Answering Common Objections to the Trinity 

No, their Oneness is ontological meaning they share in the same essence or substance of being. Our Oneness with God is a matter of fellowship not bring or divine existence.

​@@UrbanLogiaMinistries, thanks for your response. What is your ontological "parallel" that analogizes this "Oneness" between God-the-Father (GTF) and God-the-Son (GTS)? Qualifying something as "ontological" must have a natural or experiential reference by which we settle what's being qualified. Given the pre-condition that there's a moment when the intelligibleness of the Trinity exhausts, and therefore abandons the believer in an area of disillusioning desolation. Qualifying the Trinity as religious dogma, it's OK to argue that we do not share in the "Oneness" that typifies the relationship between GTF and GTS. But to qualify this Trinitarian relationship between GTF and GTS as "ontological" brings to bear explanatory pressures that necessarily intrude upon the Trinitarian grounds of un-intelligibleness. What suffers an ontological analogy or metaphor is not only explainable and intelligible but sensible. The relationship between Jesus and His Church has an ontological precept in the relationship between a father and a mother. As a testament to the rigor in this ontological analogy of a father and a mother, you cannot fully analogize the relationship between Jesus and His Church with a husband and his wife. Why? The relationship between a husband and his wife lacks a progeny. When it comes to the relationship between a husband and his wife, there is no worthy testament or testimony to come from their relationship, as there's no worthy witness that bears witness to their relationship. Only when there's a child, who evinces and bears witness to the male and female who are his father and mother, then does the relationship between a man and woman attend to resonate. Absent a child, the relationship between a man and a woman falls silent within the earth. Girded in this ontological reference, we're better able to settle the moment when the relationship between Jesus and His Church attends to relevance. Not until a believer enters the world declaring and bearing witness to this union between Jesus and His Church does the presence of Jesus and His Church resonate. If there is no witness, as there is in the relationship between a husband and his wife, then the voice of Jesus and His Church falls silent in that generation. That is, absent a believer, the Light of the LORD perishes. So, when it comes to the relationship between Jesus and His Church, an ontological precept exists that settles this relationship rigorously. Through the lens of a father and a mother, not only are we able to reckon ourselves with the many facets of the relationship between Jesus and His Church. But we can decisively resolve that the relationship between a husband and his wife does not meet the necessary ontological conditions to approach the realities within this Divine relationship between the LORD and His Bride. Thus, to claim the Trinity bears an unintelligible nature in that all efforts to explain its nature must eventually exhaust is one thing. However, claiming that the "Oneness" between GTF and GTS is "ontological" is disingenuous, if not spiritually fraudulent. To say something is "ontological" argues explainability as it argues the elimination of what's opaque or obscure through what is universally experiential.

@@notofthischurch2822 can you say that in layman’s terms fam?

​@@ApolloThyrteen, thanks for your response. ​I have not ignored or forgotten you. You asked a fair question. I am preparing a response to address your concern thoroughly. Since unless you know to peel the shell of a nut, you'll remain convinced that what's a fruit is only useful as a weapon of war. But, in the interim, I can provide specific answers to what you find confusing or where I'm unclear.

Jn 17:20-21 21 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 20 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Jn 11:41-42 …. Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: …..

This isn’t a biblical argument, it’s an attempt at “hole punching” which does nothing to establish your own position from Scripture which can’t be supported from Scripture anyway. Second, you did exactly what all modaliists do, which is run away from the actual argument being presented and fail to engage it directly. Third, again like every typical modalist, you ran back to the OT away from the main source of Trinitarian perspective which is Jesus” own words and interactions as mentioned in this video. Fourth, in doing so, you again as typical modalists do, proceeded to make arguments that are not being made. God’s Oneness is not in question, neither is the deity of Jesus, what is in contention is that nowhere in the NT does Jesus refer to himself or identify as the Father, nowhere does the Father identify as the Son or even the Holy Spirit. There’s literally nothing here to consider but the same ole tired and weak arguments that I used to use along with every other biblically ignorant Oneness, while being completely oblivious to how exegesis actually works.

The truth determines which argument is true. Your position concerning the trinity, cannot interact with the biblical numeric definition of God, which presents him as the one Father. Your position is contrary to the true biblical position. The oneness position can answer the trinitarian objection. The reverse does not apply. According to the verses of Mal 2:10 and Eph 4:6, the Father is not a person within the being, but he is the complete being himself, while yes, he is a person. The oneness position includes NT verses. The OT verses however, are foundational to the NT plurals. The reverse doesn't apply.

@@UrbanLogiaMinistries THANK YOU!! I'm also in contact with a childhood friend who is now a JW. And the "drum beating" of the trinity's origin comes from Babylon/Nimrod and was carried through the centuries to the Roman Catholic church after the Apostles died won't go away. Is there any documentation on how to differ between that trinity and the biblical trinity available? I've pointed out how what's being told concerning Nimrod's establishing the three gods isn't the same understanding as scripture because firstly, he was a human, so deity is out the window no matter how much one claims to be god. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

​@@UrbanLogiaMinistriesgreetings. God willing I will be at the two nights of the Godhead discussion at the Mico Gymnasium on August 10 and 11.

I absolutely have! It’s going to be my regular format moving ahead. Appreciate that feedback.

​@@UrbanLogiaMinistriesGreetings Pastor Damon, from the UK. I just woyld like to say thaet I love and appreciate the work you do defending the scriptures and faith in/among the CONscious community. . Amen. Peace and blessings. 🙏

@@hudsonbartley2493 thank you for your encouraging words, support and prayers! 🙏🏾

This was very encouraging feedback and grateful that this video was helpful 🙌🏾

Totally 💯. I do thank this man for his unencumbered explanation. Thing is I had already come to believe this after years of talking to God regarding my need for better understanding. The Holy Spirit confirmed this to me but I wasn't able to properly explain it.

Clearly you ignored the passages explained in this video in favor of the eisegetical interpretations of your selected proof texts. Quick tip when engaging content: actually engage the content directly rather than presenting other verses not presented in the video. Your entire argument is destroyed by my first response to common objections which is the exact words fallacy. You completely stepped over Mt. 16:16 and John 20:28, which both contexts reveal that Jesus is the Messiah, who according to Daniel 7-9 is the Son of Man, who is very clearly a cosmic, divine figures and not a mere man. There are far too many things that you are unlearned about here for you to be trying to make arguments for instead of seeking to learn the truth. One thing, I won’t do is debate and teach you at the same time and quite clearly you don’t know enough about Scripture to be trying debate anyway.

The true Jesus, the Messiah, said clearly (Jn 8:40) that he is a man telling the truth that he heard from God. Not from himself and not a god-man. A man God highly exalted to His right hand. He then states in John 17:3 that his Father alone is the only true God. And that his God and Father…is also our God and Father. John 20:17. I choose to believe the testimony of Jesus who is the faithful witness. Going beyond what Messiah says opens one up to belief in a different Jesus. In Peter’s testimony about who Jesus was, it was the Father who revealed to him that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the living God”. Not some cosmic being God as you added on in your own understanding. You do this to support your presupposed trinity doctrine taught by man - you have to fabricate a god because there are no Scriptures that clearly state and explain a triune God…that God is one, yet comprised of three separate beings. In the fear of God I cannot go beyond the revealed truth the Father clearly gave to Peter about Jesus being the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Jesus said we should believe the Father - not change or add to his words. “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” John 5:24 “For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead.” Acts 17:31

@@petervaichus6978 this is heresy and you will perish eternally for not believing that Jesus is the eternal Son of God! Repent and believe in the true person and salvific work of Jesus as indicated in the Gospel.

The bible describes the nature of God to be Spirit. I don't see where there is any biblical description of the same, to be triune.