วีดีโอ

I’m a bit confused. Are you saying I was hiding information in this video?

@reddapologetics no am saying that you don't inform them enough to lit them understand.time and all considerations

Got ya! Can you show me where that's happening in the video?

I have. We have thousands of Biblical manuscripts to compare and thousands of scholars to compare them. If somebody writes in their own understanding into a Bible text during translation, we know about it and can examine the differences. Translating a text into a new language can obviously involve challenges when trying to carry over the original meaning of words. But that’s why scholars study the original languages. My point in the video is that entire phrases would have to be mistranslated for us to have a misunderstanding of how the biblical writers looked at sin.

@reddapologetics the people don't see it or hear it and don't have a theological dictionary. They just learn it from there pastors. In babtist churches they don't hear anything about the spirit acknowledgement or no babtism at all just go into the water and you are saved.all the different words used for god etc. Translate or don't etc.

Sure. I think churches should be teaching from the Bible, good theology, church history, etc. I also think the people should be intentional about learning on their own time. Part of why I make these videos is to be a learning resource for those who want to interact with others about their faith. There are plenty of resources out there. People just have to willing.

Right, I wasn't saying that we have the original manuscripts. With the Old Testament we are generally working with things like the Masoretic text, many quotations from the New Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls (which contained a copy of Isaiah that was basically identical to the earliest copy we possessed, despite a nearly 1,000 year leap backwards in time), and so on. With the New Testament we have various streams of manuscripts going out from the early church which has left us with a bunch of early fragments which date as far back as the 2nd century, and then texts like Codex Sinaiticus (which contains most of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament) dating to the 4th Century. Ultimately with Old Testament, I like to look at Jesus' view of the Jewish scriptures, which was that he took for granted that it was the words of God and held people accountable to them (one example: Matthew 22:31-32). If you don't think he's the prophesied messiah, or that we can't know what Jesus said, or that the Old Testament has been radically altered since the 1st century, that will probably mean nothing to you. But if you think the gospel accounts can be trusted, it's pretty amazing.

I don't think that was their point. I think the point was that the process of translation and differences in culture causes us to see terms like sin differently. My response involved going back to Biblical statements about sin which are translated from the original language to make the point that these ideas about sin did not develop over time. And about the Bible being badly written, I completely disagree. It self authenticates and it's nature points to divine authorship. It’s consistency of teaching about things like who God is, salvation, and prophecy is wonderfully consistent. Which is not what you would expect from a library of books written by around 40 authors over 1,500 years. Thanks for the comment! God bless! :)

Christians believe that God has a beautiful design for marriage and sexuality which involves a man and a woman together in marriage. And that we, as His creation, don't get to make up our own definition. When we do, we offend a Holy God and cause chaos in our own lives. You may or may not believe this, but Christians are acting out of love for both God and their neighbor by being honest with them about God's design. Christians don't condemn anyone. We are simply called to love our neighbor which involves telling the truth. With that said, some who claim the name of Christ will act out of hate, which is never acceptable. But that's not all of us. God bless! :)

I appreciate that! I'm glad you enjoyed it. God bless! :)

In this video I was only choosing a few verses that point to how the writers (in this case, Paul) viewed the concept of sin at the time of writing his letters. But also, sin leading to death and sin causing us to fall short of God's glory are absolutely definitional statements about sin. The rest of his letters and the rest of the Biblical texts flesh things out more to give us a consistent and robust definition. But my point was that they had an understanding of sin that was more than merely missing the mark for yourself. So Rainn's assertion that the idea of sin being more than that came about by some other means such as translation, doesn't make sense when the Bible already contained rich teaching on the subject before anyone ever translated the texts. And the conversation of the coherence and consistency of the Bible is one I've greatly enjoyed studying. And one that could make this comment thread as long as the Bible haha. I'm happy to discuss specifics if you like. But whenever I do study this topic, I only find more consistency. God bless! I appreciate the comment. :)

Yes there is a gap between the time of the original manuscripts and the dating of the existing manuscripts that we possess, and yes the manuscript tradition involves copies of copies. However, with the Bible, we have very early manuscript evidence in comparison to other historical writings. And, as you said, we have various uncontrolled streams of manuscripts going into different parts of the world that we can compare as we look for inconsistencies. This is a good thing! We do find inconsistencies (which would be expected), but the vast majority of them are insignificant things like scribal errors. Where there are considerable differences, as you said, we 2024 folks have the privilege of being able to compare the various streams of manuscript evidence to make an assessment. The question then becomes: Did the dispersed and persecuted early church, who valued God's word as divinely inspired, create tremendous changes in the earliest manuscripts which we no longer possess that we would miss today? I see no reason to assume that. We also have findings like the Dead Sea Scrolls which contained the Isaiah Scroll, which was a 1,000 year leap backwards from the next earliest copy of Isaiah that we possessed when they were found. They contained a basically identical copy of Isaiah to the next earliest one, which makes the point that the passage of time doesn't automatically mean that massive changes will be made to a text. Thanks for the comment! God bless! :)

"i dont want to listent to what someone says about my belief if they arent already indoctrinated and emotionally invested in holding the same belief i do" if you want to actually understand yourself, your beliefs, and your reality, its wise to absorb different perspectives and learn to see the world through eyes other than your own.

@@krangitebacon5039Yeah right, what an arrogant comment that was.

While I of course disagree with their perspective and think it's deceptive, I think we can learn a lot from it as a means to test the consistency of our own beliefs. And to know how to interact with others who hold these beliefs for the sake of the gospel. God bless!

​@@reddapologetics With all due respect, I was raised atheist. And Bahai'i is essentially an attempt at ecumenism. Both of which we've been inundated with our whole lives. We've heard atheists' arguments ad nauseum. Its time to simply move on and begin retaking the culture from them. As for Bahai'i, they reject the Gospel and have no competing revelation or historicity, and so I don't take them very seriously. Of course dialog is a necessity, especially if we are to convert others to the faith. But this culture of passive learning and blanket acceptance of others' ideas has allowed our culture to stagnate and decay, meanwhile people know very little about what the Church or her Scriptures have to say.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. And you won’t hear me saying that we should try to find middle ground with those who reject God’s truth so we can dance around the fire together. We must call out falsehood inside and outside of the church. However, we also can’t expect to have a meaningful conversation with anyone and demonstrate inconsistencies if we don’t take the time to understand they’re position. Paul tells us to gently instruct our opponents in the hopes that they will come to repentance. That’s what I aim for. God bless! :)

That first half is a big appeal to authority. You see countless examples of unbiased atheists but 0 religious people who are unbiased? That sounds like a bias! He used one meme, at the end of the video. I think it was quite a reasonable rebuttle that relied on solid referencing, not conjecture etc. Hope you are doing okay!

Everyone has a bias. That's why we use critical thought to test our ideas. And I find your last paragraph interesting because I spent the entire video explaining why their perspective on the subject is incoherent by addressing their ideas directly using, as @piershammond7164 points out, various on-screen source references and illustrations. I used a few cutaways to either make the video more engaging, or in the case of The Office cutaway to make my point about authorities in a humorous/relevant way. I think it's funny that Rainn was literally in the clip. Good times! I didn't think that would be the point of contention in the video. 😂 Thanks for the comment! God bless!

I'm glad you enjoyed it! Thank you so much. :)

I've followed Jordan closely for years. I have a great deal of love and respect for him. I agree, he's a brilliant man with a lot of wisdom. And even when speaking about the Bible he makes a lot of moral claims that I agree with. But if you listen to the video, I'm engaging his ideas directly and my whole point is that he isn't accepting what the gospel accounts are actually claiming to be, and that he's importing his own ideas into the text. Alex, another brilliant fellow, was pressing him on some the same issues that I brought up regarding his rejection of the historical narrative. Why is it appropriate to only engage with Jordan's ideas in those specific contexts when the issue is that he is importing meaning into the texts that was never intended? And right, God doesn’t need me to defend Him. But I am called to contend for the faith while hoping that God changes hearts. Thanks for the comment and God bless!

I think Jordan very much deploys this philosophy when looking at the Bible. While empiricism can be a useful tool, I don't accept that it must utilized to determine what is true especially if we are talking about historical analysis. It's just one approach. And I think that approach, when taken too far, can ultimately lead people to require an extremely specific set of evidences while missing many others. Thanks for the comment and God bless!

I think this is a very thin and dangerous line to try to walk. Consider 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. I do think there is much wisdom and rich framework of analysis by which the bible can be read, but ultimately as followers of Christ our message of the good news of the gospel is not that complicated, and meant to be very tangible. The gospels themselves were not written in clever, high-level language or style but rather by common people for common people. In some ways making lofty appeals to people's desire for intellectual prowess misses the point; these things are not helpful for saving your soul, they are not a necessary prerequisite of repentance.

Thank you so much for the kind words! I'm glad you enjoyed it. :)

@ of course bro. God bless.

@@declanl3514 Same to you!

Which video? The one bootlegged and peppered with cuck content.

Amen! :)

In that case Muslims must be holding the one and only true religion, because not just a few of the direct followers of their prophet, but to this day 100s of them blow themselves up believing that would qualify them for heaven instantly and it would be even harder to believe they'd all do that for a myth.

@@thomasg627you make a great point, but.. The followers of Jesus walked with Him, saw Him raise people from the dead, heal the blind, sick, and lame, listened to His moral teachings etc.. You cannot say a Muslim has had the experiences such as these. Obviously people may be indoctrinated to believe something and that causes them to believe enough to be willing to die for the cause, but… Jesus’ disciples were a unique case. No other God has come down in the flesh.

Alot of Muslims, buddhists, Hindus, Jews have been killed.

@@declanl3514 No, there never were any direct followers of the son of a god who cannot exist. I won't repeat it here, just read my other comment in here starting with "Cmon, there never was a historical Jesus."

Hello! I think it’s quite the leap to determine that there was never a historical Jesus based on your assertions here. But I would also disagree with your assessment. I think it’s more like, there is plenty of debate about this rather complex issue of the census and which leaders were in power based on the Biblical texts and other historical data (with Josephus being a big part of the conversation). From my studying it definitely isn’t obvious that Luke got the details wrong, or that there was no census at that time. And I think we can actually have a lot of confidence in Luke’s ability to write accurately about the events. Also, I see no reason to assume Luke is guilty of contriving the census narrative due to bad motives. That strikes me as a defamatory theory that is based on the belief that Luke got the details wrong due to a desire on his part to intentionally deceive people into believing a prophecy had been fulfilled. What would he have gained by creating this false narrative? Was he and the other writers making all of this up (in an impressively consistent manner)? Or did he just believe Jesus was the messiah and had to connect imaginary dots for other people? And yes, people call Jesus different things for different reasons. But Jesus being called Jesus of Nazareth historically has nothing to do with where He was born. The same texts that say He was born in Bethlehem refer to Him as Jesus of Nazareth. That was His hometown. I appreciate the comment! God bless!

The whole case is based on the belief that the disciples were truthful. You can find a few modern cults in which the disciples would tell you similar things. Just because people say something doesn't make it true. They might even believe it with all their hearts, but that doesn't make it true.

@@reddapologetics There is no leap, because I'm starting way below, on the very basis of the Abrahamic god. All knowing and all powerful are mutually exclusive, you cannot know what will happen tomorrow and at the same time have the power to change what will happen tomorrow, because changing anything would render your knowledge of tomorrow false. Therefore the Abrahamic god cannot exist, and there is no leap whatsoever in concluding there never was a historical Jesus. Jesus was a very common name 2000 years ago and there were lots and lots of wandering priests around, meaning there were almost for certain many wandering priests named Jesus, all inventing wild stories to gather listeners and get money from them, where some of these stories may have been exaggerated through mouth to mouth forwarding over decades until the exaggerations reached the point where the forwarders declared it all real including real witnesses and all of the Jesuses to be the same person, but still none of these were true, because the god all of this is based on cannot exist. If that's not enough, we do not know who Luke was nor when or where he lived, in fact all of the gospels have been written by anonymous authors, trusting what they have written equals finding a few 100 pages ripped out of the Harry Potter books and believing that Harry Potter was real based on the fact there is a King's Cross Station in London. If that's still not enough, as I said above, all of the stories around his birth have been proven false to an extent that even biblical scholars call him "Jesus of Nazareth" by now, how much more does it take to know that all the other stories told about him are all false as well?

It's obviously that you don't respect the opinions of modern day historians.

​@@sumeetsingh3663 No, I'm just not assuming that they are guilty without warrant. And there's no reason good to assume they made these things up. But you're right, people lie all the time. We should test everything. That's why I focus on the New Testament writings and the facts surrounding them to make the point that these are trustworthy historical accounts. And the nature of the Bible as a whole points to it being the word of God.

I appreciate you! I'm glad you enjoyed it. :)

you just embarrassed yourself

​@@loledssdafd3429 I'm not so sure about that. There are more funny things described in that book. :) Anyway Leviticus 19:27 Depending which version you use, it may vary a bit.

@@Daeva83B Let me make this easy for you, am i a jew?

@@loledssdafd3429 I don't know, you tell me. But it wouldn't matter anyway, the 3 main monotheistic religions are related anyway. Sharing the same sources/scriptures. One other common misconception is that the bible claims it's around 6000 years old. Or lets talk about Adam and Eve, if you would understand a bit of how biology work, you would also know that making babies with your sibling is a bad idea. Yet according to the bible, Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans. If this story was true, the 3rd generation would not be able to survive and suffer from some serious genetic disorders. I just think it's funny, that so many people are convinced over their own religion, yet the 'holy' book, the gospels, the scriptures contain funny mistakes, what i wouldn't expect from an almighty/all-knowing god. Since many things are proven wrong, how come so many people still have blind faith in it. I find it fascinating.

@@Daeva83B so you talk about a law you don’t understand ? Great I can tell you that that law does not apply to Christian’s. The Bible doesn’t claim the earth is 6000 years old its just an assumption by creationists… Even if Adam and Eve wasn’t true the same issue would emerge so maybe you learn something about evolution first. Because funnily enough speciation and mutations do cause that they are from time to time not compatible :) So indeed at some point there were the first 2 humans. You haven’t proven anything wrong Ofcourse since you can’t prove anything wrong in the first place.

What later translations are you referring to? Later translations added terms like “Son of Man” to the Gospels? And how is my argument hearsay? I’m reading a historical document and explaining how the Jewish people would have viewed Jesus’ claims about Himself.

@@reddapologetics Every translation that isn't in the original Hebrew or Greek text. And by the way, the first Paul, the first book to be written, was written about 80 years after the death of Jesus, therefore, it is hearsay, nobody who "saw" Jesus wrote any part of the bible.

Why is this an issue of translation?

Translation can have a significant impact on the meaning of a my given passage in a text, especially if you’re doing a deep analysis on literary parallels. For example, in Isaiah 7:14 (ESV): “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” In the original Hebrew, the word used would only ever mean “young woman”. The word “virgin” is used in most English translations because of the Greek translation in the Septuagint which can mean “young woman” or “virgin”. This small word choice has a very strong impact on biblical interpretation. I don’t know whether you know another language than English, but a lot of very common words can also have very specific connotations which don’t carry over well in translation. Finally, the differences in the details in early manuscripts means that you can’t get all your text from one place. You need to have a strong understanding of the language of the manuscripts to be able to read several of them, determine what the most conservative reading of all of them is, and come to meaningful conclusions about the meaning behind different readings.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said here. I agree that studying the original languages is a wonderful thing to do. While I'm certainly no Greek scholar, I study and reference the language routinely. I just don't think the cited verses or my arguments necessarily demand a discussion of word meanings, variants, or textual criticism. I'm not aware of any disputes over phrases like "Son of Man" or "Lord of the Sabbath". Happy to hear your POV! In contrast, when interacting with Jehovah's Witnesses, my discussions routinely involve referencing the original languages because translational issues are often the point. For me, the question is: What does it mean when Jesus describes Himself with these various terms and phrases, and how would His Jewish audience have understood them based on their knowledge of the Old Testament?

Didn't read past the 1st line because it was quite silly. But, I forgive you for the sin of silliness and this implies I am god.

@ you can say it all u want , Jesus healed ppl like this. I really don’t get ur statement

@@infamousmarkou4928 you said if someone says "ur sins are forgiven" it implies they're a god. I forgave your sin, therefore this implies I'm a god.

@ bro… your missing a huge point. Context clues is huge part of literature u should look it up sometime. You and I can say this all we want but what does it mean if we call ourselves a teacher and more than a prophet. What does it mean if we are Jewish and it’s taboo to say this. The Jewish leaders knew exactly what Jesus was implying by this. Why didn’t he correct them.

@@infamousmarkou4928 none of this addresses my point, it looks like it's sailed high above you tbh. Oh well.

There are way to many Verses that destroy Ehrmans position

@loledssdafd3429 Show them, conditions: - From synoptic; - With no need of theological development to understand; - No allegories using modern OT translations; - That says Jesus IS God the Fathe, not the he is divinenly authoritative somehow

@@Preulius Your position is extremely disingenuous. -Barts whole position that it was a later invention falls apart with the Letters of Paul. -Asking in a book with tons of allegory connections between old and new testament to not use them is quite funny. -No Jesus is not God the father that's why he wouldn't claim to be the father? and even with these restrictions you end up in verses like: 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son with you I am well pleased.” 35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy the Son of God.

@@Matze1988ok You claim that Bart's position is extremely disingenuous, suggesting he argues that the idea of Jesus as God was a later invention. But as far as I understand, that's not exactly what he says. Bart actually argues that Jesus never claimed to be God, nor is he directly described as God in the Synoptic Gospels. You could interpret this as an invention in the Gospel of John, or, from an academic or agnostic perspective, consider that John-being the latest gospel-reflects a mythic development that evolved over decades, particularly under the influence of Paul’s letters. Paul’s letters are central to understanding this development, and Barth discusses this in How Jesus Became God, especially regarding the authentic letters. Bart acknowledges that, although Paul hints that Jesus is exalted to a level close to God the Father, he never outright says Jesus is God. Instead, Paul states that God raised Jesus and gave him his name, but he doesn’t claim Jesus was always God. So, while you can interpret Paul’s words in different ways, they don't directly equate Jesus with God.

@@Matze1988ok I don’t understand how you can interpret this verse as saying Jesus is God. To me, it seems quite the opposite. Simon Peter says, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God,’ and Jesus replies, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.’ First of all, Peter calls Jesus the Messiah and the Son of the Living God, but this doesn’t equate him with God. Being the Messiah doesn’t necessarily mean being God, nor does being the Son of God. You’re projecting the doctrine of the Trinity onto a text that isn’t explicitly Trinitarian. This doctrine was established centuries after these texts were written, so reading it into this verse isn’t accurate. I’ll say it again: you Christians often approach the Synoptic Gospels with a false dichotomy, assuming that if Jesus isn’t portrayed as just a prophet or teacher, then he must be worshipped as God. This interpretation might hint at something more, but you can’t definitively say the text is calling Jesus God. John’s Gospel is different. It’s clear from the start, with statements like, ‘Before Abraham was, I am,’ and ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.’ These verses more directly equate Jesus with God. In the Synoptic Gospels, though, applying that same logic doesn’t align with the text.

What does Matthew 28:19 mean?

@reddapologetics the fact that you can ask that question is answer enough for this type of discussion. like, either he is the all powerful, all knowing god, who is also not the author of confusion....or it is something else. But if you read in a book inspired by the most high god, in a dozen places, where a character is called 1 thing...but you have to do mental gymnasitcs to infer him being something else...then maybe a couple of your premisies are in conflicts.

@@stupidrules1000 I notice you didn't answer my question. The verse means something, right? Or is it just incoherent? And there are no mental gymnastics in making the point that phrases like Son of Man, Messiah, coming on the clouds, Lord of the Sabbath, etc. would have had a pretty profound meaning to the Jewish people Jesus was talking to.

@@reddapologetics Yeah...and either god is all powerful, all knowing AND wants us to know him in a particular way...or he is not, and or does not. So, the idea that what he said would have specific meaning to the jews, is somewhat immaterial IF he knew that you and I, two non-jews, living almost 2000 years later (I'm assuming you are not jewish, I don't mean offense either way), were going to receive this message, and it could not be clear to either of us. (and if your claim is that it IS clear...then go back and read my response). So either he did not know what would be clear...or he doesn't want it to be clear. But also....what one verse, referencing a task given by an apocolyptic preacher 2000 years ago, could possibly be interpreted to mean is largely immaterial. Why? Because of all of the other conflicting statements. Is he the son of god or something else? Did he become god's son, or was it something else? is he at the right seat of power, or somewher else? is he at the right hand of the father, or somewhere else? If you need to suspend the good sense that god gave you, in order to adopt a theology that men are pushing on you, maybe one should reconsider at least one of these things (and maybe not the one you use every day in all other circumstances). But also....Matthew doesn't address the points I made in my original comment about the arguments you make in your video. Try addreasing those first, and then lets get to vague inferences using linguistc nuances of largely illeterate people through multiple language translations (some of which do not exist any longer) living 6,000 miles away almost 2000 years ago. And then filter that through the lense of cultural differences and then further through the lense of cultural evolution. I would wager that there are parts of this country that you could go to, and observe an entire conversation, and have no idea what the people you were listening to were actually saying. And they speak the same language as you, in the same country, contemporaneously. (and that is in a circumstance where you can actually understand the words...there are places you could go where you might not even recognize that you are speaking the same language) But, you're going to infer meaning and intent from the words of the bible that are not explicit? And so to answer your question about matthew....it doesn't mean anything. Not the way YOU are using it. Once you go down the road of saying ancient words have a meaning other than what the words mean...then you can insert almost any world view into almost any set of words, and that meaning is just as valid as anyone else's. No matter what they are saying. And that is the problem with your arguments, as I see them.

Yes! I’ve been busy and blessed. Just got back to you guys today. Same to you! :)

@ Just read your message on the email. Glad you and the fam doing good James! I’m ready to have the 2nd part of our discussion. The scriptures we never got to when good for you.

​@@NickHawaii Good idea! I'll look at the calendar and we can stay in touch!

So are you taking a single phrase that Jesus quoted from Psalm 22 while on the cross and rejecting everything I just said in this video about his divine authority?

you forgot that there is a son and a father. that what happens when a lot of people insist that the Father and the Son are one and the same. Xhristianity becomes a laughingstock of the world because a certain group misunderstood some verses in the bible abd perpetuate that mistake. to admit to their mistake means their church will fall flat on its face.

⁠​⁠​⁠@@arnelnaca702 What did I say to make you think that I believe the Father and Son are the same person? I’m a trinitarian.

@@reddapologetics I guess for me, the statements in the video such as "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with him, then He will sit on His glorious throne" do seem to be in conflict with the quote from Psalm 22 that @christasimon9716 provided (albeit their version is edited humorously). So there *are* statements throughout the book that either side of this debate can refer to in support of their argument. And this to me is always the primary problem with the idea of the bible and an all-powerful god who wrote or inspired it... Why write a book in a dead language with no original copies surviving. Like if I had the most important message for my son, and I'm able to deliver the message any way I choose, why on earth would I choose this way of conveying the message? It would be like putting it on a floppy disk in an outdated code, or something like that.

Knieshia! Much appreciated! And amen! :)

Hi Knieshia. Who made Jesus the Messianic Lord? (Acts 2:36)

@@reddapologetics Hi James, you mentioned Jesus was worshipped. The example you gave didn’t demand what you think. PROSKUNEO was given to Jesus by his disciples and others but it doesn’t mean he has to be God. There are so many examples of others receiving it in scripture in the OT, NT and LXX. You need to inform those listening of the full scriptural facts please.

@@reddapologetics Yes “name” is singular at Matthew 28:19. The fact that the word “name” is singular is really irrelevant. This can be seen by citing examples like Genesis 48:16 which reads, “in the NAME of my fathers Abraham and Isaac.” (King James Version) Are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob one individual or being? Doesn’t have to mean what you presented.

@NickHawaii Hello Nick. I have a question. How come your questions are only ever to attack Jesus as God? I never see you talking about anything else except to attack Jesus. You never give a comment to either James nor I about any other thing we say? Just making sure you aim at Jesus is God..? I suggest something, just make sure you understand what you're doing when you constant jab another believer. I say this kindly, but understand what you're doing to Gods children and God Himself when you do this. Jesus is God! You'll see, hopefully on this side rather than the latter.

@ErwinMager I respect that now take the same logic to your spearheads of your church and have them explain to you why Christiandom took the lead in persecution of jehovah witnesses in the last 125 yrs,,,go head im waiting?????

NO, don't say that!

@ErwinMager sir that text doesn't remove all the other text that prove YAWEH is not Jesus,,,,, it's 6 to one...... for every text that Trinity folks say proves the Trinity there are six that show its a lie. The most important thing we all need to reject the Trinity is God's spirit then be brave and accept the Bible truth AND NOT BE A COWERD. And follow the crowd!!!!!

@ErwinMager in done take care peace and love in Jesus!!!!!

Holman Christian Standard Bible reads: So He became higher in rank than the angels, just as the name He inherited is superior to theirs.-Hebrews 1:4 Jehovah God, doesn't need a promotion, to a superior position, to be superior to the angels, because he already exists ..alone..as the Most High-Psalm 83: 18. Jesus was rewarded to a superior rank, due to his earthly service ,as the Son of Man-an off spring of King David in the flesh...not a God Man. He emptied himself of his angelic divinity to be born as a baby on earth, " He was made a little lower than the angels."- Hebrews 2: 7. Therefore, he came from the catergory of angels. The Son of God, was chosen and sent, from the catergory of angelic sons of God, but he's now exalted above his companions, due to his earthly service! This Jesus, God made both lord and christ- Acts 2: 35. Praised be, the God and Father of our lord ( means master.) Jesus Christ.- 2 Corinthians 1: 3. Christian regards.

Jesus is the means by which God can be with His Creation. God is the source, Jesus is the vessel. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of *God gives it light* , and the *Lamb is its lamp* . Revelation 21:23 Jesus said, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. John 14:9

@@alcedo_kf : Please read Hebrews 1:2, Jesus was the means of God speaking with humans finally. Any Envoy could say. '"Listen to me. You would know who SENT ME." That is because as Jesus stated: John 12:. 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who SENT ME has himself given me a commandment about WHAT TO SAY and what to speak. These are called SPOKESPERSONS. Jesus spoke God's words. Not his own.

@@tongakhan230 One day, you will do some thinking for yourself and not just copy and paste the thoughts of the men of watchtower.

@@alcedo_kf : I quoted the Bible. If the Bible is the WT thoughts, that would prove that JWs are Jesus' genuine disciples who rely on the Bible. Others who claim they are Christian have no clue what they believe. Which would explain the thousands of sects. Care to explain a Bible based question if I ask?

@@ErwinMager : HERESY noun belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine. "Huss was burned for heresy" Have Christians ever burned anyone? The majority are on the road to destruction - Jesus at Matthew 7:13. Those on the road to life are FEW. Enter JWs. Matthew 7:14.