YouTube Transcript:
Did Jesus Claim to Be God? (David Wood vs_ Alex O'Connor)

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

AutoDub

Understand YouTube Foreign Videos

Immersive YouTube Voice Translation

Break language barriers, embrace global quality content

Solve Foreign Video Barriers Instantly

Video Transcript

all

right

so how the debate is going to go uh the

title of the debate is "Did Jesus claim

to be God?" We're going to have opening

statements we're going to have rebuttals

we're going to have counter rebuttals

there will be clocks for the speakers to

see you guys won't see them and then uh

after all of that we're going to move

the the table to the middle and we're

going to do open dialogue and then after

that we're going to do some Q&A just

like we've been doing the past couple

nights ray Rock with the microphone do

not grab his microphone okay he's real

serious about it and so this is gonna

we're gonna go for I'd say at least two

hours tonight okay it's gonna be a fun

night and um we're going to have both

gentlemen give opening statements uh 20

minute openings okay and it's going to

be fun so uh let me introduce our

speakers for the night our debaters for

the night

first up who will be arguing the

affirmative ladies and gentlemen warm

round of applause for David Wood

oh yeah

the podium is right here

david Wood ladies and gentlemen

all right and all the way from

London England um I've I've had a blast

getting to know this brother for the

past couple days it's been super fun and

he's probably going to hate me for

saying this but he actually joined us on

his birthday weekend

all right

without any further ado ladies and

gentlemen warm round of applause for

Alex O' connor

all right oh yeah we're good let's You

ready tell us when you're ready so we

can start the clock i'm ready now

oh you started okay well

good evening good evening what a

beautiful audience

you're all breathtaking this is how you

uh charm a crowd in America son

like to thank uh Rustlan for arranging

this conference and this debates one of

many awesome debates taking place in

2025 pitting heroes against

villains i won't say who the villain is

in this debate i'll let all you lovely

Christians judge that for

yourselves based entirely on our

accents and speaking of British accents

I'd like to thank Alex for finally

showing

up you got to give me some wiggle room

on time

Rosean or you can all quit cheering for

Alex all right well I'd like to thank

Alex for finally showing up i was a

month and a half late but he finally

showed

up i'm teasing by the way uh people have

no clue how dangerous debatecon is

actually with the lineup they had and

the number uh and the volume of death

threats against uh multiple speakers so

uh plus he lives in what is rapidly

becoming the Sharia compliant hell hole

of the universe so good to take

precautions we don't want to lose Alex

by the way are you guys starting to miss

Jesus over there in the UK seems like

you should be missing Jesus by now

speaking of Jesus did Jesus claim to be

God

yes yes he did and I'm sure uh many of

you have some verses going through your

heads right

now however I'm convinced that the

primary way Jesus claimed to be God and

that his followers claimed he's God uh

gets overlooked by most Christians and

non-Christians because we've lost touch

with first century Jewish culture and we

just tend to uh not notice things

let me give you an example of what I'm

talking

about here's a quote from Daniel Boyerin

in his book The Jewish Gospels the story

of Jesus Christ the story of the Jewish

Christ he says "Most if not all of the

ideas and practices of the Jesus

movement of the first century and the

beginning of the second century and even

later can be safely understood as part

of the ideas and practices that we

understand to be the Judaism of the

period

the ideas of trinity and incarnation or

certainly the germs of those ideas were

already present among Jewish believers

well before Jesus came on the scene to

incarnate in himself as it were those

theological notions and take up his

messianic calling so the ideas were

there paving the way for Jesus who

embodied them now who's Daniel Boyerin

to say that Christian ideas like the

trinity and the incarnation were already

present in some form in first century

Judaism is he a Christian apologist no

he's uh he's a scholar of rabbitic

Judaism he's a Talmud scholar he points

out that a lot of the beliefs we now

think of as distinctively Christian

actually weren't the earliest Christian

church was embedded in first century

Jewish culture but as Christianity

spread it became dominated by gentile

Christians who tended to lose touch with

the Jewish framework and something was

happening within Judaism as well as

Jewish orthodoxy was forming in the

second century the rabbis tended to weed

out certain ideas that had once been

familiar in Judaism but which had been

adopted by Christians the rabbis wanted

to clearly distinguish Judaism from

Christianity and some of the ideas that

were present in first century Judaism

were soon deemed

heretical so Christians lost touch with

the Jewish framework of early

Christianity and Jews abandoned some of

the Jewish ideas that became part of

Christianity and the result is that

today it's easy for us to miss a few

things when we're reading the Bible

claims that would have been uh

understood by listeners at the time

might not be understood by us here in my

opening statement I'm going to briefly

discuss the forgotten Jewish idea that's

most relevant for understanding how

Jesus claimed to be God and then I'll

show how this forgotten Jewish idea

illuminates various passages in the New

Testament some of you are familiar with

the early Jewish belief in the two

powers in heaven ellen Seagull the

Jewish scholar drew attention to this in

his 1977 book Two Powers in Heaven and

lots of people especially Christians

have been interested in the topic ever

since here's the idea in a nutshell the

Old Testament is very clear that there's

one true

God but there are numerous passages in

the Old Testament where we see two

divine figures i'll give a few quick

examples there are tons of these

sometimes God seems to be in two

different places doing two different

things common example is the story of

Sodom and

Gomorrah the Lord appears to Abraham and

tells him that he's going down to Sodom

and Gomorrah to see firsthand how bad

the people are so he goes down to Sodom

and Gomorrah and what happens genesis

19:24 then the Lord rained on Sodom and

Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord

out of heaven the Lord on earth rained

down fire from

the from the Lord out of heaven this

thing reboot every couple minutes uh it

sounds like there are two lords here

watch what happens in Zechariah 2 pay

attention or you'll miss it come Zion

escape you who live in daughter Babylon

for this is what the Lord Almighty says

who's speaking the Lord Almighty and he

says "After the glorious one has sent me

the Lord was sent by the glorious one

against the nations that have plundered

you for whoever touches you touches the

apple of his eye I will surely raise my

hand against them so that their slaves

will plunder them then you will know

that the Lord Almighty has sent me." The

Lord Almighty was sent by the Lord

Almighty next paragraph shout and be

glad daughter Zion for I am coming and I

will live among you declares the Lord

Yahweh many nations will be joined with

the Lord in that day and will become my

people i will live among you and you

will know that the Lord Almighty has

sent me to

you the Lord Yahweh will live among them

and they will know that the Lord was

sent by the Lord Almighty

so Yahweh rains down fire from Yahweh

yahweh is sent by Yahweh plenty of

passages like

these then we got a mysterious figure

called the angel of the Lord whenever

you think uh whatever you think of when

you think about angels just get rid of

that uh the angel of the Lord is no

ordinary angel because this angel is

somehow the Lord angel just means

messenger in Hebrew it can refer to a

human messenger a spirit messenger or in

this case the Lord himself look at

Judges

6 the angel of the Lord came and sat

down to talk to

Gideon the angel of the Lord appeared to

Gideon then it switches to the Lord

turned to

him the Lord answered then it goes back

to the angel of the Lord then when

Gideon realized that it was the angel of

the Lord he exclaimed "Alas sovereign

Lord I have seen the angel of the Lord

face to face." But the Lord said to him

"Peace do not be afraid you are not

going to die if you see the Lord in all

his glory you're dead but if you see the

angel of the Lord who is somehow the

Lord you might survive." One more

example of this here's Jacob blessing

Joseph in Genesis 48 then he blessed

Joseph and said "May the God before whom

my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked

faithfully the God who has been my

shepherd all my life to this day the

angel who has delivered me from all harm

may he bless these boys." He singular so

the God the God and the angel are all

referring to the same being the angel is

God but the angel is the messenger of

God this is all over the place in the

Old Testament from Genesis all the way

to the prophets we just don't pay

attention to it when we're reading uh

but there were ancient Jews who paid

very close attention to passages like

these and they realized that something

very very strange is going on there's

one God but there were two powers two

authorities in heaven

if you put all of the passages together

it seems like there's God you can't be

around because his presence would

destroy you and God you can be around

somehow there's God you can't be around

and God you can be around the God you

can't be around is distinct from the God

you can be around they interact with

each other one sends the other and yet

they're both

God this was all very very confusing to

first century Jews

if there's one God why are there two

powers in heaven why are there two

powers who both act like God they tried

to deal with this problem in a number of

ways but mainly they were confused and

then Jesus came along and he says in

effect you know those two powers that

you've been reading about in the

scriptures you know those two powers

that you're so confused by i can tell

you about those two powers because I'm

one of

them that's the primary way Jesus claims

to be God it's the primary way his

followers claim that he's God it's a

primary way uh it's primary issue that

enrages his

opponents but did Jesus really claim to

be one of the two powers in heaven since

Jesus is a highly controversial figure

and since there's a skeptic in our midst

I would suggest that if we want to know

what someone like Jesus is claiming

about himself we can look at six things

we can look at what Jesus says and what

Jesus does what he says and does as they

relate to our topic we can look at what

his friends say and what his friends do

here I mean what they say and do in

reaction to him and we can look at what

his enemies say and what his enemies do

again in reaction to him so what Jesus

says what Jesus does what his friends

say what his friends do what his enemies

say what his enemies do i would put all

of that together and say that's our

evidence that we need to account for and

that will give us the best indication of

what Jesus was claiming about himself i

don't have a ton of time left so we'll

consider a few things Jesus says and

does and a few things his friends say

and do along the way we'll see um the

reactions of some of his enemies and

maybe I'll add a few more uh examples in

the

rebuttals what does Jesus say jesus

claims to be one of the two powers in

heaven in multiple ways i'll give you

three the most familiar is the father

son language he uses jesus claims to be

the son of God now someone can be a son

of God in various ways in the Bible

blessed are the peacemakers for they

shall be called sons of God but Jesus

claims to be the son of God in a unique

divine sense one example Matthew 11:27

all things have been handed over to me

by my father and no one knows the son

except the father and no one knows the

father except the son and anyone to whom

the son chooses to reveal him all things

were handed over to the son by the

father no one knows the son except the

father obviously the people around jesus

knew him in some sense but they didn't

really know him only the father really

knows him and no one knows the father

except the son and anyone to whom the

son chooses to reveal him no one can

know the father unless the son chooses

to reveal him this should sound somewhat

similar to the old testament idea that

there's god you can't be around and god

you can be around two powers father and

son jesus is the

son mark 12 while Jesus was teaching in

the temple courts he asked why did the

teachers of the law say that the Messiah

is the son of David david himself

speaking by the Holy Spirit declared

"The Lord said to my Lord sit at my

right hand until I put your enemies

under your feet." David himself calls

him Lord how then can he be his son

whose So whose son is the Messiah he's

the son of David but David calls the

Messiah his Lord how many lords do we

have here

the Lord said to my Lord according to

Jesus the second Lord here the Lord of

King David is the Messiah so we've got

two powers in heaven and Jesus is one of

them on a side note if you're a

Christian and you're wondering why we're

talking about two powers instead of

three where's the Holy Spirit uh he's

there

but but we're focusing on how Jesus

claimed to be God and that's connected

to the two powers in heaven mark 14

again the high priest asked him are you

the Christ the son of the blessed and

Jesus said I am and you will see the son

of man seated at the right hand of power

and coming with the clouds of heaven and

the high priest tore his garments and

said what further witnesses do we need

you have heard his blasphemy what is

your decision and they all condemned him

as deserving death what do the what do

the enemies say this is

blasphemy what do they do tear their

garments That's what they do when

they're outraged about blasphemy and

condemn him as deserving death why do

they react like that the son of man

that's Jesus' favorite title for himself

who will be seated at the right hand of

power so there's the power which sounds

like God and there's the son of man

coming with the clouds of heaven how

many powers in heaven i see two here and

Jesus claims to be one of them so who's

gle who is Jesus claiming to be at his

Jewish trial he's claiming to be the son

of man prophesied in Daniel 7:13-14

daniel says "In my vision at night I

looked and there before me was one like

a son of man coming with the clouds of

heaven he approached the ancient of days

and was led into his presence he was

given authority glory and sovereign

power all nations and peoples of every

language worshiped him his dominion is

an everlasting dominion that will not

pass away and his kingdom is one that

will never be destroyed."

So there's the ancient of days God but

there's also the son of man who will be

worshiped by all nations whose dominion

everlasting and who comes with the

clouds in the Old Testament Yahweh is

the one who rides the clouds humans

don't angels don't isaiah 19 see the

Lord rides on a swift cloud psalm 104

the Lord wraps himself in light as with

a garment he stretches out the heavens

like a tent and lays the beams of his

upper chambers on the waters he makes

the clouds his chariot and rides on the

wings of the wind so God comes with the

clouds so we've got the ancient of days

who sounds like God and we've got the

son of man coming with the clouds of

heaven who sounds like God two powers in

heaven and Jesus claims to be one of

them

jesus claims to be one of the two powers

in heaven multiple times multiple ways

in multiple sources jesus says a lot

more than that but what does Jesus

do jesus judges the world in the Old

Testament David says "The Lord abides

forever he has established his throne

for judgment and he will judge the world

in righteousness." Who's the judge here

yahweh

but in Matthew 25 Jesus declares "But

when the Son of

Man comes in his glory and all the

angels with him then he will sit on his

glorious throne all the nations will be

gathered before him and he will separate

them from one another as the shepherd

separates the sheep from the goats."

Jesus goes on to say that he will admit

certain people into heaven and cast

others into hell why is Jesus the final

judge he tells us in John 5 "For the

Father judges no one but has given all

judgment to the Son that all may honor

the Son just as they honor the Father."

Whoever does not honor the Son does not

honor the Father who sent him if you

don't honor God you can be around you

don't honor God you can't be around

jesus also raises the dead at the

resurrection according to the Old

Testament Yahweh is the one who raises

the dead 1st Samuel 2:6 the Lord kills

and makes alive he brings down to shol

and raises up but Jesus says he's the

one who raises the dead at the

resurrection john 5 truly truly I say to

you an hour is coming and now is when

the dead will hear the voice of the son

of God and those who hear will live for

just as the father has life in himself

even so he gave to the son also to have

life in himself and he gave him

authority to execute judgment because he

is the son of man

do not marvel at this for an hour is

coming in which all who are in the tombs

will hear his voice and will come forth

those who did the good deeds to a

resurrection of life those who committed

the evil deeds to a resurrection of

judgment so Jesus claims by what he says

and what he does that he's one of these

two powers in heaven and that means he's

claiming to be

God and his friends got the message how

do his friends react what do the early

Christians say in Philippians 2 Paul

quotes an early Christian song or poem

or creed about Jesus goes like this in

your relationships with one another have

the same mindset as Christ Jesus who

being in very nature God did not

consider equality with God something to

be used to his own advantage rather he

made himself nothing by taking the very

nature of a servant being made in human

likeness and being found in appearance

as a man he humbled himself by becoming

obedient to death even death on a cross

therefore God exalted him to the highest

place and gave him the name that is

above every name that at the name of

Jesus every knee should bow in heaven

and on earth and under the earth and

every tongue acknowledged that Jesus

Christ is Lord to the glory of God the

Father what's the name that is above

every

name yahweh and at the name of And at

the name of Jesus every knee should bow

and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus

Christ is Lord this is a reference to

Isaiah 45 in verse 18 Yahweh says,"I am

the Lord and there is no other." Then in

verse 23 he says,"Before me every knee

will bow by me every tongue will swear."

The early Christians said "That's

Jesus." So Jesus was in very nature God

then he humbled himself by becoming

obedient to death then God exalted him

how many powers do you see

here two and Jesus is one of them paul

quotes that and obviously agrees with it

but look at how Paul describes the two

powers for us there is one God the

Father from whom are all things and for

whom we exist and one Lord Jesus Christ

through whom are all things and through

whom we exist there is one God the

Father you see Jesus can't be God it's

only one

God well keep reading and one Lord Jesus

Christ does that mean that Jesus is Lord

but the Father isn't

all Paul does here is take two titles

for God and says,"I'll call the father

God and Jesus

Lord." Two powers and Jesus is one of

them what about John 1 in the beginning

was the word and the word was with God

and the word was God he was in the

beginning with God all things were made

through him and without him was not

anything made that was made there's God

and there's the word but the word was

God how many powers two and Jesus is one

of them if you really want a fun verse

later in the same chapter try John 1:18

no one has ever seen God the only God

who is at the father's side he has made

him

known sounds like two powers it's what

the early Christians say among other

things what do they do wrapping up they

worship him they pray to him they sing

hymns to and about him they baptize in

his name they compose liturgy and

doxologies to honor and praise him in

other words they give Jesus the full

array of religious

honors what could convince a bunch of

first century Jews that a carpenter from

Nazareth was one of the two powers in

heaven probably the same thing that

convinced his enemies that he was guilty

blasphemy would have to be something big

either really big claims of Jesus or a

really big

misunderstanding we'll uh see which

option Alex goes with

all right that is David Wood's opening

statement and Alex is going to take the

podium for his 20 minute opening

statement david went over 1 minute and

14 seconds

so we will give Alex a grace period of 1

minute and 14 seconds

can everybody hear me through here

yes David didn't factor in the clapping

i always factor in clapping into the

timing of my speeches good evening

ladies and gentlemen

[Music]

thank you or as we say in England

assalamu

aalaykum i I I must apologize for the

previous debate fiasco david's right

that most people don't know what

happened a lot of accusations thrown my

way but I suppose that is the essence of

our debate this evening people thinking

they know a thing or two about a person

without hearing it from their own mouth

to which effect I was thinking about how

to approach this given that I didn't

know which approach David was going to

take i woke up this morning in this fine

resort

um opposite Legoland which means that

there's a a roller coaster just outside

of my room and being a bit jet-lagged I

woke up quite late to the most peaceful

of noises that is the sound of children

screaming for their

lives hearing the sound of innocent

children screaming for their lives of

course reminded me to read the Old

Testament

and I wanted to

begin with a

verse that was too

easy i factored that into my time as

well i want to begin with a verse from

the Old Testament which might become

relevant momentarily and that is well a

psalm not in its entirety but Psalm 82

psalm 82 is a curious psalm because it

opens by saying that God presides in the

great assembly he renders judgment among

the gods elohim that is definitely the

word for gods this seems to be an

indication that God is talking about or

the psalmist is talking about the

so-called divine council which also

shows up in Job for example later in the

psalm he says "I said you are gods you

are all sons of the most high." The

psalmist is referring to beings here who

are definitively not Yahweh but calling

them gods which is kind of interesting

i'm not trying to make a point out of

that jesus is going to do that for me as

we turn to what I think is the most

important christoologgical gospel of the

four which is of course John's gospel

many people think that I just dismiss

John's gospel because it's written too

late or something it is of course the

least historically reliable of the

gospels but I'm willing to just treat it

as if it's historically reliable for the

purposes of this debate and see what

Jesus actually says about himself the

question we're interested in in here is

the relationship that Jesus has to his

father david has been speaking about the

two powers in heaven heresy and saying

that Jesus's relationship to the father

is the kind of relationship that people

who believed in these this two powers

was talking about well let's investigate

that in Jesus's own words there is one

place in the gospels where Jesus is

directly accused of claiming to be God

do you know where it is it's in John

chapter 10 in John chapter 10 his Jewish

opponents come to him and say "If you're

the Messiah tell us plainly." And Jesus

responds by saying "I and the Father are

one." I'm told by Christians this is a

direct christoologgical claim who can

claim to be identical to the father

except for someone who is

God and there was no confusion about

this the Jewish opponents picked up

stones to stone him to death for making

this claim now how does how does Jesus

respond does he agree with them or does

he correct them he

says in response to the Jews "Is it not

written in your law I have said you are

gods?" Quoting as you'll probably

realize the psalm that I just quoted and

explained briefly a moment ago so

directly asked about his

christoologgical status Jesus decides to

quote a psalm which is explicitly

talking about beings who are not in fact

Yahweh and yet are called gods why would

he pick that psalm if the message he

wanted to convey was that he is in fact

in some sense God that is identical to

Yahweh jesus continues "If he called

them gods why wouldn't he call me God

the one who the father has sent and set

aside so why then do you accuse me of

blasphemy because I said I am God's

son?" Like in the divine counsel you

shall be called gods that is sons of the

most high so it's a misunderstanding

jesus immediately afterwards clarifies

further and

says believe the works that is the works

of my father through me that you may

know and understand that the father is

in me and I am in the father another

pretty intense christoologgical claim

what does it mean let's turn to the most

important christoologgical chapter in

John's gospel which is of course chapter

17 jesus is praying first for his

disciples then for all of his believers

remember in John chapter 10 so far Jesus

has made two claims i and the father are

one and I am in the father and the

father is in me addressing the

relationship that he has to his father

which David thinks is the two powers in

heaven what does Jesus say in his own

words john 17 20 onwards my prayer is

not for them alone the disciples i pray

also for those who believe in me through

their message that is all of you that

all of them may be one hen hen the same

Greek word used in John 10 father just

as you are in me and I am in you may

they also be in

us this is crucial this is pivotal when

Jesus is asked to clarify his

christoologgical status what is his

relationship to the father he says "I'm

in the father and the father's in me."

He then later prays that all of us will

one day be in God in the same way just

as cathos in the Greek which doesn't

just mean as it means in the same way as

just as if this is supposed to indicate

that Jesus is claiming to be identical

to Yahweh what does that make the rest

of us and how I'm interested in knowing

is David going to interpret these verses

where Jesus is specifically asked to

clarify his relationship to the father

and tells us that he is only in

relationship with him in such a way that

everybody else can be in relationship

with them too the same thing is true of

another important quote from John's

gospel which is when Philillip asks

Jesus to show him the father what does

Jesus say anyone who has seen me has

seen the father another intense

christoologgical

claim he then follows up by saying how

can you say show us the father don't you

believe that I am in the father and the

father is in me the words I say to you I

do not speak on my own authority rather

it is the father living in me who is

doing his work so again Jesus clarifies

his relationship to the father this time

saying that he doesn't speak on his own

authority but there's more in the same

chapter this time chapter 14 just a few

verses later he says to those same

disciples who he's just told I that if

you've seen me you've seen the father

because the father is in me and I'm in

the father he speaks of a future day

past his crucifixion and says on that

day verse 20 on that day you will

realize that I am in my father and you

are in me and I am in you so to recap

Jesus is directly asked to clarify his

relationship and his christologology to

the father and he says that I'm in the

father and the father's in me and guess

what you'll all be one with us too one

day if this is a claim to be Yahweh then

well lucky us I

suppose now it's difficult to know where

to take this because of course there is

a third really important

christoologgical claim in John's gospel

which is in chapter 8 i think it might

be relevant to talking about the

understanding of ancient Jews and we'll

see where this goes of course

famously in chapter

8 Jesus is talking about eternal life

and his Jewish opponents say to him they

challenge him and say "Well our father

Abraham he died are you saying you're

greater than him?" And Jesus replies "If

I glorify myself I glorify my glory

means nothing your father Abraham

rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day

and he was glad." They say "What you

you're not even 50 years old and Abraham

has seen you." And he says "Truly I tell

you before Abraham was I

am." Why is that important two reasons

firstly he seems to claim pre-existence

to Abraham which is pretty significant

but also this invocation of the word I

am in Greek ego am which many people

think is a call back to the divine uh

name of God given to Moses in Exodus

3:14 in Exodus 3 Moses asks God "Who

shall I tell them has sent me?" And God

says Asha which means I am that I am i

am who I am so go and tell them that I

am has sent you it's interesting but of

course the New Testament is not written

in Hebrew it's written in Greek and it's

well known that the authors of the New

Testament were using a Greek translation

of the Old Testament called the

Septuagent this is something that was

pointed out by J.R daniel Kirk so I'm

indebted to him for this

if you read the Septuagent that the New

Testament writers were using and we have

very good evidence to suggest that John

as well is using the Septuagent how is

this verse rendered exodus 3 god says to

Moses "Ego Amy

hon." And it's used commonly like this

in John chapter nine the blind man is

healed by Jesus he runs into town they

say "Is this not the man who was born

blind?" And he says "Ego Amy it's me."

When Jesus is asked by the woman at the

well the woman at the well says "I'm

expecting the Messiah to come." Jesus

says "I am he." Ego Amy once

again that is how it is often used so in

the Greek Septuagent we have I am

hon go and tell them that Hon has sent

you in the Greek Septuagent in other

words the abbreviation of the divine

name is not ego Amy it's Hon and it's

ego Amy that Jesus says and in fact

Jesus says the words ego Amy six times

in chapter 8 of John's gospel and yet

this is the only time it seems to annoy

anybody why is that well maybe because

it's got more to do with the fact that

Jesus seems to be claiming eternality

but supposing for a moment that this

really were uh an invocation of the

divine name I'm just willing to grant it

let's say okay he was meaning to evoke

this imagery of Exodus 3 by saying I am

here we have to understand as David is

quite right to point out the cultural

context of early Judaism and there is a

tradition in early Jewish texts or at

least texts of around the contemporary

time to the gospels of

endowing beings who are not Yahweh with

Yahweh's name and thereby enabling them

to exert his authority as his

representative on earth david has

already talked about the angel of Yahweh

and there is the suggestion that the

angel of

Yahweh is

Jesus that doesn't seem to make much

sense to me for a start if you turn to

Hebrews chapter 1 the very first verse

says "In the past God spoke to our

ancestors through the prophets at many

times and in various ways but in these

last days he has spoken to us by his

son." in these last days if Jesus is the

angel of the Lord way back in Exodus the

story of the Exodus why is it that

Hebrews says he's only spoken to us

through the sun in the last few days

likewise in Acts chapter 6 Steven is

recounting a history of the Jews and in

it he says that an angel spoke to Moses

through the burning bush not Jesus but a

messenger of Yahweh it's a little bit

strange but suppose we just accept that

the angel of Yahweh is a bit difficult

to unpack augustine himself by the way

said that the angel is correctly termed

an angel if we consider him himself but

equally correct he is termed the Lord

because God dwells in him what does that

mean i think it's an invocation of the

divine name this is most elucidated for

me when we turn to non-scriptural Jewish

writings of around the same period for

example in well actually in third Enoch

Metatron is called the little

Yahweh invoking the divine name and in

fact to the extent that the Talmude

warns Jews not to confuse Metatron with

Yahweh because that seems to be the

implication of what he's saying but he

is in fact just invoking the name the

most important example of this for me is

the apocalypse of Abraham written around

the same time as the

Gospels a Jewish text which tells the

story of Abraham who hears the voice of

God and he's terrified and he hits the

ground and God he hears the voice of God

speaking to an

angel and he speaks to an angel saying

"Go Yahweh," that's the name of the

angel of the same name through the

mediation of my ineffable name

consecrate this man for me and

strengthen him against his trembling

through the mediation of my divine name

which he's given to the angel Yahawel

Yahel by the way Yah and

L it is a substitute for the ineffable

name of Yahweh the writing of which is

forbidden and that's why he's called

Yahawel and in fact at one point God is

himself addressed as Yahawel in this

text Abraham is told by this angel

Yahawel "Stand up Abraham go without

fear be right glad and rejoice for I am

with you for eternal honor has been

prepared for you by the eternal one i

have appointed to be with you and the

generation prepared for you so the angel

invoking the divine name by the way says

to Abraham

"Rejoice for I'm preparing for you

essentially redemption and it will come

from your generation." And by the way

when Yahawel when Abraham finally stands

up one of the descriptions of Yahel's

appearance is that his hair is white

like snow where have we heard that

before

but interesting isn't it let's think

about the context of John 8:58 a lot of

people forget that we're talking about

Abraham why are we talking about Abraham

why is it here that Jesus says "Before

Abraham was I am." Well if I'm right

that he is just identifying himself and

the thing that's important is the

Abraham claim could this stem from a

similar tradition this is what Andrew

Perryman has suggested recently that

when he says I mean this whole thing

gets kicked off because Jesus says

"Abraham rejoiced to see my

day." Well hold on a second and in the

apocalypse of Abraham the angel Yahawel

says to Abraham "Rejoice for from your

generation will will come one who will

you know redeem

you." So is it possible that a common

tradition has Jesus referring to the

fact that Abraham rejoice to see his day

because he was promised this redemption

from the beginning of time it's possible

it's a suggestion i think it's quite an

interesting

one but it is a little strange that

Jesus claims to be pre-existent he uses

the present tense I am it's worth

bearing in mind that the Bible sometimes

does this when it is talking about plans

that are pre-ordained from the beginning

of time for example in Revelation 13 we

hear about the lamb who was slain from

the creation of the

world it's talking about Jesus there

jesus wasn't crucified at the beginning

of the world but it talks about it

almost in the like in the present tense

or at least as if it happened there and

then why because the plan for this

redemption through the lamb was set in

stone from the beginning of time so it

talks about it as if it's in the present

tense similarly famously in the book of

Jeremiah God says to the prophet

Jeremiah "Before I formed you in your

mother's womb I knew you." He also says

"Before you were born I consecrated you

as a prophet." How can you consecrate

someone as a prophet who doesn't exist

yet that means that Jeremiah must be

pre-existent right he must be No not

necessarily it just means that God had

this plan it's a poetic way of saying

that God already knew what was going to

happen and had planned this from the

beginning of time so putting all of this

together there is an interesting

interpretation of Jesus saying that

Abraham rejoices here my day and the

Jews not understanding him not getting

it he says "Look before Abraham was I am

i am the fulfillment that was promised

to Abraham and was from the beginning of

time and here I am now of course this is

all exesus and it's a little uh sort of

spotty but the most important question

is probably about blasphemy david

mentioned blasphemy in a different

context earlier why is it that they pick

up stones to to stone him to death

because of course if I'm looking for a

sound exesus of correctly interpreting

the words of Jesus I turn to his Jewish

opponents who consistently throughout

the gospels are always understanding him

correctly no the theme of the gospels

especially John's gospel is how

comprehensively the Jews misunderstand

what Jesus is saying when he says "I and

the father are one." They say "Ah you're

claiming to be God." And he said "No no

you're not getting me." When he says

that he forgives sins and they say "Ah

you know who can forgive sins but God

alone?" He says "You're not

understanding me." And hopefully we can

get into that actually and here of

course when they say

"Ah we're going to stone you." We're not

told exactly what blasphemy they think

he's

committed do we now just think that they

got it right that they correctly

understood what he was saying i'm not so

sure especially considering

that if you look in Acts again I've

already mentioned Acts 6 this is Steven

steven is telling the story of the Jews

to the Jewish authorities who he's been

brought before on charges of

blasphemy he's eventually stoned to

death why because he has a vision in

Acts 7 filled with the Holy Spirit he

gazed into heaven and saw the glory of

God and Jesus standing at the right hand

of God notice God not the father look he

said I see the heavens opened and the

son of man standing at the right hand of

God at this the Jews cover their ears

run up to him and stone him to death

notice the similarity by the way between

this depiction looking up and seeing the

Son of Man sat at the right hand of God

or stood at the right hand of God in

this case and the claim that Jesus makes

in his trial it's quite interesting

steven is stoned to death for this did

Steven claim that Jesus was God here did

Steven claim that he was God here

sometimes Christians act as if the only

way to commit blasphemy is to claim to

be God that is simply not the case in

fact in Acts chapter 6 we're told that

Steven has been fraudulently accused of

blasphemy they're making up charges

against him here are the charges that

they that they throw at him to bring him

before the court for blasphemy this man

never stops saying things against this

holy place and the law for we'd heard

we've heard him say that Jesus of

Nazareth will destroy this place and

change the customs Moses has handed on

us ladies and gentlemen if changing the

customs that Moses has handed on to us

is enough to get somebody convicted of

blasphemy I'm not sure we should read

too deeply into the accusations of

blasphemy against

Jesus there's so much to say i've got

everything I want to respond to we have

rebuttal periods so if I haven't

responded to everything David has said

hopefully I'll get the opportunity then

but this idea of the divine name being

invested into people and him having and

them having the authority of God without

being Yahweh themselves is I think the

important ticket here one slightly less

biblical example is a story recorded by

Josephus which came to mind when David

was speaking when Alexander the Great

approaches Jerusalem in an attempt to

conquer it the crisis is

averted when a priest whose merit bears

the tetragrammaton Yahweh bears the name

of God comes out and what does Alexander

do he bows down before the priest was

Alexander bowing down before the priest

or was he bowing down to the divine name

that was in him when every knee will bow

to Jesus what is the context jesus has

been given the name that is above all

other

names given it this is a common theme

and so David's right that we need to

understand what how the early Jews were

interpreting the the various verses that

we were reading but I don't think it

lends too nicely to his interpretation

jesus is constantly talking as if he's

not speaking with his own

authority he's doing this all the time

the most instructive example for me is

in John 12:44 when Jesus cries out

"Whoever believes in me believes not in

me but in the one who sent me." That's

if you read the NRSV the NIV adds in the

word only "whoever believes in me

believes not in me only but in the one

who sent me." That word simply isn't in

the Greek it's a little bit strange i

want to talk more about that i want to

talk about authority and where it comes

from i want to talk about the forgiving

of sins i want to talk about worship for

sure and whichever roads we whichever

one of those roads we go down is

essentially up to David Wood but I'm

ready for any of them so we'll see what

comes up thank you for

[Applause]

listening all

right so that is Alex O'Connor's

20-minute opening so David is going to

go back up to the podium he is going to

do a 12minute rebuttal round all right

thank you Alex in my opening statement I

showed that in the first century there

was an interesting discussion within

Judaism uh about the two powers in

heaven they had various ways of dealing

with this um and we can see why when we

read passages like Genesis 22 the story

of Abraham and

Isaac but the Lord uh but the angel of

the Lord called out to him from heaven

abraham Abraham here I am he

replied uh wait no then God said "Take

your son your only son whom you love

Isaac and go to the region of Mariah

sacrifice him there as a burnt offering

on the mountain on a mountain I will

show you." So this is God saying to

Abraham "Take your

son." Verse 11 "But the angel of the

Lord called out to him from heaven."

Abraham Abraham is when he uh starts to

do it "here I am," he replied "do not

lay a hand on the boy," he said "do not

do anything to him now that I know now I

know that you fear God because you have

not withheld from me your son your only

son so this is the angel of the Lord

saying you haven't withheld from me your

only

son and it was God who answer who

ordered Abraham to do this um so we have

we have situations like this and I argue

that Jesus enters the discussion uh when

they're confused about the two powers in

heaven and claims to be one of them and

so there we looked at what Jesus says

what Jesus does what his friends say

what his friends do uh what his enemies

say and what his enemies do uh Alex uh

seems to suggest that the there could be

some sort of uh angel or something like

this or even a person who's in who's

endowed with this kind of divine

authority uh you got problems with this

even uh even here in uh Genesis uh so

look at what this said then the Lord

Genesis 33 then the Lord said to Moses

"Leave this place you and the people you

brought up out of Egypt and go up to the

land I promised on oath to Abraham Isaac

and Jacob saying I will give it to your

descendants i will send an angel before

you and drive out the Canaanites

Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hisites

Jebusites go up to the land flowing with

milk and honey but I will not go with

you because you are stiff necked people

and I might destroy you on the way." Who

is accompanying them and guiding them

well the angel of the Lord but here he

says "I'm not going with you this time."

So this is the Lord speaking it's not

the angel of the Lord and you say "Oh

this is the Lord." This is the Lord

speaking this is the Lord speaking says

"I'm not going up with you now." When it

was the angel of the Lord who was

accompanying them so these are the sorts

of things you have and people tried to

figure out how to deal with this and

they came up again with all sorts of

ways and Jesus entered the picture and

claimed to be one of the two powers in

heaven so what Jesus says we went

through three examples of Jesus claiming

to be one of the two powers he's the

divine son of the father he's the lord

of king David and he's the son of man

coming with the clouds of heaven and we

saw how people reacted to him claiming

to be the son of man coming with the

clouds of

heaven um in

response Alex was quoting uh he quoted

Psalm 82 and then Jesus uh using this

using this passage so let's go ahead and

take a look at this so they accuse Jesus

of claiming to be God

and Jesus answered them "Is it not

written in your law I have said you are

gods if he called them gods to whom the

word of God came and scripture cannot be

set aside what about the one whom the

father set apart as his very own and

sent into the world?" So Jesus is sent

into the world according to this passage

why then do you accuse me of blasphemy

because I said I am God's son uh this is

not and I have no idea how you would

ever read the gospel of John like this

let alone anything else Jesus said this

is not Jesus saying what you're

misunderstanding i'm just a regular

dude i again if you if this were the

only verse in there maybe you because if

if given the rest of what we read in the

Gospel of John and the rest of the

Gospels Jesus is not claiming to be a

regular

guy he's using a legal technicality here

that they should be aware of they're

saying "Hey here's what you're claiming

you're claiming to be a son of God this

means you're claiming to be equal to God

and so on and therefore uh this is

blasphemy."

And Jesus response is "Well that really

well in the Psalms." In the Psalms God

calls people

Elohim therefore you can't just say

calling someone some divine title is

blasphemous and deserves a death

sentence you have to show that it's some

that the title is not from God that it's

not true that it's false have you done

that no okay you can't kill me you can't

just say there's a claim and therefore

we will kill you over it so that's a

legal technicality again if you're if

you're somehow reading this as "See

Jesus is just claiming to be a regular

guy."

Wow all right so we have John

17:5 and now Father glorify me in your

presence with the glory I had with you

before the world began why alex quoted

John 17 to show that Jesus is uh just

claiming some some uh regular

relationship that we can all have with

God or something along those lines what

does Jesus say in the same chapter that

Alex is quoting and now Father glorify

me in your presence with the glory I had

with you before the world

began that sounds like Jesus is claiming

to have glory with the Father before the

world began doesn't sound like he's

claiming to be a regular guy doesn't

sound like he's saying "Oh you guys are

just misunderstanding everything I said

it's just one big

misunderstanding." So what Jesus does

what Jesus does we've looked at it he I

think he said he's going to respond to

it so what does Jesus do he's the judge

he's the final judge of all people

according to him uh again the Old

Testament says that Yahweh is the one

who's going to sit on his throne in

judgment jesus said "Yeah that's

me." The Old Testament says that that

Yahweh is the one who raises the dead

jesus says that he's the one who raises

the dead at the resurrection the people

in their graves are going to hear the

voice of the son of God now that is very

strange if that's oh that's how we all

are we're all going to be raised from

the dead by the son of God if that's him

saying "Oh we're all just the same and

yeah we we can all you you'll be in me

and I'll be in you." Very strange way of

putting

things what his friends say now this is

interesting alex quotes Steven in Acts 7

now this is a this is an awesome passage

because this this kind of proves

everything I was saying in my opening

statement look at this

Steven rebukes the Jewish leaders in the

harshest terms you can possibly rebuke

someone watch what he says you stiff

necked people your hearts and ears are

still uncircumcised you are just like

your ancestors you always resist the

Holy Spirit was there ever a prophet

your ancestors did not persecute they

even killed those who predicted the

coming of the righteous one and now you

have betrayed and murdered him you who

have received the law that was given

through angels but have not obeyed it

that is absolutely brutal guess what

they get mad they don't get

violent which what happens when the

members of the Sanhedrin heard this they

were furious and nashed their teeth at

him but Steven full of the Holy Spirit

looked up to heaven have they gotten

violent yet looked up to heaven and saw

the glory of God and Jesus standing at

the right hand of God look he said I see

heaven open and the son of man remember

that the son of man standing at the

right hand of God oh you got God and

then just someone

else how many powers in heaven

when do they get upset what watch when

they get

upset i see I see heaven open and the

son of man standing at the right hand of

God two powers in heaven and Jesus is

one of them now watch how they react at

this they covered their ears and yelling

at the top of their voices they all

rushed at him dragged him out of the

city and began to stone him meanwhile

the witnesses laid their coats at the

feet of a young man named Saul when do

they get

violent when he says Jesus is one of the

two powers in heaven that's what that's

exact that is the precise moment when

they get

violent jesus is one of the two powers

in heaven so keep in mind this actually

supports me right i mean this is one of

this this is one of the early Christians

who gets stoned to death for saying that

Jesus is one of the two powers in heaven

and if you're thinking he's just h just

a just a regular guy hanging out in

heaven first of all um you might want to

check about someone being in the

presence of God and what sort of person

you'd have to be but look look what look

what uh look what he I mean Oops do I

have

it oh I don't have it right right right

after this is when when uh Stephen I

don't have it on a slide uh right after

this is when Stephen looks up and says

what lord Jesus receive my spirit is

that just a regular guy in the presence

of God up there no that's someone

who receives the spirits of people that

a regular

guy so Alex thinks this is just God

endowing someone with authority um does

not look like that jesus seems to be the

authority here and this not only gets

Steven killed this sets Paul on a

rampage paul says "I have to wipe this

stuff out." Why we're told in the book

of Acts what really sets Paul off uh

when Ananas is told that Paul is coming

well Saul back then he says that he's

been told to apprehend everyone who

calls on this name why is that an issue

calling on the name that's that's how

you describe prayer in the Old Testament

calling on the name calling on the name

of Yahweh and Paul sees the Christians

calling on the name of Jesus the way

they're supposed to call on the name of

Yahweh why is this relevant paul

converts to Christianity about 2 years

after the

crucifixion when is this taking place

this is not something that happens 50 or

60 years after the time of Jesus we have

Christians calling on the name of Jesus

as they call on the name of Yahweh and

we can trace it to within two years of

Jesus crucifixion so if this is a

misunderstanding that's a pretty big

misunderstanding and Jesus must be the

worst communicator of all

time uh Alex brings up the Septu the

Septuagent responding to John i didn't

uh I I didn't uh rely on the passages

he's responding to uh but if you want to

go to the Septuagent in in terms of uh

interpreting uh interpreting the claims

of the New Testament let's go to Luke

luke 6:46 why do you Jesus says "Why do

you call me Lord Lord and do not do what

say?" If you want to talk about the

Septuagent there's only one other

there's only one other place outside the

outside the Gospels where they use this

Lord

Lord that's the Septuagent and it's a

translation of Adoni

Yahweh God Adoni Yahweh so it's the Lord

Yahweh but in Greek they would translate

Adonai and Yahweh as curios so it's

curios curios in the se in the

septuagent and here Jesus says why do

you call me Lord Lord and not do what I

say and so if you want to if you want to

interpret Jesus based on the Septuagent

claiming to be Yahweh here you go there

it is and it's in the gospel of

Luke so at the end of the day uh the

claim is that everything is just some

sort of big

misunderstanding this is very very very

strange to me because you're basically

saying Jesus was not a good

communicator you know you think about

the biatitudes and this the sermon on

the mount and the parable of the

prodigal son and the parable of the good

Samaritan and the golden rule and so on

and so on and so on

jesus seems like the best communicator

of all

time he's a he's careful about what he's

saying and sometimes he unveils things

in different ways but when he he makes a

point seems people get this point uh if

all of his followers just seem to

misunderstand him and start worshiping

him and praying to

him making doxologies for him and so

on putting their liturgy around him then

you're saying Jesus was just a terrible

terrible communicator and that I have to

say is the one option I cannot accept

[Applause]

here all right

[Applause]

all right so now Alex is going to go up

to do his

12minute rebuttal it gets a bit messy

I'm afraid ladies and gentlemen because

of course we're responding to each other

across purposes i respond to an opening

he responds to my opening i sort of have

to take it back a few places but I'll

try to make it

interesting we heard about the angel of

Yahweh and the suggestion that this

might indeed just be Jesus it might be

look I I don't claim to be

uh the sort of final authority on exesus

here i'm simply asking you to consider

what you think is a more appropriate

explanation i've suggested the uh divine

namebearing model as opposed to the two

powers in heaven and when I look at

passages such as Exodus 23 20 to 21 see

I am sending an angel ahead of you to

guard you along the way pay attention to

him and listen to what he says do not

rebel against him he will not forgive

your rebellion since my name is in him i

just ask which interpretation lends

itself more nicely to the passages uh

David's rebuttal there seemed to suggest

that I was under the impression that

Jesus is just some dude that is far far

from the case especially in John's

gospel where Jesus seems to posit

himself as something of a model of faith

for his disciples and for what it's

worth this is kind of the image that I

get of Jesus reading through the gospels

what is he supposed to be something like

an idyllic faithful servant of God and

certainly in a special position if you

include the the epistles in particular

then Jesus is of course exalted um but I

want to get into that but I suppose I

should turn to Philippians chapter 2

which David mentions of course we're not

talking Jesus's own words anymore but

it's it's still quite interesting what

people came to believe the mindset of

Jesus Christ who being in very nature

God did not consider equality with God

as something to be used to his own

advantage but rather made himself

nothing as I'm sure you all know that

word grasp there harpagmon or something

like that I'm not very good at

pronouncing the Greek but it means

something like to

steal to

seize isn't it a bit strange that if

Jesus is God he didn't consider equality

with God as something to be seized

to be stolen that's how that word is

used in the Greek language how can he

steal something that's already

rightfully

his and

indeed because he then died on the cross

and humbled himself even to death

therefore he was given the name that was

above all other names therefore whatever

exalted position Jesus is given here in

Philippians 2 and by the way he is given

it he's given it because of his

crucifixion therefore he's given the

name above other names again which

interpretation lends itself more nicely

to these

passages um I mean for what it's worth

my favorite interpretation I was

discussing this the other night at

dinner with well not with David actually

without be giving too much away but is

this so-called Adamic uh James Dunn has

written about this the sort of Adam

christologology as applies to

Philippians 2 who being in the very

nature of God this this word uh meaning

like the form of God if we consider that

Jesus is supposed to be the answer to

Adam's sin Adam's sin and Jesus redeems

Adam is made in the image of God and

considers equality with God as something

to be grasped to be seized when he takes

of the fruit and eats it and that is how

man falls so how is man redeemed

While Jesus Christ though also being

made in the form of a God in the image

of God did not consider equality with

God something to be seized not him but

humbled himself therefore Jesus is

exalted we're told in Hebrews chapter 2

that for a time Jesus is made lower than

the angels presumably while he's here on

earth again it just reads to me as if at

least while on earth Jesus is certainly

not approximating Yahweh but he's also

not just some

dude david mentioned the glory that's

given to Jesus in John 17:5 the same

chapter that I was using yeah verse 5

father glorify me in the presence that I

have with you before the world was

created let's keep reading John 17 and

see what Jesus wants to do with that

glory in fact the very passage that I

quoted my prayer is not for them alone i

pray that all may be one Father just as

you're in me and I am in you may they

also be in us blah blah blah immediately

afterwards so they may brought be

brought into complete

unity then they will know I've copied

the wrong passage actually jesus says

that the glory you've given me I will

give to

them in John chapter

17 he says "The glory you've given me I

will give to them." the

disciples we're told in Isaiah in the

book of Isaiah that God shares his glory

with nobody and this is

sometimes a suggestion that's made is

sometimes that because Jesus says

"Glorify me God." In John chapter 17 he

must be God because God shares his glory

with nobody but people just seem to

forget that in the same chapter Jesus

says that he will give the glory that he

has been given by the father to the

disciples too again all I'm asking you

to consider is however you interpret

these verses where Jesus is given glory

Jesus is given the judgment and be bear

in mind that Jesus is given all of these

things what he then does with those

things and whether he delegates them to

other people because if he does then

it's clearly not just something that can

be delegated to God himself only God

judges only God can judge but Jesus says

that he will judge jesus also promises

judgment over the 12 tribes of Israel to

the disciples so are the disciples

God jesus forgives sins and only God can

forgive

sins in John chapter 20 21 he says as

the father has sent me again cathos

cathos as just as the father has sent me

I'm sending you if you forgive people's

sins their sins will be forgiven if you

do not their sins will be retained i'm

told that only God forgives sins but

then Jesus gives that ability to his

disciples in other words all of these

things which are supposed to indicate

that God that Jesus has a special

relationship with God of course he does

but it's a relationship that he hopes

and literally prays that will be shared

with everybody also this Luke 6:46 thing

that David put up I want to make sure

I'm understanding this correctly as far

as I understand in Luke 6:46 when it

when it quotes Lord Lord you know and as

far as I understand David was saying

that in the Hebrew this is presumably

Yahweh Adonai right is that right David

Yahweh Adonai in the Hebrew perhaps

he'll address it in his second rebuttal

and then said ah but you know in the

Greek Septuagent this is translated as

curios curios because it's Lord twice

which translation of the Old Testament

are the New Testament writers

the Septuagent so the passage that they

read would have said curios curious Lord

twice it wouldn't have said Yahweh and

then Adonite or rather the other way

around I think it is it would have said

curios curios so of course they're

willing to use this in Luke's gospel

because it says the same word twice

which to them just means Lord because

that's the that's the translation that

they're reading also this idea that

Jesus is a perfect

communicator sort of David is like

mocking this idea saying is am I

supposed to understand Jesus as just

being a terrible communicator well if

you look at the way that the Jews were

interpreting him like kind of at the

very least people were deeply

confused everybody was confused not just

his Jewish opponents because they were

hardened of heart his disciples

regularly struggled with his teachings

too asking him to expand and explain

what on earth he meant it even says at

one point that Jesus was speaking in

parables so that quoting a psalm again

they will be ever seeing everlooking but

not seeing ever hearing but not

understanding the gospels tell us that

Jesus was speaking intentionally in such

a way that people would misunderstand

him and then it says "But when he was

alone with his disciples he explained

everything." So no I don't actually

think that Jesus's public ministry was

entirely clear to everybody who was

listening in fact that's part of the

point we're told that Jesus is

constantly trying to hide his identity

because he has to be careful about how

he expresses himself which by the way

seems to raise a cont a

contradiction when you consider the fact

that we're told that in at least John's

gospel Jesus is going around willy-nilly

calling himself God in the full view of

his disciples and also his opponents he

invokes the divine name and anybody

listening would have completely

understood what he was saying and yet

throughout the synoptic gospels there is

a motif the messianic secret so it's

called that every time he reveals his

identity he tells them not to tell

anybody don't tell them I'm the Messiah

but it's fine for them to know that I'm

God i don't know about

that

um I think the best way of understanding

who Jesus is is like I say a sort of

idyllic human being take when Jesus

walks on the water for example another

uh example that's often given as a high

christoologgical moment because of

course in Job 9 it says that only God

treads upon the waves of the ocean sure

but people then also forget that Peter

also walks on the water just

afterwards but Peter starts sinking and

Jesus says "You don't have enough

faith." What does that imply that if

Peter had enough faith he could have

kept walking on the water what are we to

take from this if Jesus is supposed to

be God because he walks on the water but

then Peter walks on the water too i

don't think that's a very good

interpretation

in other

words we're told that God forgives

sins but then the disciples are given

the authority to forgive sins in John

chapter 20 we're told only God warts on

the water but then Peter does this

immediately afterwards we're told that

only God can have the authority to judge

as David says but the disciples are

promised judgment over the 12 tribes of

Israel that's not the only time the

judgment is uh delegated by the way

we're told that Jesus explicitly claims

identity with God by saying he and the

father are one but then Jesus prays that

his disciples will be one in the same

way we're told that God will share his

glory with nobody else but Jesus claims

to have had glory with the father before

he was born but Jesus then says he wants

to share that glory with the disciples

we're told that Jesus only rightly

accepts worship this is interesting by

the way David flashed on a few passages

of Jesus accepting worship in the

Gospels the word most commonly

translated as worship in the New

Testament is

progyno which means to bow down or

prostrate before a higher authority and

of course Jesus received this proaneo

worship therefore he must be

God if that is the

case then we have to consider the fact

that David in the Septuagent for example

bows down proc before Esau that Joseph's

brothers proc before him when he's

governor of Egypt that the entire nation

of Israel offers proc

worship to King David as well that Lot

procano before two angels proskano is

littered throughout the old and also the

New Testament by the way uh in the

parable of the unmerciful servant when

one of the servants returns he offers

procoo to his master and this is a story

that Jesus is saying also let's not

forget that in

revelation Jesus promises that his true

followers his their enemies will proc

worship before them Jesus himself in

revelation is saying that human beings

will receive proc worship if procaneo

worship is something that only god can

receive then all of these people sinned

all of them the entire assembly of

Israel sinned when they bowed down

before David i don't think that's a good

interpretation there is another word

that's sometimes translated as worship

which is latruo this is religious cultic

worship that is only offered to God

nowhere in the gospels is this offered

to Jesus how many times is procao

worship how many times is any kind of

worship accepted by Jesus in Luke's

gospel does anybody know zero the word

comes up three times twice in the

temptation of the desert where it's

discussed and once at the end after

Jesus has ascended so he can say nothing

about it and in a verse that's contested

in our manuscript traditions how many

times in Mark does Jesus accept worship

this time the answer is two but one of

those is the demon legion it's usually

translated as throws himself at his feet

before Jesus and the other is when the

Roman soldiers mockingly worship Jesus

they offer Proscono why because he's the

king of the Jews because procire worship

is something offered to kings higher

authorities i'll keep going perhaps in

my further rebuttal but if worship is

something that is only due to God then

there are a lot more sinners in the

Bible than we think okay

thanks all right so now David Wood is

going to do his second six-minute

rebuttal and then that will be followed

up by Alex's six minute rebuttal all

right alex says we're looking for the

best explanation i would submit that the

best explanation for Jesus claiming to

be one of the two powers in heaven um

and for claiming to do things like judge

the world and raise the dead at the

resurrection and for why his followers

are praying to him and worshiping him

and calling him God and the son of God

and doing the same thing doing the exact

same thing that Jesus does namely

claiming to be one of the two powers in

heaven and for his enemies to repeatedly

accuse him of blasphemy ultimately sends

him to death and then people who say the

same thing like Steven uh also uh find

themselves uh being executed And I would

say that the best explanation of that is

Jesus was claiming to be

God that that's just me uh it's like if

if if I met if I met like five if

suppose I never heard a word from Alex

but I meet like five of his biggest fans

and they say "Yeah we love Alex he's the

Messiah." And then I run into five of

his harshest critics and they say "Man

we can't stand that dude Alex he thinks

he's the Messiah." Even if I never heard

a word from Alex I'd be thinking he was

claiming to be something like that and

that's what's giving his friends and

enemies that

indication likewise with Jesus even if I

didn't have any words of Jesus if I just

know if I just knew these guys were were

uh people were being put to death for

making these kinds of claims and that

his followers are going around

worshiping him and praying to him I

would think he's saying

something now uh Alex thinks that

apparently thinks that the best

explanation is this divine uh name

bearing scenario if so Jesus did a

really terrible job of getting that

message across and uh it doesn't seem

like anyone really got the point unless

we do some creative interpretations of

some passages alex again quotes Exodus

to say that uh that the the angel of the

Lord is just some representative who

bears the name again I quoted the exact

same book he quoted where Yahweh says

that I'm not going along with you

anymore which is Yahweh saying that he

was the angel of the Lord who was

guiding them um he says that his view is

that Jesus is presented as the ideal

servant of God the ideal servant of God

convinces people to bow down and worship

him and pray to him and so on this is

this is what the ideal servant of God

would do that's a that's a very strange

ideal servant of God since that's kind

of precisely what you shouldn't do if

you're not God uh he says that proano

can mean bow down yes you the word

procaneo depends on the cont if it's a

religious context it refers to worship

if it's but you can yes someone can just

bow down to you out of respect and that

would that would be you can bow down to

a normal human but guess what we have

clearly clearly religious context in

some of these passages for instance

Matthew 14:33 they are freaked out those

who are in the boat worshiped him saying

truly you are the son of God that's a

different sort of context than I want to

ask you for a favor and I want to bow

down out of respect as for Philippians 2

uh he he it sounded like he was uh Dun's

Dun's theory that this is just saying

that when it says who was in very nature

God it's actually it's actually the form

of God but this is just saying that he's

a regular he was a a human being a human

being and since he found himself as a

human being like we're all the image of

God he humbled himself and therefore he

was eventually exalted and so on uh this

just it just doesn't work let me just

read it who being in very nature God or

just you can just make up a translation

say image of God for for fun who being

in very nature God did not consider

equality with God something to be used

to his own advantage yes that can mean

sees it can uh also mean used to his

advantage you look at what makes sense

in context did not consider equality

with God something to be used to his own

advantage rather he made himself nothing

by taking the very nature of a servant

being made in human likeness

the the decision to humble himself is

before is is what led to him being made

in human likeness this isn't a human

being who's sitting around going "Hey

I'm in the image of God you know I could

strive to be like God you know like like

Adam did but I'm going to humble myself

instead." This is a divine being

humbling himself by becoming a human

being and then being found in appearance

as a man he humbled himself by becoming

obedient to death even death on a cross

therefore God exalted in the highest

place and gave him the name that is

above every name that at the name of

Jesus every knee should bow in heaven

and on earth and under the earth and

every tongue acknowledged that Jesus

Christ is Lord to the glory of God the

Father alex seems to think that if

you're a a human being and you humble

yourself in this way that God can just

exalt you to to the status of of Yahweh

and apply these passages that are just

Yahweh when when Yahweh says there

there's no one there's no one else but

me that's what's being quoted there from

Isaiah as for curios curios um Alex says

well well what would they be using they

would be using the Septuagent the Greek

translation yeah and they went to a

passage they they they used the

formulation curios curios which is

specifically referring to Yahweh that's

what Jesus uses he's quoting curios

curios he's calling himself curios

curios the only other use of that is the

septuagent where it refers

to adoni so why is Jesus using that and

again I only brought up that point

because he he brought up the point about

the Septuagent and using it to interpret

the claims of Christ so I said "Fine

let's go with it." And we got in Luke

and therefore that's him claiming to be

Yahweh was Jesus a bad communicator he

says "Ah but Jesus wasn't clear and he

uh veiled his statements." So yes I

grant all of that jesus was a careful

communicator he was careful about how he

communicated certain things he tend he

tried to unveil certain things over time

when people were ready for it that's not

that's not what I consider a bad

communicator i consider all of that part

of being a very good communicator if

you're saying that the people who all

heard Jesus all got it wrong somehow or

that we we don't really have uh the

records of the people who somehow got it

right that his friends got it wrong

because they continue and they build

their church around him and his enemies

are sentencing him to death um I would

say that's a really really really bad

communicator and that just does not line

up if everyone is concluding the same

thing about this guy that he's claiming

to be God that he's claiming to be one

of the two powers in heaven the best

explanation is not some idea that no one

got the best explanation is very simple

he was making those claims that's why we

have all this

evidence all

right all right check check check check

check okay so now Alex is going to do

his second six-minute rebuttal okay i

suppose I really want to nail down on

this worship point since I was kind of

getting at that at the end and David

says "Yeah procoo can mean just simply

bowing down." But in a religious context

it means something else like what do you

mean how do you know that without

begging the question like I say let's

actually evaluate that's what I was sort

of going through how many times proca

worship is given to Jesus in the New

Testament or at least that Jesus accepts

it in the New Testament it doesn't

happen once in Luke's gospel

it basically doesn't happen once in Mark

because it happens twice and one of

these is a demon and one of these which

I suppose is an interesting thing to

explore in itself but one of these is

then simply mocking Jesus because he's

the king why would they consider mocking

him with proso worship if he was

claiming to be king of the Jews because

that's what proco means if procaneo can

mean actually worship of the kind that

latruo usually gets at that is worship

cultic worship of a religious figure as

David suggests here's a riddle for you

why isn't it given to Jesus after Jesus

ascends why isn't it that people are

offering procao worship after Jesus

ascends except at the moment of his

ascension at the end of Luke's gospel

which as I as I say is contested in our

manuscript tradition anyway why

not because it refers to a physical

action because it's not referring to

worship of the kind that David wants it

to be in this context in John's gospel

which we didn't get to how many times

does Jesus accept

worship the answer again is

once just once it happens in John

chapter 9 this is the man who was born

blind who I mentioned earlier in verse

38 he says to Jesus "Lord I believe."

And he worshiped

him except he doesn't say so

in papyrus 75 he doesn't say so in codec

sinaticus doesn't say so in codeex

washing tonianis in other words this

verse isn't present in our earliest

manuscripts we're pretty confident that

there are elements of the gospels which

are later interpolations most famously

the ending of Mark's gospel which is not

in a manuscript and the story of the

adulterous woman let he who is without

sin cast the first stone which are not

in our early manuscripts i'm interested

as to whether David thinks that there

are things in the gospels which didn't

actually happen either because they're

recorded incorrectly or because they are

later interpolations but at least in

this case of worship it seems to be a

later interpolation but at best we've

got one instance of Jesus accepting

worship in John's gospel and our

manuscript evidence seems to suggest

that there's none if worshiping Jesus is

supposed to be some indication of his

divinity then why is it only Matthew's

gospel who seems to mention anything to

do with worship and uses a term when

there's another one available to

indicate cultic religious worship to

someone who's divine yet he chooses a

word which just means physical

prostration before someone who has a

higher authority like I don't know maybe

the

Messiah like the disciples bow down and

worship Jesus at what point do you think

they began to get the picture that he

was God they knew that he was the

Messiah for a long time but I genuinely

don't know when David thinks they began

to realize that this person was God do

you think there might be an instance of

them offering procal worship to Jesus

before they'd fully realize that i think

so because procao worship is a physical

action that's given to people who are of

a higher authority just to belabor this

point in the Septuagent here are some

examples of procao worship lot worships

two angels in Genesis abraham worships

the Hittites isaac blesses Jacob to have

all the nations on earth worship him in

Genesis jacob worships Esau joseph's

brothers worship him abigail worships

David's servants in 1 Samuel Saul

worships the dead Samuel in 1 Samuel the

sons of prophets worship Elijah in 2

Kings david worships the temple

in Psalm 5 all the people of Israel

worship King David in 1 Chronicles this

is the same term procano if David wants

to suggest that sometimes this proc

worship can mean cultic religious

worship even though there's another word

available that people use to mean that

but it's not being used in this instance

for some reason i want to know what that

distinction is and how we can know which

kind of worship is being given without

simply begging the question and saying

that well when it's given to Jesus it's

obviously of the religious kind

otherwise as far as I'm concerned this

worship point is essentially bunk some

of you might be thinking hold on a

second in the temptation in the

desert Satan asks Jesus to worship him

and what does Satan say do you know he

says "Worship it is written worship God

and serve him only." So you're only

supposed to worship God and people say

that this is an indication that any

worship of anybody other than God would

be immoral that interpretation cannot be

the case firstly because it would

condemn all of the people that I've just

listed to be sinners including the

entire assembly of Israel that can't be

it let's look again at this passage

jesus is quoting a passage which by the

way he's actually changed in the Old

Testament the passage that he's quoting

says "Fear

God rather than worship God." But

besides the point the word only here

qualifies not the word worship but the

word serve worship God and serve him

only worship here is procoo which we

know that Jesus can't be saying only

proaneo towards God because all of these

people including people that Jesus talks

about himself are offered proc worship

indeed process worshiped uh is promised

to all of you in revelation so we know

that he can't mean only worship god in

that sense but only qualifies the word

serve worship god and serve him only

what is the word serve which which Greek

word is translated in this passage to

serve does anybody know

latruo cultic religious worship so this

is a reaffirmation of point that proc

worship is fine but latrua worship is

something special that can only be be

given to God the key text here is James

Dun's um did the early Christians

worship God and as he rightly points out

there is no talk anywhere once in the

entire New Testament of latruo worship

being offered to Jesus why not

all right okay so that concludes Alex's

second rebuttal round we're going to

move to open discussion all right all

right all right

well shall we spark it off gentlemen

whatever you like let's do it open

dialogue who would like to take the lead

uh well I have some questions perhaps to

ask David about his position on Jesus's

relationship to the father with

particular regards to the authority that

he derives from the the father so one

question for example why do you think

that Jesus

prays before raising Lazarus from the

dead

um the the Old Testament says that God

is the God of all flesh if um if a

divine being were to become incarnate as

is claimed of Jesus and that divine

being really became a flesh and blood

human being like Jesus then um if he

is if he's also had an eternal

relationship with the

father then I I don't know if I'd expect

him to be an atheist when he entered

into creation so I in other words in

other words if if if the Christian

picture is correct you've got father and

son for all eternity son enters into

creation

um what's he going to be an atheist if

he is going to if as part of it is if

he's going to be the ideal human or

something like that yeah and so the son

of man one might say as far as uh as far

as what Jesus is going to do um you

would continue the eternal relationship

that you've had with the father and you

would do that through prayer so what I

mean to say is could Jesus have have

risen Lazarus from the dead of his own

accord on his own authority

i suppose yeah you suppose

that all authority has been given to

himself been given to him by God right

which the way that I read that is that

the father has delegated the authority

that is rightfully his to Jesus and it's

often said to me that Jesus raising

people from the dead of his own

authority is actually an indication of

his divinity because we have Old

Testament passages of people raising

people from the dead like Elijah and

Elisha and the point is always made that

well they pray before they they rise

from the dead jesus doesn't pray but

before he raises Lazarus in Johnap 11 he

looks upward and says,"Father I thank

you for having heard me i know that you

always hear me but I've said this for

the sake of the crowd standing here so

they may believe that you have sent me."

And when he says this he cries out with

a loud voice "Lazarus come out." So

Jesus is not only praying before raising

Lazarus but also saying that I always do

this it's just I'm doing it right now

publicly so there's no confusion that

you're the one who sent me to do this

and so even in instances where Jesus

appears to perform miracles of his own

accord such as calming the storm or

indeed raising other people from the

dead like the the widow's child he tells

us here in John's gospel that he always

is in communication with God beforehand

but right now he's saying so publicly so

that people will know that he sent him

why does Jesus need to pray before he

raises Lazarus from the dead um I mean

this is the exact same chapter where

Jesus declares himself the resurrection

and the life that's right and it's in

the same book where Jesus says that he's

the one who raises the dead at the

resurrection everyone who's in their

graves

will hear the voice of the son of God

mhm and so uh if if you're if you're

thinking that when we talk about Jesus

we're thinking of him as some rogue

deity who does things on his own I mean

that's basically the the entire meaning

of John chapter 5 john chapter 5 is

basically one response to this um Jesus

Jesus heals on the Sabbath and this

freaks him out because they say "Hey

what are you doing?" He says "Well the

father's working until now i'm working

too yeah and so since the father's

working I get to work you all don't get

to work i get to work and then they

accuse him of claiming to be equal to

God and then he explains it that it's a

verse that Muslims use they say he says

by my own self I can do nothing but if

you look at what he's saying it's I can

do nothing separately from the father

but that's the same chapter where he

claims that he's the final judge where

he claims that he's the one who raises

the dead at the resurrection and he

explains it and says um for the father

judges no one but has given all judgment

to the son that all may honor the son

just as they honor the father the only

way you'd honor the son the same way you

you honor the father is if they have the

same nature and attributes you wouldn't

honor anyone else like you honor God

interesting do you believe that so Jesus

is saying

that the reason he's the one who judges

everything is because is so that we

honor him the same way we honor the

father that doesn't that that sounds Do

you believe do you believe that the

father has a distinct loving

relationship to the son compared to the

loving relationship he has to all of us

say

yep only because I' I've heard you make

this point before that he says that it's

that word as is quite important what you

just said so that he will honor uh so

that they will honor me just as they

honor the father that word just as is

cathos which I mentioned earlier that's

also used when Jesus says "So they will

know that you have loved me just as you

have loved them." So if we if we're

going to be consistent in our usage of

the term here if if Jesus saying like uh

that they will honor you just as they'll

honor me just as uh just as you honor

the father then the loving relationship

has to be treated in the same way right

well I think you could say I'm trying to

think if you say that you know I could

say I love this person just as I love my

wife and yeah you'd be right i could say

well I just mean I love both of them but

not in you know that wouldn't

necessarily be saying I love that person

exactly as I That's why there are two

words in the Greek that's why there's

like the word for no and finally I'm

talking about you have to interpret

words in context and what's what's the

context of this it's Jesus jesus claims

Jesus claims that that that since the

father is working he's working also mhm

and it's interesting because the

discussion among the rabbis was does God

work on does God work on the Sabbath and

so Jesus is working so God works on the

Sabbath because he's upholding and

sustaining the universe therefore I get

to work on the Sabbath as well and then

hey you're claiming to

be like they think he's claiming to be

another God and he clarifies no no no by

myself I can do nothing he points us he

he points this out and in this context

he's the final judge and so it's you

will honor the son just as you honor the

father there in context it would be very

strange to say well I just mean honor me

in some sense like you honor the father

but not not in that way it's I mean the

old testament Yahweh is the one who sets

up his throne to judge jesus is the one

who says all judgment is given to him

given Yeah yeah and so if it's if all

judgment is given to him and keep in

mind the Old Testament Yahweh is the one

who's going to judge and you're saying

Yeah but it's given to Jesus

and he says it's so that we honor him

the same way we honor the father yeah

okay so I want to talk about this

Sabbath moment because this is quite

important this is in John chapter 5 as

well this whole episode sort of hinges

on the idea that Jesus is working on the

Sabbath he says "My father is working so

am I." So your interpretation of this is

to say that well my father in heaven

that is God is working on the Sabbath so

so am I therefore I'm God this story of

Jesus working on the Sabbaths is

reported in multiple gospels in Mark's

gospel when he's found working on the

Sabbath and the Pharisees say to him

this is Mark chapter 2 look why are they

doing that which is not lawful on the

Sabbath what does Jesus say in response

have you not heard what David did have

you not read what David did when he and

his companions were hungry and in need

of food and they enter the house of God

and take the food which is not lawful on

the Sabbath so

Jesus justifies his breaking of the

Sabbath by referring to another human

being who also broke the Sabbath he then

tells us that the Sabbath was made for

mankind and not mankind for the Sabbath

a very famous quote the Sabbath was made

for man and not man for the Sabbath

bearing in mind that although the son of

man is lord of the seven yes bear in

mind that although in the in the Greek

the definite article is given to Jesus

when he uses the term son of man it's

complicated by the fact that son of man

without the definite article is just a

way of saying human being so there are

some scholars such as Morris Casey who

believe that these son of man sayings

have been corrupted at least some of

them from originally saying a son of man

or the son of man in the sense of just

meaning a human being now why would that

interpretation be correct here because

Jesus says firstly when he's accused of

breaking the Sabbath he says "Well David

did the same thing was David sinning?"

The implication is no which means it

can't just be God who breaks the Sabbath

he then says that the Sabbath was made

for man humans not humans or man for the

Sabbath therefore he says the word is

therefore the son of man is Lord of the

Sabbath if the son of man in some

context just means a human being that's

how early church fathers interpreted it

for example in fact some of the early

church fathers translated the son of man

as the son of Mary because they thought

it was Jesus indicating that he was the

son of a human being and he was only

born of Mary given that undertone for

this phrase the son of man how else can

I read this passage except Jesus saying

"Yeah I'm working on the Sabbath." So

did David and that wasn't wrong the

Sabbath was made for mankind therefore

mankind is Lord of the Sabbath if it's

only God who can work on the Sabbath

then why does Jesus appeal to David um

you're you're you're talking about two

completely different passages you're

talking about this this situation and

Jesus I was talking to a Jewish guy in

Israel and he he was he's not a

Christian but he said "Hey Jesus way won

jesus way actually won jesus Jesus the

way of Jesus won." Oh sure he he viewed

Jesus as like a a religious reformer um

sent against uh religious extremism and

so on um there Jesus is talking about

like preserving life and so on the

accusation in John in John five is

different but I'm I mean I'm I'm

pointing to John because you you're

going with John in John five he says the

father's working

and so he gets to work too that's right

and again if you read this there's

there's no way to interpret this as

Jesus claiming to be some you know just

another human being or something like

that well I don't think Jesus is

claiming to be just another human being

but although we are talking about two

different passages here if the reason

that Jesus gives because bear in mind

there are multiple ways to interpret

this when he says "Well God's working so

why not I?" There are multiple ways to

interpret this either Jesus is again

quite explicitly claiming to be God

which again is quite mystifying given

that this doesn't seem to provoke the

same kind of reaction and if it's well

recognized that God is the Lord of the

Sabbath and Jesus is claiming himself as

a title the son of man to be Lord of the

Sabbath or in this instance just

claiming the authority because God is

working so so am I it's strange that it

doesn't cause the same kind of fuss but

the other interpretation is that Jesus

is saying well if God can work on the

Sabbath why not anybody else if God can

work why not me and that just doesn't

your interpretation just doesn't square

with me with Mark's gospel i mean the

question I asked is why does he refer to

David in justifying talking about we're

talking about John yes you can you can

you can have you can have different

reasons for doing things in different

situations i mean as far as John so

Jesus because he was doing these things

on the Sabbath the Jewish leaders began

to persecute him in his defense Jesus

said to them my father is always at his

work to this very day and I too am

working for this reason they tried all

the more to kill him not only because he

was breaking the Sabbath but was even

calling God his own father making

himself equal with God yes and so that's

when Jesus goes and and if he's trying

to say that if he's trying to say

something about it's okay to break the

Sabbath or you don't have to work on the

Sabbath anymore or something like that

it's a it's a strange direction to go in

that he makes all these claims um he can

do only what the father sees because

whatever the father does the son also

does for just as the father raises the

dead and gives them life even so the son

gives life to whom he is pleased to give

it mhm the father judges no one but is

entrusted all judgment to the son that

all may honor the son just as they honor

the father whoever does not honor the

son does not honor the father that's

when he goes on to say that he's the one

who raises the dead a time is coming and

has now come when the dead will hear the

voice of the son of God and those who

hear will live for as the father has

life in himself so he has granted the

son also to have life in himself and he

has given him authority to judge because

he is the son of man and then he goes on

to say that uh the dead are going to be

raised my point is zeroing in on one

little point and saying ah well you know

maybe this is just you're missing kind

of the big picture this is but I'm

noticing the words granted and given or

authority there uh this idea that Jesus

raises the dead is not exactly clear in

John chapter 5 like if we if we look at

the words that we're actually dealing

with here the father judges no one but

has entrusted all judgment to the

son presumably the father could judge if

he wanted to he's made a decision to

entrust this to the son meaning that the

son doesn't have this power necessarily

if the son has this power necessarily

it's not something that needs to be

entrusted to him in the way that the

father then would not have it he then

says "Very truly I say to you whoever

hears my word and believes him who has

sent me has eternal life." And goes on

to say that the dead will hear the voice

of the son of God and those who hear

will live the voice of the son of God

yeah now he's the son of God right jesus

that's right agreeing that he's claiming

to be the son of God yeah so they'll

hear his voice and they'll be raised

from the dead but how do we like who is

doing the raising here and how do you

know

um you wait you're you're saying we're

going to hear people are going to So

you're saying someone else is raising

them god when they hear the voice of the

son of God so they're dead they're just

bones they hear the voice of the son of

God and then someone else raises them

for as the father has given has life in

himself so he has granted the son to

also have life in himself life in

himself yes any power that Jesus has

here is given to him by the father why

is Jesus if God in need of being given

this power by the father

um you not you have the this is the

exact same issue that you have in um in

Daniel 7 where the uh the son of man

coming with the clouds of heaven

approaches the ancient of days and he is

given authority glory and sovereign

power so it's why is he being given

authority and glory and sovereign power

yeah but even before that it's the son

of man coming with the clouds of heaven

that's how he approaches but again it's

Yahweh who comes with the clouds so he's

Yahweh and then something happens and

then he's he's given the son of man is

Yahweh do you think that that was how

Daniel 7 was interpreted by anybody

before Daniel saw a vision that's right

but this this is this is this is one of

the issues as far as the this is one of

the issues that comes up in um in the

two power the two powers in heaven

because it's again Yahweh is the only

one who comes with the clouds in the Old

Testament and here you have the son of

man who receives uh worship and so on

and is worshiped by all nations and but

notice he approaches he approaches and

then he's he's given authority glory and

sovereign power mhm but if you if you if

you line that up with the creed in

Philippians if you line that up with

John 1 and so on you get you get kind of

a big picture and you can you can take

like John 1:1 in the beginning was the

word the word was with God the word was

God and then the word became flesh and

dwelt among us that's after all things

are created through him and you find the

same thing in Philippians 2 early

Christian creed uh when it's uh in your

relationships with with one another have

the same mindset as Christ Jesus who

being in very nature God did not

consider equality with God something to

be used to his own advantage um rather

he made himself nothing taking the very

nature of a servant so these are you you

have someone who is in nature God over

here someone who is the word who through

whom all things are created and then

enters creation

and if you so then lives as Jesus dies

and I would I would interpret it since

you have uh the ending in Matthew where

Jesus approaches and he's worshiped

there and he says that all authority in

heaven and earth has been given to him m

so the idea is he becomes a servant he's

in very nature God he takes on the

nature of a servant and then he lives as

a servant and the the irony of the

statement where where he says the son of

man came not to be served but to serve

and to give his life as a ransom for

many the irony there is he's the son of

man he's supposed to be served in by all

and he says that he came to serve and so

he's living as a servant during this

life then he dies he rises from there's

there's a lot here right yeah i I want

to go right back because we started with

this idea of the son of man coming on

the clouds meaning that he's Yahweh do

you think that's how Daniel interpreted

his vision do you think that's how I

believe Daniel saw a vision and recorded

his vision do you think that's how the

Sanhedrin interpreted Daniel 7 when

Jesus comes for his trial and he says

and he quotes Daniel 7 and says that

you'll see the son of man riding on the

clouds of heaven do you think that the

problem there was that Jesus was

claiming to be God and that's something

that no human being can do because

Daniel 7 is part of the Jewish scripture

they were expecting the coming of this

son of man so if it's obvious that the

son of man was going to be Yahweh then

the Sanhedrin should have expected that

the coming son of man would have been

Yahweh they might have thought that

Jesus wasn't him but do you think that

the Sanhedrin were expecting whoever the

rightful son of man was who was to come

would be identical to Yahweh and if not

why did they not read that into the

passage as obviously as you think that

they should have done people were

basically confused by these passages

that's the impression you get they go in

all sorts of different directions and oh

this is referring to the Messiah no this

is referring to some sort of angel no

this is referring to this no that's I'm

talking about what the text says the son

of man comes with the clouds of heaven

all before that all before that it's

always Yahweh who comes on the clouds

and so if you were looking at that and

you didn't if you if you didn't have the

idea of wait a minute it it just can't

be it it's impossible that that is

referring to God because you've got the

ancient of days right there if you're

not reading I and really I I don't know

I don't even know what to do if you're

saying that I'm not talking about you

i'm talking about anyone if you're

reading that and going "No it doesn't

seem like this is God he comes with the

clouds of heaven but then he's worshiped

by all nations and has an ever an

everlasting kingdom." Mhm if you're just

reading that if if put it this way if

you didn't have the ancient of days in

the picture and you're reading this

description comes in the cloud of

heavens worship all nations say

obviously God yes the the the mystery

comes in the mystery comes in when it's

wait a minute we've got the ancient of

days here so this is sounding like

That's right two divine beings and we

just can't real quick so we we've gone

through about 20 minutes david are you

comfortable staying here or do you want

to ask Alex some questions now

we just of course the point was or is in

the christoologgical dispute that Jesus

is accused of blasphemy at his trial and

that this is evidence that he was

claiming to be God through his

identification with the divine son of

man because that's how it's

interpreted by the high priest because

he accuses him of blasphemy does that

mean that the high priest was expecting

the son of man to be Yahweh himself do

you think that that is the

interpretation that the high priest had

of the Danielic vision of the son of man

i would say they would obviously have

interpreted the uh that that passage in

Daniel or claimed to be the son of man

in in that sense if you were just if

you're just saying hey I'm a son of man

I think they'd be fine with it um well

yeah of course in in the Aramaic in

which Daniel 7 is written it's one like

a son of man one like bar nash which

just means one like a human being yeah

so you you'd clarify that and that's the

point like like a human being and yet he

comes with the clouds of heaven so he's

he's coming with clouds of heaven he's

Yahweh and yet he's like the son of a

man that's right you understand history

as far as as far as how they would

interpret it they could have a range of

interpretations that we don't know what

this means but we know that the the guy

who built my cousin's table in Nazareth

should not be making this claim sure so

is that enough to be So suppose that

their interpretation was a a messianic

vision of Daniel 7 this carpenter

claiming to be the Messiah would that

have been enough to accuse him of

blasphemy claiming to be the Messiah is

not a not a death sentence all all kinds

of So the reason I'm pressing this point

is because when I say did the high

priest believe that the son of man was

going to be Yahweh himself i think

that's quite implausible and I think you

recognize that in saying well look there

are loads of ideas that they could have

had was quite confusing but if Jesus

wouldn't be accused of blasphemy for

merely claiming to be the Messiah if you

had a messianic interpretation he

wouldn't be accused of blasphemy for

claiming to embody the nation of Israel

if you have the idea that the son of man

represents Israel which is another view

it has to be Israel comes on the clouds

of it has to be and is worshiped by all

nations i'm not that's my interpretation

i'm saying that in the history of the

interpretation of Daniel 7 that has been

a popular interpretation of course the

four beasts which come before represent

different nations and the one like the

son of man is Israel but the question

I'm asking you is surely you recognize

that if the idea is that claiming to be

the Messiah or something like that is

not enough for a death sentence that's

right then what Jesus has to have done

in that trial in order to get a death

sentence must have been to say something

that the high priest immediately

interpreted as him claiming to be Yahweh

that means that he has to expect that

the coming son of man would be Yahweh

himself

i understand what the high priest

thought of Daniel's vision one you're

you're you just made an awesome case for

me right if he's just thinking of if

he's just thinking of the the son of man

coming with the clouds of heaven uh as

the Messiah then oh okay this guy

claimed to be the Messiah let's uh let's

uh maybe we have to deal with the Romans

or something like that but it's not it's

not uh it's not this uh terrier

blasphemy sort of thing um what you find

in that passage people struggle with

that again the reason the reason is

because it sounds like it's talking

about Yahweh when the ancient of days is

Yahweh that's it so you come up you try

to you try to explain it in other ways

could this be the Messiah that does it

just doesn't fit could this be the

nation of Israel it doesn't fit there

all these interpretations but it's clear

if a guy says "You will see the son of

man coming with a uh at the right hand

of power and coming with the clouds of

heaven." Yeah doesn't seem like they

were taking that to just be a claim to

be the Messiah that interpretation and

and you're right that I'm bolstering the

case here that Jesus must have been

claiming to be Yahweh what I'm saying is

that if your position is correct and

that is the only thing that he could

have been accused of blasphemy for then

you have to presuppose that the high

priest had that interpretation of Daniel

7 which which just seems so implausible

to me that that's what they thought

Daniel 7 meant that that's what they

thought at that time that it meant that

this son of man who they did expect to

come would be Yahweh himself is is that

what you think they they thought because

you have to for this to run i don't have

the records of the high priest if he

says "This guy just claimed to be the

son of man coming with the clouds of

heaven." And again this if you just read

the if you just read the passage if you

just read in Daniel 7 if you didn't have

the ancient of days there it would be

indisputable this talking about this

talking about God but you've got the

ancient of days there so what's the

context of this first century they're

dealing with this two powers in heaven

issue and they don't know how to deal

with it they're coming they're coming up

with all sorts of explanations for what

they for what this second power is and

then Jesus claims to be one of them when

does the two powers in heaven uh like

idea heresy if you want to call it that

now like when does that begin to emerge

uh BC what evidence do you have of the

popularity of the 2 heaven idea in

second temple Judaism you well I mean

the the main discussion that's that's

used like in uh in um uh in Seagal's in

Seagull's book

is the the later rabbitic commentaries

but so you have yeah in like the late 1

and 2 century right

yeah that's when that's when they're

talking about because it's a big deal uh

yeah that well that's when that's when

Jewish orthodoxy is is forming so in

other words it's a relatively fringe

position beforehand

no it's it's it was fairly popular

what's your evidence for uh as far as I

understand it's it's a relatively fringe

position okay so you have one you have

one you have all these issues that are

in the Old Testament but then you have

the the Targums you have the Tarans that

are that are um they're they're putting

Old Testament passages into Aramaic and

so on and they start giving some

interesting uh some interesting

translations of uh of some of these

passages and so on and

treating there's a lot of other issues

like even with even with the name and

with the word and that's why boy that's

why Borieran says the ideas the the

ideas are already there because you have

passages where they're in where they're

interpreting uh the word where they're

interpreting uh the word of God as a

personal agent and so on so the idea is

that uh that uh that would you know

here's drawing a parallel between that

and and John's gospel here's James James

McGrath on on the two powers the

evidence surveyed thus far gives no

support for dating the origins of the

controversy even to the second century

it is of course possible that the

controversy did arise in the second

century but it has not yet been

sufficient had sufficient impact to

leave any clear or explicit trace in the

traditions and literature from that

period

um you when you ha when you have when

you have the rabbis forming Jewish

orthodoxy they're clearly responding to

the issue of the two powers in heaven

yeah when's that happening yeah that's

later but they're talking about things

that things that happened earlier but

because remember what we're talking

about here is the idea of the son of man

that the high priests would have had at

Jesus's trial if the 2,00 heaven idea is

something that only emerges in the late

1st and second century no that's that's

when it's being labeled a heresy that's

when they're declaring it a heresy and

they're set they're setting out what I'm

asking is is why is it that if this is

already a controversy that has emerged

and is extent to the ex to to the extent

that the high priest believes it then

why is it leaving no trace in our

traditions and literature from that

period why is it why in other words what

traditions do you have from what what

commentaries are you talking about from

the first century well that's a that's a

silence thing because I'm I don't have

commentary I could what commentaries do

I have that don't mention it that's a

bit of a broad question and I'm asking

what to do if you're if the rabbis are

talking about these earlier

controversies and they're dealing with

because you have you have the Christians

went went one way with it you had the

Gnostics became an issue for the

Gnostics because the Gnostics

interpreted they believed in the two

powers in heaven and they said they're

basically in conflict the two powers are

in conflict and so the Gnostics ran with

that and then you had uh Jewish mystics

Jewish mystics who were running with the

issue do you think the Gnostics believed

in the two powers in heaven heresy as as

you've described it

they believe they believed in the two

powers

they went they went in a completely

different direction so they so the

Christian direction was father was

father and son you've got father and son

you've got son of man coming with the

clouds in ancient of days you've got um

God and the word of God you've got Paul

calling u the father God and calling

Jesus Lord and so on so you see it all

over there they have the two powers but

the two powers are in harmony and have

always been so yeah the Gnostics

believed in the two powers and they

believe that they're in they're believe

that they're in

conflict and so then you so anyway the

point okay look I and I I really don't

know here but I'm I think that this

hinges on the evidence that the two

powers in heaven idea is a popular

enough

controversy in the time of Jesus's in

Jesus's lifetime that the high priest

seek would have believed it and and as

far as I can see the you can tell what

he believed by how he reacts so so you

do think that this is what he believed

then like you're committing yourself to

that view in other words that this is

the view that the high priest had of

Daniel 7 that the son of man would be

Yahweh that even before Jesus came along

this high priest must have read Daniel 7

no idea he have a range of ideas so you

just say you can't have no idea because

if your if your whole claim is that

Jesus couldn't have been accused of

blasphemy for anything other than

claiming to be God i've never said that

in this instance like what other

interpretation of Daniel 7 do you think

would would this Let me put it this way

what interpretation other than the one

that I've just described of Daniel 7

could the high priest have that would

cause him to accuse Jesus of blasphemy

based on the words that he said as as

far as we you can tell in commentary

they can't figure out what it means

right and

so the question is how is the high

priest interpreting what Jesus is saying

so how are they interpreting what Jesus

is saying and he Jesus is identifying

himself as the son of man who they

already expected to come from Daniel 7

and they interpret that as him claiming

to be Yahweh

it really looks like that i think that's

what you have to say right you have to

say that they think he's claiming to be

Yahweh but in order to say that you have

to believe that that is how he

interpreted Daniel 7 look no I don't he

could have a range of interpretations

and like like put it this way look at

what the high priest is doing when he

says "Don't keep us in suspense any

longer are you the Christ the son of the

the son of the blessed?" He's asking for

clarification on what he's saying what

are you saying what are you telling us

okay so bearing in mind that one

interpretation of Daniel 7 throughout

history even after the advent of

Christianity is that Daniel 7 is a

messianic prophecy about the coming

Messiah if Jesus is asked "Are you the

Messiah?" And he responds by quoting

Daniel 7 if one of the interpretations

of Daniel 7 is that it's talking about

the Messiah then why would they not just

think he was claiming to be the Messiah

they he obviously didn't give them them

them that impression if they they said

he deserves death for it and by the way

by the way this is connected you can you

can actually tell what happens i mean

you brought up the passage in Acts 7 i

mean Stephen Steven is giving his entire

case for belief in Jesus as the Messiah

they never get violent then he rebukes

them the harshest way you can possibly

all your you you killed all the your

ancestors killed all the prophets and

you guys killed the Messiah mhm if

they're just going to get ticked off at

rebuke or insults or something like that

that would have been the time to do it

it's when he says "I see the son of

man." It's when I see the son of man

that's when they cover their ears they

cover their ears they charge him and

they kill him so you can do the same

thing why are they inter why why is it

why why are they interpreting as why

aren't they interpreting that as he's

just saying that Jesus is the Messiah

that's exactly right yeah why do they

think that we got we we got to we got to

move to to Q&A we've gone way over the

open dialogue so if you have a question

line up over there while I let you guys

finish your thoughts um guys hey oh

gosh two

all right so check it out right here

where Ray is right here where Ray is you

guys go to Ray Rock right here in the

very front check check check yes we get

four minutes on the on the clock for the

conclusions

all right in my opening statement I

point out you you basically have a

controversy

um we know that there's a controversy uh

going on and we see how we see how

Christians are responding to that

and basically up until orthodoxy defines

the uh two powers issue as a heresy um

you had a wide range of views a wide

range of uh interpreting these various

texts and so on it's pretty clear what

happens

when Jesus comes along and we looked I

actually qu it's interesting I quoted

multiple passages in Mark and I quoted

uh Q as far as Jesus saying that

um all things have been handed over to

him by his father no one knows the son

except the father no one knows the

father except the son and anyone to whom

the son chooses to reveal him you have I

quoted those because I assumed that that

he was going to reject John and so I was

quoting the uh the the some of our

earlier material and then the creed in

Philippians and so on where know if you

noticed but everyone seems to be doing

the same thing and it's the same issue

that arises in the Old Testament you

have Yahweh sending Yahweh you have

Yahweh sending the angel of the Lord but

the angel of the Lord is Yahweh and

Yahweh says that he's the angel you have

the uh ancient of days and the son of

man coming with the clouds of heaven so

you have these issues and people are

confused about it but then you look to

the New Testament they're doing the

exact same thing that was going on in

the Old Testament but now they're

defining it as father son God and the

word but the word is is also God um Paul

saying God the father is God and Jesus

is Lord um and they also bring in the

the son of man in the ancient of days

with uh with Jesus and so on so you've

got all these pastors they're all doing

the same thing it's kind it's pretty

clear it's pretty clear what's going on

and the question is we look we look at

what Jesus says he sounds like he's

claiming to be one of the two powers in

heaven in multiple ways we look at what

Jesus does he's claiming to do things

like judge the world and raise the dead

at the resurrection we look at what his

followers say uh we look at what his

followers do we look at what his enemies

say we look at what his enemies do and

everything we can look at gives the

indication that this guy was making

claims that cause people to either uh

worship him and start praying to him and

doxologies and so on or saying that this

guy has to

die and if that's all just a

miscommunication this is like beyond

anything else you want to say Jesus

wasn't the greatest communicator and so

on because he slowly unveiled things for

people who weren't ready to hear it uh

that's very different from saying

everyone got the message horribly

horribly wrong and so I just wanted to

conclude here with uh the last minute uh

wanted to revisit the

uh famous quote from CS Lewis famous

quote from CS Lewis um that the

trillemma the problem with the trillemma

was that it didn't rule out uh it didn't

include certain other options so it's

presented as Lord liar lunatic but

you've got the legend possibility that

it doesn't include what if all this is

later legendary development well we've

seen that can't be the case because

everyone concludes this it's all over

the place it's in our earliest material

we can trace this back to two year

within two years of the formation of the

church when Paul is persecuting the

church what's he doing he was

persecuting people for calling on the

name of Jesus the way they're calling on

the name of the Lord this means that the

early church um had this view and the

other option would

be Jesus is a terrible communicator and

everyone misunderstood him and that I I

just have to say again given how Jesus

taught I can't believe that everyone was

horribly misunderstanding and so when we

rule those out I think we can agree with

CS Lewis who said "I'm trying to prevent

anyone saying the really foolish thing

that people often say about him i'm

ready to accept Jesus as a great moral

teacher but I do not accept his claim to

be God." That is the one thing we must

not say a man who was merely a man and

said the sort of things Jesus said would

not be a great moral teacher he would

either be a lunatic on the level with

the man who says he is a poached egg or

else he would be the devil of hell you

must make your choice either this man

was and is the son of God or else a mad

man or something worse you can shut him

up for a fool you can spit at him and

kill him as a demon or you can fall at

his feet and call him Lord and God but

let us not come with any patronizing

nonsense about his being a great human

teacher

or a terrible communicator he has not

left that open to us he did not intend

all right sure

alex for a minute closing

all right for a minute closing from Alex

yeah i mean there I guess there are a

few important things to say first is

that I totally forgot in that entire

section that I really really did want to

hear what David thinks about Jesus

implying all throughout John chapter 17

that the relationship he has with the

father is the same as the relationship

the father and he wish to have with all

Christian believers i find it quite

stunning that when specifically asked to

clarify his christoologgical position he

describes his relationship with the

father in terms that he then attributes

to first his disciples and then the rest

of Christian believers absent everything

else that we've been saying that alone

should be pretty stunning what can it

possibly mean for Jesus to describe his

relationship to the father and then say

"In the same way that I'm in him and

he's in me I want you all to be in us so

we can all be one all of us." What can

that possibly mean we didn't even get to

discuss this maybe some people in the

Q&A have some answers but on its own

that is enough to raise some serious

question marks of course a lot of

David's case has relied on this two

powers heresy and we were sort of

getting a bit caught in the weeds there

about the dating i read a quote from

James McGrath which I didn't finish

because it's quite long but he goes on

to say and this is in uh the only true

God early Christian monotheism in its

Jewish context he says of course

conversely the absence of evidence for

the existence of the heresy in this

period surveyed so far does not prove

that it did not yet exist of course

that's true however in view of the clear

palemic against two powers in later

writings and the complete absence of

such pmic in earlier writings this at

least strongly suggests the possibility

that the two powers only became an issue

for whatever reason in the period after

those documents were put in their

present form in other words this two

powers discussion doesn't seem to crop

up at all until it's too late to have

influenced the high priest and I want to

know why I suppose that's the case i

want to know why it is that Jesus also

says that the glory he receives from the

father will be given to the disciples

and given to everybody else i want to

know why Jesus is given the authority to

forgive sins which at least is

interpreted by his Jewish opponents as

something only God can do and then gives

it to his disciples the same authority

at the end of chap John chapter 20

saying as the father has sent me I'm now

sending you what is going on here why is

Jesus passing on all of these divine

prerogatives in unity to his disciples

in precisely the way that he got them

from the

father if any of these instances any of

these divine and the same thing with

judgment by the way which David keeps

coming back to which God also delegates

to other people again we haven't heard

much response on these ideas of it's not

just Jesus who gets to judge but Jesus

also delegates that judgment the example

I gave was delegating judgment of the 12

tribes of is Israel to his disciples

which is something we're pretty sure he

historically actually said because he

says that the 12 of you will sit on 12

thrones judging the tw 12 tribes of

Israel meanwhile Judas is currently

present so it's likely he actually said

this because it's not something a later

Christian writer would make up there are

Christian interpretations as to why he

would have still said 12 of course but

it's an unnatural thing for someone to

have made up so we think he actually

said it he's delegating his judgment why

is Jesus taking all of these divine

prerogatives and giving them to human

beings if he's more than just a human

being himself but of course he's not

just a human being qua his position he's

a very special kind of human being

someone who according to the uh the

non-gosspel New Testament sources is

exalted given the name above every other

name interesting implication for the the

divine name bearing model by the way

what is the best interpretation is all I

basically have to ask of all of these

points i mean we got quite caught caught

up in there in the in the nature of

blasphemy and what Jesus could have been

claiming again I'll just press the point

that if you want to accept that Jesus

couldn't have been accused of blasphemy

for anything other than claiming to be

Yahweh and yet all he really did was

quote Daniel 7 then you have to believe

that at the time of Jesus's trial it was

popular enough within Jewish thought to

expect that the coming son of man as

prophesied in Daniel 7 would be Yahweh

himself i don't see any evidence for

that at all so for these considerations

I think it a suspicious reading of the

New Testament to say that Jesus was

claiming identity with Yahweh all right

before we go to the first question I got

one question for Alex and and I would

love to hear your answer on this i'm

going throw a monkey wrench in this

whole thing um you've brought this up

before the idea in Eastern Orthodoxy of

theosis or deification does that solve

the dilemma that you're referring to uh

theosis the process of humans attaining

likeness to and union with God

participating in the divine energies uh

divine nature and experiencing community

with the holy if we're adding the

Eastern Orthodox position which is

within the realms of orthodoxy as

Protestants would probably call that

glorification right they're giving very

specific language your dilemma is Jesus

is God and then he's given this god-like

authority to his disciples could you

concede potentially that that solves the

dilemma only if that also describes how

Jesus relates to his own father because

of Constantly Jesus is using the word

cathos or cathos cathos which means just

as in the same way as so sure maybe this

is talking about a kind of elevation of

humans to share in the likeness of God

in in in some other kind of way but

deification yeah

deification but then Jesus would have to

see himself in the same way which is in

so many words what I'm trying to say

Jesus was in fact doing so yes okay cool

all right we're going to go to questions

um so uh let's All right we have got it

we're gonna get through this real quick

we got a question from Avery all right

oh hold the mic okay all right for sure

uh what's going on guys so this is a

question for Alex man how you doing man

hey um you mentioned God logic yes yes

sir you mentioned uh in Hebrews 1 where

you know God is speaking you know God uh

spoke to our you know you know uh

through prophets now he speaks to us

through his son and you're saying where

was Jesus then you know back then he

should have been active and so you know

regarding Hebrews I want just want to

read you this and get your thoughts on

this okay it's Hebrews 11 regarding

Moses it says by faith Moses and I'm

going just skip down to 25 and 26 for

time choosing rather to be mistreated

with the people of God than to enjoy the

fleeting pleasures of sin he considered

the reproach of Christ greater wealth

than the treasures of Egypt for he was

looking to the reward so how is it that

Moses can be considering Christ's

disapproval if Christ wasn't around for

him to disapprove

yeah that is a great question so Christ

there he regarded disgrace for the sake

of Christ as greater value than the

treasures of Egypt because he was

looking ahead to his reward

now that's something which I I think

yeah I I think it's a good point i I

mean of course I can offer a

christoologgical interpretation of this

which sort of says that Christ is

promised as the redeemer of mankind and

we're looking at this in retro where

where's he gone oh there you are we're

looking just dropped it and left and I

suppose we're we're looking at this in

retrospect and he regarded disgrace for

the sake of Christ yeah I do I do think

that in this instance Hebrews is

probably presenting Jesus

as I don't know about the angel of

Yahweh but certainly we're looking at a

high christologology in in Hebrews yeah

so close

yeah yeah yeah i see what you're saying

all right let's go to the next question

cuz we want to go he's so close guys but

I I I have no I I for what it's worth I

have no problem saying that Hebrews has

a high christologology uh that that's

not that's kind of that's kind of not an

issue to me but I think it is

interesting to suggest that as a retort

to the idea of the angel of Yahweh being

Jesus i think that is an excellent point

yeah yeah great job all right um

uh we got a question for David Wood real

quick gentlemen thank you for a

wonderful debate um Dr would uh

regarding the I am statements of Jesus

in the Gospel of John the most palpable

powerful divine statements by Christ why

do you believe that they are omitted

from Mark from Q from Matthew and Luke

our four earliest gospels and then John

comes along and these statements are

present in John and missing from all of

our other sources did I bring up I am

statements

who brought them up

that's the question it it it is

fascinating if you walk in and you say

"All right I'm going to quote all these

passages in John." They go "Ah it's too

late it's the latest source you can't

trust that it's uh clearly made up later

and so on." And so you say "Okay let me

just go with the earliest material go Q

Mark and Paul." And then it's what what

about John that's uh very interesting so

I can't quote John but they can quote

John these are these are uh these are

awesome times um

uh one I I think the I think the uh I

think the synoptic gospel writers are

focusing on different

theological issues um and so in in in

Mark for instance you have the you have

the announcement you have the

announcement that John the Baptist is

preparing the way for Jesus but he

actually quotes uh Isaiah that the

messenger is going to prepare the way

for the Lord and so if you look if you

look at how it unfolds it's raising all

these questions who is this guy who says

he can forgive sins this guy calls him

this guy says that he's the Lord of the

Sabbath u you you you do have you do

have an I am statement uh there in Mark

6:50 but there are p there are passages

where it could just be it could just be

translated as as it is I which is why I

don't point to these but they are they

are there and that's the context where

it would make sense um because this is

this is a this is a really powerful

religious moment for them so you could

interpret it that way but since uh since

it's kind of ambiguous I don't but as

far as far as why material is quoted in

John that's not quoted in other gospels

again I think they're focusing on

different issues you look at Mark it's

very action-based jesus went here did

this jesus went here there and did that

um and yet you have it um unfolding to

who Jesus is claiming to be um he event

he eventually gets to the point where

once his followers grant that he's the

Messiah then he starts modifying

people's expectations of what the

Messiah is that's when you have him

saying "Well how does David call the

Messiah Lord if he's just the son of

David?" And then you eventually get to

the trial and it's this guy has to die

but this is just Jesus went here and did

this it's not focusing a lot on Jesus

teaching and then you get Matthew he

takes the same material but he includes

uh he includes some long sermons and so

on so he's including that material um

Luke focuses more on parables and so on

and John just focuses John just focuses

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:Did Jesus Claim to Be God? (David Wood vs_ Alex O'Connor)

AutoDub

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
Did Jesus Claim to Be God? (David Wood vs_ Alex O'Connor)