Відео

Nothing in the 4th Gospel indicates that "God manifested himself on Earth." In fact, if you read the book, the Father is always in heaven where Jesus is going to go after his public ministry (e.g John 12:28; John 13:1-3; John 20:17). To "manifest" is to appear in a visible form; Jesus himself (whom the disciples could actually "hear, see, gaze upon, and touch" on Earth, 1-John 1:1) was not God the Father himself.

​@@riversofeden3929 definitely.. otherwise God was pretending that he became human and is still partly a human and sits at the right hand of himself. That is absurd and I can't comprehend how people believe this kind of doctrines.. 🤕🤒😵‍💫

@@Mckaule Yes, God pretending that he became human is absurd. And God still being partly human is absurd. And God sitting directionally to the right side of himself is absurd. And I believe *none* of those things. As for what's even _more_ absurd... The Biblical Unitarian "God" creates Adam, and Adam sins. And in the following millennia, the Biblical Unitarian "God" creates billions more human beings, and 100% of them sin. So the "plan" of the Biblical Unitarian "God" to _save_ those billions of human beings, of whom 100% sinned, is to create yet _another_ human being, "the human Messiah" - *who is every bit as capable of sinning as the billions of previously created human beings, of whom 100% sinned* - and hope that _this_ created human being is the one that _finally_ won't sin, *against the odds of zero in several billion,* so that he can be offered up as _a human sacrifice_ to pay for the sins of billions of other created human beings. If the Biblical Unitarian "God" wasn't a myth, he would be, to put it mildly, an utter fool. And a _wicked_ one at that. Repent of the abject absurdity of -Biblical- Unitarianism, and receive the revelation of the *self-sacrificial LOVE* of the one true God, whose name is revealed to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*

​@@euston2216you say "creates billions more human beings". But we don't believe so. We believe that God personally created 2 human beings. First as it's written is Adam. Eve was taken from Adam for humans to be able to procreate. All billions of humans were born because of procreation. We were not created by God because man is already created, now we just procreate like all living creatures on the earth. God created everything and rested because he had FINISHED His works. He didn't create more humans, more stars, more moons, more lions or other creatures because works were FINISHED. All those who are made to procreate now they procreate and fill the earth and those which are not, they don't. Don't be a fool.

Hi, thanks for listening. While the man Christ Jesus was/is God's agent to be regarded as God in the authorities that God gave him, I believe the Bible is clear. Jesus is a human being who has been raised to the right hand of God (Acts 2:33, Col 3:1, etc.). In Matthew 26:64, "Power" is a euphemism for God, the Father.

@@billschlegel1 1. Negative, no euphemism: the "power of God" literally is the "power of God". The reason is simple: Jesus has no OWN power at all - like a regular human being - He therefore uses the "power of God" (controlled by the Father). 2. From 1. you can see that God is not there: heaven is the kingdom OF JESUS, He is the ONLY KING. Of course when God were there HE WOULD BE THE KING, NOT JESUS. Yes, God is ABSENT, He lies in a different temporal dimension (before Jesus Christ existed). 3. thus you only have a RELATIONSHIP with God, but God is not here. 4. I'm aware it is rejected, but logic is respected even by God: if God were here with his freedom, then it would be impossible to know the future, since that future would still be dependent on his free will decisions. But God must know the future! It's irritating you don't understand that. 5. God had all his relationships with the mankind even BEFORE THE WORLD STARTED. You have those SAME relationships NOW, God is absent though "the world has not known you". Thus, our relationships with God occur TIME SHIFTED, not in Real Time. 6. Jesus' words are important, evangelists' and Paul's take the VERY rear seat.

@@billschlegel1 ... I think it's a bit confusing when you use language like ... "Jesus was/is to be regarded as God." Where did anyone make that kind of claim about Jesus? Did Jesus tell anyone to "regard (me) as God"? Why would Jesus need to be "regarded as God" when he himself is "the son of God"?

@@riversofeden3929 "He who receives me receives Him who sent me." "Have I been with you so long....he who sees me sees the Father".

@@billschlegel1 ... are you taking that literally? These claims would apply to the unique Father/son relationship that Jesus had with God. What other "agent" in the Bible was making those claims?

I think you make some good points. There actually isn't any "agency" language in the Bible. Being "sent" by someone does not make him an "agent." That is why Bible translations don't use the term "agent" or "agency." The Talmudic rabbis (2nd Century AD) who came up with the so-called "Law of Agency" (Shaliac) understood it specifically to refer to a representative involved in a legal/financial transaction (e.g. when Abraham sent his servant to purchase a wife for Isaac). For example, a Centurion sending his servants to speak to Jesus does not mean that the Centurion himself was "in" the servants, or that Jesus was "seeing" the Centurion, or that those servants somehow assumed the authority of the Centurion. It also doesn't mean that the servants were the actual voice of the Centurion himself. They were merely men sent to make a request under the authority of the Centurion. This is just common sense. Jesus was claiming to be "the son of God" which is where his inherent authority came from. That is what made him different than the many others who were "sent" by God before him (cf. Luke 13:34). None of the prophets or Jewish authorities who spoke on behalf of God and Moses were making the claims that Jesus made.

Hi. Thanks for listening and responding. The key is not taking "was" as a ontological statement. The idea that the Messenger is to be regarded as the Sender does not mean ontologically, but that the Sender is/was present when the Messenger is/was present. E.g., in the NT example, the messengers that the centurion sent "were" the centurion. That is why Matthew can record the account as if the centurion was present speaking to Jesus. Another example: the mother of James and John was James and John in their request to Jesus - compare Matt. 20:20 and Mark 10:35. Again, not ontologically or physically. But the one representing is to be regarded as the one whom he/she represents. I agree, another way the NT makes the same kind of declaration for the human person Jesus of Nazareth "being" God is by saying that God (the Father) was in, even "dwelling in" him. "the Father who dwells in me does His works".

Rivers, of course we've gone over this before. :) If you don't like the word agency, that's fine. Call it the law of the Sent One. In Hebrew that is what the principle is known as. In the Gospel of John it is declared that Jesus is/was sent, or "he whom the Father/God has sent" over 40 times.

@@billschlegel1 ... there's no "law of the sent one" in scripture either. Numerous persons are said to be "sent" by God throughout the Bible. They are just messengers. What made Jesus different is that he was claiming to be "the son of God" and not that he was sent by God like all the others. This is why "calling God his own Father" was significant (John 5:18).

@@billschlegel1 ... I don't think that is the right way to look at it. Matthew and Luke are giving different accounts about the Centurion incident. Matthew attributes the message to the Centurion himself, whereas Luke attributes it to his friends. There may or may not be a contradiction. It doesn't follow that the two accounts have to be reconciled so that "the friends were the Centurion." It doesn't even make sense to make a statement like that. Is the Centurion himself multiple persons? It seems like unitarians are trying to use this to conflate identities. From a linguistic standpoint, it's better to simply understand that the message of the friends was attributed to the Centurion himself (just like the arrival of the angels in Genesis 18:1-3 was attributed to an appearing of YHWH himself). Nobody literally saw YHWH himself or heard His voice. It's just figurative language. One doesn't need to be an "agent" to speak on behalf of someone else. Identifying them as ordinary messengers is sufficient.

Excellent job, Bill!

absolutely correct. The very word "angel" from greek 'angelos' means "messenger." yet theologians with letters after their names try and tell us the "angel of YHWH" is pre incarnate Jesus. Its like trying to herd cats! The amount of stupidity in religious tradition.

Awesome examples man.. 👍👍👍

absolutely!

Thanks for having a listen. Allow me to just encourage you (us all) to think about what the human person Jesus of Nazareth meant when he said, "He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me". Blessings.

Yes I have been through that an many verses. But Jesus says, "My Father and I will make our home in your heart". No man can do that, but then again Jesus was God's word which became flesh...Jesus. Who is God. John 1:1. Thanks for your reply. I also see how Jesus didn't reveal himself to many, but later even some of the disciples still didn't believe when he came back after death. It was a long process for them to really see that when they saw Jesus they were seeing the Father.

​@@TRUTHSKR448i think your theology is dictating to your reading comprehension.

@@ken440 thank you.

interesting point of view but not biblical. Paul tells us all who come to christ are sons of God. The angels are sons of God (the firstborn) and Paul also tells christians that they will be raised and glorified with christ, and that he Jesus is first up from the dead, first of many "brothers" brought to glory. (still future prophetic) So you see here we are sons of God, brothers and sisters to Jesus our big brother, if we are saved. Jesus being the forerunner, the only one (as yet) raised to heaven out of all of us. Now, "son of man" is interesting. Because elsewhere like in Daniel, a son of man means a son of mankind, a human. Gen3:15 is the key, here God promises Eve (the flower of mankind. source of "man.") that a seed of hers will be the one who destroys the works (bruise the head) of the devil. So Jesus calling himself a son of man, is a reminder of that promise. He is saying he is human. A son of man. The offspring of Eve. So your two examples prove Jesus is a man, and not God.

another point, you refer to him as "Jesus christ." Christ is translitterated from the greek word "christos" which means "ANOINTED." Just like the hebrew word translitterated "messiah" means "anointed" in hebrew. So "Jesus christ" is simply "Jesus anointed." Which you can see in promise in Gen3:15 and Deut18:18 with its clincher Jn8:40. And proved by Peter in Acts2:36 which is in reference to Jesus after being raised. Do you see the points?

"Vahou is the Father of YHWH as JESUS CHRIST in parts." You've got me there. Please feel free to explain what you mean.

@billschlegel1 ok. One) Vahou ain't Jesus. Two) Jesus Christ is a two part name. One part for Jr one part for Sr. Jr and Sr together are one person while also being two people. Meanwhile Vahou Fathered YHWH and YHWH became flesh more than once. So Jr Sr to show the difference between incarnations of YHWH the Only begotten son of Vahou the selfbegotten of ELELBETH

Yehovah is the Father's name, the sons name is Yeshua, Yeshua was the first creation of the Father, Yeshua was an angel, not just any angel but The Angel of the LORD

@@AngloIsraelite Hi, Jesus declared that he was "a man who told you the truth that I heard from God".

Hi. Thanks for having a listen. Although being "filled with the fullness of God" is not directly the topic of this podcast, note that all believers in God and Christ can experience that: "so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph 3:19). That truth does not make a person or persons God.

@billschlegel1 indeed not. Jesus was a nan born of a woman under the law, but Jesus was our example we must also have the Spirot and be godly as the Word of God. Good video by the way from here in UK.

Amen

I did. Interesting. One word that the dictionaries used that wouldn't fit with Jesus was "independent". Jesus didn't speak or act "independently". "I do not do my own will....I do only what I see the Father doing", etc. Blessings.

@billschlegel1 Hi Bill. The "independent" of the definition as I understand it would be the same as Joseph acting "as if" pharaoh, or an angel acting for YHWH. To act as a representative, as if, as "given mandate of authority" to address situations as Gods trusted agent. Thats the way I see our lord Jesus of the coming kingdom. Not independent from God, but independent from situation in acting FOR God. i.e. given some leash. Anyway I think its a word that means ambassador or representative. cheers.

@@billschlegel1 Just thinking about this a bit more Bill. Adam was created with a free will. He was independent, could decide for himself, and God took the risk. He was disobedient. The covering cherub, that rebel, was created with a free will. And leading other elohim firstborn sons, were disobedient. Using their independence for self gain. sin. You and I have free will. God seeks us to come to Him in our own free will, by faith in Him. We are, like Jesus, filled with Gods spirit (the same spirit that raised Christ from the dead resides in you" says Paul) and we are to come to our father in heaven in a loving family relationship. We are supposed to be drawing closer and closer to Him, by our will to do so. Obedience to that faith position. That is our free will called upon to act. If we have true free will (as opposed to calvinism ) then we, like Jesus who was totaly obedient (showing he too had free will) are independent. Our independence is "wooed" by our father in heaven. Called to. So the independent part of being a plenipotentiary, is essential to being a true follower, because it is our will to shape our will/independence to our father in heavens plan. True free will, to independently decide to shape our will to His. i.e. the "independent" aspect is essential to true faith, otherwise we be robots driven by predetermination. I hope that my thoughts here are clear, no doubt someone will rant at me. blessings.

And .... Given that God tells us in the word that He will not coexist with sin. And that He has placed a firmament between the heavenly realm and the creation, then He has already told us He will NOT come in person until sin and death are defeated. So therefore as you say God ALWAYS uses an agent. Thats why angels are called "angels" its "angelos" in greek, which means messenger. God doesnt return until that prophecied in Rev21-22. We are on the same wavelength.

It's good observation and question.

@@ken440 ... angels are called "messengers" because they were not "agents." That's why nobody translates any Hebrew or Greek words with "agent" or "agency" in any Bible. Even the term "Shaliah" used by the secular Jewish rabbis after the time of Jesus is not found in the Bible. When Jesus said things like ... "if you've seen me, you've seen the Father" he's using simple figurative language. It's no different than when Paul told the Corinthians that he would be "present in spirt" when they were going to confront the man who was sinning with his father's concubine (1-Corinthians 5). It had nothing to do with Paul being literally present in Corinth or anyone actually "seeing" or "hearing" him there at the time.

@riversofeden3929 ha ha, always a stickler for detail Rivers.. If I send a friend to some third party as a messenger, is my friend not being my agent??? the angel in the column of smoke and fire, not a messenger, but certainly an agent doing Gods will. You say tomato, and I will say potato. Both edible and good for you. blessings.

@@ken440 ... no, your friend would not be your "agent" simply because you send him somewhere with a message. That's why we have two different words for "messenger" and "agent." I realize that the "agency" idea seems appealing to unitarians but there are underlying flaws that make it a useless option from an exegetical perspective.

Hi. Yes, I'm familiar with the arguments over the pronunciation of God's name. I think Yehovah is probably closer. But, people knew who I was talking about, and so does God. There is always going to be transliteration of names from one language to another. I assume when you talk about Hezekiah you don't say Yechezkiahyahu. When I lived overseas, people could pronounce neither my first nor my last name "correctly". But I knew they were referring to me, and didn't get bent out of shape over it. God is more gracious than me. The important thing is to clear up the confusion between LORD and Lord.

@@billschlegel1Hi Bill, thanks for taking the time to reply. Firstly, I would like to thank you for the work you have done, you have cleared the doubts I was developing about the book of John. I now see John as a shining light for the case against the trinity. Regarding your reply on my comment, all I would say to you is this; Perhaps the Rabbis and scribes are right in hiding the name of the Eternal One, the Gentiles seem to have little respect for it. Please keep up the good work. Peter Doyle - A wild olive branch.

@@retepelyod So true about the Gospel of John. Gentiles, I think particularly Westerners, get thrown off by some of the metaphorical language and figures of speech (10:6, 16:25) but even so the overall themes of the book are so clear if we just listen. The author tells us why he wrote the book (20:30-31, but people want to say they know better! In the Eternal One's name - I agree. And the confusion of kurios/lord makes it worse. Blessings.

Acts 10:37-38 …. you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how *God anointed Jesus of Nazareth* with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, *for God was with him.*

Not really sure what you are trying to say. But as to John 10:33, the whole context is if Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. He clarifies specifically that he is (claimed to be) the Son of God in the next few verses. Even for the reaction and accusations of the listeners. context is agency. As God's sent Son, the Christ, Jesus would be the personal presence of God (the Father, the only God in the New Testament). "The agent is regarded as the one who sent him."

Was there any other saviour except God ? No. Was Moses God or just an anointed one through whom God led his nation through wilderness ? With Jesus the same, he is anointed by God to lead his children through spiritual wilderness into a promised land a.k.a Heavenly Jerusalem. Jesus is the saviour but God is ultimate Saviour because he had given us Lord Jesus through who we can be saved by following his steps because he's a trailblazer.

@Mckaule 📜 Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. 📜 Philippians 3:20 "Our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" 📜 2Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. 📜 Isaiah 42:8 I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.

@@HebreosCincoDoce-nt8rx I see that you don't want to understand. What did Simeon say when he saw Jesus? Luk 2:29-30: "“Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation" Ask the question who is THY and who is SALVATION. GOD is Saviour, Jesus is SALVATION. Simeon didn't say "for my eyes have seen YOU OUR SALVATION". Simple if you are like a child.

Below is an example of where 'ouk' would not translate well as 'no more.' '‭I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am *not* (ouk) worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:' (Matthew 3:11) If we change this to 'no more' would it make sense? It would mean John was previously worthy and now isn't any more. I don't think that's what he's saying. And I don't believe Matthew 1:25 is saying 'no more' either. What you're doing is taking passages where 'ouk' might mean 'no more,' and then imposing that on your chosen verse. Which is just speculation, while ignoring the clear language describing how Mary conceived by God's power.

Very Nicely done Bill ! Blessings ❤😊

​@@eddieyoung2104 I think John was able to tie Jesus's shoelaces BEFORE Jesus was baptised (and Jesus was anointed). Even after the baptism, a whole bunch of people were able to administer to Jesus. While he was alive. While he was dead. While he is NO MORE dead.

@@SimplyAwesomeOriginal Maybe you're right about John the Baptist. However, there's plenty other examples where Greek 'ouk' wouldn't translate well as 'no more.' Matthew 3:11 just happened to be the first one I came to. As an alternative, how about Matthew 5:17? Would that work translated as 'no more?' '...I am no more come to destroy but to fulfil.' In other words, 'I'm not come to destroy anymore, but to fulfil.' That would mean Jesus had been destroying and then decided to stop. I don't think that's a good fit. Or what about Matthew 7:25? '...it fell not (no more), for it was founded upon a rock?' The house had started falling, then stopped? No, that doesn't fit either. The house falling or not falling is dependent here on it's foundation. Sand equals falling, and rock equals standing firm.

Hi BreadCrumb, No, I didn't forget Thomas' declaration. The God that Thomas perceived in the Lord Jesus was the Father, just like Jesus had told him the week before. Blessings. ua-cam.com/video/hxYp4n52P8Q/v-deo.html

@billschlegel1 Its okay, not very one is going to believe. The Bible says that everything was made by him, that in its self sounds like God. COLOSSIANS 1:12-17 .

@@BREADCRUMB17 Col. 1:12-18 is all in the context of the new creation that God brings about THROUGH the exalted man Jesus. Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. Note Paul describes what is new specifically: "all authorities, powers, thrones, dominions - all..." The parallel is Eph. 1:19-21.

@@billschlegel1 QUESTION- are you saying jesus was created, right.

@@BREADCRUMB17 Hi. Yes, Jesus was created by God. He is also the firstborn of the new creation by virtue of his being raised from the dead by God. If Jesus was not created, he is not a human being (and even for "deity-of-Christ" speculation, does not have "human nature".