathers..etc. After verse 13, verse 14 says, he was given dominion by someone and people will "serve" him. If Jesus did claim divinity, the Pharisees would indeed charge him of blasphemy. And that is exactly what they did. They charged him with blasphemy right after Jesus declared himself to be that son of man prophesied in the old testament who would be served the service that is only due God. Check out the immediate verse after Mark 14:62 (The verse Jesus referred to himself as that son of man of the old testament). The immediate verse Mark 14:63-64 says that the Pharisees were angry and said that Jesus committed blasphemy. Even in the old testament, Prophet Isaiah mentioned that a human would be born that will be called "Mighty God and Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6)
@@johndevisser903 Yup, there's one God and He's the God of the man Jesus Christ, did you think that surprises us? Jesus had two natures, the divine nature (hence Jesus said: I am Lord over the passage) and a human nature, and it's explained why He would come in human form in Phillipians 2
Thank you o my friend. I sometimes find it puzzling the nonsense claims that some non Christians make of the SCRIPTURE that just isn't there. There's zero time that I've ever had any doubt that the DEITY of CHRIST is evident in the Gospel according to Mark anytime that I've read any portion of it. What kind of satanic deception possess these people that that they go to almost any length to make these foolish claims? Yikes.
@@johndevisser903*for man’s enjoyment* then Jesus goes on to say that He’s the Lord of the Sabbath anyway. He’s basically saying “back off bc I can do what I want.”
@@Kingrich_777 it also spits in the face of how the Jews didn't do ANYTHING that even be described as work. And then Jesus comes along basically implying, "it ain't work if you do what you want. Honor Me by ENJOYING the Sabbath."
We could tell someone what is in a darkened room, and then turn on the light so they could see. Or we could simply turn on the light and trusts they can see for themselves. In that sense, Mark writes to illuminate his readers with descriptions of events in a way that allows them the opportunity to make their own observations and draw conclusions based on that information.
@@perfectblindguyMark was a disciple of the apostle Peter, whom was a disciple of Jesus himself, Peter was likely there when mark was writing his gospel, and teaching him about Jesus.
About time atheists and Muslims are shown the evidence of the deity of Christ in Mark. Hopefully then they can stop regurgitating the same bad arguments.
@@theoskeptomai2535 No those are two different things. Jesus' deity in Mark meant that we can tell Mark thought Jesus was divine and earnestly bekieved that he was communicating this belief through his book. If we said that in Mark there is Jesus' claim to divinity we may be implying a disinterested distance between Mark's beliefs and what Jesus said, a distance that isn't there. For example, if I wrote a paragraph about the time I saw the 2020 european football championship, I am not recording Italy's claim to their trophey, I am recording the bare events that clearly imply that Italy won the trophey, even if I don't include anything past the final block of the italian golie.
@@AstariahJW For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’? Or again, ‘I will be his Father, and he will be my Son’? And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’ In speaking of the angels he says, ‘He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.’ But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a sceptre of justice will be the sceptre of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.’ Hebrews 1:5-9
Anyone who knows anything about the OT law that a sinful man can't die for a sinful man will understand that when Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:17, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins, " Jesus would have to be God.
Could it be that that the Synoptic gospels were avoiding direct mentions because that would make the gospel illegal in Jewish territory? A kind of indirect mention of Jesus's deity reduces chances of running into trouble with the Jewish authorities in Palestine, but still gets the message across to the intended audience. By John's gospel's writing, Jews weren't in power, so it was probably alright to make direct claims known.
Who am I to comment and give light of this topic but I think it would still be really obvious if you’re practicing Jew to know the point made when passages of Mark 2: 7 healing and forgiving sin. That is a big red flag(l there’s much more can be cited through out Mark that is obvious for a Jew than say Gentile who doesn’t understand background, being the Old Testament )
One of my primary influencers with regards to understanding historical perspective has been John Lukacs and in his collection of essays called Remembered Past, he takes the position that while we are historically thinking creatures, we don't compose the best history of significant events until at least 20-30 years after they have occurred. He also posits that in general, the worst history writing is done soon after an event. In light of that, we can presume that many letters were written in the months and years after Pentecost as educated people would have written back and forth, and most of those have been lost and even in the first century, it appears that over the two or three decades after the event of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, a pretty firm catechesis evolved to the point that by the time Paul was writing his epistles, he didn't need to go into a lot of details about his Christology because he could simply write these catechisms in his opening remarks and everyone would sort of already be on the same page. By 50-55AD, we have already a body of knowledge that the Christian culture could rely on and like every culture, there are 'things that go without being said' in general conversation because everyone already knows what the speaker means. I don't pretend to understand all the complexities that arise in textural criticism, and I appreciate Bart Ehrman's intellect, as we were cronies and friends through high school, being my next door neighbor and the same age with similar interests, even helping me come to faith as a junior in high school. But historical perspective is not an easy thing to grasp for any of us, especially in seems, for the textual critic who can easily get lost in the forest and forget to ask the big questions like "why is there a forest in the first place?" or "why is this forest where it is?" or "what makes this forest particular, or is it particular at all?" because they begin to interpret the whole from the sum of the parts which can be tricky.
Very well said. The "quest for the historical Jesus" gets more and more absurd as time goes on, requiring more and more layers of (sometimes conflicting) ad hoc explanations for simple things, when the simplest explanation with the greatest scope is there all along.
Before now, my only definition of catechisms has been sets of questions and answers - especially for teaching. Please indicate what definition would apply to your use of that word.
@@rogermetzger7335 and you would be correct according to my understanding. Catechesis is the religious instruction, usually oral, and any documentation would be referenced as a catechism. The Q&A format lends itself well to oral teaching formats I assumed.
Some truth to that, but only in part. Good history comes from weighing primary sources from witnesses and those concurrent with events. Time puts analysis and spit and shine into writing. And review footnotes sources. On the other hand Time can lead to revisionist agendas.
@@pierrelabounty9917 of course. Revisionism is another nasty ism and accompanies idealism in every ideological battle I’m aware of. It’s a fundamental reason that most of the active participants in the October Revolution were eventually arrested during Stalin’s reign because they could argue against the revised history of “the people’s struggle” against czarist governments, etc.. In modern days we still try to silence the source of information we don’t like, especially if it is possible it could be true and we have no good argument to refute it.
Like the media does under oligarchic control? Like the illiberal liberals do? Like the fomenters of WOKE do.? Like the food industry does? Like AI will? Like the radical oligarchic funded politicians do? Especially the democrats. Who only dislikes a war when it can shift a vote? No conspiracy with the gospel writer's.
@@Iamwrongbut Umm I am pretty sure he has went on record to say Mark and the other Synoptic Gospel writers didn’t believe Jesus was God, and that the “I Am” statements in John were invented.
@B. Enos Son of man. Son of the living God. Word of God. Anointed one. He is one with God. Prays to God. Definitely the messiah that God so loved and gave the world that who ever believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life. I don't believe he is God in the sense he is thee Father God but definitely part of the triune God. He wasn't praying to himself or meditating at the garden. When he left to pray he wouldn't pray to himself but to the father. I do believe he is diety he was crucified died and was burreied and restricted by God rather then by himself. He cried out to his father at the cross and didn't cry out to himself or his clone in the sky. There's definitely a distinction between God the Son and God the father. I do believe he sits at the right hand of power or of God and not within him or on his lap. So he's definitely God inherently and as one within God but he is person and human in sense born on earth of the holy spirit through the Virgin Mary. He was given the keys of heaven he is the only one that can break the seals of the title deed to earth and sin. Yet not even he knows the time but only the father. There is definitely a lot to unpack but yet Jesus was holy and yet humble and never lied and was true and was the truth the life and the way. No one enters but through him yet to say he is God only because of Thomas calling him my lord my God is not completely the same as acknowledging him as The father God of Glory himself. Yet they are both the same. In one. Please let me know what you think or help me distinguish.
@Stephen I think the greatest mystery is the fact that we struggle with Yeshua being the same as the Father. There is no distinction. You have an excellent grasp of the scriptures, but who died on the cross for you then?. The Angel of the Lord, Melkizedek, the burning bush (I AM), basically its all been Yeshua. He said so himself...before Abraham was, "I AM". The real secret is there is no distinction. The mystery has always been God mingling (tabernacling) with His creation to save it. He did! And only He could. No substitute sacrifice could ever pay for the evil that has befallen the earth.
I studied mark 4 yrs back. I noticed that 5 times Jesus makes himself equal to God. This is why Jewish leaders would argue with Him and want him dead. Mark allows his readers to discover Jesus identity.
If you say that Jesus did the works of God because he is God how do you understand this verse? “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know- Acts 2:22 ESV Peter tells his audience, God (not the man Jesus) did the works and wonders. Jesus was just the medium through which God worked. What is then? Was the apostle wrong? How do you interpret him?
@@mikeschmoll7762 i have not read all the verses where apostles refer to Jesus as a man. I will answer in a general manner. 1. The apostle may be making an arguement for their listeners. And we should look not only to one verse, but the message of the whole book. 2. Apostles may be making a parallel between the messianic title 'son of man' with Jesus human nature. 3.
@@mikeschmoll7762 Jesus took flesh and dwelt among us. He has complete human nature too. One perfect human is needed to pay for the whole human kind. Only one man, that is Jesus who is perfect in every sense to pay for our sins. Because He is God incarnated.
@@susanvarghese9916 What do you think Peter means when he said "God". Does he mean the person of the Father or does he mean the divine being (whatnes)?
@@mikeschmoll7762 There is only one God. Think about a question --- are you a 'human' or 'son of human'? You are both. But you and your father are two different persons. God is the title or the divine being like we human beings. Human beings have a physical entity but God doesn't have that.
One thing I noticed about reading the Gospels is the similarities between Matthew and Mark. To me, instead of seeing one influencing the other, I’d argue that both Matthew and Mark borrow from the same source. This could suggest one of two things: 1. There was an intermediate document that both Matthew and Mark borrowed from. 2. Matthew and Mark were in contact with the same eye witness to these events and recounted the person’s account in a similar manner.
@@theoskeptomai2535, it seems likely that Matthew and Mark would have known a number of eye witnesses and would have recounted what they witnessed. Most of their books are focused on the miracles, which would require having eye witness testimony to confirm it.
@@theoskeptomai2535 they're very early sources, most scholars put them less than 50-60 years after Jesus's death, and Christian accounts place them a decade or two earlier. It's very likely that these two would've known the Apostles or communicated with them.
Mark starts off my by referencing the prophecy about the voice screaming in the wilderness preparing the way for YHWA; so yes, indeed he believed that Jesus is God.
I think if Mark was written under the influence of Simon Peter, it makes sense that there was no direct statement but indirect statements that mean the same thing. Remember that a reoccuring theme in Mark, Jesus tells others to keep these things silent and not make him known. Then with Peter not making him known on the night of Jesus arrest, he fits the reoccuring theme the author is showing. It ends with the women who went to the tomb, "neither did they say anything to anyman." Mark is showing that Jesus's closest followers kept "these things in (their) hearts", but they showed that He was YHWH. So Mark was letting Him be known while at the same time not letting Him be known and keeping it sacred. This also has a hidden justification for Peter's actions during the night of Jesus's arrest and trial. It is a great literary work, eventhough the Greek is less academic than the other gospels.
I always like to point to Mark 1:3 to show the Divinity of Christ. Mark takes an Old Testament passage (Isaiah 40:3) about the coming of Yahweh and then applies it to say this coming of Yahweh is Jesus.
@@austinapologetics2023 Jesus agreed with the Jews of his day that Yahweh ALONE was the Father: Mark 12:29 (NASB95) Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; Mark 12:32 (NASB95) The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; And: John 17:3 (NASB95) “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. The Father, called Yahweh in the Shema, is the ONLY true God! Jesus was "the way" to Yahweh, the only true God.
I found it interesting when someone (I think Islam Critiqued but I might be wrong) sited someone who pointed out, depending on which section of the Gospels you take, you can find a greater Christology in various orders. If you take the death of Jesus for example. John has nothing, Jesus just dies. Mark on the other hand has the curtain ripped in two and the Centurian declare him the Son of God. Mark must have a higher Christology right? Right?
@@mmss3199 are you sure? “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’ ” Mark 1:3 NIV The word "Lord" in the quoted text is the divine name. In the opening Mark calls Jesus not just the Messiah, not just the son of God, but God himself. What is your evidence that Mark has him be only the son of God and only from baptism? In other words, what evidence do you have that Mark teaches adoptionism?
2:20 Mark was the first gospel I read entirely, as an atheist/agnostic, when I was writing a script for the film "King James" and I understood that Jesus was divine and this eventually lead me to actively draw near to the Lord and not just "believe" because I could believe in Jiu Jitsu or doubt it based on there being no punches in the style however until you are on the mat walking it out it might as well be as helpful as someone who took karate classes (went to church as a kid and holds a Santa Claus view of it or a romantic notion that you cam adequately defend yourself [most feign humility after bringing up that point but usually will say they'd defend their kids or the other guy would know he was in a fight even if they lost] as a kid or they found it worthless after giving it a free trial class or a month. The faith is found in the action.
The man didn't know Jesus is God, so Jesus answered him accordingly. He was teaching him that only God is good, not that he wasn't God, a separate issue.
It's also important to discuss the fact that Mark constantly uses covenantal language in the words of Jesus like the Father/Son relationship used in Suzerain/Vassal covenants in the ANE. The role of the royal messenger in the covenant was to be the spokesperson of the king, as such he was granted full power and authority by the king to bring his message to the people, no need for the king to be present. The allusions to this are clearly seen throughout the gospels, precisely because this was a crucial component of Jesus's mission.
Mark 14:62 is the answer. In the first ever writen gospel Jesus says he's God, the Messiah, seated on the right of the Father and coming back visibly. You don't need to wait until John's gospel to know it.
5:50 - Mark 1:2-3, Mark 1:4 and Isaiah 40:3 7:22 - Mark 3:26-27 8:06 - Jude 1:9 9:47 - what about other people raising from the dead? Elijah, Elisha, and Peter 10:02 - Mark 5:41-42 12:57 - Mark 10:18 and goodness 13:40, 14:06 - Why isn’t Mark more explicit?
Exactly. Normally logical brains are turned to mush when it comes to the bible and Jesus in particular. If your mindset is that you fantasize about removing all credibility regarding Christianity to a majority of thinking people, this bias will keep you from seeing obvious reasoning regarding biblical defense.
@@Iamwrongbut Jesus never says I am God, worship me in John. He says he is the alpha and the Omega in revelation though. That isn't a 21 st century interpolation since nobody uses that in everyday language except when discussing the bible
@@charlesdarnay1365 haha to say I Am the Good shepherd is to say I am God. To say before Abraham was I Am is to claim preexistence like God. It doesn’t get more clear than that. Plus, Yahweh is the great I Am and Jesus applies that to himself at least 7 times in John haha
@@charlesdarnay1365 it’s like me calling myself the commander in chief over and over and then someone thinking I am the president. They’d be right because that’s what I’m claiming
This is really interesting! It answered some of my questions regarding the deity of Yeshua. I am really confused that ofcourse some other prophets did what the Lord Jesus did. Good thing it was also discussed on this video.
I think of larger issue here of Dr Licona, About his Gospel's 'literary devices model view' VS 'reportage model view' of Dr Lydia McGrew. I dont know whether IP have heard about them or not,, but i think its worthy to unpack this topic.
I'd like to see Lydia vs. Erhman personally as I agree with her reportage model and maximal case for the resurrection over Licona's literary devices and minimal facts approach to the resurrection.
Going to point out that the institution of the Eucharist basically seals this point. Only God can form a new covenant which Christ does renewing or redoing the Passover. Would be great to see you discuss this topic with Bishop Barron.
I also find it weird when people say that Mark never claim Jesus to be God. It is very clear in all over the book of Mark regarding the deity of Christ. I am a Christian, the one type who doesn't just want to follow tradition, but really understand the scripts. That's why I have been studying the scripts deeply. Another claim people make is that Jesus can't be God, because God can't be a man... Well, if God himself in the Old Testament came down to earth as a man, and brought fire from God in heaven, then how hard would it be for me to accept Jesus as a God man!
It tells of a disciple ‘who wanted to visit Buddha one evening and on his way found that the ferry boat was missing from the bank of the river Aciravati. In faithful trust in Buddha he stepped on to the water and went as if on dry land to the very middle of the stream. Then he came out of his contented meditation on Buddha in which he had lost himself, and saw the waves and was frightened, and his feet began to sink. But he forced himself to become wrapt in his meditation again and by its power he reached the far bank safely and reached his master.’ (Garbe, pp. 56f. and Buddhist. Maerchen, pp. 46f.)
Mike's a good man; a whole day with Ehrman doesn't strike me as particularly appealing - it's gonna take some kindness and grace, and Mike's got both. You're good too, Michael; you've got that combination of toughness and clear thinking you also get from someone like Jim Wallace - the cop. What sort of training do you have, or - are you just a really gifted guy that handles everything from quantum physics to profound philosophical problems effortlessly? I live in Denmark, by the way, and in Copenhagen we house - not without a fair amount of national pride - the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen; Bohr and Einstein discussed the grounds of quantum mechanics in the late 20'ies and Einstein never accepted a probabilistic universe - God throwing dices - but a majority of physicists. to this day. stand with Bohr. Once you realize the profound implications of nature on it's deepest levels and consciousness, you can't be a materialist anymore; something else - something significantly more exciting is going on... Thanks for your channel. Kind regards, Kim
I can understand the confusion. The epistles constantly drum home that the Father is God, that God is the Father of the Christ Jesus. That Jesus is God is not made as explicitly clear as the fact that the Father is God. Strong inferences make it reasonable to conclude that Jesus was God, but why the lack of explicit clarity on such a central issue?
Exactly.. if it is true (and if it is a fundamental christian truth (!!!)) Why is it that it seems to be one of the most non explicit christian doctrines and never stated 100% clearly throughout the gospels... If we are wrong on this one it would be a shocker but it wont be the first time the church is wrong on an important topic (it would be like the protestant revolution, when the church for hundreds of years believed false doctrines and the protestants came out and pointed the errors out..)
In fact i believe Jesus himself has answered this question : (John 10):We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”(AV) 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law,(AW) ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]?(AX) 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God(AY) came-and Scripture cannot be set aside(AZ)- 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart(BA) as his very own(BB) and sent into the world?(BC) Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?(BD) 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.(BE) 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”(BF) 39 Again they tried to seize him,(BG) but he escaped their grasp.(BH). Watch closely Jesus' argument. He is not claiming to be God, instead his argument is that if the judges apointed by God and referenced by him in this passage (ref:psalm82:6) were called gods by God himself, then because he has greater authority than them (because he was appointed to proclaim the gospel, a law much much more important than the judges' law), then he has thse right to be called "a god", because in ancient jewish culture that basically meant you were appointed to do God's will on earth (as a mediator).
@Tom Would you agree that if we interpret the title "god" like Jesus does in the passage I referenced in my comment, it makes sense under that light? Keep in mind that the title " gods" was given to the judges by God himself (the title is repeated many times at least 4-5 in the old testament referring to the judges) was given to the Judges in the old testament times so the idea wouldnt be weird or abnormal in the old testament times and in the new testament times (since they knew scripture so well).
@Tom I cant stress this enough. The old testament clearly and unapologetically gives the title "god" to these human Judges, because they mediated God's will of justice to the people of israel (power was esentially given to them to judge the people, just like power was given to Jesus). The most important thing is that jesus himself says that as the judges were called "gods" he can in a way be called "god" because he speaks with authority given to him by God. (In ancient jewish culture, your representative spoke as if it was you who were talking). It would be bizzare to bring up a point that regular humans who were Gods mediators (the Judges ) were called gods by God, only to conclude his point that he (in contrast to the judges) is actually God (not like the judges). It would be an inconherent argument, beggining from one point and ending in a totally different one.
@@mariosioannisangelakis4471 That can’t be the correct interpretation since Jesus is not only called God, but also is insinuated to be Yahweh in John. I think what Jesus is saying in John 10 is if people who received the word of God are called gods, then how about the one while the Father sent? I believe it’s a thing Jesus does many times, like where Jesus says that the Father cares for the birds. They do not reap nor sow. Yet aren’t you more valuable than them? Or in Luke 11 where he says that if imperfect parents take care of their children, how much more will the perfect Father take care of his children? He is saying “If these people on Earth are gods, what about the one whom the Father sent”. Your point would make sense if Jesus was not greater than the people who received God’s word, but since he came from the Father he clearly is different. He is basically doing the same thing as what he did with the imperfect parents analogy. If people on Earth can be called gods, how much more can Jesus, who the Father set apart [aka is more special than the previously mentioned people], be called *the* God. And of course, the main point is that Jesus is saying something that is true, but not too blatantly obvious, to prevent himself from being stoned. His point to them is that “if they were called gods, why is it blasphemous if I’m the Son of God”. If they’re gods just for having a divinely appointed title, how is it blasphemous if he had a greater divinely appointed title? So, one could argue he isn’t even making a claim to be divine or not be divine here. So, either way I wouldn’t use this to show Jesus isn’t God
Terrific video. THANK YOU. What Bart Ehrman cannot explain, maybe you can bring this up in the debate: No one would make up a God who became human and WASHED THE FEET OF HIS DISCIPLES. And if the resurrection was a legend, why are the authors so honest and admit that the disciples were slow-witted and cowards. That Peter of all people even denied to know Jesus! No Christian would have dared to tell this incidence let alone invent it. Peter must have authorized it himself.
Revelation 1:6 to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and has made us to be a Kingdom and priests to serve his GOD and FATHER .
Testify has a great video on his channel called "Did Jesus deny being God in Mark". It addresses the "no one is good but God" remark to the rich young man.
Great video! I don't understand why everyone gives Bart Ehrman so much credit or respect, he's really a second rate scholar....I believe he just pushes his agenda to sell books and make money
@@UnashamedofJesus I found that my beliefs in a god were unwarranted once I began with an approach of skepticism (beginning inquiry with no presumption). I was in seminary at the time and this was 35+ years ago.
I think when Jesus responds “no one is good but God” he is saying it as an Ah ha moment, helping him connect the dots that because he is good and only God is good than he must be God. Jesus didn’t call himself God from the start and I think that was for two reasons, number one, he had to have time to teach and go from place to place and perform Miracles and if he was processing himself to be God than the Pharisees would have put him to death sooner and also he wanted the people and his followers to realize for themselves without him flat out telling them which is why he doesn’t deny it at all when they do realize.
Every good gift and perfect gift comes down from the father of lights.... is Jesus good or perfect? Is God the Father perfect, or is the good god someone else?
Every good gift and perfect gift comes down from the father of lights.... is Jesus good or perfect? Is God the Father perfect, or is the good god someone else?
Yes, they applied things to Jesus to make him the one that Yahweh chose to be the SUPER PROPHET/MESSIAH. Greater than all the others. The one that will be exalted to the right hand of Yahweh to rule as Coregent. Like King and Prince.
This was the only book that survived in full in my language. The priest burned all 500 copies of the full Bible because he didn't believe a native had the authority to translate. Needless to say I'm super invested in this video.
@@MichaelAChristian1 Holman Christian Standard Bible is probably the best modern English translation in my eyes. I took the time to go to school as a linguist, but used some of that time to get into bible translations and reading the Hebrew and Koine Greek. I'm not a scholar by any means, and there are far better biblical translators than I. Personally, I am very comfortable reading it in those two languages, but I'd rather have it in my own language and that's what I am working towards. If the KJV helps motivate you to read, then read the KJV, but please do not assume that everyone speaks English as to only recommend the KJV. As much as I appreciate your love, I don't want to hear about it, go and live how Jesus instructed, honour God and his creation more in what you do than what you say.
@@SteamShinobi I am not "assuming", you are speaking to me in ENGLISH right now? I don't see how that is being presumptous. Also translating direct from King James that we know is PERFECT is alot easier than learning a dead language hebrew and greek. Also, there are still people who speak greek today. I am letting you know the King James bible is the scriptures in english perfect and already COMPILED. I could use examples if you want to hear it. God help you in your studies.
Mark indicates Jesus' divinity by mentioning the miracles Jesus wrought by his own power (raising of the dead, driving out demons, demons acknowledging Jesus to be the son of God, curing of the paralytic, blind, feeding of the multitude by multiplying the bread, walking on water, calming the storm). In the final Chapter 16, Mark is emphatic about Jesus' divinity when he says thus: Mark 16:19: 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God.
No, He isn't; throughout Yeshua (Jesus) is declared only as the Son of God... not God, Himself. Mark 1:1 declares Him as Mark saw Him... as the literal "Son of God." Mark 1:11 has God, the Father, declaring from heaven that Jesus is His "beloved Son." Mark 1:24 has the "unclean spirit" declare Yeshua (Jesus) to be "the Holy One OF God" (not God, Himself/Themselves). Mark 3:11-12 More "unclean spirits" declare Yeshua to be the "Son of God" to which Yeshua orders them "not to make Him known." Mark 5:7 Another "unclean spirit" adjures Yeshua, "...Son of the Most High God! I implore you by God-do not torment me!" Were Yeshua, Himself, considered God... would the "unclean spirit" implore Yeshua "...by God"? Mark 8: 38 -- "... the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when HE COMES IN THE GLORY OF HIS FATHER with the holy angels.” (again indicative that Marks has Yeshua making great distinction between Himself and His Father: God.) Mark 9:7 -- "...and a voice came out of the cloud, saying , This is MY BELOVED SON; hear him." (And again, God speaking from Heaven acknowledging His Son... that is unless Yeshua is a ventriloquist and intentionally attempting to deceive.) Mark 10:18 -- "Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good EXCEPT GOD ALONE." Mark 14:61-62 -- 61 "Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the SON OF THE BLESSED ONE (God)?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER (God) and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (As commentaries reveal: "The expression the right hand of the Power is a circumlocution for referring to God. Such indirect references to God were common in 1st century Judaism out of reverence for the divine name." -- www.netbible.org/bible/Mark+14 ) Here and throughout Mark, in fact, we find Mark always having Yeshua refer to Himself as "the Son of Man," additionally indicating He also saw Himself as the SON and NOT the FATHER (God)... and giving many examples where both are manifested separately and distinctly from one another. Thus... no... Mark does NOT think of Yeshua as God; this was a later developed Christology becoming increasingly instituted and developed in later Gospels and, most especially, in Saul's Epistles... along with the concept of Yeshua as World "Savior," upon which concept the Church absolutely required to thus exercise its usurpation of ultimate power and authority to forgive "sins" and, thus, grant "eternal" "salvation" or "condemnation."
I read John about a month back and I finally understood this verse... John 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Why does calling God with an affectionate "abba" links toward the equalisation of one to God? After reading the Old Testament, I started to understand more of the historical and Jewish contexts... A son inherits all that his father has - and if he had several sons, they would be allotted each with their own share. However, John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his **only** Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Keyword: **only** I understand that your argument is against Mark seeing Jesus as God however, this is also to combat your further claims of Jesus as God being a Christology developed down the line when His "Beloved Disciple" clearly wrote in the very beginning; John 1:1-18 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and **the Word was God** . He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. **And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us** , and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. The Word was God; And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us
@mysotiras 09 ... Yeshua never said that. Mark never said that. Matthew never said that... nor did Luke. John implied it almost a century AFTER the fact...and in contradiction to the 3 Synoptic Gospels that came before. And then it took men living 300 years later to specifically say it in the Nicene Creed...and, of course, they were dead wrong. Yet, that's what you are so ironically accepting as bedrock "truth." Ironically and yet powerfully countering this... is John 17:21-23 ... in which Yeshua makes crystal clear exactly HOW He and His Father (God) are "one"... and how each of us can become "completely One" with both of them in the SAME WAY They are One... not in body or "essence"... but One in purpose, in spirit, in Righteousness: 21 that they will all be one, JUST AS YOU, FATHER, ARE IN ME AND I AM IN YOU, I pray that THEY WILL BE IN US, so that the world will believe that you sent me. 22 The glory you gave to me I have given to them, THAT THEY MAY BE ONE JUST AS WE ARE ONE- 23 I IN THEM AND YOU IN ME-that they MAY BE COMPLETELY ONE, Read that as many times as it takes. It's not rocket science. ;)
Read Restoring the Biblical Christ: Is Jesus God? This will go through history and the Bible and demonstrate how neither the Bible taught, nor did the earliest Christians believe that Jesus was God himself (nor did they hold to any Trinitarian doctrine). The common objections are all answered therein. “The first to speak in court sounds right- until the cross-examination begins.” (Proverbs 18:17 NLT) No cross-examination and people will go away thinking they are getting the truth, when they may in fact not be (according to the Scriptures). I do appreciate Mike’s work on the Bible (he has a lot of other biblical material outside of this subject). I also appreciate the fact that the debate between Mike and Bart is being promoted, but I am familiar with Dr. Ehrman’s books and debates and he simply does not cover everything as extensively as the book Restoring the Biblical Christ. Just read it with an honest heart and see what you think. Proverbs 18:13 KJV [13] He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
When you say none of the early Christians believed in the deity Christ, what do you do with the plethora of apostolic fathers and patristic sources that say the opposite of what you’re saying? 1. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117): For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit. 2. Ignatius (again): Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life. 3. Ignatius (again): For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father. 4. Ignatius (again): I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. 5. Ignatius (again): Wait expectantly for the one who is above time: the Eternal, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible; the Intangible, the Unsuffering, who for our sake suffered, who for our sake endured in every way. 6. Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155): Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth . . ., and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead. 7. Epistle of Barnabas (written c. 70-130): “If the Lord submitted to suffer for our souls, even though he is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make humankind according to our image and likeness,” how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the hands of humans?” 8. Justin Martyr (100-165): And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said. 9. Justin Martyr “Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.” 10. Justin Martyr Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ. 11. Justin Martyr The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin . . .” 12. Justin Martyr For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God. 13. Tatian (110-172): We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales when we announce that God was born in the form of man. 14. Melito of Sardis (d. c. 180): “He that hung up the earth in space was Himself hanged up; He that fixed the heavens was fixed with nails; He that bore up the earth was born up on a tree; the Lord of all was subjected to ignominy in a naked body - God put to death! . . . [I]n order that He might not be seen, the luminaries turned away, and the day became darkened-because they slew God, who hung naked on the tree. . . . This is He who made the heaven and the earth, and in the beginning, together with the Father, fashioned man; who was announced by means of the law and the prophets; who put on a bodily form in the Virgin; who was hanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the place of the dead, and ascended to the height of heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.” 15. Irenaeus of Lyon (120-202): “For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. . . . He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; - all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.” 16. Irenaeus (again): “He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons.” 17. Irenaeus (again): “Christ Jesus [is] our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father.” 18. Irenaeus (again): “Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.” 19. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): “This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man-the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal. . . . . . . The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends” 20. Tertullian (c. 160-225): For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.” 21. Tertullian “Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. . . . That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence-in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.” 22. Hippolytus (c. 170-235): “The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.” 23. Caius (c. 180-217) [in response to those who would question the deity of Christ] “Perhaps what they allege might be credible, did not the Holy Scriptures, in the first place, contradict them. And then, besides, there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote against the heathen in defense of the truth, and against the heresies of their time: I mean Justin and Miltiades, and Tatian and Clement, and many others, in all which divinity is ascribed to Christ. For who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus and Melito, and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man? All the psalms, too, and hymns of brethren, which have been written from the beginning by the faithful, celebrate Christ the Word of God, ascribing divinity to Him.” 24. Origen (c. 185-254): “Jesus Christ . . . in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was.” 25. Novatian of Rome (c. 210-280) “For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God Himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God”
Why do atheists always say they won’t follow God but if God is omniscient then he planned atheists to reject him, why don’t they wise up and accept Christ to go against Gods plan for them? Why are atheists not smart?Atheists should wise up and rebel against God by accepting him
According to Church tradition, Matthew, not Mark was the first that wrote a gospel. But it’s evident, that ALL the Synoptics (including Mark) , view Jesus as clearly divine. They portray Jesus do and say stuff that make no sense if Jesus isn’t viewed as divine.
No the tradition doesn't talk about the chronology of the Gospels, Matthew was placed first because it fits better with the jewish culture that is outlied in the Old Testament, so if you have a complete Bible it makes sense to read Matthew right after Malachia
Consider that maybe this was written from a more Hebrew perspective and marks realization that Jesus is the messiah the king of Israel and thereby the son of God and Mark recognizes that that means that God's plan is not to restore Israel in a physical way like the Jews believe then and many continue to believe now
I guess it all comes down to being more familiar with scripture than most of us might actually be, especially with regards to talking to the unbelievers who only have a casual, superficial understanding of scripture. If they studied the Old Testament and what it says about God, they would be able to see plenty of clear parallels with those passages in the New Testament when it talks about the Lord Jesus Christ. As timeless as the Bible is, it is also very much a product of its time, so it is important to read the Bible and study it as thoroughly as possible.
For the benefit of people who have not yet formed an opinion on this subject and for the benefit of those who have an opinion and are looking for better ways to explain it, I have some suggestions. The word, “god”, in English means something that is/someone who is worshiped. It is customary, in English, to capitalize the word when referring to the God of Moses. Worship is anything that indicates who has our highest allegiance. (Worship is not limited to what we do in church buildings or in formal or semiformal worship services.) The enemy of good blinded the minds of men, so that they looked upon God with fear; they thought of him as severe and unforgiving. Satan led men to conceive of God as a being whose chief attribute is stern justice,-one who is a severe judge, a harsh, exacting creditor. He pictured the creator as a being who is watching with jealous eye to discern the errors and mistakes of humans, that He may visit judgments upon us. The sacrifice of Jesus was not made in order to create in the Father’s heart a love for man, not to make him willing to save. No, no! “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son.” John 3:16. The Father loves us, not because of Jesus, but He provided Jesus because He loves us. Jesus is the daysman through whom he could pour out His infinite love upon a fallen world. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” II Corinthians 5:19. Because of the efforts of Satan (sadly aided and abetted by ostensibly Christian priests for more than a thousand years) to represent “God” and Jesus as working at cross purposes, it is important to maximize our efforts to make it clear what we mean about the nature of Jesus. Jesus referred to his heavenly Father as also being our Father. I reject the doctrine that Jesus is the result of a sexual act, either in a “spirit world” or on Earth. Instead I teach that Jesus has life in himself - original, unborrowed, underived. Because Jesus is the person “by whom” everything was made that was made, he is worthy of our worship - which means that it is appropriate to refer to him as “divine”, to refer to his “divinity” or to refer to him as “deity”. At the same time, I can understand how someone who is biblically illiterate might mis-understand the phrase “Jesus is God” to mean that Father and Son are the same person (a doctrine I entirely reject). If anyone is interested, my illustration doesn’t “prove” anything about the nature of “God” but I have a way to illustrate that something can be one and three at the same time. P.S. Many people’s working definition of “faith” is: believing something for which there is insufficient evidence - or none. Hebrew 11:1, however, offers an alternative to that popular definition of faith: Faith is the evidence of things not seen (things we can’t observe with our five senses or measure with scientific instruments). Please, if anyone reading this hasn’t already done so, obtain a Bible with marginal references and read the Gospels looking up the places in the Hebrew Bible that are quoted or referenced by the writers of the Gospels. Doing so will provide you with abundant evidence both of the divinity of Jesus and of the reliability of the biblical record.
@@mmss3199 It would be pointless to argue about this. If you prefer to think “NT writers heavily (mis) quote Hebrew Scripture”, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. On the other hand - for the benefit of other people who might be following this discussion thread: Before Jesus returned to heaven, the Gospels had not been compiled and most or all of the Epistles hadn’t even been written. The Hebrew Bible or a translation of the Hebrew Bible was “the Bible Jesus used”. By one estimate, Jesus quoted from it sixteen times and, in a couple of those cases, he quoted more than one scripture passage. That number (sixteen) doesn't include at least as many additional times he alluded to Bible characters and events without actually quoting scripture. And that doesn’t include the entire Road to Emmaus discourse (which isn’t recorded). If you include quotations and allusion by Jesus, Paul and other apostles, estimates run into the hundreds. In order to validate your claim that the Hebrew Bible was “heavily” misquoted, it would be necessary to list at least a dozen “misquotations” so we can decide for ourselves whether the meaning of the Hebrew Bible was being twisted or misrepresented.
When people, mostly Muslims say "Did Jesus say I am God!" But that is a phrase and trick question but there is no difference between me saying "I am married to that woman" oh but he never said "I am her Husband!!!!" therefore she is not his wife...well he said he was married to her yes but he never called himself her husband.
@@AstariahJW What? He almost never said he is the messiah, his actions showed it. He almost never said he was the Son of God, others said it. His actions show he is God. He himself says he wants his identity to be kept a secret.
That literary make no sense. Because they plenty verse in mark showing jesus divinity such as mark 14:61 Jesus claiming to be son of man of daniel 7:13-14 riding from clouds like God isaiah 19:1 psalm 104:1-2 mark 9:7 exodus 16:10 number 16:42 and receiving palach (worship) which was exclusive for God alone daniel 3:17 daniel 6:16 Ezra 7:24 Jesus controls weather just Like God Mark 4:39 genesis 8:1 psalm 107:25 Jonah 1:4 psalm 135:7 Jeremiah 51:16 Mark 2:8 Jesus able to see thoughts of man which only God can do since his all knowing. 1 kings 8:39 Mark 8:9 Jesus forgave the sins and heal the Paralyzed man but according psalm 103:3 god forgives and heals Mark 1:3 says John the Baptist was send to prepare the way the path for jesus quoting isaiah 40:3 but Isaiah says John the Baptist will prepare The way for LORD. Mark 1:8 Jesus is the one sending the Holy Ghost. But according Ezekiel 36:37 god is the one sending his spirit Mark 2:27 Jesus claims to be Lord over sabbath but according Leviticus 23:3 God owns the Sabbath rightfully him being Lord over sabbath. He worshipped just like god doing stuff which OT show only God doing. Identify him as God. But people wanna tell me mark depicts Jesus in low christological View smh!....
Honestly I think the debate that MUST happen is a rematch with James White. James White is a fantastic debater and I think a rematch with Bart Ehrman would be the best thing XD
@@jjw00dw-pw1tb What does the that have to do with the verse I gave Genesis 1:26 is not as what you think its means. humans are created from clay angels are created from light you think god is lower than his own creation? Also Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Allah created Adam in His image. And Prophet Muhammad did not believe any human is or was God.
If a mechanic doesn't mention that there's a transmission in the car, while talking about other components of a car, does that mean there's no transmission in it? Or does it just mean that something is a given and you're trying to address other things. If a person giving an intermediate piano lesson gives you sheet music and talks theory and tips for playing the piece, but they neglect to mention that the piano has keys, does it mean it doesn't have keys?
Believing one is actually God ...is not the same, as one actually going around spouting it off... like Shirley MacLaine did fo a awhile...if for no other reason, than as in Shirley's case it is not particularly effective tactic to gain followers...In the Synoptics (and John as well for that matter) Jesus tended to want folks come to that understanding themselves...and when they chose to do worship(they don't always) He never corrects them...as both holy men and angels do when others try to inappropriately worship and honor them...
There’s a better way of showing Jesus divinity in Galatians. 48AD pre-Jerusalem council and Paul says… “… Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” Gal 1:1b So we have a risen Christ OK cool in 48AD. Then Paul says… “… Christ who lives in me.” Gal 2:20b Sorry Christ lives in you? Surely not literally? Jesus would not have enough space to live inside you. So you mean, spiritually? But men cannot live in the hearts of other men, so could this Jesus Christ be more than a man? Paul then talks about… “… In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith…” Gal 3:26 And… “… Baptised into Christ have put on Christ.” Gal 3:27 So through the baptism we can be made Sons of God through Jesus? Men can do that? I didn’t know. And we can put on Christ? How do we “put on” a man? Then… “… Until Christ is formed in you!” Gal 4:19 Christ can form in us? OK… “… Persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit…” Gal 4:29 So Christ was born according to the Spirit interesting. It sounds as if this Christ is more than a man 🤔 even in the oldest extant Christian document.
13:14 I got some minor pushback to this... I think what Jesus was saying was "You call me good while under the impression i am a mere man" calling the man's perspective into question, He's not saying "i'm not good, i'm a man". I think there's little to no evidence that Jesus is saying "You're right to call me good, i'm God". Again, not saying He isn't God, just saying there's nothing to back this up.
If you say that Jesus did the works of God because he is God how do you understand this verse? “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know- Acts 2:22 ESV Peter tells his audience, God (not the man Jesus) did the works and wonders. Jesus was just the medium through which God worked. What is then? Was the apostle wrong? How do you interpret him?
Small correction: Matthew was most likely first, as several historical sources claim Matthew -> Mark -> Luke -> John. Eusebius states Matthew was written 41 AD, which is way earlier than Mark which was probably around 57-60 AD. The argument that because Mark is short it came first is frankly ridiculous. This is not the way text evolves. There was not first a skeleton with then random fantasy being added; no, the full text came first, then Mark as a summary of the key points.
@@hiriasbloodweaver8593 could you point me to one scholar?. Because I've searched and searched and what I've found is that while the gospel was being shared verbally, it was not written until after 100AD. I've seen that many of Paul letters were written before the gospels. Im a christian btw.
Now let's be honest - the canonical gospels decided upon by the early church don't include details of Jesus' childhood. There are gospels that do, but they're so outlandish that they couldn't be included as cannon, lest the world truly discover that it's mostly fiction written by the Greeks to entertain themselves.
Mark 1:8 John the baptist testifies that Jesus is the one who baptises in the Holy Spirit !!! Who is able to do that except God ? The prophet Joel prophecy chapter 2:28,29 Yahweh says “in the last days I will pour my Spirit on all flesh”
Biblical Unitarians - Anthony Buzzard - Dustin Smith - With great respect, I feel I know that the Biblical Unitarian position hasn’t even been taken into account or properly investigated and weighed with an unbiased perspective in this scenario. It’s not that John has a different Christology than Mark, and it’s not an evolving Christology. It’s all the same Christology. Each gospel faithfully presents Jesus as a man. A human being (miraculously born). One that God was with and empowered beyond belief. It is concerning to me that many of our arguments are always that “no man could say/do these things”. Obviously, no man has inherent power within themselves, we are not even the cause of our own births/lives. However God can do all things, and if he chooses to empower a man to bind Satan, to raise the dead, to forgive sins, to come/teach/rule in his name then that is God’s prerogative and innate power, who are we to object? 10:26 for example I think completely ignores the multiple statements in John where Jesus says “I have no power of myself, alone I can do nothing”. How can Licona say so confidently that it’s his own power without even considering statements like this? I’m sure there is an explain-away, but still. 11:00 - That is a good question, and I’m no scholar, but just compare that idea with how they present him as “King”, “Christ”, “Lord”, “Son”, “Son of man”, "Son of David". Is there any ambiguity? Do they only rely on sly “made you look” “double take” references? No, of course not. They give scripture, they show actions, and then they speak in plain words “he is the Christ, he is gods son”, “where is the King so that I may pay homage”, “Are you the Christ, the son of the living God? I am.” This is one of the issues, with the body of arguments like these and the whole question at stake, the writers could have easily said ANYWHERE, and not just once but multiple times, and completely unambiguously, that he is THE God, Yhwh, the one true God, the god of Abraham, etc etc. They don’t. They never do. Everybody just tries to infer it from the text. I believe Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul and the Angel Gabriel when they tell us page after page and practically beg us to believe that Jesus identity is the one true God’s “son”, “Christ”, and “King”. I really REALLY like, respect, admire and listen to Licona and inspiringphilosophy, however with all due respect the evidence given in this discussion was not strong and was equivalent to grasping at straws and gross misunderstanding. If I’m wrong I’m sorry for speaking so confidently but I am highly persuaded by what seems like clear evidence and information. I would encourage Licona and inspiringphilosophy to go and engage the material of Biblical Unitarians or engage in a discussion with some of their prominent members. Not a debate, life and Christianity isn’t about debates, but discussion, in the pursuit of truth seeking. Worst case scenario you show them the error of their ways, best case scenario they help you out of deception. Maybe a bit of both, but I hope you do engage them, you guys engage practically any and everything else anyways.
It’s a fact most of Muslims and atheists who adopted Ehrman’s assumptions regarding the book of Marks assumpted low Christology have never read the Gospel of Mark for themselves. It’s very obvious based on their ignorant comments most of them have never read the book of Mark themselves and it’s entirety but blindly believe everything that Ehrman’ says just because he’s a scholar.
Peter said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God". He said I will ask the. father and he will send the Holy spirit. If he were not God, he could not have asked for the things that he did from the father and do the miracles that he did." There is God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
I have questions about the debate. Will it be available on RU-vid at any point? I normally view videos at double speed, and usually when they're hosted on a website that's not an option.
I believe Dr Licona said something factually incorrect. He said Jesus is the one who didn’t pray in the Bible in order to bring someone back from the dead. This is factually wrong because a dead body came in contact with the bones of Elisha and was revived and no praying was involved (see 2 Kings 13:21).
They aren't biographies, they are theological stories written in biographical style. They are great literary works. I really enjoy each authors take on the story.
