Bart Ehrman Gets It Wrong! Mark Has a High Christology

Рет қаралды 9,212

4 жыл бұрын

Bart Ehrman says that Mark has a much lower Christology than John does. Since Mark is the first gospel to be written, there’s some obvious legendary development that happened. But is that really true? Here I go over several passages that show that Mark had just as high of a Christology as John.
Helpful links and sources:
Does the Gospel of Mark Present Jesus as God? - Michael J. Kruger www.michaeljkruger.com/does-t...
18 Passages From Mark’s Gospel That Prove That Mark Had a High Christology isjesusalive.com/18-passages-...
Bart Ehrman Stumbles Upon the Deity of Christ - Brant Pitre asks Erhman about the deity of Christ in Mark • Bart Ehrman Stumbles O...
The Case for Jesus (book) - Brant Pitre amzn.to/2u0mGsB
Patreon:
/ isjesusalive
Visit my Teespring Store: teespring.com/stores/is-jesus...

Пікірлер: 179

@Michael-bk5nz 3 жыл бұрын

The more I read of Bart Ehrman, the harder it gets to regard him as an honest man, it is not just that he is wrong, but that he should know that he is wrong, he apparently just figures that the people who read his books are never going to read anything else on the subject so he doesn't need to acknowledge the response to his arguments except in a straw man way

@carmelinemascarenhas2327 2 жыл бұрын

Really he seems honest to me

@Michael-bk5nz 2 жыл бұрын

@@carmelinemascarenhas2327 Honest! Does an honest man spend 500 pages to make an argument without ever addressing the counterarguments? Thomas Aquinas always chose the strongest arguments of his opponents to respond to, Bart Ehrman either doesn't acknowledge counterarguments exist, or he selectively chooses the weakest arguments offered only by radical fundamentalists without actually interacting with the real experts who oppose his views, and Ehrman can't claim to be ignorant as many of the best counterarguments come from Bruce Metzger, his own PhD advisor. Is Ehrman ignorant of his own advisor's work? Not likely.

@ianb483 2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. And it's not just that Ehrman doesn't deal with counterarguments. It's that it's hard to see how he could have made a number of his arguments in the first place without being purposely dishonest. For instance claiming that Mark is trying to portray Jesus as not foreseeing his death when he does so explicitly and repeatedly earlier in Mark. Or claiming that Jesus' quoting of the opening of Psalm 22 on the cross was meant to show despair and bewilderment when it is pretty obviously Jesus identifying himself as the fulfillment of that passage (including the piercing of hands and feet especially, and the subsequent turning of all nations to God).

@Michael-bk5nz 2 жыл бұрын

@Ian B Ehrman's problem is that he is still reading the Bible as a fundamentalist. He old views were 'fundamentalism is true and it proves Christianity is true' his new views are 'fundamentalism is true and it proves Christianity is false' ...he hasn't changed his views, just re-directed them

@ianb483 2 жыл бұрын

@@Michael-bk5nz I think there's definitely an element of that in Ehrman, but to a greater degree, I think there's simply a disregard for the truth. A fundamentalist interpretation of Mark, for instance, wouldn't claim that it doesn't present Jesus as anticipating his death when it quite explicitly does.

@jansongunn4214 4 жыл бұрын

Absolutely splendid Erik. I cannot understand why these things aren’t glaringly apparent except for someone who won’t see.

@lampkin9287 Ай бұрын

So that you may know them by their fruits. Experts speak as if they’re not aware…of these many truths

@CircusofPython 2 жыл бұрын

I wish Sunday school was like this. Maybe more people would believe if we’d actually learn this beautiful faith.

@ianb483 2 жыл бұрын

John's Christology isn't higher than Mark's, just more explicit. Most likely because the writing of John was prompted in large part by the rise of early heresies that denied the faith precisely regarding the divinity of Christ. Hence John chose to conspicuously highlight times in Jesus' ministry when he made claims to divinity that the other gospels hadn't seen need to mention.

@MichaelTheophilus906 2 ай бұрын

You have a HUGE imagination. John 17.3, John 20.17, Rev 1.5-6, Rev 3.12 and many others.

@HistoryNerd808 12 сағат бұрын

@@MichaelTheophilus906Think you misread him. He was defending Mark, by saying that John was more explicit on saying so because John was dealing with heretics who claimed Jesus wasn't. He was not disputing that John or Mark calls Jesus God.

@MichaelTheophilus906 11 сағат бұрын

@@HistoryNerd808 Jesus NEVER made a claim of divinity.

@HistoryNerd808 11 сағат бұрын

@@MichaelTheophilus906 This is completely wrong. Some verses: ‭John 8:56-58(NKJV‬) "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad. Then the Jews said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM"(Yahweh literally means I am, a reference to when God talked with Moses in Exodus 3:14, and the Jews in verse 59 tried to stone Him, the punishment for blasphemy, because they knew what He was calling Himself God) John 10:30: "I and My Father are one." ‭John 14:7-10 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works." Mark 2:5-7 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Luke also records the previous story in Luke 5:20-21. Jesus would then go on to heal the paralyzed man, terrifying the onlookers by proving He was who He said He was. ‭Mark 14:60-64 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death." In addition, there are the times when the disciples worshipped Him as God(Matthew 14:33 and 28:9) and he didn't rebuke them and the times when He was referred to by his disciples as God(John 20:28, as an example) and He didn't correct them. Jesus clearly called Himself God.

@jojobean20121 3 жыл бұрын

Such an underrated channel!..such amazing work!

@JabberW00kie 2 жыл бұрын

I always got the impression that Mark was intentionally subtle. Rather than spell out who Jesus is for them, he would drop hints that would encourage them to study the Scriptures and confirm it for themselves. Later, having written the last gospel, John was the most upfront about it because (in my opinion) at that point competing factions began to arise and corrupt the original gospel message. John, most likely being the last survivor of the original 12, wanted to ensure that there could be no doubts about who the disciples thought Jesus really was/is. I knew some of the examples in this video already, but some others I didn’t, and this video explains them with much more clarity and depth. Personally, I believe Bart had a huge crisis of faith and now just can’t believe no matter how good the counter arguments.

@lacyb8289 3 жыл бұрын

I really hope your channel blows up, you do a great job with these videos. Ive watched most of them and look forward to more.

@sanjivdungdung 3 жыл бұрын

You can break Erhman's castle with superb use of old testament background to understanding New testament Diety of Christ .

@micahpond6895 2 жыл бұрын

The fact that jesus calls himself the bridegroom of Israel is another devinity claim in all the gospels. Only God is the devine bridegroom.

@Akhil_Chilukapati 2 жыл бұрын

Well said brother , Thank you so much ! I expect the same videos for Mattew and Luke .

@AnHebrewChild 6 ай бұрын

So glad you brought up Mark6:50. Hardly anyone ever does. I've actually thought for years that Mark's Christology is even greater than John's gospel. GREAT VIDEO

@juradoalejandro5261 3 жыл бұрын

Great video man!

@DanielApologetics 4 жыл бұрын

Super, Erik!

@martinecheverria5968 2 жыл бұрын

This channel deserves 11M subs!

@Occhiodiargento Жыл бұрын

I rememer the first time I went to Simeon Trust Workshop and I got Mark 1:1-14. I was astonish when I encounter the clear teaching of the divinity of Chris in the beginig of this chapter, and many other.

@cerebralfaithvideo Жыл бұрын

In my own video on Mark’s high Christology, I point out that Bart Ehrman’s proposal about Jesus for giving sins, doesn’t make any sense on the part of the reaction of the religious leaders. If pronouncing the forgiveness of sins were a Priestly prerogative, wouldn’t the religious leaders simply have said something like “What? Are you a priest? You’re nothing but a Carpenter and a rabbi. Don’t overstep your ranks.” But instead, they accuse him of blaspheming and claiming to do something only God can do. Surely the religious leaders know how 1st century religion worked. In fact, they knew how it worked better than Bart Ehrman does because they lived there in that time in place. They might have gotten annoyed that Jesus thought that he had a priestly prerogative that he didn’t really have, but they wouldn’t of made the leap to thinking that he was acting as God. Assuming that Ehrman’s hypothesis were true. But when you combine it with the fact that he calls himself, the son of man, in the very same context, as you point out of the video, then this really is a very high Christological passage.

@ryanrevland4333 Жыл бұрын

To say that Jesus never claimed he was god in Mark is to misunderstand the genre of the literature. The author is using the secret identity motif or "messianic secret." Aristotle describes this technique as necessary for any well told story. For instance, Odysseus when he returns to Ithaca as a shipwrecked stranger, secretly spying on his home. Considering students of Greek learned to write by copying Homer, it stands to reason that Mark did so as well, which may account for its many striking parallels with The Odyssey.

@chekitatheanimatedskeptic6314 2 жыл бұрын

An important detail at the beginning: the text of Mark says it is citing Ēsaia (Isaiah), not Malachi (at verse 2, not only afterwards), I should just point out. Anyways I should continue to watch and see your points on the matter.

@jaqhopkins6467 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you! God bless !

@phantom96aggie00 12 күн бұрын

I argue against most scholars... I argue that Matthew was written BEFORE Mark. Mark was written mid 60s.... so was Luke... but Matthew is mid 50s.

@martinecheverria5968 2 жыл бұрын

Hey can you make a video about the date of the book of Daniel? :) Please

@TestifyApologetics 2 жыл бұрын

I plan too. Michael Heiser I believe has some good stuff on the topic

@way2tehdawn Жыл бұрын

The biggest flaw with this is not Mark not making it explicit enough for Bart in the text the issue is… There are a collection of Christian texts that are older than the gospels ie the Epistles 😅 and one of those epistles was written to the Philippians which says “… Who though he was in the form of God…” in another epistle to the Colossians it says “… For in him the fullness of deity dwells…” another epistle describes Jesus as “… Our God and saviour Jesus Christ”. So you have this pre-written gospel tradition in the early church that confesses that Jesus of Nazareth was god in the flesh 😅 I mean people believed that before Mark was written and there’s evidence of it I don’t know what you want from us Bart. Is he trying to say that Mark came from a tradition that rejected Christ’s divinity? If that’s the case why did the church compile the anti-divinity gospels with the pro-divinity epistles, that’s a huge problem with this line of argument. This is the same problem with attacking the reliability of the OT as well… Scholar A: The Jewish elders invented most of the scriptures around the time of the Babylonian exile to consolidate their political power in Babylon and Persia. Also Scholar A: The Israelites worshipped YHWH alongside the Canaanite deities. Scholar A: Israelites copied the idea of monotheism from the late 10th dynasty pharaohs. Bro 😑 with all this stuff just pick a lane and stick to it. OR just use the strongest sceptic argument and say “having reviewed the evidence for the claims of Christianity I don’t find them to be persuasive”. The only argument the apologetics community by definition cannot defeat.

@luisrock1105 2 жыл бұрын

Amazing work. Great great video

@nox567 Жыл бұрын

I think even Bart Erhman admits that Mark shows Jesus is seen as Divine in a particular video

@squarecircles4846 2 жыл бұрын

With Mark 10, it is also worth nothing the portions of commandments Jesus quotes (almost all seems to be the man-man relationship ones). The Lord had simply stated that the whole law was to "love the lord with everything and love your neighbour as yourself". Jesus expounded on who your neighbour is in Luke 10:27-37, and through the rich man expounded on what it means to love God with your srength, heart and everything in Mark 10:17. Remember Jesus said you cant love both God and mormon(riches/wealth), you either love one and hate the other. Here we have Jesus pitching himself against mormon for the rich man to choose one.

@caesarius2004 Жыл бұрын

Hi Testify. I have a question. I read Ehrman's book "How Jesus became God" and he made the analogy with Egyptian Pharaohs. A Pharaoh was considered a lower god, a mediator between gods and humankind. He tells, as far as I remember, that the ancient Jews used to interpret "the anointed one" in that way. How would you respond? That personally would keep me from accepting the Christian faith.

@ndjarnag Жыл бұрын

Yes. Exactly. Jesus could be divine. But not the almighty god. I think that’s the point.

@Samura1313 Жыл бұрын

That is not supported by scriptures. John 1:1-14 makes clear that the Word was incarnated as Jesus Christ, and that it is eternal with God, and is God. In John 16:15, Jesus says "All that belongs to the Father is mine", along with many other passages. What you are professing here is a very old heresy called arianism, where the trinity is denied and Jesus is some sort of demi-god. This is the heresy that was discussed in the Council of Nicaea. If you want to know more about christian trinity, I suggest to you the most classical book made on this subject: De Trinitate (The trinity), by St. Augustine.

@andrewdarnley4608 3 жыл бұрын

Why don’t you put this to Ehrman on his blog. He will answer you.

@chekitatheanimatedskeptic6314 2 жыл бұрын

Very good arguments, I agree that Mark indeed presents a high Christology, but it's also noticeable that there is a difference between the revelation of such behind interpretations and clear cut descriptions like it is presented in John's Gospel. If you compare side by side any of the evidences of high Christology you cited on Mark and compare to similar situations of teachings, speaches of Jesus and descriptions you will notice that Mark ones can still have room for different interpretations (as Ehrman believes in some). IF we read MARK as it's own message and not as a part of what people want to fuse with other authors and their possible influences of their time, even if you consider something like "progressive revelation" it is still possible to consider, for instance, Son of Man in Daniel as not being god. I'm not saying that IS the case, but certainly it is possible to conclude about god using a king/prophet/messiah as a proxy to his authority in most of the passages cited as definitive PROOF of Godlyhood. Another important aspect is that regarding oneself as son of god by adoption, by role, or by existence from the beginning of time (counterpart in John), is different, also saying son of god, son of man or "I AM" are clear cut differences in perceptions and descriptions of how Jesus presented himself. From someone who shuts the mouth of demons saying he is the son of god to saying to a crowd "I AM" and being almost stoned to death it's still very different and I think that's the point, although may be too excessive, that Ehrman tries to make. I would say Ehrman is too serious and certain about his position, much in the same way you are about yours. A good interpreter can notice there are possibilities in both sides of the discussion. I agree, though that Mark does have a high Christology, but it is still different from John.

@justanotherbaptistjew5659 2 жыл бұрын

Mark’s Gospel is incredibly short compared to John’s and does not contain nearly as much preaching from Jesus; that, plus Mark’s different emphases, it makes sense that they present different information.

@4jgarner Жыл бұрын

Question. Do you ever feel overshadowed by Payton or Eli?

@TestifyApologetics Жыл бұрын

How do they feel being overshadowed by me is the correct question lol

@4jgarner Жыл бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics indeed it is! They probably don't even mind given that your channel is so good. They know it's fair.

@riru363 4 жыл бұрын

What do you say to the claim that says Mark didn't intend his Gospel to historical but a fictional book, then the Christians historicized it?

@juance2262 3 жыл бұрын

Umm, What are you talking about?

@mauricevanoranje7035 3 жыл бұрын

@@juance2262 they mean the idea that some mythicists put forward that the author of Mark was not writing about a historical figure, that he was intentionally writing "myth", and that later Christians were the ones who, for one reason or another, took it to be about a historical figure, contrary to the intentions of the author as claimed in this theory.

@davidstrelec610 2 жыл бұрын

@@mauricevanoranje7035 There’s no indication that Mark should be taken as a fictional writing but Mark wrote in the very language of historical record

@mauricevanoranje7035 2 жыл бұрын

@@davidstrelec610 I agree with you - I was just providing the context for the original commentor's question.

@Angle98411 2 жыл бұрын

@@mauricevanoranje7035 But Luke 1 and John 21 claim to be writting history,not myth.

@DavidStirneman 2 жыл бұрын

Excellent!

@micahpond6895 2 жыл бұрын

Also, dose Jesus put Him self in the Shema? Mark 12: 28-30, 35-37. After quoting the prayer that we must love the Lord our God with all our heart, He then says should the Messiah also be called Lord, for He is Lord over King David? Its kinda convenient that Jesus said this after quoting the Shema.

@justanotherbaptistjew5659 2 жыл бұрын

That’s a great point! Reminds me of when Paul includes Jesus in the Shema: *”yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.”* - 1 Corinthians 8:6

@merleharris7485 Ай бұрын

Dr. Ehrman' appears to be obfuscating, at least when it comes Mark 2: 1-12 when he argues that "your sins are forgiven" is Jesus using phrasing that was reserved for Jewish priests and not how God would phrase granting forgiveness (it's unintentionally funny to me that Dr. Ehrman of all people is casually informing us of God's preferred form of syntax). Does he mean that this usurping of priestly authority is what upset the Pharisees? The text itself couldn't be more clear that what they were steaming about was that he had apparently usurped what was in God's authority alone to do. Could the implicit divinity claim by Jesus be more clear, especially when he then proceeds to visually heal the lame man to validate what could not be seen, namely, his forgiving of the man's sins? Jesus' implicit claim to be God by saying "your sins are forgiven" was clear to these Pharisees. Their response was, "Who do you think you are, God?" Not, "Who do you think you are, Caiaphas?"

@chrisfieramosca Жыл бұрын

Chapter 2 is a big one for his divinity, Jesus claims to have authority to forgive sins(Mark 2:10) and claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath(Mark 2:28). Each time he refers to himself as the Son of Man it’s a call back to the Son of Man who comes in the clouds of heaven and is worshipped of all (Daniel 7:13-14)

@singchoirsofangels Жыл бұрын

Why don't scholars debate erhman with stronger evidence in the Bible...they always seem afraid to use the word of God to defend Bart's obvious deceptions. It's like they debate agreeing not to fully stand up for the word. It's comcerning

@Aaron.T2005 9 ай бұрын

This debunks a bunch of Shabir Ally's points...

@davidpatton4746 2 жыл бұрын

God help me believe the truth. Only the truth from You LORD. Not from man

@kaymojil7669 13 күн бұрын

This is a keeper

@nelsonnjikelani4844 4 жыл бұрын

Excellent video😀😀👏👏👏👏👌. The New international version (NIV) render it this way. Mark1:1 ..."I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way". 2. "A voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'prepare the way for the Lord, make the path straight for him". My opinion: "I (God) will send my messenger ( John the Baptist) ahead of you ( Jesus Christ), who (John the Baptist) prepare your (Jesus Christ) way". 2. " A voice of one ( John the Baptist) calling in the wilderness, prepare the way for the Lord ( Jesus Christ), make the path straight for him ( Jesus Christ)". I don't know if I am understanding. How is he ( Jesus Christ) God from verses 1&2. Please assist me. I really need to understand.

@dalkeiththomas9352 3 жыл бұрын

Yes you are

@nelsonnjikelani4844 3 жыл бұрын

@@dalkeiththomas9352 OK

@tombfire6281 3 жыл бұрын

Because Mark is quoting from the OT and in the OT it has God’s divine name, YHWH; Yahweh, Yahve, Yehovah & Jehovah, however you want to pronounce it. Then the NT interprets it as two divine persons speaking to each other, the Father and the Son, and the LORD(Jehovah) who comes to his temple is Jesus Christ.

@paulnavarro3822 Жыл бұрын

Which is the GREATER exaltation? A Man who is given God's authority to forgive sins, i.e., to reconcile someone unto God Himself (not unto someone else besides God) OR, a Divine God/Man who exercises his own Divine Prerogatives? I believe this is what Paul speaks about when he declares exaltation: Phil 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and GIVEN him a NAME which is above every NAME: Phil 2:10 That at the NAME of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Phil 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Did God exalt a God/Man OR did He exalt a Man? How can a God/Man be exalted when he supposedly is already a God? How much higher can you get than being a God? Can a Man be exalted? Yes. Which is what God did with His human son, the Man, the Lord Jesus Christ. He was given a "Name/Authority", which is higher than any other "Name/Authority". He is in authority over all of God's Creation, both living in Heaven and living on Earth, and under the Earth, i.e., the dead. But he is not higher in Authority than God; ONLY YHWH Himself is God Almighty; no one else is equal in authority with God, not even His son. Mark is doing backflips to let us know that a Man was being exalted by being given God's authority on Earth. The Pharisees were not accusing Jesus of claiming to be God but of "saying things which only God had authority to say". They did not understand that the Messiah, the Son of God, was prophesied as a Man who would exercise the Power of God's authority over all men. Having that authority did not make Jesus to be God Himself. The Jews never accused him of having said he was God Himself. They "properly" (I'm not siding with them) accused him of claiming to have authority which only God possessed. They failed to understand that the Messiah, the Christ, would be a Man empowered with God's full authority. Jesus received that authority when he was about 30 years of age; it was not innate power. John 1:14 tells us that God's "word" or "authority" was vested in the Man i.e. flesh, Jesus of Nazareth, not at birth but when he was in the Jordan with John the Baptist. I would suppose that if they had been accusing him of claiming to actually be God, then Jesus would have instantly said, "Are you kidding me, no Man can be God!" You will never find a single Scripture where anyone is recorded as saying, "He is claiming to be YHWH God Himself, in the flesh", or some such nonsensical statement. Such a pronouncement would have been considered by all sane men as having come out from the mouth of an idiotic or insane man, subject to strict censure. Again, the Man Jesus of Nazareth NEVER said he was God Himself nor did he claim to be Divine or a Divine and no one ever accused him of having said such nonsense. His favorite description of himself was as "Son of Man" which is equivalent to saying, "Son of Adam". Jesus IDENTIFIED himself simply as a Man and NEVER as a supposed "God/Man". The Title "Son of God" is simply a Title of Majesty, Royalty, the Firstborn, the Heir, which Jesus was and is. It is not a Title designating Divinity. Adam was a "Son of God" and each King of Israel was known as the "Son of God". The so called "blasphemy", which Jesus was constantly being accused of, was his claim to be the Messiah, the Son of God, the Seed of David, the King of Israel, which he was. Those people, the Jews of that Generation, did not believe his claim, despite the fact that Jesus proved himself to be the Promised Messiah, the Son of David, with his many Miracles. Luke 22:67 Art thou the CHRIST? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: Luke 22:68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Luke 22:69 Hereafter shall the SON OF MAN sit on the right hand of the power of God. Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the SON OF GOD? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. Luke 22:71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for WE OURSELVES HAVE HEARD OF HIS OWN MOUTH. When Jesus asked his own disciples about his identity, not a single one ever made the claim that he was YHWH God. What is it that we must confess in order to be saved? Mark 8:29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art THE CHRIST. Mark 8:30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the SON OF MAN must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is THE CHRIST, the SON OF GODS; and that believing ye might have life through his name. People say, "Thomas called Jesus 'God', therefore Jesus IS YHWH God Almighty, the 'I AM', the 'Alpha and the Omega', etc., etc., etc., case closed." Wow, if only it were that easy getting all that information from one single, spur of the moment, exclamation. People forget that the Messiah was prophesied to be a Governor, a Ruler, a Judge, otherwise known as a "god". Jesus was and is a "god" in that sense of the word. (anyone who has ever been in front of a Judge has been in front of a "god", someone who determines your fate) He is our JUDGE!! Thomas recognized him as such. If Thomas had seen him as God Almighty then he would have said, "My God, and my LORD", in other words, "My Elohim, and my YHWH", and everyone in the room would have prostrated themselves to the floor in fear and trembling at being in the presence of the Almighty God Himself. Did that happen? I wonder why it didn't, IF Jesus was actually God. Such lack of respect! They did not because Jesus was not God Almighty, period.

@Aaron.T2005 9 ай бұрын

John 20:28 ???

@paulnavarro3822 9 ай бұрын

@@Aaron.T2005 - That verse does not stand alone. It must be read in CONTEXT. Thomas previously had wanted Jesus to "show us the Father". Jesus said, "He that has seen me has seen the Father." Thomas didn't get it! He did not yet understand that whatever Jesus DID was ONE with the will and CHARACTER of God. Jesus, as the Christ/Messiah, Yahweh God's ANOINTED Man, was of the same CHARACTER as God. Thomas wanted to know what "the Father" was LIKE. Jesus was simply telling Thomas that he, Jesus, was LIKE the Father in CHARACTER and therefore in PURPOSE. No Israelite humself would ever CLAIM to be Yahweh God nor would any Istaelite ever CLAIM that a Man was Yahweh God. That type of teaching would have been an ABOMINATION, including for Jesus. John himself, the one whom Jesus loved, NEVER, in his entire book, proclaims Jesus as God, PERIOD! He always depicts him as a Man who was ANOINTED by God. John wrote his books for a PURPOSE: "But these are WRITTEN, that you might believe that Jesus IS THE CHRIST, the SON of God..." Why didn't John say, "written so that you may believe that Jesus IS GOD, or Jesus IS A GOD/MAN, or Jesus IS GOD THE SON, or Jesus IS GOD INCARNATE, or any other such Language. Why? Simply because that TYPE of teaching or thinking would have been LUDICROUS. Only greatly Superstitious men, like the 4th and 5th Century Grec-Roman Catholics, who had always believed that "the Gods" could TRANSFORM themselves into Creatures, see first chapter of Romans, would ever come up with the INSANE idea that Jesus of Nazareth was a God/Man. For Centuries know, these men have STILL been trying to EXPLAIN their so called "trinity doctrine". Why? Because it is BOGUS, it is like a fungus which just keeps on growing.

@jacobfavret1729 11 күн бұрын

Mark was a Jew who recorded Jesus as The Son of Man forgiving sins. Regardless of what Mark believed, his testimony is clear, Jesus is Creator and Ruler of Life.

@XYGamingRemedyG Жыл бұрын

GOD is so wildly powerful that HE can, of course, be an eternal everywhere GOD, a Spirit divided among mortals, and a perfect sinless human man who gave HIS life on a cross to pay for the sins of mankind to put our salvation on Easy Mode.

@mikaelium192 Жыл бұрын

In some way Mark has a higher Christology than John. In Mark 5, Jesus goes and heals the daughter of Jarius by his own authority. However in John 11, before Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, he first prays to the Father.

@TestifyApologetics Жыл бұрын

Doesn't he heal the nobleman's son or the paralytic on his own authority in John? Or turn water into wine? Idk if I buy this

@KaiGallagher7 2 ай бұрын

Jesus just gives thinks he doesn't petition the father in John 11

@CD-CH-EB Жыл бұрын

How dare you imply Mark was high when he came up with his christology! lol Why do i feel like somewhere someone actually said that but not joking?

@samuelandmarikaadams9837 3 жыл бұрын

Ehhh.... or the simpler more straight forward explanation would be Mark replaced "God" for "His" because he didn't think Jesus was God.... but wanted to show that Jesus is indeed the Messiah and Isaiah predicted the messiah coming through John the Baptist and that's why Mark quoted the verse. Remember the Jewish stripture is strictly no one but Yahweh, there is no Trinity. The messiah was never "God" to Jews. Argument is that indeed Mark believed Jesus was the Messsiah but in the traditional Jewish and now apocalyptic sense but not "God" equal to Yahweh. This is first seen in John. Mark appears to believe that Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism and made to be divine

@dfgfdsfsdfsdfds5349 3 жыл бұрын

in the peshitta new testament yeshua who you call jesus is called maryh or marya most of the time the aramaic phrase for yhvh as shown by the aramaic peshitta its mar and yh and phrases that end with h sometimes get replaced with a in aramaic so ya the reason the greek translates it as kuros is because it just translates the mar part master and not the yh or ya part

@dfgfdsfsdfsdfds5349 3 жыл бұрын

and in munster dutill and shem tob's hebrew matthew its yhvh and they have similarities to the peshitta and the greek shows evidence of being translated from the peshitta one evidence is the peshitta solving textual variants in the greek and having elements of both the alexandrian manuscripts and the western manuscripts showing where the two manuscript families came from

@dfgfdsfsdfsdfds5349 3 жыл бұрын

the oldest copies of the peshitta are from 70 ad gospels and the oldest complete peshitta new testament are 164 to 154 ad

@gospelfreak5828 2 жыл бұрын

This isn’t more straightforward. It actually seems more ad hoc. Especially considering the Messiah was clearly meant to be God. And the fact that there are even moments in the Old Testament that made Jews struggle as there was what seemed to be a duplicity of God. Michael Heiser had good work on this

@dfgfdsfsdfsdfds5349 2 жыл бұрын

@@gospelfreak5828 yeshua is yhvh

@jamalbaraja6130 Ай бұрын

The earliest sources of the gospels available prove the differences and contradictions in the gospels. Compare them and see. Why do the Jews reject your interpretations ? If he has authority, the One who gave him the authority is the God Only but not Jesus. "GIVEN" by who ? There is nothing as christology.

@donaldjacobson4184 3 жыл бұрын

Bart is a male hysteric with an ax to grind

@timdavis832 Жыл бұрын

Oh Bart. It's to the point one has to conclude that he knows the prejudices of academia and is making a dishonest buck or he is an idiot. His arguments if you wish to call them such are astonishingly bad.

@bamremix8235 3 жыл бұрын

Bart doesn't say that Mark doesn't consider Jesus to be God. What he says is that there's no surety of Jesus having actually called himself 'God' or 'Son of God' like he plainly does in the Gospel Of John.

@ea-tr1jh 3 жыл бұрын

He strongly implies that the Deity of Jesus was made up later Also, the point of this video is to show tht yes, there is "surety" that Mark teaches Jesus was God.

@bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456 3 жыл бұрын

@@ea-tr1jh he's right. Jesus isn't God. Trinity is a later invention. But Jesus having the powers of the one being at God's right hand does come pretty close. So there's no diety or trinity, but divine delegation of divine authority. Jesus isn't God.

@ea-tr1jh 3 жыл бұрын

@@bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456 no.

@Michael-bk5nz 3 жыл бұрын

That's funny, Jehovah's Witnesses, the ancient Arians and many other anti-trinitarian sects most definitely deny that John teaches that Jesus is God....as do many critics such as Dan Brown who claim that the idea that Jesus was God wasn't 'invented' until the Council of Nicea

@bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456 3 жыл бұрын

@@ea-tr1jh how not?

@AmericanShia786 Жыл бұрын

Just after 4 minutes into your video, you said the question of the dirty of Jesus Christ was proven. But, you only gave a possible interpretation of those verses by one who already read John's Gospel and bought into the development of the Trinity doctrine. Other prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures also did miracles. Then there is the problem of Jesus Christ giving the keys to the Kingdom to the Apostles. Did the Apostles suddenly become God-men when whoever's sins were forgive by them? "God is not a man that He should lie ..." No ancient Israelite could worship a human being. The son of God ... was used by Jews in the Second Temple Period for people like Honi the Circle Drawer and others. As for the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus Christ is not doing anything different than angels did. Are angels gods? You know, there were Jewish and Gentiles Christians who didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. They were called Ebionites and other names. Why don't they exist anymore? Because they were persecuted to extinction within the Roman Empire after the Emperor Theodosius the Great declared that one could not be a citizen of the Roman Empire unless they held the Catholic (not Roman Catholic) faith. Ebionites went extinct in the Eastern Empire, but continued East of the Empire until at least 1000 AD / CE. Imagine that ... Ebionites still alive in the time of the Sunni Muslim Caliphate, but they would have been put to death by the Merovingian and Carolingian Kings of the Frankish Empire. The Creed of Athanasius was composed by a Frankish Bishop because the Franks had persecuted Arians of the Gothic Empire in what is now Southern France. That land became part of the Frankish Empire. Arian Christians were forced to confess the Athanasian Creed or be killed as heretics. On Christmas Day 800 AD Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor for converting Pagan Germania to the Catholic (not Roman Catholic faith yet) and the slaughter of the Saxons. I know you wouldn't force Christians or anyone else to believe in the Deity of Christ by force. The reason I bring this up is that the Trinity and Deity of Christ were mandated by the Governments of Europe for over a millenium. Anyone raised on the Ecumenical Creeds can't help but see what the early Ecumenical Councils made dogma in the scriptures now. Your view still might be correct. However, I don't think your view is a given, and that is my point. Yes, some use Bart Ehrman's scholarship out of rebellion. Other's just can't see what Trinitarian (and Modalist) Christians see in the Synoptic Gospels. Many Jews and Muslims and Christians who do not understand the theology of the first 4 Ecumenical Councils still have a high view of Trinitarian Christians. Even the Quran in more than one place states that among the (Jews and) Christians are true believers, giving the example of Christian Monks, who were not given monastics by God, but love God and have their reward. Before the passing of Muhammad, the Constitution or Charter of Medina actually called Jews and Christians "brothers" and allowed them to live peace. Of course, that was not to last as far as the three Jewish tribes in Medina were concerned, and after the passing of Muhammad, the Imperialists ended up taking control of the Caliphate, but the early Caliphate was tolerant toward other monotheistic faiths, though they persecuted minority Muslim sects. I really digressed from your original topic. However, I'm starting this because of the Culture War in the USA and how some faiths who have similar values to conservative Trinitarian Christians get marginalized. I don't just mean law-abiding Muslims either. As I watched your video, I was thinking about Christian Nationalism and how non-Christians, except perhaps Jews, who have conservative values but are treated as "other" because they don't have the exact theology that conservative Trinitarian Christians have. Not just Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, but also Sikhs and Conservative Hindus and others. Of course, I believe conservative Trinitarian Christians have a right to worship and evangelize. For me, that's a given. I'm just looking for a way to get conservative people of faith to work together despite the differences in their respective faiths.

@mistahaych9552 3 жыл бұрын

Think you'v misunderstood . He does say johns christology is higher which without doubt. He says it outright . The main point is that the statements that john has jesus say is explicit and outright claiming to be divine or god . Which are missing in the other 3 . Jesus says nothing remotely like this . What you have shown here is intepretations-explanations , and vague passages that have to be connected to the OT and then intepretated. Where as john does not need any intepretation. The statements are bold , clear and humongous . And they shouldnt be such huge differences to eyewitnesses or apostles for such a humongous claim . A claim for bellief of salvation and more worthy than claiming to be the messiah which he can not stop proclaiming!

@dalkeiththomas9352 3 жыл бұрын

The Hebrew Audience would best be convinced with Old Testament Allusions. The Jews knew what they could search in their scriptures. And this isn't vague either. The "Son of Man" receives the highest form of worship in Daniel. The priest teared his clothes at this claim, evidently they saw something which you're overlooking. If he simply said I'm the resurrection and life, that certainly would not carry as much weight to a 1st century Jew

@dalkeiththomas9352 3 жыл бұрын

Additionally, John's christology can somewhat be viewed as negative(at some points). It's where certain groups like Jehovah Witnesses conclude that Jesus is the first great created being. When discussing scriptures with these persons, the most obvious objection one can raise is to show that Jesus does exactly what YHWH does and that is what Mark shows

@mistahaych9552 3 жыл бұрын

@@dalkeiththomas9352 again you'v missed my point . They are vague and have to be inteprated. Its only john where the exclusive statements come out . Something that is not plausibly likely to what eye witnesses would have missed and not included. This doesnt just happen once with john but quite a few times . And these ststements do not appear in the other 3. By the way johns christology is the highest . Without a doubt . Of course anyone can find something they are looking for . John doesn't mess about and says straight from the beginning - jesus is god . This is not what jesus said nor does john claim jesus said it . So where did he get it from? This was his own view. Something that is not mentioned anywere in the entire gospels. Jesus is never ever called god outright exept for the beginning of john

@ea-tr1jh 3 жыл бұрын

@@dalkeiththomas9352 exactly, it may not be obvious to YOU, a 21st century western layperson, but it would be more so to the 1st century Jew or anyone who is familiar with the Old Testament.

@ea-tr1jh 3 жыл бұрын

@@mistahaych9552 They are not actually vague. They only seem so to you because you are not familiar with the Old Testament. You saying they are vague to you is only revealing your ignorance of the Scriptures.

@chris_the_most_humble Жыл бұрын

I think you error in what you define as "high Christology". It means a clear, unambiguous claim of divinity; i.e. Jesus is God. What you have done here is cite "low Christology" passages, provided good analysis on why they can be inferred or interpreted as supporting that Jesus was God. This does not change low Christology passages into high Christology passages though.

@Anton-fw2wb Жыл бұрын

Second coming of the messiah after king David, not third. Does Lord mean Yahweh, instead of the messiah, in Psalm 103,3? Anyway, king Cyrus was also named messiah, christ in greek. Do you know that the Sea of Galilea is not a sea, but a lake? A great storm in a lake next to the desert? Come on! Do you know that the First century was a hotter period in the mediterranean area? The two "lord" in psalm 110, are deceptive, because Hebrew script does not have uppercase letters. The servant is the people. Question. Why would Yahweh, in His timeless, eternal intelligence take back the Word given to the elected people (never ending Word, logos) , after thousand of years? Is he fickle like a human being? I am not saying that Jesus in itself is fake, but maybe that that particular interpretation of Jesus is wrong. 1 Samuel 15,29.