God bless ya brother, not enough channels addressing this guy, hes the first mormon apologist ive ever seen and his entire channel is disparaging the bible, its authenticity, the apostles, and even our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus. truly a shameful, polygamous, false religion. Keep up the great work and spreading the Good News brother! earned my subscription no doubt. "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son" 1 John 22
Hey can can you cover duet 22:25-29 . Dan has covered it in a video In all honesty, im still confused about it. It feels like a lot of personal interpretation on both sides .
Hey Kurt, at the end you mentioned Eternal Generation. I couldn’t tell if you thought that was heretical or just a passing comment. Could you explain more about your view on that perspective?
@@veracityhill Thanks Kurt, I was able to listen to it. I appreciate the succinct explanation, very helpful. Hope you're doing well brother, love seeing all your doing and the success you're having!
NT Wright, in his commentary on Mark, actually argues that Jesus healing is NOT evidence for his divinity, since we see other humans in the biblical texts who are empowered by God to heal and perform other miracles. The fascinating thing about this passage is not that it identifies Jesus as God (because it doesn’t), but rather that it explicitly states that the people were amazed that God had given such authority to a man. I’ve got to be honest, your responses to McClellan are quite unconvincing. That’s coming from a Trinitarian who has biblical unitarian friends and who knows their arguments well. Your responses wouldn’t come close to convincing them.
Worth noting, around the 13:43 minute mark when Dan says God gives authority to his angel to forgive sins that this is not technically correct at least in the passage that Dan cites. God does not give the angel authority to forgive sins in Exodus 23:20-21 he speaks to what the angel will not do, she the angel will not (and perhaps could not) forgive their sins "for he will not pardon your transgressions, since My name is in him". They were to obey this angel and not rebel against him. Yahweh could be, and I think this is an okay reading of this text, saying to Israel that even if the angel wanted to forgive them he could not because rebellion against the angel is as good as rebellion against Him (since his name is in him) so only YHWH can forgive. Just a thought.
@@TavishCaryMusicYou are mistaken the angel never said it would forgive. All God said was it would “not forgive” which is not the same thing as “this angel CAN forgive”. In fact, in this scholarly practices that is a fairly large gap to jump. You would need extra data to support that “will not” isn’t actually implying “cannot and will not”.
@@TavishCaryMusic Could be any number of reasons. If you and I both can't swim and I tell you "if you're drowning I won't save you" it does not imply I could save you if I wanted. The point is that the text does not explicitly say it and if no other data support it then you can't use it as the lynchpin of your argument. Plus, given Dan's tendency to not grant an opponents an inch when building their own arguments, we should hold him to the same standard.
"I am" is not a name of God. It's a self referrant. And they picked up stones because they MISunderstood Jesus. Jesus hopes that the disciples may be one JUST AS he and the father are one. So its not a bad argument. You didn't even address the argument.
No it’s not it’s a name of self-existence and self-sufficiency. That God is “the act of being” as Aquinas would put it. They did not misunderstand Jesus, they asked him on the cross are you still saying this? And he doubled down and the Pharisee tore his clothes and shouted blasphemy! and they proceeded with the crucifixion.
@@TavishCaryMusic Asserting John 9:9 is making the same statement Jesus does is very bad hermeneutics and ignores the first part of even that same verse. And you'd be faced with explaining why they didn't misunderstand and stone him as well. The blind man is identifying himself (like Jesus does in John 10:11) not claiming existence. "Before Abraham was, I AM" is an unpredicated declaration of existence. Apples and oranges
@Jack-gp2nx It's not apples and oranges. It's the exact same phrase, "I am" or ego eimi. It's also used of other humans in the second temple writings as well as the Septuagint. It's a common self-referretial title. They Jews misunderstood Jesus as saying he existed before and therefore was greater than Abraham. They didn't think he was claiming Divinity. What is all of John 8 about? Jesus being Messiah. That's who he is. The same way he meant it in John 4 when speaking to the woman at the well. She's says they're waiting and looking for the Messiah. He says, "I am he (ego eimi), the one is speaking to you."
God bless ya brother, not enough channels addressing this guy, hes the first mormon apologist ive ever seen and his entire channel is disparaging the bible, its authenticity, the apostles, and even our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus. truly a shameful, polygamous, false religion. Keep up the great work and spreading the Good News brother! earned my subscription no doubt.
"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son" 1 John 22
Hey can can you cover duet 22:25-29 . Dan has covered it in a video
In all honesty, im still confused about it. It feels like a lot of personal interpretation on both sides .
Hey Kurt, at the end you mentioned Eternal Generation. I couldn’t tell if you thought that was heretical or just a passing comment. Could you explain more about your view on that perspective?
Hey Derek! I got around to answering your question on last weeks' livestream: th-cam.com/users/liveUPApBFLMDy4?si=66YBGthnQQGX1N-C&t=2909
@@veracityhill Thanks Kurt, I was able to listen to it. I appreciate the succinct explanation, very helpful. Hope you're doing well brother, love seeing all your doing and the success you're having!
NT Wright, in his commentary on Mark, actually argues that Jesus healing is NOT evidence for his divinity, since we see other humans in the biblical texts who are empowered by God to heal and perform other miracles. The fascinating thing about this passage is not that it identifies Jesus as God (because it doesn’t), but rather that it explicitly states that the people were amazed that God had given such authority to a man.
I’ve got to be honest, your responses to McClellan are quite unconvincing. That’s coming from a Trinitarian who has biblical unitarian friends and who knows their arguments well. Your responses wouldn’t come close to convincing them.
Dan’s non sequitur about “I and the father are one” also completely ignores ideas like Theosis
Worth noting, around the 13:43 minute mark when Dan says God gives authority to his angel to forgive sins that this is not technically correct at least in the passage that Dan cites.
God does not give the angel authority to forgive sins in Exodus 23:20-21 he speaks to what the angel will not do, she the angel will not (and perhaps could not) forgive their sins "for he will not pardon your transgressions, since My name is in him".
They were to obey this angel and not rebel against him. Yahweh could be, and I think this is an okay reading of this text, saying to Israel that even if the angel wanted to forgive them he could not because rebellion against the angel is as good as rebellion against Him (since his name is in him) so only YHWH can forgive.
Just a thought.
Thanks for the tag-team, Josh!
So if the angel wasn't given permission to forgive, why does God say it will forgive? It's clear the angel is implicitly being given authority
@@TavishCaryMusicYou are mistaken the angel never said it would forgive. All God said was it would “not forgive” which is not the same thing as “this angel CAN forgive”. In fact, in this scholarly practices that is a fairly large gap to jump. You would need extra data to support that “will not” isn’t actually implying “cannot and will not”.
@Jack-gp2nx Why would the author specify that the angel will not forgive, if he cannot? What's the point?
@@TavishCaryMusic Could be any number of reasons. If you and I both can't swim and I tell you "if you're drowning I won't save you" it does not imply I could save you if I wanted.
The point is that the text does not explicitly say it and if no other data support it then you can't use it as the lynchpin of your argument. Plus, given Dan's tendency to not grant an opponents an inch when building their own arguments, we should hold him to the same standard.
I think it's important to note that Dan is leftist and he called Trump a serial rapist which I think was inappropriate for his platform.
"I am" is not a name of God. It's a self referrant.
And they picked up stones because they MISunderstood Jesus.
Jesus hopes that the disciples may be one JUST AS he and the father are one. So its not a bad argument. You didn't even address the argument.
Son of Man means God? That's like saying human being means God. Come on.
No it’s not it’s a name of self-existence and self-sufficiency. That God is “the act of being” as Aquinas would put it. They did not misunderstand Jesus, they asked him on the cross are you still saying this? And he doubled down and the Pharisee tore his clothes and shouted blasphemy! and they proceeded with the crucifixion.
@@Jack-gp2nx I guess the blind man in John 9 is self-existant and self-sufficient.
@@TavishCaryMusic Asserting John 9:9 is making the same statement Jesus does is very bad hermeneutics and ignores the first part of even that same verse. And you'd be faced with explaining why they didn't misunderstand and stone him as well. The blind man is identifying himself (like Jesus does in John 10:11) not claiming existence. "Before Abraham was, I AM" is an unpredicated declaration of existence. Apples and oranges
@Jack-gp2nx It's not apples and oranges. It's the exact same phrase, "I am" or ego eimi. It's also used of other humans in the second temple writings as well as the Septuagint. It's a common self-referretial title. They Jews misunderstood Jesus as saying he existed before and therefore was greater than Abraham. They didn't think he was claiming Divinity. What is all of John 8 about? Jesus being Messiah. That's who he is. The same way he meant it in John 4 when speaking to the woman at the well. She's says they're waiting and looking for the Messiah. He says, "I am he (ego eimi), the one is speaking to you."
Dan is an actual scholar of the bible, not an apologist. Dueling over interpretations of mythology is fun to watch, but taking it seriously...🤔