Did people in highscool call u David TAINT? Just wondering ❤

Thank you so much, David! This is also one of my favourite scenes/events and I love to go through it like this - step by step, slowly taking it all in. The way it all develops always stirs my emotions ....

Thank you for your great insights into Gaius' convertion. You had a question on why Jesus glances at Matthew and thought I would comment on that. There was that scene where Tamar asks Matthew when he knew when to write and Matthew says Jesus gives him "that look." ( it was the episode where Matthew realized he needs to ask Peter for forgiveness and they were on one of their walk and talks). I believe Jesus was giving Matthew "that look" because He wants Matthew to record this scene. Usually Matthew has his tablet out but guess he recorded this event after the fact.

❤❤❤

Also, Gaius asked for help out of love, on behalf of another, his

A couple thoughts... First, Jesus is surprised when Gaius

Awesome video. Great job. Keep up the great work. God bless you.

He has changed and he believes in Jesus. The Choosen did an amazing job. I loved when he looked so tough and when the Roman's left he was smiling. He is a changed man because he believes in Jesus.

Gaius (or whatever his name is) and his faith are remembered before every communion in the Catholic Church.

Thank you!

This is one of my favorite scenes!💝💞

Thanks David, I truly enjoyed your comments on these scenes with Gaius.❤

Great video, thanks!

Sorry to keep trying to make you explain your beliefs, man, I'm just curious by something you said here. Do you believe in the literal, historical facticity of the events as reported in the Bible to the very word? I won't say "truth of the Bible," because of course you believe in the literal truth of the Bible. The reason I'm curious about this is because to me it seems unimportant for it to retain 100% textual consistency over the course of thousands of years, amid various revisions and translations. I don't understand why inconsistency in minutae would matter at all? That's just the form of presentation. As long as it's substantively consistent in it's content, doesn't seem like a small detail about what happened to Judas Iscariot (in the example you were talking about) between the Book of Mark and the Book of Acts couldn't just be resolved by saying "Well he died, and it was bad, but those books have different purposes, and so along the way someone changed a pretty insignificant detail, without revising the story in any way that affects the point of anything. Like you say, it's not a contradiction. I would actually go further than you do and say a contradiction would only be something to lodge against its credibility if the contradiction was regarding something poinient. I would in fact say that small inconsistencies actually contribute more to the credibility of the text. Zero to negligible consistency errors would indicate Intratextual cross-referencing rather than independent mutual reinforcemnt. A small amount of textual error but with no significant self-contradictions is the best case for authenticity. You don't really need to defend your beliefs to sceptics. You're supposed to trust in God by your faith, not try to prove the truth of the Bible. It says not to test God, right? I don't know the Old Testament verse, but Jesus references it in Matthew when he's tempted in the desert. Don't fall for defending your beliefs against scepticism. If you're right about God, he won't like that. It's also why I don't like the term "agnostic" for athiests who aren't really sure. So what? Of course you don't know. Nobody knows. The argument on the side of the believer is exactly that you're required to believe and have faith, which you can't do if you have knowledge. Faith is doxastic not epistemological. If you do not believe that there is a God, you are an athiest. The Gospel of Judas is from the late second century, and is written in the form of a dialogue with no narrative. There is no canonical text in this form. It was a common at the time for Stoic dramas, but several gnostic traditions adopted the practice for apocrypha. Basically nobody thinks the script is canon apart from mystics and esoteric occultists, maybe some neo-platonists. But does Jesus not say you are all gods, at least seemingly so, in John 10:34, referencing Psalms 82:6? Though I do agree with you about the Gnostic Gospels, they were part of the Christian Mysticism/Magical traditions that ended by the third century. It was pretty much an attempt to merge paganism and polytheism into Christianity early on, but as far as I know it never gained much steam. If you were to accept any of those texts as canon you would defeinitely have huge problems with contradictions in scripture. What's your interpretation of Jn 10:34/(Ps 82:6)? I'm assuming you don't read it as saying "Sure I call myself a god, it says in the scriptures that we're all gods" which is how it looks prima facie. Also, I like your closing argument. Again, Matthew 6, he says don't be a hypocrite, doing stuff for show. Jesus will say he didn't know you when you try to get into the kingdom of heaven. Be humble and assume that you're wrong and any success you have at anything is not your doing but the power of God, you'll be fine. You're very genuine. It's obvious. That's what Jesus is trying to say. Its easy to see. Its just that wer're all kind of stupid and weak and easily distracted. Be genuine, you're going to fail. God will give you his grace if you give grace to others. I'm pretty sure Jesus says that somewhere. I'm paraphrasing. Obviously I'm no biblical scholar, but that's how it reads to me. But also 2 Corinthians 12 puts it into perspective pretty well. It's a good chapter. It almost sounds like something from the Tao Te Tching. Although, I have this childish thing, and I apologize in advance, where it says "This is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weakness" I try not to, but every time I read that in the take-the-Lords-name-vain reading of the sentence. It's just an involuntary reflex of my language faculty, but considering its in the context of a chapter talking about boasting about your weaknesses, I feel less bad than if it were somewhere talking about literally anything else. Again though, I apologise for any disrespect to your religion. This is just blunt honesty.

Full disclosure here: not a Christian. Nevertheless, I like your content. You are very knowledgeable and you seem to have decent grasp of what the Bible actually requires of Christians, according to Jesus' words, which I would think ought to be the main source of normative guidance for someone calling themselves "Christian," right? But you often see people calling themselves Christian, but who live contrary to Jesus' teachings. I think this same thing was going on in the temple in Jesus' own time. Which brings us to Matthew 6. I don't mean to be provocative, I'm geninely curious, and you seem to know what you're talking about. So, humbly I ask you, why did you pray out loud on camera at the beginning of your video? I see Christians praying out in public, over loud speakers, in big groups, rambling on with their prayers a lot of the time. But Jesus says in Matthew 6:5 that you should not make a show of it, but go home and pray in secret, because God already knows what you need. He also specifically says not to "babble like pagans" by which he means keep it short and sweet. So why all the praying as a spectacle? Why not pray silently in secret? I hope that doesn't come across as offensive. I've asked this to several poeple and nobody has ever answered, so I worry that it might seem like i'm being disingenuous. I promise, I'm not.

I AGREE completely! I love The Chosen even if some of their choices would not have been mine but this Thomas/Rhema combo her death and how it made Jesus look will always leave a bad taste mainly because of a lingering impression it can leave one about Christ. I understand they see it differently but I do Completely agree with this breakdown!

It was powerful but season 3 finale was out of this world

Book gave me trust issue not gonna lie

I’m failing to understand why they had to put Rhema’s death scene. It does put a negative on Jesus. For us who know the scripture and are mature in understanding can understand it’s not biblical and definitely if something like that had had happened the situation wouldn’t have been like that. It has made me up set to watch episode 7 and I would completely relate with Thomas’ reaction how he would feel(he did an amazing job) but there was no need to show Rhema dying 😢

Upon this rock is where I build my Church say’s it all period it’s all

Jesus is the Rock 🪨 ❤✝️🙌📖

I agree with the weird contradictory feeling of "good leader?" in this scene. In my mind I do allow a middle ground for Jesus - he doesn't have to know every nuanced detail and he doesn't have to know nothing of the future at all. I got the idea from the acting all season that Jesus had understanding from the Father that Thomas and Ramah would not end up married, but maybe he didn't know that she would die, or if he did know she would die maybe he didn't know it would be that day in that way, etc. Another point you made me think of is how this scene is used to demote quintus and promote Gaius. They would have had to have something else to bring that about. Being out if capernaum so quintus isn't provoked or having Ramah not actually die would mean quintus needed another plotline to get detailed and demoted. Perhaps Jesus didn't have Roman opposition in the montage because God arranged quintus to be out of there and have edict/report-burning sympathetic Gaius in office so Jesus wouldn't have Roman opposition for a little while. Having said all this, I DO wish they had chosen a different plot to get all these accomplished because I find it is taking so much attention from the Biblical content. More than Eden's miscarriage ever did, more than little James or Matthew's family, or any other difficulties the disciples have worked through so far.

My issue is, why didnt Jesus just heal/ressurect ramah, coz of that verse in the bible that says everyone who ask recieves, this wasnt treating Jesus as a slot machine, and Thomas being a diciple means that he really belived Jesus could do it, and this death was pointless, and like you said could have been avoided if Jesus wasnt a bad leader, so it was no reason for Jesus to say no, just like with James, at least they kind of handled that in a more beliveable way, but here it was just unnessecary

I really t] that you did an extremely good job of explaining thereasons why the writing, even though you did not agree with it, was not antibiblical, but again we differ on why the choices made by the writers was good or bad. You point out that The Chosen is not the Bible, but a TV show - and know that Dallas and the writers have said that "since they know how the story ends", to be able to write for the complete story, they had to in one sense write backwards. Though they knew they needed to give lots of background info on principle characters in early episodes, for most they coud work that in "later". As you point out there is not much time between Lazarus resurection and Jesus crucifiction and resurrection and my thought is that they decided to use the "doubting Thomas" image (which I know you do not like) in the resurrection story, and decided to simplify their story line for Thomas - hence invent a character, Ramah, whose death would give Thomas to doubt... but who also"requested he stay with Jesus, no matter what. It is not that he doesn't go to Jesus - even in the early part of e 4, after the presence of Simon-Peter, when he starts to wail again, the person he goes straiht to is Jesus. He has moments with Jesus in the walk to deliver Ramah to her father. Later in Ep 4 and then 5, at several points characters mention that months have passes since Ramah's death. In the first time at Lazarus home, when there was the singing and partying, there were a few shots with Thomas in the background, if not singing, at least he had the beginnings of a smile on his face. Of course that comes and goes but it is with the raising of Lazarus he really breaks and then goes into darkness. But to give my full rational would be as long as your comments below to someone else. LOL. Good night!

David, thank you for your interpretation. Very insightful and well informed by your understanding of scripture (and film making!). I suspect the writers have had the story line for the final episodes mapped out for some time, and were having some difficulty about how to generate the idea that Thomas is so doubtful post-resurrection, and they were searching for a way that they could clearly generate an understanding in the viewer of that why he was so doubtful. I suspect some readers of the gospels may have wondered why Thomas doubted that Christ had been resurrected and the writers wanted to give a plausible explanation.

Actually Yeshua says upon this Rock ( His Heavenly Father ) I will build my assembly , Ekklesia in Greek ). Qahal in Hebrew

In the Bible , on many occasions, God Almighty is the Rock.

Awesome job David I never had the thoughts you had on this scene. You explain things so well. I appreciate all your talks. Thank you very much. God bless you.

The arc didn't seem like the smartest choice, considering Ramah could've been written out by other reasons, like, she falls away from Jesus--(could've used John 6.) Also, it's not like Thomas isn't a doubter. We seen this from the first season onward. We don't need fridging. But the worst part? "Doubting Thomas." The death of Christ was scandalizing for everybody, not just Thomas.

It's such a needless and controversial situation the writers wrote in. All it takes is a few minutes of thinking it over to see the flaws in the concept. If one were to apply the actions of Jesus from The Chosen s4 to a leader figure like Superman or Professor Xavier, one can see how unattractive the storyline reflects on Jesus. If an all-knowing leader led followers to a conflict zone and started a needless riot then fled when it got violent, he'd look pretty dang bad. BUT he'd look worse if he refused to save the life of a devoted follower who trusted him with her life. If this leader 100% could've saved her life and refused to? Oh man, that would be horrible. (Basically we're talking, "medical professional who refuses to help save a person choking to death" culpable) But wait, it gets worse cause then shortly after he raises his best bro from the dead. He's perky and chatting with the best friend and making dopey jokes, at the exact same time that his follower (the groom-to-be of the dead girl) is having an anguished mental breakdown? Why would they write JESUS to do this? It's such bad optics. It's not like this is a show about Superman or Professor X but, if it were, you can bet that fans of the characters would take issue with their actions reflecting poorly on them. It's worse too cause at least Professor X and Superman are, by their nature, imperfect/flawed people where as Jesus is meant to be perfect. So the show has made canonically perfect Jesus look, at the bare minimum, inconsiderate and it's made the fanbase really divided. (Like I've seen fans call people who dislike this plot "Pharisees" and who get hostile, like disliking the writing of The Chosen's version of Jesus is against the REAL Jesus). I can only imagine how bizarre this might look in the eyes of non-Christians who were introduced to Jesus through The Chosen or people who aren't Bible nerds like I am. It's not like I hate the show, in fact it was my favorite show from s1-s3 and I still want to try to be optimistic about the future of the show... but it's sad cause a) the fanbase was a lot nicer before s4e3 cause discussions over the episodes pre-season 4 were all focused on the Biblical elements rather than show-original stuff that overshadows it. b) it's going to be even more emphasized in the next seasons because we have Thomas now a broken man, jaded and hurt, whom Jesus will most likely continue to ignore the pain of since, like you said, he'll probably need to stay jaded until the big Thomas moment is adapted. and c) I don't think we'll ever get another multiseason adaptation of the Gospels and this one is incredibly derailed now. Like you mentioned, it's just the Little James and Eden and Peter's baby plot but done in a much less tactful way. Why do this so close to Holy Week and the Crucifixion? Why do it at all? It's only eating up screentime that could've been put to better use fleshing out Judas or adapting moments from the gospels like the Transfiguration or Zacchaeus, Jesus telling parables (we could've gotten more episodes like the Good Samaritan one where we see real people parallel the stories Jesus told), or the story of Jesus raising the widow's son or the story where Jesus confronts Legion and exorcises the man possessed. Those moments are powerful. It just feels weird to do something like this when it's now a dark lingering cloud over vitally important Biblical moments.

As Simon Peter and Zee were trying to get Jesus out he stopped and turned back. He actually never left.

Man dude! You’re so wonderfully articulate and explain your points so well. Sorry for my excessive comments on the live chat 😅 A part of me wants to defend this scene in every which way I can. But I also understand your points and ultimately, while I think I have a some counter arguments for 3 out of 5 of your points, the remaining 2 are valid criticisms and concerns. With the first point, as audiences we often see the absurdity in how characters can act when making decisions that make us go 🤦🏻‍♀️ At the same time, intense situations often showcase how a person reacts when under fire, and it’s not hard to believe that even a smart man like Thomas can still make a bad choice in moment as intense as this. Also, Ramah made the impulsive choice to stay, when she could’ve left earlier. And yes, it could’ve been easily avoided…but maybe that’s the point? I’m having a hard time putting all my thoughts together here at this moment (I might have to write it all down on paper) but I what I’m trying to get across is aside from the moment being full of tension, I believe it’s also commenting on why some suffering happens. That while it’s easy to put all the blame on God because He has the power to stop it, we have to also consider the choices we make as individuals, both the good and the bad, the wise and unwise. And in hindsight, we can say, “man, why did I do that? I should’ve gone the other way” or “I should’ve said this”, but in the moments we’re not thinking that. Most of the time people go with t their gut. I think you need to be a person who is used to being under pressure to able to think straight. And The Chosen has this balancing act of depicting a Biblical era where such situations may have been more of the norm, and yet the characters still have to embody some of the themes and characteristics we see nowadays, hence why i think the disciples act the way they act some times (a point I know you and The Chosen Slueth have mentioned a few time). But I’m all over the place here. I hope I made some sense. And I’m not going to say more because this comment is already too long. But thank you so much for what you do. God bless you and congratulations to you and your fiancé!

I didn't even realize this until today (over a year and a half later), but during my morning run (from 00:12-01:06) I was running on Gey Ben Hinnom Street, in the middle of the Valley of Hinnom, a.k.a., Gehenna. During the Old Testament times, Gehenna was the valley where the idolatrous Israelites offered child sacrifices to the pagan gods. After the Babylonian Exile, it was turned into a garbage dump where waste would be burned. Since the place was so often associated with evil, waste, and fire, over time the term Gehenna came to be a physical representation of hell in the Jewish mind. In the video, you can very briefly see me run past what appears to be a garden. Once again, I didn't realize it at the time, but that is the location of Akeldama, "the Field of Blood," where Judas Iscariot killed himself after betraying Jesus. What I'm trying to say is: Sometimes you're running through Hell and you don't even know it.

Thanks for the talk. Valuable lessons - we can’t clean ourselves, we have to submit to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. Reminded me of this hymn:Jesus I a sinner; Jesus I a sinner come unto thee for health; cleanse me; cleanse me; and wash away my sin.

My understanding is that when Jesus gave Peter his name, in Greek--Petros, which means stone or piece of rock--He then made a literary or poetic contrast between Himself and Peter, saying 'and upon this petra (now referring to Himself), I shall build my church.' Petra in Greek is an unbreakable rock with a different definition from petros. He was referring to Himself, honoring only Peter's faith by giving Peter the new name of a stone from a rock (or, pebble even). This distinction is important to my understanding of salvation, which is an intimate, personal relationship with Jesus Christ--not a relationship with Peter. If, for the sake of argument, the keys of Heaven were given to Peter, and not to those who stand upon Him as the body of Christ (his church), my salvation would depend on the Catholic church which it did not.

I-AM Dennis Rudi Peter. DeVijs 22...YIS-YA.

My view of the people and the “Main Characters” have totally changed since watching the Chosen

Also, I forgot to mention this in the video, but it is worth mentioning: While the first interpretation of Peter being the Rock is the one held by Catholics, that interpretation isn't simply limited to Catholicism. All 4 interpretations are compatible with Protestantism. The key distinguishing factor for Protestants holding Peter as the rock is that we view the passage as asserting Petrine significance, not Petrine supremacy. Practically all Protestants hold that Peter was significant amongst the apostles, so, assuming the first interpretatuon to be correct, there is no problem with that. However, this is the primary verse cited by Catholics for the establishment of the papacy, and that is what Protestants reject. Hope that clarifies a bit! God bless.

The Gates of Hell Are we to suppose that the only Gates of Hell he speaks about are here in Caesarea Philippi? I have noticed that when Jesus is in different areas... he has a way of bringing up topics that have to do with the area he is in. He uses the world as his chalkboard. Go to where the Gates of Hell are to make a special point about what happened to Simon... who then became Peter. I noticed that it was pointed out this was special scene... but still something was left out that is so obvious it surprises me it is not mentioned. Peter received REVELATION from the FATHER!!! Because Jesus said to him 'FLESH AND BLOOD HAS NOT REVEALED IT TO YOU".... that means that not even Jesus told him. It was God the Father! And without saying... Peter... you received a direct REVELATION from GOD... now knowing that he did indeed... you can now see that when he say he will build his church upon this rock... the rock is this special thing called REVELATION... the gates of Hell... the real gates of Hell with Satan & 1/3 of the hosts of heaven that followed him.. will not prevail against it. Now think about that. If the church is receiving REVELATION... could there ever be false doctrine taught in the church? NO. If there was NO REVELATION... where man is on his own... then could not false doctrine enter into the church... and if false doctrine did enter the church... can you see how the Gates of Hell would prevail against it?

Peter is the rock.

I know that our views are different but - Why do you not take Matthew's words as Jesus saying all the text including "on this rock", and instead take John's version as true. Elsewhere in the bible are there instances of God giving a "nickname" (as you said "Rocky") ? In bible studies I remember 2 main things about names: 1.being told that God gave new names to individuals as they took on new roles in His creation. Abram = Abraham. 2. The reason we get accustomed to reading about Simon Peter from the start of Matthew is that he did not want the reader to mix up Simon the Fisherman and Simon the Zealot, and as the gospe was set down after the death and resurerrection of Jesus, the writter knew about two Simons, and because the change of one Simon's name it was just more clear to say "Simon Peter" or "Simon, also known as Pete" for clarity's sake. BTW If, as you suggested, this does not take place at the place of abominations and "the gattes of hell", by changing Simon Peter's name elsewhere, there is not the context the Chosen suggests of "the church" being built "on this rock" or next to it, ie the "rock that was just mentioned.

What’s the difference between Hades, Hell and Sheol?

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th perspectives don't line up with the following words. Matthew 16:19 NABRE [19] I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” It's clear the Greek is a singular you.