Dr Ben at his Best! Such a Blessing!

WOW! Absolutely floored after listening to this teaching! Glory be to God who chastises those whom He loves!

This is a brilliant lecture on a lot of the misconceptions that our society is plagued with;Dr.Witherington is one of my favorite biblical scholars! If you have not read at least one of his books,you're really missing something extraordinary!

@djuatdelta123

10 жыл бұрын

I totally agree. Only recently did I discover his work. It has been a thrill to read his commentary on Romans.

@pablomonteiro_2024

3 жыл бұрын

I really like him also!

@michaelbrickley2443

2 жыл бұрын

Mark Grago, he’s definitely a breath of fresh air and his lecture on Junia the female apostle and women disciples was corroboratory. People just recite Pauls comment to Timothy about women and there is no argument. Jesus’ whole behavior towards women was contradictory to the norm of that age.

@michaelbrickley2443

2 жыл бұрын

Mark Grego, I was first introduced to Ben in the documentary Case for Christ. Definitely smart and fun.

@MarkGrago

2 жыл бұрын

👍

wow! the most powerful, all encompassing Jesus centred sermon I've heard in a long time! Thank you for this!

This is the best of explanation of truth I have ever heard. Thank you.

I was happy to hear this interpretation of 'son of man', I never managed to locate a satisfying one before. I also think it makes sense that one can get out of narcissism via grace through faith to wit: deny yourself and follow (Jesus). I'd say it is a lifetime of working out your salvation, as much as it is also a gift.

This son of man emphasis is key.Really good teaching sir. One of the best on this topic, and i have seen a fair amount. With love from Southern Africa 🇿🇲.

Powerful teaching! God bless! Wow!!!!

This man has a way of explaining the deep things of God, the way things were most probably, he teaches how things are gathered, as in evidence, Ben Witherington is a national treasure, and I am not his brother in law.

*This ls the Message* *that man Needs to* *understand Who ls* *God our Saviour* *The Son Of Man* *Jesus*

The man knows how the Word of God Almighty**Jesus** needs to be preached The Son of Man is what God has done for us to become saved, ***B. Witherington is a great person ln the Lord God Jesus***

Love one another as I have loved you. The great commandment.

such great revelations of his majesty. only 400 likes. tighten up!

Just subscribed:) The content is unreal, just shared this to my group would love to connect.

💕💕💕💕

James 2:14-26... If you accept Jesus, you will do what he said without question. John 14:15....

Wait. I'm not even a minute in and he says Jesus never said He was Yahweh because He is not in fact Yahweh. The Son is not the Father but they are both Yahweh, the I AM. John 8;58. I'll watch the video through but that was a big oops.

@louisaccardi6808

4 жыл бұрын

That was my immediate reaction as well. Yes, Jesus is the I AM! The Jews were going to stone Jesus because He said, "Before Abraham was I AM." What Ben said is heresy.

@anthonyv8190

3 жыл бұрын

I was equally stunned and taken aback to hear Dr. Witherington say, "God is Yahweh, and Jesus is not Yahweh"!

@michaelbrickley2443

2 жыл бұрын

No, YHWH is not Yeshua. It’s the Godhead

@michaelbrickley2443

2 жыл бұрын

@@louisaccardi6808 yeah, right. Another heretic hunter. Where did you go to school? As Augustine said, it’s a mystery.

I love what he has to say. I really could do without the humor, personally.

That was a generally helpful and refreshing video but at 0:29, Ben makes a big , big error: Jesus IS Yahweh! Before Abraham was, I AM (John 8:58). Ben, you gave a good lecture but you've GOT to be more careful...

@andys3035

5 жыл бұрын

He was referring to Jewish thought in early Judaism and it referring to the Father. He goes on to say later in the video that Jesus is in fact God.

@anthonyv8190

3 жыл бұрын

Jewish thought is almost a non-issue in this case. The Jews may not have THOUGHT that Jesus was not Yahweh, and may have wanted to stone Him for claiming to be; and the Jews may not have THOUGHT that Jesus was not the Messiah, and wanted to throw Him off the brow of the hill for claiming to be, but WHAT THE JEWS THOUGHT IS IRRELEVANT! Jesus WAS Yahweh, the Creator God, the I AM, the Eternal God in the flesh!

Jesus is the One that said to Moses, "I am, that I am." Jesus is God.

@michaelbrickley2443

2 жыл бұрын

Yes and no. There is a wonderful teaching by Dr. Mike Heiser on The Two Powers of Heaven.

@bigscarysteve

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelbrickley2443 The two powers are the one God. (And the Holy Spirit is the third power who is also God.) But be careful with the word "power." The one God subsists in three distinct persons. God is not a force.

@michaelbrickley2443

Жыл бұрын

@@bigscarysteve well and good but what this has to do with a teaching on a book I’ll never know.

Did Jesus really use "son of man," or was that put on his lips by the Gospel writers who, I might add, were not eyewitnesses? I'm not convinced Jesus actually used that term to describe himself.

@ericksoledispa2726

2 жыл бұрын

What would it take to convince you that "son of man" was a title used by Jesus? All of our most useful sources use it of him. The early church (see Acts, the epistles of Paul) does not use it of him. Jesus had plenty of texts from the Old Testament to choose from. (see Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel). And, the Greco-Roman context does not use "son of man" language anywhere. I think historical reasoning can establish that Jesus used "son of man" language to refer to himself.

@TheCaseMaker

Жыл бұрын

Really? How would you define an eyewitness, and what evidence do you have that suggests that the Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry?

I am having some difficulty understanding the Opening of this video. Dr. Witherington said that Jesus did not go about saying, "Hi. I am God." He claimed the reason is that in Judaism, God meant "Yahweh." and, "Jesus isn't Yahweh"!? Is not the same God, the same Supreme Creator Being as Yahweh referred to as Elohiym by Moses in Genesis 1:1, just using a variant Name? And IF God is Yahweh and/or Elohiym, and/or the I AM in Exodus 3:14, then please correct me if I am wrong, but Jesus IS Yahweh! John 1:1-3 clearly identifies Him as the Creator in Genesis 1:1. Later, Jesus, Himself, identifies Himself as the I AM of the Burning Bush in John 8:58. So, yes! I am thoroughly confused, not to mention disillusioned, to hear Dr. Witherington say, "God is Yahweh, and Jesus was not Yahweh."

@JoelJose-tx3vn

2 жыл бұрын

Yahweh is God the Father, whereas Jesus is the Adonai!!! At the same time, Elohim would probably mean their unity form... So while John says everything was made through.. we are ought to know that elohim is not elohim without one person in there..as well as the word elohim itself is in plural

@friedrichrubinstein2346

2 жыл бұрын

@@JoelJose-tx3vn Wrong, Jesus is YHWH. That's abundantly clear in Genesis 18+19 where YHWH is running around on Earth with Abraham and then it says "and YHWH [on Earth] rained sulfur from YHWH in heaven" (Genesis 19:24). Paul also calls Jesus YHWH in Romans 10:13 where he says about Jesus: "Everyone who calls on the name of YHWH will be saved".

Wrong. Son of Man is used 83 times in Ezekiel. It may be referring to Ezekiel, but on the Sode level, it's referring to Mashiach.

@sublyme2157

Жыл бұрын

I think he was referring to the two terms "Kingdom of God" and "Son of Man" used together, rather than Son of Man used alone.

I think he wants to be funny and fraternal, but mostly it comes off as being an angry smartass. Few scholars have the comedic gift, too. I like his scholarship, but he doesn’t hide his Wesleyan roots, he’s very much a Methodist. Just bear that in mind when he offends your home church preference, because we all have one.

Ben Witherington makes very good points that are soundly based. Overall the lecture is interesting and well pitched. However, we cannot escape the fact that while Jesus was transparent to God and was the vehicle of the divine love, he denied he was perfectly good and lacked knowledge. At the same time, Matthew was wrong about the imminent return of Jesus and so were many of the early Christians including the Apostle Paul and probably Jesus too. Interestingly, the resurrected Jesus never once corrected his followers that they had gotten the timing of his return wrong. When you acknowledge that this was a vital belief for early Christians, we can then see that the whole framework of New Testament teaching is an apocalyptic worldview held in an ancient, pre-scientific culture that is far different from the scientific age in which we live. Moreover, the notion that Jesus is to return very soon as Judge of the living and the dead at the general resurrection has now been given up, simply because that 'imminency" is no longer imminent and the time has long gone for it to happen. Such a picture belongs to the mythology of a past age. It was clearly very important then but today it is undoubtedly unbelievable.

@Robbo0090

8 жыл бұрын

+Richard Johnson The imminency of the return of Jesus is informed by the universality of the witness of his resurrection i.e. "This gospel of the kingdom must be preached to all nations and then the end will come." The myopia of the apostles, that they thought the world and it's nations were much fewer than the reality, can be forgiven without giving up the axiom of the universality of the gospel message. For all intents and purposes the apostles thought that this criteria had been satisfied in their life time hence the sense of imminency in their writings about the eschaton. The imminency of the eschaton is grounded in ecclesiology.

@richardjohnson909

8 жыл бұрын

+James Robertson It all depends on what is meant by "all nations" (Greek ethnesin). Does it refer to ethnic and cultral groups, which is actually more accurate? Or could it refer to Gentiles? And how do we understand the word "all"? Is it being used as a figure of speech ie synecdoche? Paul assures us the Gospel was indeed preached to all the world (Col.1:23; Rom. 1:8; 10:18). Moreover, what does "the end" mean? Is it the end of the age or is it the end of the temple and Jewish age? At the same time, Jesus says in Matthew 24:34: "Truly, I say to you, THIS generation will not pass away till all these things take place." Was Jesus wrong? Fact is it never happened and the time has long gone when it could happen, irrespective of the imminency of the eschaton being grounded in ecclesiology. The belief of the early church (ekklesia) was a mistake. In a sense the entire Christian gospel is founded on a mistake, the mistake of thinking that Jesus would return to earth in judgement within one generation.

@Robbo0090

8 жыл бұрын

+Richard Johnson I hear you. Partial preterism has a good case but it also has its problems. The most glaring being lack of fulfillment regarding the abomination of desolation, as it is described in Daniel 7 and 8 (cp 2 Thess 2) which is the portent of Christ's Coming. Now, as I said before, just because Paul misapprehended the actual extent of the Gospel's proclamation doesn't negate the veracity of the teaching. Did Paul think that the Gospel had been proclaimed to all creation? Yes. Was it actually? No. The native Americans and Australian Aboriginals have God's people too.

@richardjohnson909

8 жыл бұрын

+James Robertson Understood. But the fact remains, the early Christians had as one of their firmest beliefs that the world would come to an end within the lifetime of the apostles. Perhaps the earliest New Testament document was the epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians and undoubtedly, it teaches that Jesus will come "like a thief in the night" while some are still alive (1 Thess. 4.15 and 5.2). A later document states that he will be "reaveled from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thess. 1.7). This does not sound like a symbolic statement about the birth of the church, which was already established when these letters were written. Those Christians today who think of the return of Christ as some culmination of the whole cosmic process, as a revelation of the Logos, far in the future, are radically reinterpreting the tradition. The fact that the earliest Christians had some mistaken beliefs is neither disturbing nor very surprising. Why should people in such an ancient, pre-scientific culture not have believed many false things? I take your point that despite Paul's teaching on the Parousia, the veracity of the Gospel's teaching is still valid. I would add, does the fact that they believed some false things entail that they believed no true things, that they are never to be trusted, or that their remarkable spiritual experiences have nothing to tell us? That would be absurd. Yet one cannot ever again trust EVERYTHING they say, just because they say it. One must from henceforth test their assertion in many ways - by consonance with moral belief, scientific knowledge, the developing reflections of Christian communties and alleged personal experiences of God.

@richardjohnson909

8 жыл бұрын

+James Robertson Not only the Americans and Australian Aborigines are God's people but all humans are. One of the things that sustained the Jewish nation through its history of turmoil is the belief that they are God's "chosen" people but they are not exclusively so. Moreover, as Christians we can see Jesus as an image of God, rather than as the only image. If he is the one whom we love and follow, we need not deny that other loves and ways exist.

Jesus is mediator; lmao

Great lecture. Although he tries to sneak in an anti-Calvinist assertion. Still waiting for an answer to Owen's argument: If Jesus died (atoned for in the orginial) for each and every person,why are there people in hell? For unbelief? Is unbelief a sin? If so, Jesus atoned for it. Hence, if anyone is in hell, Jesus did not atone for them.

@Robbo0090

8 жыл бұрын

+Dion Sanchez Yeah I couldn't help but roll me eyes. He worships an imperfect and impotent savior whose ability to save is squandered by the "freedom" of his creatures. Other than that, I enjoyed the presentation.

@richardjohnson909

8 жыл бұрын

+Dion Sanchez Hell is not a teaching of the bible and there are several translations that correctly do not contain the word, "hell." As for atonement, the real question is whether the first disciples were right to see God acting in Jesus. Is it an appropriate insight into the divine that the life of Jesus gives us? Is it true that God suffers with us, forgives our sin and redeems us? Is the Chrisian paradigm an adequate image of God? If it is, then the image of the cross is an appropriate one.

@wilfredmancy

5 жыл бұрын

By "hell" I assume you are referring to John 3:36. It is worth considering also John 5:24 and John 3:18. Unbelief Romans 1: 16,17 prevents access to life thru the spirit Romans 8:1--- . To reject the holy spirit is to reject the life of Jesus in us, it is to reject union with Christ Jesus , that is a death sentence which God with wrath will seek to get us to repent of because he loves us and is not willing that any should perish.

@steveareeno65

4 жыл бұрын

James Robertson as I understand it, hell in the New Testament is a translation of the Greek word Gehenna or in the Hebrew Hinnom, as in the valley of hinnom. The valley of hinnom is a valley outside Jerusalem where the Jews brought their garbage. It was considered a cursed place because King Manasseh introduced Baal/moleck worship and sacrificed his son in the fire. Jesus was talking figuratively to an extent about hell but to the 1st century Jew, they knew exactly what he was talking about. Gehenna is not a place you want to be.

@steveareeno65

4 жыл бұрын

+ 1 for mentioning John Owen. Greatest theologian since the apostles.

I guess it is cool to say, "Jesus is both Fully Divine and Fully Man", but the Scriptures never qualify Jesus in that way. He is not spoken of as having TWO Natures, one Divine and one Human, which are in some "mysterious" way intertwined. The TERM "Son of Man" is in reference to Adam, the first Man. It is not a TERM identifying Jesus with God but with Adam, the First and Foremost of Men. Adam was given DOMINION of ALL of God's Creation. That's quite a Position. Adam was not "just an ordinary Man". He was the First and was equipped by God with all of the abilities needed to RULE the Earth. Jesus is called Son of Man to EQAUTE him with Adam and the POSITION which Adam had. Jesus was the Heir of God's Creation just as Adam had been before the Fall. So, from the beginning, after the Fall, God Promised a "seed of the woman", someone after Adam, which would REDEEM the Fallen World. He did not promise a "Fully Divine/Fully Human" Being nor a Hybrid Man. He Promised a Man. Jesus was Fully Human just as Adam, just as Able, just as everyone else born among women. God Promised a REDEEMER, a SAVIOR, a Man who would be the "last Adam", the ULTIMATE Man. This Man was Jesus who was BEGOTTEN (GENERATED) by God @4 B.C. in the womb of a virgin. Neither Matthew nor Luke, both Historians of the ORIGINS of Jesus, NEVER speak about Jesus being a HYBRID "God/Man". Nor do they mention one iota about Jesus being a "pre-existent" Divine Being, i.e., a "second person of the Godhead". There has never been a "God/Man" who has supposedly walked this Earth, at least not in Holy Writ. There has been Jesus, the miraculously CREATED "son of God" over 2,000 years ago. This Man was "without sin". Jesus always conformed to the Father's will therefore could but did not sin. He was a "Lamb without blemish", not a HYBRID Lamb. The shedding of real natural Lambs ACTUALLY "took away sin" for ONE year according to the Jewish Law. The reason it was only for a year was NOT because they were just NATURAL and NOT DIVINE but because they were "shadows of things to come". The yearly sacrifices "took away sin" but NOT FOREVER. God would PROVIDE a "Lamb" whose BLOOD would be sufficient to "take away sin" FOREVER. He would PROVIDE His own SINLESS Son as a Sacrifice for sin on that "cross" on Calvary. Nothing is said in Hebrews about the need for a "Fully Divine/ Fully Human" hybrid Man's blood, as the Hypotheses claims. Heb 10:1 For the law having a SHADOW OF GOOD THINGS TO COME, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. This idea that Jesus "had to be Divine" in order to make full restitution for sin is an hypothesis at best. The Scriptures tell us that a Man had to die to Redeem Mankind. There is nothing written in Scripture about a "God/Man" who had to die. The LAMB of God was a Man, a Human Being; the perfectly "sinless" Man Jesus's DEATH and shed blood was SUFFICIENT to pay for Adam's Transgression which brought about DEATH. Rom 5:17 For if by one MAN'S offence death reigned by ONE; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by ONE, Jesus Christ.) Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of ONE judgment came upon all MEN to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of ONE the free gift came upon all MEN unto justification of life. Rom 5:19 For as by ONE MAN'S disobedience MANY were made sinners, so by the obedience of ONE shall MANY be made righteous. Notice that Paul never uses the Term/s "Fully God/Fully Man" or "God/Man" or anything as to Jesus having to be a Divine Person to save or justify anyone. Paul simply states that a "Man" DISOBEYED and another "Man" OBEYED. Since the Man Jesus was OBEDIENT to God and did not go against God's will, he was EXALTED to the Position of Lord over all Creation, including the Angels of God. He went from being a Mortal Man to being an Immortal Man who presently holds that position as Lord of all of God's Creation. This "Fully God and Fully Man" is merely hypothetical; it is not validated by any Writer of or in Scripture. The Language in Scripture only justifies Jesus as being a Man and NOTHING else but a Man. Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a MAN approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God EXALTED, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Acts 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Peter says nothing about God EXALTING a "God/Man" nor a "Divine Being"; Peter does not preach the Hypothesis about Jesus being a "God/Man". The Jews knew nothing about a "second" or "third" or "fourth" God Being. They only knew of ONE, Yahweh God, who came to be the Father of the Man Jesus Christ. Jesus was "made Lord" AFTER he was found to be OBEDIENT after having been TEMPTED and not before. The First Lord over all Creation, Adam, was TEMPTED and he failed; Jesus was TEMPTED and did not sin but obeyed even unto death and was therefore made Lord of all Creation. He sits even now at God's right hand, not as a God but as a Man. How can God EXALT Himself to a higher position? He CAN exalt someone of a lower position, a Man, unto a higher position and not only to a higher position but to the HIGHEST position UNDER God. The Man Jesus was in a position which was "lower than the Angels" when he was ARRESTED, CRUCIFIED, and KILLED but who was EXALTED by being "raised from the dead" to become Lord and Christ over all Creation. Again, there is no mention of Jesus having been a "Divine Person" who GOT BACK his original position, according to the Hypothesis. Who is our Mediator according to Paul? 1Tim 2:5 For there is ONE God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and MEN, the MAN Christ Jesus; 1Tim 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Who is God? According to Jesus, Yahweh Is the ONE TRUE God. Who is the Mediator between God and Men? According to Paul it is a "Man", the MAN Christ Jesus. Why doesn't Paul plainly state the Hypothesis that Jesus is the "God/Man" instead of just saying the "Man"? The reason is that ONLY a Man can mediate between God and Men. That Man is Jesus Christ. He is the "last" Adam. No other human being will come after him to rule the Creation of God. He is the FINAL Adam, who holds the highest position in the universe, EXCEPTING Yahweh God the Father Himself. Jesus had GODLY POWER which was GIVEN to him by Yahweh God at the age of thirty years. He had no such authority UNTIL that Time. Jesus himself declares such: Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because HE HATH ANOINTED ME to preach the gospel to the poor; HE HATH SENT ME to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. Luke 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. Luke 4:21 And he BEGAN TO SAY unto them, THIS DAY is this scripture FULFILLED in your ears. Jesus had no AUTHORITY per se UNTIL God, his Father, GAVE him AUTHORITY to "say and do" those things which he "said and did". Why did God have to GIVE him POWER, i.e., ANOINT him with His own Spirit, to do those things, if he was already a Divine Being/Man, according to the hypotheses? How can a "Fully" Divine Being "lay down" his POWERS and then turn around 30 years later and be GIVEN "Divine" POWERS from another Divine Being? Did Jesus GIVE BACK the Power which had been GIVEN to him by God the Father, after his resurrection, and then RECOUPED his own which he had "hung up",- like Clark Kent does with his Cape - somewhere in the Universe several decades before? Me thinks there is TOO MUCH SPECULATION and ASSUMPTION with this "Jesus is fully God and fully Man" hypothesis.

Deftly put simplest of truth One Man by God's creation if opposite sex too out of him, enjoyed plain spoken too ifn't slant jocular pronounce English at Jesus as a 'bloody son' of a God's hardly understood even to brothers but unmistakably OT through NT ?! Live proof that man for fallen man..

@uiPublic

2 жыл бұрын

Subtly guts unusual their olive snack here on if God's worship will be done bodily temple rebuilt by Son of man, foretold at Traveler's well side once left off if not streaming since alikes Elisha's odd visit to a lonely woman taken by surprise self understood...

Just sounds to me like a whole lot more slimey contrivance heaped on top of about 2000 years of it. A case of contrivance diarrhea of the mouth.

@louisaccardi6808

4 жыл бұрын

V Grof: The Bible is God's Word, although different people interpret it in various ways.

I stopped listening! Lots of arrogance and how he refers to God the father certainly not in reverence. Your too impressed with your own comments.....

@carlscott4180

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, his manner is slightly annoying at times, but content-wise, --such--good--teaching!

I'm glad this guy identified himself as a heretic from the get go. That way, I didn't waste an hour listening to him.

Jesus did not proclaim himself to be the Son of Man. He promoted himself as the messiah and king of the Jews. However these were inflammatory titles that directly challenged Rome. The gospel writers invented the politically neutral "son of man" title and attributed it to Jesus to get the Romans off their backs. Why? Unlike Messiah, Son of God, and King, the title Son of man was meaningless to the Romans. Paul did not know Jesus as "son of man" simply because it hadn't been invented yet. Sad to see scholars still can't see something that simple. Ben is preaching a fairy tale.

@andys3035

5 жыл бұрын

For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Matthew 12:8

@fotoman777

5 жыл бұрын

@@andys3035 Of course the gospels SAY that Jesus called himself Son of Man. But whether Jesus actually did or not is a separate question. Notice that the saying you quote does not make sense in full context in Mark 2:27-28: "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath." There is no logical connection between the premise and the conclusion. Matthew and Luke both edited this saying to eliminate the first half of it (Matt 12:8, Luke 6:5). But when the saying in Mark is translated back into Aramaic, the word translated "son of man" can also be translated simply "man." In that case it makes sense -- "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, so man is the lord of the sabbath." If this saying originated with Jesus, this is what he actually said in Aramaic. From a common sense point of view, it would have been silly for Jesus to wander around proclaiming himself to be a "son of man." That's like saying, "Hey, I'm a man." That would have been rather obvious to his audience.

THIS GUY IS DANGEROUS WHAT A MISLEADING SINNER HIMSELF

@jerardosc9534

2 жыл бұрын

How??

I’d invite others to check out Rabbi Tovia Singers view of how Christianity “reverse” engineered the Hebrew Scriptures to support their views after Jesus was killed; his lectures also on YT. Amazing how the Reverend here “knows” all this and the Hebrews missed it in their own texts. The Gospels: about 36 pages written by 4 unknown authors not eyewitnesses most likely 40-90 years after the fact 2000 years ago in Greek, not Aramaic, to illustrate a position the essays themselves say are to prove their point; not objective. And here the Reverend says he knows the texts are true. Amazing!

@jerardosc9534

2 жыл бұрын

Ill also invite everybody check out Dr Michael Browns responses to Tovia Singers claims.

@michaelbrickley2443

2 жыл бұрын

K S, I would suggest you look into Joseph Shulam and seriously pray because you’ve been led astray. I had a woman telling me the coming Messiah was going to be a man. Human

@michaelbrickley2443

2 жыл бұрын

@@jerardosc9534 there is so much evidence that Tovia is either misguided or the devil disciple. Shalom