Response to Gavin Ortlund - Is the Trinity in the NT? No!! 

Exactly. He is reluctant to apply his own method to the Trinity.

I mean, I would say that Jesus and God are pretty unique but there are theological similarities there

@@transfigured3673 yeah definitely unique, just there seems to be a general pattern of a version of the immortal one dwelling within the human being. ie. 'When a summit of life is reached, when the bud unfolds and from the lesser the greater emerges, then, as Nietzsche says, “One becomes Two,” and the greater figure, which one always was but which remained invisible, appears to the lesser personality with the force of a revelation. He who is truly and hopelessly little will always drag the revelation of the greater down to the level of his littleness and will never understand that the day of judgment for his littleness has dawned. But the man who is inwardly great will know that the long-expected friend of his soul, the immortal one, has now really come, “to lead captivity captive”; that is, to seize hold of him by whom this immortal had always been confined and held prisoner, and to make his life flow into that greater life-a moment of deadliest peril! Christ himself is the perfect symbol of the hidden immortal within the mortal man.' ~ Jung PS. Has recently happened to John V ofc in the form of Hermes, which seems a pretty appropriate form for it to take with him :)

I would appreciate that thanks.

This is a fair question and a good point. Like both me and Gavin mentioned, the interpretation of Hebrews 1:10 is quite contentious and the amount of divergence of scholarly opinion is high. One option, is that it is simply referencing the idea of new creation and the change in the heavens that will happen because of Jesus. But your question is a good one. How do you interpret it?

It’s obvious Jesus is The YHWH who Created The Heavens and The Earth. I would like to know your opinion on Hebrews 1:6 and the DSS

I think it’s Very Problematic for your view and interpretation of Heb 1:10-12 bc of the including of the quotation in 11-12. of its now Creation why include what included in 11-12? This is a serious problem for any Anti Trinitarian group.

For the record, Arius and Unitarians who believe in Jesus's pre-existence would have no problem with your interpretation. Arius believed Jesus was the YHWH from the OT who created the world on behalf of the ineffable God Almighty above him. Most trinitarians seem unaware of Arius's actual beliefs. Justin Martyr (similar to Arius) and also a Unitarian would have interpreted it similarly. But I am not one of those kinds of Unitarians. The idea that this passage Hebrews 1:10-12 is simply referencing an OT passage about the reordering and changing of the heavens is common in the academic literature and it fits with the theme of Hebrews 1 and 2 of Jesus being exalted above the angels and the angels suffering a loss in status compared to Jesus and humanity through Jesus.

your not addressing my objection. tell my why what’s quoted in 11-12 is quoted that seems to quote to much in your view?

You’re spot on with that comment EmJay. Subconsciously, not questioning the trinity is related to the fear of Christian civil war

Thankfully you guys came along to fix the problems of the past 1600 years. Cool.

doing what we can!

@@Qwerty-jy9mj Does our confidence trigger your insecurities and self-doubts?

@@EmJay2022 No, honestly I can't take it seriously. I guess that it was a combination of curiosity and genuine scandal that got me to check the video since it showed up on my feed. I thought it was going to be a defense of some heresy, not an outright denial of Christianity, I guess it just is what it is.

Absolutely

Short answer, the spirit of God dwelled within Christ. Therefore, you can call the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Christ. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.-Romans 8:9-11 A longer answer would take fully explaining this passage which is I think one of the most profound in the NT. "Thus it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." -1 Cor 15:45

@@transfigured3673 A note from the Reformation Study Bible (2015) on 1 Cor 15:45. Is this similar to your own view? Paul clarifies his meaning by continuing the contrast between the first and the last Adam (vv. 21, 22 note). The Gk. word translated “being” (psychē) is related to the word translated “natural” in v. 44 (psychikos), while the word “spirit” (pneuma) corresponds to “spiritual” (pneumatikos). The words “life-giving spirit” are most probably a reference to the Holy Spirit. Jesus and the Holy Spirit share the same divine essence but are not the same divine person, but Christ and the Spirit are identified in terms of their presence and activity in the church. This identity, known to us because Jesus, too, is life-giving, is the fulfillment of Jesus’ role as Messiah and commenced with His resurrection and ascension. To be in Christ is to be in the Spirit also (6:11, 15, 19; 12:11). The association of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and life is apparent in Rom. 8:9-11 and 2 Cor. 3:6, 17, 18. By citing and supplementing Gen. 2:7, Paul shows that Adam, even at his creation and before sin, did not possess and could not have conferred on his descendants the Spirit-empowered life of the age to come. Only the last Adam, Christ, can give others eternal life through His Spirit. The physically life-giving breath that the first Adam received foreshadowed typologically the life-giving Spirit” that Christ, “the last Adam,” would give to His people, as a result of His own resurrection. The apparent point is that the first human was created to reach the goal of such a glorious, imperishable body, if he had obeyed God and been faithful in reflecting God’s image. In contrast to the first Adam, who failed because of faithless disobedience, Christ has subdued and obeyed in the way His progenitor should have. Consequently, Christ has inherited that for which humanity was originally destined but failed to reach. Jesus’ body was not only a renewed physical body, but it had become “heavenly,” “spiritual,” and “imperishable.”

Didn't you watch my 4 videos about Athanasius? I quoted Against the Arians at least a few times in there. As for who is more persuasive that is a matter of taste. I'm pretty sure Gavin has ordered the torture, persecution, and killing of fewer people than Athanasius though.

@@transfigured3673 I just was not sure how thoroughly you had read St Athanasius's discourses against the Arians. You should also read the Henry Parry Liddon work I recommended to you a while ago, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Eight lectures given at Oxford University 1866. I think there have been a lot of false allegations made against St Athanasius, but even if there were any misconduct on his part, that does not negate the truth of his theology.

I'll let you know as soon as I do

How would you define the distinctions made in rabbinic Judaism? I feel like the only distinction I'm trying to make can be seen here (1 Chron 29:20-22). Homage and bowing to both God and the King. Sacrifices to God only with the king leading. Then David said to all the assembly, “Bless the Lord your God.” And all the assembly blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and paid homage to the Lord and to the king. And they offered sacrifices to the Lord, and on the next day offered burnt offerings to the Lord, 1,000 bulls, 1,000 rams, and 1,000 lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel. And they ate and drank before the Lord on that day with great gladness.

Is there even one verse where God is described as a trinity or triune?

@@transfigured3673 That's the silliest argument. The non use of the word Trinity or triune in Scripture does not negate the Scriptural truth for which these words are a correct term.

@@transfigured3673 The word unitarian is not in Scripture.

Fair point but I didn't say is the word "Trinity" in the Bible. I said is God described as triune or a trinity. I would also accept "three in one" "tripartite" or any set of words that had the same meaning. "Unitarian" is an english word coined in direct opposition to "Trinitarian". Ironically, I think Michael Servetus coined the word "Trinitarian" in the 1500s. But God is clearly describe as One more times in the Bible than I need to count right now.

@@transfigured3673 Scripture necessitates the conclusion that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one, having one Name, Jesus Christ and the Father being one, and the Holy Ghost being God, the one God of Israel being born as son of the Virgin etc. It is impossible here to summarize all the evidences from Scripture that indicate that the Father, the Word/Son and the Holy Ghost are all God. I have, as you know, given several of the arguments from Scripture in comments on your previous videos. I just appeal to you and your viewers to consider prayerfully the writings of some of the many competent theologians who uphold the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity. Another contemporary one I recommended to you was the Dominican Father Gilles Emery. He has also edited the Oxford Handbook on Trinitarian Theology. All this to say, the truth of the Trinity cannot be refuted by doing a "gotcha" on the presentation of one You Tube theologian.

You are not alone in that view. There are a considerable number of BUs who are torah observant. I pretty strongly disagree with this position, but you are certainly not alone.

@@transfigured3673 - a discussion between you and a Torah observant person could be really cool

@@transfigured3673 - I'd love to see you talk to someone about that. Would make for a good conversation I think

No need to apologize, I am flattered by anyone who watches anything I say. First comment, "the Logos is the Word of the Father, eternal and pre-existent to creation, for all things were made by him, and that that Logos is incarnate in the human being Jesus." I actually basically agree with this. I, of course, would say the logos is an attribute and power of God the Father and that being incarnate means something more like "dwelling within" Jesus as opposed to a hypostatic union. But, a surface level reading of the words I can mostly agree with. Second comment, "presenting to his hearers as a man". I absolutely cannot agree with this. Honestly, I find it kind of revolting. It sounds docetic. "Docetism" comes from the greek word "to seem". Jesus didn't "present as human". That sounds like a trans person "presenting as the other gender" or something. Jesus was a man through and through. Just as human as we are, maybe even more so.

@@transfigured3673 You misunderstand my meaning. I meant that Jesus was presenting God's words to his hearers. He did that as a man who was God in human flesh. Not a trace of docetism, Quite the contrary.

@@transfigured3673 You, as a man presenting your words to your audience, have rashly, and it might even seem dishonestly, for the sake of seeming to score a point, have unreasonably misrepresented my words as if they were a statement of docetism. That is a ridiculous charge, as everything I have been saying is to the effect that Jesus Christ is God incarnate as a human being, a real man who is also truly God. I present these words to you as a man.

Interesting set of questions, I mean that. I can tell you are thinking about the implications of this, not just what has already been discussed. I don't have time to give a full answer. A quick answer to your last question, Jesus is the bread of life that comes down from heaven in the eucharist. He wasn't speaking about the present, but the future in John 6 when after his ascension and theosis we can "partake" of him divinized flesh in the Lord's Supper.

Do you mean the Jung book?

@@transfigured3673 yes, it has some very interesting ideas about the future of Christianity (for instance: the transformation of the imago-dei across time(garment that will be changed) & the Christification of many) & you are the sort of person with your understanding on the biblical side that could critique if Jung is misunderstanding passages of the bible etc. cheers 🙏

That is just a flagrant misreading of the text Anselman. Indefensible. Colossians 1:3 defines "God" as "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" which is the definition used throughout the rest of Colossians. Not the trinity. The one who makes the invisible God visible is Jesus Christ, not his human nature. In your reading the human nature of Jesus (never mentioned in Colossians) makes visible with divine nature of the Son (also never mentioned) and thereby the whole triune God (definitely never mentioned). This is such substandard exegesis it's barely worth arguing with. Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God, his own Father. I honestly scarcely believe how you can claim to take the scriptures as the inspired word of God and mutilate them so badly to serve the goal of inserting anachronistic man made doctrines into them. You basically have two Jesus's or two sons. An invisible one and a visible one. Complete utter nonsense.

@@transfigured3673 The Logos is invisible. He becomes visible to us man on earth in his incarnation.It may also be that he made himself visible prior to his incarnation. The Holy Ghost is invisible. The Word/Logos is God. The Holy Ghost is God. They are normally invisible, that is, unseen by us.The fact is that the Word and the Holy Ghost are God, and that the Father is God. The Father is a title given to the Holy Trinity as regards his relation to creation and to human beings, as well as to the first Person of the Trinity in relation to the eternal Son, the Word/Logos. You are stuck in misunderstanding because you do not accept the Scriptures' testimony that the one eternal God, the Holy One of Israel, has become a man. You reject incarnation so you cannot understand that Jesus is God and Man.

Excellent question. I would recommend my video about John 1 to more deeply answer that question than I can in a short youtube comment. If believe that Jesus was and is the living embodiment of God's word and wisdom and law and teachings. He was the word made flesh. One question I might ask you, read John chapter 1 and ask yourself "what makes me think that 'the word became flesh' refers to Jesus's conception or birth? There is no mention of that idea at all and it seems hugely out of sequence with the prologue to assume that. Also ask, what does the word "logos" mean in the rest of the gospel? Do a word search and then turn back to John 1. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tqTlnT-J6rk.html

@@transfigured3673 People "become flesh" when they are conceived. Paired with Jesus' miraculous conception by the holy spirit (which I would hope we both agree is a work of God) that seems like the only coincident spot where the Word could assume flesh. If it was some other time in a metaphorical sense rather than literal that would require more specific call out, and would need to happen before John the baptist says: “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me," which is said before Jesus baptism. Where after Jesus conception and before his baptism would you say He became the eternal word of God?

Check out my video on John 1. I'd be curious for your thoughts and comments. It's harder to repeat all of that in a comments section than just point to a video where I discuss these questions.

As I mentioned, Jesus isn't simply saying "I am", that is a substandard translation. He is saying "I am he" or "That's who I am". The "he" he is connecting himself with, is the one Abraham looked forward to seeing the day of, and saw prophetically. Also, the NET is making another controversial translation with "came into existence", the verb tense is not clearly in the past. It is more like "before Abraham becomes", "before Abraham comes to be" or super literally "before Abraham is'es" which could plausibly be interpreted as Abraham's resurrection, not his original birth.

“Substandard”? could you show me a reputable translation that has Before Abraham becomes I am he?

Or that’s who I am?

And your interpretation seems to make no sense. Before Abraham becomes that’s who I am? WHAT? what does this mean?

​@@au8363 Couple points. As I mentioned in my video, this scene is an example of the theme of misunderstanding that highlights the blindness and worldliness of his Jewish opponents and accusers. So it's important to remember that what the Jews say is the opposite of the truth. The context is Jesus claiming to be more important than Abraham, because being a child of God brought into the family through the Son is more important than being a biological descendant of Abraham. Abraham was the foretype of the founder of the family of God in an earthly sense. Jesus is the archetype of the found of the everlasting family of God in a spiritual new birth sense. So Jesus is saying "before Abraham comes to be, I am he". Abraham himself will need to be resurrected and reborn to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus is the first fruits of the dead and the resurrection and the life. Jesus, as the messiah, the one Abraham looked forward to seeing, precedes Abraham not by earthly logic, but by the logic of the kingdom of God. Namely, Jesus is resurrected first and the source of new life "coming to be" of everyone who follows after.

If you are interested in discussing John 1:1, join dots connected 2 Islam’s stream later today and the guy who runs this channel will also be joining the stream.

I will also ask a question: If according to Trinitarianism, John 1 states the word is God and Jesus being the commuted word is then God (verse 14), how can scripture say "no one has seen God" just a few verses later in verse 18 if in fact many people physically saw Jesus?

A very fair and good point EmJay

@@EmJay2022 what does John 1:14 mean then?

@@Jordan18561 The greek word "Ginomai" which is translated to "became" in the english is a word that actually means to "bring into existence". So what verse 14 in referring to is that just as the Father spoke creation into existence so too did God speak Jesus into being. "Became" is a poor translation, in my view. Refer to Jn 1:3. It uses the same Greek word in a very different way and since it is in the same chapter It would make sense to apply its meaning to verse 14.

Thank you!

I don't think that is quite right

@@MichaelTheophilus906 “The Spirt Is The Father” so who does The Spirit Hear From?? John 16:13 New King James Version However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

@@MichaelTheophilus906 The Spirt is A Person The 3rd Person of The Trinity not a separate Being from The Father and Son for The Father The Son And Holy Sprit all Share The Same Being.

@@MichaelTheophilus906 and you DODGED the question please answer who does The Spirit Hear From!! John 16:13 Berean Literal Bible But when He the, Spirit of truth, shall come, He will guide you into all the truth. For He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He may hear, He will speak. And He will declare to you the things coming. “but whatever He may hear, He will speak”

I do in fact deny it.

Biblical unitarians don't deny the trinity as much as we reject it outright. To deny is to imply it's ground in objective reality, which it has none. It's a mere human construct, no different than any other.

@@transfigured3673 is it your view that Christ at least established a Church to uphold proper teachings guided by the Holy Spirit? Matt 16 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock *I will build my church*, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. John 14 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me. 25 “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

@@EmJay2022 Your rejection is not based on Scripture and is anti-Christ. "1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." 1 John 4:1-3

@@Justas399 I will say this: You will never truly understand what it takes to be a Christian unless you have challenged the trinity doctrine. Trust me, I've had my fair share of spiritual battles, so I know a thing or two about discerning spirits. Thank you for your concern. :-)

I have heard this interpretation before, while interesting I don’t find it the most compelling

@@transfigured3673 thx for reply Sam :) 'the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works' ..atleast some of the time he is channeling the fathers words...and the father being infinite would have been 'I am' before abraham ofc... i guess it is hard to know when Jesus's ego consciousness is speaking and when he is channeling, except for gethsemane, which seems somewhat included to promote the idea his ego consciousness has a will of it's own.

Yes that is probably with regards to capitalizations and such.

I kind of rushed through that part for rhetorical purposes but could have been more careful

No

I suggest you watch my videos on John 1

@@transfigured3673 does your video reject the fact that John 1 tells you that Christ is not God? After all, John 1:1:3, 14 tells us that Jesus is God.

It does not in fact reject that. Take a listen. I'd be curious for your thoughts and feedback.

It's harder to make shorter videos than longer ones. Good luck!

@Harrisbeauchamp Do you have a channel as well? I know a lot of people that like to subscribe to all "these types" of channels, so lmk.😊

@@FollowPaul1Lord1God I do, but I don't really post theological content on it. If I manage to make the video, I might post it on the UCA Facebook page.

where?

I tend to agree with Gavin on the eucharist honestly. See my worship video for more details. But I definitely disagree with strong calvinism. Thanks for the compliment!

Thanks Eco. That would be wild.

Interesting point, I hadn't thought of that before.

So before Abraham was, what?

Probably. Feel free to clip me. It's always harder to make short videos than long videos.

Is idolatry a sin? And if worshiping a false god idolatry?

@@MichaelTheophilus906 prove that.

@@MichaelTheophilus906 Jesus Is YHWH. There is nothing you can do to stop that!

We can just ignore trinitarians.

Amen

Talk about cherry picking and taking verses out of context

Can you shoe me where is says Jesus is not God in any of these Verses?

@MichaelTheophilus906 If you want a discussion that's fine I don't comment debate

@MichaelTheophilus906 You are forgetting the mass amount of evidence of Paul's Christology such as identifying Christ as the Rock that Accompanied the Israelites in 1 Cor 10:4, you over look Romans 9:5, you by pass the Prologue in John, and finally Revelation is the Last book you want to say that because Jesus says Himself He's the Alpha and Omega

I have talked with DeYoung about this. DeYoung's doctrine of the Trinity is also honestly a little different from Gavin's and easier to defend in my opinion. Hopefully, FSDY and I will talk again soon.

@billtimmons7071 I wanted it to be true more than anybody, spent most my life yelling and screaming in people's face that Jesus claimed to be God..untiI I tried to prove it, 119 books later?😮‍💨 I realize that I was bearing false witness, and I have to rectify it. Clement, was Apostle Peters Secretary, And mentioned in Philippians 4:3 RSV Phlip.4:3 And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel alongside👉Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. Clement of Rome was apostle Peter's Scribe & first Church Presbyter. 60-90AD 30+years till Martyred. 1 Clement 59:4 "Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son." Clement echos Jesus in: John 17:3 "Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent." Clement ran the first church however, Polycarp did have some interactions with the apostles also. Martyrdom of Polycarp (120-140AD) O Lord God Almighty, Father of your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have received knowledge of you, the God of angels and powers and of all creation, and of the whole race of the righteous who live in your presence, I bless you…I glorify you, through the eternal and heavenly high priest, Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with him and the Holy Spirit, both now and for the ages to come. Amen Justin First Apology 61* (160AD) There is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of 👴🏼 God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God👈🏼…And in the name of 🤴Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. Martyrdom of Ignatius 2 (120 AD) Thou art in error when thou callest the daemons of the nations gods. For there is but 👉one God👴🏼, who made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that are in them; and one🤴🏼Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, whose kingdom may I enjoy. Acts 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the "Glory of God, and 🫴"JESUS STANDING" at the right hand of 👉God. 56 “Look,” he said,"I see heaven open 🫴"The Son of Man, "Standing" at the right hand 👉of God.” 210AD TERTULLIAN A HERMOGENES. CHAP. III.--AN ARGUMENT OF HERMOGENES (there was a time when 👉Jesus didn't exist) Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him,👉 nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.👈 In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as 👉He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments.... Even at the END of the 2nd Century, The ONLY GOD? Was ALWAYS the Father. Unanimously all "9 Authors", of the 27NT books? Claimed Jesus "has A God" Especially JOHN😬 20+ NT says Jesus sitting at God's right hand. 20+NT says GOD Raised Him. 40+ NT Son-of-God. 80+ NT Jesus's FAVORITE self designated title is SON OF MAN Rev 3:21 KJV To him that overcomith , will I grant to sit with me on 🤴🏻"My Throne"; even as I also overcame, and ad set down with 👨🏻‍🦳"my father" on his throne. "🆘2 SEPARATE THRONES" Even in the anonymous Memoir nicknamed The Gospel of John? If you If you follow the 💯RED letters, you will come away with the SAME doctrine that that Paul Preached, 🫱one-lord & ONE-God.

Regarding the 2nd 3rd 4th century statement. You should check out Dynamic Monarchianism by Thomas Gaston. Peace brother.

@@behxld750 good book. Agreed. I hope to interview Gaston soon.

@@behxld750 Thank you.

Good to see you AC. Two follow up questions. 1. Did the people who baptized in the name of John the Baptist believe John was God? 2. Would you be willing to set me up with a conversation on Church of the Eternal Logos? You seem to have connections there.

@@transfigured3673 You as well. 1.) John’s baptism is not >in the name of John

@@transfigured3673 DM’d him to let him know you wanted a convo. I’d go to his site and send an email w details of what you want to discuss.

Thanks

@@Ac-ip5hd Matthew 28.19 is not accepted by some scholars as authentic. The Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. I think they knew what they were doing. They got their instructions direct from Jesus. Besides that, there is no such name as the name of the F,S,HS. What is that name?

Well said Bill

What did Dr Ortlund mean by "assembling his god"? Jesus is an idol to unitarians because they reject that He is God in the flesh and make Him out instead to be some kind of superman.

@@Justas399 I don't think Dr. Ortlund specifically used the phrase assembling his god. But he talks about having "building blocks" by which his god is constructed. Also, you may be confused about what biblical unitarians believe. We believe that Jesus is a real human person, a real human being, who was commissioned by God, attested by God, empowered by God, raised from the dead by God, exalted by God. We believe that God has put a human person at His (God's) right hand. It is Trinitarians and Arians who make Jesus out to be some kind of superman, a god/divine person who is appearing in flesh.

@@billschlegel1 Your understanding of Christ is not entirely correct because He is not only man, but God (John 1:1-3,14). God is not a superman but the eternal all-powerful all-knowing being who is 3 eternal persons in the one being of God.

Good point

You don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

Who does?

This is a mediocre comment

Sam do you fully understand God? No so don’t use that horrible objection!

Trinitarian apologist winsomely invited to comfortable dialogue by Unitarian who pointed out some tough facts and logic in the process.

Please show me how it’s disproven by facts and logic?