Unitarian & Karen vs Jay Dyer | [heated] debate on authority & Trinity
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2023
- Jay descends into the tik-tok debate underworld and encounters the anti-Trinitarian 'Mikhail' (& wild karen). It gets heated!
Clip taken from Jay's premium Rokfin content
Source title: "Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Filioque & The Trinitarian Critique - TikTok Debates"
Hahha oh man the e Karen was brutal to listen to
😂
was not expecting that annoying woman to barge in even though you warned us lol
"I'm stupid therefore Trinity is false". Solid take.
Also, for the record: I think Jay is too patient and too polite with these people.
I think it's okay. Patience is a virtue, but when you do weekly open mic debates with anonymous accounts, you have to draw the lines somewhat tightly. Some people refuse to inform themselves beforehand and just want to yap and take up time. I guess that's the price you pay when you do that open forum thing.
LOL, I thought he was "too mean" and that's why people don't want to debate him! Yeah I agree with you, sometimes he lets people go too far
Lmao I was totally not expecting that lady to randomly butt in 😂
“…I think you do a lot of appealing to authority as it pertains to the early Church.”
Hello? Does he not understand that Jay is Orthodox? Lol!
A non trinitarian telling us what the church which they are not a part of has decided.
Oh that woman is just soooo empowered and unafraid, in fact, Jay must be the one scared of her, totally 💅💅💅 She went off gurlll, totally slayed
Thank you for preserving these videos, I hope you understand how much this helps the Christian community. God bless you.
Thank you for your kind comment
TikTok really is the bottom of the intellectual barrel. The anti trinitarian was probably the stupidest person I’ve heard Jay interact with
I don't know, these youtube comments give them a rum for their money
Most Holy Trinity, save us all by Thy grace☦
When that lady jumps in it's impossible not to immediately start laughing. Haha.
She’s like one of those streamer mums in the background.
The "ramble on" then claim the other person is being rude thing is a technique to try to get you opponent to tacitly agree to something because it wasn't challenged. "Just be polite and listen while I verbally smack you in the face, because if you don't I'll claim you're rude." Anyone who does that is being "rude" (manipulative) and needs to be challenged on their bullshit.
We all know a woman like this
I never got anti-trinitarians hang up with the word “Trinity”.
It’s used so that we don’t spend 5 minutes mentioning the Trinidadian Scriptural passages!
What a meanie!😂 Booting people when they waste time lacks so much charity. "Angel means angel, durr..." Day means day, did God lie when He said "in the day you eat of it..." Its like they never read the bible before🤣
00:48 yeah we actually do say that all the councils and canons are infallible its in St Nicodemus rudder book 2 on canons and councils
Aren't you the timestamp guy? I'm subscribing to your channel. Thank you for making Jays channel easy to navigate especially when he debates walking migraines.
Happy to help! Lol, Walking migraines 😆
These videos are just so awesome
That dude ran his mouth for a while before Jay said anything... Delusional.
It amazes me when a human thinks they can understand the reasoning of the mind that created the world around you. You barely grasp all what is happening within 10 feet of you but think God’s logic can be easily parsed in a TikTok convo
You have the patience of Job
That woman had first time experience with Professor mean 😂
Haha. Good grief that snat was rancid. That said, and as much as Jay rocks, he could stand to be more patient, even with clodpates (unitarians).
“If ANYONE (even churls and simpletons) asks you go one mile with him, go two.” - Mathew 5 : 41
Not saying I would be any more patient because I probably wouldn’t. The thing is Jay is way too intelligent and resourceful to have to resort to booting people with such capriciousness.
this was like 3-4 hours in
@@JayDyer
I don’t doubt it. I would have been ripping into people. More often than not your patience is exemplary. Maybe avoid 3-4 hour long sessions. That volume (especially given the often mendacious nature of these debaters) would render anyone irascible.
Clodpates? Churls? Snat? My vocabulary is growing.
@@MaximusWolfe I hope not, I love those long sessions with Jay! Even the funny moments when the dumbest arguments of the internet find their way to Jay, together with accusations of Jay being an MK-Ultra KGB sorcerer and the constant repeating of Jay's name. This stuff is so good ^^
Snat 😂😂 I'm stealing that bro
10:43 does this guy know what Angel means? It doesn’t just mean a created, heavenly being, it means messenger, which could apply to a human to a heavenly being or to God.
No it doesn't
Trinitarians love to twist meaning of words
Means there were created also unless u assume all angels in heaven have no beginning
@@AstariahJWCould you then explain how the Angel of the Lord is called God in multiple passages (Genesis 16 7-14, 22:11-18, Exodus 3:2-6)
It’s clear that the word “angel”can have multiple meanings. I hope you find this insightful
@@ChristianWario angels that came to speak for Jehovah speak as if they are Jehovah but that doesnt mean its literally Jehovah himself
Its called agency
For example the angel in the bush was an angel that spoke for Jehovah God
The angel said I am the God of your forefathers the God of abraham, isaac and Jacob
But it wasnt literally God there
The angel even said no man can see me and live
Angels are messengers but they are also Jehovahs creation
They are his spiritual sons in heaven
Trinitarians just say it only means messenger cause they dont wsnt to bieleve jesus was a created spiritual son cause they teach hes the angel of the lord so to them it just means messenger
@AstariahFox oh, so when they worshiped the angel, they committed idolatry. So Abraham is an idolter according to you.
@@WaywardServant the word worship used in kjv is a mistranslation so when people read that they assume he must be God because God can only be worshipped
Human kings were worshipped but the actual word that should be used is obescence as to bow low and pay respect
They did obeisance to jesus and paid homage to him and respect to him as the promise messiah the future king of Gods kingdom but they worshiped yehweh/Jehovah God the God of jesus which jesus told his deciples to worship and make his name known
Jesus even told satan that when he try to get jesus to do an act of worship to him
Mathew chapter 10
Jesus said it is Jehovah God you must worship and it is him alone u must render sacred service
You can honestly tell who's gonna be a soyboy based on their voice and inflection alone
My goodness, doesnt that Karen have cats to feed and plants to water?
I know many people are deceived and stubborn to maintain false ideas. But, friend, brother, you must grow in patience. You are losing your temper in many of your vids. I appreciate your efforts to help us all. However, try not to see people as dumb, but deceived by the evil one. Let that sink in. Praying for you. I’m thankful I became Orthodox and your vids helped. You attract bees with honey, not vinegar.
There’s a funny little part of a Bart Ehrman vs James White debate where Bart makes the same exact mistake concerning the meaning of “angel”. He says Paul did not believe that Christ was God, but asserts that he believed Christ “was an angel” - in the sense of a created being and not messenger - according to Galatians 4:14.
Sorry Bart have you ever heard of the Angel of Great Counsel??
Yea jesus is an angel
Jesus said hes the beginning of Gods creation
Revelation 3:14
@@AstariahJW Lol
@@Vermor110
Why you laugh
@@AstariahJW do you know that for centuries Arius is remembered by the church as someone as evil as Judas?
10:33 is when the unitarian loses
Jay had so much patience with these two.
JD gon' get them slobois 😈 1x1
Lol, she’s uppity.
Jay smoked him. There is no angel of the lord concept and manifestation that has identity with YHVH. That manifestation specifically is the essence of the bosom of the father that interjects with man. This essence is that which took on bodily form in Jesus Christ. By extension this same essence indwells in the believer. It's the reason why Jesus says in john 14 ... unless I go to the father the comforter (the holy spirit) won't come. These Manifestations of the spirit (YHVH) are 3 divine essences of the ONE. Conceptually we call that the triune GOD or THE TRINITY. 3 distinct manifestation of GOD. Jay correctly says technically this is TRANCENTENTAL. You as a human can't fully comprehend this yet you can only comprehend it in these terms. How else could Jesus have explained it other than as he says in john 8 and other places as before Abraham was I AM. I WAS THAT THAT MANIFESTED AND SPOKE WITH HIM IN SUCH FORMS.
That is polytheism with "3 divine essences". There is only one Godly Essence in the Holy Trinity. 3 Persons of one Godly Essence. We do not have the Essence of God in us. That is specifically God.
The Logos of God was the Angel of the Lord who was worshiped, wrestled Jacob, the pillar of fire and smoke etc.; the second Person of the Holy Trinity.
In the Second Temple era this was the 2 Powers of God Unseen and Seen, and the Spirit of God. Triadic, yet One.
@@LadyMariaAmen and it’s not on Jay to get people up to speed on that. We should know the finer points of peoples understandings before going on long rants and wasting everyone’s time. Idk why people don’t get this. That caller and his Karen mom were insufferable.
@@jojoagogo For sure!
We know who wears the pants over there
Genesis 18 mentions the 3 men and one of those 3 was Lord Jesus Christ, Exodus mentions the spirit of God upon those in the tribe to have special skills. The list goes on:) The man is puffed up with ego and when the Angle of the Lord talks, he speaks with authority like they are God themselves.
The Angel of the Lord that was worshiped was the Pre-incarnate Christ. He isn't speaking like God Himself, He is God Himself. Your comment starts off semi-correct but then goes sideways.
@@LadyMaria Thank you for replying to my post, I hope you been enjoying the day so far. The weather over yander isn't that bad It looks like it might rain. How's the weather where you are at my friend ?
@@fengxianzhe On topic, please.
@@LadyMaria wait there's a topic ?
@@fengxianzhe You're trolling, so goodbye.
Do you have the whole thing?
The second hand embarrassment is crazy. Maybe one day, God will soften his cold heart.
Jay is an ignorant bully! He knows nothing and is morally bankrupt.
Booting people when they waste time is sOoO mean!
Why is the trinity beyond comprehension: because god is god. Very solid. Meanwhile Jesus reveiled God to us. These trinies don't even realise with their "mysterious" aka contradiction they go against the revelation of God in Jesus, his Son.
But God Is not the author of confusion
Is God beyond comprehension?
@@knez-bg doesn't mean we cant understand his nature
Jesus said at john 17:3 that taking in knowledge of the true God and the one he sent
Our eternal life is knowledge of him
Jesus never taught that God was a mystery
So many slowbois in the comments
Women ☕️
No, it's 🍷 for these wine moms.
Erm no where does it say that Malak is a God. The Angel of Yehovah is not Yehovah lol.
Jay needs to debate Anthony Rogers on Sola Scriptura. He'd get wiped and it wouldnt even be close.
Sola scriptura is pretty idiotic, and Jay has already asked him to debate and he's declined.
@@Acularis lol riiggght
@@Acularis Sola ecclesia is foolish as the doctrines of men change like the wind in virtually every case it is practiced. 2nd Timothy 3:16, you can trust your Bible, quit trusting in men with silly garbs and hats.
@@Acularis Sola ecclesia is foolish as the doctrines change like the wind, as is the case in virtually every institution that practices it. You can trust God's Word (2nd Timothy 3:16). Quit trusting in men with silly garbs and hats.
@@glennjohn3919What? Sola Scriptura is idiotic. How do you, a Protestant, know what books should be in the Bible? How do you know that James is canonical? On what epistemic grounds do you get to reject, say, the book of Enoch?
Jay was as painful to listen to as Karen here. Got mad and petty and controlling of the other person, ruining the argument from both ends.
Oh the irony!! Your comment was painful! I mean, you can’t even cope with Jay calling out their victim mentality without becoming instantly triggered and turning into a Karen yourself. It’s beyond ironic and is hilarious and is comedy gold!!
Listening to Karen’s trying defend other Karen’s, in order to play the victim and force their opinion down everyone else’s throat, is as entertaining as watching someone trying to thrash the front of their car with the branch of a tree in order to beat it into submission. It's very Basil Fawlty like at times!!
So the trinity is beyond comprehension but is certain since the bible alluded to it yet didnt because the angel of the lord can be a creature and we know this because of the books we chose to be in it! Sorry but this level of argumentation ain't it. 😂
I dont know why we need jesus to be part of a TRINITY to prove the authority that was given to him over heaven and earth. Especially since we know heaven already has different levels and angels with different roles and levels of authority.
How could the Father have taken a physical form when appearing to Moses? Even unitarians can admit that the Father doesn't have a physical form. So when the being who spoke to Moses, who has been established to not be the father, said "I am who I am", which states a self sustaining nature, which only God can have, then who spoke to Moses?
@@EasternRomanAficionado I am who I am doesn't refer to self sustainability in any way. Self sustainability is an aspect of the father. Jesus admitted to his finite nature in revelations 22:13 when he called himself the alpha and the omega. So I can acknowledge Jesus (the word of god) is a part of god in the same way Gabriel (the strength of god) and Michael (who is like god) are. There doesn't need to be a Trinity to confirm his authority over earth but Jesus said the father is greater than I and that he will subject himself to the father in the end. 1 Corinthians 15:24
@@adon9631 I am who I am. That literally means that I am because I am. How could Jesus create himself? He can't. And you are clearly showing your ignorance with the verses you quoted. The phrase "The Father is greater than I" is easily explained with the Orthodox dogma of the monarchy of the Father. The Father is God. The God of everything. Jesus is the eternally begotten son of the Father, who shares a divine essence and nature with the Father. And Revelations 22:13 is a clear admission that the Logos is eternal. Along with the other verses I gave you.
@@EasternRomanAficionado Jesus was created. He is god's first born and was given authority over his kingdom after his Ascension. He proceeds from the father like the holy Spirit and returns his given kingdom back to the father in revelations at the end. As the word from god he speaks for the father. I am means YHWH, god's name is hidden from us. Jesus is closest but different in divine nature from the father because the father has no cause. Jesus does.
@@adon9631 Cool. Got any evidence for that? Because you are just making an assertion. And why didn't you address the argument?
" God is God" was definitely begging the question. Jay's not perfect but im glad he cleared that up a few mins later.
No it’s not. Even as a Unitarian you wouldn’t be able to fully comprehend God. St John Chrysostom even says a comprehended God is no God.
@@fearlesscrusader007 how is it not begging the question
@@PercivalWilliams1990 You obviously cannot fully explain God no matter what religion you subscribe to, you can describe things about him but you could never fully exhaust everything about God if you believe God is infinite and completely transcends everything. It’s like trying to explain calculus to a dog.
The question being asked in a debate between a trinitarian and a Unitarian is not the inexhaustibility of God, that’s why. Contextually in this debate it’s not begging the question, but it might be if he were debating an atheist@@PercivalWilliams1990
I see what you're saying but I knew what He meant. Nobody knows everything about God. He is infinite and eternal. Uncreated. We are created and finite.
Jesus is God
God is the Trinity
Jesus is the Trinity
Jesus is God
God is the Trinity
Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Jesus is God the Son
friend you must understand the Trinity isn't One or Many, It's One and Many. A reconciliation of dialectics, not a collapse into either or but an affirmation of both and.
Only in a manner of speaking. The three persons are distinct and yet share a common nature so there is a divine indwelling and union of will. So there is a sense in which it’s correct to say Jesus is the Trinity. But it is more precise to say that Jesus is the second person of that Trinity. Jesus, the Father and the Spirit share divine nature communicated by the Father. However they’re not identical, there’s still a distinction between the three persons and their roles within the Holy Trinity.
The Messenger of the Lord in Malachi 3:1 refers to John the Baptist, same Hebrew word used of the Angel of the Lord. I guess John is an angel too
cool however this One particular Angel of the Lord is sitting at the right hand of power and is called Theos in john 1
@Sosarchives I actually agree with you. I think the unitarian argument the caller had that the angel of the Lord is an angel works against them because John was called a malak of the Lord and he's definitely not an angelic being.
@@andys3035Angel means messenger, there are many angels. You have to pay attention to which angels have which attributes. There’s one Angel in the OT who literally has the name and attributes of God. That Angel is the messiah. He’s God.
@@CHURCHISAWESUM yup. Agree 👍
Huh? He says Angel can be created or uncreated. That's pure trash 🗑
Angel means messenger but the Jewish writers conveyed a human vs spirit distinction. Both are created.
There is no such thing as an uncreated angel. It's like believing in unicorns (which actually means a rhinoceros)
Can Jay give an example of a “messenger” that is ontologically identical to the one that sent them without resorting to circular reasoning and begging the question fallacy? Nope. Therefore he is guilty of engaging in special pleading. In other words, he has to claim that this type of messager/angel is the exception to the rule or otherwise his theology falls apart. Trinnies can’t accept words for what they mean. They do indeed have to invent their own unique language in order to explain their doctrine. They make a mockery of the most basic words and concepts, e.g. “father and son”, “firstborn”, “God”, “person”, “being”, etc… The Trinity is a cleverly crafted fiction for sure. Designed to be non falsifiable but there in lies it’s weakness.
you are a well crafted idiot
Jay Dyer middle name is special pleading, his EO teachings are so strange that a Unitarian can refute him
What is strange about the Eastern Orthodox worldview?
Apostolic Seccession, Church Authority, Iconography, Cannon, Legalism, Works Salvation, Amillennialism, Veneration of Mary, the Lord's supper, Monarchy of Father Trinity Articulation and the Incarnation Hypostatic Union.
@@hudsontd7778 hyperstatic union isn't a thing in the EO
@@VanMcRiceyWhat are you talking about? Of course it is.
@@LadyMaria nope, hyperstatic union is NOT a thing in the EO.
This guy interupts the speaker but turns into Karren when people are responding to his point, and he turns to adhom. I see no spirit of God in this impatient novice.
Uh did we watch the same video?
Seems like the Karen is Jay, rude, obnoxious, no patience, annoying.
He has little patience for morons.
You know you can edit your original comment instead of making new ones to add thoughts.
It's hard to have patience with those who are irrational.
What does the Angel of the lord have to do with the trinity? The Angel of the lord could act on his own under the authority of God… OK??? And if that’s your argument how is the messenger of God the Holy Spirit… the Holy Spirit doesn’t come till Jesus dies, Jesus said that
The spirit of God was not the Holy Spirit…
the angel of the lord in jewish circles is unlike the angels and in a book called Enoch 3, he becomes a deity. Yahweh Hakatan. This was later condemned in the 2nd century by Jews in response to Christianity, it wasn’t considered a heresy before.
@@Sosarchives 2 King 19:35 “And that night the angel of the LORD went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians” so if this Angel is Jesus he’s murderous… Acts 12:23 talks about the Angel of the lord striking someone down for not Praising God, not well he didn’t praise me
and the Angel of the lord is the one who spoke to Joseph and said Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit, with Jesus…
The Angel didn’t say, I impregnated her, and she’s giving birth to me…
So your telling me that’s Jesus… a completely controlled entity that is offing thousands of people and has separated themselves from Jesus in the Bible….
@@Sosarchives also you’ll need to admit, Jesus said I will send ANOTHER advocate… the Holy Spirit… so are there 2 holy spirits? One that always existed and the one Jesus sends? How do you rectify these verses? Jesus is clearly separating himself from the spirit
@@Thoughtpologetics
There is no contradiction with 2 Kings if i did say that it was him, As revelation portrays Him as a warrior.
and the angel that spoke to joseph was Gabriel.
Either way, The christology is based of the divine messiah or son of man. And the second power in heaven theology.
@@Thoughtpologetics And in that john verse, Jesus implies that He is a paraclete and that another one will be sent by him. Just another argument for the filioque
WTF are they even talking about… outside of 5 or 6 ambiguous verses the Bible does not say Jesus is God… period…
Debate that…
The trinity is literally built on a handful of verses… it’s as valid as those people who claim the Bible claims we are Gods using a handful of verses…
Have you read the pauline epistles, gospel of John, Hebrews or revelation?
matthew 28:19?
@@Sosarchives yes… and it’s not in there… even the famous “and the word was God” from John 1, is more accurately translated to “and the word was divine” the founding fathers of the religion like Tertulian and Oregin say it’s Divine and not God… Schofield, Goodspeed, Moffit we’re trinitarians and said it’s word was divine… and everyone without a religion bias says the correct translation is divine, but the “word was God” translation is pushed to justify the trinity… even commentaries like Jamison-Fausett-Browne or Cambridge, point out that John 1:1 at most means divine nature…
Any verse you claim is probably, a poor interpretation or complete misunderstanding…
Headed to Vienna, if you respond might take a week for me to get back to you
Did you know that Angel in revolutions says they are the alpha and omega and in Tevilations 2:22 or 23 Jesus is like I’ll off the children… and so on and so on
@@Sosarchives great… how does that prove they are all the same, and not only that did you know the apostles went on to baptize in the name of Jesus only, act 10:48, acts 8:15-17, 2:38, 19:5 and baptize not by water but by spirit… there is only one account of a water baptism (not done in the name of all 3) in acts, and it was done to prove a point and then there was an ascension of Philip I believe… so we’re the apostles disobeying Jesus? Or is it deeper than that? Or was there really no emphasis on the “trinity”?
@@Thoughtpologetics How does it not? It states three persons whos names are to be be baptized in. Moreover all you’d be arguing for is contradictions in the bible, as Acts and matthew can be reconciled by simply saying that one doesn’t deny the other. there is no contract with either passage.
This is hysterical! Host is basically admitting he is a presup that cherry picks passages to fit his personal belief. Cudos to the caller that nailed him.
That’s not what presuppers are doing and anyone who thinks that’s all presup is, fundamentally incapable of understanding what a meta argument is. That’s your own mental limitation
@CHURCHISAWESUM hehe, a "meta argument"? Did you come up with that yourself or are you a closet Tate bro that swallow anything stated forcefully enough?
Well, my statement was clearly a quantum derived physically undeniable fact so neener neener.
@@CHURCHISAWESUM Also, if you didn't get the embedded insult of a presuppositionisialist being called a cherry picker I've got nothing more entertaining to divulge, sorry.
It’s spelled “kudos” you midwit.
are you the guest?