Questions for Trinitarians 1. The Father has a name, the Son has a name. What is the name of the Holy Spirit? 2. In Paul’s epistles, why did he leave out salutations to the Holy Spirit? 3. Why is there no conversation recorded between the Father and the Holy Spirit or the Son and the Holy Spirit? 4. Isaiah 45:21, why is the Holy Spirit not mentioned in this verse? 5. Isaiah 57:15, the Father dwells only with the Son? 6. Matt 28:18-20 - Jesus commanded his disciples to baptise in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, his disciples in the book of Acts only baptise in Jesus name. Why? 7. Revelation 22:1, why is there a seat for Jesus but no seat for the Holy Spirit at the Great White Throne? If the Father is the Son and vice versa, why is there a need for separate thrones? 8. Why John 1:1 does not mention the Holy Spirit? 9. Why was 1John 5:7 only added in AD325? This verse is not found in scriptures before that time. 10. John 5:30, John 6:38, If the Son is also the Father, why would there be 2 wills? 11. John 10:30, why is the Holy Spirit not mentioned? 12. Revelation 5:7, why would God hand the book to Himself? 13. Revelation 11:15, why only mention Lord and Christ but not the Holy Ghost? 14. John 10:30, why Jesus did not include the Holy Spirit? 15. 1Cor 3:23, Christ belongs to God or Christ is God? 16. 2John 1:3, why John’s salutation also omit the Holy Spirit?
I agree with everything you have said I my self or going to believe jesus he said he was the son of god to believe he was god is to make jesus a liar then there would be no reason for him to be born of a virgin
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
The gentleman in the yarmulke has been a liability in this conversation for the most part… the British gentleman has the best argument/defense for his position.
This idea that God "pitching his tent" in a fleshly body, ala the tabernacle, does not make you Yahweh. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit of God(1 Cor 6:19). Do we as Christians claim to be Yahweh? No!
I would have loved to have heard from both sides. Michael Brown and James White were nothing less than rude the entire time. They continually interrupted and would not let the other two talk. Talking over and mocking the other two men. Notice the difference in the fruits of the two sides.. Test the spirits… Anthony Buzzard and the Jewish man were rarely even allowed to finish a thought or sentence. The moderator should have done a better job of stopping that.
Great debate. I just wonder when they say Jesus was part human part god in the flesh how could his sacrifice be equal. Adam(totally human) brought sin & death Jesus cancelled this by dying for us. Surely it should be like for like to balance the divine scales of justice? So Jesus cant be God?
this is what it's so captivating... it really begs the question, David asked, What is Man?.. He has to be Man and equal with Adam in that sense to redeem. But yet again, Yeshua does take those titles that are only given to God. I can't confirm nor deny either side.
F. F. Bruce’s comments on this passage are valuable: The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation “The Word was God.” Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God”. What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase “what God was, the Word was”, brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can…So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, “There was once when he was not”.
@ 54:00 scripture doesn’t say he’s the fullness of the godhead in bodily form, it says “in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”… pay attention to what these men are saying, this is how they “deceive and are deceived”.
This is the problem and not understanding the difference between names and titles. The english word God or all caps GOD is used to distinguish the Father from the Son. God is being used as a name in the same way Jesus is for the son. An error with english and all other translations is that there is a name for God, the Father; Yahweh. The trinitarians use the word God as a a plural noun meaning singular nouns, Father Son and Spirit make up this word God. This brings up a whole mess of other contraditicons when you have verses that use God and Jesus, and others that use Father and Son. If God is all 3 then a verse like Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God", according to the Trinitarian view could be read as "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit" or "...the Son of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." You can easily see the glaring and major issues here. A father cant be his own son and vice versa. Yet trinitarianism continues to be taught as the truth and essential or required to be a christian and is the core of Christianity today. Complete deception of the devil.
It's worth noting how the trinitarian side keeps using the words explicit and clear, explicitly clear to support Jesus being God in scripture. They need to learn English and the definitions these words. An explicitly clear statement would be anywhere in the OT or NT saying "Jesus is God, God is Jesus." This doesnt exist. Inference is placed upon the scripture to support a doctrine devised be a Roman empire to promote Christianity as the Roman religion based on a non biblical view. 1700 years later this is still the case in all of Christianity regardless of denomination and for some unknown reason without question.
Great point. It’s like when people say ‘literally’ but don’t mean ‘literally’. It’s a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Since it is hypocritically possible that the trinity be true and not explicitly stated (I know the problems that would make with the Tanak). Either like you stated they don’t know what explicit means or they’re being intellectually dishonest, both seldom lead to truth
Debate on the Trinity? Thus, proving that the Trinity has no support in the Bible. No First Century Christian has any trouble in knowing who God is and who Jesus is (cf John 17:3).
Exactly! The bible says those who believe and Jesus himself, said they will be in union with God and Jesus, as one. No one ever argues or assumes believers each become God or Gods, not even Trinitarians. However, when referred to Jesus then Jesus is God. It blows my mind the contradictions made to support a non biblical teaching.
God didn't manifest Himself in Tue bush, an angel of God descended into a bush. To manifest means to reveal; therefore God manifest himself in Christ John 1:18
@@aaronsanchez3141 Jesus Christ doesn't have the same identity with the church (the believers). The believers come into God and God into them by Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:16) while Jesus came from God and was also God in the flesh (Jn 6:51, 1 Tim 3:16
That's the issue with how verbal debates are done these days. It's all rushed and any point brought into contention isn't actually resolved before moving onto the next. It's like everyone suddenly gets ADHD when they publicly debate these days.
Yes, and then Dr. Brown claims that he's 'captivated by the Scriptures' - where the only thing that he is captivated by is his own interpretation of them
@ 25:50 “did his spirit die?” Seriously? 🤦🏾♂️ so then if his spirit didn’t die (because a spirit doesn’t die) equals what? Did Jesus the son of God NOT die for our sins? Was he NOT raised from the dead? Trinitarians always try this nonsense. The scriptures clearly state that Jesus died, we do understand the definition of “die” don’t we?
They keep saying "the Triune God". ? Where does the bible say triune God? Or "man God" Or "God the son" Trinity is doctrine of men. It's called a Theory, not fact. 📖
Even the title misrepresented the Biblical Unitarian position. Biblical Unitarians believe Christ was the The Son of God. They don’t believe Son of God also means God.
Lol Jeff Durban 🤣😂😅 he and James white are friends … I don’t know if this was planned or coincidence b cause he and James white would go on to join forces in another debate years later, it would be a full bearded Durban though…
The trinitarian gentleman keep straw-manning the unitarian presentation by calling Jesus "merely a man". Jesus was a totally unique man, the son of God, not God himself
Yep. That's what they always do. The deception is based in a false dichotomy in which they reason as if Jesus Christ must necessarily be either God or "merely a man" , ignoring the option the Bible actually says: That Jesus Christ is the son of God.
The enemy knows carnal people have a tendency to reason in false dichotomous absolutes when it comes to topics they're passionate or emotionally attached to.
Bible is clear He is God alone no God beside him...He has son Jesus...no trinity...that is man made doctrine..too many people in the old testament never knew or teach a trinity doctrine but believe in one God none beside him.
When the Unitarians bring up a good point or verse, the Trinitarians divert and completely switch to other passages completely flipping the script . This makes the Trinitarians appear as “victorious” , but this isn’t the case. When conversing with Trinitarians , it is crucial to make stay on point.
Jesus did not have to be God to atone for our sins. He had to be a new Adam to atone for our sins and bring about the new creation. Adam didn't have to be God to affect all man, why does Jesus? Scripture itself does not say that Jesus had to be God to pay for our sins. It does say that he was the last Adam, the first fruit from the dead, the beginning of the new creation
Buzzard and Goode dont get to finish their sentences before they get intrupted by Brown and White. Is that what is called a debate? This was cleary in ffavor for the Trinitarian side.
I agree. But if someone falls for the Trinity lie, can he/she still be saved? Because tons of people fall for all sorts of lies and don't seem to care, including non-Trinitarian Christians. How many recognize the Bible clearly teaches that Earth is flat & stationary? How many recognize where we actually are on the historical timeline? The answer is we are in Satan's Little Season, as mentioned in the Bible but never brought up in churches. Heck, most Christians have never even heard the phrase "Satan's little season" before
@ 1:18:30 the scriptures do not teach three persons though, these guys just subtly inject these falsehoods real quick… “as the scriptures teach” smh 🤦🏾♂️ this is scary No, the real question is “does the scriptures teach three Devine/distinct persons sharing the being of God” or does it teach that God is himself, and no one else? I don’t respect these double talks that the trinitarian side uses, I notice that with some trinitarians when they converse with someone that doesn’t believe in their doctrine.
If we are only honest and truthful in our reading of our Bible, Jesus is only the Son of God and the Christ of God, not God,. LUKE 1:35; MATTHEW 16:15,16; JOHN 20:31; 1JOHN 5:1,5; ACTS 9:20,22; ACTS 17:3; ACTS 18:5,28; JOHN 11:27; JOHN 10:36; JOHN 17:3; 1 CORINTHIANS 8:5,6; 1 TIMOTHY 2:5. . All Bible characters only IDENTIFIED Jesus as the SON OF GOD and the CHRIST OF GOD, NOBODY PROMOTED JESUS AS GOD. JOHN 13:13. . Only those who read what is written by these people insist that Jesus is God, but the writer themselves DO NOT understood it the way the READERS understood what they wrote.
Jesus is not the Creator. His father Yahweh is the creator. Jesus is the Son of God and not God father himself. They are two different persons. But Jesus the Prince is "raised" ( crowned ) as God (King) upon his great sacrifice and resurrection . all authorities and power of his father , the creator, are transferred to Jesus. Jesus becomes the God (King) whereas his God father remains the Creator. The father is still greater than the son. Only through Jesus can anyone be saved. Jesus is the mediator who rule over mankind now. He is our only one God! And only believing in the name of the Father and Son can anyone be saved. If you don't believe that the Father had sent his only Son Jesus to save the world, you already are not believing in them - the two different holy persons. Jesus has declared over a hundred times that He is the son doing the works for his father. And God Father Yahweh himself had also declared many times that He is the Father of Jesus! Bothe God Father and Jesus do not need to disguise themselves, tell lies, play acting and mocking themselves all over the Bible! Perfect and holy as heavenly righteous spirits they hated lies. Why can't people believing in their simple words but cherry picks jig saw parcels to establish a blasphemy trinity theory?
And they outright lie 🥴 how can Mr. Brown say the opposing side haven’t refuted anything? They’ve literally been refuting the whole time with the exception of Mr. Good at times. (I said before “he’s a liability in this debate”) these ( *Mr. Brown especially) trinitarian guys just say things.
James white and his colleague contradict themselves a number of times; they’re trinitarians but even the moderator points out there contradiction @ 51:38 …
Excellent debate-will watch again and again; thought provoking; had to pull out my Bible, read it and think about these issues; ordered a few books from the panelist as well. Any time spent in the Study of the Word is excellent even if we have to agree to disagree.
Very interesting debate. Enjoyed it allot. Both teams had good points, but something that I particularly enjoyed hearing from the Unitarian's side, was the that they made their without being abstract and considered the culture and lifestyle of author, the audience of that author and the time that it was written. Where the Trinitarians tried to prove their point with abstract ideas that allows for so many contradictions and confusion. Both parties however, set a very good examples to what type of questions we should be asking. When you ask a good Rabbi a question, he often replies with another question, meaning that in most cases it's not about the answers we want, but the questions we want answered
Brown and White are completely missing what Christ was redeeming with his sacrifice. Christ was redeeming Adam who was only a man. Though he was perfect, Adam was still only a man. If Adam had hadn't of sinned, all of mankind would be perfect. If a perfect man was able to keep us in perfection, logically a perfect man is all that's needed to bring us back into perfection.
It was pretty clearly understood by EVERY single one of Jesus's disciples that he was the Messiah. And reaffirmed by Paul of Tarsus, whom God appeared to.
The man who asked about agency needs to read Exodus 23:20 20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. 23 For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off. We see there God send and angel as being his agent. That angels was in different position than other angels, because God sent and anointed Him specially, His name was in this angel.
This may topically be true assuming that all Jesus did was give His life for remission of sin for all who come to Him in faith. Jesus did so much more. He sent the Holy Spirit. Jesus is our High Priest in heaven always interceding for us to the Father. Jesus revealed the Father for all practical purposes face to face. No one knows God but the Son and He who he chooses to reveal Him. Having seen Jesus, we see the Father. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith.
great debate,,i learned a lot..only GOD knows and will explain when JESUS coming back,,GOD talked to the prophets in old testaments fragmentacaly,,but HE show HIS fullnes in JESUS CHRIST,,maybe we still cannot understand for the things that only for GOD,but one thing that will be sure we will have our salvation thru CHRIST,,evrythings about this debate will be settled when JESUS return..GOD bless you all...
Wow ! 18:46 all texts even Alexandrius is privy to the Trinity. Even the Alexandrian false text claims Trinity! Amazing - I did not know this. Fantastic. It is one of the uknown and unresearched questions I have had, among thousands, for many years.
I still think it's preposterous to think that G-d is a man when in Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" It would be a lie and a change of the mind for Him then to incarnate, to renege on His eternal word. Also, the "I am He" is so reminiscent of Dvekut in Jewish mysticical thought/conception/practice. Also Bitul Hayesh, "Not my will but Thy will be done."
yeshua esta sentado a la diestra del padre , quien esta sentado a la siniestra ? el espiritu santo ? y si yeshua es d-ios porque no esta sentado en el trono ? y porque tubo que ser ungido ( mashiaj) y si fue ungido lo tubo que ungir alguien superioir a el ( el padre ) cualquiera que escuche a estos trinitarios, entienda que ellos estan distorcionando la palabra de el eterno !!! YHVH es uno !!! yeshua es el santo mashiaj , bendito sea su nombre
By permeation of everything, it means that the fact that God is omnipresent and omni-potent, means that ultimately, everything in the universe and beyond can be seen as a part of God, however it is only the entirety of his greatness that is God. A man is not God, a star is not God, and a galaxy is not God. They are within God, but calling them God is reducing God to a contained physical object lesser than all and eternity.
The God of the Old Testament is an unlimited creator who permeates all of existence with his endless power and greatness. He is not limited by simple containers of the flesh. Putting any significant limitation on God is blasphemy by the views of the Old Testament. God is not a man in the same vein that he is not a burning bush. Jesus' whole rhetoric about being part of the father was just a re-iteration of the mystical view that God's essence permeates everything.
21:12 + made me laugh. When the opponent said "I agree with that" Dr. White seemed to have deflated, like, "He agrees!? I'm disappointed! We're supposed to be in a DEBATE, not an agreement!" lol Watch his body language.
Beyond this, one must look at what the entirety of God, the unlimited creator who permeates every inch of space, time, and beyond, tells us about his nature through his law and prophets. Numbers 23:19 and Samuel 15:29 tell us without a doubt that the glory of God will never be contained within the flesh of a singular man. Jesus may be a prophet, may be the moshiach, and/or may be the greatest man or agent of God that ever exists and/or existed, but he is lesser than the
Wow!! The trinitarians clearly show through scripture that Jesus is truly God in the flesh! Mr. Buzzard appealed to "quantitative" evidence that God is one, which we believe, and admits Jesus is called at least once. If the bible says it once, IT'S TRUE! Thank for the post!
I have noticed how in Debates non-Trinitarians appeal to other things OTHER than Scripture...they dont REFUTE certain scriptures..they jump around or dont answer...The Trinitarians address each scripture,as we all should and bow our hearts to the Total Scope Of God`s Word.On the Walter Martin Debate Robert Sabin did the same thing..and even said ther was no need to go to the greek.If its TRUTH we are looking for lets look at ALL in the original language.God bless
I look to only what the Scriptures say and look at the Greek and Hebrew, and I never found the trinity taught there. By doing so, I became convinced that only the Father is God and Jesus is 100% human.
Why is John 1:18 misquoted, using the ISV? "No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him." SIDE is not in this verse; look at the Greek: "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." Jn 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." The LORD is One = Echad (as in one [echad] rib from Adam's side - Gen 2:21).
A thought...Who at that table paints a bigger picture of who God is? Who makes the picture of who he is, smaller? Any teacher that diminishes God has a slight problem here...
The three WHO'S in one WHAT question was not answered. Here is the part of the video. Dr. James White. 23:00 minute mark. "The being of God, and i am talking about the persons that share that one being. That being is personal but not a person", your turning that into some kind of impersonal object like a rock. Sir Anthony Buz. "You are calling that WHAT?" The question unanswered is The Being being One WHAT? It is clearly not a HE. My answer to the three WHO'S in one WHAT question, leads to somethng entirely different WHAT. The vision of Ezekielm each cherubim have four faces, that of a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle.
Thank you dear Sir Anthony Buzzard. May our Heavenly Father bless you and your ministry even more. Much love in Christ to you and to all my Unitarian brothers and sisters.
The problem with this debate is that the trinity has approx 2,000 years of support while the Catholic Church killed anyone believing otherwise and burned any counter religious texts that may have provided additional support. What really should be argued is the Nicene Creed and the point of Jesus' and God's equality as there is obviously a direct Hierarchy in the Bible which the Nicene Creed doesn't support or address. Jesus in man form can't be any less a God according to the creed.
Part 2 of the debate is equally interesting as part 1. It becomes obvious, that the explanations given so far by the Trinitarian side are not sufficient to explai, or give a model for thinking how the infinite realm of YWHW, Yeshua the Messiah, and the other Spirit of YWHW can be seen as a singular from here on the planet Earth. Dr. James White. 22:00 minute mark. Q. "DO you believe that YWHW essence is limited to time and space"? Ans. Joseph Good. Absolutely not. Q. "Why can't that unlimited essence be shared with three divine persons"? "Because you are assuming that, your assumption in all your interpretations is; THAT's NOT POSSIBLE"! Sir Anthony Buz. "My assumption is, since you describe God as one WHAT? Let me give your description of God. He is three WHO'S; I want you to be clear about this. Three WHO'S in one WHAT? I do not find the singular muscular pronoun HE, to describe a WHAT? Let's talk about an IT. Be fair, let's talk English, let's talk the language. If HE is going to be three WHO's in one WHAT? Then he is not a HE. Your giving me a HE, and you ask me see it as HE three's". Dr. James White is assuming based on the scripture verses that he quoted, the belief in the Trinity theology. There are many scripture verses that represent dots for logic and reasoning. The debate problem can be resolved by joining the dots with logic and reasoning, or belief and assumption. The singular HE, to describe what? Question by Sir Anthony Buz. Is a logical question. If it is three, then it is wrong to call it a HE. It is something else, at another dimension of time and space. But why would you bother describing a being that exist in a dimension that we have no access to, you can't prove it. It places the task of believing more under strain, without engaging reasoning and logic. Why complicate the object of belief with convoluted doctrines. E.g. “Why can't that unlimited essence be shared with three divine persons”? It makes more sense to describe a being according to the way things are on the planet Earth. One YWHW, one Messiah, and the Spirit of YHWH empowering the redemption for those that believes in the Son of God that is the perfect representation of the Father YWHW. To say the least, then logic and reason is convinced at the personal level that the plan of Salvation is not some crazy sect idea that cannot be explained logically. There are many blind spots to reality, but the reasoning and the use of logic should be encouraged, not disengaged.
Worthy is Jesus of praise. The Lord God Almighty, The Father, Creator of All Things, is more than deserving of not only praise, but Worship. The words praise and worship have different meanings. Praise Jesus, Worship the Father.
I think I understand what you are saying. Also, I think that Trinitarian doctrine attempts to create another Jesus. That is the danger. If another Jesus then, one may believe on the wrong Jesus and miss out on salvation.
