Thanks so much for these videos Dan. As someone who was raised in a very fundamentalist community, these make a world of difference to my understanding
I have a question/confusion. You used Mark as evidence that it was believed only God can forgive sins for the Exodos text with the angel. Is that not presupposing a univocal biblical text? How are we to know that the people of the Exodos time period believed that angels could not forgive sins? Maybe later on, in Mark time period, this belief changed or was more understood. I'm not sure how often you reply to messages, but I would appreciate your input on this.
"Human beings have neither the aural nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out."
What about the argument that "The Angel of the Lord" merely preceeded God comming in? Awell as, what if the Angels was there, but the voice of the Lord was a seperat one? Is there a way to exclude these possibiblities?
Also Isaiah and Ezekiel how does this fit with the framework of the court of Gods? The plagues of Egypt would the last also be then a God himself in the original text that night or would they understand this to be a “lesser” deity of death of something?
I love how calm and eloquent you are. In the first part where you were speaking on the difference between angel of God versus God being there, a proper messenger delivers the exact message as if the person there was speaking it, right? Maybe that is why it is written rather than some theoretical nefarious theologian changing who the person is?
Thank you! Very interesting! I would love to hear your thoughts on how this is related, or not related, to 1 Nephi 11. Nephi sees the Spirit of the Lord in vision who is teaching him, but then the Spirit of the Lord disappears and an angel descends to complete the teaching. I don’t think there’s room for “textual interpolation” here because Nephi writes on plates that are translated by JS. But this would be an opposite change, starting with the Spirit of the Lord doing the teaching, and then for some reason switching to an angel doing the teaching. Maybe that’s enough to say these are two different situations and can’t really be compared. But could a critical view of these texts see this as evidence the KJV Bible was a source text for the BOM? Could JS have seen in the OT how in ancient divine visions the angel of the Lord was interchanged with the Lord (not knowing about textual interpolation) and this is how we see this connection in the BOM? Too much of a stretch? Is there a better way to say this? Would love to hear your thoughts.
Thank you for creating this content. Baptized Lutheran, raised Protestant and attended a catholic high school produced a very confused individual. I notice that you use Adonai instead of Yahweh. Could you explain why or the difference? If you already have please point me to the TH-cam or TikTok where it resides. Many thanks again!
In his old tiktoks he used YHWH rather than Adonai, but later switched to Adonai to avoid offending anyone who might be offended by the use of YHWH like Orthodox Jews and certain groups of Christians.
Can you address the historicity of those “I AM” statements in the context of the Septuagint and John being written in Greek and Jesus speaking Aramaic?
@@maklelannot Jesus words? Huh 🤔? What the Hell, John the Beloved and the author of Gospel of John is the Eye witness of the Life of Lord Jesus Christ (when Jesus started His ministry). So in other words you do not believe to John. We knew the early Christian carefully studied and translate this into another language. Even they cost about their life translating it, especially the one who translated the KJV in English.
Great video! So if we take this framework of the Divine Name into account today, can people today who believe in God and Christ and act in accordance to God's will, also be possessors of this Divine Name? This referring to the 'I am in the Father and the Father in me' and 'Emmanuel - God with us' rhetoric and also where Jesus taught that his audience should forgive sins (70x7) which they believed only God could do. Another point I'm thinking of is the conceptualization of God as love, light (righteousness and understanding), and Spirit - If one possesses those qualities today, do you then possess the Divine Name and act as an instrument of agency to God's will?
I immediately thought about the bridegroom of blood incident in the Moses story. That's fascinating that later translations continue this trend. Any thoughts on the idea that malakh YHWH should be read as YHWH the messenger?
I don’t know if you do any debating but I would love to hear you debate Micah Dank. Micah is an Astrotheologist. He believes that the Bible is just a book that is astrological.
I find this framework of posession of the divine name quite interesting. However, I do wonder what you make of John 20:28 shere it seems like Thomas identifies Jesus directly as God, more than a mere authoritative carrier of the divine name.
Or at least he identifies him as a god. Exods 3:6 is as explicit as this framework gets, though, and there the angel says, "I am the God of your father." The divine image could be directly referred to as the deity because it manifests the divine presence, so someone treating Jesus as bearing God's presence and even identity fits the framework.
I'm having a hard time following the idea that these scribes went back in and edited these messenger passages. Could you point me to any sources that explain the evidence for this?
@@araitol3935 since posting this comment i've noticed him do that and i've never noticed him using explicitly male pronouns for God, although it's not impossible that i only noticed the they/thems
I think Dan says they them for God because he's plural (not the Trinity), with a wife, and the Adonai thing is to not offend Jewish folks who watch him
By looking at Genesis 32:4 He (jakov) instructed them (malakim/messengers): “This is what you are to say to my lord Esau: ‘Your servant Jacob says, I have been staying with Laban and have remained there till now…. Did the messengers speak to Esau saying: “I have been…”.? Could this be an indication, that messengers commonly spoke in the name of the one who send them as “I….” ? Maybe it was a thing back in those days?
The messenger in Rev 22 speaks as if he is Jesus. But admits to John that he is actually an angel. And then goes back speaking as if he is Jesus. So in the NT Angels can just deliver a message, but they can also speak as if they are God. So who says they could not do both in OT times?
Since Jesus had the divine NAME in him, he could speak as YHWH and still not be the same Being as the Creation and OT YHWH. Just as the angel in Rev 22 could speak as Jesus and not actually be Jesus. Right? But Jesus does become a second YHWH fully equal with his Father after his resurrection in my understanding. I need to add the insights I got from this video into my research: 2bc.info/pdf/Exposed.pdf
@@heberfrank8664 Technically we all have the Divine name in US.. Who am I 👀 I am me 👀 doesn't sound like a Divine name just a point of saying I am as in I am this, or I am that isn't a name, or a title... Think about it for a while😊
The problem with your analysis for me is that you presuppose that divine inspiration is out of question, that God could not have done this text intentionally, so interpolation becomes a irrefutable argument, every bible passage i can show that have this "Godhead" you can simply say it is a interpolation, got ya!. Also this argument that "is to obscure the problematic of seeing God", you discard all the theology for why is this because of course they are in damage control trying to make sense for this interpolation, how do you know that? how this is not a liberal/materialist presupposition that God do not inspire His mysteries. Just to know your thought on Gen 19:24 (c.f. Amos 4:11 and Isaiah 13:19), Isaiah 63:9, Zechariah 2:10-12, Gen 48:15-16 (that one is special, is just a blessing, why to include the Angel?) well i know what you will say, the Miracle of Interpolation
can you answer couple of my questions? 1: do you believe in existence of God? 2: which religion do you follow? 3: what is christian understanding of sin and salvation and whether or not you agree with them
The divine images being consecrated with God's names are exactly what is used in Hinduism. The murti's themselves are not God, they are a vessel in which the divine name has been consecrated into them. The murti is designed in such a way that it's able to attract and transmit a high amount of light and spirit into the space in which it is placed, making is a transceiver of God's power. The murti in essence is a device, it's not God, but we treat the murti with reverence because the presence of God is consecrated into it. We bow down before it, just like the Jews did to the ark of the covenant. We pour milk and ghee offerings onto it, just like Jacob poured olive oil and wine onto the stone pillar he erected. It's God's holy spirit imbued / consecrated into the item which gives it power, not the stone / murti itself.
The scribes were certainly not very good at disguising God by presenting him as an angel, when further along in the verse they forget to make the change... Or maybe they had different ways of thinking about the text and apparent contradictions did not concern them back then like they concern us now.
I believe that Jesus is quoting from the Old Greek of the LXX (not Theodotian’s) when he refers to the son of man and he is reading ως and not εως. There is a 3rd century document (Papyrus 967 discovered in 1931) that is not hexaplaric which attests to the ως reading in the OG. What that means is Jesus comes AS God, Yhwh. He represents Yhwh, we might even say that he is functionally Yhwh because for one, the Father does not judge but Jesus does and Jesus is given authority to forgive sins. The Jews opine that only God can forgive sins and see this as an appropriation of God’s divine prerogatives. So I can agree that Jesus is not God ontologically but God does come in Jesus. God is with us…Immanuel. I believe it is the ως reading of Dan 7:13 Jesus applies to himself when he talks about himself as the son of man. The point is that he comes AS or LIKE the Ancient of Days. This implies he is an exact representation of God in that he carries out what is prophesied that Yhwh will do. So Jesus is not ontologically the Ancient of Days but is LIKE him and represents him in the fulfillment of prophecies where God is said to come to make war on the nations, when he makes visitations upon his people and dwells with them, when he stands on the Mt of Olives and splits it in two with one foot on each side of the valley. Daniel 7:13 LXX ΕΚΔΟΣΙΣ ΥΠΟ Alfred Rahlfs: "ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱος ἀνθρώπου ἔρχετο, καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν παρῆν, καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ." I was watching in the night visions, and lo, as it were a son of man was coming upon the clouds of heaven. And he came AS the ancient of days, and the attendants were present with him. Look at Jesus’ quote of Daniel 7:13. You’ll see it reflects the LXX reading. And you will most often find Jesus talking about the son of man in terms of coming in judgement rather than approaching the Ancient of Days. Matt 16: 27 For the Son of man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior. Matt 24: 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. Matt 26: 64 Jesus said to him: “You yourself said it. But I say to you: From now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Interestingly Acts 1:9-11 seems to confirm both the Old Greek reading and Theodotian’s translation which accords with the MT reading.
Pre-incarnate visitation from Jesus Christ. He was in the fire and in the cloud as the Israelites were in the desert. He was the flowing water from The Rock. I would dare say he was the manna from heaven. The burning bush. So many ways that he made himself known. The visitation before Sodom and Gomorrah. This may have been just angels as Messengers but also could have included the Christ.
This idea is hinted at in Rev 19 where the rider on the white horse has a name written that he alone knows. Always appreciate your scholarship in attempting to find the truth. Lying pen of the scribes must be exposed first.
Perhaps the Bible is based upon a lot of elderly men having delusions of grandeur and dreams of being rescued by their persecutors; that's not to say that the thousand years it took to write the Israelite history wasn't true, but it's just spiritual beliefs... According to spiritual beliefs we all have Divinity within us, therefore we are all Divine and can all say I am, because I am is just stating a fact I am a woman I am a human I am a American... Therefore I am is not a name of God stop, but a description🤔💭 Meanwhile people still kill themselves and others over this book😂
It is a real treat to listen to an expert whose mission is to provide fact alone.
I can't believe how quality the level of thought is in the video, it's really astounding this is totally free. Thanks for this video!!
I grinned all the way through this! What a wonderful presentation.
Loved this. Can't wait for more of your long form content
Thank you for taking the time to put these together, looking forward to your upcoming discussion on deity and agency
Wow! Just wow! Thanks again, Dan. This was so illuminating! And it shows the importance of taking upon ourselves the name of Christ.
Thanks so much for these videos Dan. As someone who was raised in a very fundamentalist community, these make a world of difference to my understanding
This brother is on point!👍🏾💯🔥💎
Thank you for sharing your passion and knowledge with us! I learn something new all the time watching your content. 👍
I learn so much listening to you. Thankyou for the time you take to do this for the benefit of all who listen
Gracias, Dan!
Brings an interesting meaning to the phrase, "willing to take upon them the name of thy Son". Wow ..
I have a question/confusion.
You used Mark as evidence that it was believed only God can forgive sins for the Exodos text with the angel.
Is that not presupposing a univocal biblical text?
How are we to know that the people of the Exodos time period believed that angels could not forgive sins?
Maybe later on, in Mark time period, this belief changed or was more understood.
I'm not sure how often you reply to messages, but I would appreciate your input on this.
Dan quote Exodus that angel can forgive sins because Gods name is in the angel, Just like Jesus.
Loving the long form content
Good stuff!!! Very well explained.
Thank yoi for your passion snd hard work!!!
"Human beings have neither the aural nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out."
What about the argument that "The Angel of the Lord" merely preceeded God comming in? Awell as, what if the Angels was there, but the voice of the Lord was a seperat one? Is there a way to exclude these possibiblities?
Also Isaiah and Ezekiel how does this fit with the framework of the court of Gods? The plagues of Egypt would the last also be then a God himself in the original text that night or would they understand this to be a “lesser” deity of death of something?
Q - what about Abraham and his 3 guests? 2 angels and God - would this have been 3 sons of God to start with or?
A lot to chew on here. Thanks for putting this together, and for sharing your piece from 'Biblical Interpretation'!
Thank you Dan
Can you comment on the three “men” who visit Abram in Gen. 18? Gods? Angels? Why three?
I love how calm and eloquent you are. In the first part where you were speaking on the difference between angel of God versus God being there, a proper messenger delivers the exact message as if the person there was speaking it, right? Maybe that is why it is written rather than some theoretical nefarious theologian changing who the person is?
Thank you! Very interesting! I would love to hear your thoughts on how this is related, or not related, to 1 Nephi 11. Nephi sees the Spirit of the Lord in vision who is teaching him, but then the Spirit of the Lord disappears and an angel descends to complete the teaching. I don’t think there’s room for “textual interpolation” here because Nephi writes on plates that are translated by JS. But this would be an opposite change, starting with the Spirit of the Lord doing the teaching, and then for some reason switching to an angel doing the teaching. Maybe that’s enough to say these are two different situations and can’t really be compared. But could a critical view of these texts see this as evidence the KJV Bible was a source text for the BOM? Could JS have seen in the OT how in ancient divine visions the angel of the Lord was interchanged with the Lord (not knowing about textual interpolation) and this is how we see this connection in the BOM? Too much of a stretch? Is there a better way to say this? Would love to hear your thoughts.
Plain and precious (in a good way).
I just got my Data > Dogma hoodie in the mail!
Awesome! Thanks so much! Hope you get a lot of miles out of it!
Many say "I am" in biblical texts
Thank you for creating this content. Baptized Lutheran, raised Protestant and attended a catholic high school produced a very confused individual. I notice that you use Adonai instead of Yahweh. Could you explain why or the difference? If you already have please point me to the TH-cam or TikTok where it resides. Many thanks again!
In his old tiktoks he used YHWH rather than Adonai, but later switched to Adonai to avoid offending anyone who might be offended by the use of YHWH like Orthodox Jews and certain groups of Christians.
Can you address the historicity of those “I AM” statements in the context of the Septuagint and John being written in Greek and Jesus speaking Aramaic?
They most likely reflect an original composition in Greek. In other words, they're likely the creation of the gospel authors, not Jesus' own words.
@@maklelannot Jesus words? Huh 🤔? What the Hell, John the Beloved and the author of Gospel of John is the Eye witness of the Life of Lord Jesus Christ (when Jesus started His ministry). So in other words you do not believe to John. We knew the early Christian carefully studied and translate this into another language. Even they cost about their life translating it, especially the one who translated the KJV in English.
Great video!
So if we take this framework of the Divine Name into account today, can people today who believe in God and Christ and act in accordance to God's will, also be possessors of this Divine Name?
This referring to the 'I am in the Father and the Father in me' and 'Emmanuel - God with us' rhetoric and also where Jesus taught that his audience should forgive sins (70x7) which they believed only God could do.
Another point I'm thinking of is the conceptualization of God as love, light (righteousness and understanding), and Spirit - If one possesses those qualities today, do you then possess the Divine Name and act as an instrument of agency to God's will?
I immediately thought about the bridegroom of blood incident in the Moses story. That's fascinating that later translations continue this trend.
Any thoughts on the idea that malakh YHWH should be read as YHWH the messenger?
You should go on the MythVision podcast… I’m sure he’d enjoy talking with you.
I don’t know if you do any debating but I would love to hear you debate Micah Dank. Micah is an Astrotheologist. He believes that the Bible is just a book that is astrological.
this is amazing!
I find this framework of posession of the divine name quite interesting. However, I do wonder what you make of John 20:28 shere it seems like Thomas identifies Jesus directly as God, more than a mere authoritative carrier of the divine name.
Or at least he identifies him as a god. Exods 3:6 is as explicit as this framework gets, though, and there the angel says, "I am the God of your father." The divine image could be directly referred to as the deity because it manifests the divine presence, so someone treating Jesus as bearing God's presence and even identity fits the framework.
I'm having a hard time following the idea that these scribes went back in and edited these messenger passages. Could you point me to any sources that explain the evidence for this?
Dan, did you use they/them pronouns for God on purpose at 0:22 ? Was curious if this is intentionally serving a rhetorical goal
Nothing, God is male. I think Dan did it unintentioanly
@@araitol3935 since posting this comment i've noticed him do that and i've never noticed him using explicitly male pronouns for God, although it's not impossible that i only noticed the they/thems
@@Greyz174 or maybe Dan just being respectfull. Like he's using adonai for yahweh even tho scholar just say yahweh straight
I think Dan says they them for God because he's plural (not the Trinity), with a wife, and the Adonai thing is to not offend Jewish folks who watch him
By looking at Genesis 32:4
He (jakov) instructed them (malakim/messengers):
“This is what you are to say to my lord Esau: ‘Your servant Jacob says, I have been staying with Laban and have remained there till now….
Did the messengers speak to Esau saying: “I have been…”.?
Could this be an indication, that messengers commonly spoke in the name of the one who send them as “I….” ?
Maybe it was a thing back in those days?
The messenger in Rev 22 speaks as if he is Jesus. But admits to John that he is actually an angel. And then goes back speaking as if he is Jesus. So in the NT Angels can just deliver a message, but they can also speak as if they are God. So who says they could not do both in OT times?
Since Jesus had the divine NAME in him, he could speak as YHWH and still not be the same Being as the Creation and OT YHWH. Just as the angel in Rev 22 could speak as Jesus and not actually be Jesus. Right? But Jesus does become a second YHWH fully equal with his Father after his resurrection in my understanding. I need to add the insights I got from this video into my research: 2bc.info/pdf/Exposed.pdf
@@heberfrank8664
Technically we all have the Divine name in US..
Who am I 👀 I am me 👀 doesn't sound like a Divine name just a point of saying I am as in I am this, or I am that isn't a name, or a title... Think about it for a while😊
@@heberfrank8664what's funny is Mormons do say Jesus is the Jehovah of the OT
The problem with your analysis for me is that you presuppose that divine inspiration is out of question, that God could not have done this text intentionally, so interpolation becomes a irrefutable argument, every bible passage i can show that have this "Godhead" you can simply say it is a interpolation, got ya!. Also this argument that "is to obscure the problematic of seeing God", you discard all the theology for why is this because of course they are in damage control trying to make sense for this interpolation, how do you know that? how this is not a liberal/materialist presupposition that God do not inspire His mysteries.
Just to know your thought on Gen 19:24 (c.f. Amos 4:11 and Isaiah 13:19), Isaiah 63:9, Zechariah 2:10-12, Gen 48:15-16 (that one is special, is just a blessing, why to include the Angel?)
well i know what you will say, the Miracle of Interpolation
"it's not impossible so it happened"
How Jesus was in possession of the divine name before Abraham?
can you answer couple of my questions?
1: do you believe in existence of God?
2: which religion do you follow?
3: what is christian understanding of sin and salvation and whether or not you agree with them
His religion is headquartered in Utah
The divine images being consecrated with God's names are exactly what is used in Hinduism. The murti's themselves are not God, they are a vessel in which the divine name has been consecrated into them.
The murti is designed in such a way that it's able to attract and transmit a high amount of light and spirit into the space in which it is placed, making is a transceiver of God's power. The murti in essence is a device, it's not God, but we treat the murti with reverence because the presence of God is consecrated into it.
We bow down before it, just like the Jews did to the ark of the covenant. We pour milk and ghee offerings onto it, just like Jacob poured olive oil and wine onto the stone pillar he erected.
It's God's holy spirit imbued / consecrated into the item which gives it power, not the stone / murti itself.
So does all of this mean that jesus isn't the son of God or even all that divine?
The scribes were certainly not very good at disguising God by presenting him as an angel, when further along in the verse they forget to make the change... Or maybe they had different ways of thinking about the text and apparent contradictions did not concern them back then like they concern us now.
I believe that Jesus is quoting from the Old Greek of the LXX (not Theodotian’s) when he refers to the son of man and he is reading ως and not εως.
There is a 3rd century document (Papyrus 967 discovered in 1931) that is not hexaplaric which attests to the ως reading in the OG.
What that means is Jesus comes AS God, Yhwh. He represents Yhwh, we might even say that he is functionally Yhwh because for one, the Father does not judge but Jesus does and Jesus is given authority to forgive sins. The Jews opine that only God can forgive sins and see this as an appropriation of God’s divine prerogatives.
So I can agree that Jesus is not God ontologically but God does come in Jesus. God is with us…Immanuel.
I believe it is the ως reading of Dan 7:13 Jesus applies to himself when he talks about himself as the son of man. The point is that he comes AS or LIKE the Ancient of Days.
This implies he is an exact representation of God in that he carries out what is prophesied that Yhwh will do. So Jesus is not ontologically the Ancient of Days but is LIKE him and represents him in the fulfillment of prophecies where God is said to come to make war on the nations, when he makes visitations upon his people and dwells with them, when he stands on the Mt of Olives and splits it in two with one foot on each side of the valley.
Daniel 7:13 LXX ΕΚΔΟΣΙΣ ΥΠΟ Alfred Rahlfs:
"ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱος ἀνθρώπου ἔρχετο, καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν παρῆν, καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ."
I was watching in the night visions,
and lo, as it were a son of man
was coming upon the clouds of heaven. And he came AS the ancient of days, and the attendants were present with him.
Look at Jesus’ quote of Daniel 7:13. You’ll see it reflects the LXX reading. And you will most often find Jesus talking about the son of man in terms of coming in judgement rather than approaching the Ancient of Days.
Matt 16: 27 For the Son of man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior.
Matt 24: 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.
Matt 26: 64 Jesus said to him: “You yourself said it. But I say to you: From now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Interestingly Acts 1:9-11 seems to confirm both the Old Greek reading and Theodotian’s translation which accords with the MT reading.
Pre-incarnate visitation from Jesus Christ. He was in the fire and in the cloud as the Israelites were in the desert. He was the flowing water from The Rock. I would dare say he was the manna from heaven. The burning bush. So many ways that he made himself known.
The visitation before Sodom and Gomorrah. This may have been just angels as Messengers but also could have included the Christ.
The christadelphians have a fairly unique way of believing in the angels who carry the God's name
I studied a lot with them. Fascinating stuff.
This idea is hinted at in Rev 19 where the rider on the white horse has a name written that he alone knows. Always appreciate your scholarship in attempting to find the truth. Lying pen of the scribes must be exposed first.
Algormancy
Jesus is Michael
jehovah's witness spotted, opinion rejected
@@abaddon2148 it isn't only JW's who believe that. Many Bible commentaries claim that Jesus is Michael.
Does it sometimes seem like ancient people seriously failed to grasp what names are and are not? It's as bad as French philosophy.
Nice scratch of the nose 😊😅, 1 min in to the video,
and I realised your clueless .
😊
His clueless what?
Perhaps the Bible is based upon a lot of elderly men having delusions of grandeur and dreams of being rescued by their persecutors; that's not to say that the thousand years it took to write the Israelite history wasn't true, but it's just spiritual beliefs... According to spiritual beliefs we all have Divinity within us, therefore we are all Divine and can all say I am, because I am is just stating a fact I am a woman I am a human I am a American... Therefore I am is not a name of God stop, but a description🤔💭
Meanwhile people still kill themselves and others over this book😂
Loving your content. Can we be best friends?