The Earliest Christians Believed Jesus Was Yahweh
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лип 2024
- One of the most common objections to Christianity is that Jesus' divinity was "created" by later Christians. It is said that no one in early Christianity believed that Jesus was God. It was later believers, at the council of Nicea, who declared him to be God. You can see this meme passed on in movies like the DaVinci Code. Obviously, there have been more sophisticated objections to Christian beliefs about Jesus' divinity.
For example, not long ago, skeptical NT scholar Bart Ehrman published a couple of blog posts claiming that the idea that Jesus is Yahweh is totally foreign to the New Testament texts and to the ancient church. Ehrman says it's a more recent theological innovation.
Ehrman says: "If someone knows better than I do, let me know. But I’ve never even heard the claim (let alone a discussion of it [that Jesus is Yahweh]) until very recently. I wonder if there are any early Christian theologians who have this view. Or even later ones, prior to recent times?"
I’m sure Dr. Ehrman has to be aware of the statements of the apostolic fathers, which makes this statement so baffling to me. But hey, this statement gives us a good reason to go over them. There are many early theologians who said that Jesus was God, but for the sake of brevity let’s focus on seven of them.
Sources and resources:
Yes, Bart Ehrman. Jesus was Yahweh by Jonathan McLatchie jonathanmclatchie.com/yes-bar...
Helpful resource by Tim Barnett on what the early church believed: www.str.org/w/nine-early-chur...
The development of the NT Canon table: www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
Was the Divinity of Jesus a Late Invention of the Council of Nicea? by Michael J. Kruger www.michaeljkruger.com/was-th...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Get merch: is-jesus-alive.creator-spring...
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
I understand that there's some nuances to Ehrman's position not fully covered here. You might've noticed I'm doing a series on the deity of Christ, so there's more to come where I will parse out Bart's views more. In a nutshell, Ehrman implicitly presupposes Unitarianism in his entire argument. As long as the doctrine of the Trinity is possibly true, there's no problem with persons within the essence or being of Yahweh being distinct from each other and yet one.
I still don’t understand how even presupposing unitarianism could save Dr. Ehrman. The church fathers still made the statement that Jesus was God. Whether they were implying the Trinity or not is irrelevant. I suppose I will just have to see your future videos to understand why it matters.
It is because Ehrman fails to grasp the Jewish Old Testament roots of trinitarian belief that he fails to see that the New Testament proclaims Jesus to be YHWH. He is probably correct that no one wrote the literal phrase: Jesus is YHWH (partly because they didnt write hebrew). But the NT clearly continues in the same Jewish theology of a pluripersonal God that is evidenced in the targums, where John got the title Word of God which John applied to Jesus, but which in the targums was identified as YHWH.
The clear teaching is obscured by the Greek writing which uses Theos instead of YHWH to refer to YHWH, and by an unfamiliarity with the pre-christian Jewish theological milieu caused by the intentional obfuscation and dismissal of said theological milieu by post-christian rabbinic judaism.
The real modern innovation is the theory which Bart himself adheres to, namely the idea that trinitarian beliefs are an NT invention with no basis in the OT. The idea that the trinity is taught in the OT goes back to the early church.
@@JabberW00kie The doctrine of the Trinity follows from: God is One, The Father is God, the Logos is God, the Spirit is God. The entire doctrine is never spelled out explicitly in Scripture, but all of its components are.
@@paulblase3955 And in addition to the New Testament identifying the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as all being God and all being one, the three are mentioned together in Trinitarian formulas several times, particularly when Paul is "signing off" at the end of some of his epistles (eg 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Thessalonians 5:19-24, Titus 3:4-6).
Also, regarding the identification of Christ with Yahweh specifically, Ehrman like most skeptics claims that Jesus' "I AM" passages in John, in which Christ explicitly applies the divine name Yahweh to himself and infuriates the Jews by doing so, were fabricated by the early church to support a supposedly developing belief that Jesus was God. But that claim flatly contradicts the claim that the church didn't identify Jesus with Yahweh until modern times.
It's just incredible to me what sort of sloppy groupthink passes for "informed scholarship" in academia if you're a skeptic.
@@paulblase3955 Yes, I’m aware of what the Trinity is, and it is what I believe about Yahweh. My point was that whether or not the church fathers were acknowledging the Trinity shouldn’t matter, because they stated clearly that Jesus was God.
“before Abraham was, I AM”
"You are seeking to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do." John 8:40
v.51: "Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone follows My word, he will never see death.”
v.53: "Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?"
These Jews were extremely proud of their heritage and considered Abraham to be the greatest of all Jews.
They were proud of being descendants of Abraham; God's chosen people. So, they wanted to know if Jesus claimed to be greater than Abraham.
In Hebrew culture, those who came before are always considered greater than their descendants.
v.54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’"
v.56: "Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.”
57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?
Based on Jewish thinking, someone born before another is superior to those born after, and therefore, it was impossible for Jesus to be greater than Abraham. Yet Jesus responds:
"Before Abraham was, I am."
Jesus claimed to be greater than Abraham,
so they picked up stones to stone him.
"Ego eimi" - "I am"
Is this the name of God or just everyday Greek language for "I am"?
In John chapter 9, Jesus heals a blind man, who then goes to the Temple, and the people who see him now healed say:
"Is this not the same man who was a blind begger?" He responds: "Ego eimi"
Was the formerly blind man claiming to be God? No. Ego eimi was used in everyday greek language to say "I am"
If the trinity is so dame important then why is the concept so alien to the jews not to mention the greatest scientist of all time sir isaac newton rejected the trinity after careful bible study as unbiblical and idolatry
@theguyver4934 right, a scientist not a theologian, the jews didn't know about the trinity because Christ wasn't born yet, ask any jew about God eating a meal with Abraham and see how they squirm. The words I Am is what Yahwe means literally bro, that's why the comment above mentioned that verse
@@calibcrockett and no response from that one 😂
Abraham ate a meal with angels.
Atheists give a lot of power to that council.
They’ve become the scapegoat of all things negative in Christianity.
*all things in Christianity
True Lol and then they always bring it up as if no Christian has ever heard of it before. I think it makes them feel smart to show that they can say “the Council of Nicea” as if it instantly makes them an irrefutable scholar of church history lol
not just atheists. jews, muslims, hindus, anyone who isn't a christian tries to make nicea into the new resurrection.
@@famemontana
They think we base our belief on what the nicean council decided instead of on what the bible itself says.
@@marvalice3455 don’t forget the Jehovah’s Witnesses, using the council of Nicaea to paint trinitarianism as a corruption of early Christianity
In the words of Thomas to the risen Christ "my Lord and my God!" That's always been enough for me.
its a fabrication, read Mark
@@umar_shahzad Read Mark….? That’s pretty vague.
@@umar_shahzad Skeptic sleeves:
1. Ummm it's a fabrication
2. It's an interpolation
3. Surely it was the Evangelist's comment
Now that I see the excuses of believers and skeptics, are the same...
@@elweycristiano64 to be honest Thomas is not referring here jesus as God, but it was a reaction to a suprise he did not believe, he call jesus by saying my lord referring to his Master and my God as a suprise for calling, just as we common people say my God
@@umar_shahzadWhen Thomas said "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), he was expressing his belief in Jesus' divinity and his recognition of Jesus as the risen Lord.
In the context of the Gospel of John, Thomas had previously doubted Jesus' resurrection (John 20:25), but after seeing Jesus' wounds and hearing his words, he came to believe. By addressing Jesus as "My Lord and my God", Thomas was acknowledging Jesus' authority and divinity, using language that was common in Jewish worship (e.g., Psalm 35:23, "My God and my Lord").
In essence, Thomas was saying:
- "My Lord" (Greek: "Ho Kyrios") - acknowledging Jesus' sovereignty and authority
- "My God" (Greek: "Ho Theos") - recognizing Jesus' divinity and deity
This declaration is significant, as it represents one of the earliest confessions of Jesus' divinity in the New Testament, and it highlights Thomas' transformation from skepticism to faith.
It's not an idiomatic expression or some sort go and read he was an openly confessing Jesus as he's God
I heard this arguement before but It doesn't fit the context quite well
Technically Ehrman is correct. no-one calls Jesus 'Yahweh', but since 'Yahweh' is always translated as 'Lord' even by the early Christians. So they may not have said Jesus was Yahweh, but they did think he was Lord. In other words, Ehrman, is obfuscating the issue by specifically using 'Yahweh' rather than Lord. Additionally the gospels do have Jesus saying 'I am' in Aramaic.
you mean the old testament LORD? The holy name isnt used once in the new testament because, again its so holy.. Its isnt replaced by the normal "Lord" and "God"
The OT translators should've never used "Lord" or "Lord God" for Yahweh. Since Elohim (God) also existed (Gen. 1:1), that was intentionally done to have the casual reader just deduce that "it's all just God". Yes, Ehrman does seem to obfuscate sometimes. The confusion is carried further in the NT with "Lord" and "Lord Jesus". It's all such a mess...
@@danlds17 Elohim means sons of God who are the plural "gods". El means God (I Am). False gods are just created sons (fallen angels) and are not God. They use Elohim to trick people into idolatry and rebellion against El.
Bart Erhman, lol. And to think he teaches the New Testament to university students. If the early church didnt believe Christ was YHWH, then it would have died out in the first century. The true jews knew God would dwell (tabernacle) among them.
Ehrman's embarassing on many of his points, some kind of deep seated insecurity that brought about his own apostasy in the first place.
The fact that he can lead others astray too disgusts me
@@clouds-rb9xt for sure. He shouldnt be allowed to teach New Testament textual criticism when its apparent, even to secular ideologies, that he is not qualified to do so.
@@Michael-Archonaeus do explain
Look up Margret barker on temple worship it's truly amazing! Look up "pagan origins of Judaism" and you will see that orthodox Christianity is the fulfillment and continuation of the original Hebrew religion from the 1st temple which basically is not the same religion of 2nd temple Judaism it is but isn't. It's super fascinating and strengthened my faith inthe risen Lord Christ and in his Church
If Jesus is Yahweh, who was He praying to in the Garden? Maybe the best argument that Jesus and Yahweh are separate entities is their vastly different characters. In Num 31 Yahweh commands Moses to "take vengeance" on the Midianites. Moses slaughters over a hundred thousand men, women and children but saves 32,000 young virgin girls for his soldiers. 32 of those virgins are offered as tribute to Yahweh along with other sacrifices of oxen, sheep and donkeys.
This sounds a bit out of character for Jesus. Especially the sex slavery. If Jesus was claiming to be a god or The God, it can't be the same one we read about in The Old Testament.
Catholic here but I thoroughly enjoy your videos I've seen! Keep up the good work.
Protestant here, but happy to come together with Catholic believers. Welcome and God bless, Ben! :)
@@micahblakeslee God bless you too!
I myself am a Catholic who converted to Protestantism , but I have the utmost respect for the Catholics, they introduced me to the faith and laid the foundations for who I am today. God bless you sir!
@@cadenhastings9729 Bro I'm going from Protestant to something else but I love you!
Oh really? Please brother, tell me more about your conversion, I’m interested to hear your testimony!
Good video... Love how you bring up the Early church Fathers. Good work and well explained. 👍🏼👌🏼🙌🏼🙏🏼🕊️🕊️
"BuT tHeY nEvEr CaLl HiM Yaweh!"
Of course, they were speaking Greek and quoting the Hebrew scriptures in Greek, so they never call the Father YHWH, either. But the terms they use for the Father /are/ applied to Christ as well.
@@lizzard13666 because the doctrine wasn't yet elaborated doesn't mean they were against it. A few perhaps, but many/most... yeah no.
@@lizzard13666 Can you like not rip scripture out of context? Because Jesus distinguishes Himself from representatives of God in the next verses.
@@lizzard13666 LOL 😆
@@lizzard13666 the Two Powers in Heaven Jewish theology already looks at YHWH as something more than a single person and it's this theology that Jesus , the Apostles including Paul taught .
It was rejected by Rabbinic Judaism in the 2nd century AD.
And why Rabbinic Judaism and Islam have similar views of a Unititain god .
It wasn't this way before Christianity and comes from this Jewish theology.
You probably don't even know what this Theology is !
Two Powers in Heaven by Segal a Jewish author on early Jewish theology.
@@lizzard13666 it isn't a lie, your hard assertion to the opposite is the claim that needs to be defended with hard evidence... that you don't have.
The trinity is an elaborated complex version of the very simple but counterintuitive idea that:
1)- there's one God of the universe, he's good and all powerful, and he's the God of the Jews/OT
2)- Jesus is God, the Father is also God, the Holy Spirit is also this one and only God... yet each also relate to one another in real time.
3)- this is reconciled by saying that there's 1 God, but he relates to us and to himself as three persons. 1 God. Three persons in "the Godhead". It's not polytheism.
As far back as Paul and Thomas EXPLICITLY call Jesus God, while dwoecting him as relating to the Father, or the Holy Spirit... as existing persons. Jesus himself says he prexisted his own human incarnation. John makes it clear that Jesus prexisted his oen incarnation as "The Word"... and the Word created the universe, and not only was "with God" (plurality, relationship with God) but also WAS (and is) God himself. That's a contradiction unless plurality of persons in the Godhead is possible.
The majority of the early church fathers didn't disagree with this concept. Only a handful had an issue with this. They were called the Arians. Athanasius didn't defeat arius with religious theocratic unstoppable authority... he simply argued against it with well known orthodoxy and the vast majority of bishops agreed with him, and the most influential church Father's support these core ideas above.
Scripture fully supports these core ideas that inform trinitarian doctrine.
Nice job 👍 , thanks for the hard work you put in
I'm starting to feel more and more with every passing day that Bart is really just trolling. Why does he say these silly things which are totally against history?
I hope his eyes are open to Jesus Christ and that he's led to repentance as we all should be
bart isn’t saying that they didn’t believe Jesus was divine, he said that early christian’s didn’t think Jesus and Yahweh were the same person. That he was the Son of God and also divine rather than God himself
@@nathancraig4710 hmmm well Yahweh is just the "I Am" right? And Jesus says He is that in John 8:58 so the early church mustve thought its the same.
@@nathancraig4710 All four gospels quote Isaiah 40:3 in relation to John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus. But when you actually look back at Isaiah 40:3, the one for whom the way is being prepared is Yahweh. It's right there, unambiguous, in the Hebrew text of Isaiah. Even the author of Mark clearly believed that Jesus was Yahweh, because it would have been blasphemous for him to quote Isaiah 40:3 in relation to Jesus otherwise.
You only have to go 2 verses into the Gospel of Mark to find that the early church believed Jesus was Yahweh, and that's not far at all.
he makes a lot of money lying...
"The Idea that Jesus is God is not an invention of moder time, of course. As I will show in my discussion, it was the view of the earliest Christians soon after Jesus' death."
Bart D. Erhman, How Jesus Became God, 2014, pg 3
I mean, he admitted that the earliest Christians thought of Jesus as God
I think it highly depends on Gospel datings and reliable, for example you have John 20:28 in which Thomas recognizes Jesus as God very shortly after the resurrection happened, if the datings are early enough and reliable, then you have proof that an early Christian believed so.
And then he has consistently contradicted himself when it is convenient.
I think even Bart us confused on his position lol
Right, but now the question is, did they also think of Jesus as _Yahweh?_ In other words, did they think of Yahweh as in some sense identical to Jesus? This is not at all clear in most of the early patristic literature. But who knows? There might be some very obscure passage out there where an early Christian calls Jesus by the name Yahweh.
@@HatsoffHistory to use the divine name was forbidden in the second temple period, that's why they used either Adonai (Lord) or Hashem (the Name) in their prayers or when they referred to God
Ah, Bart Ehrman.. I feel like much of his teachings come from his own insecurity from his own apostasy. For a scholar many of his arguments are very weak and have been shown so by the average joe.
I had a class with his textbook and it seemed very contradictory. Christ is described as the logos, from which all was made and at the beginning of time, how could that not mean God?
@@tobuscusfoop Ehrman and his ilk get so caught up in Jesus as a philosophical concept that they cannot truly believe that He truly and historically existed.
@@paulblase3955 this is wrong. Ehrman is not a mythicist. He even wrote a book debunking common mythicist arguments.
@@fas1840 Very true.
@Robb Torseth Because wanting to know what you believe is true is....bad?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God,make haste and save me.
Amen brother!
Jesus will never God
You left out the most clear and important claim of all, in John's Gospel where Jesus said: "Before Abraham was, I AM."
This was the clearest possible claim of identity with YHWH that he could have made (and that's why the Jews tried to stone him for saying it). I realize, of course, that Ehrman denies the apostolic authorship of John, but even he would be forced to admit that John's Gospel was composed very early in the history of the church, and represents the theology of many early Christians.
Yeah I actually talked about that in a previous video, I think it's on the end screen
@@lizzard13666 But look at the context - "Before Abraham was, I am." What other existence could Jesus possibly be referring to there? Abraham lived 2000 years before his birth. And unless I'm totally off, Exodus was written in Hebrew and John in Greek, so the words were different because the language was different (unless your quote comes from the Septuagint).
@@lizzard13666 I concur, Jesus claiming to be Lord of the Sabbath is clearer than this verse IMO :)
@@indianasmith8152 It's the Hebrew figure of speech of talking about present inevitable events as past tense. He's saying before Abraham he was predestined to be the Messiah. He didn't even exist until Bethlehem.
@@joedaley1878 Well, that's your interpretation, anyway. I prefer to read the plain meaning of the text.
As someone who often listen to Ehrman, Carrier, and other atheist scholars, I feel my faith is reignited after watching this video.
Do not even think about Carrier for everyone’s sake.
Considering how embarrassing such a statement is for Dr. “Err”man, one can only assume that he is either trolling as some have said, or perhaps he is somehow implying that since the church fathers didn’t specifically use the name “Yahweh” that it doesn’t count… which would be a silly claim, but I can’t think of any other reason he would make such a statement.
@@lizzard13666 The trinity has an internal hierarchy where The Father is at the top. Therefore, The Father is greater.
@@knuttyse7883 Yep, eternally co-equal but also a hierarchy, that's Trinitarianism for you
Spot on and to the point. Well done bro!!!
Thanks for this!
Erik, can you please make a video series or a long video "why you're a Christian? "
And what Evidence made convinced you to be a Christian?
how do you answer the objections by Skeptics to the evidence you have ?
This really helps
You do realize that you don't have to answer the objections of skeptics right?
I am a Christian because of doctrine of Original Sin.... This is the foundation of Democracy....
Politicians are EASILY corrupted....That is why we have Separation of powers theory and limitation of the terms of office...
Democracy does not trust politicians ,that is why we elect new presidents every 4 years...Great power will EASILY corrupt politicians...
@@krishyyfan5153
We don't have a democracy we have a constitutional republic.
@@lilchristuten7568 I don't know what constitutional republic means....but I believe in Separation of powers theory and limitation of the terms of office.... I believe that politicians are EASILY corrupted, that is why we need to change presidents every 4 years....
We need the Checks and balances of the branches of government because Absolute powers will EASILY lead to corruption....
@@krishyyfan5153
A constitutional republic is a nation that has elected officials that run the country based upon the constitution of their land.
A democracy in a government where everyone votes for political issues and the majority rules period.
Rob at sentinel has done amazing work on the gospel of mark in his commentary. He shows in his commentary that mark actually has a higher christology than John.
Further details on the source please.
That's big claim, to say John has a higher Christology than John
Though I've been raised with the Scriptures, my church is the lowest as they come; yet, I've always been confused by the argument that Christ's divinity is only seen in John, whereas I thought those doctrines were most explicitly stated in Matthew (specifically, Matthew 12:8 and Matthew 28:19)
you are excellent in doing these brother.. how nice it will be if you will have a debate against Bart Ehrman
GREAT VIDEO Brother
Can you do a debunking of all of the PureFlix ads I have to suffer through to watch your vids
This misunderstanding is so astounding that I'm tempted to think Ehrman is confusing "God" and "YHWH", taking YHWH as referring only to the Father, hence his statement that only some conservative evangelicals hold to this view. But this is still a pretty fundamental misunderstanding and fails to account for the New Testament evidence. Jesus was not God the Father but he was YHWH.
That doesn't even make sense. There is only one God (the Father) and Jesus is the one true God manifest in the flesh (the Son).
John 14: 8-9
"Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"
@@spiritualisrael007 you don't make sense as the Two Powers in Heaven Jewish theology was the basis of the trinity / Godhead tradition that Jesus, the Apostles including Paul taught and that was rejected by Rabbinic Judaism in the 2nd century AD because it supported Christianity's claims of Jesus being both the Son of God invisible (YHWH) and the visible YHWH of Genesis 19:24. And the PEARSON Samson's parents saw in Judges ch. 13 , the man of God, the Angel of the Lord and God as the visible YHWH.( Pre incarnate Jesus = the Logos of John 1:1.)
@@spiritualisrael007 That modalism Patrick. Get with the program Patrick
@@spiritualisrael007 : And here was I thinking that it was the word that was made flesh, not God (John 1 : 14). According to the gospel of John, no one has seen God, but the only begotten god has declared him.
We are also told that Jesus is the image of God(Col 1 :15; Heb 1 :3)
Jesus' words to Philip are not a claim that Jesus was the Father.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Use the Bible to prove your points. That's all jibberish.
Great video! Here is some algorithm stimulation!
Could Dr. Ehrman be referring to the fact that no early Christians literally said the phrase ‘Yahweh is Jesus?’ If so, then his argument is still mute, since no early Church Fathers actually used the name Yahweh.
Although I'm not necessarily 100% on board with it, there are legitimate arguments for supposing that Mark has a higher Christology than John. Almost every other chapter affirms the deity of Christ.
John starts by calling Jesus the Word of God, inseparable and eternally with Him. I don't think you can get much higher a Christology than that without suggesting the Son is greater than the Father, which would be blasphemy.
@@oliveranderson50 when I say a higher Christology I mean a greater abundance of affirmations of Christs deity.
@@austinapologetics2023 Ahh, sorry.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 "Who are you?" Fred replied, "I am Fred, the Son of Yahweh." "Oh," they remarked, "then you must be Yahweh."
@@truncated7644 YHWH, God, is so fundamentally One that His Substance is literally one. if something is made of the same Substance as He is, then it is One with Him. you can see in phillipians 2 that Christ is said to have the same form and essence as the Father, YHWH.
Do you have any helpful responses to some of the claim of Dr William Dever on the exodus ?
Were can I find the writings of the early church fatheres? I been looking for them and can’t find them.
New advent is a catholic website that makes them available for free
Great video
Really good video! I'm glad you're bringing attention to the patristic testimony, and to Paul's inclusion of Jesus in the Shamah. Powerful stuff.
Have you considered making a video on adoptionist theology - the view that Jesus was MADE divine at some point (Acts 2:36, 13:33; Romans 1:4; Philippians 2:6-11). I think Dr. Ehrman says the earliest Christology was an exaltation Christology, where Jesus - who may have been preexistent (but not able to "grasp" equality with God) - was resurrected and exalted to God status. So he deserves the worship of God, but is distinct from the eternal God. I'm sure there's a lot to say in response to that!
I would consider it. I have Simon Gathercole's book The Pre-existent Son on my reading list, I'm looking forward to reading it.
I understand Paul's words in 1 Cor 8 : 6 to be the opposite to what is being claimed. He is claiming that there is one God(YHWH, the LORD God of the BIble) and one Lord Jesus, YHWH's sent messiah). He sees them as two distinct beings, one is the God of ther other.
@@TestifyApologetics Michael Bird has done some excellent work concerning arguments that the earliest Christology having been adoptionist or exhaltationist as well (Gathercole and his book on the Christology of the synoptics are definitely gems, too). Bird’s rather short (~200 page) but scholarly book Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology is excellent on this point. I’ve also been hearing good things about his much longer more recent book Jesus among the Gods: Early Christology in the Greco-Roman World.
This only goes to highlight that lay people need not only to become more biblically literate, but also be reading the apocrypha/deuterocanon as well as the church fathers (in addition to the comparatively more recent theologians popular in their theological tradition like Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc).
Such a high quality video! God Bless.
This is incredibly fascinating because these quotes were written less than 180 years years after Jesus left the Earth if not earlier. This is the equivalent of us talking about the American Civil War or even World War 1. So, in terms of factual accuracy, their understanding would have been very accurate and based on very well understood principles
Muslims will deny this wholesale xD
"YoUr BiBlE iS CoRrUpT"
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@davidstrelec2000 "ThE eArLy ChUrCh FaThErS wErE mUsLiMs"
@@TandemSix
Lol calling Jesus the Son of God, Lord, proclaiming his death on cross and resurrection, eating pork, drinking wine... yeah they were as Muslim as atheists are theists
At the Council of Niceæ, one of the accusations made against Arius was that none of his opinions are found among the apostolic Fathers.
What is ironic is how revisionist historians paint the decrees of Niceæ as an innovation when in reality the idea that Christ WASN'T divine that was the real innovation.
I see unitarians claiming the same thing as Bart. And I'm sure they're aware of everything you said in this video. I wonder what are their explanations. Maybe they think these writings are not authentic?
They have unique interpretations of these texts, or they read them without context :)
Some of them aren't. The one from Polycarp especially. Polycarp's epistle is generally authentic, but the section quoted is probably not authentic, and even if it is, we don't have it in the original Greek, but only in later Latin translations prepared by Trinitarians. Even as it is, it's about 50/50 in terms of which English translations render it as "Lord and God" or just "Lord." I don't know much Latin so I can't say much on that point.
The idea that nobody thought of the Trinity until it was invented at Nicea isn't really a reflection of serious Unitarian thought. That's tiktok nonsense. Most thinking Unitarians understand that the Trinity was a relatively early doctrine dating to, probably, the second century. It just was one of many interpretations that didn't become universal until after Nicea, when all the non-Trinitarians were exiled, executed, or if they were lucky, just excommunicated. Because violence is definitely the best way to find the truth.
In all seriousness, please pray for Dr. Erhman. Pray that Jesus will bring him back into the fold.
I think the issue is whether or not early Christians identified Jesus as YHWH by name, not by personhood. But even so, Mark certainly puts Jesus in the place of YHWH quite early and often, not just in the position of God generally.
Should we count Paul and John as theologians?
I’d like to understand how this view interacts with things that (I’m assuming, maybe wrongly) you reject, such as the early churches universal belief in things like the bishops-priests-deacons hierarchy, the necessity of baptism for salvation, and Christs real presence in the eucharist. If you want to rely on the early church fathers in order to show the earliest Christian’s believed in the divinity of Christ, why can’t I just do that with such universal catholic doctrines?
Ehrman has become the embodiment of Romans 1:22. He has just wandered off into meme territory at this point.
WHO IS THIS TALKING ABOUT: SAVIOR, CREATOR, REDEEMER, ROCK, THE LIFE, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, GOD WITH US, THE FIRST AND THE LAST, I AM ?
If you said God you are right, if you said Jesus you are right.
The Trinity is Biblical
This is a very well made and carefully thought out video. Nevertheless, looking at Ehrman's blog post, I'm not sure you cut to the heart of his claim. He is not saying that early Christians did not identify Jesus as God. What he is saying, however, is that they would have identified YHWH with God the Father and Jesus as God the son, while also identifying Jesus with the angel of YHWH in the Old Testament.
I'm not sure whether or not I agree with Ehrman on this, or whether or not the early Church (or New Testament writers for that matter) ever bothered to get quite so specific as to parse out the members of the Godhead in the Old Testament. It is an interesting question I would like to explore further.
But in any case, I don't think Ehrman is arguing here that the church, until recently, has not identified Jesus as God, which is what you seem to think he is saying. That would indeed be a silly thing to assert.
But the concept of the trinity is 1 essence with 3 persons. So Yahweh is Jesus and not the father? Or Yahweh Is the entire “Godhead”? A distinction is made between Jesus and Yahweh in the scriptures. For example, in the the OT it says “Yahweh said to my lord” (where “lord” is prophetically referring to Jesus as confirmed in the NT).
Most of them say “if someone knows better let me know” and then just plug their ears
Pliny the younger and celsus also record that the idea of Jesus being God and worshipped existing in their times . They aren't even Christians
That's right but I think Ehrman refers to the very early Christians, the earliest ones, the ones after the apostles like Luke.
@@ExNihiloNihilFit319 Celsus when he wrote this dates to 170 ad
When Pliny wrote what he wrote 112 ad . . ? If I remember correctly .
This dates before some church fathers
I think that Bart would say that they say "Lord" or "God" but not Yavé or some other lame excuse
Yes. Bart isnt saying that they didnt call him God. He is saying they didnt call him YHWH bc they would of considered YHWH the father.... Are you saying Jesus is the Father?
One of my favourite passages in the Bible is in John chapter 1. While not super explicit about saying Jesus is God, it's certainly implied that Jesus is "the Word [that] became flesh and dwelt among us," which John says earlier that "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." I think it's a reasonable inference to suggest John is teaching that Jesus is God here.
Even if we take Wikipedia's assessment (which I'm sure has root in some skeptic scholar's opinions) that John was written around 90-110 AD, that's still not "recent" by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes, in some way, Jesus is the 'word.'.. But how was the 'word ' / word of God understood in the OT and the gospels? Furthermore, John specifically says the word was WITH God. If we translate the Greek in the various ways it can be translated , with the absence of the definite article, we see a vefry different nuance in his language. Later, in the same chapter, John states that it was the word that became flesh, not God. He further tells us that No one has seen God ( but they all saw Jesus) and that the only begotten god has declared /explained him.
Finally, what was the purpose of the entire gospel of John? Was it to claim a new truth about the nature of the God of Israel? No ! John tells us in Chapter 20, verse 31 : to show that Jesus is the Christ (messiah), the Son of God..
You can use Michael Heiser's The Unseen Realm or blogs to talk about the pre-Christian Jewish doctrine about the "Two Powers in Heaven" (the 2 Yahwehs)
The Jewish doctrine that no Jew ever believed
@@fluffysheap yeah, you probably know nothing about Second Temple Judaism
@@martinecheverria5968 I know it wasn't a huge da Vinci code conspiracy like Heiser seems to like to pretend it was
Maybe that they didn't use the exact word for Jesus?
I think this video needs a council of Nicea so yall can have a better understanding of the trinity
I’m not sure any of us here can really know what was in Mr. Ehrman’s mind when he penned his writings. IMHO however Mr. Ehrman didn’t “…miss…” the earliest church fathers’ writings on Jesus, it seems to me that he simply side-stepped them because of an agenda. 🤷🏻
Very interesting i have recently watched Jewish ppl talking about and documenting that the nam is pronounced YehoVah. They secretly transmitted the pronounciation and the vowels of tetragrammaton. And that it is not yahweh. Have you had the chance to look into that? I think it sounded authentic
@@KnuttyEntertainment ah yes, that's what i thought too. But some of the Jewish literature records, for instance Menachem Tziyoni, 14th century, "[This is my name forever Exodus 3:15] There is also a secret here received by tradition in the vowels of "this is my name FOREVER (Le'olam)" for they are the vowels of the Great Name."
the vowels of Le'olam are e,o, and a. And that translates to yEhOvAh.
Also they say mnemonic is HEAVEN (SHaCH"aK) these are acronyms for vowels [SHeva, CHolam and Kamatz] which once again are the vowels of yEhOvAh.
I just thought these records were very interesting and how Jewish Rabbis transmitted these vowels of God secretly to their students. So I am gravitated to believe that Yehovah is the name for God.
@@LMCI The 14th century is nearly 2000 years after Jews stopped saying the Divine Name, which is far too great a time to trust a claim that secret knowledge has been passed down accurately.
Have you watched "The Trinity Before Nicea" video by Sean Finnegan? He has has quotes of all the guys you mentioned to conclude that they were Subordinationist rather than Trinitarian. I also found some papers that classified them as Proto-Trinitarian. Any thoughts?
: These individuals, regardless of what they believed, did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as it is now constituted. It clearly shows the doctrine evolved.
@@gerryquinn5578 I don't even think this is in dispute among the majority of Christians. But there is one main issue. Did the apostles believe that Jesus is God? Not "a god", but the God of the Bible? I think that the Scriptures bear this out. And if the Scriptures declare the deity of Christ, then we must wrestle with this from within the the paradigm of Jewish Monotheism.
@@DaddyBooneDon Yes, the apostles did believe Christ was God, as Paul stated in 1 Cor. 10 that Jesus was the God that rescued Israel from Egyptian oppression and led them through the desert.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 and there are many passages like that...
Heb: To which of the angels... but of the Son... thy throne, O God...
Titus: our great God and Savior Jesus...
John: and the Word was God...
Col: in Christ all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form...
Etc...
@@DaddyBooneDon : Indeed. You make a very interesting point. But here is the rub : I don't think that the scriptures show that the Apostles believed Jesus was the God of the Bible. Rather, I think the evidence is overwhelming that they saw him as the promised Messiah, and called him the Son of God.
What about the Holy Spirit?
5:30 is an excellent example of why, if you're going to reference the Jewish scriptures, you shouldn't use a King James or an NIV. The word used isn't actually "Lord." Jews just pronounce "אדוני" (adonai which means my Lord) as a stand-in because we don't pronounce the name of G-d. But as far as I know, it's just conventional to specifically use the word "adonai." One could just as easily say "Hashem" instead.
I’ve heard some people attribute yahweh to the Father, or does yahweh refer to God in general
Yahweh is the true name of the God of Abraham. In trinitarian belief, it would refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit because they are all God.
In the Bible it is most often used to refer to the Father due to the way it's written. The terms "the Angle of Yahweh" and "the spirit of Yahweh" refer to the Son and the Holy Spirit respectively, but "Yahweh" is still technically referring to the Father in them.
@@FoneyBone1 thank you , God bless 🙏
Confusion ceases when you only use names that are actually in the Bible... "Yahweh" isn't biblical. I do believe YHVH is one of God's names, but it can be said in English as "the LORD" or "Jehovah".
"Jesus is the Lord" -> Jesus is Jehovah -> Jesus is YHVH.
@@KnuttyEntertainment
I agree that from the Old Testament, reading the Angel of the Lord as the Messiah in particular is a hard sell, but reading him as a part of the Trinity can be reasonably done.
ua-cam.com/video/BNt5NKSse0Y/v-deo.html
I don't know how much of a technicality it comes across as in the original language, but there does seem to be a difference between the Angel of the Lord and an angel of the Lord, such as Gabriel. His role in the Old Testament is primarily that of being a messenger, and he's given heightened importance. If one doesn't hold a trinitarian view, this could be seen as eisegesis, however.
@@KnuttyEntertainment
While Jesus' name is in actuality Joshua/Yeshua, the Joshua mentioned in Zachariah 3 is much more likely to be the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak mentioned in Zachariah 6 and Ezra 3. It at the very least seems very unlikely to be Jesus, as Zachariah 3:3 says his sins are removed and a covenant is made with him.
While this could still come down to a difference of interpretation, this doesn't seem to inherently discredit the notion of the Angel of the Lord being Jesus.
I got one! Pick me! The earliest possible sources.. the apostle Thomas (didymus) referred to Jesus as his Lord and God in the same sentence.
1 Corinthians 15 was quoting a speech given 17 years after the cross during the reign of galius and it is teaching deity
Not sure why Bart said that, nowhere in the new Testament, no one thought Jesus was God. In the gospel on John, Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and God.
John 20:28
[28]And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
@Testify, You cited a lot of Bible verses, but I don't think even you believe Bart is unaware of them or didn't think this through very far. Given the tendency of your readers to denounce Bart as a big dummy/troll/deceiver, it might be more beneficial to engage him on his blog and then report back on your channel. OR, since he is promoting another video series, to invite him on your channel to discuss the issue with you.
So I have to refrain from making content until I've engaged with him first, when his views are already publicly available? Is that really the standard now? Of course I think he is aware of the passages. I don't think Ehrman is a troll or a big dummy. I don't like the comments here either and you have probably seen me tell people to please refrain from deragatory comments before. I can't moderate everything by myself. I think his interpretations of the data are bad and people with familiarity of the texts themselves can obviously see that. Why are you always so reflexively defending Ehrman?
@Testify It's your channel. I didn't say you have to do anything. I was, politely I think, just making a suggestion that it would be more beneficial (selfishly, at least for me) to incorporate his response or at least his reasoning/method that drives his conclusions.
It might seem reflexive to you, but Bart isn't just another Ph.D., he is near the top of his field (unlike me, though I do have a Ph.D. but it is in an entirely unrelated subject). I am not saying he doesn’t make mistakes or may have some bias, (we all do) but he is one of the most respected scholars in his subject and that wouldn’t be the case if he were sloppy, uninformed, etc.
You lay out a lot of early church quotes and verses, but none of them say Jesus is Yahweh. Instead you are claiming that their statements imply that they thought Jesus was Yahweh. Bart’s methods and understanding of 1st century Judaism and Christianity gives him reasons to interpret and understand these differently. To me, it seems like your argument is to display all these quotes and verses and then claim that it is “baffling” and “it seems crazy” to you how Bart “missed this.”
But your disagreement with Bart really isn’t the data you are working with. He has read all of it in the original language. It is the methodology and understanding of the background context which is driving you to different conclusions. Without addressing that, you end up with a bunch of viewers high-fiving and saying what a biased dummy Bart is.
This is like Muslims saying "where did it ever say in the Gospels that Jesus said: I am God". Not quite, but close. What something is strongly implicit you don't need the explicit unless there's a darn good reason for needing something to be explicit.
Also, I think you give someone like Ehrman too much credit, as if he is in some kind of special status of being able to read and interpret the text that us plebes wouldn't get. Yes he has a PhD and he's not a dumb bunny.
But if one is interested in interpretation of the Gospels and theories about them, there is no substitute for just knowing the documents themselves, in any good translation into your own language. Nothing technical about it. But it will allow you quickly to think of counterexamples to many theories. For example, when someone like Bart Ehrman teaches that Jesus becomes loftier and less human as the Gospels get later, you'll remember right away that it is in John, the latest-written Gospel, that Jesus weeps at the tomb of Lazarus and cries, "I thirst" on the cross. This is why average people who read the text regularly see through this and get irked at some of these howlers. While I respect the learning of the great Biblical critics, I am not yet persuaded that their judgement is equally to be respected.
@@TestifyApologetics I don't think the Muslim analogy holds in this case. I think from what I have read, Bart truly believes that the early church fathers thought Jesus was God but not Yahweh and has arguments to back that up.
Inference or implication requires a framework of understanding to form your interpretation. I think Bart has a different framework than yours, so not addressing the root differences ends up just beating him up for not having your framework of understanding.
I have read all his books and not even in "How Jesus became God" did he say that Jesus became less human in the gospels. As I understood Bart, Jesus simply became more divine from Mark to John. (Note that I am hesitant to summarize his view as simply as that.).
@@TestifyApologetics This is all I could get out of Bart
_Bart, there is a lively conversation on @Testify’s UA-cam channel about your comments that you don’t think early Christianity thought Jesus was Yahweh. I would share the link, but I think you have heard enough people tell you that you must be biased, uniformed and a sloppy researcher to not know that Jesus was considered to be Yahweh by early Christians._
_The arguments presented so far are basically quotes from the bible and early church father’s that make it clear they thought Jesus was God. They then draw the implication that if Yahweh is God and Jesus is God, then Jesus is Yahweh. Would you care to respond or at least reference one of your books/blog posts that elucidate how you navigate this issue?_
*BDEhrman August 4, 2022 at 12:38 pm - Reply*
*Yes, Jesus was understood to be God. But he was not Yahweh. Yahweh is the father, Christ is the son. They are equal but not identical. To think they are identical is an ancient heresy (Modalism). This is not a view I came to as a scholar. It was the view I and everyone I knew had even when I was a fundamentalist.*
The best record is king Abkar of Odessa who said "Jesus has to either God or son of God". King Abkar lived at the time of Jesus's ministry.
Sometimes I wonder if Ehrmann is worth all the hype her receives. Some of his opinions are so flawed any objective reader without even a diploma in theology could see through them.
OT you're a citizen of Gotham who knows something is up with the legends and accounts of IT
NT you have a relationship with IT knowing His true identity and attempt to be inspired like Robin.
Early Christians viewed Jesus as the Messiah which means Anointed One. Period
None of the quotes you gave actually called the Messiah “YHWH”.
Further, you kind of cherry pick the fathers, as Justin Martyr and others explicitly identify the Deity of the Old Testament and of the Jews (YHWH) to be the Father.
In addition, we know that the pre-Nicene father’s writings were edited by later church fathers to better harmonize with their developed theology, as Jerome specifically refers to this in one his letters.
Isaiah 11, 49, 52, 53, 61 and Ezekiel 34 are among the clearest Messianic prophecies, but clearly make the distinction between YHWH and His Anointed Servant as two different beings. But even more, the Davidic covenant being the bedrock of Messianic understanding, introduces that figure, not as the most high YHWH, but as His son. In keeping with this simple understanding, the Angel Gabriel, when announcing the birth of the messiah, didn’t declare that Yeshua would be the most high, but on the contrary the “son of the most high”.
This Christology is also taught clearly in the preaching of Peter and Paul in Acts 2 & 13, as they declare that the “God of their fathers” YHWH, has raised and “glorified HIS SON.”
Is it possible that such clear Unitarian theology could have originated from minds committed to Trinitarian doctrine?
For your own sakes, answer honestly this question.
I’ve always wanted a library in my future house, and I bet if I get it’s going to be filled wall-to-wall with books of your recommendation haha
Epistle to the Galatians was written in 48 AD, Galatians 1:19 Paul says "But I saw none of the other Apostles except James, the Lord's brother".
Romans was written between 57 and 60 AD, Romans 10:9 is an early creed that is even earlier than that. Romans 10:9 "If you declare with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
Matthew was written between 57 and 60 AD,
Matthew 26:22-23 "They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other 'Surely you don't mean me, Lord?'
Jesus replied 'The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me".
As others will no doubt point out, you are clearly missing the point. Not one of the quotes you list calls Jesus Yahweh. The word 'God' had a wider range of meaning in Bible times and calling someone 'God' was not the same as equating them with Yahweh.
You're presuming unitarianism and the passages that refer to Yahweh in the OT are being clearly applied to Jesus, and this is where these early theologians were drawing from. Idk if I'm the one missing the point here
@@TestifyApologetics : I do like a lot of your videos and think that you usually make really good points and are able to do so very briefly. I like the way you call out Eheman. However, on this point, I tend to disagree. I think people can be selective in their use of quotes and suggest a view that these early Church fathers did not have. The earliest ones would have been unfamiliar with the doctrines adopted by the Church in the fourth century. I think the evidence that the Jews saw Gos as a one person God is overwhelming. I think the first followers of Jesus saw him as the Messiah, the Son of God and this is the view found in scripture.
@@gerryquinn5578 that is total nonsense, no one is being selective in their quotes really church clearly and unambiguously believe that Jesus was God.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 : "Total nonsense"? I don't think so. Countless trinkitarian Apologists are very selective with their quotes and even worse, 'edit' them to further their agenda. I can show you examples from Polycarp; Justin Martyr; Ignatius; irenaeus and more where Trinitarians 'edit ' the quotes.
More importantly however, as I said in my original comment, the term 'God' has a much wider range of meanin g in Bible times and to those with a Hebrew or Greco-Roman mind. Numerous individuals are called 'God' in the Bi ble but no one makes the claim that they are really the God of the Bible or that the designation equates them with YHWH. Likewise, for some 2nd century Apologist to call Jesus 'God' certainly does not mean that they think of him as the God of the Bible or YHWH, or God in a trinitarian sense.
God came down to the world as a man. Jesus died for our sin and resurrected on the 3rd day. Jesus is God. I don't care what anyone says.
"Equal to the Lord of the universe", isn't that just standard Trinitarian doctrine ? I don't see any reference to Yahweh. The real question in the OT, is the confusion between Deut. 32:8 and monotheism with Yahweh becoming El Elyon (which may have crept in gradually). And if El Elyon were the father of both Yahweh and Jesus, then either Yahweh and Jesus are the same person, or else they could be brothers.
I don't see any evidence in the citations that early Christians thought Jesus is the same a Yahweh. All I see they thought Jesus was divine and the son of Yahweh.
Here are some fun facts to add in your search for wisdom:
The word for 'spirit', 'name', 'blood', 'wind', and 'heart' is SHEM.
The word for 'obedience', and 'listen' is SHEMA.
The Hebrew letter ש (shin) is the first letter of:
SHEM - שֵׁם
I think what Bart is saying is that YHWH is the Father and so no one said Jesus was the Father. Saying that was condemned as a heresy... but sort of shows someone was saying it but we dont know who was saying it
YHWH isn't just the Father, YHWH is God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. YHWH is the first and the last, the king of Israel, the Lord of Lords, God over all - all the titles of Jesus.
For example check out Zechariah 12:10 - "they will look on me, on him whom they have pierced". That's YHWH speaking.
So I think YHWH is the name of God encompassing all three persons.
@@zackmac5917 psalm 110 implies yhwh is the father. There are plenty of verses that show either or. The Bible just isn’t consistent
@@tookie36 That would be perfectly consistent with the notion that YHWH is God, all three persons.....
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the Lord.
YHWH is the Lord, and yet, here, the Son is called the Lord.
Both, are called the Lord of Lords.
@@zackmac5917 as long as you’re not calling Jesus “the father” you can say whatever you want I guess lol
@@tookie36 Sure but the notable revelation here is that they are all one being, the same God and that is absolutely consistent in the Bible.
YHWH appears to be the name for God, encompassing all three persons.
People thought Yeshua
was Yahweh when he
walked the earth. But his
response was always...
the Father is greater than l,
I only speak the words the
Father tells me to speak,
I am the Son.
Trinitarians
hang thier hats on John 1.
But that is cleared up
easily by understanding
that theos is equal to
elohim which simply
means mighty one. It's not
the Father's name, but a
title given to mighty
beings.
Also the "I Am"
statement is not a claim of
being the Father but a
statement that Yeshua
existed with the Father
before Abraham
was born.
Yeshua and the
Father are 2 separate
entities. The Father and
His Son.
HOW many Islamic theologians in the past say that Jesus was NOT god?
All of them by the definition of what Islam is. How is that relevant to what Christians believe?
UA-cam really needs a two thumbs or a love button.
"For the sake of brevity, I'll ONLY look at 7!!" 😂😂😂
1 John 5:7 says : "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." We all know the Word is referring to Jesus, and they're saying the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one.
If Jesus is YHWH who is the Father in Heaven Jesus taught us to pray to ?
Claiming Nicaea invented Jesus's divinity is silly. In order for a council to form in the first place, there must have been church leaders who already believed this.
There is no fame, money or recognition in saying what everyone else says.
Within Pain is the understanding of Love for those who seek the Truth within, for wisdom is the power of understanding the Truth of Knowledge. We are One in spirit, divided by the beliefs of Man. The Spirit of Love has come upon Man to shed Light upon the Darkness within the Mind's of Man. Peace and Love upon you All ☯️❤️🙏🕊️☀️
Jesus will never be Yahweh and no one in the past believed Jesus was Yahweh
What a shattering rebuttal I'm never gonna recover from this
@@TestifyApologetics Yahweh is God and Jesus is Michael the Archangel
Born again Christian here. Everyone is focusing on the wrong thing. When you become born again you will know the mystery of God the Bible is the living Word of God which means it physically comes alive in you just like Jesus said about the kingdom of God. There are many scriptures that prove the Deity of Jesus Christ and since all scripture is inspired by God there should be no debate. If I may make a small suggestion focusing on repentance and giving your whole mind body and soul to the Lord like I did so you can know the mystery and talk to God daily. When you are born again this physically happens to you
👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
John 14:21, 23 (KJV) He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
John 15:1
I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Blessed be Jehovah Praise Jesus Christ the Lord to the glory of God the Father
Explain this Matthew 24:36, How can God know something Jesus doesn't
if they are literally the same?
@reed1culous
There are multiple explanations, including that Jesus was speaking from his human consciousness. A heretical explanation is not the only, and obviously not the best.
@@davidgeorge6410
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and forever.
So according to that statement and what you are saying is, he would never know the day. Nor would god. If they are literally the same. Keep in mind, he said the Father does know the day.
Also, Mark 10:40 If Jesus is literally God the father, and it's not up to him where people get placed, how does anyone get placed.
Also, Matthew 28:18 All authority was Given. By whom? According to you, it's by himself. So are you saying he gave something to himself that he already had?
now I add Mark and Matthew together, he has all authority and at the same time it's not up to him who gets placed. hmmm...
Here's another one for you, Matthew 23:9-10 notice the part where it says one father in Heaven. Jesus was on earth when he said that.
@@TOMHANKSnDINOSAURS
Jesus Christ is the same from eternity -- it doesn't mean that his hypostasis became composite after the Incarnation by the union of the divine and the human natures.
The Father does know the end day and hour -- so does the Son. And as I said earlier, there are multiple orthodox explanations, and the heretical one is not the only one and the best.
Read Mark 10:40 carefully -- Jesus doesn't say he 'cannot', but that it is up to the Father to place. Quite a huge difference. This is called the doctrine of the Monarchia in Trinitarianism -- the Father is the sole source and supreme authority of the Godhead. You may want to read on that.
About Matthew 28:18, Christ declares that the authority that was His by nature in His divinity is now also possessed by His glorified human nature. That has been the early and traditional Christian belief.
You are accusing Trinitarians of Modalism! The Father and Son are distinct persons -- not the same person having a multi-personality disorder.
He is not giving to himself something which he already had -- he is giving what he had by nature (i.e. his divine nature) to his glorified human nature which he took on at the event of the Incarnation.
@@davidgeorge6410
look man I'm not here to fight, all I was saying was that Jesus is not "literally" God the "Father" I think that I am understanding now that's not what you mean.
I wasn't saying anything about the Trinity, you just assumed that. I think you are missing the word Literal
It's like if I were to say something like... I am literally me...and I know the day something will happen...but I don't know when it will happen.
and could you please show me the bible verse where it says the Son does know the day?
@@TOMHANKSnDINOSAURS
I know you didn't say anything about the Trinity -- the Father is distinct from the Son, and both of them are distinct persons.
'All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.' -- John 16:15 (If all that the Father has is of the Son too, then it logically follows that the Son must have the property of knowledge of the last day and hour.)
'He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities-all things were created through him and for him.' -- Colossians 1:15-16 (How can the Son who is the Creator of the Worlds alongside the Father not know the end of the things which were created 'through him and for him'? Same goes for John 1:3).
'To have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.' -- Colossians 2:2-3 (How can the one in whom are hidden 'all' treasures of wisdom and knowledge cannot know the last day and hour?)
he is probably asserting that Yahweh is only the father or smthng. or he's being really pedantic. "nobody said jesus was Yahweh, because at first nobody pronounced it, and than they didn't know how to pronounce it. so they literally "did not call him Yahweh" in a very strict sense.
either way, I don't see how he is being totally honest here.
The early Christians were Jewish, and eastern Christians, and they never believed Jesus was god. Not even Jesus himself ever taught this, nor all the prophets before. Jesus also instructed us to pray to the Father and worship the Father, as all the other prophets before. So put aside all the assumptions about Jesus being god etc (which he himself never claimed). If we truly love Jesus, then let's follow his teachings and worship the Father only.
people in the bible worshipped Jesus and He never objected
@@rusluck6620 He didn't agree either. He even rebuked people for even calling him good and said only God is deserving of being called good. People worshipped any and everything. Jesus explicitly commanded that we worship the father. I will follow Jesus, and I suggest you do the same if you really love him.
@@truthseeker630 there were people worshipping jesus on his feet and he accepted it
also the "only God is good" can also imply that Jesus is God
It’s not just that Jesus was God, but that through the life of Jesus the will of God is shown to us. Jesus is the perfect human as revealed to us through his words and acts. The divinity of Christ is not hidden in anything other than his direct teachings and sacrifices. You don’t need any further interpretation unless you’re starting your own church, in which you now substitute the teachings and sacrifices of Christ to whatever is most socially convenient. If Jesus says you can and will be reborn and forgiven of your sins when you follow him in spirit, that should be all the good news we need. Instead, we worship the people talking about him before and after trying to pretend they knew more than him. According to the faith, no one did. There is no other reason to study Christ than to learn how to be a better person no matter the cost, so that you too, can also love and be loved by God.
I’m like 30 seconds into the video and all I can say is John 1
Jesus is not Yahweh in all creeds. Tertullian did not say that. God meant different things at that time.
1:55 equal =/= IS
Love that my comment was removed. You keep the comment section as a Christian echo chamber. Might as well block me from your channel.
I didn't remove your comment.
This platform does weird things to comments. I cannot read many of the comments people make because even though the notification of the comment is there, when I click on it, it does not appear. This happens more than 50% of the time and is very frustrating. It only happens on UA-cam. I don't know if it is my computer (which I doubt) or UA-cam itself. Many of the comments made end up disappearing and it makes me wonder what UA-cam is up to.
Why do you think the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus in the first place? In John 8:48-58, they knew that Jesus was alluding to Exodus 3 when He said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM." (I AM meaning Yahweh, I AM that I AM, or I will be). This wasn't the first or last time Jesus called Himself I AM.
Jesus Christ is worshipped in the new testament:
Matthew 28:17; Luke 24:52; Acts7:59-60, 9:14&21; 1Corinthians1:2; 2Corinthians12:8-10; Revelation 22:20.
Jesus Christ is YAHWEH from start to finish.
Check out the youtube videos (The God Culture), based on original hebrew, not new hebrew. The 1st video, is called 'The Name of God - Part 1: How To Pronounce YHWH May Surprise You' ,
and the 2nd video, is called 'THE NAME OF GOD Series Part 2: Biblical Evidence YHWH is YAHUAH' , this is the name of God, not Yahweh. Magnify His holy name forever - YAHUAH!
By the way, it has other videos, on saying the name of Jesus correctly as well (once again, in old hebrew, not new hebrew). You will find it enlightening - Praise God Almighty!
Brilliant. And thought provoking, I suppose.
Jesus Christ gave us a Father and arranged for the holy spirit to keep us connected - to the three of them!
Christians have always said it and will continue to if we have to live forever: Jesus is a real child, a Son - the only begotten of the Father; and we'll say it till the end, cause the Lord Himself uttered:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am"
..., Ego eimi. Then they try to stone him. With any context, that sure at the very least suggest that he is Yahwe. And the listeners seem to have got the same idea.
Even if early Christians missed the significance (which I don't think), it sure isn't completely foreign to the text. One has to be willingly blind, or not know of the significance and meaning of the name Yahweh, to not at least see the suggestion there. And there are a bunch of other indications as well.
@Morten Bendiksen but you would have to deal with the fact that “ego eimi” was a common termed used to identify oneself as Paul, the blind man, and Judas used the phrase. The Pharisees constantly got things wrong. It’s also important to note that Jesus never was officially charged for calling himself YAhweh
@@colinnelson5547 What do you men I would have to "deal with the fact"? I don't have to deal with any fact like that. What does that matter? Did you read the text? I'm not trying to say you have to read it this way or that, but that the text obviously deliberately skirts somewhat around definite answers.
Also, people then, like now, of course say "I am..." all the time. But not in that way. Not in a jarring, suggestive way, ant to top it, as an answer to questions among top level bible scholars, who's Gods name is what it is. They just didn't do that, just like people don't do that now. I mean, COULD it be he meant something else? Sure, it could. But being who he is, he sure would know the immense ambiguity that answer would give, and that in a context where the question is who he is. Perhaps he wanted to achieve something other by that? I don't know.
But to say that the text is obviously not playing with the idea that he is Yahweh, is to me just ridiculous.
@Morten Bendiksen honestly bro, I believe you would only assume this was some claim to deity if someone taught that to you. If I am Reading it face value, without any presuppositions, thinking this is a claim to deity is farfetched. I say this because just a few passages above, they accused Jesus of being God and he responded “those you were brought Forsyth the word of God were call god, why are you upset that I call myself the son of God.” The Pharisees constantly got things wrong and needed to be corrected. So I would take their responses as a good indication of what the truth is
@@colinnelson5547 No text can be read without presuppositions. It's impossible. My point was exactly that to all who had intimate knowledge of pharisaical doctrine, this WOULD come across as precisely alluding to the name of God. To anyone else, it's not even comprehensible, it's gibberish.
here’s a big list of verses where the messiah is God or Jesus claims to be God! :D
John 1:1, John 1:14, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 14:9, John 20:28, Colossians 1:15-17, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3, Revelation 1:8, Revelation 22:13, Isaiah 9:6, Matthew 1:23, John 1:18, John 5:18, John 10:33, John 17:5, John 8:24, John 8:28, John 13:19, Matthew 14:33, Matthew 16:16, Matthew 26:63-64, Mark 2:5-7, Mark 14:61-62, Luke 22:70, John 3:13, John 5:23, John 6:38, John 8:12, John 8:58-59, John 10:36-38, John 12:45, John 13:13, John 14:6-7, John 17:3, John 19:7, Acts 7:59-60, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:6, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 5:20, Revelation 1:17, Revelation 2:8, Revelation 3:14, Revelation 5:12-14, Revelation 19:16, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 40:3, Micah 5:2, Zechariah 12:10, Matthew 9:2-6, Matthew 28:9, Matthew 28:17, John 5:19-23, John 5:26-27, John 6:35, John 6:47-51, John 8:23-24, John 10:11, John 10:14-15, John 11:25-26, John 14:1, John 14:7-10, John 14:11, John 16:15, John 17:2, John 17:10, John 20:31, Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 1:22-23, Ephesians 3:9, Philippians 2:10-11, Colossians 1:16, Colossians 1:17-18, 1 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 1:6, Hebrews 7:3, 1 John 4:15, 1 John 5:5, 1 John 5:11-12, Revelation 1:7, Revelation 2:23, Revelation 3:7, Revelation 21:6-7, Revelation 22:12, Revelation 22:20, Genesis 1:26, Genesis 3:15, Genesis 49:10, Exodus 3:14, Exodus 12:13, Numbers 24:17, Deuteronomy 18:15, Psalms 2:7, Psalms 22:16, Psalms 110:1, Psalms 118:22, Proverbs 30:4, Isaiah 11:1-2, Isaiah 35:4-6, Isaiah 42:1-4, Isaiah 50:6, Isaiah 52:13, Isaiah 53:3-7, Jeremiah 23:5, Ezekiel 34:23, Daniel 7:13-14, Hosea 11:1, Amos 9:11, Jonah 2:6, Micah 5:2, Zechariah 9:9, Zechariah 12:10, Malachi 3:1, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 9:6, Matthew 11:10, Matthew 12:6, Matthew 16:16-17, Matthew 22:44, Matthew 24:30, Matthew 25:31, Matthew 26:64, Mark 1:1-3, Mark 2:10, Mark 8:38, Mark 12:36-37, Mark 13:26, Mark 14:62, Luke 1:32-33, Luke 2:11, Luke 4:12, Luke 5:24, Luke 9:20, Luke 21:27, Luke 22:69, John 1:4, John 1:29, John 1:49, John 3:14-18, John 3:31-36, John 4:25-26, John 5:21, John 5:22, John 5:25, John 5:27-29, John 5:39, John 6:27, John 6:33, John 6:40, John 6:62, John 7:16-17, John 8:16, John 8:23, John 8:42, John 8:56-59, John 9:35-38, John 10:7, John 10:17-18, John 10:25, John 10:28, John 10:36, John 11:4, John 11:25, John 12:13, John 12:15, John 12:23, John 12:45, John 12:49-50, John 13:16-17, John 14:26, John 15:1-5, John 16:7, John 17:1-5, John 18:36-37, John 19:21, John 20:1-18, Acts 2:25-36, Acts 3:15, Acts 4:12, Acts 5:31, Acts 7:56, Acts 10:36, Acts 13:33-34, Acts 16:31, Romans 1:3-4, Romans 5:9-10, Romans 8:3-4, Romans 8:34, Romans 9:5, Romans 10:4, Romans 10:9-13, Romans 14:9, 1 Corinthians 1:9, 1 Corinthians 1:30, 1 Corinthians 3:11, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Corinthians 12:27, 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, 1 Corinthians 15:45-47, 1 Corinthians 15:57, 2 Corinthians 1:19, 2 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Corinthians 5:19-21, 2 Corinthians 8:9, 2 Corinthians 13:5, Galatians 2:20, Galatians 3:13-14, Galatians 4:4-5, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 1:20-23, Ephesians 2:10, Ephesians 3:17, Ephesians 4:15-16, Ephesians 5:23, Philippians 2:5-11, Philippians 3:20-21, Colossians 1:13-20, Colossians 2:6-7, Colossians 2:13-14, Colossians 3:1-4, Colossians 3:15-17, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17, 1 Timothy 1:15-17, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Timothy 1:9-10, 2 Timothy 2:8, 2 Timothy 4:1, Titus 1:4, Titus 2:11-14, Hebrews 1:1-4, Hebrews 1:8-9, Hebrews 2:9-10, Hebrews 2:14-15, Hebrews 3:1-6, Hebrews 4:14-16, Hebrews 5:8-10, Hebrews 6:19-20, Hebrews 7:25, Hebrews 9:11-15, Hebrews 9:28, Hebrews 10:5-10, Hebrews 12:1-2, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 13:8, James 2:1, 1 Peter 1:3, 1 Peter 1:18-21, 1 Peter 2:21-25, 1 Peter 3:21-22, 1 Peter 5:4, 2 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:16-18, 2 Peter 3:18, 1 John 1:7, 1 John 2:1-2, 1 John 3:16, 1 John 4:9-10