Does the NT Teach that Jesus is Truly Divine? 

Wow. Great point!

@@thepreacherxi5353 Thanks

It would heave been more fun if stuffy Tuggy knew how to chill.

Yup

@Real G. Jesus Unitarians are dishonest with the Bible. I have met Christians from Japan, China, Cambodia and Korea while traveling and many of them were new believers who could see that Jesus is God from a plain reading of the biblical text even though their backgrounds were non-Western and they had no prior experience with Christianity. Bart Ehrman and pretty much every atheist or agnostic New Testament scholar can see that the New Testament teaches Jesus is God. Jesus mythcists like Richard Carrier and Robert Price see it. Muslims also see it in Paul and John which is why they reject Paul and say John is a later development. This shows that unitarianism in an unnatural reading of the biblical texts and has to be deliberately taught or assumed before reading the Bible. One must begin with demonic hatred for the idea that Jesus is God and then try to force the Bible to fit with this hatred for the divinity of Christ. All unitarians dishonest and not sincere.

LOL - In your dreams

​@Real G. Jesus Who sent HIS ANGEL IN REVELATION 22:6 AND IN 22:16?

@Real G. Jesus I don't care😛. Trinitarianism is the dominant view all over the world. Too bad your fake unipersonal god couldn't stop the Trinity from becoming a worldwide teaching across the 3 major branches of Christianity 😛. What a pathetic god

Amen Christ has a God, the same God as christians, the Father, simple stuff.

​@@elisiah5386Claiming Jesus is not God is blasphemy and goes against the very fabric that the early church fathers, apostles, and NT speak of. Read the Bible and the Trinity is evident from Genesis 1 on. Genesis 1 and 11, God says "let us." Genesis 19 "the Lord called fire from the Lord out of heaven." Exodus Isaiah 48 shows the son speaking, and addressing the Father and Spirit. John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” Read the original Greek. Jesus said "ego eimi" or "I am." This is a claim by Jesus to be the I am from Exodus 3:14. He is saying I am God. John 8:58 Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am Again, another claim of divinity by Jesus. Jesus forgives sin in mark 2, something only God can do. Jesus receives worship in Mark 2, Mark 28, Luke 24, John 9. Something only God can do. Jesus called himself the son of Man, a reference to the Daniel 7 prophecy which says Jesus will receive all power, authority, and dominion, something only God has. Titus 2:13. Philippians 2:5-8. Colossians 1:16-17. Revelation 1. All affirm the deity of Christ. Repent and believe in the true Jesus Christ, totally God and totally man.

1 Tim. 3.16 says Jesus was “vindicated in spirit”. So, there’s your answer.

@@legron121 You guys are no different than Tovia Singer trying to change what scripture says. “👉👉👉👉 *GOD* 👈👈👈👈 was 1.) manifest in the flesh, 2.) justified in the Spirit,

@@pepepena1937 Of course, that’s not what the text says. The text says that “the mystery of godliness” (Jesus) appeared in flesh and was vindicated in spirit. That is the answer to your original question.

@@legron121 “Jesus” or “Christ” does *NOT* appear in Greek so *THAT* is your answer. Like I said before The *FACT* is that the Servant of The Lord *JUST LIKE GOD* is the only one that *MAKES/VINDICATES/JUSTIFIES* others. Acts 13:39 Through Him everyone who believes is 👉 *JUSTIFIED* 👈 .

@@pepepena1937 The fact that “Jesus” or “Christ” does not appear in the Greek does not support your belief that 1 Timothy 3:16 is referring to God (particularly since there are many other ways to refer to Jesus). You misquoted it. The NT does indeed teach that Jesus justifies others. What’s your point?

I find quite honestly most Unitarians whether it be Christian, Muslim or any other form to be sorta arrogant. As though they have God figured out and completely understand his nature

Watch his debate with Anthony Rogers and you'll see some actual Biblical facts surrounding the real Jesus, who is God.

Himself, not themselves

Jesus could not be ontologically equal to the Father in his divinity because Jesus in and of himself is not a se (self - existing). Only the Father is self-existing. Jesus clearly stated that he lives BECAUSE OF THE FATHER in the same way we live because of him. Jesus also stated that it was the Father that granted that the son should have life in himself. The Father ALONE is the one and only true God of Israel. Jesus made this explicitly clear in John 17:3. I believe that Jesus as the son of God is divine but he is not ontologically equal to the Father. Holistically speaking, The Father is greater than the Son

@@ojaymon It's not clear that John 5:26 & John 6:57 have to do with Jesus' ontology in His pre-incarnate state [or since his creation if one is a Humanitarian Unitarian who denies Christ's personal preexistence]. It could be referring merely to Jesus' humanity since the incarnation. Them having to do with Jesus' humanity is a possibility irrespective of whether one believes in preexistence as in Trinitarianism, Semi-Arianism, Arianism [etc.], or denies it as in a Humanitarian version of Unitarianism. Since Jesus is repeatedly predicated as being Yahweh [e.g. John 8:58, 24, 28; and many passages where OT Yahweh passages are applied to Jesus], then that's prima facie evidence that John Calvin was right that Jesus is autotheos, and therefore a se. But even if Jesus isn't a se and John 5:26 & John 6:57 does refer to Christ's preexistence and His derivation from the Father, that's consistent with Trinitarianism and not just Semi-Arianism etc. Since there are versions of Trinitarianism that affirm the eternal [i.e. timeless] generation/filiation of the Son and eternal procession/spiration of the Holy Spirit. Since generation and procession is timeless and necessary [rather than temporal and contingent], the Son and Spirit are fully divine as the Father is and are therefore not creatures. Especially since they derive from the Father. The Father wills the derivation of the Son and Spirit willingly, yet the Father could not have chosen to refrain from doing so. Since the derivation is necessary and not contingent. It's OT and NT teaching that offspring share the same nature as their parents. The NT's teaching is Jesus' TRUE sonship [monogenes]. Since the Father's nature is fully divine, Jesus' nature is fully divine. Otherwise Jesus could not be the TRUE offspring of the Father. An offspring that doesn't share the same nature as the parent is not a true offspring. Like begets like. As Genesis chapter 1 says, "after its kind." The Son is the same species/kind as the Father. The same is true of the Holy Spirit. This nearness of the Holy Spirit to the Father is so clear in the Bible that even some Unitarians will say something like the Spirit is the Father's personal power intimately expressed/manifested. While not dogmatic, I myself lean toward the eternal derivation of the Son and Spirit rather than that both being autotheos and a se. Though, I don't rule out autotheos. The Scriptures are just not sufficiently clear on these topics. These are deep mysteries that God choose not to fully reveal. What is revealed is more consistent with some version of Trinitarianism, rather than some form of Arianism, or Semi-Arianism, or Humanitarian Unitarianism, Modalism etc. I also lean toward the filioque. Moreover, there are versions of Trinitarianism whereby the derivation of the Son and Spirit is not of the essence [and therefore also persons] of the Son and Spirit, but of merely the persons [with the persons sharing the nature of the Father in numerical identity, rather than generic unity]. Such that all three persons share the one singular being of God. Rather than there being three distinct essences that are of the same genus/kind/species [which makes sense since that borders on or is tritheism]. //The Father ALONE is the one and only true God of Israel.The Father ALONE is the one and only true God of Israel.// John 17:3 doesn't say only the Father is the true God, it says that the Father is the only true God. The latter is what the Bible says, and it's consistent with Trinitarianism. The former is is not what the Bible says and is how Unitarians misread John 17:3. In fact, a good case can be made that 1 John 5:20 has the author saying Jesus is the true God. See various commentaries. //The Father is greater than the Son// John 14:28 could be referring to Jesus since the incarnation and so need not refer to His pre-incarnate state. John 14:28 could be with respect to the economic Trinity rather than the ontological Trinity. But even if it refers to the ontological Trinity sans creation and before the incarnation, that's consistent with Trinitarianism. Many of the early church fathers [esp. Nicene and Post-Nicene] were willing to grant a sense in which the Father is greater in some senses, yet not in others. Greater in priority, order and rank, but not in ontology, essence, nature, glory, and honor [etc.]. Otherwise the Son wouldn't be truly a Son [as I argued above]. This is why Jesus could be worshipped fully along with the Father to the same degree of worship and the same kind of religious worship reserved only for the true God [cf. Rev. 5:13-14; Phil. 2:10-11 citing Isa. 45:23; Heb. 1:6 alluding to the LXX in Ps. 97:7 & Deut. 32:24; 1 Cor. 8:6 and its application of the LXX version of the Shema to Jesus as the "ONE Lord", and other passages etc.]. Every form of NT Unitarianism results in polytheism. And Humanitarian Unitarians like Dr. Tuggy who also worship Jesus commit idolatry in worshipping a creature [not withstanding 1 Chron. 29:20].

Divine "in some sense"? I agree with that! But I think you mean, they all agreed that he was not a "mere man" - that he also had a divine nature. Not at all true - those claims were much contested a bit later in reaction to the innovations of the Logos theorists c. 150-280 - and even in some places through the 300s. See trinities podcast episodes on Marcellus, Photinus, and historians on "the dynamic monarchians" (esp. late 100s - early 200s).

@@DaleTuggy you work hard just to get sent to the lake of fire. Your PhD is a waste of time as you have spent most of your professional career attacking Christ. You got a worthless phd from brown University, and wrote about the trinity in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Do you realize that if you don't repent then you will gnaw out your own tongue and burn in Hell. Revelation 16 Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues because of the pain. They blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and did not repent of their deeds. Revelation 20 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. You have been leading people to Hell for over 20 years, whether as a professor or just a current prostitute. Your punishment will be extreme unless you repent. Mark 9 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched- where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’ You have no problems corrupting the youth. You need to repent as your sins have piled up the size of Babylon. Repent now

Do you have a source for that Bart change of heart. My general perception has been that he’s been doubling down on critical points, like rejecting an empty tomb now

Either way, Tuggy has bad conversation habits.

There is no single passage that states Jesus is not divine. There are only passages that state Jesus submitted to the Father, which He is able to do with His human nature. Colossians 1, Revelation 1, Hebrews 1, all throughout the NT you see clear teachings of Jesus' divinity. John 1:1-14 clearly states Jesus is the word, the word is God. It is a gross perversion to deny the deity of Christ and if you believe in Jesus as less than God you will not inherit the kindgom of heaven. Jesus made this clear in John 8, verse 24. Jesus makes it clear He is the I Am from Exodus 3:14 in verse 24 and 58. John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins

@@shane316 So, note that I said "seems to say", not "state". I can agree with you that no single passage states Jesus is not divine. Making sense of who and what Jesus is exactly took the followers of Jesus a considerable long time (centuries), and clearly discussions are still going on. One of the issues is trying to understand how Jesus can be divine, very God of very God, and yet have all of the features humans do. It is easy to affirm the divinity of Jesus at the expense of His humanity. You might argue that it is a gross perversion to deny the human nature of Jesus.

@@markpaul1383 Jesus being fully God and fully man is a hard concept to grasp. But the concept of God appearing in human form is evident in the OT (Genesis 18, Exodus 13, etc) and is Biblical throughout. Jesus being totally God and totally man is a Biblical truth, and to deny it is to deny the identity of who Jesus is. Believing in a different Jesus than what scripture presents is by definition idolatrous and will not save you. John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, and Revelation 1 all affirm this. I think John 1 explains it the simplest. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God. The "word" in Greek is God's very nature, essence, will, desires, etc. Verse 14 says the word became flesh and dwelt among us. So, God's desires, will, emotions, nature, thoughts, etc became flesh and dwelt among us. That's Jesus.

@@shane316 So, more than a couple of things: (1) Yes, the OT has many instances of God appearing in human form. Note that appearing in human form and being a human are two different things. If you say that Jesus only appeared to be human, you'd be saying something heretical, which on your view probably means you aren't "saved". (2) The "Logos" might be just another way to refer to God, but its meaning seems to be something like the logic, the order, or the principle of rationality. It is not equivalent to God's very nature, but would be closer to the attributes ascribed to God, i.e. omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc. (3) To say that God has emotions or desires implies that God can change from moment to moment, which Scripture does explicitly deny. You might say in response that God then has emotions or desires, but doesn't change by having them. But that would mean for any emotion or desire God has, He has it all of the time and constantly. So, God is always angry when He is angry, always jealous when jealous, loving, tender, wrathful, etc. all of the time and constantly, which doesn't make sense. (4) You make doctrine out to be a kind of password for the afterlife as if having the right kind of belief is the difference between "being saved" or not. But if you have been a Christian for any considerable period of time, you will notice that your beliefs about God change over time. What you believe about Him now you might not believe about Him in the future, just as what you believe about Him now differs from what you believed about Him in the past. This kind of realization might prompt a different approach toward any theological issue, particularly one that was considerably hard fought in church history.

I've never even heard of him before and he's had a dialogue with people like shabir ally

@@Yud_Trinitarian No. He has a Facebook tho

If Loke is correct, then all the angels in heaven might know full well when Jesus will return; they're just not "aware" of it. It seems (or, rather, it is) quite plain that Jesus is saying no one knows but the Father. For what it's worth, even once Jesus had ascended to heaven, he still didn't know everything. God had to "give" Jesus a revelation (i.e., divine information) to show his servants what must soon take place (Rev. 1:1).

ru-vid.com/group/PLlVH-ThCazKmStWtxqvoCPP3QD_mhfCI8

@@TheAnalyticChristian Thank you, sir.

It's not

Honest answer. Although a detailed study of the New Testament would have provided some hints of the Trinity for me, I would not have come up with the full concept. I would also have been unable to come up with the 99.99% of true concepts I hold without somebody teaching me, such as the Earth being round, the Earth moving around the Sun (instead of the other way around), the stars being distant suns, DNA being the book of instructions of the cell and the mechanism for genetic inheritance, the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, electricity being electrons moving, Caesar being an ancient Roman who conquered Gaul, continental drift, printing money causing inflation, diseases being caused by germs, the theorem of Pythagoras, etc. If you are honest, you will admit that you would also have been unable to come up with 99.99% of what you know without somebody teaching you. You will admit that the fact you are unable to come up with a concept is not a valid criteria to assess it's truth or falsity. And, that, by singling out the Trinity, you are not being intellectually honest, because you demand a very strict criteria for the Trinity that you don't ask for anything else. You have an extreme bias and you didn't notice

The Jews came up with a two powers in heaven view centuries before Christ was born so yes

@100zacariah just because he was given power doesn't mean he never had it he said he emptied himself and he look forward to going back to the father then he be back in his full glory

@100zacariah Phil 2 says he emptied himself voluntarily. Why? You cant fit all the oceans in the universe into a cup, just like you cant fit all of the Divine Logos in human form. Besides that which was not truly man in Jesus was not redeemed of us.

@100zacariah No I’m not. I am interpreting it correctly. Scripture plainly warns us in Cor 2 to be careful with people who try to use false philosophies to minimize the deity of Christ. There’s a reason why the church has settled on the Trinity and not your perverted version of it. Your father who is the king of lies would love nothing more than for us to adopt a Jesus not found in the Bible as you represent. Islam has their own version of Jesus as well. Mormons do. Jehovah witnesses believe it’s Michael. What you’re saying is nothing new. These views have been cast down as a heresy for a long long time and for good reason.

He does mention those in his book. In brief, "I am" in John should be translated, "I am he" or "I am the one" - see John 4 for which one, and John 20:30-31. About making himself equal to God - in the context of John, that seems to just be another misunderstanding of Jesus's spiritually blind opponents - one of many! Look carefully at what Jesus actually says before and after that accusation.

@@DaleTuggy thanks for your reply. I guess the best thing is turning to the gospels and reading.

Yes as Dale said, the “I am” simply means I am he or I am the one, that is the one whose day Abraham saw. The one prophicied of. Jesus says “Abraham saw my day” and the jews there think he means that Jesus saw abraham. Plus God does not say “I am” in Exodus 3, he says I am the being, or I am that which I will be. The pharisees misunderstanding Jesus is a common theme in John’s gospel. Even when Jesus “makes himself to be God” by accusation of the pharisees, Jesus corrects them. Even in John 8, just verses before having claimed that Abraham saw his day, Christ tells us that the same people are children of the devil who hate His message, and thus hating God and his message since God gave Jesus this message, and who hate the works Jesus did in his Father’s name.The pharisees weren’t being good jews, they were haters of Christ always looking for a way to kill him. We should never side with them in our interpretation of Jesus words’

Great point!

“The only one worthy of worship is the creator, the Father and Jesus”. You do realize how bad you’re playing with language right? You’re pretty much collapsing the two persons into one person. When you say someone is the only one worthy of something, you don’t proceed to name two persons. “Lord” is not the name of God, it’s simply a replacement for God’s name, it’s meaning is master. Meaning it can be used for both humans and God, and it is. Acts 2:36 says Jesus was made Lord by God. And when Paul says there are many gods and many lords, he distinguishes between the gods and the lords of the world. The gods is referring to the deities of the world, false deities that is. The lords is a reference to human superiors, kings, rulers, emperors, etc etc. He obviously distinguishes between deities and non deities right before verse 6, then proceeds to use the exact same language to prove a point. In verse 4 he even says idols are not actually real gods, and that we know there is no God but one. Then who does he identify the one God as? A triad of persons? No, the Father. For us there is only one deity, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for him, and one master, or human superior, Jesus, through whom are all things and we through him. This is a very Jewish concept, we have one God and one Lord or king, his anointed servant. However collapsing these two into one God is not only impossible for the very language of the verse but very foreign to the shema and jewish monotheism. The context is about foods sacrificed to idols, and the following of “all things” is the “we”, the emphasis is on us, who are made new in Christ. Read 2 Cor 5:17-19, if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation…all this is from God, who through Christ reconciles us to or *for* himself… The language is almost identical.

Also this reasoning that everytime you see three that means something is referring to the trinity is very bad reasoning. The Bible says God around 4000-4500 times, therefore God is 4000-4500 persons. See how bad reasoning and connections like this is? You’re so quick to say oh trinity everytime you see the number 3 but the thousands of times God is called a he, a singular individual and person, you completely ignore. Or when Jesus agrees with a unitarian jewish scribe that the Lord our God is the only God, he is one, there is no other. Perfect time to reveal the three co eternal persons who eternally exist as the one God, but he doesn’t. He just confesses pure monotheism, that there is not two or three that are God, but there is only one who is God. And Jesus identifies this one God as his Father, YHWH his God and the God of christians. The Bible just doesn’t refer to God as a tripersonal being anywhere, which is why trinitarians always have to make a web of bad syllogisms and connections to support this idea.

@@elisiah5386 //The Bible says God around 4000-4500 times, therefore God is 4000-4500 persons. See how bad reasoning and connections like this is?// The word Elohim is used thousands of times for “God”; Adonai is used hundreds of times for “Lord”; *both of these words are PLURAL NOUNS in Hebrew* . //but the thousands of times God is called a he, a singular individual and person, you completely ignore.// \\\\Nick Norelli in his book The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook for Defending the Trinity listed the following: 1. Plural Verbs o Genesis 20:13 English Translation: God caused me to wander Hebrew: ה התתְעוו ו אלתהים, א אלֹל ה היםם Literally: They caused me to wander o Genesis 35:7 English Translation: God appeared Hebrew: נהגתְלֹו ו א אלֹלָיםו לָ ה א אלֹל ה היםם Literally: They appeared o 2Samuel 7:23 English Translation: God went Hebrew: לָ הלֹתְכוו ו -א א אלֹל ה היםם Literally: They went o Psalms 58:12 English Translation: God that judges Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ששלפתְ ה טיםם Literally: Gods that judge 2. Plural Adjectives o Deuteronomy 5:26 English Translation: living God Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ח חים ה יםום Literally: Living Gods8 o Joshua 24:19 English Translation: holy God Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם תְ קדֹלששהיםם Literally: Holy Gods 3. Plural Nouns o Ecclesiastes 12:1 English Translation: thy Creator Hebrew: בוולרתְ אֶ איםךלָ⁠ Literally: Creators o Isaiah 54:5 English Translation: For thy Maker is thy husband Hebrew: בל ע עולֹחיִךתְ עולששחיִךתְ⁠ Literally: Makers, Husbands9 o Malachi 1:6 English Translation: Master Hebrew: ע אדֹולנהיםם Literally: Masters10 o Daniel 7:18 English Translation: Most High Hebrew: אֶ עולֹתְיםולנהיםן Literally: Most High Ones footnotes: 8 See also 1Samuel 17:26, 36 & Jeremiah 10:10, 23:36 for “living Gods” 9 See also Psalm 149:2 for “Makers” 10 Nearly every occurrence of the noun “Lord” ( ע אדֹולנהים ) in reference to God appears in the plural form. \\\\ When all is said and done, the Old Testament uses plural nouns, plural pronouns, plural verbs, plural adverbs, and plural adjectives for God. //When you say someone is the only one worthy of something, you don’t proceed to name two persons.// That begs the question [petitio principii] that God is unipersonal rather than multi-personal. //“Lord” is not the name of God, it’s simply a replacement for God’s name,...// Exactly, and the LXX's use of the Shema "One Lord" is used for Jesus in 1 Cor. 8:6 rather than the Father. That should be really telling [as many scholars recognize]. In Hebrew the terms God "el/elohim/eloah" could be used to refer to other supernatural beings other than the God of Israel [e.g. false gods or even members of Yahweh's divine council]. But the tetragrammaton is translated as kurios in the LXX and the NT many times applies OT passages regarding Yahweh to Jesus. Often citing or quoting the LXX version to Jesus. First Cor. 8:6 is just one of many examples that could be cited. Others include: -Rom. 10:13 COMPARE WITH Joel 2:32; -Phil. 2:10-11 COMPARE WITH Isa. 45:23; -Heb. 1:6 COMPARE WITH Ps. 97:7 (LXX), Deut. 32:43; -Heb. 1:10-12 COMPARE WITH Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 51:6; -1 Pet. 3:14-15 COMPARE WITH Isa. 8:12-14; -1 Thess. 3:13 COMPARE WITH Zech 14:5; -1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Thess. 5:2 COMPARE WITH Amos 5:18 -1 Cor. 2:8; Jam. 2:1 COMPARE WITH Ps. 24:10; -Eph. 4:8 COMPARE WITH Ps. 68:18; -1 Pet. 2:7-8 COMPARE WITH Isa. 8:14 -1 Pet. 2:3 COMPARE WITH Ps. 34:8 see also - Acts 11:16; Luke 22:61 COMPARE WITH Isa. 2:3 -Mark 1:2,3 [also Matt. 3:3; Luke 3:4; Matt. 11:10] COMPARE WITH Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1; -Acts 1:8 COMPARE WITH Isa. 43:10,12; 44:8; -Rev. 2:23 COMPARE WITH Jer. 17:10; Ps. 62:12; 1 Kings 8:39 -Rev. 3:19 COMPARE WITH Prov. 3:12 -Rev. 7:17 COMPARE WITH Ps. 23:1-2 -Heb. 13:8 COMPARE WITH Mal. 3:6; John 8:58 COMPARE WITH Exo. 3:14; Isa. 43:10; -Num. 16:5 COMPARE WITH 2 Tim. 2:19; 2 Tim. 2:19 seems to allude to or echo Num. 16:5 -2 Cor. 5:11; Eph. 5:21; Col. 3:22ff. COMPARE WITH Prov. 1:7; Ps. 34:11 and many other Old Testament passages Examples could be multiplied. //The gods is referring to the deities of the world, false deities that is. The lords is a reference to human superiors, kings, rulers, emperors, etc etc.// Nowhere does it indicate that "gods" refers to supernatural entities, and "lords" only human entities. In fact, verse 5 applies to "gods" in heaven AND EARTH. It's more likely that "gods and lords" are being used interchangably as equivalents in verse 5. In which case, God and Lord in verse 6 is teaching the equality of the Father and Son. Especially since "One Lord" is applied to Jesus which alludes to the "one Lord" of the Shema in the LXX. If Paul wanted to refer to the Father as Yahweh, then he would have used "One Lord" for the Father, and "One God" for the Son. Especially since in Semitic cultures god/elohim could be used of lesser deities or supernatural entities. //The context is about foods sacrificed to idols, // Paul returns to the topic in chapter 10 of the same book and applies "table of the Lord" to Jesus. In the same way the OT would understand "table of Yahweh." //Perfect time to reveal the three co eternal persons who eternally exist as the one God, but he doesn’t. // Jesus was still keeping His messiahship "on the low down" [or what scholars call "the Messianic Secret"]. If Jesus was keeping His messiahship for the most part veiled, how much more His divinity. Especially since an explicit claim to divinity would have gotten Him stoned and killed prematurely. Besides that, non-Messianic Jewish scholars have proven that during 2nd Temple Judaism there was the Two Powers in Heaven view among many [not all] Jews whereby something like Binitarianism was believed. Where there was a Greater Yahweh in heaven who was invisible and a Lesser Yahweh who was sometimes visible on Earth. See for example Alan Segal's book Two Powers in Heaven, or Daniel Boyarkin's works. Even many of the pre-Christian Jewish Targums [Aramaic paraphrases of the OT] has clear marks of this Two Powers view. For example, the Word of the Lord is personified many times as if he were another member of God.

Why doesn’t it say “one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”????

​@@mitchellc4 Read the evidence I already provided above. For example, I wrote: //The word Elohim is used thousands of times for “God”; Adonai is used hundreds of times for “Lord”; both of these words are PLURAL NOUNS in Hebrew .// Also, Matt. 28:19 states believers are to be "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." Notice it doesn't say nameS [plural], but name [singular]. Name here refers to multiple things including, 1. the singular name of God in the tetragrammaton [i.e. Yahweh or Yehovah etc.]; 2. name meaning nature, character, attributes, and predictable wonted behavior; 3. authority and power. The fact that it says Name [singular] affirms their unity, contrary to any kind of Unitarianism like Arianism, Semi-Arianism [etc.]. While the fact that the definite article "the" is used three times for each person [as in THE name of THE Father, and of THE Son, and of THE Holy Spirit] affirms their real distinctions, contrary any kind of Modalism, Sabellianism, Praxean, [etc.]. More could be said, but that's sufficient. See the articles, books and videos of the various defenders of the Trinity that are out there. One of my favorite is Anthony Rogers. Check out his videos, debates, and channel on youtube.

This statement makes no sense to me. We take scripture and then we use reason to try to understand what we read

@@Papasquatch73 but “it’s a mystery” is the favourite line used when questioning the logic of the deity of Christ or trinity…

Debating a unitarian is like debating a naturalist on the existence of a necessary being. Both the unitarian and naturalist reject common sense and come to nonsensical conclusions

@@eliasarches2575 I don’t think it’s a mystery at all. Or we may have a different definition for mystery. I can’t comprehend how the big bang happened. But I can apprehend the idea of what cosmogony is.

@100zacariah Isaiah 👉👉 *DOES* 👈👈 say that the suffering servant is GOD

@100zacariah Ok let’s give it a try. Orthodox Jews including rabbis have not been able to provide an answer BASED on Tanakh. So let’s start by finding a single instance where someone other than GOD could 👉 *MAKE/JUSTIFY/VINDICATE* 👈 others spiritually like the servant does *THEN* find me just one verse where Hebrew Praise Word *COMBINATION* found in Isaiah 52:13 is used for someone other than GOD. Go ahead enlighten me🙏🙏🙏

According to Isaiah he was not a mere man but The Arm of The Lord “16And He saw that there was 👉 *NO MAN* 👈 and He was astounded for there was no intercessor, and 👉 *HIS ARM* 👈 saved for Him

@@pepepena1937 Not just any mere man but the perfect sinless human. The son of God, the promised messiah, the anointed one of God. Acts 2 [22] Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, A MAN APPROVED OF GOD among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which GOD DID BY HIM in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:… Acts 13 [22]…I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. [23] Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise RAISED UNTO ISRAEL A SAVIOUR, JESUS:[37] But he (Jesus), whom GOD RAISED again, saw no corruption. [38] Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through THIS MAN (Jesus) is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: Hebrews 10 [10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of JESUS CHRIST once for all. [11] And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: [12] But THIS MAN, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD.

@@Javi.C_17 Hebrew 10:10 actually confirms Isaiah 53:11 as *MAKING/JUSTIFYING/VINDICATING* others . If you search entire Bible the *ONlY ONE* that can do that is GOD himself. Isaiah 59:16 and 53:1 confirm that the servant is not just a man but 👉 *HIS ARM* 👈 which refers to GOD himself

@@pepepena1937 A thorough study on exactly what and how the Apostles preached in the book of Acts will prove that to be a contradiction. They NEVER preached Jesus IS God. Jesus who acted as God’s “agent” and “representative” is given authority to rule for the glory of God. The preaching of the Apostles which led thousands to be saved, always distinguished Jesus FROM God the Father. They preached Jesus crucified, who is the son OF God, the messiah whom God worked THROUGH and he was risen by God to sit at His right hand. Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted verse in the New Testament out of all other scriptures. I gave previous examples, but notice here how Jesus is distinguished FROM God: Psalm 110 [1] A Psalm of David. The LORD said to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." “The LORD” is God the Father/Yahweh speaking to Jesus who David here calls “my Lord”. This psalm was fulfilled when Jesus was resurrected and after he ascended into Heaven to sit at God’s right hand. Peter confirms this in Acts 2, Notice verses 34-36: Acts 2 [22] Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, A MAN approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which GOD DID BY (through) him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: ..[30]… HE WOULD RAISE UP CHRIST TO SIT ON HIS THRONE…[32] THIS JESUS HAS GOD RAISED UP, whereof we all are witnesses. [33] Therefore BEING BY THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD exalted… [34] For DAVID is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, [35] Until I make thy foes thy footstool. [36] Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that GOD HATH MADE THAT SAME JESUS whom ye have crucified, BOTH LORD AND CHRIST. Jesus is at God’s right hand “expecting” (waiting) until GOD places all enemies under his feet, therefore Jesus is distinguished from the one God the Father. God is not at the right hand of another God. God is not in submission to another God… Hebrews 10 [12] But THIS MAN, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD; [13] From henceforth EXPECTING TILL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL. (Compare 1 Corinthians 15:24-28) 1 Corinthians 15 [24] Then cometh the end, when he (Jesus) shall have delivered up the kingdom TO GOD, even THE FATHER; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. [25] For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. [27] For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that HE IS EXCEPTED, WHICH DID PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIM. [28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the SON ALSO HIMSELF BE SUBJECT UNTO HIM THAT PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIM, that God may be all in all.

@@Javi.C_17 *AGAIN* You will *NOT* see an “agent” like Moses or *ANY* of the prophets able to *MAKE/JUSTIFY//VINDICATE* others *ONLY GOD* could do that and the servant does it. The Hebrew combination praise language in Isaiah 52:13 is *UNEQUIVOCALLY* used *ONLY* in reference to GOD. Isaiah 59:16 and 53:1 says that the one doing the saving, The Servant of the Lord is none other than *THE ARM of THE LORD* himself. This is the same True Shepherd of Zechariah 11:11 called *THE WORD of THE LORD* . This same shepherd in Zechariah 13:7 is called by GOD His *PARTNER/ASSOCIATE/COMPANION* . This Word,Arm, Hand of The Lord Tabernacled in Jesus’s body. You ask any Rabbi I who this Arm,Hand, Word of The Lord is and they will *NOT* call it an Agent *BUT* God himself

The Lords there is talking about masters like Caesar - those who are self proclaimed lords over others. Jesus the Messiah is our one lord in that sense we follow. Lords is contrasted with Gods in the previous verse 5.

The son of man is his divine nature? And it was in heaven while he was saying this?

I'm sure he knows a lot more than you on this topic

@@ABC123jd You’re entitled to your opinion, even though it’s wrong.

The ancient Jews definitely did not believe that God is two distinct persons or selves. They believed that God could be up in heaven and also come down on earth in the form of a man or a cloud. But they all understood God to be a self, which is why they have always referred to God with singular person pronouns. Also, if you agree that they had no concept of a tripersonal deity, then you'd have to say that God just massively failed to communicate who they were. Otherwise they were just lying by not revealing themselves as three selves when that's who they have always been.

Yeah I'm sure that's what he would say if you asked him

exactly, just as they do with Hebrews which context is about old and new "times" and therefor God has created these "times" (not World) through Christ, and in Colossians where the context is about proving Christ is the head of the body and has created all things in the church, his own body. NOT genesis creation! Brother I am not preaching at you, just agreeing with you and making the point to passing readers.

@Real G. Jesus I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. Isaiah 42:8 ESV

@@Mateo09ist God is also always omnipotent, was jesus omnipotent? No

@@tankiesbot6578 I believe I originally ask about God sharing his glory, not about His omnipotence. I do know Dale brought up one of the reasons why Jesus wasn't omnipotent because he would ask questions. Did God himself ask questions as well? Asked Adam "Where are you?" For example.

Isaiah 42:8 in context is simply about God the creator of all things being the one and only God, the only one who is creator, in contrast to the false gods, idols. Of course YHWH does not share his glory as the one true God, the one who according to Isaiah 44 created all things in the beginning by himself(himself, not themselves), But does he give glory to others in general? Yes, the Bible clearly says believers will be glorified by God, and not only by God, but with Christ. “The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one” ‭‭John‬ ‭17:22‬ ‭

God giving glory does not mean he shares his own glory bro. God gives us glory as well.

Advaita vedanta is both philosophically and historically untenable, and its proponents cannot explain its principles with any validity or agreement, its a total mess of ideas that have no basis in logic or reality. having spoken to supposed teachers of it, they themselves cannot defend it or explain it properly without contradiction. Alan Watts was also also an alcoholic and pursuer of hedonism and sexual immorality, that is why he left the faith, because he wanted to sin freely, he has also been wholly refuted in regards most of his claims by scholars and many eastern "teacher" suggest that he totally misconstrues the eastern ideas. Christianity is the only evidenced truth.

@ultra-teksystems2220 yeah? What specifically about Advaita is historically/philosophically untenable? I'm very curious. And which proponents cannot explain which specific principles? Please, sincerely, enlighten me. 🙏

@@Thomas-Purell-Ministry Alan Watts was not a guru, etc, but a wonderful distiller of complicated concepts into digestible sips of understanding. That's all. A brilliant thinker.

And, last but not least, what evidenced truth do u have for Christianity? Would u please name ONE single self-proclaimed (and contemporary to Jesus) eye-witness to Jesus's life who wrote/dictated ANY 1st person account that we still have today to read? 🙏 SPOILER ALERT: There are none.

@MonkKeyGawd having researched it for 4 days straight and asked many proponents of it, none of them gave the same answer as to the claims it makes, it was a mess of different ideas that did not agree with one another. It also posits an infinite regress which is impossible both physically and philosophically It's also pantheistic which is untenable as in order to be worthy of worship a God must have no equals and not be contingent upon anything but themselves (divine aseity) in order to be a god, one of the Hindu gods must be above the rest, but they aren't and hence don't qualify as gods. This is why there are hardly any renowned philosophical scholars that are Eastern in their beliefs.

Try islam perhaps? Similar just renouncing the trinity and their theology but it's basically the same.

@@omaribnalahmed5967 I was just being sarcastic. All theism is complicated and so is naturalism

@@billj6109 id disagree if you allude to theism being hard to grasp (personal theism) then I'd say it's pretty much false.

@@omaribnalahmed5967 its a tenet of classical theism that it should be difficult or impossible to truly grasp God's essence in the way he knows it.

Stay away from Dale tuggy he will mess you up