Ehrman's Worst Argument Against John's Christology

[@TestifyApologetics]

Use my 82% off promo and get AtlasVPN for $1.99 a month: get.atlasvpn.com/Testify

[@Inari1987]

Another problem with Bart Erhman's interpretation of Mark 2 is if Jesus was simply claiming a Jewish priestly capacity to forgive via the temple, the Jews would have understood this and their objection would have more logically been "He is not a priest, this is not the temple nor is there a sacrifice." But their objection was "Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

[@TestifyApologetics]

Bingo

[@doveseye.4666]

It was Jesus message, all He claimed was the power of the Word which humans wouldn’t eat and they killed Him for saying that the lowly, ugly Word was housing God.

[@augustinian2018]

I’ve wondered if Ehrman might be partially on the right track in noting that in second temple Judaism, forgiveness of sins was found at the temple, the place where God dwells among his people where in the past the glory of the Lord had been seen when YHWH first descended upon the tabernacle and later the first temple. Both Paul and John express Jesus’s incarnation and divinity in temple language. In the case of John, we see it in John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt (ἐσκήνωσεν) among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” For Paul, we see temple theology in many places, but the shortest/clearest verse to point to is Colossians 2:9, “For in [Christ Jesus] the whole fullness of deity dwells (κατοικεῖ) bodily.” The Greek terms in both of these passages were widely used in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible completed before the birth of Jesus but used universally by Greek speakers in the early church. If a second temple Jew were to try to describe what it is for God to become incarnate, temple language about the body would be a major way they’d be likely to describe it, as the temple is the place where God dwells with his people. Revelation is absolutely dripping with temple theology, e.g. Revelation 21:3b,22, “3b Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. … 22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.” There are some excellent books really drawing out the temple themes in the Synoptics and Mark in particular that I can’t really sum up in a KZbin comment. But this seems to be what’s at play in episodes of Mark’s gospel like the transfiguration, where the glory of the Lord is visibly dramatically seen emanating from Jesus himself. It seems Mark has the same temple Christology that Paul and John have. The fact that isn’t immediately clear to us 21st century westerners does speak to the scope and nature of the perspicuity (clarity) of scripture, but it says nothing about there being a low Christology in the Synoptics, unless one is dogmatically committed to the sort of literalistic hermeneutics and biblical hyper-perspicuity Ehrman would have been acquainted with during his days as a fundamentalist.

[@jesusvdelgado5401]

Bart never read Matthew 25 .

[@ash9280]

No wonder, Muslims love to latch onto Bart's "arguments" because his weak arguments support their assumptions.

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

Satans power all lines up in the end I guess. Atheists trying to destroy Christ’s divinity in the Bible for what? What’s their gain? a not to mention you can’t, it’s a fool errand. Bible clearly teaches Jesus is God.

[@blahdolphinjsjsjs3818]

Except for the most essential crucifixion fact

[@hanstwilight3218]

@@blahdolphinjsjsjs3818…. And whats that?

[@MossW268]

@@hanstwilight3218 Islam says Jesus wasn't crucified.

[@hanstwilight3218]

@@MossW268 i am aware… Whats your point?

[@northeastchristianapologet1133]

After studying the synoptic gospels and scrutinizing them so much... can I just say, it is a breath of fresh air to read the Gospel of John.

[@chomskysfavefive]

Probably the greatest storyteller of the ancient world, at the very least.

[@pJ005-k9i]

The people who think that Matthew mark and Luke don’t have the same chrisyology as John, never really read those gospels at all

[@sneakysnake2330]

I know, it’s annoying. They also claim a development in Christology, yet the first chapter of mark suggests that Jesus is God (“Prepare ye the way of the Lord”).

[@temporaryaccount5307]

I debate w Muslims on a daily basis. They ALL say that Paul invented Christianity. I’ve been asking for 2 years to name one thing that Paul said that Jesus and the other apostles didn’t and to no surprise, I can’t get one answer. They haven’t a clue!

[@demanitorres5925]

@@temporaryaccount5307 I'm a believer but I doubt Paul sometimes. One that always sticks to me is when Jesus says call no man father on earth. But Paul called himself father... I understand bloodline fathers but how can I argue the pope is wrong with being called holy father but Paul was a spiritual father? Any answers

[@temporaryaccount5307]

@@demanitorres5925 In Matt 23 Jesus condemns the Pharisees and scribes. The Pharisees wanted to be called “father” in the sense that they gave u the truth instead of God. There’s ur difference. The popes claim to be “vicars of Christ on earth.” Some have even claimed to “change the gospel” if they wanted. When u consider that one commandment is to honor thy mother and father, it otherwise would make no sense to call no man father.

[@pJ005-k9i]

@@demanitorres5925 Jesus was talking about the scribes and pharisees who loved being called these titles, it boosted their pride and Ego. Jesus Tells us that the we should not be like these guys. When Jesus says “call no man your Father”, it’s obviously hyperbolic, he just telling the disciples to not care about these titles and honor, to not let these titles of Honors Get in their heads and make themselves prideful and arrogant like the scribes and the Pharisees. What Jesus basically saying here is, you shouldn’t care about these titles because you are imperfect and these honorary titles may go up to your head like the scribes and pharisees. That’s why Paul could call himself a Father to the Corinthians spiritually, Paul did not contradict Jesus At All

[@deadalivemaniac]

I’m glad you have made a series basically responding to the cruxes of Ehrman’s arguments in “How Jesus Became God.” Keep knocking them down!

[@joshuadunford3171]

I saw you in the comments section of a Paulogia video and you where fire! I have mad respect for you not only listened to him but respond on his own turf rather then straw man in a response video like how a lot of apologist and counter apologist do

[@stutteringdisciple1919]

I mean this is pretty bad but the idea that he thinks scripture contradicts itself by saying Christ sat on two donkeys at the same time has to be one of the worst in my books from ehrman

[@temporaryaccount5307]

I think it’s funny quite honestly

[@deiniolbythynnwr926]

I wonder what he thinks of the song "she'll be riding six white horses when she comes". Are they stacked on top of one another Bart?

[@swiitchy511]

Ole jezus did a lot more than sit on those donkeys, if you catch my drift.

[@samueljennings4809]

Yep. Just try imagining Jesus ride the donkeys like a water ski, one foot on each one.

[@stutteringdisciple1919]

@@swiitchy511 what is wrong with you?

[@solonkazos1379]

We can trust John's Gospel. It seems to be different than the other 3 Gospels, but it was written later. It was also fighting the Gnostic theology which was getting very popular in 95 AD. John brought out the man in Jesus and the man in the resurrection. The Gnostics tried to spiritualise Jesus, so He wasn't really on the cross, we just perceived it that way. So John was always showing Jesus as a real man, God became a man. The man really died, and rose from the dead. John wrote about 40 to 50 years after the other 3 Gospels. Think about how differently we talk about Nixon today compared to 50 years ago. John is trustworthy!

[@arcguardian]

Thanks for providing those examples to show how fickle the argument from silence can be.

[@hop6965]

I personally think this is one of your best videos yet. Keep it going!

[@euanthompson]

Jesus: I have authority to forgive sins. The Jews: He just claimed to be God Ehrman: yesh, but he didn't say "I forgive sins" so he can't be God. Ehrman, are you high?

[@TestifyApologetics]

It's kind of like the Muslim question "where did Jesus specifically say I am God"? Like does everything need to be precisely spelled out?

[@donquixote8462]

​@@TestifyApologetics He does, two times. By using the Divine name. In the Greek when He appears to Peter on the boat He says, fear not it is, Ego eimi, translated literally it's "Fear not, it is I Am." He uses the Divine name to describe Himself. Also when He says "before Abraham was, I Am." Great video by the way!

[@paru-chinbaka5214]

@@donquixote8462 Lord of the Sabbath Matthew 12:8 and Make straight the way for the Lord in Mark 1. The clearest moments for me.

[@entername4133]

@@ramigilneas9274 No they don't, simply because they claim to, doesn't mean they can. Catholics and their antics always amaze me, they somehow tend to be more heretic than Protestants.

[@entername4133]

@@ramigilneas9274 phoof, there goes the judicial systems for the entire world I guess

[@au8363]

Glory To The Triune GOD

[@Trifixion22]

Fantastic video! I look forward to watching more. I will say in Dr Ehrman's defense that I do believe that he has *occasionally* raised some good points, and I give him credit for having some base level of respect for Christianity, as opposed to vitriolic anti-theists like Dawkins or Harris (who give infinitely worse arguments than even Ehrman on his worst day).

[@littledeer1206]

Blessings brother, found you thru God Logic. Keep up the great work for the Kingdom of God! Peace of Christ

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks for the sub!

[@WinterSolstice221]

And this is one of Ehrman's favorite tactics to dismiss the accuracy of the gospels. Frustrating and disappointing to see from someone as well-studied and capable of good scholarship as Ehrman is.

[@TheGoodShepard31]

Keep goin bro you’re killin it and I missed a couple videos so I’m back to binge ❤

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

Barnabas and Paul refusing worship is a bad example. The one about Peter refusing worship (and maybe even the angel refusing it from John in Revelation) is a better example. Paul and Barnabas didnt refuse worship as worship but worship in which they are taken to be Zeus and Hermes which they found so repulsing that they tore their clothes.

[@danamics]

The Gospel according to John was written by anonymous. Why would I believe anything they say? Especially when the things they say are crazy!

[@believewithyourheart5627]

I just gave your channel a shout out! Your work is so valuable 🙌 God bless you.

[@austinapologetics2023]

What's ironic is Ehrman argues against arguments from silence similar to this from Jesus mythicists.

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

The mythicists are nuts.

[@CHE-Undercover]

whats ironic is him wearing those glasses while so horribly misreading the text. lol I guess he just didnt see that context there... and there.... and also there.... and here... and ah screw it, hes blind. He needs to hear amazing grace... unless he is deaf too. lol

[@CHE-Undercover]

@@TheLincolnrailsplitt i think that nuts are myth, and squirrels as well. Totally reasonable position to hold.

[@achristian11]

Excellent video brother

[@lungaskosana7546]

Lol I recall reading somehwere where somebody said "the Moses story cannot be true because he didn't mention the pyramids and the sphinx"😂🤣

[@HistoryNerd808]

He actually said that? It just shows that he doesn't understand history or geography. Midian, where the Bible says he fled from Pharoah after killing an Egyptian who had been beating a Hebrew(Exodus 2:11-15), has been pretty conclusively determined to be on the eastern shores of the Gulf of Aqaba in what's now NW Saudi Arabia. That's not close to Giza which is west of Cairo. In addition, he lived sometime between the 1300s(Jewish tradition is 1391-1271) and the late 1500s(Christian and the secular scholars who think he actually existed. Generally I agree with this, the reign of Thutmoses III makes a lot of sense for Exodus. It's hard to say anything about though that since there just isn't a whole lot or archaeological evidence to work with) BC. This would've meant that he lived during the early New Kingdom of Egypt, when the capital was in today's Luxor with a brief interlude in Amarna between 1346-1332 when Akenhaten ruled, the capital of Egypt was in Luxor(then Thebes/Waset) which is over 340 miles southeast of the Great Pyramid. It's unlikely he would've ever seen them on his way to talk to Pharoah, even if they weren't covered by sand yet. And then after that to get to Goshen, which the Bible says the Israelites were(Exodus 9:26) and most people think is on the Med in northern Egypt, would been a long trip north of Luxor. May've gone through what's now Cairo but I have to think Moses probably would've followed the Nile and not gone off sightseeing over 10 miles off trail into the desert for no reason, in a time without GPS and when the fastest thing for a desert journey was a camel. Then the Red Sea is off to the east between Egypt and S.A, not in the direction of Giza either.

[@Ejaezy]

The difference is, the bible is supposed to be the word of God. It doesn't make sense to say that god is a supreme all powerful being but yet "forgot" to mention things pivotal to the most important belief in the world. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If god is perfect (and likewise his word should be perfect under his inspiration) then you can't use excuses for why non-inspired texts validate the problems with inspired texts. The argument from silence should not be an issue if the bible is inspired from a perfect god.

[@smalltimer4370]

Perfect GOD, imperfect world

[@Ejaezy]

@@smalltimer4370 This explains nothing

[@nelidascott6917]

Please keep doing what you're doing! ❤

[@japexican007]

Bart Ehrman is the worst Woke Atheist says: “Hey man you need to prove that your view is valid to me based on my own criteria and working within an arbitrary frame that I set up that a priori rules out your viewpoint haha can’t do it huh, well looks like I win again”

[@Doubtyadoubts]

Bro I’m literally listening to him now 😂😂

[@vancelandry9369]

It’s an argument from silence, but it’s a pretty good one. Three other testimonies fail to mention it, that’s very telling. John is a much later gospel, written in a time when people were starting to worship Jesus as a god.

[@dw5523]

Bart Ehrman: "Objection your honor! None of the other eye witnesses attributed this statement to Jesus, so it must be stricken from the record!" Testify: "Basis for your objection counselor?" Bart Ehrman: "Because it's DEVASTATING to my case!" Testify: "Overruled." Bart Ehrman: "Good call!!"

[@HatsoffHistory]

I wonder, how does Mr. Manning feel about arguments from silence when he's discussing the dating of the Book of Acts? Teasing aside, I certainly agree that arguments from silence are precarious. Maybe Jesus really did claim to be God incarnate and the synoptic authors just never bothered to mention it. Personally, it seems more plausible to me that John's christology was simply different (not necessarily higher) than the synoptics, which show no signals of Jesus being somehow on equal footing with God the father. But who knows? Mr. Manning likes to find what he believes to be hints in the synoptics, such as when Jesus claims authority to pronounce forgiveness of sins. Supposedly, on Mr. Manning's view, that makes him equal to God somehow. But even if that's a _consequence_ of synoptic theology---I don't think it is, but for the sake of argument let's go with that anyway---even if Mr. Manning is right about that, the question remains: did the synoptic authors ever make that alleged logical connection?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I think Jesus' own audience seemed to make the connection at least according to Mark. Also I wouldn't make that early dating argument anymore. I'm more interested in signs that the Gospel authors were close up to the facts and truthful than when they wrote. You can have an early document riddled with issues. And you can have a reliable account decades later after the events. It just can't be dated beyond the reach of it being based on eyewitness testimony. Also, call me Erik. Mr. Manning is my father.

[@HatsoffHistory]

​@@TestifyApologetics Hey there Erik : ) Thanks for replying! Are you referring to Mark 2:5-10? If so, then yes, I agree with you that Jesus is claiming divine authority to forgive sins. This is one of many clues that Mark viewed Jesus as in some sense divine. I think maybe Erhman believes (along with Nineham, for instance; cf. p93 of his Mark commentary) that Jesus was only pronouncing forgiveness that God had granted rather than granting forgiveness himself. And I'm on your side in disagreeing with that point of view, as ch2vs10 seems to fly in its face. Jesus really was claiming special authority for himself. But surely this doesn't mean Mark had the same christology as John. Just to give another example, there is no hint in Mark (or Matthew or Luke for that matter) of Jesus's _pre-existence_ as we find in Jn 1. And while Mark's Jesus has been endowed with certain divine authority to forgive sins, that doesn't mean he is "fully God". It means only what Jesus said---that he had authority to forgive sins. No more, no less.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Oh, sure. I think the divine claims in the synoptics are more debatable for sure. I think the example in Matthew 21 is pretty strong. One could argue for an adoptionist Christology if all you're going off of is Mark, perhaps. And I think it's not a weird inference to think that if they thought Jesus was God he'd necessarily be pre-existent like we see explicitly in John 8:58, but it's not clearly spelled out. This is why I'm actually advocating that apologists don't shy away from defending the robust historicity of John, which of course is a much more controversial premise, but I think it can be defended. DA Carson, Leon Morris, Craig Blomberg and Lydia McGrew have done admirable jobs at that, and I plan on doing a series on gJohn in the near future.

[@HatsoffHistory]

@@TestifyApologetics Yeah, I have seen some of your videos about John. But I have issues with trying to see eyewitness testimony in its colorful details, as you seem to want to do. Have you ever read some of the apocryphal works? They can be just as colorful in their details sometimes. Also, it's prudent I think to keep in mind that a lot of those "undesigned coincidences" championed by McGrew and company depend on the crucial assumption of independence. And while a lot of scholars do suspect that John is independent of the synoptics, this seems to me a very dicey assumption. But anyway, I digress. Thanks again for the reply!

[@TestifyApologetics]

I think your comparison of the wedding feast in the Acts of Thomas example shows they can be colorful alright, far too colorful and obvious. I welcome that comparison! The contrast can't be more stark. Have you actually read McGrew's book on undesigned coincidences? She specifically addresses the issue of dependence.

[@gerryquinn5578]

I'm not sure how Jesus forgiving sins as the Son of Man proves that he is God. The NT informs us that ALL authority has been given to Jesus . Therefore, as God's messiah , there is no reason to assume that the Almighty Creator God cannot grant this prerogative to his own Messiah. Furthermore, the figure in Daniel, someone like a Son of man is clearly not God who is depicted as the Ancient of days. . The Son of man figure is brought into the presence of the Anncient of days and is given all the p[ower and authority. Thus, the Son of Man is a messianic figure who accomplishes the will of God.This matches the belief of the early Chhristians who viewed Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God.

[@christianlima987]

Daniel 7:13-14 says the son of man will come to the presence of the Ancient of Days(God) and God will give him authority to lead God’s people. Like he did with David. Then the rest of the chapter it says the holy ones (children of Israel) will inherit the kingdom. Christians have a weird way of taking verse out of the context even of the chapter it’s in.

[@willbedford8381]

Are these people actually debating if things in the Bible are true or not?

[@kanabeznazwy6497]

I can't believe in that his mom ever existed because only he says so, Mikey Mouse hasn't confirmed that...

[@stephengray1344]

Arguments from silence are usually false, but Marco Polo not mentioning the Great Wall is a bad example to use. Partly because historians now think that it did not actually exist at the time (earlier forms of the wall had fallen into ruins and the current structures had yet to be build). But partly because the question of whether he went all the way to China or whether he got his information from other travellers does seem to be a subject of serious academic debate, unlike the other examples you used.

[@YouDingo88]

Poor Bart. Perpetually within reach but never gets it.

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

If Jesus existed he was just a good jew who wouldn't even dream of starting a new cult.

[@csmoviles]

💖🙏💖🙏💖

[@Mike65809]

If the hypostatic union is correct, and there is no division between the human nature and divine nature in Christ, then he should have known the time of his return, which he said he didn't know. But Scripture shows us he was indeed God in the flesh, the Logos (Word) made into a man. But "being found in the form of a man" meant he no longer had his miraculous attributes of deity. In fact, Jesus states that his miracles were from the Father, who was in him and he in the Father. That would mean he still had the spiritual identity as the Word of God, but now made a man, doing miracles by the Holy Spirit, the Father dwelling in him. So he was and always is divinity. But he did not have the miraculous attributes of his own deity. This is also how he grew in wisdom.

[@Hhjhfu247]

Can you make in the future video about God's omnipotence? Can God transcend " logic and reason" (favorite atheists words) and make 2+2=5, create square circle or bigger than Infinity objects? That would be interesting As far as remember omnipotence as ability to do literally everything was supported by Descartes but was a minority view.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I focus on historical apologetics I think Inspiring Philosophy has a good video on this

[@MatthewFearnley]

Rest assured that the Lord God's power is without limit. There is not a single square circle or bigger-than-infinity object, in any possible world, that God is not capable of making.

[@MatthewFearnley]

@mysotiras 013 I actually disagree here - I think because a square circle is not a coherent concept, it's simply not meaningful to say that God can create them. But we shouldn't worry, because that doesn't mean it's meaningful to say God cannot create them either.

[@supertigerroadtrip5193]

The problem with the theoretical Conundrum of God making 2+2=5 is that this is illogical, in terms of it disagrees with the fabric of reality. The laws of Logic come from God, this is established, thus, how could got do something that is against the very fabric of our reality that he created. This is totally different than let's say, raising a person from the dead, as even though miraculous and not possible under normal conditions, a person can still be alive or dead. Thus making someone from dead to Alive through a miracle would not violate these laws of logic. The problem with 2+2=5 is that it's simply something that can't be, it's soemthing entirely illogical and just in capable of existence by the very nature of it. God is not confined by his creation, but God does not go against himself, of which logic is from.

[@Nov_Net]

@@supertigerroadtrip5193 well said

[@infinitysend]

Penn and Teller created the Universe in a Big Magic Hat!

[@TestifyApologetics]

Penn and Teller don't exist.

[@infinitysend]

@@TestifyApologetics Los Vegas doesn't exist, either! 🤣

[@bible1st]

So another big problem with Erhman here is that I bet the synoptics mention Jesus forgiving sins. This is basically saying he is God, in iteself because only God can forgive sins. Ok im hearing now , You covered that.

[@simmadownnah8788]

If the "Son of Man" figure was considered to be God in Judaism, how come no one told the Jews this? Why didn't they write about that? Instead, what we find is that he was a human figure (identified as Enoch in 1 Enoch 71:14) who is exalted and made eschatological judge over humanity. So God _gives_ the Son of Man the authority on earth to forgive sins - see Matthew 9:8. If Jesus was God then he wouldn't need to be given the authority. He would have already had it which makes the passage nonsensical if that's what the author was trying to convey.

[@TestifyApologetics]

That this can be disputed is precisely why I'm arguing for the historicity of John 10.30 and 8.58. But you would have to account for the charge of blasphemy in Mark 14.61-62

[@simmadownnah8788]

@@TestifyApologetics While John has obvious higher christological statements, it's still not clear that the author equates Jesus with God. See Jn. 20:17 where Jesus says he hasn't yet ascended to "my God." As for the blasphemy charge in Mark - first of all I don't think the scene is historical. Where exactly was the author supposed to get the transcript of the trial from? No disciples were present. Secondly, claiming to be the Messiah was not blasphemy. So it seems in recreating the scene, the author of Mark (who may have been a gentile) was not familiar with what constituted blasphemy in the Jewish religion and so he made a mistake. Another plausible interpretation is that since Jesus was just a preacher from backwater Galilee, the authorities find it "blasphemous" that he would claim to be given a seat at God's Right Hand. This still doesn't mean he was claiming to be God though as I previously explained - the Son of Man was an exalted human figure. Interestingly, notice how in Matthew 12:31-32 _does not_ consider it blasphemous to speak against the Son of Man, which doesn't make sense if the author equated the SOM with God.

[@TestifyApologetics]

"While John has obvious higher christological statements, it's still not clear that the author equates Jesus with God. See Jn. 20:17 where Jesus says he hasn't yet ascended to "my God."" He says before Abraham was, I am. The reasons skeptics think John is unhistorical is partially due to the claims of high Christology. I don't buy the passage by passage approach in order to mine certain data out regarding what Jesus really said or didn't say. See the rest of my videos on gospel reliability. I don't think we have good reasons to doubt Mark here. As for your passage on blasphemy, Mark 3 just speaks of blasphemy in general. Matthew and Luke mention the Son of Man, but Mark's passage would seem to include the Father and if you hold to Markan priority (which I'm guessing you might) then why are they adding "the Son of Man" to one who could be blasphemed, when blaspemy is something Jews would think would apply to God? Also, he isn't denying that the Son of Man is God. But again, I take a different approach and I agree these points are a bit more debatable. But I'm prepared to argue for the high reliability of John and the Christology contained therein.

[@simmadownnah8788]

@@TestifyApologetics Saying "before Abraham was, I am" is not claiming to be God. It seems to be a claim of pre-existence which aligns with the idea that the Son of Man was a pre-existent being - 1 Enoch 48: 5-6, 62: 7. How do you interpret Mark 10:17-18? It looks like Jesus is denying to be God there.

[@simmadownnah8788]

@mysotiras 013 He's a figure who is _chosen by_ God and is given authority on earth to forgive sins, judge and so forth - Mt. 9:8. He's not God though.

[@UnimatrixOne]

You just hear want you want to hear! That's Not what B.D.E. said!

[@jockbw]

Blessed are the truth-seekers, those who will not fight for what is right, for unto them belong the point of heaven. Opinions: 27B/6 NKIV

[@soccerman1717]

Consider Mark 12 when Jesus poses the question about the Christ being called the son of David, and yet David calls this one Lord. The passage is Messianic, which Jesus is obviously connecting to Himself, and the reference to Messiah being David's Lord clearly points to deity.

[@ndjarnag]

Come on man

[@arulsammymankondar30]

Synoptic Gospels themselves report that all people were puzzled about the identity of Jesus- common people, the religious leaders, the political groups that included Herod, and most importantly the disciples themselves. All the objections and scepticism of the modern scholarship against the divinehood of Jesus is recorded in the synoptic Gospels themselves. Taken along with the Acts, there is sufficient evidence to show that there were a good number of people who were convinced about the deity of Jesus and they were willing to risk their life for their beliefs despite persecution by the Jews first and then the Imperil Rome. John doesn't give a different picture of Jesus. But only a closer picture from a different angle of the same Jesus. Bartman remains a Sunday school kid who has not grown beyond his childish belief about the Jesus' divinity . Such kids think that Jesus' divinity was uncritically accepted by all people except by his enemies. When such a kid loses his faith, everything in the Gospels looks like a cooked up story. Bartman wants to demolish his own childhood faith with a scholar's tools. He forgets Paul's injunction to take solid food.

[@drwalmgc]

Compare Ehrman speaking towards Christian audience, and secular, atheist / agnostic crowd... this guy cannot help, but display his bias by the way he act. He despises you, act lie an authority figure that correct you... while he squirms like a puppy towards unbelievers.

[@SATYADAIVARCHANA]

👍👍👍👍

[@kennylee6499]

What’s his best argument in your opinion?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm not sure what Ehrman's best argument is. Lydia McGrew goes over the best arguments against John's reliability that even come from a few evangelical scholars in her book Eye of the Beholder. I highly recommend it.

[@Trifixion22]

@@TestifyApologetics Well now you've given me another apologetics book to buy!

[@robertabrao7785]

JOHN 8:58 ego eimi means “I am he” not “I AM!” It is said by healed blind man at John 9:9, angel Gabriel at Luke 1:19, apostle Peter at Acts 10:21. It is not a claim to deity or being God. Jesus was simply stating he is first in all things (Colossians 1:15, 17, 18/Revelation 5/Acts 26:23) even before Abraham in the resurrection. Remember the first will be last and the last first. (Luke 13:29, 30)

[@TestifyApologetics]

he's speaking in the context about pre-existence and they picked up rocks to stone him. And it's pretty clear from John 1:1-3 that John thinks he's got. Your intepretation isn't at all straightforward.

[@robertabrao7785]

I’ve read it all before but here’s what I believe, they’ve lied to us! There was a division over who Jesus was when he walked the earth and there still is to this day. (John 7:12, 40-43/John 9:16, 17/John 10:19-21) So, many claim Christ, but why so many denominations in Christ? That goes against God and Christ (1 Corinthians 1:10-15) So, please read and study the scriptures sited until the end. I will explain all “Jesus is God proof texts” Psalm 110:10 states: The LORD/YHWH said to my (King David) Lord (Jesus) sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. Jesus the servant (Acts 3:13, 26) and lamb (John 1:29) of God obeyed God even to death. (Philippians 2:5-11) Jesus is the image of God (Colossians 1:15/2 Corinthians 4:3, 4) as Adam was made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26, 27/Luke 3:38) Jesus being the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) see we took on the first Adams image and likeness (Genesis 5:3/Romans 5:12-21/1 Corinthians 15:20-22) but God has made provisions thru Jesus Christ and we are allowed to be children of God if we believe in the one God sent (John 1:12/2 Corinthians 5:18) Jesus spoke what God told him to speak (John 12:49, 50/Deuteronomy 18:18/Isaiah 51:16) the apostles never taught Jesus was God/YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah neither did Jesus himself (Luke 24:19/Acts 2:22/John 14:10, 11/1 Corinthians 8:5, 6/1 Timothy 2.5/John 17:3/Mark 12:28-34) bottom line is Jesus is our king and the Son of God (Matthew 16:13-17) Zero scriptures say you must believe Jesus is God, but there are scriptures that say you must believe he is the Son of God. (1 John 5:5, 9-13) also Jesus was a Jew, the Jews needed convincing of no longer needing the circumcision to be justified in the eyes of God. (Romans 3, 4/Acts 15/Galatians 2) but there are zero scriptures to convince the Jews of a 3 in 1 God or that Jesus is or was God. Besides Jesus didn’t exist until being placed in the womb of the Virgin Mary (Matthew 1:18-21/Luke 1:35) by the Holy Spirit which comes from heaven (1 Peter 1:12) (formed in the womb Isaiah 49:5) God is Jesus’s God from the womb but not before b/c Jesus didn’t exist yet (Psalm 22:10) and since Jesus didn’t exist until the womb no one was worthy in heaven on earth or under the earth until Jesus (Revelation 5:1-14) Since Jesus is of the Holy Spirit (which comes from heaven 1 Peter 1:12) this is why Jesus can rightly say he is from heaven and not made of the earth (John 8:23) like the first Adam Genesis 2:7 Recall Noah walked the earth before it was destroyed by the flood. Genesis chapters 6-9. So Noah walked the old earth and the New earth after he came out of the ark. Same with Jesus (Micah 5:2 from the old age, some say from eternity past/John 1:10) Jesus walked the old earth before the foundation of the New earth/world which was laid in his blood/made thru Jesus by God. (Isaiah 51:16/2 Corinthians 5:17/Psalm 65:17) This also helps explain the glory Jesus shared with God before the new world John 17:5 these scriptures help show how he shared such glory while walking the old earth. John 1:14/John 2:11/John 11:4 “Jesus is God proof texts” debunked. JOHN 8:58 ego eimi means “I am he” not “I AM!” It is said by healed blind man at John 9:9, angel Gabriel at Luke 1:19, apostle Peter at Acts 10:21. It is not a claim to deity or being God. Jesus was simply stating he is first in all things (Colossians 1:15, 17, 18/Revelation 5/Acts 26:23) even before Abraham in the resurrection. Remember the first will be last and the last first. (Luke 13:29, 30) JOHN 20:28 “My Lord and My God” Jesus revealed God to them/him for God was with Jesus (John 1:18/Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22/2 Corinthians 4:3, 4/Acts 10:38/John 8:29/John 16:32/John 14:19, 20) JOHN 1:1 could be translated “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And what God was/is the Word was/is. So, what is God? God is Spirit (John 4:24) and Jesus was raised in the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18) and we know Jesus is Spirit because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 15:50) also John 1:1 is a prologue , meaning it tells WHAT happened, before it tells HOW it happened. So, at the time of John writing his gospel Jesus has already ascended and is already at the right hand of God. Because he (Jesus) was obedient even to death (Philippians 2:8-11) That is why (Jesus) was/is with God. And while Jesus was on earth God was with him. (See above about JOHN 20:28 note) Then John 1:6 begins the explanation of how it all happened. It is the same with Genesis chapters 1 and 2. And the Tower of Babel if you read the chapter before the story of Babel it tells how they left each with their own language then they tell how it all happened. Genesis chapter 10 and 11. JOHN 1:3 explains these verses (Colossians 1:16/Luke 22:28-30/Revelation 1:5/Revelation 5:9, 10) The new beginning that God created, is laid in Christ blood (Isaiah 51:16/2 Corinthians 5:17/Galatians 6:14, 15) Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8) the apostles were chosen before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) what the apostles were speaking about was the New creation (Hebrews 2:5) All of this is about the beginning, but the beginning of the new creation which is laid in Christ Jesus. JOHN 1:4, 5 explains John 5:19-23, 26/John 8:12/John 11:25/John 14:6/1 Corinthians 15:45 Philippians 2:5-11 explains Jesus who was created perfect in God’s image/form just as Adam was (1 Corinthians 15:45) but lowered himself/humbled himself to resemble our sinful state since we are in Adams image (Genesis 5:3) if Jesus were God and we are to have the same mindset as Jesus then we are to think we are equal with God? Acts 20:28 God is Spirit he did not purchase the church with his own blood, God doesn’t have blood, but the Son of God did. This is a scribal error or scribes trying to influence their own doctrine or ideas (which is well documented) as with 1 Timothy 3:16/Romans 9:5/Titus 2:13/Revelation 1:11 usually KJV Hebrews 1:8/Psalm 45:6 (“your throne is God” which makes sense when Revelation 3:21 is read also King Solomon is said to have sat on Gods throne 1 Chronicles 29:23) Matthew 28:19 (no other scripture says to baptize in any name but Jesus) 1 John 5:7/Jude 5 it was God not Jesus who saved the people from Egypt. It was Jesus who shed his blood and died (Romans 8:34/Colossians 1:20/Revelation 5:9, 10) God cannot die. In fact God left Jesus during his death precisely because the Spirit of God cannot die. Mark 15:34. As for Revelation, the Alpha and Omega he who was, is, and is to come. (Who is to come? Jesus but is not God with him? So both are coming) Revelation 1:8 goes with Revelation 1:4, 5/Revelation 4:8/ (Revelation 4 is all about God and Revelation 5 is about Jesus taking the scroll from God’s hand.) Revelation 11:15-17/Revelation 16:5-7 and the one who is on the throne is God Revelation 7:10. Jesus comes on a white cloud (Revelation 1:7/Revelation 14:14-16 obeys an angel (can’t image God obeying an angel) and Jesus has the white throne judgement (Revelation 20:11-13/John 5:22/Acts 17:30, 31) Revelation 22:12-15 is God speaking Revelation 22:16 is Jesus and the passages are reiterating what Revelation 1:1 is saying. God gave the Revelation to Jesus and Jesus sent his angel to his servant John. Who raised Jesus to life? God raised Jesus in the spirit and in this state he preached to the spirits (1 Peter 3:18-20 rebellious angels from Noah’s day Genesis chapter 6) in prison. Jesus stated he would raise his body (John 2:19) which he did. God raised Jesus’s Spirit and in the Spirit state he was able to raise his body. Just as angels who are Spirits can materialize into flesh (Genesis 6/the two angels that appeared to lot came in the form of men Genesis 19/Hebrews 13:2. And flesh and blood cannot inherit Gods kingdom 1 Corinthians 15:50 As for hell Sheol, hades, Gehenna, and hell have become synonymous and most Bibles now translate them all hell. Hell is a Germanic word meaning to hide or cover over. Which is what we do with dead bodies. But when Jesus spoke of hell and or hell fire he used the word Gehenna. Which is an actual place outside of Jerusalem where they burned trash (hence lake of fire) also in O.T. Times they sacrificed babies there. Jesus spoke in parables (a simple moral or religious lesson that would be FAMILIAR to the listener Matthew 13:34) the garbage dumb outside of Jerusalem would be familiar to the Jews. As a symbol of destruction. If the lake of fire is an eternal place of torment then why is the lake of fire thrown into hell at Revelation 20:14? In those times torment or torturers were used for jailers or a jail sentence (KJV or older Matthew 18:34) the idea of an eternal place of torment for 80 to 100 years of sin is such an unjust and unloving punishment for a just and loving God. It’s just another lie to slander our good, awesome and loving creator. Also why was Jesus in hell after he died? Acts 2:31 it is because “hell” is the grave. I’ll end with these scriptures John 4:22, 24/John 9:39-41/Matthew 22:29

[@robertabrao7785]

Yes, I see God made Jesus God to you as much as God made Moses God to pharaoh (Exodus 7:1)

[@robertabrao7785]

If you believe Hebrews 8:1 is translated correctly then you have two Gods. That verse could have been translated “your throne is God” because Jesus sits with God on his throne (Revelation 3:21)

[@robertabrao7785]

Moses saw Jesus? How is that possible when Moses and God said Jesus the prophet would come from among their brethren? (Deuteronomy 18:15-19) Also in Revelation 5:1-14 says Jesus didn’t exist before he was formed in the womb (Isaiah 49:5) if Jesus existed in heaven why does Revelation 5 says no one in heaven, earth or under the earth was worthy to take the scroll out of the hand of God? Meaning no one in existence. Jesus didn’t exist until he was formed in the womb by the Holy Spirit.

[@smalltimer4370]

The Greek words translated 'I am' are best translated 'I existed' or 'I was' or literally 'I am' That said, and with regard to the context of the discussion, the response to the question as to whether Jesus was greater than their forefather Abraham is perfectly fitting within the common use of the express 'I am', in-that Jesus existed in heaven at the time Abraham was alive.

[@donaldgriffin4039]

Anywhere in Matthew Mark and Luke where it says Jesus is the son of God or I and the father and the father and I says exactly what John says so let's put this in human terms everyone shares the DNA of their father it doesn't matter who you are you do and Jesus's father is God then that means Jesus has God's DNA in him which makes him God the son and all of the New Testament says Jesus is the son of God ❗❗❗

[@gorgulak]

I think that the examples you give to combat the argument for silence aren't appropriate. The examples you give are first person accounts and for whatever reason the author chooses not to mention them. But with John we are supposed to believe that these sayings and stories, which are amazing, had always been told and passed on to people for decades and decades, but no one thought they were important enough to write down when choosing sayings/stories to tell about Jesus. The stories of the gospels get progressively more incredible as you read them chronologically, a distortion that happens to stories I think everyone can understand. Whereas it is very difficult to imagine a scenario where these sayings and stories failed to be written down but were successfully preserved all that time. It seems much more likely that this is just a case of stories being distorted.

[@noelyanes2455]

That’s because the gospels weren’t written for the same audiences. John’s gospel was written upon request in order to refute docetism.

[@gorgulak]

@@noelyanes2455 "upon request"? Who's request? Could you give more information about this? I am sure they were written for different audiences but they are still all telling the story of Jesus. Explaining who he is and writing down the oral or written history. It seems very unlikely that if you were telling a story that is meant to relay who Jesus is you would leave out the amazing stories and sayings that are in Johns gospel, the only gospel that clearly states who Christians now understand him to be.

[@tuttmasterc]

Jesus' whole teaching was to not pedestalise but to look within, he is not to be glorified but to show you the way...within

[@titusmo9919]

you should have more audience.

[@CHE-Undercover]

not directed at Testify, but ehrman has a best argument? lol. I tend to find that a lot of my fellow christians think their arguments are stronger than they are but compared to ehrman they have the best arguments in the world. He talks so much differently in his books than he does his peer reviewed papers, for the obvious reason his arguments are crap. That being said, Christians, its not an excuse to slack just because ehrman sucks at his job. Makes videos, make friends, and make sound arguments; lest the athiests catch up. Dont feel safe because we have all the good arguments.

[@aaronh.8230]

Isn’t the source supposed to be a perfect being, capable of perfect communication? In that context, shouldn’t we expect any perfectly inspired works to be incredibly thorough, clear, and not open to interpretation or misunderstanding? Hmmm…

[@TestifyApologetics]

This argument is so tired. Everything needs to be spelled out for skeptics like you, as if a.) Scripture isn't perspicious. (it is regarding matters of salvation) and b.) God wants us to use our minds and communication is even possible to the point where one cannot distort or twist the meaning of what one said. (Scripture specificallly predicts people will do just that)

[@aaronh.8230]

@@TestifyApologetics - two questions aren’t necessarily an argument. If it is, it’s only tired of receiving poor answers. You don’t know me, so your attempt at othering and labeling me fail. a.) Scripture is not clear regarding nearly every relevant point of doctrine- that’s why there are many hundreds of denominations constantly at odds on various points. b.) How do you know what God wants? It seems like people claiming to know what God wants has historically been one of the largest problems with “Scripture”. There’s always someone claiming to know that God wants something different than the first person says. Neither can demonstrate God wants or ever said anything at all. Neither can demonstrate God actually exists.

[@TestifyApologetics]

There's often an argument behind a question and I meant no offense. But this argument is old. I don't think things are so difficult. Just starting with a.) for now. Scripture is clear regarding how one might be saved. I think the WCF hits the name on the head here: All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. Read Romans 10:9-13 and tell me how difficult that is to understand.

[@aaronh.8230]

@@TestifyApologetics - so, a book says a thing? Why is that compelling? Others will cherry pick different verses or use different books entirely, and disagree with you. Why would I care that people can cherry pick verses out of some book? Why would a certain book or specific verses be considered authoritative on the subject?

[@aaronh.8230]

@mysotiras 013 - How do you know God communicates perfectly? How could anyone know?