Ich bin Gott unendlich dankbar dass ich diese Irrlehren erkennen durfe! Ich bin aus der Freikirche aussgestiegen. Es ist grausam was die Menschen mit dem wunderbaren Evangelium gemacht haben. Ich habe all diese falschen Lehren hinter mir gelassen, ich bin so befreit! Gelobt sei Gott der Allmächtige😊
Praise the Lord! This is one of the best presentations on the Trinity I have ever heard. I am a non ternion but I would like to learn how to meet the trinitarians with the quotes they love to use from sister White.... Third person of the godhead..... Heavenly trio...... The holy spirit is as much a person as God...... Thank you and God bless you.
Jesus often utilized the speech style of “illeism”. He spoke “IN the third person” about Himself, never “ABOUT a third person” (see example John 3:16). Who's the Helper and Spirit of Truth? Jesus tells you it's Himself - John 14:18, 21, 23. Where is the Father's Spirit if His Spirit is another person? He would cease to exist, as Almighty God is only a Spirit. When did the Father ever express His love for the other spirit person, as He does for His Son? When did the Apostles excoriate John when he constantly wrote only the Father and Son were the true God, eternal life, and the only object of our fellowship? Why is it antichrist to reject the Father or Son (two), and not the Trinity (three), if they're inseparable? When did Jesus pray for each Believer to be one with the three of them?
@@andrewwhitehurst5001 I’m sorry I was so critical Andy. It’s a character defect. Please forgive me. I got it from my dad. When he was young, you two looked just alike. I was hard on him too. I wish I could apologize to him. Looking forward to your next sermon.. : )
If He had not come in the flesh, most likely the limited dark glass look or analysis would be that God is a headless ghost and as it is, both descendants of Ishmael and Jacob say " God forbid that He should have a son" what is implied by Rev.21:22? Or the baptism anecdotes? Perhaps the statement " That Christ is the light of every man that has come into the world" might mean the Holy spirit has been more pervasive than imagined!
This was VERY insightful. This problem about the death of Jesus and redemption is a remarkable idea that I have not thought about nearly enough ite seems. Thank you!
@45:50 time, Jesus died and the Father resurected Jesus. If u say that Jesus did not die that affects the sanctuary message. The high priest can only be human and that's why Jesus is our high priest. Acts 2:24, 10:40, 13:30, Galations 1:1, 1Peter 1:3.
If the HS is the an anatomical spirit like man's spirit then: 1.how comes He has a mind. Rom.8:27. 2. How comes He can be send, talks, etc. 3. How comes He has a name other than the body or God into which we are baptized? 4. How could He be shared by the Father and the Son unless the Two are conjoined? 5. Then the human spirit should also have a mind, name, ability to move and talk independently!!
@@joelchirchir242 Act 8-29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. Act 10-19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Act 13-2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. In these verses, it is evident that the Holy Spirit is speaking Himself. There is no evidence in these verses that anyone is speaking through Him. The Holy Spirit is very much a Person The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” Manuscript 20, 1906.
Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God... God say one thing the serpent said something else.. man fall, Jesus say baptized in The Father The Son and The Holy Ghost, man say something else smh... If we only just stick to God word and humble our self this world would not be in so much problem.
What is the Spirit that goes back to God when we die? We read in 1. Cor.2,10-12 that it is something else than the breath. Jesus said when he died: Luke 23,46: Father into your hand I commend my spirit. And Stefanus said when they stoned him, Acts 7,59: Lord, receive my Spirit.
My 3rd time watching, this was profound, i wish all adventist would watch this and listen with an unbiased heart. In my opinion, when many are saying Lord Lord, but didn't i do this, didnt i do that, in your name ect... When Jesus says depart from me...... I never knew you, i understand it as christians, who try to do and say a lot in the name of Jesus, but never knew Him, in the sense that they didn't understand this topic your speaking on now, they think they know Jesus, they might preach Jesus, but with the understanding of the Trinity in their minds, they are not understanding him, His Father, or His Holy Spirit, i might not be explaining what's in my head properly, but only those who "think" they are doing Gods will and think they are teaching truth, are going to be the ones pleading with Jesus like that, not atheist, or muslims, jews ect ... So all of these trinity believers don't have a true understanding or knowledge of Jesus, who he is, or His father, therefore they are preaching and teaching lies, could that be one of the reasons why He says " depart from me ye workers of iniquity"? We know there are pastors who sell out for a big pay check, nice retirement, power, respect of the higher ups, and also preachers who don't have a humble heart and seek the Lord for themselves and just join with the majority to be accepted of the masses, and many more, im wondering who are the people that the Lord is talking to here, it has to be men in power positions right? Preachers and teachers, elders, and popular christian speakers? Idk I've been thinking about this a lot, it cant be the average person in the pew, or at least i don't think, id love to hear other peoples understanding on this. God bless this ministry, I've been blessed 🙏💯👍
Getting to Hell!!! The Bible talks about Hell, " Hell is the Grave= Pitt=Hell"! When we leave the World. Luke 16:23+Matthew 5:29+ Psalm 6:5;9:17 andNumbers 16:30+33!!!
@@williamhartweg6935 In the New Testament, two distinct Greek terms-*Hades* and *Gehenna*-are often translated as "hell" in English, but they refer to different concepts. Understanding these terms correctly is crucial to grasping what the apostles and early Christians meant when they spoke about the afterlife. *Hades* is the Greek word for the place of the dead, equivalent to the Hebrew concept of *Sheol*. It is understood as a temporary abode where souls reside after death, awaiting the final judgment. This is not a place of eternal punishment but rather an interim state. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), the rich man finds himself in Hades, experiencing torment, yet this is not his final destination. On the other hand, *Gehenna* refers to the place of final judgment, the "lake of fire" mentioned in Revelation (20:14-15). *Gehenna* was originally a valley outside Jerusalem where refuse was burned, and it came to symbolize the eternal punishment prepared for the wicked after the final judgment. This is the place traditionally understood as "hell" in the sense of eternal separation from God. The confusion arises when both *Hades* and *Gehenna* are translated into English as "hell," leading many to conflate the temporary state of the dead with the final, eternal punishment. Early Christians, guided by the teachings of the apostles, made a clear distinction between these two terms. They understood *Hades* as a temporary state where souls awaited resurrection and judgment, and *Gehenna* as the final, eternal destination for the unrighteous. This distinction is vital to understanding the eschatological teachings in Christianity. The conflation of these terms in translation has contributed to misunderstandings about the nature of the afterlife. The original language and the early Christian tradition make it clear that *Hades* is not synonymous with the eternal hell but is rather a precursor to the final judgment, where the ultimate fates of souls are determined by God.
The gospel is: The Almighty God, the Father and God of Jesus, (John 20:17), has reconciled the world to himself through the death of his unblemished, sinless human son, so that debt humanity had with Him, due to their transgression, has been paid in full. From the book of James 1, we know that our temptations come from our own desires which are sinful. We inherited them from Adam and Eve. Jesus did not have those desires because he was created by the Almighty in Mary, bypassing a human father, therefore, as the gospel tells us, Jesus was tempted by Satan and he did not sin, not because he was God or the Father, but because he did not yield to what Satan resorted to deceive him, unlike Adam and Eve who succumbed to Satan's deception.
He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. YI 12/20/1900 His human nature was created; it did not even possess angelic powers. It was human, identical to our own. Ms. 94, 1893
How did The Archangel Micheal overshadow Mary so as to impregnate her with Jesus? The Scriptures say that the angel said to Mary, The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. Where does it say that Micheal got in there and that he is called the Son of God?? Do you see the dilemma that SDA teaching puts one in. Can you tell me how to reconcile this problem. Regards
Curious indeed! Regeneration of Enoch or Elijah to the point of withstanding the brilliance & energy field of God is yet another of Abraha.s wife at her extreme age to regenerate!
Why is the cross mentioned,the cross is just like the trinity,brought into Christianity by the Roman emperor Constantine,after he claim to have a dream about this cross which was his symbol in winning the war. Was Christ crucified on a cross?? Remember Christ said (AS MOSES LIFTED UP THE SERPENT IN THE WILDERNESS SO SHALL BE THE SUN OF MAN BE LIFTED UP):Did Moses lifted up the serpent on a cross like the Christian symbol (cross) ???.
Matthew 28:19,so 1.John 7:5 you don't find in the Hebrew or Greek Manuscripts!! Read Acts 2:38,it would be a contradiction! Read EGW, ( PTUK-Jan.9,1896pg.191)+ ( ELlen G.White Lt84, October 22,1895)+(CCH76.5) and read Signs of the Times,July 23,1902)
The EGW books have been forged I recently learned from a sister in Russia that she has old Adventist magazines at home before 1917 where there are EGW statements from their main books and in one of them it says "by the power of the spirit" and in a book published later it says "by the power of the third person divinity" it was supposed to be from some book on page "571" or "671" I didn't have time to copy the comment because youtube deleted it. Those who have EGW books published during her lifetime can confirm this. But I've heard that EGW books are forged many times I just never paid attention to it because I can only use the Bible to defend God's truth in all things.
1 John 5:7-8 New King James Version (NKJV) For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
That was 1 John 5:7. Now read v 8:And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Many people say 1 John 5:7 proves a trinity because of what it says but if that is the case then v 8 proves another trinity because it uses the same phraseology but applies it to spirit, water and blood. So my question is how many trinities are there? If verse 7 proves one then verse 8 proves another one
@trackinggod8087 Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
@@Rich4Truth I can appreciate that. In fact Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." But, if there is only one person in the Godhead, one might wonder why Elohim is plural. I noticed that you quote Ellen White on your website. This might be an interesting thing to consider: "The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit." -Special Testimonies, Series A, 10:37. (1897). And this one is fascinating to consider: "Had God the Father come to our world and dwelt among us, humbling Himself, veiling His glory, that humanity might look upon Him, the history that we have of the life of Christ would not have been changed" That I May Know Him p. 338
@@trackinggod8087 The word Elohim used in the text for God…A plural word used with singular verbs, meaning- A plural intensive with singular meaning. It’s using a plural word to denote majesty and greatness. To denote power, not plurality. This is very common in the Bible. Here’s an example: when God sent Moses to Pharoah. He said in Ex 7:1 See, I have made thee a god “elohim” to Pharaoh. But Moses was only one person. The Hebrews understood this very clearly. God created all things through his Son, Jesus Christ. Col 1:15,16 Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: God created all things by His Son. He said to His Son, Let US make man in OUR image. There were two there, Father and Son. Not 3. I never said that the Godhead was just one. I said God, the Father, is just one. Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? Malachi understood that God is not a trinity. We can agree that the Holy Spirit is a person. But not a separate person to Christ, or the Father. The HOLY SPIRIT is the SPIRIT of CHRIST, which is sent to all men to give them sufficiency,” -(E.G. White, 14MR 84.3) “We want the HOLY SPIRIT, which is JESUS CHRIST.” - (E.G. White, Lt66, April 10, 1894
It's deeply ironic to see someone reject the Trinity while relying on the New Testament canon, especially when you consider the historical timeline. The doctrine of the Trinity was firmly established long before the New Testament canon as we know it was universally recognized. In fact, the doctrine was a central belief of the early Church, defended by those who played a key role in shaping the very canon of scripture you accept today. The 27 books of the New Testament were not formally listed until 367 AD by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. Before this, early Christian communities used a variety of texts, but it wasn’t until the 4th century that there was a consensus on what books should be included. This consensus was reached by Christians who, without question, believed in the Trinity-a belief that had already been articulated and defended for centuries. To put it simply, rejecting the Trinity using a New Testament canon is historically inconsistent. The very people who established the canon-those who followed the teachings of the apostles-were staunch defenders of the Trinity. By dismissing the Trinity while relying on their canon, you’re effectively standing on a foundation built by the very doctrine you reject. It’s not just ironic; it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how Christian doctrine and the biblical canon developed. The belief in the Trinity is interwoven with the history of how we came to recognize the New Testament. To reject one while accepting the other is to ignore the true continuity of Christian tradition.
@@jeromefalasca5118 ….and? That does nothing to reject the Trinity properly understood. In fact if one actually looked at the Greek they could see quite a bit more on these issues. "'In what did Second Temple Judaism consider the uniqueness of the one God to consist, what distinguished God as unique from all other reality, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles?, the answer given again and again, in a wide variety of Second Temple Jewish literature, is that the only true God, YHWH, the God of Israel, is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things. While these characteristics are by no means sufficient to identify God (since they say nothing, for example, about his goodness or his justice), they are the features which most readily distinguish God absolutely from all other reality. God alone created all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are created by him. God alone rules supreme over all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are subject to him. These ways of distinguishing God as unique formed a very easily intelligible way of defining the uniqueness of the God they worshipped which every Jew in every synagogue in the late Second Temple period would certainly have known. However diverse Judaism may have been in many other respects, this was common: only the God of Israel is worthy of worship because he is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things. Other beings who might otherwise be thought divine are by these criteria God's creatures and subjects."-Richard Bauckham, biblical scholar Isa. 40:26, 28; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12, 18; 48:13; 51:16; Neh. 9:6; Hos. 13:4 LXX; 2 Macc. 1:24; Sir. 43:33; Bel 5; Jub. 12:3-5; Sib. Or. 3:20-35; 8:375-76; Sib. Or. frg. 1:5-6; Sib. Or. frg. 3; Sib. Or. frg. 5; 2 En. 47:3-4; 66:4; Apoc. Ab. 7:10; Ps-Sophocles; Jos. Asen. 12:1-2; T. Job 2:4. Dan. 4:34-35; Bel 5; Add. Esth. 13:9-11; 16:18, 21; 3 Macc. 2:2-3; 6:2; Wis. 12:13; Sir. 18:1-3; Sib. Or. 3:10, 19; Sib. Or. frg. 1:7,15,17,35; 1 En. 9:5; 84:3; 2 En. 33:7; 2 Bar. 54:13; Josephus, A.J. 1:155-6. "...Whereas the inclusion of Jesus in the eschatological sovereignty of God is found in all the New Testament literature, his inclusion in the work of creation is less widespread, but is found in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation and the Gospel of John. Since it is of less direct relevance to most of the concerns of the New Testament writers, this is not surprising. What is noteworthy is that in three of these cases (1 Corinthians, Hebrews and John) the purpose, in my view, is precisely to express Jewish monotheism in christological terms. It is not that these writers wish to say anything about the work of creation for its own sake or even that they wish to say anything about the relationship of Christ to creation for its own sake, but that they wish precisely to include Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. Including him precisely in the divine activity of creation is the most unequivocal way of excluding any threat to monotheism-as though Jesus were a subordinate demigod while redefining the unique identity of God in a way that includes Jesus. To illustrate the point, we shall examine the earliest of these texts: 1 Corinthians 8:6. This passage in its context reads: 'Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'there is no idol in the world' and that 'there is no God except one.' 'Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -as in fact there are many gods and many lords -but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.' Paul's concern in this context is explicitly monotheistic. The issue of eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional Jewish monotheistic concern for loyalty to the only true God in a context of pagan polytheistic worship. What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes up from the Corinthians' letter (at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula 'there is no God except one' in order to agree with it and to give, in verse 6, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the 'many gods and many lords' of the Corinthians' pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance. Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement, a. but for us [there is] one God, the Father, b. from whom [are] all things and we for him, c. and one Lord, Jesus Christ, d. through whom [are] all things and we through him. The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable. One is the Shema`, the classic Jewish statement of the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily by all observant Jews...It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the Shema° and produced, as it were, a Christian version of it. Not so widely recognized is the full significance of this. In the first and third lines of Paul's formula (labelled a and c above), Paul has, in fact, reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema` (Deut. 6:4: 'The LORD our God, the LORD, is one'), but Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema` speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing, not christological monotheism, but outright ditheism. The addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema` would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. The only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema. But this is, in any case, clear from the fact that the term 'Lord', applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord, is taken from the Shema` itself. Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema` a 'Lord' the Shema` does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' whom the Shema` affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul's quite unprecedented reformulation of the Shema`, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah. Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique identity Paul is certainly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with the unique God he certainly would be repudiating monotheism."-bible scholar Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity John 1:1-5; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; Rev. 3:14. The 'our' of the Shema` appears as the 'for us' at the beginning of Paul's reformulation. F.F. Bruce, I and 2 Corinthians (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 80; D.R. de Lacey, "'One Lord" in Pauline Christology,' in Christ the Lord, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (D. Guthrie FS; Leicester: IVP, 1982), 191-203; Dunn, Christology, 180; Hurtado, One God, 97; N. Thomas Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 128-9; D.A. Hagner, 'Paul's Christology and Jewish Monotheism,' in Perspectives on Christology, ed. M. Shuster and R. Muller (P.K. Jewett; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 28-9; Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God (JSNTSup 99; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 300; B. Witherington III, Jesus the Sage (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 316.
@@saenzperspectives Thanks for your reply but our Lord and saviours words are clear About His Father, beware of the traditions and words of men ,especially Athanasius . I want to point out that I believe Jesus to be fully Devine and as the word was the active agent of creation but if he says the father is greater than I then I believe him.
Fellow commentators saying this is hellbound... And I agree. Holy Bible is to be closely examined. If you say a word that is not in line with the Scriptures (66 books of the Bible) is a sin, whether it is knowingly or not. I will give examples in the Bible where the Bible itself is talking about God that is not singular. Look at the original Hebrew translation - Genesis 1:26: "Let Us create man in Our image..." God is speaking to other persons... who are also God! Just because we cant understand it doesn't mean it's not so. There are so many other examples in the Bible. One more would be the Psalms, where David says: "The Lord said to my Lord..." The Father is God The Son - Jesus is God The Holy Spirit is God
The Father is Spirt, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. The Son is Devine and His spirt is one with the father ( literally the breath of life) but our Saviour says The Father is greater than I, he also says Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God: Mark 10:18-21
@ljupconewman9357 The word “us” does not mean three. Look it up. He was talking to His Son. And where in the Bible does it EVER say “God the Holy Spirit”? It says the Spirit OF God. The word “of” shows ownership. God’s own Spirit. You and I both have a spirit. We were made in the image of God. But that doesn’t mean that you and I, are 4 different people. I hope this helps.
Isaiah 5:20-21 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Isaiah 48:16 “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.” The above verse reveals God the Father, God the Son, Jesus Christ (who was sent) and God the Holy Spirit. One God manifested and revealed in three personages. Matthew 28:19-20 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The Trinity DelusionAn exposé of the doctrine of the Trinity Isaiah 48:16 Come near to me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret. From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord Yahweh has sent me, and His Spirit. The Trinitarian Claim Some Trinitarians imagine this verse refers to Yahweh the Father sending Yahweh the Son. The Claim vs. The Facts The Scriptural facts show that there is one speaker at Isaiah 48:16a, another speaker at Isaiah 48:16b and that second speaker is Yahweh's servant Israel. The Problem with the Claim 1. The Dishonest attempting to Prey upon the Ignorant Trinitarians in general don't have a clue what this verse is about. But they do think they get to imagine their three-person-God into the text unless you find a reason why they cannot (even though you don't need one). Many folks don't know what to do with this verse. Trinitarians make this claim hoping that nobody will be able to provide them with a response. So they disingenuously suppose this gives them a right to make up whatever they like for the sake of their doctrine. They don't have any evidence for their claim but they really don't care. They are just trying to get other people to believe that they get to interpret this verse however they like if others don't provide them with a response which prevents them from doing as they please. these particular Trinitarians don't know what this verse is about and they hope you don't either. They somehow just get it in their own heads that they get to make up whatever they like to suit their Trinitarian traditions if you can't give them a reason they why they can't. But what kind of person supposes they get to practice eisegesis and make up whatever they like unless someone else prevents them from doing so? 2. Eisgetical Interpretation It is typical for Trinitarians to resort to the disingenuous practice of eisegesis and read their doctrine into the text wherever they think possible. This is just one more example of their total disregard for the contextual facts and typical of their method of looking for excuses rather than facts. 3. Who is who? Although they have no evidence for their interpretation, Trinitarians somehow think it is okay to imagine that Jesus is speaking here as Yahweh the Son and he is saying that Yahweh the Father sent him and His Spirit. But the real question isn't who we should imagine into the text but who Isaiah is talking about in this verse. Knowing that Yahweh was speaking at the beginning of the verse, it should be rather obvious to anyone that the words which follow, "And now Lord Yahweh has sent me," are spoken by someone else. It also isn't going to make any sense to suggest Yahweh is sent and is referring to Yahweh as Lord Yahweh which would imply Yahweh's Lord is Yahweh. 4. Interpretations of Trinitarian Scholars This Trinitarian claim illustrates the disregard which some Trinitarians have for any interpretation that does not suit their needs. A simple survey of the opinions of Trinitarian scholars shows that their own scholars do not resort to making such disingenuous claims. Some suppose the one sent is Isaiah, others Cyrus, others God's servant Israel, etc. But since these interpretations do not suit the desires of some Trinitarians, they simply disregard them just as they do another other facts which do not suit them. 5. The Spirit sends or is sent? There is also a different of opinion among scholars about the Spirit. Some argue the verse means Yahweh sends (1) me, and (2) the Spirit. Others argue that (1) Yahweh and (2) His Spirit sends "me." In the former case, the Spirit is the second object; in the latter case the Spirit is the second subject. This problem is also disregarded by Trinitarians who make this claim. 6. Punctuation: Where do the Quotation Marks Start and End? The original Hebrew text did not contain punctuation; there were no quotation marks. So where does Yahweh start speaking and where does He stop speaking? It also appears that people assume there is one speaker due to the fact that Isaiah 48:16 is one single verse. However, these verse divisions were not in the original text either. Analysis of the Facts 1. The Preceding Context Note the preceding context where God speaks in the same vein, beginning at verse 2: The LORD of hosts is His name. "I declared the former things long ago and they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.... I declared them to you long ago, before they took place I proclaimed them to you.... I proclaim to you new things from this time, even hidden things which you have not known... They are created now and not long ago; And before today you have not heard them. So that you will not say, ‘Behold, I knew them.’ “You have not heard, you have not known. Even from long ago your ear has not been open, because I knew that you would deal very treacherously.... So that you will not say, ‘Behold, I knew them.’.... Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. 2. I have not spoken in Secret There is no doubt that Yahweh said the words, "I have not spoken in secret." Note what Yahweh says at Isaiah 45:18-19. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, in some dark land. I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, "Seek Me in a waste place"; I, the LORD, speak righteousness, declaring things that are upright. God said the same thing in Isaiah 45. So we can be reasonably certain that God spoke the words "I have not spoken in secret" at Isaiah 48:16. 3. The Contextual Facts Provide the Obvious Answer The solution to this question is really quite easy. In fact, it's right here in the context. Carefully regard the following: Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. “Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together. Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? Yahweh loves him; he will carry out his good pleasure on Babylon, And His arm will be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way. Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now Lord Yahweh has sent ME, and His Spirit." Carefully observe how Yahweh sends "him" and then he says Lord Yahweh has sent "me." I have called HIM.... Lord Yahweh has sent ME... Secondly, if we just read the context, it becomes completely clear how we should identify "ME" in the expression, "Yahweh has sent ME. Please remember that chapter and verse divisions did not exist in the original writings of the Bible. All we need to do is read carefully and observe how "ME" is often speaking in this context: And now MY Lord Yahweh has sent ME and His Spirit. 48:16 Listen to me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. Yahweh called ME from the womb; From the body of MY mother He named ME. He has made MY mouth like a sharp sword, In the shadow of His hand He has concealed ME; And He has also made ME a select arrow, He has hidden ME in His quiver. He said to ME, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will show My glory.” But I said, “I have toiled in vain, I have spent MY strength for nothing and vanity; Yet surely the justice due to ME is with Yahweh, And MY reward with MY God. And now says the Lord, who formed ME from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the Lord, And My God is MY strength). Isaiah 49:1-5. In Isaiah, Israel is Yahweh's servant and routinely depicted as a single man, "Jacob." It is quite clear that "ME" at Isaiah 48:16 is Yahweh's chosen servant Israel aka Jacob. Also carefully note the following: And Lord Yahweh has sent me and His Spirit.... The LORD has redeemed His servant Jacob. 48:16-20 Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon him. 42:1 Conclusion The contextual facts make it quite clear there are two speakers at Isaiah 48:16. The first speaker is Yahweh and the second speaker is Yahweh's servant Israel who Yahweh sent by His Spirit. This is made abundantly plain in the following context at Isaiah 49:1-5.
@@mikmark100 Christians believe God never has or will change. We also believe God is love (1 John 4:8). The Trinity explains how God was love before he created. The three persons divinely and eternally loved one another. He has always, in himself, been defined by love.
@@mikmark100 God reveals Himself as triune. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. One God in three personages. 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.
@@johnmphiri3746 Where is that in the Bible? The only mystery is how people can be led to believe something that is not written anywhere at all in scripture. Here’s something that actually IS called a mystery in the Bible: Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. If you were to read the Bible objectively. That is, with NO pre-conceived ideas whatsoever. You would not arrive at the doctrine of a trinity. It’s an implanted idea. Something that has to be taught. They also had to teach you that it’s a mystery. A mystery so deep, that even those who believe in it, can’t understand it. How convenient. But it’s not in the Bible, anywhere. Not the trinity. And not anything about some mystery involving a trinity. Except in Rev 17:5 the mystery that comes out of Babylon the great. The mother of Harlots, and abominations of the earth. That may be referring to your false doctrine. What other doctrine is there, that’s not in the Bible, and that people who believe in it, go around calling it a mystery? Because that’s what they were taught. I was taught the same thing. But then I started studying the Bible, and found that it simply isn’t there. And that it really was, just an implanted idea.
There is but One God. "Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." (NOT 3) Deut. 6:4-9. Mark 12:28-34. (vs.30) "Hear O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all they strength". Malachi 2:10. "Have we not all ONE father? hath not ONE God created us?..." Isaiah 44: 6-8. "Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and BESIDE ME there is NO GOD" [SAME STATEMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE RESURRECTED JESUS TO JOHN.] Revelation 1:8 "I AM Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is to come, the Almighty" [WHO IS THE ALMIGHTY? Who is that reserved for? GOD] .Isaiah 44:8) "Fear ye not, neither by afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a GOD beside me? yea, there is NO GOD; I know not any". Isaiah 45:11 -12, 15. KJV only. So Many Amazing verses confirming ONE in Isaiah Chapters onward KJV. Isaiah 37:16 "O LORD(who is the Lord? Jesus Christ) of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubim(in the most holy place in heaven above the ark of the covenant? Jesus, Our High Priest, Saviour, Redeemer, Creator), thou art the GOD, even THOU ALONE, of all the kingdoms of the earth: Thou Hast Made Heaven and Earth" [who made heaven and earth? John 1:1-5.(vs.14) "And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him[the resurrected Jesus], My Lord and my God". Hebrews 1:2 [God] "Hath in these days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, BY WHOM ALSO HE MADE THE WORLDS" notice that's plural: worlds, everything. Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom." (vs.10) And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the works of thine hands." John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM." Exodus 3:14 "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said: Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you". (vs.15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all nations. " (vs.16). The unscriptural, central pillar of the Catholic Church(/beast power/state/church) is the Trinity doctrine on which all other of its (heresies/lies)are based upon. That official statement is in Rome's Catechisms. books False/non biblical lies. Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace". [That is Jesus Christ]. Revelation 19:16 "And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS". Revelation 22:12-13 "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (vs.14) "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." {NOTICE THE WORDING OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT SCRIPTURE.) (vs.15) For Without Are dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, AND IDOLATORS, AND WHOSOEVER LOVETH AND MAKETH A LIE" 1 Reply
@@lisasisk3713 I have no problem with all the references you have given because I agree with them. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. I am not saying there are three Gods. Only one God. But in that one God there are 3 persons. Think about this: There is one creator, the one God. But he said "Let US make man in OUR image. He did not say let me make man on my image. Even Isaiah wrote "For a child is born to us and this shall be his name: Wonder counselor, Mighty God." So this child who is born is mighty God. The Jews told Jesus: "We are not stoning you for a good deed, you are only a man but you make yourself God." Jesus did not tell them that they misunderstood him because they heard him right. That is what he was telling them indirectly. When Jesus forgave the paralytic his sins, the Jews murmured: "Who can forgive sins but God?" Jesus forgave sins because he was God." And you know what? He told the Jews that he was the I AM. They asked him: You are not yet forty and you claim to have seen Abraham?" Jesus answered: "Truly I say to you, before Abraham was I AM." I could go on on with more references to show that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. So I agree with all the references you quoted because the Trinity doctrine does not say there are three Gods but only one God but in that one God there are three persons. To try and understand this mystery is to bring down God to our level. We cannot comprehend God but c a n only believe what he has revealed about himself even if we do not understand. 1+1+1 is 3. This is human mathematics. But God is divine. You can not understand him using human mathematics or reasoning.
@@johnmphiri3746 Good References. But the Word Trinity is NOT in the Bible. But it is the Central Pillar Doctrine of the Catholic upon which all of their other rest upon. That statement is in the Cathechisms. The Catholic church was pagan and they took the pagan statues and covered them religious garb and changed God's Holy Seventh Sabbath to sunday; the day of pagan sun worship. And NO MAN has power to forgive sin. And Jesus can forgive because HE IS GOD. We cannot totally understand it on earth with limited knowledge in this sinful world. But all the scriptures related to The Father are same as relating to the Son. In Heaven there will be no need for the Holy Spirit; because there be sin and God will Be With US..
@@lisasisk3713 I can see you are SDA. I used to be SDA but discovered so many man made doctrines like the imvesigative judgement and the shut door mainly by Ellen G White in her books like The Great Controversy, so I left and joined the Church that Jesus founded - The Catholic Church and later discovered how I was misled in the SDA on how I percieved the Catholic Church. The fact that something is not in the bible does not mean it muist be false. You can deduce a teaching just by reading the bible. For example I asked an SDA who could not believe I left SDA and became Catholic. I said: "Where in the bible does it specifically state that Sabbath is Saturday? Did God create light on Monday (The first day)? The bible does not say so. In fact the sabbath is not mentioned in the bible from creation until the scene of Mt. Sinai when God Gave the 10 commandments. All God said was to keep the seventh day holy. He did not say that that day is Saturday. It was the Jews who chose Saturday as a day of rest and worship. Why? Because that was the day they were liberated by God and left Egypt. So it was appropriate for them to rest and worship on that day, the day of their freedom from slavery. From there on the Jewish first day of the week became Sunday. The apostles were aware of this and so When Jesus at the last supper told them to celebrate the Eucharist when he said "Do this in memory of me" they had no reason to celebrate on Saturday because on that day they were filled with sorrow and despair as Jesus was in the tomb. But on Sunday they rejoiced saying: He is risen alleuia!" So when they realised that it is this same risen Jesus who said "Do this in memory of me" what better day was there to break the bread than on the day that he rose from the dead? Because as paul puts it, had Christ not risen from the dead our faith would be in vain. As Jews they used to go to the synagogues on Saturday but as Christians they used to meet and break the bread on Sunday. However, when the Jews expelled them from the synagogues and for fear of the Jews who were persecuting them, they stopped going to the synagogues but met in hiding on Sundays to break the bread. Sunday had become their Sabbath. The word Shabbat (Sabbath) in Jewish language means "Rest" and so God's law was that we can work six day and rest the seventh day. He did dot say this day of rest must be Saturday. The Jews chose Saturday and the apostles chose Sunday. What matters is to obey the Sabbath law. SDA obey the law by observing the Sabbath on Saturday, Catholics and others obey the law by observing the Sabbath law on Sunday. As for man going to a priest for confession, It was God who prescribed that in the old testament that those who commited sins must go to the priests with a sin offering and the priest will make atonement and the sinner will be forgiven. Youi will find many such passages in the book of Leviticus. In the New Testsament it was Jesus himself who told the apostles after he rose from the dead (John 22:23) and after breathing on them and said "Receive the Holy Spirit as my father sent me so I send you. Whosever sins you forgive they are forgiven and whoseever sins you retain they are retained." These are the words of Jesus. 1 John says not to believe the Son is to call him a liar." That is what you do when you refuse to believe what Jesus said. There is so much I can offload but this will suffice for now.
I want to push back against your understanding of "both" in Zechariah 6:12-13. The use of the word both has nothing to do with the Godhead. These two verses refer to the uniting of king and priest on the same throne and existing in one person, Jesus Christ. Describing how "both" a perfect priest and king exist in one person. Zechariah 6 is a prophecy identifying Jesus as our perfect priest king. Jesus is the perfect high priest and King who makes atonement for sin and ushers in a council of peace. He brings peace with God to sinners. God bless and happy Sabbath!
@BDB-It5gd..I saw that also, BDB, but I forgot about it. So I didn’t mention it in my original reply. But you are right. He took that word “both” completely out of context. He is just learning how to study the Bible, and there are a lot of things that he simply doesn’t know or understand yet. Context is one of them.
Jesus is the High Priest in heaven who intercedes for us and participates in the shaking judgment if the house of God and is not yet king. There is only one ruler in heaven and that is God the Father YHVH. Jesus will become king after the 7 plagues are poured out and he will come as king a second time. KJV1611 Bible King James 1611 1Ti 6:14-16: "That thou keepe this commandement without spot, vnrebukeable, vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed, and onely Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords: Who onely hath immortalitie, dwelling in the light, which no man can approch vnto, whom no man hath seene, nor can see: to whom be honour and power euerlasting. Amen."
The great plan of redemption was laid before the foundation of the world. And Christ, our Substitute and Surety, did not stand alone in the wondrous undertaking of the ransom of man. In the plan to save a lost world, the counsel was between them both; the covenant of peace was between the Father and the Son. (ST December 23, 1897)
@@mikmark100 When Pilot asked Jesus if He was a King Jesus said yes, He was. See John 18:37. The Bible also says that Jesus sits on the same throne as the Father in heaven. Kings sit on thrones, not priest, that is unless you are BOTH a King and a Priest as Jesus is! See Revelation 3:21.
1st Corinthians 15 1-4 is the Gospel Bubba, I thank The Father every day for sending his from everlasting to everlasting Son! And sealing me with his Holy Spirit. Behold O' Israel the LORD (Plural) (Elohim) =1 God. Dude Jesus is not a "mode" He is KING! Good luck when you stand before him! False Teacher!😇 In True Christian Love, Of Course!
Read 1 For 15:1-4 again and you will see the gospel is that God saves FROM sin. "from everlasting to everlasting Son" Bible verse please Elohim: there are three main words in the Hebrew that are translated into the one English word "God/god". El - singular, Elowah - dual and Elohim - plural/singular. To say Elohim is plural is a half truth which means it is a half lie. Let's break the word down. El is singular and him is plural so literally the word is a pluralized singular. It doesn't make grammatical sense in English OR Hebrew and here is why. It is just like saying gooses. Goose is singular and to add an "s" is to pluralize a singular word. This is Elohim. It does NOT mean three. See following verses for proof: 1Sa 5:7 "And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god ." Dagon was never worshiped as a trinity but was a single god/being 1Ki 11:5 "For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites." Ashtoreth is a multiplying goddess but not a multiplicity of gods. She is a single individual Ex 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." Here in is the nail in the coffin for the false concept that Elohim = 3! Moses wasn't even a multiple personality much less a multiplicity of gods Bottom line: Elohim is what is called the plural of majesty. Many languages still do it today by pluralizing (adding an "s") to the name (singular) of someone they respect. "Dude Jesus is not a "mode" He is KING". I am not sure where the "dude" thing comes from but I am in agreement with the statement. I suggest you rewatch the video because you didn't seem to understand what was being said. Modalism is wrong just like trinitarianism and tritheism!
Ecclesiastes 5:3 Fools are known by their multitude of words. That's what i see here, Please don't go to He** Thank the Father for his Son!😇Yes there is an everlasting Burning He**Then the Lake of Fire!
You make claims, I ask for a Bible verse that says that and instead of providing a verse you attack me by calling me a fool. From my experience that is because people can’t provide a verse and instead of simply saying so they go into attack mode. You say thank the Father for His Son. That is what this whole video is about and showing the danger of not accepting the Son of God but instead accepting a false god. A role playing god
You read too much into the term.Role playing. You engage in role playing yourself, and it's not acting. When you are in the pulpit, you play the role of preacher. When you are in your office you might play the role of counselor when you are at home in your child's bedroom. You play the role of father when you are in your own bedroom. You play the role of husband but you Better not play the role of husband. Your church office or in your child's bedroom. These are real roles, not acting roles.And you just don't know what you're talking about
Excerpt from “Arise O God” by Stephen Andrew Damick “God is said to appear many times in the Old Testament: to Adam and Eve when He walked in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:8), to Abraham at the oak at Mamre (Gen. 18:1), and to Jacob when He wrestled with him in the night (Gen. 32:24). Prophets often saw visions of God: on His throne in heaven (Is. 6:1; Ezek. 1:26-27), or above the Ark of the Covenant (Lev. 16:2), or even speaking face to face with Moses (Ex. 33:11). One could go on and on. There was even a period when God dwelt with Israel and accompanied them visibly for more than forty years, a presence so familiar to the people that they wept when He left them (Judges 2:1-4). These visible manifestations of God are often referred to in the Old Testament as “the Angel of the Lord” (Gen. 16:7-11; 22:11-15, et al.) or “the Word of the Lord” (Gen. 15:1-4; 1 Sam. 3:21; 15:10, et al.). The language the Old Testament uses for this figure is the language used only for Yahweh, the God of Israel, their Creator and Lord. For instance, when the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Ex. 3:2), a few verses later the One speaking to him out of the bush is identified as God (Ex. 3:4-6). So given all this, how is it that St. John, writing about Jesus, can write in John 1:18 that “No one has ever seen God”? Did the Apostle John simply not know about the Angel of the Lord, the Word of the Lord who is God Himself? Sometimes when people quote John 1:18, they forget about the second half of the verse, which says, “The only13 Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known” (RSV). This verse is actually the completion of a thought that John had been making from the beginning of the chapter. He begins by saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Later he says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14 RSV). In other words, this figure who had appeared so many times in the Old Testament-this Angel of the Lord or Word of the Lord, who is indeed Yahweh, the God of Israel-is in fact the very Son of God, Jesus Christ. Saint John is referring to the existing knowledge of the appearance of God and saying that this Second Person of Yahweh whom Israel had always known is now man, and that man is Jesus Christ. He was therefore not saying that no one had ever seen God. He was saying that every time someone saw God, it was the Son and Word of God whom they saw. And He is now here among us. He is Jesus Christ. It is on this basis that Jesus is declared to be God in the New Testament. References: 13 The Greek (μονογενοῦς) monogenes in John 1:14 and 1:18 (μονογενὴς) is translated “only-begotten” in a number of English Bibles, but there is good scholarship that points to its biblical-era meaning as “unique” or “one and only,” which is reflected in other English translations. Jesus is of course also the only-begotten Son of God, but that’s not the point being made in John 1. The emphasis here is on the uniqueness of the Sonship of Jesus, because there are also “sons of God” who are angels.” ---- For those of you studying this issue objectively I would recommend reading that book in full.
My recommendation is to stick to inspiration. Monogenes is a compound Greek word. Mono means one, only or unique, absolutely but there is the second part of that compound word: genes. It is where we get the word genetics from. Monogenes literally means only genetic. The KJV translates it accurately and all those other "bibles" translate it wrong because they are based on catholic manuscripts
@@andrewwhitehurst5001 It seems like you're trying to connect the Koine Greek word "μονογενής" (monogenēs) to the modern English word "genetic," but that connection isn't accurate. What you're doing here is an example of what's called the etymological fallacy. This fallacy happens when someone assumes that the current meaning of a word should be understood based on its historical origin, or they incorrectly tie a word's modern meaning to an ancient meaning that doesn't actually match up. Let’s break down "μονογενής" and its historical meaning: - μόνος (monos): This part of the word means "only," "alone," or "single." It emphasizes the idea of something being unique or one-of-a-kind. - γένος (genos): This word refers to a "kind," "type," or "class," not "genes" as we understand them today. In Koine Greek, "γένος" doesn't have anything to do with genetics or heredity in the modern sense. So, when you put "μόνος" and "γένος" together in "μονογενής," the word means "only of its kind" or "unique." In Christian theology, for example, this term is used to describe Jesus Christ as the "only begotten" Son of God, highlighting His unique relationship with the Father. Your misunderstanding: It looks like you might be confused because "γένος" does share a root with modern words like "genetic." However, that connection doesn't mean they had the same meaning back in ancient times. The word "genetic" actually comes from the Greek word "γενετικός" (genetikos), which is related to birth or origin, but this usage developed much later and isn’t what "μονογενής" was about. So, claiming that "μονογενής" means "genetic" because of this surface-level similarity is actually a misunderstanding. It's important to respect the original context and meaning of the word in Koine Greek, which is quite different from how we use related words today. Επίσης, δεν χρησιμοποιώ τόσο πολύ τις αγγλικές μεταφράσεις της Βίβλου, απλά τη διαβάζω στα ελληνικά.
You bring in a lot of uninspired and schooled sources to make your point but it is all unnecessary for the word of God is good enough and explains itself. Compare scripture to scripture not scripture to scholars. Monogenes means only genetic in every case. Luke 7:12,; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14, 18, 34; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9;
1Corintians 8:6!!! And Jesus would not die,if he was God!!Jesus was 100% human! But born from the holy Spirit, without inheritance of Sin!! ( But Jesus could have fallen in Sin, if he was not constantly in contact with his Father!!)The Gospel is to accept Jesus Christ's death,for salvation! Then Sin is,deviding from God,through the first man,'Adam'!. As humans we inherit it. So,we can do nothing about it,just accept Jesus Christ! John 14:6!!! But God says: John 14:15. God's government was two in the beginning! Now God is ruling and Jesus is our intermediary.And God decides only! when the time is finished! To the holy Spirit,is the Spirit of the Father and the Son! The Father is a Person and has the name,"Jehova, I am!"The Son is a Person and has the name,"Jesus Christ." The holy Spirit has no name,then it is not a Person. So,the holy Spirit can be at the same time in the whole World. A Person cannot
"...Whereas the inclusion of Jesus in the eschatological sovereignty of God is found in all the New Testament literature, his inclusion in the work of creation is less widespread, but is found in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation and the Gospel of John. Since it is of less direct relevance to most of the concerns of the New Testament writers, this is not surprising. What is noteworthy is that in three of these cases (1 Corinthians, Hebrews and John) the purpose, in my view, is precisely to express Jewish monotheism in christological terms. It is not that these writers wish to say anything about the work of creation for its own sake or even that they wish to say anything about the relationship of Christ to creation for its own sake, but that they wish precisely to include Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. Including him precisely in the divine activity of creation is the most unequivocal way of excluding any threat to monotheism-as though Jesus were a subordinate demigod while redefining the unique identity of God in a way that includes Jesus. To illustrate the point, we shall examine the earliest of these texts: 1 Corinthians 8:6. This passage in its context reads: 'Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'there is no idol in the world' and that 'there is no God except one.' 'Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -as in fact there are many gods and many lords -but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.' Paul's concern in this context is explicitly monotheistic. The issue of eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional Jewish monotheistic concern for loyalty to the only true God in a context of pagan polytheistic worship. What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes up from the Corinthians' letter (at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula 'there is no God except one' in order to agree with it and to give, in verse 6, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the 'many gods and many lords' of the Corinthians' pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance. Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement, a. but for us [there is] one God, the Father, b. from whom [are] all things and we for him, c. and one Lord, Jesus Christ, d. through whom [are] all things and we through him. The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable. One is the Shema`, the classic Jewish statement of the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily by all observant Jews...It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the Shema° and produced, as it were, a Christian version of it. Not so widely recognized is the full significance of this. In the first and third lines of Paul's formula (labelled a and c above), Paul has, in fact, reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema` (Deut. 6:4: 'The LORD our God, the LORD, is one'), but Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema` speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing, not christological monotheism, but outright ditheism. The addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema` would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. The only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema. But this is, in any case, clear from the fact that the term 'Lord', applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord, is taken from the Shema` itself. Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema` a 'Lord' the Shema` does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' whom the Shema` affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul's quite unprecedented reformulation of the Shema`, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah. Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique identity Paul is certainly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with the unique God he certainly would be repudiating monotheism."-Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity John 1:1-5; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; Rev. 3:14. The 'our' of the Shema` appears as the 'for us' at the beginning of Paul's reformulation. F.F. Bruce, I and 2 Corinthians (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 80; D.R. de Lacey, "'One Lord" in Pauline Christology,' in Christ the Lord, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (D. Guthrie FS; Leicester: IVP, 1982), 191-203; Dunn, Christology, 180; Hurtado, One God, 97; N. Thomas Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 128-9; D.A. Hagner, 'Paul's Christology and Jewish Monotheism,' in Perspectives on Christology, ed. M. Shuster and R. Muller (P.K. Jewett; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 28-9; Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God (JSNTSup 99; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 300; B. Witherington III, Jesus the Sage (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 316.
The Philosophical Foundations of John 1:1 and the Incarnation in Koine Greek The opening verse of the Gospel of John, written in Koine Greek, has captivated theologians and philosophers for centuries with its profound and multifaceted implications. The sentence, "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God), not only introduces the character of "the Word" (ὁ λόγος), but it also delves into the philosophical implications of both "λόγος" and "ἀρχή" (beginning). The following aims to provide an in-depth analysis of John 1:1 in the context of Greek philosophy and Christian theology, while also considering its connection to John 1:14 and the understanding of the Incarnation. The Koine Greek of John 1:1: In this pivotal verse, the word "λόγος" (logos, English: “Word”) takes center stage. In the Greek philosophical tradition, "λόγος" had a long history. It represented rationality, thought, and the underlying principle governing the cosmos. The ideas surrounding "λόγος" were particularly prominent in Pre-Socratic philosophy. Heraclitus saw "logos" as the unifying force in a world of constant change, while Parmenides emphasized the unchanging truth it represented. Plato and Aristotle further explored the relationship between "logos," language, and rationality, while Stoic philosophers considered it the divine principle governing the world. John 1:1 and Its Philosophical Implications: In John 1:1, the concept of "λόγος" reflects the convergence of Greek philosophical ideas with Christian theology. The verse declares that "the Word" (ὁ λόγος) existed in the beginning, emphasizing its eternal nature. This is a direct nod to the Pre-Socratic notion of an underlying, unchanging principle or αρχή "archē" that governs the universe. Moreover, the verse asserts that "the Word" was "with God" (ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν), indicating an intimate relational aspect akin to philosophical ideas about the nature of the αρχή "archē." The ultimate declaration, "and the Word was God" (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), is a theological revelation of the divinity of "the Word," while recognizing its distinctiveness within the Godhead. The Implication of John 1:14 and the Incarnation: John 1:14, written in the same Koine Greek context, follows this profound proclamation with the statement, "καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο" (and the Word became flesh). This verse encapsulates the essence of the Incarnation, the theological doctrine that the divine Word, "the Logos," took on human form in the person of Jesus Christ. The implications are monumental. The eternal and divine Word, identified in the Greek philosophical tradition as the rational and underlying principle of existence, now becomes tangible in human flesh. The Gospel of John beautifully bridges Greek philosophical ideas with Christian theology, presenting Jesus as the embodiment of the eternal, rational, and divine principle. The Understanding of Athanasius of Alexandria: Saint Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, a central figure in early Christian theology, and the first one in history to compile the New Testament canonical list of the 27 books as we now know it, and was a major proponent of the Nicene Creed, which affirmed the divinity of Christ. St. Athanasius championed the understanding that Christ, as the "Logos," was consubstantial with the Father. In his writings, particularly in "On the Incarnation," Athanasius articulated the idea that the Word becoming flesh was a transformative act by which humanity could be reconciled to God. He viewed the Incarnation as the means through which the eternal Word of God entered human history, enabling salvation and the restoration of divine-human communion. Interestingly, those who reject the divinity of Christ, are misunderstanding not just the overt and deep linguistic meaning behind John chapter 1 and the words used, but are also rejecting the beliefs of those who compiled the New Testament that they rely on to reject those very same beliefs. Conclusion: In Koine Greek, John 1:1 masterfully merges Greek philosophical concepts of the "logos" and "archē" with Christian theological beliefs. "The Word" (ὁ λόγος) is presented as both eternal and divine, and the subsequent declaration of the Incarnation in John 1:14 profoundly demonstrates the tangible embodiment of the divine in Jesus Christ. This concept, fundamental to Christian theology, was understood by early theologians like Athanasius of Alexandria as the means by which humanity could be reconciled with God. The Gospel of John, written in Koine Greek, serves as a bridge between the philosophical and theological worlds, providing a timeless and profound exploration of the nature of Christ and the salvation of humanity.
@@saenzperspectives Logos can be translated by +- 20 different words why did the translators choose logos = word (in the greece with a small l) when elsewhere in Scripture it is translated completely differently? The Greek texts have And God was the Word not and the Word was God as the Trinitarian translators adapted. Wycliffe Bible, 1395 John 1:1: "In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word." CVB Coverdale Bible, 1535 John 1:1: "In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde." NEB Νέα Ελληνικά βιβλία, 1901 Ιω 1:1: "Εν αρχη ητο ο Λογος, και ο Λογος ητο παρα τω Θεω, και Θεος ητο ο Λογος." (and God was the word) BHPm+ Bunning Heuristic Prototype Greek New Testament (Medieval) John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." BIB'16 Berean Interlinear Bible (BIB) John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." Barach-m KOINE GREEK BIBLE: Septuagint, New Testament, Apocrypha + Lexicon Jn 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." CT ST 1550 Stephanus (ST) John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θεον και θεοϲ ην ο λογοϲ" CT WH 1885 Wescott and Hort (WH) John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θεον και θεοϲ ην ο λογοϲ" GA 01 Codex Sinaiticus, designated by ℵ or 01 John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θ̅ν̅ και θ̅ϲ̅ ην ο λογοϲ" GA 02 Codex Alexandrinus, designated by A or 02 John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ η̅ προϲ τον θ̅ν̅ και θ̅ϲ̅ ην ο λογοϲ" GA 03 Codex Vaticanus, designated by B or 03 John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θ̅ν̅ και θ̅ϲ̅ ην ο λογοϲ" GNTTH+ The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." TCGNT Text-Critical Greek New Testament Jn 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.-The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 5:1113. "He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He was above all finite requirements. ... On Christ alone the human family depended for their existence. He is the eternal, self-existent Son, on whom no yoke had iicome....He could say that which not the highest angel could say-“I have power over my own life. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” [John 10:18.] {Ms 101, 1897, par. 28}
BIB'16 Berean Interlinear Bible (BIB) John 10:17-18: "Διὰ τοῦτό, με ὁ Πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ, ὅτι ἐγὼ τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου, ἵνα πάλιν λάβω αὐτήν. οὐδεὶς αἴρει* αὐτὴν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ τίθημι αὐτὴν ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ. ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτήν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν. ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός μου.”" BIB'16 Berean Interlinear Bible (BIB) John 10:17-18: "Therefore I love the Father, that I have laid down my life, that I may receive it again. I have power to give it, and power to receive it again. This commandment I have received from my Father." Who subsequently brought the man Jesus to life? Himself? No! Only God the Father brought him to life. Jesus had no power to revive himself. He could only give his life and then take it back (without having to, of course, but God the Father commanded him to do so).
@@mikmark100 He was God while upon earth, but He divested Himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the form and fashion of a man. He walked the earth as a man. For our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. He laid aside His glory and His majesty. He was God, but the glories of the form of God He for awhile relinquished.... He bore the sins of the world, and endured the penalty which rolled like a mountain upon His divine soul. He yielded up His life a sacrifice, that man should not eternally die. He died, not through being compelled to die, but by His own free will.-The Review and Herald, July 5, 1887.
@@harley6394-h3fThat's a story of a Trinatarian believer. The bible clearly defines God as the Father, Jesus as the son of God ( Not God the son, never ever mentioned once) and the Holy trinity is never mentioned as a God or placed on the throne next to God the Father and Lord Jesus. T he holy trinity is the force, couple of times out of thousands of times it was given a make pronoun and that is if you are aware of the Greek language it gives things a male, feminine or neutral term. The moon is male, the sun is male, the earth is female etc
@@gnads9771 John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him (Jesus),“My Lord and my God!” What makes this passage powerful evidence for the deity of Christ is that Jesus does not correct Thomas. Thomas didn’t merely say, “My Lord and My God!” He said it to Jesus according to the verse.
The heart of the matter is that the gospel is not simply about "God saving us from our sins." That view drastically oversimplifies and misses the full scope of what the gospel is proclaiming. First, let's look at the actual Greek word we're dealing with-ευαγγέλιο/evangelion. This wasn't some new Christian invention-it was already in use in the ancient world, typically referring to the public proclamation of a military victory or the birth of a new ruler. The evangelion was an announcement of a dramatic change in the cosmic order. So when the early Christians started using this term, they weren't just talking about personal salvation from sin. They were declaring that a new King had arrived and that His Kingdom was now breaking into the world in a decisive way. This was a cosmic, public proclamation, not just a private transaction. And at the heart of this gospel proclamation is the incarnation-the astounding reality that the eternal Son of God had taken on full human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. As the book quoted below explains, this was utterly unprecedented. Pagan gods might appear in human form, but they never truly became human. But the apostles and early Church proclaimed that in Jesus, the divine and human were united in one person. You see this in key Trinitarian passages like John 1:1,14 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." This incarnation is essential, because it's what enables Christ to recapitulate the human story, undoing the damage of the Fall and reconciling humanity back to God. What the Son has not assumed, He has not healed-so the full taking on of human nature is crucial for our salvation. And that salvation isn't just about forgiveness of individual sins. It's about the decisive defeat of the demonic powers that have held humanity captive. That's why the gospel proclamations in Acts speak so boldly of Christ's resurrection as the victory over death and Hades-"O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" (1 Cor 15:55) So the gospel isn't just "God saves from sin." It's the announcement of Christ's cosmic triumph over sin, death, and the devil, opening the way for humanity to be restored to our original vocation of worshiping God and joining the angelic host in His eternal Kingdom. Reducing it to a personal transaction and simply God saves us from sin” completely misses the full significance of what is being proclaimed, and ignores the cultural and linguistic meaning of the gospel text. “When the writers of the Christian Gospels-Ss. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-referred to their works as gospels, they weren't simply saying they were writing books about some good news. They chose the word evangelion and intended by it what the world around them had already been using it for."-Stephen Andrew Damick, Arise O God
@@andrewwhitehurst5001 It is important to understand what the gospel means and what exactly God is saving us from, if you don’t even take the time to understand the original meaning of the gospel, how can you follow the Apostle Paul’s serious warning since you would rather engage in reductionism. “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:6-9 Scriptures is understood as a whole. Apostolic traditions are understood as a whole. Not cherry picked to fit an innovative heresy from the 1800s.
He made a grave error at the 16:30 - 17 min mark . You cannot discuss the Trinity doctrine and not explain the idea of eternal generation and the substance of God . Both are unbiblical but must be understood.
You are correct that it is an important topic and people need to understand it. The problem is that I didn't have enough time to go into the details and I was simply trying to hit the high points. I have gone into details on that topic a few times though and below is one of them. I start about 17:30 ua-cam.com/video/uU0Q-UKqzs0/v-deo.html
@@andrewwhitehurst5001 I went and listened to the video . Come from is pointing to a location and coming forth out of God the Father . That is the exact same doctrine of the Trinity which you say you do not agree. I thought you understood the Trinity doctrine, which believes that the Father is the only one e with no source and that the son is sourced from the father and the Holy Spirit is sourced from either the Father or the father and son .
@@darrenharriott2120 I am a little lost at what you are saying. What I was talking about in the video is eternal generation theory which states that in order for Jesus to be a Son and yet the same age He had to be eternally generated. This theory came from Origen for the purpose of trying to explain how Jesus is the monogenes of the Father yet the same age. I was not in agreement with the doctrine, I was explaining how and why that theory came about.
@@andrewwhitehurst5001 Substance of God is never mentioned in the Bible . The discussion of God’s substance was part of the discussion in the first and second centuries which that argued that the father and the son were either the same substance or similar substance and that made the son God . This lead to the Trinity doctrine that the son was eternally generated ( begotten / sourced) from the father . The foundation of the Trinity is the father is the only being with no source . The Godhead consists of three co eternal beings who have always existed. Those three are the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit . They act as one so they are one God . In your presentation you refer to Hebrews 1:3 and state that substance is included as part of the comparison between the Father and Jesus. Hebrews 1:3 KJV - Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; There is an instance where Moses asked to see God and what scripture describes has nothing to do with substance as we understand. It was God’s character . So when scripture says the Father and the son are the express image it is solely about character. Exodus 34:6-7 KJV - And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. As for the question of what is the timing of when the Father has begotten the Son , it is not in eternity past and it is not when Jesus was birthed by Mary . It was prophesied in Psalms 2:7 that the Father will in the future declare the son to be begotten . Therefore, the idea that begotten is tied to Jesus being source from the father in incorrect . Psalm 2:7 KJV - I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Psalm 110:4 KJV [4] The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 5:5-6 KJV - So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Psalms 2:6-7 is a messianic prophecy of a future declaration that will come to fruition in the future , That God (Father) will declare “ Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee” . Since the declaration ‘begotten son’ is a future decree/ event ( Baptism of Jesus )and Jesus already existed before the utterance of the prophecy . Then how can the baptism of Jesus be interpreted as a literal begotten son . The term “begotten son “cannot be defined as a lineal ( father existing before the son ) when talking about Jesus as the only begotten son (John 3:16) . Instead we must identify the declaration as a prophetic event in the future and that the timing of this event is significant. Let us look at Hebrews 5:5-6 ; Hebrews 1:5-9 ; Acts 13:32-37 which links the fulfillment of the prophecy ( Luke 3:21-23) that the Father declares Jesus as His begotten son with the eternal High Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec. We will review the scriptures describing the baptism of Jesus and the anointing of the earthly Levitical priests. Seeking one’s glory is contrary to the humble nature of God. This highlights that God the Father , when he spoke those words He was anointing Jesus as the Eternal High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. ( Acts 10:38) This baptism and anointing of Jesus is the beginning of the final week of the 70 week prophecy . That is why begotten was importing term and why Jesus said it was important so that He may fulfill . John immediately recognized that this was fulfilling the prophecy of Jesus begotten / anointed by the father at the start of his earthly ministry. Acts 10:38 KJV - How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Jesus was 100% human!! Thats why God Father had to race his Son from the death!! Read Acts 2:24+32 and 3:15+26 and 4:10;5:30 and 10:40;13;30;33;34;37. ROMAN 4:24 and 6:4!!
John 5:25-27 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." This verse shows Jesus was 100% divine and 100% human
What is the name of the Holy Spirit? please provide a verse saying "3 entities in 1 all 1 for 1 purpose Salvation". Zech 6:13 "the counsel of peace shall be between them both" Says salvation is between 2 not 1 or 3 See Matt 12:22-33. Here blasphemy is to attribute the power of Christ to someone other than Christ. All triune doctrines attribute the power of Christ to someone other than Christ and are by Jesus' definition blasphemy
This is to easy. You lack knowledge. There's is only 1 verse in the Bible only one. Above [the Lord] stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory! Jan 29, 2019 God. Jesus. Spirit. Holy. Holy. Holy. You've been schooled. Stay blessed. Stop arguing the Spirit calling.
That doesn’t say one god in three persons. Please provide a verse that does I have been schooled? Number one, sarcasm like that is not of God. And number two schooling is not something to brag about. Look at Saul, he was highly schooled but when he met Jesus he became educated. Seek education not schooling. “Schooling” someone is how the enemy works. God educates
Brother, I noticed that your supposed logical process is not logical. 1) Presupposition that God is two, therefore, if the Devil wants to be God, there will be three (the blasphemy against the Spirit is the unforgivable sin) 2) If God has a Spirit that is its own intelligence, then man has one. You are implying conscious and independent. I say, not really. Created I the image of God does not mean I am God. If God has a Spirit that teaches, leads to Christ, cry to God in our favor, reproves the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, then we have an independent entity at work.
Blasphemy of the Spirit is laid out very clearly in Matthew 12:22-32 and it is attributing the power of Christ to someone else. Attributing the work of Christ to a "God the Spirit" is by definition blasphemy. The devil says: "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." So my question is: do the devil controlled religions teach there are 4 gods or do you believe the devil has not yet managed to achieve his stated goal? You say "If God has a Spirit that teaches, leads to Christ, cry to God in our favor, reproves the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, then we have an independent entity at work." But the Bible identifies who that is when it says 1 For 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." That Spirit is the Spirit OF Christ and not someone else. To teach that it is someone else it by definition blasphemy
If "God saves from sin" is complicated and philosophical in your thought than what do you do with the following?!? Romans 7:13-24 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Ich bin Gott unendlich dankbar dass ich diese Irrlehren erkennen durfe!
Ich bin aus der Freikirche aussgestiegen.
Es ist grausam was die Menschen mit dem wunderbaren Evangelium gemacht haben.
Ich habe all diese falschen Lehren hinter mir gelassen, ich bin so befreit!
Gelobt sei Gott der Allmächtige😊
Praise the Lord! This is one of the best presentations on the Trinity I have ever heard. I am a non ternion but I would like to learn how to meet the trinitarians with the quotes they love to use from sister White.... Third person of the godhead..... Heavenly trio...... The holy spirit is as much a person as God...... Thank you and God bless you.
Sorry for the misspelling of nontrinitarian. I speak my texting
They went out from us, because they weren’t of us 🙏 1 John 2:19
good point
Jesus often utilized the speech style of “illeism”. He spoke “IN the third person” about Himself, never “ABOUT a third person” (see example John 3:16). Who's the Helper and Spirit of Truth? Jesus tells you it's Himself - John 14:18, 21, 23.
Where is the Father's Spirit if His Spirit is another person? He would cease to exist, as Almighty God is only a Spirit. When did the Father ever express His love for the other spirit person, as He does for His Son?
When did the Apostles excoriate John when he constantly wrote only the Father and Son were the true God, eternal life, and the only object of our fellowship? Why is it antichrist to reject the Father or Son (two), and not the Trinity (three), if they're inseparable?
When did Jesus pray for each Believer to be one with the three of them?
excellent questions!!
Well said.
@@andrewwhitehurst5001 I’m sorry I was so critical Andy. It’s a character defect. Please forgive me. I got it from my dad. When he was young, you two looked just alike. I was hard on him too. I wish I could apologize to him. Looking forward to your next sermon.. : )
If He had not come in the flesh, most likely the limited dark glass look or analysis would be that God is a headless ghost and as it is, both descendants of Ishmael and Jacob say " God forbid that He should have a son" what is implied by Rev.21:22? Or the baptism anecdotes? Perhaps the statement " That Christ is the light of every man that has come into the world" might mean the Holy spirit has been more pervasive than imagined!
This was VERY insightful. This problem about the death of Jesus and redemption is a remarkable idea that I have not thought about nearly enough ite seems. Thank you!
Amen!!! SDA Trademark Church is coming ”an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live” Revelation 13: 14.
Amen. Praise God
When you say praise God are you praising one of the persons of the Trinity or all three?
@@calebrandall3802 praising the Father, he is the only true God
John 17:3
@@banapuru Amen! Your absolutely right! I was being facetious!😭
Thank you for revealed the fact the people not teach our God is one and his only begotten son Jesus.
Glory to God❤🙏
Sorry for the misspelling on the nontrinitarian. I speak my texting.
Excellent presentation much needed. It deserves a second and third part God willing.
Glory to God.
@45:50 time, Jesus died and the Father resurected Jesus. If u say that Jesus did not die that affects the sanctuary message. The high priest can only be human and that's why Jesus is our high priest. Acts 2:24, 10:40, 13:30, Galations 1:1, 1Peter 1:3.
If the HS is the an anatomical spirit like man's spirit then: 1.how comes He has a mind. Rom.8:27. 2. How comes He can be send, talks, etc. 3. How comes He has a name other than the body or God into which we are baptized? 4. How could He be shared by the Father and the Son unless the
Two are conjoined? 5. Then the human spirit should also have a mind, name, ability to move and talk independently!!
Please study your Bible brother and don’t be deceived
Antitrinitarians much lie JWs deny the divinity of Christ and are just as lost!
@@joelchirchir242 Act 8-29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
Act 10-19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
Act 13-2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
In these verses, it is evident that the Holy Spirit is speaking Himself. There is no evidence in these verses that anyone is speaking through Him.
The Holy Spirit is very much a Person
The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” Manuscript 20, 1906.
@@harley6394-h3f Amen
And surprisingly, The person Holy Spirit is not found anywhere in the book of Revelation. Why is that so ?
Christ said no man takes my life from me. I have the power to lay it down and the power to take it up again.How does that fit into your sermon?
Amen
Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God... God say one thing the serpent said something else.. man fall, Jesus say baptized in The Father The Son and The Holy Ghost, man say something else smh... If we only just stick to God word and humble our self this world would not be in so much problem.
Amen!
What is the Spirit that goes back to God when we die?
We read in 1. Cor.2,10-12 that it is something else than the breath.
Jesus said when he died: Luke 23,46: Father into your hand I commend my spirit.
And Stefanus said when they stoned him, Acts 7,59: Lord, receive my Spirit.
My 3rd time watching, this was profound, i wish all adventist would watch this and listen with an unbiased heart. In my opinion, when many are saying Lord Lord, but didn't i do this, didnt i do that, in your name ect... When Jesus says depart from me...... I never knew you, i understand it as christians, who try to do and say a lot in the name of Jesus, but never knew Him, in the sense that they didn't understand this topic your speaking on now, they think they know Jesus, they might preach Jesus, but with the understanding of the Trinity in their minds, they are not understanding him, His Father, or His Holy Spirit, i might not be explaining what's in my head properly, but only those who "think" they are doing Gods will and think they are teaching truth, are going to be the ones pleading with Jesus like that, not atheist, or muslims, jews ect ... So all of these trinity believers don't have a true understanding or knowledge of Jesus, who he is, or His father, therefore they are preaching and teaching lies, could that be one of the reasons why He says " depart from me ye workers of iniquity"? We know there are pastors who sell out for a big pay check, nice retirement, power, respect of the higher ups, and also preachers who don't have a humble heart and seek the Lord for themselves and just join with the majority to be accepted of the masses, and many more, im wondering who are the people that the Lord is talking to here, it has to be men in power positions right? Preachers and teachers, elders, and popular christian speakers? Idk I've been thinking about this a lot, it cant be the average person in the pew, or at least i don't think, id love to hear other peoples understanding on this. God bless this ministry, I've been blessed 🙏💯👍
Getting to Hell!!! The Bible talks about Hell, " Hell is the Grave= Pitt=Hell"! When we leave the World. Luke 16:23+Matthew 5:29+ Psalm 6:5;9:17 andNumbers 16:30+33!!!
@@williamhartweg6935 In the New Testament, two distinct Greek terms-*Hades* and *Gehenna*-are often translated as "hell" in English, but they refer to different concepts. Understanding these terms correctly is crucial to grasping what the apostles and early Christians meant when they spoke about the afterlife.
*Hades* is the Greek word for the place of the dead, equivalent to the Hebrew concept of *Sheol*. It is understood as a temporary abode where souls reside after death, awaiting the final judgment. This is not a place of eternal punishment but rather an interim state. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), the rich man finds himself in Hades, experiencing torment, yet this is not his final destination.
On the other hand, *Gehenna* refers to the place of final judgment, the "lake of fire" mentioned in Revelation (20:14-15). *Gehenna* was originally a valley outside Jerusalem where refuse was burned, and it came to symbolize the eternal punishment prepared for the wicked after the final judgment. This is the place traditionally understood as "hell" in the sense of eternal separation from God.
The confusion arises when both *Hades* and *Gehenna* are translated into English as "hell," leading many to conflate the temporary state of the dead with the final, eternal punishment. Early Christians, guided by the teachings of the apostles, made a clear distinction between these two terms. They understood *Hades* as a temporary state where souls awaited resurrection and judgment, and *Gehenna* as the final, eternal destination for the unrighteous.
This distinction is vital to understanding the eschatological teachings in Christianity. The conflation of these terms in translation has contributed to misunderstandings about the nature of the afterlife. The original language and the early Christian tradition make it clear that *Hades* is not synonymous with the eternal hell but is rather a precursor to the final judgment, where the ultimate fates of souls are determined by God.
Sin is transgressions of law, Jesus said you break one you broke all which is sin
very true
The gospel is: The Almighty God, the Father and God of Jesus, (John 20:17), has reconciled the world to himself through the death of his unblemished, sinless human son, so that debt humanity had with Him, due to their transgression, has been paid in full. From the book of James 1, we know that our temptations come from our own desires which are sinful. We inherited them from Adam and Eve. Jesus did not have those desires because he was created by the Almighty in Mary, bypassing a human father, therefore, as the gospel tells us, Jesus was tempted by Satan and he did not sin, not because he was God or the Father, but because he did not yield to what Satan resorted to deceive him, unlike Adam and Eve who succumbed to Satan's deception.
He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. YI 12/20/1900
His human nature was created; it did not even possess angelic powers. It was human, identical to our own. Ms. 94, 1893
Well, you went on to describe what it does not mean in your sermon, but you did not tell us what it does mean in your sermon
How did The Archangel Micheal overshadow Mary so as to impregnate her with Jesus?
The Scriptures say that the angel said to Mary, The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.
Where does it say that Micheal got in there and that he is called the Son of God?? Do you see the dilemma that SDA teaching puts one in. Can you tell me how to reconcile this problem.
Regards
Curious indeed! Regeneration of Enoch or Elijah to the point of withstanding the brilliance & energy field of God is yet another of Abraha.s wife at her extreme age to regenerate!
Why is the cross mentioned,the cross is just like the trinity,brought into Christianity by the Roman emperor Constantine,after he claim to have a dream about this cross which was his symbol in winning the war. Was Christ crucified on a cross??
Remember Christ said (AS MOSES LIFTED UP THE SERPENT IN THE WILDERNESS SO SHALL BE THE SUN OF MAN BE LIFTED UP):Did Moses lifted up the serpent on a cross like the Christian symbol (cross) ???.
Christ came forth from the father from the eternal past before the foundation of heavens and earth
Matthew 28:19,so 1.John 7:5 you don't find in the Hebrew or Greek Manuscripts!! Read Acts 2:38,it would be a contradiction! Read EGW, ( PTUK-Jan.9,1896pg.191)+ ( ELlen G.White Lt84, October 22,1895)+(CCH76.5) and read Signs of the Times,July 23,1902)
The EGW books have been forged I recently learned from a sister in Russia that she has old Adventist magazines at home before 1917 where there are EGW statements from their main books and in one of them it says "by the power of the spirit" and in a book published later it says "by the power of the third person divinity" it was supposed to be from some book on page "571" or "671" I didn't have time to copy the comment because youtube deleted it. Those who have EGW books published during her lifetime can confirm this.
But I've heard that EGW books are forged many times I just never paid attention to it because I can only use the Bible to defend God's truth in all things.
1 John 5:7-8 New King James Version (NKJV)
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
That was 1 John 5:7. Now read v 8:And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Many people say 1 John 5:7 proves a trinity because of what it says but if that is the case then v 8 proves another trinity because it uses the same phraseology but applies it to spirit, water and blood. So my question is how many trinities are there? If verse 7 proves one then verse 8 proves another one
Can't use text if you use your strongs conc. These three agree , not one!
Where do you get the idea that God's government is 2? I cannot think of a single thing in the Bible that would make me come to that conclusion.
Zech. 6:12 - 13.
@@canadiancontrarian3668 Pretty obscure. I certainly would not build a theology around that.
@trackinggod8087 Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
@@Rich4Truth I can appreciate that. In fact Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." But, if there is only one person in the Godhead, one might wonder why Elohim is plural.
I noticed that you quote Ellen White on your website. This might be an interesting thing to consider:
"The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit." -Special Testimonies, Series A, 10:37. (1897).
And this one is fascinating to consider:
"Had God the Father come to our world and dwelt among us, humbling Himself, veiling His glory, that humanity might look upon Him, the history that we have of the life of Christ would not have been changed" That I May Know Him p. 338
@@trackinggod8087 The word Elohim used in the text for God…A plural word used with singular verbs, meaning- A plural intensive with singular meaning. It’s using a plural word to denote majesty and greatness. To denote power, not plurality. This is very common in the Bible. Here’s an example: when God sent Moses to Pharoah. He said in Ex 7:1 See, I have made thee a god “elohim” to Pharaoh. But Moses was only one person.
The Hebrews understood this very clearly. God created all things through his Son, Jesus Christ. Col 1:15,16
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
God created all things by His Son. He said to His Son, Let US make man in OUR image. There were two there, Father and Son. Not 3. I never said that the Godhead was just one. I said God, the Father, is just one.
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?
Malachi understood that God is not a trinity. We can agree that the Holy Spirit is a person. But not a separate person to Christ, or the Father.
The HOLY SPIRIT is the SPIRIT of CHRIST, which is sent to all men to give them sufficiency,” -(E.G. White, 14MR 84.3)
“We want the HOLY SPIRIT, which is JESUS CHRIST.” - (E.G. White, Lt66, April 10, 1894
Truly man, Truly God
It's deeply ironic to see someone reject the Trinity while relying on the New Testament canon, especially when you consider the historical timeline. The doctrine of the Trinity was firmly established long before the New Testament canon as we know it was universally recognized. In fact, the doctrine was a central belief of the early Church, defended by those who played a key role in shaping the very canon of scripture you accept today.
The 27 books of the New Testament were not formally listed until 367 AD by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. Before this, early Christian communities used a variety of texts, but it wasn’t until the 4th century that there was a consensus on what books should be included. This consensus was reached by Christians who, without question, believed in the Trinity-a belief that had already been articulated and defended for centuries.
To put it simply, rejecting the Trinity using a New Testament canon is historically inconsistent. The very people who established the canon-those who followed the teachings of the apostles-were staunch defenders of the Trinity. By dismissing the Trinity while relying on their canon, you’re effectively standing on a foundation built by the very doctrine you reject.
It’s not just ironic; it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how Christian doctrine and the biblical canon developed. The belief in the Trinity is interwoven with the history of how we came to recognize the New Testament. To reject one while accepting the other is to ignore the true continuity of Christian tradition.
And Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord: Mark 12:29
The traditions of men lead to hell
@@jeromefalasca5118 ….and? That does nothing to reject the Trinity properly understood. In fact if one actually looked at the Greek they could see quite a bit more on these issues.
"'In what did Second Temple Judaism consider the uniqueness of the one God to consist, what distinguished God as unique from all other reality, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles?, the answer given again and again, in a wide variety of Second Temple Jewish literature, is that the only true God, YHWH, the God of Israel, is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things.
While these characteristics are by no means sufficient to identify God (since they say nothing, for example, about his goodness or his justice), they are the features which most readily distinguish God absolutely from all other reality. God alone created all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are created by him. God alone rules supreme over all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are subject to him. These ways of distinguishing God as unique formed a very easily intelligible way of defining the uniqueness of the God they worshipped which every Jew in every synagogue in the late Second Temple period would certainly have known. However diverse Judaism may have been in many other respects, this was common: only the God of Israel is worthy of worship because he is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things. Other beings who might otherwise be thought divine are by these criteria God's creatures and subjects."-Richard Bauckham, biblical scholar
Isa. 40:26, 28; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12, 18; 48:13; 51:16; Neh. 9:6; Hos. 13:4 LXX; 2 Macc. 1:24; Sir. 43:33; Bel 5; Jub. 12:3-5; Sib. Or. 3:20-35; 8:375-76; Sib. Or. frg. 1:5-6; Sib. Or. frg. 3; Sib. Or. frg. 5; 2 En. 47:3-4; 66:4; Apoc. Ab. 7:10; Ps-Sophocles; Jos. Asen. 12:1-2; T. Job 2:4.
Dan. 4:34-35; Bel 5; Add. Esth. 13:9-11; 16:18, 21; 3 Macc. 2:2-3; 6:2; Wis. 12:13; Sir. 18:1-3; Sib. Or. 3:10, 19; Sib. Or. frg. 1:7,15,17,35; 1 En. 9:5; 84:3; 2 En. 33:7; 2 Bar. 54:13; Josephus, A.J. 1:155-6.
"...Whereas the inclusion of Jesus in the eschatological sovereignty of God is found in all the New Testament literature, his inclusion in the work of creation is less widespread, but is found in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation and the Gospel of John. Since it is of less direct relevance to most of the concerns of the New Testament writers, this is not surprising. What is noteworthy is that in three of these cases (1 Corinthians, Hebrews and John) the purpose, in my view, is precisely to express Jewish monotheism in christological terms. It is not that these writers wish to say anything about the work of creation for its own sake or even that they wish to say anything about the relationship of Christ to creation for its own sake, but that they wish precisely to include Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. Including him precisely in the divine activity of creation is the most unequivocal way of excluding any threat to monotheism-as though Jesus were a subordinate demigod while redefining the unique identity of God in a way that includes Jesus. To illustrate the point, we shall examine the earliest of these texts: 1 Corinthians 8:6. This passage in its context reads:
'Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'there is no idol in the world' and that 'there is no God except one.' 'Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -as in fact there are many gods and many lords -but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.'
Paul's concern in this context is explicitly monotheistic. The issue of eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional Jewish monotheistic concern for loyalty to the only true God in a context of pagan polytheistic worship. What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes up from the Corinthians' letter (at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula 'there is no God except one' in order to agree with it and to give, in verse 6, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the 'many gods and many lords' of the Corinthians' pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance.
Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement,
a. but for us [there is] one God, the Father,
b. from whom [are] all things and we for him,
c. and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
d. through whom [are] all things and we through him.
The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable. One is the Shema`, the classic Jewish statement of the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily by all observant Jews...It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the Shema° and produced, as it were, a Christian version of it. Not so widely recognized is the full significance of this. In the first and third lines of Paul's formula (labelled a and c above), Paul has, in fact, reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema` (Deut. 6:4: 'The LORD our God, the LORD, is one'), but Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema` speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing, not christological monotheism, but outright ditheism. The addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema` would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. The only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema. But this is, in any case, clear from the fact that the term 'Lord', applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord, is taken from the Shema` itself. Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema` a 'Lord' the Shema` does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' whom the Shema` affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul's quite unprecedented reformulation of the Shema`, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah. Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique identity Paul is certainly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with the unique God he certainly would be repudiating monotheism."-bible scholar Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity
John 1:1-5; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; Rev. 3:14.
The 'our' of the Shema` appears as the 'for us' at the beginning of Paul's reformulation.
F.F. Bruce, I and 2 Corinthians (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 80; D.R. de Lacey, "'One Lord" in Pauline Christology,' in Christ the Lord, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (D. Guthrie FS; Leicester: IVP, 1982), 191-203; Dunn, Christology, 180; Hurtado, One God, 97; N. Thomas Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 128-9; D.A. Hagner, 'Paul's Christology and Jewish Monotheism,' in Perspectives on Christology, ed. M. Shuster and R. Muller (P.K. Jewett; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 28-9; Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God (JSNTSup 99; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 300; B. Witherington III, Jesus the Sage (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 316.
KJ2 King James 2000
John 8:40: "But now you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham."
@@saenzperspectives Thanks for your reply but our Lord and saviours words are clear About His Father, beware of the traditions and words of men ,especially Athanasius . I want to point out that I believe Jesus to be fully Devine and as the word was the active agent of creation but if he says the father is greater than I then I believe him.
Fellow commentators saying this is hellbound...
And I agree. Holy Bible is to be closely examined. If you say a word that is not in line with the Scriptures (66 books of the Bible) is a sin, whether it is knowingly or not.
I will give examples in the Bible where the Bible itself is talking about God that is not singular. Look at the original Hebrew translation - Genesis 1:26:
"Let Us create man in Our image..." God is speaking to other persons... who are also God! Just because we cant understand it doesn't mean it's not so.
There are so many other examples in the Bible. One more would be the Psalms, where David says: "The Lord said to my Lord..."
The Father is God
The Son - Jesus is God
The Holy Spirit is God
The Father is Spirt, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. The Son is Devine and His spirt is one with the father ( literally the breath of life) but our Saviour says The Father is greater than I, he also says Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God: Mark 10:18-21
You calling our saviour a liar?
@@jeromefalasca5118 Gen 1:26 does not say,
'And God said to God, Let us make man'.
Does it?
@ljupconewman9357 The word “us” does not mean three. Look it up. He was talking to His Son. And where in the Bible does it EVER say “God the Holy Spirit”? It says the Spirit OF God. The word “of” shows ownership. God’s own Spirit. You and I both have a spirit. We were made in the image of God. But that doesn’t mean that you and I, are 4 different people. I hope this helps.
@@Rich4Truth Agreed and correct.
This video is hellbound
Isaiah 5:20-21 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes,
and prudent in their own sight!
Amen ❤
Isaiah 48:16
“Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”
The above verse reveals God the Father, God the Son, Jesus Christ (who was sent) and God the Holy Spirit. One God manifested and revealed in three personages.
Matthew 28:19-20
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
ia601908.us.archive.org/32/items/mat-28-19-baptismal-formula-changed/Mat_28_19_Baptismal_Formula_Changed.pdf
The Trinity DelusionAn exposé of the doctrine of the Trinity
Isaiah 48:16
Come near to me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret. From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord Yahweh has sent me, and His Spirit.
The Trinitarian Claim
Some Trinitarians imagine this verse refers to Yahweh the Father sending Yahweh the Son.
The Claim vs. The Facts
The Scriptural facts show that there is one speaker at Isaiah 48:16a, another speaker at Isaiah 48:16b and that second speaker is Yahweh's servant Israel.
The Problem with the Claim
1. The Dishonest attempting to Prey upon the Ignorant
Trinitarians in general don't have a clue what this verse is about. But they do think they get to imagine their three-person-God into the text unless you find a reason why they cannot (even though you don't need one). Many folks don't know what to do with this verse. Trinitarians make this claim hoping that nobody will be able to provide them with a response. So they disingenuously suppose this gives them a right to make up whatever they like for the sake of their doctrine. They don't have any evidence for their claim but they really don't care. They are just trying to get other people to believe that they get to interpret this verse however they like if others don't provide them with a response which prevents them from doing as they please. these particular Trinitarians don't know what this verse is about and they hope you don't either. They somehow just get it in their own heads that they get to make up whatever they like to suit their Trinitarian traditions if you can't give them a reason they why they can't. But what kind of person supposes they get to practice eisegesis and make up whatever they like unless someone else prevents them from doing so?
2. Eisgetical Interpretation
It is typical for Trinitarians to resort to the disingenuous practice of eisegesis and read their doctrine into the text wherever they think possible. This is just one more example of their total disregard for the contextual facts and typical of their method of looking for excuses rather than facts.
3. Who is who?
Although they have no evidence for their interpretation, Trinitarians somehow think it is okay to imagine that Jesus is speaking here as Yahweh the Son and he is saying that Yahweh the Father sent him and His Spirit. But the real question isn't who we should imagine into the text but who Isaiah is talking about in this verse.
Knowing that Yahweh was speaking at the beginning of the verse, it should be rather obvious to anyone that the words which follow, "And now Lord Yahweh has sent me," are spoken by someone else. It also isn't going to make any sense to suggest Yahweh is sent and is referring to Yahweh as Lord Yahweh which would imply Yahweh's Lord is Yahweh.
4. Interpretations of Trinitarian Scholars
This Trinitarian claim illustrates the disregard which some Trinitarians have for any interpretation that does not suit their needs. A simple survey of the opinions of Trinitarian scholars shows that their own scholars do not resort to making such disingenuous claims. Some suppose the one sent is Isaiah, others Cyrus, others God's servant Israel, etc. But since these interpretations do not suit the desires of some Trinitarians, they simply disregard them just as they do another other facts which do not suit them.
5. The Spirit sends or is sent?
There is also a different of opinion among scholars about the Spirit. Some argue the verse means Yahweh sends (1) me, and (2) the Spirit. Others argue that (1) Yahweh and (2) His Spirit sends "me." In the former case, the Spirit is the second object; in the latter case the Spirit is the second subject. This problem is also disregarded by Trinitarians who make this claim.
6. Punctuation: Where do the Quotation Marks Start and End?
The original Hebrew text did not contain punctuation; there were no quotation marks. So where does Yahweh start speaking and where does He stop speaking? It also appears that people assume there is one speaker due to the fact that Isaiah 48:16 is one single verse. However, these verse divisions were not in the original text either.
Analysis of the Facts
1. The Preceding Context
Note the preceding context where God speaks in the same vein, beginning at verse 2:
The LORD of hosts is His name. "I declared the former things long ago and they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.... I declared them to you long ago, before they took place I proclaimed them to you.... I proclaim to you new things from this time, even hidden things which you have not known... They are created now and not long ago; And before today you have not heard them. So that you will not say, ‘Behold, I knew them.’ “You have not heard, you have not known. Even from long ago your ear has not been open, because I knew that you would deal very treacherously.... So that you will not say, ‘Behold, I knew them.’.... Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there.
2. I have not spoken in Secret
There is no doubt that Yahweh said the words, "I have not spoken in secret." Note what Yahweh says at Isaiah 45:18-19.
I am the LORD, and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, in some dark land. I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, "Seek Me in a waste place"; I, the LORD, speak righteousness, declaring things that are upright.
God said the same thing in Isaiah 45. So we can be reasonably certain that God spoke the words "I have not spoken in secret" at Isaiah 48:16.
3. The Contextual Facts Provide the Obvious Answer
The solution to this question is really quite easy. In fact, it's right here in the context. Carefully regard the following:
Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. “Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together. Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? Yahweh loves him; he will carry out his good pleasure on Babylon, And His arm will be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way. Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there.
And now Lord Yahweh has sent ME, and His Spirit."
Carefully observe how Yahweh sends "him" and then he says Lord Yahweh has sent "me."
I have called HIM.... Lord Yahweh has sent ME...
Secondly, if we just read the context, it becomes completely clear how we should identify "ME" in the expression, "Yahweh has sent ME. Please remember that chapter and verse divisions did not exist in the original writings of the Bible. All we need to do is read carefully and observe how "ME" is often speaking in this context:
And now MY Lord Yahweh has sent ME and His Spirit. 48:16
Listen to me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. Yahweh called ME from the womb; From the body of MY mother He named ME. He has made MY mouth like a sharp sword, In the shadow of His hand He has concealed ME; And He has also made ME a select arrow, He has hidden ME in His quiver. He said to ME, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will show My glory.” But I said, “I have toiled in vain, I have spent MY strength for nothing and vanity; Yet surely the justice due to ME is with Yahweh, And MY reward with MY God. And now says the Lord, who formed ME from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the Lord, And My God is MY strength).
Isaiah 49:1-5.
In Isaiah, Israel is Yahweh's servant and routinely depicted as a single man, "Jacob." It is quite clear that "ME" at Isaiah 48:16 is Yahweh's chosen servant Israel aka Jacob.
Also carefully note the following:
And Lord Yahweh has sent me and His Spirit.... The LORD has redeemed His servant Jacob.
48:16-20
Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon him.
42:1
Conclusion
The contextual facts make it quite clear there are two speakers at Isaiah 48:16. The first speaker is Yahweh and the second speaker is Yahweh's servant Israel who Yahweh sent by His Spirit. This is made abundantly plain in the following context at Isaiah 49:1-5.
@@mikmark100 Christians believe God never has or will change. We also believe God is love (1 John 4:8). The Trinity explains how God was love before he created. The three persons divinely and eternally loved one another. He has always, in himself, been defined by love.
@@Jesusismysavior58
A beautiful Roman Catholic fairy tale and nothing more.
@@mikmark100 God reveals Himself as triune. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. One God in three personages.
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.
IGNORANCE OF SCRIPTURES IS A VERY COMMON THING. THE TRINITY IS A MYSTERY. YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT! SO YOUR DISCOURSE IS FUTILE.
@@johnmphiri3746 Where is that in the Bible? The only mystery is how people can be led to believe something that is not written anywhere at all in scripture. Here’s something that actually IS called a mystery in the Bible:
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
If you were to read the Bible objectively. That is, with NO pre-conceived ideas whatsoever. You would not arrive at the doctrine of a trinity. It’s an implanted idea. Something that has to be taught. They also had to teach you that it’s a mystery. A mystery so deep, that even those who believe in it, can’t understand it. How convenient. But it’s not in the Bible, anywhere. Not the trinity. And not anything about some mystery involving a trinity.
Except in Rev 17:5 the mystery that comes out of Babylon the great. The mother of Harlots, and abominations of the earth.
That may be referring to your false doctrine. What other doctrine is there, that’s not in the Bible, and that people who believe in it, go around calling it a mystery? Because that’s what they were taught. I was taught the same thing. But then I started studying the Bible, and found that it simply isn’t there. And that it really was, just an implanted idea.
There is but One God. "Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." (NOT 3) Deut. 6:4-9. Mark 12:28-34. (vs.30) "Hear O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all they strength". Malachi 2:10. "Have we not all ONE father? hath not ONE God created us?..." Isaiah 44: 6-8. "Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and BESIDE ME there is NO GOD" [SAME STATEMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE RESURRECTED JESUS TO JOHN.] Revelation 1:8 "I AM Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is to come, the Almighty" [WHO IS THE ALMIGHTY? Who is that reserved for? GOD] .Isaiah 44:8) "Fear ye not, neither by afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a GOD beside me? yea, there is NO GOD; I know not any". Isaiah 45:11 -12, 15. KJV only. So Many Amazing verses confirming ONE in Isaiah Chapters onward KJV. Isaiah 37:16 "O LORD(who is the Lord? Jesus Christ) of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubim(in the most holy place in heaven above the ark of the covenant? Jesus, Our High Priest, Saviour, Redeemer, Creator), thou art the GOD, even THOU ALONE, of all the kingdoms of the earth: Thou Hast Made Heaven and Earth" [who made heaven and earth? John 1:1-5.(vs.14) "And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him[the resurrected Jesus], My Lord and my God". Hebrews 1:2 [God] "Hath in these days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, BY WHOM ALSO HE MADE THE WORLDS" notice that's plural: worlds, everything. Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom." (vs.10) And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the works of thine hands." John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM." Exodus 3:14 "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said: Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you". (vs.15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all nations. " (vs.16). The unscriptural, central pillar of the Catholic Church(/beast power/state/church) is the Trinity doctrine on which all other of its (heresies/lies)are based upon. That official statement is in Rome's Catechisms. books False/non biblical lies. Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace". [That is Jesus Christ]. Revelation 19:16 "And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS". Revelation 22:12-13 "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (vs.14) "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." {NOTICE THE WORDING OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT SCRIPTURE.) (vs.15) For Without Are dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, AND IDOLATORS, AND WHOSOEVER LOVETH AND MAKETH A LIE"
1
Reply
@@lisasisk3713 I have no problem with all the references you have given because I agree with them. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. I am not saying there are three Gods. Only one God. But in that one God there are 3 persons. Think about this: There is one creator, the one God. But he said "Let US make man in OUR image. He did not say let me make man on my image. Even Isaiah wrote "For a child is born to us and this shall be his name: Wonder counselor, Mighty God." So this child who is born is mighty God. The Jews told Jesus: "We are not stoning you for a good deed, you are only a man but you make yourself God." Jesus did not tell them that they misunderstood him because they heard him right. That is what he was telling them indirectly. When Jesus forgave the paralytic his sins, the Jews murmured: "Who can forgive sins but God?" Jesus forgave sins because he was God." And you know what? He told the Jews that he was the I AM. They asked him: You are not yet forty and you claim to have seen Abraham?" Jesus answered: "Truly I say to you, before Abraham was I AM." I could go on on with more references to show that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. So I agree with all the references you quoted because the Trinity doctrine does not say there are three Gods but only one God but in that one God there are three persons. To try and understand this mystery is to bring down God to our level. We cannot comprehend God but c a n only believe what he has revealed about himself even if we do not understand. 1+1+1 is 3. This is human mathematics. But God is divine. You can not understand him using human mathematics or reasoning.
@@johnmphiri3746 Good References. But the Word Trinity is NOT in the Bible. But it is the Central Pillar Doctrine of the Catholic upon which all of their other rest upon. That statement is in the Cathechisms. The Catholic church was pagan and they took the pagan statues and covered them religious garb and changed God's Holy Seventh Sabbath to sunday; the day of pagan sun worship. And NO MAN has power to forgive sin. And Jesus can forgive because HE IS GOD. We cannot totally understand it on earth with limited knowledge in this sinful world. But all the scriptures related to The Father are same as relating to the Son. In Heaven there will be no need for the Holy Spirit; because there be sin and God will Be With US..
@@lisasisk3713 I can see you are SDA. I used to be SDA but discovered so many man made doctrines like the imvesigative judgement and the shut door mainly by Ellen G White in her books like The Great Controversy, so I left and joined the Church that Jesus founded - The Catholic Church and later discovered how I was misled in the SDA on how I percieved the Catholic Church. The fact that something is not in the bible does not mean it muist be false. You can deduce a teaching just by reading the bible. For example I asked an SDA who could not believe I left SDA and became Catholic. I said: "Where in the bible does it specifically state that Sabbath is Saturday? Did God create light on Monday (The first day)? The bible does not say so. In fact the sabbath is not mentioned in the bible from creation until the scene of Mt. Sinai when God Gave the 10 commandments. All God said was to keep the seventh day holy. He did not say that that day is Saturday. It was the Jews who chose Saturday as a day of rest and worship. Why? Because that was the day they were liberated by God and left Egypt. So it was appropriate for them to rest and worship on that day, the day of their freedom from slavery. From there on the Jewish first day of the week became Sunday. The apostles were aware of this and so When Jesus at the last supper told them to celebrate the Eucharist when he said "Do this in memory of me" they had no reason to celebrate on Saturday because on that day they were filled with sorrow and despair as Jesus was in the tomb. But on Sunday they rejoiced saying: He is risen alleuia!" So when they realised that it is this same risen Jesus who said "Do this in memory of me" what better day was there to break the bread than on the day that he rose from the dead? Because as paul puts it, had Christ not risen from the dead our faith would be in vain. As Jews they used to go to the synagogues on Saturday but as Christians they used to meet and break the bread on Sunday. However, when the Jews expelled them from the synagogues and for fear of the Jews who were persecuting them, they stopped going to the synagogues but met in hiding on Sundays to break the bread. Sunday had become their Sabbath. The word Shabbat (Sabbath) in Jewish language means "Rest" and so God's law was that we can work six day and rest the seventh day. He did dot say this day of rest must be Saturday. The Jews chose Saturday and the apostles chose Sunday. What matters is to obey the Sabbath law. SDA obey the law by observing the Sabbath on Saturday, Catholics and others obey the law by observing the Sabbath law on Sunday. As for man going to a priest for confession, It was God who prescribed that in the old testament that those who commited sins must go to the priests with a sin offering and the priest will make atonement and the sinner will be forgiven. Youi will find many such passages in the book of Leviticus. In the New Testsament it was Jesus himself who told the apostles after he rose from the dead (John 22:23) and after breathing on them and said "Receive the Holy Spirit as my father sent me so I send you. Whosever sins you forgive they are forgiven and whoseever sins you retain they are retained." These are the words of Jesus. 1 John says not to believe the Son is to call him a liar." That is what you do when you refuse to believe what Jesus said. There is so much I can offload but this will suffice for now.
Matthew 28:19, Phillipians 2:6-10, Revelation 22:13
I want to push back against your understanding of "both" in Zechariah 6:12-13. The use of the word both has nothing to do with the Godhead. These two verses refer to the uniting of king and priest on the same throne and existing in one person, Jesus Christ. Describing how "both" a perfect priest and king exist in one person. Zechariah 6 is a prophecy identifying Jesus as our perfect priest king. Jesus is the perfect high priest and King who makes atonement for sin and ushers in a council of peace. He brings peace with God to sinners.
God bless and happy Sabbath!
@BDB-It5gd..I saw that also, BDB, but I forgot about it. So I didn’t mention it in my original reply. But you are right. He took that word “both” completely out of context. He is just learning how to study the Bible, and there are a lot of things that he simply doesn’t know or understand yet. Context is one of them.
Jesus is the High Priest in heaven who intercedes for us and participates in the shaking judgment if the house of God and is not yet king. There is only one ruler in heaven and that is God the Father YHVH. Jesus will become king after the 7 plagues are poured out and he will come as king a second time.
KJV1611 Bible King James 1611
1Ti 6:14-16: "That thou keepe this commandement without spot, vnrebukeable, vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed, and onely Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords: Who onely hath immortalitie, dwelling in the light, which no man can approch vnto, whom no man hath seene, nor can see: to whom be honour and power euerlasting. Amen."
The great plan of redemption was laid before the foundation of the world. And Christ, our Substitute and Surety, did not stand alone in the wondrous undertaking of the ransom of man. In the plan to save a lost world, the counsel was between them both; the covenant of peace was between the Father and the Son. (ST December 23, 1897)
@@Tm91studies Excellent!
@@mikmark100 When Pilot asked Jesus if He was a King Jesus said yes, He was. See John 18:37. The Bible also says that Jesus sits on the same throne as the Father in heaven. Kings sit on thrones, not priest, that is unless you are BOTH a King and a Priest as Jesus is! See Revelation 3:21.
1st Corinthians 15 1-4 is the Gospel Bubba, I thank The Father every day for sending his from everlasting to everlasting Son! And sealing me with his Holy Spirit. Behold O' Israel the LORD (Plural) (Elohim) =1 God. Dude Jesus is not a "mode" He is KING! Good luck when you stand before him! False Teacher!😇 In True Christian Love, Of Course!
Where does it say dude that Jesus is king?
Read 1 For 15:1-4 again and you will see the gospel is that God saves FROM sin.
"from everlasting to everlasting Son" Bible verse please
Elohim: there are three main words in the Hebrew that are translated into the one English word "God/god". El - singular, Elowah - dual and Elohim - plural/singular. To say Elohim is plural is a half truth which means it is a half lie. Let's break the word down. El is singular and him is plural so literally the word is a pluralized singular. It doesn't make grammatical sense in English OR Hebrew and here is why. It is just like saying gooses. Goose is singular and to add an "s" is to pluralize a singular word. This is Elohim. It does NOT mean three. See following verses for proof:
1Sa 5:7 "And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god ." Dagon was never worshiped as a trinity but was a single god/being
1Ki 11:5 "For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites." Ashtoreth is a multiplying goddess but not a multiplicity of gods. She is a single individual
Ex 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." Here in is the nail in the coffin for the false concept that Elohim = 3! Moses wasn't even a multiple personality much less a multiplicity of gods
Bottom line: Elohim is what is called the plural of majesty. Many languages still do it today by pluralizing (adding an "s") to the name (singular) of someone they respect.
"Dude Jesus is not a "mode" He is KING". I am not sure where the "dude" thing comes from but I am in agreement with the statement. I suggest you rewatch the video because you didn't seem to understand what was being said. Modalism is wrong just like trinitarianism and tritheism!
Ecclesiastes 5:3 Fools are known by their multitude of words. That's what i see here, Please don't go to He** Thank the Father for his Son!😇Yes there is an everlasting Burning He**Then the Lake of Fire!
You make claims, I ask for a Bible verse that says that and instead of providing a verse you attack me by calling me a fool. From my experience that is because people can’t provide a verse and instead of simply saying so they go into attack mode.
You say thank the Father for His Son. That is what this whole video is about and showing the danger of not accepting the Son of God but instead accepting a false god. A role playing god
You read too much into the term.Role playing.
You engage in role playing yourself, and it's not acting. When you are in the pulpit, you play the role of preacher. When you are in your office you might play the role of counselor when you are at home in your child's bedroom. You play the role of father when you are in your own bedroom. You play the role of husband but you Better not play the role of husband. Your church office or in your child's bedroom. These are real roles, not acting roles.And you just don't know what you're talking about
Excerpt from “Arise O God” by Stephen Andrew Damick
“God is said to appear many times in the Old Testament: to Adam and Eve when He walked in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:8), to Abraham at the oak at Mamre (Gen. 18:1), and to Jacob when He wrestled with him in the night (Gen. 32:24). Prophets often saw visions of God: on His throne in heaven (Is. 6:1; Ezek. 1:26-27), or above the Ark of the Covenant (Lev. 16:2), or even speaking face to face with Moses (Ex. 33:11). One could go on and on. There was even a period when God dwelt with Israel and accompanied them visibly for more than forty years, a presence so familiar to the people that they wept when He left them (Judges 2:1-4).
These visible manifestations of God are often referred to in the Old Testament as “the Angel of the Lord” (Gen. 16:7-11; 22:11-15, et al.) or “the Word of the Lord” (Gen. 15:1-4; 1 Sam. 3:21; 15:10, et al.). The language the Old Testament uses for this figure is the language used only for Yahweh, the God of Israel, their Creator and Lord. For instance, when the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Ex. 3:2), a few verses later the One speaking to him out of the bush is identified as God (Ex. 3:4-6).
So given all this, how is it that St. John, writing about Jesus, can write in John 1:18 that “No one has ever seen God”? Did the Apostle John simply not know about the Angel of the Lord, the Word of the Lord who is God Himself?
Sometimes when people quote John 1:18, they forget about the second half of the verse, which says, “The only13 Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known” (RSV).
This verse is actually the completion of a thought that John had been making from the beginning of the chapter. He begins by saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Later he says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son
from the Father” (John 1:14 RSV).
In other words, this figure who had appeared so many times in the Old Testament-this Angel of the Lord or Word of the Lord, who is indeed Yahweh, the God of Israel-is in fact the very Son of God, Jesus Christ. Saint John is referring to the existing knowledge of the appearance of God and saying that this Second Person of Yahweh whom Israel had always known is now man, and that man is Jesus Christ.
He was therefore not saying that no one had ever seen God. He was saying that every time someone saw God, it was the Son and Word of God whom they saw. And He is now here among us. He is Jesus Christ. It is on this basis that Jesus is declared to be God in the New Testament.
References:
13 The Greek (μονογενοῦς) monogenes in John 1:14 and 1:18 (μονογενὴς) is translated “only-begotten” in a number of English Bibles, but there is good scholarship that points to its biblical-era meaning as “unique” or “one and only,” which is reflected in other English translations. Jesus is of course also the only-begotten Son of God, but that’s not the point being made in John 1. The emphasis here is on the uniqueness of the Sonship of Jesus, because there are also “sons of God” who are angels.”
----
For those of you studying this issue objectively I would recommend reading that book in full.
God has often spoken in the NT alone or through angels, but never through the angel Jesus.
My recommendation is to stick to inspiration. Monogenes is a compound Greek word. Mono means one, only or unique, absolutely but there is the second part of that compound word: genes. It is where we get the word genetics from. Monogenes literally means only genetic. The KJV translates it accurately and all those other "bibles" translate it wrong because they are based on catholic manuscripts
@@andrewwhitehurst5001 Έκανες φανερό ότι δεν καταλαβαίνεις πραγματικά τα ελληνικά και την ελληνική ετυμολογία.
@@andrewwhitehurst5001
It seems like you're trying to connect the Koine Greek word "μονογενής" (monogenēs) to the modern English word "genetic," but that connection isn't accurate. What you're doing here is an example of what's called the etymological fallacy. This fallacy happens when someone assumes that the current meaning of a word should be understood based on its historical origin, or they incorrectly tie a word's modern meaning to an ancient meaning that doesn't actually match up.
Let’s break down "μονογενής" and its historical meaning:
- μόνος (monos): This part of the word means "only," "alone," or "single." It emphasizes the idea of something being unique or one-of-a-kind.
- γένος (genos): This word refers to a "kind," "type," or "class," not "genes" as we understand them today. In Koine Greek, "γένος" doesn't have anything to do with genetics or heredity in the modern sense.
So, when you put "μόνος" and "γένος" together in "μονογενής," the word means "only of its kind" or "unique." In Christian theology, for example, this term is used to describe Jesus Christ as the "only begotten" Son of God, highlighting His unique relationship with the Father.
Your misunderstanding: It looks like you might be confused because "γένος" does share a root with modern words like "genetic." However, that connection doesn't mean they had the same meaning back in ancient times. The word "genetic" actually comes from the Greek word "γενετικός" (genetikos), which is related to birth or origin, but this usage developed much later and isn’t what "μονογενής" was about.
So, claiming that "μονογενής" means "genetic" because of this surface-level similarity is actually a misunderstanding. It's important to respect the original context and meaning of the word in Koine Greek, which is quite different from how we use related words today.
Επίσης, δεν χρησιμοποιώ τόσο πολύ τις αγγλικές μεταφράσεις της Βίβλου, απλά τη διαβάζω στα ελληνικά.
You bring in a lot of uninspired and schooled sources to make your point but it is all unnecessary for the word of God is good enough and explains itself. Compare scripture to scripture not scripture to scholars. Monogenes means only genetic in every case. Luke 7:12,; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14, 18, 34; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9;
1Corintians 8:6!!! And Jesus would not die,if he was God!!Jesus was 100% human! But born from the holy Spirit, without inheritance of Sin!! ( But Jesus could have fallen in Sin, if he was not constantly in contact with his Father!!)The Gospel is to accept Jesus Christ's death,for salvation! Then Sin is,deviding from God,through the first man,'Adam'!. As humans we inherit it. So,we can do nothing about it,just accept Jesus Christ! John 14:6!!! But God says: John 14:15. God's government was two in the beginning! Now God is ruling and Jesus is our intermediary.And God decides only! when the time is finished! To the holy Spirit,is the Spirit of the Father and the Son! The Father is a Person and has the name,"Jehova, I am!"The Son is a Person and has the name,"Jesus Christ." The holy Spirit has no name,then it is not a Person. So,the holy Spirit can be at the same time in the whole World. A Person cannot
"...Whereas the inclusion of Jesus in the eschatological sovereignty of God is found in all the New Testament literature, his inclusion in the work of creation is less widespread, but is found in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation and the Gospel of John. Since it is of less direct relevance to most of the concerns of the New Testament writers, this is not surprising. What is noteworthy is that in three of these cases (1 Corinthians, Hebrews and John) the purpose, in my view, is precisely to express Jewish monotheism in christological terms. It is not that these writers wish to say anything about the work of creation for its own sake or even that they wish to say anything about the relationship of Christ to creation for its own sake, but that they wish precisely to include Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. Including him precisely in the divine activity of creation is the most unequivocal way of excluding any threat to monotheism-as though Jesus were a subordinate demigod while redefining the unique identity of God in a way that includes Jesus. To illustrate the point, we shall examine the earliest of these texts: 1 Corinthians 8:6. This passage in its context reads:
'Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'there is no idol in the world' and that 'there is no God except one.' 'Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -as in fact there are many gods and many lords -but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.'
Paul's concern in this context is explicitly monotheistic. The issue of eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional Jewish monotheistic concern for loyalty to the only true God in a context of pagan polytheistic worship. What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes up from the Corinthians' letter (at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula 'there is no God except one' in order to agree with it and to give, in verse 6, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the 'many gods and many lords' of the Corinthians' pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance.
Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement,
a. but for us [there is] one God, the Father,
b. from whom [are] all things and we for him,
c. and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
d. through whom [are] all things and we through him.
The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable. One is the Shema`, the classic Jewish statement of the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily by all observant Jews...It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the Shema° and produced, as it were, a Christian version of it. Not so widely recognized is the full significance of this. In the first and third lines of Paul's formula (labelled a and c above), Paul has, in fact, reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema` (Deut. 6:4: 'The LORD our God, the LORD, is one'), but Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema` speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing, not christological monotheism, but outright ditheism. The addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema` would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. The only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema. But this is, in any case, clear from the fact that the term 'Lord', applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord, is taken from the Shema` itself. Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema` a 'Lord' the Shema` does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' whom the Shema` affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul's quite unprecedented reformulation of the Shema`, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah. Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique identity Paul is certainly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with the unique God he certainly would be repudiating monotheism."-Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity
John 1:1-5; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; Rev. 3:14.
The 'our' of the Shema` appears as the 'for us' at the beginning of Paul's reformulation.
F.F. Bruce, I and 2 Corinthians (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 80; D.R. de Lacey, "'One Lord" in Pauline Christology,' in Christ the Lord, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (D. Guthrie FS; Leicester: IVP, 1982), 191-203; Dunn, Christology, 180; Hurtado, One God, 97; N. Thomas Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 128-9; D.A. Hagner, 'Paul's Christology and Jewish Monotheism,' in Perspectives on Christology, ed. M. Shuster and R. Muller (P.K. Jewett; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 28-9; Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God (JSNTSup 99; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 300; B. Witherington III, Jesus the Sage (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 316.
Jesus is Lord. No Lord but God.
Truly man, Truly God
The Philosophical Foundations of John 1:1 and the Incarnation in Koine Greek
The opening verse of the Gospel of John, written in Koine Greek, has captivated theologians and philosophers for centuries with its profound and multifaceted implications. The sentence, "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God), not only introduces the character of "the Word" (ὁ λόγος), but it also delves into the philosophical implications of both "λόγος" and "ἀρχή" (beginning). The following aims to provide an in-depth analysis of John 1:1 in the context of Greek philosophy and Christian theology, while also considering its connection to John 1:14 and the understanding of the Incarnation.
The Koine Greek of John 1:1:
In this pivotal verse, the word "λόγος" (logos, English: “Word”) takes center stage. In the Greek philosophical tradition, "λόγος" had a long history. It represented rationality, thought, and the underlying principle governing the cosmos. The ideas surrounding "λόγος" were particularly prominent in Pre-Socratic philosophy. Heraclitus saw "logos" as the unifying force in a world of constant change, while Parmenides emphasized the unchanging truth it represented. Plato and Aristotle further explored the relationship between "logos," language, and rationality, while Stoic philosophers considered it the divine principle governing the world.
John 1:1 and Its Philosophical Implications:
In John 1:1, the concept of "λόγος" reflects the convergence of Greek philosophical ideas with Christian theology. The verse declares that "the Word" (ὁ λόγος) existed in the beginning, emphasizing its eternal nature. This is a direct nod to the Pre-Socratic notion of an underlying, unchanging principle or αρχή "archē" that governs the universe.
Moreover, the verse asserts that "the Word" was "with God" (ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν), indicating an intimate relational aspect akin to philosophical ideas about the nature of the αρχή "archē." The ultimate declaration, "and the Word was God" (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), is a theological revelation of the divinity of "the Word," while recognizing its distinctiveness within the Godhead.
The Implication of John 1:14 and the Incarnation:
John 1:14, written in the same Koine Greek context, follows this profound proclamation with the statement, "καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο" (and the Word became flesh). This verse encapsulates the essence of the Incarnation, the theological doctrine that the divine Word, "the Logos," took on human form in the person of Jesus Christ.
The implications are monumental. The eternal and divine Word, identified in the Greek philosophical tradition as the rational and underlying principle of existence, now becomes tangible in human flesh. The Gospel of John beautifully bridges Greek philosophical ideas with Christian theology, presenting Jesus as the embodiment of the eternal, rational, and divine principle.
The Understanding of Athanasius of Alexandria:
Saint Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, a central figure in early Christian theology, and the first one in history to compile the New Testament canonical list of the 27 books as we now know it, and was a major proponent of the Nicene Creed, which affirmed the divinity of Christ. St. Athanasius championed the understanding that Christ, as the "Logos," was consubstantial with the Father. In his writings, particularly in "On the Incarnation," Athanasius articulated the idea that the Word becoming flesh was a transformative act by which humanity could be reconciled to God. He viewed the Incarnation as the means through which the eternal Word of God entered human history, enabling salvation and the restoration of divine-human communion. Interestingly, those who reject the divinity of Christ, are misunderstanding not just the overt and deep linguistic meaning behind John chapter 1 and the words used, but are also rejecting the beliefs of those who compiled the New Testament that they rely on to reject those very same beliefs.
Conclusion:
In Koine Greek, John 1:1 masterfully merges Greek philosophical concepts of the "logos" and "archē" with Christian theological beliefs. "The Word" (ὁ λόγος) is presented as both eternal and divine, and the subsequent declaration of the Incarnation in John 1:14 profoundly demonstrates the tangible embodiment of the divine in Jesus Christ. This concept, fundamental to Christian theology, was understood by early theologians like Athanasius of Alexandria as the means by which humanity could be reconciled with God. The Gospel of John, written in Koine Greek, serves as a bridge between the philosophical and theological worlds, providing a timeless and profound exploration of the nature of Christ and the salvation of humanity.
@@saenzperspectives
Logos can be translated by +- 20 different words why did the translators choose logos = word (in the greece with a small l) when elsewhere in Scripture it is translated completely differently?
The Greek texts have And God was the Word not and the Word was God as the Trinitarian translators adapted.
Wycliffe Bible, 1395
John 1:1: "In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word."
CVB Coverdale Bible, 1535
John 1:1: "In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde."
NEB Νέα Ελληνικά βιβλία, 1901
Ιω 1:1: "Εν αρχη ητο ο Λογος, και ο Λογος ητο παρα τω Θεω, και Θεος ητο ο Λογος." (and God was the word)
BHPm+ Bunning Heuristic Prototype Greek New Testament (Medieval)
John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος."
BIB'16 Berean Interlinear Bible (BIB)
John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος."
Barach-m KOINE GREEK BIBLE: Septuagint, New Testament, Apocrypha + Lexicon
Jn 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος."
CT ST 1550 Stephanus (ST)
John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θεον και θεοϲ ην ο λογοϲ"
CT WH 1885 Wescott and Hort (WH)
John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θεον και θεοϲ ην ο λογοϲ"
GA 01 Codex Sinaiticus, designated by ℵ or 01
John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θ̅ν̅ και θ̅ϲ̅ ην ο λογοϲ"
GA 02 Codex Alexandrinus, designated by A or 02
John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ η̅ προϲ τον θ̅ν̅ και θ̅ϲ̅ ην ο λογοϲ"
GA 03 Codex Vaticanus, designated by B
or 03
John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θ̅ν̅ και θ̅ϲ̅ ην ο λογοϲ"
GNTTH+ The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge
John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος."
TCGNT Text-Critical Greek New Testament
Jn 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.-The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 5:1113.
"He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He was above all finite requirements. ... On Christ alone the human family depended for their existence. He is the eternal, self-existent Son, on whom no yoke had iicome....He could say that which not the highest angel could say-“I have power over my own life. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” [John 10:18.] {Ms 101, 1897, par. 28}
BIB'16 Berean Interlinear Bible (BIB)
John 10:17-18: "Διὰ τοῦτό, με ὁ Πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ, ὅτι ἐγὼ τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου, ἵνα πάλιν λάβω αὐτήν. οὐδεὶς αἴρει* αὐτὴν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ τίθημι αὐτὴν ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ. ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτήν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν. ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός μου.”"
BIB'16 Berean Interlinear Bible (BIB)
John 10:17-18: "Therefore I love the Father, that I have laid down my life, that I may receive it again. I have power to give it, and power to receive it again. This commandment I have received from my Father."
Who subsequently brought the man Jesus to life? Himself? No! Only God the Father brought him to life. Jesus had no power to revive himself. He could only give his life and then take it back (without having to, of course, but God the Father commanded him to do so).
@@mikmark100 He was God while upon earth, but He divested Himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the form and fashion of a man. He walked the earth as a man. For our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. He laid aside His glory and His majesty. He was God, but the glories of the form of God He for awhile relinquished.... He bore the sins of the world, and endured the penalty which rolled like a mountain upon His divine soul. He yielded up His life a sacrifice, that man should not eternally die. He died, not through being compelled to die, but by His own free will.-The Review and Herald, July 5, 1887.
@@harley6394-h3f
So the fact that he was God is a completely false non-biblical teaching of EGW, assuming she wrote it, which cannot be 100% proven.
@@harley6394-h3fThat's a story of a Trinatarian believer.
The bible clearly defines God as the Father, Jesus as the son of God ( Not God the son, never ever mentioned once) and the Holy trinity is never mentioned as a God or placed on the throne next to God the Father and Lord Jesus. T he holy trinity is the force, couple of times out of thousands of times it was given a make pronoun and that is if you are aware of the Greek language it gives things a male, feminine or neutral term. The moon is male, the sun is male, the earth is female etc
@@gnads9771 John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him (Jesus),“My Lord and my God!”
What makes this passage powerful evidence for the deity of Christ is that Jesus does not correct Thomas.
Thomas didn’t merely say, “My Lord and My God!” He said it to Jesus according to the verse.
The heart of the matter is that the gospel is not simply about "God saving us from our sins." That view drastically oversimplifies and misses the full scope of what the gospel is proclaiming.
First, let's look at the actual Greek word we're dealing with-ευαγγέλιο/evangelion. This wasn't some new Christian invention-it was already in use in the ancient world, typically referring to the public proclamation of a military victory or the birth of a new ruler. The evangelion was an announcement of a dramatic change in the cosmic order.
So when the early Christians started using this term, they weren't just talking about personal salvation from sin. They were declaring that a new King had arrived and that His Kingdom was now breaking into the world in a decisive way. This was a cosmic, public proclamation, not just a private transaction.
And at the heart of this gospel proclamation is the incarnation-the astounding reality that the eternal Son of God had taken on full human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. As the book quoted below explains, this was utterly unprecedented. Pagan gods might appear in human form, but they never truly became human.
But the apostles and early Church proclaimed that in Jesus, the divine and human were united in one person. You see this in key Trinitarian passages like John 1:1,14 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
This incarnation is essential, because it's what enables Christ to recapitulate the human story, undoing the damage of the Fall and reconciling humanity back to God. What the Son has not assumed, He has not healed-so the full taking on of human nature is crucial for our salvation.
And that salvation isn't just about forgiveness of individual sins. It's about the decisive defeat of the demonic powers that have held humanity captive. That's why the gospel proclamations in Acts speak so boldly of Christ's resurrection as the victory over death and Hades-"O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" (1 Cor 15:55)
So the gospel isn't just "God saves from sin." It's the announcement of Christ's cosmic triumph over sin, death, and the devil, opening the way for humanity to be restored to our original vocation of worshiping God and joining the angelic host in His eternal Kingdom. Reducing it to a personal transaction and simply God saves us from sin” completely misses the full significance of what is being proclaimed, and ignores the cultural and linguistic meaning of the gospel text.
“When the writers of the Christian Gospels-Ss. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-referred to their works as gospels, they weren't simply saying they were writing books about some good news. They chose the word evangelion and intended by it what the world around them had already been using it for."-Stephen Andrew Damick, Arise O God
Incarnation or reincarnation is a purely pagan doctrine and has nothing to do with Christ!
I am going to skip over all the waga waga there and get straight to the point: Is the statement "God saves us from sin" wrong?
@@andrewwhitehurst5001 It is important to understand what the gospel means and what exactly God is saving us from, if you don’t even take the time to understand the original meaning of the gospel, how can you follow the Apostle Paul’s serious warning since you would rather engage in reductionism. “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”
Galatians 1:6-9
Scriptures is understood as a whole. Apostolic traditions are understood as a whole. Not cherry picked to fit an innovative heresy from the 1800s.
I ask you again, is “God saves from sin” wrong?
He made a grave error at the 16:30 - 17 min mark . You cannot discuss the Trinity doctrine and not explain the idea of eternal generation and the substance of God . Both are unbiblical but must be understood.
You are correct that it is an important topic and people need to understand it. The problem is that I didn't have enough time to go into the details and I was simply trying to hit the high points. I have gone into details on that topic a few times though and below is one of them. I start about 17:30
ua-cam.com/video/uU0Q-UKqzs0/v-deo.html
@@andrewwhitehurst5001 I went and listened to the video . Come from is pointing to a location and coming forth out of God the Father . That is the exact same doctrine of the Trinity which you say you do not agree. I thought you understood the Trinity doctrine, which believes that the Father is the only one e with no source and that the son is sourced from the father and the Holy Spirit is sourced from either the Father or the father and son .
@@darrenharriott2120 I am a little lost at what you are saying. What I was talking about in the video is eternal generation theory which states that in order for Jesus to be a Son and yet the same age He had to be eternally generated. This theory came from Origen for the purpose of trying to explain how Jesus is the monogenes of the Father yet the same age. I was not in agreement with the doctrine, I was explaining how and why that theory came about.
@@andrewwhitehurst5001 Substance of God is never mentioned in the Bible . The discussion of God’s substance was part of the discussion in the first and second centuries which that argued that the father and the son were either the same substance or similar substance and that made the son God . This lead to the Trinity doctrine that the son was eternally generated ( begotten / sourced) from the father . The foundation of the Trinity is the father is the only being with no source .
The Godhead consists of three co eternal beings who have always existed. Those three are the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit . They act as one so they are one God .
In your presentation you refer to Hebrews 1:3 and state that substance is included as part of the comparison between the Father and Jesus.
Hebrews 1:3 KJV - Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
There is an instance where Moses asked to see God and what scripture describes has nothing to do with substance as we understand. It was God’s character . So when scripture says the Father and the son are the express image it is solely about character.
Exodus 34:6-7 KJV - And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
As for the question of what is the timing of when the Father has begotten the Son , it is not in eternity past and it is not when Jesus was birthed by Mary . It was prophesied in Psalms 2:7 that the Father will in the future declare the son to be begotten . Therefore, the idea that begotten is tied to Jesus being source from the father in incorrect .
Psalm 2:7 KJV - I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psalm 110:4 KJV
[4] The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 5:5-6 KJV - So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Psalms 2:6-7 is a messianic prophecy of a future declaration that will come to fruition in the future , That God (Father) will declare “ Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee” . Since the declaration ‘begotten son’ is a future decree/ event ( Baptism of Jesus )and Jesus already existed before the utterance of the prophecy . Then how can the baptism of Jesus be interpreted as a literal begotten son . The term “begotten son “cannot be defined as a lineal ( father existing before the son ) when talking about Jesus as the only begotten son (John 3:16) . Instead we must identify the declaration as a prophetic event in the future and that the timing of this event is significant. Let us look at Hebrews 5:5-6 ; Hebrews 1:5-9 ; Acts 13:32-37 which links the fulfillment of the prophecy ( Luke 3:21-23) that the Father declares Jesus as His begotten son with the eternal High Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec. We will review the scriptures describing the baptism of Jesus and the anointing of the earthly Levitical priests. Seeking one’s glory is contrary to the humble nature of God. This highlights that God the Father , when he spoke those words He was anointing Jesus as the Eternal High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. ( Acts 10:38)
This baptism and anointing of Jesus is the beginning of the final week of the 70 week prophecy . That is why begotten was importing term and why Jesus said it was important so that He may fulfill . John immediately recognized that this was fulfilling the prophecy of Jesus begotten / anointed by the father at the start of his earthly ministry.
Acts 10:38 KJV - How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
useless garbage talk, down vote
thanks for the vote and the comment, it helps the algorithm that makes the video reach more people with truth.
Jesus was 100% human!! Thats why God Father had to race his Son from the death!! Read Acts 2:24+32 and 3:15+26 and 4:10;5:30 and 10:40;13;30;33;34;37. ROMAN 4:24 and 6:4!!
Matthew 28:19, Phillipians 2:6-10, Revelation 22:13. Jesus had a human nature and a divine nature, inseparable
Truly man,Truly God
atholicaVeritas777 Matthew 28:19,so 1 John 7:5 you don't find it in Hebrew and Greek!! Read Acts 2:38 it would be controversial!!!
John 5:25-27 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man."
This verse shows Jesus was 100% divine and 100% human
Thats why we Baptiste in the name of The Farher, the son, and the holy Spirit.
3 entities in 1 all 1 for 1 purpose Salvation.
Blasphemous
What is the name of the Holy Spirit?
please provide a verse saying "3 entities in 1 all 1 for 1 purpose Salvation".
Zech 6:13 "the counsel of peace shall be between them both" Says salvation is between 2 not 1 or 3
See Matt 12:22-33. Here blasphemy is to attribute the power of Christ to someone other than Christ. All triune doctrines attribute the power of Christ to someone other than Christ and are by Jesus' definition blasphemy
Apostles all baptized in the name of Christ
This is to easy. You lack knowledge.
There's is only 1 verse in the Bible only one.
Above [the Lord] stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!
Jan 29, 2019
God. Jesus. Spirit.
Holy. Holy. Holy.
You've been schooled. Stay blessed.
Stop arguing the Spirit calling.
That doesn’t say one god in three persons. Please provide a verse that does
I have been schooled? Number one, sarcasm like that is not of God. And number two schooling is not something to brag about. Look at Saul, he was highly schooled but when he met Jesus he became educated. Seek education not schooling. “Schooling” someone is how the enemy works. God educates
Brother, I noticed that your supposed logical process is not logical. 1) Presupposition that God is two, therefore, if the Devil wants to be God, there will be three (the blasphemy against the Spirit is the unforgivable sin)
2) If God has a Spirit that is its own intelligence, then man has one. You are implying conscious and independent. I say, not really. Created I the image of God does not mean I am God. If God has a Spirit that teaches, leads to Christ, cry to God in our favor, reproves the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, then we have an independent entity at work.
'God is two' is not in this presentation.
Government of two is.
U trying to make God a liar a spirit cannot be separate we are created in God's image
Blasphemy of the Spirit is laid out very clearly in Matthew 12:22-32 and it is attributing the power of Christ to someone else. Attributing the work of Christ to a "God the Spirit" is by definition blasphemy.
The devil says: "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." So my question is: do the devil controlled religions teach there are 4 gods or do you believe the devil has not yet managed to achieve his stated goal?
You say "If God has a Spirit that teaches, leads to Christ, cry to God in our favor, reproves the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, then we have an independent entity at work." But the Bible identifies who that is when it says 1 For 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." That Spirit is the Spirit OF Christ and not someone else. To teach that it is someone else it by definition blasphemy
You're very philosophical and complicated in your speech!
Good for sleep🥱🥱🥱🥱
If "God saves from sin" is complicated and philosophical in your thought than what do you do with the following?!?
Romans 7:13-24 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?