Where in the bible will I find "God the son?" Isn't it ALWAYS the son of God?? Who did the demons reference Jesus to be??Also who did Satan believe Jesus to be?? Did he think he was tempting God...on the wilderness?? Who did God think Jesus was?
Isaiah 9:6 The Messiah is called Eternal God and a Son Zechariah 12:10 YHWH Says they will look on Me who they have pierced. And Mourn for Him like an Only Son like The FirstBorn.
@@eliasbarrasa7320 What?? Perhaps a different translation will help you better understand. Isaiah 9:6 For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." A child *has been* born...not a "child will be born much, much later. This passage has nothing to do with anyone named Jesus, nor does it mention a Messiah. Especially the god of Israel as the Messiah. Zachariah 12:10 And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son. They (Jews) shall look to me (god of Israel) because of those (prophets/people) who have been thrust through (killed). If you force Jesus into the passage, you also have to take into account, it was the Romans that "pierced" Jesus. *NOT* the god of Israel. The Roman empire fell, so that's problematic. Unless you think the empire is going to rise again. Then you are left to explain, how the god of Israel can be killed. Yet in this passage refers to a living deity.
@@eliasbarrasa7320 And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. Dude your trinitsrian translations don't even make a ounce of sense They will look to me who they have pierced, and mourn for HIM, the person speaking is distinguishing himself from the one piece red clearly fix your translation ss
I have been told - once personally face to face by none other than the Bible Answer Man (formerly that is) over lunch - that I can't be a Christian because I questioned the Hellenistic construction of the trinity formalized at Chalcedon . That is about as low as one can get and the last resort for someone who has no arguments. Reminds me a lot about how the word, "racist," is cast in the direction of those who disagree with people of a certain political position.
Thomas Geist we are saved by believing that Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God. Mt16:16 Jn20:31. we don't have to believe in a non biblical trinity or the supposed deity of Christ to be saved.
@@keithfuson7694 Thanks. The trinity is not just non-biblical. The idea of a dying god is actually pagan and confuses the pagan magical notion of sacrifice to placate and even obligate a wrathful god as opposed to someone willingly sacrificing his life for other necessary but different reasons than some imagined metaphysical legal requirement. If God had no choice but to sacrifice His son to satisfy some higher legal requirement then that legal requirement is God, not the Father. I believe it's important for unitarians to also reexamine substitutionary atonement since it's intertwined with pagan trinitarianism. God did not need permission to judge the unrighteous on the Last Day on any other basis than that they were fully warned for the last time, had without doubt or excuse been provided with all the necessary information, had every opportunity and still refused to repent. Nor did He, apart from His sovereign will, require anything to justify people apart from or in addition to their repentance. This is fully explained and available in Tanahk since Adam and has not changed. God does not change. Anyone who believes it has changed is a dispensationalist and might as well admit it.
@@Thomas_Geist God didn't sacrifice his son...his son willingly went...and God honours his word and He cannot lie and so the legal requirements to atone for Adams sin must be met.
@@mikha007 What I think you are saying has a lot forced into a short statement that would have to be unpacked in order to deal with. "legal requirements to atone for Adams sin must be met?" A lot going on there. The, "legal," requirement that needs to be met - if there actually is such a thing since God is sovereign and therefore not required to bow to a higher "legal" requirement - is that sin must be eliminated to enter the Kingdom. The process for this has never changed, and that is that the individual repent, i.e., change not just his behavior but the inner direction of the heart that activates that behavior. The psychological mechanism to make this possible is grace and not the pagan idea of vicarious atonement through the death of another; and the application of grace by a sovereign God which was there from the beginning makes this possible. If, as so many who call themselves Christian, one holds to a belief that claiming some legal loophole is going to substitute for actual repentance is going to be very surprised a the final judgement. Scripture is quite clear from the OT to Jesus's own parables that this is the end goal, not some cosmic law suite. God was trying to get this message out through the prophets and finally in the life of Jesus, but the crucification did not alter this very simple process. That would be a distinctly Roman Catholic view and is why their depictions of the nexus of God's plan for salvation has Jesus on the cross as a sacrifice which they reenact during the mass. This is the pagan notion of atonement practiced by nearly all other religions. I would suggest that the pivotal event was the resurrection in which God's single plan for redemption is demonstrated through God's vindication of Jesus's life and message (not substantially or qualitatively different from that of the prophets,) and that being the eventual and inevitable triumph of justice which we participate in not by claiming some notion of a "legal" right but rather by being shown the true way and potential cost but ultimate reward of repentance. The Plan has never changed one jot nor tittle, unless of course you hold to what I consider the unscriptural doctrine of dispensationalism. But that would be another discussion altogether. If there is any legal syllogism to apply it is this: Sin cannot enter the Kingdom because God is holy and the soul that sins will die. God's grace can cover past sin not by sacrifice but by sovereign will bestowed upon the broken and contrite heart. Therefore, one may expunge past sin and clear the way for righteousness going forward through the act of repentance which is made nearly impossible by the weight of guilt over past transgression having to be paid for; but this is not a legal transaction but one that has always been available. If you've missed that then I would suggest reading scripture more and regurgitating doctrines of men less. While it is true God does not lie, you need to check out the several passages where God does send a lying spirit to encourage those already set upon a sinful course to continue. I hope that you draw that critical distinction. If and when someone is determined in his heart on a course of action, whether good or evil, God is not at all ill disposed to the clearing the way. Since there are so many examples of this in scripture I'll not deprive you of the opportunity to discover them for yourself. If you want to wrap this all up into some legal doctrinal defense you've memorized to present at your final hearing rather than relying upon a relationship with God offered through grace now, then I wish you luck.
@Sharon L So Sharon - and I love the name - what in the world have I said that ya think makes me in opposition to anything you’ve said here? Rest assured I’m on you side. What’s so got yer dander up then?
This is exactly what I said common sense should tell one this is not correct. So continue to study and you will find 2 Peter 1:1 is a corrupt verse. “Our savior Jesus Christ was added words in to the text. God bless you with understanding
E W. Bullinger’s the companion bible. Show the added words that is to be omitted from scripture. Is one source. And I could get on the net and find you others but you believe what you believe and would be a waste of my time I’m sure. But God bless you and have a great day
Sage of Synergism John 20:28 ¶ Thomas 👉🏼responded👈🏼 to him, “My Lord and my God! ” 29 ¶ Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” 30 ¶ Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. 👉🏼31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the 👉🏼Messiah👈🏼, the 👉🏼Son 👈🏼of God,👈🏼 and that by believing you may have life in his name. Two key notes it is recording , Thomas RESPONSE, this is not Thomas theology. Second is please read verse 31 very carefully. It states what it states plain and simple for all to see. This would have been a perfect opportunity for John to expound on Thomas response but he completely ignores it. God the Father never said this is my son who is God. Jesus never said by the way I am God The NT writers never called him God either. But people reading into the text do it all the time. Peace
Mr Date named a person several times who I believe poisoned his theology : James White. To argue that God is god and we can't know what is not possible for Him is not coherent. by that argument you can float any theory.
@Sage of Synergism The Son couldn't be co-eternal with the Father as God said of the Word 'I will be to him a Father and he will be to me a Son ' Hebrews 1:5!!!!! They were not Father and Son from eternity.!.
Why do they not see for themselves from Scripture The Word was made flesh John 1:14 And became obedient to the flesh he wore Philippians 2:8 God, the Word, in his essence but man in all things 'in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren ' Hebrews 2:17 Emptied himself of his God nature Hebrews 4:15 'tempted in all points as we ' James 1:14 'every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed ' Contrary to James 1:13 'God cannot be tempted with evil ' God abilities 'God gives the Spirit without limits' John 3:34 God knowledge 'Increased in wisdom and stature' Luke 2:52 'Learned he obedience by the things that he suffered' Hebrews 5:8 Eternal life 'As the Father has life in himself so he has given to the Son to have life in himself ' John 5:26 After his death and resurrection Jesus was promoted to be God and Judge and Executioner of the church Ephesians 1:22-23 'gave him to be head over all things to the church which is his body ' And all mankind John 5:22, 27 'For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son ... and has given him authority to execute judgment also for he is the Son of man ' Hebrews 13:4 'Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge ' Matthew 28:18 'All power is given to me in heaven and in earth'.
@@JerryStanaway Absolutely. During his mortal body life Jesus WAS NOT A TRUE GOD, John 17:3; ONLY THE FATHER IS A TRUE GOD, John 17:3. ONLY means a single and 'no other.' Jesus had been God the Word 'the Word was God'. But in the context of Hebrews 1:8-9 Jesus was God until his earthly mortal life was evaluated then God was free to recognize him as God, because of then given all judgment over mankind without the Father's supervision John 5:22,27, Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:22-23. Jesus is now mediator between God and man by his crucified flesh Hebrews 10:19-20.
How does a mere "man" pay for the ransom of sins for the entire world? If Jesus was just a "man"; how is it possible that He is also sinless? To be purely a "man" is to be sinful. Unitarianism does not make any logical sense.
Tuggy in his first reply is doing a good job of shedding light on the vocabulary used by the church fathers. How they used terms differently and how that must be considered to avoid projecting modern meanings
i think chris date could be one of the fastest rappers ever to rap on the microphone, straight up lol or an auction guy selling stuff, but he isn't selling me on this one
@@joed8605 lol. i wouldn't consider it polytheism exactly. i do find likewise some issues in unitarianism to be completely honest and can understand why both take the positions they do. i also find personally that unitarianism can become intellectual and dry like calvinism at times and find myself drawn to eastern orthodox practices often. thanks for commenting and the laugh.
@John 3:16 That was not my comment. My comment was about the fact that the pre-Nicean fathers were subordinationist - not Trinitarian, at least in the sense of what Trinitarian means after the Council of Constantinople. As far as the same nature as the Father, that can be argued when you read Phillipians without the content of the whole NT, but it can also be understood that Jesus was a mortal man, fathered miraculously within Mary's womb by the spirit of God, whom God himself acted though directly (c.f. Acts 2). Therefore when Paul said that "in him all fullness of the Godhead dwelt", it could mean the same as when Paul tells believers to be filled with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As far as the creation goes, the early church fathers agree, but taught various interpretations of Subordinationist theology, NOT co-equal, NOT co-eternal. I stand by my original comment, which you read a lot into. But I appreciate the questions.
@Sage of Synergism Colossians is interesting for a number of reasons. Not least that Paul exhorts against the syncretism that threatened their understanding of the gospel. It seems that the Colossians were getting mixed up in things like Judaism and Gnosticism and mixing it with apostolic testimony. In chapter 2 Paul warns against following "philosophy and vain deceit". Ironically it was philosophy mixed with the biblical worldview which eventually led the church fathers to the idea of the Trinity. That syncretism was then codified in creeds such as the Nicean. And what does Paul go on to say in chapter 2? He warns about the danger of dogma (using the Greek work dogma whose meaning is similar to our English word) and the "legal demands" which were nailed to the cross. The Jews had codified their dogma in their own form of creedal orthodoxy, and it was the radical rabbi from Nazareth who challenged it and was put to death because of it. Thus he made "an open show of them", illustrating where insistence on orthodox dogma leads to - the murder of an innocent man. Eerily this was repeated at the time of the Reformation and at other times where men like Michael Servetus and other radical reformers dared to open the Bible and reason out of the scriptures that the Trinity isn't to be found there. What happened to Servetus and others like him through history is that these men, free from creedal orthodoxy, were burned at the stake, drowned or beheaded for blasphemy. Christians, Roman Catholics and Magisterial Reformers alike, incapable of learning the lesson. Persecuting someone for denying the Trinity seems to be quite a bit worse than the denial. Anyway, you asked about Colossians 1, not 2. It is without doubt that Paul uses creation language in reference to Jesus Christ. Verses 15-20 is absolutely dripping with it. And here is where there is a fundamental difference in how Unitarians and Trinitarians approach the New Testament. The basic hermeneutic of the Trinitarian scholar is to assume in passages like this that the New Testament author is simply reiterating Old Testament concepts. That is one way to read these passages if that was the correct way then the Trinitarian position would be much stronger. But there is strong evidence in Scripture itself that this is a flawed way to read the New Testament. Let me give you a couple of examples. In Matthew 2 the author quotes Hosea 11 - "out of Israel I have called my son" in reference to Jesus returning to Nazareth after going down to Egypt with Mary and Joseph. Scholars are mystified by this, some even claiming things like Matthew was mistaken in using that passage. The reason for that is two-fold. First, Jesus coming out of Egypt clearly is not simply a reiteration of what happened to the Israelites in their exodus. But more importantly when you look at Hosea 11 it *cannot* be referring to Jesus. The context of the passage talks about how that same Israel which came out of Egypt committed idolatry. Unless you think Jesus committed idolatry I don't think you could ever say Hosea 11 is about Jesus. So why does Matthew quote it in reference to Jesus? Not because we're meant to go back to Hosea 11 and say "look, there's Jesus". Instead Matthew uses the passage typologically. Or, to put it another way, Matthew just *as* Israel came out of Egypt *so* Jesus came out of Egypt. Another example is in John 3 and the reference to the serpent on the pole. The author there explicitly says "*as* the serpent was lifted up *so* will the Son of Man be lifted up. Again, the Old Testament is being used typologically and we are not meant to read into the account in Numbers that it literally referred to Jesus back then. There are many more examples, but that should suffice to explain the *general* way New Testament authors use the Old Testament. By the way, the whole gospel record of John is built on this principle - Jesus is the word made flesh. Now let's look at Colossians 1. It uses Genesis language extensively, but is it saying we should go back to Genesis and say "look there was Jesus way back then creating the world"? If that is the case Paul's use of Genesis language proves too much. Not only does he say Jesus is the creator of Genesis 1 but he says he is the *created*. In verse 15 he says Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" which, if the echoes with Genesis 1 are valid, refers to the creation of man mentioned in Gen. **1:26**. But according to Genesis 2, if the two accounts are parallel, that individual was Adam and he sinned. The New Testament says Jesus never sinned and is contrasted with Adam. So Paul cannot be saying that the created man in Genesis 1 literally is Christ. So what is Paul doing? Notice, in context of saying Jesus is the the image of God (which according to Genesis 5 is to do with being a son of God, or as it is in chapter 5 the son of Adam), Paul qualifies what he means by saying Jesus is "the firstborn from the dead" (v.18). The firstborn son of God in Genesis is not born from the dead. But we know what the New Testament says, that Jesus rose from the dead and it seems clear to me that is what Paul is referring to. That resurrection brings about a new creation, as testified by Paul in 2 Cor. 5 among other places. What Paul is doing in Colossians 1 is using Genesis language typologically and I have demonstrated that this is a common New Testament device. Paul says *as* Yahweh created the heaven and earth *so* Christ is involved in a new creation built on the pattern of that physical creation. Only now instead of animals we have thrones and dominions, and we know that the animal creation of Genesis 1 is used typologically for thrones and dominions elsewhere (e.g. Daniel 7).
@@bobok5566 Of course the ECF's were Subortionists. However in context they were ECONOMIC Subortionists and NOT ONTOLOGICAL Subortionists. HUGE difference. ECF's were NOT "Closest Unitarians". The ECF's taught Subordination within the Godhead and due to the incarnation. There are PLENTY of places where the ECF's taught the F, S ,HS were EQUAL in Natrure and in authority over creation.
@Sage of Synergism NO, I don't understand the Trinity NOR does anyone else that is WHY it is called a Mystery ,If Jesus is coeternal with God then why on earth did he need to pray to him???? Jesus said all the authority he had CAME from the Father. Jesus was born sinless like the first Adam, but God did not grant him behavorial perfection, that Jesus had to earn. God did not grant him a seat next to him just because he was his son NO!! Jesus had to earn that seat/station next to the father. Jesus is called the second Adam!! Through his obedience and sinless life Jesus was exalted by the Father.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sdSp2wQ-9WE.html (JESUS WAS NOT FULLY MAN/GOD) Debate with Rev. Rudolph Boshoff on the incarnation. (Link of full debate in description box)
The major DIFFERENCE which comes to my mind is the DIFFERENCE between the "work" each man has to do in order to "prove" his position as the Correct Biblical Position. Date has to DO the "work" of EXPLAINING WHY Jesus "is God" and /or "is a God/Man" which can only be done through a Philosophical argument. Tuggy has to DO no such "work". Tuggy merely has to STATE what the Scriptures SAY about "the Man" Jesus and to defend the language usage. The fathers' conclusions about WHAT the Scriptures "mean" are all good and well, however they were in the same position as all Christians have been from the beginning which is as follows: In essence the TRUE debate is whether to BELIEVE IN the reliability of Sola Scriptura, i.e., Apostolic autographs correctly translated, to plainly state what they mean and to mean solely what they state OR to BELIEVE IN the reliability of "theologians", whether Roman Catholics or "Catholic" Protestants, to EXPLAIN Scripture to get correct understanding. I'll take the former. Rom 10:17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.
Paul Navarro Tuggy needs to accept, acknowledge that Jesus had been God the Word of John1:1 and 'was made flesh' John 1:14: 'in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren' Hebrews 2:17a. True, when the Word was made flesh as mortal man Jesus the Word was no longer a 'true God' John 17:3, but he still had his heritage of having been God the Word. After his death and resurrection from the dead to heaven when the Father judged the completed life and work of Jesus saying 'You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity therefore God your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows' Hebrews 1:9 and then said 'but unto the Son Your throne o God is for ever and ever the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom' Hebrews 1:8. Jesus is God and has his own throne and kingdom? John 5:22,27 'for the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son ... and has given him authority to execute judgment also for he is the Son of man' The Father had been God for Israel 'it is my Father that honors me of whom you say that he is your God' John 8:54. When Jesus became the Judge of man, not the Father, Jesus became God of all men. Hebrews 1:8 discloses Jesus has his own throne and kingdom. Revelation 3:21 'To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne'. The Father is Jesus' God also: 'Him that overcomes will I make a pillar in the temple of my God ... and I will write on him the name of my God' Revelation 3:12 Where is the position of Jesus? Matthew 22:44 'The LORD said to my Lord, sit you at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool' Mark 14:62 'You shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power' 'Having purged our sins sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high' Hebrews 1:3 'But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.' Hebrews 10:12.
@@leonardodavincioso4359 - You are giving a Philosophical argument. You reach your conclusion that "Jesus is God" based on TWO unconnected verses, John 1:1 and 1:14 . How is the word "Word", "Logos" a Person? You ASSUME that based on what? I know God is a Person but how is God's Word a Person? To me it is obvious that John was answering a profound question which the Hellenist Jews delighted in debating WHAT was 'Logos' and not WHO was 'Logos'. In other words, "What was the CAUSE, the SOURCE, the POWER, the PURPOSE behind all things?" John succinctly and unambiguously answers that question in the very beginning of his dissertation. Greek "thinking" did not hold to a Person as being the "Logos", which is why they "personified" the idea with various "Gods", each "God" having its own Power. They were not stupid. They knew there was no Person in the heavens throwing lightning bolts, no underground Person in charge of Death, no warrior Person who was in charge of Wars, etc. etc. All the "Gods" were MYTHICAL. For them it was impossible for a Person to be "Logos". Along comes John and says the CONTRARY to Greek Philosophy. He states UNAMBIGUOSLY that God (Elohim, YHWH) is that "Logos", that Power which actually is in control of the Heavens and the Earth and not some Mythical "Gods". Neither Jesus nor any other Person is mentioned in John 1:1 John could have easily said, "In the beginning was the eternal Son of God, Jesus, and He was with God and He Himself was also God Himself." Such a statement would have been CONFUSING not to mention BLASPHEMOUS to the ears of any Jew. In John 1:14, WHAT became or was made "flesh"? Does the verse say, "...and Jesus the eternal Son of God became/was made flesh..."? If that is true then why didn't John just say so? Why the mystery, the unknown, if he was trying to ILLUMINATE? Well, he wasn't speaking in riddles. The "Word", i.e. God YHWH's "Logos", something which BELONGED to God alone, was "made flesh" or simply stated, God's POWER was given to a Man, Jesus of Nazareth, which POWER he manifested to Israel via Signs and Miracles, to SHOW that he, Jesus, was, NOT God nor a God nor an Angel, but rather the Promised Messiah, the Son of God, a Man. Your INTERPRETATIONS of all the Scriptures you cite can be refuted. The Scriptures clearly represent Jesus as a Man, the Messiah of God, who was GIVEN by God Himself the POWER to do and say God's own will and NOT his own. Jesus is clearly portrayed as being not on a level with God YHWH. He is SUBJECT or BELOW the Father. The Father, not Jesus, decides what is what. Jesus was ELEVATED, not to be God Himself but to be the highest Creature, the "go between", sitting not on God's throne but at God's right hand of POWER. There is but ONE throne in Heaven and the Father is the ONLY ONE sitting in it because He alone is God. God did not give Moses His Name. He said, "I am that I am" or "I will be who I will be", in other words God's Name was none of Pharaoh's business. God's Name was not "I am". God was sovereignly stating His MAJESTY over all Kings. His Name was SACRED and He was not going to give it to Heathens so that they could defile it. There is no "I am" Name. Jesus was simply stating that if people did not believe he was the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God (not God the Son), the one who had been Prophesied to come BEFORE Abraham had even been born (proto evangel), the "seed of the woman", they would perish in their sins. God was in the Land of Israel, not in a BOX an ARK, but in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. That is HOW God was "with us". It was not through a supposed INCARNATION of a Second Person God the Son. It was through the First Begotten Human Son, conceived and born over 2,000 years ago. Jesus was God's IMAGE, His perfect REPRESENTATION in the flesh. Hence, the figure of speech, "God in the flesh", you "see" Jesus you "see" a REFLECTION of God, not God Himself who has always been in Heaven. The Psalmist wrote what YAHWEH (LORD) God said to David's (Lord). YAHWEH (LORD) never calls David's son YAHWEH (LORD, ADONAI) but rather He calls him Lord (Adoni). Men are called Adoni or Lord as in the "Lords of Common" or to a person of high honor, "Yes my Lord." Get your "Lords" straight. Jesus, the Man has been EXALTED to great Power. If he were already God then he would not be EXALTED but would just REGAIN his supposed eternal power. Jesus was EXALTED from a lowly, humble, and obedient servant Man, to the HIGHEST POSITION over all of God's Creation including God's Angels. Imagine that, a MAN ruling over all of Heaven and Earth. What majestic authority he has EXCEPT for ONE Being, his Father, God Almighty, YHWH (LORD).
@@paulnavarro3822 I don't agree with the Trinity teaching. There was no eternal Son, no 'from everlasting' 'in the beginning' Son. The concept was known before the creation of 'the chosen one/Messiah' and those who would believe on him. You stated John1:1 and John 1:14 were UNCONNECTED verses but both use Word (Logos) in them; how are they UNCONNECTED?! You go on about the Word, Logos ... The Logos in one religion was a mischievous 'god'. The word Logos, Word, was considered to be? Power that is Actually in control of the heavens and the earth ... but not a Person.? God is a Person, but John1:1 doesn't show TWO GODS? 'THE GOD' and THE WORD WAS GOD, not God's Word, not the Word OF God, but was God. THIS IS A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT ?!.... Zzzzzz. Why should we require the ways and thoughts of God to be equal to our own? Isaiah 55:8-9 'for as the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.' John wrote UNAMBIGUOUSLY that God is that Logos, the Power that controls the heavens and the earth? Yet Logos was 'made flesh' John 1:14. A Power was 'made flesh'? You turn 'was made flesh' into the Power was put into a Man, Jesus. These TWO are not equal. Consider the journey the Word [Logos] took before 'the Word was made flesh': 1- Philippians 2:6 'Who, being in the form of God': John 8:17-18 has the Father's teaching through Jesus he, the Father, is a man, in the law of the hearers of Jesus. Not only that but Jesus also is a man, in their. Jesus: 'in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren' Hebrews 2:17a, or, Jesus has his own mortal dust flesh - 'in the likeness of sinful flesh, Romans 8:3 - material body Genesis 2:7a, 3:19 with his own spirit of man - Zechariah 12:1 'the LORD ... forms the spirit of man within him' Job32:8 'there is a spirit in man'. - It was only, it is thought, at his water baptism by John the Baptizer (?) John 1:32-33, 3:34 Jesus was given the Spirit, by God the Father, in no measure. - The Father - God ['it is my Father that honors me of whom you say that he is your God' John 8:54 and God is: 'for God is a Spirit' John 4:24] - has his own God (uncreated/beforeCreation) material Spirit man body with his own spirit of man, the Holy Spirit of God 1st Corinthians 2:11b parallel with 1st Corinthians 2:11a, within him. 2- Philippians 2:7a 'Emptied - kenoo: devoid of content, empty, deprived - himself' . As these are shown that Jesus didn't have them, or not until given again it is thought the Word 'emptied himself' of them before becoming the mortal man Jesus: a)) nature: Hebrews 2:17 'in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people' Hebrews 4:15 'tempted in all points as we are yet without sin'; tempted means 'drawn away of his own lust and enticed' James 1:14 - man is tempted ( drawn away of his own lust and enticed) with evil James 1:13, and Jesus was a man 'in all things' 'tempted in all points as we are' 'was tempted with evil contrary to God's nature 'for God cannot be tempted with evil' James 1:13. b)) glory: John 17:5 'glorify you me with the glory I had with you before the world was' c)) body: Philippians 2:6 'who, being in the form of God' Philippians 2:7b 'put on the form of a servant' - from a God material body to a servant body - d)) eternal life: John 5:26 'as the Father has life in himself so he has given to the Son to have life in himself' e)) knowledge: Luke 2:52 'increased in wisdom and in stature with God and man' Hebrews 2:10 'made the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings' Hebrews 5:8 'learned he obedience by the things he suffered' f)) abilities: John 3:34 'for God gives not the Spirit by measure to him' John 3:35 'the Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hands' John 16:15 'all things that the Father has are mine' g)) authority: John 5:19 'the Son can do nothing of himself' John 5:30 'I can of mine own self do nothing' John 14:10 'the words that I speak to you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwells in me, he does the works.' to name a few. 3- Hebrews 10:5 'Wherefore when he comes into the world he said Sacrifice and offering you would not but a body have you prepared me' : a] the Word said, spoke this as the Word was coming into the world, before the Word was the man Jesus! b] God had prepared a body for the Word to wear, not a man to come into, and surely not the man Jesus. 4- Philippians 2:7b 'put on the form of a servant' form meaning a body, the body of a servant: the Word put on the form of a servant but wasn't yet the man Jesus; having put on the form of a servant the Word could be implanted into Mary's womb in order to be born, go through the gestation period of birth as a man 5- Philippians 2:7c 'was made in the likeness of men' Romans 8:3 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' 1st Corinthians 15:45 'the second Adam'. 'the God' John 1:1b made the Word, a Person called God John1:1 a Person because of what the Word went through before becoming, and God according to Scripture, John1:1, 'made flesh'. That one God can make another God into flesh, from God material Spirit body into a mortal dust flesh body. What ability God has above our own, as I understand it. This is enough for now. Later for the rest.
@@paulnavarro3822 Jesus was not God nor a God but the Promised Messiah, the Son of God, a Man. ? For sure, Jesus was the Christ, the Promised Messiah John 4:25-26, the Son of God John 10:36, even the Son of man Mark 14:62 who is the coming ruler Micah5:2 who receives an everlasting kingdom Daniel 7:14 as the LORD for whom they are looking Malachi 3:1, Zechariah 14:9, Mark 13:32. Jesus surely was a mortal man, not a 'true God'; only the Father was 'the only true God' John 17:3. Jesus didn't have a God nature and a man nature, for how could the Father be the only true God if Jesus was also 'fully God and fully man'?! John 17:3. Jesus was Elevated to be the Highest Creature, the go-between, sitting not on the Father's throne but at the Father's right hand????? Jesus was Elevated to be the Highest Creature? Because other religions have their elevated persons which are called demigods.? Because of 1' Jesus' heritage of who he had been, God the Word John1:1, 2' his evaluated life 'loved righteousness and hated iniquity therefore God your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows' Hebrews 1:9 Therefore God has announced "but unto the Son Your throne o God is for ever and ever the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom' Hebrews 1:8. From Hebrews 1:8 we discovered that Jesus has: Aa) his own throne, and Bb) his own kingdom, and Cc) Jesus is God. This is confirmed of Aa) and Bb) by Jesus' after resurrection statement 'to him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne' Revelation 3:21: 1a- Jesus has his own throne, 2a- the Father his own throne, and 3a- Jesus sits in/on his Father's throne (Matthew 22:44, Mark 14:62, Hebrews 1:3 at his Father's right hand). Jesus has his own kingdom confirmed by John 5:22,27 'for the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son' : Jesus' kingdom is he, without the Father's supervision, is the Judge, and therefore God, of man John 5:22,27, Ephesians 1:22-23, in heaven and in earth Matthew 28:18. Jesus was I AM which Abraham saw his day John 8:58.? This shows Jesus, not as Jesus the man but as the Word, which wouldn't be known until after Jesus' earthly mortal death. AS the prophets, maybe even Abraham could have been a prophet even as Enoch was later shown to be, and have seen future events even the Word's days as mortal man Jesus. To claim that God was not in the Ark, which Scripture never claimed God was in the Ark (of the covenant) , but was in his Son Jesus Christ is to confuse two events years apart, out of context. Jesus was God's perfect presentation, God in the flesh? Hebrews 1:3 wrote of Jesus as 'the express (exact) image - doer of the works - of his person' , Colossians 1:18 'the image - doer of the works - of the invisible God' and 'God was manifested - made known - in the flesh' are all expressing the same, or similar thought: God was represented, made known in the flesh, not God was in the flesh, but represented, made known in the flesh. Jesus didn't represent, make known himself as God: 'I can of myself do nothing' John 5:30 'the Son can do nothing of himself' John 5:19. Jesus said: 'he that has seen me has seen the Father' how is this possible? Jesus said: 'As the Father has taught me I speak these things' John 8:28 'He gave me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak' John 12:49 'Whatsoever I speak therefore even as the Father said to me so I speak' John 12:50 'Believe you not that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwells in me he does the works' John 14:10. 'I do always those things that please the Father' John 8:29 By these we are assured that Jesus 'manifested God [the Father] in the flesh', was 'the express (exact) image - doer of the works; representative - of his [the Father's] person', 'the image - doer of the works, representative - of the invisible God'. Matthew 22:44 was referenced in Jesus sitting on the right hand of the LORD, not that Jesus is the LORD along with the Father; God calls his Son 'God' and gives him authority, without his [the Father's] supervision, over the area of man, his given sole kingdom, and is Judge, therefore God, over mankind. Hebrews 1:8, John 5:22,27 [from Genesis 18:25-26 to John 5:22,27. This area of responsibility would only involve heaven and angels as far as it involved mankind; there are more areas than that of mankind.! If you want to know more ... if I can.
@@leonardodavincioso4359 - You know, I CAN READ for myself and the only way to understand all the verses as you have INTERPRETED them on both of your comments is to regard the "Word", in John 1:1 as ANOTHER Person other than the God which is stated "...was with God". You do not believe that Jesus was an "eternal son" which is good and well. However, you hold to him being the "Logos", the "Word", correct? Why? Where do you get that the "Logos" in John 1:1 is referring to a Person, namely Jesus? Jesus, the Person, is not mentioned in John 1:1, correct? So HOW do you come to the understanding that "LOGOS" was/is Jesus if the verse says NOTHING about Jesus? I know HOW you come to that conclusion. It's through a "state of mind", a "philosophical" argument, a false connection between John 1:1 and John 1:14 and here it is follows. You believe, by slight of hand, that John 1:14 reads thus: "And the Word, that is Jesus, was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. " What was "made flesh"? The "WORD", the "LOGOS" which was not a Person/Someone but Something, a Quality, a Power, an Attribute OF God. That Something was GIVEN to a Man, a Man of flesh, Jesus when he was 30 years old. You falsely assume that "made flesh" refers to Jesus' CONCEPTION and BIRTH both of which John says NOTHING about. Jesus ALREADY had already existed as a Man for @30 years BEFORE the "WORD" was "made flesh" in @27 A.D. If the "Word", the "Logos", according to your definition, was Jesus "made flesh" or to use the Roman Catholic philosophical term INCARNATED then Matthew and Mark, both of whom EXPOUNDED to the utmost the CONCEPTION and BIRTH of Jesus, should have been the ones using the term "LOGOS" and "WORD" in both of their narratives. Did they fail to do so or has the term "made flesh" been mis-interpreted because of the ASSUMPTION that "LOGOS" is a Person rather than a Power possessed by God? Those who interpret "the Word was with God" to mean "a Person other than God was with God" instead of "a Power was with God" are prone to interpret John 1:14 to mean that the "Person" in John 1:1 was transformed, changed, morphed, into a human baby. Something which John DOES NOT SAY nor allude, nor hint at. The "glory" which people saw IN Jesus was God's "Logos", God's Power in a Man, in Flesh, at the age of 30 years and not before. Jesus never manifested God's Power (Logos) until God the Father INVESTED him with that Power (Logos) which Power (Logos) had always resided ONLY and SOLELY with God YHWH, from the beginning. If anyone believes as you do that "Word" or "Logos" was/is a Person, a Being, a "God", then it will naturally follow that they will "see" Jesus, since he was imbued with God's Power, God's Word, as "God Himself". In essence every verse which speaks of Jesus will be self fulfilling, i.e. Jesus will be seen as God; the "God" Jesus will be hiding behind every verse in which he is mentioned. Meanings of words and passages will be magically transformed to mean that Jesus was/is God, as you have done, instead of what they PLAINLY state which is that a Human Being, a Man "in the flesh", Jesus of Nazareth, was/is God's only begotten HUMAN son, the promised Man "seed", the Messiah, the Last Adam, the Son of God, WITH God's given Power and Authority, which he fully received at the age of 30 years, not at his birth. The countless interpretations of the verses you cite which you use to TRY and prop up your philosophical "Jesus is God" theory just won't work. Simply put, no Writer, Speaker, either in the OT or NT, from Moses to John, in Scripture, ever EXPOUNDS or EXPLAINS (as you and others try so desperately to do) the so called "Deity of Christ". If such a teaching had been done would it not be EXPLICIT and without doubt? Of course. Yet, somehow, someway, God supposedly left it to "theologians" to explain to "idiots" like me. Really?
@JeffSmith-it4tm That's a lie that shows Satan has covered your eyes to get you to see what you want to see. Anyone who has sight see that Tuggy's unitarian arguments are laughably bad and he even asked where dies John 1 say the Word is Jesus. Get real clown.
Chris Date is much smarter (and more polite) than Michael Brown but there are many holes in his theology. His reading of Philippians 2 is intriguing but one reading of a passage does not mean there can't be other readings of a passage. If his reading is correct then surely it should be supported by other scriptures, especially since the Incarnation would seem to be a very central tenet of his theology. Yet it is hard to find any other text that comes close to that reading in the rest of Scripture. The closest I can think of is John 1:14 but if that's talking about the Incarnation it destroys the whole point of John's gospel record. So, with that in mind, here's another reading of Philippians 2 which is in harmony with other scriptures. What Paul is doing is explaining the example of Christ - "let this mind be in you". One argument here would be that it is impossible to follow the example of someone who has two natures, but let's leave that aside since it is also true that God is set up as an example in Scripture. The argument for Jesus being our model thus necessarily excluding him from having divine nature is reserved for him dealing with trials and temptation. The subject of Christ's example here is humility which can be an example gained from a non-human (which is what the Jesus of Trinitarianism is despite the claim he was fully man; him also being fully God makes him nonhuman) being. My reading of Philippians 2 is based on the idea that Paul is commenting on an actual occasion of Jesus showing humility during his life. In John 13 it says "Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God" - he was "in the form of God". Then Jesus "laid aside his outer garment". The outer garment was a symbol of status in the ANE and so Jesus's symbolically, "emptied himself" before "taking a towel, tied it around his waist" - or, he "took upon him the form of a servant" and then Jesus proceeded to "wash the disciples' feet". He humbled himself on the eve of the ultimate example of his humility, death on the cross. Jesus said of this "“Do you understand what I have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him." Jesus did not take his exalted position (teacher and Lord) as something to take advantage of but instead showed extreme humility. That's a practical example of humility I can relate to. While Mr. Date's reading is interesting, and I can see how God becoming man can be looked at as being something humbling, it is much harder to relate to. The problem with Mr. Date's reading is it presupposes the Incarnation to be true, while this other reading is based on parallels with an incident that is expressly an unambiguously written about in Scripture.
Richard Morgan BINGO! When I read Philippians 2 my mind also goes straight to that passage in John! “You call me teacher and lord” “although being in the form of God”. Very true statements you made. 👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾
The amount of hoops you guys have to jump through to justify your heresy 😂 Philippians 2 is very clear, and you guys have to do some serious gymnastics to make it say something other than what it’s clearly saying lol
It's easy to clear this up. Scripture says He was a MAN the mediator. Here's where most people get twisted. "God" is not a name it's an office. Scripture refers to Yahweh as God, His divine council as God's, Yeshua as a God and even US as Gods. Is Yeshua, Yahweh because of a title? No. He clearly states in many verses the distinct separation of beings. Never once does he say anything in the third person to contextualize a triune creator no matter how much someone tries to twist the scripture.
Matthew, are you familiar with the Trinities Podcast Facebook group - there is a said scholarly resource for following through on the apostolic and messianic Christologies
@@priscillajervey6134 Are you familiar with the Trinities Podcast Facebook group - there is a said scholarly resource for following through on the apostolic and messianic Christologies
I wonder what a trinitarian would say if you asked if it was possible for the son to send the father to die on the cross? If they are coequal and always existed I don’t see how they would have a problem with that hypothetical.
One question are you unitarian christian (biblical) trying your best to ride this world from this false pagan trinity as fast as possible respect from a muslim
Why do you assume that they are equal with respect to interrelational authority just because they are equal in nature? Does a son in this middle eastern setting have the same authority as his father? No, but does that mean that the son is less human than his father? No.
@@anissueofursincerity Not necessarily, you could see them as sharing the numerically same "kind essence". That is different from the relation between the members of a species, they do not share the numerically same "kind essence". The latter may share the same *type* of essence, but not the same *token* of essence. The members of a species are species of a genus, but "Godhood" does not belong to any genus, hence "Godhood" cannot be a species. In the case of the Trinity they share the same *token* essence (more strictly stated: in this special case the token and type coincident).
The cross examination is really bringing out the absurdity of the Trinity. First of all it seems like you have to be a philosophy wizard to explain it/understand it. None. I repeat: none of the terminology employed by Trinitarians attempting to explain their theology is used in the Bible. Isn't it curious that language completely divorced from anything the Bible says has be employed to explain a supposedly key Bible doctrine? The Bible doesn't mention the key components of Trinity theology: Trinity, three persons in one God, divine substance and the list goes on. On the other hand the Unitarian explanation of God is lifted out of Scripture and requires no philosophical explanation. I think one of the keys for Trinitarians to reconsider their idea is to examine more closely the death of Christ. Dr. Tuggy brings out the absurdity of the death of God. Mr. Date says words to the effect "he died in his human nature". But did *Jesus* die? Did his death mean anything? Or, once the human nature was dead, was it by the by because Jesus the person, the second person of the Godhead, lived on. What, then, is the big deal with his death? And what about his resurrection? Is there *any* meaning to it at all? Also, I am led to believe by Trinitarians that it's important God sacrificed himself because what else was going to be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world. But if it wasn't God who died (because immortality is an essential attribute of his being) then that sacrifice could never have been paid. It was just human nature dying and that's meant to pay for everyone's sins? Does any of this make any sense at all? This is why those who find Unitarianism will never return to the Trinity. It just makes no sense whatsoever, either logically, reasonably but most importantly biblically. You can't just respond to the question "how can there be only one God when you have two or more distinct persons?" by saying "but they are only one being". That's just words. Words without meaning to fill in the answer to a question that is impossible to answer sensibly.
Richard Morgan Yes! Chris was completely picked apart. Especially when they spoke about the two natures. It’s ludicrous. I thought Dale did an excellent job. The interrogation part was the highlight of all this.
The Trinity is the biggest con job to infiltrate Christendom and the fact that millions have bought into this absurd "theory" merely prove WHY Satan is the god of this world. Trinitarians simply can't handle the truth!
It’s really hard for me to believe God would set up the world and his religion for failure right out the gate and have Unitarianism be true even though it’s much less supported. That’s like me telling a story with a moral at the end of it to kids but telling them the wrong moral of the story just so they can go tell other kids about that same wrong moral. The Bible says don’t lean to your own understanding… probably because it’s from God and more complex than we can fully ever understand. The trinity is complex. God is complex.
God didn’t establish any religion. Religion is a man made concept. God established the nation of Israel and his Torah, he does not belong solely to any religion in particular nor did he give his scriptures for the sake of religion. My issue personally with the trinity is the fact that I really don’t see it talked about in the Old Testament tbh,nor do I think it was established from the beginning. And what I find is quite the contrary. And I can’t help but be skeptic of the doctrine given it sprung up some time later after messiahs coming. I find it hard to believe god kept this truth from his chosen nation but left it up to other believers(mostly gentiles)later in time to figure out and establish such a huge concept of the very being of god. Now I agree god is complex without a doubt, but I feel using that to justify the trinity is in a way “leaning into our own understanding”. It’s tempting to accept that, and it definitely works to convince someone ( myself included ) but we should still evaluate the source of a doctrine/theory and seeing if it holds up with the original witnesses( in this case, Jesus , Old Testament writers, etc rather than just jumping the gun and accepting it. I could really say that the human evolution origin theory is a grand mystery and the universe is just too great for us to try to grasp that everything just merely happened and we came from monkeys. And we should somehow just accept we came from monkeys because it is beyond our reach of understanding and scientific proof. Now yes the universe is beyond our comprehension given it has a Divine supreme creator behind it, but this doesn’t justify nor make evolution ,or any origin theory for that matter legit. Let’s evaluate where this theory came from, and wether or not the data holds up. Just my point of view anyways, may the most high bless you 🙏🏻❤️
@@14-Peaks I can. For example the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: *Gen. 19,24* Then *the Lord* rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire *from the Lord* out of heaven; *Amos 4,11* *I have overthrown* some of you, *as God overthrew* Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, *saith the Lord.* *Isaiah 13,17-19* 17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. 18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children. 19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be *as when God overthrew* Sodom and Gomorrah. *Jer. 50,40* *As God overthrew* Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbour cities thereof, *saith the Lord;* so shall no man abide there, neither shall any son of man dwell therein. Now a jewish targum about this verse, from the time before Christianity. Let's see what the Jews believed before they rejected their Messiah and reinterpretated their Scriptures: *Targum Gen. 19,24* And *the Word of the Lord* had caused showers of favour to descend upon Sedom and Amorah, to the intent that they might work repentance, but they did it not: so that they said, Wickedness is not manifest before the Lord. Behold, then, there are now sent down upon them sulphur and fire from before *the Word of the Lord* from Heaven. [JERUSALEM. 24. And *the Word of the Lord* Himself had made to descend upon the people of Sedom and Amorah showers of favour, that they might work repentance from their wicked works. But when they saw the showers of favour, they said, So, our wicked works are not manifest before Him. He turned (then), and caused to descend upon them bitumen and fire from before the Lord from the heavens.] And He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and the herbage of the earth. Behold, then, there are now sent down upon them sulphur and fire from before *the Word of the Lord* from Heaven. I can give you many more examples if you want
I can NOT deny Jesus Christ, He tells me he is the servant of God our Father. He Says that in John 13:16 and Jesus prayed to God our Father...Jesus is the Lamb, the offering for sin! Can God be tempted? NO! Jesus and the father are one....guess what, if the Holy Spirit is with you, you are one with God! remove this cup, not MY WILL but thy be done. NOT MY WILL.....of course not!!! When does Jesus return, nobody knows not the angel, not the son but only the Father....What? How can that be? Deut 18:18, ever read it? what happen when Jesus was baptized? who left Jesus on the cross? who raised Christ? Touch me not, for I have not ascended to my Father. Do you deny Jesus?
Part 1 Dr. Buzzard, Dr. Tuggy and Unitarians alike, base their understanding like Dr. James White said while reading Scriptures they "have one eye open" allowing the" MAN" Jesus to been seen; however, the other eye closed, not ACCEPTING Jesus Christ's "DIVINITY" is not honest. Thus, Unitarians accept the texts which say Jesus is a man or second Adam the like: John 4:29, John 7:29, John 12:34, Romans 5:15,17, here's their favorite Acts 4:10 & Acts 2:22. In The Great Debate: Is Jesus God? (1 of 3) Dr. Anthong Buzzard, Mr. Good vs Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. White, Dr. Buzzard said regarding Psalms 110:1 "that the LORD said unto my Lord which Dr. Buzzard stressed the word lord is adonee. It has nothing to do with God or Yahweh." Dr. Tuggy too, in his Debate with Dr. Michael Brown stated essentially the same thing concerning Lord means master not God. Yes, in Psalms 110:1 word the Lord is Adonee and it is referred to man such as, Abraham being called Lord by Sarah; a servant to his "Master" or Lord adonee. However, here is where Unitarians have "One eye closed" purposefully deceiving; I think, especially, Dr. Buzzard and Dr. Tuggy who are Doctors. They have supposedly studied Scriptures. The in this section below, look at the word Lord (Adonee) which can and does mean He is: Lord (136 Adonay) , God, Jehovah/Yahweh Psalms 110:1 A {Psalm of David.} The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Psalms 110:5 The Lord (136 ADONAY) at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. Notice, first, that my Lord Adonee is sitting at the "RIGHT HAND of LORD" yahweh. Psalm 135:5 For I know that the LORD is great, and OUR LORD is ABOVE ALL GODS. 113 adonee is above all GODS. Interesting, let's have BOTH EYES OPEN. Psalm 114:7 Tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord (113 ADONEE), at the presence of the God of Jacob, Psalms 97:4 His lightning illuminates the world; the earth sees and trembles. Psalms 97:5 The mountains melt like wax at the presence of the LORD, before the Lord(113-ADONEE) of all the earth. Psalms 136:2 Give thanks to the God of gods. His loving devotion endures forever. Psalms 136:3 Give thanks to the Lord (113-ADONI-ADONEE) of lords. His loving devotion endures forever. Psalms 147:4 He determines the number of the stars; He calls them each by name. Psalms 147: 5 Great is our Lord (113-ADONEE), and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit. We pay close attention to all of inspired Scriptures teach, looking at a Hebrew Lexicon, the word Adonee Lord is used in Psalms to mean he is Yahweh, God etc. MATTHEW 22: 41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. MARK 12: 35And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? 36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to MY LORD, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 37 DAVID THEREFORE HIMSELF CALLETH HIM LORD; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. MARK 12: 35And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? 36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to MY LORD, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 37 DAVID THEREFORE HIMSELF CALLETH HIM LORD; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. Unitarians are propagating a false message saying "Jesus is just an "highly exalted person' whom the LORD, the Father, wants us to worship"; direct us to false worship of a mere man, who, yes, was highly exalted and "Gloried" is still idolatry.
It requires such an absurd twisting and relativization of scripture to believe the trinity. Chris’s argument are rhetorical. Not scriptural or even logical. Nuts
Funny how Tuggy is listed as a "Biblical" Unitarian and Date is merely a "Trinitarian." I have a sneaking suspicion I know which side the channel is on.
Thank you Dr. Tuggy for setting the story straight. Sorry to say it, but Chris is a very ignorant man when it comes to the truth of God's word. He may have a good command of theology, but NOT the truth of God,. or our lord and savior Jesus Christ. The ONE who is now sitting at God's right hand making intersession for us.
Think about it this way. Jesus had NO father. He's not "just a human" quite literally. If you believe God is his father, also literally. He's not just a human.
Yahweh is a more accurate translation. However it is really just our best approximation since we don't know which vowels fit in. But it is definitely not Yehovah. You can't just take the King James mistakes and change the j back to a y and think that it makes the same word. Hebrew does not work like that. Since the different alphabets have different letters which have different sounds it didn't translate well. In Hebrew it's YHWH, translated to Latin they made it iHVH, and then to German as JHVH. And then the King James version (and other English translations) further distorted it by making it Jehovah. So simply switching out the j for a y does it fix 2000 years of progressive error. This is the name of the Elohim of elohims you are using. Be sure that you are using it correctly. Don't follow tradition. If you would like sources for this I can send you articles and dissertations showing you that yehovah is wrong
@@CD-CH-EB it is actually pronounced Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei. But hey, according to trinitarians jews are wrong about the nature of God. Why would they be right about the name. Those fourth century pagan Romans were super shmaaat!
As for Jesus and who died on the cross, JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS! Both human nature and divine nature were infused into the person Jesus, so he experienced human death whilst maintaining divine life.
Hold up, did Chris say that Dale was “assuming” a third party because the scripture says Jesus is a mediator?? Are you kidding me? In Trinity world, the possibilities are endless. You can even make up and reinvent language 😐😑😒
This guy Chris is about one logical conclusion from his entire world view collapsing. I'm not going to deny that he doesn't have a very solid primary chain of logic, but when he ventures into any secondary chain of logic, his answer is "well I'm not sure." His idea of the trinity leaves him with way more mysteries to figure out. Meanwhile he's arguing with a guy who literally has an explanation for everything that is SCRIPTURAL.
He came close to it. A trini can't go on for very long without something like that. For example they will trip up and say "He is father son and holy spirit" That is actually modalism.
@@anissueofursincerity Exactly. Good Fight Ministries did a recent show on the topic and they sounded like Oneness Pentecostals. Trinitarians and Oneness proponents end up sounding the same (i.e absolutely foolish). Good Fight Ministries have also called out Calvinism on a few of their shows (with guests) but then sound exactly like Calvinists at other times. I don't know why I ever listened to them. The "Jesus is God" show was full of contradictions and twistings and was disingenuous at times...
The mental gymnastics of Chris Gate is absolutely astounding. In addition, 9 out of 10 of his proof texts to support his position weren't even from scripture. They were commentaries from other men.
God had to send His Son as He cannot Die its a bigger sacrafice any good human being would die for their own children tell me how many would sacrafice their child for the evil son across the street. You error in your understanding and deny Jesus in your understanding with your trinity and making God the Son. There is no sacrafice in your understanding stop teaching its not your calling for the Truth is not in you
This mean jesus is human and not God as claimed. This is because only human and mortal being has beginning and end. The Almight God has no beginning and has no end.
Mr Date I have to take you to task on your use of two scriptures at 1hr 28 min. You quote Heb1:2. Now I might expect this to come from uninformed commenters, but you place yourself forward as one who is a student of the Greek and Hebrew, quite impressivly earlier. As a layman, four years ago on my own, I found the answer to Heb1:2 so easily with just a Strongs Concordance. Keep in mind readers that we should stay in context of surrounding verses and chapter in scripture. Not insert an outside context to this single verse on its own. The verse "....through whom He also created the 'world'." is interesting. That word "world" is the Greek word 'aion' (best my english keyboard can do) and that word is Strongs 165. I looked it up while sitting in bed in my concordance. Consulting Strongs 165 we find: aión: a space of time, an age Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: aión Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn') Definition: a space of time, an age Usage: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity. And so lets look at context of all of Hebrews. (it is neatly layed out in the page leading to Hebrews, by the publishers of my ESV) The book of Heb speaks to ex Jews who are leaving their new faith, and the author reminds them that this is a new dispensation or age, not the times of old under law. V1 spells it out fine, and 'wow' it leads direct into V2. V1 "at many TIMES and in various ways LONG AGO God spoke to us in the fathers and prophets, .... NOW speaks to us in a son.." (my emphasis in CAPS added) This verse sets the tone and its all about ages ago and now this new thing!!!!!!! Mr Date. Your very name should remind you and sting you. Unless its a fruit it implies TIME. You have either never used your learned expertise on this verse, or you are disingenuous and fall from credibility as dishonest. I write this in anger at the continued foolishness with this verse that unlearned chrsitians like myself have been taught and used this verse wrongly in the past. Shame on you. Next I will address Col1.
@@elanordeal2457 you missed the point of context. Times past and times now, in v1. That ties in with the greek ages as witnessed to by Strongs. The concept is the same as the church speak "being worldly" or "not of this world" which doesnt mean you are no longer of this planet, but "no longer of this evil age" (meaning the condition we were in, a slave to sin since Adams grasping at equality with God. "well dang Mabel, it sure aint the same world we growed up in!" It has nothing to do with planets and galaxies, let alone a "universe" as the NIV renders Heb1:2. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify it a little more. It staggers me that so many think that becoming a christian they have been removed from planet earth.
what is the sense of studying the scripture when you have the quotes of historical theologians? Sorry with all due respect, I will stay and base my faith in Jesus the Son of God according to the scripture. Shouldn't Bereans do that? The scriptures are the finest and most blessed words delivered to us. -rory m.
@John 3:16 He is the son of God because he was conceived. There is no scripture for "co-eternal". God created Jesus by conception in Mary's body. Christ the man did not create creation, God's Words did so, "in the beginning" when "GOD said "LET THERE BE... " The Word God spoke created, not a second God-person. See proof at my blog where the witnesses saw heaven, the throne, and God. Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, John, Stephen. All saw One God. Here is there witness: preparinghisway.blogspot.com/2018/11/i-saw-by-witnesses-scenes-from-heaven.html
Exiled in Babylon we don't need orthodoxy to tell us bible believers what to believe. God the Father is the only true God and Jesus is the son of God. Jesus has a God.
@Sage of Synergism no it say in the beginning was the word the word was with god and the word was God. The word was made flesh Jesus is the word of course jesus created all things let there be light let there be .... This is the word of God spoken this is the son .. the word became flesh the son always existed but not as a Man he was the word every one quotes john wrong there are 3 that bear record in heaven the father the son and holyghost. But that's not what it says it say the father word holy ghost
Jesus is God and He became flesh (John 1,1-14). As He became flesh, the Father became His God (Ps 22,10). Because all flesh is submitted to God (Jer 32,27). Jesus willingly humbled Himself and became a servant of the Father, and so, in this context, the Father became greater than Jesus (Phil 2,5-8; compare with John 13). And so even the Father calls Jesus God, that has a God (Hebrews 1,8-12). Furthermore, according to Phil 2,5-8 Jesus became a servant of the Father, because He humbled Himself as He made Himself a man. So He was not a servant of the Father before His incarnation.
1:47 Chris asks- Does it say anywhere Adam tried to have equality with God using the word equal? The specific term equal? Gen 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be LIKE GOD knowing good and evil. LIKE GOD is KE-EKOHIM
uh yes and what does being like God get them? Death. Unless you’re arguing that the writer or Genesis approves of this behaviour, it’s been accepted for millenia that Adam and Eve’s trying to be like God is SINFUL. If Jesus is *merely* a man, how then can He be described as like God without consequences? Remember that Philippians 2 days literally NOTHING about Adam so you cant pretend it’s an Adamic passage about Jesus.
Cherry picking texts: Jesus is called the second Adam: you accept. But when Jesus is called: word was God John 1:1c My Lord and my God John 20 reference to psalms Called God by the father. Then is connected to Jehovah in the beginning laying the foundation... in relation to the creation event: Hebrews 1:8-13. Says of himself: before Abraham was born I AM. the THE I AM THAT I AM. I AM SENT Moses I and the Father are ONE This means ONE in essence FOR John 8:16-18 Jesus and the father are different; "in your law the testimony of TWO men are true" I bear witness of myself and the father who sent me bears witness of me. Putting John 10:1-30 in context is saving and protecting the sheep which no man can pluck out of my hand and the father is greater no man pluck out of his hand. But Jesus said I and the father are ONE Deuteronomy 32:39 no God beside me...no man can deliver out of my hand.. Isaiah 43:13 therefore, Christ is saying the father and him are ONE in essence in nature to save and protect of which ONLY God can save. One in ACTION: preserving, protecting, and Saving; only God is our Saviour.
1:46 Chris asks- Can you point out anywhere in relevant literature humans are said to be in the MORPHE of God? Good grief that's easy. I give you Genesis 1.27 So God created man in his own IMAGE, in the IMAGE of God created he him; male and female created he them. MORPHE means IMAGE The Hebrew TSELEM is IMAGE.
I'm not sure how you bring a unitarian bias to the Bible since the trinity doctrine wasn't developed until much later. Assuming a non-trinitatian reading of the New Testament is consistent with the Old Testament and not in the same category of projection at reading the trinity into it.
Jews could have believed their god was triune and stull rejected Jesus. So since Jews weren't trinitarian, trinitarians HAVE to admit that the doctrine is a development.
What about the bias trinis have that the Father, or the Son, is ONE person? If singular pronouns don't matter how do you establish either of them are ONBE person? What isn't the Father multipel persons? or the Son?
"The Father and I are one!" "If you see Me, you see the Father!" "Don't you believe that the Father is IN Me?" "ALL (!) AUTHORITY in heaven and earth has been given to Me!". (Only God has all authority). At healing the paralytic: "Your sins have been forgiven you!" (Only God can forgive sins). "I am THE (not a) light of the world". ...God. "I have come to give you Zoë =divine life in abundance". (Only God can give Zoë life). Etc, etc. Conclusion of Paul after having revelation: "Jesus, the exact image of the invisible God. The fullness of deity dwells in Jesus bodily". John (who had seen, touched, heard Jesus): "the invisible God manifested in human form, in Christ". Thomas having revelation saying to Jesus: "My Lord and My God!". Jesus being God did NOT correct Him. Etc, etc, etc. And of course His life totally proves He is God in human form. Begotten by the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God, healing all, raising the dead, casting out demons, controlling nature, raised from the dead, pouring out His Spirit for us to be indwelled by to be empowered to heal the sick and cast out demons, etc, etc, etc. Hence the divine healing miracles and casting out of demons i experienced already thousands of times and many others too. Way to much to degrade Him to "just a prophet". Some unfortunately never understood God's resolve for mankind's fall and wrote an other story leading millions astray. Heartbreaking. What lots of people (even pastors) don't (yet) understand. For the fall of man a perfect atoning sacrifice had to be made.... that is what God did in Christ. He paid the debt for the fall of man for us to be indwelled by His Spirit again and finally receive the divine life of the ages back, the first Adam let got of in the fall of man. That is what you see happening in Christ's first disciples. They too healed all. And yes.... that is still avaible today. The holy blood is in place, the Holy Spirit is here to give us understanding and transform us back to origin. Not to be debated about, but to be embraced and be-come. So: The Kingdom of God already came. Through Christ, in Spiritform, in those that understand. Hence the divine healing miracles we experience. God manifested in Christ to give us back the divine life mankind lost in the fall of Adam. Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after in Gen 1. The image we lost in the fall of man. The image that can be freely restored by Christ's blood and Holy Spirit working IN us. What a plan. What a solution. What a love. What a God. Jesus is amazing. It is the ultimate conclusion of the word and plan of God. God came full circle. He Himself stooped down from glory to restore us back to original created value: Christlikeness. Walking in divine healing power and unselfish love. Jesus, born of the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God. The "Son" of God, the incarnated word, God in the flesh. For three years He healed all, raised the dead, casted out demons, controlled nature, spoke pure divine truth. He said: "Follow Me. If you see Me, you see the Father. The Father and I are one. The glory I have IN My Father, I give to you. It pleases the Father to give you His Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature. I will send Holy Spirit, the same as Me, He will be IN you, guide you into truth and give you explosive power. The same miracles i do, you will do too, because you will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am IN you. Freely I give you My Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, freely I give, freely share" Etc, etc, etc. I have experienced thousands of beautifull healing miracles through the power of Holy Spirit IN me already. Broken bones, cancers, covid, all kinds of infirmities healed in seconds. Demons manifesting and casted out by a simple "get out, in Jesus name". Jesus. De name above all names. In Him all power and wisdom is sourced and.... He calls us one with Him. God in man and man in God again. C'mon Jesus!! So.... again: God stooped down IN Christ to restore us back to Gen 1:27 were He said: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness and let them have authority.....": walk as Christ. Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after and being restored to by His atoning blood for the fall of man and indwelling Holy Spirit. You are free to receive this original divine life of the ages by Holy Spirit of Christ/God. Ask Him to guide you into truth. Read the Gospel of John and fall in love with your creator. You are not made for the fall of man and its effects, but for the image/glory of God and to walk like Christ. Holy Spirit is the guide and transforming power that will get you there. Amazing grace. A big leap in faith can be made when we start realizing we are already IN Christ, IN the last Adam. Free from the fall! Loved! Growing into awareness of our new (yet old) godly identity. Changing by Holy Spirit. The most fullfilled life ever. Paul healed all on Malta. He understood and wrote: "As in the first Adam ALL died (lost the divine nature), so also ALL were made alive IN Christ to walk in Zoë (= divine life) again". "IN Christ (the last Adam) we are co-cruisified (dead to the fall and its effects), co-raised (justified/made righteousness, holy, blameless, above reproach), co-seated (one with Him)" "The fullness of deity dwells in Christ and YOU HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETE IN HIM, who is the head of every principality and power". So.... thank you Jesus! Thank you for redeeming me from the fall of man. Thank you for your Holy Spirit that makes this new (yet old) divine life come alive in me. You are amazing! In the shadow of Peter the sick healed... He understood too and wrote: "By Gods power (Holy Spirit) and knowing Christ, we have become partakers of the divine nature and have escaped the fall of man". The divine life of the ages has been returned to us by Jesus once and for all perfect atoning sacrifice for the debt of the fall of man and His indwelling Holy Spirit in us. Jesus/God is amazing!!! Ask Him to give you revelation and change you to the way it was before the fall of man: Christlikeness. He will do so. For it is written: "the Spirit brings forth after His own kind". "I have come to give you Zoë (divine life) in abundance...."
1.jesus says in john 17 so all his discples will be one JUST AS he and Father are one 2.Christ is image of God,Adam is Image of God,if you see the image,you see The person 3.Jesus also says he was in his believers,exact same word,does that mean we are Jesus and God cuz Lord Jesus is God 4.yeah emphasis "HAVE BEEN GIVEN",even Paul himself excepted God the Father from the authority of Jesus cuz it was GIVEN,only God has power out of default,not GIVEN 5.lord Jesus says to apostles if you Forgive sins,their sin will be forgiven,but if you didnt,their sin will not be forgiven,Lord Jesus himself says in that verses this power of forgiving is GIVEN,GIVEN,only God have power to forgive sins by default,not given as if he cant do it even if anyone disagree with it 6. 7.fullness of trinity doesnt exist in Jesus cuz he is only one person right there,but if you insist tho,that would made all Christian having fullness of deity too,according to apostle paul in his epistles we have fullness of christ,fullness of Holy Spirit,fullnes of the God (father) too 8.thats not anything to prove trinity at all,Jesus himself says he was here to manifest God,not that he himself God 9.David is called "God of israel" by prophet,it even says there that the prophet says "to him",its nothing special,when you are in awe,you can say to someone "oh my God and Lord",that doesnt mean to call him a god i literally debunk all of it,what a lazy argument,the old Testament God says "i ALONE am God,there is no other than ME" he says i am which is singular person pronoun,but if you claim "you can use singular pronoun even for multiple person",first of all that only happens in METAPHOR,are you saying everytime God says "i am" from the past he is talking about it in metaphor,EVERYTIME?,moreover,he says "I ALONE",I ALONE! in the name of Christ Jesus that is not god i DEBUNKS ALL your argument
Part 2 Where does it say that God died, that being GOD the son? it's in the Old Testament. Isaiah 49:1 THIS SERVANT IS BORN OF A WOMEN, a human being: v1 “THE LORD HATH CALLED ME FROM THE WOMB; FROM THE BOWELS OF MY MOTHER hath he made MENTION OF MY NAME”; first, who is speaking, yes, Isaiah but who Inspired Isaiah to speak? According to 1 Peter 1:10-11 it was the Spirit of Christ on the prophets, speaking of his death and glory:Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories LORD gives a sign Isaiah 7:14 “ the lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name immanuel”; Isaiah 9:6 “FOR UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN, UNTO US : and the government shall be upon his shoulder:born of a Women: a HUMAN BEING: Isaiah 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; THE LORD HATH CALLED ME FROM THE WOMB; FROM THE BOWELS OF MY MOTHER hath he made MENTION OF MY NAME; Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: THE LORD hath said unto ME, THOU ART MY SON; this day I have begotten thee. The word One-Echad was never used to refer to God being only one person; echad (one but could be more than one) cf Genesis 2:24; Exodus 26:66; Genesis 11:6; Genesis 34:16. Yachid “Only” son is used for this SERVANT; who became a human shown above; Notice parallelisms found in verse 2 He said, “Take your son, your son Isaac, whom you love…”; Similarly, Yachid is used in Greek 3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, and 1085 /génos. Thus. “Only” Son cf N.T: John 1:1,14,18 v 18 No one has seen God at any time; , who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him; Matthew 3:16 etc only Son; means (one but could be more than one) cf Genesis 2:24; Exodus 26:66; Genesis 11:6; Genesis 34:16. Isaiah 49:1, 48:3,5,12,16 v16 the one who was speaking thru Isaiah is now being sent “Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; From the time that it was, there am I; And now the Lord GOD hath sent me, and His spirit.”: Notice, the Lord God (the Father) is sending the one who has been speaking thru Isaiah, Isaiah 48:12 now hearken unto me…I am the first and the Last: that being the Lord (Jesus) for he too is the First and the Last Revelation 1:11,17 and Revelation 22:13, is SENT TO THE WORLD like John 1:10,11 he came into the world, the world KNEW HIM NOT, he made the world; and was coming BACK to the Father whom he proceeded from: John 16:25-28 25These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. 26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: 27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. 28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. Unitarians look at the N.T. passage, Philippians 2:5, such as, Dr. Tuggy, he was "in the form of God"; he interpolate this to mean Jesus like Adam, He's called the Second Adam, rather than accepting this to mean, exactly what it says, Christ before his incarnation: "became a man..a servant..death of the cross", was God, Divine etc; hence, God the Only Son (John 1:18 NASV and NRSV) died: texts of the Old testament given above of the Lord prophesied these things of himself. For John 1:1 connects with Genesis 1:1 which the Apostle who is inspired, said the God in genesis 1:1-26, was the Word; the Word was with God (the Father), the Word was God; verse 3 the world was made by him, WHO? The Word; verse 4 in him was Life, before Christ's incarnation, he had life NOT GIVEN to him after his incarnation then it life was GIVEN by the Father: John 5:26; verse 14 the WORD became flesh. Seriously, I do not know how Unitarians CANT SEE, that one eye being closed, that this is referring to Christ incarnation. For John the Baptist testified of that light, that Light was the Word in John 1:4. John 1:1,18 NRSV 18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son,[e] who is close to the Father’s heart,[f]who has made him known. and New American Standard Version say: No one has seen God at any time; God the only who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained John Similarly, to Philippians 2:5 and John 1:14 concerning Christ's incarnation, Jesus repeatedly states that "He came down from Heaven", "My Father give you the true Bread FROM Heaven": John 6:32,33,35 against the Jews statement of Moses giving Manna John 6:31; jews are murmuring of the claim that "He came down from heaven" John 6:41 and 42 "is not this Joseph's son...I came down from heaven", notice, they are referring to him being a flesh and blood, a Human being, how can he make such bold statements; then Christ answers their objections: John 6:43-46, look at 48-51": "I AM the BREAD OF LIFE", "your father ate manna in the desert and are dead" here, Christ teaches US what will GIVE TRUE SUSTENANCE; his flesh and blood if they, now, we BELIEVE ON HIM John 6:35; "For I CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN not to do my own will but the will of him who sent": John 6:38. All these teachings from christ himself is taught in the Old Testament. The Eye that is CLOSE needs to be open by the Grace of the our God and Father and Jesus Christ may grant you his Holy Spirit to guide you into the Truth.
Wow, never heard of this Chris guy, but he asbsaolutely shredded Tuggy in cross-x. That was awesome. Probably not persuasive to most Unitarians since they aren't very exegetical in their approach, but rather just say "but I interpret it this way", ignoring the plain language and what words do and do not mean.
@@Psalm-pu2jq He did excellently. He refuted Tuggy's twisting of Scripture with exegesis, evidently not the emphasis in Unitarian circles. Also, his view on hell is not relevant to this discussion.
I have thought up a little song for trinity churches to be sung to a popular church chorus tune. "Lift Athenasious higher. Lifet Athenasious higher. Lift Him up for the world to see." "If Athenasious be lifted up from the world, all men will worship trinity."
Philippians 2:5-11 has no meaning whatsoever if Jesus didn’t have a heavenly existence prior to assuming human form. This is not an argument for the Trinity nor anything other than what Jesus himself noted that God had proclaimed regarding His angelic faithful servants “ you are gods “ ( psalm 82:6)( John 10:34,35) . Is Jesus God Himself : nope. Is he Divine : yep.
Can you guys post the GOD rule book your reading from. I could only find Mat 19:26 and for you Keith and C S Isa 55:8,9. No man can die for the sins of another, Ezekiel 18:20, Ps. 49:7
@@rickhuntling7338 Wrong. Christ was a man and he died for our sins. 1 Cor 15:3 Gal2:20. Its obvious your rule book isn't the Bible. Way to twist the scriptures.Right. A mortal fallen sinful man can't redeem us. But Christ was a unique sinless man begotten by his God through a virgin. So your interpretation is bad and wrong. No Jesus isn't the Deity. God isn't a man and can't become flesh and can't die. None of your stupid trinity can be proven by scripture. The trinity is a manmade false unbiblical doctrine.
Couple of observations from the debate: 1) first time seeing Chris Date in a debate 2) Unitarian arguments are the same as those of Muslims, but essentially Muslims took those arguments from Unitarians since they don't have any arguments of their own. 3) The Unitarian position is basically Christianity without Muhammad.
The Muslim Jesus is not the son of God who died for the sins of mankind & was not raised from the dead & seated at the right hand of His Father, unlike the Jesus of Unitarianism. The Jesus of Unitarianism will return to establish his Kingdom. The Muslim Jesus was a messiah & prophet (Muhammad being the final & greater prophet) who will return to proclaim the Mahdi in the end times, according to Islamic Eschatology.
MR. DATE, YOU NEED TO READ WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS NOT WHAT YOU WANTED TO SAY! ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT JESUS WAS LYING TO US WHEN CLEARLY SAID THAT THE FATHER IS SOME ONE OTHER THEN HIMSELF. JOHN 8:18 HE SAID "I AM THE ONE WHO TESTIFIES CONCERNING MYSELF, AND THE FATHER WHO SENT ME TESTIFIES CONCERNING ME" I LIVE YOU WITH COLOSSIANS 2:8. DEFINITION OF "BEING" IT IS THE NATURE OR ESSENCE OF A PERSON. SO DO NOT CHANGE GOD INTO THREE WHO'S AND ONE WHAT. THANK YOU
It seems to me that Tuggy had better cross ex, especially at 1:44:00-1:45:00. And that his opener and rebuttal had powerful syllogistic and deductive arguments that Date didn’t fully address. And therefore, I must tip the hat to Tuggy.
Date was not prepared for this. If you're about to enter a debate, you need to research the opposition's points beforehand so that you can anticipate their responses to your own. Date clearly didn't do this. He'd make a point, Tuggy would tell him why it doesn't work, and Date would just look kind of dumbfounded. I almost feel bad for him.
I don't agree with your comment. Chris Date was supremely prepared. So much. I'm shocked at your statement. Didn't you see all the quotes Date put up on the screen, which Tuggy used in papers and in previous debates? Didn't you see how Chris Date used Tuggy's quotes from THIS debate and used Tuggy's accusation against him ("Chris is going to read between the lines of Scripture")?
Fact is no one in Yeshua's life thought he was divine. The fact is as I've addressed in my own vids is that there is good consensus that Jesus existed and had a following. So did Joseph Smith. But as far as divine this is where I go after the misinformation of the apologists on "evidence that he was God." There is none, religious or secular. The secular mentions (Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus) mention him as having this following. None of them believed he was divine. As far as his following and "witnesses" to his miracles and resurrection? We have not one signature. Nothing. Nothing written during Yeshua's actual life that said "I was his friend, I knew Yeshua, I witnessed this resurrection." Signed: friend of Yeshua. That began about thirty years later which screams urban legend. Cheers, DCF
All believers have a fallen human nature and a portion of the divine nature (gift of the spirit) in them. This is clearly evident in Paul's teaching on the struggle between the old man and the new man. We are told to live according to the new nature (spirit) and if we do we will not fulfill the desires of the old sinful nature. Jesus did not have a sinful nature like humans have, even though he was human. Jesus was like Adam before Adam sinned. Jesus received the spirit (divine nature) without limit. With no sin in him, his nature could only be divine, but that still does not make him God because God is the one who gave Jesus His spirit without limit. Believers have a portion of the divine nature in them. These natures operate as a desire. Jesus had no desire to sin. His only desire was to please his Father. Therefore, Jesus did not have a fallen human sin nature. But we do, and we will struggle with it as long as we exist on this side of Heaven. Thank God for His Grace, because we are not perfect and without sin, like Jesus was. The Fallen sinful nature can be summed up as a feedback loop of wanting and desire driven by covetousness, envy, pride, and wrath. The Divine nature placed into the believer's heart upon conversion can be summed up as a want and desire for: humility, meekness, patience, and resignation to the will of God. SInce the struggle is not a flesh and blood battle, but rather a spiritual battle, these two natures must be looked at as inner passions, tempers, wants, and desires manifesting outwardly as conduct and behavior. In this sense, Jesus had only a divine nature because he lived to only please God and no sin was found in him.
You nailed it. All believers are made partakers of the divine nature. The gift of the spirit in the believer is a portion of God's divine nature. "Walk according to the spirit" means "LIVE according to the divine nature that is in you (the new man in Christ, a.k.a. the gift of the spirit). The gift of the spirit in the believer is given several different names in scripture according to its function. YHWH is the Holy Spirit, and the gift in the believer is the holy spirit (the spirit of Christ, spirit of sonship, spirit of adoption, spirit of glory, spirit of truth, etc.) and all these are the same spirit that builds up the new man in Christ. The NT is filled with instructions for believers to live according to the spirit. In doing so, the old man is put to death. It's an ongoing process to deny the old man and live for the spirit, until we get to Heaven.
If he wasn’t strictly one of “us” than he was not a substitute for us. You entirely miss the boat.. if he were God he could not be tempted, he could not suffer, and he could not die...and he certainly could not forsake himself!!? Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me“ I challenge everyone who has a bible software type in “God The Son” you will find ZERO verses found. Type in “Son of God” 47 times in KJV. TYPE in “trinity”, ZERO times, type in “Incarnation”, ZERO ... Type in “God The Spirit” ZERO, Type in “Spirit of God”, 26 times in KJV. The gospel is, The spirit of The Father working THROUGH Jesus the MAN/Messiah... And all the promises made to the second Adam are made to all those who believe THROUGH him... you all can believe what your told by man, I choose to believe the Bible. Hope this helps, God bless you.... 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus 1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but ONE God (Theos), THE FATHER, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord (Kurious), Jesus Christ (Messiah), through whom are all things, and we exist through Him. Ephesians There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all ONE! NOT THREE? NOT three in one... this is the false doctrine the Pope-Antichrist IS NOW uniting the world under. ... COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE
@@KnowWhatIsTrue You entirely missed my whole comment. The Bible says Jesus was without sin. NO SIN WAS FOUND IN HIM, which means: although he was a human being, he was born without a sin nature. If He was born without a sin nature which made him the PERFECT sacrifice for the sins of mankind, it means he was NOT strictly one of us. He was unique. None of us can claim that kind of perfection this side of heaven. So in many ways Jesus was like us, but in other ways he was PERFECT, and we are not perfect. So that blows your comment out of the playing field.
@@KnowWhatIsTrue I don't know where you get the idea that I think Jesus is God. I've been a Biblical Monotheist for many years. I have studied the Bible all my life from 9 years old to present (55 years and over 70,000 hours). Consider that the next time you send me a comment. Jesus has a God he calls Father. John 20:17 Jesus says his Father is the only true God. John 17:3 Jesus says his Father is greater than all. John 10:29 Jesus says his Father is greater than I. John 14:28 Jesus says he speaks his Father's words. Jn 7:15; Jn 14:10; Jn 14:24; Jesus said his teaching is from his Father. John 7:15; John 12:49-50 Jesus said his Father told him what to speak. John 12:49-50 Jesus said the Father living in him does his works. John 14:10 Jesus said believe I am the messiah or die in your sins. John 8:24 Jesus said his Father is in Heaven. Matthew 16:17 Jesus said he did not know everything. Mark 13:32 Jesus said: "I am a man who has told you the truth I heard from God." John 8:4 Jesus said he is the Messiah. Jn 4:25:26; Jn 8:58; Jesus said he is the Son of God. Jn 10:36 Jesus did his Father's will, not his own will. Luke 22:42 Peter said Jesus is a man. Acts 2:22 Peter said God did many signs and wonders through Jesus. Acts 2:22 Peter said Jesus was crucified according to God's plan and foreknowledge. Acts 2:23; also see Revelation 13:8. Peter said God raised Jesus from the dead. Acts 2:24; 2:32 Peter said God made Jesus both Lord and Christ [savior]. Acts 2:36 Luke tells us Christ means savior. Luke 2:11 Paul tells us God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus. Acts 13:23 John states: Jesus is the Savior of the world. 1 John 4:14 The Samaritans declare Jesus is Savior of the world. John 4:42 Peter said to Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16 John the Apostle said: “these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” John 20.31. Paul says: There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4: 4-6 "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” (Acts 16.31). “if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10.9). Paul states: “I handed on to you as of first importance … that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day” (1 Cor 15.3-4). Paul states: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 John states: “God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God” (1 John 4.15). John states: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (1 John 5.1). A child of six years old can understand these simple straight forward scriptures. It took philosophers 350 years to pervert the Christian faith with pagan philosophy and hoodwink the church fathers. Philo is the one who started this Jesus is God nonsense with his logos theory and trinity doctrine.
You are seriously wrong. If he had a different nature then us then he was Not one of us, common sense.. He submitted himself to the Father in obedience and by doing so did not sin. NOT because he did not have a “sin nature”. That is ludicrous.. and you miss the point of our own need to obey and submit to God. Jesus was EXACTLY like us. The firstborn of many brethren... hope this helps..
To find simply means from heaven. Jesus was from heaven according to Philippians 2:5-11, he came to Earth. Jesus was a spirit in heaven, he became a man on earth. He was spirit he became flesh. He was divinity, he became humanity. He was not both at the same time.
Admittedly, I had desired to work myself through this debate. I did get through Dale's opening which was, of course, highly informative; however, once I got into Dates silly screed - simplistic humanistic tradition, admittedly, I had to bail after about 60 seconds...😑🥴.... realizing this is just regurgitated nonsense.
Mr. Chris Date You did a fabulous job with your presentation. 🙏🏼❤️❤️❤️✨👏👏👏👏You were lucid in your explanations, I commend you. I watched many debates with Dr. James White, and Dr. Michale Brown... Mr. Tuggy is something else!!🤔
thedailygripe Yes. Tuggy did win because he taught the truth. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. He is not the Deity. God the Father is the only true Deity. Jn17:3 1Cor8:6 Eph4:6 Jesus has a Deity to Whom he is subject forever. 1Cor15:24,27 Jesus is the image of God, not God. All images in Scripture are creations. Jesus symbolizes and represents the Deity.
Boonie Silva Date is a pathetic debater. he us a twister of Scripture. Like all deceived Trinitarian he distorts and adds to Gods Word. I'm so glad I left the false teaching of Trinitaruanism. Jesus has a God and Jesus prays to God and worships God.
Jesus was not divine nature in human nature at the same time. Jesus' Divine nature was the spirit Being known as The Word of God. Jesus' human nature was the man named Jesus. Jesus was not both divine and earthly at the same time. Jesus was not both spirit and human at the same time. This is all explained at Philippians 2:5-11 as compared to John 1:1.
21 “May they all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us, so that the world may believe you sent me. There’s a lot more than one person in the God head! Mama Mia!
I believe the Godhead consist of JUST God the father....only! Jesus was telling the disciples to be of one mind,purpose and goal, to become like he and the Father. Us meant Jesus and the. father alone! To become onein purpose. It's that simple
@@Davey3 The greek word for the verse in Colossians that says Jesus is the firstborn is prototokos, meaning the preeminent one, Jesus is preeminent over all creation.
@@priscillajervey6134 During Jesus' earthly mortal life the Father, with his Spirit of God within him 1st Corinthians 2:11b, was the only one in the Godhead I agree. However, when Colossians 2:9 wrote 'for in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily' and 1:19 'for it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell' Colossians 1:19 we are assured that Jesus had not the fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in him Until the Father decided to have the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him bodily 'for it PLEASED the FATHER that IN HIM [THE SON, JESUS] all fulness SHOULD DWELL or SHOULD ALL FULNESS DWELL. ' How did all fulness of the Godhead dwell bodily in Jesus? John 3:34 'for he whom God has sent speaks the words of God: for God gives not the Spirit by measure to him.' The fulness of the Godhead was the Father giving his own Spirit of God to Jesus, since the Spirit of God is God's Spirit of man within him, as every man has his own Spirit of man within him separate from the Spirit of God whom God has within himself 1st Corinthians 2:11a 'for what man knows (Greek, knows but not by experience; searches the deep things of God to know them - because the Spirit of God has not the deep things of God within him as the Father has within himself - but 'experiences' them imaginatively after learning them) the things of a man save (Greek, if not) the spirit of man within him? Parallels with 1st Corinthians 2:11b 'even so no one knows (Greek, knows but not by experience; searches all things yes the deep things of God - 1st Corinthians 2:10 'for the Spirit searches all things yes the deep things of God' - to know them (because had the Spirit of God had access to his own 'things of God' why would he have searched the deep things of God, meaning, of the Father? ) but 'experiences' them imaginatively after learning them - the things of God but (Greek, if not) the Spirit of God' 'within him, or within God's God (uncreated/beforeCreation) material Spirit man body. The Father defined himself through Jesus as a man by Jewish, His, law John 8:17-18: Genesis 2:7a-d 'and the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath (nsama: breath/spirit) of life and man became a living soul (nephesh).', Zechariah 12:1 'The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel says the LORD, which stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him'. John 8:17-18 'it is written also in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself and the Father who sent me bears witness of me.' By this we read the Father is a man as we in form, shape and being of a tangible material as man was formed. Knowing that the Father is 1- God 'it is my Father who honors me of whom you say that he is your God' John 8:54 by Jesus' words and 2- was before all created things Isaiah 45:11-12 'the works of my hands you command me. I have made the earth and created man upon it. I even my hands have stretched out the heavens' 3- a Spirit, because he is God, as Jesus has said 'for God is a Spirit' John 4:24 Then we know the Father's material tangible body is a God (uncreated/beforeCreation) material Spirit man body with his own Spirit of man, called the Spirit of God 1st Corinthians 2:11b, within him 1st Corinthians 2:11a with 1st Corinthians 2:11b. Only after his death and resurrection to heaven Jesus was evaluated by the Father to have 'loved righteousness and hated iniquity therefore God your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows' Hebrews 1:9 and declared to his Son 'but unto the Son Your throne o God is for ever and ever the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom' Hebrews 1:9. Jesus has his own throne and kingdom, Hebrews 1:8? Revelation 3:21 'to him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in heaven' Is Jesus equal to God or is the Father continued to be Jesus' God? Revelation 3:21 'him that overcomes will I make a pillar in the temple of my God ... and I will write on him the name of my God'. In what way, what area, would Jesus be equal with the Father? John 5:22,27 'For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son ... and has given him authority to execute judgment also for he is the Son of man'. In heaven and in earth Matthew 28:18 'All power is given to me in heaven and in earth' Ephesians 1:22-23 'gave him to be head over all things to the church which is his body the fulness of him that fills all in all' .
The manner in which Trinitarians "find" their doctrine in the Bible shows it's not really in there. Like the other apostate teachings we should all be rid of, such as immortal soul, hell of torments, etc.
Chris Date, like so many trinitarians, seems to believe that the ridiculous statements of his fellow trinitarians are equal to, or even more true than scripture. Really Chris, you're calling God a child abuser because he asked Jesus to atone for our sins? Did you not read the book before you began writing about it? You might be surprised what's in there and more importantly, what's not.
@Sharon L " For God is an invisible Holy Spirit Ghost that no one can ever see Him" Really? Gen 3 God is walking through the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve could certainly see Him. Gen 32 Jacob wrestles with God and SEES GODS FACE. Gen 18 God visits Abraham, and sits and has a meal with him. Whoever is preaching to you is lying. You need to repent and be born again otherwise your eternity doesn't look good.
@Sharon L You are into selective reading I see. Here you go Gen 18 Then God appeared to him at the oak of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door during the noon hour.† 2So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood before him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and BOWED himself to the ground, 3and said, “O Lord, if I have now found grace in Your sight, do not pass by Your servant. God, Lord, three men. God in human form. Repent otherwise you are lost for eternity.
@Sharon L The human Lord that appeared to Abraham is Jesus Christ, not the Father as He is in spirit form. There are many other theophanies of Jesus throughout the OT, I just mentioned a few.
Common sense cannot discern the things of God. Because they are spititualy discerned. You are more concerned with isigetieng the word than you are concerned about exigeteing the scriptures. It is clear to anyone who listens to you that your point of view or narrative is more important than an honest exegesis of the holy scriptures. As soon as you demote Jesus to be a mere man and not GOD INCARNATE. you are doing away with your salvation... the thing about it is, your skill in doing so leaves nothing to the imagination, you are deliberately reducing Jesus christ our savior to mere mortal and not God in the flesh. This is the same reason the jews rejected JESUS CHRIST AS THEIR MESSIAH.
How is someone doing away with their salvation for not believing Jesus is God? Where does it say in the Bible you must believe Jesus is God in the flesh? I haven't found anywhere yet
@@freedominchrist23 For example here: *Romans 10,8-13* 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: *9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.* 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile- *the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,* *13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”* *Joel 2,32* *And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (YHWH) will be saved;* for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the Lord has said even among the survivors whom the Lord calls. *Acts 10,36* You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, *who is Lord of all.* *Acts 4,11-12* 11 Jesus is “‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ 12 Salvation is found in no one else, *for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”* *1. Kor. 1,1-2* 1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, 2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere *who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ-their Lord and ours:*
oh really! now using James white as an authority. and avoiding Jn8:58 context of Messiah, not pre existence. I am pleased 21st Cent Reformation has listed this video. As a no longer trinitarian of 38 years, this so reinforces the Unitarian position, by the rabid silliness of the Date argument. All the usual trinity bombs chucked at Dale Tuggy, no better than any commenter.
Dr Tuggy's presentation was incoherent and weak. I couldn't follow him. Chris' however was easy to follow and understand. It was thorough and comprehensive. Dr Tuggy didn't follow the full idea of Chris' philosophical portion of Jesus' statement of hens gathering her chicks. He went back to OT examples of this comparison to the art of OT and as the idea of birds being protected by deity. I appreciated Chris' summation with our conception of God's attributes being different than humans so why couldn't the idea of 3 persons as a being not be considered.
It's not ludicrous Tuggy. Open your mind. Ask yourself if the things Jesus said and did could be said and done by a mere man who was not Yahweh. I am the truth and way and life? Worshipped by a blind man? Called God by many in the scriptures and never corrected? Equal with God ...could go on and on no? I don't want you to die in your sin friend. I did not grow up in the church. Have been saved for nearly 40 years. I was convinced by His word alone. What did I see you did not?
Not a single person in scripture ever professed YHVH to be anything other than "one". YHVH Himself never professed to be anything other than "one". He never corrected anyone when they said He was "one". Everyone whom YHVH raised up to serve His purposes were, by definition, Biblical Unitarians. Even demons know that God is one.
Isaiah 48:16 (RSVCE): Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.” And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his Spirit. How can the LORD God say the LORD God sent Him and His Spirit?
@@coreyevans9543 Jesus is God and He became flesh (John 1,1-14). As He became flesh, the Father became His God (Ps 22,10). Because all flesh is submitted to God (Jer 32,27). Jesus willingly humbled Himself and became a servant of the Father, and so, in this context, the Father became greater than Jesus (Phil 2,5-8; compare with John 13). And so even the Father calls Jesus God, that has a God (Hebrews 1,8-12). Furthermore, according to Phil 2,5-8 Jesus became a servant of the Father, because He humbled Himself as He made Himself a man. So He was not a servant of the Father before His incarnation.
Depends of the context. If izs talking about God, the eternal being and creator of heaven and earth, as it is the case in John 1, Hebrews 1 and others, then divine and God realy means it in the full sense of the word
Jesus makes it very clear that God is his Father, he never once claims to be the Father. He makes it very clear that there is only one God, his Father. If Jesus is not the Father, then he is not God, because he is not the Father.@@swissapologetics
Trinitarianism is undeniably a repackaged version of Rome’s state religion and its trinity called the Capitoline Triad. This timeline illustrates the transition from the worship of the Capitoline Triad in Roman religion to the adoption of Christianity as the state religion: Capitoline Triad in Roman Religion before Christianity: 8th century BC: Emergence of early Roman religious practices, though specific reference to the Capitoline Triad might not be prominent. 509 BC: Traditional date for the founding of the Roman Republic, marking an era when religious practices gained importance in the state structure. 4th century BC: The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, dedicated to Jupiter, was built on the Capitoline Hill, solidifying the prominence of the Capitoline Triad. 3rd century BC: The temple dedicated to Juno Regina was constructed on the Capitoline Hill, alongside the Temple of Jupiter. 2nd century BC: The Temple of Minerva Capta was built on the Capitoline Hill, completing the physical manifestation of the Capitoline Triad's significance in Rome. 27 BC to 14 AD: The establishment of the Roman Empire under Augustus, during which the worship of the Capitoline Triad continued as a central part of Roman state religion. 1st century AD: The Capitoline Triad, especially the cults of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, remained integral to Roman religious life and state ceremonies. Transition to Christianity in the Roman Empire: 4th century AD: Christianity gains prominence under Emperor Constantine; Christianity transitions from a persecuted religion to the state religion of the Roman Empire. Replacing the Capitoline Triad. 325 AD: The Council of Nicaea affirms and formalizes the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, establishing it as a central tenet within Christianity. The Capitoline Triad was a prominent religious concept in ancient Roman religion, consisting of three major deities: Jupiter (Jupiter Optimus Maximus), Juno (Juno Regina), and Minerva. These three gods were worshipped together as a triad and held significant importance in Roman religious beliefs and state ceremonies. The influence of the Capitoline Triad on the adoption of the Christian Trinity in the Roman Empire can be understood in a few ways: 1. Concept of a Divine Triad: The existence and acceptance of a divine triad in Roman religious beliefs may have laid a conceptual foundation or familiarized people with the idea of a threefold divine structure. The worship of three significant gods together could have prepared the Roman populace to accept the Christian concept of a triune God, even though the theological details were different. 2. Association with Power and State Religion: The Capitoline Triad was closely tied to the power structure of the Roman state. As Rome transitioned to Christianity, the Christian Trinity, with its similar structure of three divine figures (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), might have resonated with the existing social and religious order, making it more acceptable to the authorities and the populace. 3. Transition from Polytheism to Monotheism:** The concept of a triad of gods was part of Roman polytheism, where multiple deities were worshipped. The Christian Trinity presented a transition from this polytheistic belief system to a monotheistic one, albeit with a triadic structure. This shift might have been more acceptable to individuals accustomed to acknowledging multiple divine figures within a religious context. 4. Continuity of Worship Practices: The Roman Empire underwent a gradual transition from traditional Roman polytheistic beliefs to Christianity. In this transition, the continuity of religious practices, including the worship of a triadic structure of gods, could have eased the acceptance of the Christian Trinity, which presented a similar yet distinct theological framework. Overall, while the Capitoline Triad in itself might not have directly influenced the specific theological development of the Christian Trinity, its existence within the religious landscape of the Roman Empire potentially laid a foundation or provided a familiar structure that facilitated the eventual acceptance and understanding of the Christian concept of a triune God.
It should rather be about 'Human Jesus' vs. 'Divine Jesus' vs. 'God Jesus'. All human beings are human (except fetus, brainless ones, demonic, etc.); many human beings are divine. Many are called and hailed as God, e.g., Caesar for the Romans. Which Jesus? Jesus of Nazareth? or Jesus pre-human (God the Son)? or Jesus of Mormons, JW, Catholics, Protestants, Trinitarians, Arians, Hell-fire preachers, Prosperity gospel peddlers, etc.
1:22 Chris re-quotes Justin keying in on "God begat (Jesus) before all creatures, using it mean in time. Tatian says Jesus sprang forth from God---and Chris reads trinity into it. Athenagoras talks of God having the Son in his mind. Chris shows us really that there is no formed Trinity doctrine in the time of these 'early' church fathers, and they are only incrementally developing a prelude to a Binity. Jesus pre-existed in God's mind, the eternal mind. Jesus was begotten and came forth. To be begotten MEANS to come into existence.
Somebody please ask a trinitarian if they really believe they would have come up with the trinity on their own without somebody teaching them about it first......Please an honest answer.
I wouldn’t have. But I would have noted that on just my reading at least some of the disciples attributed divinity to Jesus. I would also note that in the Old Testament there is something called the Spirit of God that does something in many characters personal experience. I also would note that Paul seems to think that this Holy Spirit is something that we can be physically filled with somehow and somehow mediates God‘s will and power to us. I would also see that Paul considers this holy spirit and being filled with this spirit as indispensable for living with Jesus as Lord and not falling away. Of course I would also be struck by the benedictions directed toward Jesus of Nazareth by Paul and other apostles. In short I would probably end up with some kind of modal ism and assume that God can somehow operate along the same timeline as if he were playing these different roles simultaneously. Or something like that. That is, until I stumble upon a decent explanation of some seemingly coherent Trinitarian theory, To which I would probably say something like, “oh yeah, that makes sense.”
@@agis230 I also agree with your answer. If the Bible was so simple anyone and everyone could understand it in one read that would be a little underwhelming and anticlimactic.
Read the Bible It's clear God talks about his only begotten son Paul talks about Jesus Jesus talks about Jesus John talks about Jesus There should be zero confusion about it Jesus is like Adam when on earth He did what Adam failed to do and redeemed mankind giving us a path BACK TO a relationship with our Father as Adam and Eve once had in the beginning when they had perfection but lost it because of temptation When Jesus was here on earth as a man he was a man That is the whole point He didn't come to us as a man and say..."Just kidding!" The Trinity doctrine insults Jesus and our Father Now that Jesus is in heaven sitting at the right hand of God, he is divine. The time is coming when Jesus will destroy Satan and his influence People constantly confused about Jesus and God are under satanic influence
Dying through his nature, seriously my issue with many of our trinitarian brothers is the extra terminology to construct things that are not written in scriptures.
@@xxxViceroyxxx Yes, and the Father is God, right? And so is the Son. John explains John 1 in 1 John 1: John 1,1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and *the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.* 1 John 1,1-2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you *the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us* Compare with the end of the letter: 1 John 5,20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son *Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.*
Is Jesus divine? This should shut the debate down for those that do not think so.👇👇👇 Berean Standard Bible For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form. 👇👇👇 Christian Standard Bible For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ, 👇👇👇 Good News Translation For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity, Now let's get a definition of deity and see if there is any correlation to any of the 3 versions of the Colossians 2:9. Deity - 1. divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity. 2. : the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY 3. divine status, quality, or nature. This is edification for your sakes. There is no way to refute this. Here is my final comment. I have answered correctly if Jesus is divine. What I have not wrote about nor implied is if Jesus was God. That is actually a completely different question and it would be an assumption to draw such a conclusion directly from what I answered this question with. It a question however I have answered by the right logical implication. God is not a man.
Jesus was entirely ONE of us: 'In all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren' WHY? 'that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself has suffered, he is able to succor them that are tempted.' Hebrews 2: 17-18. 'For we have not an high priest which can not be touched with the feeling of our infirmity ; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.' Hebrews 4:15. It is clearly so: Jesus had NO GOD NATURE only a man nature in that he 'was in all points tempted like as we are' but BEFORE we had sinned - while we had the flesh/ tendency to sin that in no way forced us to choose to sin, as we well know - Jesus had the tendency to sin, as we know, in that 'was in all points tempted like as we are' INCLUDED 'but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed'; such was Jesus: Jesus was a man 'in all things' even while God in his essential being Immanuel which being interpreted is God with us Matthew 1:23: God the Word John 1:1, 14.
If Jesus was indeed a man, but being reasoned to be God with a man nature what then of the following. James 1:13 "for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust". The construct is at odds with itself. God is not tempted, does not have lust to speak of. A God man? According to the scripture it cannot happen. Considering Jesus to be simply just a man is profitable. This does not present any roadblocks to him being tempted, having lust, or dying. Furthermore it doesn't prevent him from appealing to the grace of a perfectly righteous God to do every good thing he did and to resist sin. A great model for us, being that he was indeed one of us. No breach of monotheism either. There being only one way to the Father it is critical that you don't resist a demonstrably functional understanding of Jesus Christ in favor of an untenable one.
@@joed8605 Jesus, being God, with a man nature it is the nature which would respond to temptation to sin. There's no conflict here as Jesus, God made flesh, was flesh and it was this flesh which was tempted, even his own lust James 1:13-14. God who can do what is impossible for man, became the flesh with which he had then worn. A reason 'why' Jesus called the father the ONLY TRUE GOD. The word was made, became, can be translated as 'came into' . I hope this helps.
You can read one part of the bible and disregard the other half, and I suppose it's all well and good if you're so stiff necked as to ignore coming face to face with the truth every time you read the bible. These statements of being made like men only make sense in so far as Jesus was pre existent. It would make no sense if for a mere man to want to be made like His brothers, if He was already like His brothers. Jesus is clearly identified as God, and that's the single most undeniable fact of scripture. You apparently do as Marcian did, in pretending that the largest portion of the NT apperently isn't there, so we have to interpret scripture with what's left. Sure enough we're left with a human Jesus who is completely impotent to serve as high priest, and to atone for sins as our substitute. What's more we're left to ponder why the sanhedrin would want to even crucify such a mild mannered, humble man. What a ludicrous view. I suppose you read John and Paul with tinted glasses, opening up the books of one of your cult leaders to explain the apparent meaning of every other verse in the writings of these two authors, who affirmed the divinity of Jesus in such a strong way that even muslims and atheists are left to explain such as undeniable facts by positing that Paul constituted a separate tradition unto Himself, and that John can only be understood as a later legendary document. What a pitiful existence it must be, wallowing in sin, awaiting to die, facing the judgement of a righteous God in the absence of efficacious atonement. If on top of that you worshiped a creature thinking that the glory was redirected to God, my, my, that won't do well with Yahweh. Oops. The mind of people, who would rather follow man made philosophies, instead of God's clear revelation to us... These problems you cite have been addressed for the better part of two thousand years. If such obvious issues were not only apparent but were insurmountable no one would maintain orthodoxy. Jesus being truly a man is only ever a problem if He was only a man. There is only ever an inconsistency in Jesus being tempted if He did in fact succumb to the temptation, which He did not.
@@RagingBlast2Fan you are correct: it is sad to read one part while disregarding the other. My Scripture passages state Jesus was the Word God made flesh John 1:14, you disregarded was made flesh? Jesus is the made creation, body, God had prepared the Word God 'when he was coming into the world he said Sacrifice and offering you would not but a body have you prepared me 'Hebrews 1:5 'put on the form of a servant ' a servant body 'made in the likeness of men ''made in the likeness of sinful men ' 'found in fashion as a man ' Philippians 2:7, Romans 8:3, Philippians 2:7-8. Jesus was tempted by his own lust James 1:14, Hebrews 4:15 gives the truth that Jesus had not a God nature James 1:13 and a man's nature . This is helpful, Jesus is shown to be able to know the feelings of our infirmities Hebrews 4:15-16.
Very interesting how dr Tuggy don't admit ancient sources and contrary them claim that early Church doesn't believe in Trinity ..very strange such kind of inaccuracy..Anyway i like personally watch this Channel about Unitarian beliefs and not only that , especially debates . God bless all !
Nicea does not confirm a triune god. It is impossible to prove the church doesn't believe a thing. There were probably a diversity of beliefs among christians. Certainly the NT never commands belief in the trinity.
Is Jesus Christ who is sitting on the right side of God the Father now and ready for a 2nd Advent from heaven a mortal or immortal being. Let him cite the name of ONE human being who is immortal.
