Видео

Jesus is God. You're confusing simple things. He is, was and always will be God. He never wasn't God. The question is nonsense to mislead people. Don't listen to this wolfmansheep.

Eternal life (life unto the ages) begins after the resurrection of the righteoous dead, when Jesus returns.

To be "in christ" means to be IN THE SPIRIT not a human being. The anointing that breaks the yoke of death. Not the man amointed by the Spirit of the Father. The FATHER is our ONLY SAVIOR. Isaiah 43:11.

Jesus became the messiah after all the messiah Prophecies about the messiah failed. This is why the Jews he converted to Judaism didn't believe he was the messiah.

The Catholics are heretics in believing the pope and the Protestants are worse both added dogma a and creeds

When he was Begotten of the Fathers incorruptible seed. The same moment we all do. His spiritual baptism. "This is my son today I have thee". Psalm 2:7. Spiritual birth not physical birth as noted in Romans 1:3-4.

Mary wasn't sinless, just sanctified by the Father. Catholics believe Mary had no other children but the Bible states Jesus had brothers and sisters. Joseph could only have children with Mary otherwise he would have been an adulterer.

May 21 2011 was the beginning of judgement day EBible fellowship explain this in detail, the church age is over no more salvation!

My favourite fact about Mary is that she would have been between 12-16 when Jesus was born ☠️

It was ALLEGORY about the virgin daughter of Zion that travails in childbirth with her firstborn. It has absolutely nothing to do with a woman named Mary. If people would read the story about the daughter of Zion in the OT, it would blow this whole pure woman lies perpetrated over 2k years.

…and their proclamations and martyrdoms that Jesus is God…Amen.

Tom, you mentioned at 20 minutes in, that it seems to be the only thing the apostle Paul knows, that Jesus is the seed of David. Yet, we do have 1 Corinthians 15:47, where he says, '‭The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.' Which I understand to mean, that Jesus by his miraculous conception by the holy spirit, had a heavenly origin. Also, by calling Jesus the last Adam in verse 45, Paul gives weight to the idea that Jesus was made without human intervention. That is, he presents us with two men who came into being without a human biological father. Therefore, we could class both these verses as miraculous virgin birth references outside the gospels. Of course, we have to fit this in with Paul's other statements about Jesus. But, I don't think Jesus being of the seed of David contradicts the virgin birth. Even by miraculous conception, Jesus was still in the line of David, and therefore of his descendants. In other words, Jesus wasn't in anyone else's line, and then incorporated into David's. He was just always born into David's line. He was no other man's descendant, and therefore if he needs to be classified as a descendant of someone, it has to be Joseph. Since he was the only man who brought up Jesus, and it was his wife that bore him.

The child in Isaiah 9:6 is called Mighty God that translates with El Gibbor. Is a name that can ONLY be attributed to God Himself. Therefore cannot be Hezekiah, or David or Solomon or whatever. So, you are stuck in your interpretation.

Who was it in the debate?

How can modern Judaism even begin to keep the Law of Moses without the Temple and animal sacrifice? That begs the question of why did The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob allow them to lose the Temple? What happened around 33 AD that might have led to the loss of all God ordained worship to disappear for almost 2000 years?

WTH? This dude doesn't even make an argument for his view. He's just spitballing about why he thinks these Straw Men are wrong. Finishing your vid with "I think there is," is not an argument. I smell a heretic.

In Matthew’s genealogy, King Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah or Coniah) is mentioned in Matthew 1:11-12: Matthew 1:11-12 (ESV): ”…and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel…” In Jeremiah 22:30, it reads: “This is what the LORD says: Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper; none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.” These verses exclude Joseph’s sperm from contributing to the birth of Jesus.

Ok so you are saying Mathew mark and Luke never say Jesus is God?? If that is correct, you say that, you are an illiterate moron!

Well one belief actually put their life’s down voluntarily for their belief and the others not so much. One belief had their leaders put down their life’s, the others not so much.

It was mentioned that if God were to judge us he would be ruthless, as opposed to how Jesus will judge us. And I don't think this is entirely true. I'm thinking about when God revealed himself to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7, giving us a description of his character. '...Merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin...' Here we have the Father described every bit as we expect Jesus to be. Perhaps we sometimes concentrate on the last part, where he says, '...and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children...' Yet, even this is no different to Jesus, as we know he also will not clear the guilty. An example being, the goats in the parable of Matthew 25, as well as other parables. With this we see very little, if any, difference between how Jesus and his father judge. The fact that Jesus sympathizes with us, having been tempted like us, does not mean that the Father is unsympathetic. But, the fact that Jesus shared in our temptations helps us to understand more readily that sympathy is available. As the Hebrew writer continues to say, 'Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.' In other words, what God did in sending his son, makes it easier for us to trust in his mercy. Just in case we thought that he was too ruthless we can think about how merciful his son is. However, I believe he would prefer if we realised that he loves us just as much as his son does. I would also add, that the idea of a ruthless Father, and a loving son, links in with the orthodox view of God. Where he has to be appeased by the death of his son. As if he was desperate to wipe us out, and his son managed to change his mind. In contrast we know that God so loved the world that he sent his son. Showing us that God was already loving us, because of which he provided Jesus, to redeem and reconcile us to himself.

You can try and justify it… but you just need to be simple and read it again… look at the whole of the chapter, what is the context… then look at 1 John 1 and see. You can try and now justify two chapters from two books now. Then… you have to justify Isaiah 9:6… which prophecies his coming as Mighty God, then you have to justify John 8:58, John 10:30-33, Phil 2:6,7, Col 1:15-19, Col 2:9, Hebrews 1 (whole chapter), and Titus 2:13. So with all of these, and many more, you either have to change scripture (which the JW’s and Mormons do) OR you can read the original Greek and Hebrew texts… study them on ChatGPT to find out their real translation, and then you have to justify why each one of these claims that Jesus is God, equal to the Father, and guess what? The simplest explanation is the best. Jesus is declared with power to be the only Son of God, by whom we have access to the Father. Without him being God, we cannot access the Father. This is what scripture teaches clearly. Why do you convoluted the actual scriptures?

On the bright side, you will spend your eternity in the great company of Tovia Singer and Michael Skobac albeit in fiery Gehenna.

Dude, the Bible refers to people like you who deny Jesus God made flesh as Antichrists. You don’t believe the Antichrists will inherit the kingdom of heaven, Do you?

The Bible refers to people like this dude who deny Jesus God made flesh as Antichrists.

The way I see it, God caused Mary to conceive by his holy spirit power, and in so doing God provided a son for Joseph. Joseph was in all respects Jesus' father, except for providing the sperm. And the child was born as Joseph's son, and no other man's. Adoption would be a case of somebody else, other than Mary, having a son, and then they adopted it. That wasn't the case here. Jesus was Joseph's son from the very point he was conceived, because it was his wife who became pregnant. And there was no other human being that could make a claim over that child. No other woman, and no other man. Joseph was the only man who had this right to call Jesus his own. And so, it seems quite acceptable, to my mind, that Jesus became a son of David, as he was born into that line. It wasn't like he was born into someone else's line, and then adopted into Joseph's. On the contrary, Jesus was from birth incorporated into Joseph's line. Therefore, when we read in Matthew 1:1 of the generation, or origin, of Jesus, that is true. All those ancestors were part of his origin. They all led to his birth. And without them existing, there would have been no Mary to conceive Jesus, and no Joseph to be her husband. In other words, God originated the seed, but without Mary no son. And without Joseph, no husband for Mary, and no earthly father for Jesus. So, they all together formed the origin. And as Joseph's firstborn, Jesus inherited whatever had been passed down the generations. He was legally the heir, and as far as the genealogy is concerned, the legitimate successor of David.

This is what the apostles thought about God becoming a man. Acts 14:11-15 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, *“The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!”* Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. *But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments* and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should *turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.* Not one mention of Jesus being “God” and becoming a man or the creator walking among us.

Agreed. In the Greek, ironically, I believe it says the word “made” flesh. Yet the trinitarian creed says Jesus was “not made”. Yet here, as you point out, John says the word (God) made flesh, referring to Jesus. Good call.

NOT or NO MORE ????? John 2 3 : "And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, "They have "NO MORE" wine"." Matthew 2 18 : "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are "NO MORE"." Matthew 1 25 : "And knew her "NO MORE" till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name "Yeshua"." ... sounds better to you now ? I wonder how some could go still by their mind about that then ... Cherebiyah

I don't know what to think about this yet, but i appreciate the seriousness with which this is being considered and the consistent expressed desire to reconcile all the texts of scripture in a way that makes sense of all of it together. I definitely need to think about this more to understand exactly what is being said and to see if what she is saying about the various texts and the original languages is accurate. Thank you for having the courage to have this conversation publicly. It sounds like she could be right and that if she is that it could make a real difference in the way Jewish people might think about Jesus.

Thank you so very much for both interviews (Matthew and Luke). I hope we get the Rome one too please

What a fantastic interview. Very much appreciate the perspectives of truths illuminated from the revelation in the scriptures.

Would you be willing to here the opposite argument in detail? I can address everything claimed (incorrectly) here. So many false statements and misrepresentations in this video.

Tom, very sorry but really why have you interviewed someone who is no doubt very sincere, but in trouble as cannot read a word in Greek when discussing about what a Greek text says - the bit about clicking on Greek words in software to find that Rachel's children were "not" is something that a translator could hopefully kindly discuss with Deborah and explain if there was a way to contact her.

NOT or NO MORE ????? John 2 3 : "And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, "They have "NO" wine"." Matthew 2 18 : "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are "NOT"." Matthew 1 25 : "And knew her "NOT" till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name "Yeshua"." I wonder how some could go still by their mind about that then ...

I felt like she was starting to unpack the part about Joseph putting Mary away but then she went off on a tangent and never really completed the thought. I don’t mean to be uncharitable but I felt that there were a lot of rabbit trails here and less of a complete and linear flow of thought. I think there’s more attention needed on some key aspects of the virgin birth narrative that pose real challenges but this didn’t hit the mark.

if you find a place here where "PARTHENOS" is about a real VIRGIN, please tell me so !!! 1 Corinthians 7:25 : "Now concerning "PARTHENOS" I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." 1 Corinthians 7:28 : "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if "A PARTHENOS" marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." 1 Corinthians 7:34 : There is difference also between """A WIFE" AND "A PARTHENOS""" . ""The unmarried woman"" ("PARTHENOS" ) careth for the things of the Lord, that she may "be holy both in body and in Spirit" : but ""she that is married"" ("WIFE") careth for the things of the world, how she may "please her husband"." 1 Corinthians 7:36 : "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward "HIS PARTHENOS" , "if she pass the flower of her age", "and need so require", let him do what he will, he sinneth not: "let them marry"." 1 Corinthians 7:37 : "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep "HIS PARTHENOS" , doeth well." 1 Corinthians 7:38 : "So then he that "giveth her in marriage" doeth well; but he that giveth "her" ("HIS PARTHENOS") not in marriage" doeth better." 2 Corinthians 11:2 : "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you "to one Husband", that I may present you as "A CHASTE PARTHENOS" to Christ." Revelation 14:4 : "These are they which were "not defiled with women"; for they are "PARTHENOS" . "These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth". These were "redeemed from among men", "being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb"." Matthew 1:23 : "Behold, "A PARTHENOS" shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name "Emmanuel", which being interpreted is, "God with us"." Matthew 25:1 : "Then shall the Kingdom of Heaven be likened unto "10 PARTHENOS", which took their lamps, and "went forth to meet the Bridegroom"." Matthew 25:7 : "Then all "THOSE PARTHENOS" arose, and trimmed their lamps." Matthew 25:11 : "Afterward came also "THE OTHERS PARTHENOS", saying, "Lord, Lord, open to us"." Luke 1:27 (2) : "To "A PARTHENOS" espoused to a man whose name was "Joseph", "of the House of David" ; and "THE PARTHENOS' NAME" was "Mary"." Acts 21:9 : "And the same man had four daughters, "PARTHENOS" , which did prophesy." AMEN

1 Corinthians 7: 29-38 "... But this I say, Brethren, The Time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have "wives" be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. " But I would have you without carefulness. He that is "unmarried" careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: "But" he that is "married" careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please "his wife". ""THERE ALSO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WIFE AND A VIRGINT"". The ""UNMARRIED WOMAN"" "careth for the things of the Lord", that "she may be Holy both in body and in spirit" : "but" "SHE THAT IS MARRIED" "careth for the things of the world", "how she may please her husband". And this I speak for your own profit; "not that I may cast a snare upon you", but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward "his virgin", if "she" "pass the flower of her age", "and need so require", "let him do what he will", "he sinneth not" : "let them marry". Nevertheless "he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep "his virgin", "doeth well". So then he that giveth "her in marriage" doeth well; but he that giveth "her not in marriage" "doeth better"."

ex 6v20 says "she bore HIM Aaron and Moses" suggesting to me that Amram was the biological father, which is different to what Matthew says, but the lady says it says "she gave birth to Aaron and Moses" in the same way as Matthew says it. Always check people claiming to quote scripture. So, Ex6v20 does not sound like a virgin birth to me. Then v18 before they came together she was found with child of the holy ghost. It is true that the other 30 mentions of this phrase means people gathering together, but the context of v18 is obviously about sexual intimacy. There are no other mentions of coming together in a sexually intimate way in the new testament but that doesn't mean that Matthew is not referring to sexual intimacy. Luke is as clear as a bell also, I got to 11 minutes but everything so far is wrong. This is what gets unitarians a bad name.

Aleluya, good news of the kingdom of God

Good Job !😘

Genisis 1:26. God said let us make man in our image and our likness

Jesus was not a liar - you, antichrist, are.

Freedom in Christ and from denominationalism. May God bless your journey. Many of us know very well what you're going through and your sacrifice.

1:00:15 if Joseph was J biological father

The face of an antichrist

Christmas is not in the scriptures at all.Please stop spreading these lies. It's not constructive,

No matter what you say, Christmas is idolatry, it is a pagon

The interviewer tries his very hard to get his rejection-of the virgin birth-through Dale. But Dale says nope

The Anchor Yale Bible, Ed., Raymond Brown, says the following variant reading of Matt 1:16 is found in the 5th century Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: "There is a genealogy in Matthew, and it reads in this manner: ‘Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary; of her was born Jesus, called the Christ.’ And so Joseph was the father of Jesus, called the Christ." This seems in its last line…to echo the Sinaitic Syriac reading (c). But the whole passage is part of a dialogue between a Christian and a Jew; and the italicized words, which are part of the Jew's remarks, may well constitute the conclusion he has drawn, rather than a continued and tautological quotation from the genealogy. In another book called “Mary in the New Testament,” edited by Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Karl Paul Donfried, pp 77-78] Matthew 1.16 speaks of "Mary of whom was begotten." In 1.18-25 he proceeds to give further light on why he did not say in 1.16: "Joseph begot [was the father of] Jesus by Mary." [The Greek egennethe should be translated "was begotten"] by the fact that in the rest of the genealogy this verb gennan means "beget," and that in 1.20 the related form to gennethen clearly refers to the child begotten in Mary. We are presuming the correctness of the reading...by the overwhelming weight of MS evidence. In particular we have not accepted the reading supported only by the Old Syriac (Sinaiticus) ["Joseph was the father of Jesús"]. This reading probably resulted from a scribes' attempt to make the last entry in the genealogy match the other entries. Despite the claim of some scholars that the Syriac Sinaiticus reading denies the virginal conception, it may well be that the scribe thought that the introduction of "virgin" before "Mary" protected the non-physical character of the begetting. See Metzger, TCGNT, 2-7.

The Anchor Yale Bible, Ed., Raymond Brown, says the following variant reading of Matt 1:16 is found in the 5th century Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: "There is a genealogy in Matthew, and it reads in this manner: ‘Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary; of her was born Jesus, called the Christ.’ And so Joseph was the father of Jesus, called the Christ." This seems in its last line…to echo the Sinaitic Syriac reading (c). But the whole passage is part of a dialogue between a Christian and a Jew; and the italicized words, which are part of the Jew's remarks, may well constitute the conclusion he has drawn, rather than a continued and tautological quotation from the genealogy. In another book called “Mary in the New Testament,” edited by Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Karl Paul Donfried, pp 77-78] Matthew 1.16 speaks of "Mary of whom was begotten." In 1.18-25 he proceeds to give further light on why he did not say in 1.16: "Joseph begot [was the father of] Jesus by Mary." [The Greek egennethe should be translated "was begotten"] by the fact that in the rest of the genealogy this verb gennan means "beget," and that in 1.20 the related form to gennethen clearly refers to the child begotten in Mary. We are presuming the correctness of the reading...by the overwhelming weight of MS evidence. In particular we have not accepted the reading supported only by the Old Syriac (Sinaiticus) ["Joseph was the father of Jesús"]. This reading probably resulted from a scribes' attempt to make the last entry in the genealogy match the other entries. Despite the claim of some scholars that the Syriac Sinaiticus reading denies the virginal conception, it may well be that the scribe thought that the introduction of "virgin" before "Mary" protected the non-physical character of the begetting. See Metzger, TCGNT, 2-7.