Since I'm knee high to a duck, the Catholic Church had always told me that Yahweh meant, "I am" in Hebrew. I guess I shouldn't be surprised how ignorant those are at the "center of Christs' teachings".
TBF Jesus did say that Peter was an idiot on multiple occasions (Matthew 16:22, Matthew 18:3, Mark 10:13 to name a few). Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the church he allegedly was the foundation for is way off the path Jesus sent him on.
““Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.” Matthew 7:13 NET
@user-cw3ox2nn5t could you advertise that you don't care about the accuracy of the scriptures you peddle a little louder, please? I don't think the choir boys heard you. Like, did you even watch the video? It ONLY works in Greek, which was later adopted into the English. Jesus did not speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic. The belief is a product of misunderstanding men, not deity. You worship the wordplay of men if you continue that way.
@user-cw3ox2nn5t the old testament was written in Hebrew an Matthew (Not the one in the Bible) was written in Hebrew, but everything else, including the letters of Paul are in Greek. There are no Hebrew copies of the New Testament the weren't later translated from Greek to Hebrew. It is important to understand this, because when you quote an English Bible, you're not actually quoting scripture, you're quoting an approximation. Even "God breathed" didn't mean what it means to you, to Paul and Dan has a video on that as well. You are viewing scripture with modern lenses and thus have created a different religion than Jesus would have believed. Not all of it, but I would argue it is more important to know how men changed the Bible so you can correct that "appoximation" to be as close to the source as possible.
@user-cw3ox2nn5t you're just repeating more English verses as though everything I say is lost to you. I'd also like to point out that it is in no way skeptics trying to get rid of the Old Testament, that's Christians trying to get rid of it because they believe in a New Covenant. I also trust John the least of all the gospel writers, it is clear he view Jesus in a different way than the other three gospel writers who are more concerned with the politics surrounding Jesus. I think Christians should be thankful for skeptics because we hold your feet to the fire on the topic of literary accuracy. You'd all believe whatever you want to if not for detractors and that's evident by how many ways there are to worship Jesus.
The Tetragrammaton is the essential four-letter Name of God, which was uttered only by the Jewish priests at certain points of their service in the Holy Temple of Jerusalem. Beyond this prescribed usage one is not allowed to pronounce this Name as it is written, thus also known as "the ineffable Name." In sacred service, as public Torah-readings, it is substituted by the Name Ado-nai, and in vernacular speech and writing by the Hebrew term HaShem (lit. "the Name"), which is also the general non-sacred substitution for the term "God."
Hi Dan. I'd appreciate if you would discuss the accuracy of Jesus’ words in the Bible since it appears that many years passed before they were documented. I would have trouble accurately writing down a word for word conversation I had yesterday! :)
He sort of mentions it here - the Gospels aren’t strictly historical-biographical accounts, but rather intentional theological collections or reconstructions of his teachings. This is clearest in the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the Gospels are in Greek - we are already receiving translations, which are by necessity interpretive.
@@Cornelius135 Thanks, and good point and I agree. It may have been just me, but it feels as though its preached as though it's a verbatim transcript, and that caveat isn't really discussed. Anyway, appreciate your response and insight!
@ronlahusen7101 If you want some compelling reasons the gospels are not eyewitness accounts, then read below. --------------------------------------------------------- *The Matthean Nativity* *The penchant for the New Testament gospels to convey narrative details beyond the scope of plausible eyewitness knowledge goes all the way back to the Nativity story.* Matthew writes that upon Jesus’ birth, King Herod ***secretly summoned foreigners called Magi traveling from the East to “find out from them the exact time the [Bethlehem] star appeared”*** (Matt. 2:7).[4][5] Matthew had knowledge of other exclusive details including Herod’s verbatim instructions to the Magi to search for the residence of Jesus and to report back to Herod the child’s exact location. Somehow Matthew also knew that upon the Magi’s departure from Bethlehem, they were then warned in a dream to distrust Herod and to avoid the king by taking an alternate route back to their home country. Joseph himself was ostensibly unaware of all these background details and became alerted to Herod’s nefarious interest in Jesus only after Joseph, too, was subsequently warned in a dream to leave Bethlehem with his family and flee to Egypt. (Matt. 2:8-12) ***How exactly did Matthew know these secret dealings between King Herod and the Magi?*** We read details only an omniscient narrator could know - the mental state and agitation of King Herod, the secret conversations between Herod and the Magi, and Matthew even knows about the Magi’s clairvoyant dream and their detoured travel route back to their home country east of the Tigris River. *Pontius Pilate, the Chief Priests, and Pharisees* *Example #1:* Matthew reports details of a ***private conversation*** between Pilate and the Pharisees the day after the death of Jesus, ***while all the disciples were hidden out of sight from authorities.*** In Matthew 27:62-65 we find the following: “The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.” ***On what basis is Matthew providing us with these details? He certainly was no witness to this discussion, nor were any of the other disciples.*** Nowhere does Matthew provide his basis of knowledge for this information which derived directly from Jesus’ enemies. Matthew just somehow knows. *Example #2:* Mark’s gospel purports to know what Jesus’ enemies (the scribes and chief priests) said ***among themselves in closed company*** when they were ***“scheming secretly to arrest Jesus and to have him killed.”*** (Mark 14:1-2). *Example #3:* The gospel writers relate yet another ***private conversation,*** this time between the High Priest Caiaphas and his chief priest regarding their plot to kill Jesus. Matthew reports that they ***secretly schemed to have Jesus arrested, saying amongst themselves*** “but not during the Passover festival. . . or there may be a riot among the people.” ***Matthew is inexplicably privy to this private strategic discussion between two of Judea’s highest ranking religious officials*** (Matt. 26:3-5). In the same way, the gospels purport to know the specific details of another clandestine conversation between Judas Iscariot and the chief priests down to the dollar amount that Judas agreed upon to enact his betrayal. *The Centurion at the Cross* In another example of third-person omniscient narration, Mark reports that upon the death of Jesus on the cross, the Gentile centurion who stood facing Jesus confessed “Truly this was the son of God.” ***But as history, how could Mark have known those words? None of the disciples were present with the centurion. Each of the Synoptic gospels emphasize that Jesus’ disciples fled and deserted him upon his arrest to remain hidden out of sight, and even the women looked “from afar off.”*** (Mk. 15:40) *John the Baptist and Herod* Consider also the scene of John the Baptist and Herod the tetrarch. ***The authors of Mark and Matthew reported the interaction between John the Baptist and Herod while John was imprisoned in the private confines of Herod’s quarters. Similarly, and equally perplexing, the Gospel of Mark even purports to know of a conversation between Herod’s wife and his daughter Salome regarding the fate of John the Baptist. How did the writer come to know such exclusive details? Once again, none of the disciples were present for these events.*** And unlike other ancient historical writings from that time, the gospel writers fail to provide any plausible source or circumstance for such knowledge. *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
@@ronlahusen7101you might consider also, then, that the clarification presents its own assumptions as facts - that the character of Jesus in the NT is based on a specific, Aramaic-speaking human who lived a material existence.
The biggest problem with fundamentalists is that they just don’t understand the difference between what Jesus might have said, and what the gospel authors have him say
They think the gospels are like a transcribed video tape of Jesus. Sadly, because that’s how they are portrayed when they are read to them by the pastors of their churches.
This is total irrational bullsh*t. What does "might have said" even mean, who knows what Jesus "might have said"? I suppose that would be you would it?
Heh, I remember reading a book a long time ago that claimed that "I Am That I Am", was basically the ancient Israelite version of "Mind Your Own Business"! Supposedly, Moses (who is described elsewhere as knowing the secrets of Egyptian magic) asked the name of this supernatural entity as a possible means of gaining control over it, which God saw through...I've also heard that the letters of the Tetragrammaton may be derived from that phrase in some way, as tho it were an acronym?
I would think that is correct. It is a common assumption in the occult community that knowing a being's true name can gain you an amount of control over it.
To the thing you heard about the tetragrammaton being derived from the phrase, Dan briefly mentions that in this video, he says that is a "folk etymology." I definitely heard it too!
The sentence is not just "I am", it's "Before Abraham was, I am", not merely a reference to God's name, it's simultaneously a claim to pre-existence. It cannot be merely taken as the author claiming Jesus is a God-bearer. The author claims Jesus is the pre-existent one who in the scriptures revealed himself to both Abraham and Moses.
A claim to preexistence is not a claim to being God (Logos theology is preexistence without identification as God), and this absolutely fits with Jesus' claim to being a name-bearer (the Enochic Son of Man tradition attributes preexistence and the endowment with the name to the Son of Man before the creation of the earth).
@@maklelan Dan, thanks so much for replying, I appreciate you taking the time. I hadn't thought of that. Since John 1.1 identifies the Word with God, though, I still prefer my take on it. Even the synoptic gospels closely connect Jesus with God but it was still unclear. By the time John's gospel arrives, my guess is that at least one community made a stronger identification. Obviously it wasn't conclusive as we know there was still plenty of debate for centuries.
@maklelan Here's the immediate context of John 8:58 so as to fully appreciate what the Lord Jesus claimed for himself: "He said to them, ‘You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.’" John 8:23-24 "Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.’" John 8:42 "‘Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps MY WORD, HE WILL NEVER SEE DEATH.’ The Jews said to him, ‘Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, "If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death." Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?’ Jesus answered, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. HE SAW IT and was glad.’ So the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, AND HAVE YOU SEEN ABRAHAM?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being (genesthai), I AM.’ So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." John 8:51-59 The Lord Jesus, in this reference, states that he is from above, that he came from God, claims he repeated on several occasions: "‘For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.’ … So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’ They said, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, "I have come down from heaven"?’" John 6:38, 41-42 "Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending TO WHERE HE WAS BEFORE?" John 6:62 "for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father." John 16:27-28 Jesus says that his word prevents a person from ever dying, a point he reiterates elsewhere: "Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me SHALL NEVER DIE. Do you believe this?’ She said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.’" John 11:25-27 Jesus also claims that Abraham saw him, and that he existed even before Abraham was created which explains how it was that Abraham could see someone who had walked this earth nearly 2,000 years after him. No wonder the Jews sought to stone him!
Hi Dan I am interested in the Bible but not sure if it’s necessary to read. From what I’ve gathered from my experiences with so many interpretations they all seem to be extrapolated takes on human psychology. How we define our subconscious by emotionally attaching to “I Am” followed by a phrase or feeling of who you believe you are. Seems like that’s pretty representative of the psychological substance of this series of books. But I’m not interested in the propaganda based books of the Bible that were published for the purpose of bringing hope to a specific people in a time.
In John 8:58, the King James Version has Jesus saying "Before Abraham was, I AM", with the phrase "I AM" in capital letters as if he were using a title. But the Greek expression in this verse does not use capital letters and is very different from the Hebrew expression found in Exodus 3:14 where God says, according to most modern Bibles, "I will be what I will be." In John 8:58, Jesus was not claiming a title belonging to God. He was not claiming to be Jehovah God. A common Greek expression (ego eimi) is being used in the historical present to emphasize that Jesus existed before Abraham. Some Bibles correctly translate Jesus' words to proper English as "Before Abraham existed, I have been" or "I existed before Abraham was born."
It ought to be translated "I will be", since it's the same verb used two verses earlier (when God tells Moses "I *will be* with you" in Exodus 3:12). The Hebrew "ehyeh" simply has no connection to the Greek "ego eimi".
@@20quid “ *I and the Father are one* ” Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but *for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God* ” (John 10:30-33)
@@thejerichoconnection3473 If that were an explicit claim of divinity it would mean that when Jesus says in John 17 "protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one in us, as we are one" he would also be claiming that all of us were God also.
@@20quid no. It’s an explicit claim of divinity because it simply is, and because as such it is immediately understood by the people around him, so much so that they wanted to stone him *because he was claiming to be God* . What else do you need when the text itself tells you that Jesus was claiming to be God? The other passage you are bringing up has nothing to do with this one, it’s in a totally different context, and the apostles understood exactly what Jesus was talking about. They never for a moment thought Jesus was telling them they were also God. Again, not even Bart Ehrman has the guts to argue that in John Jesus never claimed to be God, because he knows pretty well he would be ridiculed by the entire biblical scholars community. Please, stop. These desperate attempts to deny the evidence only expose how biased your approach is.
I would like to ask about the verse Deuteronomy 22:5. I've heard this mentioned as an arguement against men wearing makeup, as it's men trying to be like women. What does the Bible consider as men being women and women being like men? Is there any other meaning behind it lacking context or such? How does this verse translate to being trans?
Question being in case unclear : what does the verse mean? What does the Bible count as men being women? What does the Bible think about men wearing makeup? (Just in general, NOT to be trans). And what does the Bible say about being trans?
@@trashinpain7788 In Deuteronomy 22:5, Jewish men must not wear women's clothing and Jewish women must not wear men's clothing. Sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) does not change the person's status in Torah Law as a male or female.
@@trashinpain7788 Sexual reassignment surgery is forbidden because it is damage to the body that is not medically required, and it is also for a licentious purpose.
@@trashinpain7788By becoming trans you are telling God he gave you the wrong gender. If it is something you for example already had done you can repent.
Hey Dan or anyone that sees this, I spent all day watching videos on this channel and talking about them with friends, it’s challenging, it’s great, so thank you. My question is are there any other creators you recommend? Are there any books I should start with? Anything would be appreciated, thanks.
In ancient times messengers would carry a seal or an emblem so that they could show to foreign governments that they were the authorised bearer of their King's message and that they were authorised to act on their King's behalf in negotiations and other such things. I find it helpful to think in those terms. So anyone bearing the divine name isn't God, they are just acting on behalf of God, but at the same time they are able wield God's powers and authority as though they were God.
I think by now it's safe to say that the message of Joshua holds up; Go too God. Do your best, treat others with kindness, and don't be treacherous Azzhat🤔💭
Ecclesiastes 12:12...my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh. 13 The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the true God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole obligation of man. 14 For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad.
@@strappedfatman7858 One of my favorite verses and why I'm not a Christian any longer☺️ Diverse fear God's kind of funny though cuz does it refer to fearing God as a new power from him and his presence, or is it fear as in respect him and thus respect other life...🤔
“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God [‘êl gib•bō•wr] (a name used only for God), Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6) Check the next chapter, read the Hebrew this is speaking of YHWH being the hope of his people. “A remnant will return; yes, the remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God.” [‘êl gib•bō•wr] Isaiah 10:21. - my question for you is, why is Isaiah giving Jesus the messiah to come the title of MIGHTY GOD that is only used for YHWH the father the chapter rights after? BECAUSE CHRIST IS GOD.
“And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.” 1 Corinthians 15:28 NET The Bible says, also Jesus will be subjected to God, if He's God, He can not be subjected to himself, and it doesn't make sense. May God lead us in the right direction in Jesus name, I prayed🙏❤️
Glad you referenced the Septuagint, i cross reference all the time. Have you noticed Logos in Exodus 20:1 by the way? I had discussion about John 8:58 who someone brought up for unfortunately obvious reasons and I asked them "Did the Nazarene Christ honour and glorify himself as the God of prophet Abraham in John 8:58?" You would think it would be a simple answer but apparently I am undermining him. If someone looks up John 8:56 on biblehub they can see a cross reference Hebrews 11:13 which i believe helps to give obvious but not so obvious context.
It makes the central claim of the Book of Mormon, "to convice the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ--The Eternal God," all the more important. The BOM repeatedly and unambiguously declares that Jesus is God, the one and only God.
But I thought that in Joseph Smith’s first vision he saw God the father AND Jesus Christ. Two separate persons. How could he be God if he appeared separately?
The Book of Mormon through the entire book clearly and repeatedly emphases Jesus the Son of God, a separate and distinct being from God the Father. They are one in purpose and Jesus has divine investiture of authority meaning He can represent God, but they are 2 personnages.
I use I AM from King James Bible because most believe Jesus is God. But that is not what it means. The meaning of the name Yahweh is not limited to the related verb found at Exodus 3:14, which reads: “I AM Who I AM ” In the strictest sense, those words do not fully define God’s name. Rather, they reveal an aspect of God’s personality, showing that he becomes what is needed in each circumstance to fulfill his purpose. So while the name Yahweh may include this idea, it is not limited to what he himself chooses to become. It also includes what he causes to happen with regard to his creation and the accomplishment of his purpose.
I am what I am is a person who's telling u to mind your own bussiness. That person can be anyone... A teacher, a doctor, a bussiness man, an engineer, a mafia, a youtuber and so on
@nothingamlyngdoh.t3883 No! It's not! And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to(1 Timothy 5:13). 1 Peter 4:15 However, let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or a wrongdoer or a busybody in other people’s matters.16 But if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but let him keep on glorifying God while bearing this name.
@nothingamlyngdoh.t3883 What did Jesus say to the Samaritan Lady! Yahweh is from the Samaritans. John 4:22 Samaritans had their own temple! Within the region of Samaria, in the city of Sychar, was Jacob’s well. This was the location of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman, who asked, “Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?” (John 4:12). Later in the conversation, she brought up a centuries-old controversy: “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem” (verse 20). “This mountain” is a reference to Mount Gerizim in the central Samaritan highlands, the place where the Samaritans had built their own temple, which they considered the true temple of God. John 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews.
@nothingamlyngdoh.t3883 Of course, that's exactly what I wrote about. Because Jesus used the title I AM also! To show his prehuman existence! The Father and Son working in unity to accomplish Jehovah God's purpose for the earth. Where righteousness is to dwell forever!
It's also a logical fallacy to say "since (his rivals) correctly understood him, and since they understood him to mean X, that means they correctly understood him". It's circular reasoning. The next part of what he argues there is also illogical, when he argues that "since (his rivals)(in that story) picked up stones to immediately kill Jesus, that proves they correctly understood him" There's nothing logical about that failed attempt at reasoning. And this failure of reasoning is further compounded by the fact that (in those very same stories() Jesus specifically says that specific class of rivals utterly lacks the ability to correctly understand him. So no matter what they thought he meant, every reader's default (except when told otherwise by the writer, in any specific event) should be "those rivals are wrong about what they think".
The text doesn't say anything about the opponents understanding, just about their reaction. Moreover in the synoptics the reason for them wanting Jesus to disappear is another reason. The story of John 8 is also absent from the synoptics, just like most of the gospel attributed to a "John" who was no eyewitness And here Jesus rejects being God and affirms the claim of being God's son. There are many sons of God but only one God. If I am the son of my father, I am not my father and the leader of the family. John 10 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be set aside- 36 what about the one whom the *Father* set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, *‘I am God’s Son’?* 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. This also shows that for Jesus the Father is God. And that he is only the son of God like many others.
@@germanboy14Jesus is claiming to be the Son of God that will judge everyone and come on the clouds of heaven, not just a son. Jesus is God in essence and the eternal born Son of God the Father. And why don’t you think John wrote the Gospel of John? That is what the early Church fathers teached us and the reason Google says it was written late is because they didn’t believe the prophesy about the Fall of the temple which happened about 70 ad.
This is a rather important topic within Abrahamic religion. There was a pre-Israelite god of bedoins that was identified with YHW or YHWA that was not coordinated with a preexisting god, there was also the Eblaite (Cuneiform) IA which is associated with EA/Enki and at times conflated with El, though I think this was largely because Enlil had largely become a title of a power god and so many people might have seen Ea and Ilu no longer separate in reflection to the various power gods like Ishtar, Asshur and Marduk. The only site associated with Ea in the levant is Beth Lahmu, the house of the guardian of Enki in Yehudah. Right there we have a muddling of Yahu and Ea. There were legends of Enki sages who came from the region we would call Aravah and Aqaba. This would explain why there was a YH cult in the region the Egyptians encountered, but not Yahweh. The peoples of the region had a tendency to chimerize gods, for example Attar-Kemos. It seems likely that YH (wisdom) was chimerized with some power god and just called divine arms Wehu, YahuWehu, with the u evolving. But the bible seems on concealing the historical identity of this god, his wife, his family. And so in exodus 6.3 it gives a blow off definition, but then goes on to conflate the gods of the patriarchs (whose names they are also not inately familar with) with Yahweh. In doing this however the redactor/priestly source creates a problem, because by ill-defining god, he makes it posdible for others to broaden the definition of god to include concepts from other cultures. This problem is not strictly limited to Judaism. The Edomites had a different name for essential the same god, and gods name in the bible itself is variably used. Moreover, the same god was a god in Yemen and in parts of the nile, again with different theogeny. So its broadly speaking a truth we dont know what Yahweh means in the original sense, there is a period of at least 300 years were Yahweh is being constructed in Arabia. But we can get a sense from the stories what gods are being 'Borrowed from' to create the narrative. These flood stories, the stories of the creation (both from the Enuma Elis and the stories of Nammu-mother of Enki), the touch stone prayers in Exodus that bring forth the water, etc that are a impressionist painting of Enki within the text. But thats only part, because the bible authors are painting also a story of the South, of volcanos, the nile, the eed/reed sea and of life of bedoin out in Aravah, Aqaba and Yemen. We see in these stories the reflection of some type of primitive beliefs based on active mountains and storms encounter of front ranges of plateaus.
I don't understand why saying "I am" in Aramaic doesn't count but saying it in Greek does. If we English speakers understand this even though we are translating it into English, then why couldn't Jesus have said it in Aramaic in that moment? Or he could have said it in Hebrew or Greek or French for all we care (yes I know French didn't exist back then). It's not the language used that matters but the meaning behind the words.
The point that Dan is making is that the Greek phrase has a second layer of meaning that only works in Greek. The way I understood it was like if you were to take an idiomatic expression in English, like "kick the bucket" or "water under the bridge" and translate it into another language, you can translate all of the words but the actual meaning will not transfer over with them.
Gods name is not “I Am.” It’s “I Am that I Am.” Why are they trying to cut down his name ? “I Am that I Am” is YHWH. Saying that Gods name is”I Am” is like saying his name is YH. But it’s not. It’s YHWH, not YH.
To the presenter: Can you explain why you seem to agree that “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means I will be what I will be or I am what I am when both are in opposition to each other.
That's about a whole sentence, not a name. And these whole manipulation of the manuscripts blaming it on language is really absurd. Most of these manuscripts are not coming from the Jews nor the Christians, but they've heavily altered and destroyed so much of it that you begin doubting if what's left even makes sense. Jesus said the God he worships has no name and is only mentioned to as "the one" from the highest of the realms. Why are they not telling you about the real teachings of Christ in the first temple? Where are these manuscripts? Why show folks a Bible full of lies? In fact, the only unaltered Bible with all 88 Books lies in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church till date and there's still more to add to that.
The opposing Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming that he had “seen Abraham,” although, as they said, Jesus was “not yet 50 years old.” (John 8:57) Jesus’ response was to tell them about his pre-human existence as a mighty spirit creature in heaven before Abraham was born. The argument that the Greek expression used here, ἐγὼ εἰμί / ego eimi (rendered “I am” in most Bible translations), is an allusion to the Septuagint rendering of Exodus 3:14 and that both verses should be rendered the same way. Exodus 3:14 declares God's name, for Moses asked what's the name of God. In the context for John 8:58, however, the action expressed by the Greek verb eimiʹ started “before Abraham came into existence” and was still in progress. Imagine God would have said something slightly different to Moses. Imagine he would simply have said "Yahweh". Do you suggest Jesus would have said to the Jews "before Abraham was, Yahweh"? That wouldn't make any sense! It is therefore properly translated “I have been” rather than “I am,” and several ancient and modern translations use wording similar to “I have been.” Also, if ego eimi was such a trigger term, then why did the Jews act completely different, when a few verses later, the blind man that got cured by Jesus made himself known to them by saying exactly the same words : ego eimi (I am he) in John 9:9? Did the Jews pick up stones to kill this man, whom they knew to be previously blind, for this claim? In fact, at John 14:9, the same form of the Greek verb ei·miʹ is used to render Jesus’ words: “Even after I HAVE BEEN with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me?” Most translations use a similar wording, showing that depending on the context there is no valid grammatical objection to rendering ei·miʹ as “have been.” (Other examples of rendering a present tense Greek verb using a present perfect tense verb are found at Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; John 15:27; Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 12:19; 1 John 3:8.) Also, Jesus’ reasoning recorded in John 8:54, 55 shows that he was not trying to portray himself as the same person as his Father. On the contrary, in John 8:17,18 Jesus refers to Jewish law: "In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” In John 5:31 Jesus said: "If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true." Jesus thus made it very clear that there is an ontological difference between himself and the Father. Furthermore, reread the whole account starting in John 8:12 - Did the Pharisees understand Jesus in any way or grasp what he was saying? They repeatedly misunderstood Jesus - in fact, there was not a single thing they got correct. Jesus was even so frustrated with them that he said „Why am I even talking to you?“ (John 8:25, 27) When they asked him why he said he saw Abraham, as he wasn’t even 50 years old, he said „ego eimi“ - guess what they did? They misunderstood him AGAIN! So what Trinitarians are saying is that Pharisees who did get Jesus wrong the whole time, all of a sudden understood him correctly by him claiming to be God only by saying „ego eimi“ - you recognize how ridiculous that argument is? Going even further into the whole context of John 8, you'll see that they (the Pharisees) continuously felt their authority being questioned, and they became more and more exposed by Jesus for their false reasonings. It was this, that caused the Pharisees to lose it and attempt to stone Jesus, as by stating that Jesus had seen Abraham, because he was older than him, he claimed even higher authority than Abraham. Seniority was a very important aspect granting authority in jewish culture. For the Pharisees, Abraham was the highest human authority, and they understood Jesus to claim higher authority than themselves, which was unacceptable insubordination - they hated him for it! So, it wasn't their fear of God that caused them to perceive Jesus' word as sinful! It was their selfish pride that caused them to act in utter outrage because Jesus had dared to question their authority repeatedly and established that his authority was higher than theirs!
It is perfectly reasonable for John to have a high Christology, if you accept Carrier's thesis. This also resolves questions about the high Christology in the Pauline Epistles, and in the Peter 1, which can be read as authentic if Carrier's thesis is accepted.
Jesus is the Lamb of The God of Abraham YHVH Yehovah Jehovah Mark 16:8 In the Gospel of Mark. If the women tell no one then, Who is ! What each Gospel story is about. The four living creatures! Matthew Who was! Mark Who is! Luke Who is Coming! John The Lamb of YHVH! The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
@strapped Jesus was a human, so he is a human sacrifice at most.😂 and the authors are anonymous, no eyewitnesses and copied and corrected each other. That's also why we see different Christologies in the 4 gospels. Why? They wrote for their own communities and supported their own views and disagreed with the views of other communities.
@@germanboy14 Correct Jesus was Human. He was the Lamb. Jesus rules as King for his God and Father! Jesus is The First and Last! A perfect life for a perfect life. Jesus is the last Adam. New Living Translation Romans 5:14 Still, everyone died-from the time of Adam to the time of Moses-even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come. 1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death. 21 For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
@@dwightfitch3120 Adam wasn't deceived. The ground did produce thorns and thistles because Jesus worn the crown of thorns and thistles. God told Adam the prophecy of the resurrection. Genesis 3:15 The Sacrifice of Jesus was the first part of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He will crush your head, and you will bruise him in the heel.” Satan the Dragon and the Wild Beast the 6th Kingdom executed Jesus on their image the cross. It was the Roman Empire of Italy that is also the shape of the heel. So the first part of the prophecy is complete . Satan bruised Jesus in the heel.
Do not be deceived, the whole point of John 8:54-59 is to demonstrate two main things. One Jesus is not speaking these words to the Jews, but the father that abides in him is doing the speaking, he honoured not himself but his father that honour him, two witnesses, himself and the holy spirit of the father in him. The Jews did not have a clue of what Jesus spoke, they did not hear his words because they were not of God. Proof, Jesus spoke "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." Notice Jesus never said that he saw Abraham, but Abraham saw his day? What did the Jews say? "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" They miss quoted what Jesus said, never did Jesus say he saw Abraham. John 8:43 "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word." John 8:47 "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
I have friends who write Y*w*h because they have been brought up to believe that merely uttering the name of god is blasphemous*, and no matter how many times I tell them that they have been misinformed, they still do it. To do otherwise would be to prove thier rabbi incorrect, and that is inconcievable. It's a damn shame. *Yes, just like in The Life of Brian
@@pansepot1490Malcolm muggeridge, known by admiring conservatives as “God’s gargoyle,” told Clease to his face that the film’s humor is mocking and childish. I think all they were mildly mocking was over zealous followers. Could of course be wrong
So I know of no better way to turn people away from Christ and the Gospel than to 1) make it seem so confusing and difficult to know God and make them feel not "smart" enough for Him.2) say that the writers of the Gospels put words in Jesus' mouth. If I were an unbeliever I would jump all over that. If I cant trust one word uttered by Jesus, I can't trust any of His words. "Before Abraham was, I am" speaks volumes about His Divinity, His eternalness and His relationship with the Father. Whether in Greek, Hebrew, English(old or new) latin or any language.
It is helpful to understand the way the Gospel has been translated and edited, and the way that the teachings of Jesus have been interpreted over time. Because of that, you cannot necessarily trust that you're getting the actual message of Jesus.
"If I cant trust one word uttered by Jesus, I can't trust any of His words." The problem with making a statement like this is that the Bible is not inerrant, and demonstrably so, yet people's faith is able to persist in spite of this fact.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 No he is not. No one said that He is a man. He certainly can be a man if he chooses and He did become the man of Jesus. God becomes His creation to Love His creation. "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." John 14:11. Do not be held by human and worldly understanding. My God can become a man. My God can die for mankind, and he did, in the man. That's why he was and is hated so much. Because the lofty man, the Roman elite and the pharacitical Jews, cannot succumb to a God who came down and suffered on a cross to prove His perfect Love and Grace.
ANY man standing in the temple claiming to be YHWH, adonai, Yaweh Or any other name for the Most High is a false messiah. No man is God Almighty. We were given all kinds of warnings about the corruption of the NT. Worshipping a false image created by the Romans.
Christians say that Jesus is fully human and fully god. The foundational claim of Christianity is that the fully human Jesus died on the cross, but the fully god Jesus is eternal, so can't ever die? What the ...? I've yet to hear even a serious attempt at a coherent explanation of this claim.
The Trinity teaches that all members of the Trinity are fully God. We know they’re all fully God because they can’t be different parts of God but distinct persons of God. For example if you split a rock up into pieces they are still 100% Rock. So if Jesus were half man and half God then there would be unbalance in the Trinity.
This very paradox of the eternally divine and mortally human aspects of Jesus was discussed and elaborated at the 3rd Ecumenical Council at Ephesus (431 CE) where Nestorius (or at least his perceived Nestorianism) was condemned by the Latin-Byzantine Christian consensus for keeping these two aspects too separate from each other entailing the contradiction you are sensing. Now true, the resolution of this is a theological one that may not be to your liking but-- (and I write more as a historian than a believer) Nestorius took issue of Mary being addressed as "Theotokos" (Gk.: "God-bearer," or Mary as "the Mother of God"), since Mary was a mortal woman who could not therefore give birth to an immortal deity. Thus, his Christology posited (or was claimed to posit) that Jesus the historical human person was united to the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, but not identical with it. Hence, Jesus as born of Mary seems NOT to be God incarnate, but a composite being consisting of separate divine and human realities. The Latin-Byzantine issue with the Nestorian formulation is that the historical Jesus Christ sounds like a composite of two prior persons or otherwise two distinct independent realities-a Divine Christ / Logos and a mere mortal human Jesus-coming together to make a hybridized 3rd thing. The Christology has a sort of "adoptionist" ring to it--that Jesus was God's son through an adoptive act rather through a natural genesis. This composite Jesus proved bothersome to the Latin-Byzantine consensus owing to the contradiction you are noting, with the two persons very opposite outcomes (and how then this could be remotely salvational for humanity). Jesus had to be shown to be both fully divine and fully human in a way that made him a singularly unique individual and not a composite being. His divine and human aspects had a be “a union without confusion” (Neoplatonic terminology) that is a union that did NOT make a composite or third thing-so to be understood that Jesus is God himself incarnate. Rather than Jesus' divine and human aspects being composed of two prior "persons" they were instead more abstracted "natures": a divine nature and a human nature constituted in just one, unique person--noted as the hypostatic union (from the Greek: "hypostasis," meaning "reality," so meaning Jesus is a single reality, a unique person or one with individual personhood, rather than being a composite of multiple realities). (for the "nature" language: I think of this of how we use highly conceptual abstractions to define or classify more concrete, empirical things. Compare "mammal" vs "dog". We have concrete, specific empirical instances of dogs as unique entities in a way that we don't for mammals as the latter term rests on a much higher degree of classificatory abstraction--even as a dog is fully a mammal. The "divine" and "human" natures works like the mammalian instance, IMO.) Anyhoo--the Latin-Byzantine consensus felt their doctrinal claim overcame Nestorius's perceived Logos-human contradiction as Jesus was one unique reality fully human and fully divine (whose resurrection then allowed human beings to triumph over death by participating in his divinized life) . To further affirm that, this judgment maintained the orthodoxy of calling Mary the "Mother of God"--originally done for Jesus' sake (even as it will accrue a lot of devotional significance to Mary later) so to affirm that Jesus’s divinity was fully and integrally present with his in utero human development rather than added after the fact, post-birth or otherwise : that he is God’s son naturally rather than through adoption. Apologies for length.
Came for the informative, insightful video. Stayed for the posts of Judeo-Christian apologists who employ circular logic (what's written in the Book is true, because it's written in the Book) to attempt - and fail - to refute the video. 🤣
"Metatron" refers to the angel in Judaism who represents and speaks for God. But yeah, it's an odd name for an angel. It sounds more like a transformers robot (like Megatron).
Freedom of religion and speech seem to be a license to believe whatever makes you happiest and whatever is most politically expedient. Apparently, trying to remain tethered to what is most probably real is for sad chumps who want to destroy civilization.
What's most probably real is that God is imaginary, but the people who believe in him and claim to speak for him are the most likely cause of our extinction.
The ancient faithful did not shy away from using God’s personal name as is attested to throughout the Old Testament The teaching that only priests were allowed to state God’s name or that it was too sacred to pronounce is a bunch of ancient gobbledygook unsubstantiated anywhere in the Bible. So why do YOU substitute Adonai for Yahweh? Aren’t you just perpetuating this superstition?
its already blasphemy to steal Bible Gods followers and tell off the Jewish leaders, when God should be the one doing it, so to not create confusion... Clearly God isn't clear so that everybody can jump on board Jesus train... looks like many got left behind
Jesus may or may not have been God in fleshly form. There are those that believe this and there are those that do not. There could be or there may not be Extra-Terrestrial life on other planets. There are those that believe there are and those that do not believe it. Whatever your belief be about these things is irrelevant, however the reality or truth of both of these things will be known to all one day. “I AM THEREFORE THIS I THINKS.” ☮️……POPEYE is God! Just not the Popeye you know.
My name for God is The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Or more appropriately, the relationship of them and between them which just is, and has no name. God said to name all things on earth because we are lords of the earth and our understanding of all earthly things allows us to lable and name them. When you name God, you are asserting your earthly knowledge and Hierarchy of Him/Her ( nowhere is God given a gender or sex). I think we should have better things to do than to worry about His/Her name. It has no relevance on where we spend eternity or whether we are Loved by God. It is only a human ego trip to display and assert ones knowledge on the subject.
The belief in a divine trinity is an idolatrous concept, since it is a belief that God (or according to some, a second separate divinity) has characteristic features, and the characteristics of a body.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Gen. 1:26; John 14:10;2 Cor. 13:14 The Trinity is not idolatrous. God became Man in the person of Jesus. Sacrificed His Son/Himself, as no other god of other people had done at anytime, to show his Love for all mankind. That was the awesome, world shattering event that was the only way to show perfect Grace to mankind. Jesus Christ throughout the Gospels attempts to reveal to many the truth of oneness and unity or nonduality, if you are secure and mature enough to use that term and understand its meaning outside of a fear of any concept other than your learning and culture. I have no problem seeing God as three persons in one. None at all. Do I have a name for this? Yes, the Triune nature of God. I do not have a name to set apart and worship as an idol that I can see and 100% understand, no. But the Father-God, the Son-Christ, the Holy Spirit- the invisible moving binding relationship between God and Mankind John 15:26 is a valid, non idolatrous view of the nature of God. I'll go you one further. If you follow Christ and do God's will, you will be with Him in eternity. No matter how you view what you cannot view. Just as I will live in eternity with Christ also. So why don't we sit with that. Because your belief against my belief does not condemn me or you.
@@germanboy14 These are one God. Your current inability to see that does not make it untrue. Nor does it condemn you or me. I have no other God before the true God. Jesus Christ is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus Christ, John 14:11. The Holy Spirit is of God and is the Relationship between He and the Son as well as mankind.
“For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,” 1 Timothy 2:5 NET “Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, and as a result he takes his seat in God’s temple, displaying himself as God. The arrival of the lawless one will be by Satan’s working with all kinds of miracles and signs and false wonders, and with every kind of evil deception directed against those who are perishing, because they found no place in their hearts for the truth so as to be saved.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 9-10 NET Whosoever calls themselves God is the son of distraction according to this scripture, even Jesus called himself "the son of God"
Let me clarify, there is but one God, the creator of all. But we can’t discount the possibility of aliens, taking on the identity of gods to control us
@@gamer__dud10 What eyewitnesses? The gospels were written decades after Jesis' death, by authors living in other countries who never met Jesus or probably any eyewitnesses to his alleged resurrection. And BTW, the circumstances they give regarding that resurrection - that Jesus was interrogated personally by not only Herod, but a sympathetic Pilate, who allowed the people to decide Jesus' faith, in return for releasing another criminal to the Roman state, but also allowed for him to be buried in a tomb - totally go against what is known about Pilate and the administration of Roman law regarding those judged to be criminals against Rome. So, as for those "eyewitness accounts"? Yeah, no...
@@VulcanLogic And that rabbi would be lying. The OT is full of prophecies of the Messiah. Many of which were fulfilled by Jesus 2,000 years ago & the balance of which are in the process of being fulfilled now.
@@20quid I said, "from Genesis to Revelation". The Bible is deliberately written in such a way that you have to piece it all together to get the full teaching about anything. It's not necessary to find the word "Jesus" in the OT. Jesus is part of the of "we" "our image" of the Genesis creation account of Adam & Eve. Jesus is the God of the OT. Jesus is prophesied in the OT. The NT says Jesus is the word and is God. The NT says the word created everything that was ceated. You've got to put it all together piece by piece as Isaiah said.
@@glenwillson5073 No, the rabbi speaks Hebrew and knows more about the Tanakh than you ever will. Jesus isn't in there. Cite a chapter and verse if you want, and I'll humiliate you over it.
No, actually they don't: as they only worship their Heavenly Father! Jesus is a lower member of their Godhead! Their Godhead is a total counterfeit and only Heavenly Father is worshiped as God! They R totally separate beings: Jesus and their Holy Ghost!
Mormonism, similar to Jehovah's Witnesses, asserts that Jesus is not God. Jesus is the son of God, our Lord and savior. “For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,” 1 Timothy 2:5 NET
The Book of Mormon through the entire book clearly and repeatedly emphases Jesus is the Son of God, a separate and distinct being from God the Father. They are one in purpose and Jesus has divine investiture of authority meaning He can represent God, but they are 2 personnages.
The deadpan delivery when he said Nunya XD god damn you're too much man haha
Since I'm knee high to a duck, the Catholic Church had always told me that Yahweh meant, "I am" in Hebrew. I guess I shouldn't be surprised how ignorant those are at the "center of Christs' teachings".
TBF Jesus did say that Peter was an idiot on multiple occasions (Matthew 16:22, Matthew 18:3, Mark 10:13 to name a few). Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the church he allegedly was the foundation for is way off the path Jesus sent him on.
““Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.”
Matthew 7:13 NET
@user-cw3ox2nn5t could you advertise that you don't care about the accuracy of the scriptures you peddle a little louder, please? I don't think the choir boys heard you.
Like, did you even watch the video? It ONLY works in Greek, which was later adopted into the English. Jesus did not speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic.
The belief is a product of misunderstanding men, not deity. You worship the wordplay of men if you continue that way.
@user-cw3ox2nn5t the old testament was written in Hebrew an Matthew (Not the one in the Bible) was written in Hebrew, but everything else, including the letters of Paul are in Greek.
There are no Hebrew copies of the New Testament the weren't later translated from Greek to Hebrew.
It is important to understand this, because when you quote an English Bible, you're not actually quoting scripture, you're quoting an approximation.
Even "God breathed" didn't mean what it means to you, to Paul and Dan has a video on that as well. You are viewing scripture with modern lenses and thus have created a different religion than Jesus would have believed. Not all of it, but I would argue it is more important to know how men changed the Bible so you can correct that "appoximation" to be as close to the source as possible.
@user-cw3ox2nn5t you're just repeating more English verses as though everything I say is lost to you.
I'd also like to point out that it is in no way skeptics trying to get rid of the Old Testament, that's Christians trying to get rid of it because they believe in a New Covenant.
I also trust John the least of all the gospel writers, it is clear he view Jesus in a different way than the other three gospel writers who are more concerned with the politics surrounding Jesus.
I think Christians should be thankful for skeptics because we hold your feet to the fire on the topic of literary accuracy. You'd all believe whatever you want to if not for detractors and that's evident by how many ways there are to worship Jesus.
“… like God saying my name is Nunya,” may be the funniest thing I’ve seen in a bit. Thank you for that!
"My lord, what does Nunya mean?" 🙏
The Tetragrammaton is the essential four-letter Name of God, which was uttered only by the Jewish priests at certain points of their service in the Holy Temple of Jerusalem. Beyond this prescribed usage one is not allowed to pronounce this Name as it is written, thus also known as "the ineffable Name." In sacred service, as public Torah-readings, it is substituted by the Name Ado-nai, and in vernacular speech and writing by the Hebrew term HaShem (lit. "the Name"), which is also the general non-sacred substitution for the term "God."
Thank you
Hi Dan. I'd appreciate if you would discuss the accuracy of Jesus’ words in the Bible since it appears that many years passed before they were documented. I would have trouble accurately writing down a word for word conversation I had yesterday! :)
He sort of mentions it here - the Gospels aren’t strictly historical-biographical accounts, but rather intentional theological collections or reconstructions of his teachings. This is clearest in the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the Gospels are in Greek - we are already receiving translations, which are by necessity interpretive.
@@Cornelius135 Thanks, and good point and I agree. It may have been just me, but it feels as though its preached as though it's a verbatim transcript, and that caveat isn't really discussed. Anyway, appreciate your response and insight!
@ronlahusen7101 If you want some compelling reasons the gospels are not eyewitness accounts, then read below.
---------------------------------------------------------
*The Matthean Nativity*
*The penchant for the New Testament gospels to convey narrative details beyond the scope of plausible eyewitness knowledge goes all the way back to the Nativity story.* Matthew writes that upon Jesus’ birth, King Herod ***secretly summoned foreigners called Magi traveling from the East to “find out from them the exact time the [Bethlehem] star appeared”*** (Matt. 2:7).[4][5] Matthew had knowledge of other exclusive details including Herod’s verbatim instructions to the Magi to search for the residence of Jesus and to report back to Herod the child’s exact location. Somehow Matthew also knew that upon the Magi’s departure from Bethlehem, they were then warned in a dream to distrust Herod and to avoid the king by taking an alternate route back to their home country. Joseph himself was ostensibly unaware of all these background details and became alerted to Herod’s nefarious interest in Jesus only after Joseph, too, was subsequently warned in a dream to leave Bethlehem with his family and flee to Egypt. (Matt. 2:8-12)
***How exactly did Matthew know these secret dealings between King Herod and the Magi?*** We read details only an omniscient narrator could know - the mental state and agitation of King Herod, the secret conversations between Herod and the Magi, and Matthew even knows about the Magi’s clairvoyant dream and their detoured travel route back to their home country east of the Tigris River.
*Pontius Pilate, the Chief Priests, and Pharisees*
*Example #1:* Matthew reports details of a ***private conversation*** between Pilate and the Pharisees the day after the death of Jesus, ***while all the disciples were hidden out of sight from authorities.*** In Matthew 27:62-65 we find the following:
“The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.”
***On what basis is Matthew providing us with these details? He certainly was no witness to this discussion, nor were any of the other disciples.*** Nowhere does Matthew provide his basis of knowledge for this information which derived directly from Jesus’ enemies. Matthew just somehow knows.
*Example #2:* Mark’s gospel purports to know what Jesus’ enemies (the scribes and chief priests) said ***among themselves in closed company*** when they were ***“scheming secretly to arrest Jesus and to have him killed.”*** (Mark 14:1-2).
*Example #3:* The gospel writers relate yet another ***private conversation,*** this time between the High Priest Caiaphas and his chief priest regarding their plot to kill Jesus. Matthew reports that they ***secretly schemed to have Jesus arrested, saying amongst themselves*** “but not during the Passover festival. . . or there may be a riot among the people.” ***Matthew is inexplicably privy to this private strategic discussion between two of Judea’s highest ranking religious officials*** (Matt. 26:3-5). In the same way, the gospels purport to know the specific details of another clandestine conversation between Judas Iscariot and the chief priests down to the dollar amount that Judas agreed upon to enact his betrayal.
*The Centurion at the Cross*
In another example of third-person omniscient narration, Mark reports that upon the death of Jesus on the cross, the Gentile centurion who stood facing Jesus confessed “Truly this was the son of God.” ***But as history, how could Mark have known those words? None of the disciples were present with the centurion. Each of the Synoptic gospels emphasize that Jesus’ disciples fled and deserted him upon his arrest to remain hidden out of sight, and even the women looked “from afar off.”*** (Mk. 15:40)
*John the Baptist and Herod*
Consider also the scene of John the Baptist and Herod the tetrarch. ***The authors of Mark and Matthew reported the interaction between John the Baptist and Herod while John was imprisoned in the private confines of Herod’s quarters. Similarly, and equally perplexing, the Gospel of Mark even purports to know of a conversation between Herod’s wife and his daughter Salome regarding the fate of John the Baptist. How did the writer come to know such exclusive details? Once again, none of the disciples were present for these events.*** And unlike other ancient historical writings from that time, the gospel writers fail to provide any plausible source or circumstance for such knowledge.
*"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
@@ronlahusen7101you might consider also, then, that the clarification presents its own assumptions as facts - that the character of Jesus in the NT is based on a specific, Aramaic-speaking human who lived a material existence.
The biggest problem with fundamentalists is that they just don’t understand the difference between what Jesus might have said, and what the gospel authors have him say
They think the gospels are like a transcribed video tape of Jesus. Sadly, because that’s how they are portrayed when they are read to them by the pastors of their churches.
This is total irrational bullsh*t.
What does "might have said" even mean, who knows what Jesus "might have said"?
I suppose that would be you would it?
A more accurate translation is actually "I yam what I yam," followed by two toots on a corncob pipe and skulling an entire can of spinach.
So Popeye is God? That tracks. 😂
@@Noneya5555 what!?
oh hold on, i thought you said the Pope, not Popeye. my bad.
@@MusicalRaichu 😆
Oh, thank you! This made me laugh . . . 🤣
Heh, I remember reading a book a long time ago that claimed that "I Am That I Am", was basically the ancient Israelite version of "Mind Your Own Business"! Supposedly, Moses (who is described elsewhere as knowing the secrets of Egyptian magic) asked the name of this supernatural entity as a possible means of gaining control over it, which God saw through...I've also heard that the letters of the Tetragrammaton may be derived from that phrase in some way, as tho it were an acronym?
I would think that is correct. It is a common assumption in the occult community that knowing a being's true name can gain you an amount of control over it.
Snarky God is a deity i can get behind. Explains the flood, Lot's wife, Job in an instant.
To the thing you heard about the tetragrammaton being derived from the phrase, Dan briefly mentions that in this video, he says that is a "folk etymology." I definitely heard it too!
The sentence is not just "I am", it's "Before Abraham was, I am", not merely a reference to God's name, it's simultaneously a claim to pre-existence. It cannot be merely taken as the author claiming Jesus is a God-bearer. The author claims Jesus is the pre-existent one who in the scriptures revealed himself to both Abraham and Moses.
A claim to preexistence is not a claim to being God (Logos theology is preexistence without identification as God), and this absolutely fits with Jesus' claim to being a name-bearer (the Enochic Son of Man tradition attributes preexistence and the endowment with the name to the Son of Man before the creation of the earth).
@@maklelan Dan, thanks so much for replying, I appreciate you taking the time. I hadn't thought of that. Since John 1.1 identifies the Word with God, though, I still prefer my take on it.
Even the synoptic gospels closely connect Jesus with God but it was still unclear. By the time John's gospel arrives, my guess is that at least one community made a stronger identification. Obviously it wasn't conclusive as we know there was still plenty of debate for centuries.
@maklelan except, in context to this reference, it most certainly does.
It refers to pre destination.
@maklelan Here's the immediate context of John 8:58 so as to fully appreciate what the Lord Jesus claimed for himself:
"He said to them, ‘You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.’" John 8:23-24
"Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.’" John 8:42
"‘Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps MY WORD, HE WILL NEVER SEE DEATH.’ The Jews said to him, ‘Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, "If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death." Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?’ Jesus answered, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. HE SAW IT and was glad.’ So the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, AND HAVE YOU SEEN ABRAHAM?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being (genesthai), I AM.’ So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." John 8:51-59
The Lord Jesus, in this reference, states that he is from above, that he came from God, claims he repeated on several occasions:
"‘For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.’ … So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’ They said, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, "I have come down from heaven"?’" John 6:38, 41-42
"Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending TO WHERE HE WAS BEFORE?" John 6:62
"for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father." John 16:27-28
Jesus says that his word prevents a person from ever dying, a point he reiterates elsewhere:
"Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me SHALL NEVER DIE. Do you believe this?’ She said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.’" John 11:25-27
Jesus also claims that Abraham saw him, and that he existed even before Abraham was created which explains how it was that Abraham could see someone who had walked this earth nearly 2,000 years after him. No wonder the Jews sought to stone him!
Hi Dan I am interested in the Bible but not sure if it’s necessary to read. From what I’ve gathered from my experiences with so many interpretations they all seem to be extrapolated takes on human psychology. How we define our subconscious by emotionally attaching to “I Am” followed by a phrase or feeling of who you believe you are. Seems like that’s pretty representative of the psychological substance of this series of books. But I’m not interested in the propaganda based books of the Bible that were published for the purpose of bringing hope to a specific people in a time.
In John 8:58, the King James Version has Jesus saying "Before Abraham was, I AM", with the phrase "I AM" in capital letters as if he were using a title. But the Greek expression in this verse does not use capital letters and is very different from the Hebrew expression found in Exodus 3:14 where God says, according to most modern Bibles, "I will be what I will be." In John 8:58, Jesus was not claiming a title belonging to God. He was not claiming to be Jehovah God. A common Greek expression (ego eimi) is being used in the historical present to emphasize that Jesus existed before Abraham. Some Bibles correctly translate Jesus' words to proper English as "Before Abraham existed, I have been" or "I existed before Abraham was born."
You are amazing! I am grateful for you and your work.
"I am He" so gods basically saying "I'm Him"
It ought to be translated "I will be", since it's the same verb used two verses earlier (when God tells Moses "I *will be* with you" in Exodus 3:12). The Hebrew "ehyeh" simply has no connection to the Greek "ego eimi".
Not even Bart Ehrman would go as far as ridiculing himself by saying that Jesus didn’t claim to be God in John.
Where does he claim to be God in John?
@@20quid “ *I and the Father are one* ”
Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but *for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God* ” (John 10:30-33)
@@thejerichoconnection3473 If that were an explicit claim of divinity it would mean that when Jesus says in John 17 "protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one in us, as we are one" he would also be claiming that all of us were God also.
@@20quid no. It’s an explicit claim of divinity because it simply is, and because as such it is immediately understood by the people around him, so much so that they wanted to stone him *because he was claiming to be God* .
What else do you need when the text itself tells you that Jesus was claiming to be God?
The other passage you are bringing up has nothing to do with this one, it’s in a totally different context, and the apostles understood exactly what Jesus was talking about. They never for a moment thought Jesus was telling them they were also God.
Again, not even Bart Ehrman has the guts to argue that in John Jesus never claimed to be God, because he knows pretty well he would be ridiculed by the entire biblical scholars community.
Please, stop. These desperate attempts to deny the evidence only expose how biased your approach is.
Ya idk about that.
Always informative! Hello from San Antonio-Southtown!
I would like to ask about the verse Deuteronomy 22:5. I've heard this mentioned as an arguement against men wearing makeup, as it's men trying to be like women. What does the Bible consider as men being women and women being like men? Is there any other meaning behind it lacking context or such? How does this verse translate to being trans?
Question being in case unclear : what does the verse mean? What does the Bible count as men being women? What does the Bible think about men wearing makeup? (Just in general, NOT to be trans). And what does the Bible say about being trans?
@@trashinpain7788 In Deuteronomy 22:5, Jewish men must not wear women's clothing and Jewish women must not wear men's clothing. Sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) does not change the person's status in Torah Law as a male or female.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 the last thing you said, would that imply being trans isn't a sin?
@@trashinpain7788 Sexual reassignment surgery is forbidden because it is damage to the body that is not medically required, and it is also for a licentious purpose.
@@trashinpain7788By becoming trans you are telling God he gave you the wrong gender. If it is something you for example already had done you can repent.
Hey Dan or anyone that sees this, I spent all day watching videos on this channel and talking about them with friends, it’s challenging, it’s great, so thank you. My question is are there any other creators you recommend? Are there any books I should start with? Anything would be appreciated, thanks.
Dan often recommends books his audience can read on the subject of the video.
The main and best book on details of Noahide observance is "The Divine Code" by Rabbi Moshe Weiner.
what does it mean for jesus to be authorized bearer of the divine name? is Jesus God ?
In ancient times messengers would carry a seal or an emblem so that they could show to foreign governments that they were the authorised bearer of their King's message and that they were authorised to act on their King's behalf in negotiations and other such things. I find it helpful to think in those terms.
So anyone bearing the divine name isn't God, they are just acting on behalf of God, but at the same time they are able wield God's powers and authority as though they were God.
Hmm, is this god character a sailor man? How does he feel about canned spinach?
I think by now it's safe to say that the message of Joshua holds up; Go too God. Do your best, treat others with kindness, and don't be treacherous Azzhat🤔💭
Ecclesiastes 12:12...my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh. 13 The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the true God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole obligation of man. 14 For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad.
Are you claiming that these principles originated with Joshua?
@@strappedfatman7858
One of my favorite verses and why I'm not a Christian any longer☺️
Diverse fear God's kind of funny though cuz does it refer to fearing God as a new power from him and his presence, or is it fear as in respect him and thus respect other life...🤔
@@carlasmith9093
No! The originated with the living God, and there were many that taught this as in the teacher Joshua..🤷
@mickeydecurious I guess the living god shared these ideas with the Hindus and Buddhists before he got -around to telling the Hebrews then?
“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God [‘êl gib•bō•wr] (a name used only for God), Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
(Isaiah 9:6)
Check the next chapter, read the Hebrew this is speaking of YHWH being the hope of his people.
“A remnant will return; yes, the remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God.”
[‘êl gib•bō•wr] Isaiah 10:21.
- my question for you is, why is Isaiah giving Jesus the messiah to come the title of MIGHTY GOD that is only used for YHWH the father the chapter rights after? BECAUSE CHRIST IS GOD.
“And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.”
1 Corinthians 15:28 NET
The Bible says, also Jesus will be subjected to God, if He's God, He can not be subjected to himself, and it doesn't make sense.
May God lead us in the right direction in Jesus name, I prayed🙏❤️
Even the concept of being the son of God makes no sense.
I have a feeling that I’d really enjoy a scholarly conversation between yourself (Dan) and Ali Ataie.
Glad you referenced the Septuagint, i cross reference all the time. Have you noticed Logos in Exodus 20:1 by the way? I had discussion about John 8:58 who someone brought up for unfortunately obvious reasons and I asked them "Did the Nazarene Christ honour and glorify himself as the God of prophet Abraham in John 8:58?" You would think it would be a simple answer but apparently I am undermining him. If someone looks up John 8:56 on biblehub they can see a cross reference Hebrews 11:13 which i believe helps to give obvious but not so obvious context.
It makes the central claim of the Book of Mormon, "to convice the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ--The Eternal God," all the more important. The BOM repeatedly and unambiguously declares that Jesus is God, the one and only God.
But I thought that in Joseph Smith’s first vision he saw God the father AND Jesus Christ. Two separate persons. How could he be God if he appeared separately?
Mormonism, similar to Jehovah's Witnesses, believe that Jesus is not God.
The Book of Mormon through the entire book clearly and repeatedly emphases Jesus the Son of God, a separate and distinct being from God the Father. They are one in purpose and Jesus has divine investiture of authority meaning He can represent God, but they are 2 personnages.
@@STAYDIVINE1111 Jesus attained deity
@@Sotelurian separate parts one person
I use I AM from King James Bible because most believe Jesus is God. But that is not what it means. The meaning of the name Yahweh is not limited to the related verb found at Exodus 3:14, which reads: “I AM Who I AM ” In the strictest sense, those words do not fully define God’s name. Rather, they reveal an aspect of God’s personality, showing that he becomes what is needed in each circumstance to fulfill his purpose. So while the name Yahweh may include this idea, it is not limited to what he himself chooses to become. It also includes what he causes to happen with regard to his creation and the accomplishment of his purpose.
I am what I am is a person who's telling u to mind your own bussiness. That person can be anyone... A teacher, a doctor, a bussiness man, an engineer, a mafia, a youtuber and so on
@nothingamlyngdoh.t3883 No! It's not!
And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to(1 Timothy 5:13).
1 Peter 4:15 However, let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or a wrongdoer or a busybody in other people’s matters.16 But if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but let him keep on glorifying God while bearing this name.
@nothingamlyngdoh.t3883 What did Jesus say to the Samaritan Lady!
Yahweh is from the Samaritans. John 4:22 Samaritans had their own temple! Within the region of Samaria, in the city of Sychar, was Jacob’s well. This was the location of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman, who asked, “Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?” (John 4:12). Later in the conversation, she brought up a centuries-old controversy: “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem” (verse 20). “This mountain” is a reference to Mount Gerizim in the central Samaritan highlands, the place where the Samaritans had built their own temple, which they considered the true temple of God. John 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews.
U don't get what I said " I a m what I am" is not a name it's words formed...it's like saying "it is what it is"
@nothingamlyngdoh.t3883
Of course, that's exactly what I wrote about. Because Jesus used the title I AM also! To show his prehuman existence! The Father and Son working in unity to accomplish Jehovah God's purpose for the earth. Where righteousness is to dwell forever!
It's also a logical fallacy to say "since (his rivals) correctly understood him, and since they understood him to mean X, that means they correctly understood him".
It's circular reasoning.
The next part of what he argues there is also illogical, when he argues that "since (his rivals)(in that story) picked up stones to immediately kill Jesus, that proves they correctly understood him"
There's nothing logical about that failed attempt at reasoning.
And this failure of reasoning is further compounded by the fact that (in those very same stories() Jesus specifically says that specific class of rivals utterly lacks the ability to correctly understand him.
So no matter what they thought he meant, every reader's default (except when told otherwise by the writer, in any specific event) should be "those rivals are wrong about what they think".
Sure:sweetheart! That makes perfect sense coming from U in the 21st century!
By Jesus saying I AM in the King James Bible does the mean Jesus is Yahweh!
The text doesn't say anything about the opponents understanding, just about their reaction. Moreover in the synoptics the reason for them wanting Jesus to disappear is another reason. The story of John 8 is also absent from the synoptics, just like most of the gospel attributed to a "John" who was no eyewitness
And here Jesus rejects being God and affirms the claim of being God's son. There are many sons of God but only one God. If I am the son of my father, I am not my father and the leader of the family.
John 10 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be set aside- 36 what about the one whom the *Father* set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, *‘I am God’s Son’?* 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.
This also shows that for Jesus the Father is God. And that he is only the son of God like many others.
@@germanboy14Jesus is claiming to be the Son of God that will judge everyone and come on the clouds of heaven, not just a son.
Jesus is God in essence and the eternal born Son of God the Father. And why don’t you think John wrote the Gospel of John? That is what the early Church fathers teached us and the reason Google says it was written late is because they didn’t believe the prophesy about the Fall of the temple which happened about 70 ad.
"Sock it to me!" What a delightful presentation of facts.
This is a rather important topic within Abrahamic religion.
There was a pre-Israelite god of bedoins that was identified with YHW or YHWA that was not coordinated with a preexisting god, there was also the Eblaite (Cuneiform) IA which is associated with EA/Enki and at times conflated with El, though I think this was largely because Enlil had largely become a title of a power god and so many people might have seen Ea and Ilu no longer separate in reflection to the various power gods like Ishtar, Asshur and Marduk. The only site associated with Ea in the levant is Beth Lahmu, the house of the guardian of Enki in Yehudah. Right there we have a muddling of Yahu and Ea. There were legends of Enki sages who came from the region we would call Aravah and Aqaba. This would explain why there was a YH cult in the region the Egyptians encountered, but not Yahweh. The peoples of the region had a tendency to chimerize gods, for example Attar-Kemos. It seems likely that YH (wisdom) was chimerized with some power god and just called divine arms Wehu, YahuWehu, with the u evolving.
But the bible seems on concealing the historical identity of this god, his wife, his family. And so in exodus 6.3 it gives a blow off definition, but then goes on to conflate the gods of the patriarchs (whose names they are also not inately familar with) with Yahweh.
In doing this however the redactor/priestly source creates a problem, because by ill-defining god, he makes it posdible for others to broaden the definition of god to include concepts from other cultures. This problem is not strictly limited to Judaism. The Edomites had a different name for essential the same god, and gods name in the bible itself is variably used. Moreover, the same god was a god in Yemen and in parts of the nile, again with different theogeny.
So its broadly speaking a truth we dont know what Yahweh means in the original sense, there is a period of at least 300 years were Yahweh is being constructed in Arabia. But we can get a sense from the stories what gods are being 'Borrowed from' to create the narrative. These flood stories, the stories of the creation (both from the Enuma Elis and the stories of Nammu-mother of Enki), the touch stone prayers in Exodus that bring forth the water, etc that are a impressionist painting of Enki within the text. But thats only part, because the bible authors are painting also a story of the South, of volcanos, the nile, the eed/reed sea and of life of bedoin out in Aravah, Aqaba and Yemen. We see in these stories the reflection of some type of primitive beliefs based on active mountains and storms encounter of front ranges of plateaus.
What made you choose your majors? I’m curious.
I don't understand why saying "I am" in Aramaic doesn't count but saying it in Greek does. If we English speakers understand this even though we are translating it into English, then why couldn't Jesus have said it in Aramaic in that moment? Or he could have said it in Hebrew or Greek or French for all we care (yes I know French didn't exist back then). It's not the language used that matters but the meaning behind the words.
The point that Dan is making is that the Greek phrase has a second layer of meaning that only works in Greek. The way I understood it was like if you were to take an idiomatic expression in English, like "kick the bucket" or "water under the bridge" and translate it into another language, you can translate all of the words but the actual meaning will not transfer over with them.
Gods name is not “I Am.” It’s “I Am that I Am.” Why are they trying to cut down his name ?
“I Am that I Am” is YHWH.
Saying that Gods name is”I Am” is like saying his name is YH.
But it’s not. It’s YHWH, not YH.
So what does YHWH mean then?
To the presenter: Can you explain why you seem to agree that “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means I will be what I will be or I am what I am when both are in opposition to each other.
Check out verb tenses in hebrew. They don't work the same as in english.
We need the men of truth like you are. Thank you Dan
That's about a whole sentence, not a name.
And these whole manipulation of the manuscripts blaming it on language is really absurd. Most of these manuscripts are not coming from the Jews nor the Christians, but they've heavily altered and destroyed so much of it that you begin doubting if what's left even makes sense.
Jesus said the God he worships has no name and is only mentioned to as "the one" from the highest of the realms.
Why are they not telling you about the real teachings of Christ in the first temple? Where are these manuscripts? Why show folks a Bible full of lies?
In fact, the only unaltered Bible with all 88 Books lies in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church till date and there's still more to add to that.
I am what i am to me, means he is everything
The opposing Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming that he had “seen Abraham,” although, as they said, Jesus was “not yet 50 years old.” (John 8:57) Jesus’ response was to tell them about his pre-human existence as a mighty spirit creature in heaven before Abraham was born. The argument that the Greek expression used here, ἐγὼ εἰμί / ego eimi (rendered “I am” in most Bible translations), is an allusion to the Septuagint rendering of Exodus 3:14 and that both verses should be rendered the same way. Exodus 3:14 declares God's name, for Moses asked what's the name of God. In the context for John 8:58, however, the action expressed by the Greek verb eimiʹ started “before Abraham came into existence” and was still in progress.
Imagine God would have said something slightly different to Moses. Imagine he would simply have said "Yahweh". Do you suggest Jesus would have said to the Jews "before Abraham was, Yahweh"? That wouldn't make any sense!
It is therefore properly translated “I have been” rather than “I am,” and several ancient and modern translations use wording similar to “I have been.”
Also, if ego eimi was such a trigger term, then why did the Jews act completely different, when a few verses later, the blind man that got cured by Jesus made himself known to them by saying exactly the same words : ego eimi (I am he) in John 9:9? Did the Jews pick up stones to kill this man, whom they knew to be previously blind, for this claim?
In fact, at John 14:9, the same form of the Greek verb ei·miʹ is used to render Jesus’ words: “Even after I HAVE BEEN with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me?” Most translations use a similar wording, showing that depending on the context there is no valid grammatical objection to rendering ei·miʹ as “have been.” (Other examples of rendering a present tense Greek verb using a present perfect tense verb are found at Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; John 15:27; Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 12:19; 1 John 3:8.)
Also, Jesus’ reasoning recorded in John 8:54, 55 shows that he was not trying to portray himself as the same person as his Father. On the contrary, in John 8:17,18 Jesus refers to Jewish law: "In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” In John 5:31 Jesus said: "If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true." Jesus thus made it very clear that there is an ontological difference between himself and the Father.
Furthermore, reread the whole account starting in John 8:12 - Did the Pharisees understand Jesus in any way or grasp what he was saying? They repeatedly misunderstood Jesus - in fact, there was not a single thing they got correct. Jesus was even so frustrated with them that he said „Why am I even talking to you?“ (John 8:25, 27) When they asked him why he said he saw Abraham, as he wasn’t even 50 years old, he said „ego eimi“ - guess what they did? They misunderstood him AGAIN! So what Trinitarians are saying is that Pharisees who did get Jesus wrong the whole time, all of a sudden understood him correctly by him claiming to be God only by saying „ego eimi“ - you recognize how ridiculous that argument is?
Going even further into the whole context of John 8, you'll see that they (the Pharisees) continuously felt their authority being questioned, and they became more and more exposed by Jesus for their false reasonings. It was this, that caused the Pharisees to lose it and attempt to stone Jesus, as by stating that Jesus had seen Abraham, because he was older than him, he claimed even higher authority than Abraham. Seniority was a very important aspect granting authority in jewish culture. For the Pharisees, Abraham was the highest human authority, and they understood Jesus to claim higher authority than themselves, which was unacceptable insubordination - they hated him for it! So, it wasn't their fear of God that caused them to perceive Jesus' word as sinful! It was their selfish pride that caused them to act in utter outrage because Jesus had dared to question their authority repeatedly and established that his authority was higher than theirs!
Ok but how can we buy that sweatshirt?
It is perfectly reasonable for John to have a high Christology, if you accept Carrier's thesis. This also resolves questions about the high Christology in the Pauline Epistles, and in the Peter 1, which can be read as authentic if Carrier's thesis is accepted.
Jesus is the Lamb of The God of Abraham YHVH Yehovah Jehovah
Mark 16:8
In the Gospel of Mark.
If the women tell no one then, Who is !
What each Gospel story is about.
The four living creatures!
Matthew Who was!
Mark Who is!
Luke Who is Coming!
John The Lamb of YHVH!
The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah
a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
@@strappedfatman7858why do you think that a blood sacrifice would have any effect at all?
@strapped Jesus was a human, so he is a human sacrifice at most.😂 and the authors are anonymous, no eyewitnesses and copied and corrected each other. That's also why we see different Christologies in the 4 gospels. Why? They wrote for their own communities and supported their own views and disagreed with the views of other communities.
@@germanboy14
Correct Jesus was Human. He was the Lamb. Jesus rules as King for his God and Father! Jesus is The First and Last!
A perfect life for a perfect life.
Jesus is the last Adam.
New Living Translation Romans 5:14
Still, everyone died-from the time of Adam to the time of Moses-even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come.
1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death. 21 For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
@@dwightfitch3120
Adam wasn't deceived. The ground did produce thorns and thistles because Jesus worn the crown of thorns and thistles. God told Adam the prophecy of the resurrection. Genesis 3:15
The Sacrifice of Jesus was the first part of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He will crush your head, and you will bruise him in the heel.” Satan the Dragon and the Wild Beast the 6th Kingdom executed Jesus on their image the cross. It was the Roman Empire of Italy that is also the shape of the heel. So the first part of the prophecy is complete . Satan bruised Jesus in the heel.
John 8:54 Jesus NEVER claimed to be God
Do not be deceived, the whole point of John 8:54-59 is to demonstrate two main things. One Jesus is not speaking these words to the Jews, but the father that abides in him is doing the speaking, he honoured not himself but his father that honour him, two witnesses, himself and the holy spirit of the father in him. The Jews did not have a clue of what Jesus spoke, they did not hear his words because they were not of God.
Proof, Jesus spoke "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." Notice Jesus never said that he saw Abraham, but Abraham saw his day?
What did the Jews say? "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" They miss quoted what Jesus said, never did Jesus say he saw Abraham.
John 8:43
"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word."
John 8:47
"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
I have friends who write Y*w*h because they have been brought up to believe that merely uttering the name of god is blasphemous*, and no matter how many times I tell them that they have been misinformed, they still do it. To do otherwise would be to prove thier rabbi incorrect, and that is inconcievable. It's a damn shame.
*Yes, just like in The Life of Brian
That’s Jewish tradition that goes back millennia. The life of Brian was a well researched film.
@@pansepot1490Malcolm muggeridge, known by admiring conservatives as “God’s gargoyle,” told Clease to his face that the film’s humor is mocking and childish. I think all they were mildly mocking was over zealous followers. Could of course be wrong
I know, but thier rabbi must know that yaweh isnt the name of god, but he insists that they do iy anyway.@@pansepot1490
So I know of no better way to turn people away from Christ and the Gospel than to 1) make it seem so confusing and difficult to know God and make them feel not "smart" enough for Him.2) say that the writers of the Gospels put words in Jesus' mouth. If I were an unbeliever I would jump all over that. If I cant trust one word uttered by Jesus, I can't trust any of His words.
"Before Abraham was, I am" speaks volumes about His Divinity, His eternalness and His relationship with the Father. Whether in Greek, Hebrew, English(old or new) latin or any language.
God is not a man.
It is helpful to understand the way the Gospel has been translated and edited, and the way that the teachings of Jesus have been interpreted over time.
Because of that, you cannot necessarily trust that you're getting the actual message of Jesus.
"If I cant trust one word uttered by Jesus, I can't trust any of His words."
The problem with making a statement like this is that the Bible is not inerrant, and demonstrably so, yet people's faith is able to persist in spite of this fact.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 No he is not. No one said that He is a man. He certainly can be a man if he chooses and He did become the man of Jesus. God becomes His creation to Love His creation. "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." John 14:11. Do not be held by human and worldly understanding. My God can become a man. My God can die for mankind, and he did, in the man. That's why he was and is hated so much. Because the lofty man, the Roman elite and the pharacitical Jews, cannot succumb to a God who came down and suffered on a cross to prove His perfect Love and Grace.
@@jaxonboys3366 Just like He became the golden calf, right?
@Dan, why don’t you ever respond to your comments.
ANY man standing in the temple claiming to be YHWH, adonai, Yaweh Or any other name for the Most High is a false messiah. No man is God Almighty. We were given all kinds of warnings about the corruption of the NT. Worshipping a false image created by the Romans.
Now anytime I say “anywhoo” I’m gonna think of this.
so by your incredible insight...all scripture is not God breathed. Gotcha
It's not, particularly when half of Paul's epistles are known to be forgeries.
Christians say that Jesus is fully human and fully god. The foundational claim of Christianity is that the fully human Jesus died on the cross, but the fully god Jesus is eternal, so can't ever die? What the ...?
I've yet to hear even a serious attempt at a coherent explanation of this claim.
The Trinity teaches that all members of the Trinity are fully God. We know they’re all fully God because they can’t be different parts of God but distinct persons of God. For example if you split a rock up into pieces they are still 100% Rock. So if Jesus were half man and half God then there would be unbalance in the Trinity.
This very paradox of the eternally divine and mortally human aspects of Jesus was discussed and elaborated at the 3rd Ecumenical Council at Ephesus (431 CE) where Nestorius (or at least his perceived Nestorianism) was condemned by the Latin-Byzantine Christian consensus for keeping these two aspects too separate from each other entailing the contradiction you are sensing. Now true, the resolution of this is a theological one that may not be to your liking but-- (and I write more as a historian than a believer)
Nestorius took issue of Mary being addressed as "Theotokos" (Gk.: "God-bearer," or Mary as "the Mother of God"), since Mary was a mortal woman who could not therefore give birth to an immortal deity. Thus, his Christology posited (or was claimed to posit) that Jesus the historical human person was united to the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, but not identical with it. Hence, Jesus as born of Mary seems NOT to be God incarnate, but a composite being consisting of separate divine and human realities.
The Latin-Byzantine issue with the Nestorian formulation is that the historical Jesus Christ sounds like a composite of two prior persons or otherwise two distinct independent realities-a Divine Christ / Logos and a mere mortal human Jesus-coming together to make a hybridized 3rd thing. The Christology has a sort of "adoptionist" ring to it--that Jesus was God's son through an adoptive act rather through a natural genesis.
This composite Jesus proved bothersome to the Latin-Byzantine consensus owing to the contradiction you are noting, with the two persons very opposite outcomes (and how then this could be remotely salvational for humanity).
Jesus had to be shown to be both fully divine and fully human in a way that made him a singularly unique individual and not a composite being. His divine and human aspects had a be “a union without confusion” (Neoplatonic terminology) that is a union that did NOT make a composite or third thing-so to be understood that Jesus is God himself incarnate.
Rather than Jesus' divine and human aspects being composed of two prior "persons" they were instead more abstracted "natures": a divine nature and a human nature constituted in just one, unique person--noted as the hypostatic union (from the Greek: "hypostasis," meaning "reality," so meaning Jesus is a single reality, a unique person or one with individual personhood, rather than being a composite of multiple realities).
(for the "nature" language: I think of this of how we use highly conceptual abstractions to define or classify more concrete, empirical things. Compare "mammal" vs "dog". We have concrete, specific empirical instances of dogs as unique entities in a way that we don't for mammals as the latter term rests on a much higher degree of classificatory abstraction--even as a dog is fully a mammal. The "divine" and "human" natures works like the mammalian instance, IMO.)
Anyhoo--the Latin-Byzantine consensus felt their doctrinal claim overcame Nestorius's perceived Logos-human contradiction as Jesus was one unique reality fully human and fully divine (whose resurrection then allowed human beings to triumph over death by participating in his divinized life) . To further affirm that, this judgment maintained the orthodoxy of calling Mary the "Mother of God"--originally done for Jesus' sake (even as it will accrue a lot of devotional significance to Mary later) so to affirm that Jesus’s divinity was fully and integrally present with his in utero human development rather than added after the fact, post-birth or otherwise : that he is God’s son naturally rather than through adoption.
Apologies for length.
People seem to forget the Book of Popeye. "I am what I am, and that's all that I am." 😂😂😂
Cogito ergo Dioscorea. I think, therefore I yam.
Who you callin' a yam? 🤨😆
Came for the informative, insightful video. Stayed for the posts of Judeo-Christian apologists who employ circular logic (what's written in the Book is true, because it's written in the Book) to attempt - and fail - to refute the video. 🤣
Adonai is Lord, Adonai is not the Tetragammatron
In other words, yes, Jesus did, unless you believe the author of John intentionally mislead his readers.
No he didn't
Your jesus is just a human
Who is Metatron? Sounds like a robot name 😅
"Metatron" refers to the angel in Judaism who represents and speaks for God. But yeah, it's an odd name for an angel. It sounds more like a transformers robot (like Megatron).
This reminds me of " My Name is..." by Eminem.
Freedom of religion and speech seem to be a license to believe whatever makes you happiest and whatever is most politically expedient. Apparently, trying to remain tethered to what is most probably real is for sad chumps who want to destroy civilization.
What's most probably real is that God is imaginary, but the people who believe in him and claim to speak for him are the most likely cause of our extinction.
So Popeye the Sailor was YHWH?
Well i found one False Prophet ⬆️
The ancient faithful did not shy away from using God’s personal name as is attested to throughout the Old Testament The teaching that only priests were allowed to state God’s name or that it was too sacred to pronounce is a bunch of ancient gobbledygook unsubstantiated anywhere in the Bible. So why do YOU substitute Adonai for Yahweh? Aren’t you just perpetuating this superstition?
its already blasphemy to steal Bible Gods followers and tell off the Jewish leaders, when God should be the one doing it, so to not create confusion...
Clearly God isn't clear so that everybody can jump on board Jesus train... looks like many got left behind
Jesus may or may not have been God in fleshly form. There are those that believe this and there are those that do not.
There could be or there may not be Extra-Terrestrial life on other planets. There are those that believe there are and those that do not believe it.
Whatever your belief be about these things is irrelevant, however the reality or truth of both of these things will be known to all one day.
“I AM THEREFORE THIS I THINKS.” ☮️……POPEYE is God! Just not the Popeye you know.
No, he claimed to be the messiah. Read the damn book for crying out load.
My name for God is The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Or more appropriately, the relationship of them and between them which just is, and has no name. God said to name all things on earth because we are lords of the earth and our understanding of all earthly things allows us to lable and name them. When you name God, you are asserting your earthly knowledge and Hierarchy of Him/Her ( nowhere is God given a gender or sex). I think we should have better things to do than to worry about His/Her name. It has no relevance on where we spend eternity or whether we are Loved by God. It is only a human ego trip to display and assert ones knowledge on the subject.
The belief in a divine trinity is an idolatrous concept, since it is a belief that God (or according to some, a second separate divinity) has characteristic features, and the characteristics of a body.
These are 3 God's.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048
Gen. 1:26; John 14:10;2 Cor. 13:14
The Trinity is not idolatrous. God became Man in the person of Jesus. Sacrificed His Son/Himself, as no other god of other people had done at anytime, to show his Love for all mankind. That was the awesome, world shattering event that was the only way to show perfect Grace to mankind. Jesus Christ throughout the Gospels attempts to reveal to many the truth of oneness and unity or nonduality, if you are secure and mature enough to use that term and understand its meaning outside of a fear of any concept other than your learning and culture. I have no problem seeing God as three persons in one. None at all. Do I have a name for this? Yes, the Triune nature of God. I do not have a name to set apart and worship as an idol that I can see and 100% understand, no. But the Father-God, the Son-Christ, the Holy Spirit- the invisible moving binding relationship between God and Mankind John 15:26 is a valid, non idolatrous view of the nature of God. I'll go you one further. If you follow Christ and do God's will, you will be with Him in eternity. No matter how you view what you cannot view. Just as I will live in eternity with Christ also. So why don't we sit with that. Because your belief against my belief does not condemn me or you.
@@germanboy14
These are one God. Your current inability to see that does not make it untrue. Nor does it condemn you or me. I have no other God before the true God. Jesus Christ is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus Christ, John 14:11. The Holy Spirit is of God and is the Relationship between He and the Son as well as mankind.
God is not a man and He is not a person. @@jaxonboys3366
Personally, I think there was more than one God
“For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,”
1 Timothy 2:5 NET
“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, and as a result he takes his seat in God’s temple, displaying himself as God. The arrival of the lawless one will be by Satan’s working with all kinds of miracles and signs and false wonders, and with every kind of evil deception directed against those who are perishing, because they found no place in their hearts for the truth so as to be saved.”
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 9-10 NET
Whosoever calls themselves God is the son of distraction according to this scripture, even Jesus called himself "the son of God"
Let me clarify, there is but one God, the creator of all. But we can’t discount the possibility of aliens, taking on the identity of gods to control us
So Christianity, a religion rooted in the New Testament, is essentially a belief based on misinterpreted ancient fan fiction. OK, got it. 👍🏻👌🏻
Base on tradition and teaching of mans doctrines
Based on the Eyewitnesses*
@@gamer__dud10 What eyewitnesses? The gospels were written decades after Jesis' death, by authors living in other countries who never met Jesus or probably any eyewitnesses to his alleged resurrection.
And BTW, the circumstances they give regarding that resurrection - that Jesus was interrogated personally by not only Herod, but a sympathetic Pilate, who allowed the people to decide Jesus' faith, in return for releasing another criminal to the Roman state, but also allowed for him to be buried in a tomb - totally go against what is known about Pilate and the administration of Roman law regarding those judged to be criminals against Rome.
So, as for those "eyewitness accounts"? Yeah, no...
@@Noneya5555 His Disiciples
@@Noneya5555 except, Philemon, Titus, Paul, Mark
Nunya, lol 😆
This is a brain dead strawman question. The Bible from Genesis to Revelation says Jesus is God.
The Old Testament never mentions Jesus ever, not even as the messiah. Ask any rabbi, he'll be glad to tell you.
Where in Genesis does it say that Jesus is God?
@@VulcanLogic And that rabbi would be lying. The OT is full of prophecies of the Messiah. Many of which were fulfilled by Jesus 2,000 years ago & the balance of which are in the process of being fulfilled now.
@@20quid I said, "from Genesis to Revelation". The Bible is deliberately written in such a way that you have to piece it all together to get the full teaching about anything. It's not necessary to find the word "Jesus" in the OT.
Jesus is part of the of "we" "our image" of the Genesis creation account of Adam & Eve.
Jesus is the God of the OT.
Jesus is prophesied in the OT.
The NT says Jesus is the word and is God.
The NT says the word created everything that was ceated.
You've got to put it all together piece by piece as Isaiah said.
@@glenwillson5073 No, the rabbi speaks Hebrew and knows more about the Tanakh than you ever will. Jesus isn't in there. Cite a chapter and verse if you want, and I'll humiliate you over it.
Yes.
Mormons believe Jesus is God, fwiw.
....that's not what was being discussed?
No, actually they don't: as they only worship their Heavenly Father!
Jesus is a lower member of their Godhead!
Their Godhead is a total counterfeit and only Heavenly Father is worshiped as God!
They R totally separate beings: Jesus and their Holy Ghost!
@@davidjanbaz7728 Jesus never told anyone to worship him, he worshiped only the Father and taught others to do the same
Mormonism, similar to Jehovah's Witnesses, asserts that Jesus is not God. Jesus is the son of God, our Lord and savior.
“For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,”
1 Timothy 2:5 NET
The Book of Mormon through the entire book clearly and repeatedly emphases Jesus is the Son of God, a separate and distinct being from God the Father. They are one in purpose and Jesus has divine investiture of authority meaning He can represent God, but they are 2 personnages.