In the Old Testament God says that we are all His children. We are created in His image and we all have a spark of the divine within us. All prayers are heard and answered even those of the unbeliever. In Psalms, David sings to the God of Israel, You are my savior. God also said, I am not a man nor would I become one. Jesus was a good man, a wise rabbi, but he was not God made flesh. He was not equal with God.
@@vixendoe6943 The trinity is the result of trying to make a new religion with a new God built on the foundations of another religion with another God.
That makes more sense actually... that a supernatural creature from Earth would need to be sacrificed to a supernatural creature from "heaven" to appease the creature from "heaven". As it is, Christian theology has a part of a creature from heaven being sacrificed to the same creature from heaven to make it less mad at non-supernatural creatures from Earth.
@@travis1240But Godzilla is from the sea. If it has to be a monster from heaven, shouldn't it be Space Godzilla? Or Monster Zero! He even has "King" his name!
Considering John's gnostic leanings, it is amazing itmade the Biblical cut but its popularity seems to have been greater than its obvious discrepancies with the synoptic gospels.
Growing up i naturally always beleived this not knowing my tradition taught the trinitarian concept. The way Dan explains it makes sense theologically, rationaly and spiritually. The way Dan explains it feels right and is a notion i always held. The most high is our father in heaven, christ is his son and the most high has given him his status and done his work through him. Love it Dan!
You should look up Arianism on Wikipedia. Arians were early Christians who believed Jesus was divine but having been “begotten” by god he wasn’t the same as God. IIRC Isaac Newton held the same belief so you are in good company. 😊
@DanMcClellan Perhaps I disagree with your take of John 10 or perhaps I misunderstand. In the same book, the author of John says in 5:18 that Jesus “…was even calling God his own Father, making himself EQUAL with God.” Please note that this is NOT a Pharisee misunderstanding. Rather, it’s the AUTHOR’S view. He's emphasizing Jesus is predicated EQUALITY with capitol G God. Since this is the author’s view, we ought to understand why the author reports that Jesus submits to the Father and says the Father is greater than him. Jesus might not claim to be God but the author does.
Jesus said that He is equal to God because He is divine as God and He is the Son of God (Begotten). So being equal with God (One divine nature) does not necessarily mean that Jesus was claiming to be part of a plural God. That is a later and philosophical innovation.
John 5:18 says the Jews sought to kill Jesus because they believed he was “breaking the Sabbath” and “making himself equal with God.” However, this accusation was just their _misunderstanding_ of what Jesus was saying. If you think that the author John's view is that Jesus was making himself equal to God, you also believe that John's view was that Jesus was breaking the sabbath, but he wasn’t. In John chapter 10, the Jews _falsely accused_ Jesus of blasphemy, claiming that he was making himself equal to God by saying, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). But Jesus refuted their accusation, pointing out that he wasn’t claiming to be God himself, but rather God’s Son. He responded, “Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God’s Son'?” (John 10:36) By saying this, Jesus clarified that he wasn’t claiming to be equal to God. He was only claiming to be God’s Son.
@@jollyrancher521 Plus Jesus clearly stated openly that the Father was greater than himself. That means they were not equal. The trinity is a false doctrine.
Im with you 100%. My family would never agree with you as they are pentocostal. But i fully agree with you. Thats how i understood it when i 1st read the bible on my own.
😅Feel your pain! Born & raised "Oneness" & my family is finally coming around. I've showed them several important scriptures such as: Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, Surely you know? Daniel chapter 7 is a Gold mine to explain who Jesus "the son of man" truly is. In this chapter the ancient of Days presents the son of man a kingdom that will never end. Daniel 7:9-15 “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed. 👆Jesus left his disciples in Galilee & Rhode a cloud to heaven & was presented before Yahweh God. 😬This was a shock for me to grasp after a lifelong of accidental "Jesus idolatry". After realizing I was so misled I just poured myself into the Bible and I finished it for the third time in two years. Recently found the only church that seems to line up at all with the WHOLE Bible & rejects the Trinity is the Unitarian Christian Alliance. Hugs & prayers😊
Love to get your take on Larry Hurtado’s early Christian christology work. I know he and Bart Ehrman take a different view on early christology, and I’d be interested in your take on their arguments.
@@thevulture5750 The koine Greek new testament papyrus 125ce is online to view. No Christian bibles used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources.
@@BlackDeath920 lol so was John 7:53 ,8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 just popped in... And why church fathers paint all people of their bible as white Europeans? Racist theology
Uhhh… maybe im missing some extra context to the womans initial video… but i dont think she was even referring to John 10:30. She didnt make the “I and the Father are one” argument. Seems like she was referring to John 5:18, where it says “For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” Are we sure John 10:30 was the passage she was referring to?
"Through Him, not With Him". I believe Dan's Latter Day Saints background is clouding his ability to see what Jesus is saying here. Using Phillipians 2:7 as my basis in original Greek: ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, Transliterated into English, it says: "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," This verse highlights the selflessness and humility of Jesus Christ. Although He existed in the form of God, He did not view His equality with God as something to be clung to or asserted. Instead, He chose to humble Himself and take on the form of a human being, becoming obedient even to the point of death on a cross. Remember, this is Jesus as fully man, fully God. Our minds simply have a difficult time comprehending the nature of the Trinity. The original Greek words used in this verse convey the depth and significance of Jesus' actions. The phrase "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων" emphasizes His pre-existence and divine nature, while "οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο" expresses His voluntary decision not to grasp at equality with God.
Then that would fulfill the prophecy of 2 Thess 2:4 about a false messiah. And no TRUE messiah chosen by Yhwh would ever claim to be God. An abomination and blasphemy. Deut. 13.
27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them away from me, 29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father’s hand. 30 The Father and I are one.” Clearly, if you read even from verse 27. Jesus is putting himself in the same position as the Father. He gives eternal life. The Jews definitely knew who gave eternal life. Jesus said the sheep are in HIS HAND, and no one can snatch them out of HIS HAND and the same sheep are in the Father's Hand. no one can snatch them from the Father's Hand.
Jesus says everyone should be "in God", John 17:21 "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one- I in them and you in me". That is obviously not a claim to being God.
How can Jehovah Witnesses explain John 1:1, in which it says how the Word was a god, when the Bible tells us there is only one God? 1 Corinthians 8:5 (King James Version) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) The Bible actually says, as you can see above, that there are many gods. It makes a distinction between those that are called gods and the one true God. In fact, Jesus himself said at John 10:34-36 (King James Version) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? Jesus acknowledged that God’s Word even refers to some men as gods. Then went on to confirm that it would not be inappropriate to refer to him as a god. Even so, he instead referred to himself as “the Son of God”. How can Jesus be referred to as a God? The word “god” is not the name of almighty God. In the Bible the word god is used as a title or as a descriptive adjective, because it simply means, strong one or mighty one. So, they Bible refers to Jehovah, Jesus, angels (including Satan), men, and false gods, as gods. Anyone in a powerful position can be called a god, Jehovah himself calls the judges in Israel gods at Psalms 82:6, which Jesus quoted at John 10:34: Psalms 82:6-7 NW - I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. 7 But you will die just as men do; And like any other prince you will fall!’” John 10:34 NW - 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? At 2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan is called god of this system of things (or god of this world) 2 Corinthians 4:4 NW - among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJ - In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. As for referring to Jesus as a god. Jesus was God’s first born son, the first angel he created. To translated John 1: 1 so as to suggest that Jesus was almighty God himself would conflict with everything else we are told about God’s firstborn only-begotten son. Colossians 1: 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; The Bible tells us God is a spirit, Jesus was also a spirit, as are all of the angels. At Hebrews 2:7 the Apostle Paul quoted Psalms 8:5 where the angels are referred to as “godlike ones.” Compare the two scriptures and note; one calls them angels the other calls then godlike ones. Hebrews 2:7 - You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. Psalms 8:5-6 - You made him a little lower than godlike ones, And you crowned him with glory and splendor. You make him dominate over the works of your hands. ... You also must consider the context. John wrote his gospel and you have to consider what he said throughout and ask what is he telling us about Jesus in harmony with everything else he tells us. For instance, notice what John says just a few verses later: John 1:14 NW - So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. John 1:18 NW - No man has seen God at any time: the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. In those two verses John himself tells us Jesus is the only-begotten son and only- begotten god. The word begotten comes from the word beginning, meaning Jesus had a beginning, unlike God who is eternal. John also said we had a view of his glory and then he says: no man has ever seen God at any time. It is obvious that John was not saying Jesus was almighty God himself, he was using the word god to describe his divine nature and powerful position as the only begotten son of God. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not base Bible doctrine on one scripture, we examine everything the Bible says and base our beliefs on all that it reveals to us about God and Christ. Jesus never claimed to be God, instead he referred to his heavenly father as “the only true God” and as “my God and your God”. John 17:3 - This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. John 20:17 - ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God. Jesus said his father was greater than he: John 14:28 KJ - Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. Jesus said there were thing he did not know which only his father knew: Matthew 24:36 AS - But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only. Jesus said God is one not a Trinity of three Gods in one. Mark 12:28-29 NW … “Which commandment is first of all?” 29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. Jesus refused to be addressed as “Good Teacher” saying only God is good: Mark 10:18 KJ - And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. We also do not believe the Bible contradicts itself, so if we find a verse like John 1: 1 which seems to contradict what dozens of other scriptures tell us about Jehovah and Christ Jesus, we look more closely at how that verse is translated to see if there is a legitimate reason to translated it in a way that it harmonizes with the rest of the Bible. Note: This is not the question where I posted this answer. What did Quora do now? Here is the verse you refer to: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.-1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV) Take that, along with John 1:1, which is about Jesus, in the context of John 20:17, in which Jesus is speaking: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.-John 20:17 (KJV) John 1:1-2 tells us that the “Word” was “with the GOD” in the beginning, but it does not say that the Word was “the GOD.” (Why not re-examine a Greek-English Interlinear Translation of John:1: vss 1-2+18. Although the Bible teaches that there are many Gods (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) … the Bible teaches that there is only one true Almighty God Jehovah and he is the Creator and he is “GOD of Gods” … (Genesis 17:1 and Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 22:22) so, this means that he is greater than lesser “gods.” Compare Psalm 136:2; Daniel 2:47 and 11:36; Psalm 82:1-7 and 95:3. Other spirit creatures, the angel ONE The Bible says that there is only one Almighty God. The Bible says that there are many Gods. 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6 “For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are.” This Scripture lists two people: One God the Father Separate from Jesus One Lord Jesus Christ Separate God Look at how each is described One God the Father out of whom all things are God is the source of life. and we for him God deserves the worship One Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things are.” Jesus is not the source of life Worked with the Almighty, his Father and God to create all things even life. Proverbs 8:22, 30 Colossians 1:15, 16 Revelation 3:15 Genesis 1:26 John 1: 1, 3; 17:6 TWO The Bible says there are many gods. The Bible says there is one Most High, or Almighty God. Psalm 83:18 “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.” Jesus is called a Mighty God, NOT the Almighty. Isaiah 9:6 “For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” The Almighty can be called a Mighty God. But a Mighty God is not necessarily the Almighty God. THREE Texts from which a person might draw more than one conclusion, depending on the Bible translation used. If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human. John 1:1, 2: RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in
In Genesis 1:1 it says, "In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth." In Colossians it says this about Jesus, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [e]principalities or [f]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence." So in reality even if Jesus didn't claim to be God, and I believe He did, the Bible makes the same claim about Jesus.
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 18:5-6 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
One start would be to look at John 1:1: Greek: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." Transliterated: "En arche en ho Logos kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos." There are quite a few things one should observe about this sentence, traditionally translated as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1) The Greek word "ho" is the definite article for masculine words in the nominative case (i.e., serving as a subject of a phrase). The word "ton" is the definite article for masculine words serving in accusative case (i.e., serving as a direct object or as the object of certain prepositions). ["Ton" is also used as the definite article for neuter words, but that's beyond the scope of this conversation, so I won't get into that.] In this instance, "ton" is serving as the definite article before "Theon" ("God"), because "Theos" is being used in that instance as the object of the preposition "pros" ("with"), and is thus in the accusative case ("Theos" has become "Theon"). "Ton", here therefore refers to "THE God", probably the Father. Now, notice how there is a definite article in front of each instance of "Logos" and "Theos"/"Theon" except one. Without a definite article, a word in Greek become indefinite. We typically translate an indefinite word in English with the indefinite article "a". Therefore, the sentence legitimately can be translated as: ""In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."
2) The word "arche" in classical Greek often referred to the "council", "governing body", "leadership", or "authority" of a people. In Plato's Apology in sections 32a and 36b, for example, Socrates uses the word to mean "public office", and may also intend it in 37c (though, he might here mean "authority"). He also uses it in section 28e to mean "military commanders". To make sense in English of the huge translational range of the word, if one thinks of it to mean the "head" or "first" of something, whether in time or location (a "beginning"), or in stature (a "governing body"), it makes more sense. With this taken into consideration, John 1:1 can thus be translated as: "In the Council was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God." 3) The word "logos" in classical Greek, often meant "plan", "consideration", "regard", or "worth". You see "plan" in Polybius' Histories, Book 1, chapter 20, section 3: "And so, on the one hand, I was seeing that the affairs concerning the foot soldiers were proceeding according to plan for them." You see "consideration" in Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, verse 233: "But he had no consideration for wretched mortals". You see "regard" in Herodotus' Histories in chapter 1, line 33: "By saying this, Solon did not at all please Croesus, who sent him away without regard for him, but thinking him a great fool". You see "worth" in Herodotus' Histories in chapter 4, line 138: "But these are the ones who both differed in their vote and were of worth to the king..." With this taken into consideration, John 1:1 can thus be translated as: "In the Council was the Plan, and the Plan was with God, and the Plan was a God". Given "Logos" clearly means someone or something worthy of consideration, I think it's not too much of a stretch to translate it as "In the Council was the Worthy One, and the Worthy One was with God, and the Worthy One was a God."
@@matthewmurdoch6932, no worries! I wrote the information hastily before Church, so I've gone back to clean up the typographical errors and to add additional clarity. Next, I'll assess Genesis from the Septuagint (the Greek translation from the 200s BC that the early Christians used) and compare it with John 1. Genesis 1:1, Greek: "εν αρχή εποίησεν ο θεός τον ουρανόν και την γην." Transliteration: "En arche epoiesen ho Theos ton ouranon kai ten gen." Traditional English translation: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." 4) The word "en" with an epsilon rather than an eta is usually translated as "in". However, it can also mean "among", "with" and "through". In Matthew 2:6, Bethlehem is described as "by no means least among the rulers of Judah", with "en" meaning "among", not "in". In Matthew 3:11, John indicates "I indeed baptize you with water", with "en" meaning "with", and that Jesus "will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" or alternatively that he "will baptize you through the Holy Spirit", since "en" is flexible enough for both usages. In the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1, the first word "בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית" (transliterated: "bereshit") begins with the preposition "b", which can "in", "at", "among", and "within", to list only a few options, showing the same flexibility as the Greek word "en". Now, as discussed before, the word "arche" can mean "council" in Greek. Interestingly, in the Hebrew "reshit" that forms the second part of the first word in Genesis 1:1 also has similar flexibility, meaning not only "beginning", but also "best", and "chief", and its source form "rosh", is also used to mean "head", "leader", or even "company" (as in "a company of soldiers"), and so probably also carrying the meaning "group of leaders". Therefore, in both the Greek Septuagint, and in the Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 can be translated as: "In the Council, God created the heaven and the earth."
@@matthewmurdoch6932 , there are more parallels to John 1:1. 5) According to Genesis 1:2, everything was initially in a state of formlessness before the light came in verse 1:3. According to John 1:3, the "Logos" (the one who was the "Plan" or the "Worthy one") is the one through whom everything was made ("ἐγένετο"/"egeneto"). Now the word "gignomai" (the word from which "egeneto" derives), means "to come into a new condition, state, or place", as in Matthew 5:45: "So that you might become sons of your Father who is in the heavens." That agrees with Genesis 1:2 which, as explained before, indicates everything existed in a formless state prior to God's planning and organization of the universe. ---------- 6) Genesis 1:3, Greek: "και είπεν ο θεός: 'γενηθήτω φως', και εγένετο φως." Transliteration: "kai eipen ho Theos 'Genetheto phos', kai egeneto phos." Traditional English translation: "And God said: 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Compare that with John 1:4-5, 9: "ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. [...] ἐν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον." Transliteration: "En auto zoe en, kai he zoe en to phos ton anthopon. Kai to phos en te skotia phainei, kai he skotia auto ou katelaben. [...] en to phos to alethion, o photizei panta anthopon erchomenon eis to kosmon." English translation: "In him was the light, and the light was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. [...] He was the true light who brings light to every man who comes into the world." Now, I have a hunch, though it's unsupported by any research I am aware of. That hunch is that John 1:4-5, and 9 shows that John was interpreting Genesis 1:3 to mean that the Most High God called for the "Worthy One" to become "the Light", that is "the Light of Men", the One through whom salvation comes into the world. My hunch is potentially supported by the Hebrew in Genesis 1:3, though my Hebrew studies are still in their infancy with me having only taken two classes of the language. My thought process is as follows: Exodus 3:14 indicates that the God of the Israelites (whom I take to mean the pre-incarnate Jesus) referred to himself by stating "אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה", that is "'Ehyeh asher Ehyeh", literally meaning "I am who I am", and then said "Thus thou shalt say to the sons of Israel 'Ehyeh' has sent me to you." Therefore, I consider that when God said "Let there be light" ("יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר", that is "yehi or"), in John's conception, God may have been saying "Ehyeh shall become the light." That is not what the phrase grammatically means, though, but in Exodus 6:3, the God of Israel refers to himself as "יְהוָ֔ה", which is often transliterated as "Jehovah". That shows the verb "be" in Hebrew, whether in the "Ehyeh" form or not, depending on context, seems as though it can refer to the God of the Israelites (Jehovah/Jesus), in the sense of the "One who is and will always be". With that said, I don't think it's too much of a stretch of the imagination to see God the Father as calling his Son, the Worthy One, to be the Light of the World and the organizer of his plan to bring order to the material universe. That certainly would explain why in Genesis 1, the light comes before the sources of natural light (the sun and moon).
In another verse in John 14:9 Jesus says "He who has seen me you has seen the father", and THAT you cannot dispute. However just because John wrote it, doesn't mean Jesus said it. Besides, if he did, why didn't the other gospel writers not mention it? It was made up by John, in the context of deifying Jesus.
4:45 All sons born of the Fathers incorruptible seed are divine eloheim. NOT Elohiem. "I said, YOU are eloheim and are all SONS of the MOST High" Psalm 82:6. The pharasees would never have thought Jesus was making himself equal with God just because he said he was a son of God. People were called the Sons of God in the OT. That part was added in to promote the trinity lie. This happened thruout the NT. In 2 Thess 2:4 we were warned about a false messiahthat would sit in the temple of God and claim to be God. This happened in John 8 when Jesus was sitting in the temple and said he was "I AM". 2 Thess. Was written long before the book of John was written, so the warning had been there for decades. This event never happened because because God never said he was "I AM" in the OT verse. Another inserted lie by scribes to deceive us. As Jer 8.8 warned. thats why we were told to establish the logos of truth by two or three witnesses line upon line, precept upon precept. Jesus is NOT God. He was born of the same spirit we all are in the same way. The miracle birth, the New Birth. Romans 1:4, Romans 8:11. The trinity doctrine is blasphemy and heresy and needs to be exposed for the deception it is. 2k years is long enough.
In the OT God says over 150 times "I am the Lord your God". He is explicit and clear, leaving no doubt to his followers. Jesus never says it straight up like God did, which the lady in the video openly admits. The idea has to be guessed at by comparing terms, second hand inference and interpreting verses in certain ways. This was never God's method in the past, but apparently we are meant to guess that He completely changed His mind about telling people.
◄ Colossians 2:9 ► New International Version For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, New Living Translation For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. English Standard Version For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, Berean Standard Bible For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form. Berean Literal Bible For in Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily. King James Bible For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. New King James Version For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; New American Standard Bible For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, NASB 1995 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, NASB 1977 For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, Legacy Standard Bible For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily, Amplified Bible For in Him all the fullness of Deity (the Godhead) dwells in bodily form [completely expressing the divine essence of God]. Christian Standard Bible For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ, Holman Christian Standard Bible For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ, American Standard Version for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, Aramaic Bible in Plain English For all The Fullness of The Deity dwells in him bodily. Contemporary English Version God lives fully in Christ. Douay-Rheims Bible For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally; English Revised Version for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, GOD'S WORD® Translation All of God lives in Christ's body, Good News Translation For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity, International Standard Version because all the essence of deity inhabits him in bodily form. Literal Standard Version because in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Majority Standard Bible For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form. New American Bible For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily, NET Bible For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form, New Revised Standard Version For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, New Heart English Bible For in him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, Webster's Bible Translation For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Weymouth New Testament For it is in Christ that the fulness of God's nature dwells embodied, and in Him you are made complete, World English Bible For in him all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily, Young's Literal Translation because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
Lets back up here and do this correctly. The author of the book of John, in the third layer, is forcing the reader to make an assumption that he understands the motivations of Yeshu, and I agree that some of the claims in John may align with some 1st century messianic galilean thinking, but we have to realize there are other contemporary strands radiated from these mystical ideas. The key word is mystical. We need the gospel of Tomas to understand how this motif split between two or more groups of high end believers and in doing so we can be certain that a meaningful understanding of the motivations of the third author cannot be had without understand late first century jewish mysticism and greek philosophy. 1. They were a mystical cult which meant that through meditation and ascetic practice that they were entering the boundaries of heaven [a practice that continues to this day in the kaballah, but split between Merkavah (chariot, e.g. Revelations) and Hekhalot (Palace) at the beginning of the common era]. The numerous references to the inner light in the gospels and the thrice repeated seek, find, . . . in SSoY (Tomas) make this clear] 2. That the "exact same way" meant that their path should be parallel. The "I am" in John was more or less a chant such that Jesus is putting himself in the role of god, the author is putting himself in the role of Jesus, and the reader or repeater is putting himself in the role of the author, the listener putting himself of the role of the reader. 3. "Jesus wants his own followers to attain". Yes, but he doesn't want them to take other paths. We have to point out here that Johannian christianity differs from Pauline in the sense that Paul believes he had a special vision and understanding of Jesus, that Paul is delivering his special message with no expectation that they will convert to judaism, spend three years in Arabia in mediation communing with mystics. Paul is all about the rush of ushering in the coming kingdom and his followers will be the secondary fruits as jesus was the first fruits. His visions offered him a veiw of the paradise. The author John layer 3 is offering up an alternative to the coming heavenly kingdom on earth, he is saying that the kingdom of heaven is before you, and just follow the light. So this is a distinction to what the disciples believed as they mission to the poor and upheld 2nd temple adherancy. In the psuedoepigraphical epistle of Yacov full conversion to Judiasm was a demonstration of ones committment to the way, but these measures were unimportant to the layer's author. 4. Claiming to be god and the blasphemy charge. This is a complex historical problem and no single historian knows why Yeshu_ was executed. There is no passion narrative in the Q source and Mark as a source is not credible which means that neither Matthew or Luke are. James Tabor seems to think that John has special information about the last month or so of Jesus's life, some of which is parsimonious with his travels. I am of the opinion that we dont know. Here is what we do know. 1. Yeshu and the JtB movement was anti-Herodian 2. Herodians were the benefactor of the saducees whose authority was challenged by messianic claims or claims of the corruption of the scribes and the priests. 3. Yeshu was hung from something and possibly stoned before he was hung. 4. They lost track of the body. What we do know is that there was no eye-witness in the court with Pilate recording how Jesus was interrogated. According to the talmud he was stoned and the bible says he died quickly on the cross, possibly from his stoning injuries and so it is possible. My opinion is that if Pilate crucified Yeshu it is because the Herodians wanted him to and there need not be any other reason. If the saducees stoned Jesus it was because the Herodians wanted them to. 5. There is a significant amount of middle/neo-platonic thought in the Gospel of John and some would argue that there is considerable stoicism. In platonic philosophy there is a notion of a pure or divine form and here on earth everything is a corrupted representation of the form, this divine form later becomes the Nous in mystical thought, the divine oneness. Within the evolving strands of platonism arose Henosis and a parallel called Theoria, as developed by Iraneous, in which the individual united with the divine to become one. Here is a third century example. Maximus the confessor: "A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the Incarnation of God, which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man. ...Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He Who became man without sin will divinize human nature without changing it into the Divine Nature, and will raise it up for His Own sake to the same degree as He lowered Himself for man's sake." Again the author of John borrows heavily from Philo of Alexander which repaints Judaism in the colors of greek philosophy. The author of the text clearly shows he is in the mileau of evolving thought between the last middle platonist and the early neoplatonism. But in doing this the author of the text clearly shows he has a greek leaning syncretization of Jesus with greek thoughts about divinity. We need to be able to distinguish the views of John from early first century Jewish mysticism, particularly thinking amoung anti-Herodian (i.e anti-grecoroman) jews of Galilee. It is important to remember that the center of jewish life was the perception of piety in social contexts and that mystical practices revolved around important social ideas like fairness, reformation, justice, and "leveling the field". Many of these ideas are deprected in the Gospel of John. The notion of YHWH Elohim are replaced in the NT by Father and son(Lord), we can see an evolution of the notion of god that typifies the evolution of gnosticism in these ideas.
I believe you should stick to what you know, because you seem to use a lot of irrelevant head knowledge, you know a lot about things, but you certainly don't know Jesus Christ.
Wow, that is a lot to digest. I think I will need to read that over again. Just like Dan, your information is way above my understanding. Thanks for sharing though.
@@beeg693 The big problem with Dan and Rayoshima who wrote his long winded reply, is they speak in a way the Gnostics understood and spoke, in simple terms, what you know is more important to these people than who, and let’s never forget, we serve a who and not a what. Yes its all very interesting, but if these people put the time in to building a real relationship with Christ and his church they wouldn’t end up down the rabbit holes that basically lead you nowhere in the end.
Thanks Andy for what you said. I really appreciate your feedback. It kind of reminds me of while read a book by Philo of Alexandria. It was all intellectual mixed with philosophical. I could tell he had no real spiritual experience. As an example, It is Moses who received and gave 10 laws, yet now they have 613 rules to obey in Jewish law.. what a rabbit hole indeed.. You are right it is a who and not a what...
@@andykanonik8935 Gnosticism is a grouping of texts where the individual is seeking a divine knowledge as a replacement of a god that was no more than a dimiurge. Two of the gnostic groups were the Alcaesites and the Sethians. However the gospel of Tomas is no more gnostic than the gospel of John. Both are protognostic, meaning before gnosticism. The original structure of Israelite religion patterned off of mesopotamian belief that, in Judea, over time went about shedding gods, first substrate canaanite gods, then other gods leaving the the father, mother and son; El, Asherah and Yahweh respectively within Judah. Then again as Israel collapsed the father and mother gods were eliminated (Its in the bible). In doing this the authors of the deuteronomistic texts attributed all the things attributed to the acts of other gods to their god Yahweh, originally a wisdom god who gain volcano god properties, became a father/mother god and assumed also the powers of hadad (Ba'al). This created a major interpretive problem in Jewish religion. What is the problem, your in the LBAC, you have sea peoples storming over the horizon, the peoples from the lowland cities flood into the hills. The Egyptians, after being beat up badly, left canaan and the Aramain tribes (x-Apiru - bandits and highwaymen) have flooded into mesopotamia. Your an Israelite, you got people of three dozen beliefs living is hastily made huts dotting the hills; and all trade, administration, etc break down. This is replaced by an old god (at the time only about 3000 years old) 'El that is a between cities god and a system of folk priest acting as Judges between the dozen or so develping temple towns. In Samuel, as the Arameans grow in power as well as the Neohittites (luwians) and the people want a king, and their first king is disobedient because he does not kill enough people, but David is sufficiently brutal, having proved himself by defiling the corpses of 200 men. Welcome to life in the early Iron age, Its tough and you need a tough god. And it only gets worse, Assyria finally whacks the Aramean tribes and pours into Anatolia, only to turn course and head south, 11 tribes including Israel thumb their nose at Assyria, and one by one Assyria plucks them and fries them. In the end Israel followed ba'al because they thought the Arameans were tough. Past performance is nit a solid predictor of future success. And So Judah, seeing all the gods falling to Asshur decided the old gods werent worth shit, so they tossed 'El and Asherah out of the temple and they rewrote history, attributing all the bloody victories of the gods to Yahweh (A late coming god from Arabia). As a result Yahweh looks badass, he looks badass because the writers of the text want king David to look badass (despite the fact he was a petty king) and they want Yahweh to look badass. They want Yahweh to do the things Ba'al Hadad did because the gods compete with each other. That was the 7th century BCE. In the 6th century. The Zoroastrians came with the persians and Ahura Mazda "a dualistic cosmology of good and evil within the framework of a monotheistic ontology and an eschatology which predicts the ultimate conquest of evil by good." . This is followed by the 4th century greek philosophical movement. As a consequence in the enlightened world 'Storm/Volcano' gods and Kings that defile 200 corpses for their foreskins look kind of last generation. And so that is the problem. And so when Jerusalem falls to the romans, people are trying to find out why it fell. Maybe the Yahweh dimiurge was trying to convince everyone it had power that it did not have. But if you follow teacher X, he will show you the true inner path. Bling your in the know, gnosis. Again since I am on the left hand path I put no stock in Nuos, false gods, named gods, idols of any kind, piety rules of any kind, greek philosophical traditions, though i kind of like the cynics. Having said that, the tabernacle god El that was installed as a god of sojourners and wanderers by Akkad and Sumer was the best possible gods, Samu'el was waxing nostalgically about the system of Judges for good reason. Philosophically I think this was the peak of Israelite religion, everything that followed is like some trying to get a car which they pushed off a high cliff to run again. But Samu'el philosophical commited his kind to an end, by his own actions and the lack of interest in the judges he insured it would never be repeated.
If Jesus is referring to the gods in Psalm 82 as human people, how does this hold up with the interpretation that the Divine Counsel are celestial gods deposed by Adonai?
The interpretation of the Divine council as human priests was common. For what Jesus says to work, it's only necessary for the people he's talking to to believe that interpretation, as is likely that they did. Or to put another way, Jesus is accepting that interpretation for the sake of argument. Personally, I have no problem with both interpretations of the psalm being true. One of the recurring themes in *pagan* mythology is that humans and pagan gods have the same flaws. So why wouldn't God have exactly the same conversation with both kinds of beings?
What is your view on John 8-58. Where Jesus says before Abraham was, I am. I was always told this was symmetrical to what God says to Ab, and a strong God claim.
It’s often claimed to be what God said to Moses in Exodus 3:14. But in fact, that’s based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew (which is better translated “I will be”, not “I am” in the present tense). So, it’s not symmetrical to what Jesus says in John 8.
@@kalords5967 Good point. The example I use to illustrate the common meaning of “ego eimi” is 2 Samuel 2:19. Abner asks “is that you, Asahel?”, and Asahel responds, “ego eimi”. This shows it was a common idiom for “Yes, it’s me”.
@@SimonTamplar He was claiming to have existed in some form before Abraham did. This would logically make Jesus older, and therefore greater, than Abraham (which simultaneously answers their questions in verse 53 and verse 57). This would have been outrageous and ridiculous to the Jews, to claim superiority and seniority to the father of the Jews. This doesn’t mean he was claiming to be God himself; only to have existed “with God” (as John 1:1 says, and as Jesus would later say in John 17:5) before Abraham was even born. The best translation (taking the context and grammar into consideration) is “I have existed before Abraham came to be”.
I have to say that, as a Jew, I have had to watch this video a couple of times now - and probably a couple more - to fully understand what is going on. Where does Christianity get the idea that Jesus IS HaShem IS the Son of HaShem in the first place? Also, what is a Holy Ghost in this context and what is the origins of that?
A lot of the origins of this comes from extinct movements within Judaism that were popular in messianic movements but fell out of favour in rabbinic Judaism. There were a lot of ‘dual power’ traditions which exhausted various patriarchal figures to ‘godlike’ status as bearers of the divine name or sort of a demigod - that were very unpopular with rabbis of course
More I found: One of those tangents centers on a passage that, as we saw, is part of the Jewish scriptural canon, the passage in Daniel 7 in which the “Son of Man” receives eternal kingship from the “Ancient of Days.” For already earlier, even before the New Testament was written, another Jewish book, the Similitudes of Enoch, had combined Enoch and the Son of Man. This, too, is, “nothing less than the transformation of the human Enoch into a divine being,” Schäfer writes. Hence, the intellectually honest historian of Second Temple Judaism must reckon with two divine figures, the greater or older God and the lesser or younger God whom he elevates in what is one of the most consequential moments, if not the most consequential moment, in the drama of God’s dealings with humankind. The pattern, in fact, is common in the period and hardly restricted to literature about Enoch. In the book of Proverbs, the figure of Wisdom claims that God created her-or is it “begot” her?-before the earth and heaven were formed (Proverbs 8:22-31). In the Wisdom of Ben Sira (or Ecclesiasticus), a book composed by a Jewish sage early in the 2nd century BCE and quoted respectfully by talmudic rabbis later, Wisdom is enthroned in heaven, holds sway over all peoples, yet takes up residence on Mount Zion, site of the Jewish Temple. Somewhat later, in the Wisdom of Solomon, she again “sits on the throne at God’s side” but also is, in Schäfer’s words, is “the archetype of his perfection and at the same time his emanation, which imparts God’s glory and active workings into the earthly world.” The Dead Sea Scrolls, too, present evidence for Jewish binitarian theology. In one of them, from the latter half of the 1st century BCE, a human being boasts of having taken a throne in the heavens themselves and having been “reckoned with the gods”; he also speaks, in terms reminiscent of some of Jesus’ speeches, of his incomparable grief and suffering.
In a very different idiom but broadly reflecting a similar conception, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo (ca. 20 BCE-50 CE) speaks of the Logos and Sophia (or Wisdom) as God’s “elder and firstborn son’” and “younger son,” respectively. The former is “God’s actual creative power,” Schäfer explains, while the latter “is responsible . . . for the world perceived by our senses.” As he sees it, the language is the language of philosophy, but the underlying theology is deeply indebted to Jewish binitarian thinking and, as in all these examples (and others he discusses), the modern term “monotheism” is not helpful to the effort to appreciate the deeper dynamic and the complexity of the concept of God in the period. Christianity did not create the template but rather sought to fit the figure of Jesus into it in the role of the Son of Man/Son of God/Son of David already well established in the Judaism of the time.
One way I found clever was that Christianity was a minority or fringe movement within Judaism that found its home and much of its development in a cultural context in which the words and traditions which it was radically reinterpreting and deploying were not already semantically ‘full’ - you could just tell someone ‘a messiah is a divine sacrifice’ and they’re not Jews, they’re not going to tell you that’s crazy
"The father is in me, and i am in the father." "I and the father are one," "You can not tempt your god"- talking to saten, tempting him on the mountain. "If you have seen me, you have seen the father."
Jesus says everyone should be "in God", John 17:21 "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one- I in them and you in me". That is obviously not a claim to being God. I can't see the quote "you cannot tempt your god" in Mark 4 where Jesus is tempted by Satan. Jesus does say "Do not put your Lord God to the test", when speaking of a separate entity to himself. Satan refers to Jesus as the son of God and asks Jesus to worship him, but Jesus says you should only worship God. Satan makes no sign that he understands he is talking to God Himself and Jesus doesn't claim that title for himself anywhere in that discussion.
@@benjamintrevino325 then who when was muhammad with Jesus to know ehat He said? What a stupid argument/question? The writers of the Gospel didn't just write what they wanted, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. So everything in the scriptures is inspired divine revelation of God.
I was raised in the Baptist Church and believed Jesus as God. How my mother explains it is that you take an egg, in that there are 3 parts. The yoke, the albumen, and the shell that form one egg. Just as God, Holy Spirit and Jesus are one God. But to me they are 3 entities, its God the Father through them all that gives them power and authority just as God the Father through us all that gives us life!
Vague terms that have changed depending on the context. Usually used to mean a being from the heavenly realm, so the angels are divine for example, but others use the term to mean specifically from God.
A god with a lower case g refers to any claimed god in history, it is an idea of a divine being, while God with a capital is used as a name specifically for the Abrahamic God. Zeus was a god, the bible is the word of God, kind of thing.
John 1:1 King James Bible In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:14 King James Version 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
These verses mean nothing to people who share the belief that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. This is generally a believers 1st go-to in dispute, but they have washed these scriptures in intellectualism and stripped "the Word" down to mean "God's plan" among other intellectual nonsense that makes no sense in the context of these debunking scriptures.
The Trinity is linked to Theosis. God became suffering man that suffering man might become God. You are entirely right that the unity with Christ is linked to unity with the Father. Infinite oneness of Father Son and God’s spirit in you. The union of the church and Christ is represented in the wedding at the end of Revelations. God is One and he welcomes you into that Oneness.
Since all these claims that Jesus said this or said that are predicated on the proven existence of such a person, for which there is none, quoting from these invented stories about this fictional Jesus is like quoting King Arthur, or Sir Galahad, amusing but pointless. The christian church has created an enormous edifice of self referential belief in a non-existent entity and if you don't play their game then you can't have any discussion with them. To rational people this all seems totally pointless, like discussing what Sir Lancelot did or didn't say when sitting at the Round Table of Antiquity on a particular Wednesday afternoon. It is all nonsense. I do not imply that studying how these myths came about or those from which they were derived is in any sense a waste of time, clearly this is not so. However arguing points about what some early christians put in the bible just shows how much the story has changed, not that any particular version of it is in any sense true.
I'm going to become Muslim now because this is exactly what Islam is saying about Jesus and God. In Islam, God doesn't have kids and parents and wives and has no human characteristics and that Jesus is only a major prophet and messenger not God and not the Son of God. Looks like Islam is the corrective original Christianity of Jesus himself.
My issue with your explanation, and one I understand you disagree with, is that Pharasies were monotheistic. If you were claiming to be a diety you were claiming to be God. Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was identifying himself as some other God, which would be considered a Pagan false god and certainly get him killed.
Pharisees were monotheistic but did have the concept of divine beings that were not the God but were sometimes in the Tenach called gods, for example, Angels. In any case, Pharisees did not write John. He most likely was a gentile author who would have been coming from a more Greek/Pagan worldview.
@caliginous101 I completely agree with everything you stated, not certain of its relevance unless you're stating the Pharasies considered Jesus an angel? I also don't know that authorship is relevant? Let me clarify that I believe that the author would have understood that Pharasies were monotheistic and, therefore, would be upset because this human was claiming to be God. I don't see anyone in this period including the concept of multiple gods in this discussion. If this were from Exodus, perhaps it would be different.
@@ronjones1414 1. I don't know how well John understood how Jews saw the divine. 2. There were Jewish writings (from closer to this time) such as Enoch that had human figures who had some kind of divinity. Another example would be the Qumran community who seemed to have a divine messiah who wasn't God per say but had some divinity so it seems to have been in the air. Perhaps the fictional Pharisees opposed Jesus claiming to have any divine status as they rejected all these ideas that were floating around.
Where they monotheistic in the modern sense though? The Hebrew Bible is all about Yahweh being the only god *of the Jews* : afaik nowhere the Tanakh says that he was the only existing god. There’s several mention of different people worshiping their own gods, and especially the first commandment “You shall not have other gods before me” is an explicit acknowledgment that there’s other gods out there. I am no scholar and i don’t know how Jews viewed their god at the time of Jesus but I think it’s incorrect to retrofit modern understanding of monotheism to the completely different religious landscape of two thousand years ago.
Dan, and many other modern scholars, do not believe monotheism is a relevant category to describe anything in the world of 2nd Temple Judaism. Seminar actually coming up on this very theme that Dan will be at.
Jesus would never declare himself to be God, rather he reveals himself to us and we come to know he is God. It's all there, you missed a few layers of data. I am not sure why people are excited over this video. There is nothing eye opening or profound. It's like an accountant reading the budget in a business meeting, nothing more than saying certain words do not appear in the Bible therefore Jesus did not claim to be God. Jesus being God and Jesus claiming to be God are not the same thing. On another note, Dan being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints which claims Jesus is Jehovah and teaches that Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament. well... do the Math, sorry.. evaluate the data.
So a few things. No to claim that Jesus being the God of Israel are recognized as being God is a Nicaean concept it’s just flat out wrong, in fact it predates Nicaea by several centuries someone even argue millenniums. You are importing all kinds of outside assumptions and thereby say assuming that the Bible is univocal when doing so, by importing some thing from Exodus 23 and trying to superimpose it on all of the New Testament as if it’s universal. You are assuming that the trinity cannot be proven using scripture because it’s a later develop concept that an assertion, and if we can demonstrate that is taught in scripture then your hypothesis completely falls apart. And to say that this understanding is not with the new testament authors how did Jesus therefore this can’t be a valid hypothesis is simply just presuppose that your conclusion is true. No I would agree that John 10 does not demand that Jesus is God but I think it’s certainly supports the idea that he is God. And John 17 does not support your case. And you clearly don’t understand Christ hypostatic union or his support nation to the Father, Jesus is not saying you can be one with God as he is in terms of divine nature but relationship to a certain extent. Not in the exact same way Jesus and the father have a relationship but very similar. John 10 is a different context, since the chapter is about Jesus Priestly prayer to the father his subordination to the father before his subsequent demise on the cross and his promise to disciples. It is not in the exact same way you are assuming it’s in the exact same way simply because of the language. No the word nature is not present and the context is not demand that it must be nature as you’re claiming you’re taking a very wooden and literal reading of the passage. In what way though? Now if we are going to understand your interpretation and Jesus is saying the same thing about his followers but he is in John 10, why did the Pharisees and the Jews pick up Stones to Stone him if he were simply claiming simply to be with God? There’s clearly bigger implications involved. No again that is your presupposing and superintending the language of John 10 onto John 17 as if it’s the exact same thing. Leon Morris has an excellent commentary on this passage so does Larry Hurtado although I don’t agree with either of them 100% since they take the traditional reading of John 10:30. There is absolutely reason to think that based on other parts in scripture where Jesus and unity with his followers in his unity with the father is clearly different, The relationship is clearly different, and also because of the implications and the reactions we see in John 10 compared to John 17. The only reason to take your interpretation of Joh 8:58 and Thomas clear statement in John 20:28 is if you have a presupposition against the deity of Christ or the trinity. But I do agree that Jesus claiming to be the son of God does not mean he is equal to God necessarily so I don’t think that’s very strong evidence on its own. To say in one context Theos is being used qualitatively therefore we can impose that in import that from a different chapter onto another book as if it’s the same when there’s absolutely no reason, and the context makes no such demand is completely fallacious and is not based on data whatsoever, it is based on a presupposition that Jesus can’t be God because his Christology did not exist which is itself is a presupposition. And to say that there is no distinction between being one with God as Christ is in Christ being one with God is just nonsense and laughable any remotely literate person understands the basic distinction and you are not uneducated you’re just going with dogma over data. Which come on if you’re gonna assume anyone who objects to you and your claims it’s just going with data over dogma I think it’s only fair for me to do it if you’re gonna be disingenuous in bad faith about it. Where is laughably false are you telling me there was no line drawn between claiming divinity and to be god that is pure and utter nonsense there is a clear distinction.
Thank you Dan. If we have to rip the Bible apart to stop this jackassery then I am up for it. Even as child, i understood so this nice man. Just says, "hey you know these people lied to you. All you have to do is love god with all your being, and all your heart . And two you see that person, love em, love em with the most purest form. And he named the purest form of love. Mother to a child." The nicest person who ever lived. Would be ashamed at what is done in his name. Thank you dan, rip it apart so nobody can claim ignorance.
Being anarthrous is no evidence of indefiniteness. There are many situations in John where something being anarthrous is a reference to something which has to be definite.
There are syntax constructions in which that is the case and there are circumstances in which it is not. Nothing at all in John 10:33 points in the direction of definiteness. It entirely points in the direction of the qualitative use of the noun. John 1:1 is even more clearly qualitative. In Koine Greek, when a definite noun precedes the verb in a predication, it will take the definite article if the noun refers to a subject that is either well known or has been mentioned in the immediate context. Both would be true if theos in John 1:1c referred to God rather than to a quality of the Logos, so it would need to take the article.
Dan . As Mike Licona Points out . Mark in chaoter 1 uses old testament passsages that apply too yhwh and mark put jesus in the place of yhwh .. It even refers to the temple as being jesus temple . Aka yhwhs temple
Jesus is Yhwh 1A. Romans 10:13 cf. Joel 2:32 Romans 10:13, “For ‘WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.'”2 Joel 2:32, “And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, as the LORD has said, even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.” Comments: The LORD reference here is to Yahweh. However, Paul takes the Lord reference in Joel 2:32 and applies it to Jesus in Romans 10:13. 1B. 1 Corinthians 1:31 cf. Jeremiah 9:24 1 Corinthians 1:31, “So that, just as it is written, ‘LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.'” Jeremiah 9:24, “‘But let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,’ declares the LORD.” Comments: The Lord in 1 Corinthians 1:31 is a reference to Jesus, while the quotation is a reference to Yahweh. 1C. 1 Corinthians 2:16 cf. Isaiah 40:13 1 Corinthians 2:16, “For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.” Isaiah 40:13, “Who has [a]directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counselor has informed Him?” Comments: The Lord in the context of 1 Corinthians 2 is Jesus. while the Lord in Isaiah 40:13 is Yahweh. 1D. 1 Corinthians 10:26; cf. Psalm 24:1 1 Corinthians 10:26, “FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.” Psalm 24:1, “The earth is the LORD’S, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.” Comments: The Lord in the context of 1 Corinthians 10 is Jesus, while the Lord in Psalm 24:1 is Yahweh.
Another great video from Dan. Although when he says that "Jesus says", it's kind of like saying that "Charlie Brown says" or "Robin Hood says"....it's words put into the mouth of a 'person' by the writer of a story, a story that first appears some 80 or 90 years after the time that the words were supposedly spoken. And it appears in a completely different language. Maybe Jesus did say them, but we have no reliable way to determine that, because we don't have a time machine.
I find your take interesting. Maybe God's purpose is for future understanding. Faith means to believe God -not if you understand- but for no other reason than God said it. The Jews were skeptics constantly trying to figure things out. Isaiah said they would be deaf and blind lest they would be saved. "Who has believed our report..." Jesus was God incarnate, indeed.
400 Videos of you dissecting everyone on social media and I never noticed any comment on your beliefs and your qualifications/education?????? Would you be so obliged to give the world some background on you? Even in your "About" section I did not see anything. Thanks
He's mentioned it in videos but I don't think he has a specific video. Dan has a PhD in theology, focusing on cognitive and linguistic aspects (from memory, I am likely slightly wrong). Dan is Mormon.
@@squiddwizzard8850I know he lives in Utah, and what would be awesome is to hear a critical analysis of the Bible vs the numerous books of Mormonism and the archeological discoveries of the New World.
Alright, let's hear it: And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The sentence can be read that Thomas is praising both "My Lord" and "My God", as he recognises Jesus was resurrected, that fact confirms both Jesus's claim and that God is true.
Make it make sense, the word existed before Jesus. Jesus gave clearity to the word that was misunderstood and is still misunderstood in our time. Jesus never claimed being God or king he claimed being part of it and one with it, just as the root and the fruits are all part of a tree that grew from a seed. Even when Pilate asked him he said you said it( it's your words not mine) just showed how misunderstood he was and still is
No he is not the infinite All/God ,he is the son of the Evening Star,who is the daughter of the infinite All/God, who is outside of time space matter, we humans live in the lower world or material ,the infinite All/did take him from his mother the evening Star and did teach him the unknowable, and the infinite All is the creator of all...not just a god to Israel , Enlil is Yahweh/Johovah he is not the infinite All/God ,"the servant is not greater than the master but can take on the masters properties" making him like his master Genesis 1 verse 3 = 14 billion years ago was , Revelations 4 verse 4 = the Mourning and Evening Star 's throne or paradise made by the infinite All /god Genesis 1 verse 6 = 4.5 billion years = Revelations 12 = Great war in heaven and evolution of intelligent life that gave rise to the Annunaki who gave rise to Modern/Civilized man , Enlil/Johovah is a fallen son of the Evening Star,and false god of Israel , I'll look him right in the face tell him ,who he is and I promise you i will face no consequences for putting a false god and ignorant child in his place ,it was the Evening Star who didn't need the aid of a man to bring forth life not Mary (living Waters turned to blood) but at one time used to be crystal clear, before the fall from grace , the holy grail is the cup of the womb ,not some material cup with special powers..... hehehe aww man boy I'm telling you Revelations 12, that is Christ being called up to the infinite All, before the foundations of the world, even the Annunaki , it's like trying to tell someone you know their child that they brought forth better than you do ,you know what I mean???
I’m the alpha and the omega the first and the last the beginning and the end what was what is and what is to come the apostles and early church Pre Nicaean creed all support the trinity and @rainypuddz to assume God is traditional is insane he’s outside of our universe
How can Jehovah Witnesses explain John 1:1, in which it says how the Word was a god, when the Bible tells us there is only one God? 1 Corinthians 8:5 (King James Version) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) The Bible actually says, as you can see above, that there are many gods. It makes a distinction between those that are called gods and the one true God. In fact, Jesus himself said at John 10:34-36 (King James Version) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? Jesus acknowledged that God’s Word even refers to some men as gods. Then went on to confirm that it would not be inappropriate to refer to him as a god. Even so, he instead referred to himself as “the Son of God”. How can Jesus be referred to as a God? The word “god” is not the name of almighty God. In the Bible the word god is used as a title or as a descriptive adjective, because it simply means, strong one or mighty one. So, they Bible refers to Jehovah, Jesus, angels (including Satan), men, and false gods, as gods. Anyone in a powerful position can be called a god, Jehovah himself calls the judges in Israel gods at Psalms 82:6, which Jesus quoted at John 10:34: Psalms 82:6-7 NW - I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. 7 But you will die just as men do; And like any other prince you will fall!’” John 10:34 NW - 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? At 2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan is called god of this system of things (or god of this world) 2 Corinthians 4:4 NW - among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJ - In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. As for referring to Jesus as a god. Jesus was God’s first born son, the first angel he created. To translated John 1: 1 so as to suggest that Jesus was almighty God himself would conflict with everything else we are told about God’s firstborn only-begotten son. Colossians 1: 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; The Bible tells us God is a spirit, Jesus was also a spirit, as are all of the angels. At Hebrews 2:7 the Apostle Paul quoted Psalms 8:5 where the angels are referred to as “godlike ones.” Compare the two scriptures and note; one calls them angels the other calls then godlike ones. Hebrews 2:7 - You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. Psalms 8:5-6 - You made him a little lower than godlike ones, And you crowned him with glory and splendor. You make him dominate over the works of your hands. ... You also must consider the context. John wrote his gospel and you have to consider what he said throughout and ask what is he telling us about Jesus in harmony with everything else he tells us. For instance, notice what John says just a few verses later: John 1:14 NW - So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. John 1:18 NW - No man has seen God at any time: the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. In those two verses John himself tells us Jesus is the only-begotten son and only- begotten god. The word begotten comes from the word beginning, meaning Jesus had a beginning, unlike God who is eternal. John also said we had a view of his glory and then he says: no man has ever seen God at any time. It is obvious that John was not saying Jesus was almighty God himself, he was using the word god to describe his divine nature and powerful position as the only begotten son of God. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not base Bible doctrine on one scripture, we examine everything the Bible says and base our beliefs on all that it reveals to us about God and Christ. Jesus never claimed to be God, instead he referred to his heavenly father as “the only true God” and as “my God and your God”. John 17:3 - This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. John 20:17 - ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God. Jesus said his father was greater than he: John 14:28 KJ - Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. Jesus said there were thing he did not know which only his father knew: Matthew 24:36 AS - But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only. Jesus said God is one not a Trinity of three Gods in one. Mark 12:28-29 NW … “Which commandment is first of all?” 29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. Jesus refused to be addressed as “Good Teacher” saying only God is good: Mark 10:18 KJ - And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. We also do not believe the Bible contradicts itself, so if we find a verse like John 1: 1 which seems to contradict what dozens of other scriptures tell us about Jehovah and Christ Jesus, we look more closely at how that verse is translated to see if there is a legitimate reason to translated it in a way that it harmonizes with the rest of the Bible. Note: This is not the question where I posted this answer. What did Quora do now? Here is the verse you refer to: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.-1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV) Take that, along with John 1:1, which is about Jesus, in the context of John 20:17, in which Jesus is speaking: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.-John 20:17 (KJV) John 1:1-2 tells us that the “Word” was “with the GOD” in the beginning, but it does not say that the Word was “the GOD.” (Why not re-examine a Greek-English Interlinear Translation of John:1: vss 1-2+18. Although the Bible teaches that there are many Gods (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) … the Bible teaches that there is only one true Almighty God Jehovah and he is the Creator and he is “GOD of Gods” … (Genesis 17:1 and Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 22:22) so, this means that he is greater than lesser “gods.” Compare Psalm 136:2; Daniel 2:47 and 11:36; Psalm 82:1-7 and 95:3. Other spirit creatures, the angel ONE The Bible says that there is only one Almighty God. The Bible says that there are many Gods. 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6 “For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are.” This Scripture lists two people: One God the Father Separate from Jesus One Lord Jesus Christ Separate God Look at how each is described One God the Father out of whom all things are God is the source of life. and we for him God deserves the worship One Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things are.” Jesus is not the source of life Worked with the Almighty, his Father and God to create all things even life. Proverbs 8:22, 30 Colossians 1:15, 16 Revelation 3:15 Genesis 1:26 John 1: 1, 3; 17:6 TWO The Bible says there are many gods. The Bible says there is one Most High, or Almighty God. Psalm 83:18 “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.” Jesus is called a Mighty God, NOT the Almighty. Isaiah 9:6 “For there has been a child born to us, strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not
I’ve never believed in the Trinity. It doesn’t make sense in the traditional way it is taught.
1=/=3
That's the only thing that matters.
Thanks for having common sense!
In the Old Testament God says that we are all His children. We are created in His image and we all have a spark of the divine within us. All prayers are heard and answered even those of the unbeliever. In Psalms, David sings to the God of Israel, You are my savior. God also said, I am not a man nor would I become one. Jesus was a good man, a wise rabbi, but he was not God made flesh. He was not equal with God.
@@vixendoe6943 The trinity is the result of trying to make a new religion with a new God built on the foundations of another religion with another God.
it doesn't make sense in ANY way it is taught.
It's actually a mistranslation. In the original languages, Jesus was claiming to be the son of Godzilla.
That makes more sense actually... that a supernatural creature from Earth would need to be sacrificed to a supernatural creature from "heaven" to appease the creature from "heaven". As it is, Christian theology has a part of a creature from heaven being sacrificed to the same creature from heaven to make it less mad at non-supernatural creatures from Earth.
Stop being a jerk.
Minilla Christ
@@travis1240But Godzilla is from the sea. If it has to be a monster from heaven, shouldn't it be Space Godzilla?
Or Monster Zero! He even has "King" his name!
Godzillason
Considering John's gnostic leanings, it is amazing itmade the Biblical cut but its popularity seems to have been greater than its obvious discrepancies with the synoptic gospels.
Growing up i naturally always beleived this not knowing my tradition taught the trinitarian concept. The way Dan explains it makes sense theologically, rationaly and spiritually. The way Dan explains it feels right and is a notion i always held. The most high is our father in heaven, christ is his son and the most high has given him his status and done his work through him. Love it Dan!
You should look up Arianism on Wikipedia. Arians were early Christians who believed Jesus was divine but having been “begotten” by god he wasn’t the same as God. IIRC Isaac Newton held the same belief so you are in good company. 😊
@@pansepot1490 Also, catholics stopped killing Arrians (not Arians) and other splits a some time ago. So this is a good time to become one!
@@juanausensi499 there is absolutely no evidence to support that.
Not really there’s a lot of presuppositions and dogma that goes into him rejecting the trinity.
@@pleaseenteraname1103A single entity can't be three entities.
@DanMcClellan Perhaps I disagree with your take of John 10 or perhaps I misunderstand. In the same book, the author of John says in 5:18 that Jesus “…was even calling God his own Father, making himself EQUAL with God.” Please note that this is NOT a Pharisee misunderstanding. Rather, it’s the AUTHOR’S view. He's emphasizing Jesus is predicated EQUALITY with capitol G God. Since this is the author’s view, we ought to understand why the author reports that Jesus submits to the Father and says the Father is greater than him. Jesus might not claim to be God but the author does.
Jesus said that He is equal to God because He is divine as God and He is the Son of God (Begotten). So being equal with God (One divine nature) does not necessarily mean that Jesus was claiming to be part of a plural God. That is a later and philosophical innovation.
Yes. This happened a lot in the NT. Lying scribes. Jer. 8.8.
John 5:18 says the Jews sought to kill Jesus because they believed he was “breaking the Sabbath” and “making himself equal with God.” However, this accusation was just their _misunderstanding_ of what Jesus was saying. If you think that the author John's view is that Jesus was making himself equal to God, you also believe that John's view was that Jesus was breaking the sabbath, but he wasn’t. In John chapter 10, the Jews _falsely accused_ Jesus of blasphemy, claiming that he was making himself equal to God by saying, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). But Jesus refuted their accusation, pointing out that he wasn’t claiming to be God himself, but rather God’s Son. He responded, “Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God’s Son'?” (John 10:36) By saying this, Jesus clarified that he wasn’t claiming to be equal to God. He was only claiming to be God’s Son.
@@jollyrancher521 Plus Jesus clearly stated openly that the Father was greater than himself. That means they were not equal. The trinity is a false doctrine.
Im with you 100%. My family would never agree with you as they are pentocostal. But i fully agree with you. Thats how i understood it when i 1st read the bible on my own.
😅Feel your pain! Born & raised "Oneness" & my family is finally coming around. I've showed them several important scriptures such as:
Proverbs 30:4
Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
Surely you know?
Daniel chapter 7 is a Gold mine to explain who Jesus "the son of man" truly is. In this chapter the ancient of Days presents the son of man a kingdom that will never end.
Daniel 7:9-15
“I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed.
👆Jesus left his disciples in Galilee & Rhode a cloud to heaven & was presented before Yahweh God.
😬This was a shock for me to grasp after a lifelong of accidental "Jesus idolatry".
After realizing I was so misled I just poured myself into the Bible and I finished it for the third time in two years. Recently found the only church that seems to line up at all with the WHOLE Bible & rejects the Trinity is the Unitarian Christian Alliance.
Hugs & prayers😊
Dude you killed it like you always do!
Ok I understood the last 15 seconds but everything before that went a little over my head 😅
Love to get your take on Larry Hurtado’s early Christian christology work. I know he and Bart Ehrman take a different view on early christology, and I’d be interested in your take on their arguments.
1 John 5:7- 8 is an admitted insertion by church fathers. Not in original koine Greek new testament.
Most will say it was still a divine addition.
How do you know what the original says?
@@thevulture5750 The koine Greek new testament papyrus 125ce is online to view.
No Christian bibles used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources.
@@thevulture5750 koine Greek new testament Papyrus 125ce online .
@@BlackDeath920 lol so was John 7:53 ,8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 just popped in...
And why church fathers paint all people of their bible as white Europeans?
Racist theology
Uhhh… maybe im missing some extra context to the womans initial video… but i dont think she was even referring to John 10:30. She didnt make the “I and the Father are one” argument. Seems like she was referring to John 5:18, where it says “For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” Are we sure John 10:30 was the passage she was referring to?
She does say she believes Jesus made the claim in a few different places, so quite likely she is pointing to both and others as well.
That's still such a weird passage because most scholars believe that the passage Jesus was referring to actually did mean literal gods and not humans.
"Through Him, not With Him". I believe Dan's Latter Day Saints background is clouding his ability to see what Jesus is saying here. Using Phillipians 2:7 as my basis in original Greek: ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,
Transliterated into English, it says: "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," This verse highlights the selflessness and humility of Jesus Christ. Although He existed in the form of God, He did not view His equality with God as something to be clung to or asserted. Instead, He chose to humble Himself and take on the form of a human being, becoming obedient even to the point of death on a cross. Remember, this is Jesus as fully man, fully God. Our minds simply have a difficult time comprehending the nature of the Trinity. The original Greek words used in this verse convey the depth and significance of Jesus' actions. The phrase "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων" emphasizes His pre-existence and divine nature, while "οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο" expresses His voluntary decision not to grasp at equality with God.
EVERY mind has difficulty with the Trinity, it is a logical fallacy, a primary one.
John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM". That sounds like he is claiming to be GOD.
th-cam.com/video/UQCGQRgzqvE/w-d-xo.html
Then that would fulfill the prophecy of 2 Thess 2:4 about a false messiah.
And no TRUE messiah chosen by Yhwh would ever claim to be God. An abomination and blasphemy. Deut. 13.
Could you do something on John 14.6 sometime, please?
Another fantastic video!!! Thank you!
27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them away from me,
29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father’s hand.
30 The Father and I are one.”
Clearly, if you read even from verse 27. Jesus is putting himself in the same position as the Father. He gives eternal life. The Jews definitely knew who gave eternal life. Jesus said the sheep are in HIS HAND, and no one can snatch them out of HIS HAND and the same sheep are in the Father's Hand. no one can snatch them from the Father's Hand.
If Jebus and god are the same why is he distinguishing between them at all? Obviously they are not the same.
Jesus says everyone should be "in God", John 17:21 "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one- I in them and you in me". That is obviously not a claim to being God.
Thanks for clarifying some misconceptions. Do you have any video talking about the Jubilee Year?
How can Jehovah Witnesses explain John 1:1, in which it says how the Word was a god, when the Bible tells us there is only one God?
1 Corinthians 8:5 (King James Version)
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
The Bible actually says, as you can see above, that there are many gods. It makes a distinction between those that are called gods and the one true God.
In fact, Jesus himself said at John 10:34-36 (King James Version)
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Jesus acknowledged that God’s Word even refers to some men as gods. Then went on to confirm that it would not be inappropriate to refer to him as a god. Even so, he instead referred to himself as “the Son of God”.
How can Jesus be referred to as a God? The word “god” is not the name of almighty God. In the Bible the word god is used as a title or as a descriptive adjective, because it simply means, strong one or mighty one. So, they Bible refers to Jehovah, Jesus, angels (including Satan), men, and false gods, as gods.
Anyone in a powerful position can be called a god, Jehovah himself calls the judges in Israel gods at Psalms 82:6, which Jesus quoted at John 10:34:
Psalms 82:6-7 NW - I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. 7 But you will die just as men do; And like any other prince you will fall!’”
John 10:34 NW - 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?
At 2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan is called god of this system of things (or god of this world)
2 Corinthians 4:4 NW - among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.
2 Corinthians 4:4 KJ - In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
As for referring to Jesus as a god. Jesus was God’s first born son, the first angel he created. To translated John 1: 1 so as to suggest that Jesus was almighty God himself would conflict with everything else we are told about God’s firstborn only-begotten son.
Colossians 1: 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
The Bible tells us God is a spirit, Jesus was also a spirit, as are all of the angels. At Hebrews 2:7 the Apostle Paul quoted Psalms 8:5 where the angels are referred to as “godlike ones.” Compare the two scriptures and note; one calls them angels the other calls then godlike ones.
Hebrews 2:7 - You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands.
Psalms 8:5-6 - You made him a little lower than godlike ones, And you crowned him with glory and splendor. You make him dominate over the works of your hands. ...
You also must consider the context. John wrote his gospel and you have to consider what he said throughout and ask what is he telling us about Jesus in harmony with everything else he tells us. For instance, notice what John says just a few verses later:
John 1:14 NW - So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.
John 1:18 NW - No man has seen God at any time: the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.
In those two verses John himself tells us Jesus is the only-begotten son and only- begotten god. The word begotten comes from the word beginning, meaning Jesus had a beginning, unlike God who is eternal.
John also said we had a view of his glory and then he says: no man has ever seen God at any time. It is obvious that John was not saying Jesus was almighty God himself, he was using the word god to describe his divine nature and powerful position as the only begotten son of God.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not base Bible doctrine on one scripture, we examine everything the Bible says and base our beliefs on all that it reveals to us about God and Christ.
Jesus never claimed to be God, instead he referred to his heavenly father as “the only true God” and as “my God and your God”.
John 17:3 - This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 20:17 - ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.
Jesus said his father was greater than he:
John 14:28 KJ - Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Jesus said there were thing he did not know which only his father knew:
Matthew 24:36 AS - But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.
Jesus said God is one not a Trinity of three Gods in one.
Mark 12:28-29 NW … “Which commandment is first of all?” 29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.
Jesus refused to be addressed as “Good Teacher” saying only God is good:
Mark 10:18 KJ - And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
We also do not believe the Bible contradicts itself, so if we find a verse like John 1: 1 which seems to contradict what dozens of other scriptures tell us about Jehovah and Christ Jesus, we look more closely at how that verse is translated to see if there is a legitimate reason to translated it in a way that it harmonizes with the rest of the Bible.
Note: This is not the question where I posted this answer. What did Quora do now?
Here is the verse you refer to:
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.-1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV)
Take that, along with John 1:1, which is about Jesus, in the context of John 20:17, in which Jesus is speaking:
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.-John 20:17 (KJV)
John 1:1-2 tells us that the “Word” was “with the GOD” in the beginning, but it does not say that the Word was “the GOD.” (Why not re-examine a Greek-English Interlinear Translation of John:1: vss 1-2+18.
Although the Bible teaches that there are many Gods (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) … the Bible teaches that there is only one true Almighty God Jehovah and he is the Creator and he is “GOD of Gods” … (Genesis 17:1 and Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 22:22) so, this means that he is greater than lesser “gods.” Compare Psalm 136:2; Daniel 2:47 and 11:36; Psalm 82:1-7 and 95:3. Other spirit creatures, the angel
ONE
The Bible says that there is only one Almighty God. The Bible says that there are many Gods.
1 Corinthians 8:5, 6
“For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are.”
This Scripture lists two people:
One God the Father
Separate from Jesus
One Lord Jesus Christ
Separate God
Look at how each is described
One God the Father
out of whom all things are
God is the source of life.
and we for him
God deserves the worship
One Lord Jesus Christ
through whom all things are.”
Jesus is not the source of life
Worked with the Almighty, his Father and God to create all things even life.
Proverbs 8:22, 30
Colossians 1:15, 16
Revelation 3:15
Genesis 1:26
John 1: 1, 3; 17:6
TWO
The Bible says there are many gods.
The Bible says there is one Most High, or Almighty God.
Psalm 83:18
“That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.”
Jesus is called a Mighty God, NOT the Almighty.
Isaiah 9:6
“For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”
The Almighty can be called a Mighty God. But a Mighty God is not necessarily the Almighty God.
THREE
Texts from which a person might draw more than one conclusion, depending on the Bible translation used.
If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering?
One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.
John 1:1, 2:
RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in
In Genesis 1:1 it says, "In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth." In Colossians it says this about Jesus, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [e]principalities or [f]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence." So in reality even if Jesus didn't claim to be God, and I believe He did, the Bible makes the same claim about Jesus.
Isaiah 44:6
Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Revelation 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Isaiah 43:25
I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.
John 8:24
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
John 18:5-6
5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
Isaiah 43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
@Dan Mcclellan I have a question. Is the subject of Jesus claiming to God fall under Christology? I am just wondering.
Thank you very much for this.
I would love to hear more about the use of Greek in John 1.
One start would be to look at John 1:1:
Greek: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος."
Transliterated: "En arche en ho Logos kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos."
There are quite a few things one should observe about this sentence, traditionally translated as:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1) The Greek word "ho" is the definite article for masculine words in the nominative case (i.e., serving as a subject of a phrase). The word "ton" is the definite article for masculine words serving in accusative case (i.e., serving as a direct object or as the object of certain prepositions). ["Ton" is also used as the definite article for neuter words, but that's beyond the scope of this conversation, so I won't get into that.] In this instance, "ton" is serving as the definite article before "Theon" ("God"), because "Theos" is being used in that instance as the object of the preposition "pros" ("with"), and is thus in the accusative case ("Theos" has become "Theon"). "Ton", here therefore refers to "THE God", probably the Father.
Now, notice how there is a definite article in front of each instance of "Logos" and "Theos"/"Theon" except one. Without a definite article, a word in Greek become indefinite. We typically translate an indefinite word in English with the indefinite article "a". Therefore, the sentence legitimately can be translated as:
""In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."
2) The word "arche" in classical Greek often referred to the "council", "governing body", "leadership", or "authority" of a people. In Plato's Apology in sections 32a and 36b, for example, Socrates uses the word to mean "public office", and may also intend it in 37c (though, he might here mean "authority"). He also uses it in section 28e to mean "military commanders". To make sense in English of the huge translational range of the word, if one thinks of it to mean the "head" or "first" of something, whether in time or location (a "beginning"), or in stature (a "governing body"), it makes more sense.
With this taken into consideration, John 1:1 can thus be translated as:
"In the Council was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."
3) The word "logos" in classical Greek, often meant "plan", "consideration", "regard", or "worth".
You see "plan" in Polybius' Histories, Book 1, chapter 20, section 3: "And so, on the one hand, I was seeing that the affairs concerning the foot soldiers were proceeding according to plan for them." You see "consideration" in Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, verse 233: "But he had no consideration for wretched mortals". You see "regard" in Herodotus' Histories in chapter 1, line 33: "By saying this, Solon did not at all please Croesus, who sent him away without regard for him, but thinking him a great fool". You see "worth" in Herodotus' Histories in chapter 4, line 138: "But these are the ones who both differed in their vote and were of worth to the king..."
With this taken into consideration, John 1:1 can thus be translated as:
"In the Council was the Plan, and the Plan was with God, and the Plan was a God". Given "Logos" clearly means someone or something worthy of consideration, I think it's not too much of a stretch to translate it as "In the Council was the Worthy One, and the Worthy One was with God, and the Worthy One was a God."
@@jeremygunter8806 Read in full. Many thanks.
@@matthewmurdoch6932, no worries! I wrote the information hastily before Church, so I've gone back to clean up the typographical errors and to add additional clarity. Next, I'll assess Genesis from the Septuagint (the Greek translation from the 200s BC that the early Christians used) and compare it with John 1.
Genesis 1:1, Greek: "εν αρχή εποίησεν ο θεός τον ουρανόν και την γην."
Transliteration: "En arche epoiesen ho Theos ton ouranon kai ten gen."
Traditional English translation: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
4) The word "en" with an epsilon rather than an eta is usually translated as "in". However, it can also mean "among", "with" and "through". In Matthew 2:6, Bethlehem is described as "by no means least among the rulers of Judah", with "en" meaning "among", not "in".
In Matthew 3:11, John indicates "I indeed baptize you with water", with "en" meaning "with", and that Jesus "will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" or alternatively that he "will baptize you through the Holy Spirit", since "en" is flexible enough for both usages.
In the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1, the first word "בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית" (transliterated: "bereshit") begins with the preposition "b", which can "in", "at", "among", and "within", to list only a few options, showing the same flexibility as the Greek word "en".
Now, as discussed before, the word "arche" can mean "council" in Greek. Interestingly, in the Hebrew "reshit" that forms the second part of the first word in Genesis 1:1 also has similar flexibility, meaning not only "beginning", but also "best", and "chief", and its source form "rosh", is also used to mean "head", "leader", or even "company" (as in "a company of soldiers"), and so probably also carrying the meaning "group of leaders".
Therefore, in both the Greek Septuagint, and in the Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 can be translated as:
"In the Council, God created the heaven and the earth."
@@matthewmurdoch6932 , there are more parallels to John 1:1.
5) According to Genesis 1:2, everything was initially in a state of formlessness before the light came in verse 1:3. According to John 1:3, the "Logos" (the one who was the "Plan" or the "Worthy one") is the one through whom everything was made ("ἐγένετο"/"egeneto"). Now the word "gignomai" (the word from which "egeneto" derives), means "to come into a new condition, state, or place", as in Matthew 5:45: "So that you might become sons of your Father who is in the heavens." That agrees with Genesis 1:2 which, as explained before, indicates everything existed in a formless state prior to God's planning and organization of the universe.
----------
6) Genesis 1:3, Greek: "και είπεν ο θεός: 'γενηθήτω φως', και εγένετο φως."
Transliteration: "kai eipen ho Theos 'Genetheto phos', kai egeneto phos."
Traditional English translation: "And God said: 'Let there be light,' and there was light."
Compare that with John 1:4-5, 9: "ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. [...] ἐν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον."
Transliteration: "En auto zoe en, kai he zoe en to phos ton anthopon. Kai to phos en te skotia phainei, kai he skotia auto ou katelaben. [...] en to phos to alethion, o photizei panta anthopon erchomenon eis to kosmon."
English translation: "In him was the light, and the light was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. [...] He was the true light who brings light to every man who comes into the world."
Now, I have a hunch, though it's unsupported by any research I am aware of. That hunch is that John 1:4-5, and 9 shows that John was interpreting Genesis 1:3 to mean that the Most High God called for the "Worthy One" to become "the Light", that is "the Light of Men", the One through whom salvation comes into the world.
My hunch is potentially supported by the Hebrew in Genesis 1:3, though my Hebrew studies are still in their infancy with me having only taken two classes of the language. My thought process is as follows: Exodus 3:14 indicates that the God of the Israelites (whom I take to mean the pre-incarnate Jesus) referred to himself by stating "אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה", that is "'Ehyeh asher Ehyeh", literally meaning "I am who I am", and then said "Thus thou shalt say to the sons of Israel 'Ehyeh' has sent me to you."
Therefore, I consider that when God said "Let there be light" ("יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר", that is "yehi or"), in John's conception, God may have been saying "Ehyeh shall become the light." That is not what the phrase grammatically means, though, but in Exodus 6:3, the God of Israel refers to himself as "יְהוָ֔ה", which is often transliterated as "Jehovah". That shows the verb "be" in Hebrew, whether in the "Ehyeh" form or not, depending on context, seems as though it can refer to the God of the Israelites (Jehovah/Jesus), in the sense of the "One who is and will always be".
With that said, I don't think it's too much of a stretch of the imagination to see God the Father as calling his Son, the Worthy One, to be the Light of the World and the organizer of his plan to bring order to the material universe. That certainly would explain why in Genesis 1, the light comes before the sources of natural light (the sun and moon).
In another verse in John 14:9 Jesus says "He who has seen me you has seen the father", and THAT you cannot dispute. However just because John wrote it, doesn't mean Jesus said it. Besides, if he did, why didn't the other gospel writers not mention it? It was made up by John, in the context of deifying Jesus.
4:45 All sons born of the Fathers incorruptible seed are divine eloheim. NOT Elohiem.
"I said, YOU are eloheim and are all SONS of the MOST High" Psalm 82:6.
The pharasees would never have thought Jesus was making himself equal with God just because he said he was a son of God. People were called the Sons of God in the OT. That part was added in to promote the trinity lie. This happened thruout the NT. In 2 Thess 2:4 we were warned about a false messiahthat would sit in the temple of God and claim to be God. This happened in John 8 when Jesus was sitting in the temple and said he was "I AM". 2 Thess. Was written long before the book of John was written, so the warning had been there for decades. This event never happened because because God never said he was "I AM" in the OT verse. Another inserted lie by scribes to deceive us. As Jer 8.8 warned. thats why we were told to establish the logos of truth by two or three witnesses line upon line, precept upon precept.
Jesus is NOT God. He was born of the same spirit we all are in the same way. The miracle birth, the New Birth. Romans 1:4, Romans 8:11. The trinity doctrine is blasphemy and heresy and needs to be exposed for the deception it is. 2k years is long enough.
In the OT God says over 150 times "I am the Lord your God". He is explicit and clear, leaving no doubt to his followers. Jesus never says it straight up like God did, which the lady in the video openly admits. The idea has to be guessed at by comparing terms, second hand inference and interpreting verses in certain ways. This was never God's method in the past, but apparently we are meant to guess that He completely changed His mind about telling people.
Colossians 2:9. Which was written in the 60s . I will share translations under this comment
◄ Colossians 2:9 ►
New International Version
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
New Living Translation
For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.
English Standard Version
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
Berean Standard Bible
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.
Berean Literal Bible
For in Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily.
King James Bible
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
New King James Version
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
New American Standard Bible
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
NASB 1995
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
NASB 1977
For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Legacy Standard Bible
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily,
Amplified Bible
For in Him all the fullness of Deity (the Godhead) dwells in bodily form [completely expressing the divine essence of God].
Christian Standard Bible
For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,
Holman Christian Standard Bible
For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,
American Standard Version
for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For all The Fullness of The Deity dwells in him bodily.
Contemporary English Version
God lives fully in Christ.
Douay-Rheims Bible
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally;
English Revised Version
for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
GOD'S WORD® Translation
All of God lives in Christ's body,
Good News Translation
For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity,
International Standard Version
because all the essence of deity inhabits him in bodily form.
Literal Standard Version
because in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,
Majority Standard Bible
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.
New American Bible
For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily,
NET Bible
For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form,
New Revised Standard Version
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
New Heart English Bible
For in him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Webster's Bible Translation
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
Weymouth New Testament
For it is in Christ that the fulness of God's nature dwells embodied, and in Him you are made complete,
World English Bible
For in him all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily,
Young's Literal Translation
because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
Lets back up here and do this correctly.
The author of the book of John, in the third layer, is forcing the reader to make an assumption that he understands the motivations of Yeshu, and I agree that some of the claims in John may align with some 1st century messianic galilean thinking, but we have to realize there are other contemporary strands radiated from these mystical ideas. The key word is mystical.
We need the gospel of Tomas to understand how this motif split between two or more groups of high end believers and in doing so we can be certain that a meaningful understanding of the motivations of the third author cannot be had without understand late first century jewish mysticism and greek philosophy.
1. They were a mystical cult which meant that through meditation and ascetic practice that they were entering the boundaries of heaven [a practice that continues to this day in the kaballah, but split between Merkavah (chariot, e.g. Revelations) and Hekhalot (Palace) at the beginning of the common era]. The numerous references to the inner light in the gospels and the thrice repeated seek, find, . . . in SSoY (Tomas) make this clear]
2. That the "exact same way" meant that their path should be parallel. The "I am" in John was more or less a chant such that Jesus is putting himself in the role of god, the author is putting himself in the role of Jesus, and the reader or repeater is putting himself in the role of the author, the listener putting himself of the role of the reader.
3. "Jesus wants his own followers to attain". Yes, but he doesn't want them to take other paths. We have to point out here that Johannian christianity differs from Pauline in the sense that Paul believes he had a special vision and understanding of Jesus, that Paul is delivering his special message with no expectation that they will convert to judaism, spend three years in Arabia in mediation communing with mystics. Paul is all about the rush of ushering in the coming kingdom and his followers will be the secondary fruits as jesus was the first fruits. His visions offered him a veiw of the paradise. The author John layer 3 is offering up an alternative to the coming heavenly kingdom on earth, he is saying that the kingdom of heaven is before you, and just follow the light. So this is a distinction to what the disciples believed as they mission to the poor and upheld 2nd temple adherancy. In the psuedoepigraphical epistle of Yacov full conversion to Judiasm was a demonstration of ones committment to the way, but these measures were unimportant to the layer's author.
4. Claiming to be god and the blasphemy charge. This is a complex historical problem and no single historian knows why Yeshu_ was executed. There is no passion narrative in the Q source and Mark as a source is not credible which means that neither Matthew or Luke are. James Tabor seems to think that John has special information about the last month or so of Jesus's life, some of which is parsimonious with his travels. I am of the opinion that we dont know.
Here is what we do know.
1. Yeshu and the JtB movement was anti-Herodian
2. Herodians were the benefactor of the saducees whose authority was challenged by messianic claims or claims of the corruption of the scribes and the priests.
3. Yeshu was hung from something and possibly stoned before he was hung.
4. They lost track of the body.
What we do know is that there was no eye-witness in the court with Pilate recording how Jesus was interrogated. According to the talmud he was stoned and the bible says he died quickly on the cross, possibly from his stoning injuries and so it is possible.
My opinion is that if Pilate crucified Yeshu it is because the Herodians wanted him to and there need not be any other reason. If the saducees stoned Jesus it was because the Herodians wanted them to.
5. There is a significant amount of middle/neo-platonic thought in the Gospel of John and some would argue that there is considerable stoicism. In platonic philosophy there is a notion of a pure or divine form and here on earth everything is a corrupted representation of the form, this divine form later becomes the Nous in mystical thought, the divine oneness. Within the evolving strands of platonism arose Henosis and a parallel called Theoria, as developed by Iraneous, in which the individual united with the divine to become one. Here is a third century example.
Maximus the confessor: "A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the Incarnation of God, which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man. ...Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He Who became man without sin will divinize human nature without changing it into the Divine Nature, and will raise it up for His Own sake to the same degree as He lowered Himself for man's sake."
Again the author of John borrows heavily from Philo of Alexander which repaints Judaism in the colors of greek philosophy. The author of the text clearly shows he is in the mileau of evolving thought between the last middle platonist and the early neoplatonism. But in doing this the author of the text clearly shows he has a greek leaning syncretization of Jesus with greek thoughts about divinity. We need to be able to distinguish the views of John from early first century Jewish mysticism, particularly thinking amoung anti-Herodian (i.e anti-grecoroman) jews of Galilee. It is important to remember that the center of jewish life was the perception of piety in social contexts and that mystical practices revolved around important social ideas like fairness, reformation, justice, and "leveling the field". Many of these ideas are deprected in the Gospel of John. The notion of YHWH Elohim are replaced in the NT by Father and son(Lord), we can see an evolution of the notion of god that typifies the evolution of gnosticism in these ideas.
I believe you should stick to what you know, because you seem to use a lot of irrelevant head knowledge, you know a lot about things, but you certainly don't know Jesus Christ.
Wow, that is a lot to digest. I think I will need to read that over again. Just like Dan, your information is way above my understanding. Thanks for sharing though.
@@beeg693 The big problem with Dan and Rayoshima who wrote his long winded reply, is they speak in a way the Gnostics understood and spoke, in simple terms, what you know is more important to these people than who, and let’s never forget, we serve a who and not a what.
Yes its all very interesting, but if these people put the time in to building a real relationship with Christ and his church they wouldn’t end up down the rabbit holes that basically lead you nowhere in the end.
Thanks Andy for what you said. I really appreciate your feedback. It kind of reminds me of while read a book by Philo of Alexandria. It was all intellectual mixed with philosophical. I could tell he had no real spiritual experience. As an example, It is Moses who received and gave 10 laws, yet now they have 613 rules to obey in Jewish law.. what a rabbit hole indeed.. You are right it is a who and not a what...
@@andykanonik8935 Gnosticism is a grouping of texts where the individual is seeking a divine knowledge as a replacement of a god that was no more than a dimiurge. Two of the gnostic groups were the Alcaesites and the Sethians. However the gospel of Tomas is no more gnostic than the gospel of John. Both are protognostic, meaning before gnosticism.
The original structure of Israelite religion patterned off of mesopotamian belief that, in Judea, over time went about shedding gods, first substrate canaanite gods, then other gods leaving the the father, mother and son; El, Asherah and Yahweh respectively within Judah. Then again as Israel collapsed the father and mother gods were eliminated (Its in the bible). In doing this the authors of the deuteronomistic texts attributed all the things attributed to the acts of other gods to their god Yahweh, originally a wisdom god who gain volcano god properties, became a father/mother god and assumed also the powers of hadad (Ba'al).
This created a major interpretive problem in Jewish religion. What is the problem, your in the LBAC, you have sea peoples storming over the horizon, the peoples from the lowland cities flood into the hills. The Egyptians, after being beat up badly, left canaan and the Aramain tribes (x-Apiru - bandits and highwaymen) have flooded into mesopotamia. Your an Israelite, you got people of three dozen beliefs living is hastily made huts dotting the hills; and all trade, administration, etc break down. This is replaced by an old god (at the time only about 3000 years old) 'El that is a between cities god and a system of folk priest acting as Judges between the dozen or so develping temple towns. In Samuel, as the Arameans grow in power as well as the Neohittites (luwians) and the people want a king, and their first king is disobedient because he does not kill enough people, but David is sufficiently brutal, having proved himself by defiling the corpses of 200 men. Welcome to life in the early Iron age, Its tough and you need a tough god.
And it only gets worse, Assyria finally whacks the Aramean tribes and pours into Anatolia, only to turn course and head south, 11 tribes including Israel thumb their nose at Assyria, and one by one Assyria plucks them and fries them. In the end Israel followed ba'al because they thought the Arameans were tough. Past performance is nit a solid predictor of future success.
And So Judah, seeing all the gods falling to Asshur decided the old gods werent worth shit, so they tossed 'El and Asherah out of the temple and they rewrote history, attributing all the bloody victories of the gods to Yahweh (A late coming god from Arabia). As a result Yahweh looks badass, he looks badass because the writers of the text want king David to look badass (despite the fact he was a petty king) and they want Yahweh to look badass. They want Yahweh to do the things Ba'al Hadad did because the gods compete with each other. That was the 7th century BCE.
In the 6th century. The Zoroastrians came with the persians and Ahura Mazda "a dualistic cosmology of good and evil within the framework of a monotheistic ontology and an eschatology which predicts the ultimate conquest of evil by good." . This is followed by the 4th century greek philosophical movement. As a consequence in the enlightened world 'Storm/Volcano' gods and Kings that defile 200 corpses for their foreskins look kind of last generation. And so that is the problem.
And so when Jerusalem falls to the romans, people are trying to find out why it fell. Maybe the Yahweh dimiurge was trying to convince everyone it had power that it did not have. But if you follow teacher X, he will show you the true inner path. Bling your in the know, gnosis.
Again since I am on the left hand path I put no stock in Nuos, false gods, named gods, idols of any kind, piety rules of any kind, greek philosophical traditions, though i kind of like the cynics.
Having said that, the tabernacle god El that was installed as a god of sojourners and wanderers by Akkad and Sumer was the best possible gods, Samu'el was waxing nostalgically about the system of Judges for good reason. Philosophically I think this was the peak of Israelite religion, everything that followed is like some trying to get a car which they pushed off a high cliff to run again. But Samu'el philosophical commited his kind to an end, by his own actions and the lack of interest in the judges he insured it would never be repeated.
Wow very insightful, thanks again Dan!
Why refer to God the Father if we are not all Sons of God?
If Jesus is referring to the gods in Psalm 82 as human people, how does this hold up with the interpretation that the Divine Counsel are celestial gods deposed by Adonai?
The interpretation of the Divine council as human priests was common. For what Jesus says to work, it's only necessary for the people he's talking to to believe that interpretation, as is likely that they did.
Or to put another way, Jesus is accepting that interpretation for the sake of argument.
Personally, I have no problem with both interpretations of the psalm being true. One of the recurring themes in *pagan* mythology is that humans and pagan gods have the same flaws. So why wouldn't God have exactly the same conversation with both kinds of beings?
The Father is referred to as Theos as well.
What is your view on John 8-58. Where Jesus says before Abraham was, I am.
I was always told this was symmetrical to what God says to Ab, and a strong God claim.
It’s often claimed to be what God said to Moses in Exodus 3:14. But in fact, that’s based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew (which is better translated “I will be”, not “I am” in the present tense). So, it’s not symmetrical to what Jesus says in John 8.
@@legron121The blind man also used the same Greek phrase, " I am." Does it make him God also?
@@kalords5967
Good point. The example I use to illustrate the common meaning of “ego eimi” is 2 Samuel 2:19. Abner asks “is that you, Asahel?”, and Asahel responds, “ego eimi”. This shows it was a common idiom for “Yes, it’s me”.
@legron1290 OK, I get the translation. So if Jesus casually says "like Abraham, here I am". Why do the guys immediately want to stone him?
@@SimonTamplar
He was claiming to have existed in some form before Abraham did. This would logically make Jesus older, and therefore greater, than Abraham (which simultaneously answers their questions in verse 53 and verse 57). This would have been outrageous and ridiculous to the Jews, to claim superiority and seniority to the father of the Jews.
This doesn’t mean he was claiming to be God himself; only to have existed “with God” (as John 1:1 says, and as Jesus would later say in John 17:5) before Abraham was even born. The best translation (taking the context and grammar into consideration) is “I have existed before Abraham came to be”.
I have to say that, as a Jew, I have had to watch this video a couple of times now - and probably a couple more - to fully understand what is going on. Where does Christianity get the idea that Jesus IS HaShem IS the Son of HaShem in the first place? Also, what is a Holy Ghost in this context and what is the origins of that?
A lot of the origins of this comes from extinct movements within Judaism that were popular in messianic movements but fell out of favour in rabbinic Judaism. There were a lot of ‘dual power’ traditions which exhausted various patriarchal figures to ‘godlike’ status as bearers of the divine name or sort of a demigod - that were very unpopular with rabbis of course
Metatron also gets this status sometimes
More I found:
One of those tangents centers on a passage that, as we saw, is part of the Jewish scriptural canon, the passage in Daniel 7 in which the “Son of Man” receives eternal kingship from the “Ancient of Days.” For already earlier, even before the New Testament was written, another Jewish book, the Similitudes of Enoch, had combined Enoch and the Son of Man. This, too, is, “nothing less than the transformation of the human Enoch into a divine being,” Schäfer writes. Hence, the intellectually honest historian of Second Temple Judaism must reckon with two divine figures, the greater or older God and the lesser or younger God whom he elevates in what is one of the most consequential moments, if not the most consequential moment, in the drama of God’s dealings with humankind.
The pattern, in fact, is common in the period and hardly restricted to literature about Enoch. In the book of Proverbs, the figure of Wisdom claims that God created her-or is it “begot” her?-before the earth and heaven were formed (Proverbs 8:22-31). In the Wisdom of Ben Sira (or Ecclesiasticus), a book composed by a Jewish sage early in the 2nd century BCE and quoted respectfully by talmudic rabbis later, Wisdom is enthroned in heaven, holds sway over all peoples, yet takes up residence on Mount Zion, site of the Jewish Temple. Somewhat later, in the Wisdom of Solomon, she again “sits on the throne at God’s side” but also is, in Schäfer’s words, is “the archetype of his perfection and at the same time his emanation, which imparts God’s glory and active workings into the earthly world.” The Dead Sea Scrolls, too, present evidence for Jewish binitarian theology. In one of them, from the latter half of the 1st century BCE, a human being boasts of having taken a throne in the heavens themselves and having been “reckoned with the gods”; he also speaks, in terms reminiscent of some of Jesus’ speeches, of his incomparable grief and suffering.
In a very different idiom but broadly reflecting a similar conception, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo (ca. 20 BCE-50 CE) speaks of the Logos and Sophia (or Wisdom) as God’s “elder and firstborn son’” and “younger son,” respectively. The former is “God’s actual creative power,” Schäfer explains, while the latter “is responsible . . . for the world perceived by our senses.” As he sees it, the language is the language of philosophy, but the underlying theology is deeply indebted to Jewish binitarian thinking and, as in all these examples (and others he discusses), the modern term “monotheism” is not helpful to the effort to appreciate the deeper dynamic and the complexity of the concept of God in the period. Christianity did not create the template but rather sought to fit the figure of Jesus into it in the role of the Son of Man/Son of God/Son of David already well established in the Judaism of the time.
One way I found clever was that Christianity was a minority or fringe movement within Judaism that found its home and much of its development in a cultural context in which the words and traditions which it was radically reinterpreting and deploying were not already semantically ‘full’ - you could just tell someone ‘a messiah is a divine sacrifice’ and they’re not Jews, they’re not going to tell you that’s crazy
"The father is in me, and i am in the father."
"I and the father are one,"
"You can not tempt your god"- talking to saten, tempting him on the mountain.
"If you have seen me, you have seen the father."
Nailed it.
Jesus says everyone should be "in God", John 17:21 "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one- I in them and you in me". That is obviously not a claim to being God.
I can't see the quote "you cannot tempt your god" in Mark 4 where Jesus is tempted by Satan. Jesus does say "Do not put your Lord God to the test", when speaking of a separate entity to himself. Satan refers to Jesus as the son of God and asks Jesus to worship him, but Jesus says you should only worship God. Satan makes no sign that he understands he is talking to God Himself and Jesus doesn't claim that title for himself anywhere in that discussion.
Jesus Christ is God Almighty, the God of Israel and all your (heretics and disbelievers) judge and destroyer.
Who was there to witness the conversation between Jesus and the devil?
@@benjamintrevino325 then who when was muhammad with Jesus to know ehat He said? What a stupid argument/question? The writers of the Gospel didn't just write what they wanted, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. So everything in the scriptures is inspired divine revelation of God.
Before Abraham, I am - is that claiming to be god?
@@therion5458 would that make jesus a demigod?
Dan's take on it is that it makes Jesus the divine name bearer. Powered by God and given authority by God, but not God Himself.
I was raised in the Baptist Church and believed Jesus as God. How my mother explains it is that you take an egg, in that there are 3 parts. The yoke, the albumen, and the shell that form one egg. Just as God, Holy Spirit and Jesus are one God. But to me they are 3 entities, its God the Father through them all that gives them power and authority just as God the Father through us all that gives us life!
I see God in you Dan, keep it up! :)
What does it mean to be a diety and divine?
Vague terms that have changed depending on the context. Usually used to mean a being from the heavenly realm, so the angels are divine for example, but others use the term to mean specifically from God.
This is brilliant. Always incredibly entertaining to see Christians chase their own tail and try to rationalize a 2000 year old collection of fables
What is ''Capital G-God''?
A god with a lower case g refers to any claimed god in history, it is an idea of a divine being, while God with a capital is used as a name specifically for the Abrahamic God. Zeus was a god, the bible is the word of God, kind of thing.
Seens to be that's exactly what a theurgist would or more specifically henosis
Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are not Jesus. The words attributed to Jesus are created by these writers " to fit their apologetics.
John 1:1 King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:14
King James Version
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
These verses mean nothing to people who share the belief that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. This is generally a believers 1st go-to in dispute, but they have washed these scriptures in intellectualism and stripped "the Word" down to mean "God's plan" among other intellectual nonsense that makes no sense in the context of these debunking scriptures.
The Trinity is linked to Theosis. God became suffering man that suffering man might become God. You are entirely right that the unity with Christ is linked to unity with the Father. Infinite oneness of Father Son and God’s spirit in you. The union of the church and Christ is represented in the wedding at the end of Revelations. God is One and he welcomes you into that Oneness.
Since all these claims that Jesus said this or said that are predicated on the proven existence of such a person, for which there is none, quoting from these invented stories about this fictional Jesus is like quoting King Arthur, or Sir Galahad, amusing but pointless. The christian church has created an enormous edifice of self referential belief in a non-existent entity and if you don't play their game then you can't have any discussion with them. To rational people this all seems totally pointless, like discussing what Sir Lancelot did or didn't say when sitting at the Round Table of Antiquity on a particular Wednesday afternoon. It is all nonsense. I do not imply that studying how these myths came about or those from which they were derived is in any sense a waste of time, clearly this is not so. However arguing points about what some early christians put in the bible just shows how much the story has changed, not that any particular version of it is in any sense true.
I'm going to become Muslim now because this is exactly what Islam is saying about Jesus and God. In Islam, God doesn't have kids and parents and wives and has no human characteristics and that Jesus is only a major prophet and messenger not God and not the Son of God. Looks like Islam is the corrective original Christianity of Jesus himself.
Waffle Waffle Waffle. That's all i heard there. The text us quite clear and he missed the mark by a mile.
That s on God is a type O.
My issue with your explanation, and one I understand you disagree with, is that Pharasies were monotheistic. If you were claiming to be a diety you were claiming to be God. Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was identifying himself as some other God, which would be considered a Pagan false god and certainly get him killed.
Pharisees were monotheistic but did have the concept of divine beings that were not the God but were sometimes in the Tenach called gods, for example, Angels. In any case, Pharisees did not write John. He most likely was a gentile author who would have been coming from a more Greek/Pagan worldview.
@caliginous101 I completely agree with everything you stated, not certain of its relevance unless you're stating the Pharasies considered Jesus an angel?
I also don't know that authorship is relevant? Let me clarify that I believe that the author would have understood that Pharasies were monotheistic and, therefore, would be upset because this human was claiming to be God. I don't see anyone in this period including the concept of multiple gods in this discussion. If this were from Exodus, perhaps it would be different.
@@ronjones1414 1. I don't know how well John understood how Jews saw the divine. 2. There were Jewish writings (from closer to this time) such as Enoch that had human figures who had some kind of divinity. Another example would be the Qumran community who seemed to have a divine messiah who wasn't God per say but had some divinity so it seems to have been in the air. Perhaps the fictional Pharisees opposed Jesus claiming to have any divine status as they rejected all these ideas that were floating around.
Where they monotheistic in the modern sense though? The Hebrew Bible is all about Yahweh being the only god *of the Jews* : afaik nowhere the Tanakh says that he was the only existing god. There’s several mention of different people worshiping their own gods, and especially the first commandment “You shall not have other gods before me” is an explicit acknowledgment that there’s other gods out there.
I am no scholar and i don’t know how Jews viewed their god at the time of Jesus but I think it’s incorrect to retrofit modern understanding of monotheism to the completely different religious landscape of two thousand years ago.
Dan, and many other modern scholars, do not believe monotheism is a relevant category to describe anything in the world of 2nd Temple Judaism. Seminar actually coming up on this very theme that Dan will be at.
Not much to disagree with here. Solid video.
Jesus would never declare himself to be God, rather he reveals himself to us and we come to know he is God. It's all there, you missed a few layers of data. I am not sure why people are excited over this video. There is nothing eye opening or profound. It's like an accountant reading the budget in a business meeting, nothing more than saying certain words do not appear in the Bible therefore Jesus did not claim to be God. Jesus being God and Jesus claiming to be God are not the same thing. On another note, Dan being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints which claims Jesus is Jehovah and teaches that Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament. well... do the Math, sorry.. evaluate the data.
So a few things. No to claim that Jesus being the God of Israel are recognized as being God is a Nicaean concept it’s just flat out wrong, in fact it predates Nicaea by several centuries someone even argue millenniums. You are importing all kinds of outside assumptions and thereby say assuming that the Bible is univocal when doing so, by importing some thing from Exodus 23 and trying to superimpose it on all of the New Testament as if it’s universal. You are assuming that the trinity cannot be proven using scripture because it’s a later develop concept that an assertion, and if we can demonstrate that is taught in scripture then your hypothesis completely falls apart. And to say that this understanding is not with the new testament authors how did Jesus therefore this can’t be a valid hypothesis is simply just presuppose that your conclusion is true. No I would agree that John 10 does not demand that Jesus is God but I think it’s certainly supports the idea that he is God. And John 17 does not support your case. And you clearly don’t understand Christ hypostatic union or his support nation to the Father, Jesus is not saying you can be one with God as he is in terms of divine nature but relationship to a certain extent. Not in the exact same way Jesus and the father have a relationship but very similar. John 10 is a different context, since the chapter is about Jesus Priestly prayer to the father his subordination to the father before his subsequent demise on the cross and his promise to disciples. It is not in the exact same way you are assuming it’s in the exact same way simply because of the language. No the word nature is not present and the context is not demand that it must be nature as you’re claiming you’re taking a very wooden and literal reading of the passage. In what way though? Now if we are going to understand your interpretation and Jesus is saying the same thing about his followers but he is in John 10, why did the Pharisees and the Jews pick up Stones to Stone him if he were simply claiming simply to be with God? There’s clearly bigger implications involved. No again that is your presupposing and superintending the language of John 10 onto John 17 as if it’s the exact same thing. Leon Morris has an excellent commentary on this passage so does Larry Hurtado although I don’t agree with either of them 100% since they take the traditional reading of John 10:30. There is absolutely reason to think that based on other parts in scripture where Jesus and unity with his followers in his unity with the father is clearly different, The relationship is clearly different, and also because of the implications and the reactions we see in John 10 compared to John 17. The only reason to take your interpretation of Joh 8:58 and Thomas clear statement in John 20:28 is if you have a presupposition against the deity of Christ or the trinity. But I do agree that Jesus claiming to be the son of God does not mean he is equal to God necessarily so I don’t think that’s very strong evidence on its own. To say in one context Theos is being used qualitatively therefore we can impose that in import that from a different chapter onto another book as if it’s the same when there’s absolutely no reason, and the context makes no such demand is completely fallacious and is not based on data whatsoever, it is based on a presupposition that Jesus can’t be God because his Christology did not exist which is itself is a presupposition. And to say that there is no distinction between being one with God as Christ is in Christ being one with God is just nonsense and laughable any remotely literate person understands the basic distinction and you are not uneducated you’re just going with dogma over data. Which come on if you’re gonna assume anyone who objects to you and your claims it’s just going with data over dogma I think it’s only fair for me to do it if you’re gonna be disingenuous in bad faith about it.
Where is laughably false are you telling me there was no line drawn between claiming divinity and to be god that is pure and utter nonsense there is a clear distinction.
Jesus was divine not deity.
That sounds like a bit of an oxymoron
Thank you Dan. If we have to rip the Bible apart to stop this jackassery then I am up for it. Even as child, i understood so this nice man. Just says, "hey you know these people lied to you. All you have to do is love god with all your being, and all your heart . And two you see that person, love em, love em with the most purest form. And he named the purest form of love. Mother to a child." The nicest person who ever lived. Would be ashamed at what is done in his name. Thank you dan, rip it apart so nobody can claim ignorance.
Thank you
Yikes. Glad I stopped believing all this stuff in my early teens. Exhausting.
Being anarthrous is no evidence of indefiniteness. There are many situations in John where something being anarthrous is a reference to something which has to be definite.
There are syntax constructions in which that is the case and there are circumstances in which it is not. Nothing at all in John 10:33 points in the direction of definiteness. It entirely points in the direction of the qualitative use of the noun. John 1:1 is even more clearly qualitative. In Koine Greek, when a definite noun precedes the verb in a predication, it will take the definite article if the noun refers to a subject that is either well known or has been mentioned in the immediate context. Both would be true if theos in John 1:1c referred to God rather than to a quality of the Logos, so it would need to take the article.
This sounds a little Joseph Smith biased.
He says many many things contrary to LDS teachings. I think he is being objective here. It’s just hard to prove trinitarian teachings
Dan . As Mike Licona Points out . Mark in chaoter 1 uses old testament passsages that apply too yhwh and mark put jesus in the place of yhwh ..
It even refers to the temple as being jesus temple . Aka yhwhs temple
Jesus is Yhwh
1A. Romans 10:13 cf. Joel 2:32
Romans 10:13, “For ‘WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.'”2
Joel 2:32, “And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, as the LORD has said, even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.”
Comments: The LORD reference here is to Yahweh. However, Paul takes the Lord reference in Joel 2:32 and applies it to Jesus in Romans 10:13.
1B. 1 Corinthians 1:31 cf. Jeremiah 9:24
1 Corinthians 1:31, “So that, just as it is written, ‘LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.'”
Jeremiah 9:24, “‘But let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,’ declares the LORD.”
Comments: The Lord in 1 Corinthians 1:31 is a reference to Jesus, while the quotation is a reference to Yahweh.
1C. 1 Corinthians 2:16 cf. Isaiah 40:13
1 Corinthians 2:16, “For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.”
Isaiah 40:13, “Who has [a]directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counselor has informed Him?”
Comments: The Lord in the context of 1 Corinthians 2 is Jesus. while the Lord in Isaiah 40:13 is Yahweh.
1D. 1 Corinthians 10:26; cf. Psalm 24:1
1 Corinthians 10:26, “FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.”
Psalm 24:1, “The earth is the LORD’S, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.”
Comments: The Lord in the context of 1 Corinthians 10 is Jesus, while the Lord in Psalm 24:1 is Yahweh.
Another great video from Dan. Although when he says that "Jesus says", it's kind of like saying that "Charlie Brown says" or "Robin Hood says"....it's words put into the mouth of a 'person' by the writer of a story, a story that first appears some 80 or 90 years after the time that the words were supposedly spoken. And it appears in a completely different language. Maybe Jesus did say them, but we have no reliable way to determine that, because we don't have a time machine.
You have read your F. Schleiermacher.
🤘
I find your take interesting.
Maybe God's purpose is for future understanding.
Faith means to believe God -not if you understand- but for no other reason than God said it.
The Jews were skeptics constantly trying to figure things out. Isaiah said they would be deaf and blind lest they would be saved. "Who has believed our report..."
Jesus was God incarnate, indeed.
Or maybe we have no evidence of a god
@@ryant32u
Thank you David Hume for your skepticism but it's not critical thinking.
400 Videos of you dissecting everyone on social media and I never noticed any comment on your beliefs and your qualifications/education?????? Would you be so obliged to give the world some background on you? Even in your "About" section I did not see anything. Thanks
He's mentioned it in videos but I don't think he has a specific video. Dan has a PhD in theology, focusing on cognitive and linguistic aspects (from memory, I am likely slightly wrong). Dan is Mormon.
I like to hear from him
@@squiddwizzard8850I know he lives in Utah, and what would be awesome is to hear a critical analysis of the Bible vs the numerous books of Mormonism and the archeological discoveries of the New World.
@@squiddwizzard8850A Mormon who talks like an atheist.
Alright, let's hear it:
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
We have access to Bibles, thank you
The sentence can be read that Thomas is praising both "My Lord" and "My God", as he recognises Jesus was resurrected, that fact confirms both Jesus's claim and that God is true.
John 1:1
It's plain. Father created. Jesus is the Word that IS God. Without Jesus, nothing would have been made.
It's very clear. JESUS IS GOD.
Make it make sense, the word existed before Jesus. Jesus gave clearity to the word that was misunderstood and is still misunderstood in our time. Jesus never claimed being God or king he claimed being part of it and one with it, just as the root and the fruits are all part of a tree that grew from a seed. Even when Pilate asked him he said you said it( it's your words not mine) just showed how misunderstood he was and still is
Acording to the author of john. Its just their opinion.
that's commentary from the author, it's not Jesus claiming to be God which is what the video was about.
You are a false teacher
Yep. Minister of Satan. Gives a big hint wearing a shirt that says “venom” on it
Prove him wrong then, if you can.
No he is not the infinite All/God ,he is the son of the Evening Star,who is the daughter of the infinite All/God, who is outside of time space matter, we humans live in the lower world or material ,the infinite All/did take him from his mother the evening Star and did teach him the unknowable, and the infinite All is the creator of all...not just a god to Israel , Enlil is Yahweh/Johovah he is not the infinite All/God ,"the servant is not greater than the master but can take on the masters properties" making him like his master Genesis 1 verse 3 = 14 billion years ago was , Revelations 4 verse 4 = the Mourning and Evening Star 's throne or paradise made by the infinite All /god Genesis 1 verse 6 = 4.5 billion years = Revelations 12 = Great war in heaven and evolution of intelligent life that gave rise to the Annunaki who gave rise to Modern/Civilized man , Enlil/Johovah is a fallen son of the Evening Star,and false god of Israel , I'll look him right in the face tell him ,who he is and I promise you i will face no consequences for putting a false god and ignorant child in his place ,it was the Evening Star who didn't need the aid of a man to bring forth life not Mary (living Waters turned to blood) but at one time used to be crystal clear, before the fall from grace , the holy grail is the cup of the womb ,not some material cup with special powers..... hehehe aww man boy I'm telling you Revelations 12, that is Christ being called up to the infinite All, before the foundations of the world, even the Annunaki , it's like trying to tell someone you know their child that they brought forth better than you do ,you know what I mean???
Are your words not who you are? I'm unsubscribing to this dude.
No need to announce you are leaving, this isn't an airport.
Cope
No, your words are not who you are. Your actions define you. Actions speak louder than words.
Thank You so, much for this video ! Jesus wasn’t saying he was God ! Holy shit I said this years ago.
I’m the alpha and the omega the first and the last the beginning and the end what was what is and what is to come the apostles and early church Pre Nicaean creed all support the trinity and @rainypuddz to assume God is traditional is insane he’s outside of our universe
How can Jehovah Witnesses explain John 1:1, in which it says how the Word was a god, when the Bible tells us there is only one God?
1 Corinthians 8:5 (King James Version)
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
The Bible actually says, as you can see above, that there are many gods. It makes a distinction between those that are called gods and the one true God.
In fact, Jesus himself said at John 10:34-36 (King James Version)
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Jesus acknowledged that God’s Word even refers to some men as gods. Then went on to confirm that it would not be inappropriate to refer to him as a god. Even so, he instead referred to himself as “the Son of God”.
How can Jesus be referred to as a God? The word “god” is not the name of almighty God. In the Bible the word god is used as a title or as a descriptive adjective, because it simply means, strong one or mighty one. So, they Bible refers to Jehovah, Jesus, angels (including Satan), men, and false gods, as gods.
Anyone in a powerful position can be called a god, Jehovah himself calls the judges in Israel gods at Psalms 82:6, which Jesus quoted at John 10:34:
Psalms 82:6-7 NW - I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. 7 But you will die just as men do; And like any other prince you will fall!’”
John 10:34 NW - 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?
At 2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan is called god of this system of things (or god of this world)
2 Corinthians 4:4 NW - among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.
2 Corinthians 4:4 KJ - In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
As for referring to Jesus as a god. Jesus was God’s first born son, the first angel he created. To translated John 1: 1 so as to suggest that Jesus was almighty God himself would conflict with everything else we are told about God’s firstborn only-begotten son.
Colossians 1: 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
The Bible tells us God is a spirit, Jesus was also a spirit, as are all of the angels. At Hebrews 2:7 the Apostle Paul quoted Psalms 8:5 where the angels are referred to as “godlike ones.” Compare the two scriptures and note; one calls them angels the other calls then godlike ones.
Hebrews 2:7 - You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands.
Psalms 8:5-6 - You made him a little lower than godlike ones, And you crowned him with glory and splendor. You make him dominate over the works of your hands. ...
You also must consider the context. John wrote his gospel and you have to consider what he said throughout and ask what is he telling us about Jesus in harmony with everything else he tells us. For instance, notice what John says just a few verses later:
John 1:14 NW - So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.
John 1:18 NW - No man has seen God at any time: the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.
In those two verses John himself tells us Jesus is the only-begotten son and only- begotten god. The word begotten comes from the word beginning, meaning Jesus had a beginning, unlike God who is eternal.
John also said we had a view of his glory and then he says: no man has ever seen God at any time. It is obvious that John was not saying Jesus was almighty God himself, he was using the word god to describe his divine nature and powerful position as the only begotten son of God.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not base Bible doctrine on one scripture, we examine everything the Bible says and base our beliefs on all that it reveals to us about God and Christ.
Jesus never claimed to be God, instead he referred to his heavenly father as “the only true God” and as “my God and your God”.
John 17:3 - This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 20:17 - ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.
Jesus said his father was greater than he:
John 14:28 KJ - Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Jesus said there were thing he did not know which only his father knew:
Matthew 24:36 AS - But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.
Jesus said God is one not a Trinity of three Gods in one.
Mark 12:28-29 NW … “Which commandment is first of all?” 29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.
Jesus refused to be addressed as “Good Teacher” saying only God is good:
Mark 10:18 KJ - And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
We also do not believe the Bible contradicts itself, so if we find a verse like John 1: 1 which seems to contradict what dozens of other scriptures tell us about Jehovah and Christ Jesus, we look more closely at how that verse is translated to see if there is a legitimate reason to translated it in a way that it harmonizes with the rest of the Bible.
Note: This is not the question where I posted this answer. What did Quora do now?
Here is the verse you refer to:
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.-1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV)
Take that, along with John 1:1, which is about Jesus, in the context of John 20:17, in which Jesus is speaking:
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.-John 20:17 (KJV)
John 1:1-2 tells us that the “Word” was “with the GOD” in the beginning, but it does not say that the Word was “the GOD.” (Why not re-examine a Greek-English Interlinear Translation of John:1: vss 1-2+18.
Although the Bible teaches that there are many Gods (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) … the Bible teaches that there is only one true Almighty God Jehovah and he is the Creator and he is “GOD of Gods” … (Genesis 17:1 and Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 22:22) so, this means that he is greater than lesser “gods.” Compare Psalm 136:2; Daniel 2:47 and 11:36; Psalm 82:1-7 and 95:3. Other spirit creatures, the angel
ONE
The Bible says that there is only one Almighty God. The Bible says that there are many Gods.
1 Corinthians 8:5, 6
“For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are.”
This Scripture lists two people:
One God the Father
Separate from Jesus
One Lord Jesus Christ
Separate God
Look at how each is described
One God the Father
out of whom all things are
God is the source of life.
and we for him
God deserves the worship
One Lord Jesus Christ
through whom all things are.”
Jesus is not the source of life
Worked with the Almighty, his Father and God to create all things even life.
Proverbs 8:22, 30
Colossians 1:15, 16
Revelation 3:15
Genesis 1:26
John 1: 1, 3; 17:6
TWO
The Bible says there are many gods.
The Bible says there is one Most High, or Almighty God.
Psalm 83:18
“That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.”
Jesus is called a Mighty God, NOT the Almighty.
Isaiah 9:6
“For there has been a child born to us, strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not
Two questions, why aren’t you called Yaweh’s witnesses? And what happened in 1914? Why are we still here?