Gospel of Mark Calls Jesus God In Every Chapter DEBUNKED with Johnny Barnes 🔴

Is Wes Huff correct that Mark’s Gospel calls Jesus “God” in every chapter? Does Mark actually present Jesus as more “divine” than John does? And what about the passages where Jesus says or does things people claim only YHWH can do? In this video, I break down Huff’s argument, expose the weak exegesis behind it, and show that in Mark it’s the Father—not Jesus—who is treated as God. Support the UCA: https://linktr.ee/unitarianchristiana...

Original Video:    • Gospel of Mark calls Jesus God in every ch...  

Interview with Johnny Barnes:    • Interviewing Johnny Barnes About His COSTL...  

More from Johnny Barnes on YouTube: ‪@biblicalunitarian‬

‪@WesHuff‬ argument falls apart for three straightforward reasons. First, he presumes Jesus performs actions that “only YHWH can do.” But across Scripture, God routinely operates through authorized agents—prophets and angels speak in God’s name, perform wonders, deliver divine revelation, and even function as instruments through whom forgiveness is announced and applied. In that biblical pattern, the Messiah is God’s chosen human representative who carries God’s authority and exercises delegated divine prerogatives. If doing those things automatically makes someone “God,” then the same reasoning would turn a long list of biblical agents into deities as well.

Second, Wes reads a later philosophical framework back into a first-century text. The Bible does not provide the post-biblical metaphysic of “one being, three persons.” That conceptual and technical Trinitarian vocabulary emerged through centuries of controversy and only became standardized by the late fourth century. Without importing those later categories, the claim “Jesus is YHWH” would naturally register either as a denial of monotheism or as collapsing Jesus into the Father (i.e., modalism).

Third, none of Wes’s prooftexts in Mark actually say “Jesus is God.” They report actions and roles, and then he insists the conclusion—full deity—must follow by inference. That isn’t exegesis; it’s classic eisegesis: theological commitments steering the interpretation. And it’s especially ironic given the claim that Mark is “more divine” than John—when John, unlike Mark, actually does apply explicit “God” language to Jesus. This ultimately exposes Wes’s doctrinal agenda more than it demonstrates careful, text-driven teaching.

Be sure to Like, Subscribe, & Share with someone who would enjoy it!

#christiantheology #christiantheology #weshuff