Відео

That Irenaeus quote during 1:16:00 is crazzzzyyy that Michael Jones would try to use that 😂. 2.30.9 in Against Heresies is like suuuuper clear that the Father is alone as the only Omnipotent and is alone above everyone else, and that there is no “second god” that can be compared to the Father

There are no prepositions and kai in the original Greek on the Megiddo Mosaic Inscription. The overall consensus of scholars, Archaeologists, and theologians debunks the Unitarian Space Constraint Argument.

Great talk together. Thank You

Sam, how would you define divinity?

Excellent presentation brother!

Bob, your attempt to reinterpret the Megiddo Mosaic Inscription as “to/for God, in a memorial to/for Jesus Christ” is entirely unsupported by the Greek text, historical context, and the scholarly consensus. Furthermore, this reinterpretation highlights a fundamental error often made by Unitarians: conflating economic subordination with ontological subordinationism. The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription and the Early Church clearly affirmed Jesus' full divinity and never taught that Jesus was a created, subordinate, derivative god. Instead, they upheld economic subordination a distinction of roles within the Godhead while rejecting any notion of ontological subordinationism. If the inscription meant “to/for God, in a memorial to/for Jesus Christ,” it would require specific Greek prepositions or memorial terms, such as: εἰς (eis) - “to” or “for the purpose of.” πρός (pros) - “toward” or “to.” ὑπέρ (hyper) - “on behalf of” or “for.” μνημόσυνον (mnēmosynon) - “memorial” or “remembrance.” μνήμη (mnēmē) - “memory” or “remembrance.” However, the inscription simply reads: > “The God Jesus Christ.” The Greek grammar identifies “God” and “Jesus Christ” in apposition, meaning both terms refer to the same subject. There is no linguistic or textual justification for inserting ideas of a “memorial” or splitting “God” and “Jesus Christ” into separate concepts. Your reliance on spacing to reinterpret the text is deeply flawed: 1. Ancient Greek Writing Practices: In ancient inscriptions, consistent spacing was not standard. Words often appeared closely together or unevenly spaced due to artistic formatting. Using spacing as an argument introduces modern assumptions onto ancient texts. 2. The Nomina Sacra: The inscription uses nomina sacra-sacred abbreviations for ΘΕΟΣ (God) and ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ (Christ). These abbreviations were reserved for divine names, affirming the divinity of Jesus. Nomina sacra were never used for ordinary memorial dedications, further disproving your claim. The space constraint argument is invalid and has been unanimously rejected by scholars who specialize in early Christian writings. Unitarians often conflate these two categories to misrepresent the beliefs of the Early Church and the Apostles: 1. Economic Subordination: Refers to the functional roles within the Trinity. The Father sends the Son and the Spirit (John 3:16, John 14:26). The Son voluntarily submits to the Father’s will in His incarnate mission (Philippians 2:6-8). This subordination is relational and voluntary, not a statement about inferiority of nature. 2. Ontological Subordinationism: Wrongly asserts that the Son or the Holy Spirit are inferior in essence to the Father. This heresy was rejected by the Apostles and the early Church Fathers. The Apostles taught that Jesus Christ is God and co-equal with the Father in essence. John 1:1: “The Word was God.” Hebrews 1:3: The Son is the “exact imprint of [the Father’s] nature.” John 20:28: Thomas confesses Jesus as “My Lord and my God.” The early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen, upheld economic subordination while affirming Jesus’ full divinity. They never taught that Jesus was a created, derivative, or subordinate god ontologically. The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription (230 AD) aligns with this apostolic tradition and provides powerful evidence against Unitarianism: The inscription reads “The God Jesus Christ,” explicitly affirming Jesus as fully divine. This predates the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), proving that Jesus’ divinity was a core belief long before formal Trinitarian definitions. The use of nomina sacra reflects early Christian worship of Jesus as God, consistent with the New Testament: John 1:1-3: Jesus as the eternal Word, through whom all things were created. Hebrews 1:8: The Father addresses the Son as “O God.” Philippians 2:6: Jesus, “being in the form of God,” is equal with the Father. The inscription, affirmed by the consensus of scholars, refutes any notion of Jesus being a created subordinate being or a mere “memorial figure.” The consensus of historians and linguists, including scholars like Larry Hurtado, confirms that: The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription identifies Jesus as God in apposition. The space constraint argument is unsupported by ancient writing practices or Greek grammar. Early Christians worshiped Jesus as God, consistent with the apostolic teachings. Your argument introduces eisegesis forcing modern Unitarian assumptions into the text rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. Bob, the Megiddo Mosaic Inscription and the Early Church clearly affirmed the full divinity of Jesus Christ while rejecting ontological subordinationism: 1. The inscription reads “The God Jesus Christ”, with no grammatical basis for adding “memorial” or separating “God” and “Jesus Christ.” 2. The nomina sacra used in the inscription confirm the author’s intent to declare Jesus’ divinity. 3. The Early Church Fathers taught economic subordination functional roles within the Trinity without compromising the equality of essence shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 4. The scholarly consensus rejects the space constraint argument and affirms that Jesus was worshiped as God centuries before Nicaea. Your reinterpretation reflects a misunderstanding of economic subordination and the deliberate rejection of Jesus’ divine nature. The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription stands as clear historical evidence that Jesus was recognized and worshiped as God, in perfect harmony with the New Testament and the teachings of the Apostles and their successors.

The Unitarian space constraint argument which claims that the Megiddo Mosaic Inscription refers to "to/for God, a memorial to/for Jesus Christ" based on an alleged spacing issue is linguistically, textually, and historically flawed. Scholars like Larry Hurtado and others specializing in early Christian inscriptions and manuscripts reject this interpretation as unfounded. Let’s address this argument systematically: The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription (dated to 230 AD) explicitly states: > “The God Jesus Christ.” This phrase is unambiguous in its construction. To reinterpret it as “to/for God, a memorial to/for Jesus Christ” introduces meanings and words not present in the Greek text. Such additions are purely speculative and lack grammatical support. In Greek grammar, the construction would require additional prepositions (e.g., εἰς, ὑπέρ) or words for “memorial” (e.g., μνημόσυνον) to convey such an idea. There is no evidence of these words in the inscription. Unitarians argue that a “space” between “God” and “Jesus Christ” implies separation, creating a reading such as “to God, a memorial to Jesus Christ.” This claim fails for several reasons: 1. Ancient Writing Practices: In ancient Greek manuscripts and inscriptions, spacing between words was inconsistent or non-existent. The use of spaces was not standardized until much later. Relying on spacing to determine meaning is anachronistic and reflects a misunderstanding of ancient texts. 2. Linguistic Integrity: The phrase “The God Jesus Christ” follows a grammatical structure that unites “God” (ΘΕΟΣ) and “Jesus Christ” as a single referent. To argue for separation would require explicit grammatical indicators, which are entirely absent. 3. Nomina Sacra: The inscription uses nomina sacra (sacred abbreviations) for both ΘΕΟΣ (God) and ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ (Christ). Nomina sacra were reserved for divine names and not used for general memorial inscriptions. This sacred shorthand demonstrates a deliberate intent to affirm Jesus' divinity. The late Larry Hurtado, a renowned scholar of early Christian texts and manuscripts, emphasized the importance of nomina sacra in understanding the inscription. According to Hurtado: The use of ΘΕΟΣ and ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ in sacred abbreviated form indicates that the inscription’s author recognized Jesus as God. Hurtado did not support the idea of a memorial reading or space-based separation. Instead, he affirmed that the inscription reflects early Christian worship of Jesus as fully divine. The consensus of scholars aligns with Hurtado’s assessment: The phrase “The God Jesus Christ” represents a unified declaration of Jesus’ divinity, consistent with early Christian theology. The “space constraint” argument is a modern fabrication that lacks support from linguistic, textual, or historical scholarship. The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription dates to the 3rd century AD, long before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). It provides historical evidence that Christians: Worshipped Jesus as God (ΘΕΟΣ), aligning with John 1:1, John 20:28, and Hebrews 1:8. Recognized Jesus’ full participation in the divine essence while remaining distinct as the Son. To reinterpret the inscription as a "memorial" introduces concepts that contradict the context of early Christian worship, which consistently affirmed Jesus as divine. The argument that the inscription refers to a “memorial for Jesus Christ” is refuted by the following: 1. Absence of Key Words: Greek terms like μνημόσυνον (memorial) or similar words are entirely missing from the text. 2. Nomina Sacra: Sacred abbreviations were used to honor divine names, not human memorials. The presence of nomina sacra rules out the memorial interpretation. 3. Linguistic Construction: The structure “The God Jesus Christ” combines both terms as a single subject, not as separate ideas. 4. Historical Evidence: By the 3rd century, Christians were worshiping Jesus as God a belief rooted in apostolic teaching (e.g., John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8). The Megiddo Mosaic reflects this established theology. The Unitarian space constraint argument and the suggestion that the inscription refers to “a memorial to Jesus Christ” are entirely baseless. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the reading: > “The God Jesus Christ.” 1. The inscription’s Greek grammar and use of nomina sacra affirm Jesus’ full divinity. 2. The “space constraint” argument misunderstands ancient writing practices and introduces concepts not present in the text. 3. Scholars like Larry Hurtado confirm that the inscription reflects early Christian worship of Jesus as God. This inscription stands as powerful archaeological evidence that early Christians recognized Jesus as fully divine, aligning perfectly with the New Testament and the writings of the early Church Fathers. The Unitarian reinterpretation is a modern fabrication, completely lacking historical, textual, and scholarly support.

Incarnation...

Much ado about nothing

1. Sean's reimagining of Isa 9:6 is based on an ancient anti-Christian view by medieval rabbis like Rashi. As noted in "The Messianic Hope Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?" by Michael Rydelnik (2010) Today, evangelical scholarship has adopted variations of Rashi's historical interpretation. For example, John D. W. Watts writes of John Goldingay, "Goldingay has now resurrected a view held by many Jewish scholars of the medieval period, such as Rashi, that the first three pairs of names refer to God. It is he who names the prince of peace."1 Watts also denies the messianic nature of Isa 9:6, writing, "The verses do not function as messianic predictions in this context." Goldingay, in his commentary on Isaiah, adapts Rashi's view, taking all four couplets as descriptions of God (i.e., a theophor-ic name) rather than a description of the child. He writes, "It would be quite natural for this fourfold name in v. 6, too, to be a statement about God-and not a statement about this son." He concludes that the titles should be translated as one long, theophoric name of God: "A wonderful counselor is the Mighty God; the Everlasting Father is a Prince of Peace." 2. I have never read a scholar or seen a translation add air quotes to John 5:18! The popular view that Jesus was not against the Sabbath but so-called "human traditions" needs to clarification on the basis of how the Sabbath law was given by God and practiced by Israel. And the evidence shows that there is not one Old Testament reference Christians can point to where God authorized breaking the Sabbath for any reason, even “good” humanitarian works like healing. For more see jesuskingdomgospel.com/did-jesus-break-the-sabbath-or-human-traditions/

You're in good company. Peter and John were noted as being unlearned men. Also "But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers." Where the word Rabbi and Master (for education) have the exact same meaning. I'm still personally figuring out trinity stuff, but I agree that it is not as important of an issue as it is made out to be. I'm also fully on board with annihilationalism. It makes the most sense to me.

36:45 - This point is unfathomably deep, and potentially soul-saving on the deepest existential level to hear. Fr John Behr is such a luminary and scholar, and an eminent example of the value of careful reading. He shows that paying very close attention to which words are being used and how and in what context is not some neurotic pedantry or scholastic exercise, but the precondition for thinking clearly and deeply. These interviews are great and I'm in awe.

I’d love to see Mullins and Branson dialogue on this.

@1:01:49 I think your "3 types of Christology in the 3rd century" slide needs correction. Referring to the first point, Logos Incarnation Christology which strangely introduces as a subpoint Arianism theology by saying '.......a second God created by God before or at all time." Logos Incarnation Christology and Arianism share some elements but are distinct concepts as I'll note below. Logos Incarnation Christology asserts that the Logos (or Word) is fully divine and pre-existent, becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ. This emphasizes the unity of the divine and human natures in Christ, holding that the Logos is co-eternal with the Father and of the same essence (homoousios) as God. In contrast, Arianism, founded by Arius, presents a different understanding of the Logos. According to Arian theology, the Logos is considered a created being, begotten by God the Father before all ages. Arius taught that while the Logos (or Son) is divine and plays a crucial role in creation, he is not co-eternal with the Father and is subordinate to Him. This means that Arianism views the Son as a distinct entity from God the Father, leading to a belief in two gods: one uncaused (the Father) and one caused (the Son). I understand that while Arianism includes elements of Logos theology, it diverges significantly from traditional Logos Incarnation Christology by denying the full divinity and co-eternity of the Son with the Father and hence should be excluded as a subpoint. Of course, we all know what happened to Arianism. Edit: Any subordinational elements in the theology of listed early church fathers did not relate to Arianism but the authors understood a hierarchical relationship within the Godhead. Perhaps of function?

Wouldnt it fit better to say Jesus spoke in a parabolic way, not a theological way ? I cannot recall which verse, but in Matthew, its said that "jesus spoke in parables, and without a parable, He did not speak "....that means everything He said was a parable...Isaiah spoke of one coming, that would speak with "dark sayings and stammering lips"....Great lesson. Thank you so much for sharing the truth.

The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription, which refers to "God Jesus Christ," is widely recognized by the consensus of scholars as early evidence supporting the belief in the full divinity of Jesus Christ as God. While Unitarians argue that the wording is ambiguous due to space constraints or shorthand, scholars affirm that such phrases reflect the early Christian practice of worshiping Jesus as divine, consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of His deity.

This was an interesting discussion. Using the proper definition of the word "God/god" would make all discussions about God/god even more beneficial. The proper definition is "Placer," from the Greek theos. "God" is a functional word, not a nature word. You hardly ever hear the word defined, even when people debate about "God" for several hours.

Awesome video! I'm certainly going to check out this new version.

Excellent video Sam. I liked Ryan's conclusions the best of the whole thing. My biggest hope is a reconciliation of the Body of Christ.

46:15 Jesus is the last human male that God created and Adam was the first. You are created by humans. Adam and Jesus were not.

It is ironic that Peter, or Paul, and even Lord Jesus Himself would not be able to graduate from DTS.....Paul teaches that the test of being in the faith is that Christ is living in us personally, and corporately with spiritual fruit bearing, love and good works ....and Lord Jesus affirms that we will all be taught by God about His Son....

The trinity only exists in the imaginations of trintarians.

If it is really necessary for Christ to be a God-man, then 1 Timothy 2:5 would’ve been a perfect place for St Paul to describe Christ as the “Theanthropos” which serves as the mediator between God and mankind. Instead, he uses the word “anthropos”

25:00 well the difference is that you don't have the belief in the end product, i.e., the Trinity, prior to the processions. whereas the belief in the existence of God is always presupposed.

I enjoyed this! The points about aseity were great. I personally wouldn't use the language of saying that - since the son doesn't have aseity he lacks two qualities to be divine (even though it's true) i'd say it just shows the Son can't be fully and equally God with the Father.

When Christians say only the Father is asei, they might as well say only the Father is G-d at all.

Thank you, Sam. Appreciate how much I love Father Behr's enthusiasm, warmth and vitality. Hope for more content like this!

Beau Bransons view(wich is the historic view) challenges ryans view and makes problems for social models and it seems this is why ryan doesnt like Bransons work

Aseity means the negation of "from another". The existence of another is a prerequisite for this term having any meaning, thus aseity is extrinsic and can be the hypostatic property of the father and the son lacking it just means he is not the Father and not that he lacks the divine nature

Am part way through. At the moment I think the Father's logical desire for logical relations of justice is logically, obediently expressed by and through the Logos (the second person); a united division would be an ontologically first desire, secondly an expression of the desire with the personal desire and personal expresser of desire being both absolute and absolutely distinct; and Im not so sure how the Spirit relates. If the Spirit is involved in the sustenance of creation then I think He is sustaining a logical judgement of created aspects that exists through the Logos. I think the Logos made flesh is how the Logos logically relates as a human faced with dilemma in relation to logic. It may be that God logically desires that experience to be more limited so the actual experience of Jesus may be limited and yet a logical expression of God; I think it was both logical to not want to suffer, to ask about alternatives that may intervene whilst going ahead with what He believed to be a uniquely, logically qualified sacrifice, if that was the way it occurred. Some Greek manuscripts do not have the idea that the Son doesn't know the day or hour; it may be that He has as much knowledge present as His more extended ontological being and source as the Logos. Not sure if the following needs to be said but I think in general, in the created order the idea that a part could come apart is hypothetical and not necessarily the case; what is revealed is always revealed as itself and not a division of itself, unless and until it is divided. It may be that every identity is a holding together of aspects that are united. Even the revelation of the colour blue is held together over a revealed space, such that it has a north, south, east and west. That the absolute, arguably unchanging, could be revealed as unchanging to a changing person doesn't seem impossible to me because it would be a revelation in each case not an approach independent of revelation. Additionally I think the Father can reveal a changing avatar of Himself alongside the incarnation of Christ.

Ryan mullins seems to ignore the the fact that creedal trinitarians believe that aseity is extrinsic. Not relying on someone else is determined on the existence of someone else. Why does he ignore this?

One cannot be convicted of something that they cannot understand - if your doctrine requires so much speculation and esoteric philosophy, chances are salvation is not contingent upon such a trajectory of thought. That is, you'll never be saved with such a comprehension of God, Jesus, and the Atonement. God is indivisible, unconfused, one person, and one in all aspects of His being and ontology. He is one in personhood, just as each human is one in personhood, and this is what our relationship is based on: a meaningful and logical dialogue and intimacy, knowing that all petitions and prayers are directed at the Father, and that all responses are communicated by the Father.

It is a common trope ... if Scripture X uses more than one name for G-d, it isn't poetic license ... it is evil polytheism ;-) Seven epithets og God are considered sacred in Judaism ... Tetragrammaton, Adonai, El, Elohim, Shaddai, Tzevaot and Jah. Seven gods or not?

Hi, Sam. Maybe consider a Trinity conversation with Seraphim Hamilton. I think you would opponent process each other effectively.

From a Biblical Unitarian perspective, I don't see the benefit in attempting to apply the term "divine" to Jesus, even in a derivative or secondary sense (which it seems Dr. Mullins was making the point that if he is lesser than God the term shouldn't be applied to him, and I would agree with him on that). Of course, Jesus is magnificent, but trying to find a way to use the term "divine" seems unhelpful and perhaps counterproductive. His greatness isn't found in some sort of divinity (however one may define the term or apply it to him), but in the fact that he accomplished what he did as a fully obedient man, full stop, and is still a man, albeit now an immortal man, in his exalted state.

Wonderful to have Fr John available on UA-cam

How are you doing Sam?

Sam you need to do an episode on "two powers in heaven" thing. Trinitarians overrely on this to make their theology more palatable but the evidence for it is very thin. Its supposedly only based on like a single story in thalmud where Enoch gets elevated to the right hand of God

In discussing Branson's view you identify a lack of concern for individual rational faculties in each person, and it was fascinating to see that. There's a totally different idea of what personhood even is to you compared to the Cappadocians. Mullins even says he doesn't know what could make them three persons if they don't have separate wills! That shocked me a lot. It really does display a giant disconnect between the issues you're concerned with and the conversations that were happening within the undivided church. Personhood's important to get right.

Sweet

I am by profession an engineering modeler (UML, SysML, UAF, etc.) and this conversation makes me want to try and draw each of these models.

1:21:38 Id be curious to hear Ryan unpack why he thinks that part of the “basic Christian story” is a triune God before creation? Wouldn’t the basic Christian story be the things that are just on the face of the New Testament story, the things repeated and emphasized by the Jesus and his Apostles? Like… there is one God who loved the world and sent his Son to redeem it?

1:17:58 this is my goal as well, Sam, love and appreciate your efforts on this. I think I am more concerned with the problem of the Trinity as essential dogma than I am with the Trinity is true/false.

One thing that I don’t love about Tuggy’s arguments are when he appeals to “perfect being theology” or classifying what a god is or what sort of properties it must or can’t have. I find that all highly speculative. You can identify attributes attributed to the God named YHWH, and see if someone else has or doesn’t have those attributes. But it seems to me like the idea of what a “God” is is much broader, historically. There might be a bit of a Beard Problem there… in most cases it’s obvious whether or not a fella has a beard. But when you try to pin point the exact moment face hair goes from being shadow, or scruffy, to being a “beard”…. Everyone could have their own pet criteria for what makes a Beard “fully beard” or “beard in a lesser sense.” But comparing the qualities of the facial hair on Person A to the qualities of the facial hair on Person B… now we’re getting somewhere.

47:56 this is what I currently think. Jesus was what humanity was supposed to be, and is now what [redeemed] humanity will be. In the end we will be exactly like him (we will even be like the Father in terms of “what” sort of thing we are), but the Father will still have authority/preeminence over the Son, and the Son will have authority/preeminence over us as the Firstborn.

Oh boy.

The Trinity is needless contradictory psychobabble arguing in circles. Trinitarians must explain “Why” an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent GOD the Father needs additional co-equal, co-eternal, handmaiden Gods to help HIM do what HE is already perfectly capable of doing all by HIS itty-bitty self? The Holy Spirit is nothing more, and nothing less, than Creator GOD YHVH’s own personal “Holy Spirit” that transforms itself into whatever form, or forms, it needs to in order to fulfill the plans, will and desire of Creator GOD YHVH. And Yeshua is nothing more, or less, that Creator GOD YHVH’s actual Created “Divine” Son who sits at HIS right hand.

Jesus was called Mighty God which is a reference not shared with anyone but God the Father* no question about it. Isa 9:6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

1Jh5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Don't need a degree to understand that...

I kinda suspected that when all the hype started going around. You should do more on Nestorius. Before I thought the Quran was unitarian but now I am more and more convinced that it is teaching nestorian christianity. The God of the Quran is Triune but the the christology is anti incarnationist which is something must people are not used to.