If the "Data over Dogma" tagline doesn't work out, I recommend "Stop Retrojecting the Hypostatic Union!"
@annaclarafenyo8185
11 ай бұрын
According to Richard Carrier, and I agree with him, "the hypostatic union" predated the gospels. The idea that this is retrojection is predicated on the assumption that Jesus was a historical figure. This assumption is not valid and distorts the interpretation of the text.
@benjaminsaiken4851
9 ай бұрын
Isn’t the idea that the hypostatic union was before all of time an idea of the hypostatic union?
@brentryan2047
8 ай бұрын
Data over Dogma sounds clever but what a misuse of the term data. It's being used to project a sense of authority and truth regarding Dan's videos, however very little of this is "data," as data is objective. Nearly all of his videos are theory being called data. And I would argue in fact, biased theory. For example, he selectively addresses only part of the verse in Philipians saying it's a NIV translation error to say "very nature God" but doesn't discuss the rest of the verse or the numerous occurrences in the new testament that support calling Jesus, God. For example Colossians 2:9. Or the first paragraph of Colossians.
@vermontmike9800
7 ай бұрын
If Dr. Dan was data over dogma, he wouldn’t be Mormon.
@MinionofNobody
7 ай бұрын
I prefer the term “hyperstatic union”. It nicely sums up the Greek philosophical concept of the unmoving mover.
@oldcountryboy
Жыл бұрын
You would think an All-powerful God would get his message out more clearly
@Slippery_Si
Жыл бұрын
That’s such a cope dude
@oldcountryboy
Жыл бұрын
@@Slippery_Si That is such a cope I don't understand what you're saying
@unknownx7252
Жыл бұрын
@slipperysimon what?
@jaredhutchinson4629
10 ай бұрын
I believe an all powerful god wants to see us grasp for truth and life which allows for a deeper self and more substance to our character. That’s why I believe much of human life is a struggle between good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, faith and unbelief.
@oldcountryboy
10 ай бұрын
@@jaredhutchinson4629 Well you are allowed your opinion And you know what else another Christian will have a different opinion My opinion is God should have made it more clear so we wouldn't need your opinion You would just be able to read it Opinions Are like a******* everybody has one
@ggpro5767
Ай бұрын
God has no son. The relationship between God and everything. That everything is his property. And his creation. All created things have a beginning. God has no beginning
@dinocollins720
Жыл бұрын
Another fantastic video! Thank you!!! This was my favorite video you've ever made so far!
@VulcanLogic
Жыл бұрын
Very interesting. I thought they had only manipulated Exodus 21:22 (between the 1978 and 1984 editions, because they'd had time to get mad about Roe). I'm shocked that people who supposedly believe in inerrancy had to make such "corrections".
@MitzvosGolem1
Жыл бұрын
There are hundreds of changes errors compared to original Hebrew Scripture Tanakh. Isaiah 7:14 "virgin in future tense"Just one modification church made to endorse their theology.
@aspectsreflections9420
Жыл бұрын
I’m Greek, and I’ve read the Greek bible. When I hear mono/genesis/theos. I break it down as I just did. Mono= only, single, one. Genesis= born, is born, birthed by… Theos= God, and everything that is identified, not of a man made deity, but life itself (pneuma) spirit. To bring it into context…one born of God, or…born of God, or only God born. Pretty much the 2nd psalm.
@aspectsreflections9420
Жыл бұрын
@gekksvide0 typo, monogenis. Apologies. Really respect your views. My comment I guess is more dumb down and not from an educational point. I have no background or study. I’m just looking at what the words mean to me. Obviously it’s not from an academic point of view, just an opinion. I wouldn’t dare claim it from an educational point, I don’t have the credentials. My apologies. I really do value your opinion.
@aspectsreflections9420
Жыл бұрын
@gekksvide0 I see a paradox here. that I don’t see the difference of what is meant by one of a kind reproduction of God, and only begotten son of God it’s just words being rearranged the grand paradox of all things. I really don’t see a difference. And I’m not saying this to be ignorant and rude, or trying to sound as though I know something more than someone else. I just don’t see the difference between one of a kind and only begotten I think they mean the same thing.
@aspectsreflections9420
Жыл бұрын
@gekksvide0 that’s why I appreciate it as a work of fiction with truth hidden in it like a parable or fable, to be seen when it’s seen and heard when it’s heard. But we do the same thing with comic books. Anyways, there are whole departments of scientist working on trying to figure out exactly how strong mathematically Superman is, or exactly how smart mathematically Batman is. So you see we’ve involved ourselves with fiction and made it a part of our reality and in all honesty it’s all just fiction and it’s open for interpretation there’s no logic behind trying to figure out the reality of a fictional character in a comic book, and the reality of a fictional character to this day that cannot be proven in a Bible that has been shoved down our throats, and we can’t appreciate it from the perspective of art imagination, and pure fiction.
@narminagasimova1952
Жыл бұрын
@gekksvide0 Unique son translation is much better than the only begotten. Unique is matchless, there is noboby like him.
@truthbebold4009
Жыл бұрын
@@narminagasimova1952 Jesus being the only begotten Son of God makes Him unique.
@musikinspace
Жыл бұрын
That's great, but don't tell that man because he definitely needs to be going to church
@20quid
Жыл бұрын
What makes you say that?
@bobsmith-hd2zr
Жыл бұрын
@@20quid looks and sounds like a junkie
@guxt65
Жыл бұрын
I thought exactly the same!!!lol
@GoldenEmperor5Manifest
Жыл бұрын
In truth, I'd recommend something like Pure Land Buddhism to a guy like that. If he feels like he needs a Dogma then let's simplify it to an almost exact 1 to 1 scenario of a savior figure who will fix everything (Amitabha) and someone compassionate to make his life easy (Guan Yin). Then with a little mindfulness, he'd probably be good,. Yeah, he clearly did drugs, ran with gangs, probably had a rough past and needs a forgiveness doctrine. Now that I think about it, this is just the lazy way of overcoming deep seeded guilt. Instead of becoming a public servant, he'd rather preach but still get in people's faces about it if they don't agree.
@robithesir
Жыл бұрын
@@GoldenEmperor5Manifest Why r u so bitter, let the man live
@michaellong5714
9 ай бұрын
I am more and more enjoying your videos as I continue to follow them. I've always wondered about something, and that's change in and of languages over time, and the issue of taking a word in one language from one particular time of having it put down in writing - whether old or current - and finding a pretty much exact word in the translated into language. I somehow don't think that there is always a one to one translation where in both languages the word means EXACTLY the same to both the writer and eventual reader. Not only that, but different cultures have different inferences applied to words, and over time, even those ideas of what a word actually means can change. New words are created and old words disappear, and the meanings change with them. I'm not sure how today we can truly know an ancient language (and this is not to put Dan's work down, just to suggest that people with hardly any linguistic background seem to think they are scholars at understanding ancient words) with the subtleties that exist in any one word, that often change meanings depending on the context, location, and knowledge of both the user and listener. And yet in all hubris, we, today, feel WE are the ultimate result of all of humanity before us, and therefore WE have the ultimate knowledge and understanding of all things. No...we don't . (because the next generation will be even smarter...well, no, they won't either.) Context, education, culture, influences, all affect word meanings, and 'time' tends to affect words the most.
@thetruthseeker9733
2 ай бұрын
Hi. You are right about how language changes over time may skew our understanding of what is written. Fortunately for us this problem is not what we have to deal with to truly understand God from scripture. However we do have to look beyond translational bias based on accepted dogma at the time of the reformation. And we do have to join some dots around what we already know. For example the Jews would not call God YHWH because that name was too holy to use. So what did they call Him? Well they just referred to Him as - the divine one. Yes The Divine One. Let me justify two things here from this statement. Look at Strongs look at Vines you will see the word god/theos means divine. Divine is not a name. Divine is a category just like feline canine equine and bovine are. So to not use His name the Jews just referred to YHWH as the divine or the divine one. Now to the next point. Look at John 1 1 in the original Greek you will see that the translators fail to translate and include the greek word THE in front of the word god/theos/divine. Why did they not translate the THE, well because to say "THE God" sounds strange to our western language rules. Why because we incorrectly and inaccurately use and think of the word god/theos/diviine as a name when it isn't. So lets look at John 1 1 again. Lets look again at the verse that is the holy grail of trinity justification. What we are actually going to find is that John 1 1 is the holy grail of trinity destruction when translated correctly. Now lets look at it. In the beginning was the word and the word was with The Divine One and the word was divine . The same was in the beginning with The Divine One. So we see when we understand the word theos and we include all the greek words that should be included in John 1 1 that it reads quite fifferently to what we are used to. If these comments have whet your appetite to learn more about accurately looking at scripture go to lampandlightpathways on YT for more. Regards.
@nairbvel
5 ай бұрын
"Reject that, reject scripture." OK, done. :-)
@dorothysay8327
Жыл бұрын
I do wish you’d turn that high-power critical lense? On bogus Mormon texts. That should keep you real busy.
@__Ben777__
Жыл бұрын
He can never debunk that the charlatan Joseph Smith's 'translations' are a proven hoax, and the mormon religion is as made up as scientology
@raifkolbjornson
7 ай бұрын
So I checked my two Turkish versions and they go with Tattoo Man's reading (New Intl). Interestingly, one of my Persian versions goes against that reading, very clearly in fact, agreeing with Dan. But while I teach from that version, yet it has often struck me as a bit ... different. So I dug out my Peshitta and bingo, it is the strikingly identical to the Farsi version. Now I know why it seemed weird, it's drawing from the Peshitta. Now to go check my other 3 persian versions. Thanks Dan for this fun exercise!
@Meshalleez
7 ай бұрын
You have no idea what you are talking about. Your problem is that you are always trying to understand God intellectually.
@sunshowerpainting1
Жыл бұрын
Dan........You are so much smarter than the other youtubers. It's just not fair!
@caroldanz4279
Жыл бұрын
Love love love your site. Uber instructive! Thank you so much! ❤️😇
@GoldenEmperor5Manifest
Жыл бұрын
You know, it's funny and I say this because my brother is just like this guy and I've met with/worked with so many others. It's always these dudes who went to jail, had terrible drug habits, ran with gangs, didn't finish grade school and who lost hope in legitimately every other part of their life who push Christianity in the most overconfident, ignorant and belligerent of ways. These guys, who barely read mind you, will overconfidently and even arrogantly say to a Ph.D. in disciplines like Dan's or others like Richard Carrier or anybody else that doesn't agree with them, that those doctors have no clue what they're talking about. These guys will legit talk like the most street smart, smooth dudes no doubt while they tell you emphatically what the Bible says and how the scholar with the doctorate has no clue what they're talking about. It's that emphasis when they just get some verse that they like and they say it so unbelievably arrogantly. Sorry Dan, it's just legit, my brother has been in and out of jails and running with gangs, drugging it up for decades and he's just like this. I had an ex co-worker with a "ministry" (they all have ministries) who also did the same stuff as my brother. They all found Jesus and Jesus was the only thing that saved them from that life. I just wish these guys were strong enough to realize, they saved themselves from that life. All they had to do was find something positive to imagine. It shouldn't be their mission to try to pin everybody else down and force feed their mythology. We need way more addiction recovery houses ran by skeptics, atheists or even buddhists seriously. Get these guys on a different track than proselytizing and becoming the most arrogant, clearly illiterate apologists out there. Well, I say that, but then there's Ray Comfort so... I guess these guys are pretty smart by comparison.
@emptyhand777
Жыл бұрын
It seems these people use religion as a replacement addiction. They are addicts, their new drug is Jesus love.
@truthbebold4009
Жыл бұрын
Carrier doesn't have a clue.
@robithesir
Жыл бұрын
I've never seen a more rude comment on youtube. U take first place
@emptyhand777
Жыл бұрын
@@robithesir - you must be new to KZitem.
@robithesir
Жыл бұрын
@@emptyhand777 funny thing is that I've been here for like 10 years. I guess it's coz I'm a Christian and I understand God's saving grace and to see a man who most likely had a horrible past now follow Christ get slandered is genuinely heartbreaking
@sugarfrosted2005
8 ай бұрын
I've tried reading that version before. It really clearly adds unintended meeting even if you're a lay person.
@thomashewlett3166
Жыл бұрын
I know this isn't as simple a question as it sounds, but what do you consider the most accurately translated Bible?
@jpizzleforizzle
10 ай бұрын
I came here to ask this. In years past my go to translation was the New Oxford for the plethora of footnotes. But now Im thinking there's probably a better option for study.
@reaurt
8 ай бұрын
@@jpizzleforizzle In other videos, Dan recommends the NRSV Updated Edition or the New Oxford Annotated (5th Ed). Those translations, for English, are the most up-to-date and accurate according to the academic perspective. The New Oxford is best for critical study.
@jpizzleforizzle
8 ай бұрын
@@reaurt noice. thanks!
@benjamintrevino325
6 ай бұрын
Per Wikipedia (take that for what it's worth): Modern critical editions incorporate ongoing scholarly research, including discoveries of Greek papyrus fragments from near Alexandria, Egypt, that date in some cases within a few decades of the original New Testament writings.[28] Today, most critical editions of the Greek New Testament, such as UBS4 and NA27, consider the Alexandrian text-type corrected by papyri, to be the Greek text that is closest to the original autographs. Their apparatus includes the result of votes among scholars, ranging from certain {A} to doubtful {E}, on which variants best preserve the original Greek text of the New Testament. Critical editions that rely primarily on the Alexandrian text-type inform nearly all modern translations (and revisions of older translations). For reasons of tradition, however, some translators prefer to use the Textus Receptus for the Greek text, or use the Majority Text which is similar to it but is a critical edition that relies on earlier manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type. Among these, some argue that the Byzantine tradition contains scribal additions, but these later interpolations preserve the orthodox interpretations of the biblical text-as part of the ongoing Christian experience-and in this sense are authoritative. Distrust of the textual basis of modern translations has contributed to the King-James-Only Movement. * The bottom line is that no matter which version one is reading, it is a publication that has been filtered through someone somewhere. Because of that, they're all babble if you ask me, and we all know who is responsible for babble.
@davidanderson7389
2 ай бұрын
The new pastor of my church is a literalist, univocal, infallible, and inerrant teacher. I’m an old earth creationist and regard many passages in the Bible as mythological, allegorical, or symbolic. I’m really struggling with the sermons right now. Thanks for the teaching.
@Jake-zc3fk
Жыл бұрын
Oh yea baby! Keep ‘‘em coming Dan!!
@MacD559
Жыл бұрын
This man gives me some dark vibes since the 1st vid I saw of his something ain’t right with his intentions you can hear it in the voice like he’s almost holding laughter
@brentmathie7345
Жыл бұрын
Yes i agree he is no Christian .
@ErraticFaith
Жыл бұрын
Why would anyone be Christian. It's as he says, 'bunk'. If however you're interested in facts and actually well presented and informative material - you should treat him like...'the gospel' lol.
@brentmathie7345
Жыл бұрын
@@ErraticFaith 🔥💫🎵🎶📯😇💍
@__Ben777__
Жыл бұрын
Dan is a covert atheist posing as a mormon to gain political office in Utah, 2024 will be the 3rd time running as a woke democrat
@dustinrichburg8638
Жыл бұрын
@@ErraticFaith He worked for the LDS. He is heavily biased towards the true Christianity practiced close to the time after Christ's ressurection. He's likely an atheist and/or anti-christian & a grifter.
@matthewparsons9407
Жыл бұрын
Hey Dan, like your work. What does this text mean? Is this Jesus calling himself God or just another renegotiation of the text? John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
@TacticusPrime
Жыл бұрын
It's an assertion of Jesus' divine pre-existence, who has transformed himself into a man. You see this at the very beginning of John where "The Word" exists from the very beginning of Creation. The author of John positions "The Word" as a sort of demiurge, the actor and force of Creation, as a response to Neoplatonists and Gnostics. That is, God the Father can remain transcendent and ineffable while "The Word" carries out Creation. Contra the Gnostics, the author argues that this Creation was good and according to the wishes of God the Father. Note that this is specific to John. The other gospels do not take this divine pre-existence stance.
@Nathanielofficials
Жыл бұрын
The Bible calls Jesus an angel repeatedly (Malachi 3, LXX Isaiah 9:6, and many think he was the angel of the Lord) So.. the word 'am' was translated from a Greek word that also means 'exist' ... so it means that he existed before Abraham.
@davidjanbaz7728
Жыл бұрын
@@Nathanielofficials Genesis 19:24 here the pre- incarnate Jesus is the visible YHWH of 2 YHWH's in that verse in the context of just having talked to Abraham and Sarah in the preceding chapters. He was called a man just like the other 2 angels in their physical manifestation to Abraham and Sarah. He is also called the Man of God in Judges ch.13.
@sharonmarie5468
6 ай бұрын
I AM was what the lord the creator said he was called. So my understanding is he didn’t say before Abraham was I but rather he said was Am I and who in scripture refers to AM I ? But only the creator one true god himself? I understand all the confusion but I guess that why reading the entirety of it and relating past scripture text with other parts makes it a bit less confusing
@jollyrancher521
4 ай бұрын
Jesus' words in John 8:58 have been misinterpreted to mean that Jesus is claiming to be Jehovah of the Old Testament. Jesus is talking about his prehuman existence, not claiming to be God. The Greek expression in this verse (ego eimi) is very different from the Hebrew expression found in Exodus 3:14 where Jehovah says, “I am who I am” or, according to some versions, "I will be what I will be." Some Bibles correctly translate Jesus' words in John 8:58 to proper English as "Before Abraham existed, I have been" or "I existed before Abraham was born." In fact, in John 17:3, Jesus referred to his Father in prayer as the “only true God.”
@toniacollinske2518
Жыл бұрын
Ooo Dan stirring up the radical trinitarian pot.
@christasimon9716
Жыл бұрын
So... God/Jesus was praying to Himself? Does God/Jesus answer His own prayers? And why would God/Jesus even need to pray to begin with? Wouldn't He just be able to _do_ whatever, without resorting to prayer? And why would God/Jesus forsake God/Jesus? [Mark 15: 34, Matthew 27: 46] How would that even work?
@STAYDIVINE1111
10 ай бұрын
“But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then those who are Christ’s [own will be resurrected with incorruptible, immortal bodies] at His coming. After that comes the end (completion), when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after He has made inoperative and abolished every ruler and every authority and power. For Christ must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be abolished and put to an end is death. For He (the Father) has put all things in subjection under His (Christ’s) feet. But when He says, “All things have been put in subjection [under Christ],” it is clear that He (the Father) who put all things in subjection to Him (Christ) is excepted [since the Father is not in subjection to His own Son]. However, when all things are subjected to Him (Christ), then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One (the Father) who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all [manifesting His glory without any opposition, the supreme indwelling and controlling factor of life].” 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 AMP
@SalimShaikh-vt3it
7 ай бұрын
Jesus is not a son of god god create adam as also without father or mother there is no other god except one allah allah have no partner Mohammad esha as prophet messenger of allah so pray to allah not jesus beleive in akhirat after the dead judgement day ok
10 күн бұрын
A bishop in my area who fiercely claims that Jesus is God was unable to answer my question of where was the presence of the other God (Jesus) during the old testament period. Jesus himself said that he does everything through the one who sent him. God is only one and we cannot weaken him by saying that he came down to our level on earth.
@anitareasontobelieve378
Жыл бұрын
I don't think that man knows what ,"fully" means. Bible also says Moses saw God btw. Lies upon lies.
@nathanparrott247
Жыл бұрын
It irritates me that the bible has been disseminated as this perfect, unblemished work of god. Smh 😢
@nathanparrott247
Жыл бұрын
@@DBPCINC I cant deny that there are lessons to be learned... I think most of those lessons can be more safely learned on saturday mornings from the looney tunes
@dustinellerbe4125
Жыл бұрын
Nice video! Can you do a video on the Nomina Sacra? I'd like to learn when it was put in use, who most likely established it for biblical usage, and how we know what the abbreviations actually mean.
@MrWorldchamp1
9 ай бұрын
GREAT VIDEO SIR KEEP THE TRUTH COMING
@jondiamond759
Жыл бұрын
Is the Bible the oldest sci fi book translated into reality but still biblical science fiction?
@tonycook7679
Жыл бұрын
I see the whole thing as the earliest conspiracy theory, it has all the hallmarks and its adherents are very susceptible to all the current conspiracy theories too
@randykrus9562
12 күн бұрын
God's guidebook for humanity.....clear as mud. No confusion whatsoever.....
@jtm_h
3 ай бұрын
*You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. John 13.13*
@annakimborahpa
6 ай бұрын
Hebrews 1:1-8 (KJV): "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." And if the King James Bible was good enough for Joseph Smith, then that's good enough for me.
@ISATŌP1
6 күн бұрын
No, Jesus is not the Son of God and nowhere does "HE" say "HE" is.... Christ says it through the finite appearance of Jesus/matter! Jesus became the Vessel for the Voice of Spirit as all will ultimately be, but very, very few become this at a time. ●●What is Christ? God Expressing, God Individualizing, Identifying himself as You, as Me, as All. This is the Christ we are asked to believe. This is the "me," the "I" we are invited to accept, recognize, and believe in. We are being asked to be aware of the One "I" as the Identity of each of us. This is the Christ to whom the greater works are promised! So, what did Christ really teach through the appearance of Jesus? "Spirit is not Governing you as if you were separate and apart from Itself. It is Always Spirit Governing Itself AS your SELF. Spirit does not make mistakes, and can not have an Awareness of mistakes, errors, distortions, handicaps, etc. Spirit Governing Itself as your SELF, maintains Itself in Constant, Perfect, Harmonious Activity. It keeps Itself in perfect relationship as every other Identity in your Universe. There is not a single Identity in your Universe that is not the same Spiritual Consciousness that you are. Spirit maintains Itself in Its Perfect, Orderly Activity as every Identity in your Universe. No Identity in your Universe can get out of Its Right Spiritual Orbit. Neither can It act or function in any way opposite or contrary to the Spirit, which is Governing Itself as that Specific Identity." --Spirit Unveiled Spirit is so Utterly Mysterious that it can appear to Infinitely Individualize Itself into Form, and those Infinite Individualizations can appear to have a Consciousness, Mind, and Body of their own, but do not. This is why we don't judge after the flesh or appearances, and we Love our Neigbors as Ourselves. All is Spirit/God Appearing as a Level of Receptivity to Itself! "Of mine own self, I am nothing. Of mine own self, I can do nothing. It is the Father that doeth the works. & If I speak of myself, I bear witness to a lie" "I and My Father(and your father)are One" because the Infinite, Omnipresent Spirit of God is the Only Life. "Your very Awareness of being your SELF is Simply God Being Aware of Being Itself as your Awareness. You do not have a Consciousness of your Self other than God being Conscious of your Consciousness. You do not have an Awareness of your Body separate and apart from God being Conscious of your Body. God is Aware of Being All there is of You. God is Aware of Being Your Universe, your Identity, and your Body. But God is Also Aware of Being Itself as your Universe, your Identity, and your Body!" --Spirit Unveiled ●●●Corinthians 2:14●●● "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Peace Be Unto You
@davidallison9499
4 ай бұрын
In the Bible, there are verses that explicitly state that Jesus is God. One of the clearest declarations is in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This verse refers to Jesus as the Word who is God. Another verse is in Colossians 2:9, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." These verses affirm the divinity of Jesus as God incarnate. Many bright scholars believe Jesus was God and part of the Trinity. Dan needs to debate William Craig Wallace or Greg Koukl (or numerous others) on these topics. Let’s see where the evidence leads us. I enjoy Dan, follow Dan and appreciate his criticisms of the Christian faith. He makes me think and read counter arguments to his views. So far my research supports the views of Classic Christianity.
@nedcassley5169
3 ай бұрын
Only in "John" is it suggested that Jesus is God or even eternal. Nowhere is Jesus alleged to have said, "I am God." but he is supposed to have clearly distinguished himself from God on multiple occasions. God is omniscient, but Jesus says he doesn't know when the Son of Man will appear [it could have been that very day, week, month, year, or decade, -- but soon], and says that he shouldn't be called "good" because only God is good.
@jollyrancher521
3 ай бұрын
In John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun "theos" (god). The first theos is preceded by the definite article "ho". When the noun has a definite article, it points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God. However, the second "theos", referring to the Word, does not have the definite article. Many scholars agree that the fact that the second theos does not have a definite article points not to the identity of the Word but to a characteristic or quality of the Word, that the Word is "divine", "a god", “god-like”, but not Almighty God ("ho theos"). Note also that John 1:1 says that "the Word was with God". Someone who is with another person is not the same as that other person. The Greek word “theotetos” in Colossians 2:9 is translated “fullness of the Godhead” in the King James Version. However, according to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, “theotetos” means “divinity” or “divine nature.” The fact that Christ possesses “divine nature” or the quality of “divinity” does not mean that Christ is God himself. It means that all of the excelling qualities that God the Father possesses also dwell in Christ. If Jesus is God, why does Colossians 3:1 say that Christ is “seated at the right hand of God”?
@nedcassley5169
3 ай бұрын
Where in Scripture do bright scholars find Yahweh saying that He is part of a Trinity? There's no evidence that Jesus or anyone else in his world believed in a triune God.
@letstalkbiblewithshun.s
2 ай бұрын
Why did person one of the trinity, say that person 2 of the trinity is the only true God. 👇 John 17:3 King James Version 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
@davidallison9499
2 ай бұрын
@@letstalkbiblewithshun.s In the Bible, Jesus, who is the second person of the Trinity, affirmed the oneness of God with the Father, who is the first person of the Trinity. In John 17:3, Jesus prayed to the Father, saying, "And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." This statement emphasizes the unity of the Father and the Son in the Godhead while also highlighting the unique relationship between them. Jesus, as the Son, acknowledges the Father as the only true God, affirming the monotheistic nature of God.
@kennethchmiel8817
6 күн бұрын
The question about the meaning of " form" in phil. Is how would the Jewish Paul be using the word. Dan references possible usages from the Greco/Roman world and a commentary but that hardly settles the issue. In fact it reveals how he is interpreting Paul, there is a school of thought that reads paul through the lens of hellenistic thought, but this isn't the consensus, there are many options in trying to situate Paul. It would be more honest for Dan to nuance his responses.
@STROND
Жыл бұрын
No, the Bible does not , in fact the term "God the son" is a complete twist of words as it calls Jesus "SON OF GOD".....If Jesus is God then why did he say "I am going back to MY GOD and MY FATHER ? So WHO is the God of Jesus, and what is his name, when you find the answer to that question then you will see the TRUTH behind WHO God is ! Jesus backed up that belief when in prayer to his heavenly father said,...”"This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ. John 17: 3. Notice how he calls his father the ONLY TRUE GOD! The first century Christians taught the same when they preached for example 1 Cor 15: 24-28 where we see in Vs 24 that Jesus has a GOD AND FATHER and that in Vs 28 he SUBJECTS himself to his God & Father! SOME do say however, that Jesus does address God as his God and his father because he was A MAN however one of the clearest scripture which shows that Jesus is NOT God is Rev 3:12 where we see Jesus as NOT a man but back in heaven: "The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. New International Version So, please read Rev 1:1 which says: "a revelation from Jesus which GOD GAVE HIM" So WHO is the God Of Jesus, and what is his name ?
@jeffreyluciana8711
Ай бұрын
Matthew 3:16-17 16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
@letsomethingshine
Жыл бұрын
Also, the author of the pseudo epigraphic al book “letter to Timothy” could mean that, glory aside, Jesus means GodSaves same as Joshua means YahSaves and Hosea means Savior. So then “Joshua/Yeshua” means literally GodSavior which was a common Jewish name.
@letsomethingshine
Жыл бұрын
Of course the implication in joining the names was Yah(weh)=Savior
@atwaterkent911
7 ай бұрын
So confusing. God is One. Period. Man (or any created thing) cannot be God. But the C's continue to head down the rabbit hole of the Trinity...
@rimmersbryggeri
3 ай бұрын
Shouldnt Bar-Abbas be god the son really? Since the "name" Jesus is some times attached to that epithet? Is this not just a continuation of the polemics between El believers and JHWHists. The Jews chose the son of the father over The Anointed is there not some symbolism in that story? I kind of prefer if "jesus" is not attatched to Barabbas since the conflict is much clearer that way assuming that Jesus mean Yah delivers and not just an Nondescript god delivers. A video of yours I saw yesterday concerning the "True name of god" made me somewhat doubtful about that.
@royalcreations3970
29 күн бұрын
Love your Data over Dogma approach. It would be even simpler if people took the time to understand simple Aramaic idioms and metaphors, let alone the Semitic culture the Bible comes from.
@bzfgt1
4 ай бұрын
I don't know biblical Greek at all (or any Greek, really) but "morphe" in Aristotle could be reasonably translated "very nature" (usually translated "form" not as something's shape, but its essence or "what"). Any chance it's used in the same way here?
@jollyrancher521
3 ай бұрын
The Greek word for "form" is _morphe._ It basically means “nature; appearance; shape; likeness.” Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus is “in the form of God”, meaning that Jesus is a spirit just as God is a spirit. It does not mean that Jesus is “in very nature God” as the NIV translates it. _Morphe_ is also used in Philippians 2:7, where it says that Jesus “took the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” (ESV)
@STAYDIVINE1111
10 ай бұрын
This scripture proves Jesus is not God, but the son of God, like we need to read the bible more before we speak something “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then those who are Christ’s [own will be resurrected with incorruptible, immortal bodies] at His coming. After that comes the end (completion), when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after He has made inoperative and abolished every ruler and every authority and power. For Christ must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be abolished and put to an end is death. For He (the Father) has put all things in subjection under His (Christ’s) feet. But when He says, “All things have been put in subjection [under Christ],” it is clear that He (the Father) who put all things in subjection to Him (Christ) is excepted [since the Father is not in subjection to His own Son]. However, when all things are subjected to Him (Christ), then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One (the Father) who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all [manifesting His glory without any opposition, the supreme indwelling and controlling factor of life].” 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 AMP
@HeywoodJablowme222
4 ай бұрын
A lot of the case for Yeshua being God himself hinges on whether you even give credibility (vis-a-vis its fidelity to the words of Yeshua himself) to the Gospel of John, or any of the Johannine literature - Inc. the Book of Revelation. The various Johannine communities collated their stories much later, in (IMO) a blatant attempt to promote the divinity of Yeshua as a competitive measure to heighten his profile over time. The case for any reference to Yeshua as God in any of the earlier Synoptic Gospels - or in particular Mark, which was the basic source material for the others - is much, much weaker.
@vandango901
3 ай бұрын
I have basically adopted a "Teachings of Jesus First" approach while also secondarily studying the Christian mystics. I don't see any value in all these little debates about belief in this or that, this ritual or that, this practice or that. If the day of Judgement truly comes, God is not gonna come down and give us all a pop quiz on mundane facts to see who has it right. "What was the nature of Jesus? Is the Trinity the truth or Unitarianism? Is baptism necessary? Oops sorry, you failed the pop quiz. To hell with you! Should have made a better blind guess!" All I know is that if we were all to be like Jesus this world would be something different. These other details have nothing to do with the ascension of the soul or how we should live. These are speculative topics that no man could ever truly know and have no bearing on the purity and devotion of our souls. All that matters is we that we love and do our best to better ourselves and aid those around us best we can, and seek God from within. Jesus was the man and no one truly knows his true nature, the true form of God, or anything about the afterlife. Anything we think we know is pure speculation from the minds of men. All we have are these teachings, which when understood paint a beautiful ideal for humanity.
@DRayL_
19 күн бұрын
Ugh, I really have a problem with the "tough guy, alpha male, hyper arrogant" type, such as this guy Dan is answering.
@MarthaEllen88
5 ай бұрын
So much expert eidenced information in a short space of time. Shocking what the NIV has done. Makes me very angry. No wonder adopted by conservative Evangelical churches. You feel so vulnerable and deceived as a lay person.
@samwell707
15 күн бұрын
Dude is cocky Which dude am i talking about? You’re just going to have to negotiate with the text
@fnjesusfreak
10 ай бұрын
The NIV is too paraphrastic to use for prooftexting - the NASB or NKJV or even the KJV is a better choice.
@tonyschumacher-jones1540
Жыл бұрын
I’m shocked. Is the whole Christian belief a con? I know con is inflammatory, but where does this leave people like me who want to find God?
@ErraticFaith
Жыл бұрын
What do you want to believe.
@zombine555
Жыл бұрын
Put bluntly, there is no solid evidence for the claims of christianity, as of yet. Could change, tho.
@jayfriday4729
Жыл бұрын
I think the only "accurate translation" is done yourself with a concordance. Here you will see the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic definitions. I studied this mass of manuscripts for 30 years. There are no "accurate" translations.
@Danny_cordova27
Ай бұрын
Im confused with the dude, is he an atheist or what. And why doesn’t he just let people believe there own things.
@morley3810
Жыл бұрын
Again with the smugness and self elevating demeanor...why do these evangelical types always seem so condescending and pompous?
@barnaclelevi
Жыл бұрын
The aramaic; son of god = disciple of God. the word used is mar'a or in hebrew , maran. The translator should have wrote the correct translation Disciple instead of Son. this same case where they got wine mixed up with fine pure grape juice, and were too tipsy to do their translation accurately..
@faruqueshaikh6631
7 ай бұрын
God had no son god create Adam as also without father or mother there is no other god except one allah allah have no partner Mohammad esha as prophet messenger of allah so pray to allah not jesus beleive in akhirat after the dead judgement day
@greglogan7706
Жыл бұрын
@Dan I don't get any sense that Paul is envisioning some sort of divine intermediary and suggest that such a notion stretches paul's use of the term morphe vastly too far.
@sotl97
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, but your going to hell if you don't accept that Dogma Evangelicals have chosen as the only way.
@calanm7880
Жыл бұрын
I appreciate the passion of the original poster as I once loved this kind of doctrine. I really love the dude’s camera work going from him face on to his POV bible & Sharpie - that’s shooting & editing done really well and v engaging along with the energy. That said, thanks again Dan
@Sportliveonline
Жыл бұрын
Hi Dan ~#Do you think there is life after death
@thetruthseeker9733
2 ай бұрын
Yes absolutely. This day you will be with me in paradise. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. To depart and be with Christ is far better. Do you not trust the bible?
@DasWortwurdeFleisch
Жыл бұрын
7:15 the only begotten Son the being into the bosom εἰς τὸν κόλπον of the Father Compare to Lk 6,38 δίδοτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν μέτρον καλὸν πεπιεσμένον σεσαλευμένον ὑπερεκχυννόμενον δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑμῶν ᾧ γὰρ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε ἀντιμετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν „Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be poured ❗️into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.”“ Luke 6:38 John 1:18 seems to say that the Son is the inheritance of God.
@SalimShaikh-vt3it
7 ай бұрын
God had no son god create adam as also without father or mother there is no other god except one allah allah have no partner Mohammad esha as prophet messenger of allah so pray to allah not jesus beleive in akhirat after the dead judgement day ok
@seankasabuske1986
10 ай бұрын
Just a thought: MONOGENES means "only, unique, one-of-a-kind," so another possibility is to go with the rendering, "the unique god," which wouldn't be attended by any obvious difficulties in an ancient Jewish context, a context within which the "two powers" theology likely emerged. The idea of two powers was deemed heretical later, probably in the second century, but John was probably written in the first century.
@rockmantru
2 ай бұрын
Thomas said: "My Lord and my God"! Jesus didn't correct him.
@JosephBurke-d6l
7 ай бұрын
what do people not get about Yeshua being the Son of God in the literal sense born in the flesh not of the will of it but the will of God who is a spirit....
@Lindaeditz8
4 ай бұрын
Because it don't make sense,frankly if want to copy Greco-Roman mythology than that's your perogative,ust don't expect all others to follow suit
@HeywoodJablowme222
4 ай бұрын
We don’t get it because it’s not true. He never credibly claimed to be God, to his credit. The decision to firmly decide he’s the ACTUAL God was made hundreds of years later.
@luispacheco132
4 ай бұрын
keep on reading stop cutting off lol it then goes on to say Jesus was EQUAL to God
@WTL
Жыл бұрын
1 Corinthians 1:18-20 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will confound.” Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
@TheMesomovie
2 ай бұрын
I love the lesson on unreliability of the NIV. Can't stand that translation.
@lisamarcum919
5 ай бұрын
sor the covenant has numerous gods lets get real here there is even more than the trinity so if your not into the covenant i hope dearly i dobt go where you are going😂
@gdevelek
Жыл бұрын
9:00 I'm all in favor of "data over dogma", but the probability that "Jesus Christ" is referring to the "glory" of the L and S and not THE "L and S" is so remote it's non existent.
@Dreamcaster06
7 ай бұрын
Why?
@Solom0n2
Жыл бұрын
I have the NRSV 1980 And it says "It is God the only Son," And has the bracket at the bottom
@STROND
Жыл бұрын
NOWHERE does the Bible call Jesus "God the holy son" the NRSV is a corrupt translation
@faruqueshaikh6631
7 ай бұрын
God had no son god create Adam as also without father or mother there is no other god except one allah allah have no partner Mohammad esha as prophet messenger of allah so pray to allah not jesus beleive in akhirat after the dead judgement day ok
@Kingrobledojr
22 күн бұрын
Then tattoo guy is not even a scholar he should shut up
@dodo1opps
Жыл бұрын
Southern Cristian...that explains alot...
@archivist17
Жыл бұрын
An interesting analysis. Thanks.
@Nomad58
3 ай бұрын
No the Bible goes not say God the Son
@upclosepersonal
6 ай бұрын
God begats god. Man begats man. Jesus was son of man and son of god. Inherited both feature. Except jesus humbled himself since he begats his father so he has his fathers power but he humbled himself and became a faithful servant and stayed obedient to his father and is the example for the rest of himanity by showing his human son of man side. The humbling person where to be 1st you must be last. Whatever they wanna call him just remember. He is the second Adam first and everything else comes along the second adamm. The second Adam came from heaven because it came from his father but he also came from his mother so he was fully man and fully God because God begats God and man begets man but he was not the almighty God the father he is the son of god who is 1 with his father in total obedience carry out His commands. Jesus was the promised messiah who was gonna be the 2nd adam that is the redeemer that the father promised thru the ages and put faith and believe his word that would become flesh and existence would start at birth of his mother. The son of man and son of god the 2nd adam. Fullfill what the first adam couldn't do. God the father gave him the world domain over everything and he failed now Jesus Christ his son is gonna be the second adam and rule over everything and fill davids throne. why does jesus have to be the father almighty yahweh or a f God from the beginning Which contradicts scripture because there's only one God the father who stretched the heavens and the Earth alone.. if the first Adam wasn't the father and yet the father gave him everything? Why not the same for jesus. First Adam failed and now the father gives his son 2nd adam everything. It's pretty simple Trinity, binitarianism, Oness All those 42000 denominations are nonesense and need to go. The father, word, and spirit is the Godhead. And it's embodied in jesus his Son. The father word spirit godhead 3 in 1 in the Son Jesus. It doesnt make any sense if its the father the son and the spirit and these e are 1 and now inside the flesh of jesus. God the father god the son and spirit. Why is the Son in the Son? Makes no sense. Only the father in the son. Not father and son inside Son. Jesus in jesus being godhead bodily.
@erichwentz2866
5 ай бұрын
Jesus is the return of Enoch the savior of mankind. Enoch was taken up to heaven and anointed by God, chosen to be the Messiah.
@mooshei8165
5 ай бұрын
That’s not what the Jews say.
@kpbear13
8 ай бұрын
God I love your channel
@joeferris6782
4 ай бұрын
Dan is cool, and very educated. However, his LDS bias clearly seeps through his explanations. He basically doesn't believe the scriptures are reliable which is an age old Mormon belief. Jesus is God. If he is not God, then there is no hope in this life.
@LionelCartwright
Ай бұрын
Thank you, Dan, for continually putting yourself out there, along with your hard earned knowledge. Much appreciated.
@chadspinnox566
26 күн бұрын
I'm going to become Muslim now because this is exactly what Islam is saying about Jesus and God. In Islam, God doesn't have kids and parents and wives and has no human characteristics and that Jesus is only a major prophet and messenger not God and not the Son of God. Looks like Islam is the corrective original Christianity of Jesus himself.
@WitnessToTheEnd
26 күн бұрын
Judaism does not recognize Jesus as God, why not choose that one?
@chadspinnox566
26 күн бұрын
@@WitnessToTheEnd because I love Jesus and Mary but I just don't think they should be gods or God men.
@WitnessToTheEnd
26 күн бұрын
@chadspinnox566 but Islam teachings are counter to what Jesus taught.
@AlexLee-tk3is
Жыл бұрын
I see The Main Dan is wearing a Lobo shirt.
@helixmoore7636
Жыл бұрын
Imho GOD is NOT a Trinity
@lisamarcum919
5 ай бұрын
i think you r a god😂😂😂😂😂
@Malagrass
Жыл бұрын
2 things; does anyone think the op will understand a third of this explanation? And I’d be he has a complete MAGA wardrobe. Just saying.
@Jesusfollower-x1j
9 ай бұрын
You are very wrong, brother. Even if morphe is translated "form", Jesus would be God. As thousands of other passages in the bible tell you.
@Dreamcaster06
7 ай бұрын
There are no passages that say he is YHWH Philippians chapter 2 only indicates he is divine not the GHod of Israel.
@Jesusfollower-x1j
7 ай бұрын
@@Dreamcaster06 Es gibt viele gute Materialien dazu im Internet, da können Sie sich informieren. Jesus ist Gott, das macht die Bibel an zig Stellen deutlich. Ich hoffe, Sie erkennen das irgendwann und kommen zum christlichen Glauben!
@__Ben777__
Жыл бұрын
Show me where Dan believes ONE THING from the bible, or even Joseph Smith's fake book Even ChatGPT is more honest than this unbelieving 'mormon' He claims his translating is superior to all the thousands of Christian bible translators that came before him who spent their lives studying it The below verses have the same meanings (Jesus states he is God) under any of the translations, except from Dan and his atheist group... John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." John 14:9-10:"Jesus answered ... Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father... Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?" John 8:58: Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" Mark 14:61-62: "Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.'"
@Dreamcaster06
7 ай бұрын
This comment shows and embarresing level of ignorance regarding Dans position. Dan is not an atheist and it´s not "his translation" but something that comes from people who actually study these languages. Dan has already replied to all the passages you are bringing here and non of them show Jesus is God. The oneness we see in John 10, 13, 14 and 17 clearly dopesn´t refer to being one being because John 17:11 and 21 say that Jesus followers will share that same oneness with him so neither John 10:30 nor 14:10 show that he is God. John 14:9 and John 8:58 can easily be explained by positing that John follows the jewish idea of GTod bestowing his name onto other beings and thus allowing them to claim Gods authority and power and titles an idea that many jews at the time held up. John seemingly hints at this relation of Jesus to God in 17:11 so the reason you see God when you see Jesus is because he manifests Gods presence through his name. Mark 14:61-62 identify Jesus as the son of man who is distinct from God so how is that helping your case?
@pshayes
Жыл бұрын
I really wish you tagged these people in your responses. None of these people are educated in scripture, and just take a text that was translated and retranslated a hundred times over the centuries, at face value, and trust the translators to not have agendas. Your channel is the reason I'm not religious. If God created all these books with so many flaws in interpretation, then he must not be as powerful as his books say, or the Bible is just a fairy tale.
@trevorprice2490
Жыл бұрын
IMO scripture doesn't need to be perfect, univocal, or even unambiguously authoritative and articulate in order to help us seek the divine or find meaning in life. I find it sad that some people argue so incessantly that scripture is or must be infallible, because it so obviously isn't, and it was never meant to be.
@emptyhand777
Жыл бұрын
@@trevorprice2490- people need to take a deep breath and realize there were Christians running around practicing Christianity decades before the New Testament was written. Maybe there is more to Christianity than was is in the NT.
@dorothysay8327
Жыл бұрын
This is an absurdist jump in logic. Please see the podcast ‘The Bible for Normal People”. One doesn’t have to be an inerrantist (treating the biblical text as an idol, tbh) to see Scripture as the Word of God.
@fordon2897
5 ай бұрын
What if Jesus had a son.
@veridicusmaximus6010
7 күн бұрын
Even if monogenes theos was original it would only be so with these extant mss - it tells us nothing about the autograph of 'John.' And John being a late comer anyway this would only tell us that this was a development of how Jesus BECAME God - not that this was from the first disciples or anything Jesus taught. There is a lot more work that these Triny guys need to do. Amazing that such an important doctrine is so hard to come by in these problematic texts. Thanks YHWH, as an omni being you could have done better bro.
@soldiernomore3843
8 ай бұрын
The J.W’s have removed the brackets from their 2013 edition of the NWT and left them where it supports their theology. I guess no one noticed them anyway? Scribes are going to do what scribes are going to do.
@PreshR-P
2 ай бұрын
Somehow this video increased my faith just a little bit more. I actually enjoyed this content, education from a different point of view without. disrespect. 👏🏾👏🏾
@MacD559
Жыл бұрын
Coming from the guy who tell people “quit looking for meaning from these words” and then goes on to make a video explaining the meaning of words in the Bible ?? Make it make sense
@Gio.Lab.
8 ай бұрын
Sons of God theology is thought all over the scriptures, Trinitarians love to change the meaning of words therefore when Paul says that Jesus existed in the Morphe ( please don't say Morphee, it's an eh sound at the end, I'll give a pass cuz you're white as snow no hard feelings) of God, or in the form of God they lose there mind. See says God there, yes i can read but what's God form? Isn't he spirit? ( John 4:24 ) in what nature do yall think the sons of God exists in ? Spirt right ? No ? ( Psalms 104:4, Hebrew 1:7 ) are the sons of God not called gods ? ( Psalm 8:5, Psalms 82:6 ) yes Jesus the son of God existed before he became a human in the form of God, spirit, and he was a god a devine being with God in the beginning, no Trinity, is just that Christianity completely forgot how the Jews understood God and how they viewed God's Messengers or Malak or the Bene Elohim, once you understand that, scriptures are going to make a lot more sense
@jenna2431
Жыл бұрын
OR you can ditch Christianity altogether. If Jesus is god, then he's culpable for all those immoral crimes that god committed or instructed. If he's not, then he's not a god--sacrifice that you thought. Game, set, match.
@svezhiepyatki
Жыл бұрын
No ditching of anything is required to participate in these discussions. One does not have to believe that the Middle-earth is real to argue whether Balrogs have wings or not.
@johnburn8031
Жыл бұрын
666 likes 👍 😁😉
@DasWortwurdeFleisch
Жыл бұрын
I object that Ph 2 is an incarnation hymn. It speaks of Christ’s death (emptied himself). I disagree that heauton ekenosen is qualified by labon morphe duolu and genomenos en homoiomati anthropos genomenon. Rather, those are actions anterior to ekenosen, so they describe what happened before this emptying took place. Similar grammar is found in Gal 4:4 (God sent forth his son - aorist indicative - having come out of a woman - aorist participle - God sent his Son who came out of Mary - sent at roughly 30 years of age, not from heaven to earth. John B Lounibos also finds this to be the case in Ph 2 in his book Kenosis and the self emptying of Christ. Incarnation is being read into the text.
@defenestratefalsehoods
Жыл бұрын
So what do you say and would make Jesus a lunatic who just talks to himself. Also how many people can be at their own side? if jesus sits at the right hand of the ruler he cant be the ruler.
@angreehulk
Жыл бұрын
🤘
@ballasog
11 ай бұрын
The concept that Jesus was God was introduced by his grandmothers.
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana
Жыл бұрын
Moses is also called God 💃🤖. So it really isn't the silver bullet against the entire point of the argument against Jesus being the God 💃🤖 anyway, Though, really since Yahweh makes the most sense internally as a *nation* 🏛 in the Bible ✝📖 anything that is a part of a nation makes sense to be called it in some contexts, e.g..: • Any of its citizens • Any paperwork of the nation, especially legal documents • The buildings • The structure, especially the structure Which makes the whole being God thing unimpressive. Any rando can be part of the USA. It doesn't make them have the USA's army.
@canwelook
11 ай бұрын
Preaches the bible yet has the tattoos forbidden by the bible (Leviticus 19:28) plastered over almost every inch of his body?
@hive_indicator318
10 ай бұрын
When has he preached the bible on this channel? I know he talks about the texts as can be found in early sources, the meanings of words in their original languages, and the histories of various translations and versions. But when has he preached about how people should interpret these texts as to how to live their lives?
@canwelook
10 ай бұрын
@hive_indicator318 Did you think I was referring to Dan, or to this channel?
@hive_indicator318
10 ай бұрын
@@canwelook I thought you were talking about Dan, since you didn't clarify. Also, I was meaning to ask how you saw so much of his body. If it's the person in the original video, or whatever.
@canwelook
10 ай бұрын
@@hive_indicator318 Yeah, mate. I was referring to the Christian who first appears on this video, who is totally covered in the very tattoos which are overtly and specifically prohibited by the god of his bible.
@Apologia14
7 ай бұрын
So what does he think “morphe” means then? Jesus did not have a human nature either? What was he?
@Jesusfollower-x1j
7 ай бұрын
Dude, we christians believe that Jesus is God. Only non-christian sects like JW or Muslims do not. On what side do you want to be?
@theoutspokenhumanist
Жыл бұрын
An excellent video and clear explanation, as always. However, my answer to this 'colourful' gentleman would simply be, yes, I reject scripture, along with everything else written by various men.
Пікірлер: 524