Видео

Many Christians do not believe in the trinity. They are called Unitarians. I was once a trinitarian, and when I discovered the truth that Jesus is God's son, it opened up so many confusing/contradictory scriptures. I would be very concerned if I were still a trinitarian. How do you get born again/saved-eternal life. Romans 10:9 says, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". You will be what? That scripture says God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus did not raise Jesus, God did not raise God, but God raised Jesus from the dead. Trinitarians don't want to admit this. Their services often say, 'when Jesus raised from the dead', the bible says God raised Jesus, and that is what the verse says one needs to believe to be saved. GIVE GOD the glory, he raised his son from the dead and Jesus now is seated where_____________________? Would like to know more about the mistranslations on this subject in the bible? Watch ruclips.net/video/bhaz0DX9nqg/видео.html 05:21 - John 1:1 etc. or ruclips.net/video/kK0WFO7pf30/видео.html or Each Time Jesus Was Called God, He Denied It: ruclips.net/video/yLOTxFCIY4I/видео.html. The church of Rome has been the prime instigator of this pagan three headed God deception and the Protestant church has turned a blind eye. I was a brain washed Roman Catholic trinitarian, if I can change, anyone can. What do you call a three headed God? An I_ _ _.

He was a muslim that belives in one God , Allah, and Eissa is his prophet. Allah grant him paradaise. Ameen

When you said "backwards compatible" in the steel man, that was the first time i've heard this term, and I think it fits very well. I've heard "reverse engineered" before.

So it’s good that she slandered Gavin ? For something you all agree he did not do? Because the book got more attention!! Oh 😂 very Christian like of you!

Why is your profile picture a greek orthodox graven image? You are the reason Unitarians are not taken seriously.

Good conversation plus one for algo.

Why would the Holy Spirit allow Christendom to get the trinity wrong for 2000 years (a few outliers nonwhitstanding)? And from the very beginning. You have church fathers from the 2nd and 3rd century talking about the trinity. Something to think about 🤔

Brothers and Sisters please be aware that Tim Mackie does not believe in a literal Hell. Having said this, I am not going to make the call about whether Tim knows the LORD or not, for that is not my call to make. However, if I'm being honest, listening to him talk... he fells slippery... he scares me. This may have resulted partially from my years of following Dr. Michael Heiser, only to realize Heiser was wrong about a couple of key things (example: his Psalm 82:6 view was incorrect when you read it in context with John 10:34 and realize that Jesus was addressing human beings). I say that to say that when it comes to our modern day Biblical professors specialized in the ancient Hebrew language, I have a bad taste in my mouth after departing from Heiser. I will say this: Jesus is Yahweh (YHWH) Genesis 19:24 NKJV Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens. Furthermore: Our God: The Creator of Heaven and Earth, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Is One God In Three Persons, The Blessed Trinity!!! (The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) We should stick to a literal reading of God's Word (my advise: find a Church that reads verse by verse). The Bible is The Holy and Without Error God Breathed Word of The LORD. Every Word In The Holy Bible Was Written Under The Inspiration of The Holy Spirit. Brothers and Sisters, please be careful when it comes to Tim Mackie. God showed me the following verse in regards to Dr. Heiser, and it may very well apply to Tim as well. 2 Timothy 4:3 NKJV For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; God bless you all

Did you see Vervaeke's comment on person being a poor translation of hypostasis in the 'Why Christianity' conversation with Pageau and Hall? It's around 1hr and 4min mark. I'm very curious for your take on that segment of that conversation.

John 8:58 is a number of things, but it isn't a text meant to clearly teach that Jesus is God. If you read the flow of the text without overthinking it, the simplest conclusion is that Jesus is talking about being older than Abraham, but not literally. I'm a nonTrinitarian who believes that Jesus is 100% human (not God or god or angel), but I truly do think that Jesus is talking about being older than Abraham...yet not literally. I believe that Jesus' choice of words is "opportunistic", in the sense that He seeks to speak within the context of the conversation, but also to communicate something different from what the Jews are concerned with in the immediate context, which is literal age. And He does this several times in the book of John and in the Gospel in general. When speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, He speaks of living water because water is the subject of discussion, yet not literal water. When the Pharisees are questioning Him in the temple, He speaks about a temple because it fits the context of the discussion, yet not the literal temple building or premises. When being questioned about the washing of hands before eating, He spoke about things that go into the mouth and come out because it fit the context of the discussion, yet He wasn't speaking about food coming out of a man's mouth, but words. When speaking with the Jews about bread, He declares Himself to be bread of life, and His flesh to be the food that they must eat in order to live because it fits the context where the Jews had just spoken of Moses giving their fathers bread in order for them to live, yet He's not literally speaking about people cannibalizing Him to survive the wilderness. He's talking about people eating (believing) His flesh (His words). For this is how "a man shall not live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God". Jesus' words are the Father's words, and He personifies those words in and/or as His flesh. "My words are not Mine but His who sent Me"; "The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life". Flesh = life and words = life in the exact same passage, and the word became flesh 5 chapters earlier. The same thing is happening in John 8:58. He's speaking about being older than Abraham because it's what the Jews asked about in John 8:57. But He's not speaking about literal age. He's speaking about Abraham existing (and being chosen) for His sake rather than He for Abraham's sake. And the apostles do a wonderful job of elaborating on this in their letters e.g "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world", and "We were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world". The point is that Jesus is the key component for all of God's plans for mankind. He is the foundation upon which God based all His decisions and actions...including creating Abraham. But He's very much a human being born in the 1st Century. That's why even those who came before Him couldn't inherit the promises yet. It's because the human being called Jesus didn't exist yet. However, the promises were still based on this human being who would be born in the 1st Century.

1:11:47 Sam at this point you explain that “going through the exercise of looking at church fathers and trying to classify…once you examine a couple key questions and know what to look for…”. Ostensibly, you can know quite strongly what the Christology is. So my question, what are those key questions? And what are you looking for to squeeze out of the writings what you want to know? Is there a book or three that would lead someone to know the development of Christology in the early church father’s writings and how Christology developed along with them?

Hi Sam, Great discussion / interview -- appreciate your works of Righteousness. My name is Thomas and live in Toronto, Canada. I attempted to have a discussion with Tim a few years ago. I have learned (grown) much in YHWH's use of Patterns & Allegory (Hidden Meaning / Glory of His Knowledge). I hope we could connect & have a conversation if knowing Jesus = 888 (Greek Gematria) = Oxygen #8 Periodic Table or 8e8p8n (Right-ness -- Life Sustaining) is of interest and sparks curiousity. Also -- Carbon #6 = 6e6p6n or 666 (Sin = dust to dust). WHY do we exhale CO2 -- the same unclean gas that makes Bread "puff up" {pride} -- Leavened = Sin {Ex. 12:15, Mat.16:6}. Looking forward to hearing from you. I grew up for 30+ years in the Free Methodist / Baptist Church setting -- but would attest now that Jesus is not God ! In Faith, Hope, and Love -- Thomas / ps #1 -- David was 8th (type of Christ) son of Jesse & Jesus was 6 (Sin) hours on cross before he died / ps #2 -- Jesus was MADE SIN for us {2 Cor. 5:21} = Serpent on pole = Sting of Death is Sin {1 Cor.15:56, Rom.5:10} !

Thank you very much for this Episode. This verse was bothering me since I started to question the nature of God and Jesus. Not because of it's meaning or the context, but grammatically. "Why is 'I am' in the present form?" "Why would John write it this way?" "Is it intentional or is it just clumsy written?" "What actually is the aorist tense?" For some reason every time I was looking into the aorist tense I ended up with the understanding that, that is a tense that is somehow connected to the past tense. After listening to this episode I checked your claim and it holds up :) Finally the sentence makes sense without changing the grammar.

Great conversation, particularly those last 20-30 minutes! Brought this quote to mind from Elder Aimilianos “The soul has to make a choice, and the outcome will either break it into pieces or enable it to sail to its destination in God. And the choice comes down to this: Will the soul accept or reject suffering?”

Sam, This is very good and I will share it with others. The one point of departure I have is when you discuss the meaning of “born of water”. I lean more toward the interpretation that it means spiritual cleansing rather than baptism. Some folks I want to share with will object to that, but hopefully they won’t throw out the baby with the baptism water. Thank you.

Hank argues for the Trinity that in John 8:58 Jesus said “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” as evidence that Jesus here is claiming to be God the Son. In the book "The Doctrine of the Trinity" by Anthony Buzzard, Anthony mentions a few other verses where "ego eimi" is translated "I am he" instead of "I am", such as: John 4:26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.” John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” John 8:28 Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. John 13:19 Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He. Anthony Buzzard writes, in page 220, "The evidence before us ( cited above ) shows that the famous phrase ego eimi means "I am the promised one", "the one in question".... In contexts where the Son of Man or the Christ are being discussed, Jesus claims to be "the one", i.e., Son of Man, Christ. In each case it is proper ( as translators recognize ) to add the word "he" to the "I am". There is every reason to be consistent and apply the word "he" to the "I am" in John 8:58 also. Thus in John 4:26 "I am" = "I am [he, the Messiah]". In John 8:58 likewise Jesus declares: 'Before Abraham was, I am [he, the appointed Messiah]."

The primacy of the doctrine of the trinity seems to be based upon the theory that, the farther we get from the First Century, the better our understanding of the truth?

You make a lot of good points, I just took "Before Abraham was, I AM" as Jesus saying or explaining he was the messiah prophesied before Abraham. Before Abraham was, I existed. meaning he existed in the word or was mentioned as one greater than Abraham to come. When you read the following verses, bare in mind Moses wrote the history of Abraham. Have these following verses in mind for a bigger context of John 8:58 Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. Joh 5:41 I receive not honour from men. Joh 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. Joh 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. Joh 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Joh 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Here is some info, Not that I agree with it. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 AD) was an early Christian scholar, theologian, and philosopher whose writings significantly shaped Christian thought. Origen is one of the earliest and most influential theologians who made connections between the "I am" statements in the Gospel of John and the divine name of God in the Old Testament, particularly Exodus 3:14. While his works don’t always focus exclusively on this connection, they reveal how early Christian thinkers like him understood Jesus' divinity in relation to the God of Israel. Key Writings of Origen Related to the "I Am" and Divine Name Connection: 1. Commentary on the Gospel of John This is one of Origen's most significant works, where he provides detailed exegesis of the Gospel of John, focusing on its theological depth, especially regarding the nature of Jesus as the Logos (Word). Origen frequently explores the meaning of Jesus' words and actions in the Gospel, and he emphasizes the divine nature of Christ throughout the commentary. Origen on John 1:1: He focuses heavily on the Logos theology - the idea that Jesus, as the pre-existent Word of God, was with God from the beginning. This is important because, for Origen, the Logos is the same eternal being who revealed Himself to Moses in the burning bush as "I AM." "The Word was with God, and the Word was God… God is all that exists in an absolute sense, and therefore God's Word also is all that exists, but in relation to the first existence" (Commentary on John, Book II, Chapter 2). Implicit Connection to Exodus 3:14: While Origen doesn’t explicitly comment on John 8:58 in the Commentary on John (at least in the surviving portions of the work), his broader theological framework suggests that he viewed the "I am" statements as revelations of Jesus' eternal, divine nature, much like God's self-revelation to Moses as "I AM WHO I AM" in Exodus 3:14. He constantly refers to Christ's pre-existence, eternal nature, and oneness with God, reflecting an early recognition of Jesus’ use of "I am" as an evocation of the divine name. "Thus, the Word of God who was from the beginning, through whom all things were made, is also the one who reveals God throughout the Scriptures..." (Commentary on John, Book II, Chapter 4). 2. Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) In this apologetic work, Origen defends Christianity against the criticisms of the Greek philosopher Celsus. In Book VI, Origen speaks at length about Jesus as the divine Logos, the mediator between God and humanity. He argues that Jesus was more than a mere man, consistently pointing to His eternal, divine nature. Christ's Pre-existence: Origen asserts that Christ existed before His incarnation and that He was active throughout the Old Testament. This is part of Origen's broader understanding of Christ as the one who revealed God in both the Old and New Testaments. This theme is tied to his view of Christ’s identification with the divine being who appeared to Moses in the burning bush: "He [Jesus] was before all things, He is the Word of God, who was with God, and was God, and who appeared from time to time in human form, to those to whom it was fitting to appear, and who at last became man" (Contra Celsum, Book VI, Chapter 47). This statement reflects Origen’s belief that Jesus, the eternal Logos, had manifested Himself before His incarnation, implying that the one who appeared in Exodus 3:14, saying "I AM," was indeed the pre-existent Christ. 3. On First Principles (De Principiis) In this foundational theological text, Origen lays out his understanding of the nature of God, Christ, and creation. His emphasis on the pre-existence of Christ and the eternality of the Logos reinforces his belief that Jesus' identity was directly connected to the God of the Old Testament. Divine Names and Jesus' Eternal Nature: While Origen does not provide a verse-by-verse commentary on Exodus 3:14, he consistently argues that the names and titles attributed to God in the Old Testament (including "I AM") should also be understood as applying to Jesus: "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM,' and 'Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'… Christ also says, 'Before Abraham was, I am,' because He was not made, He was not created; He exists without beginning" (On First Principles, Book I, Chapter 2). This text reveals Origen's belief in Jesus as the eternal Word, co-equal with God the Father, using similar language as God in the Old Testament. Summary of Origen's Theological Position: Jesus as the Pre-existent Logos: Origen's Christology is centered on the understanding of Jesus as the Logos (the Word), eternally present with God. In this sense, Jesus is identified as the one who spoke with Moses in the burning bush, revealing Himself as "I AM." Implicit Connection to Exodus 3:14: Although Origen may not have explicitly connected John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 in the surviving texts, his theological framework (Jesus as the eternal Logos and the God who reveals Himself to humanity) strongly suggests that he understood these passages as speaking about the same divine being. Defending the Divinity of Christ: Throughout his writings, particularly in his Commentary on John and Contra Celsum, Origen defends the view that Jesus is divine, eternal, and pre-existent, qualities that make Him the same "I AM" who spoke to Moses. Conclusion: Origen of Alexandria, through his extensive writings, played a crucial role in developing the theological understanding of Jesus as the pre-existent Logos, closely linking Jesus' "I am" statements in the Gospel of John with the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. While Origen doesn’t always make a direct one-to-one comparison between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, his broader theological work suggests that he saw these passages as revealing the same eternal truth about Jesus’ divine identity. References: Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, available in English translation in "The Ante-Nicene Fathers", Vol. 9. Origen, Contra Celsum, available in "The Fathers of the Church" series, Book VI, Chapter 47. Origen, On First Principles, Book I, Chapters 2-3, available in "The Fathers of the Church" series.

Sam you are a breath of fresh air.

Sam, what would be tpur format for eucharist administration

Love this discussion. At the end of the day, the doctrine shouldn't divide us. John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, We are all united in Christ!

If knowing who God and/or Jesus was simple, then we would all agree on the topic. John 12: 44 Don't be a scoffer..do your own research. Tim Mackie is a tremendous resource as we search for truth. Thank you Tim for answering the call to serve God. Don't just listen and accept a creed, do your own research,, then be a disciple of Jesus. John 14 The world has enough who "believe", we need disciples who follow and obey.

You need to pull your own head out of your own butt - you could work for the democratic party or CNN ... I AM is plain not peanut - PhD vs Holy Spirit ??? You lose with your double talk ...

Pascha and Easter have nothing in common. The conflation of the two is a demonic deception.

Yes the Trinity is true!

Excellent work Sam. Some of my commentary on John 8: Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world This is a reference to the messianic Isaiah 42 I will keep you and appoint you to be a covenant for the people and a light to the nations (cf. Isa 49:6, 51:4). In referencing Isaiah 42, Jesus was implying his identity as the Messiah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ unless you believe that I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι) you will die in your sins... When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι) ἐγώ εἰμι is a phrase of self-identification e.g., "It is I" or "I am so-and-so (the bread, the light, etc)". A myth commonly perpetuated in Christian circles takes ἐγώ εἰμι as the Great I AM of Exodus 3:14. However, the actual Greek words in Exodus 3:14 is ὁ ὢν, not ἐγώ εἰμι. Here, the Jews were asking Jesus his identity (Jn 8:25). Jesus provided some clarity in calling himself "the Son of Man" (a likely reference to messianic figure of Daniel 7:14 And behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man was coming). Additionally, John's readers should not miss Jesus' implicit claim to be the Messiah as we are also privy to Jn 3:14 just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up. Unless they believe that he is the Messiah, they will die in their sins. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I say to the world... The one who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God. Another reference to Deu 18:18. Jesus is the prophet who speaks the words of God which he heard from God. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone follows My word, he will never see death 52 The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets as well. 7th misunderstanding. Jesus was not speaking of the first physical death that everyone will experience, including his believers. But of the second death that those who believe in him as the Messiah will never see. In other words, Jesus was talking about a future resurrection of God's people. The central message of Jesus in John 8 is his implied identity as the Messiah who brings the Resurrection ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ but I do know Him [God], and I follow His word [God's word]. Cf. the Word became flesh. Jesus is the living embodiment of God's word; he lived and followed it completely. He is God's word personified; the word incarnate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see My day, and he saw it and rejoiced. The common view among commentators is that "My day" refers to the Messiah's second coming (cf. Luke 17:22); the day of resurrection where there will be great rejoicing. By faith, Abraham saw the promises from afar (cf. Heb 11:13). Jesus' answer addressed both questions in Jn 8:53 (are you greater than Abraham? who are you?). Being the Messiah who shall resurrect Abraham, Jesus is greater. And Jesus was making himself to be the Messiah. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?” 8th misunderstanding. Jesus never said that Abraham saw him or that he saw Abraham. Yet the murderous crowd was eager to misconstrue his words and put him on a spot by asking an absurd loaded question. An example of a loaded question is "have you stopped beating your wife?". Both Yes and No are wrong answers. If Jesus said Yes, they could assert that he was crazy and turn the people against Jesus. If Jesus said No, then he would be contradicting his answer in Jn 8:56 as the loaded question presupposed Jesus was claiming to have seen Abraham some 2000 years ago. I think Jesus was wise in not addressing the loaded question but went back to reiterated his answer in Jn 8:56. See below. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι γενέσθαι means come into being. It is an aorist infinitive. Aorist infinitives communicate perfective aspect, they do not communicate time. γενέσθαι occurs 37 times in NT and is mostly used in the context of future events and translated in the present tense (90%, 32/36). This is another translator's dilemma: in English, all verbs communicate time. biblehub.com/greek/genesthai_1096.htm I opine that the common translation in past tense "before Abraham was" is contextually weak and may mislead readers. In the ongoing context of death and resurrection, "before Abraham γενέσθαι" could likely mean "before Abraham is raised to life". ἐγώ εἰμι - for the 3rd time in John 8, Jesus used ἐγώ εἰμι (see Jn 8:24, 28). Jesus persisted in his implicit claim to be the Messiah, in all sincerity (truly, truly, I say to you) for people to believe and not die in their sins. We may understand John 8:58 as a reiteration of John 8:56 in answer to the questions in John 8:53 (are you greater than Abraham? who are you?). "Before Abraham is raised to life" speaks of the Messiah's superiority as the one who will resurrect Abraham. "I am he [the Son of Man]" implies his identity as the Messiah. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are seeking to kill Me... Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him The murderous crowd was seeking a justified reason to kill Jesus. Yet they found no legitimate accusation against him. Like what happened to Stephen, the infuriated mob abandoned the need to justify and tried to stone Jesus without any accusation or trial. Of noteworthy, at Jesus' trial where they tried to find justification to put Jesus to death, the events in John 8 were not mentioned but the events in John 2 were. Matt 26:59 Now the chief priests and the entire Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.

1:02:25 I think you're the first knowledgeable person I have seen to offer a similar approach/explanation of 8:58 to me, where we shy away from the common "was" translation. I have asked a couple of people who know Greek well whether translating it with a present or future tense was reasonable/possible. They basically said that it's possible, but weren't really interested in looking more into it. When I was questioning the translation/interpretation, I was going down the thought path of something like, "what if Jesus is claiming to be greater than Abraham by saying that he is the messiah before Abraham is." I was trying to think outside the box to come up with an explanation of 8:58... Does anyone know of anyone else that acknowledges the "becomes/comes to be" instead of "was" as a viable translation?

31:00 Eating is believing! I lean toward a different way of interpreting John 6. I think Jesus gives the key to the misunderstanding of chapter 6 in verses like: 40 "...everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life." 63-64 “The spirit is what gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” and 68-69 "Simon Peter {answered} him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed..." I think Simon Peter understands the point Jesus was trying to make. The people must "eat the bread of life" which means "believe the words Jesus claims he received from God." This is a great example of how Jesus is figuratively the word of God in John, which is referenced in the prologue. Jesus is the bread. The bread is the word of God. Believing the word of God gives eternal life. But Jesus isn't literally bread or word. That's my interpretation of it at least. I also think the eating and drinking of Jesus could also maybe be a reference to the crucifixion. Maybe I just need to do some review to see the connection to communion more. (Sorry if I have commented something like this before on another video and forgot. I've shared it a handful of times over the last few years, so it's hard to remember where I already posted.)

Fr John, can you please translate more of the Fathers, we don’t need yet another translation of the heritic Origen or yet another repeated translation on St Athanasious’s “On the Oncarnation”.

I was trying to say all this in my back and forts polemics With Gavin’s followers in the comments section of the video which Gavin may or may not have dedicated to you. However this is much more extensive and clear. I recommend John C Hamers lecture on the two authors of the Gospel of John. The original reading of the Niccodemus passage was the following: ”Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of THE SPIRIT . 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” The phrase ”and of water ” was added by the second author of John.

**Exodus 3:14** has God saying **I am that I am** (LXX Ego Eimi Ho on **ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν** I am the eternal one) but does **not** say tell them Ego Eimi(I AM) has sent you, but rather HO ON **ὁ ὤν**(The ETERNAL one) has sent you... all the authors of the NT used the **LXX** Septuagint as their OT source material, if they wanted to say Jesus was Identifying with the **I AM** of Exodus they would have used **Ho On** not Ego Eimi

55:30 so instead of the woodenly literal Greek of John what’s the Aramaic of what Jesus actually said?

36:34 Ben Sira reference. The living food/water stuff in John I think is a Ben Sira reference too.

36:34 Ben Sira reference. The living food/water stuff in John I think is a Ben Sira reference too.

@34:50 for me “birth” and/or “begetting” is a theme that’s present in the Old Testament… Ex: God “begetting” (spiritually) King David and/or Solomon (Psalm 2:7)

22:00 Are you joking? Why would the Gospels which were written after Paul by the disciples of Paul reflect the ideas of Paul?

Some random thoughts that popped into my head while looking at 52:53, and 1:00:46, and 1:31:20 - Truly, truly, I tell you, before Abraam becomes Abraham, I am. - Truly, truly, I tell you, before Abraam "becomes Father of many nations", I am. - Truly, truly, I tell you, anterior to Abraam's "position he could become", I am. - Truly, truly, I tell you, anterior to Abraam's "position he becomes", I am. - Truly, truly, I tell you, before Abraam became Abraham, I am. (bad gramma) Did I make a Greek expert chuckle or shout eureka or smash dislike button? PS: Hebrews 2: 13b; isn't Abraham a child here instead of the father?

Excited to listen to this

Well, it was an eloquent hour and a half, but not particularly enlightening - at least not in relation to the title of the video. "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham comes to be, I am he" - Even if I grant you that translation, your explanation of equating Abraham's "coming to be" with his yet future resurrection makes very little sense to me (and I would argue to any of his listeners of the time and throughout time). Jesus already has spoken of Abraham as a living person IN THE PRESENT. God is not a God of the dead, but the living. He speaks of Lazarus being in his bosom. There would be no reason to think of Abraham's becoming as some yet future resurrection. The most logical interpretation and understanding was the one the Jews right in front of him had - that he was speaking of Abraham's mortal existence. And as far as the "I am (he)" part, John uses that construction again in Jn. 18:6. The reaction of the people present is once more rather telling about the meaning of those words. I know I'm just some dude on the internet, but perhaps it would be wise to consider if one is "kicking against the goads" in these matters. If that is indeed what is happening, I pray the scales may fall off for you as well. Peace

Because you seek to refute the passages that clearly prove that Jesus IS God you KNOW the passages. so there is n point in seeking to refute you not because you are correct but because you are contumacious what you proclaim here is rank heresy. not because t church says so but because the Bible says so. Denying the divinity of Christ you do not know Christ and you deny Him. so you deny the Father as well

God 1 or God 2? Or as I say ... G-d or God? PVK addressed this well, in regard to apologetic defense of Christianity.

I believe, Sam, that your interpretation of John 8:58 may be leaning towards the overly esoteric to the point where it would have just been too unecessarily confusing to his audience. Jesus wanted them to understand. The first thing that I believe is important to recognize is that Jesus is referring to himself in the present moment, prior to his resurrection and ascension. He is drawing a comparison between a pre-glorified Abraham and his own pre-glorified state. Therefore, suggesting that Jesus is discussing a newly created version of himself in opposition to a future glorified Abraham, I think is a misunderstanding. Instead, I believe he is asserting that he is self-identifying as the Messiah mentioned in scripture (Genesis 3:15) prior to Abraham's original birth. In this context, the Messiah does not need to be his new creation glorified self in order to refer to himself in the present as the prophesied messiah. In other words, he is essentially asserting that he stands in their presence as the manifestation of the archetype of the OT prophetic foretype (as all unmanifest prophecy is a foretype), rather than representing the archetypal man of the fallen Adamic foretype. This distinction, I think, is crucial to understand.

I don't understand how Jacob interpreted John 8:31, as it's pretty clear to me that the Jews here are speaking about themselves as never being enslaved in their liftime and not speaking of their ancestoral history.

All my critiques aside, Sam, it truly puzzles me that you aren't a pastor. Your teaching skills are exceptional, and you have a remarkable ability to communicate with both kindness and confidence.

I don't agree that the blueprint is in Earth and the real deal in Heaven. Its much the opposite, since the mention of the heavens comes first and then Earth, in the beginning of Genesis

"...for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."

In short, I would like to a conversation on the evolution of ideas through time. And if we are currently having a breakdown of species (of Christianity); a reversal of some speciation that has gone on for 2,000 years

"Why are there so many bizarre parallels between Paul and the Gospels and other parts of scripture?" Because the Gospels were written after Paul by Paulinists, so there is a direct influence.