Jesus is God in the Gospels

🙏 DONATE: inspiringphilo...
Robert Bowman Jr. joins me to respond to a few videos of Dan McClellan on what the New Testament says about the divinity of Jesus. Bowman and I will also discuss his new book, "The Incarnate Christ and His Critics," and demonstrate Jesus is God in the Biblical texts.
Link to the book: www.amazon.com...
Robert Bowman's site: irr.org
Chip Bennett's Videos:
www.tiktok.com...
www.tiktok.com...
Dan's Videos:
• Jesus Doesn’t Claim to...
• Why does Jesus say, “b...
• John 1:1 does not say ...
• No, the Trinity is not...

[@BinDirectory]

as a former unitarian this was a GREAT conversation! Blessed be the kingdom of the father, son, and spirit now and forever unto the ages of ages.

[@snowman4821]

​@@dboulos7 wow. What an ugly thing to say. How about you worry about that log in your eye, friend.

[@therookie3797]

@@dboulos7🤓☝️

[@halfwaydead3087]

​@dboulos7 holy mother of yap😭🙏

[@christopherestrada2474]

Brother, don’t throw common sense out the window. The trinity doesn’t even understand itself. Ground control to major tom!

[@WalkwiththeSpirit]

@@dboulos7 You think God is a psychopath XD

[@bryansphere6359]

I remember listening to Rob Bowman when he was on the the late night apologetics radio program on KKLA. He’s a gentleman, a true scholar, and a friend. God bless him, dearly and greatly!

[@stever7613]

Uh-oh. Now Dan is going to block Robert, too. Nice one, IP.

[@paradisecityX0]

He blocked me without even talking to me

[@0nE3]

Wait how 😭​@@paradisecityX0

[@jacobmayberry1126]

Dan has already engaged with Robert plenty of times long before he became Tik Tok famous.

[@paradisecityX0]

On Twitter. Must have said something exist. Or laughed at the fact that he's a Mormon

[@noahalban6384]

Rob bowman is such a beast. So happy that you had him on. Your objections to Dan were spot on and I’m glad you shined light on his ad hoc arguments honestly!!

[@AnsweringLDS]

The best worldview is going to account for ALL the evidence. The trinity is the best representation of the entirety of scripture

[@oldschool5]

What is the world view that does not require us to believe in a talking snake?

[@ChristIsLordofAll-xb6xv]

@@oldschool5Satan was not a talking snake in the garden

[@AnsweringLDS]

@@oldschool5 it better translates to “the shining one” still this is just a red herring

[@oldschool5]

@@ChristIsLordofAll-xb6xv Is there any historical evidence of a devil inside a snake or a talking snake or are these just things that we choose to believe in?

[@oldschool5]

@@AnsweringLDS It might be a red herring but you can answer the question. Where is the worldview that does not rely on mythology or is the talkin serpent historic. Personally, i dont feel anyone should form a worldview based on mythological stories for obvious reasons. So im trying to see where you are coming from.

[@ryanevans2655]

my biggest issue with Dan’s videos is that he presents his (always very liberal) reading as absolute fact, without so much as nodding at the hundreds of Biblical scholars who disagree. Seems a little dogmatic for me.

[@heyman5525]

Im convinced that Dan has no intention to contend with other scholars. It seems he's only interested in being a Tik Tok theologian and prophet. Most of his video conclude with some social justice warrior implication, so its apparent hes targeting a certain primed and gullible demographic.

[@KeifferJamesM]

Absolutely spot on.

[@haydenstamp5246]

Love these responses to Dan. He sets a lot of Christians off track about beliefs like these and it is good to get knowledgeable people on here to respond to this.

[@Seminarystudent99]

Thanks for this video! Below I have provided a segment from a paper I wrote for one of my classes where I interacted with McClellan’s view. Obviously I won’t have all the footnotes in a KZbin comment. I found McClellan’s arguments to be the best arguments against the Trinity that I had come across at the time. Anyway, after I watched this video I wish I had come across Bowman’s material earlier. Here is my excerpt and thank you IP for your videos! “ … as has already been stated, the divine name manifests God’s glory. Intriguingly, in the gospel of John, Jesus’ first miracle (John 2:1-11) and His High Priestly Prayer (John 17:1-26) likely serve as an inclusio for Jesus’ ministry. In His first miracle, “Jesus … manifested (φανερόω) his glory (δόξα)” (John 2:11) and on the night of the Last Supper He prayed, “And now, Father, glorify (δοξάζω) me in your own presence with the glory (δόξα) that I had with you before the world existed. I have manifested (φανερόω) your name (ὄνομα) to the people whom you gave me out of the world” (John 17:5-6). Thus, the main point of Jesus' ministry was to manifest the glory and name of the Father (cf. Jn 1:18). Notably, “glory” and “name” are used interchangeably by Jesus. They are synonymous. To manifest Jesus’ own glory (John 2:11) is to manifest the Father’s name and glory (John 17:5-6). Furthermore, Jesus reveals that the Father has given to Jesus the Father’s name (John 17:11-12) and that the Father has given glory to Jesus (John 17:22). Moreover, Jesus claims that He shared in the Father’s glory before the world existed (John 17:5). Therefore it must be asked, if Jesus has eternally shared in the Father’s glory, and if “glory” and “name” are synonymous terms, when did the Father give Jesus His name and glory? The Father gave Jesus His name and glory in eternity past. This theological concept highlights that Jesus is the eternal Son who is eternally begotten. The Gospel of John makes a point to demonstrate that Jesus is God’s unique (μονογενής) Son (John 1:14, 18; 3:16,18). In the first-century, parents officially named their baby after it was born (cf. Lk. 1:57-66; 2:21). Furthermore, it is obvious but still important to note that babies resemble their parents. Comparatively, the Father eternally begets the Son and the Son eternally shares in and resembles the Father’s glory. Additionally, the Father eternally gives Jesus His name, because there was never a specific moment when Jesus was “begotten.” There was never a specific time when the Son was not, because He was in the beginning (John 1:1). Unlike a human child, Jesus has no beginning. Therefore, there is no definitive point in time when Jesus could be “named.” Truly, Jesus’ possession of the divine name “is a mark of his special unity with God the Father” (Bird, Jesus among the Gods, 264). An essential aspect of this unique unity is the eternal filial relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Jesus, as God the Son, has eternally shared in the name and glory of the Father. Thus, Jesus’ name, glory, and personhood is eternally begotten by the Father. Suddenly, surprising everyone but Trinitatians, the Nicene Creed proves not to be anachronistic but identical to Johannine theology. Truly, the Gospel of John depicts Jesus as the “one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.” Critics of this position may point back to Philippians 2:9-11. They might comment that Pauline theology contradicts Johannine theology concerning when Jesus received the divine name. Philippians 2:9-11 teaches that Jesus was given His name when He was highly exalted after His death. Thus, according to critical scholars, Jesus was not given His name in eternity past, but at a fixed point in time. Trinitarians have a ready reply. The fact that God bestows on Jesus “the name that is above every name” does not necessarily imply He did not have it prior. In Philippians, the Father’s bestowing of the divine name on Jesus is an annunciatory ceremony. Larry Hurtado has also pointed out that this passage alludes to Isaiah 45:23. He writes, “That Christ has a name ‘above every name’ (v.9) suggests that the divine name itself (Yahweh) is meant … Also, in vv. 10-11 the language of a classic monotheistic passage in the Old Testament (Isa. 45:23) is used to describe the eschatological acknowledgement to be given to Jesus.” God bestows Jesus with the divine name, “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (2:10-11). Thus, Christ’s super exaltation is a cosmic coronation ceremony and it is the first time that the Father publicly announces to the universe that Jesus Christ possesses the name that is above every other name. Additionally, Philillipians 2:6 states that Jesus was “in the form (μορφή) God” and v. 7 states that Jesus “emptied himself, by taking the form (μορφή) of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” If being in the “form” of a servant means that Paul believed Jesus really was a servant, then being in the “form” of God must mean that Paul believed Jesus really was God. Therefore, if Paul believed Jesus was God before His incarnation then Paul must have believed that Jesus also had the name of God, Yahweh, before His incarnation as well. Taking everything into account from this excursus, Ex. 23:21 should not be used to argue that Jesus is merely a principal angel who received the divine name, but rather Ex. 23:21 should be studied with the shining light that emanates from the New Testament. This Angel is not just an angel, this Angel is the Angel of Yahweh, the Son of Man, the Son of God, and the One Lord Jesus Christ. He is Yahweh Almighty. He is the Second Person of the Trinity. He is, to all who believe, what He is to Thomas in the Fourth Gospel, “My Lord and My God!” (John 20:28).

[@MarshallWootton-yw4tz]

Finally got to tune into a stream for once! Very “inspiring” I might say, also Bowman’s book is definitely going to be added to my collection!

[@JustADudeGamer]

This might be a video where I mostly agree with IP. I've been kind of tired of Dan saying these John passages are about a divine messenger.

[@midimusicforever]

When Dan says divine messenger, he actually means God. /s

[@CovocNexus]

People give some people too much credit. Dan is clearly a Mormon polemicist using his proactive attacks of "dogma" as a defense against critique of his own beliefs. Half, if not most of the arguments and standards he uses against the OT/NT can be used on his Morman beliefs, yet he somehow argues that he can rationalize them. Why are people letting him get away with this? If he has a way of accepting it for himself, surely, he should share it with the rest of us so we can critique it or see if it makes more sense than our own. I suspect he is actually projecting, and it's his rationalization that relies on dogma and unfounded beliefs. Also, I hate this assumption by textual critics/atheists that Christians are biased but that they aren't. This simply isn't the case. What would make a person go to school for years, go into debt to pay for this education, and all the time commitment, to study the Bible if they did not have a motivation? Atheists are motivated to disprove Christianity because they believe that it is a threat to their ideal future society, so they look for any attack methods they can find. There is no unbiased agent. Even a more advanced AI will not be unbiased. Christians online are way too accepting of the belief that these people are just curious agents. People like Alex and Dan aren't looking for answers, they are what they always project us as. They see Christians as a roadblock to societal advancement and see it as their duty to stop it.

[@Raadpensionaris]

Except for the fact that Atheists like Alex and me would love to believe in the christian God. You can try to dismiss that as a lie of course

[@CovocNexus]

@@Raadpensionaris I don't know about you, but sure, some may be too steep in a materilism world view to even consider the Christian God. But then the question is by what metrics are you using to find the Christian God falling short? What unfounded presupisitions leads one to thinking materialism is true/varrifiable? (epistomological question) One can be an agnostic, or even an outright atheist, but I think when one goes out of their way to attack a religion, then it betrays their appeals to state that they are honest inquirers. Inquirers that have not ruled out options. Not to mention, when Alex made a video attacking Islam, after Muslims called him and threatened him, he somehow stopped criticizing Islam. Now did he all of a sudden find the arguments of Islam persuasive? Or did he fear for himself and his family, and so decided it was not worth it to talk about this subject. My introduction to him long ago was one of a person that believes it's their duty to call out religious excesses. To show the power of skepticism, the atheistic world view. Yet, when confronted with a religion that needs skepticism the most, he shuts up. While continuing to attack Christianity. Why? Because his motivations are to create a better environment for secular humanism to take hold. Alex is a person that believes in subjective morality, or you can more accurately state that it's the natural conclusion for a world without God. He already stated that even though he knows there is no objective morality, in debates with Christians, he will use moral claims and oughts as a rhetorical device to support his arguments. I believe he, like many others, what's to replace the role Christianity has played in setting our moral standards, with one of secular humanism. So no, I do not believe he is completely open as so many claim. If we Christians are biased, why is it so wrong to state or think that others may be as well?

[@mannyfabin1850]

Great points​@CovocNexus . The atheist Islamic dilemma is always interesting, especially for us UK Christians dealing with a lot (not all) UK atheists who "hide behind " Christians when dealing with Islamists. They have no issue in repeatedly coming after the bible but squirm and fall over themselves in quickly backing off once Islamists target them...and then back to the safety of attacking Christianity.

[@Darksouls184]

What would make them go to school for years? They're interested in the world of the bible and like exploring it! They're also definitely still biased, but I'd say less biased than inerrantists and strict trinitarians. Especially liberal Christian scholars, who want to acknowledge the most likely facts and errors of the bible while still retaining their faith.

[@Raadpensionaris]

@@CovocNexus When he uses moral language in discussions it is often as an internal critique

[@1jasonmurray1]

Great video! Thanks for taking the time to respond to Dans claims. Too many people eat up his “scholarship” but don’t realize his deceptive tactics. Please keep doing more when you have time.

[@JudeOne3Four]

Great video? There is no such thing as trinity in Scripture *at all.* It is a philosophical theory (not a teaching) pushed on the Scriptures by mainly *abusing* the Gospel of John. The Israelites were no trinitarians and neither were Jesus Christ and the Apostles. They worshipped one God >>> The Father! “The *doctrines* of the Logos [i.e., the “Word,” a designation for Christ in John 1] *and the Trinity* received their shape from *Greek Fathers,* who . . . were MUCH influenced, *directly or indirectly,* by the PLATONIC PHILOSOPHY . . . *That errors and corruptions crept into the Church* from *this source* CAN NOT BE DENIED” (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Samuel Macauley Jackson, editor, 1911, Vol. 9, p. 91) Ow yes, the pagans will deny it!!

[@MFPmarcus]

Dan: “The Angel claimed to be God but that doesn’t mean he was claiming to be God tho” bruh 😂😂😂

[@OrthodoxJoker]

Tell you everything you need to know about him

[@terrordude11]

There should be a point at which people get their "scholar" card revoked. Dan is way overdue, likewise with Bart Ehrman.

[@ryanevans2655]

I like William Lane Craig’s Two Bart Theory. Scholar Bart and Pop Bart. Scholar Bart has to carefully caveat and footnote any claim he makes. Podcast Pop Bart can say whatever he thinks, and that allows him to put out his highly contested claims as fact. And I think Dogma Dan is increasingly worse than Pop Bart on this front. (Although I liked him on his appearance with Ruslan KD)

[@terrordude11]

@ryanevans2655 I agree with this assessment, but I haven't seen them on Ruslan at the moment. Is it worth it, or is it another assertion fest?

[@FuddlyDud]

@@ryanevans2655 100% agree on the 2 Bart’s and WLC’s assessment! It’s a shame too since I love academic Bart. :/ I’m also curious, is the Dan video worth engaging in with Ruslan? :)

[@terrordude11]

@davethebrahman9870 To be an honest scholar, one has to look at any text with minimal bias as possible to figure out the meaning of the text. (Easier said than done) If one is going to do dishonest research to further ones own agendas, then one is not a scholar. Clearly, Ehrman has been dishonest in his claims, research, and fits his research to conclusions he has already made based on his presupposed ideas to attempt to deconstruct the biblical position. If one is doing internal criticism of a text, you have to steelman that position to test it, Ehrman doesn't do that and just claims that it's an irreconcilable contradiction/error. Then, when his error/dishonesty is pointed out, he sidesteps the blame.

[@terrordude11]

@davethebrahman9870 his work on "misquoting jesus" is one specific one. He attempted to point out variance to show errors in the biblical narrative. Claimed that these variance make the text unreliable, and it didn't work. When one actually looked at the variance, it didn't affect what was conveyed in the texts, but he portrayed it as such. He released a second version of that book with an addition to preface those points. (Basically, it is a retraction of his position without retracting the work after showing the dishonesty of the position.) You act as though your statement is an absolute with "its all christian prejudice," yet in this comment thread, you see evidence to the contrary, and i pointed out an example. Im not going to go through his entire career to point out all his errors. I'd be an old man by the time I was done. Also, you use the phrase "irrational acceptance of unevidenced claims" but on many of his podcast appearances, he does the same thing. Where he makes claims without evidence is something easy to search for. Its not my responsibility to show you an all encompasing case in the comments section but i hold the position that i stated in my first reply. You seem to want to hold to your claim that "its all christian bias" that people dont accept his claims outright. I don't particularly like him as a person, but like everyone in his field, he can do solid teaching and research. I don't discount that, but you may be ignoring that he has used biased/dishonest methods. To be clear, I have more dislike of Dan than Bart. (Which is what my original comment was more targeted at. So not sure why you're "white knighting" for Bart)

[@spdomingoo]

I came across his video last night and was like nah not about to start debating his followers but was hoping a scholar would address his claims then found this today😂

[@steverino4598]

Just ordered the book looking forward to it

[@ancalagonyt]

"It's really the critical scholars who are treating the Bible as something to be dismantled, piece by piece, broken up into pieces, and rearranged on the table to tell a completely different story." --Rob Bowman Bingo! That is a perfect description of the essence of what critical scholars do.

[@BlackHole-power]

You just crushed the mormon scholar Dan Mcleland and other teachers who say Jesus is not God. Jesus is absolutely GOD!🙌

[@rustyavacado9194]

The fact Jesus is the one coming back..no other saints says a LOT

[@mysotiras21]

Yes, Jesus is God in the Gospels. To deny this, you must either ignore or twist the numerous verses that indicate His divinity. Very tiresome.

[@MontyMontgomery-t7f]

I just love when Dan says "Data" and then provides no data.

[@BenWiggins-v2h]

Great stream, Mike! Keep fighting the good fight!

[@fandude7]

Thanks Michael. Just bought the book for tomorrow delivery.

[@bendecidospr]

What does it even mean to put His name in someone? What exactly is being put “in” Jesus or an angel? Also, the passage Dan cited as proof of the Angel of the LORD having God’s name in Him just mentions an angel. It doesn’t say its THE Angel of the Lord. It also nowhere says people can worship the Angel BECAUSE His name is in Him. Idk where Dan gets this, and I got blocked for asking.

[@Darksouls184]

You could consider reading Dan's book, YHWH's Divine Images, for free if you'd like more info on what he means. He also includes an appendix about its application to Christology.

[@bendecidospr]

@ Considering I talked to him personally, and he didn’t explain, and then blocked me for asking, I don’t think I will be reading his book any time soon. His character has made me distrust his scholarship.

[@Darksouls184]

​@@bendecidospr Can't blame you for not wanting to engage, but if you'd like to know what having the divine image means, then I'd recommend it regardless (or read his citations instead, like Charles Gieschen's "The Divine Name in Ante-Nicene Christology"). If you don't care to know and it was a rhetorical question, that's fine too obv.

[@benclark4823]

@@Darksouls184 “”can’t blame you for not wanting to engage”” LOL. WHAT??? He literally just said that Dan was the one blocking HIM from engaging in the conversation. And YOUR blaming HIM for not engaging with HIM??? In what world is it HIS fault for being banned from engaging with Dan for the “crime” of not excepting his arguments on the basis of not agreeing with him??? Only someone who is insecure about their position would willingly ban those who disagree with it. Sounds like YOUR just trying to defend Dan’s stance on Banning those who disagree with him on the basis that he MUST have a “good” reason to do so and NOT because he is insecure about his position being threatened. Nope is those “bad” apologist who just “don’t get it” that are the problem NOT Dan himself LOL. 😒

[@Darksouls184]

@@benclark4823 This poster said he didn't want to pick up Dan's free book, which nobody is blocking him from doing. You seem to be reading a more aggressive tone into my words that is not meant to be there, and responding in kind.

[@RamadaDiver-w9o]

" doctrine of the trinity was an organic development " Excellent point . Its not something foreign imposed upon it but the natural reault of the new testament And the doctrime of " divine images " is a kater development ( 21rst centuary) that dan is impossing onto the new testament . . Hes useing legos to build his divine image hypothesis . 😉

[@midimusicforever]

Dan McClellan is a deceiver.

[@Bluebaggins]

He actually reveals he is a hired man and not using integrity upon his platform.

[@JudeOne3Four]

No man, 3-nitarians are deceivers. The trinity theory is made up out of >> corrupted verses and translations, Gnostic philosophy, redefining simple words, using unbiblical terms and a whole lot of fantasy. And mostly abusing the Gospel of John. Catholic-ISM is the most OBVIOUS false religion in the world but this Satanic system still lures people into their doom! It's sad. *The evolution of the Trinity:* No responsible NT scholar would claim that *the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus or preached by the earliest Christians or consciously held by any writer of the NT.* It was in fact *slowly worked out in the course of the first few centuries* in an attempt to give an intelligible doctrine of God” (The Image of the Invisible God, SCM Press, 1982, Dr. A. T Hanson, Professor of Theology University of Hull)

[@euancawston1229]

I think if Dan presented the argument of Jesus being the bearer of the divine name and a fulfilment of figures like the angel of the lord, therefore he isn't god, the church fathers would've laughed like you what mate. There were 1st century Jews who believed this name bearing higher being who you should worship and bears the presence of Yahweh was Yahweh. Idk just seems his argument is more support for Jesus divinity then against it

[@truehulk62]

With the amount of intellectual gymnastics that one has to go thru to say Jesus isn't God, it's a wonder these people have energy to spare

[@EmilyTodicescu]

31:24 "...where Moses asks God *their* name..." Since when is God a "they/them", requiring non-binary pronouns?

[@mysotiras21]

In causal speech, "they/them" has become standard, just to avoid the singular pronouns, which indicate gender. Although this probably has nothing to do non-binary much of the time, I find it ungrammatical and annoying. Unless the individual identifies specifically as non-binary, he/she is NOT a "they/them"! BTW, I once worked for a tutoring company, which taught expository writing among other subjects. Caught that company misusing these singular/plural pronouns in the most egregious way. One of its manuals explaining what the company was looking for in employees stated, "Someone is introducing themself." SERIOUSLY??? "Themself" is not even a word in English!

[@Seanain_O_hEarchai]

Maybe He was affirming plurality in the Godhead through a Freudian slip. 😂

[@Bluebaggins]

Genesis 1:26 The first use of a duality. then with the Holy Spirit sprinkled through out the scriptures, we have a trinity. The reason the word itself is not used in scriptures, is basically the writers never thought that people were to be dumbed down so much that they couldnt understand what was written and needed others to help them with comprehension.

[@mysotiras21]

@@Bluebaggins , good points.

[@Bluebaggins]

@@mysotiras21 themself is a british word.. themself (third person, singular reflexive of they) (reflexive pronoun, sometimes proscribed) The reflexive form of they, the third-person singular personal pronoun. The single person previously mentioned, as the object of a verb or following a preposition (also used for emphasis). Someone could hurt themself. Its usage actually peaked in early 1500

[@ancalagonyt]

At 38:00, discussing Dan's unsubstantiated theory, it occurs to me that that's proof-texting without any actual proof-text. And really, if a 3rd person did come along and see that word angel added, and considered it a problem, inventing something wild about the Name of God being in him isn't what he'd be likely to do. He'd just do the easy thing and assume the word "angel" was an error in the text, and take it right back out. Also, this kind of wild speculation without any evidence is something you see in NT scholarship about the synoptic problem all the time.

[@henryschmit3340]

Of course Jesus is God. He is the Creator of the universe, and He has all authority in heaven and earth.

[@teravega]

Dan and a lot of his followers do a lot of twisting and reframing. All in the pursuit of discredit any critic or argument. It's exhausting talking who perform these kinds of mental gymnastics. But the truth speaks for itself.

[@JLCProductions1976]

The problem with John 17:3 (and 1 John 5:20) is that 17:3 specifically begins with a phrase that John ALWAYS uses to distinguish the voice of the narrator from the character. Of all the uses of the phrase, the “explanatory construction” (my term), Johannine literature is the greatest employer of it and employs it consistently to punch out of the narrative to explain or express some type of clarification or identification. The obvious parallel between Jn17:3 and 1Jn5:20, I believe is intentional on the part of the author as the same phrase appears in parallel tracks between the two works, and so is obviously intentional. Another point is that the dependent clause after the conjunction serves more as an adjective that further explains the previous adjectival phrase. Lastly, the 3rd person reference and the odd use of the singular pronoun in contrast to the focus of the previous sentence doesn’t allow the Father to be the antecedent. This is just from my research, which is still ongoing, but trying to break the application just doesn’t seem to work.

[@colecraddock7076]

Love a good IP live stream keep up the good work mike

[@aceswizzo8665]

Dan is the biggest heretic on the internet with Ammon Hillman

[@WeakestAvenger]

Honestly, I can't believe he came with the old "θεός in John 1:1 is anarthrous, so it doesn't mean Jesus is God." As you pointed out, John uses the articular and anarthrous forms of θεός interchangeably. He even clearly refers to God with the anarthrous further down in the same chapter, and then Thomas calls Jesus ό θεός in John 20:28. Plus, there is the whole grammar thing about using the articular nominative to identify the subject of the sentence and using the anarthrous to identify the predicate nominative when you have ειμί plus a predicate nominative.

[@AnHebrewChild]

McClellan is someone who thinks he's a lot more intelligent than he is. I don't say this to make fun of him; it's just an honest observation. It's very clear that Dan thinks he's extremely bright & highly learned, and he does have "letters," but he's clearly one who overestimates his own intellect and underestimates the relative intelligence of others. I think we've all met people like this.

[@ProbeScout]

Personally, I think the best way to translate from the predicate position in John 1:1 is "and the word was divine", but that's me. Do you believe that there is a distinction between "ὁ λόγος" and "τὸν θεόν" in the verse?

[@Muellenbach67]

I have my grandmother getting me this wonderful book! Hopefully it comes soon!

[@Zumbamom]

❤great video - I need to buy the book.

[@ChristIsLordofAll-xb6xv]

Great stream!

[@godsgospelgirl]

I really enjoyed this! Thank you!

[@huibrommers]

Beautiful and needed discussion

[@stmartin17773]

Luke 5v21 “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Luke 5v23 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? Biblehub Commentary: emphasizing that both acts require divine authority.

[@Mopar440HP]

Hi you doin Rob? It’s Luis. Good to see you doin good.

[@JD-ev1uj]

Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life. Profound to say the least.

[@camjames7327]

Can we get an updated Rob Bowman/Greg Stafford debate? 🤣🤣 Can't wait to get this book!

[@godtriunealonematters9207]

EVERY Christian NEEDS to buy the book 100 PROOFS THAT JESUS IS GOD by curt daniel. awesome book! its in audiobook also!

[@adamwarren8689]

Jesus' claim to be "I Am" in and of itself refutes dan, because it claims eternal being. If the name was merely bestowed onto him, he wouldn't have known Abraham

[@Nosfera22]

I can't believe I used to watch Dan's stuff

[@angeliquaserenity5009]

Thank you, IP, thank you, Rob ❤😊

[@Tony-dp1rl]

Not sure how you could read just these few verses of the New Testament and still argue against the people who actually knew Jesus believing him to be God. John 1: 1 John 20: 28 Titus 2: 13 Romans 9: 5 Hebrews 1: 8 2 Peter 1: 1 Colossians 2: 9 Philippians 2: 6 Matthew 1: 23 John 10: 30 Revelation 22: 13

[@vladsk113]

Amazing, thank you for your work

[@rebukeandreprove.]

Good stuff...easter is rapidly approaching. I can determine so without the use of a calender. 😂

[@stephenbailey9969]

Genesis one: God brings the created realm into existence through Word and Breath (Spirit). John one: at the appointed time, the divine Word through whom all things have been created is made flesh, and we have seen his glory, that of a beloved Son sent from a Father.

[@dieskim675]

What a showdown of a sheer avalanche of knowledge obliterating B.S. I'm a huge fan of Rob's!

[@ryanevans2655]

1:19:14 don’t all these hyper-critical scholars date half the NT to the 2nd century? If they’re right on that (they’re probably not), they’re probably wrong on no period of overlap between the development of the Trinity and NT writings

[@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness]

This is a very good point

[@kensmith8152]

Just the mere fact that Jesus received worship throughout his ministry without rebuking the people doing it should tell you something! John 20:28 Thomas comes right out and says: My Lord and my God! And Jesus said: blessed are those who believe and not seen! In Daniel, Revelation the prophet and the apostle are told by the attending angel not to worship them. And in the book of Acts, when Paul and barnabas are being worship, they tell the people not to! Romans 9:5 Paul comes right out and says that Jesus is God!

[@shanetlogan]

I'd love to read this book if I had time.

[@NTPodcast7]

Good job IP! Really nice answers. I hope that Dan will accept, or at least consider these critiques!

[@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness]

Apparently he is a Mormon, so sadly I wouldn’t hold my breath

[@ericbess4477]

Just started watching it, and one of the claims Bowman makes in response to McClellan early on is that nowhere in the gospels or epistles does Jesus say 'God's name is in me or makes any other kind of statement like that' (stamp 14:35). Ignoring texts like Mark 11.9 altogether, what about John 5.43, John 10.25, John 17.11f.? Philippians 2.9 states God gave him the name (see also Ephesians 1.20-22; Hebrews 1.4). So that was a little confusing. But I'll keep watching.

[@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness]

I would say that “coming in the name of the lord” =/= only being the bearer of the divine name and not God incarnate.

[@danensosnore9011]

At this point, 'critics' are just professional contrarians. If Christians said Jesus is not God, 'critics' would say that the NT clearly teaches that He is God

[@danensosnore9011]

Seeing dogmatic Dan's response to the Wingaling confirms it. "Critical scholars" are just professional contrarians. And his atheist and heretical audience just swallow it whole.

[@RstRlx]

I am wondering if word “archi” in John 1:1 and 1:2 has deeper meaning that supports deity of Jesus? Meaning “the beginning” can also mean something like “primary cause” especially in Greek philosophical thought so it would read like or could be understood as “in the primary cause there was the word….it was in the primary cause” (v 1 and 2).

[@sarabethdicostanzo6912]

Good to see Dan get his Heretical theology dismembered -- although I would love to see it even more in-depth. He is having a terribly detrimental impact on young Christians thru his TikTok. His arguments are always built with Circular reasoning fringing on a Strawman made of hay and clay. I believe Mr Jones is the man to go at him head to head. Let's see more of it.

[@Faker1700]

I’m still on my journey, and learning more. Maybe there’s some context I’m missing, but Dans points are still quite strong: John 5:43 Jesus talks about coming in his fathers name… John 5:19 Jesus said he can do nothing by himself These two verses seem to keep Dans points very strong, as Jesus himself talks about the father’s name, and how he himself needs the father in order to act. Again, I could be missing something… but I didn’t hear these two big points addressed (maybe they are in the book?).

[@R12-125]

The point your missing is that these actually affirm Jesus is God in the full context, and are pretty well confirming the trinity. Probably the reason IP didn’t cover it is because he has had to respond to the same point for like 12 years. To not get to deep in the weeds, Jesus saying “when my father works I do also” (horrifically in my own words) he’s essentially claiming he has the same power of the father, due to how the culture at the time worked. If you are genuinely seeking answers I pray that you find them, preferably from someone better then me

[@R12-125]

Also him saying “I can do nothing by myself” makes perfect sense in the trinitarian sense

[@Faker1700]

I can’t really say I see how it affirms Jesus as God, or how it confirms the Trinity, but I’ll be digging deeper for sure. I appreciate the response :)

[@jmorra]

Visible and invisible Yahweh...i also think Heiser was right.

[@stingingcake853]

oooh, just started the video but I am looking at that book!

[@IamJerusalemfx]

Is this book not on sale in the uk?

[@IAMJ1B]

Jesus is god through the insperable attachment of one god father. Also holy spirit., Did u get it?

[@Garret141076]

Dan has to be exposed like Billy Carson. I know it’s harder because Dan is more intellectual but somehow he’s making things up and really believes himself.

[@whatshatnin4572]

Where has Dan been wrong?

[@sabhishek9289]

Agreed, and this video is proof that he is wrong.

[@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness]

@@whatshatnin4572Many of us think he’s completely wrong about some important things, including that Jesus thought he was God vs. just another bearer of the divine name

[@whatshatnin4572]

@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness Well how do you many of you feel about his stance on the existence of Noah and the historicity of the Exodus or even the life span of the old testament patriarchs?

[@sabhishek9289]

@@whatshatnin4572 He has an incentive to spread misinformation about the Bible considering that he is a mormon and a core doctrine of mormonism is that the Bible is unreliable.

[@lighthousenetwork.tv-media]

Da Caveman, praying for you! The Lord forgive and heal.

[@soggychip3784]

I want to buy the book, I musts save up for it

[@wtk6069]

Jesus directly called himself God. He's either God or he was a liar. No other possibilities. The rest of scripture makes it clear he is the former not the latter. This is the main problem I had with some of the writings of otherwise great men like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They could never logically reconcile this single issue. It's why historical movements like Deism ultimately fell apart.

[@markmcflounder15]

Ahhh Dan McClellan is painful to listen to. He's like a mix of CNN & Bart Ehrman

[@christinaphillips5933]

Sorry I have a question ⁉️ who is the servant 🙏 ?

[@Akhil_Chilukapati]

Please make a video on responding Alex’ O connor’s video responding to Wess Huff

[@Daily-PE]

Well, this stream is a semi version of that as Alex said the Bible doesn't say Jesus is God. He also said it will make a video about that, and I think that it deserves more of a response from inspiringphilosophy

[@AnsweringLDS]

@@Akhil_Chilukapati Gavin Ortlund and testify both did livestream/videos

[@richiejourney1840]

@@Akhil_Chilukapati why would everyone need to respond to Alex again? Alex has ruined his credibility. It’s over.

[@ryan.sweatt]

@@AnsweringLDSalso, WLC did a response video with Sean McDowell on his channel!

[@Eben_Haezer]

Wes Huff debunked himself. No need for others. Check his last video

[@tatie7604]

Yes, the NT DOES teach Jesus is God

[@faithfultoyeshua4576]

@@tatie7604 where

[@austinwthompson45]

@@faithfultoyeshua4576 John 5:23

[@SuperBossGiovanni]

​@@faithfultoyeshua4576Everywhere. It's pretty plain

[@faithfultoyeshua4576]

@@SuperBossGiovanni it's will be easy to say

[@MFPmarcus]

@@faithfultoyeshua4576Matthew 21:15-17, he quotes psalm 8:2 that is addressed to YHWH & applies it to himself. Acts 2:23-28, Peter quotes psalm 16:8-11 & says it’s written about Jesus, psalm 16 is ALSO addressed to YHWH. Not only did he claim to be YHWH God, his disciples taught that he was YHWH God.

[@kylehansen639]

Dan is a walking talking, back pedaling, contradiction. If he would ever apply his own critique principles to the JST or the truth claims of Mormonism it would be a wrap. But he likes making his videos. Its not really about truth for Dan. Dan is the god of Dans world.

[@clarekuehn4372]

I think elohim as singular and plural for YHWH is mystery of trinity in Old Testament. & Don't forget that Muslim "monotheist" & **Jewish** Talmud arguments are same.

[@randallwittman2720]

The alpha and the omega refer to Jehovah Rev 1:8; 21:6 and 22:13 The expression the first and the last ie pro’tos (note not alpha) and the Last e’skha·tos (note not omega) refer to Jesus Rev 1:17,18;2:8. Jesus died and came to life again. Colossians 1:18 He is the firstborn from the dead, hence pro’tos. Jesus is the last, e’skha·tos, because he was resurrected last by Jehovah. All other resurrections will be done by Jesus. John 6:40

[@danielpledger939]

Hey love the conversation would love to see a reponse to Dans work on biblical sexual ethics too

[@Logan_Bishop_YT]

Alright, I'm buying.

[@VerbotenBiblia]

Mt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Mr 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God. Lu 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is] good, save one, [that is], God.

[@caos1925]

Jesus does not deny His goodness there and I am (the divine name) the good shepherd (something OT God claims to be or is ascribed): the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. John 10:11 Jesus calls Himself good, thereby claiming to be God going by these verses you posted.

[@swissapologetics]

Jesus is God (John 1,1) that became flesh (John 1,14) and was born as a jew according to the flesh (Rom 9,5) and He suffered for us in the flesh (1 Pet 4,1) As He became flesh, the Father became His God (Ps 22,10). Because all flesh is submitted to God (Jer 32,27). Jesus willingly humbled Himself and became a servant of the Father, and so, in this context, the Father became greater than Jesus (Phil 2,5-8). And so even the Father calls Jesus God, that has a God (Hebrews 1,8-12). In this context, Jesus has a God, is praying to God and the Father is greater than Him.

[@AnHebrewChild]

you managed to quote a couple good verses in there.

[@shin.511]

Great info!

[@thadofalltrades]

To answer John 17:3 go to Isaiah 48:16. In Isaiah 48, YHWH is talking and then says, "YHWH has sent me and his Spirit." So YHWH sends YHWH. Who did YHWH send according to John 17:3? Jesus Christ

[@ConsideringPhlebas]

There are, to be fair, instances where Jesus is identified as being given or possessing God's name: John 17:11, Philippians 2:9 & 11. But the stuff that's said about Christ in the NT generally clearly goes way beyond that.

[@treeckoniusconstantinus]

This book sounds quite a bit like Dr. Brant Pitre's recent "Jesus and Divine Christology."

[@randallwittman2720]

The Godhead and Godhood Christians do love their spiritual jargon, especially when it is has the epic overtones of the King James Version. Jargon is only useful when we properly know what it means. One such theological word found in and popularised by the KJV is “godhead.” The problem I have with it is that it is used synonymously for the Holy Trinity. As far scripture is concerned it isn’t. The word “godhead” appears only three times in the KJV at Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. [1]The word is from Middle English and means the same as godhood, that is, the state of being god. The -head suffix is the same as -hood which we still use in modern English in words like fatherhood, the state of being a father. [2]Three different Koine Greek words, theion, theiotēs, and theotēs, in order of their appearance in the KJV, were translated as “godhead”. Modern translations of the Bible do not use godhead but tend to use words like deity, the divine nature, or divine being depending on the context. The Greeks used such words to talk about god without referring to any specific one in particular. This particularly makes sense in Acts 17 at the Areopagus where Paul was addressing a Greek audience and presenting his arguments on the true nature of God. Even in somewhat formal English today we refer to God in sort of an impersonal manner by calling him the Deity. So where did this association with the Trinity come from? On account of the continued popularity of the KJV, the word “godhead” continues to stay in currency. The word was actually introduced into English translations by John Wycliffe, the great English Bible translator and Reformer. [3]As early as the 12th century B.B. Warfield remarks that it was used as a technical term used to refer to the ousia or the substance of God in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Since this predated Wycliffe it was probably an influence on why in his translation of the New Testament the term. It was chosen because of its Trinitarian connotations. The KJV was heavily influenced by Wycliffe’s why is why the godhead was probably used in the translation. Its popularity continued in later documents like Thirty-Nine articles of the Church of England and the Westminster confession. Even though godhead is used to refer to Trinitarian doctrine, in the KJV it is used to translate words that have nothing to do with later theological developments. Even the basic meaning of the word is not Trinitarian and just means being divine. I fully recognise the meaning of a word is determined by how it is used and the word has for a long time assumed that technical theological meaning. All I am saying is whenever we pick up the KJV and read the word, we should not immediately assume it is a reference to the Trinity.

[@euston2216]

*JOHN 8 (KJV)* [58] Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, *Before Abraham was, I am.* [59] Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. If the Jews thought Jesus was claiming to be the "Second Person" of a "Trinity" of "distinct God persons", their response would've been mocking laughter, not a murderous frenzy. Jesus was claiming to be "I AM"...that is, "the LORD"...that is, "JEHOVAH"...whom the children of Israel _always_ spoke of as being unipersonal, not multipersonal. That's why the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, for his claim that HE IS ("I AM") the _unipersonal_ GOD. *1 TIMOTHY 3 (KJV)* [16] And without controversy *great* is the *mystery* of godliness: *GOD was manifest in the flesh,* justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[@bakhop]

Weird how IP kept that vulgar statement about some dude getting off on looking at his "mug", just because it was preceded by a rational question.

[@AnHebrewChild]

53:53 "do scholars think the Synoptics portray Jesus as God?" The strongest case for Jesus' divinity is not to be found in 'John,' but rather in 'Mark.' I'm aware that this flies in the face of what the secular academics and even most Christian theologians will tell you, but it is true.

[@whatshatnin4572]

The fact that you have to go in a book to find the divinity of an alleged god speaks volumes. Real divinity has no middleman

[@AnHebrewChild]

@ the topic we're discussing here is what these texts communicate about their main subject (Jesus). This is something even atheistic, secular scholars discuss as pertains to Mark, Matthew but also of other ancient religious texts, and of Roman and Greek mythologies. Whether the things which any of these texts communicate have any correspondence to reality is an altogether different discussion -one which I'm not shy to engage in- but that's not the question at hand. Thanks though for sharing your thoughts.

[@whatshatnin4572]

@@AnHebrewChild Touche. And you are also accurate. Hats off. Peace and Love

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@whatshatnin4572 you as well. Shalom

[@JohnRicheson-j8y]

Thanks for sharing one of Dan McClellans videos. They are very enlightening for me as I continue to deconstruct from all religion including Christianity. I feel as if I have been set free.

[@lighthousenetwork.tv-media]

There were 666 comments, but not anymore after i posted THIS.

[@rubiemoore8989]

Jesus isnt God because he said he cant do anything on his own,how can he be God and do nothing of himself?? This should make you think

[@swissapologetics]

Because He and the Father are one God and do not act seperate. Thats why Father, Son and Spirit are involved in creation, resurrection, salvation etc...

[@rubiemoore8989]

@swissapologetics Did the Father ever acted separately Jesus meant *I * which is God or the Christ in a person is one with God ..not himself .. Its not ,i ,Jesus but the *I* ..

[@swissapologetics]

@rubiemoore8989 When Jesus said "I", He meant Himself... Stop twisting scripture....

[@rubiemoore8989]

@@swissapologetics brother Humble yourself ..Do you understand metaphysics and symbolism??? There are 3 words I am,I,Me all doesn't refer to Jesus ... Because even there is a verse which says I,Jesus ...this was specific ...I is God's man consciousness...That's y he says I and my father are one... Not Jesus ...In Exodus God said *I* ,God I'm Jealous

[@swissapologetics]

@rubiemoore8989 I think YOU should humble yourself and stop twisting scripture.

[@AnHebrewChild]

Regarding the name spoken of in the Great Commission, God revealed himself as, Jehovah-Jireh to Abraham The Lord our provider. as Jehovah-Sabaoth in the Exodus The Lord of hosts. as Jehovah-Rapha to Israel The Lord our healer. As, Jehovah-Nissi & Jehovah-El'Qanna to Moses The Lord our banner. The Lord: a Jealous God. Jehovah-Ehad to Israel The Lord is One. Jehovah-Shalom to Gideon The Lord our peace. Jehovah-Raah to David The Lord our shepherd. Jehovah-Tsidkenu to Jeremy The Lord our righteousness. as, Jehovah-Shapat Jehovah-Hakkuk & Jehovah-Melek to Isaiah "The Lord our judge, the Lord our lawgiver, the Lord our king: *he will save us."* Finally, God revealed himself as, Jehovah'Shua to his people "and thou shalt call his name JESUS (YEHO'SHUA: the LORD our Saviour): for he shall save his people from their sins." References, _Gen__22:14__, Exo__12:41__, Exo__15:26__, Exo__17:15__, Exo__34:14__, Deu6:4, Jdg__6:24__, Psa23, Jer23:6, Isa__33:22__, and Mat__1:21_ > < Go ye therefore into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my (singular) name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Mat28 & Mrk16

[@fasted8468]

Didn't Jesus answer this perfectly? Tell us our you the son of God? "You have said so, nevertheless, I tell you, you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of the power, coming with the clouds of heaven." Why say anything else? He can speak for himself.

[@ExpositingReality]

I feel like there is literally nothing Jesus could have said that would have convinced Dan McClellen that he was claiming to be God. I don't think he has ever given a criteria for how you can distinguish whether someone's claiming to be God or just bearing God's name.

[@AdianBlack]

It makes perfect sense that Dan would believe that the Bible could not be teaching something new that wasnt understood at the time because he clearly does not believe that the Bible is actually from God, but simply written by men. He is such a poor scholar...

[@photoniccannon2117]

Same thing Bart Erhman does. “Miracles can’t happen because physics, therefore miraculous signs weren’t miraculous signs”

[@Daexusnol]

So, is the Apocrypha divinely inspired cannon Scripture or not? Should be easy enough to tell if you're going to claim that the Bible is one whole picture.

[@nickjones1314]

Divinity is never dependent upon man. If man decided to pick and choose then its not divine.

[@Daexusnol]

@nickjones1314 men have always decided which texts are cannon scripture. Most Christians were fine with the Apocrypha being regarded as cannon up until the Reformation.

[@nickjones1314]

@@Daexusnol If man played a role then it is not divine. Its man influenced. You have to go through man to get it. There is absolutely nothing divine about having to go through man to get anything. Things that are divine are available for all without having to go through man or having man make decisions for other men

[@chader3033]

The fact that any person thinks they know 100 percent for sure on either side of this is whats wrong with people. Humans just have to know everything and boast about it.

[@GunlockBill]

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. Revelation 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.