So are you taking a single phrase that Jesus quoted from Psalm 22 while on the cross and rejecting everything I just said in this video about his divine authority?
you forgot that there is a son and a father. that what happens when a lot of people insist that the Father and the Son are one and the same. Xhristianity becomes a laughingstock of the world because a certain group misunderstood some verses in the bible abd perpetuate that mistake. to admit to their mistake means their church will fall flat on its face.
@@reddapologetics I guess for me, the statements in the video such as "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with him, then He will sit on His glorious throne" do seem to be in conflict with the quote from Psalm 22 that @christasimon9716 provided (albeit their version is edited humorously). So there *are* statements throughout the book that either side of this debate can refer to in support of their argument. And this to me is always the primary problem with the idea of the bible and an all-powerful god who wrote or inspired it... Why write a book in a dead language with no original copies surviving. Like if I had the most important message for my son, and I'm able to deliver the message any way I choose, why on earth would I choose this way of conveying the message? It would be like putting it on a floppy disk in an outdated code, or something like that.
Step One is to become fluent in the ancient Koine Greek in which the Gospels were written. Learn Aramaic as well. Ehrman and other serious scholars all do this. Do these things first, and then get back to us.
Translation can have a significant impact on the meaning of a my given passage in a text, especially if you’re doing a deep analysis on literary parallels. For example, in Isaiah 7:14 (ESV): “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” In the original Hebrew, the word used would only ever mean “young woman”. The word “virgin” is used in most English translations because of the Greek translation in the Septuagint which can mean “young woman” or “virgin”. This small word choice has a very strong impact on biblical interpretation. I don’t know whether you know another language than English, but a lot of very common words can also have very specific connotations which don’t carry over well in translation. Finally, the differences in the details in early manuscripts means that you can’t get all your text from one place. You need to have a strong understanding of the language of the manuscripts to be able to read several of them, determine what the most conservative reading of all of them is, and come to meaningful conclusions about the meaning behind different readings.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said here. I agree that studying the original languages is a wonderful thing to do. While I'm certainly no Greek scholar, I study and reference the language routinely. I just don't think the cited verses or my arguments necessarily demand a discussion of word meanings, variants, or textual criticism. I'm not aware of any disputes over phrases like "Son of Man" or "Lord of the Sabbath". Happy to hear your POV! In contrast, when interacting with Jehovah's Witnesses, my discussions routinely involve referencing the original languages because translational issues are often the point. For me, the question is: What does it mean when Jesus describes Himself with these various terms and phrases, and how would His Jewish audience have understood them based on their knowledge of the Old Testament?
If you educated yourself and leant the original (usually Greek) text, you will notice later translations added all your points. Also, your argument is hearsay...
What later translations are you referring to? Later translations added terms like “Son of Man” to the Gospels? And how is my argument hearsay? I’m reading a historical document and explaining how the Jewish people would have viewed Jesus’ claims about Himself.
@@reddapologetics Every translation that isn't in the original Hebrew or Greek text. And by the way, the first Paul, the first book to be written, was written about 80 years after the death of Jesus, therefore, it is hearsay, nobody who "saw" Jesus wrote any part of the bible.
Hope doesn’t suffer hate, but I think when non-academic apologetics are casted against Ehrman, they mostly seem weak, redundant, and suffer from poor argumentation, reading, and hermeneutics. 1. Ehrman doesn’t necessarily claim that the idea of Christ as God was simply made up by "John." Instead, he argues that there isn’t any explicit claim to Jesus’ divinity in the synoptic gospels, and he is correct. Respectfully speaking, I don’t think you debunked him. Your analysis seemed limited to projecting a modern Christian lens onto some substantially ambiguous texts, and I'd like to highlight a few points here: a) Nowhere in the Old Testament or in tradition is it stated that, to be the Messiah, one must be God, or that God would "anoint himself." I’m not suggesting this theological understanding was impossible, but rather that it developed over time through allegorical interpretations of the OT. b) People tend to approach the Gospels with a binary view, assuming that if Jesus accepted some form of reverence that could be seen as "idolatry," he was necessarily claiming to be God. But that isn’t necessarily the case. We actually know relatively little about whether Jesus and his followers saw him as divine in the sense of being one with God the Father. While this view of Jesus as divine seems plausible, it doesn’t automatically imply full unity with God the Father. For instance, in the eyes of some evangelicals some catholics fall into idolatry for Mary and the Saints, but if you ask them theu will say they are firmly christians and monotheists. It's not that simple, with a non elaborated hermeneutics one future reader could interpret that the catholics saints are Gods or were "seen as God" but it isn't the right interpretatiom. Besides, from reading Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God and regularly following his podcast, this seems to reflect his position as well. Given the diversity among Second Temple Judaism sects, and considering that Jesus was likely-if not a Zealot-a leader of a non-orthodox, anti-clerical movement that drew on syncretic and mystical elements, it’s possible he was reclaiming roles such as the "Son of Man" or the "Messiah ben Yosef" in a way that granted him a reverential, divine authority without equating him with God the Father. This might parallel figures like Enoch or Elijah, who were sometimes regarded with a unique, elevated status (and, in the gospels, some even thought Jesus could be Elijah). This panorama is far more complex than simply reading the text and concluding, "he implicitly claimed to be God." c) Saying that Matthew 28:19 is an "I am God" claim or a Trinitarian proclamation is too much. If it were that simple, would centuries of controversies-Adoptionism, Arianism, Nestorianism-exist just because bishops were unable to interpret a single text directly? This view clearly projects a modern Christian perspective onto the text.
@loledssdafd3429 Show them, conditions: - From synoptic; - With no need of theological development to understand; - No allegories using modern OT translations; - That says Jesus IS God the Fathe, not the he is divinenly authoritative somehow
@@Preulius Your position is extremely disingenuous. -Barts whole position that it was a later invention falls apart with the Letters of Paul. -Asking in a book with tons of allegory connections between old and new testament to not use them is quite funny. -No Jesus is not God the father that's why he wouldn't claim to be the father? and even with these restrictions you end up in verses like: 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son with you I am well pleased.” 35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy the Son of God.
@@Matze1988ok You claim that Bart's position is extremely disingenuous, suggesting he argues that the idea of Jesus as God was a later invention. But as far as I understand, that's not exactly what he says. Bart actually argues that Jesus never claimed to be God, nor is he directly described as God in the Synoptic Gospels. You could interpret this as an invention in the Gospel of John, or, from an academic or agnostic perspective, consider that John-being the latest gospel-reflects a mythic development that evolved over decades, particularly under the influence of Paul’s letters. Paul’s letters are central to understanding this development, and Barth discusses this in How Jesus Became God, especially regarding the authentic letters. Bart acknowledges that, although Paul hints that Jesus is exalted to a level close to God the Father, he never outright says Jesus is God. Instead, Paul states that God raised Jesus and gave him his name, but he doesn’t claim Jesus was always God. So, while you can interpret Paul’s words in different ways, they don't directly equate Jesus with God.
@@Matze1988ok I don’t understand how you can interpret this verse as saying Jesus is God. To me, it seems quite the opposite. Simon Peter says, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God,’ and Jesus replies, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.’ First of all, Peter calls Jesus the Messiah and the Son of the Living God, but this doesn’t equate him with God. Being the Messiah doesn’t necessarily mean being God, nor does being the Son of God. You’re projecting the doctrine of the Trinity onto a text that isn’t explicitly Trinitarian. This doctrine was established centuries after these texts were written, so reading it into this verse isn’t accurate. I’ll say it again: you Christians often approach the Synoptic Gospels with a false dichotomy, assuming that if Jesus isn’t portrayed as just a prophet or teacher, then he must be worshipped as God. This interpretation might hint at something more, but you can’t definitively say the text is calling Jesus God. John’s Gospel is different. It’s clear from the start, with statements like, ‘Before Abraham was, I am,’ and ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.’ These verses more directly equate Jesus with God. In the Synoptic Gospels, though, applying that same logic doesn’t align with the text.
@ Just read your message on the email. Glad you and the fam doing good James! I’m ready to have the 2nd part of our discussion. The scriptures we never got to when good for you.
Oh...that good old not saying something means you said something, argument. And then that...he said he was explicitly not something, but it is really close to being what I wanted him to have said, so I'm just going to infer what I wanted him to say...argument. And lets not leave out the, he was given something, so he must be both the recipient AND giver of that thing. Thanks for pointing out all the hooey.
@reddapologetics the fact that you can ask that question is answer enough for this type of discussion. like, either he is the all powerful, all knowing god, who is also not the author of confusion....or it is something else. But if you read in a book inspired by the most high god, in a dozen places, where a character is called 1 thing...but you have to do mental gymnasitcs to infer him being something else...then maybe a couple of your premisies are in conflicts.
@@stupidrules1000 I notice you didn't answer my question. The verse means something, right? Or is it just incoherent? And there are no mental gymnastics in making the point that phrases like Son of Man, Messiah, coming on the clouds, Lord of the Sabbath, etc. would have had a pretty profound meaning to the Jewish people Jesus was talking to.
@@reddapologetics Yeah...and either god is all powerful, all knowing AND wants us to know him in a particular way...or he is not, and or does not. So, the idea that what he said would have specific meaning to the jews, is somewhat immaterial IF he knew that you and I, two non-jews, living almost 2000 years later (I'm assuming you are not jewish, I don't mean offense either way), were going to receive this message, and it could not be clear to either of us. (and if your claim is that it IS clear...then go back and read my response). So either he did not know what would be clear...or he doesn't want it to be clear. But also....what one verse, referencing a task given by an apocolyptic preacher 2000 years ago, could possibly be interpreted to mean is largely immaterial. Why? Because of all of the other conflicting statements. Is he the son of god or something else? Did he become god's son, or was it something else? is he at the right seat of power, or somewher else? is he at the right hand of the father, or somewhere else? If you need to suspend the good sense that god gave you, in order to adopt a theology that men are pushing on you, maybe one should reconsider at least one of these things (and maybe not the one you use every day in all other circumstances). But also....Matthew doesn't address the points I made in my original comment about the arguments you make in your video. Try addreasing those first, and then lets get to vague inferences using linguistc nuances of largely illeterate people through multiple language translations (some of which do not exist any longer) living 6,000 miles away almost 2000 years ago. And then filter that through the lense of cultural differences and then further through the lense of cultural evolution. I would wager that there are parts of this country that you could go to, and observe an entire conversation, and have no idea what the people you were listening to were actually saying. And they speak the same language as you, in the same country, contemporaneously. (and that is in a circumstance where you can actually understand the words...there are places you could go where you might not even recognize that you are speaking the same language) But, you're going to infer meaning and intent from the words of the bible that are not explicit? And so to answer your question about matthew....it doesn't mean anything. Not the way YOU are using it. Once you go down the road of saying ancient words have a meaning other than what the words mean...then you can insert almost any world view into almost any set of words, and that meaning is just as valid as anyone else's. No matter what they are saying. And that is the problem with your arguments, as I see them.
th-cam.com/video/aqh3ijU2RfY/w-d-xo.html You decided to overlook this: Mat 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me".... If Jesus was supposed to have been God, he wouldn't have said "given to me", he would have said, "I gave myself", or even "we gave ourselves!" Granted, the whole book is full of contradictions and the gospels were written a couple of generations after Jesus, so go figure what they really meant!
Idk the fact he says “ur sins are forgiven” should imply that he is god. Because who can forgive sins but God. I love how Bart says without doubt Jesus was crucified. So why was he crucified? He didn’t rebel against Roman’s not even once or even implied rebelling. The answer is that the Jews didn’t like he was saying “he is god “ because how can a mere man be God. Like make it make sense Bart ? Why didn’t the Jews like Jesus then ? At best Bart can claim that he claimed to be the messiah, okay great. The messiah is divine figure in the Old Testament so he’s STILL claiming to be God. Give up , Jesus claimed to be God and IS God
@ bro… your missing a huge point. Context clues is huge part of literature u should look it up sometime. You and I can say this all we want but what does it mean if we call ourselves a teacher and more than a prophet. What does it mean if we are Jewish and it’s taboo to say this. The Jewish leaders knew exactly what Jesus was implying by this. Why didn’t he correct them.
Well done James!! This has always been my favorite subject! It's astounding to me how many deny Jesus is God. When, atleast for me, it's extremely easy to see. He is King 🤴 He is Lord ✝️ He is The Word 📖 Jesus is God
@@reddapologetics Hi James, you mentioned Jesus was worshipped. The example you gave didn’t demand what you think. PROSKUNEO was given to Jesus by his disciples and others but it doesn’t mean he has to be God. There are so many examples of others receiving it in scripture in the OT, NT and LXX. You need to inform those listening of the full scriptural facts please.
@@reddapologetics Yes “name” is singular at Matthew 28:19. The fact that the word “name” is singular is really irrelevant. This can be seen by citing examples like Genesis 48:16 which reads, “in the NAME of my fathers Abraham and Isaac.” (King James Version) Are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob one individual or being? Doesn’t have to mean what you presented.
@NickHawaii Hello Nick. I have a question. How come your questions are only ever to attack Jesus as God? I never see you talking about anything else except to attack Jesus. You never give a comment to either James nor I about any other thing we say? Just making sure you aim at Jesus is God..? I suggest something, just make sure you understand what you're doing when you constant jab another believer. I say this kindly, but understand what you're doing to Gods children and God Himself when you do this. Jesus is God! You'll see, hopefully on this side rather than the latter.
oh btw in letivicus, you can't cut your hair, so why are you cutting your hair? You are going against gods words 🤣🤣🤷♂🤷♂ Religion is a joke, i can't take it serious.
@@loledssdafd3429 I'm not so sure about that. There are more funny things described in that book. :) Anyway Leviticus 19:27 Depending which version you use, it may vary a bit.
@@loledssdafd3429 I don't know, you tell me. But it wouldn't matter anyway, the 3 main monotheistic religions are related anyway. Sharing the same sources/scriptures. One other common misconception is that the bible claims it's around 6000 years old. Or lets talk about Adam and Eve, if you would understand a bit of how biology work, you would also know that making babies with your sibling is a bad idea. Yet according to the bible, Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans. If this story was true, the 3rd generation would not be able to survive and suffer from some serious genetic disorders. I just think it's funny, that so many people are convinced over their own religion, yet the 'holy' book, the gospels, the scriptures contain funny mistakes, what i wouldn't expect from an almighty/all-knowing god. Since many things are proven wrong, how come so many people still have blind faith in it. I find it fascinating.
@@Daeva83B so you talk about a law you don’t understand ? Great I can tell you that that law does not apply to Christian’s. The Bible doesn’t claim the earth is 6000 years old its just an assumption by creationists… Even if Adam and Eve wasn’t true the same issue would emerge so maybe you learn something about evolution first. Because funnily enough speciation and mutations do cause that they are from time to time not compatible :) So indeed at some point there were the first 2 humans. You haven’t proven anything wrong Ofcourse since you can’t prove anything wrong in the first place.
3:45 Ehrman literally discusses the terms Son of Man, Messiah and Christ in the video you took the clip from.
"Oh myself, oh myself, why have I forsaken me?"
So are you taking a single phrase that Jesus quoted from Psalm 22 while on the cross and rejecting everything I just said in this video about his divine authority?
you forgot that there is a son and a father. that what happens when a lot of people insist that the Father and the Son are one and the same. Xhristianity becomes a laughingstock of the world because a certain group misunderstood some verses in the bible abd perpetuate that mistake. to admit to their mistake means their church will fall flat on its face.
@@arnelnaca702 What did I say to make you think that I believe the Father and Son are the same person? I’m a trinitarian.
@@reddapologetics I guess for me, the statements in the video such as "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with him, then He will sit on His glorious throne" do seem to be in conflict with the quote from Psalm 22 that @christasimon9716 provided (albeit their version is edited humorously). So there *are* statements throughout the book that either side of this debate can refer to in support of their argument. And this to me is always the primary problem with the idea of the bible and an all-powerful god who wrote or inspired it... Why write a book in a dead language with no original copies surviving. Like if I had the most important message for my son, and I'm able to deliver the message any way I choose, why on earth would I choose this way of conveying the message? It would be like putting it on a floppy disk in an outdated code, or something like that.
And remember, "he's **not** the author of confusion"; can you imagine if he were?
Hoo boy imagine believing this garbage
The only reason most people will ever find this video is because Ehrman is in the title
Punching up would be an understatement
Step One is to become fluent in the ancient Koine Greek in which the Gospels were written. Learn Aramaic as well. Ehrman and other serious scholars all do this. Do these things first, and then get back to us.
Why is this an issue of translation?
Translation can have a significant impact on the meaning of a my given passage in a text, especially if you’re doing a deep analysis on literary parallels. For example, in Isaiah 7:14 (ESV): “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” In the original Hebrew, the word used would only ever mean “young woman”. The word “virgin” is used in most English translations because of the Greek translation in the Septuagint which can mean “young woman” or “virgin”. This small word choice has a very strong impact on biblical interpretation. I don’t know whether you know another language than English, but a lot of very common words can also have very specific connotations which don’t carry over well in translation. Finally, the differences in the details in early manuscripts means that you can’t get all your text from one place. You need to have a strong understanding of the language of the manuscripts to be able to read several of them, determine what the most conservative reading of all of them is, and come to meaningful conclusions about the meaning behind different readings.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said here. I agree that studying the original languages is a wonderful thing to do. While I'm certainly no Greek scholar, I study and reference the language routinely. I just don't think the cited verses or my arguments necessarily demand a discussion of word meanings, variants, or textual criticism. I'm not aware of any disputes over phrases like "Son of Man" or "Lord of the Sabbath". Happy to hear your POV! In contrast, when interacting with Jehovah's Witnesses, my discussions routinely involve referencing the original languages because translational issues are often the point. For me, the question is: What does it mean when Jesus describes Himself with these various terms and phrases, and how would His Jewish audience have understood them based on their knowledge of the Old Testament?
If you educated yourself and leant the original (usually Greek) text, you will notice later translations added all your points. Also, your argument is hearsay...
What later translations are you referring to? Later translations added terms like “Son of Man” to the Gospels? And how is my argument hearsay? I’m reading a historical document and explaining how the Jewish people would have viewed Jesus’ claims about Himself.
@@reddapologetics Every translation that isn't in the original Hebrew or Greek text.
And by the way, the first Paul, the first book to be written, was written about 80 years after the death of Jesus, therefore, it is hearsay, nobody who "saw" Jesus wrote any part of the bible.
Hope doesn’t suffer hate, but I think when non-academic apologetics are casted against Ehrman, they mostly seem weak, redundant, and suffer from poor argumentation, reading, and hermeneutics.
1. Ehrman doesn’t necessarily claim that the idea of Christ as God was simply made up by "John." Instead, he argues that there isn’t any explicit claim to Jesus’ divinity in the synoptic gospels, and he is correct.
Respectfully speaking, I don’t think you debunked him. Your analysis seemed limited to projecting a modern Christian lens onto some substantially ambiguous texts, and I'd like to highlight a few points here:
a) Nowhere in the Old Testament or in tradition is it stated that, to be the Messiah, one must be God, or that God would "anoint himself." I’m not suggesting this theological understanding was impossible, but rather that it developed over time through allegorical interpretations of the OT.
b) People tend to approach the Gospels with a binary view, assuming that if Jesus accepted some form of reverence that could be seen as "idolatry," he was necessarily claiming to be God. But that isn’t necessarily the case. We actually know relatively little about whether Jesus and his followers saw him as divine in the sense of being one with God the Father. While this view of Jesus as divine seems plausible, it doesn’t automatically imply full unity with God the Father.
For instance, in the eyes of some evangelicals some catholics fall into idolatry for Mary and the Saints, but if you ask them theu will say they are firmly christians and monotheists. It's not that simple, with a non elaborated hermeneutics one future reader could interpret that the catholics saints are Gods or were "seen as God" but it isn't the right interpretatiom.
Besides, from reading Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God and regularly following his podcast, this seems to reflect his position as well. Given the diversity among Second Temple Judaism sects, and considering that Jesus was likely-if not a Zealot-a leader of a non-orthodox, anti-clerical movement that drew on syncretic and mystical elements, it’s possible he was reclaiming roles such as the "Son of Man" or the "Messiah ben Yosef" in a way that granted him a reverential, divine authority without equating him with God the Father. This might parallel figures like Enoch or Elijah, who were sometimes regarded with a unique, elevated status (and, in the gospels, some even thought Jesus could be Elijah). This panorama is far more complex than simply reading the text and concluding, "he implicitly claimed to be God."
c) Saying that Matthew 28:19 is an "I am God" claim or a Trinitarian proclamation is too much. If it were that simple, would centuries of controversies-Adoptionism, Arianism, Nestorianism-exist just because bishops were unable to interpret a single text directly? This view clearly projects a modern Christian perspective onto the text.
There are way to many Verses that destroy Ehrmans position
@loledssdafd3429 Show them, conditions:
- From synoptic;
- With no need of theological development to understand;
- No allegories using modern OT translations;
- That says Jesus IS God the Fathe, not the he is divinenly authoritative somehow
@@Preulius Your position is extremely disingenuous.
-Barts whole position that it was a later invention falls apart with the Letters of Paul.
-Asking in a book with tons of allegory connections between old and new testament to not use them is quite funny.
-No Jesus is not God the father that's why he wouldn't claim to be the father?
and even with these restrictions you end up in verses like:
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son with you I am well pleased.”
35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy the Son of God.
@@Matze1988ok You claim that Bart's position is extremely disingenuous, suggesting he argues that the idea of Jesus as God was a later invention. But as far as I understand, that's not exactly what he says. Bart actually argues that Jesus never claimed to be God, nor is he directly described as God in the Synoptic Gospels. You could interpret this as an invention in the Gospel of John, or, from an academic or agnostic perspective, consider that John-being the latest gospel-reflects a mythic development that evolved over decades, particularly under the influence of Paul’s letters.
Paul’s letters are central to understanding this development, and Barth discusses this in How Jesus Became God, especially regarding the authentic letters. Bart acknowledges that, although Paul hints that Jesus is exalted to a level close to God the Father, he never outright says Jesus is God. Instead, Paul states that God raised Jesus and gave him his name, but he doesn’t claim Jesus was always God. So, while you can interpret Paul’s words in different ways, they don't directly equate Jesus with God.
@@Matze1988ok I don’t understand how you can interpret this verse as saying Jesus is God. To me, it seems quite the opposite. Simon Peter says, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God,’ and Jesus replies, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.’ First of all, Peter calls Jesus the Messiah and the Son of the Living God, but this doesn’t equate him with God. Being the Messiah doesn’t necessarily mean being God, nor does being the Son of God. You’re projecting the doctrine of the Trinity onto a text that isn’t explicitly Trinitarian.
This doctrine was established centuries after these texts were written, so reading it into this verse isn’t accurate. I’ll say it again: you Christians often approach the Synoptic Gospels with a false dichotomy, assuming that if Jesus isn’t portrayed as just a prophet or teacher, then he must be worshipped as God. This interpretation might hint at something more, but you can’t definitively say the text is calling Jesus God. John’s Gospel is different. It’s clear from the start, with statements like, ‘Before Abraham was, I am,’ and ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.’ These verses more directly equate Jesus with God.
In the Synoptic Gospels, though, applying that same logic doesn’t align with the text.
Hi James! How are you? Not sure if you saw my emails with Knieshia? Hoping you are doing good. 🤙🏼
Yes! I’ve been busy and blessed. Just got back to you guys today. Same to you! :)
@ Just read your message on the email. Glad you and the fam doing good James! I’m ready to have the 2nd part of our discussion. The scriptures we never got to when good for you.
@@NickHawaii Good idea! I'll look at the calendar and we can stay in touch!
Oh...that good old not saying something means you said something, argument.
And then that...he said he was explicitly not something, but it is really close to being what I wanted him to have said, so I'm just going to infer what I wanted him to say...argument.
And lets not leave out the, he was given something, so he must be both the recipient AND giver of that thing.
Thanks for pointing out all the hooey.
What does Matthew 28:19 mean?
@reddapologetics the fact that you can ask that question is answer enough for this type of discussion. like, either he is the all powerful, all knowing god, who is also not the author of confusion....or it is something else.
But if you read in a book inspired by the most high god, in a dozen places, where a character is called 1 thing...but you have to do mental gymnasitcs to infer him being something else...then maybe a couple of your premisies are in conflicts.
@@stupidrules1000 I notice you didn't answer my question. The verse means something, right? Or is it just incoherent? And there are no mental gymnastics in making the point that phrases like Son of Man, Messiah, coming on the clouds, Lord of the Sabbath, etc. would have had a pretty profound meaning to the Jewish people Jesus was talking to.
@@reddapologetics Yeah...and either god is all powerful, all knowing AND wants us to know him in a particular way...or he is not, and or does not.
So, the idea that what he said would have specific meaning to the jews, is somewhat immaterial IF he knew that you and I, two non-jews, living almost 2000 years later (I'm assuming you are not jewish, I don't mean offense either way), were going to receive this message, and it could not be clear to either of us. (and if your claim is that it IS clear...then go back and read my response).
So either he did not know what would be clear...or he doesn't want it to be clear.
But also....what one verse, referencing a task given by an apocolyptic preacher 2000 years ago, could possibly be interpreted to mean is largely immaterial. Why? Because of all of the other conflicting statements. Is he the son of god or something else? Did he become god's son, or was it something else? is he at the right seat of power, or somewher else? is he at the right hand of the father, or somewhere else? If you need to suspend the good sense that god gave you, in order to adopt a theology that men are pushing on you, maybe one should reconsider at least one of these things (and maybe not the one you use every day in all other circumstances).
But also....Matthew doesn't address the points I made in my original comment about the arguments you make in your video. Try addreasing those first, and then lets get to vague inferences using linguistc nuances of largely illeterate people through multiple language translations (some of which do not exist any longer) living 6,000 miles away almost 2000 years ago. And then filter that through the lense of cultural differences and then further through the lense of cultural evolution.
I would wager that there are parts of this country that you could go to, and observe an entire conversation, and have no idea what the people you were listening to were actually saying. And they speak the same language as you, in the same country, contemporaneously. (and that is in a circumstance where you can actually understand the words...there are places you could go where you might not even recognize that you are speaking the same language) But, you're going to infer meaning and intent from the words of the bible that are not explicit?
And so to answer your question about matthew....it doesn't mean anything.
Not the way YOU are using it. Once you go down the road of saying ancient words have a meaning other than what the words mean...then you can insert almost any world view into almost any set of words, and that meaning is just as valid as anyone else's. No matter what they are saying. And that is the problem with your arguments, as I see them.
What is god? Everybody speaks as if they know what god is.. 🤣🤣
ask 10 people and i get 25 different definitions.
th-cam.com/video/aqh3ijU2RfY/w-d-xo.html You decided to overlook this:
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me"....
If Jesus was supposed to have been God, he wouldn't have said "given to me", he would have said, "I gave myself", or even "we gave ourselves!"
Granted, the whole book is full of contradictions and the gospels were written a couple of generations after Jesus, so go figure what they really meant!
Bart is a little liar and he knows it, its about making some buck... his issue is that he doesnt believe in the supernatural in the first place.
Idk the fact he says “ur sins are forgiven” should imply that he is god. Because who can forgive sins but God. I love how Bart says without doubt Jesus was crucified. So why was he crucified? He didn’t rebel against Roman’s not even once or even implied rebelling. The answer is that the Jews didn’t like he was saying “he is god “ because how can a mere man be God. Like make it make sense Bart ? Why didn’t the Jews like Jesus then ? At best Bart can claim that he claimed to be the messiah, okay great. The messiah is divine figure in the Old Testament so he’s STILL claiming to be God. Give up , Jesus claimed to be God and IS God
Didn't read past the 1st line because it was quite silly.
But, I forgive you for the sin of silliness and this implies I am god.
@ you can say it all u want , Jesus healed ppl like this. I really don’t get ur statement
@@infamousmarkou4928 you said if someone says "ur sins are forgiven" it implies they're a god. I forgave your sin, therefore this implies I'm a god.
@ bro… your missing a huge point. Context clues is huge part of literature u should look it up sometime. You and I can say this all we want but what does it mean if we call ourselves a teacher and more than a prophet. What does it mean if we are Jewish and it’s taboo to say this. The Jewish leaders knew exactly what Jesus was implying by this. Why didn’t he correct them.
@@infamousmarkou4928 none of this addresses my point, it looks like it's sailed high above you tbh. Oh well.
Well done James!!
This has always been my favorite subject! It's astounding to me how many deny Jesus is God. When, atleast for me, it's extremely easy to see.
He is King 🤴
He is Lord ✝️
He is The Word 📖
Jesus is God
Knieshia! Much appreciated! And amen! :)
Hi Knieshia. Who made Jesus the Messianic Lord? (Acts 2:36)
@@reddapologetics Hi James, you mentioned Jesus was worshipped. The example you gave didn’t demand what you think. PROSKUNEO was given to Jesus by his disciples and others but it doesn’t mean he has to be God. There are so many examples of others receiving it in scripture in the OT, NT and LXX. You need to inform those listening of the full scriptural facts please.
@@reddapologetics
Yes “name” is singular at Matthew 28:19.
The fact that the word “name” is singular is really irrelevant. This can be seen by citing examples like Genesis 48:16 which reads, “in the NAME of my fathers Abraham and Isaac.” (King James Version)
Are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob one individual or being? Doesn’t have to mean what you presented.
@NickHawaii Hello Nick. I have a question. How come your questions are only ever to attack Jesus as God? I never see you talking about anything else except to attack Jesus.
You never give a comment to either James nor I about any other thing we say?
Just making sure you aim at Jesus is God..? I suggest something, just make sure you understand what you're doing when you constant jab another believer.
I say this kindly, but understand what you're doing to Gods children and God Himself when you do this.
Jesus is God! You'll see, hopefully on this side rather than the latter.
oh btw in letivicus, you can't cut your hair, so why are you cutting your hair? You are going against gods words 🤣🤣🤷♂🤷♂
Religion is a joke, i can't take it serious.
you just embarrassed yourself
@@loledssdafd3429 I'm not so sure about that. There are more funny things described in that book. :)
Anyway
Leviticus 19:27
Depending which version you use, it may vary a bit.
@@Daeva83B Let me make this easy for you, am i a jew?
@@loledssdafd3429 I don't know, you tell me. But it wouldn't matter anyway, the 3 main monotheistic religions are related anyway. Sharing the same sources/scriptures.
One other common misconception is that the bible claims it's around 6000 years old.
Or lets talk about Adam and Eve, if you would understand a bit of how biology work, you would also know that making babies with your sibling is a bad idea.
Yet according to the bible, Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans. If this story was true, the 3rd generation would not be able to survive and suffer from some serious genetic disorders.
I just think it's funny, that so many people are convinced over their own religion, yet the 'holy' book, the gospels, the scriptures contain funny mistakes, what i wouldn't expect from an almighty/all-knowing god.
Since many things are proven wrong, how come so many people still have blind faith in it.
I find it fascinating.
@@Daeva83B so you talk about a law you don’t understand ? Great I can tell you that that law does not apply to Christian’s.
The Bible doesn’t claim the earth is 6000 years old its just an assumption by creationists…
Even if Adam and Eve wasn’t true the same issue would emerge so maybe you learn something about evolution first. Because funnily enough speciation and mutations do cause that they are from time to time not compatible :)
So indeed at some point there were the first 2 humans.
You haven’t proven anything wrong Ofcourse since you can’t prove anything wrong in the first place.