Royston Potter: No Sacred Cows

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

II Cor 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

I wish there was a better forum to interact with you as I don't even know if you will see this, one of many comments. I've followed you for a while here and agreed with much of your political views but some recent videos have opened up a whole other can of worms, that being religion, on which I wouldn't comment except you broached the subject first. I want to know where you are coming from so here goes--are you still a Mormon?  Do you still have multiple wives? How has the Book of Mormon shaded your understanding of Christianity/religion? 

You say you revere Jesus but in your view is Jesus Christ virgin born, is He Divine, i.e., the God Man i.e. Fully God and Fully Man? Is He the only way to the Father? In that vein, who is the Father? What is His nature? When speaking of the Elohim--the Divine Council--you seemed to include Jehovah as just a member of, then apart from that you said there was a/the 'causeless cause', isn't that Gnosticism?

I chose this picture, not pejoratively, but instructionally. One's background is a window to how they got to the present. How did they become who they are today. In Roy's book below Jesus has a twin brother Jude who both vie for the Messiahship. Mormons, Roy was/is Mormon, teach that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers--both created beings.  

Roy is a gifted writer of fiction, much more so than Joseph Smith's fictional 'Book of Mormon'.  Better too than L Ron Hubbard's fictional 'Dianetics' and Charles Taze Russell's 'The Millennial Dawn' and 'The Divine Plan of the Ages'. He says his book is a historical romance novel, but it is a fiction! He refers to Jesus as the legend, not of a God-man but a man accepted by God... 

Roy said in his YouTube video (Some Reasons I Call Paul An Apostle It In His Own Mind) that he has been a Mormon, a Catholic, a Jehovah's Witness, A Jew (though never officially converted) a Baptist, and a Methodist and I assume he believed their teachings while he was a part of them. So now he has a different set of beliefs. What makes him right THIS time? What will he go into next? James, who Roy gushes over, wrote this: James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. 

Roy's problem with the Apostle Paul

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Roy claims that the Apostle Paul, was a secret agent for the Romans. He further states as fact that Paul killed James! He denounces Pauline teachings and says he is a Jamesian Christian as though there is a difference in Paul's and James' gospel. Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9 writes: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 

Roy for some reason stops there (at least in his mind) as Paul is emphasizing Grace. But in the next verse Paul clearly expresses that true Faith produces good Works! 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

That's basically the same thing James says in chapter 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast Faith, and I have Works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Both say that true Faith produces Works!

In Galatians 2:9 "and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." This was written by Paul, do you think the early Church patriarchs would let this statement by Paul stand if it wasn't true?

The Book of Acts is mostly about Paul, muct of the NT was written by Paul, none of the other Apostles denigrated Paul, even James whom Roy seems to set at odds with him. In 2 Peter 3:15 Peter vouches for him and refers to him as "our beloved brother Paul" well after Paul had rebuked him 

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to (Judaize) (Koine Greek word Ἰουδαΐζειν) live as do the Jews?

 Why did Paul rebuke Peter? Because he was acting like a Jew under the Law instead of a Christian under Grace! Paul warns about Judaizers again in Phil 3:2 ..."beware of the (mutilators of the flesh κατατομήν (katatomēn)) concision".  Is Roy a Judaizer? In one YouTube video he joyfully shows off his tallit, tefillin, and phylacteries.

Around 60% of the New Testament was written by Luke and Paul. The Book of Acts, written by Luke, is almost entirely about Paul. Did Paul recruit Luke into his conspiracy to act on Rome's behalf?  Wouldn't the early Church Fathers have sniffed out this subterfuge, especially with the Holy Spirit to guide them? 

If you question the validity of the Aspostle Paul you also must call into question the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:15), John Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark and accompanied Paul on missionary journeys, as well as Barnabus and Silas and the early church fathers who accepted Paul's apostleship well before the Nicene Council.

Paul and Romans 13 'obedience to authority'

Romans 13:1 (YLT) Let every soul to the higher authorities be subject, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities existing are appointed by God,

Is that a true statement or a secret agent for the Romans demanding submission to Rome?

Let's start with Jesus Christ aka Christ Jesus aka Jesus of Nazareth. What did Jesus say to the Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, when he told Jesus he had the power/authority to put Him to death?  John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Pilate had the power and it was given him by God!

What did Peter have to say about this? 1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. So was Peter an agent provocateur of Caesar too?

Yet we find Peter and John and the other apostles in the book of Acts after being threatened and charged by the High Priest no less neither to speak nor teach in Jesus' Name replied: Acts 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

And a short while later: Acts 5: 26-29  At that point, the captain went with the officers and brought the apostles—but not by force, for fear the people would stone them. They brought them in and made them stand before the Sanhedrin, where the high priest interrogated them "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us responsible for this man's blood". But Peter and the other apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than men." 

Let's apply some logic, might I say some common sense, to this subject. The High Priest surely had authority over Peter and John yet they did not submit to him in this! But Peter says in his Epistle: 1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme...

Let's go to Egypt a few thousand years prior when the king of Egypt ordered the Hebrew midwives to kill all the newborn sons. They disobeyed and were commended for it by the writer of the Book of Hebrews (most think Paul but Roy indicates that even if Paul was the writer  he plagiarized much from James).

Then we could skip forward a few centuries to Babylon where three Hebrew lads were thrown into a furnace for disobeying the king's command and Daniel was thrown into a lions den for disobeying the king's command. Paul praises them too in the Book of Hebrews. Yes, Paul-'submit to the higher authorities'-lifts these lawbreakers as heroes of the Faith!

Lesson: no earthly authority is higher than God from whom  all authority derives! So submit to those in authority unless they are violating God's authority! Think of it this way. God gave the Law starting in the garden of Eden. He expanded/refined it to Moses. Our present system of laws all derive from there. That's why people who are entrusted with authority are sworn in under oath to God. They are under God's authority to dispense judgement. They do this in the place of God. That's why they are called judges/elohim in passeges in the Old Testament and God's ministers in the New Testament.

Brown-Driver-Briggs elohim

אֱלֹהִים2570 noun masculine plural (feminine 1 Kings 11:33; on number of occurrences of אֵל, אֱלוֺהַּ, אֱלֹהִים compare also Nesl. c,)

1 plural in number.

a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power: האלהים Exodus 21:6 (Onk ᵑ6, but τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ᵐ5) Exodus 22:7; Exodus 22:8; אלהים Exodus 22:8; Exodus 22:27 (ᵑ7 Ra AE Ew RVm; but gods, ᵐ5 Josephus Philo AV; God, Di RV; all Covt. code of E) compare 1 Samuel 2:25 see Dr.; Judges 5:8 (Ew, but gods ᵐ5; God ᵑ6 BarHebr.; יהוה ᵑ9 Be) Psalm 82:1; Psalm 82:6 (De Ew Pe; but angels Bl Hup) Psalm 138:1 (ᵑ6 ᵑ7 Rab Ki De; but angels ᵐ5 Calv; God, Ew; gods, Hup Pe Che).

Roy's problem with Paul's Apostleship Qualification

Gen. Colon Powell told the world that Sadaam Hussein had WMD's. Lt. Col. Royston Potter says Paul is a false apostle; a secret agent of Rome. Both claims are proven false!

Let's look at what Jesus taught concerning titles/offices among his disciples: 

Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Strong's 652 apostolos: a messenger, one sent on a mission, an apostleOriginal Word: ἀπόστολος, ου, ὁPart of Speech: Noun, MasculineUsage: a messenger, envoy, delegate, one commissioned by another to represent him in some way, especially a man sent out by Jesus Christ Himself to preach the Gospel; an apostle.

Firstly, there is no 'office' of apostle! Peter undertook to appoint someone to take Judas Iscariot's place in their 'ministry'. He further says they should choose someone who had been with them from John's baptism until the day Jesus ascended to be a 'witness' of Jesus' ressurection. Nowhere did Peter say they need to appoint an 'apostle'. Apostles were gifts to the Church just like preachers and teachers.

There is no titular office of Bishop either. The word translated bishop is from the Greek word:ἐπίσκοπον (episkopon) Noun - Accusative Masculine SingularStrong's Greek 1985: From epi and skopos; a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a church.Strong's doesn't do much better although it does say superintendent but epi means over skopos means see like scope. So overseer is more like it.

PS 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.his office Hebrew: פְּ֝קֻדָּת֗וֹ (pə·qud·dā·ṯōw)Noun - feminine singular construct | third person masculine singularStrong's Hebrew 6486: 1) oversight, care, custody, mustering, visitation, store 1a) visitation, punishment 1b) oversight, charge, office, overseer, class of officers 1c) mustering 1d) store

Roy said Paul did not meet the qualifications of an apostle because he had not seen and heard Jesus of Nazareth. He claims Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was a ruse but if something did happen Paul only heard Jesus speak. He did not see him because he was blinded. Wrong! When the blinded Paul made it to Damascus (Roy says it was real Qumran) Ananias, a devout man says to Paul: 

Acts 22:11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. 12And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

So Paul both saw and heard Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore God confirmed his apostleship with signs: Mark 16: 17-20 https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Miracles-Of-Paul

In Acts 1 Peter (not James) set about to fulfil the OT prophecy concerning replacing 'the betrayer' Judas Iscariot's Bishoprick (overseership). 

Roy even finds fault because he referred to Jesus as Christ Jesus instead of the usual Jesus Christ. What? Jesus is his name and Christ is descriptive! His name would be Jesus Ben Joseph-Jesus son of Joseph.

History and Etymology for Christ

Noun: Middle English Crist, from Old English, from Latin Christus, from Greek Christos, literally, anointed, from chriein

It also means Messiah as in John 1:41 ... Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).

Tic-Tac-Toe No I didn't use a decision matrix to see if Josephus, Philo, Pliny, Eisenman, etc. recorded this event.

Roy's latest rant against Paul is just insane-as if any of his rants are sane! He said when Paul met with Jame and other followers of Jesus in Jerusalem to discuss his mission to the gentiles that he got James to sanction his missionary journeys by misleading James suggesting that there would be Jews of the Diaspora that needed to hear about Jesus. The nerve of Paul, he started converting Greeks instead of Jews! And somehow this conforms to his Paul is a double agent for the Romans plan? So John 3:16 is not true according to his thinking. God only so loved the Jews, he didn't so love the world!

I'm amazed that a man of his intellect is so easily misled from the truth of the Scriptures. Not only that but how does he miss so many obvious facts in the Bible? Maybe he should have spent more time in the Bible and less time in Eisenman and Josephus. He forgets or doesn't see that Peter in Acts 10 is the one that opened the keys of the kingdom to the gentiles. Did he miss God's promise to Abraham: Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. This is one of the most misquoted verses in the Bible. It doesn't say I will bless them that bless Israel, and curse him that curseth Israel--Israel was a couple of generations away from existence! The promise was to Abraham and his seed (Jesus). The last part says and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Not just Jews! I'm quite sure that Greeks were included in the all families! Yet he assails Paul for preaching Jesus to Greeks?

The last charge that Jesus made to his disciples was recorded in Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Did Jesus get it wrong? Go into all the world--preach the gospel to every creature. According to Roy's understanding James would have sorely disapproved! He should have said go only to the Jews?

Roy rambled on about some phantom Q document that was supposedly the source document for Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It has not been found yet but it's out there. Right, it's probably right next to the seer stone and golden plates of Moroni that have never been verifiably seen by anyone other than Joseph Smith! Well, I don't believe that Joseph Smith verifiably saw them either. 

Peter is the one to whom God revealed that the old testament laws regarding unclean animals was over. As was Gods estrangement at the 'tower of Babel' from the (gentile, goyim) nations. The life, crucifixion (sacrifice), resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Messiah ushered in the new covenant (testament) spoken of by Jeremiah the old testament prophet.  

Back to the Q document. Some unknown person wrote down the events in Jesus' life. The writers of the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke used this (Q document) to write their gospel stories. I've got a better source--the Holy Spirit. Jesus said he would send 'the Comforter', the Spirit of Truth, who would guide them into all truth: 

John 15:26 " But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: "

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

The Holy Spirit moved Matthew, Mark, and Luke to write their gospels--not a Q document.

Roy's Gnosticism?

Roy adheres to/lends credence to the Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism/magjc/esotericism) claiming it's much different today from the 1st century version referring to it in his book as "hechalot/hekhalot– the name of the Jewish mystical system before it became kabbalah". To paraphrase Shakespeare: A rose by any other name is still a rose. This is just the age old secret/occult wisdom that God forbad Adam to partake of and virtually all secret societies tap into! 

When Roy was speaking about the word Elohim and the Divine Council he made a curious statement about there being a 'causeless cause'. I got the impression he was saying that God is just a part of the Divine Council; just one of the gang. He said a couple of times that this is not Gnosticism but it sure sounds a lot like Gnosticism!  I highly recommend Dr. Michael J Heiser's work  on the Divine Council.

Job 1:6 One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. Job 38:7 while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 

Ps 82:1 (English Standard Version) God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: 

Roy's problem with the "I Am" of the Burning Bush

Roy reinterprets 'I Am that I Am' to 'I will be who I will be'. But that's not what God told Moses to say when they asked Moses who sent him. God said say I AM sent you! Not I will be who I will be nor even I Am that I Am but simply I AM sent you! Roy literally says that God became Moses--I will be Moses! And the implication is that God has been and still is becoming whoever He wants.

There are various meanings to most words in any language. 'I will be who I will be' is a possible interpretation for that phrase but like most words the meaning is determined by the context. Anyway that's not who God told Moses to say sent him, that was Just 'I AM'. 

Roy's problem with the Virgin Birth

Q:When is a virgin not a virgin? A:When Roy is interpreting the word! 

Gen 24:16 Rebecca called a virgin

בְּתוּלָ֕ה (bə·ṯū·lāh)

Noun - feminine singular

Strong's Hebrew 1330: 1) virgin

Gen 24:43 Rebecca called a maiden

הָֽעַלְמָה֙ (hā·‘al·māh)

Article | Noun - feminine singular

Strong's Hebrew 5959: 1) virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)

On YouTube Roy goes to great lengths to deny that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" actually means a virgin. He argues that the Hebrew word translated virgin just means a woman who hasn't previously had a child.

It's pretty obvious that he is implying that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not a virgin and by inference that Jesus Himself was not virgin born.

Let's look at that shall we. 

1. When Abraham sent his trusted servant to find a bride for Isaac he came across Rebecca in Gen 24:16 who is described as a virgin בְּתוּלָ֕ה (bə·ṯū·lāh) Noun - feminine singular Strong's Hebrew 1330: 1) virgin

Later in verse 43 she is referred to as a maiden  הָֽעַלְמָה֙ (hā·‘al·māh) Article | Noun - feminine singular Strong's Hebrew 5959: 1) virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)

The maiden Rebecca obviously did not lose her virginity between vs 16 and vs 43!

2. Logically, when Isaiah said that the God given sign would be a virgin shall conceive and bear a son he is not just referring to a maiden having a son--what kind of sign is that? Multitudes of maidens were conceiving and having sons all the time!

Roy's problem with the Jesus' Divinity

I left several comments on his YouTube videos (never responded) and many posts on Gab and Twitter as to his belief concerning the Trinity, Mary's virginity, Jesus's Divinity, etc.. He did respond cryptically to Tweets for a short while but soon went silent saying Twitter was inadequate for any lengthy discussion, So I found him on Gab but he never responded!. I did get answers later though as he starting sharing his book, subtitled: 'The Struggle to Become Jesus...', in YouTube videos. He doesn't believe in the Trinity, the Virgin birth, Jesus' Divinity, the inspiration of the Bible. In his book he openly states that he is challenging traditional Christianity as it has been handed down for 2000 years.

He told me to read Hebrews 5 once and I'm sure he was referring to Jesus' Divinity. My impression was that he was disputing Jesus' Divinity because Hebrews 5 is mainly about Jesus' qualifications as an intercessory priest. His argument as I saw it was that Jesus is not God/Divine because he 'learned' obedience. God is omniscient so how could he 'learn' anything. Roy was continually exhorting his viewers to use Strong's Concordance so I'm confused as to why he didn't do due diligence and research the word 'learned' in Strong's.

When I was a young Christian and knew everything about the Bible (sarcasm) we were reading Heb 5 and when we read verse 8 someone was amazed that Christ 'learned'. I immediately rebuked him and said Jesus was God Omnicient and didn't need to learn anything--even though the verse clearly said Jesus learned. They all agreed with me, even the pastor. Of course we were all wrong because we didn't examine the word learned in the Greek.

What led me to this recently was a challenge or admonition from Royston Potter (roypotterqa YouTube channel) to read Heb 5. I had asked him about his belief on the virgin birth and divinity of Jesus Christ OF Narareth. He never answered but told me to read Heb 5. Roy was adamant that the word virgin in Isaiah's prophecy that God Himself would give them a sign 'Behold a virgin shall conceive...' . His contention is that the word virgin merely meant that a maiden who had not birthed yet)

Thayer's Greek Lexicon STRONGS NT 3129: μανθάνω 'learned'

c. to learn by use and practice; (in the preterite) to be in the habit of, accustomed to: followed by an infinitive, 1 Timothy 5:; Titus 3:14; Philippians 4:11 (Aeschylus Prom. 1068; Xenophon, an. 3, 2, 25); ἔμαθεν ἀφ' ὧν ἔπαθε τήν ὑπακοήν, Hebrews 5:8 (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 68, 1 and ἀπό, as above).

Until the Incarnation and hypostatic union (the Word became flesh and DWELT among us) had God ever hungered, thirsted, wept, felt pain, died, etc.? God knew about all these things but he had never experienced them. So Jesus experienced our human frailties, the Immortal took on mortality--not that he didn't know about them but had never experienced them, by so doing He was imminently qualified to be our High Priest!

Roy's problem with Jesus the Nazarene

 Roy says that Jesus was a Nazarite. For proof he said that there was no such place as Nazareth and that when He was referred to as 'the (definate article) Nazarene' not a (indefinate article) Nazarene it should read Nazarite. Why wasn't John (the Baptist) Ben Zacharias called the Nazarene since we know he was a Nazarite (Luke 1:15)?

Mark 16:6

Jesus Ἰησοῦν (Iēsoun)

Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular

Strong's Greek 2424: Of Hebrew origin; Jesus, the name of our Lord and two other Israelites.

the τὸν (ton) Article - Accusative Masculine Singular

Strong's Greek 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.

Nazarene, Ναζαρηνὸν (Nazarēnon) Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular

Strong's Greek 3479: Of Nazareth, a Nazarene. From Nazareth; a Nazarene, i.e. Inhabitant of Nazareth.

   

Btitannica: Nazareth, Arabic an-Nāṣira, Hebrew Naẕerat, historic city of Lower Galilee, in northern Israel; it is the largest Arab city of the country. In the New Testament Nazareth is associated with Jesus as his boyhood home, and in its synagogue he preached the sermon that led to his rejection by his fellow townsmen. The city is now a centre of Christian pilgrimage.

The etymology of the city’s name is uncertain; it is not mentioned in the Old Testament or rabbinic literature; the first reference is in the New Testament (John 1). The contempt in which this then insignificant village was held is expressed in the same chapter (“Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”). From there, Jesus went to perform his first miracle, that of the changing of water to wine at Cana (John 2). Nazareth had a Jewish population in Jesus’ time;

Wikipedia: Founded: 2200 BC (Early settlement), 300 AD (Major city)

Demonym: Nazarene

Hebrew Netzer

One view holds that "Nazareth" is derived from one of the Hebrew words for 'branch', namely ne·ṣer, ‏נֵ֫צֶר‎,[8] and alludes to the prophetic, messianic words in Book of Isaiah 11:1, 'from (Jesse's) roots a Branch (netzer) will bear fruit'.

Word made flesh and dwelt among us.

Roy says the Greek word Logos looses something from the Hebrew meaning. He says the Hebrew has the idea of speaking with the breath coming out, i. e. the Spirit. I get the impression he has in his mind the 'I will be who I will be' interpretation of Moses' burning bush experience. If I understand his point it is that the 'I will be who I will be' decided to become Jesus. So the 2000 year understang of traditional Christianity that John is talking about a preincarnate Jesus existing in the beginning is wrong. John is talking about a spitit--not Jesus.

Who is antichrist according to John? 

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and which is already in the world at this time.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Note: What group of people infamously refused Jesus as the Son of God? They refused him to the point that they had him crucified for his claim to be the Son of God! "He came unto his own and his own received him not"!

No where is Scripture do you find Jesus, although rightfully his, pursuing the throne of David. That was not his mission. He came for the lost sheep of the tribe of Israel. He came to seek and to save that which was lost! He told Pilate: John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." Berean Study Bible Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews.

world; κόσμου (kosmou) Noun - Genitive Masculine Singular

Strong's Greek 2889: Probably from the base of komizo; orderly arrangement, i.e. Decoration; by implication, the world (morally).

I wish there was a better forum to interact with Roy as I don't even know if he will see this, one of many comments. I've followed Roy for a while here and agreed with much of his political/current events views but some recent videos have opened up a whole other can of worms, that being religion, on which I wouldn't comment except he broached the subject first. I want to know where he is coming from so here goes--is Roy still a Mormon?  Does he still have multiple wives? How has the Book of Mormon shaded his understanding of traditional Christianity? 

He says he reveres Jesus but in his view is Jesus Christ virgin born, is He Divine, i.e., the God Man i.e. Fully God and Fully Man? Is He the only way to the Father? In that vein, who is the Father? What is His nature? When speaking of the Elohim--the Divine Council--Roy seemed to include Jehovah as just a member of, then apart from that he said there was a/the 'causeless cause', isn't that the essence of Gnosticism?