I'm not a unitarian but having heard both sides of the argument it does seem they have the more sensible position. Jesus prays to God, Jesus says "I am not good, only God is good", Jesus says "God is more powerful than I", Jesus says "Your will be done, not mine", Satan tempts Jesus not God, Jesus needs baptism, Jesus cries out "Dad why have you forsaken me?", Jesus says "No one knows the end times, not the son or the angels but God alone", Jesus is described as sitting at the right hand of God's throne not on it as God, in the OT God says over 150 times "I am the Lord, your God" and is never shy to let people know who He is, yet Jesus never straight out says he is God, only that God sent him and grants his powers. All of this just works if Jesus is the Messiah, the chosen one, the Son of God, but not God himself.
“I and the Father are one.” ...“For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God”...and the Jews plainly accused Jesus of claiming to be God...“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”...“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us...Thomas the doubting disciple finally understood Jesus’ deity, declaring Him to be “my Lord and my God”...If Jesus were not Lord and God, He would have corrected Thomas, but He did not; Thomas spoke the truth. Some of us with understanding believe that: God is omnipresent, that is, present everywhere... Most men I know including myself will be or are a son, father, and a spirit. No need for one acting in his role to keep saying that he is all three but really one? Stepping into human form to correct mankind's flaw... The trinity isn't in the bible but is spoken as if it is... For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
@@brokentubing "I and the Father are one.” - Being one with the Father means to have Him dwell within you, not to be Him. John 17:21 "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." or 1 Corinthians 6:17 "But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him." “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” - And in the following verse Jesus corrects them saying "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" Clarifying he wasn't claiming to be God but God's son. “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" - Scholars say there is an ancient idea that being granted God's name to bear is a source of power and authority but does not mean you are God. This can be seen in Exodus 23:20 "“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him." "Thomas the doubting disciple finally understood Jesus’ deity, declaring Him to be “my Lord and my God”...If Jesus were not Lord and God, He would have corrected Thomas, but He did not; Thomas spoke the truth." - And yet the disciples after Jesus had gone addressed the crowd Acts 2:22 "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.". So even here the disciples are not labelling Jesus as God, only saying he was a channel for God's power.
@@Wertbag99 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. He is the true God and eternal life.
@@Wertbag99 Isaiah 45:5-6, “I am the Lord, and there is no other, apart from me there is no other. I will strengthen you though you have not acknowledged me. So that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting, men may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord and there is no other.” The God of the Bible is the only true God. He is set apart from all other gods. He is a jealous God, The apart from me is what isn't understood. The gods though are clear Revelations 16 vs 13.
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
@@StariDido Later on in John 1:14 it states the word became flesh. This clearly indicates it was Jesus or Yashua. "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." Also John 10:30 Jesus says I and the father are one
Have you ever done a video about the Acts of Paul and Thecla? I know that there are plenty of non-canonized works to talk about when it comes to Christianity. But I’ve recently been learning more about the Acts of Paul and Thecla and was astonished at the history behind it.
I read a little of that book, and others of the hidden gospels I've begun to wonder which of the biblical characters were real people, some seem to be metaphorical figures. It's the story and symbolism which is important nevertheless.
Nothing about thebapostles was simply symbolism. If those books you are touting about stray from the word and its teachings then there is good reason they are not cannon Do you so easily follow mans doctrines@davidm1149
itnis a gnostic writing saying to abstain from marriage and acts of the flesh meant for marriage 1 timothy 4:1-5 4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer
Every explanation of the trinity I got as a kid wound up sounding like a bad scooby doo episode. An endless loop of who's under the mask, alternating between Jesus and God, but look out it's the Holy G-g-g-ghost! Those teachers were not good at their job 😂
The triune (trinitarian) Nature of God (Love) is expressed through the Greek language through the three major loves in their language: Agapē (universal, unconditional love) Philos (brotherly/friendly love) Eros (erotic/sexual/romantic love) Agapē relates to spirit Philos relates to familiar/family bonds Eros relates to flesh
It’s not easy to explain why would you want to follow a God you can completely understand. That would make him below us. He lives in another dimension. It’s not easy to explain something in another dimension. Explain colors to a blind person. You can’t… doesn’t mean colors don’t exist or you’re a bad teacher
I wanted to ask if any of you who don't believe in the Trinity have had the experience of being called "not Christian" by those who disagree? I have been called that several times because I don't believe in the Trinity. It makes it difficult to connect with other Christians bc when that point comes up they become cold and write me off as not Christian and say I'm following false doctrines and stuff.
@@tulkdogThanks for the response! I'm sorry you've dealt with that too but I appreciate that I'm not alone... It feels a little crazy to me that people act this way bc the framework of what makes Christianity what it is today was made by men in a lot of ways. Like these people can decide how to interpret the Bible and its legit, but these other people can't do the same? It's all kind of hypocritical. :/
@@peachysparkles Yes I've seen this too. Many Christians are quick to label others as not true Christians, whether that be unitarians (including JWs, Mormons or just unitarian churches), those who don't describe themselves as born again, those who haven't been baptized or belong to the wrong denomination (Catholic vs Protestant, Orthodox vs Progressive etc) or any other particular facet of the religion they deem to be a requirement. Often it just seems to be a way to stop engagement or conversations with others who's views differ from their own. If you label them as heretical from the start, then anything they say is automatically wrong and you don't have to even consider their points. It's a self defense verse having their beliefs challenged.
@Ohhh85947 Apparently there are ~8.5 million JW's, so millions have been convinced that it is true, while most other denominations say they are lead astray and preach the incorrect message. Everyone thinks they have the right answer and everyone else is wrong.
Not kind of, but it is hypocritical. For example, Paul tells the Thessalonians to "mind their business," but he couldn't seem to do the same himself. Paul had a vision of Jesus, but luckily he didn't have to bow down to Canon unlike all those who have proclaimed to see Jesus since. If the message is slightly off then one could be labeled a heretic and their words blasphemous. What a tangled web they've weaved!
The triune (trinitarian) Nature of God (Love) is expressed through the Greek language through the three major loves in their language: Agapē (universal, unconditional love) Philos (brotherly/friendly love) Eros (erotic/sexual/romantic love) Agapē relates to spirit Philos relates to familiar/family bonds Eros relates to flesh
@@Steinborn24 Jesus became God when he was begotten of God before anything ever was. He inherited his Father’s nature. His personality had a beginning to be a True Son of God. In order for God to send his only begotten Son, he first had to have a Son to send. The deity of Christ is from his relationship to his Father. Jesus is called Michael= one who is 👉 like👈 God. Jesus is in the image of his Father but his Father is the supreme ruler of the universe. The highest God. The one true God. Greater = Elder. The Trinity doctrine was formulated overtime. It’s a man-made doctrine and Martin Luther made that clear. You can read how the trinity doctrine was developed over time by Rome in Gibbons work “ The Fall of Rome”. The Catholic’s baby along with their Sunday sabbath . Both doctrines, remove the worship of the true God. God said to “ Remember “ the seventh day Sabbath to keep it holy....and for good reason. Sunday is worship of the sun god. God rested on the 7 th day as a memorial of creation. And it’s to remind of of who we worship. Revelation you find a small group who love God , keeping his commandments and have the Faith of Jesus. Life eternal is to know the only true God and his only begotten Son. John 17:3. The doctrine of Christ is both, Father and Son. The Trinity doctrine is three. 😉
As always I learned something. Always enjoy your content and expert analysis. I 'argue' with others from time to time about historical context and taking what is heard in the church pew for granted because sometimes what is being 'pushed' is simply not in the text and people tend to read scripture as if it was written in modern times and to 'us' when in fact that is far from reality. Plus we don't have original source documents to compare all of the translations and oldest documents. I also appreciate that you don't come off as speaking from the perverbial ivory tower nor ever appear sanctimonious. Looking forward to more info that this mere mortal can absorb.
This can be for Dan or anyone else, but what are the general thoughts on the 5th Edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible? I come from a very dogmatic family, and as a student going into history I’ve always wanted something more oriented to how I read and interpret sources from the ancient world
If you come from a very dogmatic family, you may find the NOAB helpful in providing a more historical-critical approach to reading and interpreting the biblical texts. The NOAB does not impose a particular theological perspective, but rather presents a range of scholarly views and interpretations. The NOAB may also expose you to some books and perspectives that are not part of your family’s tradition, such as the Apocrypha or the Jewish interpretations of some texts. You may find these enriching or challenging, depending on your own beliefs and interests. As a student going into history, you may appreciate the NOAB’s attention to the historical context and development of the biblical texts. The NOAB provides information on the original languages, sources, genres, dates, authors, audiences, and purposes of the biblical books. The NOAB also situates the biblical texts within their broader historical and cultural environment, such as the ancient Near Eastern civilizations, the Greco-Roman world, and the early Jewish and Christian communities. The NOAB also addresses some of the historical issues and problems that arise from studying the biblical texts, such as textual variants, contradictions, discrepancies, anachronisms, biases, and influences. Of course, no study Bible is perfect or complete. The NOAB is based on scholarly research that is constantly evolving and changing. The NOAB may not cover every question or topic that you may have or encounter. The NOAB may also reflect some biases or limitations of its own editors and contributors. Therefore, it is always advisable to consult other sources and perspectives when studying the Bible.
Re this developed framework. Tertullian was the first Christian theologian to propose the concept of the trinity, right? But weren’t his original Trinity teachings morphed from “3 Gods 1 Purpose” to “3 Purposes 1 God”? Is there an available linear timeline that presents the data?
Tertullian developed traducianism because he wanted to defend the unity of human nature and the transmission of original sin from Adam to all his descendants. He also wanted to oppose the Gnostic view that the soul was a divine spark imprisoned in a material body. He argued that the soul and the body were both created by God and both corrupted by sin, and that they were both propagated by natural generation from the first parents. He used biblical passages such as Genesis 2:7, 5:3, and Hebrews 7:10 to support his view. He also appealed to reason and experience, claiming that traducianism explained the resemblance of children to their parents in physical and mental traits. He did not deny that God was involved in the formation of each soul, but he understood this as a general providence rather than a special creation.
@@rosaeruber225 In regards to discussions one could find in many sources, eg, The International Standard Bible or the New Catholic Ecyc. 2nd, what I find missing is the answer to this question: How does the theory of traducianism glorify God's benevolence, or, if we remove God from the ability to create the spirit of every living thing (Gen 1-2), then how do we see God as omnipotent, and the creator of all things? Additionally, are we to see God in a more benevolent manner if we know that he did not create our spirit?
I'd heard there was only one verse in the bible concerning the so-called "trinity". I've looked at other aspects of spirituality, and found that the tripartite aspect of the Creator is very complicated. Because one man determined to add this to the text (for whatever reasons, along with a host of other edits, mistranslations, additions,etc) we have an entire belief that people swear by. There are many other things in the bible that do not "rhyme" with spiritual reality, some are rather huge. It's a book containing spiritual truths and metaphors nonetheless, even with all this.
What are the differences between the 2nd and 5th century concepts of the trinity? I read somewhere that Paul believed in father and son as a bigger and a lesser God, very much a Greek idea.
I'm curious to hear your personal perspective on the trinity. As an atheist I don't see how you can view the trinity as separate individuals without entailing a logical contradiction.
Are you for real? So a car is four cars because it's got four wheels? You are mistaking "God" for a created being. Created beings as far as we are concerned do only have one Ego. God is not a created being.
@@JTomas96 lol no. The point is that you can't point to a wheel and call it a car. The various different car parts have to come together to make the car. Similarly, you can't point to one of the members of the godhead and call them god. They need to come together to fully be tri-omni.
@@JaromEubanks "MY GOD and My Lord(Talking to Jesus)" Jn20:28 I don't see any reason why you hold that view. ---------------- You said: "You can't point a wheel and call it a car" You took my parable and made it physical which is preposterous: GOD IS ONE IN E-S-S-E-N-C-E. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS IS O-N-E. ONE in essence. An example: THE OCEAN, THE CLOUDS, BOTH ARE "CREATION", GET IT?? So you can call a cloud "creation". The same with the CREATOR, He is not "creation", whatever is not created is CALLED GOD, that's all. A wheel is technically the car, so it can be called Car depending on the context. If the wheel is broken the Car is broken. It's not the whole car, and sometimes can be called Car. That's exactly what you find in the bible.
@@JaromEubanks You can see from the very first chapter of the Old Testament how your argument of "you can't call ceartain one and call Him God" is just wrong: "So God created ADAM in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created THEM."Gen 1:27 Don't be an atheist over an assumption. Another example: "He made him in the likeness of God. 2He created them male and female, and blessed them and called THEM ADAM in the day they were created" Gen 5:2 Both are called Adam. Just like Jacob is a multitude. Israel is called after Israel(A man). Another example: "...Behold AM ECHAD(Humanity is ONE)..."Gen 11:6 According to your logic, There was ONE PERSON in the tower of Babbel so God confounded his limbs and separated them and humanity comes from a dismembered guy. --------------------------------- You are supposed to "diligently seek Him". If not, you will fall into a ditch. Another example: "There is ONE(Echad=Unity) GOD, the Father, and one LORD, the son, through whom all things exist". If your reasoning is correct, then you can't call the father LORD(Adon). The Father is also Adon because the Son is. It's like the word creation, a cloud IS creation, BUT not THE WHOLE creation, that would be preposterous, got it now? Stop wasting the bible, this is not a game. Any more doubts?
@@JaromEubanks Basically you are making a grammatical error. "...Who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, So that Israel(Redeemed Jacob) is gathered to Him"Is 49:5 So according to your logic, Isaiah was prophecying God will save AND GATHER(?) only AN ALREADY DECEASED man from all creation. But this is talking about the gathering of ISRAEL(Multitude). Israel was the name God gave Jacob is Gen 32. It represents the straight Man. You can also see how the 12 tribes are named after Jacob's 12 descendants.
Hi Dan, Have you ever heard of the NOG translation of the Old Testament? Would you consider doing a video on the differences between "Ruach Elohim" and "Ruach Yahweh"? These two polar opposite Spirits can only be seen using the NOG translation, unfortunately. I can't find any scholars who know anything at all about Ruach Elohim and Ruach Yahweh. Thanks!
Ruach Elohim is our Heavenly Father, the father of our spirits and the Father of Jesus Christ in spirit and in the flesh. Ruach Yahweh is Jesus Christ, the son of God and our Savior.
@@nhrtv3813 Ruach Elohim and Ruach Yahweh are polar opposite Spirits, brother. I think its 1 kings 22 that is says the Ruach Yahweh decieves people and puts lies in their mouths.
It's a fascinating topic just how much of Nicene Christianity (to say nothing of folk beliefs like guardian angels) persisted even in evangelical circles that are de facto restorationist in many cases.
@@davidjanbaz7728the over a billion Catholics who’ve never read a Bible accept this trinity nonsense. You’re not some genius for believing in the trinity 😂
They had enough trouble developing the concept of homoousion they just went 'ditto' for the Holy Spirit/Ghost that was left hanging around. Then you have people killing each other over the single vs. dual procession of the Trinity.
IKR? If only our Lord had possessed the foresight to turn to one of His disciples and say something like, "you are the Rock on which I will build my Church," that way we'd have a perpetual Vicar of Christ to whom all could look for guidance.
The triune (trinitarian) Nature of God (Love) is expressed through the Greek language through the three major loves in their language: Agapē (universal, unconditional love) Philos (brotherly/friendly love) Eros (erotic/sexual/romantic love) Agapē relates to spirit Philos relates to familiar/family bonds Eros relates to flesh
@@joshuacromley7439 what we are talking about is that God is not three persons… God is one which is the Father, Jesus is the Son of God, and they share one Spirit which is Holy.
@kennethogorman5436 Except those copies are 95 to 98% accurately translated. So no matter if we don't have the original manuscripts the copies we have for nearly 1800 years. Shows we're nearly 100% close to get perfectly accurate translation.
@@legendary5733 You are high as a kite! There are no original copies of the New Testament left everything’s in Greek. Lol Once again, you Christians are terrified that there might actually be something wrong in the Bible even one verse. There’s a lot of verses that are messed up in the Bible and incorrect. I don’t know where you came up with 90 to 95% but you are absolutely mistaken. Good god !
Wild guess: it tries, but eventually doesn't, unless someone just reduces their cognitive dissonance by 'looking away', and ignoring the contradictions.
@@jgmrichter The Trinity doesn't harmonise other christologies. Rather it overrides them, recontextualising the legacy texts' meanings through its own interpretive lens. Historically, this was a very slow process that took centuries, as presented in this video, and was preceded by other efforts in understanding the nature of Jesus even before any gospel was written. Additionally, Trinitarianism itself was neither monolithic nor the sole competitor of the views presented in the now canonical gospels. What Trinitarians actually achieved however, was (mostly) settling on a standard interpretation that would eventually gain predominance over differing christologies. Even so, Miaphysite views endured to this day (shared by Oriental Orthodox churches), highlighting residual dissent within the Trinity doctrine. Similarly, Monarchian views denying Trinity altogether endured also, resurfacing even to this day, hence the Nontrinitarian denominations. Not to mention the various schisms that further divided Trinitarians into a vast array of schools of thought, though not directly on matters of the Trinity itself, rather on various harmonisation attempts about other aspects of the Canon.
@@au8363 Priming: when you read the Bible, you're already aware of the popularised aspects of Christianity, including a superficial version of the Trinity doctrine. You may in fact be led to believe, depending on who you encounter prior to reading Scripture, that the Trinity is somehow an intrinsic part of Christian beliefs. Since Nontrinitarian views have typically either be extinguished, or resurfaced only as minority views, the sheer ideological weight of the trinitarian orthodoxy may also be enough to obscure the ad-hoc nature of the Trinity doctrine. Last but not least, some of the textual occurrences are likely unfortunate interpolations made by well-meaning (yet mistaken) monks. The ordering of the books is also a definitely human arbitrary choice, which has evidently been primed by said humans' ideological views on matters of doctrine. Sidenote: the Protestant Bible has 66 books. But did you know the Catholic Bible had 73 books? Heck, the Orthodox Bible has 81 books! (some churches even use 86!!) In other words, 15 (or 20) entire books are literally missing when we compare orthodox and protestant Scriptures! In contrast, Syrian Bibles have only 61 books... Not to mention some verses have been swapped around, other verses added (the end of Mark comes to mind), and translations have been showed to deviate significantly from the original language in some other passages. Who knows how much more deviations occurred during the oral tradition phases of those texts before they were written? We can be sure however that they have been far more substantial deviations than in the written Scriptures. When you combine all these processes together, you quickly realise how subjective and subservient to the views of humans Scripture has been, irrelative of its claimed origins. This means that in addition to the priming effect I mentioned, the theological evolution of Judaism then Christianity has left its distinctive mark in all of Scripture, even before interpretations of said Scripture can be superimposed on those texts. In conclusion, there's nothing straightforward or intuitive about those texts, let alone how they are interpreted, and subjectivity irredeemably permeates how you eventually read and understand them, unless you go out of your way not to do that, using strict and controlled methodology to avoid noise, bias, and all kinds of errors and mistakes.
To when do you date the Didache? Also, you're right here the Trinitarian idea was developed 2nd to 5th c., but you leave out the political and go straight for the social interpretation (making it 'philosophically' defensible). I find this way of speaking about philosophy very anachronistic, but that's my gripe with every video you publish.
The books included in the Bible and even certain aspects of belief - such as the transmutation of bread & wine in the body & blood of Christ, the development of the Nicene Creed, etc - were products of a political battle for power between Rome, Constantinople & Alexandria. As all political battles & power struggles do, they warp the truth and become very selective about what they include & exclude in terms of the premises by which society should be governed & live & they manipulate the truth via omission, (mis)translation & (mis)interpretation. This process took place in the adoption of Christianity as the accepted faith of the Roman World and was not a product of purely of Judaic or Christian faith as practised at that time or in the proceeding 340-380-odd years since the time of Christ. No person was living who could be said to have known Christ himself, or to be a direct descendent of the apostles, either when the Bible was first collated & specific worship & understandings decided upon - such as the Trinity. The Bible, esp the New Testament, is a document of Roman governance by relatively new converts to Christianity and upheld as Truth since. That is, under more contemporary analysis & realism, a lie. Is the Bible a valuable reference ? undoubtedly. It should be read in context of the very many social, cultural, political & religious contexts & transitions that have taken place over the millennia along with independent corroborative sources & knowledge of the various ancient languages over the ages, and furthermore with a critical eye on the motives & competencies of translators throughout history. You will find it is a more fallible record than we would have hoped, but valuable nevertheless.
You can always find somebody on UA-cam to say whatever you want to hear. But the Trinity is not a contradiction nor is it an invention of man. It is a necessary conclusion from the Bible. This is why you find so many people all over the internet attacking it: anything that is true and is of God will be attacked these days.
@@bobbyraejohnson That's not an argument. The Bible is absolutely unlike any false religion. Jesus claimed to be God and proved it by rising from the dead, and we have the eyewitness testimony to prove it.
Dan is completely correct as regards the Trinitarians theory. I would argue that Paul, Mark and ‘John’ are able to all be understandable in a ‘bearer of the Divine Name’ concept, as an envoy/representative. Some of the NT writers use a few terms from the language of rivals merely to rap on the doors of pagan and Jewish philosophical viewpoints to get their attention without entering in and adopting their views. These include logos, pleuroma, gnosis and aon.
Any particular reason you chose 5th century as the closure of Trinitarian development? Trisagion controversy, tritheist controversy, filioque, etc. all occur after this point
Dan Rocks😅 Sloppy Theologians reject, "ALL 27NT books", and "ALL 9NT Authors", clams that Jesus Christ "has A G-D", furthermore John 17:3 Jesus himself explained the "Only True God ,was his father". It became explicitly obvious reading 1,2,3, Johns & Revelation that the John taught, Jesus has a God more then anyone else... 20+ Times says Jesus sitting at God's right hand. 20+ NT says GOD Raised Him.V 80+ times Jesus is SON OF MAN in NT 40+ times Son-of-God. (NEVER God -the-son) Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3. Was Apostle Peter's Scribe, trained by James/Paul/Peter & ran 1st church Rome from 60-90AD 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 perfectly as follows: John 17:3 "Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent." Irenaeus~ Against Heresies 3.9.1 (180-200AD) The Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the 👉only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all… Irenaeus~ Against Heresies 3.6.4 (180-200AD) Wherefore I do also call upon thee, Lord God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who art the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of Thy mercy, hast had a favour towards us, that we should know Thee, who hast made heaven and earth, who rulest over all, who art the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know Thee, that Thou art God alone, to be strengthened in Thee, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine. Justin martyr First Apology 61 [T]here 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. [10] Martyrdom of Ignatius 2 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. 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.
HI - I've recently been baptised becasue I believe in God and believe in Jesus. However, I have always struggled with the fact that Jesus is God. I believe that he is sinless and his heart is completely open to God so therefore becomes one with God. This is what I feel in my heart. It doesn't matter if I am wrong or right. However, of all the Christians that I speak with none of them feel the same or will only go so far with this before giving the standard Jesus is God and therefore we can't comprehend him. Today I've discovered nontrinitarianism and if I have read this right then it is the same belief; Jesus was a man who through his sinless heart was able to connect completely with God and by consequence does in fact become God. I am understanding this correctly? To me it makes sense because isn't the New Testament saying yes we can do this, Jesus is showing us how?
I highly recommend for Christians to prove The Trinity for themselves, using only prayer and the Scriptures. That's what I did after many decades of assuming the seminary trained pastors must have it right. I found that neither Trinitarianism, nor Unitarianism, have the whole truth. Since you asked, I thought to share some things from my studies. First, Jesus and all the Apostles, said repeatedly God is ONLY the Father. There is not one verse that states God is the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (as my Roman Catholic upbringing taught me to say). Here are a few verses that God is only the Father: John 6:27, 17:3; 1Cor 8:6; Gal 1:1; Eph 5:20; Php 2:11; Col 1:3; 1Thess 1:1; 1Tim 1:2; 2Tim 1:2; James 1:27; 1Pet 1:2; 2Pet 1:17; Jude 1:1). - What verse states eternal life is by three persons? None. Eternal life is only in two persons in the New Testament. - What verse states it is antichrist to deny a Trinity of “three persons who are the one God”? None. To deny the Father and Son only is antichrist - 1John 2:22. - When did Jesus ever say He and His Father, plus one more person, are one? He never did. - Jesus said no one knows the Father but the Son, and no one knows the Son but the Father (Matt 11:27)? Where's the third person? - When was Apostle John admonished for claiming the true God and eternal life was ONLY two persons - the Father and the Son - and not plus a third person? How could he have made such an error? 1 John 5:20 NASB95 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and *_we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life._* IMHO, there are two persons in the Godhead from the beginning, both originally in the form of one invisible Spirit, and one became a visible man (Php 2:6-8). In the beginning, the Word WAS with God, and He WAS God (John 1:1-2), a third person is not mentioned in the beginning. Scripture goes on to state God made His image in mankind two persons, male and female (Gen 1:26). He put them in a holy union where they became *_one flesh_* who bear children of flesh, after their kind. This is controversial, but I believe, in the same way, God is two Persons who are in a holy union of *_one Spirit,_* and they birth children of the Spirit, after their kind. John 3:5 NRSV Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. An often cited Trinitarian proof text really isn't. “In the name of”, pertaining to deity in Scripture, specifically means “in the authority of”: Matthew 28:19 NRSV Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Jesus embodies all three authorities. (This is likely why every baptism in the N.T. was IN THE NAME OF JESUS ONLY). The Father transferred all His authority to the Son, so the Father’s authority is in Christ. As the Son, He was given “life in Himself” (authority to give eternal life). And, Jesus said He is the Spirit of Truth, and the Comforter - the Holy Spirit that lives inside the Believer (John 14:18,21,23). Apostle Paul said the same: (2Cor 3:17,13:5). No third person mentioned. 1 Corinthians 12:7,11 KJV But *_the manifestation of the Spirit_* is given to every man … John 14:21 KJV … *_I will_* … *_manifest myself to him._* 2 Corinthians 13:5 KJV … Know ye not your own selves, how that *_Jesus Christ is in you,_* except ye be reprobates? Colossians 1:27 GNT *_God's plan is to make known his secret to his people,_* this rich and glorious secret which he has for all peoples. And *_the secret is that Christ is in you,_* which means that you will share in the glory of God. I believe that when the invisible Word, who WAS GOD, became flesh, that the Father alone was left the original, unchanged God. 1 Timothy 1:17 NRSV To the King of the ages, *_immortal, invisible, the only God,_* be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. I believe that the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, reigns as God in eternity, because His pre-existent Self, the Word, WAS eternal God. John 1:10 KJV He was in the world, *_and the world was made by him,_* and the world knew him not. 1 Corinthians 15:28 KJV … that God may be all in all. Colossians 3:11 KJV … Christ is all, and in all. Revelation 19:13 KJV And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: *_and his name is called The Word of God._* I have found no third person. God, the Father, has no duplicate spirit, His Spirit alone is God, and His Risen Son is back where He came from, sharing His Spirit with Him again, in eternity (Acts 2:32-33). John 17:5 KJV And now, O Father, *_glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was._* 1 Corinthians 6:17 KJV But *_he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit._* 2 Corinthians 3:17 KJV *_Now the Lord is that Spirit:_* …
I commend you for searching for the truth. Personally, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I do not believe that the Bible teaches a Trinity (Father is God, Son is God, Holy Spirit is God yet they are not three Gods but one God with all three persons co-eternal and co-equal). I believe that the first Christians did not believe in the Trinity either. Rather, the doctrine as described in the Nicene creed developed gradually over several centuries until it was fully formulated by about the end of the fourth century. I believe that only the Father is God (John 17:3) and that Jesus is God's Son. Jesus was created by God (Col. 1:15, 16; Revelation 3:14).
@@SSNBN777 Hi. Thanks for your lengthy reply it was very helpful. I resonate with some of what you said. I've come to the conclusion that I have to discover my own relationship with God and Jesus. I believe that is what Jesus wants us to do. God bless you friend
Well the gospel of John seems to be starting to tackle the problem (in the first half of the second century). It's interesting that it says "the word was God" rather than "the word is God", though.
It is important to point out from the start that the idea that the Word is a person is entirely the assumption of the interpreter. In Greek pronouns (e.g. he, she, it) are used rarely, they are usually implied by the verb, and the gender of the follows the gender of the subject of the clause. In Greek ‘Word’ (logos) is a masculine noun and therefore the verbs in that follow logos are also masculine. However, this tells us nothing about whether the Word is a ‘he’ or ‘it’, because whichever is the case the verbs would be masculine. So we cannot start considering John 1 by looking at pronouns. Instead we need to look at what the Word would have meant to first century readers of John’s gospel. In between the testaments there was an important concept in Jewish literature: Wisdom. This was based upon the book of Proverbs, which personifies wisdom as a woman. This concept was developed in two (non-canonical) books: Wisdom of Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) and Wisdom of Solomon. These two books are not scripture, but they are important because they tell us about the concepts that would have been familiar to the early Christians. In these books Wisdom is described as being spoken by God (Sirach 24:3) and is called ‘Word’ (logos; Wisdom 9:1-2). John’s account of the Word parallels these earlier discourses about Wisdom. For instance, Wisdom is said to have been active at Creation (Proverbs 8:22, 30; 3:19-20; Sirach 42:21; Wisdom 9:1-2, 9). However, Wisdom is consistently personified as a female, i.e. ‘she’ (Proverbs 7:4; Sirach 4:11, 6:22; Wisdom 6:12-21). To the first century Jew there would have been no problem in saying that ‘the Word was God’, because Wisdom was not seen as a separate person or a second God but as an expression of God. So when John says ‘in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God’, he was not saying anything that anything first century Jewish monotheist could not say ‘amen’ to, because they knew what he was talking about. The radical part of John’s introduction is to say that this Word became flesh (John 1:14), that Jesus was this embodiment of this Word/Wisdom. It may seem very weird to modern readers to talk about concepts like wisdom as though they were people and then having it made into a human baby, but as we have seen this kind of talk would have been familiar to John’s original readers. And though John is making profound claims about Jesus, he is not saying that Jesus existed as a person before his birth and he is not saying that Jesus is God.
@@cc3775 very interesting stuff, right enough and thanks for adding that context. A couple of small additional points relating to your final paragraph, though, if I may. In gJohn, there is no human baby in that passage. If you notice, gMark and gJohn have Jesus the man appear as an adult into the story. It's only gMatt and gLuke that have (totally different) human baby origin stories. I am sure there would have been knowledge of these different christologies between communities and groups, but we can't assume the believers associated with gJohn did think Jesus was ever a baby or a child. That would be a bit close to procreation and the cycle of life and death. Perhaps this is why Jesus becomes flesh in gJohn with no details given whatever about the mechanics of that process. Perhaps he sees some of the problems or has heard some of the objections to the literalist interpretations of the synoptic gospels (even gMark to an extent). gJohn definitely makes claims about Jesus' divine status that go further than the other canonical gospels though, and this can be seen chronologically as a developing and growing christology, essentially culminating in the doctrine of the trinity in the third and fourth centuries CE.
@@integrationalpolytheism Jesus is a human being, why would John not think he was a baby? Jesus didn’t become flesh, the logos(wisdom) of God became flesh.
@@cc3775 okay, pardon my slip. It seems like splitting hairs slightly since I think we are saying the flesh that the logos became was this Jesus? But to your first question, I did already partly answer it. If the author of gJohn thinks the word of creation can become flesh, then why not become a man right away, and avoid all the tedious references to the mundane world by being a baby, and having to be born out of a womb and everything? It just says he came into this world, no nativity narrative, nothing. Maybe, as Christians today might argue, gJohn doesn't feel the need to elaborate because the Nativity narratives (contradictory though they are) in gLuke and gMatt already were known, but that's really not certain. There's quite a lot in gJohn that could be seen to be flatly challenging or refuting something from the synoptics, and this omission could easily be one of them. Surely you can see that plenty of the early Christian groups like the docetists who believed Jesus wasn't an actual man, but only seemed as a man, could actually see the idea of a birth narrative as problematic, even heretical. It's clear that gMark has an adoptionist christology, and gMatt and gLuke are pushing back on that, so why can't gJohn be pushing back on the idea that Jesus was a run of the mill human being? It seems perfectly in line with the "higher christology" of gJohn to see it as a docetist rebuttal of the more earthly synoptic tradition. I mean gJohn obviously has some disagreements with the other gospels, or what would the motivation have been to actually create it in the first place, if it were just to agree with the other written narratives already in circulation?
@@cc3775 this is nonsense. The Logos is Jesus, it literally tells you that when it says the Logos became flesh (i.e Jesus). In John 1:1 the Logos is called Deity and in John 20:28 Jesus is called God. This is incredibly simple, idk how you've convinced yourself of something so insane
I had always wondered whether the Trinity is related to Neo-platonic ideas such as the "One" and the various beings which emanate sequentially from it.
@@toma3447 no you are limiting god. God cannot die, and god is all knowing and omnipotent. God does not associate partners it says in the Bible to only worship the one true god. That’s what all the prophets said. Nothing is greater than god
not only did it develop in the 2nd to 5th centuries CE, It continued to develop into the 13th century in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas in his big Summa, question 29 on the divine persons, which is also in dialogue with the 6th century Christian philosopher, Boethius, whom Thomas took to be the most authoritative, if still inadequate, on the matter. And, the concept is still in development-there is no final interpretation of the Trinity or divine person(s)/hood. Take Jean-Luc Marion's 982 book, "God Without Being", as an example of the continued development of the concept. Marion rejects the Thomistic account of the Trinity on Heideggerian grounds that Being (Sein) is not a being/entity (Seiendes), which means that there can be no entity identical with its own Being, even God. So, the Trinity cannot be defined in terms of three persons participating or sharing in another way, in the substance of God or with the Thomistic ontology in which God is identified with Being itself. Being is not a substance nor a being, thus Marion attempts to think God set free of ontological categories, God without Being, which requires a fundamental reorientation of the doctrine of the Trinity if it is to retained with any sense today. All this is merely to say, the doctrine began development in the 2nd to 5th centuries CE, but it continued to develop all the way up to present day.
3 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
This is something I don’t believe in but almost everyone around me does. Thus a UA-cam search to see if I am the only one who doesn’t believe in the “trinity”. I believe in the existence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one accord (agreement with each other) but not in them as one being.
There are unitarian churches that believe in one God and Jesus as the Messiah, not God himself. This view always seemed to make more sense to me, and there are UA-cam videos from unitarian preachers going over why this matches the bibles stories better than the trinity. It's definitely the minority view.
Why did you not mention the johanian comma and how it was retrofitted into the text centuries after the original gospels were written to prop up the trinity?
It was!!! This post is. The whole of the NT was… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
@@srich7503 Then maybe get a "different Spirit" than the one inherited from the 3rd century church fathers. So ill unload my finsafter further investigation and intending "prove" Jesus was God? I met these challenges: 88 Times Son-of-Man 50 times Son of God. NEVER 👉God the Son. OVER 20 Times Jesus sat at the right hand of G-d 22 Times NT says GOD Raised him. The ONLY TRUE G-D, "gave" Jesus authority to "raise himself". Always "keep reading" He's the Son of God, why adhere to defining our Holy ONE G-D-the- Father, as a hindu😬trinity"? It takes a 30 second Google search or OpenAI to know the roots of trinitarian deities and varied pre-flood history. 27 Book in books in the NT and ALL "9 Authers", claim our Messiah Jesus, "has a G-D?" WOKE & unbiblical ideologies popped up 350 AFTER the apostles. It wasn't passed along word-of-mouth apostles, as you'll find reading "Epistle of Barnabus", 1 Clement (Clement was Peters secretory) or even Irenaeus's Books. AND Jesus even "has a God " in Revelation, post resurrection: Rev 3:21 he that overcomes will get to sit down with me on 👉"My Throne", as I overcame and got to sit down with "My Father on "His Throne".👈 lol this was the final straw for me, plus learning the early church fathers passed along the Monarchy viewpoint straight from the apostle's themselves.
The biggest change is in the creation of the idea of consubstantiality and the rejection of Jesus' subordination to God in the 4th century and then the idea of the hypostatic union in the 5th. Arius was the bearer of 3rd century christology and he got rocked for it.
God is1️⃣ Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. Revelations 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. James 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe and shudder! Revelations 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. Blessings to you.
Just another example how humans seek to compartmentalize and label everything. They really tried to explain God without fully understanding what God is and Jesus’s purpose in the story. That’s all. Just an expression of the mindset at the time as are many other things in the Bible.
But the text doesn’t say that nor does it unite the three as one, you have to remember that early Christianity was actually a Jewish sectarian movement, Jews do not believe and have not believed in any trinity until recent times for the very few in the Messianic movement.
@@bhavinmehta1490 I just find it hard to understand verses like "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" without it. That seems to me to clearly be describing a trinitarian idea of God, no? It's just my own lack of understanding I'm sure.
@@Communist-Doge maybe because we are taught a specific dogma and expect a text to align with it, so we read a text with dogmatic lenses instead of what the text and historical context suggests. For example the “Ruach Qodesh” (Holy spirit) the way this becomes a specific character or figure in Christianity is highly different from what the term has been and the way it’s been understood in the Hebrew Bible by Israelites, it was originally more like a force or power of God (Elohim) rather than a separate entity that is part of the godhead.
@@bhavinmehta1490 I see, thank you very much for explaining. It makes sense that we might reinterpret the text to fit. I suppose I'm struggling to interpret it any other way precisely because of my exposure to the idea of trinity, preventing me from reading it any other way.
@@Communist-Doge some believe that is referring to one God, not a Trinity. It says in the name of, and if all three of those titles have the same name, then it is one person. If you look in Acts, when the apostles were performing baptisms, they never baptized by saying in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they baptized in Jesus' name. So if the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit are all named Jesus and are one God. It would make sense because Father Son and Holy Spirit are not the name(s), they are the titles.
This manmade concept of the Trinity is one reason why God sent the Quran to Muhammad (pbuh) to clarify the Oneness of God as it relates to Jesus. God does this by revealing all about Jesus' birth, miracles performed, the last supper, crucifixion, and his judgment. But Christians are convinced the Quran is from Satan so will never read about all this, and so are lost....
Much of what you stated is true. My objection is that you make out the apostles (writers of the New Testament) into philosophers themselves. That can easily be proven false by their writings. You are reading into the Scriptures instead of letting them teach you.
Shalom Dan ! you get right the sane monotheistic doctrine of Mashiah The Son of Man ! no trinity no oneness in Scriptures and Gospels, or Epistles... All Glory to The One God and Father of Yahusha Our King and High Priest ! You and Your House be blessed ! Cherebyah
We have the Father and His only begotten Son so why would we need a 3rd 'person' to interpret for us? From Father to Son to Us who believe in Faith..Amen♡
Three points that I heartily agree with: - the doctrine of the Trinity represents a synthesis or harmonisation of different theological perspectives present in the NT - the doctrine of the Trinity specifically attempts to articulate the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in philosophically precise terms, which the NT writers for the most part do not - the doctrine of the Trinity underwent significant development between the 2nd and 5th centuries Three perceived shortcomings: - Its monolithic takes on the theologies of certain NT books, where he seems to trumpet one particular scholarly take as definitive. For a different perspective on Mark's Christology, for instance, see Marcus Throup, Mark's Jesus: Divine? (PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham, 2014). - Its neglect of the role that early Christian prosopological exegesis of the OT played in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity (as illustrated, for instance, in Matthew W. Bates' book, The Birth of the Trinity and Kyle R. Hughes' book, The Trinitarian Testimony of the Spirit) - Its neglect of the rudimentary notion of the Trinity already present in the first century, as attested for instance in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 (cp. Didache 7.1), the salutations in 2 Cor. 13:13 and Revelation 1:4-5, the throne vision in the Ascension of Isaiah 9:27-42, etc. It would be more correct to say that the doctrine arose in the first century and developed over the following several centuries.
The triune (trinitarian) Nature of God (Love) is expressed through the Greek language through the three major loves in their language: Agapē (universal, unconditional love) Philos (brotherly/friendly love) Eros (erotic/sexual/romantic love) Agapē relates to spirit Philos relates to familiar/family bonds Eros relates to flesh
There is within the Christian world, even among Orthodox Christian writers and scholars, an assumed narrative regarding the “development” of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity within Christianity. It is presupposed that the people of the Old Testament were unitarian monotheists-in other words, they believed that only one God exists and that God is a single person. It is likewise presumed that through Christ’s teaching and deeds, which culminated in His Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, early Christians came to believe that Jesus was also divine in some sense. The development of Christian belief over the next several centuries is then seen in evolutionary terms, in which early “low” or primitive Christology-that regards Christ as vaguely divine, but not necessarily God in the same sense as His Father-is gradually supplanted by the notion that He is truly God. The same rationale holds that belief in the Holy Spirit was an even later, albeit similar, development, bringing the Trinitarian doctrine of the fourth-century councils to maturity. Although this narrative is largely taken for granted, it is false. Far from being unitarian in their monotheism, followers of the Old Covenant believed the God of Israel existed in multiple hypostases, the term that would be translated as “persons” in later doctrinal statements. The Greek term hypostasis rather literally means “substance.” It is, however, used to indicate a concrete being, such as a particular human person. This term was enshrined in the Nicene Creed, which describes three hypostases of the Christian God. In more recent times, it has since been applied by scholars to the understanding of the relationship between a particular presence, encounter, or body of a god over against the conception of that divine being in a general sense. It will here be used interchangeably with “Person” when speaking of the three divine Persons who share the Godhead. For ancient Israelites and Second Temple Judeans, there was only one Yahweh, but He existed as multiple Persons. Despite a lack of clarity about this in the Hebrew Scriptures, it was believed, discussed, and debated throughout the history of the Second Temple period. There were a variety of teachings regarding the relationships between these hypostases, how they may have come to be, and their nature. It was only beginning in the second century, in reaction to Christianity, that Judaism declared this previously universal view a heresy. Rather than enacting a new vision of God, the New Testament clarifies and affirms the nature of the God spoken of in the Old. The texts of the New Testament affirm that the God of Israel has eternally existed in three Persons (hypostases) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Further, it teaches that the Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Certain Christological and Trinitarian heresies that arose before the Council of Nicaea, such as Arianism and adoptionism, were continuations of strands of thought already existent in pre-Christian Jewish communities.' These were seen as incompatible with the teaching of the apostles expressed in the New Testament and in the lived worship and experience of the Church. The writings of early Fathers against heresies, as well as the dogmas codified by the early councils, aimed to summarize and defend the apostolic understanding of the Holy Trinity found within the New Testament, not to introduce entirely new theological concepts or ideas. The Angel of the Lord A KEY EXAMPLE OF HOw the Hebrew Scriptures express the multiple persons of the God of Israel is the figure of “the Angel of the Lord” in the Torah.’ In the text of the Old Testament, this figure is identified as Yahweh, the God of Israel, and yet acts as a Second Person who interacts with both Yahweh and humans. The first such encounter took place in the initial meeting between Moses and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when God revealed His name to Moses. Exodus 3:2 indicates that the “Angel of the Lord” appeared to him in a flame burning within a bush. But in verse 4, when Moses approached, it was “God” who called to him from the midst of the bush. Upon hearing this call, Moses covered his face because he was afraid of seeing God (v. 6). The reference to “the Angel of the Lord” in verse 2 distinguishes this Person from that of Yahweh through the use of Hebrew grammar, but in the subsequent interaction, the Angel identifies Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In this encounter between Moses and God, the Angel is both identified as Yahweh and distinguished from another Person who is Yahweh. Amore complex interaction occurs when God appeared to Gideon in Judges 6. In verse 11, the Angel of the Lord sat under an oak tree and called to Gideon, who was working on the threshing floor, to tell him that the God of Israel is with him. Gideon was skeptical, given the oppression the people of Israel in Canaan were currently facing from Midianites-a sure sign that God had forgotten them. In response, “Yahweh” turned to him and spoke (v. 14). As with Moses’ encounter with the burning bush, the God of Israel identified Himself as Gideon’s interlocutor. At first glance, it seems the Angel of the Lord is Yahweh Himself. However, the matter was not that clear cut, at least not for Gideon, who apparently perceived his guest to be a human prophet or messenger, evidenced by his offer of hospitality. Once food was brought out, the Angel of the Lord told him to set it on a rock, at which point He touched it with His staff, and it was consumed by fire as a sacrifice (vv. 20-21). Finally, the Angel of the Lord disappeared. It was only then that Gideon realized to whom he had been speaking and was afraid, since he had seen the Angel of the Lord face to face. In verse 23, Yahweh responded to this concern: although the Angel had departed, Yahweh was still there. Possibly the most significant appearance of the Angel of the Lord, however, occurs during the Exodus of Israel into the wilderness. In Exodus 23:20, God told Moses He was sending an Angel before Israel to guard them and lead them into the Land of Promise. Israel, so Moses is warned, must listen to this Angel and not rebel, because God was placing His Name in Him. As will be further discussed in chapter 2, this “Name” is itself an Old Testament expression of the Person of the God of Israel. For example, the temple in Jerusalem is described as the place in which God will place His Name. Thus what God is trying to communicate to Moses is that Israel must obey this Angel because the Presence of God is within Him. If they follow the Angel’s commands, their enemies will be God’s enemies (v. 23). Incidentally, this language would later form much of the basis of St. John’s Christology. In his Gospel, he repeatedly characterizes God the Father as being “in” Christ (see John 14:11, 20; 17:23). Saint John’s purpose in doing so, similar to that of the Angel of the Lord in Exodus, is to remind us that to hear and obey Christ is to know the Father; to rebel against what Christ says is to be at enmity with Him (see John 8:19; 10:22-39; 14:7). This reference to the Angel of the Lord in Exodus is not an anomaly. Throughout God’s covenant with Israel, He identified Himself as the One who brought them out of the land of Egypt (Ex. 20:2; Lev. 11:45; Deut. 5:6). After Israel’s sojourn ended and the conquest of Canaan was complete, however, in Judges 2:1, the Angel of the Lord said, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you to the land that I had promised to your fathers.” The Angel then revealed that because Israel disobeyed Him, He was now departing and would no longer fight for them against their enemies. When the Angel explained this to the Israelites, they wept bitterly in response (v. 4). That the Angel both conveyed this message to the Israelites and traveled from Gilgal to Bokim reveal that He was a Person who had been physically present with and accompanied Israel throughout the preceding forty-plus years. This appearance of the Angel of the Lord demonstrates that even the earliest traditions of the Old Testament reveal a second hypostasis of the God of Israel, who both is Israel’s God and is Himself a Second Person of Yahweh. When this is taken into account, many New Testament passages considered allegory or reinterpretations of the previous revelation can be seen to be quite literal. The New Testa- ment authors identify this Person as the One who became incarnate as Jesus Christ. It was in this spirit St. Paul believed the Angel of the Lord had been with Israel in the wilderness and that Israel’s God had stood on the rock before Moses struck it to produce water (Ex. 17:6). Thus he could proclaim that the rock that followed Israel in the wilderness “was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:3-4). Likewise, Jude, in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of his epistle, could simply say that Jesus “saved a people out of Egypt” and afterward “destroyed those who did not believe” (1:5).
Small problem. The Holy spirit, is not the only holy spirit, and has no name. If it took an immortal holy spirit, with a name, to tell Mary she would be visited by the holy spirit, that's either a quad, or family of God, as scripture states. Ephesians 3:15.
We know that, Dan. The Trinity is derived from the NT Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but it was fully fleshed out by the early Church. Which is doctrinally consistent with what the Church taught and teaches about the development of doctrine-that the Spirit will “lead you into all truth.” Some fundamentalist types who misunderstand Sola Scriptura (and it is a misunderstanding of that 16th c notion as Luther understood it) are ignorant of this fact; but the larger Church has never been ignorant of it. Doctrine develops.
The triune (trinitarian) Nature of God (Love) is expressed through the Greek language through the three major loves in their language: Agapē (universal, unconditional love) Philos (brotherly/friendly love) Eros (erotic/sexual/romantic love) Agapē relates to spirit Philos relates to familiar/family bonds Eros relates to flesh The triune Nature of Love predates Christianity.
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.
@@Andrew-om1pw And were then filled with the Holy Spirit. And Jesus had already made reference to His (our) Father. So…Father, Son and Holy Spirit…the Holy Trinity.
The Catholic Church said that they have changed this text. Originally it was only in the name of Jesus Christ and that is how the early Christians baptized.
@@Samael-ou7yo By ‘they’ do you mean the RCC itself? If so, proof please. Also, our current copies of Holy Scripture tally with both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, our earliest surviving Bibles.
@@stuartallen8684 Yes, the RCC. The Catholic Encyclopedia: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century." Here is what the former pope (Ratzinger) said: "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus." Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are from the 4th century and contain the already altered text.
@@Samael-ou7yo And yet the Holy Scriptures still make specific individual references (scattered throughout them) to Jesus, to God the Father, and to the Holy Spirit, as specific Holy Entities/Persons. Hence we see revealed, God (Who can only be One) is yet Three Persons (United as One)…the Holy Trinity. Your points about Baptismal formula are very well made (and taken) but refer only to that specific religious rite. Thus they do not disprove the existence of the Holy Trinity nor do they take account of the more general Biblical references to (revelation of) all Three Holy Persons.
Hi- I will ask again, since no one bit the first time. I always thought the Trinity came from the Baptism- God speaks from a cloud and the Holy Spirit descends like a dove. You can dismiss the Trinity here as imagery, but it is there! There are 3 characters intimately linked together- yes???? Anyone? Bueller?
This passage has just as much to do with a trinity as the rest of scripture. Absolutely nothing. There are 3 completely seperate beings here. In at least 2 different places. The father speaks from heaven. The son is in the river. The spirit is in the form of a dove
The Trinity is completely logically incoherent and self-contradictory, whether it’s expressed in the Bible or not. If God is the Father and the Father is God; and equally God is the Son and the Son is God, then the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son by logical necessity. If A (the Father) = B (God), and B (God) = C (the Son), then basic logic demands that A (the Father) = C (the Son). Trinitarians accept the first two premises, but deny the conclusion that is logically necessitated by those premises.
@@davidjanbaz7728 not to mention, jealous that he cannot understand things others can. It reminds me of the time when I thought the Pythagorean theorem was “logically incoherent”…
No, because they are different roles or functions of the same being (God). Their roles is the only thing that differentiates them in catholic doctrine.
@@plotinus393 A single entity with multiple roles can make sense, but you can’t make sense of the notion that the creator of everything that exists and Jesus of Nazareth are the same entity. That would mean that God fathered himself, and sacrificed himself to himself.
So I would like to clarify that the trinity actually is in the Bible but I too am not a trinitarian. How is that possible? Revelation 16:13 King James Version 13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. There's the real trinity and I have no interest in any part of it.
The trinity was the church’s attempt to explain the mystery of Christ. Is he man? Is he Son? Is he God? Is he below? Is he equal? Is he after? Has he always been? The scriptures say yes to each question at different times, and the Church believes that all answers are true, for God is not a linear formula of a being that can be explained with the stumbling of human logic and reasoning. He transcends all philosophies and doctrines. The doctrine of the trinity isn’t perfect, but it is a sincere and faithful attempt to equip the saints with a language to speak about God revealed in Christ
There's nothing at all sincere about the doctrine of the Trinity. It is and always has been an attempt to obfuscate the fundamental incoherence (and/or polytheism) of a certain fashionable Christology of its time. It uses discredited metaphysics and meaningless philosophical jargon to confuse the credulous into believing it must make rational sense (they just don't get it), and when someone calls the bluff, the fallback is that "it's a mystery," which is not an answer and indicates the whole doctrine is false. It's the worst kind of lie, the kind the person telling isn't even able to believe themselves. All coherent formulations of the Trinity are heretical, and all orthodox formulations of the Trinity are incoherent. It's a nonsense idea, it's "polytheism except nuh-uh it's totally different." Trinitarians look ridiculous trying to defend it, and rightly so, because it's not defensible. If you have three gods, just say you have three gods; if you have one god, accept subordinationism or adoptionism or any of the numerous formulations that at least kind of make sense. You can't have it both ways, 1 doesn't equal 3 no matter how hard Thomas Aquinas wants it to.
1 John 5:7-8 Father son ghost is an admitted insertion by church fathers. Comma Johanium debate went on for centuries in church councils. Martin Luther and Erasmus refused to add 1 John. John 7:53 John 8:11 Mark 16:9-20 Mathew 17:2 Just a few passages inserted or removed from original koine Greek new testament . Countless people tortured imprisoned burned alive for rejecting Trinity Idolatry. Calvin and Luther also had people burned alive. Not just Roman Catholic Church. Evil theology based on terror torture murder slavery pogroms .
But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace. For though they be punished in the sight of men, yet is their hope full of immortality. And having been a little chastised, they shall be greatly rewarded: for God proved them, and found them worthy for himself. As gold in the furnace hath he tried them, and received them as a burnt offering. And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble. They shall judge the nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. They that put their trust in him shall understand the truth: and such as be faithful in love shall abide with him: for grace and mercy is to his saints, and he hath care for his elect. I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD. I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people. Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
@@Maheer_Ahanaf Erasmus and Luther refused to add it.. Erasmus only added 1 John after pressure from church and they " found " one obscure passage in Mathew that is considered a later addition. Martin Luther refused to add 1 John in his first German translation. But it was put in later after he died . There are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the earliest original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew sources. That's why I rejected it.
@@Maheer_Ahanaf Because this is in theological archives in Grad student studies . You can find it on reputable university sites which focus on such .. I would add Mein Kampf quotes Martin Luther and new testament. Calvin also a rabid antisemite. Both wrote horrific books on such . Scholars partly blame holocaust on this .
Didache was probably written before or around the time of the earliest books of the Bible, maybe 50 AD. "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" The Essenes have writings found in the dead sea scrolls from the first or second century BC that say "We worship the father and we worship the Spirit, and when the Son comes he will show us how else to worship."
Neither of those two sayings would conflict with a unitarian view. Unitarians still believe Jesus was the Messiah, a prophet and the chosen one, just not God.
Binary not Triune ONE/ECHAD/united in one SPIRIT (The word here means they are united, but the neuter form of the word rules out the meaning that they can be one person or being. They are two beings but one in spirit and each has totally surrendered their wills to each other in love, goal and purpose. Although they both existed for eternity the Father is greater in judicial order and authority( Joh 14:28). The proof of this is right now in heaven there are 2 thrones one that the Father is sitting on and one to the right of the Father that the Son is sitting on. (Ps 110:1, 1 Pe 3:22, Ro 8:34, Acts 2:33, 7:55-56, Heb 1:3, 8:1, 10:10-13 (refs8)) 1 John 3 24 And the ones keeping Their commandments is guarded by Them, and They will dwell in us. And by this we know that They abides in us, by Their Spirit which They gave to us. There is one spirit, so the spirit of YHWH is the same as the spirit of Messiah.
The angel of the lord was worshipped as God. Sacrifices were made to him. He said he's the God of abraham, isaac and Jacob. He's the same angel who has the name Yahweh in him. This guy's arguments are lackluster at best. The Bible forces you to see that God is tri personal. There is no way around it.
I consider myself to be a nuanced born again Mormon I need to see a serious in depth debate between you and Dr White from Apologia!!! How can we get that set up?
You over looked Genesis how the Spirit of God hovered over the waters and how God says "let US make man in OUR image". Thats the Holy Spirit + God at least in the Genesis. Then you add Jesus in the New Testament so there you go; the Trinity!
The Trinity doctrine (three persons in one God, all coequal, coeternal and consubstantial) developed gradually over several centuries until it was fully formulated by about the end of the fourth century. The Bible does not say that there are three persons in one God, all coequal, coeternal and consubstantial. Jesus taught that the Father was greater than he was and he called his Father "my God'' even after his resurrection. (Revelation 3:12) Also, Philippians 2:9 says that God highly exalted Jesus. The fact that God highly exalted him shows that Jesus is not equal to God. The Bible also says that Jesus was created, whereas God (whose name is Jehovah) was not created and does not have a beginning. Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus the “Firstborn of all creation” and Revelation 3:14 says that Jesus is the “beginning of the creation by God.” These scriptures show that God and Jesus are not co-eternal.
@@jollyrancher521 Jesus was in the flesh on earth so he had to submit hence Philippians 2:7. pre-incarnation he was The Word then The Angel of The Lord then Jesus.
Thank you!!! I reviewed the bible for both the trinity and the elusive antiabortionist passages, and if we don't dive into the text with these perspectives already primed to impose and frame meaning on the scripture, then we don't actually discover that articulation there. I'm so flipping glad you posted this!!!
For me, I’m in most cases against abortion (though certain cases certainly have my sincere sympathy). I don’t need a Biblical framework to have any sort of view on abortion as non-religious people have differing views of abortion.
@@AaronGeller I've engaged a myriad of antiabortionists, and those few who aren't religious are not only extremely rare, but they are also highly likely to have been recent deconverts. If you would like, I would love to hear your secular argument against abortion that doesn't rely on special pleading fallacies or a begging the question fallacy?
@@RashidMBey I’m not one to have a discussion about a hot topic with people I’m not close to nor do I have the time to go in depth, but I believe that a society that does not value unborn children when it’s not convenient can lead to a slippery slope of devaluing other members. I also question how beneficial abortion is to many expecting moms who want to terminate. In the end, I believe there should be more resources for expecting mothers.
@@AaronGeller Well, you saved our discussion from the risk of being interesting (i say that half-joking lol). I may have the opposite philosophy: I quite simply want to grow and grow closer to the truth, and that requires me to humble myself enough to embrace a clear reality. If I refused deeper discussion that challenged my thinking unless that person was intimate with me, then I threatened all deeper discussion that challenges me. People close to us will likely share similar perspectives on key issues or avoid deeper discussions that challenge us for fear of compromising their intimate relationship and the feeling of safety and belonging. If we're genuinely interested in seeking truth, which we must if we're genuinely interested in doing right, then we must embrace those deeper discussions with strangers who aren't filtered by whether or not we ultimately find them agreeable. If you're interested in growing close and having a friend who gently but firmly pushes back and explores nuance with you, I'm available. Just search RashidMBey on most social media and you'll find me, and I'd be happy to prove the value of strangers until I prove the value of my friendship that emerges from it.
Oh Dan, oh Dan! I can already see the Evangelicals coming at you, as they did with Bart Ehrman, until he became good friends with them again, when Bart made some remarkable U-turns. I hope that you're more steadfast than him!
Except Jesus made sure to use parables so that the peasants could understand what he was preaching. you would think explaining the trinity would be up there as a priority
Do not presume that you know better than the inspired writers of God in olden times. Come up with your own, if you have any worth reading and knowing, without having to criticize or work on those of others' before you.
I'm a strict Unitarian in the tradition of Joseph Priestley. His four-volume series "A History of Early Opinions Concerning Jesus Christ" goes through the complete origin and development of the Trinity, which took place after and would not have taken place but for the earlier development of the equally false ideas of the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus. All of this stuff has transformed the original and wonderful religion of Jesus and the apostles into a "mystery" religion of orthodoxy that makes no sense whatsoever to the average person who even cares to look into it.
The problem I have is with reconciling Revelations (Alpha and Omega) spoken by Jesus, as well as John 1. 1. and "Wisdom personified" in other texts that seem to indicate Jesus had a pre-existence.
Personally, I think "Trinity" is the result of logical deduction, which was a human effort to form a unified theological foundation for the early followers of Jesus.
I'm not a unitarian but having heard both sides of the argument it does seem they have the more sensible position. Jesus prays to God, Jesus says "I am not good, only God is good", Jesus says "God is more powerful than I", Jesus says "Your will be done, not mine", Satan tempts Jesus not God, Jesus needs baptism, Jesus cries out "Dad why have you forsaken me?", Jesus says "No one knows the end times, not the son or the angels but God alone", Jesus is described as sitting at the right hand of God's throne not on it as God, in the OT God says over 150 times "I am the Lord, your God" and is never shy to let people know who He is, yet Jesus never straight out says he is God, only that God sent him and grants his powers. All of this just works if Jesus is the Messiah, the chosen one, the Son of God, but not God himself.
“I and the Father are one.” ...“For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God”...and the Jews plainly accused Jesus of claiming to be God...“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”...“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us...Thomas the doubting disciple finally understood Jesus’ deity, declaring Him to be “my Lord and my God”...If Jesus were not Lord and God, He would have corrected Thomas, but He did not; Thomas spoke the truth.
Some of us with understanding believe that: God is omnipresent, that is, present everywhere...
Most men I know including myself will be or are a son, father, and a spirit. No need for one acting in his role to keep saying that he is all three but really one?
Stepping into human form to correct mankind's flaw...
The trinity isn't in the bible but is spoken as if it is...
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
@@brokentubing "I and the Father are one.”
- Being one with the Father means to have Him dwell within you, not to be Him. John 17:21 "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." or 1 Corinthians 6:17 "But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him."
“For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God”
- And in the following verse Jesus corrects them saying "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" Clarifying he wasn't claiming to be God but God's son.
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"
- Scholars say there is an ancient idea that being granted God's name to bear is a source of power and authority but does not mean you are God. This can be seen in Exodus 23:20 "“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him."
"Thomas the doubting disciple finally understood Jesus’ deity, declaring Him to be “my Lord and my God”...If Jesus were not Lord and God, He would have corrected Thomas, but He did not; Thomas spoke the truth."
- And yet the disciples after Jesus had gone addressed the crowd Acts 2:22 "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.". So even here the disciples are not labelling Jesus as God, only saying he was a channel for God's power.
@@Wertbag99 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
He is the true God and eternal life.
@@Wertbag99 Isaiah 45:5-6, “I am the Lord, and there is no other, apart from me there is no other. I will strengthen you though you have not acknowledged me. So that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting, men may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord and there is no other.”
The God of the Bible is the only true God. He is set apart from all other gods. He is a jealous God,
The apart from me is what isn't understood. The gods though are clear Revelations 16 vs 13.
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Jesus always said that he was sent by God. That’s true! The trinity is not in the Bible.
Yahshua not Roman Catholic and Protestant jesus my friend
Read John 1. The word was god not made by god
@mangotanianmovies2538 the WORD is YAHSHUA my friend...
Binary not triune...Father and Son have the same SPIRIT
@@StariDido Later on in John 1:14 it states the word became flesh. This clearly indicates it was Jesus or Yashua. "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." Also John 10:30 Jesus says I and the father are one
Have you ever done a video about the Acts of Paul and Thecla? I know that there are plenty of non-canonized works to talk about when it comes to Christianity. But I’ve recently been learning more about the Acts of Paul and Thecla and was astonished at the history behind it.
I read a little of that book, and others of the hidden gospels I've begun to wonder which of the biblical characters were real people, some seem to be metaphorical figures. It's the story and symbolism which is important nevertheless.
Nothing about thebapostles was simply symbolism. If those books you are touting about stray from the word and its teachings then there is good reason they are not cannon
Do you so easily follow mans doctrines@davidm1149
itnis a gnostic writing saying to abstain from marriage and acts of the flesh meant for marriage
1 timothy 4:1-5
4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer
Every explanation of the trinity I got as a kid wound up sounding like a bad scooby doo episode. An endless loop of who's under the mask, alternating between Jesus and God, but look out it's the Holy G-g-g-ghost! Those teachers were not good at their job 😂
The triune (trinitarian) Nature of God (Love) is expressed through the Greek language through the three major loves in their language:
Agapē (universal, unconditional love)
Philos (brotherly/friendly love)
Eros (erotic/sexual/romantic love)
Agapē relates to spirit
Philos relates to familiar/family bonds
Eros relates to flesh
It’s not easy to explain why would you want to follow a God you can completely understand. That would make him below us. He lives in another dimension.
It’s not easy to explain something in another dimension. Explain colors to a blind person. You can’t… doesn’t mean colors don’t exist or you’re a bad teacher
@@Christian_counsel none of that makes the Trinity real. It's just a man-made invention that's also not in the Bible
@@joshuacromley7439 Sounds like the same scooby doo gobble -do -gook she's talking about.
Yahshua not Roman Catholic and Protestant jesus my friend
I wanted to ask if any of you who don't believe in the Trinity have had the experience of being called "not Christian" by those who disagree? I have been called that several times because I don't believe in the Trinity. It makes it difficult to connect with other Christians bc when that point comes up they become cold and write me off as not Christian and say I'm following false doctrines and stuff.
I’ve definitely run into this. The Trinity is the framework most of Christianity builds on so anything not built on this they remove from Christianity
@@tulkdogThanks for the response! I'm sorry you've dealt with that too but I appreciate that I'm not alone... It feels a little crazy to me that people act this way bc the framework of what makes Christianity what it is today was made by men in a lot of ways. Like these people can decide how to interpret the Bible and its legit, but these other people can't do the same? It's all kind of hypocritical. :/
@@peachysparkles Yes I've seen this too. Many Christians are quick to label others as not true Christians, whether that be unitarians (including JWs, Mormons or just unitarian churches), those who don't describe themselves as born again, those who haven't been baptized or belong to the wrong denomination (Catholic vs Protestant, Orthodox vs Progressive etc) or any other particular facet of the religion they deem to be a requirement. Often it just seems to be a way to stop engagement or conversations with others who's views differ from their own. If you label them as heretical from the start, then anything they say is automatically wrong and you don't have to even consider their points. It's a self defense verse having their beliefs challenged.
@Ohhh85947 Apparently there are ~8.5 million JW's, so millions have been convinced that it is true, while most other denominations say they are lead astray and preach the incorrect message. Everyone thinks they have the right answer and everyone else is wrong.
Not kind of, but it is hypocritical.
For example, Paul tells the Thessalonians to "mind their business," but he couldn't seem to do the same himself. Paul had a vision of Jesus, but luckily he didn't have to bow down to Canon unlike all those who have proclaimed to see Jesus since. If the message is slightly off then one could be labeled a heretic and their words blasphemous.
What a tangled web they've weaved!
I'd love a course on this topic. Thanks for your work Dan :)
Did he ever present it?
The triune (trinitarian) Nature of God (Love) is expressed through the Greek language through the three major loves in their language:
Agapē (universal, unconditional love)
Philos (brotherly/friendly love)
Eros (erotic/sexual/romantic love)
Agapē relates to spirit
Philos relates to familiar/family bonds
Eros relates to flesh
Are there any reliable reading about the development of the trinity over this time period?
when Jesus Became God: The Struggle To Define Christianity During the Last Days of Rome
@@Steinborn24 Jesus became God when he was begotten of God before anything ever was. He inherited his Father’s nature. His personality had a beginning to be a True Son of God. In order for God to send his only begotten Son, he first had to have a Son to send. The deity of Christ is from his relationship to his Father. Jesus is called Michael= one who is 👉 like👈 God. Jesus is in the image of his Father but his Father is the supreme ruler of the universe. The highest God. The one true God. Greater = Elder. The Trinity doctrine was formulated overtime. It’s a man-made doctrine and Martin Luther made that clear. You can read how the trinity doctrine was developed over time by Rome in Gibbons work “ The Fall of Rome”. The Catholic’s baby along with their Sunday sabbath . Both doctrines, remove the worship of the true God.
God said to “ Remember “ the seventh day Sabbath to keep it holy....and for good reason. Sunday is worship of the sun god. God rested on the 7 th day as a memorial of creation. And it’s to remind of of who we worship. Revelation you find a small group who love God , keeping his commandments and have the Faith of Jesus.
Life eternal is to know the only true God and his only begotten Son. John 17:3.
The doctrine of Christ is both, Father and Son. The Trinity doctrine is three. 😉
As always I learned something. Always enjoy your content and expert analysis. I 'argue' with others from time to time about historical context and taking what is heard in the church pew for granted because sometimes what is being 'pushed' is simply not in the text and people tend to read scripture as if it was written in modern times and to 'us' when in fact that is far from reality. Plus we don't have original source documents to compare all of the translations and oldest documents. I also appreciate that you don't come off as speaking from the perverbial ivory tower nor ever appear sanctimonious. Looking forward to more info that this mere mortal can absorb.
What about the argument that there is proto-trinitarian content in the NT, just not full blown trinitarian content? (Thanks Dan!)
Can you please make a video on how Paul teaches a docetic Christology ? Many scholars would agree.
This can be for Dan or anyone else, but what are the general thoughts on the 5th Edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible? I come from a very dogmatic family, and as a student going into history I’ve always wanted something more oriented to how I read and interpret sources from the ancient world
If you come from a very dogmatic family, you may find the NOAB helpful in providing a more historical-critical approach to reading and interpreting the biblical texts. The NOAB does not impose a particular theological perspective, but rather presents a range of scholarly views and interpretations. The NOAB may also expose you to some books and perspectives that are not part of your family’s tradition, such as the Apocrypha or the Jewish interpretations of some texts. You may find these enriching or challenging, depending on your own beliefs and interests.
As a student going into history, you may appreciate the NOAB’s attention to the historical context and development of the biblical texts. The NOAB provides information on the original languages, sources, genres, dates, authors, audiences, and purposes of the biblical books. The NOAB also situates the biblical texts within their broader historical and cultural environment, such as the ancient Near Eastern civilizations, the Greco-Roman world, and the early Jewish and Christian communities. The NOAB also addresses some of the historical issues and problems that arise from studying the biblical texts, such as textual variants, contradictions, discrepancies, anachronisms, biases, and influences.
Of course, no study Bible is perfect or complete. The NOAB is based on scholarly research that is constantly evolving and changing. The NOAB may not cover every question or topic that you may have or encounter. The NOAB may also reflect some biases or limitations of its own editors and contributors. Therefore, it is always advisable to consult other sources and perspectives when studying the Bible.
@@rosaeruber225 thanks for such a thoughtful response! I think you pretty much ticked all the boxes I had for questions in regard to the NOAB.
@@AREJAYMOP I'm glad you found it helpful :)
Dan did a video where he shared the non-JKV bibles which he recommends, and the 5th-e NOAB was on the top of that list!
Re this developed framework. Tertullian was the first Christian theologian to propose the concept of the trinity, right? But weren’t his original Trinity teachings morphed from “3 Gods 1 Purpose” to “3 Purposes 1 God”? Is there an available linear timeline that presents the data?
There is a fantastic book that looks into the history of the Divinity of Jesus and the Trinity called "When Jesus Became God"
Bart Simpson Ehrman is a fantastic cartoon scholar !
@davidjanbaz7728 somebody is triggered.
Would you mind discussing how Tertullian developed Traducianism in the same manner as you just explained the trinity?
Tertullian developed traducianism because he wanted to defend the unity of human nature and the transmission of original sin from Adam to all his descendants. He also wanted to oppose the Gnostic view that the soul was a divine spark imprisoned in a material body. He argued that the soul and the body were both created by God and both corrupted by sin, and that they were both propagated by natural generation from the first parents. He used biblical passages such as Genesis 2:7, 5:3, and Hebrews 7:10 to support his view. He also appealed to reason and experience, claiming that traducianism explained the resemblance of children to their parents in physical and mental traits. He did not deny that God was involved in the formation of each soul, but he understood this as a general providence rather than a special creation.
@@rosaeruber225 In regards to discussions one could find in many sources, eg, The International Standard Bible or the New Catholic Ecyc. 2nd, what I find missing is the answer to this question: How does the theory of traducianism glorify God's benevolence, or, if we remove God from the ability to create the spirit of every living thing (Gen 1-2), then how do we see God as omnipotent, and the creator of all things? Additionally, are we to see God in a more benevolent manner if we know that he did not create our spirit?
Thoughts on the two powers in heaven?
Exactly.
I'd heard there was only one verse in the bible concerning the so-called "trinity". I've looked at other aspects of spirituality, and found that the tripartite aspect of the Creator is very complicated. Because one man determined to add this to the text (for whatever reasons, along with a host of other edits, mistranslations, additions,etc) we have an entire belief that people swear by. There are many other things in the bible that do not "rhyme" with spiritual reality, some are rather huge. It's a book containing spiritual truths and metaphors nonetheless, even with all this.
What are the differences between the 2nd and 5th century concepts of the trinity?
I read somewhere that Paul believed in father and son as a bigger and a lesser God, very much a Greek idea.
I'm curious to hear your personal perspective on the trinity. As an atheist I don't see how you can view the trinity as separate individuals without entailing a logical contradiction.
Are you for real? So a car is four cars because it's got four wheels?
You are mistaking "God" for a created being. Created beings as far as we are concerned do only have one Ego. God is not a created being.
@@JTomas96 lol no. The point is that you can't point to a wheel and call it a car. The various different car parts have to come together to make the car. Similarly, you can't point to one of the members of the godhead and call them god. They need to come together to fully be tri-omni.
@@JaromEubanks "MY GOD and My Lord(Talking to Jesus)" Jn20:28
I don't see any reason why you hold that view.
----------------
You said: "You can't point a wheel and call it a car"
You took my parable and made it physical which is preposterous:
GOD IS ONE IN E-S-S-E-N-C-E. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS IS O-N-E. ONE in essence. An example: THE OCEAN, THE CLOUDS, BOTH ARE "CREATION", GET IT?? So you can call a cloud "creation". The same with the CREATOR, He is not "creation", whatever is not created is CALLED GOD, that's all.
A wheel is technically the car, so it can be called Car depending on the context. If the wheel is broken the Car is broken. It's not the whole car, and sometimes can be called Car. That's exactly what you find in the bible.
@@JaromEubanks
You can see from the very first chapter of the Old Testament how your argument of "you can't call ceartain one and call Him God" is just wrong: "So God created ADAM in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created THEM."Gen 1:27
Don't be an atheist over an assumption.
Another example:
"He made him in the likeness of God. 2He created them male and female, and blessed them and called THEM ADAM in the day they were created" Gen 5:2
Both are called Adam. Just like Jacob is a multitude. Israel is called after Israel(A man).
Another example:
"...Behold AM ECHAD(Humanity is ONE)..."Gen 11:6
According to your logic, There was ONE PERSON in the tower of Babbel so God confounded his limbs and separated them and humanity comes from a dismembered guy.
---------------------------------
You are supposed to "diligently seek Him". If not, you will fall into a ditch.
Another example: "There is ONE(Echad=Unity) GOD, the Father, and one LORD, the son, through whom all things exist". If your reasoning is correct, then you can't call the father LORD(Adon). The Father is also Adon because the Son is. It's like the word creation, a cloud IS creation, BUT not THE WHOLE creation, that would be preposterous, got it now?
Stop wasting the bible, this is not a game. Any more doubts?
@@JaromEubanks Basically you are making a grammatical error.
"...Who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant,
To bring Jacob back to Him,
So that Israel(Redeemed Jacob) is gathered to Him"Is 49:5
So according to your logic, Isaiah was prophecying God will save AND GATHER(?) only AN ALREADY DECEASED man from all creation. But this is talking about the gathering of ISRAEL(Multitude).
Israel was the name God gave Jacob is Gen 32. It represents the straight Man.
You can also see how the 12 tribes are named after Jacob's 12 descendants.
Hi Dan,
Have you ever heard of the NOG translation of the Old Testament? Would you consider doing a video on the differences between "Ruach Elohim" and "Ruach Yahweh"?
These two polar opposite Spirits can only be seen using the NOG translation, unfortunately.
I can't find any scholars who know anything at all about Ruach Elohim and Ruach Yahweh. Thanks!
Ruach Elohim is our Heavenly Father, the father of our spirits and the Father of Jesus Christ in spirit and in the flesh. Ruach Yahweh is Jesus Christ, the son of God and our Savior.
@@nhrtv3813
Ruach Elohim and Ruach Yahweh are polar opposite Spirits, brother.
I think its 1 kings 22 that is says the Ruach Yahweh decieves people and puts lies in their mouths.
@@ready1fire1aim1 u are correct, bc that man "@nhrtv" is being deceived by Lying spirits💯
Video please on is Jesus GOD or son of god? THREE IN ONE
It's a fascinating topic just how much of Nicene Christianity (to say nothing of folk beliefs like guardian angels) persisted even in evangelical circles that are de facto restorationist in many cases.
Truly Evangelicals are so "restorationist" that they are choosing a new pagan Christ in the form of Trump as with the pagan Christ of Cyrus in Isaiah.
@@MarcillaSmith LOL 😆 you must be far left!
Yup those videos trying to explain the trinity are hilarious
U need a higher lQ obviously!
@@davidjanbaz7728 An you have no brain for believing in it
@@davidjanbaz7728the over a billion Catholics who’ve never read a Bible accept this trinity nonsense. You’re not some genius for believing in the trinity 😂
@@ghernandez2263the trinity is true
They had enough trouble developing the concept of homoousion they just went 'ditto' for the Holy Spirit/Ghost that was left hanging around.
Then you have people killing each other over the single vs. dual procession of the Trinity.
IKR? If only our Lord had possessed the foresight to turn to one of His disciples and say something like, "you are the Rock on which I will build my Church," that way we'd have a perpetual Vicar of Christ to whom all could look for guidance.
No, you had a schism !
The perfect last sentence.
Christians used to say God is not a person but also say God is three persons🤦
The bible is not in the bible as well. Yet it exists.
What’s your personal take on it?
Do you believe Jesus is God?
Glad truth seekers are speaking out against this pagan doctrine which was brought in by Constantine at the council on Nicaea in 325 AD.
2nd-5th ce he quoted not 325ad???
The triune (trinitarian) Nature of God (Love) is expressed through the Greek language through the three major loves in their language:
Agapē (universal, unconditional love)
Philos (brotherly/friendly love)
Eros (erotic/sexual/romantic love)
Agapē relates to spirit
Philos relates to familiar/family bonds
Eros relates to flesh
@@SavedOnce4ever 325AD=325CE=4th century CE/AD
@@joshuacromley7439 what we are talking about is that God is not three persons… God is one which is the Father, Jesus is the Son of God, and they share one Spirit which is Holy.
@gfritz88 where does anyone claim "God is three persons" outside of Islam?
God is Love (agapē).
Thanks for making this video!
Could you please provide all the scholarly sources you've used to come to this conclusion?
Unfortunately he’s right. It’s not found in any Greek manuscripts until 1500…1600
Copies going back to 400 ad and before do not have the story.
@kennethogorman5436
Except those copies are 95 to 98% accurately translated. So no matter if we don't have the original manuscripts the copies we have for nearly 1800 years. Shows we're nearly 100% close to get perfectly accurate translation.
@@legendary5733
You are high as a kite!
There are no original copies of the New Testament left everything’s in Greek. Lol
Once again, you Christians are terrified that there might actually be something wrong in the Bible even one verse. There’s a lot of verses that are messed up in the Bible and incorrect. I don’t know where you came up with 90 to 95% but you are absolutely mistaken.
Good god !
@@legendary5733 Where’d you get those numbers from?
@@mendivest
From biblical scholars who do research on the laungage and translations with the gospels.
I wish he would explain HOW the trinity harmonizes the three frameworks.
Wild guess: it tries, but eventually doesn't, unless someone just reduces their cognitive dissonance by 'looking away', and ignoring the contradictions.
@@lucofparis4819 Or, maybe you're just not familiar with the terms it employs? Few people are.
@@jgmrichter The Trinity doesn't harmonise other christologies. Rather it overrides them, recontextualising the legacy texts' meanings through its own interpretive lens. Historically, this was a very slow process that took centuries, as presented in this video, and was preceded by other efforts in understanding the nature of Jesus even before any gospel was written.
Additionally, Trinitarianism itself was neither monolithic nor the sole competitor of the views presented in the now canonical gospels. What Trinitarians actually achieved however, was (mostly) settling on a standard interpretation that would eventually gain predominance over differing christologies.
Even so, Miaphysite views endured to this day (shared by Oriental Orthodox churches), highlighting residual dissent within the Trinity doctrine. Similarly, Monarchian views denying Trinity altogether endured also, resurfacing even to this day, hence the Nontrinitarian denominations.
Not to mention the various schisms that further divided Trinitarians into a vast array of schools of thought, though not directly on matters of the Trinity itself, rather on various harmonisation attempts about other aspects of the Canon.
@@lucofparis4819 then how can someone come to The Trinity by just reading The Bible in the 21 century?
@@au8363 Priming: when you read the Bible, you're already aware of the popularised aspects of Christianity, including a superficial version of the Trinity doctrine. You may in fact be led to believe, depending on who you encounter prior to reading Scripture, that the Trinity is somehow an intrinsic part of Christian beliefs.
Since Nontrinitarian views have typically either be extinguished, or resurfaced only as minority views, the sheer ideological weight of the trinitarian orthodoxy may also be enough to obscure the ad-hoc nature of the Trinity doctrine.
Last but not least, some of the textual occurrences are likely unfortunate interpolations made by well-meaning (yet mistaken) monks. The ordering of the books is also a definitely human arbitrary choice, which has evidently been primed by said humans' ideological views on matters of doctrine.
Sidenote: the Protestant Bible has 66 books. But did you know the Catholic Bible had 73 books? Heck, the Orthodox Bible has 81 books! (some churches even use 86!!) In other words, 15 (or 20) entire books are literally missing when we compare orthodox and protestant Scriptures! In contrast, Syrian Bibles have only 61 books...
Not to mention some verses have been swapped around, other verses added (the end of Mark comes to mind), and translations have been showed to deviate significantly from the original language in some other passages. Who knows how much more deviations occurred during the oral tradition phases of those texts before they were written? We can be sure however that they have been far more substantial deviations than in the written Scriptures.
When you combine all these processes together, you quickly realise how subjective and subservient to the views of humans Scripture has been, irrelative of its claimed origins. This means that in addition to the priming effect I mentioned, the theological evolution of Judaism then Christianity has left its distinctive mark in all of Scripture, even before interpretations of said Scripture can be superimposed on those texts.
In conclusion, there's nothing straightforward or intuitive about those texts, let alone how they are interpreted, and subjectivity irredeemably permeates how you eventually read and understand them, unless you go out of your way not to do that, using strict and controlled methodology to avoid noise, bias, and all kinds of errors and mistakes.
To when do you date the Didache? Also, you're right here the Trinitarian idea was developed 2nd to 5th c., but you leave out the political and go straight for the social interpretation (making it 'philosophically' defensible). I find this way of speaking about philosophy very anachronistic, but that's my gripe with every video you publish.
I like your new chair :)
The books included in the Bible and even certain aspects of belief - such as the transmutation of bread & wine in the body & blood of Christ, the development of the Nicene Creed, etc - were products of a political battle for power between Rome, Constantinople & Alexandria.
As all political battles & power struggles do, they warp the truth and become very selective about what they include & exclude in terms of the premises by which society should be governed & live & they manipulate the truth via omission, (mis)translation & (mis)interpretation.
This process took place in the adoption of Christianity as the accepted faith of the Roman World and was not a product of purely of Judaic or Christian faith as practised at that time or in the proceeding 340-380-odd years since the time of Christ.
No person was living who could be said to have known Christ himself, or to be a direct descendent of the apostles, either when the Bible was first collated & specific worship & understandings decided upon - such as the Trinity.
The Bible, esp the New Testament, is a document of Roman governance by relatively new converts to Christianity and upheld as Truth since.
That is, under more contemporary analysis & realism, a lie.
Is the Bible a valuable reference ? undoubtedly.
It should be read in context of the very many social, cultural, political & religious contexts & transitions that have taken place over the millennia along with independent corroborative sources & knowledge of the various ancient languages over the ages, and furthermore with a critical eye on the motives & competencies of translators throughout history.
You will find it is a more fallible record than we would have hoped, but valuable nevertheless.
Awesome video - thanks!!! I questioned the Trinity doctrine many years ago & was met with great resistance. You have put my mind at ease.
You can always find somebody on UA-cam to say whatever you want to hear. But the Trinity is not a contradiction nor is it an invention of man. It is a necessary conclusion from the Bible. This is why you find so many people all over the internet attacking it: anything that is true and is of God will be attacked these days.
@@uncensoredpilgrims council of nicaea was satanic
@@uncensoredpilgrims that’s funny because that’s what all kinds of religions do to justify their actions.
@@bobbyraejohnson That's not an argument. The Bible is absolutely unlike any false religion. Jesus claimed to be God and proved it by rising from the dead, and we have the eyewitness testimony to prove it.
Nobody rose from the dead. Stop the laughably childish myths and go on your way bigot.
Dan is completely correct as regards the Trinitarians theory. I would argue that Paul, Mark and ‘John’ are able to all be understandable in a ‘bearer of the Divine Name’ concept, as an envoy/representative. Some of the NT writers use a few terms from the language of rivals merely to rap on the doors of pagan and Jewish philosophical viewpoints to get their attention without entering in and adopting their views. These include logos, pleuroma, gnosis and aon.
Any particular reason you chose 5th century as the closure of Trinitarian development? Trisagion controversy, tritheist controversy, filioque, etc. all occur after this point
Athanasian Creed, 415 AD
Dan Rocks😅
Sloppy Theologians reject, "ALL 27NT books", and
"ALL 9NT Authors", clams that Jesus Christ "has A G-D", furthermore John 17:3 Jesus himself explained the "Only True God ,was his father".
It became explicitly obvious reading 1,2,3, Johns & Revelation that the John taught, Jesus has a God more then anyone else...
20+ Times says Jesus sitting at God's right hand.
20+ NT says GOD Raised Him.V
80+ times Jesus is SON OF MAN in NT
40+ times Son-of-God.
(NEVER God -the-son)
Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3.
Was Apostle Peter's Scribe, trained by James/Paul/Peter & ran 1st church Rome from
60-90AD 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 perfectly as follows:
John 17:3
"Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent."
Irenaeus~ Against Heresies 3.9.1 (180-200AD)
The Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the 👉only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all…
Irenaeus~ Against Heresies 3.6.4 (180-200AD)
Wherefore I do also call upon thee, Lord God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who art the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of Thy mercy, hast had a favour towards us, that we should know Thee, who hast made heaven and earth, who rulest over all, who art the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know Thee, that Thou art God alone, to be strengthened in Thee, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine.
Justin martyr First Apology 61
[T]here 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. [10]
Martyrdom of Ignatius 2
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.
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.
HI - I've recently been baptised becasue I believe in God and believe in Jesus. However, I have always struggled with the fact that Jesus is God. I believe that he is sinless and his heart is completely open to God so therefore becomes one with God. This is what I feel in my heart. It doesn't matter if I am wrong or right. However, of all the Christians that I speak with none of them feel the same or will only go so far with this before giving the standard Jesus is God and therefore we can't comprehend him. Today I've discovered nontrinitarianism and if I have read this right then it is the same belief; Jesus was a man who through his sinless heart was able to connect completely with God and by consequence does in fact become God. I am understanding this correctly? To me it makes sense because isn't the New Testament saying yes we can do this, Jesus is showing us how?
I highly recommend for Christians to prove The Trinity for themselves, using only prayer and the Scriptures. That's what I did after many decades of assuming the seminary trained pastors must have it right. I found that neither Trinitarianism, nor Unitarianism, have the whole truth. Since you asked, I thought to share some things from my studies.
First, Jesus and all the Apostles, said repeatedly God is ONLY the Father. There is not one verse that states God is the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (as my Roman Catholic upbringing taught me to say). Here are a few verses that God is only the Father:
John 6:27, 17:3; 1Cor 8:6; Gal 1:1; Eph 5:20; Php 2:11; Col 1:3; 1Thess 1:1; 1Tim 1:2; 2Tim 1:2; James 1:27; 1Pet 1:2; 2Pet 1:17; Jude 1:1).
- What verse states eternal life is by three persons? None. Eternal life is only in two persons in the New Testament.
- What verse states it is antichrist to deny a Trinity of “three persons who are the one God”? None. To deny the Father and Son only is antichrist - 1John 2:22.
- When did Jesus ever say He and His Father, plus one more person, are one? He never did.
- Jesus said no one knows the Father but the Son, and no one knows the Son but the Father (Matt 11:27)? Where's the third person?
- When was Apostle John admonished for claiming the true God and eternal life was ONLY two persons - the Father and the Son - and not plus a third person? How could he have made such an error?
1 John 5:20 NASB95
And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and *_we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life._*
IMHO, there are two persons in the Godhead from the beginning, both originally in the form of one invisible Spirit, and one became a visible man (Php 2:6-8). In the beginning, the Word WAS with God, and He WAS God (John 1:1-2), a third person is not mentioned in the beginning. Scripture goes on to state God made His image in mankind two persons, male and female (Gen 1:26). He put them in a holy union where they became *_one flesh_* who bear children of flesh, after their kind. This is controversial, but I believe, in the same way, God is two Persons who are in a holy union of *_one Spirit,_* and they birth children of the Spirit, after their kind.
John 3:5 NRSV
Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
An often cited Trinitarian proof text really isn't. “In the name of”, pertaining to deity in Scripture, specifically means “in the authority of”:
Matthew 28:19 NRSV
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Jesus embodies all three authorities. (This is likely why every baptism in the N.T. was IN THE NAME OF JESUS ONLY). The Father transferred all His authority to the Son, so the Father’s authority is in Christ. As the Son, He was given “life in Himself” (authority to give eternal life). And, Jesus said He is the Spirit of Truth, and the Comforter - the Holy Spirit that lives inside the Believer (John 14:18,21,23). Apostle Paul said the same: (2Cor 3:17,13:5). No third person mentioned.
1 Corinthians 12:7,11 KJV
But *_the manifestation of the Spirit_* is given to every man …
John 14:21 KJV
… *_I will_* … *_manifest myself to him._*
2 Corinthians 13:5 KJV
… Know ye not your own selves, how that *_Jesus Christ is in you,_* except ye be reprobates?
Colossians 1:27 GNT
*_God's plan is to make known his secret to his people,_* this rich and glorious secret which he has for all peoples. And *_the secret is that Christ is in you,_* which means that you will share in the glory of God.
I believe that when the invisible Word, who WAS GOD, became flesh, that the Father alone was left the original, unchanged God.
1 Timothy 1:17 NRSV
To the King of the ages, *_immortal, invisible, the only God,_* be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
I believe that the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, reigns as God in eternity, because His pre-existent Self, the Word, WAS eternal God.
John 1:10 KJV
He was in the world, *_and the world was made by him,_* and the world knew him not.
1 Corinthians 15:28 KJV
… that God may be all in all.
Colossians 3:11 KJV
… Christ is all, and in all.
Revelation 19:13 KJV
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: *_and his name is called The Word of God._*
I have found no third person. God, the Father, has no duplicate spirit, His Spirit alone is God, and His Risen Son is back where He came from, sharing His Spirit with Him again, in eternity (Acts 2:32-33).
John 17:5 KJV
And now, O Father, *_glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was._*
1 Corinthians 6:17 KJV
But *_he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit._*
2 Corinthians 3:17 KJV
*_Now the Lord is that Spirit:_* …
I commend you for searching for the truth. Personally, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I do not believe that the Bible teaches a Trinity (Father is God, Son is God, Holy Spirit is God yet they are not three Gods but one God with all three persons co-eternal and co-equal). I believe that the first Christians did not believe in the Trinity either. Rather, the doctrine as described in the Nicene creed developed gradually over several centuries until it was fully formulated by about the end of the fourth century. I believe that only the Father is God (John 17:3) and that Jesus is God's Son. Jesus was created by God (Col. 1:15, 16; Revelation 3:14).
@@SSNBN777 Hi. Thanks for your lengthy reply it was very helpful. I resonate with some of what you said. I've come to the conclusion that I have to discover my own relationship with God and Jesus. I believe that is what Jesus wants us to do. God bless you friend
Well the gospel of John seems to be starting to tackle the problem (in the first half of the second century). It's interesting that it says "the word was God" rather than "the word is God", though.
It is important to point out from the start that the idea that the Word is a person is entirely the assumption of the interpreter. In Greek pronouns (e.g. he, she, it) are used rarely, they are usually implied by the verb, and the gender of the follows the gender of the subject of the clause. In Greek ‘Word’ (logos) is a masculine noun and therefore the verbs in that follow logos are also masculine. However, this tells us nothing about whether the Word is a ‘he’ or ‘it’, because whichever is the case the verbs would be masculine. So we cannot start considering John 1 by looking at pronouns. Instead we need to look at what the Word would have meant to first century readers of John’s gospel.
In between the testaments there was an important concept in Jewish literature: Wisdom. This was based upon the book of Proverbs, which personifies wisdom as a woman. This concept was developed in two (non-canonical) books: Wisdom of Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) and Wisdom of Solomon. These two books are not scripture, but they are important because they tell us about the concepts that would have been familiar to the early Christians. In these books Wisdom is described as being spoken by God (Sirach 24:3) and is called ‘Word’ (logos; Wisdom 9:1-2).
John’s account of the Word parallels these earlier discourses about Wisdom. For instance, Wisdom is said to have been active at Creation (Proverbs 8:22, 30; 3:19-20; Sirach 42:21; Wisdom 9:1-2, 9). However, Wisdom is consistently personified as a female, i.e. ‘she’ (Proverbs 7:4; Sirach 4:11, 6:22; Wisdom 6:12-21). To the first century Jew there would have been no problem in saying that ‘the Word was God’, because Wisdom was not seen as a separate person or a second God but as an expression of God. So when John says ‘in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God’, he was not saying anything that anything first century Jewish monotheist could not say ‘amen’ to, because they knew what he was talking about.
The radical part of John’s introduction is to say that this Word became flesh (John 1:14), that Jesus was this embodiment of this Word/Wisdom. It may seem very weird to modern readers to talk about concepts like wisdom as though they were people and then having it made into a human baby, but as we have seen this kind of talk would have been familiar to John’s original readers. And though John is making profound claims about Jesus, he is not saying that Jesus existed as a person before his birth and he is not saying that Jesus is God.
@@cc3775 very interesting stuff, right enough and thanks for adding that context.
A couple of small additional points relating to your final paragraph, though, if I may.
In gJohn, there is no human baby in that passage. If you notice, gMark and gJohn have Jesus the man appear as an adult into the story. It's only gMatt and gLuke that have (totally different) human baby origin stories. I am sure there would have been knowledge of these different christologies between communities and groups, but we can't assume the believers associated with gJohn did think Jesus was ever a baby or a child. That would be a bit close to procreation and the cycle of life and death. Perhaps this is why Jesus becomes flesh in gJohn with no details given whatever about the mechanics of that process. Perhaps he sees some of the problems or has heard some of the objections to the literalist interpretations of the synoptic gospels (even gMark to an extent).
gJohn definitely makes claims about Jesus' divine status that go further than the other canonical gospels though, and this can be seen chronologically as a developing and growing christology, essentially culminating in the doctrine of the trinity in the third and fourth centuries CE.
@@integrationalpolytheism Jesus is a human being, why would John not think he was a baby?
Jesus didn’t become flesh, the logos(wisdom) of God became flesh.
@@cc3775 okay, pardon my slip. It seems like splitting hairs slightly since I think we are saying the flesh that the logos became was this Jesus?
But to your first question, I did already partly answer it. If the author of gJohn thinks the word of creation can become flesh, then why not become a man right away, and avoid all the tedious references to the mundane world by being a baby, and having to be born out of a womb and everything? It just says he came into this world, no nativity narrative, nothing.
Maybe, as Christians today might argue, gJohn doesn't feel the need to elaborate because the Nativity narratives (contradictory though they are) in gLuke and gMatt already were known, but that's really not certain. There's quite a lot in gJohn that could be seen to be flatly challenging or refuting something from the synoptics, and this omission could easily be one of them.
Surely you can see that plenty of the early Christian groups like the docetists who believed Jesus wasn't an actual man, but only seemed as a man, could actually see the idea of a birth narrative as problematic, even heretical.
It's clear that gMark has an adoptionist christology, and gMatt and gLuke are pushing back on that, so why can't gJohn be pushing back on the idea that Jesus was a run of the mill human being? It seems perfectly in line with the "higher christology" of gJohn to see it as a docetist rebuttal of the more earthly synoptic tradition.
I mean gJohn obviously has some disagreements with the other gospels, or what would the motivation have been to actually create it in the first place, if it were just to agree with the other written narratives already in circulation?
@@cc3775 this is nonsense. The Logos is Jesus, it literally tells you that when it says the Logos became flesh (i.e Jesus). In John 1:1 the Logos is called Deity and in John 20:28 Jesus is called God.
This is incredibly simple, idk how you've convinced yourself of something so insane
I had always wondered whether the Trinity is related to Neo-platonic ideas such as the "One" and the various beings which emanate sequentially from it.
It’s says in the Bible that god is 1 and Indivisible. And 3 things can’t be divided into 1 god.
So you’re limiting what god can do or be? If god is all powerful he can be a trinity if he wants.
@@toma3447 no you are limiting god. God cannot die, and god is all knowing and omnipotent. God does not associate partners it says in the Bible to only worship the one true god. That’s what all the prophets said. Nothing is greater than god
The trinity isn’t division lol it’s tri-unity
The Trinity sounds pagan and the bible does NOT teach trinity @@john_negs7720
The Trinity took Christianity down a dead-end game trail.
Isnt Matthew 28:17 the trinity?
@@Andrew-om1pwdon’t tell that to a evangelical otherwise they scream at u that your going to hell
How many religions have to invoke the same God as being on their side before you realize it's a ruse?
The work of Boyarin has been put into doubt by Bogdan Bucur, rightly so.
The thing of it is, the trinity proves to be completely unnecessary to the reconciliation of scripture and the advent of Jesus Christ.
not only did it develop in the 2nd to 5th centuries CE, It continued to develop into the 13th century in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas in his big Summa, question 29 on the divine persons, which is also in dialogue with the 6th century Christian philosopher, Boethius, whom Thomas took to be the most authoritative, if still inadequate, on the matter.
And, the concept is still in development-there is no final interpretation of the Trinity or divine person(s)/hood.
Take Jean-Luc Marion's 982 book, "God Without Being", as an example of the continued development of the concept. Marion rejects the Thomistic account of the Trinity on Heideggerian grounds that Being (Sein) is not a being/entity (Seiendes), which means that there can be no entity identical with its own Being, even God. So, the Trinity cannot be defined in terms of three persons participating or sharing in another way, in the substance of God or with the Thomistic ontology in which God is identified with Being itself. Being is not a substance nor a being, thus Marion attempts to think God set free of ontological categories, God without Being, which requires a fundamental reorientation of the doctrine of the Trinity if it is to retained with any sense today.
All this is merely to say, the doctrine began development in the 2nd to 5th centuries CE, but it continued to develop all the way up to present day.
3 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
This is something I don’t believe in but almost everyone around me does. Thus a UA-cam search to see if I am the only one who doesn’t believe in the “trinity”. I believe in the existence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one accord (agreement with each other) but not in them as one being.
There are unitarian churches that believe in one God and Jesus as the Messiah, not God himself. This view always seemed to make more sense to me, and there are UA-cam videos from unitarian preachers going over why this matches the bibles stories better than the trinity. It's definitely the minority view.
i think your whats called a modalist
Single woman here, praying to find a one true God believing spouse please pray for me. ! & thank you for this message
Am here for you... 😊
Why did you not mention the johanian comma and how it was retrofitted into the text centuries after the original gospels were written to prop up the trinity?
It was!!! This post is. The whole of the NT was…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
@@srich7503 Then maybe get a "different Spirit" than the one inherited from the 3rd century church fathers.
So ill unload my finsafter further investigation and intending "prove" Jesus was God? I met these challenges:
88 Times Son-of-Man
50 times Son of God.
NEVER 👉God the Son.
OVER 20 Times Jesus sat at the right hand of G-d
22 Times NT says GOD Raised him.
The ONLY TRUE G-D, "gave" Jesus authority to "raise himself".
Always "keep reading"
He's the Son of God, why adhere to defining our Holy ONE G-D-the- Father, as a hindu😬trinity"?
It takes a 30 second Google search or OpenAI to know the roots of trinitarian deities and varied pre-flood history.
27 Book in books in the NT and ALL "9 Authers", claim our Messiah Jesus, "has a G-D?"
WOKE & unbiblical ideologies popped up 350 AFTER the apostles.
It wasn't passed along word-of-mouth apostles, as you'll find reading "Epistle of Barnabus",
1 Clement (Clement was Peters secretory) or even Irenaeus's Books.
AND
Jesus even "has a God " in Revelation, post resurrection:
Rev 3:21
he that overcomes will get to sit down with me on 👉"My Throne", as I overcame and got to sit down with "My Father on "His Throne".👈
lol this was the final straw for me, plus learning the early church fathers passed along the Monarchy viewpoint straight from the apostle's themselves.
How did the idea of the Trinity evolve between the 2nd and 5th century?
This might take more that a two minute video, lol but it may have something to do with Marcion, Arius, and order.
@@michaelfuller34 Do you know of any good UA-cam videos or channels that cover this?
The biggest change is in the creation of the idea of consubstantiality and the rejection of Jesus' subordination to God in the 4th century and then the idea of the hypostatic union in the 5th. Arius was the bearer of 3rd century christology and he got rocked for it.
@@maklelan Thanks Dan. I love your videos.
Slapped by old Saint Nick himself.
1 John 5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Actually it’s more accurate to read
7Indeed, there are three testifying:
8the spirit, and the water, and the blood-and these three are in agreement.
@@cc3775 This verse first appeard in the bible in 16th century,
1 John is a forgery
You are correct sir. Roman Caths have no idea what Jesus said and don’t care.
I think people need a way to explain their feelings ..
God is1️⃣
Deuteronomy 32:39
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
Revelations 4:2
And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
James 2:19
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe and shudder!
Revelations 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Blessings to you.
One in essence. Three in persons.
@@antimony4127god speaking to himself 😂
Just another example how humans seek to compartmentalize and label everything. They really tried to explain God without fully understanding what God is and Jesus’s purpose in the story. That’s all. Just an expression of the mindset at the time as are many other things in the Bible.
Jehovah our God is ONE JEHOVAH
Don't references to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit count as trinitarian? I'm a bit confused by how that isn't plainly a trinity.
But the text doesn’t say that nor does it unite the three as one, you have to remember that early Christianity was actually a Jewish sectarian movement, Jews do not believe and have not believed in any trinity until recent times for the very few in the Messianic movement.
@@bhavinmehta1490 I just find it hard to understand verses like "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" without it. That seems to me to clearly be describing a trinitarian idea of God, no? It's just my own lack of understanding I'm sure.
@@Communist-Doge maybe because we are taught a specific dogma and expect a text to align with it, so we read a text with dogmatic lenses instead of what the text and historical context suggests. For example the “Ruach Qodesh” (Holy spirit) the way this becomes a specific character or figure in Christianity is highly different from what the term has been and the way it’s been understood in the Hebrew Bible by Israelites, it was originally more like a force or power of God (Elohim) rather than a separate entity that is part of the godhead.
@@bhavinmehta1490 I see, thank you very much for explaining. It makes sense that we might reinterpret the text to fit. I suppose I'm struggling to interpret it any other way precisely because of my exposure to the idea of trinity, preventing me from reading it any other way.
@@Communist-Doge some believe that is referring to one God, not a Trinity. It says in the name of, and if all three of those titles have the same name, then it is one person. If you look in Acts, when the apostles were performing baptisms, they never baptized by saying in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they baptized in Jesus' name.
So if the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit are all named Jesus and are one God. It would make sense because Father Son and Holy Spirit are not the name(s), they are the titles.
This manmade concept of the Trinity is one reason why God sent the Quran to Muhammad (pbuh) to clarify the Oneness of God as it relates to Jesus.
God does this by revealing all about Jesus' birth, miracles performed, the last supper, crucifixion, and his judgment.
But Christians are convinced the Quran is from Satan so will never read about all this, and so are lost....
Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva...all in one God , Krishna. That is thousands of years old.
Much of what you stated is true. My objection is that you make out the apostles (writers of the New Testament) into philosophers themselves. That can easily be proven false by their writings. You are reading into the Scriptures instead of letting them teach you.
how many here really think that there is old man on cloud created this world?
Are you 100% certain that isn't symbolism? Because it sounds like symbolism.
1 John 3:16
Shalom Dan ! you get right the sane monotheistic doctrine of Mashiah The Son of Man ! no trinity no oneness in Scriptures and Gospels, or Epistles...
All Glory to The One God and Father of Yahusha Our King and High Priest ! You and Your House be blessed ! Cherebyah
We have the Father and His only begotten Son so why would we need a 3rd 'person' to interpret for us? From Father to Son to Us who believe in Faith..Amen♡
Three points that I heartily agree with:
- the doctrine of the Trinity represents a synthesis or harmonisation of different theological perspectives present in the NT
- the doctrine of the Trinity specifically attempts to articulate the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in philosophically precise terms, which the NT writers for the most part do not
- the doctrine of the Trinity underwent significant development between the 2nd and 5th centuries
Three perceived shortcomings:
- Its monolithic takes on the theologies of certain NT books, where he seems to trumpet one particular scholarly take as definitive. For a different perspective on Mark's Christology, for instance, see Marcus Throup, Mark's Jesus: Divine? (PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham, 2014).
- Its neglect of the role that early Christian prosopological exegesis of the OT played in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity (as illustrated, for instance, in Matthew W. Bates' book, The Birth of the Trinity and Kyle R. Hughes' book, The Trinitarian Testimony of the Spirit)
- Its neglect of the rudimentary notion of the Trinity already present in the first century, as attested for instance in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 (cp. Didache 7.1), the salutations in 2 Cor. 13:13 and Revelation 1:4-5, the throne vision in the Ascension of Isaiah 9:27-42, etc. It would be more correct to say that the doctrine arose in the first century and developed over the following several centuries.
The triune (trinitarian) Nature of God (Love) is expressed through the Greek language through the three major loves in their language:
Agapē (universal, unconditional love)
Philos (brotherly/friendly love)
Eros (erotic/sexual/romantic love)
Agapē relates to spirit
Philos relates to familiar/family bonds
Eros relates to flesh
Truth ❤
There is within the Christian world, even among Orthodox Christian writers and scholars, an assumed narrative regarding the “development” of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity within Christianity. It is presupposed that the people of the Old Testament were unitarian monotheists-in other words, they believed that only one God exists and that God is a single person. It is likewise presumed that through Christ’s teaching and deeds, which culminated in His Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, early Christians came to believe that Jesus was also divine in some sense. The development of Christian belief over the next several centuries is then seen in evolutionary terms, in which early “low” or primitive Christology-that regards Christ as vaguely divine, but not necessarily God in the same sense as His Father-is gradually supplanted by the notion that He is truly God. The same rationale holds that belief in the Holy Spirit was an even later, albeit similar, development, bringing the Trinitarian doctrine of the fourth-century councils to maturity. Although this narrative is largely taken for granted, it is false.
Far from being unitarian in their monotheism, followers of the Old
Covenant believed the God of Israel existed in multiple hypostases, the term that would be translated as “persons” in later doctrinal statements. The Greek term hypostasis rather literally means “substance.” It is, however, used to indicate a concrete being, such as a particular human person. This term was enshrined in the Nicene Creed, which describes three hypostases of the Christian God. In more recent times, it has since been applied by scholars to the understanding of the relationship between a particular presence, encounter, or body of a god over against the conception of that divine being in a general sense. It will here be used interchangeably with “Person” when speaking of the three divine Persons who share the Godhead.
For ancient Israelites and Second Temple Judeans, there was only one Yahweh, but He existed as multiple Persons. Despite a lack of clarity about this in the Hebrew Scriptures, it was believed, discussed, and debated throughout the history of the Second Temple period. There were a variety of teachings regarding the relationships between these hypostases, how they may have come to be, and their nature. It was only beginning in the second century, in reaction to Christianity, that Judaism declared this previously universal view a heresy.
Rather than enacting a new vision of God, the New Testament clarifies and affirms the nature of the God spoken of in the Old. The texts of the New Testament affirm that the God of Israel has eternally existed in three Persons (hypostases) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Further, it teaches that the Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Certain Christological and Trinitarian heresies that arose before the Council of Nicaea, such as Arianism and adoptionism, were continuations of strands of thought already existent in pre-Christian Jewish
communities.' These were seen as incompatible with the teaching of the apostles expressed in the New Testament and in the lived worship and experience of the Church. The writings of early Fathers against heresies, as well as the dogmas codified by the early councils, aimed to summarize and defend the apostolic understanding of the Holy Trinity found within the New Testament, not to introduce entirely new theological concepts or ideas.
The Angel of the Lord
A KEY EXAMPLE OF HOw the Hebrew Scriptures express the multiple persons of the God of Israel is the figure of “the Angel of the Lord” in the Torah.’ In the text of the Old Testament, this figure is identified as Yahweh, the God of Israel, and yet acts as a Second Person who interacts with both Yahweh and humans. The first such encounter took place in the initial meeting between Moses and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when God revealed His name to Moses. Exodus 3:2 indicates that the “Angel of the Lord” appeared to him in a flame burning within a bush. But in verse 4, when Moses approached, it was “God” who called to him from the midst of the bush. Upon hearing this call, Moses covered his face because he was afraid of seeing God (v. 6). The reference to “the Angel of the Lord” in verse 2 distinguishes this Person from that of Yahweh through the use of Hebrew grammar, but in the subsequent interaction, the Angel identifies Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In this encounter between Moses and God, the Angel is both identified as Yahweh and distinguished from another Person who is Yahweh.
Amore complex interaction occurs when God appeared to Gideon in Judges 6. In verse 11, the Angel of the Lord sat under an oak tree and called to Gideon, who was working on the threshing floor, to tell him that the God of Israel is with him. Gideon was skeptical, given the oppression the people of Israel in Canaan were currently facing from Midianites-a sure sign that God had forgotten them. In response, “Yahweh” turned to him and spoke (v. 14). As with Moses’ encounter with the burning bush, the God of Israel identified Himself as Gideon’s interlocutor. At first glance, it seems the Angel of the Lord is Yahweh Himself.
However, the matter was not that clear cut, at least not for Gideon, who apparently perceived his guest to be a human prophet or messenger, evidenced by his offer of hospitality. Once food was brought out, the Angel of the Lord told him to set it on a rock, at which point He touched it with His staff, and it was consumed by fire as a sacrifice (vv. 20-21). Finally, the Angel of the Lord disappeared. It was only then that Gideon realized to whom he had been speaking and was afraid, since he had seen the Angel of the Lord face to face. In verse 23, Yahweh responded to this concern: although the Angel had departed, Yahweh was still there.
Possibly the most significant appearance of the Angel of the Lord, however, occurs during the Exodus of Israel into the wilderness. In Exodus 23:20, God told Moses He was sending an Angel before Israel to guard them and lead them into the Land of Promise. Israel, so Moses is warned, must listen to this Angel and not rebel, because God was placing His Name in Him. As will be further discussed in
chapter 2, this “Name” is itself an Old Testament expression of the Person of the God of Israel. For example, the temple in Jerusalem is described as the place in which God will place His Name. Thus what God is trying to communicate to Moses is that Israel must obey this Angel because the Presence of God is within Him. If they follow the Angel’s commands, their enemies will be God’s enemies (v. 23). Incidentally, this language would later form much of the basis of St. John’s Christology. In his Gospel, he repeatedly characterizes God the Father as being “in” Christ (see John 14:11, 20; 17:23). Saint John’s purpose in doing so, similar to that of the Angel of the Lord in Exodus, is to remind us that to hear and obey Christ is to know the Father; to rebel against what Christ says is to be at enmity with Him (see John 8:19; 10:22-39; 14:7).
This reference to the Angel of the Lord in Exodus is not an anomaly. Throughout God’s covenant with Israel, He identified Himself as the One who brought them out of the land of Egypt (Ex. 20:2; Lev. 11:45; Deut. 5:6). After Israel’s sojourn ended and the conquest of Canaan was complete, however, in Judges 2:1, the Angel of the Lord said, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you to the land that I had promised to your fathers.” The Angel then revealed that because Israel disobeyed Him, He was now departing and would no longer fight for them against their enemies. When the Angel explained this to the Israelites, they wept bitterly in response (v. 4). That the Angel both conveyed this message to the Israelites and traveled from Gilgal to Bokim reveal that He was a Person who had been physically present with and accompanied Israel throughout the preceding forty-plus years.
This appearance of the Angel of the Lord demonstrates that even the earliest traditions of the Old Testament reveal a second hypostasis of the God of Israel, who both is Israel’s God and is Himself a Second Person of Yahweh. When this is taken into account, many New Testament passages considered allegory or reinterpretations of the previous revelation can be seen to be quite literal. The New Testa-
ment authors identify this Person as the One who became incarnate as Jesus Christ. It was in this spirit St. Paul believed the Angel of the Lord had been with Israel in the wilderness and that Israel’s God had stood on the rock before Moses struck it to produce water (Ex. 17:6). Thus he could proclaim that the rock that followed Israel in the wilderness “was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:3-4). Likewise, Jude, in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of his epistle, could simply say that Jesus “saved a people out of Egypt” and afterward “destroyed those who did not believe” (1:5).
Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Small problem. The Holy spirit, is not the only holy spirit, and has no name.
If it took an immortal holy spirit, with a name, to tell Mary she would be visited by the holy spirit, that's either a quad, or family of God, as scripture states.
Ephesians 3:15.
This text has been altered by the Catholic Church.
We know that, Dan. The Trinity is derived from the NT Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but it was fully fleshed out by the early Church. Which is doctrinally consistent with what the Church taught and teaches about the development of doctrine-that the Spirit will “lead you into all truth.” Some fundamentalist types who misunderstand Sola Scriptura (and it is a misunderstanding of that 16th c notion as Luther understood it) are ignorant of this fact; but the larger Church has never been ignorant of it.
Doctrine develops.
nah, do some more research. man-made concept with no Biblical proof.
The triune (trinitarian) Nature of God (Love) is expressed through the Greek language through the three major loves in their language:
Agapē (universal, unconditional love)
Philos (brotherly/friendly love)
Eros (erotic/sexual/romantic love)
Agapē relates to spirit
Philos relates to familiar/family bonds
Eros relates to flesh
The triune Nature of Love predates Christianity.
Thank you!!!!
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.
@@Andrew-om1pw And were then filled with the Holy Spirit. And Jesus had already made reference to His (our) Father. So…Father, Son and Holy Spirit…the Holy Trinity.
The Catholic Church said that they have changed this text. Originally it was only in the name of Jesus Christ and that is how the early Christians baptized.
@@Samael-ou7yo By ‘they’ do you mean the RCC itself? If so, proof please. Also, our current copies of Holy Scripture tally with both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, our earliest surviving Bibles.
@@stuartallen8684 Yes, the RCC.
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
Here is what the former pope (Ratzinger) said:
"The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are from the 4th century and contain the already altered text.
@@Samael-ou7yo And yet the Holy Scriptures still make specific individual references (scattered throughout them) to Jesus, to God the Father, and to the Holy Spirit, as specific Holy Entities/Persons. Hence we see revealed, God (Who can only be One) is yet Three Persons (United as One)…the Holy Trinity. Your points about Baptismal formula are very well made (and taken) but refer only to that specific religious rite. Thus they do not disprove the existence of the Holy Trinity nor do they take account of the more general Biblical references to (revelation of) all Three Holy Persons.
Hi- I will ask again, since no one bit the first time. I always thought the Trinity came from the Baptism- God speaks from a cloud and the Holy Spirit descends like a dove. You can dismiss the Trinity here as imagery, but it is there! There are 3 characters intimately linked together- yes???? Anyone? Bueller?
This passage has just as much to do with a trinity as the rest of scripture. Absolutely nothing. There are 3 completely seperate beings here. In at least 2 different places. The father speaks from heaven. The son is in the river. The spirit is in the form of a dove
The Trinity is completely logically incoherent and self-contradictory, whether it’s expressed in the Bible or not. If God is the Father and the Father is God; and equally God is the Son and the Son is God, then the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son by logical necessity. If A (the Father) = B (God), and B (God) = C (the Son), then basic logic demands that A (the Father) = C (the Son). Trinitarians accept the first two premises, but deny the conclusion that is logically necessitated by those premises.
LOL 😆 U obviously R clueless about the actual trinity!
@@davidjanbaz7728 not to mention, jealous that he cannot understand things others can. It reminds me of the time when I thought the Pythagorean theorem was “logically incoherent”…
No, because they are different roles or functions of the same being (God). Their roles is the only thing that differentiates them in catholic doctrine.
@@plotinus393 A single entity with multiple roles can make sense, but you can’t make sense of the notion that the creator of everything that exists and Jesus of Nazareth are the same entity. That would mean that God fathered himself, and sacrificed himself to himself.
So I would like to clarify that the trinity actually is in the Bible but I too am not a trinitarian.
How is that possible?
Revelation 16:13
King James Version
13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
There's the real trinity and I have no interest in any part of it.
The trinity was the church’s attempt to explain the mystery of Christ. Is he man? Is he Son? Is he God? Is he below? Is he equal? Is he after? Has he always been? The scriptures say yes to each question at different times, and the Church believes that all answers are true, for God is not a linear formula of a being that can be explained with the stumbling of human logic and reasoning. He transcends all philosophies and doctrines. The doctrine of the trinity isn’t perfect, but it is a sincere and faithful attempt to equip the saints with a language to speak about God revealed in Christ
There's nothing at all sincere about the doctrine of the Trinity. It is and always has been an attempt to obfuscate the fundamental incoherence (and/or polytheism) of a certain fashionable Christology of its time. It uses discredited metaphysics and meaningless philosophical jargon to confuse the credulous into believing it must make rational sense (they just don't get it), and when someone calls the bluff, the fallback is that "it's a mystery," which is not an answer and indicates the whole doctrine is false. It's the worst kind of lie, the kind the person telling isn't even able to believe themselves.
All coherent formulations of the Trinity are heretical, and all orthodox formulations of the Trinity are incoherent. It's a nonsense idea, it's "polytheism except nuh-uh it's totally different." Trinitarians look ridiculous trying to defend it, and rightly so, because it's not defensible. If you have three gods, just say you have three gods; if you have one god, accept subordinationism or adoptionism or any of the numerous formulations that at least kind of make sense. You can't have it both ways, 1 doesn't equal 3 no matter how hard Thomas Aquinas wants it to.
So glad that the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. Google the great apostasy and the restoration of all things.
Good luck everyone!
1 John 5:7-8 Father son ghost is an admitted insertion by church fathers.
Comma Johanium debate went on for centuries in church councils.
Martin Luther and Erasmus refused to add 1 John.
John 7:53
John 8:11
Mark 16:9-20
Mathew 17:2
Just a few passages inserted or removed from original koine Greek new testament .
Countless people tortured imprisoned burned alive for rejecting Trinity Idolatry.
Calvin and Luther also had people burned alive.
Not just Roman Catholic Church.
Evil theology based on terror torture murder slavery pogroms .
But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them.
In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery,
And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace.
For though they be punished in the sight of men, yet is their hope full of immortality.
And having been a little chastised, they shall be greatly rewarded:
for God proved them, and found them worthy for himself.
As gold in the furnace hath he tried them, and received them as a burnt offering.
And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble.
They shall judge the nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord shall reign for ever.
They that put their trust in him shall understand the truth:
and such as be faithful in love shall abide with him:
for grace and mercy is to his saints, and he hath care for his elect.
I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.
I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people.
Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying,
O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
How do you know that Martin Luther and Erasmus did all this?
@@Maheer_Ahanaf Erasmus and Luther refused to add it..
Erasmus only added 1 John after pressure from church and they " found " one obscure passage in Mathew that is considered a later addition.
Martin Luther refused to add 1 John in his first German translation.
But it was put in later after he died .
There are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the earliest original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew sources.
That's why I rejected it.
@@Maheer_Ahanaf Because this is in theological archives in Grad student studies .
You can find it on reputable university sites which focus on such ..
I would add Mein Kampf quotes Martin Luther and new testament.
Calvin also a rabid antisemite.
Both wrote horrific books on such .
Scholars partly blame holocaust on this .
@@MitzvosGolem1 Glad to know. What's your current belief?
Didache was probably written before or around the time of the earliest books of the Bible, maybe 50 AD. "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
The Essenes have writings found in the dead sea scrolls from the first or second century BC that say "We worship the father and we worship the Spirit, and when the Son comes he will show us how else to worship."
Neither of those two sayings would conflict with a unitarian view. Unitarians still believe Jesus was the Messiah, a prophet and the chosen one, just not God.
Binary not Triune
ONE/ECHAD/united in one SPIRIT
(The word here means they are united, but the neuter form of the word rules out the meaning that they can be one person or being. They are two beings but one in spirit and each has totally surrendered their wills to each other in love, goal and purpose. Although they both existed for eternity the Father is greater in judicial order and authority( Joh 14:28). The proof of this is right now in heaven there are 2 thrones one that the Father is sitting on and one to the right of the Father that the Son is sitting on. (Ps 110:1, 1 Pe 3:22, Ro 8:34, Acts 2:33, 7:55-56, Heb 1:3, 8:1, 10:10-13 (refs8))
1 John 3
24 And the ones keeping Their commandments is guarded by Them, and They will dwell in us. And by this we know that They abides in us,
by Their Spirit which They gave to us.
There is one spirit, so the spirit of YHWH is the same as the spirit of Messiah.
The angel of the lord was worshipped as God. Sacrifices were made to him. He said he's the God of abraham, isaac and Jacob. He's the same angel who has the name Yahweh in him. This guy's arguments are lackluster at best. The Bible forces you to see that God is tri personal. There is no way around it.
There’s the Mormon
I consider myself to be a nuanced born again Mormon I need to see a serious in depth debate between you and Dr White from Apologia!!! How can we get that set up?
I don't think Dan does debates.
@@jgmrichter he’s the only person who has the knowledge and understanding of the topic that could even keep up with White and even set him straight!
@@Sayheybrother8 Heiser even from the grave debunks Dan's prgressive Mormon liberal scholarship.
His old videos speak to Dan's nonsense!
@@Sayheybrother8 Born Again Mormon: now that's a new twist on Mormon propaganda!
You over looked Genesis how the Spirit of God hovered over the waters and how God says "let US make man in OUR image". Thats the Holy Spirit + God at least in the Genesis. Then you add Jesus in the New Testament so there you go; the Trinity!
What about the Baptism, where God speaks from Heaven and the Holy Spirit descends as a dove? Isn’t that the Trinity?
So it is Pagan. Jesus's brother james did not have the same belief. 😅
You lost me at 'CE'
Like holy men who ponder the word and life of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Mcgi church lead by Bro.elie Soriano was right..,
He is wrong, the trinity was talked about in the earliest historical documents we have.
The Trinity doctrine (three persons in one God, all coequal, coeternal and consubstantial) developed gradually over several centuries until it was fully formulated by about the end of the fourth century. The Bible does not say that there are three persons in one God, all coequal, coeternal and consubstantial. Jesus taught that the Father was greater than he was and he called his Father "my God'' even after his resurrection. (Revelation 3:12) Also, Philippians 2:9 says that God highly exalted Jesus. The fact that God highly exalted him shows that Jesus is not equal to God. The Bible also says that Jesus was created, whereas God (whose name is Jehovah) was not created and does not have a beginning. Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus the “Firstborn of all creation” and Revelation 3:14 says that Jesus is the “beginning of the creation by God.” These scriptures show that God and Jesus are not co-eternal.
@@jollyrancher521 Jesus was in the flesh on earth so he had to submit hence Philippians 2:7. pre-incarnation he was The Word then The Angel of The Lord then Jesus.
Thank you!!! I reviewed the bible for both the trinity and the elusive antiabortionist passages, and if we don't dive into the text with these perspectives already primed to impose and frame meaning on the scripture, then we don't actually discover that articulation there. I'm so flipping glad you posted this!!!
For me, I’m in most cases against abortion (though certain cases certainly have my sincere sympathy). I don’t need a Biblical framework to have any sort of view on abortion as non-religious people have differing views of abortion.
@@AaronGeller I've engaged a myriad of antiabortionists, and those few who aren't religious are not only extremely rare, but they are also highly likely to have been recent deconverts.
If you would like, I would love to hear your secular argument against abortion that doesn't rely on special pleading fallacies or a begging the question fallacy?
@@RashidMBey I’m not one to have a discussion about a hot topic with people I’m not close to nor do I have the time to go in depth, but I believe that a society that does not value unborn children when it’s not convenient can lead to a slippery slope of devaluing other members. I also question how beneficial abortion is to many expecting moms who want to terminate. In the end, I believe there should be more resources for expecting mothers.
@@AaronGeller Well, you saved our discussion from the risk of being interesting (i say that half-joking lol). I may have the opposite philosophy: I quite simply want to grow and grow closer to the truth, and that requires me to humble myself enough to embrace a clear reality. If I refused deeper discussion that challenged my thinking unless that person was intimate with me, then I threatened all deeper discussion that challenges me. People close to us will likely share similar perspectives on key issues or avoid deeper discussions that challenge us for fear of compromising their intimate relationship and the feeling of safety and belonging. If we're genuinely interested in seeking truth, which we must if we're genuinely interested in doing right, then we must embrace those deeper discussions with strangers who aren't filtered by whether or not we ultimately find them agreeable. If you're interested in growing close and having a friend who gently but firmly pushes back and explores nuance with you, I'm available. Just search RashidMBey on most social media and you'll find me, and I'd be happy to prove the value of strangers until I prove the value of my friendship that emerges from it.
The scripture is right
The NT has the data, and the dogma came later.
Oh Dan, oh Dan! I can already see the Evangelicals coming at you, as they did with Bart Ehrman, until he became good friends with them again, when Bart made some remarkable U-turns. I hope that you're more steadfast than him!
Not everything has to be *explicitly* said in the Scriptures.
That's correct. That leaves us room for post-hoc rationalizations.
Feels like kind of an important thing to leave implicit.
Except Jesus made sure to use parables so that the peasants could understand what he was preaching. you would think explaining the trinity would be up there as a priority
God is one. And its the Father Yahweh, and Jesus is son of God
Do not presume that you know better than the inspired writers of God in olden times. Come up with your own, if you have any worth reading and knowing, without having to criticize or work on those of others' before you.
I'm a strict Unitarian in the tradition of Joseph Priestley. His four-volume series "A History of Early Opinions Concerning Jesus Christ" goes through the complete origin and development of the Trinity, which took place after and would not have taken place but for the earlier development of the equally false ideas of the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus. All of this stuff has transformed the original and wonderful religion of Jesus and the apostles into a "mystery" religion of orthodoxy that makes no sense whatsoever to the average person who even cares to look into it.
The problem I have is with reconciling Revelations (Alpha and Omega) spoken by Jesus, as well as John 1. 1. and "Wisdom personified" in other texts that seem to indicate Jesus had a pre-existence.
Personally, I think "Trinity" is the result of logical deduction, which was a human effort to form a unified theological foundation for the early followers of Jesus.
Unitarianism is in the Bible monotheism is in the Bible polytheism is in the Bible and your point is?