Bro… not a good rebuttal… sum it up to: a rock is defined as a stone but The Rock is obviously Dwayne the Rock Johnson

@MatthewJTucker

29 күн бұрын

This is brilliant. Did you hear this from someone or did you come up with it yourself?

@AngelINTheMatrix

25 күн бұрын

I couldn't agree with you more

@RalphEllis

24 күн бұрын

McClellan’s explanation of chistos-anointing is childish in the extreme. Look, a king is anointed at his coronation. King Charles was anointed with oil last year. The oil came from Jerusalem, so he was anointed as King and Christ. Just as Mary Magdalene anointed Jesus at the House of Simon (Boethus). Yes, Charlie-boy is King Charles the Christ, just as Jesus was a real monarch called King Jesus the Christ. See my books “The King Jesus Trilogy” Ralph

@jaychatfield9937

23 күн бұрын

😂😂

@alakazamthisisasham

22 күн бұрын

nailed it!

This makes me believe Ammon is correct even more....

@CraigGoldsberry-rz6fn

28 күн бұрын

Why????. That guy is total mental case liar fool

@vmonk2

24 күн бұрын

Why?

@wambyking7

14 күн бұрын

Literally makes the point that the word correlates to “annointing” which is a huge theme in the OT as well. Anyone with half a brain reading the OT can see this instead of “ApPlyiNg DrUgs To eYeZ”

@GetnBrains

11 күн бұрын

i think they are both correct. just depends how one reads the text. just because one reads it differently.. doesnt make it wrong. and NONE of us were around back then to truly know and anyone saying they 1000% have the answers are clowning. That's why i like and respect Ammon. He really isnt giving you his belief. He's giving us the actual info.. it's really up to you or i to decide what we believe to be true if that even matters in the end.

@gptgod

3 күн бұрын

@@GetnBrainsThis is whats wrong with the world today. No offense to you but this sort of philosophy is tainting every one of our institutions. There is indeed a right answer and a wrong answer to things. Theres zero accountability when someones wrong, people just chalk it up to their interpretation. You cannot build or sustain a civilization if everyone is right. Take the time to determine what is true and reject what is false.

Danny, why don't you get both in the same room and have them discuss the language and usages .

@gavinjames1145

Ай бұрын

I got the impression that this guy doesn't know linguistics.

@PrettyBlueSkyeEyes

29 күн бұрын

​@@gavinjames1145he knows enough to get by. He hasn't immersed truly

@brambledemon1232

16 күн бұрын

I thought the same thing

My Latin teacher taught me that a “dead language” is one where the verb forms no longer change. This guy gives a really good explanation.

I’m not taking sides. I’m interested in learning from scholars.

@GetnBrains

11 күн бұрын

Same! Well said and i applaud ya. Seems like in todays world everyone immediately picks a side and then never want to change from it or admit they picked the wrong side. this type of knowledge is legit impossible to truly know the facts on. Just because texts,papers,books, scrolls etc said something.. doesnt make it factual or true. they could be lying or they could be interpreting their experience the wrong way thru their writings! who the hell knows but i also am very interested in learning all of it, from all sides!

The Annointed. The Annointer. The opener of the eye to the reality of existence. The Great Healer. The One to cling to. It's astonishing how limited an English speaking brain can be. ❤️🔥🍻

I believe Ammon is telling the truth

@dmsdad6866

29 күн бұрын

Look how often Dan says he is.

@GetnBrains

11 күн бұрын

Ammon is 10000% telling the truth. But the next layer of it is.. is the text or reading he is telling us about factual or was it some b.s. someone wrote down. that's where my issue comes up with it on both sides of the argument. Just because something is original or written, doesnt make it true or factual. imagine 4000 years from now someone finding news articles about Trump from the last few years. That person would have NO idea what was legit/true or b.s. ya know. Strange world we live in. The more we learn, the less we know.

His Mormon is showing through his position on anointing. Anointing in the mormon church is a fundamental practice

@DaltonLPyron

9 күн бұрын

This isn't something unique to Mormonism. This goes back to ancient Jewish practices. To meshech was to smear or pour oil upon the head in order to inaugurate.

Team Ammon for the win! 😈

@Andreas_linden

Ай бұрын

He is 100% a Demon. 😈

@jonathanspencer4288

Ай бұрын

Ammon is honest and competent. All we know about you is that truth offends you and you think a human is a fictional non-corporal creature.. thus is what Ammon is up against: vile, uneducated, people who's best arguments are name calling. I would really like to see Ammon start up some civil suits for slander of his good name

@TrueNeguswisdom

29 күн бұрын

It's crazy how someone can believe a myth so deeply that they blind themselves from actually seeing the truth.... Nobody cares that the word GOD originally comes from the Germanic Nord Vikings as a title for Oden and has absolutely no reason being in a collection of books written by Hebrews and Greeks. . Nobody cares that no one named Jesus Christ lived 2023 years ago and it's impossible because the name didn't exist yet.... People will absolutely ignore historical facts and move forward with myths and legends

@TheStimie

24 күн бұрын

How if they have different talking points. One is a religious discussion and the other is how language was used.

@RalphEllis

24 күн бұрын

McClellan’s explanation of chistos-anointing is childish in the extreme. Look, a king is anointed at his coronation. King Charles was anointed with oil last year. The oil came from Jerusalem, so he was anointed as King and Christ. Just as Mary Magdalene anointed Jesus at the House of Simon (Boethus). Yes, Charlie-boy is King Charles the Christ, just as Jesus was a real monarch called King Jesus the Christ. See my books “The King Jesus Trilogy” Ralph

He is making it up as he goes along ....Ammon is using source texts this guy is just saying nnnaaahhhhh

I think both are believers, so one should be cautious taking one or the other as truth, because both are biased. But both make a point and have interesting ideas about something that never will clear fully.

Ammon goes undefeated

Growing up Mormon we were indoctrinated to never doubt faith, which is just obsurd. Just as a surgeon can not operate from faith or belief, same goes if you are seeking truth. There are things that are for certain and where that ends faith and belief fill in the blanks, but those blanks are not for certain. Knowledge and skill will always overcome superstition and luck. If you seek truth you can eventually find it but if you become lazy or complacent you can become dogmatic and dogma is the tyranny of conformity.

@AB-tg5mx

Ай бұрын

Oh and the reason Im not mormon anymore, is because i grew up mormon.

@PrettyBlueSkyeEyes

29 күн бұрын

Congratulations I left fundamentalist Baptist/evangelical

Christ- translated by the Septuagint was a semantic term used to translate the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ, messiah), meaning "[one who is] anointed

@Zigzig7777

Ай бұрын

Referring to the scene where Jesus Christ was baptized and anointed by the holy spirit

@user-uo7fw5bo1o

26 күн бұрын

​@@Zigzig7777 Not just anointed, he was stung by the Holy Spirit acting as God The Father's gadfly. That's how Jesus got his powers in Mark.

@robschaller9061

13 күн бұрын

@@Zigzig7777 Far deeper than that It literally means 'anointed one,' and refers either to a king, prophet or priest who is anointed as such. Yeshua Mashiach, the Son, was anointed by his Father as Prophet, King, and everlasting High Priest... this is backed up by Messianic prophetic passages in the Tahnak such as Psalms 2 and Isaiah 9

@PuBearsticks

12 күн бұрын

This ignores Ammons argument that the original text was in Greek

So according to dan we should read mark in a Christian context which developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and not read the greek as stylistically similar to greek sources floating around at that time 🤔. No i think rather mark is before the Christian context, he is shaping the context which would develop but he is a greek in the greek world and that kind of matters.

@brambledemon1232

16 күн бұрын

Ya, I thought the same thing. His point makes no sense to me. If you live in this Hellenistic world, and you’re educated in a Hellenistic world, it seems to me that you’ll use the language in the same way as your contemporaries.

@GetnBrains

11 күн бұрын

but wouldnt that make sense? a translation would come after the original unless i read ur message wrong.

@BLG80

11 күн бұрын

@@GetnBrains well the English translation is much much later after centuries of this Christian context so the English is very far removed from the context it was written in. Inherent in all translations is the cultural milue of the translator. Which translation are you referring to btw?

@GetnBrains

11 күн бұрын

@@BLG80 after this response and rereading ur original post. i 100% read the message in the wrong way. i apoligize sir, you are correct in ur thoughts. I do think we should put some stock into the later translations but the original work will always hold more value 1000%. Not saying you but ive come across some people who think reading something in text or a book means it's factual or something ya know lol. The original text could be wrong for all we know. I dont think anyone truly has a damn clue about anything anymore to be honest. Just as an example.. We all saw what happen to Mr Trump yesterday.. but some original postings said he fell, some said he was shot, some said it was fake, some said staged etc and that happened YESTERDAY with video. So only God knows the true meaning. Hope this made any type of sense lol im tired

Yeah this guy is really stuck on attributing the anointing part to the modern understanding of Jesus. He’s not understanding.

@Vitamin.Z

29 күн бұрын

By modern do you mean the understanding going back 2000 years?

@youknowmyname5695

27 күн бұрын

​​@@Vitamin.Z Exactly

@scienceexplains302

26 күн бұрын

Dan is “stuck” on understanding the word in context. Neither Ammon nor Jones has shown how “Christ” has anything to do with drugs in the context of the Christian writings. It is a translation of “messiah” and has a long tradition related to making kings.

@BLG80

15 күн бұрын

@@scienceexplains302 revelation 3:18 if you read it in English you will kind of see it, if you read it in greek you will see the christ root word in final sentence. It's unmistakable that to Christ in revelation means to put an ointment in the eyes.

@scienceexplains302

15 күн бұрын

@@BLG80 Yes, the root word for Christ and anoint (Rev 3:18) have always been the same. What is translated as Jesus Christ means Jesus the anointed, as in king, because it is the context of a Jewish messiah (anointed). In Rev 3:18, they are not talking about anointing a king, but about healing blindness (at least literally), so they mention salve and eyes. If _enchrisai_ alone meant to apply salve to eyes, they wouldn’t need to mention salve or eyes.

Danny needs to add a caption to say he was wrong about the 80k words.

its fascinating to think that humans are not only subject to physical addictive substances at a chemical level but also a meme at a more abstract level - perhaps the neurological pathways are ultimately the same creating ' addiction'

And they out here saying he is not a god of confusion.

Is it me or is his explanation of the king james version on how it translated words poorly because when first used it ment something else. Isn't that his rebuttal of what Ammon is saying. Am i bugging?

How can you be a bible scholar and not know the Greek?! You don’t know the language so you’re already at a disadvantage bruh. Also, Mormon? Incredible! You cannot be serious.

@liveoak227

Ай бұрын

He doesn't know modern greek.

@burhack007

Ай бұрын

Well theres the planet stuff

@CraigGoldsberry-rz6fn

28 күн бұрын

Greek version was made to deceive the world by the devil

@vmonk2

24 күн бұрын

How can you define what the Christ means in an ancient judeo-christian context without knowing biblical hebrew (Hillman)?

You can refer to someone who disrupts the status quo as a gadfly

@PuBearsticks

12 күн бұрын

Like Socrates

Thank you for proving "scholars" are just building upon the failures of the previous scholars.

Dan McClellan I have a lot of respect for you coming to the table to talk. You didn't have to do that. I don't care that you differ in your thoughts. It does matter to have diverse dialogue. I don't believe anyone should be trashing or writing you off.

@ExperienceFamilyGodEducation

27 күн бұрын

correct. ❤ No hate, just different opinions. Ammon has gone deeper into the studies of greek. Dan has merged hebrew with greek. The importance has to be taken from what John the Baptist was speaking and what John the Baptist meant when he told Jeshua before He went to those 40 days in the desert that He is the Hristos. From my knowledge this is the point in history when Jeshua was referred to for the first time as Hristos. Hristos was a title. This is what John meant: he is THE ONE, like Morpheus told Neo = the anointed one. John the Baptist gave Jeshua a title. That means that both are right, but, in different contexts. What is curious is that only the priests were anointed to be in touch with the divinity in that time, and only by giving Jeshua this title brought the attention of the Hebrew priests. Practically Jeshua from Nazareth was judged by the community for being called Hristos. Back in the day it was blasphemy, as only the priests could do, through rituals, through applying drugs to virgins to get to be stung by the gadfly so their eyes could be open. Later on, after the use of that drug, the virgins, through rituals would become oracles. It could not be something natural - just by pure nature. This brought curiosity and attention upon Jeshua. John the Baptist knew this and this action only brought them both, in the end their death.

@robschaller9061

13 күн бұрын

@@ExperienceFamilyGodEducation The Hebrew texts that have been found and translated are NOT translations. John makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that Yeshua IS THE CREATOR in the Hebrew gospel of John which again IS NOT a translation from the Greek to Hebrew. It is a copy of a scroll that was ORIGINALLY written in HEBREW. That may seem like a minor detail but IT IS NOT.

@abracadabrascotty

13 күн бұрын

​@@robschaller9061have u been to that part of the world, or studied the names of ppl in that region 2000 years ago, bc finding ppl with names like Peter Paul and Mary, Matt Luke John Mark Joe etc would be like hitting the lotto 8 times in a row... That would be like finding ppl with those names in China or India at that time...do u know any Chinese or Indian ppl, go ask them their birth names and let me know how many are called Matthew Mark Luke and John LMAO

He was incorrect. Hebrew only had 8,000 words as pointed out in Danny's podcast on lady Babylon

@vicvic2081

Ай бұрын

80,000

@notmagnuscarlsen7082

Ай бұрын

@@vicvic2081 this guest was incorrect when he said 80,000. Danny and Hillman did a podcast and looked it up. The correct number was 8,000 and Hillman was correct and this gentleman is incorrect

@abelbabel8484

29 күн бұрын

@@vicvic2081 Modern Hebrew doesn't even have 80k unique words unless you count compound words LOL "The number of distinct words in the Hebrew Bible is 8,679, of which 1,480 are hapax legomena,[61]: 112  words or expressions that occur only once. The number of distinct Semitic roots, on which many of these biblical words are based, is roughly 2000.[61]: 112 " - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible

@user-uo7fw5bo1o

26 күн бұрын

I've also listened to Rabbi Tovia Singer and HE is on record in one of his vids as stating that ancient Hebrew has only 8 or 9,000 words which is why to him it's a sacred language.

@robschaller9061

13 күн бұрын

Ok and your point?? If you are trying to imply that 8,000 words isn't enough to clearly convey sophisticated concepts and ideas, you are loony toons

This guy is hilarious 😂

It seems to want to always use the modern biblical use and meaning of words as the actual meaning back then INSTEAD of understanding the true definition of a word as it was used back then.

It wouldn't make sense if you don't speak ancient Greek, would it? Now I have to wonder how someone who speaks ancient Hebrew doesn't know if there's 8,000 or 80,000 words? That's not a small margin of error! Shameless...

I’m convinced he just wanted to flex his target tees

tryna to sound smart has become a artform. How come no1 here is tlkn about the original story the Bible comes from... Ausar etc... read Walter Williams book the origins of Christianity 😂😂😂

“Apply the ointment,” must mean to want to be part of the ointment, because I know what “apply for a job” means. 😂

Brave attempt to bolster the consensus, but Dr Hillman is clearly more adept at translating Ancient Greek and determining context based on multiple cultural references of the time. Points for Dr Hillman on this argument.

Dude isnt a classist so how is this a rebuttal

Let debate rage! Have them both on.

the word just means to apply or annoint..whether it's oil or soap or medicines which are "drugs" ..so oil was applied/annoint/ or rubbed on jesus...just like the book says...it's just word games

@abelbabel8484

29 күн бұрын

But what kind of oil? Did it have something a little extra in it? Cause people at the time were absolutely doing that

@user-uo7fw5bo1o

26 күн бұрын

Drugs like Tyrean purple in liquid form or snake venom.

He says, this is what it meant also in the ancient world. I want to know is the ancient world before christ or also after christ, if so it doesnt make sense what he's saying.

Ah man, come on! Homeboy is a Mormon! 🤦‍♂️

@vmonk2

24 күн бұрын

Talk about an ad hominem fallacy

We need a debate

wtf, I wasn't expecting Dan to be on the podcast

So many Mormon PhDs have left the church in the last few years, it's interesting to hear one say he's still practicing.

Ammon is right I wonder if the cross itself is used to apply the ointment . They Christ them with eyes open by the priest

Says the Man who believes his Undies have magic powers and wears t-shirts made for 8 year olds.

0 (zero) rebuttal. He very nearly affirms Hillman's claims. Dan's explanation is pretty much: "Ammon is correct except when he's referring to the Hebrew scripture. These words are used exactly the way Ammon states they do,... except when talking about the Jewish messiah. Just everywhere else."

OR…OR…maybe Jesus was just a glistening great smelling guy walking around what really fragrant perfumes and oils.

How come nobody debunks Buddah or Shiva? Jesus must be threatening😂Beeeeeta!!

@kwg5044

Ай бұрын

This made my day. JP is awesom

@thetruest7497

Ай бұрын

😂 of course he's not. If you go to where Buddha (learn to spell) or Shiva are worshipped there will be people addressing it.

@eljoemissiletoe3438

Ай бұрын

@@thetruest7497 how come I can't FIND anything you say on INTERNET...it is because YOUR FULL OF Shit🤣

@abelbabel8484

29 күн бұрын

It's cause the eastern traditions are more open about their symbolic nature and not so autistic about having to believe it literally

@CraigGoldsberry-rz6fn

28 күн бұрын

Probably because they are losers.....Buddha and Shiva are a joke

Sorry Danny. This feels like a trip to the dentist. Ive got a flyswatter you can borrow when youve had enough of this nerd

@johnblack8187

Ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂

@CaseTrick

29 күн бұрын

kzread.info/head/OLAK5uy_ldodhYSypJpd-3zH1Rhb2BYS5zd0CawtE&si=F5L3VyhMhg3hLgQ7

@user-uo7fw5bo1o

26 күн бұрын

😝😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😅😅😁

@CaseTrick

20 күн бұрын

@@TXMagiDude yup

2:03 the way i think about it is if the word 'xristos' was used originally in the context of a drug/antidote, then why would early christians use it as the title for their lord?

Apologists are not seeking truth.

@TXMagiDude

Ай бұрын

💯

@vmonk2

24 күн бұрын

Yes, but Dan is not one

1:25 lol So Ammon is right but not right at the same time, yo the haterade is strong

@ProLookout

Ай бұрын

Folks, remember context is a very hard thing to know especially for ancient texts/stories. The context everyone nowadays is using, is just a consensus, something they "think" is the context. These are all just guesses, understand that anyone can be right, including crazy ol' Dr. Ammon. Be rationally open-minded and stay away from dogma, it inhibits real progression.

@CraigGoldsberry-rz6fn

28 күн бұрын

He is lame but job

Love his DuckTales shirt was my jam n looks like old authentic one

@user-qb2ze8pn9c

Ай бұрын

It looks smelly

Christ is drugs..antichrist is the antedote...like why cant he get this😂😂😂😂

@blackallday

Ай бұрын

When did the antichrist come about? This is a question because I don't know

@jessyhart6638

Ай бұрын

@blackallday like this: Galen (300 bc?) wrote about a whole bunch of medical stuff. The dote is poison, the death bringer. The anti-dote is the balance, the thing that counters the dote, the cure. This would be a liquid. The christ and anti-christ are the same, except an ointment or paste or salve (salvation) applied to the body. The presciption/ritual involved in those medicines was known as the gospel. The purple christ was applied to the eyes/face. It was a ritual where you would trip balls and if the anti christ was not taken in time, you would die. When the antichrist is taken death is halted and you are born again. The antichrist was applied to a cloth which was then wrapped around a young boys waste. It was sucked off the cloth. Which is why he asked 'Why was Jesus arrested in the garden at 4 am with a young boy?'......

@firstlast2762

Ай бұрын

@@blackalldayYou must serve the great Muse!

@user-qb2ze8pn9c

Ай бұрын

​@blackalldayits a dote

@gavinjames1145

Ай бұрын

​@@blackallday2nd Century in Christian literature. I don't know if the word was used before then, or what it could have meant, either.

Acts 10:38 "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power"

How about back up what you say with facts and references that someone can look at it and see it for themselves. You don't prove your point when you keep saying it could mean this or that but it doesn't because I say so.

Christ means anointed one not someone who anoints people to anoint someone historically for the most part just means ceremonially purifying someone with a liquid baptism could be viewed in this way. The only places you see drugs be administered in this way is in mystery groups. He could have been a special person in a mystery group. But to say he’s the designated lsd dropper for people’s eyes is a stretch

@AscendtheMatter

Ай бұрын

Exodus 30:23 (ESV) reads: Take the finest spices: of liquid myrrh 500 shekels, and of sweet-smelling cinnamon half as much, that is, 250, and 250 of aromatic cane (qənêh-bōśem) Kaneh Bosm = cannabis ingredient of anointing oils.

@maxsrandomvideos-

Ай бұрын

@@AscendtheMatter yes people get anointed but there is no eye drug of anointment at this time. Xrios definitely doesn’t mean that. I don’t think Jesus was in a huge mystery cult but just a small group with who knows was all involved but the word messiah is more prevalent than anything indicating he was a revolutionary

@scottmcloughlin4371

Ай бұрын

@@maxsrandomvideos- Do Americans READ their Bible? "He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, 'Do you see anything?'" - Mark 8:23. Pretty clear example, huh?

@maxsrandomvideos-

Ай бұрын

@@scottmcloughlin4371 I’m talking about historical possibilities not biblical accounts because most of those accounts are recycled stories or stories to make a false narrative. We have to take these stories and ask what are they really trying to say or what are they trying to hide or where have we seen this before. Historically spit never helped anyone’s eyes however there have been healers known to do so. Historically there weren’t ceremonial compounds for this that is commonly known. As for what Ammon says I don’t entirely disagree but a mystic revolutionary is more of what seems plausible.

@dmsdad6866

29 күн бұрын

Not so. Messiah means anointed on. Christ means anointed, and more often than not (in texts outside the Bible), christ was simply anointing bandages, rags, wounds...with drugs. Christ just so happened to be the word the Greek writers chose to use as a translation of messiah. 11:00

16:48 So you also mean Physics and medical Dr's as well then? The entire world runs on the principle you find so baffling.

Was this really the whole thing?? Get Ammon and this dude to actually debate. It's interesting...

kidz bop version of ammon's interview

Bro so becoming the christ would literally mean you are the potent one, already anointed, I guess that's why he said be like him and unlock our right hemisphere (walking on water) not with drugs but through our shakra, one wouldn't need enhancements because we would also become christs. It seems as tho people were probably taking topical drugs to attain enlightenment perhaps, drugs do have a connection with other dimensions... Connecting the dots here ...

@robschaller9061

13 күн бұрын

That is the lie Satan told Eve... "you will be just like God"

"Something like that." To face your disbelief, is to understand that you ARE employing the mind/feeling of belief to your understandings. The space of not knowing, does NOT need to be filled with beliefs; people just choose to so do. If you are disbelieving, you are still believing something. Belief is a hindrance to the human Spirit, and the true progress.

Great point. Semantics vs Etimology

When watching lady Babylon he only speaks in the context of which the script has given him...

Him saying that his religios affiliation doesnt influence his interpretations is like a fox saying he can gaurd the henhouse but not have chicken for dinner

The dictionary translation of Greek defined xristos- as a NOUN or a VERB, so an ointment or salve (to be rubbed on), OR the act of applying that ointment, no? It seems Mr. McClellan is looking for some irrelevant controversy that doesn't hold much significance related to the messages brought down through the ages, of Jesus.

The rock is the third eye, or what Jesus called the single eye, egypt called it the eye of rah.

How would the text be viewed by people who were not Christians in the time period? It would be plausible that the language used would be unique to the insiders of the group (slang usage of common language). This habit of evolving language is consistent throughout history.

Hello Mr George, how much you paying this new scholar?

Nice shirt.

This guy's creditably is gone the moment I heard LDS

@beyondtheillusion333

Ай бұрын

Facts, the absence of understanding Greek and the DuckTales shirt is a cherry on top

Serious click bait with this title.

👁️ *Revelation 3:18* helps prove Dan‘s point. There the _chris_ root word *is* about putting salve on eyes, so it mentions salve and eyes. If _chris_ itself meant to put salve on eyes, they wouldn’t need to mention salve or eyes in Rev 3:18, especially because they have mentioned blindness in 3:17.

6:05 The Christ should mean The ointment, lol, its not that hard to understand.

We've been here for over 50,000 years. The Abrahamic religions are very new in that time line. All 3 are if you are not with us, and if you say anything against us, you die. For hundreds of years. It's the foundation for never ending war on earth. If you leave the 66 and research where Jesus studied from 12 to 33 it gives you a better idea of what he must likely taught. Did ye not see in the text that ye are gods.

@CaseTrick

29 күн бұрын

Isho the healer (Aramaic), Iesous (Koine Greek), Pati (Sanskrit) is successful at achieving Khristos. The ancienne attempt to bring about Osho or Khristos first referenced in Sanskrit and Cuneiform. Rule one in translation do not translate a name. If the name is translated question what you are reading.

@williamgrierson4133

29 күн бұрын

@@CaseTrick Great information. Thank you. I'll look all this up.

Okay, so it seems there are as many interpretations as there are pages in the Bible.😮

This was interesting.

This guy is not competent enough to ascertain such matters... HE is way behind the curve....

Ancient astronaut theorist say yes...aliens

His kimg james explanation.....is exactly the same arguement w hebrew and greek. Jaded fellow

🙄 INCORRECT. You are making sht up. The word is CRISTI. Which means Christ. There is no other translation. And in Hebrew "מָשִׁיחַ" (Mashiach) which means Messiah. You are making crap up.

*As Jesus was not anoited with the ointment oil, that was only kept by the priesthood, calling him 'anoited' is just another lie, trying to depict him as king of Israel, which he wasn't.*

An "ex" is a "has been" and a "spirt" is a "drip under pressure". He's not even a "has been".

I remember the night duck tales debuted. Great night

????

Read the Tynsdale version ok

Sorry Danny. Love your show, but can’t watch this guy talk any longer. Hope it goes quick and isn’t too much of a torture for ya. 😂😂

First off, the 4 Gospels, Jude, James, and the book of Revelation were originally written in HEBREW. Manuscripts have been found that make it absolutely clear, that they are original documents and NOT a translation. Do not misunderstand what I am saying. When I say Original documents, I am NOT saying that they are the ones penned by the original writers (Matthew, Luke, John, mark etc) but rather they are copies of older scrolls that were originally written in Hebrew. Right about now someone is typing furiously about how academia says that they were written in greek, possibly Aramaic. There are Keys that tell you that these are NOT translations from either Greek or Aramaic. Hebrew is a language that has liberal use of word play. It is common for words that are spelled similarly but have different means to be a part of the way they expressed their thoughts and ideas. If you are translating from another language to Hebrew, you LOSE that word play. It is a KEY idenifyer for determining if you are reading a translation or a copy of a text that was penned originally in Hebrew. There is no question that the prevalence of written hewbrew was FAR more common than originally thought as the dead sea scrolls prove that during the 1st century the population spoke and wrote in Hebrew as well as Greek and Aramaic. This man being interview is a CLOWN

McClellan’s explanation of chistos-anointing is childish in the extreme. Look, a king is anointed at his coronation. King Charles was anointed with oil last year. The oil came from Jerusalem, so he was anointed as King and Christ. Just as Mary Magdalene anointed Jesus at the House of Simon (Boethus). Yes, Charlie-boy is King Charles the Christ, just as Jesus was a real monarch called King Jesus the Christ. Ralph

Also, what other word would have been better used in greek to describe the verb “anointing”? Christ seems to fit perfectly. I.e. Jesus is the balm to sin and anointed like the kings of old. Makes perfect sense why this word was used.

The annointed one - my girlfriend after a couple of beers…

@JP-zf3ut

Ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂

@user-qb2ze8pn9c

Ай бұрын

Purple splooj

"chist" means "using drugs throught the eyes" in ancient greek....

Jesus doesn't care much for the name given to him by religion. Jesus is also Greek " Hail Zeus".

@Jonathan-yr3so

19 күн бұрын

You mean Emmanuel?

@AlexLightGiver

18 күн бұрын

@@Jonathan-yr3so no

I'm not sure I agree with you, my issue with this argument is that within the Jewish text, "messiah" means to be anointed.... Which " coincidentally" means to anoint, or pouring oil over your head and your whole body. The Greeks would've understood that this practice is a bit similar to their " creo". If the translation was off like they did with Yahoshua and Iēsoûs then your argument could stand.

This guy is clueless and hes the expert 😂😂😂 DuckTales absolutely sucked I bet he even uses an iPhone😂😂😂

Your example at 10:24 simply proved your guest's point. Euripides was plainly asking if it was an ointment or a consumable. An ointment is a topical application of something and only the specific context can you determine what the topical application is. For example if I apply a fragrant oil to my skin I have anointed myself. If I apply axel grease to an axel to decrease friction I have anointed it. If I apply a healing salve to my dog's wound, I have anointed the wound. In all three cases the substance used was different but the physical act of application was the same. As a further example, I am an herbalist and I make medicinal ointments but ointments need not be medicinal as I pointed out above. You lost the debate my friend and in the process I'm sorry to say you looked ignorant.

Let’s go Danny Jones and Ammon ❤😊

Remeber when "j" was invented

This is just embarrassing. I feel a little sorry for Dan. Not really tho.

@vmonk2

24 күн бұрын

Funny I had the exact opposite impression

They have most of the original books in the old and new you can just google this information this guy is completely insane

😂 Nothing burger 🍔 he doesn’t read or speak Attic Greek yet he’s certain that Ammon is wrong because, “ I’m a Bible Scholar & I know that’s not true “ No facts, just his idea of how things went down 2,000 yrs ago . He just refuses to accept the truth of the word, because he “Knows “ they would not use Christ in that context for Jesus. Its a faith based statement in the end…

@TXMagiDude

Ай бұрын

💯

@beyondtheillusion333

Ай бұрын

Mostly true, he does attempt to bolster his arguments but it's always pertaining to Jewish and Christian sources, which he admits later are often perverted older sources to keep the cults in power

@BabyOfTheLord

Ай бұрын

@@beyondtheillusion333 Jesus is real and it happened.

@beyondtheillusion333

Ай бұрын

@@BabyOfTheLord oookie

@austinlc99

29 күн бұрын

The Bible was not written in Attic Greek. And if you actually watched the video, he does actually read and speak Koine Greek, which is what the Bible was written in.

deleting comments.. too much truth huh?

But luv Danny you one of the best!