The more Greek I learn the more I'm convinced you can't fully grasp the Bible without knowing it. And to be honest James White only scratches the surface of the Greek. There's a whole nother level he doesn't even go into.
@@smartchristians Only someone who doesn't know the language would say that. I would recommend spending time in the strong cyclopaedia and Hastings. 10 minutes reading those volumes in you will see. It's more like the difference of listening to the radio where there is static and you can't hear much of the words and a movie theatre with full Dolby Surround sound. If you really study the language you will see that even doctor white is very shallow. He spends time on syntax and not the deep meanings and backgrounds of the words. That is where the gold lies.
@@billyr9162 True. The essence is in the nuance of the words and the literary uses intertwined with the historical and cultural context of that era. It is not maths or physics 1+1=2...It is much deeper. From what I have come to see after watching many of White's videos when he talks about Greek, he is basically approaching it at a very superficial level (syntax, grammar) to intimidate people who do not know the language. And he does a poor job at that too... His "Erasmian" pronunciation is also quite cringy to my ears...
@@orthochristos Not only the essence intertwined with the culture historical of the erra but with the other words in The Bible including the Greek and the septuagint old Testament. That's right. White spends mostly time on syntax. That's like spending all your time in the kiddie pool and not jumping in the deep end where you can really swim. But so many people don't even know syntax so it's good. Take the word prohorizo. I think Paul uses the word horizon in connection with light as well as boundary. And light is the truth. And light being truth is all throughout The Bible. But white doesn't make that connection. I think that's a big mistake. Those connections are crucial to getting the big picture and deeper meaning. And if you look at the roots and the Greek words there are many connections like that in the Greek. They are all over the place in Greek.
@@urawesome4670 Well, I am Geek. I belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and read and understand the Bible (Εβδομήκοντα) in the original language, so I guess I am also in a Church with 'bad doctrine'? James White's response to whether he would sit down and talk with an Eastern Orthodox Christian on Biblical issues: "I don't have time to study Orthodoxy". That pretty much sums it up right there...God bless you.
Say what you will about James White, his is a welcome, stabilizing voice in these unprecedented times, and deserves an A for telling the truth. He has no axe to grind here, the scripture says what it says . . and we should be glad it says it. Isn't Mary's child called "Immanuel" (God with us)? Isn't He called "the mighty God", the "everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6) ?? Weren't the exploits (the "goings forth") of the child, the Bread of Heaven, born in Bethlehem (house of bread) from eternity? Yes, the Word WAS GOD.
Saying because the Bible calls him God (As it does angels, Judges, Kings, Abraham) means he's almighty God, means that Modalists have 100% cause to say he's also the Father because he he's called everlasting Father.
@@SamitoJesus1 angels were called God's too. In today's English we use God as rhe almighty. In the Bible it was used to address a superior. Angels, Moses, Abraham, Judges, Kingdom and Priests were calls Elohim or God. Kings were worshipped as shown in 1 Chron 29:20
How did Thomas meet Christ in person on the 8th day of resurrection and say to him "My lord and my god" and inspected the nail print on his flesh and put his finger into it if Christ had already been carried up into heaven on the same day of resurrection according to the gospel of Luke 24?
The question I have is why Thomas addressed Jesus (John 20:28) in the nominative instead of the vocative like he did in John 14:5? Because reading this seems like Thomas is referring to a lord and god that he is not directly talking to…
Throughout chapter 14 any of Jesus disciples speak to him calling him Lord in the vocative. Not just Thomas. Actually throughout the entire book of John they speak to him in the vocative. The fact that in 20:28 the nominative is used, gives the impression that Thomas is exclaiming “oh my God!” To Jesus…?
Sifting through the Bible, there are lots of examples of the nom/voc use. One example is 1kings 3:7 (voc) καὶ νῦν ΚΥΡΙΕ ὁ θεός μου σὺ ἔδωκας τὸν δοῦλόν σου ἀντὶ Δαυιδ τοῦ πατρός μου Which translates roughly to “and now O Lord my God” Then in 1kings 5:4 (nom) καὶ νῦν ἀνέπαυσε ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ὁ θεός μου ἐμοὶ κυκλόθεν Which translates something like “Now the Lord my God has given me rest etc…” See how when the nominative is used the speaker is talking about God, but in the vocative the speaker is talking to God.
Mr White would have you accept that Thomas in verse 28 believed that Jesus was the same God he was “ascending” to in verse 17. Now, within trinitarian theology, it’s very possible for one person [ie] the son, to “ascend” to another person [ie] the father, but have you ever asked yourself how Jesus as God “ascends” to his own essence/being? That's what Mr White is asking you to believe. Otherwise, he has a God who has a God. Is God ascending to himself the context here? I don't think it is. Another context is as follows: - In John 14:9, Jesus, using the personal pronoun “me” is referring to “himself” whilst at the same time he is referring to “two separate” persons [ie] himself “and” his Father. A person who adheres to traditional Trinitarian theology would have to concede that the apostles weren’t seeing the Father in person simply because Trinitarian theology clearly states that the Father and the son are “two separate” persons. This statement from Jesus can also be clearly understood as saying “if you have seen me, you have seen God”, yet not seeing God in actual person simply because Jesus said that the Father was his God John 20:17. With this reasoning, it can be fully understood how Thomas said to “him” my Lord “and” my God whilst referring to “two separate” persons. He who has seen me = my Lord, has seen the Father = my God, It’s all about seeing and believing. The reason Thomas wasn’t rebuked is because he wasn’t calling Jesus God, no more than Jesus was calling himself the Father. Peace
No it doesn't. Idk where you're getting "two separate" from but any correct description of the trinity taught has ever been distinct but not separate. "In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided" -1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Here you can see distinct but not separate. Basic trinitarian theology
Unitarianism as a distinct theological movement emerged in the 16th century during the Protestant Reformation, particularly in Transylvania (present-day Romania) and Poland. However, it was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that Unitarian churches became more organized and widespread in Europe and North America. In the United States, the American Unitarian Association was formed in 1825, bringing together various Unitarian congregations and ministers who had been organizing and fellowshipping together since the late 18th century. The Unitarian Church in Canada was established in 1925, through the merger of several Canadian Unitarian congregations and the Canadian Unitarian Council. It's worth noting that Unitarianism has a complex and diverse history, and the emergence and development of Unitarian churches has varied depending on the region and historical context. Nonetheless, the 18th and 19th centuries marked a significant period of growth and organization for Unitarian churches in Europe and North America, as the movement gained popularity and influence in these regions.
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge its a joke. And talking about urin isnt a big deal. Jesus called some people foxes. Paul called some people dogs. And some things dog crap in Philipians 3.
no surprise cause islam's very similar to certain 'christian' denominations (like calvinism) so muslims will tend to side with those against the majority of christians
James White says that a lesser Jesus (one who is not YHWH) can not save you. But he offers no scripture reference for his assertion. He is so confident in saying this. But what he is actually saying is that God is not great enough to have a messiah that he could send to save us! The truth is, God did have a messiah whom he did send to save us, and that is who Jesus is. Jesus is the one sent by God, not the God who sent him!
That's not true and you are bearing false witness. Dr. White quoted John 8:24 that Jesus said unless you believe He is the I am, you will die in your sins. A Jesus who is not Yahweh of the OT, cannot save you, because that jesus doesn't exist. Jesus Himself said that false christs would come, the Apostle Paul warns about a different Jesus in 2 Corinthians 11. Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, Yahweh of the OT, perfectly equal with the Father in power, glory, and authority. Repent and believe the gospel.
It’s pretty funny. James says the Jews understood Jesus perfectly while Jesus literally ten to fifteen verses earlier said they were unable to understand what he was saying.
@Tyler B #2 I honestly do not know. They thought it was blasphemy and it obviously is not so I don’t know what they thought or if they were just lying in order to try to kill him.
Re: John 20:28. White is soooo wrong about his conclusions on this passage. Unitarian explanations get a LOT closer to the truth. If you are searching for better answers than Trinitarians or deity of Christ believers have to offer, then search online for Unitarian explanations for this passage. You will not be disappointed.
Despite the confident arrogance of James White, he could not be more wrong if he were doing it on purpose. Isa. 6:1 has nothing to do with John 12 in terms of identifying Jesus as God. His misuse of "ego eime" is inexcusable. Only confusion in White's thinking here. I suggest you listen to the rebuttal of this position by the Unitarian side offered by William Barlow.!
It cracks me up that James White has to resort to Greek to justify his aberrant theology: I guess everyone, including the disciples, just went to Hell before John Calvin showed up to save the day. White is such a coward he disabled comments on his own channel. Scripture interprets scripture; the *PLAIN English* will do just fine: [13] *Therefore speak I to them in parables* : because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. [14] *And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias* , which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: [15] For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Matthew 13:13-15 It's judgment on *their* rejection, not justifying Calvinism. What's the context of Isaiah 6? *Israel had Apostasized* and was going to be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Hmmmm, America's headed in the exact same direction: Nebuchadnezzar is a *TYPE of the real deal* just over the horizon.
Resorting to Greek? Lol!! The Bible wasn't written in English. I can imagine someone 2000 years from now translating what you write. You think there gonna get everything right. The only way to know would be to go back and learn English.
@@billyr9162 So what? You clearly don't understand: the English *doesn't say what he wants it to say* , so he uses Greek to "prove" his theology. Ah, but *WHICH GREEK TEXT* ? Novum Testamentum Graece alone has 28 editions!
@@jeremyhinken3365 English translations are wrong quite a bit. I use TR. And often times it's not a matter of being wrong it's just a matter of the words simply don't translate. For if they translate it accurately it would come out strange in English.
@@billyr9162 [8] Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH. Zechariah 3:8 *The BRANCH* is a Messianic title given to Jesus Christ (Isa. 11:1; Jer. 33:15). Outside of those two references, the term occurs four more times, each one matching the themes of one of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The theme of Matthew is Jesus Christ as the *King of the Jews* (Matt. 2:2), so in Jeremiah 23:5 you have the *Branch* as the *King* : [5] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, *that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch* , *and a King shall reign and prosper* , *and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth* . The theme of Mark is Jesus Christ as the Servant of God. You just read here in Zechariah 3:8: *my servant the Branch* . The theme of Luke is Jesus Christ as *the Son of man* . Zechariah 6:12 says, [12] Behold *the man* whose name is The BRANCH. Finally, the theme of John is Jesus Christ as *the Son of God* . Isaiah 4:2 calls him *the branch of the LORD* . There are only two Gospels that give Christ’s genealogy: Matthew and Luke. Matthew 1:1 runs Christ’s lineage back to the first Jewish King of His line (David) and the father of the Jews (Abraham), so in Jeremiah 23:5-6, *David* , *Judah* , and *Israel* are mentioned in connection to the *Branch* . Luke 3:38 runs Christ’s lineage back to the first man: *Adam* , so Zechariah 6:12 calls Christ *the man* . A servant has no genealogy, so Zechariah 3:8 identifies Christ as merely a *servant* . John runs Christ all the way back before Genesis 1:1: [1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). So in Isaiah 4:2, who shows up but *the LORD* ? Quite a "lacking divine intelligence" kind of text, don’t you think? That’s three men writing anywhere from 100 - 200 years apart, and they just “happen” to match four other men writing over 400 years later with no collusion between any of them. By the way, the word Nazarene means “a branch” (from the Hebrew word netser). The New Testament says about Christ: *He shall be called a Nazarene* (Matt. 2:23). That’s a Nazarene, not a Nazarite, who was a fellow like Samson with a vow on him (see Num. 6).
Some coffee and James White teaching Greek in the morning.
Amen! Every knee shall bow.
It's like your there listening to them talk.Brilliant.
Hi 🇿🇦 love listening to you
This was great! Thanks!
Thank you brother White, very helpful.
The more Greek I learn the more I'm convinced you can't fully grasp the Bible without knowing it.
And to be honest James White only scratches the surface of the Greek. There's a whole nother level he doesn't even go into.
Hebrew and Greek vs English only is similar to the difference between watching TV in Black and White vs 4K.
@@smartchristians
Only someone who doesn't know the language would say that. I would recommend spending time in the strong cyclopaedia and Hastings. 10 minutes reading those volumes in you will see.
It's more like the difference of listening to the radio where there is static and you can't hear much of the words and a movie theatre with full Dolby Surround sound.
If you really study the language you will see that even doctor white is very shallow. He spends time on syntax and not the deep meanings and backgrounds of the words. That is where the gold lies.
@@billyr9162 True. The essence is in the nuance of the words and the literary uses intertwined with the historical and cultural context of that era. It is not maths or physics 1+1=2...It is much deeper. From what I have come to see after watching many of White's videos when he talks about Greek, he is basically approaching it at a very superficial level (syntax, grammar) to intimidate people who do not know the language. And he does a poor job at that too... His "Erasmian" pronunciation is also quite cringy to my ears...
@@orthochristos
Not only the essence intertwined with the culture historical of the erra but with the other words in The Bible including the Greek and the septuagint old Testament.
That's right. White spends mostly time on syntax. That's like spending all your time in the kiddie pool and not jumping in the deep end where you can really swim.
But so many people don't even know syntax so it's good.
Take the word prohorizo. I think Paul uses the word horizon in connection with light as well as boundary. And light is the truth. And light being truth is all throughout The Bible. But white doesn't make that connection. I think that's a big mistake. Those connections are crucial to getting the big picture and deeper meaning. And if you look at the roots and the Greek words there are many connections like that in the Greek. They are all over the place in Greek.
Brilliant Dr White
I love this scholarly presentation.
Praise God !
Peace
Ah Greek, the Kryptonite of Leighton Flowers, Provisionists, Unitarians, and everyone else with bad doctrine
Yep
Exactly!
@@urawesome4670 Well, I am Geek. I belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and read and understand the Bible (Εβδομήκοντα) in the original language, so I guess I am also in a Church with 'bad doctrine'? James White's response to whether he would sit down and talk with an Eastern Orthodox Christian on Biblical issues: "I don't have time to study Orthodoxy". That pretty much sums it up right there...God bless you.
@@orthochristos
Modern Greek is very different than ancient Greek.
@@billyr9162 Not it is not. Trust me, I know.
Say what you will about James White, his is a welcome, stabilizing voice in these unprecedented times, and deserves an A for telling the truth. He has no axe to grind here, the scripture says what it says . . and we should be glad it says it. Isn't Mary's child called "Immanuel" (God with us)? Isn't He called "the mighty God", the "everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6) ?? Weren't the exploits (the "goings forth") of the child, the Bread of Heaven, born in Bethlehem (house of bread) from eternity?
Yes, the Word WAS GOD.
Saying because the Bible calls him God (As it does angels, Judges, Kings, Abraham) means he's almighty God, means that Modalists have 100% cause to say he's also the Father because he he's called everlasting Father.
@Johnsc11904 Everything Father is a context for he lives from everlasting to everlasting.
@@SamitoJesus1 he's called everlasting father because he will give life to the race in the millennium
@Johnsc11904 what about mighty God ???
@@SamitoJesus1 angels were called God's too. In today's English we use God as rhe almighty. In the Bible it was used to address a superior. Angels, Moses, Abraham, Judges, Kingdom and Priests were calls Elohim or God. Kings were worshipped as shown in 1 Chron 29:20
Isaiah 6:1 in the Greek translates the word " temple"
How did Thomas meet Christ in person on the 8th day of resurrection and say to him "My lord and my god" and inspected the nail print on his flesh and put his finger into it if Christ had already been carried up into heaven on the same day of resurrection according to the gospel of Luke 24?
Luke compressed the events as if it was one day. It’s a common literary device. It doesn’t mean or even state it happened all on the same day
The question I have is why Thomas addressed Jesus (John 20:28) in the nominative instead of the vocative like he did in John 14:5? Because reading this seems like Thomas is referring to a lord and god that he is not directly talking to…
He was. God raised Jesus from the dead. Thomas exclaimed, "My Lord and my God." You have to be a trinitarian to get this wrong.
Where Is the vocative in John 14:5?
@@revmarcelzoe9237
Λέγει αὐτῷ Θωμᾶς ΚΥΡΙΕ οὐκ οἴδαμεν ποῦ ὑπάγεις· καὶ πῶς δυνάμεθα τὴν ὁδὸν εἰδέναι Textus Receptus
Vocative in capitals
Throughout chapter 14 any of Jesus disciples speak to him calling him Lord in the vocative. Not just Thomas. Actually throughout the entire book of John they speak to him in the vocative. The fact that in 20:28 the nominative is used, gives the impression that Thomas is exclaiming “oh my God!” To Jesus…?
Sifting through the Bible, there are lots of examples of the nom/voc use. One example is 1kings 3:7 (voc)
καὶ νῦν ΚΥΡΙΕ ὁ θεός μου σὺ ἔδωκας τὸν δοῦλόν σου ἀντὶ Δαυιδ τοῦ πατρός μου
Which translates roughly to “and now O Lord my God”
Then in 1kings 5:4 (nom)
καὶ νῦν ἀνέπαυσε ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ὁ θεός μου ἐμοὶ κυκλόθεν
Which translates something like “Now the Lord my God has given me rest etc…”
See how when the nominative is used the speaker is talking about God, but in the vocative the speaker is talking to God.
Mr White would have you accept that Thomas in verse 28 believed that Jesus was the same God he was “ascending” to in verse 17. Now, within trinitarian theology, it’s very possible for one person [ie] the son, to “ascend” to another person [ie] the father, but have you ever asked yourself how Jesus as God “ascends” to his own essence/being? That's what Mr White is asking you to believe. Otherwise, he has a God who has a God. Is God ascending to himself the context here? I don't think it is. Another context is as follows: -
In John 14:9, Jesus, using the personal pronoun “me” is referring to “himself” whilst at the same time he is referring to “two separate” persons [ie] himself “and” his Father. A person who adheres to traditional Trinitarian theology would have to concede that the apostles weren’t seeing the Father in person simply because Trinitarian theology clearly states that the Father and the son are “two separate” persons. This statement from Jesus can also be clearly understood as saying “if you have seen me, you have seen God”, yet not seeing God in actual person simply because Jesus said that the Father was his God John 20:17. With this reasoning, it can be fully understood how Thomas said to “him” my Lord “and” my God whilst referring to “two separate” persons. He who has seen me = my Lord, has seen the Father = my God, It’s all about seeing and believing. The reason Thomas wasn’t rebuked is because he wasn’t calling Jesus God, no more than Jesus was calling himself the Father.
Peace
John 17.3, John 20.17, Rev 1.5-6, Rev 3.12, and many other scriptures.
Excellent observation
you missed the entire point of what Trinity means
No it doesn't. Idk where you're getting "two separate" from but any correct description of the trinity taught has ever been distinct but not separate. "In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided" -1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Here you can see distinct but not separate. Basic trinitarian theology
Thank you for your opinion. We disagree.
Unitarianism as a distinct theological movement emerged in the 16th century during the Protestant Reformation, particularly in Transylvania (present-day Romania) and Poland. However, it was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that Unitarian churches became more organized and widespread in Europe and North America.
In the United States, the American Unitarian Association was formed in 1825, bringing together various Unitarian congregations and ministers who had been organizing and fellowshipping together since the late 18th century. The Unitarian Church in Canada was established in 1925, through the merger of several Canadian Unitarian congregations and the Canadian Unitarian Council.
It's worth noting that Unitarianism has a complex and diverse history, and the emergence and development of Unitarian churches has varied depending on the region and historical context. Nonetheless, the 18th and 19th centuries marked a significant period of growth and organization for Unitarian churches in Europe and North America, as the movement gained popularity and influence in these regions.
John 17 3
This happened in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on Sunday 21/4/4 - ruclips.net/video/YPkL6GSwZoE/видео.html
There are some Muslims that are very Pissed oss with ch8
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge its a joke.
And talking about urin isnt a big deal.
Jesus called some people foxes.
Paul called some people dogs. And some things dog crap in Philipians 3.
no surprise cause islam's very similar to certain 'christian' denominations (like calvinism) so muslims will tend to side with those against the majority of christians
James White says that a lesser Jesus (one who is not YHWH) can not save you. But he offers no scripture reference for his assertion. He is so confident in saying this. But what he is actually saying is that God is not great enough to have a messiah that he could send to save us! The truth is, God did have a messiah whom he did send to save us, and that is who Jesus is. Jesus is the one sent by God, not the God who sent him!
That's not true and you are bearing false witness. Dr. White quoted John 8:24 that Jesus said unless you believe He is the I am, you will die in your sins. A Jesus who is not Yahweh of the OT, cannot save you, because that jesus doesn't exist. Jesus Himself said that false christs would come, the Apostle Paul warns about a different Jesus in 2 Corinthians 11. Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, Yahweh of the OT, perfectly equal with the Father in power, glory, and authority. Repent and believe the gospel.
He offers not only scripture, but is teaching this in Greek. How much Greek do you know? Were you paying attention to the lesson?
It’s pretty funny. James says the Jews understood Jesus perfectly while Jesus literally ten to fifteen verses earlier said they were unable to understand what he was saying.
@Tyler B #2 I honestly do not know. They thought it was blasphemy and it obviously is not so I don’t know what they thought or if they were just lying in order to try to kill him.
@Tyler B #2 of course he was. That isn’t blasphemy.
Re: John 20:28. White is soooo wrong about his conclusions on this passage. Unitarian explanations get a LOT closer to the truth. If you are searching for better answers than Trinitarians or deity of Christ believers have to offer, then search online for Unitarian explanations for this passage. You will not be disappointed.
What year was it that Unitarians became an actual church?
Despite the confident arrogance of James White, he could not be more wrong if he were doing it on purpose. Isa. 6:1 has nothing to do with John 12 in terms of identifying Jesus as God. His misuse of "ego eime" is inexcusable. Only confusion in White's thinking here. I suggest you listen to the rebuttal of this position by the Unitarian side offered by William Barlow.!
Lies.
Where? Speak truth if you have it.
It cracks me up that James White has to resort to Greek to justify his aberrant theology: I guess everyone, including the disciples, just went to Hell before John Calvin showed up to save the day. White is such a coward he disabled comments on his own channel. Scripture interprets scripture; the *PLAIN English* will do just fine:
[13] *Therefore speak I to them in parables* : because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. [14] *And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias* , which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: [15] For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Matthew 13:13-15
It's judgment on *their* rejection, not justifying Calvinism. What's the context of Isaiah 6? *Israel had Apostasized* and was going to be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Hmmmm, America's headed in the exact same direction: Nebuchadnezzar is a *TYPE of the real deal* just over the horizon.
Resorting to Greek? Lol!!
The Bible wasn't written in English.
I can imagine someone 2000 years from now translating what you write. You think there gonna get everything right.
The only way to know would be to go back and learn English.
@@billyr9162 So what? You clearly don't understand: the English *doesn't say what he wants it to say* , so he uses Greek to "prove" his theology. Ah, but *WHICH GREEK TEXT* ? Novum Testamentum Graece alone has 28 editions!
@@jeremyhinken3365
English translations are wrong quite a bit. I use TR. And often times it's not a matter of being wrong it's just a matter of the words simply don't translate. For if they translate it accurately it would come out strange in English.
@@billyr9162 [8] Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
Zechariah 3:8
*The BRANCH* is a Messianic title given to Jesus Christ (Isa. 11:1; Jer. 33:15). Outside of those two references, the term occurs four more times, each one matching the themes of one of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The theme of Matthew is Jesus Christ as the *King of the Jews* (Matt. 2:2), so in Jeremiah 23:5 you have the *Branch* as the *King* : [5] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, *that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch* , *and a King shall reign and prosper* , *and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth* .
The theme of Mark is Jesus Christ as the Servant of God. You just read here in Zechariah 3:8: *my servant the Branch* . The theme of Luke is Jesus Christ as *the Son of man* . Zechariah 6:12 says, [12] Behold *the man* whose name is The BRANCH.
Finally, the theme of John is Jesus Christ as *the Son of God* . Isaiah 4:2 calls him *the branch of the LORD* .
There are only two Gospels that give Christ’s genealogy: Matthew and Luke. Matthew 1:1 runs Christ’s lineage back to the first Jewish King of His line (David) and the father of the Jews (Abraham), so in Jeremiah 23:5-6, *David* , *Judah* , and *Israel* are mentioned in connection to the *Branch* . Luke 3:38 runs Christ’s lineage back to the first man: *Adam* , so Zechariah 6:12 calls Christ *the man* . A servant has no genealogy, so Zechariah 3:8 identifies Christ as merely a *servant* . John runs Christ all the way back before Genesis 1:1: [1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). So in Isaiah 4:2, who shows up but *the LORD* ? Quite a "lacking divine intelligence" kind of text, don’t you think? That’s three men writing anywhere from 100 - 200 years apart, and they just “happen” to match four other men writing over 400 years later with no collusion between any of them.
By the way, the word Nazarene means “a branch” (from the Hebrew word netser). The New Testament says about Christ: *He shall be called a Nazarene* (Matt. 2:23). That’s a Nazarene, not a Nazarite, who was a fellow like Samson with a vow on him (see Num. 6).
@@billyr9162 Which Textus Receptus? There are *three* .