Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you don’t have life in you. Who is the Son of Man, Steve? Daniel 7:13-14. Is that mentioned in your book at all?

John 8:58. Consider this. God re-created himself in human form in order to walk in the steps of man so he could truly feel the way of his creation. And that as he walked earth as Jesus he was able to understand better how his creations acted. As he grew in body he also grew in Spirit until his final climax in order to wash away our sins and salvage us, his creations. Fire and Brimstone was replaced by Water and Forgiveness. I believe that since we are so full of ourselves and lessons learned in the past are being pushed aside due to our continuance as a people. We have forgotten who we really are and have placed ourselves on selfish pedestals. Fire and Brimstone may just be how God will right our wrongs once again. And we will all wish for a return of God in the form of Jesus and his forgiveness.

Jesus claimed that himself. And being that he is God that would be the case.

“I’m not going to refer to these other texts.” Because they bury your argument 😂 Brother, do you genuinely believe this argument or are you just making it? Do you believe in God? The deity of Christ? Would you agree that John’s Gospel is not meant to be taken line for line but as a collective? Just to start with the problems you’ve run into: When Jesus refers to Himself as The Son of Man given ETERNAL dominion over all Language, Nation, and People (Daniel 7:13-14) how can you argue the Logos of God, as you appealed to the Greek, is NOT eternal? You’ve already claimed it’s manifestation of flesh IS Jesus, so don’t go back on that. Either you claim the Word of God is separate from God and not eternal, therefore Jesus is created and you run into a whole two millennia of refutation, or you claim the Word is one with God, therefore it has to be eternal which is what the text reads. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Making sense? What is your degree in? Are you familiar with biblical teachings claiming God hides His revelation from the learned and gifts it to babes? The Bible is spiritually encrypted, you can read the words every day but until God blesses you with revelation it will never make sense. Case in point your almost hour long semantical game that fails to address even the most basic of arguments for the deity of Christ. Can you address Hebrews 1? Or give me time stamp, I can’t listen to this for that long and I apologize. I am genuinely here to learn, but your argument screams lack of honesty. I’m sure you’ve been waiting for a comment that addresses your argument, so fire away. I am far less educated than you claim to be.

I fascinating video, Dr. Nemes. I’ve always attended Trinitarian churches my entire life, though over the past several years, I’ve come to realize that I am not a Nicene-Constantinapolitan-type Trinitarian. As you’ve identified, there is no language in the New Testament which describes Jesus and the Father as part of a coequal, consubstantial triad, and lots of language which suggests otherwise. A few questions for you, if you’d be so kind: Is there room for being a non-Nicene-type (subordinationist) Trinitarian, or do you think one must make the leap to full unitarianism? As I cannot affirm Nicene-type Trinitarianism (and am therefore a heretic according to mainstream Christianity), is it wrong to continue to attend a Trinitarian church which would affirm the Nicene creed? Thank you!

Perhaps the IQ statement was meant the opposite way you took it? You are showing intellect by analysing scripture and coming to different conclusions than those who blindly follow what they are told. Personally I don't think a high IQ is required because God can open up scripture to the simple minded if they have a humble heart. You have been humble enough to look deeper and change your mind about what you believed. Keep up the good work.

Hey Dr. Nemes, are you familiar with the argument put forward by scholars Wayne Meeks, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Gitte Buch-Hansen that Jesus is an example of one who has been born from above? The argument goes something like this, in John 3:8 the criteria for one who has been born from above is that when people encounter them they won't know where they come nor where they are going. In John 8:14, 9:29 Jesus confuses people because they don't know where he's from. In John 8:21-22, 13:33, 36, and 14:4-5 Jesus confuses people because they also don't know where he's going. So, in this book Jesus shows signs of being one who was born from above. I thought this might supplement your argument that something important happened at the Jordan when he received the spirit (John 1:30-34). I blogged about this idea here if you want read a fuller explanation. thinkingtheologically342000.wordpress.com/2023/05/19/does-jesus-refer-to-himself-in-john-31-8/ If this idea makes sense do you think it should play a role in how we interpret the theme of misunderstanding in the Gospel of John? Could it be that Jesus constantly misunderstood because he's been born from above and that "comes with the territory" so to speak? Thanks.

Love that comment at the end you made regarding a person's mindset about their eternal destiny. That is such a governing factor when it comes to the discussion of the topic of Jesus's deity. Thanks for the time you're taking to do this. Really appreciate it and the logical exegesis you provide.

Thanks Steven, I have most of your books. I hope you continue to write and post videos, I have learned alot from you.

Good stuff!

Thanks for your video

Thank you so much for this video, Dr Nemes! Is there any social media platform where I can contact you and probably text chat on certain topics regarding the catholic fundamental doctrines and notions? I am a Unitarian and interested in the philosophical framework.

See: Concise Overview of the Critique of Jesus of Nazareth-DCS

Have you considered that it is possible that the one nature of Christ is divine only in so far as he is the Word of God, rather than the very person of God? This would imply that God's Word only receives its authourity from the very person of God and its power from the very Spirit of God which is Wisdom. What is a word without he who speaks it, could it ever be heard? But Christ is always connected to God. What is a word without any wisdom, it is not but sharp blade in hands of child cannot be wielded to any great effect? Even if the child could wield it, it wouldn't be to great effect. Thus was Christ without the Spirit, so what if he could have in theory done miracles without the Spirit, raise dead, create life from clay, those are nothing compared to truly changing a person's heart. Now about the of side of Christ. His same one nature is only human in so far as he is the very image and likeness of God physical and finite form. For what is written of God's creation of man has been read, 'So God created man in his image, in the image of God created He him; ...' but the same could be read as, 'So God created man by his image, by the image of God created He him; ...' Thus it is theorically possible that even if Christ has power of God in and of himself, it would be improper for him use it without permission from God, for he being the Word of God cannot usurp equality with God, as although he is God, but also a faithful servant of God. Kabbalah has a name for such a man, and he is Adam Kadmon. Christ being in flesh means he can die, for only flesh dies, and while the spirit in death moves to either paradise or the grave, the spirit is still very much alive, yet when one died, just be a part him lives, doesn't mean he lives, thus I can say, "The LORD my God died for me, and yet He lives forevermore, amin." The spirit of men is immortal, yet death terrifies even the spirit of men, for the spirit wills to be in its body. So what is the difference in the natures spirit of God and that of men? Nothing that make a human being who has the spirit of God any less human, in fact I would argue it would make Christ more human than other humans because to be human is to be a living image of God Himself, yet we are barely human, we fall short of His Glory, even of the gloy which by nature we ought to have, yet we failed for we sought to become gods without having the Wissdom of God, how foolish are we?

i pray the Lord brings you to the truth and grants you repentance so that you start worshiping the correct God. PRAISE THE ONE AND ONLY TRIUNE GOD. PRAISE THE FATHER PRAISE THE SON AND PRAISE THE HOLY SPIRIT. Peace be with you🙏🏽

Just think about all them that write pages and pages of inane ramblings trying to make it not so because they havw no spiritual insight. Imagine that

Nice vid! I wonder if the instance of Irenaeus' use of "bishop" and "presbyter" in the same sentence might indicate two different roles for the same person, maybe something to the effect of presbyter = pastoral duties, bishop = administrative duties. Similar to how you'd call Joel and Ethan Coen the "screenwriters and directors of Fargo", as both persons fill both roles.

This is hilarious. Adults taking ritual cannibalism and vampirism incredibly seriously and writing pages and pages of inane ramblings trying to make it coherent. I’m looking forward to your video on the true nature of horcruxes.

The people that knew the guys that new the guy thought differently to you. You believe guys that arrived on the scene 1500 years late......

Catholicism vs Relativism 🤓

EUCHARIST isi ANTILAW Deuteronomy 12:23-25 ASV Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh. [24] Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water. [25] Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah. Perverting the pass over to EUCHARIST is antilaw

My review of your book is supposed to be coming out before the end of the year. It didn't make it into the last issue because there was already a review of one of your other books.

St Augustine: “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” St John Chrysostom: “It is not the man who is responsible for the offerings as they become Christ’s Body and Blood; it is Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The standing figure belongs to the priest who speaks these words. The power and the grace belong to God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says. And these words transform the offerings.” St Cyril of Jerusalem: “Since Christ Himself has said, ‘This is My Body,’ who shall dare to doubt that it is His Body?”

Jesus reply to his murmuring disciples in v62 is clear evidence to me that they did not have eating Jesus flesh on their mind. It is clear from Jesus who read their minds that it was him coming down from heaven that concerned them. This being the case it is impossible for Jesus to have meant we literally eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood.

I think the idea is that Jesus' body died but Christ is spirit and so survived.

Roman Catholics are misunderstanding Matthew 16:18. The confession that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" is the only foundational truth that Christ builds His church on. Peter’s confession is the rock. And therefore each member of the congregation must begin their own personal transformation journey (born again) with their own personal confession of faith that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.

The discussion on Genesis 9:20-27 is fascinating. 🤔 Just combed through the index of "Crucifixion of the Warrior God" because I didn't remember Gregory Boyd addressing that in his chapters on the conquest of Canaan, and it looks like that passage isn't even mentioned. Nice to have something new to think about on this topic!

*12 reasons I believe Jesus is God:* 1. A mere creation cannot have eternally co-existed with God. 2. A mere creation cannot have co-created the world. 3. A mere creation cannot be enough to atone for an infinite crime against holiness. 4. A mere creation cannot contain the principle of life itself inside it. 5. A mere creation cannot destroy the power of death in itself. 6. A mere creation cannot receive praise and devotion from every created thing. 7. A mere creation cannot hold all authority in heaven and earth. 8. A mere creation would have admonitions not to idolize or worship it. 9. A mere creation cannot potentially directly live inside of all human beings. 10. A mere creation would not ever be directly associated with anything divine. 11. A mere creation cannot demand that nothing be loved more than it as it would be commanding idolatry. 12. A mere creation cannot call itself the only absolute way and truth. At the point you are willing to accept all 12 things, it is virtually indistinguishable for me from God anyway, and Jesus is God to you whether you use the term "God" or not. The Father is just an order of rank above Jesus with the same attributes and this corresponds to Trinitarian theology. I believe we can find ample Scriptural evidence to support the above 12 points in both Paul and the rest of Scripture. Also when certain verses began to make me feel unsure of this, I have prayed about this directly to God for many years and received personal confirmation that this is the truth. So the question may well then be asked, "Why isn't it stated more clearly?" That's a good questions and I give a couple of reasons. 1. It is not a doctrine essential to salvation. It is very clear the 12 disciples during Christ's earthly minister did not at all fully realize who he was, and simply had a bare faith that he was a Savior, yet Jesus clearly says they were currently saved with their names written in heaven. 2. Doctrines are not required to be written out in the clearest way possible, but only to be written out in an essentially deducible way. We know the Bible condemns pedophilia without a verse that says "Thou shalt not molest children." 3. It is the "glory of kings to search out a matter" and all doctrine doesn't come by intellectually parsing the words of Scripture, but by direct revelation from God, as Jesus said "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you Peter." In light of this, I invite anyone to continue on their journey with a sincere heart towards God and fervent prayer, and am confident that in the end, if we continue and do not quit with a true humble and teachable heart, the Spirit of God will always eventually get us to true beliefs.

What is death? Could you please define death?

Okay so giving a more full review of the section presented here there are a number of problems we need to address. I am taking as established that Mark puts forward an adoptionist theology. I am also taking as established that the trinity is a later invention. My goal here is not to "refute" your argument, rather it is to point out things you might be over looking, help you strengthen weak arguments, or point out where you are in error. I should also state upfront that those you are responding to seem to be ignorant of "Divine Authority" and how "Divine Authority" works. They fail to recognize both in the Hebrew and the wider near east (and arguably in greek) culture individuals could be and were deputized to speak in the name of and with the full authority of divine entities. Yeshu then would not be Yahweh but would be his agent imbued with the full power and authority of Yahweh. They fundamentally misunderstand what it means to be "Given the name". -"Re-examining the Pre-Christian Jesus” in the Journal of Early Christian History 2022 -On the Confusion of Tongues 146 -On the Migration of Abraham 6 -De Somniis, I, 157 You say "On the one hand Jesus is born". This is by no means a problem as it was not uncommon for divine entities to be ensouled into mortal bodies. This was on the contrary common. The assumption in Mark is that an archangel was ensouled into a mortal frame. The two deaths are the death of the mortal body, and the descent of the divine soul into the realm of the dead (souls were believed to be immortal). The death of a soul did not mean the soul ceased existing, it meant the soul went to the "realm" of the dead. Part of the problem you are having here is you seem to want to make a universal argument when such a thing is not possible. Your argument does work if the assumption is that resurrection bodies are earthly bodies. If however resurrection bodies are more Pauline (divine matter) your argument doesn't work. 12:30 "The Racovian Catechism makes an important argument in this matter. It says that admitting the legitimacy of partitive exegesis implies allowing that one say things like that Christ did not suffer, did not die, and was not raised from the dead, since these things could be truely said of him in virtue of his divine nature, as well as that he was not divine, since this could be true of him in virtue of the human." To reach this conclusion requires anachronstic projection. It assumes that the divine cannot suffer, cannot die, and cannot be raised from the dead. This is contrary to the theology expressly conveyed in Paul. What the Racovian catechism fails to engage with is what exactly it means for divinity to die. This failure is ultimately the source of a non-contradiction being turned into a contradiction. Souls be they human or divine do not cease existing. 19:40 The issue here is that if Christ was a pre-existent divine being who was granted godhood by Yahweh, then yes he can in fact be empowered again. If by becoming mortal he took off his "Divine Authority" he would be required to be empowered a second time. This does in fact appear to be the theology in Mark. He doesn't cease being divine in becoming mortal, but he does cease having "Divine Authority". "If X is already F then one cannot be made F. One cannot be given what one already has." If Christ is Divine he cannot be given divinity. No problem. If Christ is the "Son of Yahweh" and granted "Divine Authority", and if he is ensouled into a human body and that entails giving up "Divine Authority", the human part can be adopted (the divine soul is already adopted) and he can be granted "Divine Authority". Cloth which is already wet cannot be made more wet. True. But cloth which is wet and then dries can be made more wet. The question here is not a loss of divinity but a loss of "Divine Authority". Where your argument seems to fall apart is the assumption that "Divine Authority" and "Divinity" are the same thing in the NT. And also that someone cannot loose a quality and regain that quality later. I do not know if you address these things elsewhere. I ask you to remember that I am someone who agrees with you in principle.

A refutation: nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/07/refutation-of-dr-stephen-nemes.html

Okay wow there's some major errors here not the least of which is the assumption of canon. Going to make a longer post breaking down the problems here but wow. You are making some very serious assumptions that don't hold.

There are a few problems with your argumentation. Apostles are not those who followed Yeshu before his crucifixion, rather they are those who had post crucifixion visions. Error's 1) you seem to be under the impression that the gospels were written prior to 70. Even under the most conservative view however there would have been a 20 year span without the gospels. 2) It is fallacious to argue that because elders in local communities were able to elect a bishop that those bishops did not require confirmation and induction by another bishop. 3) It is fallacious to conflate bishops and priests in first clement. All bishops are priests but there is no reason to assume that all priests are bishops. You cannot just assert all priests were also bishops but you must make that argument (I do think there is an argument here). 4) The eschatological argument doesn't hold. Regardless of when they thought Yeshu would return there would have been a need for a practical minimum structure and approved bishops. Work your way through the hypothetical. You are an apostle and are establishing churches in an area, the gospels are not written yet. You are only going to be at this new church for a few weeks or months before setting off to establish another church. We can assume it existed prior to paul, but even paul acknowledges splintering factions so safeguards would have been in place to prevent this as much as possible simply from a practical perspective. The existences of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church suggests that the structure is early. On a personal note I do not think any bishop can actually trace their lineage back to the early church. That said the structure does go back.

If that’s the case why then does every branch of Christianity with Apostolic foundation have the same model?

Unitarian nonsense

Your Unitarian belief system is predictable to attack the CC, yet even in the Protestant world most would not consider you a Christian.

I think it is very telling you must go to Catholic sources to get an official understanding of the Trinity, The nature of God, The incarnation, Apostolic Succession etc. What is interesting is that that you lack the ability to understand anything can be a reality outside of time and space. When Science itself claims that time and space began to exist.

Here you are just reading to us again. So lets just answer your title. The Second Person of the Trinity, the Divine Logos, was (and is) God from all eternity. In the Incarnation, he entered his creation of space and time as Jesus of Nazareth. While preserving his Divinity whole and intact, he humbled himself by taking on our humanity. This meant creating a human body and also a human soul for himself. The Man Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, and vice versa. The Second Person of the Trinity united his human soul perfectly to his Divine Self. In doing so, he bridged the gulf created by sin between God and man. His Birth or Death occurs only in his creation of time and space. His divinity never changes.

Wrong

This video is proof that there should be a minimum IQ point for being allowed to read the bible, because it appears unitarian heretics don't have enough brain cells. This guy making this video does not understand that there are different kinds of Worship. The worship that is due to a deity e.g. Yawheh is not the same kind of worship that is due to a human king or Judge. Prayers, Offerings, complete devotion etc are things that are given to deities but not humans. Hence there is a distinction between Divine Worship which is due to a deity and ordinary worship which can be given to a human entity. No one ever gets on their knees and prays to David, Moses, Solomon or any other prophet or king to heal them, save them, or receive their spirits when they die etc The fact that this guy read the bible and could not distinguish between both kinds of worship and did not see that Divine Worship is given to Jesus beggars belief. To give divine worship to a mere mortal is to commit Idolatry.

Have you read the ancient historian Eusebius? He records the first 4 popes

Thanks for putting these videos out. I’ve been reading through your Trinity and Incarnation book for the last few months and it’s been great to have these arguments in an audio/video format. Do you plan on doing any lectures on phenomenology like your last channel?

"My church is the one truest true church." - says every church throughout the history of the Church That's cool, whatever guys, I'm just an adopted street orphan, chilling at my Lord's table enjoying some bread. Thanks for the extensive! You make some interesting and valid points.

Roman Catholics are misunderstanding Matthew 16:18. The confession that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" is the only foundational truth that Christ builds His church on. Peter’s confession is the rock. Each believer's personal transformation has to begin with their own personal confession of faith in Christ.

The Trinity is dogma , dennied the Trinity is HERESY.

The Roman Catholic church is NOT the Church established by Christ through His Apostles. That would be the Orthodox Church. Rome is in error, and Protestants even more so. When you are describing early documents as 'catholic', do you mean they are simply universal - from the one Church, or Roman Catholic? I suspect you're intending to use the latter description as your video is addressing Roman Catholicism, but its not clear. You also mentioned Orthodox & Anglican(!) in your intro, so this further muddies the waters. There was no such thing as Roman Catholic in the early Church. Apostolic Succession is first established as a model by Moses - (Numbers 27, Deuteronomy 34) and then by the Lord Himself (Luke 9, etc.). It is also clearly taught by the early Church Fathers, as many others have pointed out. I'm not here to respond to your direct claims against Rome - as I have said I would agree they are in error...but you seem to make a broader claim that Apostolic Succession is neither Biblical or taught by the Fathers & early Church, which would also be an error. I'm glad you end by admitting you could be wrong. Its a brave claim to make, and there is an abundance of material to refute it. Perhaps you'd be better off stating you don't agree with it, and here are my reasons instead?

I'm glad someone is talking about this nonsense. All the people complaining on here probably think the Gospels were written by the appostles.

Lutheran F u c k e r y

Go and learn from either the Orthodox church or the Roman Catholics regarding the Apostolic succession. The Lord Jesus Christ guaranteed that "the gates of Hades will not prevail over the Church." So are you calling Yah the Redeemer a liar?

Dr. Norman McCrummen. I am Catholic because history reveals through Scripture, Tradition, the Fathers and the ecumenical councils that there is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, the Church which Jesus Christ founded, on which the Holy Spirit descended, and which Christ commissioned to be His voice and presence. To ignore the history of Christ’s Church is to bypass her full identity. Like many millions of other Protestants, I was reared as though nothing significant happened in the Church of Jesus Christ between the New Testament era and the Reformation of the sixteenth century - nothing, that is, that was positive and culturally transforming; in other words, fifteen hundred years a virtual blank. But indeed in that blank the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church fought heresy after heresy; early on Gnosticism, later the virile heresy of Arianism, to name but two. It was the Church that defined the full divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ in the councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and Constantinople (A.D. 381) and in a very real sense saved Christianity from the rapidly expanding heresy of Arianism. (Why did we not learn that monumental fact in our youth? Why did it take graduate school and seminary for many of us to discover the immense significance of those councils?) In that blank the Catholic Church compiled the books we call the New Testament and declared them to be the fulfillment of prophecy, the plan of salvation, and God’s authentic Word to the world. In that blank the Catholic Church sent missionaries in every direction preaching and teaching the Gospel, establishing schools, hospitals and orphanages wherever they went. In that blank the Catholic Church preserved the histories and ancient literature of Greece and the Near East primarily through the monks’ tedious copying of fragile manuscripts, and thus saved and revealed the past on which the present is built. In that blank the Catholic Church built the most awe-inspiring churches and cathedrals the world has ever seen (from Hagia Sophia to Saint Peter’s Basilica), all of them engineering feats bordering on the miraculous. With their glorious stained-glass windows (remember Chartres, Notre Dame of Paris, and York cathedrals) they stand as artistic expressions of faith which inspire even the most jaded tourist to wonder at the faith and ingenuity and perseverance of those Catholic Christians who gave their best to the greater glory of God. Lest we forget, there is a phenomenon known as architectural evangelism. It does not replace the preaching of the Gospel or the works of the Gospel, but does majestically attest to the Christian faith of the builders, the faith that points to the Trinity, and expresses in sculpture and stained glass the works of the Trinity. In that blank Catholics painted and sculpted masterpieces which are the treasures of the Church, but treasures which the entire world recognizes as miracles of genius and talent: Giotto, Raphael, Titian, Michelangelo, da Vinci, to name but an obvious few. In that blank Catholic composers wrote the most sublime sacred music Christians had ever heard and which continue, after many centuries, to being forth a profound expression of faith from those who play and sing and listen to those ancient chants and hymns. I am a Catholic because the Church preserved the earliest elements found in Christian worship and continues to present them every day in the liturgy of the Mass. No matter where one is on any Sunday, if a Catholic Church is there, one will find the liturgy by which our spiritual forebears worshipped almost two thousand years ago. As in the primitive church, so the Mass unfolds today, from its gathering in the name of the Triune God, to the confession of sin, the reading of Scripture (Old and New Testament), the exposition of Scripture, the prayers of the people, the consecration of the sacred elements, the serving of Communion, to the closing prayer, blessing and dismissal (the sending out of the people) from which the word “Mass” is derived. In Catholic worship one finds that every Mass proclaims God’s plan for the salvation of humankind. At the center of that gracious plan - which the liturgy clearly reveals - is Jesus the Messiah whose birth, ministry, death and resurrection form the Gospel which no Mass neglects. I am Catholic because I find the repetition of Scripture to be necessary for the nourishment of my mind and soul. I know that in the Mass I will find what my mind and soul need; above all I will receive Jesus, as promised in John’s Gospel. In receiving Him, I am physically and spiritually reminded that in Him I live and move and have my being. I am Catholic because I am repelled by man-centered, preacher-centered, entertainment-centered, comfort-centered, culture-reflecting worship. I go to Mass as a starving man staggers to find food. I seek Jesus, the Bread of Life. I seek the ministry of the Word Written and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. I seek the assurance that my Heavenly Father is waiting to embrace me. I want nothing that is cute or fluffy or shallow or entertaining or theatrical from the man or woman in the pulpit. I am not inspired by watching a team of worship leaders (???) sing and sway on a stage with microphones thrust down their throats. I want engagement with Jesus Christ, not with entertainers. In the Mass I find Him and am found by Him.