Transformers is loosely based on Gnosticism. Optimus Prime is Lucifer Megatron is Archangel Michael Unicron is Yahweh Optimus Prime and the Autobots betray their race to help humanity. Unicron sends Megatron and the Decepticons to stop them.
These are false teachings founded on Mormonism. Dangerous corruption of Christianity. Look at Dr. Michael Heiser’s page for a better interpretation of Scripture that not only supports the Bible, but also solidifies it for the reader, not confuse them as McClellan does.
You shouldn't be. His explanation makes no sense in videos when you look at context in the verses. Jesus claimed to have known Abraham. That goes beyond claiming to have divine authority. He claims to have existed back during the time of Abraham.
@@jahamilton More importantly, he used the "I am" epithet. Religious Jews would be rightfully offended by that (from their POV) the same way that Christians would be offended by any man that calls themselves "lord and savior" even if that phrase doesn't inherently have a religious meaning. It's all about the cultural context.
@@angelusvastator1297 Exactly. Dan is one of those people that speak confidently about something that they're ignorant on. Full of misinformation and people listen to this guy because he sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
@@jahamilton Agreed. I'm guessing he's able to garner that following cos he's both a critical scholar and someone that can affirm unorthodox christian beliefs. But as always, there's no "one voice" in academia. Ppl should form their own opinions based on the best evidence.
Numb Nuts,there is NO interpretive OPTIONS! Stop looking for short cuts to Heaven.There are none. You will learn NOTHING about Jesus,Salvation, Rapture, the Second Coming, what you MUST do to take Jesus as your savior, you will learn NOTHING about any of the true,honest, factual, change of heart, directions a person must take from this SATANIC FOOL and LIAR! You have never read or studied the Bible,and trust me,been there, this is NOT BIBLE STUDY! This is demonic lies.
That was great! And I was esp. happy for you to note John 20: 22-23 on this argument (Jesus bequeathing the authority to forgive sins to his followers). And thank you for the elucidation of Exodus 23: 20-21 including the understanding of the authority of the divine name--this I did not know this and I'm happy to have learned about it today. I first saw you on a short clip via the Majority Report (where you were critiquing Jordan Peterson), a while back and hoped you were more prevalent on the web--and I just discovered your site just this past weekend and am very much a fan (binge watching like crazy). I don't have the ability to get to Brown U. but am looking forward to your conference on Monotheism and the Bible as being published at some point and as well will seek out some of your other publications and recommendations. Thank you Dan. Keep up the excellent work.
I came closer to God by getting to know him better... thank you, Dr. McClellan. My focus is much better now, and I have found answers to questions I've had all my life.
@sonnierae He's a mormon bro not a Christian, and in his long interview on a mormon channel he never mentions Jesus or repenting at all, he joined the mormon cult as an adult and "saw a pathway opening up" ie a career. He literally doesn't even believe in his own cult, let alone the Christian God and Jesus, his main aim appears to be using his tiktok fame to get elected in Utah as a woke dem, which he's already ran for twice now, and likely again in 2024.
The problem is this isn’t the only place where Jesus claiming to be God is claimed. By calling Himself the “Son of Man” repeatedly, Jesus is claiming to be a divine being based on the passage in Daniel. Not only that, the Jewish belief in what the Messiah was supposed to be is far different than it is now. In Psalms the Messiah is called “elohim”. Even if this passage wasn’t clear, just by calling Himself the Messiah, Jesus made the claim to be divine by Jewish understanding. That’s precisely why they wanted to stone Him for blasphemy.
You're absolutely correct. There are a great number of proof texts that Jesus is God Almighty. He claims very undeniably to be God in Rev. 1:8. Acts 20:28 tells us that it was "GOD'S blood" that was shed on the Cross. 1 Tim. 3:16 declares that it was "God" that was manifest in the flesh. Again, there are COUNTLESS proofs in Scripture that Jesus IS God. None of these deniers can explain what took place in John 18:4-6 where Jesus leveled an entire regiment of Roman Soldiers simply by speaking the words "I AM". How did God Almighty CREATE everything in existence today? BY SPEAKING WORDS. It goes on and on and on. God bless and stay in The Word.
I wanted to comment and say the same thing. The result of Jesus claim is that the Jewish leaders wanted to stone Him for being a man and claiming He was God, I would take their response as proof of their understanding of His claim.
No. In this very video Dan explains how Jesus was not claiming to be god, or the messiah, but rather the possessor of the divine name (as other figures in judaism have) when he says he is the "son of man". Dan also covered the Jewish beliefs about messiahship at that time when talking about this. It would not have allowed jesus to be the messiah.
Dan McClellan I'd like to know your thoughts on the subject of Jesus saying "You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High" which is a quote from Psalms 82:6
He's got both video and paper publications on this one. Search "Thoughts on Psalm 82 and Its Use in John 10" in the channel history, normally it should display the video among the results, and the papers should be mentioned or linked there.
You really have to twist the translation to read this chapter as monotheistic. It's clear that Yahweh is standing before the divine council, presided over by El Elyon, making a case for the "poor and oppressed". He's casting judgment on His Brothers and Sisters.
It is what it says, Jehovah is calling others "Gods" Remember the Hebrew word for God is ELohim and means "mighty one" So if Jehovah can give the title "God" to others, then he can also give the same title to his SON !
@@joabtheharmless4051 His videos are wrong and will steer you in a false direction. I would suggest Michael Heiser’s channel. It is a more accurate interpretation of Scripture and is not founded on the false teachings of Mormonism.
Thanks for this, Dan! This is easy to misunderstand but very important. It really threw me the first time that I heard of the concept of other beings "carrying the divine name". I wonder how/why this aspect of the theology developed?
Theophoric names do this as well, even in pre-Christian times with names like Apollodora, Aria, Artemisia, Dionysius, Isidora etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophoric_name
@@JohnCephas Jesus name means "Yahs/Yawehs salvation". YHWHs name is in the guys name which is further symbolism of him possessing the divine name, like the other men of god
4:58 Literally in John 10:33: "'We are not stoning you for any good work,' they replied, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God'."
The Pharisees also claimed Jesus had a demon, were they right about that too? Just because they believed those things about Jesus didn’t make it true !!! They were gonna believe what they wanted to believe and Jesus would have gotten stoned regardless!
@@HJohn-xn9ub So did Jesus have a demon ? Who are you gonna believe ? The Pharisees who thought Jesus was God and that Jesus had a demon or are you gonna believe Jesus who said he was the Son of God?
These video lectures on Christianity serve as an educational exercise for me. Exploring the facts about this religious tradition that has shaped human culture for millennia is certainly intellectually engaging. However, if I were a devoted Christian, it's understandable how learning that some biblical "truths" may be debated interpretations and established religious traditions, rather than strictly historical facts, could be potentially confusing and emotionally devastating.
He's not leading you in truth. He's a broken cistern. There are plenty of Bible scholars who will divide the word rightly and will not deny Jesus His divine glory. Of course denying the truths of God is emotional. If you do not think this is important, you will have no emotional commitment.
The Bible is an extremely Dangerous Book (Romans 3:7) It promotes racism (Jesus Saves = Worship the White Man). It makes Jesus a Greek God. Einstein saw a problem with the Bible at an early age (Carl Sagan/Brokus Brain).
'Monotheism did not exist within centuries of Jesus' lifetime' - now that's intriguing. I'm familiar with the fact that the OT is an evolution of polytheism/henotheism - but I was under the impression that by the first century, monotheism was a thing. Are you saying that, for instance, the gospel authors were not monotheists? As an atheist, I'm on board with the scholarship on how Y****H became 'God' - but this sounds like a claim I wouldn't want to make if debating Christians, for being waaay out there.
The Old Testament acknowledges the existence of other gods multiple times. There's nothing strange about the idea that the newly formed religion, composed mostly of jews who were still unsure as to what properties did Jesus have and why, would also still accept the existence of such gods (though always as lesser than YHWH).
@@howlrichard1028 yeah, maybe I wasn't clear. I get that maybe some or even most Jews were henotheists at the time of Jesus, still following the OT during the Roman occupation - but putting aside the argument about whether the New Testament claims Jesus is God, I was under the impression that the followers of Jesus, and maybe Jesus himself, were monotheists in a way that was different to the way Israelites from the previous centuries looked at things. I'm guessing that Dan is saying that Christianity cannot be called monotheistic until perhaps the reign of Constantine, and if so, that's something I haven't come across before. It's very intriguing.
@@bengreen171 I am not aware of any evidence of any Christians being monotheistic before the late medieval period. The early Catholic Church is explicitly henotheistic when asserting that the pagan gods were demons, when they were not being conflated with Saints or Arch-Angels. Monotheism is a historically recent concept.
@@bengreen171 The bible consistently old and new testament says not to worship other gods or not to partake in food offered to idols. This would make no sense unless these beings of other religions are real . The bible teaches that yhwh is God of god's and lord of lords
@@brettmajeske3525 interesting. Maybe I don't know the correct definition of henotheism - but isn't reducing gods to demons an act of dismantling a .... sorry, my mind's gone blank - insert word for 'collection of deities', (I can't get the word parthenon out of my head and now I can't see the right word, but I think you'll get what I mean. Damn that's annoying) and so in effect is the establishment of monotheism in henotheism's place? F me what is that word?
But isn't Jesus' saying at John 8:58 "before Abraham was I am" saying that he has had the divine authority of Yahweh for eternity? He says "before Abraham existed", and the Jews retorted that he was not yet 50 years old. Jesus couldn't have been saying he's more than 2000 years old or 4000 years old. It has to mean he existed eternally with divine authority doesn't it? Wouldn't that make him a god?
Yehovah, NOT Yahweh, as that is not even a hebrew name. There is also a clue in the names of people in the Bible whose names were made up in part from the names of their gods, referred to as THEOPHORIC NAMES IN THE BIBLE,,,,,,theophoric names are names derived from a god. For example: False gods: Bel and Nebo: Bel = Belteshazar (Daniel) Nebo = Nebonidus, Nebuchadnezzar, True God Yeho(vah) ….Yehoyakim, Yehoram, Yehoshua, Yehoshaphat, Yehudah, Yehoash , Jeho-a-haz The CLUE is in the name
azazelsgoat Yahweh is true name of God Yehovah is not as it comes from founder of Jehovas witnesses. God has many true biblically names however. Truth 'Holy Spirit is God and Father is God and Gods son Jesus is God 3 diffrent persons in one God they are all equally much divine one God. video The Meaning of Yahweh YHWH in the Bible "Yahweh is the name of God in the Hebrew Bible. Since the Hebrew language did not have vowels, the name is often written as YHWH. This is known as the tetragrammaton"
@@azazelsgoat no "The LORD is a warrior; Yahweh is his name ! " NLT Exodus 15 : 3 Gods name is Yahweh period video The Meaning of Yahweh (YHWH) in the Bible
"18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son (Jesus Christ) , who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known. " John 1 : 18 Berean Standard Bible Jesus Christ is God and God´s Son.
@Dan McClellan. So, you do not see Divine Council theology as being consistent with monotheism? Also, are you saying that the Gospel of John does not have a high christology?
@@timbertome2443only from your Mormonism: YHWH is God Most High of the Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology: NOT your Mormon Heavenly Father/ mother nonsense. Christ is the visible YHWH of the Hebrew Bible with the Father the invisible YHWH: both persons of YHWH R in Genesis 19:24 as two persons of YHWH.
5 mo of and not answered. Well, idk of he's covered the trinity, but the answer to your second question is 2 fold. Jesus was a thorn in the side of the Jewish leaders. He did, after all, probably overturn tables in the temple. Made quite a scene. He was also an Apocalypticist, claiming the kingdom of God would come to earth within the lifetime of that generation (it was later reinterpreted when it didn't happen much like the Watchtower and the UFO cult and others, but I digress). Jesus told the 12 that they would sit on 12 thrones under him. The Jews used this to get the Romans to crucify him for treason. At least one gospel writer mentioned that detail when describing the sign nailed above his head.
@@emalee8366 This Dan McClellan is a Mormon, so he will not do a trinity video, unless he destroys the trinity. LDS do not believe in one God. They believe they will be gods some day. Don't believe this guys crap.
Dan, what are your thoughts on the way in which Trinitarian thinking emerges among the Apostolic Fathers? Where does it come from and why is it that it is that which consolidates?
Oh, something makes sense to me now. It's not obvious that the quoted verses prove that Jesus is God, and it's obviously not what Jesus literally says, but to a committee who has just invented the Trinity, these verses create that tiny sliver of "not impossible".
Hey I like your videos!! I’m a new viewer on your channel and you’ve really caught my attention with these facts you’re presenting. So much so that I would like to ask you, what do you think about yeshua Ben Pantera? Scholars claim that it might be the real Jesus 🤔
@@NielMalanWho do you mean by "a committee that just invented the Trinity"? And may all your committee meetings go much, much more smoothly than those did! Could you imagine?
What does it mean to be the possessor of the divine name? I do not understand that concept. Can someone give me some clarity on what that means? I watched his explanation twice and it just goes over my head.
In many religious traditions, especially in Judaism and Christianity, the divine name is considered sacred and ineffable. For example, in Jewish tradition, the tetragrammaton (YHWH) is the sacred name of God, considered too holy to be spoken aloud. Those who are seen as "possessors of the divine name" are thought to have a special role or authority granted by God, sometimes being seen as mediators between the divine and the human.
Lots of good content on this channel and I have given many “likes”. But a question: if we can’t talk about homosexuality in biblical times because the term didn’t exist as a category, how can we call John anti Semitic? Isn’t anti Semitism a “modern” categorical grouping?
Homosexuality as an orientation didn't exist, but homosexual behavior did exist. So we can talk about homosexual behavior. Anti-Semitism did exist back then. Conceptually, anti-Semitism is just Jew hatred. Homosexuality as a concept is a sexual preference based identity which is completely new. The two aren't really comparable.
or that any is the exact information, every translatiion of the Bible that I have read has passages that are changed slightly but that changes their interpretations.
I am a Christian, and despite all the videos I have seen, I still have my faith in God. I understand what you are doing, and I won't attack you for it. There are some parts of the Bible that contradict each other, and you are doing a good job pointing those out. But my takeaway from all of your videos is that Jesus is real and God is real. This is not because someone told me, but something I encountered myself. Have a nice day and God bless you.😊
Dan, thank you so much for this video. I was going to request your response on this as I was trying to explain this exact thing and all references you gave to my parents this week. Wonderful video as always.
"... I believe in one lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, *God from God,* light from light, *true god from true god,* begotten not made, *consubstantial with the Father,* through Him all things were made..."
@@MarcillaSmith That eloquent snippet is from the Nicene Creed, not a backstage pass from one of Jesus's sermons. Crafted in AD 325, it's a theological deep-dive, not a direct quote from the man himself!
Are you familiar that the angel of the lord you just mentioned that posses the divine name in exodus was interpreted by many church fathers as christ it is as early as justin martyr. The son appeared as an angle in the old and as a man in the new
@darienwhite6223 He claimed that He was Lord of the Sabbath with the authority over it (Mark 2:23-28). He took the divine name “I AM” for Himself (John 8:58, from Exodus 3:14). He said that the way to the Father is through Him (Matthew 11:27, John 14:1-7). He made Himself equal with God (John 5:18). He claimed that whoever saw Him saw the Father (John 14:9). When He was given the opportunity to correct people treating Him as if He were God, He didn’t (Matthew 26:63-65, John 19:7-10). He claimed to have descended from heaven (John 3:13). He claimed to have the power to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19, 10:17-18). He claimed to be replacing the temple (John 2:19-21), which was the place known to house God’s presence and the forgiveness of sins. He claimed to share “glory” with God before the world existed (John 17:5). He claimed to be sent from Heaven (John 6:38, John 4:34, John 3:13). He claimed He would send His angels (Matthew 13:41, Luke 12:8-9). He claimed the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5). He assumed the authority to judge the world (Mark 14:62) and that one’s attitude toward Him would impact the end of their life (Matthew 10:32-33). He claimed to be perfectly sinless (John 8:46). He claimed that to know Him was to know God (John 8:19), to see Him was to see God (John 12:45), and to receive Him was to receive God (Mark 9:37). He claimed, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:29-33), which was not lost on Jewish listeners, who responded, “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (verse 33). In His teachings, He consistently demonstrated authority over the Law, or Torah, most notably in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The whole new testament claims he is God. If people want to dance around that and make excuses then they are the ones in denial
@dani4157 God spoke from heaven while Christ was on the earth - Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; John 12:28-30 God is a separate witness of Christ - John 5:36-37; 8:17-18 Christ was "with" God in the beginning - John 1:1-3,10,14; 6:38; 16:28; 17:3,52; 20:21; 1 Jn. 4:14; Eph. 3:9 Christ is God's Son - Mark 9:7; John 3:16; 9:35-37; 17:1; 20:17,21,31; Eph. 3:14; Heb. 1:6; 5:5 Christ prayed to his Father - Matt. 6:6-9; 26:39; 27:46; Luke 23:34; John 12:27-28; 16:26; 17:10-11 Christ was seen standing at the right hand of God - Mark 16:19; Luke 22:69; Acts 2:33; 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 10:12; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 3:21 The Father committed all judgment unto the Son - John 5:17-20,22-23; Rom. 2:16; 2 Tim. 4:1 God anointed Jesus Christ - Acts 10:38; Heb. 1:9 God honored, blessed and glorified Christ - Matt. 12:18; John 5:26; 12:23; 17:1,24; Acts 3:13; 5:30-31; 2 Pet. 1:17-18; Phil. 2:9 Jesus was raised up by God - Acts 5:30-31; 1 Pet. 1:21 God and Jesus are plural (we, our, us) - Gen. 1:26; Isa. 6:8; John 14:23; 17:11,22 God "sent" Christ to atone for us - Mark 9:37; John 3:16; 5:24; 6:38; 7:28-29; 8:42; 12:44-45; 17:3-4,6-10,18,25; 20:21; 1 Jn. 4:14 Christ asked men to pray to God in his name - Matt. 6:6; Col. 3:17; Heb. 7:25-26 Christ spoke of his Father in heaven - Matt. 10:33; 16:15-19; John 14:12; 20:15-17. Only God knew the exact time of the end; Christ did not then know - Mark 13:32; Matt. 24:36 God the Father is Christ's God - Mark 15:34; John 20:17; Eph. 1:17; 1 Pet. 1:3 Christ's will and doctrine were separate from God's - Matt. 26:39-42; Luke 22:41-42; John 5:30; 7:16-17; 14:10 Christ did his Father's and not his own work - Luke 2:49-50; John 17:3-4 Christ came in his Father's name - John 5:43 Christ came from and returned to God - John 14:12; 16:27-28,30; 1 Pet. 3:21-22 The Father was "greater than" the Son - John 10:29; 14:28; 1 Cor. 15:28 We come to the Father only by the Son - John 14:6 Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God - 1 Cor. 15:24 Christ is mediator between God and men - 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:6; 9:5; 12:24 All distinguish the two.
@dani4157 Every single one of these verses is proof against the Trinity. The identifier "I Am" is an identifier used by the authorized possessor of the divine name, be it the Malak YHWH (Angel of the Lord) or Metatron or Jesus, and bearers of the name can forgive sins and receive worship despite not themselves being God, and with that knowledge every single instance where Jesus supposedly claimed to be God is actually no such thing. Of course, most of this was in this video which you evidently refused to even watch.
I have always found it interesting that this specific question is actually answered and explained in the ‘Old Testament’ scriptures before the Messiah was even born in flesh. I find it fascinating how people will use the OT to legitimize Christ, but shy away from it when it comes to explaining him.
I'm glad I subscribed to Dr Dan McClellan. I enjoy listening to a scholar on such topics rather than the unlearned biased religious people claiming what they state as factual when it isn't. The first person, who comes at the topic on a scholarly level, was Francesca Stavrakopoulou. Not sure how she lands as per knowledge, but she seemed to be a quality source, and was one of those who helped me out of a religious faith.
Unfortunately what Dan says here is full of errors. First he omits Jewish texts like Apocalypse of Abraham and also fails to note other places in the gospel where Jesus says I am. He is basically just repeating the work of a few scholars such as I assume James DG Dunn and possibly Paula Fredericksen, but these scholars have been challenged by other scholars such as Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, Chris Tilling, Michael F. Bird, etc
Also the fact that you stated, "unlearned biased religious people" suggest that you are willing to even believe in false information as long as it comes from a source you agree with. In cognitive science this is called confirmation bias which is seeking out information that aligns with your already held beliefs
@@giftedtheos You have no clue what you're talking about, when it comes to who I am. When I said "unlearned biased religious people", I was referring to the majority of people who just parrot claims they've heard from apologists, expecting people to just believe them. I am NEW to this content provider. I enjoy hearing scholar level reviews of religion. He doesn't get things right? Okay. But don't you dare tell me that I will "believe false information as long as I agree with it". IF something was wrong, I won't believe it. SO, who am I to believe??? YOU?? What are YOUR credentials??? How am I supposed to know if YOUR comments aren't "false information"?? Who am I to believe when it comes to these things?? Because I would bet that another scholar will disagree with what you said here! Maybe they would disagree with Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, Chris Tilling, Michael F. Bird, and have VALID arguments! Maybe these guys are more truthful. I'm a layperson, so I can't know. BUT, don't ever accuse me of "believing false things" sir!! If it is FALSE, I won't believe the claim!!! But therein lies the major issue!!! People will assert that THEY are right about it, and show evidence. Another will assert, "No, that guy is wrong, and here's why", and provide evidence. I guess my ONLY option is to not believe in, nor agree with, ANY of you, because where would I even go to decipher what IS factual?? I grow so tired of haughty people
I'll try to check out your book, but I find it strange that you connect authority to forgive with Exodus 23 which explicitly says the angel will not forgive because he has the Lord's name in him.
Same. I looked at that "verse": Pay attention to him and listen to his voice; do not defy him, for he will not forgive rebellion, since My Name is in him. It says what he will not do, not whether he can or cannot, and this is exactly one (category or type of) sin. Admittedly, in context, it covers a large number of distinct behaviors. Perhaps rebellion is or can be shown to be a synonym for "transgression", which is different from iniquity or from failing or shortcoming (hamartano in the LXX, I forget the Hebrew word for "sin" as used in say Job 1).
If he will not forgive, that indicates refusal to do something he is able to do. You wouldn't say "I won't forgive your sins", because you can't. The angel couldn't withhold something he didn't have to give.
I disagree with this, John 5:17 also appears to say Jesus is pre-existent. John 5:17 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. That's just plain reading there, you can argue interpretation but I think it's more logical to go with a plain meaning of the text. As opposed to forcing our own personal interpretation, and the book of John starts off telling us Jesus is God. John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Based on this I believe yes Jesus is God.
Most Christians who want to prove that Jesus is god use the gospel of John to validate their point and disregard all other scriptures that show that Jesus had a God see Revelation 3:12. The gospel of John was written for the gnostics and is not a literal statement about Jesus Christ. It was written in a mystical manner that unfolds as the prologue continues, if you read further into John’s gospel you can understand that he presents Jesus as an enlightened man who did the will of his father and introduces the concept that we can all be one just as Jesus was and is one with the father.
I agree, do you think you could at some point address the apologetic idea that those angels identified using God's name were Jesus in pre incarnate form? I hear that idea from the late Michael Heiser and it sounded good at the time but I'm willing to bet there are lots of reasons it shouldn't be read that way.
Hebrews 1 5/6 says that Jesus was never an angel. It says 'onto which angel God has ever said today you are my son' (thats not a word for word quote). The goal is to show that Jesus is and was always higher than angels. The angel is identified as Michael in ancient Jewish sources. The angel has a God and the reason why he is called God, is answered by God himself. he says: because my name is in him. It does not say because I am him or because I became an angel. Its basically like a messenger who is sent by his king and who can speak in the Kings name. That was the case in ancient times. The angel also prays to God and directly speaks to God and is identified as "an angel" whom God sent and is distinct from him. I mean It even says "angel of the lord".
And the most striking point for me is, the torah says God gave Moses the law. But Paul says it was given by angels. So this proves too that normal angels can be called God..
@@ronjones1414 either we read from beginning to end and start with "there is only one God" or we do it like Xtians but then we have to be consistent and then we have 100s of God's. E.g the angels who gave the torah, the council in the pslams, Moses who is called God of Aaron, Satan who is God of the world, Melchesidek who has no beginning and no end and no father or mother etc.😮
John 10:33- The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” The Exodus "angel" perhaps was a pre-incarnate Christ, but even if not, its clear that Jesus was claiming to be God.
““I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man (Jesus) Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days (GOD) And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:13-14
Well I choose to believe that Yeshua was God incarnate, BUT I always welcome and respect alternate views, and I love Dan's scholarly analysis of these issues. PLUS, in the end all that really matters, in my opinion, is that we follow Christ's ACTUAL teachings and mandates....or in other words, live your life pretty much the opposite of the way MAGA evangelicals live theirs.
But you don't have his authentic teachings and much of it contradicts Paul. Jesus says 4 times in the synoptics to keep the commandments/law for eternal life. He says to obey the Pharisees and what they tell you etc.
@@germanboy14 In my personal opinion Paul was one of the false prophets Christ warned about, so the contradictions between Christ's teachings and Paul's OPINIONS written to the various churches doesn't bother me in the slightest. As far as the Pharisees, Christ referred to them as "a generation of vipers".
John 7:37-38 NIV [37] On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. [38] Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”
@Dan McClellan, why wouldn’t the angel in Exodus 23 be considered Jesus pre-incarnate? Also, do you see the author of the book of John being anti-Semitic 5:02?
Also read John 10:33- It's clear that Dan has his own bias's. Jesus DID make Himself to be God, and yes why not the Exodus angel being Jesus pre-incarnate? That sounds more reasonable to me.
God-realisation means Self-discovery in the highest sense of the term. The story of Jesus, simply means; that a man can be self realized. One with god.
No, he is God's son, the only "begotten God" according to John 1;18 which many Bible's dishonestly translate as "begotten son" Also the apostle Paul said "I am what I am" (ego-eimi) but that does not make him God also. Ex 3:14 which in Hebrew is "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" is properly translated as "I will be" and not "I am". The guy in the video with the green shirt does not know Hebrew, otherwise he would not have tried to connect Jesus answering a question to his age, to Ex 3:14 and would not have called God Yehweh as that is NOT even a Hebrew word.
correct. I think Dan should give this guy in the video the following info. There is also a clue in the names of people in the Bible whose names were made up in part from the names of their gods, referred to as THEOPHORIC NAMES IN THE BIBLE,,,,,,theophoric names are names derived from a god. For example: False gods: Bel and Nebo: Bel = Belteshazar (Daniel) Nebo = Nebonidus, Nebuchadnezzar, True God Yeho(vah) ….Yehoyakim, Yehoram, Yehoshua, Yehoshaphat, Yehudah, Yehoash , Jeho-a-haz The CLUE is in the name
You lost me when you said Jesus wasn't monotheistic . The Hebrew prayer of the Shemah specifically says "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God! The Lord is One!"
Thanks Dan. Now I know it's all bunk and can stop striving. No longer doing family prayer and no catechism w kids. Just a historical curiosity for me and moving on to other pursuits and pastimes like hiking and gardening, ie. Individualistic endeavors.
that's kinda sad, even from a secular standpoint, replacing family time with "individualistic pursuits." Not sure if that's what you meant but if that is, that's sad. Shows secular values are crap even if the Bible is bunk, hence man's need for religion, hence the direction of materialistic society. Even is the truth behind Christianity is nonexistent, there's great value in the community, the morality, the introspection brought about by faith in something greater than oneself. I don't even think Dan is an atheist, pretty sure he's a Mormon. And apologies in advance if I misinterpreted your comment here. I love hiking too but it's not more important than family and community.
Paul’s letters (written in Greek) exemplify an ubiqitous religious pattern of habitually calling Jesus “lord” (κύριος). Like “lord” in english, κύριος (kurios) had several meanings, but among them was the Jewish reverential translation of God’s personal name (YHWH). When Paul called Jesus κύριος, was he generally intending it in this Jewish way, such that it carries the meaning and weight of YHWH? Was Paul indirectly applying God's name-designation to Jesus? “Yes, after all… E.g. Paul swaps “Lord [i.e. YHWH]” in OT quotes with “Lord [i.e. Jesus]” In describing Jesus as “Lord”, Paul quotes scriptures about YHWH (God) so-as to make the quote's instance(s) of “LORD” (i.e. YHWH) contextually designate Jesus. E.g.: Rom 10:13 implies it's “Lord” Jesus in Joel 2 (“call… Lord”). E.g: 1 Cor 1:31 implies it's “Lord” Jesus in Jer 9 (“boast in… Lord”). E.g.: 1 Cor 10:26 implies it's “Lord” Jesus in Ps 21 (“earth is… Lord’s”). E.g.: 2 Cor 10:17 implies it's “Lord” Jesus in Jer 9 (“boast in… Lord”). E.g. Paul uses verses about God to describe “Lord” Jesus In describing Jesus, and calling him “Lord”, Paul’s letters cite or harken back to Old Testament quotes (with concepts and expressions) about “Lord” (YHWH) but in contexts that make them about “Lord” (Jesus). Examples abound: Phil 2:9-11 makes Isa 45:23 (“every knee… bow…Lord”) about Jesus. 1 Cor 8:5-6 makes Dt 64 (the Shema) about Jesus. 1 Cor 10:21 makes Mal 1:7;12 (“defile… Lord’s table”) about Jesus. 1 Cor 10:22 makes Dt 32:21 (“provoke…Lord to jealousy”) about Jesus. 2 Cor 3:16 makes Ex 34:34 (“Lord… veil”) about Jesus. 1 Thes 3:13 makes Zech 14:5 (“Lord… come.. holy ones”) about Jesus. 1 Thes 4:6 makes Ps 94:2 (“Lord… of vengeance”) about Jesus. 2 Thes 1:7-8 makes Isa 66:15 (“Lord… come in fire…) about Jesus. 2 Thes 1:9 makes Isa 2:10f (“presence of Lord[s].. glory”) about Jesus. Expressions applied to Jesus in multiple letters: “Calling on the name of the Lord,” “Lord… be glorified,” “Boasting in” the Lord” (knowing him). Rom 10:13 makes Joel 2 (“Call... Lord [YHWH]”) about Jesus. 1 Cor 1:31 makes Jer 9 (“Boast in... Lord [YHWH]”) about Jesus. Paul habitually called Jesus “Lord” in religious contexts In his letters (about religious matters), Paul habitually attributes to Jesus the title “lord.” After all… It is used about 180 times in the undisputed letters. It is used about 50 times in the disputed letters. This is relevant for two reasons: A) Unless Paul was intending it as a YHWH-substutition, such a frequent use of the honorific title is unprecedented and inexplicable. B) Paul was not an inept communicator. Christians regularly referred to God as “Lord” [Forthcoming] Given the frequency and religious contexts in which Paul called Jesus “Lord”, Paul would have rightly expected readers to interpret him as using it in the YHWH-substitution sense. (And yet despite the obvious “risks” he continued to do so without worry, as if that is precisely what he intended.) This is exacerbated since Paul calls Jesus, not simply Lord, but “the” Lord. The church lead by the apostles in Jerusalem publicly maintained that Jesus was properly designated as κύριος in the YHWH-sense.
I would think you would need to show some sort of disambiguation about the meaning of the word, or you fall prey to the 'cart before the horse' fallacy. I mean, how do you know this isn't a massive reinterpretation in hindsight made by later Christians who need Paul to be calling Jesus 'God'?
@@bengreen171 The word is not my argument . I am already aware that " kurious " can refer to not yhwh . It's the context . Paul is taking old testament passages that use Hebrew word " yhwh " And he is applying them to Jesus . He's putting Jesus in yhwhs place
As for why Jesus is called "Lord", see Mk. 12:35-37 which quotes Psalm 110 in reference to David. The word "Lord" therefore can be used to refer to human subjects and so doesn't necessarily refer to Yahweh.
There are many kurios in the Bible. In the Lxx Abraham and David and others too. And Paul says many times "God of the Lord Jesus Christ". God doesn't have a God. Philippians 2 11 also identifies the father as God and not Jesus.
Dan gets so much wrong in this video it would take hours to correct his numerous false assumptions. I might add being a biblical scholar means nothing, Jesus rebuked so-called biblical scholars in His day and pointed out that they had totally missed the meaning and intention of the Old Testament. Dan reminds me of those so-called scholars.
Agree! The littlest research into the Exodus verses he based his entire theory on show Dan has a bizarre interpretation that God gives Angels the ability to forgive sins. One obscure verse, misread, that he uses to deny Jesus is God.
That’s why I prefer Margaret Baker than Dan when it comes to this topic cos she doesn’t try to interpret things solely from the POV of second temple Judaism and acknowledges that Jesus is very theologically conservative
@@angelusvastator1297lol you sound emotionally hurt. Your correction of numerous errors are probably only 'omg how can you say jesus isn't god 😭😭' and no differentiated scholarly discourse.
And they still miss the meaning of the Old Testament. And today's church is just as guilty as they have also taken away the keys to heaven by not entering within and not allowing others to enter within as well. For the kingdom of heaven is within, so seek first the kingdom of heaven, and you shall be saved. Let's not also forget when the scholars was trying to charge Jesus for blasphemy by claiming to be God that Jesus replied with, "Does your law not say, "Ye, are gods"." Because in the Old Testament God says I have said Ye are gods, meaning God said that before which he did in Genesis when he said, "Man has become like us" after being created in the image and likeness of the Divine creator.
John 17:11 ESV [11] And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. BRO MISQUOTED SCRIPTURE!! That's crazy.
Read the bible yourself…… Psalms is full of it so is 2 Kings 5:17 he needs Israelite soil to worship the Israelite god, because he was forced outside the border he had to worship other gods… You people are so dense…. Learn to read and stop asking childish questions. You’re a grown adult figure life out yourself you noob…
this is interesting, and now I am wondering if there is any connection here between this tradition and the Egyptian story of Isis obtaining (by deceipt, it seems) the divine Name of the god Re?
Colossians 2:8 "Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." Please join me in praying for the Lord Jesus Christ to open the heart of Dan to the truth before it's eternally too late. He has the same need as Nicodemus - the need to be born-again (John 3).
Cute....but how about.....Romans 9:18 "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." Or...Hebrews 3:12-13 "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called "TODAY," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin."
Wow, so the Christian apologist in the video is arguing the classic texts that Christians have used for centuries where the Deity of Christ is specifically taught. These are not the only New Testament passages that argue this. Now Mcclellan is saying all of this interpretation is completely wrong and that what is really going on here is the conferring of the divine name to Jesus, which in turn gives him certain abilities. This conferring of the divine name was, he claims, a known tradition at the time. Therefore, in order to rightly interpret the texts that have been used by Christians for nearly two millenia to defend Christ's Deity, one must know what Mcclellan knows first. A straight reading of the text, which seems to overtly support the NT teaching Christ's Deity becomes reinterpreted to mean some sort of temporary conferring of the divine name and boom, historic Christian doctrine falls out the window - very clever. What is interesting about John 8:58, even if one goes with Mcclellan, is Jesus says BEFORE Abraham. The reader might well ask, who or what was before Abraham? The reasonable answer would be there was no patriarch before Abraham. You have creation, the fall the flood etc right up to Genesis 12. It is Exodus 3 that this "I am" (Septuagint) is used and yet Jesus quotes this term as referring to himself before Moses, indeed even before Abraham. This is why Christians claim that Jesus is making a direct reference to his Deity here. Mcclellan doesn't say why Jesus says "before Abraham" because he is so busy with the conferring of the divine name apologetic in his video, but I would like to know why he thinks Jesus said it. Oh well maybe in another video that assaults what Christians have believed for 2000 years - "let's see it!"
@legron121 oh sorry, my brain glitched there, what I meant to say was that "before Abraham" there is no patriarch, not even Moses. So here the Christian would argue Jesus in John 8 is using a term from the LXX Exodus 3 and yet using it to say it refers to his existence even before Moses and indeed before Abraham as well. This interpretation has been in the Christian tradition for centuries and is cited as Jesus self identifying as God in the most direct fashion found in the New Testament
@@josephfriedland4192 But why would saying "before Abraham" make one think of Moses, anymore than it should make one think of Isaiah or King David? There is nothing about Moses in John 8. Plus, Exodus 3:14 (in the LXX) does not say that God's name is "ego eimi". It says that God's name is "ho on" (the being). This completely rules out your proposed interpretation.
ego eimi ho on "I am the one who is" in the LXX. So the argument is that Jesus in using the ego eimi draws the reader/hearer to Exodus 3. And yet in John 8 Jesus is using this term to claim he existed not "before Moses" but even before Abraham. And before Abraham you had creation, the fall, the flood up to Abram in Genesis 12. So for the Christian this is a direct claim to Deity. This argument has been used for hundreds of years and yet if we're to believe Mcclellan's video here, this interpretation is incorrect
@@josephfriedland4192 Yeah, but the name is "ho on", not "ego eimi". The "ego eimi" part just sets up the name, like when the angel Gabriel says "ego eimi Gabriel" in Luke 1:19.
We read in Mal.3:1: “Behold, I will send MY MESSENGER, and he shall prepare the way BEFORE ME: and THE LORD, WHOM YOU SEEK, SHALL SUDDENLY COME TO ***HIS*** TEMPLE, even the MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT, whom you delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.” Lets break this down and make it perfectly clear...... "Behold I *_(God)_* will send my messenger (??????) and he shall prepare the way before me *_(God)_* : Who was sending the messenger?...... It was *_God_* The messenger was to prepare the way for who? .......for *_God_* So *_God_* ...... sent (somebody) to prepare the way for *_God .... HIMSELF..._* and the Lord *_(God)_* , whom you seek, shall suddenly come to his *_(God's)_* temple, even the messenger of the covenant *_( the law of Moses)_* , whom you delight in: behold, he *_(God)_* shall come, saith the Lord *_(God)_* of hosts. In the passage above Malachi speaks of a messenger one that will prepare the way for the Lord, this is none other than John the Baptizer who is foretold in Isa.40:3-4. He is....... “The voice crying out in the wilderness: prepare the way of the *_Lord_* ; make straight in the desert a highway for *_OUR GOD_* .” Mt. 11:10 quotes this as a confirmation of John the Baptizer as the one who will introduce the *_LORD_* and *_OUR GOD_* . “For this is he of whom it is written: 'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way before You.' So..... Who was the one that came after John the Baptizer? It was JESUS. But wait....According to Malachi the one that comes after John the Baptizer is the same one that made the covenant with Moses.... How can this be? Was it not God that made the covenant with Moses? Yes it was.....But it was Jesus that came after John the Baptizer and not God?.... Could Malachi be wrong? ....Or is it simply that God himself did actually come to the earth and visit his temple as Jesus right after John the Baptizer did. Exactly as Malachi said he would... Notice that Malachi tells us that the Lord himself, the one who made the covenant with Israel in the Old Testament will come to visit his temple personally and they will "BEHOLD" him *_(they would see him)_* ..... They would see who? They would see the one that made covenant with Israel. *>>>> "GOD"
@@David-lu4th Am I to be the one to judge who is and is not the swine? Who deserves to hear the word and who doesn't? I am not quite sure if this passage applies in this situation.
I'd love to hear Dr. McClellan deconstruct many of the egregious claims by the Christian apologist William L. Craig, as well as various assertions both historical, and doctrinal that are made by Lord Rabbi Sacks.
If Jesus(as) was G-d who did he pray to? Lol. "I'm going to my God and your God" Jesus, a man approved by God. Jesus is sitting at the right hand of ___. The people who believe Jesus is God never read the Bible cover to cover. They are completely deluded.
@@MarcillaSmith I think you've missed the OP's point. They are saying that if believers actually read the book, they might notice that the language points to Jesus NOT being the Lord of the Bible. They even gave easy concepts of this "Jesus sitting at the right hand of ___" being one. There are plenty of examples like the time that Jesus was 'lead' to God in the desert or the time he was crucified and asked 'father father, why has thou..." If they truly thought about it "Why would GOD have asked why he, himself(?) has forsaken...himself?"
@@rahkenaten550 See that's funny, because I get that you think I've missed the OP's point, but I disagree, and I can see that you are reiterating their point quite faithfully. Therefore, to me it seems that you have missed _my_ point which is that the Bible is a collection of writings, and not the Church, itself. To me, it's a bit like saying, "if navigators actually looked at a map, they might notice that the shape of the paper points to hills and mountains NOT being the highest points of elevation."
@@MarcillaSmith “you say that as if the Bible were some “teacher’s edition” of reality, with all of the answers conveniently filled in already” Now please tell me where YOU referenced the church and how could I tell that you were referring to them from this quote because now your referring to maps which aren’t helping the case I think you’re trying to make….
Thank you I have been saying this not exactly like this I'm not a huge literature man to know Greek or Hebrew.. I just read the Bible for what it's saying when i need to...This is good!!!
In the sense that all of this information has been available for a very long time and christians by and large don't give a hoot about it? Not at all. They'll believe whatever they were told to believe and most of them barely read the books anyway. So it would just be Dan's word vs. the word of their parents/pastor/community i.e. Dan's word wouldn't be worth the air molecules he wiggled to produce them. In the sense that many people find this stuff interesting on its own merits. Or are deconstructing from their former belief in this stuff and find it useful in some capacity to continue grappling with all the falsehoods they used to believe. Or some christians are trying to learn more about their beliefs and are on the road to learning about how they have no good reasons to hold them? Yeah, probably. At least a little.
Yes but I’ve yet to someone who actually understands the Trinity when it comes to this topic. Also it won’t change Judaism’s view that Christianity is idolatrous lol
I get the logical and historical framework referenced here and have read quickly through your appendix. What I am wondering are two things: 1) Is there evidence in the New Testament that Jewish leaders of the time believed or understood this framework of other beings possessing the Divine Name? 2) Why in John 10.25-39 or elsewhere does Jesus not reference Exodus 23, Yahoel, or Genesis 18? That would be the obvious reference by Jesus to back up your assertion.
And the LXX renders Exodus 3:14 as “Ego eimi ho on” and “Tell the children of Israel: _ho on_ has sent me to you.” It seems like _ho on_ was the critical piece to this name in Greek.
Regarding the authority to forgive sins, Matthew adds a helpful commentary: the people watching this took place were in awe _that God gave man_ the authority to forgive sins. Matthew didn't ever see this as being exclusively the prerogative of Jesus.
Ahahahahaha, and you convienently leave out the previous verse, John 9:[8] The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, (Is not this he that sat and begged?) John 9:[9] Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, (I am he). I put them in parenthesis to make it easy, like a coloring book for children to color inside the lines. the "I am he" is in response to the question "is not this he that sat and begged?" Regarding the old testament, He (the UNCREATED GOD) referred to himself as "I AM", and only "I AM" can forgive sins... which his why the JEWS wanted to KILL JESUS because he FORGAVE SINS no other man is given that authority, only the Son of Man, JESUS. Learn to read bud, I did in elementary LOL
@@David-lu4th back atcha, doofus. In Greek, he said “I am.” This is exactly what Jesus said in John 18:5-8-as a response to a question-and Christians ALWAYS talk about this being a claim to divinity. It's the same exact circumstance. As for John 8:58, there is a saying in Judaism that there were seven things which Yahweh foreknew prior to creation-one being the name of the messiah. Jesus was setting himself up as the messiah by claiming to be more important than Abraham. Yahweh used Abraham, but his goal all along was to get to Jesus. As for Yahweh “calling himself I am”, this happened in a single verse in the entire Bible. In Exodus 3:14, he refers to himself as “ehyeh asher ehyeh” and “ehyeh” a total of two times. Every single other time that Yahweh refers to himself by name, he calls himself “Yahweh”. So it doesn't seem like “ehyeh” is a name at all. It will take way too long to elaborate on this, and I don't expect you to understand, so I'll pass. But the important thing is that John 8:58 isn't written in Hebrew, it's in Greek. So if the author wanted Jesus to be referring to Exodus 3:14, he would've needed to quote from the LXX. _Ehyeh asher ehyeh_ was translated into Greek as “ego eimi ho on”, while the standalone _ehyeh_ was translated as “ho on”. These mean “I am the one” and “the one”, respectively. Jesus didn't say this, so he wasn't quoting from Exodus 3:14. Maybe before acting so confidently on the internet, you should learn more about the topic so you don't get steamrolled. *EDIT:* “…only ‘I AM’ can forgive sins... which his why the JEWS wanted to KILL JESUS because he FORGAVE SINS” Way to completely make crap up. Matthew 9:8 says “The crowds were in awe and worshipped God because he had given humans the authority [to forgive sins].” John 20:23 says “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” So Jesus himself taught that humans had the authority to forgive sins on behalf of God.
People need to learn the difference between Elohim and elohim. Psalm 82:6. This might clear up some confusion on who Jesus BECAME at his spiritual resurrection clearly stated in Romans 1:3-4, Romans 8:11.
Something else about John 10:30 - The Jews want to stone Jesus, and when he asks why, they say that it is because he, being a man, is making himself "a god". Every translation I have seen uses "God" with a capital "G", but the construction of the Greek calls for it to be "a god". Jesus then points out Psalms 82 where men are referred to as gods. And then says that if scripture cannot be broken and that has to be correct, why are they saying that he is blaspheming for saying that he is the son of God. So here, he clearly is not claiming to be God, but the son of God. And we see throughout the Bible that being called a son of God is not a unique title for Jesus, as angels are referred to as sons of God, Adam is referred to as the Son of God, David is referred to as the Son of God, etc
So assuming it is claiming some sort of divine association with God's name, then could it be said that divine association is in terms of being a messenger or a prophet whose role is to call the people towards the oneness of the Divine? Thanks
I have a question for you dan. Do you believe Jesus was perfect i all his ways ? Do you believe Jesus died on a cross and was buried for three days ? Do you believe he bodily rose from the dead ?
John 1:1 “In The beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God” John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory as the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Forgive me, but is this not explicitly saying both that there are distinct people in God, and that the Word of God is also God. And the Word is Jesus? I did not see this addressed in the video.
Even a skeptic, like Prof. Bart Ehrman, accepts that Jesus' statement in Jn. 8 is a clear reference to a claim of divinity. (Ehrman just believes, it has been put into Jesus' mouth by the Evangelist.) So, . . .
The Book of Mormon teaches that God is eternal, infinite, and unchangeable. It also teaches that God knows all things and has all power and might. In Mosiah 15, the prophet Abinadi explains that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Father and the everlasting God. Mormons believe that Jesus is God, Savior, and Redeemer. They also believe that through Jesus, the Heavenly Father has provided a way for people to be like him and to live with him forever. The Book of Mormon also teaches that God was always God and never says that God was once a mortal.
In Exodus 3, the translation I have says that an angel appeared in the burning bush in verse 2, but then in verse 4 it says that God called to Moses. Almost like the angel was God's receptionist, and God told the angel, "Can you get Moses for me on line 4 and the patch Me through?" In all seriousness though, I don't know how to square that with what you are saying with regards to this specific passage, Dan. Exodus 23:20-33 explains better about God sending an angel that has His Name in it, but I don't see anything there about forgiveness. (I do, notice, however, an anachronistic reference to the Philistines, who--if I understand correctly--didn't establish themselves in Philistia until the late Bronze Age collapse.)
(Exodus 23:20-21) KJV 20 ¶ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. I don't see anything here that gives the angel authority to forgive sins. Is there another translation that says something different? I have searched the Old Testament and found nowhere that says anyone other than God can forgive sins.
We have a new Bible translation in Sweden finished 2001 and it says that Jesus used "I am" about himself as in Exodus 3:14 and that is like in Mark 13:6, John 4:26, 6:20.
Hi Dan, it is my understanding that the jews' messianic expectations did not include that the messiah would be God, the Son of God, etc. So, would their messianic expectations also exclude believing that the Messiah would be a bearer of the Divine name?
Dan, help me out. Did Jesus die for our sins and we must accept that or go to Hell? I really need your take on that because it bothers me tremendously.
The Angel says, "I am the God of Bethel", for this and a number of other reasons I would not be able to list here, we believe the Angel Himself is God. And we believe Jesus himself is the Angel of the presence of God. So, you are simply begging the question, you cannot assume what your "opponent" does not concede to prove a point to them.
By the way, can you give me a verse where someone uses the first person to refer to the action of removing sins? "Zechariah 3:4 NIV ...Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.” "Zechariah 3:4 YLT ...And he saith unto him, `See, I have caused thine iniquity to pass away from off thee, so as to clothe thee with costly apparel.'
When Jesus says that he is "the first and the last", (Revelation 1:11) he is applying to himself a title of the Almighty God. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and Israel's Redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).
The claim of antisemitism at John is often levied, but I think David Bentley Hart makes a good case against it. Have you read his take on it? It's in his translation notes in his New Testament.
You put this with the idea that Israel is named for fighting with god and man and winning, and it really brings later Kabbalistic texts to life. The idea of being a maker in this world and focusing on what we can do better now. Is all very interesting.
To have the name, the presence, the authority, the agency of God is to be God. God will share his glory with no other. That Jesus does not explicitly say "I am God" is no less concrete than His implicit claims. He spoke in Parables so he was purposefully not explicit often. And towards the End, it was Thomas who made the implicit explicit saying to Jesus "My Lord and My God," which was the trajectory all along from the beginning of the book of John which said that the word was with God and the Word is God.
Before Abraham ( the King of the Israelites ) was Adam.God and Jesus were together at the beginning. This is why God in the Bible says " we will make them in our image"
Not to argue that the passages have Jesus claiming to be God, but what exactly would the difference be? How would being the authorized bearer of a name manifest differently from actual identity with an entity? This is extra difficult to distinguish because of the tradition of the trinity, which provides some vague means of being God without being the Father. So how does being a name bearer fit or conflict with that tradition? I think this is one of those things where even convincing someone that these are not Jesus claiming to be God would have zero impact on how they interpret these passages and even Jesus explicitly stating "I am not God" could be bent into a claim to be God.
The trinity is not in the Bible. It's a later development. As far as Jesus 'having the Divine name's -- in a European context think of a signet ring. Imagine the King gives one of his trusted servants his signet ring, allowing the servant to write letters on his behalf. The servant is not the King, but he has the legal powers to speak on behalf of the King. A letter from the servant is a letter from the king by virtue of the name (the ring). In a historical Chinese sense it would instead be a chit, which worked much the same way as a signet ring but with ink instead. In a modern sense, you could imagine power of attorney, or business manager.
Huge difference. Christianity is all about Jesus; accepting Jesus into one’s heart, praying to Jesus, having a close relationship with Jesus and so on. Now, how can all that doctrinal edifice stand if Jesus was just a dude with a power of attorney? I mean, probably Catholics would be fine: they already pray to Mary and to all the saints as intercessors to god; I see it harder for evangelicals though.
@@pansepot1490 that interpretation of Christianity is not global through all history and all denominations. Some explicitly reject Trinitarianism and some don't care one way or the other (some branches of Quakerism).
@@squiddwizzard8850 that in no way addresses my comment, and I even accounted for the trinity being a later addition to doctrine. The issues I'm addressing are how being a "name bearer" could be distinguished from being identical with God in the NT, and also how the vagueness of the trinity makes it difficult to convince dogmatic Christians that Jesus never claimed to be God.
Metatron sounds like the name of a Transformer
Probably where they got it from
Transformers is loosely based on Gnosticism.
Optimus Prime is Lucifer
Megatron is Archangel Michael
Unicron is Yahweh
Optimus Prime and the Autobots betray their race to help humanity. Unicron sends Megatron and the Decepticons to stop them.
I am blown away by every video you put out. Huge fan of your work. Thank you so much.
These are false teachings founded on Mormonism. Dangerous corruption of Christianity. Look at Dr. Michael Heiser’s page for a better interpretation of Scripture that not only supports the Bible, but also solidifies it for the reader, not confuse them as McClellan does.
You shouldn't be. His explanation makes no sense in videos when you look at context in the verses. Jesus claimed to have known Abraham. That goes beyond claiming to have divine authority. He claims to have existed back during the time of Abraham.
@@jahamilton More importantly, he used the "I am" epithet. Religious Jews would be rightfully offended by that (from their POV) the same way that Christians would be offended by any man that calls themselves "lord and savior" even if that phrase doesn't inherently have a religious meaning.
It's all about the cultural context.
@@angelusvastator1297 Exactly. Dan is one of those people that speak confidently about something that they're ignorant on. Full of misinformation and people listen to this guy because he sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
@@jahamilton Agreed. I'm guessing he's able to garner that following cos he's both a critical scholar and someone that can affirm unorthodox christian beliefs. But as always, there's no "one voice" in academia. Ppl should form their own opinions based on the best evidence.
Thanks Dan. Knowing interpretive options can help many honest seekers of facts.
Numb Nuts,there is NO interpretive OPTIONS! Stop looking for short cuts to Heaven.There are none. You will learn NOTHING about Jesus,Salvation, Rapture, the Second Coming, what you MUST do to take Jesus as your savior, you will learn NOTHING about any of the true,honest, factual, change of heart, directions a person must take from this SATANIC FOOL and LIAR! You have never read or studied the Bible,and trust me,been there, this is NOT BIBLE STUDY! This is demonic lies.
👎👎
That was great! And I was esp. happy for you to note John 20: 22-23 on this argument (Jesus bequeathing the authority to forgive sins to his followers). And thank you for the elucidation of Exodus 23: 20-21 including the understanding of the authority of the divine name--this I did not know this and I'm happy to have learned about it today.
I first saw you on a short clip via the Majority Report (where you were critiquing Jordan Peterson), a while back and hoped you were more prevalent on the web--and I just discovered your site just this past weekend and am very much a fan (binge watching like crazy).
I don't have the ability to get to Brown U. but am looking forward to your conference on Monotheism and the Bible as being published at some point and as well will seek out some of your other publications and recommendations.
Thank you Dan. Keep up the excellent work.
I came closer to God by getting to know him better... thank you, Dr. McClellan. My focus is much better now, and I have found answers to questions I've had all my life.
@@MrMortal_RaWhy is it your business?
@@MrMortal_Ra Do... do you know what a strawman is?
@@MrMortal_Ra Dan is also a believer mate
@@MrMortal_Rayou apparently don't realize Dan is a Mormon
@sonnierae He's a mormon bro not a Christian, and in his long interview on a mormon channel he never mentions Jesus or repenting at all, he joined the mormon cult as an adult and "saw a pathway opening up" ie a career. He literally doesn't even believe in his own cult, let alone the Christian God and Jesus, his main aim appears to be using his tiktok fame to get elected in Utah as a woke dem, which he's already ran for twice now, and likely again in 2024.
The problem is this isn’t the only place where Jesus claiming to be God is claimed. By calling Himself the “Son of Man” repeatedly, Jesus is claiming to be a divine being based on the passage in Daniel. Not only that, the Jewish belief in what the Messiah was supposed to be is far different than it is now. In Psalms the Messiah is called “elohim”. Even if this passage wasn’t clear, just by calling Himself the Messiah, Jesus made the claim to be divine by Jewish understanding. That’s precisely why they wanted to stone Him for blasphemy.
You're absolutely correct. There are a great number of proof texts that Jesus is God Almighty. He claims very undeniably to be God in Rev. 1:8. Acts 20:28 tells us that it was "GOD'S blood" that was shed on the Cross. 1 Tim. 3:16 declares that it was "God" that was manifest in the flesh. Again, there are COUNTLESS proofs in Scripture that Jesus IS God.
None of these deniers can explain what took place in John 18:4-6 where Jesus leveled an entire regiment of Roman Soldiers simply by speaking the words "I AM". How did God Almighty CREATE everything in existence today? BY SPEAKING WORDS. It goes on and on and on. God bless and stay in The Word.
I wanted to comment and say the same thing. The result of Jesus claim is that the Jewish leaders wanted to stone Him for being a man and claiming He was God, I would take their response as proof of their understanding of His claim.
No. In this very video Dan explains how Jesus was not claiming to be god, or the messiah, but rather the possessor of the divine name (as other figures in judaism have) when he says he is the "son of man".
Dan also covered the Jewish beliefs about messiahship at that time when talking about this. It would not have allowed jesus to be the messiah.
@@mrmichaelencke You shouldn't. Dan explains why in this video, @ 4:58 .
@@Basilmoment Dan doesn't explain Rev. 1:8 or John 18:6. Jesus is clearly God.
Dan McClellan I'd like to know your thoughts on the subject of Jesus saying "You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High" which is a quote from Psalms 82:6
He's got both video and paper publications on this one. Search "Thoughts on Psalm 82 and Its Use in John 10" in the channel history, normally it should display the video among the results, and the papers should be mentioned or linked there.
You really have to twist the translation to read this chapter as monotheistic. It's clear that Yahweh is standing before the divine council, presided over by El Elyon, making a case for the "poor and oppressed". He's casting judgment on His Brothers and Sisters.
It is what it says, Jehovah is calling others "Gods" Remember the Hebrew word for God is ELohim and means "mighty one" So if Jehovah can give the title "God" to others, then he can also give the same title to his SON !
@@joabtheharmless4051 His videos are wrong and will steer you in a false direction. I would suggest Michael Heiser’s channel. It is a more accurate interpretation of Scripture and is not founded on the false teachings of Mormonism.
Look at Dr. Michael Heiser. Stay away from Dan McClellan’s page. He is a false teacher. Christ is King
Thanks for this, Dan! This is easy to misunderstand but very important. It really threw me the first time that I heard of the concept of other beings "carrying the divine name". I wonder how/why this aspect of the theology developed?
"I'm god and so is my wife"
Theophoric names do this as well, even in pre-Christian times with names like Apollodora, Aria, Artemisia, Dionysius, Isidora etc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophoric_name
And yet, in Phillipians, it says at the name of JESUS
👎👎
@@JohnCephas Jesus name means "Yahs/Yawehs salvation".
YHWHs name is in the guys name which is further symbolism of him possessing the divine name, like the other men of god
4:58 Literally in John 10:33: "'We are not stoning you for any good work,' they replied, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God'."
would like to know about that passage as well.
Which was a LIE! Only Jesus accusers said this! Jesus told them "I AM GOD'S SON" Please dont 'twist' the bible! John 10:36
The Pharisees also claimed Jesus had a demon, were they right about that too?
Just because they believed those things about Jesus didn’t make it true !!!
They were gonna believe what they wanted to believe and Jesus would have gotten stoned regardless!
@@kiwihans100, This “scholar” is twisting the Bible plenty already!
@@HJohn-xn9ub So did Jesus have a demon ? Who are you gonna believe ? The Pharisees who thought Jesus was God and that Jesus had a demon or are you gonna believe Jesus who said he was the Son of God?
These video lectures on Christianity serve as an educational exercise for me. Exploring the facts about this religious tradition that has shaped human culture for millennia is certainly intellectually engaging. However, if I were a devoted Christian, it's understandable how learning that some biblical "truths" may be debated interpretations and established religious traditions, rather than strictly historical facts, could be potentially confusing and emotionally devastating.
I am sur he is paid by muslims, dont follow what he says.
He's not leading you in truth. He's a broken cistern. There are plenty of Bible scholars who will divide the word rightly and will not deny Jesus His divine glory.
Of course denying the truths of God is emotional. If you do not think this is important, you will have no emotional commitment.
3:03 Lil YHWH, the famous hip-hop artist of Jesus' time.
The Bible is an extremely Dangerous Book (Romans 3:7) It promotes racism (Jesus Saves = Worship the White Man). It makes Jesus a Greek God. Einstein saw a problem with the Bible at an early age (Carl Sagan/Brokus Brain).
😂😂
'Monotheism did not exist within centuries of Jesus' lifetime' - now that's intriguing. I'm familiar with the fact that the OT is an evolution of polytheism/henotheism - but I was under the impression that by the first century, monotheism was a thing. Are you saying that, for instance, the gospel authors were not monotheists? As an atheist, I'm on board with the scholarship on how Y****H became 'God' - but this sounds like a claim I wouldn't want to make if debating Christians, for being waaay out there.
The Old Testament acknowledges the existence of other gods multiple times.
There's nothing strange about the idea that the newly formed religion, composed mostly of jews who were still unsure as to what properties did Jesus have and why, would also still accept the existence of such gods (though always as lesser than YHWH).
@@howlrichard1028
yeah, maybe I wasn't clear. I get that maybe some or even most Jews were henotheists at the time of Jesus, still following the OT during the Roman occupation - but putting aside the argument about whether the New Testament claims Jesus is God, I was under the impression that the followers of Jesus, and maybe Jesus himself, were monotheists in a way that was different to the way Israelites from the previous centuries looked at things.
I'm guessing that Dan is saying that Christianity cannot be called monotheistic until perhaps the reign of Constantine, and if so, that's something I haven't come across before. It's very intriguing.
@@bengreen171 I am not aware of any evidence of any Christians being monotheistic before the late medieval period. The early Catholic Church is explicitly henotheistic when asserting that the pagan gods were demons, when they were not being conflated with Saints or Arch-Angels.
Monotheism is a historically recent concept.
@@bengreen171
The bible consistently old and new testament says not to worship other gods or not to partake in food offered to idols.
This would make no sense unless these beings of other religions are real .
The bible teaches that yhwh is God of god's and lord of lords
@@brettmajeske3525
interesting. Maybe I don't know the correct definition of henotheism - but isn't reducing gods to demons an act of dismantling a .... sorry, my mind's gone blank - insert word for 'collection of deities', (I can't get the word parthenon out of my head and now I can't see the right word, but I think you'll get what I mean. Damn that's annoying) and so in effect is the establishment of monotheism in henotheism's place?
F me what is that word?
But isn't Jesus' saying at John 8:58 "before Abraham was I am" saying that he has had the divine authority of Yahweh for eternity?
He says "before Abraham existed", and the Jews retorted that he was not yet 50 years old.
Jesus couldn't have been saying he's more than 2000 years old or 4000 years old. It has to mean he existed eternally with divine authority doesn't it?
Wouldn't that make him a god?
Yehovah, NOT Yahweh, as that is not even a hebrew name.
There is also a clue in the names of people in the Bible whose names were made up in part from the names of their gods, referred to as THEOPHORIC NAMES IN THE BIBLE,,,,,,theophoric names are names derived from a god. For example:
False gods: Bel and Nebo: Bel = Belteshazar (Daniel) Nebo = Nebonidus, Nebuchadnezzar,
True God Yeho(vah) ….Yehoyakim, Yehoram, Yehoshua, Yehoshaphat, Yehudah, Yehoash , Jeho-a-haz
The CLUE is in the name
azazelsgoat Yahweh is true name of God Yehovah is not as it comes from founder of Jehovas witnesses. God has many true biblically names however. Truth 'Holy Spirit is God and Father is God and Gods son Jesus is God 3 diffrent persons in one God they are all equally much divine one God. video The Meaning of Yahweh YHWH in the Bible
"Yahweh is the name of God in the Hebrew Bible. Since the Hebrew language did not have vowels, the name is often written as YHWH. This is known as the tetragrammaton"
@@terminator8767 Yahweh is one of the sons of Elyon.
Deuteronomy 32:8, 9
@@azazelsgoat no "The LORD is a warrior; Yahweh is his name ! " NLT Exodus 15 : 3 Gods name is Yahweh period video The Meaning of Yahweh (YHWH) in the Bible
"18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son (Jesus Christ) , who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known. " John 1 : 18
Berean Standard Bible Jesus Christ is God and God´s Son.
@Dan McClellan. So, you do not see Divine Council theology as being consistent with monotheism? Also, are you saying that the Gospel of John does not have a high christology?
Divine Council theology bespeaks Henotheism.
.
"High Christology" is loaded language.
@@timbertome2443only from your Mormonism: YHWH is God Most High of the Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology: NOT your Mormon Heavenly Father/ mother nonsense.
Christ is the visible YHWH of the Hebrew Bible with the Father the invisible YHWH: both persons of YHWH R in Genesis 19:24 as two persons of YHWH.
ua-cam.com/video/7k5UMBB3H9Q/v-deo.html This is Dan's video on monotheism that should answer your first question
@@davidjanbaz7728Bless you and every other person that does this for calling out falsehood.
1) Have you made a video on the Trinity doctrine?
2) Why did they kill Jesus?
5 mo of and not answered. Well, idk of he's covered the trinity, but the answer to your second question is 2 fold. Jesus was a thorn in the side of the Jewish leaders. He did, after all, probably overturn tables in the temple. Made quite a scene. He was also an Apocalypticist, claiming the kingdom of God would come to earth within the lifetime of that generation (it was later reinterpreted when it didn't happen much like the Watchtower and the UFO cult and others, but I digress). Jesus told the 12 that they would sit on 12 thrones under him. The Jews used this to get the Romans to crucify him for treason. At least one gospel writer mentioned that detail when describing the sign nailed above his head.
@@emalee8366 This Dan McClellan is a Mormon, so he will not do a trinity video, unless he destroys the trinity. LDS do not believe in one God. They believe they will be gods some day. Don't believe this guys crap.
I am reminded of de Gaulle's famous "la France, c'est moi!".
bro... this right here is outstanding! Brother you have a gift, thank you for sharing your gift with the rest of us.
Dan, what are your thoughts on the way in which Trinitarian thinking emerges among the Apostolic Fathers? Where does it come from and why is it that it is that which consolidates?
Great questions!
He is a Mormon so he does not believe in ONE GOD. This guy twists the scriptures.
Early christianity was a mystery religion. That is why there is doctrinal consistency among those within the cult.
Thanks, Dan. Super interesting!
Yo! You made this book freely available for us broke folk? That's awesome!
Oh, something makes sense to me now. It's not obvious that the quoted verses prove that Jesus is God, and it's obviously not what Jesus literally says, but to a committee who has just invented the Trinity, these verses create that tiny sliver of "not impossible".
Hey I like your videos!! I’m a new viewer on your channel and you’ve really caught my attention with these facts you’re presenting. So much so that I would like to ask you, what do you think about yeshua Ben Pantera? Scholars claim that it might be the real Jesus 🤔
The council of Nicea did not create the trinity. It existed long before then
@@AustGM I said nothing about the Council of Nicea nor anything about when the trinity was created.
@@NielMalanWho do you mean by "a committee that just invented the Trinity"?
And may all your committee meetings go much, much more smoothly than those did! Could you imagine?
What does it mean to be the possessor of the divine name? I do not understand that concept. Can someone give me some clarity on what that means? I watched his explanation twice and it just goes over my head.
In many religious traditions, especially in Judaism and Christianity, the divine name is considered sacred and ineffable. For example, in Jewish tradition, the tetragrammaton (YHWH) is the sacred name of God, considered too holy to be spoken aloud. Those who are seen as "possessors of the divine name" are thought to have a special role or authority granted by God, sometimes being seen as mediators between the divine and the human.
@@yesyo9109 Thank you for the clarity.
Always something good to learn. Thanks Dan.
Lots of good content on this channel and I have given many “likes”. But a question: if we can’t talk about homosexuality in biblical times because the term didn’t exist as a category, how can we call John anti Semitic? Isn’t anti Semitism a “modern” categorical grouping?
Cos there were ppl who saw Jews as biologically distinct back then too
Homosexuality as an orientation didn't exist, but homosexual behavior did exist. So we can talk about homosexual behavior. Anti-Semitism did exist back then. Conceptually, anti-Semitism is just Jew hatred. Homosexuality as a concept is a sexual preference based identity which is completely new. The two aren't really comparable.
I am very skeptical that John reports a damn thing that Jesus said accurately.
or that any is the exact information, every translatiion of the Bible that I have read has passages that are changed slightly but that changes their interpretations.
Him and Matthew were both documenting almost all of what Jesus was saying as he was saying it.
I am a Christian, and despite all the videos I have seen, I still have my faith in God. I understand what you are doing, and I won't attack you for it. There are some parts of the Bible that contradict each other, and you are doing a good job pointing those out. But my takeaway from all of your videos is that Jesus is real and God is real. This is not because someone told me, but something I encountered myself. Have a nice day and God bless you.😊
Dan, thank you so much for this video. I was going to request your response on this as I was trying to explain this exact thing and all references you gave to my parents this week. Wonderful video as always.
"... I believe in one lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, *God from God,* light from light, *true god from true god,* begotten not made, *consubstantial with the Father,* through Him all things were made..."
@@MarcillaSmith blah blah
@@MarcillaSmith That eloquent snippet is from the Nicene Creed, not a backstage pass from one of Jesus's sermons. Crafted in AD 325, it's a theological deep-dive, not a direct quote from the man himself!
Are you familiar that the angel of the lord you just mentioned that posses the divine name in exodus was interpreted by many church fathers as christ it is as early as justin martyr.
The son appeared as an angle in the old and as a man in the new
How many times, in different ways, does Jesus have to claim to be God to get it through peoples heads? It is mentioned many times
Well he never does, not even once, so it's hard to say
@darienwhite6223 He claimed that He was Lord of the Sabbath with the authority over it (Mark 2:23-28).
He took the divine name “I AM” for Himself (John 8:58, from Exodus 3:14).
He said that the way to the Father is through Him (Matthew 11:27, John 14:1-7).
He made Himself equal with God (John 5:18).
He claimed that whoever saw Him saw the Father (John 14:9).
When He was given the opportunity to correct people treating Him as if He were God, He didn’t (Matthew 26:63-65, John 19:7-10).
He claimed to have descended from heaven (John 3:13).
He claimed to have the power to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19, 10:17-18).
He claimed to be replacing the temple (John 2:19-21), which was the place known to house God’s presence and the forgiveness of sins.
He claimed to share “glory” with God before the world existed (John 17:5).
He claimed to be sent from Heaven (John 6:38, John 4:34, John 3:13).
He claimed He would send His angels (Matthew 13:41, Luke 12:8-9).
He claimed the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5).
He assumed the authority to judge the world (Mark 14:62) and that one’s attitude toward Him would impact the end of their life (Matthew 10:32-33).
He claimed to be perfectly sinless (John 8:46).
He claimed that to know Him was to know God (John 8:19), to see Him was to see God (John 12:45), and to receive Him was to receive God (Mark 9:37).
He claimed, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:29-33), which was not lost on Jewish listeners, who responded, “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (verse 33).
In His teachings, He consistently demonstrated authority over the Law, or Torah, most notably in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
The whole new testament claims he is God. If people want to dance around that and make excuses then they are the ones in denial
@dani4157 God spoke from heaven while Christ was on the earth - Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; John 12:28-30
God is a separate witness of Christ - John 5:36-37; 8:17-18
Christ was "with" God in the beginning - John 1:1-3,10,14; 6:38; 16:28; 17:3,52; 20:21; 1 Jn. 4:14; Eph. 3:9
Christ is God's Son - Mark 9:7; John 3:16; 9:35-37; 17:1; 20:17,21,31; Eph. 3:14; Heb. 1:6; 5:5
Christ prayed to his Father - Matt. 6:6-9; 26:39; 27:46; Luke 23:34; John 12:27-28; 16:26; 17:10-11
Christ was seen standing at the right hand of God - Mark 16:19; Luke 22:69; Acts 2:33; 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 10:12; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 3:21
The Father committed all judgment unto the Son - John 5:17-20,22-23; Rom. 2:16; 2 Tim. 4:1
God anointed Jesus Christ - Acts 10:38; Heb. 1:9
God honored, blessed and glorified Christ - Matt. 12:18; John 5:26; 12:23; 17:1,24; Acts 3:13; 5:30-31; 2 Pet. 1:17-18; Phil. 2:9
Jesus was raised up by God - Acts 5:30-31; 1 Pet. 1:21
God and Jesus are plural (we, our, us) - Gen. 1:26; Isa. 6:8; John 14:23; 17:11,22
God "sent" Christ to atone for us - Mark 9:37; John 3:16; 5:24; 6:38; 7:28-29; 8:42; 12:44-45; 17:3-4,6-10,18,25; 20:21; 1 Jn. 4:14
Christ asked men to pray to God in his name - Matt. 6:6; Col. 3:17; Heb. 7:25-26
Christ spoke of his Father in heaven - Matt. 10:33; 16:15-19; John 14:12; 20:15-17.
Only God knew the exact time of the end; Christ did not then know - Mark 13:32; Matt. 24:36
God the Father is Christ's God - Mark 15:34; John 20:17; Eph. 1:17; 1 Pet. 1:3
Christ's will and doctrine were separate from God's - Matt. 26:39-42; Luke 22:41-42; John 5:30; 7:16-17; 14:10
Christ did his Father's and not his own work - Luke 2:49-50; John 17:3-4
Christ came in his Father's name - John 5:43
Christ came from and returned to God - John 14:12; 16:27-28,30; 1 Pet. 3:21-22
The Father was "greater than" the Son - John 10:29; 14:28; 1 Cor. 15:28
We come to the Father only by the Son - John 14:6
Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God - 1 Cor. 15:24
Christ is mediator between God and men - 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:6; 9:5; 12:24
All distinguish the two.
@darienwhite6223 You said that not even once jesus claimed to be God. So you are already wrong. The rest is explained by the trinity
@dani4157 Every single one of these verses is proof against the Trinity. The identifier "I Am" is an identifier used by the authorized possessor of the divine name, be it the Malak YHWH (Angel of the Lord) or Metatron or Jesus, and bearers of the name can forgive sins and receive worship despite not themselves being God, and with that knowledge every single instance where Jesus supposedly claimed to be God is actually no such thing. Of course, most of this was in this video which you evidently refused to even watch.
Man you're so knowledgeable. Hats off to you.
I love your work, do you ever post longer form lectures?
I have always found it interesting that this specific question is actually answered and explained in the ‘Old Testament’ scriptures before the Messiah was even born in flesh. I find it fascinating how people will use the OT to legitimize Christ, but shy away from it when it comes to explaining him.
Why you never say YHWH but replace it with Adonai where the script references yhwh
I'm glad I subscribed to Dr Dan McClellan. I enjoy listening to a scholar on such topics rather than the unlearned biased religious people claiming what they state as factual when it isn't.
The first person, who comes at the topic on a scholarly level, was Francesca Stavrakopoulou. Not sure how she lands as per knowledge, but she seemed to be a quality source, and was one of those who helped me out of a religious faith.
She is brilliant.
@@jamiegallier2106 Thanks for the reply. I felt that she was, as well. 🙂
Unfortunately what Dan says here is full of errors. First he omits Jewish texts like Apocalypse of Abraham and also fails to note other places in the gospel where Jesus says I am. He is basically just repeating the work of a few scholars such as I assume James DG Dunn and possibly Paula Fredericksen, but these scholars have been challenged by other scholars such as Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, Chris Tilling, Michael F. Bird, etc
Also the fact that you stated, "unlearned biased religious people" suggest that you are willing to even believe in false information as long as it comes from a source you agree with. In cognitive science this is called confirmation bias which is seeking out information that aligns with your already held beliefs
@@giftedtheos You have no clue what you're talking about, when it comes to who I am. When I said "unlearned biased religious people", I was referring to the majority of people who just parrot claims they've heard from apologists, expecting people to just believe them. I am NEW to this content provider. I enjoy hearing scholar level reviews of religion. He doesn't get things right? Okay. But don't you dare tell me that I will "believe false information as long as I agree with it". IF something was wrong, I won't believe it. SO, who am I to believe??? YOU?? What are YOUR credentials??? How am I supposed to know if YOUR comments aren't "false information"?? Who am I to believe when it comes to these things?? Because I would bet that another scholar will disagree with what you said here! Maybe they would disagree with Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, Chris Tilling, Michael F. Bird, and have VALID arguments! Maybe these guys are more truthful. I'm a layperson, so I can't know. BUT, don't ever accuse me of "believing false things" sir!! If it is FALSE, I won't believe the claim!!! But therein lies the major issue!!! People will assert that THEY are right about it, and show evidence. Another will assert, "No, that guy is wrong, and here's why", and provide evidence. I guess my ONLY option is to not believe in, nor agree with, ANY of you, because where would I even go to decipher what IS factual?? I grow so tired of haughty people
I'll try to check out your book, but I find it strange that you connect authority to forgive with Exodus 23 which explicitly says the angel will not forgive because he has the Lord's name in him.
Same. I looked at that "verse":
Pay attention to him and listen to his voice; do not defy him, for he will not forgive rebellion, since My Name is in him.
It says what he will not do, not whether he can or cannot, and this is exactly one (category or type of) sin. Admittedly, in context, it covers a large number of distinct behaviors. Perhaps rebellion is or can be shown to be a synonym for "transgression", which is different from iniquity or from failing or shortcoming (hamartano in the LXX, I forget the Hebrew word for "sin" as used in say Job 1).
If he will not forgive, that indicates refusal to do something he is able to do. You wouldn't say "I won't forgive your sins", because you can't. The angel couldn't withhold something he didn't have to give.
Thank the Lord for Dan! And thank you, Dan, for making the scriptures so understandably clear.
I disagree with this, John 5:17 also appears to say Jesus is pre-existent.
John 5:17 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
That's just plain reading there, you can argue interpretation but I think it's more logical to go with a plain meaning of the text. As opposed to forcing our own personal interpretation, and the book of John starts off telling us Jesus is God.
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Based on this I believe yes Jesus is God.
Not what apostles taught
The apostles believe jesus to be the messiah the son of God
Most Christians who want to prove that Jesus is god use the gospel of John to validate their point and disregard all other scriptures that show that Jesus had a God see Revelation 3:12.
The gospel of John was written for the gnostics and is not a literal statement about Jesus Christ.
It was written in a mystical manner that unfolds as the prologue continues, if you read further into John’s gospel you can understand that he presents Jesus as an enlightened man who did the will of his father and introduces the concept that we can all be one just as Jesus was and is one with the father.
@@johndavid3474John has very similar Christology to the synoptics
It's amazing how much more Jesus says when we clarify that which he didn't say.
I agree, do you think you could at some point address the apologetic idea that those angels identified using God's name were Jesus in pre incarnate form? I hear that idea from the late Michael Heiser and it sounded good at the time but I'm willing to bet there are lots of reasons it shouldn't be read that way.
Hebrews 1 5/6 says that Jesus was never an angel. It says 'onto which angel God has ever said today you are my son' (thats not a word for word quote). The goal is to show that Jesus is and was always higher than angels. The angel is identified as Michael in ancient Jewish sources. The angel has a God and the reason why he is called God, is answered by God himself. he says: because my name is in him. It does not say because I am him or because I became an angel. Its basically like a messenger who is sent by his king and who can speak in the Kings name. That was the case in ancient times. The angel also prays to God and directly speaks to God and is identified as "an angel" whom God sent and is distinct from him. I mean It even says "angel of the lord".
And the most striking point for me is, the torah says God gave Moses the law. But Paul says it was given by angels. So this proves too that normal angels can be called God..
@germanboy14 unless you're Dan and insist that the Bible isn't univocal
@@ronjones1414 either we read from beginning to end and start with "there is only one God" or we do it like Xtians but then we have to be consistent and then we have 100s of God's. E.g the angels who gave the torah, the council in the pslams, Moses who is called God of Aaron, Satan who is God of the world, Melchesidek who has no beginning and no end and no father or mother etc.😮
@@germanboy14 Christians would say angels and demons and idols are not gods. Supernatural creatures yes, gods no.
John 10:33- The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” The Exodus "angel" perhaps was a pre-incarnate Christ, but even if not, its clear that Jesus was claiming to be God.
Yes and not once did Jesus act like Peter when people started bowing and worshipping him
Dan if you wrote a book documenting all the popular biblical misconceptions …. Consider us in line to purchase.
““I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man (Jesus) Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days (GOD) And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.”
Daniel 7:13-14
Well I choose to believe that Yeshua was God incarnate, BUT I always welcome and respect alternate views, and I love Dan's scholarly analysis of these issues. PLUS, in the end all that really matters, in my opinion, is that we follow Christ's ACTUAL teachings and mandates....or in other words, live your life pretty much the opposite of the way MAGA evangelicals live theirs.
Many genuinely believe that trump is the new Jesus. 😂😭
@@pansepot1490 Yes, they do. One of the ungodliest men ever to walk the planet, and they absolutely DO believe it is a Messiah sent from God.
But you don't have his authentic teachings and much of it contradicts Paul. Jesus says 4 times in the synoptics to keep the commandments/law for eternal life. He says to obey the Pharisees and what they tell you etc.
@@germanboy14 In my personal opinion Paul was one of the false prophets Christ warned about, so the contradictions between Christ's teachings and Paul's OPINIONS written to the various churches doesn't bother me in the slightest. As far as the Pharisees, Christ referred to them as "a generation of vipers".
@@Dalekzilla read Mat 23 1 to 3. Their teachings are still the way to follow. The point only is, that they don't do what they preach
John 7:37-38 NIV
[37] On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. [38] Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”
@Dan McClellan, why wouldn’t the angel in Exodus 23 be considered Jesus pre-incarnate?
Also, do you see the author of the book of John being anti-Semitic 5:02?
Also read John 10:33- It's clear that Dan has his own bias's. Jesus DID make Himself to be God, and yes why not the Exodus angel being Jesus pre-incarnate? That sounds more reasonable to me.
@@flamingswordapologetics Margaret Baker is more truthful on the matter than Dan
God-realisation means Self-discovery in the highest sense of the term. The story of Jesus, simply means; that a man can be self realized. One with god.
No, he is God's son, the only "begotten God" according to John 1;18 which many Bible's dishonestly translate as "begotten son"
Also the apostle Paul said "I am what I am" (ego-eimi) but that does not make him God also. Ex 3:14 which in Hebrew is "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" is properly translated as "I will be" and not "I am".
The guy in the video with the green shirt does not know Hebrew, otherwise he would not have tried to connect Jesus answering a question to his age, to Ex 3:14 and would not have called God Yehweh as that is NOT even a Hebrew word.
correct. I think Dan should give this guy in the video the following info.
There is also a clue in the names of people in the Bible whose names were made up in part from the names of their gods, referred to as THEOPHORIC NAMES IN THE BIBLE,,,,,,theophoric names are names derived from a god. For example:
False gods: Bel and Nebo: Bel = Belteshazar (Daniel) Nebo = Nebonidus, Nebuchadnezzar,
True God Yeho(vah) ….Yehoyakim, Yehoram, Yehoshua, Yehoshaphat, Yehudah, Yehoash , Jeho-a-haz The CLUE is in the name
Who is the Lord of Glory?
You lost me when you said Jesus wasn't monotheistic . The Hebrew prayer of the Shemah specifically says "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God! The Lord is One!"
Thanks Dan. Now I know it's all bunk and can stop striving. No longer doing family prayer and no catechism w kids. Just a historical curiosity for me and moving on to other pursuits and pastimes like hiking and gardening, ie. Individualistic endeavors.
that's kinda sad, even from a secular standpoint, replacing family time with "individualistic pursuits." Not sure if that's what you meant but if that is, that's sad. Shows secular values are crap even if the Bible is bunk, hence man's need for religion, hence the direction of materialistic society. Even is the truth behind Christianity is nonexistent, there's great value in the community, the morality, the introspection brought about by faith in something greater than oneself. I don't even think Dan is an atheist, pretty sure he's a Mormon. And apologies in advance if I misinterpreted your comment here. I love hiking too but it's not more important than family and community.
My new favorite channel.
Paul’s letters (written in Greek) exemplify an ubiqitous religious pattern of habitually calling Jesus “lord” (κύριος). Like “lord” in english, κύριος (kurios) had several meanings, but among them was the Jewish reverential translation of God’s personal name (YHWH). When Paul called Jesus κύριος, was he generally intending it in this Jewish way, such that it carries the meaning and weight of YHWH? Was Paul indirectly applying God's name-designation to Jesus?
“Yes, after all…
E.g. Paul swaps “Lord [i.e. YHWH]” in OT quotes with “Lord [i.e. Jesus]”
In describing Jesus as “Lord”, Paul quotes scriptures about YHWH (God) so-as to make the quote's instance(s) of “LORD” (i.e. YHWH) contextually designate Jesus.
E.g.: Rom 10:13 implies it's “Lord” Jesus in Joel 2 (“call… Lord”).
E.g: 1 Cor 1:31 implies it's “Lord” Jesus in Jer 9 (“boast in… Lord”).
E.g.: 1 Cor 10:26 implies it's “Lord” Jesus in Ps 21 (“earth is… Lord’s”).
E.g.: 2 Cor 10:17 implies it's “Lord” Jesus in Jer 9 (“boast in… Lord”).
E.g. Paul uses verses about God to describe “Lord” Jesus
In describing Jesus, and calling him “Lord”, Paul’s letters cite or harken back to Old Testament quotes (with concepts and expressions) about “Lord” (YHWH) but in contexts that make them about “Lord” (Jesus).
Examples abound:
Phil 2:9-11 makes Isa 45:23 (“every knee… bow…Lord”) about Jesus.
1 Cor 8:5-6 makes Dt 64 (the Shema) about Jesus.
1 Cor 10:21 makes Mal 1:7;12 (“defile… Lord’s table”) about Jesus.
1 Cor 10:22 makes Dt 32:21 (“provoke…Lord to jealousy”) about Jesus.
2 Cor 3:16 makes Ex 34:34 (“Lord… veil”) about Jesus.
1 Thes 3:13 makes Zech 14:5 (“Lord… come.. holy ones”) about Jesus.
1 Thes 4:6 makes Ps 94:2 (“Lord… of vengeance”) about Jesus.
2 Thes 1:7-8 makes Isa 66:15 (“Lord… come in fire…) about Jesus.
2 Thes 1:9 makes Isa 2:10f (“presence of Lord[s].. glory”) about Jesus.
Expressions applied to Jesus in multiple letters: “Calling on the name of the Lord,” “Lord… be glorified,” “Boasting in” the Lord” (knowing him).
Rom 10:13 makes Joel 2 (“Call... Lord [YHWH]”) about Jesus.
1 Cor 1:31 makes Jer 9 (“Boast in... Lord [YHWH]”) about Jesus.
Paul habitually called Jesus “Lord” in religious contexts
In his letters (about religious matters), Paul habitually attributes to Jesus the title “lord.”
After all…
It is used about 180 times in the undisputed letters.
It is used about 50 times in the disputed letters.
This is relevant for two reasons:
A) Unless Paul was intending it as a YHWH-substutition, such a frequent use of the honorific title is unprecedented and inexplicable.
B) Paul was not an inept communicator. Christians regularly referred to God as “Lord” [Forthcoming] Given the frequency and religious contexts in which Paul called Jesus “Lord”, Paul would have rightly expected readers to interpret him as using it in the YHWH-substitution sense. (And yet despite the obvious “risks” he continued to do so without worry, as if that is precisely what he intended.) This is exacerbated since Paul calls Jesus, not simply Lord, but “the” Lord.
The church lead by the apostles in Jerusalem publicly maintained that Jesus was properly designated as κύριος in the YHWH-sense.
I would think you would need to show some sort of disambiguation about the meaning of the word, or you fall prey to the 'cart before the horse' fallacy. I mean, how do you know this isn't a massive reinterpretation in hindsight made by later Christians who need Paul to be calling Jesus 'God'?
@@bengreen171
The word is not my argument .
I am already aware that " kurious " can refer to not yhwh .
It's the context . Paul is taking old testament passages that use Hebrew word " yhwh "
And he is applying them to Jesus . He's putting Jesus in yhwhs place
As for why Jesus is called "Lord", see Mk. 12:35-37 which quotes Psalm 110 in reference to David. The word "Lord" therefore can be used to refer to human subjects and so doesn't necessarily refer to Yahweh.
@@resurrectionnerd
I already know that read my last reply
There are many kurios in the Bible. In the Lxx Abraham and David and others too. And Paul says many times "God of the Lord Jesus Christ". God doesn't have a God. Philippians 2 11 also identifies the father as God and not Jesus.
any update on your conference at Brown?
Dan gets so much wrong in this video it would take hours to correct his numerous false assumptions. I might add being a biblical scholar means nothing, Jesus rebuked so-called biblical scholars in His day and pointed out that they had totally missed the meaning and intention of the Old Testament. Dan reminds me of those so-called scholars.
Agree! The littlest research into the Exodus verses he based his entire theory on show Dan has a bizarre interpretation that God gives Angels the ability to forgive sins. One obscure verse, misread, that he uses to deny Jesus is God.
That’s why I prefer Margaret Baker than Dan when it comes to this topic cos she doesn’t try to interpret things solely from the POV of second temple Judaism and acknowledges that Jesus is very theologically conservative
Dan’s a Mormon, so not surprising that he argues against the deity of Jesus.
@@angelusvastator1297lol you sound emotionally hurt.
Your correction of numerous errors are probably only 'omg how can you say jesus isn't god 😭😭' and no differentiated scholarly discourse.
And they still miss the meaning of the Old Testament. And today's church is just as guilty as they have also taken away the keys to heaven by not entering within and not allowing others to enter within as well. For the kingdom of heaven is within, so seek first the kingdom of heaven, and you shall be saved.
Let's not also forget when the scholars was trying to charge Jesus for blasphemy by claiming to be God that Jesus replied with, "Does your law not say, "Ye, are gods"." Because in the Old Testament God says I have said Ye are gods, meaning God said that before which he did in Genesis when he said, "Man has become like us" after being created in the image and likeness of the Divine creator.
John 17:11 ESV
[11] And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
BRO MISQUOTED SCRIPTURE!! That's crazy.
Wait. First century Judaism was not monotheistic? I've got to hear more about this!
Read the bible yourself…… Psalms is full of it so is 2 Kings 5:17 he needs Israelite soil to worship the Israelite god, because he was forced outside the border he had to worship other gods…
You people are so dense…. Learn to read and stop asking childish questions. You’re a grown adult figure life out yourself you noob…
this is interesting, and now I am wondering if there is any connection here between this tradition and the Egyptian story of Isis obtaining (by deceipt, it seems) the divine Name of the god Re?
Colossians 2:8 "Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." Please join me in praying for the Lord Jesus Christ to open the heart of Dan to the truth before it's eternally too late. He has the same need as Nicodemus - the need to be born-again (John 3).
"Every knee shall stiffen" Rigor Mortis 3:16
Cute....but how about.....Romans 9:18 "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." Or...Hebrews 3:12-13 "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called "TODAY," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin."
@Dan McClellan there have also been other statements of him being God. Such as him saying I and the Father are one.
Wow, so the Christian apologist in the video is arguing the classic texts that Christians have used for centuries where the Deity of Christ is specifically taught. These are not the only New Testament passages that argue this.
Now Mcclellan is saying all of this interpretation is completely wrong and that what is really going on here is the conferring of the divine name to Jesus, which in turn gives him certain abilities. This conferring of the divine name was, he claims, a known tradition at the time.
Therefore, in order to rightly interpret the texts that have been used by Christians for nearly two millenia to defend Christ's Deity, one must know what Mcclellan knows first. A straight reading of the text, which seems to overtly support the NT teaching Christ's Deity becomes reinterpreted to mean some sort of temporary conferring of the divine name and boom, historic Christian doctrine falls out the window - very clever.
What is interesting about John 8:58, even if one goes with Mcclellan, is Jesus says BEFORE Abraham. The reader might well ask, who or what was before Abraham? The reasonable answer would be there was no patriarch before Abraham. You have creation, the fall the flood etc right up to Genesis 12. It is Exodus 3 that this "I am" (Septuagint) is used and yet Jesus quotes this term as referring to himself before Moses, indeed even before Abraham. This is why Christians claim that Jesus is making a direct reference to his Deity here. Mcclellan doesn't say why Jesus says "before Abraham" because he is so busy with the conferring of the divine name apologetic in his video, but I would like to know why he thinks Jesus said it. Oh well maybe in another video that assaults what Christians have believed for 2000 years - "let's see it!"
Of course, Moses was not before Abraham. What are you talking about?
@legron121 oh sorry, my brain glitched there, what I meant to say was that "before Abraham" there is no patriarch, not even Moses. So here the Christian would argue Jesus in John 8 is using a term from the LXX Exodus 3 and yet using it to say it refers to his existence even before Moses and indeed before Abraham as well. This interpretation has been in the Christian tradition for centuries and is cited as Jesus self identifying as God in the most direct fashion found in the New Testament
@@josephfriedland4192
But why would saying "before Abraham" make one think of Moses, anymore than it should make one think of Isaiah or King David? There is nothing about Moses in John 8.
Plus, Exodus 3:14 (in the LXX) does not say that God's name is "ego eimi". It says that God's name is "ho on" (the being). This completely rules out your proposed interpretation.
ego eimi ho on "I am the one who is" in the LXX. So the argument is that Jesus in using the ego eimi draws the reader/hearer to Exodus 3. And yet in John 8 Jesus is using this term to claim he existed not "before Moses" but even before Abraham. And before Abraham you had creation, the fall, the flood up to Abram in Genesis 12. So for the Christian this is a direct claim to Deity. This argument has been used for hundreds of years and yet if we're to believe Mcclellan's video here, this interpretation is incorrect
@@josephfriedland4192
Yeah, but the name is "ho on", not "ego eimi". The "ego eimi" part just sets up the name, like when the angel Gabriel says "ego eimi Gabriel" in Luke 1:19.
Remember we have no writings of Jesus just second hand claims written 50-100 years after his death
We read in Mal.3:1: “Behold, I will send MY MESSENGER, and he shall prepare the way BEFORE ME: and THE LORD, WHOM YOU SEEK, SHALL SUDDENLY COME TO ***HIS*** TEMPLE, even the MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT, whom you delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.”
Lets break this down and make it perfectly clear......
"Behold I *_(God)_* will send my messenger (??????) and he shall prepare the way before me *_(God)_* :
Who was sending the messenger?...... It was *_God_*
The messenger was to prepare the way for who? .......for *_God_*
So *_God_* ...... sent (somebody) to prepare the way for *_God .... HIMSELF..._*
and the Lord *_(God)_* , whom you seek, shall suddenly come to his *_(God's)_* temple, even the messenger of the covenant *_( the law of Moses)_* , whom you delight in: behold, he *_(God)_* shall come, saith the Lord *_(God)_* of hosts.
In the passage above Malachi speaks of a messenger one that will prepare the way for the Lord, this is none other than John the Baptizer who is foretold in Isa.40:3-4. He is.......
“The voice crying out in the wilderness: prepare the way of the *_Lord_* ; make straight in the desert a highway for *_OUR GOD_* .”
Mt. 11:10 quotes this as a confirmation of John the Baptizer as the one who will introduce the *_LORD_* and *_OUR GOD_* . “For this is he of whom it is written: 'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way before You.'
So..... Who was the one that came after John the Baptizer? It was JESUS. But wait....According to Malachi the one that comes after John the Baptizer is the same one that made the covenant with Moses.... How can this be? Was it not God that made the covenant with Moses? Yes it was.....But it was Jesus that came after John the Baptizer and not God?.... Could Malachi be wrong? ....Or is it simply that God himself did actually come to the earth and visit his temple as Jesus right after John the Baptizer did. Exactly as Malachi said he would...
Notice that Malachi tells us that the Lord himself, the one who made the covenant with Israel in the Old Testament will come to visit his temple personally and they will "BEHOLD" him *_(they would see him)_* ..... They would see who? They would see the one that made covenant with Israel. *>>>> "GOD"
Those who have eyes will see, and those who have ears will listen.... The rest is like pearls before swine
@@David-lu4th
Am I to be the one to judge who is and is not the swine? Who deserves to hear the word and who doesn't?
I am not quite sure if this passage applies in this situation.
I'd love to hear Dr. McClellan deconstruct many of the egregious claims by the Christian apologist William L. Craig, as well as various assertions both historical, and doctrinal that are made by Lord Rabbi Sacks.
If Jesus(as) was G-d who did he pray to? Lol.
"I'm going to my God and your God"
Jesus, a man approved by God.
Jesus is sitting at the right hand of ___.
The people who believe Jesus is God never read the Bible cover to cover. They are completely deluded.
You say that as if the Bible were some "teacher's edition" of reality, with all of the answers conveniently filled in already.
@@MarcillaSmith I think you've missed the OP's point. They are saying that if believers actually read the book, they might notice that the language points to Jesus NOT being the Lord of the Bible. They even gave easy concepts of this "Jesus sitting at the right hand of ___" being one. There are plenty of examples like the time that Jesus was 'lead' to God in the desert or the time he was crucified and asked 'father father, why has thou..." If they truly thought about it "Why would GOD have asked why he, himself(?) has forsaken...himself?"
@@rahkenaten550 See that's funny, because I get that you think I've missed the OP's point, but I disagree, and I can see that you are reiterating their point quite faithfully. Therefore, to me it seems that you have missed _my_ point which is that the Bible is a collection of writings, and not the Church, itself. To me, it's a bit like saying, "if navigators actually looked at a map, they might notice that the shape of the paper points to hills and mountains NOT being the highest points of elevation."
@@MarcillaSmith “you say that as if the Bible were some “teacher’s edition” of reality, with all of the answers conveniently filled in already” Now please tell me where YOU referenced the church and how could I tell that you were referring to them from this quote because now your referring to maps which aren’t helping the case I think you’re trying to make….
@@MarcillaSmith and no, on second look your “map” comparison doesn’t work either
Thank you I have been saying this not exactly like this I'm not a huge literature man to know Greek or Hebrew.. I just read the Bible for what it's saying when i need to...This is good!!!
Does this matter in any way?
Yes it does especially since most of Christianity is unfamiliar with Jewish thought
Depending on the denomination of Christianity, yes
It delegitimizes the doctrine of the trinity, so is so it definitely matters to a lot of people haha
In the sense that all of this information has been available for a very long time and christians by and large don't give a hoot about it?
Not at all. They'll believe whatever they were told to believe and most of them barely read the books anyway. So it would just be Dan's word vs. the word of their parents/pastor/community i.e. Dan's word wouldn't be worth the air molecules he wiggled to produce them.
In the sense that many people find this stuff interesting on its own merits. Or are deconstructing from their former belief in this stuff and find it useful in some capacity to continue grappling with all the falsehoods they used to believe. Or some christians are trying to learn more about their beliefs and are on the road to learning about how they have no good reasons to hold them?
Yeah, probably. At least a little.
Yes but I’ve yet to someone who actually understands the Trinity when it comes to this topic. Also it won’t change Judaism’s view that Christianity is idolatrous lol
I get the logical and historical framework referenced here and have read quickly through your appendix. What I am wondering are two things: 1) Is there evidence in the New Testament that Jewish leaders of the time believed or understood this framework of other beings possessing the Divine Name? 2) Why in John 10.25-39 or elsewhere does Jesus not reference Exodus 23, Yahoel, or Genesis 18? That would be the obvious reference by Jesus to back up your assertion.
Reduce, reuse, recycle. So it was and so it shall be forever and ever amen. At least when it comes to middle eastern desert dieties that is.
Knowledge aside, have a thumbs up for the shirt of The Main Man. Frag yeah.
Let me save you eight minutes and 30 seconds, yes.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.
Good day Dan. Hope you're doing great
How do I access your other publications too?
Thank you. Stay safe
Not to mention, in John 9:9, some random dude answers a question as “I am”, and no one bats an eye.
And the LXX renders Exodus 3:14 as “Ego eimi ho on” and “Tell the children of Israel: _ho on_ has sent me to you.” It seems like _ho on_ was the critical piece to this name in Greek.
Regarding the authority to forgive sins, Matthew adds a helpful commentary: the people watching this took place were in awe _that God gave man_ the authority to forgive sins. Matthew didn't ever see this as being exclusively the prerogative of Jesus.
Ahahahahaha, and you convienently leave out the previous verse, John 9:[8] The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, (Is not this he that sat and begged?)
John 9:[9] Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, (I am he).
I put them in parenthesis to make it easy, like a coloring book for children to color inside the lines.
the "I am he" is in response to the question "is not this he that sat and begged?"
Regarding the old testament, He (the UNCREATED GOD) referred to himself as "I AM", and only "I AM" can forgive sins... which his why the JEWS wanted to KILL JESUS because he FORGAVE SINS
no other man is given that authority, only the Son of Man, JESUS.
Learn to read bud, I did in elementary
LOL
@@David-lu4th back atcha, doofus. In Greek, he said “I am.” This is exactly what Jesus said in John 18:5-8-as a response to a question-and Christians ALWAYS talk about this being a claim to divinity. It's the same exact circumstance.
As for John 8:58, there is a saying in Judaism that there were seven things which Yahweh foreknew prior to creation-one being the name of the messiah. Jesus was setting himself up as the messiah by claiming to be more important than Abraham. Yahweh used Abraham, but his goal all along was to get to Jesus.
As for Yahweh “calling himself I am”, this happened in a single verse in the entire Bible. In Exodus 3:14, he refers to himself as “ehyeh asher ehyeh” and “ehyeh” a total of two times. Every single other time that Yahweh refers to himself by name, he calls himself “Yahweh”. So it doesn't seem like “ehyeh” is a name at all. It will take way too long to elaborate on this, and I don't expect you to understand, so I'll pass.
But the important thing is that John 8:58 isn't written in Hebrew, it's in Greek. So if the author wanted Jesus to be referring to Exodus 3:14, he would've needed to quote from the LXX. _Ehyeh asher ehyeh_ was translated into Greek as “ego eimi ho on”, while the standalone _ehyeh_ was translated as “ho on”. These mean “I am the one” and “the one”, respectively. Jesus didn't say this, so he wasn't quoting from Exodus 3:14.
Maybe before acting so confidently on the internet, you should learn more about the topic so you don't get steamrolled.
*EDIT:* “…only ‘I AM’ can forgive sins... which his why the JEWS wanted to KILL JESUS because he FORGAVE SINS”
Way to completely make crap up. Matthew 9:8 says “The crowds were in awe and worshipped God because he had given humans the authority [to forgive sins].” John 20:23 says “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” So Jesus himself taught that humans had the authority to forgive sins on behalf of God.
People need to learn the difference between Elohim and elohim. Psalm 82:6. This might clear up some confusion on who Jesus BECAME at his spiritual resurrection clearly stated in Romans 1:3-4, Romans 8:11.
4:21 That made me laugh and wheeze out loud. That was excellent
Something else about John 10:30 - The Jews want to stone Jesus, and when he asks why, they say that it is because he, being a man, is making himself "a god". Every translation I have seen uses "God" with a capital "G", but the construction of the Greek calls for it to be "a god".
Jesus then points out Psalms 82 where men are referred to as gods. And then says that if scripture cannot be broken and that has to be correct, why are they saying that he is blaspheming for saying that he is the son of God.
So here, he clearly is not claiming to be God, but the son of God. And we see throughout the Bible that being called a son of God is not a unique title for Jesus, as angels are referred to as sons of God, Adam is referred to as the Son of God, David is referred to as the Son of God, etc
So assuming it is claiming some sort of divine association with God's name, then could it be said that divine association is in terms of being a messenger or a prophet whose role is to call the people towards the oneness of the Divine? Thanks
I have a question for you dan. Do you believe Jesus was perfect i all his ways ? Do you believe Jesus died on a cross and was buried for three days ? Do you believe he bodily rose from the dead ?
John 1: the Word was God, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. This is Jesus.
John 1:1 “In The beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God”
John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory as the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Forgive me, but is this not explicitly saying both that there are distinct people in God, and that the Word of God is also God. And the Word is Jesus? I did not see this addressed in the video.
oh just found out this guy is a Mormon. Every argument he made thrown out the window. Biblical Scholar my ass
@@joshuamkkso a Mormon can’t be a biblical scholar?
John 1:1 is a mistranslation Dan has made a video about that if you want to check it out
Even a skeptic, like Prof. Bart Ehrman, accepts that Jesus' statement in Jn. 8 is a clear reference to a claim of divinity. (Ehrman just believes, it has been put into Jesus' mouth by the Evangelist.) So, . . .
The Book of Mormon teaches that God is eternal, infinite, and unchangeable. It also teaches that God knows all things and has all power and might.
In Mosiah 15, the prophet Abinadi explains that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Father and the everlasting God. Mormons believe that Jesus is God, Savior, and Redeemer. They also believe that through Jesus, the Heavenly Father has provided a way for people to be like him and to live with him forever.
The Book of Mormon also teaches that God was always God and never says that God was once a mortal.
In Exodus 3, the translation I have says that an angel appeared in the burning bush in verse 2, but then in verse 4 it says that God called to Moses. Almost like the angel was God's receptionist, and God told the angel, "Can you get Moses for me on line 4 and the patch Me through?" In all seriousness though, I don't know how to square that with what you are saying with regards to this specific passage, Dan.
Exodus 23:20-33 explains better about God sending an angel that has His Name in it, but I don't see anything there about forgiveness. (I do, notice, however, an anachronistic reference to the Philistines, who--if I understand correctly--didn't establish themselves in Philistia until the late Bronze Age collapse.)
This video is amazing! Its actually an answer to prayer. Thank God and thank you.
I would like to know more about this conference at Brown University!
So is there a place in scripture that Moses was the possessor of the divine name? Or any Jewish tradition that would suggest that?
(Exodus 23:20-21) KJV
20 ¶ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
I don't see anything here that gives the angel authority to forgive sins. Is there another translation that says something different?
I have searched the Old Testament and found nowhere that says anyone other than God can forgive sins.
21 ...obey his voice...for [if you do not,] he will not pardon your [sins]: for my name is in him.
We have a new Bible translation in Sweden finished 2001 and it says that Jesus used "I am" about himself as in Exodus 3:14 and that is like in Mark 13:6, John 4:26, 6:20.
Hi Dan, it is my understanding that the jews' messianic expectations did not include that the messiah would be God, the Son of God, etc. So, would their messianic expectations also exclude believing that the Messiah would be a bearer of the Divine name?
Dan, help me out. Did Jesus die for our sins and we must accept that or go to Hell? I really need your take on that because it bothers me tremendously.
2000 years of church fathers, theologians, monks, scholars, etc got it wrong but this guy has it figured out.
Yes.
Hey DAN , Can you check Deuteronomy 18:15 and John 7:16 . God Spoke through Jesus Christ 🙏
The Angel says, "I am the God of Bethel", for this and a number of other reasons I would not be able to list here, we believe the Angel Himself is God. And we believe Jesus himself is the Angel of the presence of God. So, you are simply begging the question, you cannot assume what your "opponent" does not concede to prove a point to them.
By the way, can you give me a verse where someone uses the first person to refer to the action of removing sins?
"Zechariah 3:4 NIV
...Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.”
"Zechariah 3:4 YLT
...And he saith unto him, `See, I have caused thine iniquity to pass away from off thee, so as to clothe thee with costly apparel.'
When Jesus says that he is "the first and the last", (Revelation 1:11) he is applying to himself a title of the Almighty God. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and Israel's Redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).
Is isnt “necessarily “ saying “ I am god “, BUT it also isn’t NOT necessary saying “ I am God “ .
The claim of antisemitism at John is often levied, but I think David Bentley Hart makes a good case against it. Have you read his take on it? It's in his translation notes in his New Testament.
The fact that forgiving someone is way more mind blowing than RAISING SOMEONE FROM THE DEAD says a lot about
You put this with the idea that Israel is named for fighting with god and man and winning, and it really brings later Kabbalistic texts to life. The idea of being a maker in this world and focusing on what we can do better now. Is all very interesting.
Lies straight from the devil my friend. Don't fall for it just because it's spoken in objective confidence.
To have the name, the presence, the authority, the agency of God is to be God. God will share his glory with no other. That Jesus does not explicitly say "I am God" is no less concrete than His implicit claims. He spoke in Parables so he was purposefully not explicit often. And towards the End, it was Thomas who made the implicit explicit saying to Jesus "My Lord and My God," which was the trajectory all along from the beginning of the book of John which said that the word was with God and the Word is God.
Before Abraham ( the King of the Israelites ) was Adam.God and Jesus were together at the beginning. This is why God in the Bible says " we will make them in our image"
Not to argue that the passages have Jesus claiming to be God, but what exactly would the difference be? How would being the authorized bearer of a name manifest differently from actual identity with an entity?
This is extra difficult to distinguish because of the tradition of the trinity, which provides some vague means of being God without being the Father. So how does being a name bearer fit or conflict with that tradition?
I think this is one of those things where even convincing someone that these are not Jesus claiming to be God would have zero impact on how they interpret these passages and even Jesus explicitly stating "I am not God" could be bent into a claim to be God.
The trinity is not in the Bible. It's a later development.
As far as Jesus 'having the Divine name's -- in a European context think of a signet ring. Imagine the King gives one of his trusted servants his signet ring, allowing the servant to write letters on his behalf. The servant is not the King, but he has the legal powers to speak on behalf of the King. A letter from the servant is a letter from the king by virtue of the name (the ring).
In a historical Chinese sense it would instead be a chit, which worked much the same way as a signet ring but with ink instead.
In a modern sense, you could imagine power of attorney, or business manager.
Huge difference. Christianity is all about Jesus; accepting Jesus into one’s heart, praying to Jesus, having a close relationship with Jesus and so on. Now, how can all that doctrinal edifice stand if Jesus was just a dude with a power of attorney?
I mean, probably Catholics would be fine: they already pray to Mary and to all the saints as intercessors to god; I see it harder for evangelicals though.
@@pansepot1490 that interpretation of Christianity is not global through all history and all denominations. Some explicitly reject Trinitarianism and some don't care one way or the other (some branches of Quakerism).
@@squiddwizzard8850 that in no way addresses my comment, and I even accounted for the trinity being a later addition to doctrine.
The issues I'm addressing are how being a "name bearer" could be distinguished from being identical with God in the NT, and also how the vagueness of the trinity makes it difficult to convince dogmatic Christians that Jesus never claimed to be God.
You can bear the mark of the beast, without being the devil or the antichrist. Seems that concept could be extended to this topic as well.
This is one of the longest ways to say "... probably..."