Видео

Why then did he baptize the disciples in Acts 19?

Hi there! How would you say we have failed to demonstrate evidence of our God?

Love you too, Jan!❤

Hi there! Thank you for sharing and we will definitely put out information if Neil starts his podcast so you can follow along. Thank you again for your comment and watching!

Let me first tackle your Q about the alleged contradiction of Jesus’ genealogy. Start with the authorial intent of Matthew and Luke. Matthew ties the promises to David/abraham as his audience is primarily Jewish (they are all about the Messiah). Luke ties Jesus back to Adam where it all began as his audience is Gentile so that’s why he traces the genealogy back to Adam bc everyone shares that, Jew and Gentile. As for this alleged contradiction there’s two solutions that make a lot of sense and thus squares the burden of proof on you to prove it to be a contradiction. 1. Heli is Joseph’s father-in-law and Jacob is his biological father. Matthew is tracing Jospeh’s line to Abraham beginning with a man named Jacob. And Luke is tracing back to Adam using Heli who may have been Mary’s father thus making Jospeh a son-in-law. There is no greek word at the time for son-in-law. Mary seems to only have a sister but no brothers (John 19:25) which makes Joseph the legal heir to Heli which ensures Heli’s inheritance remained in the same household as the law says in Num. 36:1-12. 2. One is a biological father and the other the legal father in accordance with Duet. 25. The Christian leader Eusebius says that Jacob and Heli were half brothers of the same mother. Matthan would have married a wife and had Jacob. Matthan dies but since he had a male child his widowed wife could remarry whomever so she married Matthat and they had Heli. Heli married but dies childless so Jacob (Heli’s half-brother) married Heli’s former wife in order to fulfill Duet. 25:5-6 which allows the dead father’s name and inheritance to be passed on to the firstborn male. Matt. 1:16 says, “Jacob begot Joseph” which would be true, and Luke 3:23 says Joseph was the “son of Heli” which also would be true. One is a biological father and the other the legal father in accordance with Duet. 25. I think you are mistaken about the Christian Bible/canon. “Canon” means something like a standard. The term is first applied by Athanasius to a collection of Jewish and Christian writings around 350 AD. He attended the famous and ultra important Council of Nicaea from which came the Nicene Creed that emphasizes Jesus’ Deity and humanity along with the triune God and the belief in forgiveness of sins with a future resurrection. The Council of Nicaea was not about what books are considered canon but about the identity of Jesus Christ and if he was truly God or not. It is Athanasius who lists the 27 books of the NT as we know it today as canon. There doesn't seem to be a debate about that in his day. The debates you are thinking of come way later. It took the Council of Trent (Roman Catholic) in 1545-63 to define the OT canon as including Tobit, Judith, Sirach, the Maccabees etc. But the measuring stick for what was considered NT Scripture back in the days of the early church even pre-Nicaea was asking if a book/letter was genuinely tied to the apostles or not. Which is how books like the gospel of Thomas were not considered canon because it’s teachings did not match other apostolic writings and they could not trace them to the apostles. As for your skepticism about prophecies, I would imagine that you have heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Those predate Jesus of Nazareth and yet they promise of an anointed one who comes and dies before the destruction of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:26). As God’s suffering servant He will be full of the Spirit (Isa. 42:1) yet hated by many and be pierced, beaten, and killed yet receive an inheritance and see his offspring (Ps. 22; Isa. 52:13-53:12). He would be a son of David who reigns forever as an exalted human priest-king (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Ps. 110:1; Isa. 9:6-7; Dan. 7:13-14). He would be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2) etc. we could list a bunch of prophecies. What we know as the OT in the Bible today (minus Esther) predates the historical Jesus of Nazareth in the DSS. And those texts themselves give historical dates to the originals. Isaiah 1:1 puts it 700+ years before the historical Jesus walked the earth. And the ultimate issue with canon is deciding what you believe about Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus believed in the Jewish writings where we get the OT that we have in our Bibles: the Law (books of Moses), the prophets (Major and minor), and the Psalms (poetry/wisdom literature) per Luke 24:44. And no serious historian says that Jesus didn’t exist. From Roman historians we know he was crucified in Judea under Pilate. As C.S. Lewis asked, is he lord, liar, or lunatic? What best explains the claims that Jesus actually rose from the dead thus making him the Lord and Son of God? I think you’d be hard pressed to answer that without numerous presuppositions about the stories being made up over time, mass-grief hallucinations of Jesus, or that the disciples are all just a bunch of liars and died for it. As a Christian and thus a theist, I’ve only got one presupposition: a belief in God. Everything doesn’t come from nothing. I hope you investigate and find the beauty of and truth in Christ.

@calebspeer153 No, I'm not mistaken about the Christian bibles/canons. I already know about Athanasius, and I'm pretty sure it was in 367c.e. in an epistle. Nothing I am talking about has barely anything to do with the council of Nicea. I know all about the council of Nicea. There are, however, variations to the "new testament" in varying bibles/canons. Look, here is a short list of various bibles/canons that demonstrate the accuracy of my assertion; the Marcion bible, the Catholic bible, the codex Vaticanus, the codex Siniaticus, the Protestant bible, and the Ethiopian Orthodox bible. I could list more, but these demonstrate my point. None of those bibles/canons match each other in content. As I ALREADY stated, this is demonstrable as nearly every version is extant. Instead of the irrelevant diatribe about Athanasius and councils, it would have seemingly been more productive to just ask me how it is demonstrable. Beyond that, your "writings being traced to the apostles" argument is ambiguous. If you are trying to argue that the "canonical gospels" are actually authored by the "according to" names on them, you do not have demonstrable evidence for such a claim. The gospels, "canonical" or otherwise, are anonymously authored secondary historical sources for which we do not have the original manuscripts. I must say that I am utterly shocked that you are using the fallacious C.S. Lewis trichotomy. It wholly ignores the most obvious explanation, one that has happened surrounding cult leaders throughout history; that of legendary developments. Also, there is no historical data to support the assertion that the disciples all died for their beliefs in a resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. There is only "church tradition" to support such a claim. "Everything doesn't come from nothing." Sigh. Really? This ridiculous trope? Look, you need to demonstrate that nothingness is even a possibility for that assertion to make sense. You can not do that. Also, I do not know of anyone who thinks everything came from nothing. Sorry, but theism is, by definition, an irrational position to hold. It is belief in an unfalsifiable proposition. That defies rationality. I do not have time right now to deal with your arguments about the genealogies, which are purely speculation and do not have evidence for. And btw, I stated that they do not MATCH; I did not assert that they are a contradiction. Please stop misrepresenting my words. Contrary to your assertion, I do NOT have a burden of proof. I'll also deal with your Dead Sea Scrolls argument for prophecy later also, including what you are ignoring, the translation issue, and the contextual issue. I'm always confused when Christians try to use the scrolls of the Qumran community to prop up their arguments. In my experience, Christians are not generally good at history, especially when arguing for Christianity.

I’m not here to insult and would be happy to exchange ideas. I hope you feel the same but thanks for responding to me. I guessed around 350ad for Athanasius listing the 27 books of the NT as it is today. But as you accurately stated, that was 367ad when he listed those books as authoritative. Those 27 books are the NT for basically all of Christendom (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic) with only a few outliers which is a massive consensus as to what is canon. It was not an “irrelevant diatribe” to bring up that Athanasius was part of the Council of Nicaea bc that council emphatically stated that Jesus is fully God according to scripture, which is the core claim and belief of Christianity. This of course also led to the Nicene Creed which emphasizes the triune God with Jesus’ identity and work at its heart. This is important because one asks, “so what texts made them come to that conclusion about Jesus/the Trinity”? And Athanasius records those books (the 27 we have as the NT today) as indeed authoritative for the church. So Christians had recognized what was authoritative early. Dr. Bart Ehrman (who’s not a Christian) attests to the church father’s writings as showing us how they measured what was authoritative or not by examining if the text was genuinely apostolic in history, if it was widely accepted (Catholic), and if they agreed together on teaching (orthodoxy). I don’t see how that can be dismissed as “ambiguous” when even unbelieving biblical scholars point this out. I dropped C.S. Lewis in there to say that what we believe about Jesus obviously affects how we view the canon and the church. Again, scholars and historians who aren’t even Christians will tell you Jesus actually existed, which you seem to accept. The NT copies are historically close to the originals and fare better in this area than any other ancient document. Complete copies of it begin to appear about 300 years after the originals which is not long by ancient standards at all. For example, the historical writings by Plato are within 427-347bc and the earliest copy we have of his work is around 900ad I think. That’s not the case for the entirety of the NT let alone just pieces of the NT that go as far back as the second century. So with thousands of manuscripts over hundreds of years, we can identify what is reliable and passages that are added later stand out (like the longer ending of Mark). That speaks to a reliable text, it doesn’t inherently mean the NT is entirely fact of course but it’s reliable to some level. If you think the NT has been changed over time then you literally can’t trust any other ancient document (like Plato for example) and are ignoring the consensus of all the copies. Again, that doesn’t mean the NT is inspired by God per se but it does mean that the old arguments of some sort of Telephone game happening with the Bible are not so (which is also known to be true of the OT thanks to the DSS). Now people like Dr. Ehrman will say Jesus’ story was developed over time and point out the different styles or themes between the gospel of Mark to John saying His divinity and resurrection evolved. But Jesus has always been declared as divine, even in the earliest gospel called “Mark” like in Mark 1:3 where it attributes the name of God (YHWH) to Jesus citing Isaiah 40:3. Jesus has also always been declared risen from the dead as the earliest creeds claimed which is recorded in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 by Paul. If the crucifixion was near 30ad., Paul’s conversion was around 34ad and his first meeting in Jerusalem was around 37ad, then we could see that the time between the event of Christ’s crucifixion and Paul receiving the information about His death, burial, and resurrection (in Jerusalem) would be as short as seven years (five if we use the earlier date). That is a very short period of time to claim that legend creeped in and corrupted the story. The Romans and the Jewish leaders could have pointed to Jesus’ grave and shut down the entire movement. This is especially important since the apostles were alive and spoke with Paul. They were eyewitness’ accounts to Christ’s death, burial, and post-death appearances. Paul himself had seen Jesus prior to His death and after His resurrection (Acts 9). Paul’s account agreed with the other Apostles’ accounts and Paul wrote it down in 1 Cor. 15 around the mid 50sad. You have to ask if the original authors (the apostles and their contemporaries) made up Jesus’ life or not or if they were confused somehow. What best explains all the data? You’re adding presuppositions about how the NT came to be that don’t line up with modern scholarship. Which takes us back to the trichotomy of C.S. Lewis. I also think it’s a fine assertion that everything that exists has a beginning bc that is demonstrated from cars to the big bang theory. And since we exist, we thus had a beginning. The question then is what is the cause? I won’t get into your non sequitors about Christians “not knowing history” with the apostles death or the DSS as I’ve said a lot already but I’d be happy to engage later. Edit: sorry if I misunderstood your claim about the genealogies in Luke and Matthew. It seemed like you were trying to say they contradicted due to the differences. If you weren’t trying to make that claim, then what was your point about them differing?

You're the best!

Welcome aboard!

Thank you!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thank you for listening!!

Thanks for your comment! What specifically at the 6:45 mark do you believe to be non-truth?

@@theextramilepodcast9921 I wrote that it IS the truth. Child indoctrination. A form of brain-washing. That's how otherwise intelligent and educated people can believe such mythological fairy tales.

Your arguments are good but your first sentence is just wrong. Apologetics has nothing to do with "apologizing" in the conventional sense. It's simply the process of arguing against exceptions proposed to scripture and doctrine. So if someone says, "Jesus didn't rise from the dead", apologetics would be to counter "yes he did and here's how we know". It's always wrong, because everything supernatural in the Bible is of course wrong. But people still argue.

1. If Jesus rose from the dead then that changes everything. He then would be who He claimed to be: the eternal Son of God. Which means we gotta take the Law and the Prophets as God’s word (bc Jesus did) and we have to see what NT writings are apostolic because Jesus said the Spirit would help them (John 16:13-14). 2. If Jesus rose from the dead, then yes, we are in danger if we reject the gospel as Jesus said so (John 3:5, 18). 3. The Bible would apply to us today (properly interpreted in it’s context) if Jesus rose from the dead for the apostle Paul says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Btw, Paul went from persecuting believers in Jesus to joining them because he believed he met the risen Jesus. 4. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10) as God is utterly incomprehensible as the great I AM. But that’s just the beginning. God wants us to be in a genuine relationship with Him. He wants us to love Him and others. 1 John 4:19 says, “We love because He first loved us”. We are not robots but are called to respond in faith to the Spirit who draws us (Acts 2:38). However, we can resist the gospel and the Spirit (Acts 7:51). We should be motivated to respond to the gospel out of love for Christ since He gave us His life (Rom. 5:8). 4b. I believe that hell is eternal due to what Scripture says. Matthew 25:31-46 “eternal punishment” or Revelation 14:9-11 “the smoke of their torment is forever and ever”. Even if hell is total annihilation, who would want that over eternal life? Maybe those who genuinely hate God? It doesn’t seem sensible to want death over life. Again- motivation is not merely fear of God, but of genuine love for who Jesus is. It’s about loving God and thus loving others (Matthew 22:37-40). 5. God gave us free will (Gen. 2:16-17) and has given ample evidence from creation (Romans 1) to the gospel (John 20:30-31) and the radically changed lives of Christians who love (John 13:35). The Bible (especially the NT epistles) warns over and over and over again of false teachers, so seeing so many false gospels isn’t terribly shocking. If God is just, then everyone has a chance and God will judge in perfect justice and mercy because of the cross. The “right gospel” has to come from the Bible, which is from Jesus and His apostles He sent, the ones who saw Him raised from the dead. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (ESV): For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, ^ so there are more important things than others when it comes to belief ^ (Rom 14 allows for certain disagreements). Read John 3, what does Jesus say is essential to entering the Kingdom? Thanks again for the thoughtful and respectful questions. May God bless you, you’ll be in my prayers.

​@@calebspeer153 "1. If Jesus rose from the dead then that changes everything. He then would be who He claimed to be: the eternal Son of God. Which means we gotta take the Law and the Prophets as God’s word (bc Jesus did) and we have to see what NT writings are apostolic because Jesus said the Spirit would help them (John 16:13-14). -------That contradicts Deuteronomy 13, which warns that even false prophets can work genuinely supernatural miracles. Your idea that Jesus' miracle of rising from the dead is the ultimate show-stopper, is biblically fallacious. 2. If Jesus rose from the dead, then yes, we are in danger if we reject the gospel as Jesus said so (John 3:5, 18). -----------------What makes you think those two bible verses "apply to" people 2,000 years after the fact, when in fact the only audience the author discernably addressed were his contemporaries, thus putting the burden of proof on you to show that he intended an audience wider than the evidence indicates? 3. The Bible would apply to us today (properly interpreted in it’s context) if Jesus rose from the dead for the apostle Paul says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Btw, Paul went from persecuting believers in Jesus to joining them because he believed he met the risen Jesus. ----------------For more than 20 years, I've been critiquing Christian scholars who uphold Paul's orthodoxy and credibility, and I show that Paul perverted the gospel. Do you claim modern day skeptics who accuse Paul of heresy are unreasonable? If so, is it because you know the arguments they give in support, yes or no? "4. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10) as God is utterly incomprehensible as the great I AM." ------------I'm an atheist...why do you keep uselessly quoting the bible at me the way a Roman Catholic quotes the Apocrypha at me? "But that’s just the beginning. God wants us to be in a genuine relationship with Him. He wants us to love Him and others. 1 John 4:19 says, “We love because He first loved us”. We are not robots but are called to respond in faith to the Spirit who draws us (Acts 2:38). However, we can resist the gospel and the Spirit (Acts 7:51). We should be motivated to respond to the gospel out of love for Christ since He gave us His life (Rom. 5:8). -----------What makes you think any of that stuff "applies to" people living 2,000 years later? I'm a spiritually dead atheist...what do you recommend I do with other Christians (whose salvation you likely wouldn't deny) who tell me your theology is false? "4b. I believe that hell is eternal due to what Scripture says. Matthew 25:31-46 “eternal punishment” or Revelation 14:9-11 “the smoke of their torment is forever and ever”. Even if hell is total annihilation, who would want that over eternal life?" ------------I would. I don't care if god is "more powerful". I'd rather go to sleep and never wake up, than spend an eternity with that sadistic lunatic called YHWH, who authorized the Hebrews to kill children despite the allegedly sovereign YHWH being able to come up with less barbaric solutions. " Maybe those who genuinely hate God? It doesn’t seem sensible to want death over life." ---------------But you are nobody to tell death-preferring persons what they "should" want, correct? "Again- motivation is not merely fear of God, but of genuine love for who Jesus is. It’s about loving God and thus loving others (Matthew 22:37-40). " -----------------How do you know any of that "applies to" people living 2,000 years later? If the authors didn't make clear the scope of their audience, doesn't that sort of mean you are skating on thin ice by pretending the bible "applies to" an audience wider than the audience the original authors discernably addressed? "5. God gave us free will (Gen. 2:16-17) and has given ample evidence from creation (Romans 1) to the gospel (John 20:30-31) and the radically changed lives of Christians who love (John 13:35)." -------------How long does God want me to consider the arguments of 5-Point Calvinists against "freewill" before God will expect me to start drawing ultimate conclusions? If you don't know, doesn't that mean you forfeit the right to balk if I answer that question for myself in a way you don't approve of? "The Bible (especially the NT epistles) warns over and over and over again of false teachers, so seeing so many false gospels isn’t terribly shocking." ------------What does God expect spirtually dead unbelievers to do with false forms of the gospel. I can tell that evne those you would call spiritually alive cannot even agree on what the gospel is (i.e., Calvinists v. Arminians, Cheap Gracers v. Lordship salvation, Covenant theology v. Dispensationalism). Isn't that a pretty good indication that it is perfectly irrational for a spiritually dead person to even START trying to figure out which form of the gospel is true? " If God is just, then everyone has a chance and God will judge in perfect justice and mercy because of the cross. " ------------------What was "just" about God forcing the torture of sickness on a baby for 7 days before killing it? 2nd Samuel 12:15-28. You will says God's ways are mysterious, and in doing so you will nullify any rational purpose to your previous comment that god is "just". By "just", you merely mean that you will swallow as holy ANYTHING the bible says god did, no matter how unnecessarily barbaric it might have been. "The “right gospel” has to come from the Bible, which is from Jesus and His apostles He sent, the ones who saw Him raised from the dead." -----------A perfectly worthless and pointless statement given the many modern contradictory forms of Christianity, each respectively supported by "scholars" who are all claiming their form of the gospel is the "right" one that "comes from the bible". LOL "1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (ESV): For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures," ---------------I think paul was a heretic and that the original apostles did not publicize Jesus' resurrection anywhere near to the fanatical point that Paul did. So again, why do you keep fallaciously quoting paul at me the way a Catholic would quote the Apocrypha at me? I'm spiritually dead, remember? Or does god "expect" spiritually dead people to correctly recognize spiritual truth? "^ so there are more important things than others when it comes to belief ^ (Rom 14 allows for certain disagreements). " ----------------But a) Paul was a heretic so I couldn't care less what he had to say about anything ever, and b) if two genuinely born again Christian have an on-going theological disagreement, then you are forced to admit that one of them is not listening to the Holy Spirit, and the biblical justification for that is that the person in the wrong is being rebellious toward God in some fashion. Yet I'm sure you'd prefer to stray away from trying to figure out why it is that two authentically born again Christians hear the Holy Spirit's voice in logically contradictory ways. "Read John 3, what does Jesus say is essential to entering the Kingdom? " --------------Everybody agrees the author meant those words for his contemporaries. YOU insist he also meant those words for people outside his contemporaries. the burden is on YOU to show that the author intended to address a generation living 2,000 years after he wrote. You will never fulfill that burden. You just blindly quote the bible with all the critical scrutiny of a Mormon woman in the middle of a Mormon wedding. "Thanks again for the thoughtful and respectful questions. May God bless you, you’ll be in my prayers." -------------------But isn't it possible I'm one of the non-elect/reprobate? Does God want you to ask him to make happen events that he has previously and infallibly decided he will not allow to happen? How stupid is that?

I personally agree in a renewed earth based on Romans 8/2 Peter 3/Rev.21-22. The nice thing about eschatology is that whatever happens, it will be amazing. I also see the concept of humanity ruling with God in the sense that we are His imagers (Gen 1:26-28). Perhaps that’s what Paul meant by “judging angels” (1 Cor. 6:3). We’re not premillennialists as we understand recapitulation to be the most faithful interpretation of Revelation. My biggest concern or question for you is who do you believe Jesus is? He is the Messiah but is He a created being? Jesus’ prayer in John 17 that the Father is the one true God is contrasting a world of paganism. Jesus uses the Greek term “erotao” exclusively in His requests to His Father, it is unique to their relationship alone. John cannot be contradicting himself as Jesus is identified as “the only God” (John 1:18) and the “true God” (1 John 5:20). John’s writings are replete with statements of Jesus’ full deity (John 1:1-14; 5:17-18; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). To dismiss all of these (and the rest of the NT) for a forced interpretation of John 17:3 is inconsistent. The Bible reveals God as triune. Paul warned us in Colossians 2:8-9, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” We want you to know the true Jesus! Not a different one (2 Cor. 11:4). May God bless you

@@calebspeer153 Hello I disagree that Jesus is ever said to be God I disagree with the text variant in John 1:8 “the only begotten God” Beget means to cause to be So your basically saying Jesus is a generated God who didn’t always exist 1 John 5:20 says the same thing as John 17:3 The Father is the true God The Son of God has come to give us an understanding of him who is true (the Father) And we are in him who is true (the Father) And in his son (Jesus, the Father’s son) This is the true God (him who is true, the Father) Or else you’re saying “him who is true” isn’t the true God And you’re claiming the true God came to give us and understanding of someone else? What? THIS (him who is true, the one the son came to give us and understanding of) is the true God Same as John 17:3 John flat out tells us the reason for his book He’s perfectly capable of saying “so that you know Jesus is God” But he didn’t say that John 20 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God Absolutely nothing about “Jesus is God” In John’s own words his purpose statement Again he’s perfectly capable of says “that you know and believe Jesus is God” And he never does that The biggest thing is the fact that Jesus has a God Could you tell me who Jesus’s God is? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, ?

@@mitchellc4 I really appreciate the reply. Jesus being the Son of God makes Him equal with God, this is why the religious leaders accuse Him of blasphemy and sentence Him to death. Begotten means unique, not created. John 10 shows this very clearly as Jesus is accused of making Himself equal with God. Jesus calls Himself “I AM” in John 8:58. This is a deity claim. Every time He says “son of man” it’s from Daniel 7 and is a deity claim. Jesus cites Scripture to make His claims. 1 John 5:20 can refer to either Jesus or the Father, grammatically speaking. It’s incredible that Peter (2 Peter 1:1) and Paul (Titus 2:13) call Jesus “God” as they had seen Jesus and talked with Him. Peter spent 3 years being taught by Jesus and called Him the “Son of God” yet calls Jesus God in a letter. How do you understand these passages^ or John 1:1? That the Word was with God and was God? The Word was God. The Father calls Jesus God. Hebrews 1:8-9 (ESV): But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” Jesus’ Father is God and Jesus is the Son of God who is also, God. The Spirit is equated to God as well as a person, not an it (Eph. 4:30). God reveals Himself in ways that break our categories as finite humans in His triunity throughout the entire Bible. It was unclear to me if you thought Jesus was created or not, I apologize. If Jesus is created, He isn’t who He claimed to be. We can’t select only certain verses that highlight the Father as God and then ignore others when they state Jesus or the Holy Spirit being God. We have to examine it all, I think you would agree.

@@calebspeer153 Hello Caleb I don’t think you could show me a single lexicon where begotten means unique Beget means to cause to be/bring into existence Could you answer my question? Could you tell me who Jesus’s God is? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, ? - John 8 No Jesus didn’t use Exodus 3 in John 8 Jesus said before Abraham was born “ego eimi” which means I am he Multiple people say ego eimi in the New Testament, but you’re not saying they are God? The blind man who was healed said it John 9 9 Some said, “It is he”; others said, “No, but he is like him.” He said, “I am the man.” I am the man= ego eimi The healed blind man just said ego eimi, did he just refer to Exodus and claim to be God?? Of course not I believe in the Greek translation of Exodus it says “Ego eimi HO ON”-I AM THAT I AM “Tell them I AM has sent you”-tell them HO ON has sent you Had Jesus said HO ON you may have a point, but he didn’t Heb 1 So God has called humans “god” in an honorific sense multiple times in scripture That doesn’t make them GOD Jesus even mentioned this, ye are gods Psalm 45/Heb 1:8 is about a human Davidic king, possibly Solomon, then applied to Jesus the ultimate Davidic king Are you going to tell me Solomon is God too now?? - You will never find God the Father referring to someone as “my God” You find Jesus doing it multiple times You will never find someone referencing “the God of the Father” You have multiple verses of people mentioning the God OF Jesus - God doesn’t have a God Jesus does have a God All your argument leads to is Jesus is “God who has a God”

@@mitchellc4 I did answer, I said Jesus’ God is the Father. Jesus became a man and thus refers to the Father in such a way. He is the Son. This doesn’t make Him any less God than the Father or the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is not God, then God the Father is immoral because He says He is YHWH and that He will not give His glory to another or praise to graven images (Isa. 42:8). So what’s with John 17:5? Jesus asks for the Father to glorify Him with the glory He had with the Father before creation. Jesus says they will share the same glory and have already shared that glory. Either Jesus is blaspheming or He is eternal with the Father. (John 3:16) “Begotten” (monogenes)is an English translation of a greek word. So we have to see the original meaning of the greek word and not transfer English meanings into it. Hebrews 11:17 (Isaac being unique amongst other sons) shows that it’s referring to a being the only one of it’s kind in a specific relationship. So Jesus being uniquely God’s Son (John 20:31) is about Jesus sharing the same nature as God (John 10:30). We are God’s children by adoption (Ephesians 1:5) but not God’s one and only Son. John 10/Ps.45; 82; 89; are not calling humans “gods”. “Elohim” is used for spiritual beings, and the only time a person I can think of is called “elohim” is by a witch and it’s Samuel (1 Sam. 28:13) and that’s because he is a spirit, he’s dead. These passages are likely a divine council of created spiritual beings or just about God. Again, the context decides what “god” means. YHWH is the only true God as He is who He is (Ex. 3:14) and is uncreated (Ps. 90:2). In John 8:58, we don’t even have to get into the grammar because the context is so clear. Jesus has said He somehow knows Abraham (pre-existence) and then makes the “ego eimi” statement and then in v59, the people try to stone Him. Why would they try to stone Him if He wasn’t making a deity claim to Ex. 3:14? It just does not make sense. No one tries to kill anyone else for blasphemy with the other verses you brought up. Of course those people aren’t God. In speaking of answering questions, why do the Apostles call Jesus God? What’s with Col. 2:9 or Phil. 2:6? Or Titus 2:13? John 1? Col. 1? Heb. 1? Or what’s with the worship of Jesus in the gospels and Jesus receiving worship in Revelation? Please understand that I’m trying to say these things not to attack or belittle or to be rude at all, I’m a sinner like anyone else. My desire is that we’d believe scripture for what it says. I hope that’s your desire too. God has revealed Himself in His word, and the deity of Jesus is very clear, it’s orthodox Christianity 101 from Paul to today. May God bless you as you search for truth (John 14:6).

1. One. Just as Dt. 6:4 says that the LORD God is one. Jesus said in John 10:30 that He and the Father are one. Also, the word “Elohim” (God) in Genesis 1:1 is plural which also coincides with Gen. 1:26 “let us”. God is very complex! 2. Jesus says to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father/Son/HS in Matthew 28. In John 14:9 Jesus says if you’ve seen Him you’ve seen the Father. Or in John 14:14-17 Jesus says you can ask Him for anything and ask the Father for a “Helper”. 1 Cor. 3:16 says this is God’s Spirit. I hope this helps!

@@calebspeer153 Thanks much for the reply. However, one person being in the pronouns (I, me, he, him) would contradict with what you mention about John 10:30, Gen. 1:1 and 1:26. Note even John Calvin recognized that John 10:30 is about one-ness of purpose, not a Greek meta-physical one-ness of being or person. Pretty much any Hebrew grammar will show that the grammatical plural, when referring to the God of Israel, is not a plural of God, otherwise it would be translated "gods". This is sometimes called the "plural of majesty". There are other words in Hebrew that are grammatically plural, but have a singular meaning, like the word "lord". Many times people in the Bible are referred to with the grammatical plural of "lord", but it means only one. See e.g., Gen. 42:30 (of Joseph), 1 Ki. 1:11 (of David), 1 Ki. 11:27 (of King Rehoboam), etc. Check out the Word Biblical Commentary which says of Gen. 1:26, "Christians have traditionally seen this verse as adumbrating the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.” ( Wenham, G. J. (1987). Genesis 1-15 (Vol. 1, p. 27). On point #2, it doesn't seem to me that one verse teaches that God is all of those persons. That would be like say "Tell that child that his mom and dad want him home" would mean that the mom and dad are the same being. Plus, note the verse just before. Jesus said that "all authority in heaven and earth has BEEN GIVEN to me". It would be strange that God would need someone else to give him authority. There isn't any place in the Bible where Jesus teaches: "God is a three-person being and I'm one of those persons". More and more Christians are coming to understand that just like Jesus said, "Father... this is eternal life, to know you the only true God, and Jesus the Messiah whom you have sent" (John 17:3). Simple. Blessings and may we keep seeking the truth.

@@billschlegel1 Calvin was a smart man (who affirmed the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit) but we could discuss all of these interesting points (of which are all debated by actual scholars) but the “plural majesty” matches and leaves open the idea to the rest of the OT/NT teaching on God’s triune nature. Acts 5:3-4 and Hebrews 9:14 make clear the deity of the Holy Spirit. As for John 17:3: we need to look at the context and also consider all of scripture! ^ 1. This prayer was directed on behalf of the vast masses of humanity, a great majority of whom were (and are) idolaters, worshipping many gods, or “false” gods. It was entirely right that Jesus prayed that they might know the “only true God.” As R.C.H. Lenski observed, this portion of the prayer was “directed against pagan polytheism” (The Interpretation of John, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943, p. 1122). 2. The companion phrases “the only true God, and him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ” demonstrate the unique relationship between the two. The construction hints of a unity of nature that is taught quite emphatically in numerous other texts. In fact, several times subsequently in this very chapter (vv. 9,15, 20), in referring to requests that Jesus is making of the Father, he uses the Greek term erotao.This is a word that Jesus uses exclusively of the communication between himself and the Father, which suggests a relationship not shared by others (see R.C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1890, pp. 144-145; also: W.E. Vine, “ASK,” Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. ^ So Jesus isn’t refuting his own deity. Also consider that John refers to Christ himself as “the only-begotten God, who is at the Father’s side” (John 1:18) as the language reads according to the best Greek texts (see Merrill Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank Gaebelein, ed, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983, Vol. 9, p. 34). Or, as the ESV has it, “the only God.” Does the expression, “only God” as used of Christ, exclude the Father? Of course not! And neither would the phraseology of 17:3 exclude the Son. Please look at these clear teachings: “Only” God was worthy of worship (Mt. 4:10), and yet Christ accepted such (Mt.14:33)! “Only” God is absolutely wise (Rom.16:27), yet Paul affirms that it is “in him (Christ) that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden” (Col. 2:3).The language clearly exalts the wisdom/knowledge of Jesus beyond that of mere humanity (cf Rom.11:33), and identifies him as divine (Col. 2:9). “Only” God is “holy” in the absolute sense (Rev. 15:4), and yet that unique sense of holiness is repeatedly attributed to Christ (Lk.1:35; Acts 2:27; 3:14). There is also this affirmation in one of John’s epistles. He writes concerning Jesus, “we are in him that is true, even in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1Jn. 5:20). A very strong case can be made for the identification of “Jesus” as the one designated as “the true God” (see Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 326-327). If Christ can be “the true God,” with no reflection cast upon the Father, then the Father can be “the true God,” with no deprivation of the deity of Jesus John’s writings are replete with declarations of the full deity of Jesus (1:1,18; 5:17-18; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28).To dismiss all of these, in deference to a forced interpretation of one phrase in John 17:3 is inconsistent. My friend, Paul warned of this in Colossians 2:8-9: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him (Christ) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,”