Then that part in the bible where Jesus is on the mount and say “ I sit back with this pack of Zig Zags and this bag of this weed it gives me the sh*t needed to be the most meanest MC on this Earth And since birth I've been cursed with this curse to just curse” EPIC MAN 😁
I've never seen this point of view before, very interesting. I'm skeptical about lesser beings, being given the ability to claim Truly and precisely the living God him self. but then again my God is all powerful and nothing is impossible for him, just because I don't understand doesn't mean it's not true
Do you think this is similar to how in 2 Kings 23:27 God had mentioned his name being IN the temple of Jerusalem? Like this “endowment” of the divine name isn’t limited to people?
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934best Muslim I ever heard! I’m currently to questioning those four doctrines myself. But man… the one thing I would say in response… Jesus seems far more impressive, loving, and attractive than Allah or Muhammad. How do you get around that? Blessings 🙏
@@bradvincent2586As someone who is thinking of Islam, I will say this. First of all, Jesus exists in the Quran too, and he is also a very respectable character of the Quran. Second of all, Muhammad was also a respectable person, but he also had his duties as the head of a state. Jesus didn’t have to lead armies or fight wars, which obviously makes him seem more caring than someone who has participated in a lot of war. In Islam. As for Allah, he is the most loving and most forgiving in islam, so obviously he is seen as very kind.
Hi Dan, I’m a bit late to this video (I may be wrong) but I was wondering if you could clarify something. If the divine name is in Jesus and he is the not the Father (God), but acts on behalf of God as he is endowed the name and as per the tradition of God transferring his name onto previous exalted entities which comes with the traits of God (Sitting on his throne, being worshipped, doing miracles etc) does that mean (some) Christians have got it right? They should worship him in the Gods name? I hope you answer this question Thank you
This reminds me of how the Mayans would have a ritual and a young man would become possessed with the spirit of Quetzalcoatl and embody that identity for a year before being sacrificed of course but still the same kind of concept of embodying it because they have its name/ type of idea
Thank you Daniel, I downloaded your book and will enjoy reading it. I am in agreement with your message. But I have a little bit different perspective about it. I feel the best translation in English would be, "I am (my name is according to) what I do." For examples: El Yahweh = the God who causes to become El Shaddai = the God who gives mercy and forgives. El Roi = the God who sees all things El Jireh = the God who provides El Rapha = the God who restores Quanna = the God who gets Jealous El Sabaoth = the God who destroys the wicked. (host of armies) So the right question is what was God doing when he was speaking to Moses about going back to Egypt? El ??? = the God who fulfills his promises El ??? = LORD (because they replaced all the divine names with LORD) Exodus 3:15 God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD the God of your fathers-the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-has sent me to you.’ “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation. El ??? (replaced with LORD) = something like, "The God who fulfills his promises." or "The God who is fulfilling his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." - the promise to rescue their descendants from bondage in Egypt and give to them Canaan (the promised land). If "I am" was considered as a divine name then the Hebrews would have replaced it with "the LORD" also. And the text would read "God said to Moses, “The LORD. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘the LORD has sent me to you." So we don't know what name it was that he told to Moses (This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation.) because it was replaced with the LORD.
I'm from indonesia, i've been searching for answer. Your explanation with the verses gives me clear understanding. Can you please tell me why Jesus said he had glory before the world was? (John 17:5) I subscribed..
how about when Jesus is in front of the Sanhedrin it seems unclear if he is saying he is answering "i am the son of God" or "i am as you say the son of God" or some kind of dismissiveness like.. "i am what ever you think.. im done talking to you" this is in Luke 22:70 I think in the other synoptic it just states "i am" in response to the question "are you the son of God" then the Pharisee rips his own shirt.. can we get some clarity on that?
I'm curious about the semantics of "the divine name". Does that mean the name belonging to god, or a name given by god? Like, when the Xfinity guy shows up, he isn't literally Xfinity but merely has the Xfinity logo on his shirt, and is acting on their behalf. Or have they been given power by the act of being named by God. If I remember right, ancient Israelites had a form of the concept of names conferring power, and naming a thing or learning it's name was to have power over it.
Such a simple question yet you give such a complicated, convoluted answer. Mind blown. I am a simple soul and just prefer to believe that he has always existed as part of the Godhead. 😇
@@leob3447 And some people just try to make their theology way too complicated and then wonder why lesser mortals who are not scholars of the bible and religion just give up in confusion.
All Jesus was saying is that He existed in Heaven before the spiritual being, who incarnated on earth as Abraham, was created. Why do people try to make these things sound so complicated?
He's not going to answer that, but he has recommended that "my coreligionists" (his fellow Mormons) read a book called "Mormons and White Supremacy" by Joanna Brooks. Personally, I would also recommend "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman. It's well-respected in scholarly circles. [Edited to add authors' names.]
Yet in the context of that verse Jesus says this: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:56-58) He is in no unclear terms stating he not only existed before Abraham and witnessed him rejoice to see his day, but that He has always existed. In this conversation Jesus is asserting His eternal nature. He IS the self-existent God. It is not "cryptic". It is very explicit.
Not true. Jesus is identifying with the "Angel of the Lord" who appears to the ancient prophets, and who bears the name of the Lord. Angels means messengers, and pre-exist humans, so Jesus claiming to pre-exist Abraham as the Angel of the Lord is compatible with this statement, and was seen as a blasphemy. It does not mean Jesus was claiming to be God. He was, and is, the Son of Man.
@@NordeGrasen34Jesus is not an angel, he was claiming his equality with the Father, “me and the father are one” “you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the father” “honor the son as you honor the father” how do we honor the Father? Worship, praise, following his word and listening to his words, and Jesus said to honor him the exact same way, so tell me was Jesus not claiming to be the God of Abraham who is who he is?
He IS the self-existent God only in the sense that he is endowed with the divine name. Yes, not cryptic, but the video still applies. You need to take into consideration of the linguistic context at the time of the writing of the gospels, instead of evaluating the text based on what it means to you, a person living in the 21th century speaking english.
A lot is missing in context, even the translation of the word "before" from the Greek. Jesus was telling the elders that his teachings give life forever in understanding it, which is of the Father. The elders misunderstood and mentioned Abraham, asking if he is greater that Abraham who is already dead. Jesus' response was basically saying Abraham would rejoice in hearing him at the time, in relation to the teachings of the Father, and be grateful. Again, in context, the elders are basically saying, Jesus is not even 50 and telling them how Abraham would react and accept teachings of the Father. Then comes the confusing part in translation in interpreting what was said next. Surprisingly enough, we say these things every day. The elders are saying how is Jesus, a young man, schooling them on Abraham and the Father. The typical response is "Regarding Abraham, I was born for this." The Gree word translated before is pretty much the cognate of the word pro, for Abram, concerning Abraham in context. The elders became upset after that, understandably.
Hey Dan ,Was the book of John written to proclaim Jesus deity? All the gospels had a purpose. Mathew written for the Jews, Mark for the Romans and Luke for the Greeks. Is that true?
This is also in contrast with an angel, a messenger of God, telling John to not worship him and only worship God in Revelation 22:9. Which definitely muddies the waters. But Revelation was written much later than the Hebrew bible and later than the gospels, so who knows why this changed.
This reminds of how ancient rulers would name themselves after the neteru by combining the deity's name with another word or creating an alternation of the name. Kind of saying that "I have authority because the name of a deity is in my name." It kind of connects to the idea that in lieu of not having any direct physical images of God, words and names would describe him instead. The tetragrammaton has letters that, given their historical root, describe God as a great ruler or being of power. So for someone to say, either directly or indirectly, that his name is in them makes sense as a claim of working under his guidance and authority and harkens back to the divine self-naming practice of those early rulers.
People named their children after a god because it denonstrated piety. Recall that there was a thing call child sacrifice, it pertained to first born sons. If you did not have sufficient funds the child could be handed priests otherwise it would be sacrificed. The priest could then give the child a theophoric. Eli, the priest of El recieved Samu'el. Note in judges that people are naming their children with theiphorics of El, and they also are living in the land of Isra'el. Think about it, suppose the ba'al faction come pouring over the hill and are forced to flee and your sons name is Ba'al is Gad or Gad makes me money. You get to say Simeon in the south, and maybe they dont like gad, the god of fortune. El is a good choice for conflict avoidance.
What are the chances for a historic Jesus to know how to play with the letters and make sense of all this, it appeara to me like something for a rabi or someone with access to a better education.
JESUS IS GOD. The entire Holy Bible is the Inspired Word of Almighty God. In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God, and the WORD became Flesh (Jesus). Isaiah 9:6
Edit to clarify verses: The problem with making somebody else in the bush different than YHWH, is that YHWH does not give his glory and his name to other beings. The fact that Jesus does apply the Tetragrammaton to himself therefore is a claim to deity. “I am YHWH; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another” Isaiah 42:8 “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began” -Jesus, John 17:5
What is more likely, that two different authors writing several centuries apart in two different languages disagreed with each other, or that one is finishing the others sentence?
@@k98killer Yeah so.. it's hard to tell, really. I wasnt sure what they were going on about when i read their comment either, since posting bible quotes without any kind of context or explanation is what fanatics love to do aswell lol.
In the very next verse (Exodus 3:15), God says his name is Yahweh and this is how he is to be remembered. "I will be what I will be" is more of an _explanation_ of God's name.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. ALL things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” John 1:1-3 Jesus is God almighty and wasn’t created.
That was a theological development formulated nearly 100 years after Jesus' death, generations hence, by people who didn't know Jesus and didn't speak his language.
The use of angels, burning bushes, talking donkeys, even Jesus seems unnecessary or redundant for "the one who does all things" since there are other instances where it manifests itself directly.
Re ""Before Abraham was, I am " John 8:58" --- I won't presume to correct someone who knows a lot more about this than I do. But there's how I (a layman) reasoned it out. If we assume that the words "I am" means "God", then the statement becomes "Before Abraham, God". Notice the words "I am" only appear once in that statement. He does not say "Before Abraham, I am I AM". Nor would it be grammatically or logically coherent to say such a thing. Because then it would mean "Before Abraham existed, I AM GOD". That would be a non sequitur. It would also mix chronological tenses irrationally. Next, ... If we understand" Before Abraham" to mean "Before Abraham existed", what else do we need to understand? We need to understand that Jesus is comparing and contrasting two different authority figures; Abraham vs God. Again, if "I am" means "God", then: The 2nd half of the quote means "God existed" (before Abraham). So then we have "Before Abraham existed, God existed". Alternatively, we could read "Before" as meaning "Greater than". And then the implications of the statement would be exactly the same. It wouldn't really change the meaning. God comes before Abraham; not just as 'He whom' was here first but also as 'He whom' started (sits in the first place) of the chain of authority that the Jews are asking Jesus about. His challengers were claiming to speak by the authority of Abraham.
They're challenging where Jesus gets HIS authority. Basically, "Abraham left us in charge. Who put you in charge?". Jesus' answer is to point out that someone greater than Abraham existed before Abraham and was able to give Abraham authority. And that same "someone" is the someone who directly gave Jesus authority. So then Jesus doesn't even need to name-drop Abraham as the boss he answers to. Jesus answers to someone who precedes Abraham. That "I am" gave Jesus authority. The Pharisees didn't like that one bit. And why not? Because that claim places Jesus's God-given authority as greater than Abraham's'. That means Jesus doesn't answer to Abraham and thus doesn't answer to them. It also means those Jews are under the authority of Jesus. So then the claim is that the Jews answer to Jesus as the authority over them; superseding anything Abraham ever said.
But this is a claim he said when they asked him how he knew Abraham or how he has seen him. This is clearly stating that he existed before Abraham as I AM
@@yonadaniel5356 In that chapter, again and again, Jesus says they lacked the ability to understand him. Now, you cite them as the people who clearly understood him. But Jesus, in that story, says you're wrong about that. In that story, If we render "ego eimi" as "I AM", ... then: Jesus never claims to have seen Abraham. They were making wild assumptions about his meanings, for the purpose of mocking and invalidating him. Instead, in that story, Jesus claims to be a figure whom Abraham knew would come; a figure preparing to do something Abraham knew was supposed to happen. Now, granted, that entire conversation never happened in reality. The unknown author of the book we now call "John" was trying to create a character with a "higher Christology"; being unsatisfied with the less 'tall' (and less useful) tales which other (fan fiction) "gospel" writers had come up with. This is also how I know the unknown authors of the gospels were not Jesus-cult adherents. They were not believers. They were probably atheists; ironically. -At least in regards to "The God of Abraham". Because nobody who believed in a uniquely-sacred "Jesus" and a literal "God"-being as the Being who ordained Jesus ... would have been willing to make stuff up; lest they draw that Being's wrath for such a trespass. Each "gospel" writer was trying to reshape a local legend; to help forward their individual social and political interests. -- I just went back and re-read (yet again) that entire chapter. It was all about: Their right vs his right as: an authoritative right to speak for that "God". Those Jews claimed such authority for themselves based on getting their authority from "Father"-Abraham; as links in the chain of authority which ultimately comes from "Father"-God. Jesus's refutation of their claim (to authority), and his premise of endorsement for his own claim (to authority) was to claim: Abraham vouched for Jesus in advance (simply by knowing Jesus would eventually arrive; to do what Jesus came to do); but that Abraham knew nothing of them. [There, the writer was re-writing the history of Jewish texts and beliefs; because none of that was ever part of the Jewish religious beliefs] And then to remind them: "(Chronologically) Before Abraham (existed), (and also "before" in terms of: greater) ... "God" (aka "I AM") existed". "Before Abraham existed, there was God." In other words: "Before the man existed whom you guys CLAIM to have gotten your authority from, ... there was GOD; whom I directly got MY authority from". This places Jesus ahead of them, as a link in the chain of spiritual authority. Now, I am still humoring the assumption that "ego eimi" meant "I am" as the title "I AM" as a name for their "God", It's an assumption I believe to be incorrect. But I'm still humoring it, to make the same point I was making before. That even if "ego eimi" meant "God", ... it still wouldn't mean that Jesus himself was claiming to BE that deity. It would only mean that he was pointing out: The GOD whom precedes Abraham is HE whom Jesus directly gets (his) authority from". When those Jews argued *as if* Jesus had claimed: to have personally seen or known Abraham, ... Jesus (in that story) had NOT made any such claim. They were attempting to twist his words. However, if we decide NOT to translate "ego eimi" into a way of saying "God", then: "ego eimi" meant: "I (Jesus) existed" "before Abraham". Translating it that way would result in a conversation where: EVEN THOUGH Jesus (in that conversation) had not YET claimed to have personally been around to have seen or known Abraham, ... and EVEN THOUGH they (those Jews) were just twisting his words to mock him with that question, ... [if we translate "ego eimi" as "I existed"] The conversation now reads as: "as a matter of fact, I WAS alive back then." "Before Abraham existed, I existed". aka "I have existed since before Abraham has existed". This TOO would place Jesus ahead of them, as a link in that chain of authority. -But not as "God". Non-God but "greater than human" entities existed (in Hebrew religious lore). They were called "angels". And this might have been what the writer meant. Although, it's also possible the writer only meant "I existed as a promise (aka a "word"; aka: prophetic figure"); rather than literally existing before Abraham.
I would guess so, since all these angels and lesser gods are all part of the divine council and it all kind of resembles some sort of court. Even with Satan being a prosecutor of sorts.
My understanding is Yahweh is a son of El Elyon as described in Deut 32:9-9. In addition, I believe Thom Stark references you in his response to Michael Heiser, showing Yahweh is a son of El Elyon
I don’t really know how he arrived ti that conclusion, he simply said someone can be endowed in the nature and in the name of God so he is divine. This is just a part of the doctrine of eternal generation but with different words: God eternally gives his nature to the son and the spirit. Many claim that the angle of the Lord he’s talking about is instead part of the trinity in the old testament. Just the fact that many centuries before in the first definitions of the son of man he wasn’t seen as god doesn’t really mean anyone cannot claim to be god. Jesus in some places like the great commission CLEARLY distincts himself from the father. And his arguments about Metatron and Yahoel aren’t really that strong, The gospels (not john) were probably written before the apocalypse of abraham that is the first place when Yahoel is mentioned, and Metatron was first present in the babylonian talmud written around the 200 C.E. Jesus clearly claims smto be a distinct person from the father and to be an eternal being. The fact that some other jewish literature have beings that claim to be God but they aren’t isn’t relevant to the Gospels, the internal context would create an enormous amount of contradictions if Jesus is instead what Dan claim he is.
So, what I take from this, they act in God's name, even bearing God's name, but necessarily act with their own will being servants of God. My vision of God is simply the spirit of all life. Without him there can be no life. And from the life comes death, to feed life again. Beginning and End, First and Last, Alpha and Omega. It is not nor has ever been linear. It is all cyclical, even Human history. It is amazing, the only power humanity has is destruction.
While I absolutely agree with most of what Dr. Dan McClellan states here in regard to the Tetragrammaton and how the Baal HaShem can utilize and even identify with the Tetragrammaton without actually claiming to be HaShem, I think that like every other academic scholar I have ever met, he entirely missed the point of Austin's question. Indeed, biblical scholars have always identified the alleged comment of Jesus in John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I am." with Exodus 3:14 and 6:3, but John 8:56 clearly established the context with Abraham not Moses! It honestly amazes me how blind people are to this fact. The meaning of John 8:58 cannot be derived from Exodus 3:14 and 6:3, because the context is in regard to Abraham not Moses, for the alleged quotation of Jesus does not say, "Before Moses was, I am." I have argued since my graduate school days at Philadelphia Biblical University (i.e. Cairn University), circa 2001 or 2002, that rather the reference is to Psalm 50:7, and that the original Hebrew reference was to אנכי not אהיה אשר אהיה, and here is my reasoning: The Hebrew phrase "I am Elohim your God" (אלהים אלהיך אנכי) has a numerological value (i.e. Gematria) of 233 in this biblical passage of Psalm 50:7. The connection to Abraham is in regard to Genesis 22:14, where Abraham praised God as Jehovah-jireh (to use the familiar but faulty translation of the KJV). In this biblical passage, "in the Mount of Tetragrammaton" (בהר יהוה) has the same numerological value (i.e. Gematria) of 233. Now, what might this all have to do with Jesus and his alleged connection to God in John 8:58? There are several factors, including Genesis 2:9, 41:51, 48:14, Exodus 12:27 and 20:8, Numbers 3:2, and with some slight manipulation by the rabbis, also Isaiah 2:5 and Jeremiah 25:26, all of which demonstrate a similar numerological value (i.e. Gematria) of 233. But, I think that perhaps the reference to the unique Cherub (הכרוב) in Ezekiel 9:3 perhaps best probably encapsulated the meaning of this alleged quote from Jesus in John 8:58, and which also has the same numerological value (i.e. Gematria) of 233. This is the anthropomorphic image that allegedly sat upon the Chariot of God (מרכבה) in the infamous Vision of Ezekiel 1:1-28, where it is explicated as being the Glory of God (כבוד) and not necessarily HaShem in its fullness, and I think Jesus was probably here claiming to be the visionary manifestation of HaShem, as a branch of Merkavah mysticism of the time period which would later become known as the Shiyur Qomah (שיעור קומה) or divine "Measure of Stature" doctrine. This Shiyur Qomah or divine "Measure of Stature" doctrine allegedly held the promise of salvation, in both of its recensions accorded to either Rabbi Ishmael or Rabbi Akiva, claiming that, "Whoever knows this measure of our Creator and the Glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, is promised that he is a Son of the Coming World." This is a complex system of numerological aspects attributed to Psalm 147:5, where the numerological value (i.e. Gematria) is 233 + 3 = 236. Dr. Gershom Scholem suggested that this was probably an earlier form of Gnosticism or proto-Gnosticism which predated the later attribution by the Christian heresiologists to certain Jewish-Christian and Hellenistic-Christian sects labeled as Gnostics, whereas very few such as the Sethians actually self-identified with being Gnostic. Indeed, I agree with Dr. Scholem's opinion that the most probable interpretation of Paul's mysticism in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 was that it is Merkavah mysticism, primarily due to the insinuation of legality, suggesting perhaps a reference to the prohibition mentioned in the Mishnah (Chagigah 2:1). Dr. James D. Tabor also seems to agree that this is at least one of the better interpretations, if not the best interpretation, and he even suggests that this Vision of the Christ was probably the foundation of his entire Gospel. Similar to the interpretation of Dr. Tabor, I am also convinced that the so-called Philippians Hymn (Philippians 2:5-11) was probably an apotheosis doctrine regarding Jesus as an alleged 2nd Adam, the mystical anthropomorphism of which fits soundly into the Shiyur Qomah doctrine and even the later Partzuphim doctrine of the Sepher Zohar and the Kabbalah. I have argued since circa 2003 that the deutero-Pauline reference in Ephesians 4:13 refers directly to this Shiyur Qomah doctrine, and may in fact be its earliest attestation, since the Greek terminology regarding the "Measure of Stature" (μετρον ηλικιας) of the Fulness of Christ appears to be an exact translation of the Hebrew term Shiyur Qomah (שיעור קומה), and it may even be our earliest reference to the origin of the Metatron doctrine of the so-called Lesser Tetragrammaton, where one later variation of the name Metatron (מטטרון) equals the divine name [El] Shaddai (שדי) in Exodus 23:20-21, the Angel of Tetragrammaton that allegedly holds the power of salvation, with a numerological value (i.e. Gematria) both of 314. The Mishnah (Avoth 3:19) clearly establishes the early prominence of Gematria amongst the rabbis of the 2nd and probably even the 1st centuries c.e. Regarding the Gematria of 233, see Along the Path: Studies in Kabbalistic Myth, Symbolism, and Hermeneutics by Dr. Elliot R. Wolfson, esp. The Image of Jacob Engraved upon the Throne: Further Reflections on the Esoteric Doctrine of the German Pietists, pp. 1-62. And while it involves translations of the so-called Unique Cherub school of proto-Kabbalah, much of these Gematrioth undoubtedly date earlier to at least the Gaonic period of Judaism. As for the Shiyur Qomah doctrine, see On the Shape of the Mystical Godhead: Basic Concepts in Kabbalah by Dr. Gershom Scholem, esp. Shi'ur Komah: The Mystical Shape of the Godhead, pp. 15-55. See also Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism by Dr. Gershom Scholem, esp. Merkabah Mysticism and Jewish Gnosticism, pp. 40-79. Regarding the connection of Merkavah and Jewish proto(?)-Gnosticism, see Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition by Dr. Gershom Scholem, esp. The Four who entered Paradise and Paul's Ascension to Paradise, pp. 14-19. See also Paul's Ascent to Paradise: The Apostolic Message and Mission of Paul in the Light of His Mystical Experiences by Dr. James D. Tabor, esp. Paul's Ascent Text, pp. 184-206.
Perhaps of interest to Dr. Dan McClellan personally, on this topic, since he is a Mormonite (i.e. Latter Day Saint), is my own personal opinion that the First Vision, in its later redaction of the Pearl of Great Price, was probably influenced by the Partzuphim (פרצופים) doctrine of the Sepher Zohar: Book of Radiance, esp. the Siphra DeTzniutha (Book of Occultation) and the Idra Rabba Qadisha (Greater Holy Assembly) and the Idra Zuta Qadisha (Lesser Holy Assembly) sections, where the Two Personages were probably reinterpreted as being visionary manifestations of Macroprosopus the Extended Nose or Patient Face (אריך אנפין) and Microprosopus the Shortened Nose or Angry Face (זעיר אנפין). Note: I do believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. had a vision of some sort in the woods in Palmyra, NY, having had several visions myself over the decades, and that due to the very subjective nature of such visions, he probably struggled to comprehend it over the years, and reinterpreted it as he gained new insight. This has been my own experience with meditation and visions, et cetera. I am convinced that Dr. Michael Quinn, as explained throughout Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, is probably correct in presuming that the entire Smith family was deeply influenced by neo-Rosicrucian thought, probably primarily by Luman Walter(s), who seems to have been a mail correspondent disciple of Francis Barrett himself, who published The Magus, where a synthesis of the occult doctrine of Agrippa and the Key of Solomon (i.e. Clavicula Salomonis) grimoires were synthesized for public consumption. The book Kabbalah and the Founding of America: The Early Influence of Jewish Thought in the New World by Dr. Brian Ogren provides perhaps the best academic synopsis of early Kabbalistic thought and influence in the early days of our country, and the sort of folk magic tradition which probably influenced the Smith family. See also the episode on this topic by Dr. Justin Sledge (Esoterica) on TH-cam. I think that it is highly probable that Joseph Smith, Jr. was introduced to portions of the Sepher Zohar, although probably not an actual copy of it, during the Nauvoo period, by Jewish convert Alexander Neibaur. To the best of my recollection, although I currently do not have my notes in front of me, a perusal of the Neibaur family estate did not uncover an actual copy of the Sepher Zohar, but it did include several books on the Kabbalah, and one of which I believe was that of Galatinus. Nonetheless, it seems abundantly clear that Joseph Smith, Jr.'s explanation of the 1st passage of Genesis in the King Follett Discourse, as pieced together from various sources, relies rather heavily upon the occult exegesis of the Sepher Zohar on the parashah of BeReshith (1:1:15a-1:1:59a), although again probably not directly, but rather indirectly through quotations and allusions, and mostly being rather poor and deeply Christianized interpretations and sometimes even fabrications.
@@dimitris_zaha I am arguing that Jesus never claimed to be the so-called Greater Tetragrammaton (יהוה), the entity academics refer to as Yahweh, but rather that he was associating himself with the Elohim (אלהים), a more generic aspect of the Godhead, sometimes connoting the greater God, but also sometimes connoting the lesser gods or angels, and here including an aspect of a Lesser Tetragrammaton (יהוה), the notion of a created creator God (i.e. Demiurge), and that it was this aspect of the Godhead that Jesus was identifying himself with, but not the true God or true divinity. As such, Abraham witnessed this so-called Angel of Yahweh or Messenger of Tetragrammaton (מלאך יהוה), who appeared to him with two other angels or lesser gods (Genesis 18:1-2). Interestingly, by Hebrew numerology (i.e. Gematria), the Hebrew phrase “And behold, three [men]” (והנה שלשה) of Genesis 18:2 has the same numerological value (701) as the Hebrew phrase “These are Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael” (אלו מיכאל גבריאל ורפאל). This suggests that Abraham experienced the so-called Greater Tetragrammaton (יהוה), the true God, as the so-called Lesser Tetragrammaton (יהוה) manifested as the angel or lesser god referred to as Michael (מיכאל).
Explain Genesis 1:26 John 1:1-2 Romans 9:5 John 1:14 Colossians 2:9 Hebrews 1:8-9 There are more verses that claimed Yeshua is God and the Pharisees were trying to stone Him because He claimed to be God which was blasphemy to the Pharisees. (John 10:30-33)
The simple answer is; 'he didnt say that'! Firstly he did NOT quote from Exd 3:14. Even if had done so the original Hebrew is more like "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be". here Moses was being reassured that Almighty God could do and be anything he wanted to be to deal with the currecnt situation, namely the rescueing of the Israelites from Egypt. Secondly The sytax and correct greek at John 5:58 is "I existed before Abreham".
Was adam our father a jewish or Christian? Who was first Adam or son of mary? Did adam submit to his maker when he first made him? do you know what the word 'Submission' in arabic? 'Islam' ! *
YESHUA ✝️ SAID IN RED LETTERS Revelation 1:8 King James Version 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty
@@20quid this man lacks Spiritual discernment and Sounds like a Doctor diagnosing a sickness he doesn't know how to Cure or has little information on but reaching
@@conesobruh9165 What is "spiritual discernment" and how is it in any way an adequate substitution for years of education and qualification into this field of study? You say he "has little information" yet he routinely cites his sources.
@@20quid I don't care how many times you study something if you ain't reading the Bible with the Holy Spirit. You don't understand it correctly Discernment of spirits is considered necessary to discern the cause of a given impulse. Although some people are regarded as having a special gift to discern the causes of an impulse intuitively, most people are held to require study and reflection, and possibly the direction of others, in the discernment of spirits. Judgment of discernment can be made in two ways. The first is by a charism or spiritual gift, held as divinely granted to certain individuals for the discerning of spirits by intuition (1 Corinthians 12:10).[1] The second way to discern spirits is by reflection and theological study. This second method is by acquired human knowledge; however, it is always gained "with the assistance of grace, by the reading of the Holy Bible, of works on theology and asceticism, of autobiographies, and the correspondence of the most distinguished ascetics".[2]
In Dan's lecture on the divine council, he explain how the Israelite conception of God changed over time. In it he asserts, with a lot of evidence, that the "angel of the Lord" was an insertion in the text. It seems they simply imputed the word for angel and created the idea of bearing the divine name, so as to deal with the cultural changes taking place. They were no longer comfortable with understanding God physically appearing to people, and so changed it to be a messenger. Its a really interesting lecture and I would highly recommend watching it.
@@wannabe_scholar82 Let me help you here. Jesus Christ is also known as Michael the archangel, Melchizedek and a couple more but you probably don't have ears for these let alone the rest 😁 .
While I have appreciated certain items that Dan has presented, in this case he best the exegesis of John 8.58 pretty badly. I acknowledge there is this sort of divine prerogative and divine name that we see with the malak Yahwah- though I don't think he understands how those speaking in the authority of God can simply speak in the first person which the prophets do all the time. But none of this nothing to do with what jesus is talking about in Jn8.58.
Did Moses get the law from Hammurabi right after he invented the Internet? You do realize that the likelihood that Moses was there copying cuniform Akadian is pretty slim, right? If Moses didn't exist at all, then the law would have to be created, why does it introduce monotheism? If Moses lived and was recording the Exodus etc., Then he wasn't from or even visited Northern Babylon. Just because there is commonality in law doesn't mean there is a connection. This is an example of a correlation/causation fallacy.
The problem with claiming that the Gospel of John is only teaching that Jesus bears the divine name in a purely nominative sense is that John 1:1-18 teaches the ontological divinity of the Son in quite clear terms. Also, I've yet to see McClellan deal with the contrastive language used in John 8:58 that references John 1:1-3, namely, the ginomai versus eimi distinction, one implying 'becoming,' the latter entailing 'being.' In John 8:58, Abraham is lumped in with those things that ginomai-come to exist, whereas Christ is once again equated with the Logos, that which eimi-exists, or *is*. Needless to say, this same contrastive language is used in the OT in reference to the nature of God versus creation: Isaiah 43:10, Psalm 90:2, etc.
I had a conversation with you before, and you were sadly, a disappointment. Either way, the traditional concept of this Logos that you're talking about would make Jesus like some sort of intermediary figure who was not The true God himself, but the Logos of the true God. Nothing is created in the image of God, but rather in the image of the Logos (which marks it as a mediator between God and the world, whether as a Son of God, or otherwise, as it will be shown later). The deliberate lack of a definite article shows that Philo is not trying to ontologically equate them, interprets Rodoljub Kubat, continuing with Philo’s insistence on a one true God, and its word, the Logos, which would mean the God is the real God, and God is the Logos, but it is not the same God, which is why in this case there are two different Gods, and the Logos can be conceived as a second God. The problem in Kubat’s substantiation of this claim is that he references parts of a text (Som., 1 288), where Philo also discusses archetypal models, which might result in a merger of the “second God” concept with the concept of the Logos as an intermediary power, or a transcendent power, or as a paradigm/archetype/Form - Родољуб Кубат, “Библијски теолог - Филон Александријски: Неки аспекти Филоновог схватања Логоса и поистовећење Логоса са старосавезним Анђелом Господњим”, Богословље, LXIV 1-2 (2005): 54. Aware of Philo’s explanation This is why many speculate that John 1:1-18 were added in later, because what Dan said, goes absolutely perfectly word for word in line with John 17 where Jesus talks about being given the name of the Father, that it was by the virtue of the name of the Father that Jesus was able to do x and y. John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of[b] your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by[c] that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. - THE POWER OF YOUR 'NAME' - THE NAME THAT YOU GAVE ME It could also connect with John 10, in a way, in the sense that it may be that it is by the virtue of the divine name that this 'oneness' occurs as this passage relates. Jesus could either be a mix of 'possessor of the divine name' AND 'Logos' or that the first 18 verses were added in. Bear that in mind, that we never see Jesus being called 'The Logos' as explicitly anywhere other than the intro verses.
@@theactualuser Anyone can read our former exchange and decide for themselves who has a better grasp of the language and textual evidences and a more methodical approach to these questions. And I noticed that you dodged my question when I asked you what your own personal beliefs here are (whether unitarian, atheist, etc.). I also don't see citations from you showing precisely where Philo talked about the Logos and without using the definite article for it, etc. It seems like you're just going by your own opinion or secondary literature. Give me citations of Philo, just as I gave you citations of Targumic and Biblical passages, and we can take a look at the original language (just as I did with you) to see if you are representing things accurately or not.
@@ConsideringPhlebas But that same anyone can also see how hard you tried to retroject the Trinity into the texts, when I, on the other hand was keeping more with what traditionally people would've understood about Messianic/Mediator figures who act as this agent of salvation 'through' whom God works. This phrase 'Through' Jesus Christ is a very popular one in the New Testament. Philo writes that it is said “I am the God who was seen by thee not in my place, but in the place of God”, as if he meant of some other God, and he continues with the statement that there is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous, on which account the holy scripture indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being “I am the God”. When the word is used incorrectly, however, he clarifies further, it is used without the article, the expression being “He who was seen by thee in the place” not “of the God”, but simply “of God”. There is no name properly belonging to the living God, and whatever appellation any one may give him will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be. Philo here clearly states that what is called God is, in fact, his most ancient word (the Logos). antiquitasviva.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/65.1-2.05.-todorovska-m.-the-concepts-of-the-logos-in-philo-of-alexandria.pdf The citation I linked before is contained in this link and is a part of this citation that I shared as well. This is how the interpreters understood how Philo claimed about other 'Without the definite article Gods' and how he understood with the definite article Gods.
When the first commandment says "you shall have no other gods before me" is God saying that you can't have worshipped any other gods in the past, or is he using a different meaning that the word "before" can be used to represent?
The published academic literature goes into much more detail and is far more interesting and, frankly, convincing than taking the English translation at face value while also arguing there are other passages of the Bible that cannot be taken at face value (typically the ones that don't align with our modern morality and ethics).
@20quid Oh, the problem is modern morality and ethics. Well, if you haven't noticed, modern morality sucks. I will take biblical truth over modern morality any day. Furthermore, who said anything about taking the english translation at face value. Koine Greek spells it out just fine.
@@JustADudeGamer The problem is that John 8:54 makes it clear that Jesus is *not* the same as Yahweh. Jesus says in no uncertain terms that the one whom the Jews call their God (namely: Yahweh) is his father. Not himself. Also, “I am” cannot be considered a name of God in this context, since it would make the statement completely ungrammatical (it would be saying “before Abraham was”, and then just uttering God’s name).
@@JustADudeGamer Yeah, and who does he say his father is in that verse? Yahweh. So, he's not the same as Yahweh. It wouldn't make any sense for him to go on to identify himself with Yahweh. Btw, what does "I am" have to do with God's name? In Exodus 3:14, the name revealed by God is "I will be" (in the Hebrew) or "the being" (in the Greek). Not "I am" (which is never associated with God's name). Rather, Jesus is claiming to have existed before Abraham did. This makes Jesus superior to Abraham, the father of the Jews, which the Jews find ridiculous and outrageous.
@@JustADudeGamerHe who denies the Deity of JESUS is antichrist spirit, Period. Repent of this thy wickedness. God will Not be mocked. Hell is Eternal, where the worm NEVER dies. JESUS IS GOD
Adopting a divine name is a fairly common magical practice. If you can pull it off correctly, then you can speak with the authority/credentials of that divine being. This often involves dressing the part, e.g. a sorcerer working a medieval Solomonic tradition has to create and wear fascimiles of Solomon's ring and/or crown to adopt the ritual identity of Solomon.
Many examples of this from the PGM, which is evidently the ancestor of the Solomonic traditions. For example, the Stele of Jeu involves asserting oneself as the Headless One, and the Eighth Book of Moses involves asserting that one has the name of the Agathosdaimon. These two are probably the best known examples from the PGM, but many more can be found by perusing the texts.
@@paulgordon1595 exactly. Correct execution is critical. Probably best to use bespoke formulas that are easy to invest belief into during rituals. Changing topics a bit, I have found it difficult to invest belief into mainstream religious systems having had significant exposure to alternate perspectives and experiences. Is this a unique kind of problem, or do you think it's rather common?
@@jaylanprendergast791 Most people don’t go around announcing who they are or their nature like is done in rap music. 🙄 It’s just not how normal humans carry themselves.
@@lnsflare1 and when you replied did you announce who you are or the nature of yourself first? I have no idea who or what you are? by this rational i should just assume your a flying talking donkey.
Lol christians claim "I AM" means God..... the story is about the jews asking jesus about what he meant when he told them Abraham rejoiced to see his day... they asked how could you know about Abraham you never knew him or seen him then jesus says...before abraham was "i am" ..... if you use christian logic with I AM meaning God it would say before Abraham was God ... which means he knows about Abraham because of God.... in no way is he claiming to be God.... basic english yall
Of course Jesus is saying He is God. You only have to look at the reaction of the religious leaders listening to His pronouncement to know He is claiming to be God.
John was written 100 to 110 years after Jesus's crucifixion... Not exactly testimony they take in a court of law😊 So we know the words Christianity is nothing more than a different pagan religion like Roman mythology Greek mythology Norse mythology Chinese mythology Hinduism...🤔
That is not what it says. I Yahweh [YahuVehu] that is my name: My name and my glory not I will give nor my praise to carved images. It is important that we understand 40-66 is part of second Isaiah, psuedepigraphical Isaiah. The speaker is placing himself in the role of Yahweh, as if he is the messenger.
@@Darisiabgal7573 Bible > Isaiah > Chapter 42 > Verse 8 ◄ Isaiah 42:8 ► New International Version “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols. New Living Translation “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to anyone else, nor share my praise with carved idols. English Standard Version I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. Berean Standard Bible I am the LORD; that is My name! I will not yield My glory to another or My praise to idols. King James Bible I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. New King James Version I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images. New American Standard Bible “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to idols. NASB 1995 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. NASB 1977 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. Legacy Standard Bible I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. Amplified Bible “I am the LORD, that is My Name; My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved idols. Christian Standard Bible I am the LORD. That is my name, and I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. Holman Christian Standard Bible I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another or My praise to idols. American Standard Version I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images. Aramaic Bible in Plain English I AM LORD JEHOVAH, and this is My Name, and my honor I shall not give to another, neither my praise to carved things
so why did they pick rocks to stone him? If this was an hidden message hiden in that litterature by tha author of John and so he didn’t really mean Jesus was God, why would he put it like that? If you see the context: Jesus was asked on how would he be able to see Abraham if he wasn’t even 50 years old. This idea that he was using God’s holy name asa a justification is outer nonsense and i’m really surprised that you even wrote a book about this. And you say that that passage from exodus when God says to don’t tick off the angel doesn’t rationalize the verses when an angel says he is God. The problem is your conclusion: the angel: endowed with God’s name and so god’s divinity isn’t God: he may not be Yahweh (God the father) but that doesn’t necessitate he isn’t God. God gives his divinity and nature to him so he is God, why di you say he isn’t?
He used to be a mormon - in the 'beard free' days of his time working there. Being that it is a cult like society and difficult to distance yourself from when you grow older/or want to leave; one assumes that he avoids burning those bridges and causing himself issues. He's very clearly an atheist in the Christian sense - and has thoroughly debunked the scripture as myths, lies, exaggerations and outright invention. Which you will see from his videos. He isn't 'religious' in the slightest. Try engaging your brain.
He is LDS. For his scholarship, he takes an agnostic approach to increase an emphasis on data. As an fellow member of the LDS faith, there is nothing problematic with what the biblical data teaches. It is actually more affirming of my faith. I am not tied into old unbiblical creeds nor concepts of sola scriptura and sola fide. So this isn't problematic for me in the slightest.
@@NeuroticBliss he's said several times that his studies haven't been detrimental to his faith. That's kind of the root of LDS theology, you only are required to believe things that are true.
In this part of the mythology that seems most likely to be what the author meant. But in reality it is probable that not even the biblical God is God. The bible is full of evidence people just made stuff up and wrote it down.
Yes, but also he may still be worthy of worship in some early Christian thought. Justin Martyr in his first apology says that Christians worship the one God, but also his greatest creation Jesus Christ (who is begotten vs. God being the unbegotten) "and all the good angels." In Justin's mind you can apparently worship God THROUGH the worship of subordinate beings who bear God's authority and do his will. There is still only one God, he's emphatic about that, and that Jesus isn't God. He's just as close as you can possibly get, does God's bidding perfectly, and as such has all of God's power and authority to rule. At least to Justin, Jesus is like the legal agent of God and can speak for God and be seen as the Lord, but only because God allows it.
Well that's the central question of Trinitarianism, right? Can Jesus be the son of God and also _be_ God? Most Christian denominations today say yes he can, but I think Dan argues that this belief is post-bibilical and doesn't actually appear in the Bible itself.
@@GaryDunion 3 parts of the one same God. God told man how to live and then took on a servants roll to walk the walk, talk the talk and then paid the price that destroys the curse of Adam. Everyone is going to heaven.
This pops into my head, “By the authority vested in me …”. And pastors I’ve had do undergo an investment ceremony. Also, being a boomer, I’ve had mom spank me and then say “Wait ‘til your father gets home”. Then you get another spanking. It doesn’t exactly fit because mom had her own authority.
I understand this is your life's work, and I don't care to trivialize it; but now more than ever it is impossible to understand your approach without understanding what you mean when you state that you are a believer. The last time I asked this you pointed me to your book, but I found nothing but your scholarship that is difficult to truly understand without knowing what you believe.
@gekksvide0 I'd like to understand your balance between belief and science. If you agree with the assertion that Jesus is not God, does he still provide salvation? If not, then what is there in Christianity that Judaism doesn't provide? Everyone must work out their own salvation; but I don't see how you can frame anything through a lens other than your salvation?
@gekksvide0 I'm not certain what you mean by believing in God and Jesus? Can you articulate what you believe about Jesus? In my world, Elohim eyes Agape is the most important thing. Jesus provides salvation through the Crucifixion and resurrection. Everything else is really an intellectual exercise or lessons (often very good lessons) on how life works.
@casualphilosopher4066 I can only speak for myself. My relationship with God leads me to Christianity and the lessons available in the Bible. Certainly, the Bible has something for everyone, even if all it is for some is a self-help book.
@@ronjones1414 saying that Dan’s scholarship is “difficult to truly understand without knowing what he believes” is like saying that Einstein general relativity is difficult to truly understand without knowing what he believed concerning god. Which is really nonsensical. Scholarship and science stands on their own merits: the religious beliefs or lack thereof of their practitioners are irrelevant. Seems to me your insistence is motivated by morbid curiosity about Dan’s private life and beliefs and not by genuine interest for his scholarly expertise. Ever heard of boundaries? You are not entitled to access to other people’s privacy. If they don’t want to share learn to respect their wish and move on. Cheers.
Excellent video Dan. But come on not even skeptical New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman disputes that this is a claim to divinity, and Jesus claiming that he is God, he did a blog pretty recently. It is the overwhelming and pretty much unanimous academic consensus hardly any scholars will dispute that this is Jesus claiming that he is god in John’s Gospel, now you can claim that this is an embellishment or whatever, or that this is a later evolution within the gospels in Jesus divinity but it’s pretty clear that Jesus is claiming to be God. And also what you’re missing is the pharisees response they were clearly not OK with Jesus using the divine name, Jesus knew exactly what he was doing when he was using the divine name. Also who says the age of the Lord isn’t God? You are going with your dogma over the data on this one you are assuming that Jesus cannot be God, and at the end of the board isn’t God to prove your point that you can bear the divine name but not actually be God yourself, The angel of the Lord is clearly God, he’s directly called God in exodus 3:6. In Matthew 28:2, even alludes to the angel of the Lord as being the one that Rose Jesus from the dead. The idea that you can possess the qualities of God and use a divine name but not actually be God yourself is total nonsense and has no basis whatsoever. And again you have the presupposition that the Trinity and the distinction in personhood of the Godhead cannot be taught within the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament so you have to come up with an explanation to rationalize your view, A more logical explanation is at the end of the Lord is God but a separate person from God, but equal in terms of nature and divine essence and that is clearly what we see, The angel of the Lord receives prayer he said to do all the things that YHWH does and also possess his name. He is clearly God you are assuming Unitarianism and trying to look for justification to support your presupposition of unitarianism. I know that sounds like an insane and uncharitable psychoanalysis of your motives and I really don’t like getting into that but based on my observation that seems to be what you’re doing. Also aren’t you assuming that the Bible is univocal by quoting exodus 23, to support your interpretation of John 8:58? No there is absolutely no other being no angel, no man who is said to receive worship or to be able to forgive sins or said to be the way the truth and the light, or to be the thing that all things are made through or to bear the divine name who is also not God. There are angels who are said to be heavily exulted they are never said to receive worship they were explicitly said to not be worshiped, hebrews 1:14. And I will be sure to check it out I have your book saved and can’t wait to read it, but I think by far the greatest work ever written on the deity of Christ or the divine image is by Athanasius the great.
It’s not unanimous. There are scholars who agree Jesus is using the divine name in John 8:58 but not claiming to _be_ Yahweh, and others who doubt that Jesus was using the divine name at all in that verse. In fact, Bart Ehrman has explicitly said that Jesus was _not_ claiming to be Yahweh in that verse in the Gospel of John. He does say that Jesus was claiming to be “God”, but he explains that _what he means by that_ is that Jesus was claiming to be a subordinate divine being who shares the _name_ of Yahweh, like the messenger in Exodus. Not Yahweh himself. In John 17:10-12, Jesus actually says that God _gave_ him the divine name. This means Jesus cannot be Yahweh, since it’s logically impossible to give Yahweh (or anyone else for that matter) his own name. Also, the reason the messenger in Exodus is spoken of as God is obvious: He represents God (someone has to, if no one can see God and live). He is God’s surrogate. That’s why he is _called_ “Yahweh’s messenger”. If he was Yahweh himself, then he would never be called “Yahweh’s messenger”; just “Yahweh”. It’s like if the messenger of a king told you something, you’d naturally say “the king” told you that; you’re not calling the messenger the king.
@@legron121 OK yeah that’s a bit of an over exaggeration and a bit too hyperalisic. But no scholars. Even non-Christians. I know as far as I am aware of Bart Ehrman does believe that this is a claim to Jesus divinity and him claiming to be God. Yes there are others but they are certainly in the minority, and yes a consensus is not an absolute uniformity you can find scholars arguing to the contrary. Well I think he’s talking about is the Tetragrammaton which when you translate it into the Greek Kyrgios normally I believe. Yeah I don’t remember him ever saying that from any of his blogs or lectures I’ve seen him, or his books. I’ve read most of how Jesus became God and I don’t remember him ever saying that.. and in his newest blocking sites as one of the examples in John’s Gospel of Jesus being God. Even if so it doesn’t make any sense but if you can share the same nature as God and also have a divine name but also not be God that is pure and utter nonsense. That it’s precisely when the doctrine of the trinity comes into play. Gods nature is what makes him God if you possess God’s nature you are God. The messenger is clearly God. It’s actually pretty clear evidence for the Trinity because the angel is God but also distinguishes him self from the God who sent him the only logical Takeaway is that he himself is God yet also distinct. That is one of the doctrine of the trinity was derived to make sense of the doctrine of God. Yeah the Messenger is pretty terrible evidence that you can use the divine name but also not be God. Jesus explicitly says the Father glorified Him, i’m giving the sense that he has glorified Him, and eternally begotten him with his glory, which we also see in John 17:5, this passage is actually pretty strong evidence for Jesus being divine, sense God says he would never glorify another in the book of Isaiah. It’s not given the sense that he didn’t already have a Jesus his subordinate to the Father in terms of his authority and in terms of human nature, so yes the father does give him certain abilities that he lacks while he is limited as a human. I’m sorry but you just contradicted yourself what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense. You don’t understand the different roles within the Godhead in the relationship between the persons of the Godhead. He is also called Yahweh explicitly in exodus 3:6, and he said to do all the same things as Yahweh. No you don’t understand the difference within personhood in the Godhead, and this is where the doctrine of the trinity comes play again, that is not a good analogy, since the angel explicitly claims to be God himself, The only way to make sense of this is that the angel is Yahweh but a distinct person from Yahweh, or the Father, this is actually pretty good evidence for a divine plurality in the Old Testament. Michael S Heiser argues it much better though. The reason he’s able to be called the messenger of y’all way but also be going away is because the persons in the Godhead are equal in terms of divine nature but they are qualitatively different in their personhood so they act a separate persons well at the same time being one being. You’re a conflating being person. There is no contradiction unless we’re already assuming Unitarianism and not taking the Trinity into consideration,
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Look up "Nope Jesus is not Yahweh". Ehrman says that the idea that Jesus is Yahweh is not found anywhere in the NT. So, obviously, he doesn't think Jesus claims to be Yahweh in John. He does say that Jesus was claiming to be "God", but as I explained, not in the sense you want him to have. Your claim that "If you possess God's nature you are God" contradicts the NT (see 2 Peter 1:4, which refers to some believers as "sharers of the divine nature"). The Bible never once says that. In the Bible, Yahweh is only ever spoken of as a person ("Yahweh", "he", "him", "who"), never as a nature. And Jesus is distinguished from that person. So, there's no possible way that Jesus (or Yahweh's messenger, for that matter) can _be_ Yahweh. You never replied to my point about John 17:11-12, which shows that God _gave_ Jesus the divine name, which means he did not always have it (to "give" means to make someone who doesn't possess something possess it; otherwise, there's no way to distinguish "being given" something from just "having" it). Yahweh's messenger does indeed say "I am the God of Abraham". Why is that? Because he's speaking for God. _That is precisely what makes him "Yahweh's messenger."_ If the messenger came to Moses to speak about himself, why call him a "messenger" in the first place?? This makes no sense.
@@legron121 I think what he’s referring to is the Tertagrammaton, he also says the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus was Yahweh which is just flat out wrong.And he does not see anyone in his article that John does not seem to indicate on other occasions that John did. And what do you mean God is Yahweh? OK maybe I should’ve been more clear. What I mean by nature specifically God’s nature or his attributes which the angel of the Lord clearly has and Jesus clearly possesses as well. 2. Peter 1:4 is talking about our relationship with God it is not saying we can possess God nature in the sense that we can become God or have his attributes. Yahweh is a set of attributes that is only possessed by a select number of persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit what do you mean? Yahweh is a being which is made up of attributes. That is demonstrably false, Psalm 33:21, 99:9,77:13, hebrews 12:29, romans 9. He is distinguished from the Father and the Holy Spirit you’re conflating being with a person, God is a being with a person possesses, but God is not a single person, there’s overwhelming evidence for a plurality in the Godhead, And Jesus is distinguished from the Father and the Holy Spirit John 1:1, John 17:3, 1. Corinthians 8:4-6, Matthew 28:19, John 14:26. But he is also seen as God, John 1:1 and I will get back to our conversation on that but I’m not familiar with all the resources you referenced so it might take a while, And one of the clearest pieces i’ve evidence comes in the prologue of Hebrews where the author even uses the Creed from Deuteronomy 6:4 and applies it to Jesus, and John 20:28, all three persons are seen as God and said have these attributes about the same time are said to be distinct from one another. Only if we’re assuming Unitarianism which is what you’re doing, if you don’t accept the Trinity that would create a contradiction, because the angel of the Lord directly calls himself God, and Jesus is also directly called God, The possible way is that they are both God but at the same time distinct and functionally different persons, but equal in terms of divine nature which is clearly the case, the angel of the Lord has said to possess all the attributes of God but also be distinct from Him. Yes I did the entire third paragraph of my comment was responding to your point on those passages. No it doesn’t say that God gave Jesus is divine nature in the sense that he didn’t already have it, we see earlier in the chapter in John 17:3 and that the Father glorify Jesus prior to his incarnation and prior to the existence of mankind as a whole. This passage is confirming the eternally begotten relationship between the Father and the Son, Jesus nature was given to him in the sense that he was eternally beget by his Father. And in the sense that he is subordinate to him in his human nature. It does not explicitly say that he gave him his nature in the sense that you are thinking. You don’t understand the different roles within the godhead. They are functionally different persons and can act as different persons in terms of authority but they are equal in nature.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Ehrman uses "God" to just mean "divine" (quite confusingly, I admit). So, he's saying that John regards Jesus as a divine being but not Yahweh. That's his claim (whether one agrees or not). Let me respond in numbered points: 1) Yahweh is not "a set of attributes". A set of attributes cannot speak to people, cannot create anything, and cannot intend or plan to do anything. But Yahweh does all of those things. Yahweh is only ever spoken of as a *single person* in the Bible (as a "he", a "him", and a "who", who has "a face" and "a soul"), no? 2) I explained in my previous posts why Yahweh's messenger is spoken of the way he is and why he says the things he says: He represents and speaks for Yahweh. And you can't really deny this, since it's true by definition. You've refused to engage with any of this, and crucially with my question: If he was speaking about _himself,_ why is he called a "messenger" in the first place? 3) Show me a place in the Bible where "to give" does not mean to cause someone who doesn't possess something to possess something. You will not be able to do that. And John 17:5 only says that Jesus existed before the world _alongside_ Yahweh (aka: "the Father"), not that he existed _as_ Yahweh. And 4) If you keep citing verses without showing how they mean what you claim they mean, I'll just dismiss them. Hebrews 1 never mentions Deuteronomy 6 at all. You've confused that one as well.
@@KiokiYuudoku can you say that in layman's terms? I haven't done anything close to academic debate since high-school, and the wording you've chosen is not only thesaurus-inducing, but it also didn't tell me anything. Like, you haven't given details, you've just made a claim
@@KiokiYuudoku let me rephrase: even using substantiate like that was more technical than it needed to be, and you yourself didn't really get into the meat of what you say he didn't do, what side of the debate either of you were on, etc. You just said he failed to substantiate his argument, but what even was his argument?
Born before the foundations of the world, even the Annunaki a couple billion years ago about the ..i am , think of it like this (my name is so and so) = I am or my name is,or your dark energy consciousness ,is where name and form cease to exist,yet you still are with or without matter/flesh, ,see the faith required ?? As far as the word angel you can replace it with Annunaki,who are real flesh and blood advanced beings now ,see the Congress hearings on UAP's the military has been playing around with Annunaki technology,and don't want the world to know,even keeping some of the soldiers out the loop and that causes a false national security threat,the tic tacs are man made, from Annunaki technology.. and the havana syndrome sonic weapon prototype China created is also Annunaki tech ... using the droppa stones found , Buzz actually saw the Iggi Grey's on the moon but NASA silenced him...i say what I want classified or not ,and i wish America and China would stop doing that , they have no choice but to come clean, that's why it's happening now , enough of them hiding things from you all i believe in transparency not secrets.. Tibetan book of the dead/book of Life, is the real McCoy...not the Egyptian book of the dead, it's advanced science about dark energy consciousness transfer, which is free to all, should they choose or not to seek that path to immortality or conscious immortality, dark energy consciousness ...
"I yam what I yam" - Popeye...
I always think of Popeye, too.
Then that part in the bible where Jesus is on the mount and say
“ I sit back with this pack of Zig Zags and this bag
of this weed it gives me the sh*t needed to be
the most meanest MC on this Earth
And since birth I've been cursed with this curse to just curse”
EPIC MAN 😁
And not a sweet potato!😅😅😅
Another fantastic video!!! Thank you!
I would listen to you forever.
I've never seen this point of view before, very interesting. I'm skeptical about lesser beings, being given the ability to claim Truly and precisely the living God him self. but then again my God is all powerful and nothing is impossible for him, just because I don't understand doesn't mean it's not true
Do you think this is similar to how in 2 Kings 23:27 God had mentioned his name being IN the temple of Jerusalem? Like this “endowment” of the divine name isn’t limited to people?
What I found most interesting was the more precise English translation(s) of I AM THAT I AM. It's so wound up in our culture from I'm assuming movies.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934best Muslim I ever heard! I’m currently to questioning those four doctrines myself. But man… the one thing I would say in response… Jesus seems far more impressive, loving, and attractive than Allah or Muhammad. How do you get around that?
Blessings 🙏
I am is the conciousness
@@bradvincent2586As someone who is thinking of Islam, I will say this. First of all, Jesus exists in the Quran too, and he is also a very respectable character of the Quran. Second of all, Muhammad was also a respectable person, but he also had his duties as the head of a state. Jesus didn’t have to lead armies or fight wars, which obviously makes him seem more caring than someone who has participated in a lot of war. In Islam. As for Allah, he is the most loving and most forgiving in islam, so obviously he is seen as very kind.
Thank you again Dan!
Are the ideas in this video related at all to Moses & Aaron being mouthpieces for God?
Hi Dan, I’m a bit late to this video (I may be wrong) but I was wondering if you could clarify something.
If the divine name is in Jesus and he is the not the Father (God), but acts on behalf of God as he is endowed the name and as per the tradition of God transferring his name onto previous exalted entities which comes with the traits of God (Sitting on his throne, being worshipped, doing miracles etc) does that mean (some) Christians have got it right?
They should worship him in the Gods name?
I hope you answer this question
Thank you
This reminds me of how the Mayans would have a ritual and a young man would become possessed with the spirit of Quetzalcoatl and embody that identity for a year before being sacrificed of course but still the same kind of concept of embodying it because they have its name/ type of idea
Thank you Daniel, I downloaded your book and will enjoy reading it. I am in agreement with your message. But I have a little bit different perspective about it. I feel the best translation in English would be, "I am (my name is according to) what I do."
For examples:
El Yahweh = the God who causes to become
El Shaddai = the God who gives mercy and forgives.
El Roi = the God who sees all things
El Jireh = the God who provides
El Rapha = the God who restores
Quanna = the God who gets Jealous
El Sabaoth = the God who destroys the wicked. (host of armies)
So the right question is what was God doing when he was speaking to Moses about going back to Egypt?
El ??? = the God who fulfills his promises
El ??? = LORD (because they replaced all the divine names with LORD)
Exodus 3:15 God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD the God of your fathers-the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-has sent me to you.’
“This is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation.
El ??? (replaced with LORD) = something like, "The God who fulfills his promises." or "The God who is fulfilling his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." - the promise to rescue their descendants from bondage in Egypt and give to them Canaan (the promised land).
If "I am" was considered as a divine name then the Hebrews would have replaced it with "the LORD" also. And the text would read "God said to Moses, “The LORD. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘the LORD has sent me to you."
So we don't know what name it was that he told to Moses (This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation.) because it was replaced with the LORD.
In the Quran, God said to Moses: "I am "Allah", there is no God but me". That is the true name before corruptions..
I am is the conciousness
I'm from indonesia, i've been searching for answer. Your explanation with the verses gives me clear understanding.
Can you please tell me why Jesus said he had glory before the world was? (John 17:5)
I subscribed..
how about when Jesus is in front of the Sanhedrin it seems unclear if he is saying he is answering "i am the son of God" or "i am as you say the son of God" or some kind of dismissiveness like.. "i am what ever you think.. im done talking to you" this is in Luke 22:70 I think in the other synoptic it just states "i am" in response to the question "are you the son of God" then the Pharisee rips his own shirt.. can we get some clarity on that?
This seems a similar idea to how in court we sometimes say "In the name of ..." (the people, the state of XYZ, ...).
Experientially, it is always NOW. Past and Future are concepts arising in This Moment.
Any one us us can similarly claim: Before Jesus WAS, I AM.
Jesus is I AM do not deny him
I am is the conciousness
Is what you explained a divine investiture of authority?
Yes, bearing the divine name, bearing YHWH's authority, etc.
Is it true that YHWH can also mean the destroyer of to destroy?
Christians now say that the angel in the OT was, in fact, Jesus
Very complicated and difficult to understand, but wasn't the book of john written in Rome anonymously? 😅
I'm curious about the semantics of "the divine name". Does that mean the name belonging to god, or a name given by god? Like, when the Xfinity guy shows up, he isn't literally Xfinity but merely has the Xfinity logo on his shirt, and is acting on their behalf. Or have they been given power by the act of being named by God. If I remember right, ancient Israelites had a form of the concept of names conferring power, and naming a thing or learning it's name was to have power over it.
Such a simple question yet you give such a complicated, convoluted answer. Mind blown. I am a simple soul and just prefer to believe that he has always existed as part of the Godhead. 😇
Yeah, well, life is rarely, if ever, simple.
@@leob3447 And some people just try to make their theology way too complicated and then wonder why lesser mortals who are not scholars of the bible and religion just give up in confusion.
@@snowwhitehair485 Fair point. And I certainly made my previous comment way to complicated by abusing commas 🙂
All Jesus was saying is that He existed in Heaven before the spiritual being, who incarnated on earth as Abraham, was created. Why do people try to make these things sound so complicated?
How accurate is South Park's Book Of Mormon as to the foundation of the LDS?
He's not going to answer that, but he has recommended that "my coreligionists" (his fellow Mormons) read a book called "Mormons and White Supremacy" by Joanna Brooks.
Personally, I would also recommend "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman. It's well-respected in scholarly circles.
[Edited to add authors' names.]
I don't know about accuracy but he has stated he enjoyed it and found it funny.
LDS history is a blurry mess of everyone disagreeing with each other and being ambiguous.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana - That's the best summary of the era I've ever read.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana As are most other religions and philosophies - - -
Yet in the context of that verse Jesus says this:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:56-58)
He is in no unclear terms stating he not only existed before Abraham and witnessed him rejoice to see his day, but that He has always existed. In this conversation Jesus is asserting His eternal nature. He IS the self-existent God.
It is not "cryptic". It is very explicit.
Not true. Jesus is identifying with the "Angel of the Lord" who appears to the ancient prophets, and who bears the name of the Lord. Angels means messengers, and pre-exist humans, so Jesus claiming to pre-exist Abraham as the Angel of the Lord is compatible with this statement, and was seen as a blasphemy. It does not mean Jesus was claiming to be God. He was, and is, the Son of Man.
Explain this. "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see, my day: And he saw it, and was glad." So where did Abraham see his day?
@@NordeGrasen34Jesus is not an angel, he was claiming his equality with the Father, “me and the father are one” “you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the father” “honor the son as you honor the father” how do we honor the Father? Worship, praise, following his word and listening to his words, and Jesus said to honor him the exact same way, so tell me was Jesus not claiming to be the God of Abraham who is who he is?
He IS the self-existent God only in the sense that he is endowed with the divine name. Yes, not cryptic, but the video still applies. You need to take into consideration of the linguistic context at the time of the writing of the gospels, instead of evaluating the text based on what it means to you, a person living in the 21th century speaking english.
A lot is missing in context, even the translation of the word "before" from the Greek. Jesus was telling the elders that his teachings give life forever in understanding it, which is of the Father. The elders misunderstood and mentioned Abraham, asking if he is greater that Abraham who is already dead. Jesus' response was basically saying Abraham would rejoice in hearing him at the time, in relation to the teachings of the Father, and be grateful. Again, in context, the elders are basically saying, Jesus is not even 50 and telling them how Abraham would react and accept teachings of the Father. Then comes the confusing part in translation in interpreting what was said next. Surprisingly enough, we say these things every day. The elders are saying how is Jesus, a young man, schooling them on Abraham and the Father. The typical response is "Regarding Abraham, I was born for this." The Gree word translated before is pretty much the cognate of the word pro, for Abram, concerning Abraham in context. The elders became upset after that, understandably.
Hey Dan ,Was the book of John written to proclaim Jesus deity? All the gospels had a purpose. Mathew written for the Jews, Mark for the Romans and Luke for the Greeks. Is that true?
If Matthew was written for the Jews, why was it written in Greek?
@@tesladrew2608 Thats a good point. Mathew seems to quote from the OT to convince Jews.
@@chaiman3761 or Greeks that followed the old testament literatures
@@tesladrew2608my understating is that Greek was the lingua Franca of the eastern Mediterranean after Alexander. Scholarly Jews would know Greek.
@@jsworpin the thing is, all these "prophecies" of Matthew are based on the Septuagint, the Greek old testament, not the hebrew text.
This is also in contrast with an angel, a messenger of God, telling John to not worship him and only worship God in Revelation 22:9. Which definitely muddies the waters. But Revelation was written much later than the Hebrew bible and later than the gospels, so who knows why this changed.
We know God's name is Howard... It's in the prayer "Our God, who art in heaven, Howard be thy name..."
And I always thought that it simply meant that Jesus existed before Abraham
This reminds of how ancient rulers would name themselves after the neteru by combining the deity's name with another word or creating an alternation of the name. Kind of saying that "I have authority because the name of a deity is in my name."
It kind of connects to the idea that in lieu of not having any direct physical images of God, words and names would describe him instead. The tetragrammaton has letters that, given their historical root, describe God as a great ruler or being of power. So for someone to say, either directly or indirectly, that his name is in them makes sense as a claim of working under his guidance and authority and harkens back to the divine self-naming practice of those early rulers.
People named their children after a god because it denonstrated piety.
Recall that there was a thing call child sacrifice, it pertained to first born sons. If you did not have sufficient funds the child could be handed priests otherwise it would be sacrificed. The priest could then give the child a theophoric. Eli, the priest of El recieved Samu'el.
Note in judges that people are naming their children with theiphorics of El, and they also are living in the land of Isra'el. Think about it, suppose the ba'al faction come pouring over the hill and are forced to flee and your sons name is Ba'al is Gad or Gad makes me money. You get to say Simeon in the south, and maybe they dont like gad, the god of fortune. El is a good choice for conflict avoidance.
What are the chances for a historic Jesus to know how to play with the letters and make sense of all this, it appeara to me like something for a rabi or someone with access to a better education.
Is anyone claiming that jesus wrote the gospels?
JESUS IS GOD. The entire Holy Bible is the Inspired Word of Almighty God. In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God, and the WORD became Flesh (Jesus). Isaiah 9:6
Edit to clarify verses: The problem with making somebody else in the bush different than YHWH, is that YHWH does not give his glory and his name to other beings. The fact that Jesus does apply the Tetragrammaton to himself therefore is a claim to deity.
“I am YHWH; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another” Isaiah 42:8
“And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began” -Jesus, John 17:5
What is more likely, that two different authors writing several centuries apart in two different languages disagreed with each other, or that one is finishing the others sentence?
But... Jesus says later in that chapter that he gives his followers that same glory: "I have given them the glory you gave me" (John 17:22).
@@20quidI think the obvious contrast is probably the point of the OP.
@@k98killer Yeah so.. it's hard to tell, really. I wasnt sure what they were going on about when i read their comment either, since posting bible quotes without any kind of context or explanation is what fanatics love to do aswell lol.
@@Yamyatos an analogue of Poe's Law, perhaps
If the name God gives to Moses is "ehyeh asher ehyeh", where and how does the Tetragrammaton come into play as God's name? I've always wondered.
In the very next verse (Exodus 3:15), God says his name is Yahweh and this is how he is to be remembered.
"I will be what I will be" is more of an _explanation_ of God's name.
@@legron121 Thanks!
Liars. ‘ I AM that I AM’ the Great ‘ ‘I AM’ His name is JESUS, the Great ‘I AM’
I am is the conciousness
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. ALL things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”
John 1:1-3
Jesus is God almighty and wasn’t created.
I am is the conciousness
That was a theological development formulated nearly 100 years after Jesus' death, generations hence, by people who didn't know Jesus and didn't speak his language.
@@tchristianphotoclearly this is false. Look at some fathers who live before the mentioned time window who believed Jesus is God.
🤘
Why does Metatron sound so out of place? Is it not from a semetic root? Anyone know the entomology?
So basically god gave the angel power of attorney.
Thank you, just ordered the book!
The use of angels, burning bushes, talking donkeys, even Jesus seems unnecessary or redundant for "the one who does all things" since there are other instances where it manifests itself directly.
Re ""Before Abraham was, I am " John 8:58"
---
I won't presume to correct someone who knows a lot more about this than I do.
But there's how I (a layman) reasoned it out.
If we assume that the words "I am" means "God", then the statement becomes "Before Abraham, God".
Notice the words "I am" only appear once in that statement.
He does not say "Before Abraham,
I am I AM".
Nor would it be grammatically or logically coherent to say such a thing. Because then it would mean "Before Abraham existed, I AM GOD".
That would be a non sequitur.
It would also mix chronological tenses irrationally.
Next, ...
If we understand" Before Abraham" to mean "Before Abraham existed",
what else do we need to understand?
We need to understand that Jesus is comparing and contrasting two different authority figures; Abraham vs God.
Again, if "I am" means "God", then:
The 2nd half of the quote means "God existed" (before Abraham).
So then we have "Before Abraham existed, God existed".
Alternatively, we could read "Before" as meaning "Greater than".
And then the implications of the statement would be exactly the same. It wouldn't really change the meaning.
God comes before Abraham; not just as 'He whom' was here first but also as 'He whom' started (sits in the first place) of the chain of authority that the Jews are asking Jesus about.
His challengers were claiming to speak by the authority of Abraham.
They're challenging where Jesus gets HIS authority.
Basically, "Abraham left us in charge. Who put you in charge?".
Jesus' answer is to point out that someone greater than Abraham existed before Abraham and was able to give Abraham authority.
And that same "someone" is the someone who directly gave Jesus authority.
So then Jesus doesn't even need to name-drop Abraham as the boss he answers to.
Jesus answers to someone who precedes Abraham.
That "I am" gave Jesus authority.
The Pharisees didn't like that one bit.
And why not?
Because that claim places Jesus's God-given authority as greater than Abraham's'.
That means Jesus doesn't answer to Abraham and thus doesn't answer to them.
It also means those Jews are under the authority of Jesus. So then the claim is that the Jews answer to Jesus as the authority over them; superseding anything Abraham ever said.
Doesn’t it also mean Jesus is pre existing?
I am is the conciousness
But this is a claim he said when they asked him how he knew Abraham or how he has seen him. This is clearly stating that he existed before Abraham as I AM
@@yonadaniel5356 In that chapter, again and again, Jesus says they lacked the ability to understand him.
Now, you cite them
as the people who clearly understood him.
But Jesus, in that story, says you're wrong about that.
In that story,
If we render "ego eimi" as "I AM", ...
then:
Jesus never claims to have seen Abraham.
They were making wild assumptions about his meanings, for the purpose of mocking and invalidating him.
Instead, in that story, Jesus claims to be a figure whom Abraham knew would come;
a figure preparing to do
something Abraham knew was supposed to happen.
Now, granted, that entire conversation never happened in reality.
The unknown author of the book we now call "John" was trying to create a character with a "higher Christology"; being unsatisfied with the less 'tall' (and less useful) tales which other (fan fiction) "gospel" writers had come up with.
This is also how I know the unknown authors of the gospels were not Jesus-cult adherents.
They were not believers.
They were probably atheists; ironically.
-At least in regards to "The God of Abraham".
Because nobody who believed in a uniquely-sacred "Jesus" and a literal "God"-being as the Being who ordained Jesus ... would have been willing to make stuff up; lest they draw that Being's wrath for such a trespass.
Each "gospel" writer was trying to reshape a local legend; to help forward their individual social and political interests.
--
I just went back and re-read (yet again) that entire chapter.
It was all about:
Their right
vs
his right
as:
an authoritative right
to speak for that "God".
Those Jews claimed such authority for themselves
based on getting their authority from "Father"-Abraham;
as links in
the chain of authority
which ultimately comes from "Father"-God.
Jesus's refutation of their claim (to authority),
and
his premise of endorsement for his own claim (to authority)
was to claim:
Abraham vouched for Jesus in advance (simply by knowing Jesus would eventually arrive; to do what Jesus came to do);
but that Abraham knew nothing of them.
[There, the writer was re-writing the history of Jewish texts and beliefs; because none of that was ever part of the Jewish religious beliefs]
And then to remind them:
"(Chronologically) Before Abraham (existed),
(and also "before" in terms of: greater) ...
"God" (aka "I AM") existed".
"Before Abraham existed,
there was God."
In other words:
"Before the man existed whom you guys CLAIM to have gotten your authority from, ... there was GOD; whom I directly got MY authority from".
This places Jesus ahead of them, as a link in the chain of spiritual authority.
Now, I am still humoring the assumption that "ego eimi" meant "I am" as the title "I AM" as a name for their "God",
It's an assumption I believe to be incorrect.
But I'm still humoring it, to make the same point I was making before. That even if "ego eimi" meant "God", ...
it still wouldn't mean that Jesus himself was claiming to BE that deity.
It would only mean that he was pointing out:
The GOD whom precedes Abraham
is HE whom Jesus directly gets (his) authority from".
When those Jews argued *as if* Jesus had claimed:
to have personally seen or known Abraham, ...
Jesus (in that story) had NOT made any such claim.
They were attempting to twist his words.
However,
if we decide NOT to translate "ego eimi" into a way of saying "God",
then:
"ego eimi" meant:
"I (Jesus) existed" "before Abraham".
Translating it that way would result in a conversation where:
EVEN THOUGH Jesus
(in that conversation)
had not YET claimed to have personally been around to have seen or known Abraham, ...
and EVEN THOUGH they (those Jews) were just twisting his words to mock him with that question, ...
[if we translate "ego eimi" as "I existed"]
The conversation now reads as:
"as a matter of fact, I WAS alive back then."
"Before Abraham existed, I existed".
aka
"I have existed since before Abraham has existed".
This TOO would place Jesus ahead of them, as a link in that chain of authority.
-But not as "God".
Non-God but "greater than human" entities existed (in Hebrew religious lore).
They were called "angels".
And this might have been what the writer meant.
Although, it's also possible the writer only meant "I existed as a promise (aka a "word";
aka:
prophetic figure");
rather than literally existing before Abraham.
Ascended Masters
My work often involves power of attorney. Would you say that concept is similar? Because I think of it every time this comes up in your videos.
I would guess so, since all these angels and lesser gods are all part of the divine council and it all kind of resembles some sort of court. Even with Satan being a prosecutor of sorts.
What a great connection! I think it’s a perfect example.
Why is this so complicated? Reading the quran makes so much sense
It's easier to believe what is more likely... that Jesus never said this in the first place so you all can sleep better at night.
@@MrMortal_Ra It would be more likely of evidence of truth if it was seen throughout the gospels...but it wasn't until John's
My understanding is Yahweh is a son of El Elyon as described in Deut 32:9-9. In addition, I believe Thom Stark references you in his response to Michael Heiser, showing Yahweh is a son of El Elyon
So he was saying he was God, but was not and didn't mean it? or in some way embodied the spirit or mind of God and therefore could call himself God.
I don’t really know how he arrived ti that conclusion, he simply said someone can be endowed in the nature and in the name of God so he is divine. This is just a part of the doctrine of eternal generation but with different words: God eternally gives his nature to the son and the spirit. Many claim that the angle of the Lord he’s talking about is instead part of the trinity in the old testament. Just the fact that many centuries before in the first definitions of the son of man he wasn’t seen as god doesn’t really mean anyone cannot claim to be god. Jesus in some places like the great commission CLEARLY distincts himself from the father. And his arguments about Metatron and Yahoel aren’t really that strong, The gospels (not john) were probably written before the apocalypse of abraham that is the first place when Yahoel is mentioned, and Metatron was first present in the babylonian talmud written around the 200 C.E.
Jesus clearly claims smto be a distinct person from the father and to be an eternal being. The fact that some other jewish literature have beings that claim to be God but they aren’t isn’t relevant to the Gospels, the internal context would create an enormous amount of contradictions if Jesus is instead what Dan claim he is.
He’s a Mormon and has to try and make any video about Jesus pandering to his ideology 😂
The Angel of the Lord is the preincarnate Word (Logos) of God the Father, i.e. God the Son (Christ). Jesus Christ aka the Angel of the Lord is God.
So, what I take from this, they act in God's name, even bearing God's name, but necessarily act with their own will being servants of God. My vision of God is simply the spirit of all life. Without him there can be no life. And from the life comes death, to feed life again. Beginning and End, First and Last, Alpha and Omega. It is not nor has ever been linear. It is all cyclical, even Human history. It is amazing, the only power humanity has is destruction.
While I absolutely agree with most of what Dr. Dan McClellan states here in regard to the Tetragrammaton and how the Baal HaShem can utilize and even identify with the Tetragrammaton without actually claiming to be HaShem, I think that like every other academic scholar I have ever met, he entirely missed the point of Austin's question.
Indeed, biblical scholars have always identified the alleged comment of Jesus in John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I am." with Exodus 3:14 and 6:3, but John 8:56 clearly established the context with Abraham not Moses!
It honestly amazes me how blind people are to this fact. The meaning of John 8:58 cannot be derived from Exodus 3:14 and 6:3, because the context is in regard to Abraham not Moses, for the alleged quotation of Jesus does not say, "Before Moses was, I am."
I have argued since my graduate school days at Philadelphia Biblical University (i.e. Cairn University), circa 2001 or 2002, that rather the reference is to Psalm 50:7, and that the original Hebrew reference was to אנכי not אהיה אשר אהיה, and here is my reasoning:
The Hebrew phrase "I am Elohim your God" (אלהים אלהיך אנכי) has a numerological value (i.e. Gematria) of 233 in this biblical passage of Psalm 50:7.
The connection to Abraham is in regard to Genesis 22:14, where Abraham praised God as Jehovah-jireh (to use the familiar but faulty translation of the KJV).
In this biblical passage, "in the Mount of Tetragrammaton" (בהר יהוה) has the same numerological value (i.e. Gematria) of 233.
Now, what might this all have to do with Jesus and his alleged connection to God in John 8:58?
There are several factors, including Genesis 2:9, 41:51, 48:14, Exodus 12:27 and 20:8, Numbers 3:2, and with some slight manipulation by the rabbis, also Isaiah 2:5 and Jeremiah 25:26, all of which demonstrate a similar numerological value (i.e. Gematria) of 233.
But, I think that perhaps the reference to the unique Cherub (הכרוב) in Ezekiel 9:3 perhaps best probably encapsulated the meaning of this alleged quote from Jesus in John 8:58, and which also has the same numerological value (i.e. Gematria) of 233.
This is the anthropomorphic image that allegedly sat upon the Chariot of God (מרכבה) in the infamous Vision of Ezekiel 1:1-28, where it is explicated as being the Glory of God (כבוד) and not necessarily HaShem in its fullness, and I think Jesus was probably here claiming to be the visionary manifestation of HaShem, as a branch of Merkavah mysticism of the time period which would later become known as the Shiyur Qomah (שיעור קומה) or divine "Measure of Stature" doctrine.
This Shiyur Qomah or divine "Measure of Stature" doctrine allegedly held the promise of salvation, in both of its recensions accorded to either Rabbi Ishmael or Rabbi Akiva, claiming that, "Whoever knows this measure of our Creator and the Glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, is promised that he is a Son of the Coming World."
This is a complex system of numerological aspects attributed to Psalm 147:5, where the numerological value (i.e. Gematria) is 233 + 3 = 236.
Dr. Gershom Scholem suggested that this was probably an earlier form of Gnosticism or proto-Gnosticism which predated the later attribution by the Christian heresiologists to certain Jewish-Christian and Hellenistic-Christian sects labeled as Gnostics, whereas very few such as the Sethians actually self-identified with being Gnostic.
Indeed, I agree with Dr. Scholem's opinion that the most probable interpretation of Paul's mysticism in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 was that it is Merkavah mysticism, primarily due to the insinuation of legality, suggesting perhaps a reference to the prohibition mentioned in the Mishnah (Chagigah 2:1).
Dr. James D. Tabor also seems to agree that this is at least one of the better interpretations, if not the best interpretation, and he even suggests that this Vision of the Christ was probably the foundation of his entire Gospel.
Similar to the interpretation of Dr. Tabor, I am also convinced that the so-called Philippians Hymn (Philippians 2:5-11) was probably an apotheosis doctrine regarding Jesus as an alleged 2nd Adam, the mystical anthropomorphism of which fits soundly into the Shiyur Qomah doctrine and even the later Partzuphim doctrine of the Sepher Zohar and the Kabbalah.
I have argued since circa 2003 that the deutero-Pauline reference in Ephesians 4:13 refers directly to this Shiyur Qomah doctrine, and may in fact be its earliest attestation, since the Greek terminology regarding the "Measure of Stature" (μετρον ηλικιας) of the Fulness of Christ appears to be an exact translation of the Hebrew term Shiyur Qomah (שיעור קומה), and it may even be our earliest reference to the origin of the Metatron doctrine of the so-called Lesser Tetragrammaton, where one later variation of the name Metatron (מטטרון) equals the divine name [El] Shaddai (שדי) in Exodus 23:20-21, the Angel of Tetragrammaton that allegedly holds the power of salvation, with a numerological value (i.e. Gematria) both of 314.
The Mishnah (Avoth 3:19) clearly establishes the early prominence of Gematria amongst the rabbis of the 2nd and probably even the 1st centuries c.e.
Regarding the Gematria of 233, see Along the Path: Studies in Kabbalistic Myth, Symbolism, and Hermeneutics by Dr. Elliot R. Wolfson, esp. The Image of Jacob Engraved upon the Throne: Further Reflections on the Esoteric Doctrine of the German Pietists, pp. 1-62. And while it involves translations of the so-called Unique Cherub school of proto-Kabbalah, much of these Gematrioth undoubtedly date earlier to at least the Gaonic period of Judaism.
As for the Shiyur Qomah doctrine, see On the Shape of the Mystical Godhead: Basic Concepts in Kabbalah by Dr. Gershom Scholem, esp. Shi'ur Komah: The Mystical Shape of the Godhead, pp. 15-55. See also Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism by Dr. Gershom Scholem, esp. Merkabah Mysticism and Jewish Gnosticism, pp. 40-79.
Regarding the connection of Merkavah and Jewish proto(?)-Gnosticism, see Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition by Dr. Gershom Scholem, esp. The Four who entered Paradise and Paul's Ascension to Paradise, pp. 14-19.
See also Paul's Ascent to Paradise: The Apostolic Message and Mission of Paul in the Light of His Mystical Experiences by Dr. James D. Tabor, esp. Paul's Ascent Text, pp. 184-206.
Perhaps of interest to Dr. Dan McClellan personally, on this topic, since he is a Mormonite (i.e. Latter Day Saint), is my own personal opinion that the First Vision, in its later redaction of the Pearl of Great Price, was probably influenced by the Partzuphim (פרצופים) doctrine of the Sepher Zohar: Book of Radiance, esp. the Siphra DeTzniutha (Book of Occultation) and the Idra Rabba Qadisha (Greater Holy Assembly) and the Idra Zuta Qadisha (Lesser Holy Assembly) sections, where the Two Personages were probably reinterpreted as being visionary manifestations of Macroprosopus the Extended Nose or Patient Face (אריך אנפין) and Microprosopus the Shortened Nose or Angry Face (זעיר אנפין).
Note: I do believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. had a vision of some sort in the woods in Palmyra, NY, having had several visions myself over the decades, and that due to the very subjective nature of such visions, he probably struggled to comprehend it over the years, and reinterpreted it as he gained new insight. This has been my own experience with meditation and visions, et cetera.
I am convinced that Dr. Michael Quinn, as explained throughout Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, is probably correct in presuming that the entire Smith family was deeply influenced by neo-Rosicrucian thought, probably primarily by Luman Walter(s), who seems to have been a mail correspondent disciple of Francis Barrett himself, who published The Magus, where a synthesis of the occult doctrine of Agrippa and the Key of Solomon (i.e. Clavicula Salomonis) grimoires were synthesized for public consumption.
The book Kabbalah and the Founding of America: The Early Influence of Jewish Thought in the New World by Dr. Brian Ogren provides perhaps the best academic synopsis of early Kabbalistic thought and influence in the early days of our country, and the sort of folk magic tradition which probably influenced the Smith family. See also the episode on this topic by Dr. Justin Sledge (Esoterica) on TH-cam.
I think that it is highly probable that Joseph Smith, Jr. was introduced to portions of the Sepher Zohar, although probably not an actual copy of it, during the Nauvoo period, by Jewish convert Alexander Neibaur.
To the best of my recollection, although I currently do not have my notes in front of me, a perusal of the Neibaur family estate did not uncover an actual copy of the Sepher Zohar, but it did include several books on the Kabbalah, and one of which I believe was that of Galatinus.
Nonetheless, it seems abundantly clear that Joseph Smith, Jr.'s explanation of the 1st passage of Genesis in the King Follett Discourse, as pieced together from various sources, relies rather heavily upon the occult exegesis of the Sepher Zohar on the parashah of BeReshith (1:1:15a-1:1:59a), although again probably not directly, but rather indirectly through quotations and allusions, and mostly being rather poor and deeply Christianized interpretations and sometimes even fabrications.
If Jesus wasn't claiming to be the Yahweh of the old testament then how did he exist before Abraham and how did abraham see him and was glad
@@dimitris_zaha
I am arguing that Jesus never claimed to be the so-called Greater Tetragrammaton (יהוה), the entity academics refer to as Yahweh, but rather that he was associating himself with the Elohim (אלהים), a more generic aspect of the Godhead, sometimes connoting the greater God, but also sometimes connoting the lesser gods or angels, and here including an aspect of a Lesser Tetragrammaton (יהוה), the notion of a created creator God (i.e. Demiurge), and that it was this aspect of the Godhead that Jesus was identifying himself with, but not the true God or true divinity.
As such, Abraham witnessed this so-called Angel of Yahweh or Messenger of Tetragrammaton (מלאך יהוה), who appeared to him with two other angels or lesser gods (Genesis 18:1-2).
Interestingly, by Hebrew numerology (i.e. Gematria), the Hebrew phrase “And behold, three [men]” (והנה שלשה) of Genesis 18:2 has the same numerological value (701) as the Hebrew phrase “These are Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael” (אלו מיכאל גבריאל ורפאל).
This suggests that Abraham experienced the so-called Greater Tetragrammaton (יהוה), the true God, as the so-called Lesser Tetragrammaton (יהוה) manifested as the angel or lesser god referred to as Michael (מיכאל).
I am Gabdalf, and Gandalf means me
Explain
Genesis 1:26
John 1:1-2
Romans 9:5
John 1:14
Colossians 2:9
Hebrews 1:8-9
There are more verses that claimed Yeshua is God and the Pharisees were trying to stone Him because He claimed to be God which was blasphemy to the Pharisees. (John 10:30-33)
But exodus 3:4 says God called unto him from the bush and so maybe there was two in the bush and none in the hand
This is so hard to grasp.
The simple answer is; 'he didnt say that'! Firstly he did NOT quote from Exd 3:14. Even if had done so the original Hebrew is more like "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be". here Moses was being reassured that Almighty God could do and be anything he wanted to be to deal with the currecnt situation, namely the rescueing of the Israelites from Egypt. Secondly The sytax and correct greek at John 5:58 is "I existed before Abreham".
Was adam our father a jewish or Christian?
Who was first Adam or son of mary?
Did adam submit to his maker when he first made him?
do you know what the word 'Submission' in arabic? 'Islam' !
*
Is this the same idea as a monarch's sigil?
YESHUA ✝️ SAID IN RED LETTERS Revelation 1:8
King James Version
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty
Dan's already addressed this in previous shorts about why Revelation was included in the canon and on his podcast episode about revelation.
@@20quid he addressed this with what he thinks?
@@20quid this man lacks Spiritual discernment and Sounds like a Doctor diagnosing a sickness he doesn't know how to Cure or has little information on but reaching
@@conesobruh9165 What is "spiritual discernment" and how is it in any way an adequate substitution for years of education and qualification into this field of study?
You say he "has little information" yet he routinely cites his sources.
@@20quid I don't care how many times you study something if you ain't reading the Bible with the Holy Spirit. You don't understand it correctly Discernment of spirits is considered necessary to discern the cause of a given impulse. Although some people are regarded as having a special gift to discern the causes of an impulse intuitively, most people are held to require study and reflection, and possibly the direction of others, in the discernment of spirits.
Judgment of discernment can be made in two ways. The first is by a charism or spiritual gift, held as divinely granted to certain individuals for the discerning of spirits by intuition (1 Corinthians 12:10).[1] The second way to discern spirits is by reflection and theological study. This second method is by acquired human knowledge; however, it is always gained "with the assistance of grace, by the reading of the Holy Bible, of works on theology and asceticism, of autobiographies, and the correspondence of the most distinguished ascetics".[2]
The angel of the Lord is preincarnated Jesus Christ. It's that simple.
In Dan's lecture on the divine council, he explain how the Israelite conception of God changed over time. In it he asserts, with a lot of evidence, that the "angel of the Lord" was an insertion in the text. It seems they simply imputed the word for angel and created the idea of bearing the divine name, so as to deal with the cultural changes taking place. They were no longer comfortable with understanding God physically appearing to people, and so changed it to be a messenger. Its a really interesting lecture and I would highly recommend watching it.
No, that's reflecting later Christian Theology back onto the book. You can't do that.
@@wannabe_scholar82 Are you saying Jesus Christ did not exist before the New Testament was written?
@@wannabe_scholar82
Let me help you here. Jesus Christ is also known as Michael the archangel, Melchizedek and a couple more but you probably don't have ears for these let alone the rest 😁 .
@@KWade-bt4dc
As an old man once said - and where is the Holy Spirit in that?
While I have appreciated certain items that Dan has presented, in this case he best the exegesis of John 8.58 pretty badly.
I acknowledge there is this sort of divine prerogative and divine name that we see with the malak Yahwah- though I don't think he understands how those speaking in the authority of God can simply speak in the first person which the prophets do all the time.
But none of this nothing to do with what jesus is talking about in Jn8.58.
Seems like a much more plausible and parsimonious explanation than the logically incoherent mess that is the trinity.
Did Moses get the law from Hammurabi right after he invented the Internet? You do realize that the likelihood that Moses was there copying cuniform Akadian is pretty slim, right? If Moses didn't exist at all, then the law would have to be created, why does it introduce monotheism? If Moses lived and was recording the Exodus etc., Then he wasn't from or even visited Northern Babylon. Just because there is commonality in law doesn't mean there is a connection. This is an example of a correlation/causation fallacy.
Sounds to me the indwelling of God's name is very similar of not the same as Divine Investiture.
The problem with claiming that the Gospel of John is only teaching that Jesus bears the divine name in a purely nominative sense is that John 1:1-18 teaches the ontological divinity of the Son in quite clear terms. Also, I've yet to see McClellan deal with the contrastive language used in John 8:58 that references John 1:1-3, namely, the ginomai versus eimi distinction, one implying 'becoming,' the latter entailing 'being.' In John 8:58, Abraham is lumped in with those things that ginomai-come to exist, whereas Christ is once again equated with the Logos, that which eimi-exists, or *is*. Needless to say, this same contrastive language is used in the OT in reference to the nature of God versus creation: Isaiah 43:10, Psalm 90:2, etc.
I had a conversation with you before, and you were sadly, a disappointment.
Either way, the traditional concept of this Logos that you're talking about would make Jesus like some sort of intermediary figure who was not The true God himself, but the Logos of the true God.
Nothing is created in the image of God, but rather in the image of the Logos
(which marks it as a mediator between God and the world, whether as a Son of
God, or otherwise, as it will be shown later). The deliberate lack of a definite article shows that Philo is not trying to ontologically equate them, interprets Rodoljub Kubat, continuing with Philo’s insistence on a one true God, and its word,
the Logos, which would mean the God is the real God, and God is the Logos, but
it is not the same God, which is why in this case there are two different Gods,
and the Logos can be conceived as a second God. The problem in Kubat’s substantiation of this claim is that he references parts of a text (Som., 1 288), where
Philo also discusses archetypal models, which might result in a merger of the “second God” concept with the concept of the Logos as an intermediary power, or a
transcendent power, or as a paradigm/archetype/Form - Родољуб Кубат, “Библијски теолог - Филон Александријски: Неки аспекти Филоновог схватања Логоса и поистовећење Логоса са старосавезним Анђелом Господњим”, Богословље, LXIV 1-2 (2005): 54.
Aware of Philo’s explanation
This is why many speculate that John 1:1-18 were added in later, because what Dan said, goes absolutely perfectly word for word in line with John 17 where Jesus talks about being given the name of the Father, that it was by the virtue of the name of the Father that Jesus was able to do x and y.
John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of[b] your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by[c] that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
- THE POWER OF YOUR 'NAME'
- THE NAME THAT YOU GAVE ME
It could also connect with John 10, in a way, in the sense that it may be that it is by the virtue of the divine name that this 'oneness' occurs as this passage relates.
Jesus could either be a mix of 'possessor of the divine name' AND 'Logos' or that the first 18 verses were added in. Bear that in mind, that we never see Jesus being called 'The Logos' as explicitly anywhere other than the intro verses.
@@theactualuser
Anyone can read our former exchange and decide for themselves who has a better grasp of the language and textual evidences and a more methodical approach to these questions.
And I noticed that you dodged my question when I asked you what your own personal beliefs here are (whether unitarian, atheist, etc.). I also don't see citations from you showing precisely where Philo talked about the Logos and without using the definite article for it, etc. It seems like you're just going by your own opinion or secondary literature.
Give me citations of Philo, just as I gave you citations of Targumic and Biblical passages, and we can take a look at the original language (just as I did with you) to see if you are representing things accurately or not.
@@ConsideringPhlebas
But that same anyone can also see how hard you tried to retroject the Trinity into the texts, when I, on the other hand was keeping more with what traditionally people would've understood about Messianic/Mediator figures who act as this agent of salvation 'through' whom God works. This phrase 'Through' Jesus Christ is a very popular one in the New Testament.
Philo writes that it is said “I am the God who was seen by
thee not in my place, but in the place of God”, as if he meant of
some other God, and he continues with the statement that there is
one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of
language, are numerous, on which account the holy scripture indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article,
the expression being “I am the God”. When the word is used incorrectly, however, he clarifies further, it is used without the article, the expression being “He who was seen by thee in the place”
not “of the God”, but simply “of God”. There is no name properly
belonging to the living God, and whatever appellation any one
may give him will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not
of a nature to be described, but only to be. Philo here clearly states that what is called God is, in fact, his most ancient word (the
Logos).
antiquitasviva.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/65.1-2.05.-todorovska-m.-the-concepts-of-the-logos-in-philo-of-alexandria.pdf
The citation I linked before is contained in this link and is a part of this citation that I shared as well. This is how the interpreters understood how Philo claimed about other 'Without the definite article Gods' and how he understood with the definite article Gods.
Is he not also claiming he existed before Abraham?
he isn't claiming anything. "john" wrote the gospel of john.
@@scambammer6102 semantics
When the first commandment says "you shall have no other gods before me" is God saying that you can't have worshipped any other gods in the past, or is he using a different meaning that the word "before" can be used to represent?
@@20quid You realize the different context with which those words are being used, correct?
@@20quid uh no the sentence is referring to future conduct
Divine Prerogatives?.... what about Divine Peirogis?
Dang it! I meant Pierogies
As is alluded to, names have power so saying your name is I am who I am is a nonsensical answer, much like Odysseus saying his name was Noman.
Odysseus' fake name was a ploy to escape Polyphemus. It wasn't nonsensical.
A lot of gymnastics to assert dogma into the text
Jesus claimed to be God while not really being God? This was a coded message. No, I think it was a clear statement. 😂😂
The published academic literature goes into much more detail and is far more interesting and, frankly, convincing than taking the English translation at face value while also arguing there are other passages of the Bible that cannot be taken at face value (typically the ones that don't align with our modern morality and ethics).
@20quid
Oh, the problem is modern morality and ethics. Well, if you haven't noticed, modern morality sucks. I will take biblical truth over modern morality any day. Furthermore, who said anything about taking the english translation at face value. Koine Greek spells it out just fine.
Why not the simple explanation that it means Jesus is greater, or before Abraham. The messiah is more important than Abram
Based on what text?
@@GodOfBrevity based on the whole book of John.
@@JustADudeGamer
The problem is that John 8:54 makes it clear that Jesus is *not* the same as Yahweh. Jesus says in no uncertain terms that the one whom the Jews call their God (namely: Yahweh) is his father. Not himself.
Also, “I am” cannot be considered a name of God in this context, since it would make the statement completely ungrammatical (it would be saying “before Abraham was”, and then just uttering God’s name).
@@JustADudeGamer
Yeah, and who does he say his father is in that verse? Yahweh. So, he's not the same as Yahweh. It wouldn't make any sense for him to go on to identify himself with Yahweh.
Btw, what does "I am" have to do with God's name? In Exodus 3:14, the name revealed by God is "I will be" (in the Hebrew) or "the being" (in the Greek). Not "I am" (which is never associated with God's name).
Rather, Jesus is claiming to have existed before Abraham did. This makes Jesus superior to Abraham, the father of the Jews, which the Jews find ridiculous and outrageous.
@@JustADudeGamerHe who denies the Deity of JESUS is antichrist spirit, Period. Repent of this thy wickedness. God will Not be mocked. Hell is Eternal, where the worm NEVER dies. JESUS IS GOD
Easy,Jesus was preexistant before He was born on earth, He was the beginning of all creation,He came out of His Father.And became the Son of God.
Adopting a divine name is a fairly common magical practice. If you can pull it off correctly, then you can speak with the authority/credentials of that divine being. This often involves dressing the part, e.g. a sorcerer working a medieval Solomonic tradition has to create and wear fascimiles of Solomon's ring and/or crown to adopt the ritual identity of Solomon.
Many examples of this from the PGM, which is evidently the ancestor of the Solomonic traditions. For example, the Stele of Jeu involves asserting oneself as the Headless One, and the Eighth Book of Moses involves asserting that one has the name of the Agathosdaimon. These two are probably the best known examples from the PGM, but many more can be found by perusing the texts.
You both are antichrist spirits
Yeah for sure, as long as there is an absolute identification with the name.
@@paulgordon1595 exactly. Correct execution is critical. Probably best to use bespoke formulas that are easy to invest belief into during rituals.
Changing topics a bit, I have found it difficult to invest belief into mainstream religious systems having had significant exposure to alternate perspectives and experiences. Is this a unique kind of problem, or do you think it's rather common?
So is this proof for Jesus not being God?
anyone expecting Jesus to announce “I M God” has listened to way too much rap music. People just do t so that in real life.
Yep, because they aren't gods.
What does rap music have to do with this ?
I know a guy who’s license plate says I AM GOD. So, there’s that.
@@jaylanprendergast791 Most people don’t go around announcing who they are or their nature like is done in rap music. 🙄 It’s just not how normal humans carry themselves.
@@lnsflare1 and when you replied did you announce who you are or the nature of yourself first? I have no idea who or what you are? by this rational i should just assume your a flying talking donkey.
Jesus was saying he existed before Abraham. Really simple, no Jesus is not God, Jesus was created by God his Father.
"rationalizing" best word of the post to describe a theist perspective of what is true.
No truth or light in him. This False teacher Denies the Deity of JESUS , he is antichrist spirit. JESUS IS GOD. The Great ‘I AM’
So this supports Oneness? Basically Im being sent on behalf of God, thus I AM God. Lot to unpack if this is what you trying to state.
Lol christians claim "I AM" means God..... the story is about the jews asking jesus about what he meant when he told them Abraham rejoiced to see his day... they asked how could you know about Abraham you never knew him or seen him then jesus says...before abraham was "i am" ..... if you use christian logic with I AM meaning God it would say before Abraham was God ... which means he knows about Abraham because of God.... in no way is he claiming to be God.... basic english yall
I am is the conciousness
Of course Jesus is saying He is God. You only have to look at the reaction of the religious leaders listening to His pronouncement to know He is claiming to be God.
John was written 100 to 110 years after Jesus's crucifixion... Not exactly testimony they take in a court of law😊
So we know the words Christianity is nothing more than a different pagan religion like Roman mythology Greek mythology Norse mythology Chinese mythology Hinduism...🤔
Isaiah 42:8
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images
PS: I can CHANGE my MIND whenever I want.
That is not what it says.
I Yahweh [YahuVehu] that is my name: My name and my glory not I will give nor my praise to carved images.
It is important that we understand 40-66 is part of second Isaiah, psuedepigraphical Isaiah. The speaker is placing himself in the role of Yahweh, as if he is the messenger.
@@Darisiabgal7573
You just proved my point .
Yhwh will not give his name to anyone else that isn't him nor his glory
@@Darisiabgal7573
You have just refuted Dan 👍
@@Darisiabgal7573
Bible > Isaiah > Chapter 42 > Verse 8
◄ Isaiah 42:8 ►
New International Version
“I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
New Living Translation
“I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to anyone else, nor share my praise with carved idols.
English Standard Version
I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.
Berean Standard Bible
I am the LORD; that is My name! I will not yield My glory to another or My praise to idols.
King James Bible
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
New King James Version
I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.
New American Standard Bible
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to idols.
NASB 1995
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
NASB 1977
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Legacy Standard Bible
I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Amplified Bible
“I am the LORD, that is My Name; My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved idols.
Christian Standard Bible
I am the LORD. That is my name, and I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another or My praise to idols.
American Standard Version
I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
I AM LORD JEHOVAH, and this is My Name, and my honor I shall not give to another, neither my praise to carved things
so why did they pick rocks to stone him? If this was an hidden message hiden in that litterature by tha author of John and so he didn’t really mean Jesus was God, why would he put it like that? If you see the context: Jesus was asked on how would he be able to see Abraham if he wasn’t even 50 years old. This idea that he was using God’s holy name asa a justification is outer nonsense and i’m really surprised that you even wrote a book about this.
And you say that that passage from exodus when God says to don’t tick off the angel doesn’t rationalize the verses when an angel says he is God. The problem is your conclusion: the angel: endowed with God’s name and so god’s divinity isn’t God: he may not be Yahweh (God the father) but that doesn’t necessitate he isn’t God. God gives his divinity and nature to him so he is God, why di you say he isn’t?
You make a lot of assumptions and use a lot of external research to justify your beliefs. This argument is partly mormon rhetoric.
No it's not. I am arguing that the New Testament does not identify Jesus as YHWH. Official Mormon doctrine is that Jesus is YHWH.
Literally every video this dude posts makes me want to know his personal beliefs more
He is a Mormon which is why he nether mentions it
He used to be a mormon - in the 'beard free' days of his time working there. Being that it is a cult like society and difficult to distance yourself from when you grow older/or want to leave; one assumes that he avoids burning those bridges and causing himself issues. He's very clearly an atheist in the Christian sense - and has thoroughly debunked the scripture as myths, lies, exaggerations and outright invention. Which you will see from his videos. He isn't 'religious' in the slightest. Try engaging your brain.
He is LDS. For his scholarship, he takes an agnostic approach to increase an emphasis on data.
As an fellow member of the LDS faith, there is nothing problematic with what the biblical data teaches. It is actually more affirming of my faith. I am not tied into old unbiblical creeds nor concepts of sola scriptura and sola fide. So this isn't problematic for me in the slightest.
I don't think he is still a believer.
@@NeuroticBliss he's said several times that his studies haven't been detrimental to his faith. That's kind of the root of LDS theology, you only are required to believe things that are true.
so, Jesus was YHWH as the Angel of the Lord was YHWH, BUT Jesus isn't God?
right. the angel wasn't god either.
In this part of the mythology that seems most likely to be what the author meant.
But in reality it is probable that not even the biblical God is God. The bible is full of evidence people just made stuff up and wrote it down.
Yes, but also he may still be worthy of worship in some early Christian thought. Justin Martyr in his first apology says that Christians worship the one God, but also his greatest creation Jesus Christ (who is begotten vs. God being the unbegotten) "and all the good angels." In Justin's mind you can apparently worship God THROUGH the worship of subordinate beings who bear God's authority and do his will. There is still only one God, he's emphatic about that, and that Jesus isn't God. He's just as close as you can possibly get, does God's bidding perfectly, and as such has all of God's power and authority to rule. At least to Justin, Jesus is like the legal agent of God and can speak for God and be seen as the Lord, but only because God allows it.
It makes perfect sense... so long as you get extremely high.
@@scambammer6102Sorry bro. He’s God. “When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush” Exodus 3:4
Why even argue this when God Himself is the Father of Jesus?
If God is the father of Jesus, who is his mother?
Well that's the central question of Trinitarianism, right? Can Jesus be the son of God and also _be_ God? Most Christian denominations today say yes he can, but I think Dan argues that this belief is post-bibilical and doesn't actually appear in the Bible itself.
@@kalords5967 Mary
@@GaryDunion 3 parts of the one same God.
God told man how to live and then took on a servants roll to walk the walk, talk the talk and then paid the price that destroys the curse of Adam.
Everyone is going to heaven.
@@chadtyrone Asherah. They are separated.
Jesus is claiming to be God. Mormonism smh
This pops into my head, “By the authority vested in me …”. And pastors I’ve had do undergo an investment ceremony. Also, being a boomer, I’ve had mom spank me and then say “Wait ‘til your father gets home”. Then you get another spanking. It doesn’t exactly fit because mom had her own authority.
Heretic Idolatry man God idol trinity human sacrifice calvary not allowed in Hebrew scripture.
You have no idea what you are talking about. God cannot be understood intellectually as you are always tying to do.
I understand this is your life's work, and I don't care to trivialize it; but now more than ever it is impossible to understand your approach without understanding what you mean when you state that you are a believer. The last time I asked this you pointed me to your book, but I found nothing but your scholarship that is difficult to truly understand without knowing what you believe.
@gekksvide0 I'd like to understand your balance between belief and science. If you agree with the assertion that Jesus is not God, does he still provide salvation? If not, then what is there in Christianity that Judaism doesn't provide? Everyone must work out their own salvation; but I don't see how you can frame anything through a lens other than your salvation?
@gekksvide0 I'm not certain what you mean by believing in God and Jesus? Can you articulate what you believe about Jesus?
In my world, Elohim eyes Agape is the most important thing. Jesus provides salvation through the Crucifixion and resurrection. Everything else is really an intellectual exercise or lessons (often very good lessons) on how life works.
@casualphilosopher4066 I can only speak for myself. My relationship with God leads me to Christianity and the lessons available in the Bible. Certainly, the Bible has something for everyone, even if all it is for some is a self-help book.
@@ronjones1414 saying that Dan’s scholarship is “difficult to truly understand without knowing what he believes” is like saying that Einstein general relativity is difficult to truly understand without knowing what he believed concerning god. Which is really nonsensical. Scholarship and science stands on their own merits: the religious beliefs or lack thereof of their practitioners are irrelevant.
Seems to me your insistence is motivated by morbid curiosity about Dan’s private life and beliefs and not by genuine interest for his scholarly expertise. Ever heard of boundaries? You are not entitled to access to other people’s privacy. If they don’t want to share learn to respect their wish and move on. Cheers.
your inability to separate scholarship from personal belief is noted.
Excellent video Dan.
But come on not even skeptical New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman disputes that this is a claim to divinity, and Jesus claiming that he is God, he did a blog pretty recently. It is the overwhelming and pretty much unanimous academic consensus hardly any scholars will dispute that this is Jesus claiming that he is god in John’s Gospel, now you can claim that this is an embellishment or whatever, or that this is a later evolution within the gospels in Jesus divinity but it’s pretty clear that Jesus is claiming to be God. And also what you’re missing is the pharisees response they were clearly not OK with Jesus using the divine name, Jesus knew exactly what he was doing when he was using the divine name. Also who says the age of the Lord isn’t God? You are going with your dogma over the data on this one you are assuming that Jesus cannot be God, and at the end of the board isn’t God to prove your point that you can bear the divine name but not actually be God yourself, The angel of the Lord is clearly God, he’s directly called God in exodus 3:6. In Matthew 28:2, even alludes to the angel of the Lord as being the one that Rose Jesus from the dead. The idea that you can possess the qualities of God and use a divine name but not actually be God yourself is total nonsense and has no basis whatsoever. And again you have the presupposition that the Trinity and the distinction in personhood of the Godhead cannot be taught within the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament so you have to come up with an explanation to rationalize your view, A more logical explanation is at the end of the Lord is God but a separate person from God, but equal in terms of nature and divine essence and that is clearly what we see, The angel of the Lord receives prayer he said to do all the things that YHWH does and also possess his name. He is clearly God you are assuming Unitarianism and trying to look for justification to support your presupposition of unitarianism. I know that sounds like an insane and uncharitable psychoanalysis of your motives and I really don’t like getting into that but based on my observation that seems to be what you’re doing. Also aren’t you assuming that the Bible is univocal by quoting exodus 23, to support your interpretation of John 8:58? No there is absolutely no other being no angel, no man who is said to receive worship or to be able to forgive sins or said to be the way the truth and the light, or to be the thing that all things are made through or to bear the divine name who is also not God. There are angels who are said to be heavily exulted they are never said to receive worship they were explicitly said to not be worshiped, hebrews 1:14. And I will be sure to check it out I have your book saved and can’t wait to read it, but I think by far the greatest work ever written on the deity of Christ or the divine image is by Athanasius the great.
It’s not unanimous. There are scholars who agree Jesus is using the divine name in John 8:58 but not claiming to _be_ Yahweh, and others who doubt that Jesus was using the divine name at all in that verse. In fact, Bart Ehrman has explicitly said that Jesus was _not_ claiming to be Yahweh in that verse in the Gospel of John. He does say that Jesus was claiming to be “God”, but he explains that _what he means by that_ is that Jesus was claiming to be a subordinate divine being who shares the _name_ of Yahweh, like the messenger in Exodus. Not Yahweh himself.
In John 17:10-12, Jesus actually says that God _gave_ him the divine name. This means Jesus cannot be Yahweh, since it’s logically impossible to give Yahweh (or anyone else for that matter) his own name.
Also, the reason the messenger in Exodus is spoken of as God is obvious: He represents God (someone has to, if no one can see God and live). He is God’s surrogate. That’s why he is _called_ “Yahweh’s messenger”. If he was Yahweh himself, then he would never be called “Yahweh’s messenger”; just “Yahweh”. It’s like if the messenger of a king told you something, you’d naturally say “the king” told you that; you’re not calling the messenger the king.
@@legron121 OK yeah that’s a bit of an over exaggeration and a bit too hyperalisic. But no scholars. Even non-Christians. I know as far as I am aware of Bart Ehrman does believe that this is a claim to Jesus divinity and him claiming to be God. Yes there are others but they are certainly in the minority, and yes a consensus is not an absolute uniformity you can find scholars arguing to the contrary. Well I think he’s talking about is the Tetragrammaton which when you translate it into the Greek Kyrgios normally I believe. Yeah I don’t remember him ever saying that from any of his blogs or lectures I’ve seen him, or his books. I’ve read most of how Jesus became God and I don’t remember him ever saying that.. and in his newest blocking sites as one of the examples in John’s Gospel of Jesus being God. Even if so it doesn’t make any sense but if you can share the same nature as God and also have a divine name but also not be God that is pure and utter nonsense. That it’s precisely when the doctrine of the trinity comes into play. Gods nature is what makes him God if you possess God’s nature you are God. The messenger is clearly God. It’s actually pretty clear evidence for the Trinity because the angel is God but also distinguishes him self from the God who sent him the only logical Takeaway is that he himself is God yet also distinct. That is one of the doctrine of the trinity was derived to make sense of the doctrine of God. Yeah the Messenger is pretty terrible evidence that you can use the divine name but also not be God.
Jesus explicitly says the Father glorified Him, i’m giving the sense that he has glorified Him, and eternally begotten him with his glory, which we also see in John 17:5, this passage is actually pretty strong evidence for Jesus being divine, sense God says he would never glorify another in the book of Isaiah. It’s not given the sense that he didn’t already have a Jesus his subordinate to the Father in terms of his authority and in terms of human nature, so yes the father does give him certain abilities that he lacks while he is limited as a human.
I’m sorry but you just contradicted yourself what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense. You don’t understand the different roles within the Godhead in the relationship between the persons of the Godhead. He is also called Yahweh explicitly in exodus 3:6, and he said to do all the same things as Yahweh. No you don’t understand the difference within personhood in the Godhead, and this is where the doctrine of the trinity comes play again, that is not a good analogy, since the angel explicitly claims to be God himself, The only way to make sense of this is that the angel is Yahweh but a distinct person from Yahweh, or the Father, this is actually pretty good evidence for a divine plurality in the Old Testament. Michael S Heiser argues it much better though. The reason he’s able to be called the messenger of y’all way but also be going away is because the persons in the Godhead are equal in terms of divine nature but they are qualitatively different in their personhood so they act a separate persons well at the same time being one being. You’re a conflating being person. There is no contradiction unless we’re already assuming Unitarianism and not taking the Trinity into consideration,
@@pleaseenteraname1103
Look up "Nope Jesus is not Yahweh". Ehrman says that the idea that Jesus is Yahweh is not found anywhere in the NT. So, obviously, he doesn't think Jesus claims to be Yahweh in John. He does say that Jesus was claiming to be "God", but as I explained, not in the sense you want him to have.
Your claim that "If you possess God's nature you are God" contradicts the NT (see 2 Peter 1:4, which refers to some believers as "sharers of the divine nature"). The Bible never once says that. In the Bible, Yahweh is only ever spoken of as a person ("Yahweh", "he", "him", "who"), never as a nature. And Jesus is distinguished from that person. So, there's no possible way that Jesus (or Yahweh's messenger, for that matter) can _be_ Yahweh.
You never replied to my point about John 17:11-12, which shows that God _gave_ Jesus the divine name, which means he did not always have it (to "give" means to make someone who doesn't possess something possess it; otherwise, there's no way to distinguish "being given" something from just "having" it).
Yahweh's messenger does indeed say "I am the God of Abraham". Why is that? Because he's speaking for God. _That is precisely what makes him "Yahweh's messenger."_ If the messenger came to Moses to speak about himself, why call him a "messenger" in the first place?? This makes no sense.
@@legron121 I think what he’s referring to is the Tertagrammaton, he also says the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus was Yahweh which is just flat out wrong.And he does not see anyone in his article that John does not seem to indicate on other occasions that John did. And what do you mean God is Yahweh?
OK maybe I should’ve been more clear. What I mean by nature specifically God’s nature or his attributes which the angel of the Lord clearly has and Jesus clearly possesses as well. 2. Peter 1:4 is talking about our relationship with God it is not saying we can possess God nature in the sense that we can become God or have his attributes. Yahweh is a set of attributes that is only possessed by a select number of persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit what do you mean? Yahweh is a being which is made up of attributes. That is demonstrably false, Psalm 33:21, 99:9,77:13, hebrews 12:29, romans 9. He is distinguished from the Father and the Holy Spirit you’re conflating being with a person, God is a being with a person possesses, but God is not a single person, there’s overwhelming evidence for a plurality in the Godhead, And Jesus is distinguished from the Father and the Holy Spirit John 1:1, John 17:3, 1. Corinthians 8:4-6, Matthew 28:19, John 14:26. But he is also seen as God, John 1:1 and I will get back to our conversation on that but I’m not familiar with all the resources you referenced so it might take a while, And one of the clearest pieces i’ve evidence comes in the prologue of Hebrews where the author even uses the Creed from Deuteronomy 6:4 and applies it to Jesus, and John 20:28, all three persons are seen as God and said have these attributes about the same time are said to be distinct from one another. Only if we’re assuming Unitarianism which is what you’re doing, if you don’t accept the Trinity that would create a contradiction, because the angel of the Lord directly calls himself God, and Jesus is also directly called God, The possible way is that they are both God but at the same time distinct and functionally different persons, but equal in terms of divine nature which is clearly the case, the angel of the Lord has said to possess all the attributes of God but also be distinct from Him.
Yes I did the entire third paragraph of my comment was responding to your point on those passages. No it doesn’t say that God gave Jesus is divine nature in the sense that he didn’t already have it, we see earlier in the chapter in John 17:3 and that the Father glorify Jesus prior to his incarnation and prior to the existence of mankind as a whole. This passage is confirming the eternally begotten relationship between the Father and the Son, Jesus nature was given to him in the sense that he was eternally beget by his Father. And in the sense that he is subordinate to him in his human nature. It does not explicitly say that he gave him his nature in the sense that you are thinking. You don’t understand the different roles within the godhead. They are functionally different persons and can act as different persons in terms of authority but they are equal in nature.
@@pleaseenteraname1103
Ehrman uses "God" to just mean "divine" (quite confusingly, I admit). So, he's saying that John regards Jesus as a divine being but not Yahweh. That's his claim (whether one agrees or not).
Let me respond in numbered points:
1) Yahweh is not "a set of attributes". A set of attributes cannot speak to people, cannot create anything, and cannot intend or plan to do anything. But Yahweh does all of those things. Yahweh is only ever spoken of as a *single person* in the Bible (as a "he", a "him", and a "who", who has "a face" and "a soul"), no?
2) I explained in my previous posts why Yahweh's messenger is spoken of the way he is and why he says the things he says: He represents and speaks for Yahweh. And you can't really deny this, since it's true by definition. You've refused to engage with any of this, and crucially with my question: If he was speaking about _himself,_ why is he called a "messenger" in the first place?
3) Show me a place in the Bible where "to give" does not mean to cause someone who doesn't possess something to possess something. You will not be able to do that. And John 17:5 only says that Jesus existed before the world _alongside_ Yahweh (aka: "the Father"), not that he existed _as_ Yahweh.
And 4) If you keep citing verses without showing how they mean what you claim they mean, I'll just dismiss them. Hebrews 1 never mentions Deuteronomy 6 at all. You've confused that one as well.
I literally debated this guy. He’s not that brilliant 😢
Lol what
@@kuno3336 we debated slavery in the Bible. We set the premises. And he failed to substantiate them. It was sad.
@@KiokiYuudoku can you say that in layman's terms? I haven't done anything close to academic debate since high-school, and the wording you've chosen is not only thesaurus-inducing, but it also didn't tell me anything. Like, you haven't given details, you've just made a claim
@@kuno3336 I don’t think any word I used was hard to understand.
@@KiokiYuudoku let me rephrase: even using substantiate like that was more technical than it needed to be, and you yourself didn't really get into the meat of what you say he didn't do, what side of the debate either of you were on, etc. You just said he failed to substantiate his argument, but what even was his argument?
Born before the foundations of the world, even the Annunaki a couple billion years ago about the ..i am , think of it like this (my name is so and so) = I am or my name is,or your dark energy consciousness ,is where name and form cease to exist,yet you still are with or without matter/flesh, ,see the faith required ?? As far as the word angel you can replace it with Annunaki,who are real flesh and blood advanced beings now ,see the Congress hearings on UAP's the military has been playing around with Annunaki technology,and don't want the world to know,even keeping some of the soldiers out the loop and that causes a false national security threat,the tic tacs are man made, from Annunaki technology.. and the havana syndrome sonic weapon prototype China created is also Annunaki tech ... using the droppa stones found , Buzz actually saw the Iggi Grey's on the moon but NASA silenced him...i say what I want classified or not ,and i wish America and China would stop doing that , they have no choice but to come clean, that's why it's happening now , enough of them hiding things from you all i believe in transparency not secrets.. Tibetan book of the dead/book of Life, is the real McCoy...not the Egyptian book of the dead, it's advanced science about dark energy consciousness transfer, which is free to all, should they choose or not to seek that path to immortality or conscious immortality, dark energy consciousness ...
Repent of this thy wickedness. Hell is Eternal, where the worm NEVER dies. Your time is Very Short
Clear as mud. Sounds like it was all made up......🤣🤣🤣🤣
Trinitarians use it to perpetrate thier ideas ~~
@jacobt4520