A very good presentation. I am not yet a fully convinced biblical unitarian, though I am definitely a subordinationist. I consider William a friend, and he has been very kind to video chat with me on multiple occasions to discuss unitarian concepts with me. I appreciate and admire him.
21 minutes in and am very pleased with the logical conclusions so far. Analyze the Throne Room scenes from the entirety of scripture and deduce a conclusion from those scenes. Absolutely brilliant exegesis so far.
This was excellent. You explained something I've been trying to articulate for a while now. When someone tries to say that Jesus is Yahweh they are accidentally making an argument for modalism. I'm definitely borrowing from this if the conversation ever comes up. Great work.
I would nominate Steve Gregg, a trinitarian, Bible teacher, who is thorough, genuine, and kind....to debate the Trinity....he is mature, and has many really well done debates in his legacy.
It's interesting that Trinitarians are detached from the reality that our Lord Jesus worships our God and Father.....this is just one notion that the Trinity doctrine obliterates. Truly, the King of kings is the very worship leader of all the members of His body....as He is filled with all the fullness of God without measure....I pray the whole body of Christ can see the non-distorted truth of seeing and knowing the man, Jesus Christ; how He truly is....John 17:3. Grace, and peace, my family, Amen.
Very good talk. Makes complete sense. Just one small note: at around 5 minutes 10 seconds, Will says: 'all commentators, Unitarian and Christian alike', as though Unitarians are not Christians. This was just a slip, obviously!
Will, you speak of pslm110 as the root of this "sit at right hand" issue. I would say the whole concept of subordination to throne authority to be rooted in Genesis, with Joseph raised and given Pharaohs authority and given mandate to rule the kingdom of Egypt as Pharaohs "right hand man." Indeed as a trinitarian in my younger life I used to wonder just what the hype was, about Joseph and his striped coat and mistreatment at the hands of his BROTHERS and then to become the 2iC of Egypt. I now see it as an outstanding foreshadow, one that shows the lack of regal family connection that got him the job. And it was for a time of trouble ahead, just as Jesus returns, kicks out and defeats the rebellion of angelic enemies on earth, and sets things to rights, before handing it all back to God (1cor15:28)
I agree with your connection between Joseph/Jesus and Pharaoh/God. But this is an echo of scripture, something a careful reader will discover over time. The connection between Psalm 110 and the NT is much more obvious. That's why I think it's helpful to ground our case there.
- Thank You I've Been Discussing This Same Topic With A Podcaster. And I Am Glad To No Longer Be A Protestant Of The Re-Form-Mation Of Catholic Doctrine. No Longer Keeping Their Catholic Saint Days Of, - Saint Valentine's Day, - Saint Patrick's Day, - Nor Easter Of Yeshua Being "the passover lamb" (Which Wasn't Meant For Taking Away Sin), - Or All Saints Day Of The Catholic Dead (Protestant Halloween), - Nor *HO,HO,HO, Mary-Kris-Mass From Kris Kringle The Catholic Saint Nick* And Neither Am I Their Tithe Paying Trinitarian Anymore Either. Cutting The Strangling Apron Strings Of Their "Mother Church" Has Set Me Free The Religious Agendas Of Men.
Same here on all of those counts. I also no longer try to see dead christians in heaven currently, or bad dudes suffering eternally in hell, nor fuss about sabaths or buildings, and turned away from the Jewish purification rites of water baptism. And I am no longer trying to be a jew either, where i only hold to the red letters in the four gospels. As Jesus, a Jewish messiah who "came to his own" was a Jew speaking to Jews about a Jewish coming kingdom (which hasnt come yet) and so wasnt speaking to christians. A christian being one new creation neither jew nor gentile, but a follower of the RISEN Jesus. Give me Acts to Jude. The rest is all about why its gone this way, and Rev is about what will yet come in relation mainly to Israel's position in it all.
The lamb is brought to the throne and exalted, and we know he is at the right hand of God. Are you thinking that Rev 22:1,3 is contradicting the identification of God as someone other than the Lamb because it says it is the throne of both?
I would say that we should build our exegesis of Revelation 22 with what we know of the other passages in the book of Revelation. Based on Jesus's words in Revelation 3:21, we should not be surprised to see that the Lamb shares the throne at some point, just as those who conquer will share the throne with both the Lamb and God as well. But notice in Revelation 3:21, Jesus describes the throne as the Father's throne. When you combine that with all of the other throne room scenes in Revelation (see chapters 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 19, and 21), as well as the rest of the throne room scenes in the Bible, I think our interpretation of Revelation 22 follows like Brandon already commented.
That's great thanks it's how I would explain it myself, I only brought it up because many of the popular youtube apologists really hammer this verse that it's one throne so Jesus and God have to be one
And I would echo Bob Wassung in saying.... "Its not about furniture and how many are sitting on the seat. Its about the authority OF the throne." From my mind, just as Joseph represented the throne of Pharaoh after Pharaoh raised him from (figurative) death and gave Joseph all the power and authority in Egypt.
Both James White's and William Barlow's interpretation of John 12:41 is incorrect for these reasons: [1] The context and quote especially in verse 40 is an unmistakable clue to the theophany of Isaiah chapter 6:1-13. Not only does the prophet speak of Yahweh's glory (as a single person on the throne) in vv 1-4 but also the angels are quoted as singing of Yahweh's glory in v 3. Therefore, it is not the “ironic glory” of the Servant in Isaiah 53. [2] In the Greek of the passage in John 12:41, there is no mention of “Jesus” as being the person whose glory the prophet saw (as a supposed pre-natal Christophany or vision of the Messiah). It is only the glory of Yahweh that the prophet saw. [3] But John, as usual according to his whole unique Gospel account, declares by intimation the location of Yahweh (God the Father of Israel) embodied in the human person of Jesus. This is confirmed in many places in the Gospel beginning with the opening statement that the Word was God in John 1:1c. This is more immediately confirmed by the next statement of Jesus that “The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me” (v 45). [4] The glory of Yahweh was given to Jesus especially after his resurrection and with his exaltation to be seated at the right hand of God (John 5:19-30; 7:39; 8:54; 13:31-32; 17:1-5, 11-12, 24; Phil 2:9-11; Heb 2:9: Rev 5:6-14).
Just as Joseph was given all of Pharaohs power and authority, over all except Pharaoh himself, for a season. All who saw or came before Joseph were to see as if they were before Pharaoh. Same issue. Therefore showing that Jesus is not God .... just as Joseph was not Pharaoh. Joseph had Pharaoh working through him. Jesus has God as unseen spirit manifesting through him, just as Deut18:18 promised. A Jewish man who God would speak thropugh. Echoed by Jesus in Jn8:40. Blessings.
Great work. One cannot over emphasize Psalm 110:1 as a key to the identity of The Only True God’s human messiah. Always pointing out that the time at God’s right hand is a time limited offer. *Until I make your enemies your footstool.* 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 … But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. *Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father* after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For *he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.* The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he *“has put everything under his feet.”* Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, *it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.* When he has done this, then *the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him,* so that God may be all in all. Let him that has ears to hear …
You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible, just pick one. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain silly… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, just 65 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
@ Jesus prayed to his God in the great high priestly prayer that we would hear the words he spoke because they would be carried by his eleven remaining disciples. God answered his prayer and got the most important message to us unchanged: John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
@ Correct! Jesus, as fully divine AND fully human, part of the Trinity doctrine, as ALL humans should, prayed to His God, otherwise we would have a problem with the Trinity doctrine. 👍🏻 NOW will you answer the hard question above OR will we have to just let history answer it for you…
@@srich7503 God used the corrupted Jewish priests to keep Judaism alive until Christ could be born. I see no difference in using Greco-Romans to keep the words God put in the mouth of Jesus so we could hear them.
@@SonOfGodByNewBirthInChrist and that is not really the question above is it. The question is If you dont trust the Catholic church to interpret the Holy Scriptures properly today then how do you know she chose the correct books back then? And the last part of the question you deflected above - And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
Yeshua was with the Father before creation with him in the creation the word made flesh came down to earth in the Fathers name in his Fathers spirit and power and authority. now sits next to his Father... And now O Father glorify thou me with your own self with the glory i once had with thee before the world was.... John 17: 5.... The WORD of God
do some research on these channels and try to put that church jargon out of your head. Theres nothing about the word coming down to earth., nor about Jesus creating the earth or the universe.
The phrase "right hand" does not mean "opposite of left hand." The phrase "him that sat on the throne" does not mean "him that planted his backside on a piece of furniture." The artistic renderings of "the throne room" are products of the carnal mind, obstacles to receiving the revelation of scripture.
God is not a spatially three-dimensional, human-in-appearance person sitting on a materially literal chair with some other distinct person positioned directionally to his right. The phrases "right hand" and "him that sat on the throne" are symbolic; they are not to be taken literally in the material sense.
-----------------------------------------
God is the Father, the omnipotent Spirit who - according to his eternal existence far beyond our space-time continuum - is invisible to mankind ("whom no man hath seen, nor can see" - 1 Tim.6:16). The Lamb is the Father's visible image, the Father himself revealed to mankind in true human form ("God was manifest in the flesh" - 1 Tim.3:16), _within_ our space-time continuum. God and the Lamb are not a plurality of persons, but rather the selfsame _unipersonal_ Spirit...
*REVELATION 22 (KJV)* [3] And there shall be no more curse: but the throne *of God and of the Lamb* shall be in it; and *HIS* (not "their") servants shall serve *HIM* (not "them"): [4] And they shall see *HIS* face (not "their faces"); and *HIS* name (not "their names") shall be in their foreheads.
The singular throne belongs to *God and the Lamb,* who are the selfsame unipersonal "HE/HIM/HIS" Spirit. And HIS name - the name of *God and the Lamb* - is revealed to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*
Eddie, I think you might be misrepresenting the lamb. Try think about passover. The lamb is the provided lamb of trhe father, as a covering (blood) for his family. The lamb here is that raised lamb. Its not a sheep but neither is it a representation of God. You are injecting your insistence that Jesus must be God, into the scene which shows otherwise. Are you missing the point where Jesus says if you see me you see the father? Its about Deut18:18 where the promise is for a jewish human messiah who God will speak THROUGH!! Paul says Jesus MANIFESTS God. Jesus says in jn8:40 "why do you seek to kill me, a MAN who has told you what I heard from my father?" I agree with you on the "right hand" stuff. And about bums on seats. Its about authority. And the one at "right hand of throne" means thge one made second in charge, raised so much higher than angels. Thats Jesus, a man raised and glorified, first up from the dead, first of MANY BROTHERS.... (the rest of us) who will be saved and glorified as sons of God.
@@ken440 Yes Ken, God did indeed speak through Jesus Christ. For example, God said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
That's God, saying that God is the way, the truth, and the life...and that no man cometh unto the Father, but by *God himself* .......manifested in true human form.
@eddie3961 do you not see the logic disconnect in what you just said. If God speaks THROUGH the man Jesus, then the man is not God. Proved by Jesus being "the christ." Because "christ" is the greek word "christos" meaning "anointed one." And an anointed one is the anointee, needing to be anointed by one greater, the anointor. Anointee cant be anointor, words matter. The lamb standing before the throne is obviously not the great one sitting ON THE THRONE.
@@ken440 True or False: God is capable of making himself visible on earth, in genuine human form, within our space-time continuum, while simultaneously remaining unchanged according to his eternal existence far beyond our space-time continuum.
@eddie3961 False, because He said He can not coexist with sin and would not become a subject under the "god of this world," and in Gen1 we see he made a firmament separating man from heaven. So God ALWAYS works through representatives, like the angel who spoke in the burning bush, the angel in the smoke and fire in the desert with Israel, etc. And in the messiah (anointed one... heb) or christ (anointed one.. greek). one man broke it, the second man fixes it.
Put these 18:34 in AI too… ◄ Hebrews 12:2 ► fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. ◄ John 1:1 ► In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ◄ Hebrews 1:8 ► But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. Don’t take all the words from the Bible literally…. ◄ John 3:12 ► But if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things? Why put a literal throne? When Jesus say he is the bread from heaven don’t make an AI out this because it will comes out stupid and ignorant. Like you draw a picture of the throne. Be biblical don’t do AI do eternal instead. Father is not the Son and the Holy Spirit is not the Son… They are Elohim (Gen. 1:26) ◄ John 13:16 ► Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. Thanks be to God!
John 13:16 says a servant is not greater than his master. Jesus is a servant of God. His Master (his God and Father, as stated all throughout the New Testament) is YHWH. The servant of YHWH is not greater than YHWH. The servant is not even equal to his master. Therefore, Jesus, the anointed one of God (Acts 2:36 and Acts 17:31), answers to the One whom the Jews claimed as their God (see John 8:54).
You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible, just pick one. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain silly… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, just 65 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
Oh please, there was lots of reformation within the Catholic Church incited by Catholic members who were led by the Holy Spirit. Who’s to say that Christianity shouldn’t still be reforming ?
We're not believing whatever we want to believe... we just understand that there is more to this major doctrinal belief than many ambiguous and misinterpreted texts being used as proof texts. They do not match up with the message that the Bible is trying to convey, and more specifically the main point of the gospels which we're handed on a platter in John 20:31, which is for us to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. There is nothing surrounding this that has anything to do with Jesus being God. There is no central message supporting this doctrine. It's horribly manufactured out of context, especially in comparison to many, many other scriptures and the concepts and ideas that are put forth. If Jesus is God, there's a serious lack of anything plainly telling us this. It seems like anyone who had a hand in the scriptures didn't care for us to know beyond a doubt, including Jesus himself, if true.
@@charlestiraco8634 Match up to which non-Catholic message/doctrine? Is it the ones that believe infant baptism is salvific or the ones that do not? Or full immersion or not? Is it the Liberal Evangelical version or the Conservative Evangelical version? Could it be a Calvinist, Armenian, Anabaptist, or the Anglican viewpoint, maybe one of the Lutheran versions, ELCA), (LCMS), or (WELS) Dispensationalism, Antinomianism? Those that believe in woman ordinations or same sex marriages? Lord’s supper symbolic or sacramental? Belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or not? The once saved always saved group or the not? Should women keep silent in church or speak and is this with or without their heads covered? Prosperity gospel true or not? Maybe Mormons, JWs, SDA’s, Christadelphians, or the Oneness Pentecostals position…as they ALL preach their “truth” from the same Bible also??? Surely you cannot think all these positions are acceptable. If not then which one is correct and why do you get to be the one to choose? Is yours the infallible one? If not then who really cares? OR you can just simply just answer the hard question in my OP…
@@srich7503 You're acting like the Catholic church or any protestant/evangelical church really sets out to correctly interpret the Bible anyway, wherever it may have been handed down from. Those churches have been propped up by Satan. It's incredibly sad and upsetting what's going on in them. I don't even go anymore. I worry about what I believe and spend a lot of time and thought looking into these things. I don't worry about the doctrines of any so-called church as they pertain to my own. I've learned my lesson. My beliefs have changed several times in the last 20 years as I've learned and studied more. There's always more to try to understand, but the big stuff we need to get right and the churches as we know them are not going to turn. I'm sorry, I know it's depressing, and I'm in a horrible depression myself right now over all this. But it's the reality of the world we live in and the one that's coming.
A very good presentation. I am not yet a fully convinced biblical unitarian, though I am definitely a subordinationist. I consider William a friend, and he has been very kind to video chat with me on multiple occasions to discuss unitarian concepts with me. I appreciate and admire him.
21 minutes in and am very pleased with the logical conclusions so far.
Analyze the Throne Room scenes from the entirety of scripture and deduce a conclusion from those scenes.
Absolutely brilliant exegesis so far.
This was excellent. You explained something I've been trying to articulate for a while now. When someone tries to say that Jesus is Yahweh they are accidentally making an argument for modalism. I'm definitely borrowing from this if the conversation ever comes up. Great work.
Wonderful video, thank you
I would nominate Steve Gregg, a trinitarian, Bible teacher, who is thorough, genuine, and kind....to debate the Trinity....he is mature, and has many really well done debates in his legacy.
I really enjoyed this presentation, thanks Will!
It's interesting that Trinitarians are detached from the reality that our Lord Jesus worships our God and Father.....this is just one notion that the Trinity doctrine obliterates. Truly, the King of kings is the very worship leader of all the members of His body....as He is filled with all the fullness of God without measure....I pray the whole body of Christ can see the non-distorted truth of seeing and knowing the man, Jesus Christ; how He truly is....John 17:3. Grace, and peace, my family, Amen.
"that's modalism Patrick" - haha nice one
Very good talk. Makes complete sense.
Just one small note: at around 5 minutes 10 seconds, Will says: 'all commentators, Unitarian and Christian alike', as though Unitarians are not Christians. This was just a slip, obviously!
Yep, meant to say unitarian and trinitarian alike. As you said, just a slip.
yeah i heard it too. darn!
Will, you speak of pslm110 as the root of this "sit at right hand" issue.
I would say the whole concept of subordination to throne authority to be rooted in Genesis, with Joseph raised and given Pharaohs authority and given mandate to rule the kingdom of Egypt as Pharaohs "right hand man." Indeed as a trinitarian in my younger life I used to wonder just what the hype was, about Joseph and his striped coat and mistreatment at the hands of his BROTHERS and then to become the 2iC of Egypt. I now see it as an outstanding foreshadow, one that shows the lack of regal family connection that got him the job. And it was for a time of trouble ahead, just as Jesus returns, kicks out and defeats the rebellion of angelic enemies on earth, and sets things to rights, before handing it all back to God (1cor15:28)
I agree with your connection between Joseph/Jesus and Pharaoh/God. But this is an echo of scripture, something a careful reader will discover over time. The connection between Psalm 110 and the NT is much more obvious. That's why I think it's helpful to ground our case there.
@williambarlow ok sound logic.
Anthony Buzzard always said we dont, and should, centre our one God message around psm110.
Will...great prezi....can you share what AI program you used to generate those images?
This was all done with Microsoft Copilot
@ thanks will
This looks like it would benefit from interacting with Dr. Michael Heiser's work on the Devine Council.
Not a fan of these images, but the presentation of scripture was excellent 💛
same here. The images were appalling. Very religious. LOL
- Thank You
I've Been Discussing This Same Topic With A Podcaster.
And I Am Glad To No Longer Be
A Protestant Of The Re-Form-Mation Of Catholic Doctrine.
No Longer Keeping Their Catholic Saint Days Of,
- Saint Valentine's Day,
- Saint Patrick's Day,
- Nor Easter Of Yeshua Being "the passover lamb"
(Which Wasn't Meant For Taking Away Sin),
- Or All Saints Day Of The Catholic Dead
(Protestant Halloween),
- Nor *HO,HO,HO, Mary-Kris-Mass
From Kris Kringle The Catholic Saint Nick*
And Neither Am I Their Tithe Paying Trinitarian Anymore Either.
Cutting The Strangling Apron Strings Of Their "Mother Church"
Has Set Me Free The Religious Agendas Of Men.
Same here on all of those counts. I also no longer try to see dead christians in heaven currently, or bad dudes suffering eternally in hell, nor fuss about sabaths or buildings, and turned away from the Jewish purification rites of water baptism. And I am no longer trying to be a jew either, where i only hold to the red letters in the four gospels. As Jesus, a Jewish messiah who "came to his own" was a Jew speaking to Jews about a Jewish coming kingdom (which hasnt come yet) and so wasnt speaking to christians. A christian being one new creation neither jew nor gentile, but a follower of the RISEN Jesus. Give me Acts to Jude. The rest is all about why its gone this way, and Rev is about what will yet come in relation mainly to Israel's position in it all.
How do we deal with scriptures in revelation 22:1,3 where its the throne of God and the lamb, one throne
The lamb is brought to the throne and exalted, and we know he is at the right hand of God.
Are you thinking that Rev 22:1,3 is contradicting the identification of God as someone other than the Lamb because it says it is the throne of both?
I would say that we should build our exegesis of Revelation 22 with what we know of the other passages in the book of Revelation. Based on Jesus's words in Revelation 3:21, we should not be surprised to see that the Lamb shares the throne at some point, just as those who conquer will share the throne with both the Lamb and God as well. But notice in Revelation 3:21, Jesus describes the throne as the Father's throne.
When you combine that with all of the other throne room scenes in Revelation (see chapters 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 19, and 21), as well as the rest of the throne room scenes in the Bible, I think our interpretation of Revelation 22 follows like Brandon already commented.
That's great thanks it's how I would explain it myself, I only brought it up because many of the popular youtube apologists really hammer this verse that it's one throne so Jesus and God have to be one
And I would echo Bob Wassung in saying.... "Its not about furniture and how many are sitting on the seat. Its about the authority OF the throne." From my mind, just as Joseph represented the throne of Pharaoh after Pharaoh raised him from (figurative) death and gave Joseph all the power and authority in Egypt.
Both James White's and William Barlow's interpretation of John 12:41 is incorrect for these reasons:
[1] The context and quote especially in verse 40 is an unmistakable clue to the theophany of Isaiah chapter 6:1-13. Not only does the prophet speak of Yahweh's glory (as a single person on the throne) in vv 1-4 but also the angels are quoted as singing of Yahweh's glory in v 3. Therefore, it is not the “ironic glory” of the Servant in Isaiah 53.
[2] In the Greek of the passage in John 12:41, there is no mention of “Jesus” as being the person whose glory the prophet saw (as a supposed pre-natal Christophany or vision of the Messiah). It is only the glory of Yahweh that the prophet saw.
[3] But John, as usual according to his whole unique Gospel account, declares by intimation the location of Yahweh (God the Father of Israel) embodied in the human person of Jesus. This is confirmed in many places in the Gospel beginning with the opening statement that the Word was God in John 1:1c. This is more immediately confirmed by the next statement of Jesus that “The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me” (v 45).
[4] The glory of Yahweh was given to Jesus especially after his resurrection and with his exaltation to be seated at the right hand of God (John 5:19-30; 7:39; 8:54; 13:31-32; 17:1-5, 11-12, 24; Phil 2:9-11; Heb 2:9: Rev 5:6-14).
Just as Joseph was given all of Pharaohs power and authority, over all except Pharaoh himself, for a season. All who saw or came before Joseph were to see as if they were before Pharaoh. Same issue. Therefore showing that Jesus is not God .... just as Joseph was not Pharaoh.
Joseph had Pharaoh working through him. Jesus has God as unseen spirit manifesting through him, just as Deut18:18 promised. A Jewish man who God would speak thropugh. Echoed by Jesus in Jn8:40.
Blessings.
Great work.
One cannot over emphasize Psalm 110:1 as a key to the identity of The Only True God’s human messiah.
Always pointing out that the time at God’s right hand is a time limited offer.
*Until I make your enemies your footstool.*
1 Corinthians 15:23-28
… But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. *Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father* after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For *he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.* The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he *“has put everything under his feet.”* Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, *it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.* When he has done this, then *the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him,* so that God may be all in all.
Let him that has ears to hear …
You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible, just pick one. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain silly…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, just 65 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
@ Jesus prayed to his God in the great high priestly prayer that we would hear the words he spoke because they would be carried by his eleven remaining disciples.
God answered his prayer and got the most important message to us unchanged:
John 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
@ Correct! Jesus, as fully divine AND fully human, part of the Trinity doctrine, as ALL humans should, prayed to His God, otherwise we would have a problem with the Trinity doctrine. 👍🏻 NOW will you answer the hard question above OR will we have to just let history answer it for you…
@@srich7503 God used the corrupted Jewish priests to keep Judaism alive until Christ could be born. I see no difference in using Greco-Romans to keep the words God put in the mouth of Jesus so we could hear them.
@@SonOfGodByNewBirthInChrist and that is not really the question above is it. The question is If you dont trust the Catholic church to interpret the Holy Scriptures properly today then how do you know she chose the correct books back then? And the last part of the question you deflected above - And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
Yeshua was with the Father before creation with him in the creation the word made flesh came down to earth in the Fathers name in his Fathers spirit and power and authority. now sits next to his Father... And now O Father glorify thou me with your own self with the glory i once had with thee before the world was.... John 17: 5.... The WORD of God
do some research on these channels and try to put that church jargon out of your head. Theres nothing about the word coming down to earth., nor about Jesus creating the earth or the universe.
The phrase "right hand" does not mean "opposite of left hand." The phrase "him that sat on the throne" does not mean "him that planted his backside on a piece of furniture." The artistic renderings of "the throne room" are products of the carnal mind, obstacles to receiving the revelation of scripture.
God is not a spatially three-dimensional, human-in-appearance person sitting on a materially literal chair with some other distinct person positioned directionally to his right. The phrases "right hand" and "him that sat on the throne" are symbolic; they are not to be taken literally in the material sense.
-----------------------------------------
God is the Father, the omnipotent Spirit who - according to his eternal existence far beyond our space-time continuum - is invisible to mankind ("whom no man hath seen, nor can see" - 1 Tim.6:16).
The Lamb is the Father's visible image, the Father himself revealed to mankind in true human form ("God was manifest in the flesh" - 1 Tim.3:16), _within_ our space-time continuum.
God and the Lamb are not a plurality of persons, but rather the selfsame _unipersonal_ Spirit...
*REVELATION 22 (KJV)*
[3] And there shall be no more curse: but the throne *of God and of the Lamb* shall be in it; and *HIS* (not "their") servants shall serve *HIM* (not "them"):
[4] And they shall see *HIS* face (not "their faces"); and *HIS* name (not "their names") shall be in their foreheads.
The singular throne belongs to *God and the Lamb,* who are the selfsame unipersonal "HE/HIM/HIS" Spirit. And HIS name - the name of *God and the Lamb* - is revealed to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*
Eddie, I think you might be misrepresenting the lamb.
Try think about passover. The lamb is the provided lamb of trhe father, as a covering (blood) for his family.
The lamb here is that raised lamb. Its not a sheep but neither is it a representation of God. You are injecting your insistence that Jesus must be God, into the scene which shows otherwise.
Are you missing the point where Jesus says if you see me you see the father? Its about Deut18:18 where the promise is for a jewish human messiah who God will speak THROUGH!! Paul says Jesus MANIFESTS God. Jesus says in jn8:40 "why do you seek to kill me, a MAN who has told you what I heard from my father?"
I agree with you on the "right hand" stuff. And about bums on seats. Its about authority. And the one at "right hand of throne" means thge one made second in charge, raised so much higher than angels. Thats Jesus, a man raised and glorified, first up from the dead, first of MANY BROTHERS.... (the rest of us) who will be saved and glorified as sons of God.
@@ken440
Yes Ken, God did indeed speak through Jesus Christ. For example, God said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
That's God, saying that God is the way, the truth, and the life...and that no man cometh unto the Father, but by *God himself* .......manifested in true human form.
Your friend,
"Euston"
@eddie3961 do you not see the logic disconnect in what you just said. If God speaks THROUGH the man Jesus, then the man is not God.
Proved by Jesus being "the christ." Because "christ" is the greek word "christos" meaning "anointed one."
And an anointed one is the anointee, needing to be anointed by one greater, the anointor.
Anointee cant be anointor, words matter.
The lamb standing before the throne is obviously not the great one sitting ON THE THRONE.
@@ken440
True or False: God is capable of making himself visible on earth, in genuine human form, within our space-time continuum, while simultaneously remaining unchanged according to his eternal existence far beyond our space-time continuum.
@eddie3961 False, because He said He can not coexist with sin and would not become a subject under the "god of this world," and in Gen1 we see he made a firmament separating man from heaven.
So God ALWAYS works through representatives, like the angel who spoke in the burning bush, the angel in the smoke and fire in the desert with Israel, etc. And in the messiah (anointed one... heb) or christ (anointed one.. greek).
one man broke it, the second man fixes it.
Put these 18:34 in AI too…
◄ Hebrews 12:2 ►
fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
◄ John 1:1 ►
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
◄ Hebrews 1:8 ►
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
Don’t take all the words from the Bible literally….
◄ John 3:12 ►
But if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things?
Why put a literal throne?
When Jesus say he is the bread from heaven don’t make an AI out this because it will comes out stupid and ignorant.
Like you draw a picture of the throne.
Be biblical don’t do AI do eternal instead.
Father is not the Son and the Holy Spirit is not the Son…
They are Elohim (Gen. 1:26)
◄ John 13:16 ►
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
Thanks be to God!
John 13:16 says a servant is not greater than his master. Jesus is a servant of God. His Master (his God and Father, as stated all throughout the New Testament) is YHWH. The servant of YHWH is not greater than YHWH. The servant is not even equal to his master. Therefore, Jesus, the anointed one of God (Acts 2:36 and Acts 17:31), answers to the One whom the Jews claimed as their God (see John 8:54).
You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible, just pick one. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain silly…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, just 65 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
Oh please, there was lots of reformation within the Catholic Church incited by Catholic members who were led by the Holy Spirit. Who’s to say that Christianity shouldn’t still be reforming ?
We're not believing whatever we want to believe... we just understand that there is more to this major doctrinal belief than many ambiguous and misinterpreted texts being used as proof texts. They do not match up with the message that the Bible is trying to convey, and more specifically the main point of the gospels which we're handed on a platter in John 20:31, which is for us to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. There is nothing surrounding this that has anything to do with Jesus being God. There is no central message supporting this doctrine. It's horribly manufactured out of context, especially in comparison to many, many other scriptures and the concepts and ideas that are put forth. If Jesus is God, there's a serious lack of anything plainly telling us this. It seems like anyone who had a hand in the scriptures didn't care for us to know beyond a doubt, including Jesus himself, if true.
@@christopherestrada2474 no one said there was not reforming going on in Christ’s church. Its been going on from day one. 👍🏻
@@charlestiraco8634 Match up to which non-Catholic message/doctrine? Is it the ones that believe infant baptism is salvific or the ones that do not? Or full immersion or not? Is it the Liberal Evangelical version or the Conservative Evangelical version? Could it be a Calvinist, Armenian, Anabaptist, or the Anglican viewpoint, maybe one of the Lutheran versions, ELCA), (LCMS), or (WELS) Dispensationalism, Antinomianism? Those that believe in woman ordinations or same sex marriages? Lord’s supper symbolic or sacramental? Belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or not? The once saved always saved group or the not? Should women keep silent in church or speak and is this with or without their heads covered? Prosperity gospel true or not? Maybe Mormons, JWs, SDA’s, Christadelphians, or the Oneness Pentecostals position…as they ALL preach their “truth” from the same Bible also??? Surely you cannot think all these positions are acceptable. If not then which one is correct and why do you get to be the one to choose? Is yours the infallible one? If not then who really cares? OR you can just simply just answer the hard question in my OP…
@@srich7503 You're acting like the Catholic church or any protestant/evangelical church really sets out to correctly interpret the Bible anyway, wherever it may have been handed down from. Those churches have been propped up by Satan. It's incredibly sad and upsetting what's going on in them. I don't even go anymore. I worry about what I believe and spend a lot of time and thought looking into these things. I don't worry about the doctrines of any so-called church as they pertain to my own. I've learned my lesson. My beliefs have changed several times in the last 20 years as I've learned and studied more. There's always more to try to understand, but the big stuff we need to get right and the churches as we know them are not going to turn. I'm sorry, I know it's depressing, and I'm in a horrible depression myself right now over all this. But it's the reality of the world we live in and the one that's coming.