This is the kind of discussion that makes me want to pursue my study of the Bible in a more serious manner. Even after purchasing and listening to a few of the Great Courses on the Bible (Old and New Testaments), I still want to dig deeper. There are so many angles to explore. The linguistic one always appears to be the one that should lead us closer to the truest and most authentic level of the message, but words themselves can lead us along paths that may end up taking us further away from what the Gospel writers, and Jesus himself, may have really wanted to convey. And that’s why context (story-wise and culture-wise) are so essential in interpretation as well. Thus, the double use of ‘kyrios’ must reflect a connection with a previous designation of the words “Holy One,” in perhaps a situational or worship manner, or perhaps a marked departure from the past, which now brings new meaning to the old term. Either way, it’s definitely worth looking, into, especially in view of Jesus’s own identification as God himself, or “at one” with God, which in turn leads to a smooth transition from the Old to the New Testament for Christians, and a painful departure for those sharing Jesus’s Hebrew roots.

@davidrexford586

23 күн бұрын

And when you realize he was referenced to in ISAIAH 9v6 , it makes it easier to see him today as who he ultimately is. King of Kings and Lord or Lords. Amen and Amen!!

@CliftonHicksbanjo

23 күн бұрын

Oh yeah we've barely scratched the surface.

@davidrexford586

23 күн бұрын

@@CliftonHicksbanjo not so.. I have known for 40 plus years who Christ Jesus was

@simplifiedlife8607

23 күн бұрын

Ahh the Bible, clear as mud.

@davidrexford586

23 күн бұрын

@@simplifiedlife8607 and while you waste your time saying that, Billions believe in God right now and love knowing their Creator in all of his glorious and wonderful ways AT this time in a world going darker by the day.. a night and day difference in one’s emotional state between those who know and those who don’t know the reality of God ..

In the synoptic gospels, Jesus is baptized and the Holy Spirit comes upon him. The narrative answer the question of how it is that Jesus relates to God-he is given divine power and authority at his baptism.

@youngknowledgeseeker

23 күн бұрын

Biblical unitarians agree with that Nemes. Maybe one more thing we can add, he is given *even more* authority and power at his resurrection and ascension where he is made to sit at the right hand of God himself and have all authority of things in heaven and earth. Edit: To give a brief response to "tsemayekekema2918" below, I'm not sure what exactly he is trying to say with his message, but to clarify, receiving the spirit from God is indeed given to all sorts of different people, but not all for the same purpose. Jesus was anointed to have specific kinds of power and authority, some of which have never been seen in any other spirit given figures. No one else in the Bible could simply speak the dead bodies back to life, through Ezekiel maybe once a dead persons body was brought back to life, but Jesus is clearly portrayed as gifted beyond anyone else ever seen before.

@marktristanviguri7308

21 күн бұрын

Close - On that day Jesus turns wine into water. Jesus uses John the Baptist to preformed an exorcism. The Ghost comes down as a dove and lands on Jesus and God screams at everyone "That's still my son". Why? - Remember only you can remove the veil covering your eyes b/c we all have free will. Jesus had to die (separation from God) for 40 days being tempted as himself in the dessert. It wouldn't be fair w/ the Holy Spirit inside him. You are water I am wine.

@tsemayekekema2918

21 күн бұрын

@@drstevennemes the coming of the Spirit on an individual is depicted as happening to all prophets in old testament books and most Christians mentioned in New Testament - it is extremely shaky to use a narrative of a one-time historical event (historical mystical EVENTS don't occur in a way to square/conform NEATLY & unambiguously WITH THEORETICAL theology/christology, only theological DECLARATIONS do) as a basis to refute a more solid line of argument given by Staples regarding the theoretical christology of the synoptic authors. Even Chalcedonian & Athanasian christologies admit that Jesus in incarnation functioned day-to-day not as a deity but as a mundane human

What I got from this: the gospel writers were caught up into the paradigm of Greek philosophical school verbiage to cover up for the inherently conflicting religious ideas about a god vs. a god-man.

Thanks for this - every single video featuring Jason Staples is a great watch. Also his T-shirt game is amazing here

Simon Gathercole made the same case without discovering Jason Staples' argument in his book The Pre-existent Son in which the synoptic Jesus makes transcendent-sounding claims-and says "I have come" in a sense that can only imply pre-existence in heaven before arriving to the land of mortals like an angel or deity.

Another great video. Did Dr. Staples site any specific instances in Jewish literature where ‘lord lord’ was used to affirm divinity? I didn’t hear any except for the gospels themselves, maybe I misheard.

@tsemayekekema2918

21 күн бұрын

@@_.Sparky._ you would have to read his actual article. The video was just a verbal summary His argument depends on the fact that these examples don't exist outside of Jewish literature

I might perhaps be totally wrong about this: Alpha & Omega as an emphasis in the book of Revelation, as a title of Jesus, may be derived partially from the fact that a popular Hellenistic spelling of the Sacred Name of Israel's God was IAŌ, with alpha & omega standing adjacent as 2nd & 3rd letters. Even the euphemistic "Adonay" still has those two vowels in that order-albeit seperated by Daleth/Delta

Can we get a Tabor response to this article? He often talks about the LORD confusion etc etc

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

I love Tabor, but he has this one wrong. At least based on the Greek renderings from what I see.

@tsemayekekema2918

21 күн бұрын

@@diegotomasarene-morley7249 Tabor can never be convinced that the synoptics contradict the Ebionites. He even went as far as proposing a fantasy reconstruction of earlier redactional layers of prophetic books that clearly show that the Temple was created for animal sacrifice - all just to validate the Ebionite conspiracy theory that claims that God never intended animal sacrifices (and no, there is no hard evidence that the Ebionites were linked to James The Just)

Appreciate the video, Jacob! Wanted to say, this speaker probably has the best grip of how the nt writers understood Yeshua of all that youve featured here regarding his diety. Very few points of disagreement here, and where I do have them, what I would add would only bolster his thoughts on the matter.

@robinstevenson6690

22 күн бұрын

He is also one of the more eloquent speakers I have heard on History Valley.

Very interesting interview. I respect the author's well-disciplined scholarship, but I have some questions about whether Yeshua was considered fully divine by all of the earliest followers in the Yeshua-movement. The main question is this: Doesn't the idea that he was widely considered "YHWH" clash with the very slow and gradual transition, which began with Yeshua being defined humbly as the Father's "servant" (in the Didache, Yeshua is only referred to as God's servant)? Next, there was a period during which Yeshua was thought of as semi-divine (an Angel). Angelogical and "angelomorphic" christologies were developed for this purpose in some detail (see Gieschen, 1998). It's also said that many in the ebionite and nazarene communities of Jewish Christians held the view that Yeshua was completely human, although with some divine abilities and tendencies. Apparently, like the Arians (who took inspiration from their views), Jesus was never considered to be God by these groups. Of course, at the same time, there were communities, such as the Johanine community that did consider Yeshua to be divine. What I'm suggesting is that perhaps the scholar's logic is correct, but only held up in certain segments of the early Christian movement.

@tsemayekekema2918

21 күн бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690 those are just speculative theories that should be rejected in favor of the evidence Dr Staples provides. There is nothing improbable about a scenario in which Jesus & all the people close to him regarded him as YHWH-then later Jewish factions such as Ebionites & Nazarenes within the heterogenous nation of Israel rejected the mainstream Jewish-christian view of Jesus' ownership of God's Name; they were more likely than not to have been inspired by their own factional/sectarian mystical experiences. People in antiquity commonly & independently developed conflicting traditions about the same deity-there is no reason why Ebionities & Nazarenes couldn't have been created independently from the apostles as schismatic groups different from the rest of Jewish Christianity that held to the mainstream affirmation of Jesus' ownership of the NAME. It is very historically unnecessary to assume that these groups represent the very earliest stage of Jewish christology

@robinstevenson6690

21 күн бұрын

@@tsemayekekema2918 I don't think there was the kind of historical gap that you suggest. There were already some Ebionites & Nazarenes during the last year or two of Jesus' life.

@tsemayekekema2918

20 күн бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690 where is the evidence that they in fact existed with a year or 2? Even if they did - my point remains the same - they were not close to anyone close to Jesus. Understand that Israel was large & heterogenous as a nation. If a man is widely revered, it is conceivable that any group of people with no real connections to him would independently develop their own traditions about him that contradict that of his own disciples?

@robinstevenson6690

20 күн бұрын

@@tsemayekekema2918 I don't think you understand what I'm saying. For example, many of Jesus' original disciples were (Jewish Christian) ebionites/nazarenes. Jesus himself was described as "Jesus the Nazarene," and Paul was described as a ringleader of the nazarenes (Acts 24:5).

@tsemayekekema2918

20 күн бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690 prove that your belief is true-don't just assume it is. The evidence from the new testament books, especially those with undisputedly ethnically Jewish authors, suggest that people who were either close to Jesus or were the mainstream of Jews who believed in Jesus regarded him as a bearer of the NAME of Israel's God-that makes my own reconstruction of the origin of sects like the Ebionites & Nazarenes more probable by default!

Great guest please have him on again

Thank you Jason and Jacob

This was a great discussion.

I have sorted all this mess out and I'm merely waiting for my chance to explain.

@davidrexford586

23 күн бұрын

It’s not really a mess .. it’s easy to understand if one attempts to understand it without letting their emotions get in the way. I see many so full of Pride that when you attempt to explain anything to do with the things of God that they immediately put up a emotional barrier when they should instead wonder why Billions believe in God and try to find out the path to the why part.

@ChrisMusante

23 күн бұрын

@@davidrexford586 - well I'm glad I don't have that problem. Of course billions believe in God - hard to not notice all the screaming that creation is doing. Everyone approaches Him at their own pace and in their own 'way'. "I form light and I create darkness. I make peace and I create evil: I the LORD do ALL THESE THINGS." Isaiah - who was sawn in half as he hid in a tree - knew that the Lord is sovereign over all actions as well as the fact that there are (2) powers 'working'... the 'us' in heaven. Where I struggle (emotionally) is that I care, I know whose name I come in, and I am on nobody's side - so as to say I favor nobody because I known that whatever one shows is what they will reap, and I therefore find myself a bit troubled when I see people 'pulling weeds' that they ought not to. And thanks to, the God I believe in and serve is getting a black eye, the 'thief' is here, and tearing apart the houses (churches) and these folks that run the places as not only 'blind' but refuse the help of someone sent to do so - aka 'me'. It is a mess. A perfect mess. It is Ai all over again. Ai means heap of ruins by the way. When the Lord breathed His spirit into us... we got the WHOLE BAG OF TRICKS and thus began the great tribulation. Man was appointed once to die (Adam kept that appointment) and THEN the 'judgement'. Yiu cannot have 'judgement' if you don't know how to 'judge'; and until we knew BOTH of 'good' AND 'evil' - we really were quite useless at judging. Whatever 'judgement' we see is going to be based upon our own actions and choices. God can't 'change'. He does nothing. Sits on the couch and watches things unfold as the rules that He has put into place unfold as time goes on. Now the Lord on the other hand, He can 'change modes' and when He says "IF", it's an opportunity to paint Him into a corner and simply because neither can lie. A 'promise' is a 'promise' and you can work from either side of that promise, as the law is given as BOTH a blessing AND a curse. I don't care about moving mountains, walking on water, or flying out of the clouds. What I care about is the rights to choose, and then respect of each to choose. We have a choice to make and it is best made sooner than later. Prophecy can be fulfilled in either of 2 ways... you MAKE it happen or the Lord will 'create' the opportunity for it to happen. And since the Lord has 'already spoken' and defined all the "IF's" - which way the ship goes is our fault. I don't know what miracles you have been privy to, but I have seen so many that I am not even amazed by them anymore. When you pray for someone that is on their deathbed with an incurable disease and an hour after you say a prayer they are healed of it - you start to realize that all this 'non-sense' isn't non-sense at all. People call me out for the things I say... a a liar, but I have witnesses and medical documents to prove the things I say. And in some cases even video. I hope you are able to find the days blessing as it isn't always percieved as one. Shalom.

@robinstevenson6690

22 күн бұрын

You have a chance to explain it now, or whenever you're ready. Perhaps it would be easiest to start out with a quick summary of your view. Personally, I doubt that anyone can clear all of this up, because there are so many contradictions in the early literature.

@davidrexford586

22 күн бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690 The simplicity of the Gospel has been changed to a difficult game of cat and mouse where I say something and the non believer says it’s not good enough and it goes on and on because believe me I can give Scripture but it’s never good enough and you know why? Because now you have Former Christians now Atheists running around explaining away God for everyone else and they gather in strength in numbers and they all have multiple channels. And so they all hoist themselves upon their Soapbox and tell everyone else that will listen, Seen and unseen that God just isn’t real to them anymore so everyone else should just walk away as well. But the great falling away from the Faith was foretold thousands of years ago and should anyone be shocked?

@tersooawen4249

20 күн бұрын

Yours is merely a faith based line of taught! Billions are christians because evangelization, missionary activity. The muslims literally imposed theirs! If the buhdists and hindus sent missionaries around the world they would be enjoying the same fruits as far as magnitude today. Humanity is simply not asking the right questions. If we find the need to reinterprete what God says, God may never have spoken in the first place! Otherwise, the same God would not be omniscient and all-capanne.

“I Am YHVH, 2) thou shalt have no other YHVH (Lord), 3) no other Elohim (sons of God) before me.” Exodus 20:2, Deu 5:6 Tanakh read the "Hebrew Codec" what Jews teach in Secret, its on the web.

@davidjanbaz7728

23 күн бұрын

Two Powers in Heaven is Biblical Judaism: NOT Rabbinic Judaism that rejected their own theology in the 2nd century AD. The Trinity comes from this TWO POWERS in HEAVEN israelite theology that Jesus taught including Paul and the Apostles. Both persons of YHWH: the Invisible ( Father) and Visible Pre-incarnate Jesus R in that verse as the Visible YHWH and his Two angels spoke to Abraham and Sarah in Genesis chapters 18,19. They also ate the meal that Sarah prepared for them in their physical manifestations. Judges ch.13 also gives this visible YHWH three titles as Angel, Man, and God ( visible YHWH) but NOT the Invisible YHWH ( Father) and why Jesus in his incarnation doesn't say He is God and worship me until after HIS Resurrection where he presents Thomas with evidence of his Divinity as the Visible YHWH.

@robinstevenson6690

22 күн бұрын

@@davidjanbaz7728 Is the system you present able to account for the view that a mediational figure (e.g., Michael, Enoch/Metatron, Melchizedek) sat in the throne at the right side of YHWH?

@davidrexford586

22 күн бұрын

@@davidjanbaz7728they worshipped him before that time as evidenced in the Book of Matthew 14v33. And at other times such as when thy Christ Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey on palm Sunday with the crowd saying BLESSED is he who comes in the NAME of the Lord.. The reality is many just don’t know the Scriptures and attempt to understand the Bible without actually becoming a Born Again Christian as one must be born again to see the Kingdom of God John 3v3. The simplicity of the Scripture has been turned into a difficult diatribe and it continues to this day as many seek to make it difficult for the average person to understand the Simplicity of the Scriptures..

@marktristanviguri7308

21 күн бұрын

YHVH isn't the almighty, just the locally assigned deity. Thx but pass

@tsemayekekema2918

21 күн бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690 of course. And if you watch a video by John J Collins & Joel Baden on Daniel 7, it is clarified that it is a mistaken translation of 1 Enoch to say that it actually identifies Enoch with the Son Of Man on God's throne. In order words, bringing Enoch into this conversation is a misunderstanding. Melchizedek was in fact seen as the 2nd Power in heaven by some traditions like the Qumram community, although Josephus & the author of the book of Hebrews apparently do not agree with it

When you say the early christians. Do you mean greco-christian or judeo-christan?

@tsemayekekema2918

21 күн бұрын

@@RealUvane both-in fact it is Jews that would be more emphatic on NAME as a category

@RealUvane

21 күн бұрын

@@tsemayekekema2918 jews as genetic or as converts to the religion of Yahu?

@RealUvane

21 күн бұрын

So you’re saying first they converted to yawism and then to christianity?

@tsemayekekema2918

21 күн бұрын

@@RealUvane they were ethnically Jewish

I need that sea peoples shirt!

It's fascinating how many "mediational" figures appear in the 2nd Temple Jewish and Christian literature: Daniel's "one like a son of man," Philo's Logos, Enoch/Metatron, Melchizidek, Yeshua, and the Son of Man referred to by John Baptist. Apparently, only some of these (Son of Man & Yeshua) were referred to as messianic figures.

@SopranoJessi

19 күн бұрын

Son of Man means "human" and Daniel provided the interpretation of that vision of a human...the "son of man" refers to the collective Israelítes, and it is the Israelítes who get the glory, dominion, and power because it's the result of the Reversal of the Curses (see Deuteronomy 28-30)

@robinstevenson6690

18 күн бұрын

@@SopranoJessi That seems likely to be a well-established rabbinical view. To clarify, I was referring to various mediational figures that were popular (esp. among the Essenes and Yeshua movement) during the 2nd Temple period. There are many 2nd Temple and Dead Sea Scrolls scholars (e.g., Gabriele Boccaccini; The Enoch Seminar) who are interested in the various Jewish movements of that era (including the ebionites and nazarenes) which considered the Danielic "son of man" to be referring to a messianic figure, and/or who considered other mediational figures (Enoch, John the Baptist's "Son of Man" as being very important mediators or "coming messiahs." Notably, a mystical movement associated with developing kabbalah literature in the first few centuries of the C.E. developed a more elaborate version of the Enoch story, in which Enoch evolved into angelic form, becoming known as "Metatron," who was viewed by some as a mediational figure. I haven't followed the developments of the kabbalistic movement or of how long belief in Metatron may have persisted, or of which specific communities maintain that belief (if any). All I know is that it was considered by some to be an alternative to the mainstream rabbinical view on the Danielic "son of man."

The historical Jesus called JHWH Abba i.e. Father. Period! Gospel of Matthew and Luke made of it narrative stories. The author of John gospel reworked it having created the eternal logos and claimed that the Father and the Son are the same. Just pure Hellenistic speculation.

@garlandjones7709

18 күн бұрын

Thinking the angel of YHVH and YHVH are one and the same far predates Hellenism.

Can you explain John8 when Jesus says to the Jews your father was a devil a liar from the beginning?

This was a great dialogue. It’s obvious that neither Paul nor the gospel authors were Nicene-type Trinitarians. What do we do with that?

What about the Hebrew construct state as an equivalent, thus meaning lord of lord. Cf psalms 110:1.

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

That's not how Psalm 110 reads.

@dunk_law

22 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709 You know how the construct state works?

@garlandjones7709

22 күн бұрын

@@dunk_law im aware of how the construct state works. I think you're unaware of why Psalm 110:1 is not comparable. Psalm 110:1 does not read adon adon or Adonai Adonai. It reads Yahweh L'adonai Yahweh to Adonai, or Adoni, if you accept the masoretic punctuation. It's apples to oranges and cannot be rendered as a possessive construct state because of the lamed preposition.

@garlandjones7709

22 күн бұрын

@@dunk_law if understand the argument of the video correct Lord Lord is being used for Adonai YHVH such as how it would be rendered in Isaiah 25:8. It is not being used in the construct

@tsemayekekema2918

21 күн бұрын

@@dunk_law can you explain your argument/point? I have never heard this argument before

--YHWH is not a man Hosea 11:9. --Jesus is a man. How then can Jesus be YHWH?

In the NT it is the failed believers who say to Jesus “kurie, kurie!” And Jesus answers: “I never recognized you.” Could that be because they called Jesus ADONAI? Is the Shema a unitarian or trinitarian creed?I Is the second lord of Ps 110:11 God or not-God? In hope, Anthony

No , Yeshua is not Yeh Ho VaH , He is The SON of Yeh Ho VaH and this did not happen until His baptism and just because someone says a name and/or title twice doesn't mean anything extra

Great guest. Lots of mouse clicking in the audio.

modern politics continues the fine tradition of vague and plausible deniability, from the earlier traditions of political fiction we now label as religions. to this day and beyond, gods are still used additionally to modern politics.

So "Lord Lord" means that Jesus is Yahweh? I don't think so. It is like Holy Holy Holy means the trinity. Jesus is not God.

@robinstevenson6690

22 күн бұрын

There are many definitions of "Lord," too, and many of them are not divine. There is a House of Lords in the UK, and the title of "Lord" applies to various people in positions of authority. People who called Jesus "Lord" may have been referring to him as their "Leige Lord," of their "Lord and Master" (the man whom they considered their ultimate authority on earth).

@munbruk

22 күн бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690 Yes I know that. Even a wife calls her husband my lord in the Bible. But for this scholar because it is repeated twice it meant Yahweh. It is non sense.

@robinstevenson6690

22 күн бұрын

@@munbruk What do mean, "because it is repeated twice it meant Yahweh" ? That seems like a non sequitur to me.

@munbruk

22 күн бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690 Did you watch the interview. That is what he said.

@robinstevenson6690

22 күн бұрын

@@munbrukI did, and I think it may be a non sequitur. Can you respond to that directly?

Oh, HELL no. 'Jesus' isn't even 'Jesus' as this is the ROMANIZED name of Yehoshua and they changed it because, quite simply, 'Joshua' was too confusing since there was already a 'Joshua' in the Original Hebrew Scriptures. LORD does not necessarily mean, 'God' and therefore is NOT a 'divine name', but rather a title and designation of respect. Do we show G-d respect? YES, and therefore we refer to Him as 'Lord' - but that is NOT His name.

John 8:38 within its context is YHWH speaking through Jesus - He is NOT witnessing to himself.

Peace be with you. Ecc 3:10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it. Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Isa 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. The First and also the Last: Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Jesus is the First and the Last. his Lord God, and his Spirit sent him. He said his Father is the only true one, but now one believe it.

Moses or a High Priest are NEVER given the NAME-the high priest merely calls the name in the LATER periods when it became taboo to mention God's name. Moses is never called the NAME-meaning that the Angel is binitarian. Moses is merely a lesser god-denying the existence of lesser gods is only a post-Enlightenment innovation, not a biblical one

@GilesMcRiker

23 күн бұрын

Yeah I have absolutely no idea what he was talking about

Jesus is clearly not Yahweh.

@bubbag8895

23 күн бұрын

He is the Angel of YHWH though

@Thesortvokter

23 күн бұрын

Going by the Bible he MUST be. "I and the Father are One", and "What have you done to My Fathers House!" (YHWH's temple in Jerusalem), and also when he as a young boy was found in YHWH's temple and was surprised that his parents didn't know he was in the "House of His Father". Which is HIMSELF.

@FoolishPrince

23 күн бұрын

​​@@Thesortvokterwhat if "Yaldabaoth" the Demiurge is Yahweh? What if Christ is the Nachash? I ask you which is the greater trick: convincing the world you don't exist or convincing the world you are god? What does it mean when Jesus says that the prophets that came before him never met The Father? 🃏

@Samuel_B_

23 күн бұрын

I agree. Jesus is "The Son". As clearly, stated. Not hard to understand.

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

The new testament sure thought he was

The best example you can use is a president The presidency and the person is two different things, but as long as the person is elected president, he has the authority of the president. After he leaves office, he no longer possesses the authority of President because the presidency itself is independent of the person

In GJohn Jesus and his disciples are also ONE.

God the Father created the universes out of nothing by the proceeding forth of the divine Word and Breath > Genesis chapter one. He sustains the universes moment by moment and intervenes in them the same way, through the divine Word and Breath. The Word has spoken to numerous individuals as described in scripture, using various names (El Shaddai, I Am, YHWH, Adonay, Elohim, etc.), and the Breath (ruach = Spirit) has acted to accomplish divine ends. At the foretold time, the Word became flesh and we have seen his glory, that of a beloved son sent forth from a loving Father.

This was frustrating for me to watch lol because the majority of the Bible (The Old Testament) refutes the idea that YHWH is a man...then you get the New Testament (which should have never been added to the Hebrew Scriptures) saying the opposite. So, if one wants to believe what the NT says, then continue to ignore what the Old Testament established. After all, the basis of this theory hinges on the Greek. But this is supposed to be a Hebrew God right? Did Jesus speak Greek?

@garlandjones7709

18 күн бұрын

I don't think the new testament is saying the opposite of what the old says. They seem to me to very much in line. Where the difference lies is that the church seemed to put a spotlight on elements of the old testament that Judaism avoids. There's not necessarily a disagreement in what is there as there is to the perspective or emphasis on the issue. A disagreement then does develop out of that, though. It seems to me both are wrong, one blatantly, the other ignorantly. Partly due to Greek, but that's not a big deal in the larger scope. Yeshua would've spoken Hebrew and Aramaic. Likely a little Greek. Enough to get by on, like alot of peoples Spanish.

It is now 2777 of the Common Era which I count from the foundation of Rome. Americans eat cake not bread. Bread doesn't include sugar.

@failyourwaytothetop

22 күн бұрын

Interesting. I find this fact quite interesting. Thanks for novelty.

I think this is a rather careless equivocation of the Divine name. They YHWH Elohim is a merging of two traditions of the name. Elohim (sing.) evolved from the plural name that signified some status with the divine council that later essentially described ownership of the council. The terminology comes from Paul Kyrios kia Iesou Xristos. Our master Jesus the rubbed (anointed) one. This description of the divinity of Jesus is very different from the definition of Yahweh. In the former Yahweh is a god of undefined origin is “I am who I will become” with a godly title as head of the council. In the latter Paul is saying the Salvatore Jesus is his Master. Completely different.

What a stretch!

Torah (Numbers), the Book of Job, and the prophets (so, the Old Testament) all specifically say that YHWH is not a man, nor a son of man/begotten of man. So the New Testament has to nullify and ignore at least 4 witnesses that refute a claim that YHWH is a man... The New Testament actually leads people to violate Torah and commit Idolatry, placing another elohim before YHWH.

@garlandjones7709

18 күн бұрын

There are verses that say he is a man. There are stories that show him as a man and called a man. Just throwing a blanket statement like that misses the point of the passages, plus misses the theology behind both the old and new testament writings. The new testament does not lead people to commit idolatry, nor violate Torah. People do that on their own misreading texts or listening to others without reading at all.

First time I read the Bible, I learned that Jesus is the Angel of YHWH

@davidjanbaz7728

23 күн бұрын

And Man of God and Visible YHWH in Judges ch.13. All three titles are applied to the individual who goes up in the Sacrifice.

@RealUvane

23 күн бұрын

YaHu is a demon 👿

Ok so, why is the obvious always overlooked.... The prophet being raised up from among them like Moses whose name (YHWH) is in him, is literally Joshua...Yahusha. He led the Israelítes into victory and into the land. The Prophecy was fulfilled before Moses ever died and Joshua/Yahusha Ben Nun, was Anointed aka mashiach, an entire ceremony was held for Joshua Son of Nun.

@garlandjones7709

18 күн бұрын

Joshua didn't fulfill that completely. This is why the statement in Deuteronomy 34 exists. Joshua serves as an incomplete model

For Paul compare the Roman propaganda - Cesar is Lord. Also Dominus et Deus.

YHWH is just the God of the line of Jacob - one of the Elohim. One of the many Gods of the Israelites.

GJohn prologue is a second century response to Roman critics who claimed that Christianity had NO Logos.

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

A "logos" has existed since Genesis 1. The "logos" exists in the OT without the new.

@failyourwaytothetop

22 күн бұрын

​@@garlandjones7709Logos is a Greek philosophical concept independent of the Bible. The introduction of the Logos concept into Xtian thought was a 2nd century invention. It was the melding of Greek philosophy with Jesus Movement ideology that allowed the widespread dissemination of Xtian Cultic beliefs to be known and adopted throughout the Roman Empire. In the absence of this synthesis, the Jesus Movement would have floundered and remained in the backwaters of Syria and Palestine and in other areas of Jewish enclaves in the Riman Empire. In time, without an influx of ideas foreign to the Jewish system of beliefs, the movement would have gone extinct. Your reference to Genesis 1 is pure harmonization and anachronism. You are retrofitting your own ideas wherever you feel they belong to produce the presupposition you accept as fact. This is bias and therefore not true.

@garlandjones7709

22 күн бұрын

@@failyourwaytothetop Logos is a Greek "word" meaning word by the way, or speech. Logos the way you use it was introduced by Philo in the first century. I'm not retrofitting my ideas, as if they are unique or independent. This issue existed within Judaism in the BC era of understanding there is YHVH that can be seen, and YHVH that cannot be seen. When John uses the term logos he uses it as a substitute for the Hebrew word dabar, plain and simple. This is done because of personification of the "word of God" in the old testament, and the fact that Aramaic speaking Jews referred to anthropomorphic scenes of God/Yahweh as the me'amar/memra... I e. Word of God. Using the word Logos hits from both sides, but Aramaic would have too. If you would like to discuss Genesis 1 I'd be more than happy to.

@dunk_law

22 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709 And you evidence for that is?

@garlandjones7709

22 күн бұрын

@@dunk_law reading the new testament, number 1. Reading talmudic discussion, late rabbinical midrash and the Zohar, a plethora of 2nd temple literature and dead sea scroll writings ... And none of that is even needed. The evidence is in the old testament texts themselves, to where this is seen and observed, and the you ask the same questions and draw your own conclusions just like all of the above writings do. There isn't a certain scholar or book to cite, there would be hundreds and the observation isn't dependent on one or two men. If you'll be more specific in your next response, I'll be more specific on my reply.

For son of man, see GJohn 14:12.

But is this is coalition with the Jewish rabbi's verification of whom the real God stuff, in Judaism teachings, that's Solely what's being spoken by all of the Jewish people, of what's in their biblical literature, the tanarkh, and Rumbum, and their Torah, without the standing Christians Bible, so that the full verbal wordings of anything they have, is out in the open, no secrets, no confusion, just exposed information about God and what's the difference between Christianity proclaim of the Messiah, and the Jewish Biblical stuff of the Messiah, who is the Messiah, told, to let all see if Jesus isn't or is what the Christians Bible says, is Christianity wrong about it, or is they right?? And how much incorrect and wrong is the Christians Bible, expose the truth, expose the lies, this is what religion needs to have happen

You need no further proof of Jesus claiming to be god than this..!! John 14:8-9 King James Version 8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Why are you interviewing a poor soul who does not understand his subject matter? Yes, the early church believed Jesus was YHWH in the OT WAY before Nicea. Read chapter 63 of Justin Martyr's Apologia.

@robinstevenson6690

22 күн бұрын

Justin Martyr didn't come of age until circa 115-120 C.E., and he was proto-orthodox. Thus, he does not represent the views of the earliest groups of (1st c.) Christians. Another point contradicting yours is that the Jewish Christians (ebionites, nazarenes) apparently never viewed Yeshua as "God," but rather as the "servant" of the Father (see Didache), and in other circles as a High Angel (Angelomorphic Christology).

@failyourwaytothetop

22 күн бұрын

Which Early Church are you referring to? The proto-orthodox was one branch of the Early Church. The Marcionites were another branch which found such a belief to be an abomination. YHWH was detestable to them. They even rejected the notion of YAHWEH being his father. They viewed YAHWEH as being the evil creator of a material universe. Jesus was separate from YAHWEH on this point. This factor amongst many others led Marcionites to reject the OT.

@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982

22 күн бұрын

@@failyourwaytothetop the ones that were not heretics. The ones that were not wolves that had crept into the flock. The ones who did have a high view of Jesus.

@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982

22 күн бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690 All that need be true for my point to be correct is that Justin M came significantly before the council of Nicea and that he was representative of the church at that time. Which you jut confirmed by listing his "coming of age" date. Plenty of Jewish Christians viewed Jesus as God, Peter, Paul, James, and John among them. But there were sects who tried to make Him something less, I grant you that. Dr. Jay Smith and Pfander Films has done some amazing scholarly work showing how it is likely that Islam started as an alliance between these Jewish groups and some pagan Arabs. And that Mohammad wasn't an historical figure but that many of the things in the Koran and Hadiths are really talking about a distorted Jesus. The name Mohammad means "Blessed One". The early Caliphs built the figure of the prophet around some of these existing ideas. As for making an angel out of Jesus, I think there is a cult or two today that make Him into Michael or something like that. So I think we can say there were a lot of erroneous ideas in the early church, as there is today. But the you don't judge the truth of scripture by those who misrepresent it.

@robinstevenson6690

22 күн бұрын

@@failyourwaytothetop That's all true. There were also ebionites, nazarenes, coptic christians, valentinians, and arians, among others.

Going by the Bible he MUST be. "I and the Father are One", and "What have you done to My Fathers House!" (YHWH's temple in Jerusalem), and also when he as a young boy was found in YHWH's temple and was surprised that his parents didn't know he was in the "House of His Father". Which is HIMSELF. Thank you for all the children you murdered as YHWH in the OT, Yeshua!!!

@PhilSophia-ox7ep

23 күн бұрын

True.....except ALSO ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, Jesus is not God. Mark 10:18

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

What is the angel of YHVHs name?

The whole story is actually in the very first word in Genesis 1:1 Brashyt (noun, feminine singular). John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This verse is directing us to the very first Word in Genesis 1:1. Could Brashyt have another meaning? Yes it does. Brashyt... Br=Son (in Aramaic) A= Aleph meaning Ox, strong, first Shay=Gift (Strong's Hebrew 7862) T=Tav meaning The Sign, The Cross and it's the last letter in the Hebrew Alphabet Elohim translated as God; but it's a noun masculine plural, therefore it would be gods. Elohim as a noun, masculine singular would be El The Sea. El =God (Strong's Hebrew 410) H=The Sea=Strong's Hebrew 3220 Yam, noun, masculine אֱלֹ הִ֑ ים אֱלֹהִ֑ים Do you see!!!

@PhilSophia-ox7ep

23 күн бұрын

Tav does not mean sign, it doesn't mean cross, and it doesn't look like one either.

@cindyanne4812

23 күн бұрын

@@PhilSophia-ox7ep ...all the Hebrew Letters have a meaning and a numerical value. It's very easy to look up.

I believe that jesus was king david 's reincarnation.

Unfortunately, Dr. Jason Staples skips over so many important things. Of course, the authors of the Christian "New Testament" want you to think Jesus is God, but Jesus NEVER calls himself "Yahweh," nor does he call himself "God," nor does he even call himself the "Son of God." Simply saying "I am" in Greek doesn't clearly mean he is using God's name -- lots of people, including Paul, say "I am." The term "Son of Man" could just as easily apply to a prophet (it's the term Ezekiel commonly uses to refer to himself,) or a false prophet, or even every single human being on the planet. The NT failure to clarify this leaves it up to the reader to decide what it means, and as such renders the NT no more worth believing than the cartoon of "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown." Also, Dr. Staples fails to address the numerous times that Jesus draws a clear distinction between himself & God, especially saying that there are things the Father knows that Jesus doesn't know, and asking, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." The whole Bible is full of linguistic nuances, and shouldn't be taken literally for every word, as many Christians insist on doing. There is too much hyperbole. Jesus may have walked on water (so did Orion,) but it also could have just been a shallow pond, or the edge of a beach. The questions I would like Dr. Staples to answer are: "Can anyone, (even a god,) be his own father? If so, why isn't Jesus also his own mother? If God just wanted to descend to earth in human form, why didn't he just do like Zeus and make himself a human body, or a swan, or a shower of golden rain, or a flame (like YHVH did in Exodus)?" Some might take the approach that Jesus was just one of God's avatars (exactly like Krishna & Rama were 2 of Vishnu's avatars,) and the NT even speaks to this by having Jesus being physically unrecognizable by his followers after the crucifixion until he starts to pray, and also when he strangely says, "you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me." What kind of deity says, "where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them," but later says he won't always be there? -- None. Even Obi-Wan Kenobi said, "The Force will be with you, always." Jesus also curiously states, " I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever." This strongly suggests that a) Jesus is not the Father, b) Jesus is not the Comforter/Advocate/Holy Spirit, and c) the guy people knew as "Jesus" might never be coming back. It's been 2,000 years. Might be time to start looking for a new god.

@garlandjones7709

18 күн бұрын

Yeshua ABSOLUTELY alludes to himself as YHVH. The I Am statements are absolutely there to show him as claiming to be YHVH. Someone is pulling wool over your eyes for an agenda, bud. The new testament does tread lightly on this. I agree with that. I personally believe in the case of John at least that he wasn't quite sure what to make of it, but that is opinion. However, there is enough in every gospel and the epistles to clearly make a decision. It is not an issue up in the air as to a yes/no. The only thing up in the air is it's explanation and definition. The no one good but God claim is interesting, bc he indeed claims himself to be good. He makes an understated claim to diety within the dialogue itself of the rich young rulee. You're reading that like a Muslim.

@RightOnBro72

17 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709, please read what I wrote again. "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" is not "YHVH," and Jesus never said either of these. He also never called himself the "Theos" which would be the Greek word for God. He also never called himself the "Son of God." All of this has been crafted by Christians who want to worship a guy who got killed for doing something he really had no business doing. If you read all 4 gospels & compare them seriously, Jesus isn't even the same in any of them, except where one copies the other. The Book of John is more of a Gnostic Jesus, where there's a "good" god of light & an "evil" god of darkness. It's clearly not the God of Israel, who in the book of Isaiah says, "I am YHVH, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am YHVH, who does all these things." One Jesus claims to be a shepherd, while another Jesus claims to be a lamb. One claims to be the prince of peace, while another claims not to bring peace, but a sword. Do that enough times, and you can declare a ham sandwich to be God, because it both is & isn't at the same time. Most likely, the Greek-speaking authors of the Christian Bible did all this on purpose. They were writing a "Divine Comedy" with the hopes that if you're smart enough, you'll get the jokes & laugh. Keep in mind that in Revelation 22:16 (the very last chapter of the very last book,) Jesus calls himself the "Bright Morning Star," which we all know means "Lucifer." You can't be Mary's little lamb, sitting on the right-hand of God, and be God at the same time. And once again, no one -- not even a god -- can be his own father.

@garlandjones7709

17 күн бұрын

@@RightOnBro72 I've reread what you've wrote. My stance is the same. I did not misunderstand you. Ehyeh is not YHVH. Ehyeh and YHVH both come from the Hebrew root word hayah meaning to exist or to be. Ehyeh has an aleph placed on the verb as a performative which makes it the first person "I" in Hebrew. I exist/will exist. YHVH comes from the 3rd person, imperfect tense of the verb, having a yod vs. an aleph. When God says tell them to Moses say YHVH sent you, it's in the 3rd person because it's not in the mouth of God. Moses is to tell the people that "he exists" sent him. If they say Moses, "who sent you," and Moses says, "I exist," it seems as if Moses is boastfully claiming he's the God who sends hisself. So while Ehyeh and YHVH are not the same words in letters, they are essentially the same thing both to a Hebrew reader and to their meaning. So the issue now is how it's used. When Yeshua says before Abraham was, I am... Instead of before Abraham was, I "was"... One can confidently guarantee, he's using the term ehyeh very purposely and with strong theological import. The Pharisees understood this immediately. Why don't you? He never called himself Theos. Fair. He also got crucified for applying YHVH passages to himself of which he did more than once, along with applying traits only to YHVH to himself. Never calls himself the "son of God"....yes he does. I'm aware Yeshua is presented differently in all 4 gospels. I also think that's purposely done, not accidental, again, with theological import, but it's minor, not major. John more clearly presents Yeshua as YHVH than any other writer by a mile. And you're misunderstanding the difference between the ideas of children of light and darkness and the Isaiah passage you quoted. Mainly just misunderstanding Isaiah. Regarding morning star and Lucifer... No, that is not the same thing. An English translation would and has given people that impression, though. The Lucifer passage in Isaiah is ignorantly translated and a very late doctrine. That's Helel ben Shachar. Helel, son of the dawn. It's ironic to me that this is all misunderstood so much ... Everything you've written almost carries an aura of confusion about it. Even your God and the right hand commen at the end. Sorry if that sounds too harsh, but I don't know how to address any of it softer. I would be more than happy to walk you through any of it though and show you where you're getting off base.

@RightOnBro72

16 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709, I'm glad you re-read what I wrote. The fact that you still don't get it is the problem. Jesus never calls himself "God," and he never calls himself the "Son of God." (Please provide the chapter & verse where he says the very thing he didn't say. You won't find it. I've looked. ) If he did either, he'd be lying (which I find amusing, because he DOES tell lots of lies, especially that John the Baptist is really Elijah -- only foolish people fall for that Tom-foolery.) Stop falling for the lies. I used to be a Jesus-freak like you, but when I read the Bible, the Book of John made it clear what a fraud & an Anti-Semite Jesus was. Jesus is no more the son of God than Barabbas was -- and Barabbas' name actually means, "Son of God" 😂 I seriously don't get why Christians don't get the jokes that exist all over your human-made Bible. As far as "Tell them I AM sent you," here's the text: אֶהְיֶה, שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם There's no "vav" in there. Plus, Jesus said it in the Greek, not the Hebrew -- his failure to understand God's name in Psalm 110 made it clear he didn't even know Hebrew. So, once again, you've got it wrong. You can go make up your phony Christian explanations all you want, pretend your lack of knowledge is an insult (only to yourself) but I'm seriously telling you that's not what your own "Divine-Tragic-Comedy" says. Also, in the Garden of Eden, it's the Serpent who wants Adam & Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good & evil, and then God (YHVH Elohim, not your fake Jesus) hides the tree of life from them so they don't "live forever." It is only a bit ironic that you do not see Lucifer at the end of the Christian Comedy trying to offer the very thing God denied humanity. Christians & Messianic Jews have hoped for that thing for a long time, but they do not even see that they are opposing the will of God. They have made up a false narrative about a false deity and have proclaimed him to be God-in-the-flesh, when clearly he was not. Also, Jesus wasn't killed for claiming to be God -- he was killed in the most harmful, pain-suffering way for stupidly claiming to be "King of the Jews," which again, he was not. The truth is there. You just have to read your Bible more carefully.

@RightOnBro72

15 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709, it's too bad if you can actually read but not understand the very clear words that I wrote. I don't do stupid parables like Jesus. First, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" doesn't have a vav in it. There are many ways you can say something exists, but you have to go to the plural to get the letter vav. And even if you did, the word wouldn't be "ehyeh." God's name isn't "Ehyeh." Whether you call him "Yahweh" or "Jehovah," or any variation thereof, it's not like saying "I am." God was called "YHVH" long before Moses had his encounter with the burning bush, and even if you want to make up another myth to say otherwise, "YHVH" is not what Jesus said. In fact, Jesus never says ANY variation of God's name in Hebrew. The closest he gets is "Eli, Eli, why have you forsaken me?" (What a thoughtful thing for a guy claiming to be God-incarnate to say....I guess he forsook himself!?! He's a fruitcake!) But Jesus shows he doesn't even understand Hebrew when he misquotes the 110th Psalm by saying, "The Lord said to my lord...." totally implying that those were the same words (which of course, he said in Greek.) If he knew Hebrew, he'd know the text says, "YHVH said to my lord..." This is just another word-game played by the Greek-tragic-comedians whose gaffes you are clearly overzealous to fall for. Jesus's gaffes are filled with lies, such as when he deceptively tells his followers that John the Baptist was Elijah. WRONG. (How can such a blatant liar be considered "without sin?") Again, keep in mind that this offensive verse you're using by Jesus/Yeshua/or more appropriately, "fake-Joshua" is the most Anti-Semitic chapter in the Bible. John might start off just insulting the Pharisees, but he winds up by simply referring to "the Jews," and calling "the Jews" children of "your father, the Devil." Seriously? And this guy who did nothing to save the Jewish people who fought & died on Mount Masada wants me to follow him? Never! He hates his own people, provoked the Holocaust, and literally says anyone who "does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, ...cannot be [his] disciple." Wow. So, just to be his devoted follower, you've got to hate your whole family & yourself? That's just another example where Jesus totally FAILS to be anything like God. "He never called himself Theos." -- well, you got that right, but then you foolishly say he got crucified for applying YHVH passages to himself. That's totally wrong. He NEVER says God's name. Jesus was crucified (death by asphyxiation, btw, not "piercing" or "crushing," and all for his own crimes, not anyone else's,) because although we never hear him say it in scripture, he & his followers were committing the crime of calling him "King of the Jews." I hope you know that's what "Messiah" means. Perhaps Handel should have called his musical "The Liar." It even rhymes! Yet Jesus was no King, nor was he a Prince, nor was he God-Almighty or even a "lesser" god. At best, if you believe all this tripe, he was an ordinary-but-weak man with no military ability & terrible manners who didn't convince the Jews he was anything special, but he did offend them so much, even with acts of stupid violence, so that they attempted to stone him to death. Each time they did, Jesus went into hiding & ran away, like a coward. He spent much of his time telling his followers NOT to tell anyone of the things he did. This is yet another reason why this comes across as a great comedy. What kind of god comes to earth in human form (like Vishnu coming here as Krishna, or Zeus coming as a swan) and then tells everyone to keep it secret? That's not a good plan, if your goal is to have everyone worship you. But that wasn't Jesus' plan -- he stupidly spoke in parables so those who could see & hear wouldn't understand his crazy message of living in poverty, paying taxes to an oppressive government, practicing idolatry, & never striving to make your life better. Yeah, no level-headed god or demi-god operates that way, but villains might. And when I wrote that he "Never calls himself the son of God," you replied, "yes he does." Okay, prove it! Look through the whole Bible, and you won't find it. I don't even think you can find it in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sure, people like John, Paul, & Doubting Thomas foolishly call Jesus "God," but we have no idea who the author of the book of John really was (maybe he was the apostle that Jesus loved? Sexually? Jesus did encourage men to emasculate themselves -- more proof that he wasn't God.) Paul literally never met Jesus in real-life, and Doubting Thomas, Mary Magdelene, and his other followers totally did not recognize the dude after the crucifixion, until he started to pray, and then POOF!...he disappeared. Was it really Jesus, or just some other person pretending to be their dead leader of a failed messianic movement? All I can really say is Jesus certainly DID NOT do the things those waiting for a Messiah were hoping for. He never freed the Children of Israel from the Roman occupation (instead, spending most of his time hating "the Jews," and even driving them out of the holy Temple, preventing their dedicated sacrifices as repentance for their sins with a destructive whip made of cords, for no good reason. Disgusting. If I had been there on that day, you can be sure I wouldn't have let that coward get away. God has a command for how false prophets are to be treated, and Jesus spent most of his time violating God's commandments.) Perhaps you don't understand references to light & darkness because you don't understand monotheism. For this, all credit goes to Moses -- Jesus's polar-opposite. God created EVERYTHING. That includes the good & the bad. To believe otherwise is a type of Dualism or Manichaeism. Satan, who is really there to test us, is not this evil "devil" or "dragon" that the Christian add-ons try to make him out to be. He is a servant sent by God to test us, and see if we will serve & follow God & God alone. (Not 2 gods or 3 gods. Many world religions have the fake polytheism that Christians have been lying to themselves about for almost 2,000 years.) Christians would rather worship a man, because like the Gnostics, they prefer a non-existent man's compassion & "Love" to the real God's acts of vengeance & justice. Again, "Lucifer," and "the Morning Star," (at least the one in Revelation) are references to the same thing. Worship someone other than God (especially fake-Joshua,) and you've failed the test. It's so amazing that Christians go right past that verse & never pick up on the humor of the Greek satirical-comedians. And seriously, you can dodge the paradox, but that doesn't make it any less paradoxical. How can Jesus be the slain, 7-horned lamb who takes a scroll out of God's right hand while God (not the lamb) is seated on the throne, if Jesus himself is God? (Even an old-school Arian view of the scriptures would acknowledge that "the lamb" can't be God. Just like Zeus can be god of the sky, and yet not be confused with Apollo the god of the sun. Christianity has to depend on a mystery called a "trinity" that literally makes no sense, especially since God is already a "Holy Spirit.") Furthermore, how can those evil Jews who don't believe in fake-Joshua "see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” if he's both the "Son of Man," and he's also "the Power?" The answer is simple -- he's not, and he won't. I could give you lots more horrible scripture that shows how Jesus ain't God, but if that doesn't convince you, then nothing -- even getting to the "world to come," meeting YHVH (who might even set the record straight, but you'll ignore his words of wisdom) & watching eternity pass & finding no trace of fake-Joshua -- ever will.

Jesus is more like the serpent as the early Christian symbol was a serpent on a cross. The message of the serpent in Genesis 3 22 is the same as John 10 34 . Serpent symbolizes resurrection

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

The serpent is and was the symbol of healing

@EnergyCenterTV

22 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709 yes ❤

Jesus is not Yahweh.

@nomadicrecovery1586

23 күн бұрын

Actually. With. Close look. That is his claim

@Thesortvokter

23 күн бұрын

Going by the Bible he MUST be. "I and the Father are One", and "What have you done to My Fathers House!" (YHWH's temple in Jerusalem), and also when he as a young boy was found in YHWH's temple and was surprised that his parents didn't know he was in the "House of His Father". Which is HIMSELF.

@mooshei8165

23 күн бұрын

@@nomadicrecovery1586 who’s claim?

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

​@@mooshei8165Yeshuas claim and the entire new testaments

@mooshei8165

23 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709 that’s what the gentiles want. Not the Jews.

Jesus is GOD

Hi and thanks. It should be the sons of god are coming in the clouds. Son of man is an addition it is meant to be son of god but jews denying xristos godship changed it to son of man. Xhristos is son of god not son of a man Joseph was not his father. He does not have a human father so why call him son of a man unless you are a jew who denies a son of god. They tampered with the holy writings. The word elohim means gods and it represents the pantheon of dieties. The masters/lord of a pantheon of dieties. The name yhwh is one of the elohim a lesser one that's been promoted to the father when in fact yhwh is a god of metallurgy he rules the technological world of metal gods ai is ruled by this volcanic diety over fire element. Seraphim are fore breathing entity. The angels who rule embody the elements. Water sea entity. Fire entity punished sdom and gomorrah the sea entity brought the flood.the earth and air entities. Earth swallow up the dead..air is a storm god coming in the clouds is not one being a son of man. Is a lie

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

It's supposed to say son of man. That's from Daniel 7

Of course the gospels dont answer that question. The bible was written to create confusion about El and HaShem and the gods of Israel. Geeez

@RealUvane

23 күн бұрын

Is this really that complicated to see??

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

The gospels do answer the question if you're familiar with the authoritative writings that came before them. In that sense they're overwhelmingly clear

@RealUvane

23 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709 the Bible doesn’t state anything clearly ever

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

@@RealUvane sure it does. It isn't complicated. It does require reading and familiarity if you're going to jump from book to book to book.

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

@@RealUvane will you share an example so that I understand you better?

C'mon! 3:07 is like when you say "Mommy, mommy" to call the attention of your mom. There's nothing special about it.

@vikingdemonpr

23 күн бұрын

4:13 Could't Mark 2:28 "the son of man is even lord of the Sabbath" be understood as a reafirmation of what it says before? The Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath, therefore the man is lord of the Sabbath because it was made FOR him. That is considering the term Son of Man as simply "a human being".

@ericgraham3344

23 күн бұрын

Why even listen To Paul? He NEVER Met Jesus. So Who is He to Say that Jesus is GOD? (And a “Vision / DREAM” doesn’t Count)

@Jen-e-sis

23 күн бұрын

This is how I took it too

@tsemayekekema2918

23 күн бұрын

​@@vikingdemonprJohn J Collins-who is the world's leading critical scholarly expert on Daniel-insists that the only reason Daniel says that someone appears in the clouds LIKE a "son of man" is precisely because he is NOT human, but a member of the divine council.

@tsemayekekema2918

23 күн бұрын

THEN disprove his theory by showing an example of a speaker of Greek who doubled the word Kyrios WITHOUT it meaning YHWH!!! You don't just get to dismiss a good argument without linguistic backing from the ancient period-all just because you have prejudice against a conclusion!

The Canaanite El Elyon is the father of Jesus. The Canaanite El matches Jesus personality.

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

The new testament portrayal is concerned only with the portrayal within the old testament

@fjibreel

23 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709 I think it’s two semi different religious traditions made into one. Jesus belongs to the priestly line of Melchizedek, as we know from Hebrews 7. Melchizedek was a priest for the Canaanite diety El.

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

@@fjibreel if you mean in distinction from YHVH with your first comment, then youre either misreading the old testament, the new testament, or both. I spend alot of time with source criticism, the vast majority within the Torah, and I agree that El and El Elyon were shared names and traditions among the peoples. What I'm saying though, is that the old testament in its final form as we have the text understands El Elyon and YHVH as the same being outside of one passage(which I agree with the Dead Sea reading of) in some versions, and almost a second one. In other places they are understood as the same. To the new testament writers, they DO associate El Elyon as the Father. They also assume two beings with the name YHVH. El Elyon is one, the angel is the second. They draw no connection to other peoples/nations and wouldn't and would not have understood them to be distinct or opposed entities, in the sense of saying YHVH was not Yeshuas father

@fjibreel

23 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709 It is true, but I have been reading up on Levantine anthropology going back to the bronze age, its collapse, and the beginnings of the Iron Age. What I've learned is that the Israelites are a combination of a southern "Shasu" people and the native Canaanites. This means their stories merged together at some point, and even if the authors of the new testament do not know this, there is still a type of memory of this Diety El, in the area (Northern Kingdom Israel), to which Jesus was born into and ministered. When he traveled south to Judah, in Jerusalem, Jesus clearly states that their father is not his father.

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

@@fjibreel Israelite origins are in my future for learning. I have a little info but not alot. Stories definitely had to have merged and I imagine theure from more than just 2 groups, but that's speculation. Yeshuas statements regarding the father comments in John was not a denial of YHVH

No

@KasperKatje

23 күн бұрын

So Jesus isn't (part of) god and you don't believe in the trinity?

@CliftonHicksbanjo

23 күн бұрын

​@@KasperKatjeTrinity = pagan superstition.

@mooshei8165

23 күн бұрын

@@KasperKatjetrinity is pagan doctrine. Nothing Jewish.

@Thesortvokter

23 күн бұрын

Yes. Going by the Bible he MUST be. "I and the Father are One", and "What have you done to My Fathers House!" (YHWH's temple in Jerusalem), and also when he as a young boy was found in YHWH's temple and was surprised that his parents didn't know he was in the "House of His Father". Which is HIMSELF.

@KasperKatje

23 күн бұрын

@@mooshei8165 from that pov you are right.

Jesus is absolutely Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament who created the earth. And Jehovah has a Father known only as El. Jesus Christ or Jehovah inherited everything from His Father including His titles. Jehovah and His Father do not share the same body. “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” said Jesus. He was not praying that all of His Apostles share a single body. “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” was not ventriloquism. “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”. Acts 7:55-56. It would be hard to stand at your own right hand. BTW you are on the same track as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints “When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-“This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” Joseph Smith .

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

It's not on the same track as LDS. The new testament does not understand the two as distinct embodied beings as one stands beside the other. (Right hand comments are not literal) The new testament understands one God the father, as an omnipresent unseen spirit. And one Lord, Yeshua, who is the image and only being seen in future or in past that represented that omnipresent being under the name YHVH.

@UVJ_Scott

22 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709 you’re spouting the philosophies of men mingled with scripture; namely the Nicene Crede…apparently this KZread video went right over your head. “Right hand comments not literal” nice try 😂😂😂 11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. Let’s just throw that out says Garlandjones, of course it’s not literal. “As a matter of fact nothing in the scriptures are literal if I don’t want it to be.” 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. “Oh yeah just some more abstract theological concept.” 22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: “Of course God doesn’t have a hand, he’s just an immaterial blob floating everywhere in space.” Sorry but your man-made conception of God is an abomination to Him.

Its very simple jesus is the son of god

@a-wanderer-44

21 күн бұрын

But he’s god at the same time? How come?

This is truly bad exegesis.

0:52 and here the problem with the poorly translated names, and the eras they where translated in. Ignorance of the timeline leaves one in such a delusional state of observation .. Matthew the profane name is actually MatithYahu = Gift of YaHU'aH aka YHWH🔯 the 4 power words, = the 8 pointed star tetYAHedron 🔯 via sonic implosion makes light 🔯 So no the Jesus name doth not provide such meaning, intelligence, knowledge and wisdom YaHUaH so loved the world, meaning people, he sent his beloved namesake, King Yahu'shua 🔺 MessiYah. And tho he came bearing Father's Great name, and to cause the people to ZacharYahu = remember YaHU'aH 🔯, they received him not 🚫. Instead, the northern Kingdom scribes Pharisees historians penned in IeSus Christos the Nicaea Creed, inserting Iesus of NAZARETH city in the northern Kingdom. And therefore King Yahu'shua 🔺 MessiYah was hung on a tree, having been whipped and spat on, even mocked. So the southern kingdom of TsYahn aka Yahuadah those called by YaHUaHs Great name, went into captivity, by Roman Catholic Constantine Christians..... The beheading of the Yahuadim in Spain Portugal Timbuktu China & Russia.... Its the opening of the 4th seal 🟢 revelation 6:8 & 13:1-8.. 6+8 =14, 1-3= 2, & 1+8=9 14, 9 & 2.... Yahezqel 22 chapter 📖 read the difference between the QODESH and PROFANE.. the word holy is PROFANE 🔥

Made up story valley.

Just deleted this subscription. What a bunch of crap.

The continiuos foolishness I see in certain scholars is the implication that God is so incapable of an efficient communication that they now feel the need to stepout and better explain what exactly God means!

@PhilSophia-ox7ep

23 күн бұрын

The notion that the Bible effectively communicates all of its claims is laughably absurd.

@tersooawen4249

20 күн бұрын

That is not the issue! My position ha that of God really meant to communicate and inspired it would have been efficiently clear to everyone, without any contradictions and ambiguities requiring further interpretations and clarity from mortal men! Therefore, the contents, flawed contents of the Bible should always be discussed either ad a mere book of moral and ethical compilation or thrown the bin and forgotten! The error is in accepting it ad the word of God in the first place, then describing God as an infallible omniscience then contradictedly implying that the same is unable to effectively communicate.

Jesus CANNOT be YHWH. Jesus himself prayed to a higher authority. All those elaborate affirmations were forced out of the mouth of Jesus by the authors of the NEW TESTAMENT. Not a single verse in the HEBREW SCRIPTURES refers to Jesus! Christian scholars, both in antiquity and contemporary only desperately look to interprete Jesus into the so called Old Testament. Very much like sticking an arrow point into a tree and then painting the target around it to demonstrate how good a snipper you are!!

@garlandjones7709

18 күн бұрын

This misunderstands the old testament conception of YHVH

When you say the early christians. Do you mean greco-christian or judeo-christan?

@munbruk

22 күн бұрын

good question

No

@garlandjones7709

23 күн бұрын

I'm not trinitarian, but Yeshua is clearly thought of as the angel of YHVH throughout the entire new testament

@tsemayekekema2918

21 күн бұрын

@@garlandjones7709 I think it is a logical fallacy-and the result of taking the later 4th & 6th century Trinitarian Creedal words out of their historical context (which biblical scholars are not experts in (new testament studies belongs to an earlier period), hence the misunderstanding)-to regard the Angel of YHWH as any different from binitarianism