As a believing/professing Roman Catholic I mostly agree with your critique of Cameron. He should not venture into areas where he acknowledges his own ignorance. A point you missed is an inconsistency when Cameron initially presents Islam as believing that God has literal/physical body parts then later admits that the belief is metaphorical when contrasting it with Mormonism. Stay thoughtful, my friend!
Welcome to UA-cam. 99% percent of it on any topic is someone average person who just likes talking about the topic and responding to videos without have watched or understood them. Ever learning, never coming to a knowledge of the truth. I clearly *should* spend so much less time watching it.
I most certainly reject worshipping a formless, shapeless, immaterial, without body parts or passions, genderless god. I'll take the my Father in Heaven created in His image version please.
👍🏻church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the best .. we're the only ones that believe Jesus is God's Son.. it blows the mind that that is so difficult to comprehend. They're rather twist and mutilate who God is in an effort to not be guilty of heresy.. weigh the two in a balance.. mutilate image and nature of God vs heretic as defined by corrupt men? I'm a heretic all day everyday.. Jesus Christ is God's Son, period!!
@45s262 I have so many questions. What do you mean Jesus is God's Son? Every Christian I have ever met says Jesus is the Son of God. If you mean God had sex with a heavenly mother or the Virgin Mary, then that's unique, but not in a good way.
It’s understandable to want a tangible connection to a Creator, one who feels relatable and personal. But in another theological tradition, being “created in God’s image” doesn’t necessarily mean God has a physical form. Instead, it can mean we share aspects of God’s nature, such as intellect, will, and moral capacity, that make us “persons.” The idea of a formless, omnipotent God highlights that God isn’t bound by physical limitations, which makes Him even more capable of understanding and caring for us in profound ways. In this view, God’s essence surpasses human limitations while still being infinitely relational.
@@joseflores8391and who or what do you believe placed within each one of our souls a longing for a relatable, personable, approachable creator? This is one of the most common desires of individuals I speak to, who do not know God, but want to know Him. Do you long for an earthly father that is unseeable, unknowable, one that you can never hope to be even remotely like in form or function? No one does. People are not hardwired to expect or to accept the relationship between God and mankind that is spelled out in the creedal “understanding” of God. The open heart and the open mind want to reject it because it is not written on the heart and not imprinted on the mind.
Great work, Jacob. As a fan of both channels, I’m really pleased to see this response. Cameron seems to be really sincere in everything he examines, except our faith.
Apparently, this Catholic convert doesn't know his Bible or Quran either because they both use anthropomorphic symbolism is describing God. At any rate, it is better if he would use his channel to teach his own doctrines and beliefs and stop trashing the beliefs of others. I love the Thoughtful Faith channel. Thank you for your content.
Really, when it comes to people like that, I just tell them you are not educated enough to have a real opinion on the matter. It's the same way I deal with idiots who come out with half-baked takes on biology or ecology.
No, no, no. Jesus is God, and Jesus has a body, but God does not have a body. And Jesus and God are the same but different, separate people but not separate people - and all of this is easily provable by very intricate, labyrinthine philosophical jargon, none of which is found within the Bible. That is the Biblical view.
You should study metaphysics before you ignorantly dismiss the case for created time and space. (Metaphysics is the philosophical study of first principles.) If the created world had a beginning, which overwhelming evidence suggests it did, what existed before time and space?
@@joseflores8391 Hello Jose. Time does not start with the creation of the earth. Although the creation of it does. Infinity will not allow a beginning nor and end of time or space. Both have always existed.
@@joseflores8391 36 All kingdoms have a law given; 37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. 38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. 39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified. (Doctrine & Covenants 88:36-39). "The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1976, p. 158).
John 5:19 "The Son can do NOTHING (meaning not a SINGLE thing. Nothing) of himself, but what he sees the FATHER DO.” That’s Biblical and would include taking on physical body like His Father.
If you have done it to the least, you have done it to him. i.e., you see Jesus at the supermarket every time. So what do you say to him? If he appears to be struggling in life do you offer of your substance to help him out? I know I need to help him more than I do.
It's so weird that God would have hands & feet that could be physically nailed to a cross & then that God would show his hands & feet to His followers...weird.
Please consider the following anti-Trinity scriptures: The Father is greater than the Son - Jn. 14:28 If they are co-equal in every sense, how is this possible? The Father is the only true God, while Christ is His subordinate - Jn. 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6 If they are co-equal in every sense, how is this possible? The Father is the God of Christ - Jn. 20:17, 2 Cor. 11:31, Eph. 1:2,3,17, 1 Pet. 1:3, Heb. 1:1-9. This last verse shows that Christ is the perfect representation of the Father, as a photo may be the perfect representation of the thing. It is not the thing itself. The Father states that HE is the God of Christ. The Father and the Son had different wills - Jn. 5:30, 6:38, Matt. 26:39-42 If they are co-equal in every sense, how is this possible? The Son is, as are the faithful, to inherit from God - Rom. 8:17, Heb. 1:4. If Christ was fully God, he can't inherit anything since he already owns it. Christ denies his alleged equality with the Father in Jn. 10:30-39. He compared his status as "God" to those Hebrew leaders likewise called "gods" in Ps. 82:6 in order to refute the charge of blasphemy. Christ either isn't equal to the Father being only figuratively God as the Hebrew leaders were, or he misapplied this scripture by indicating that he really is only God in the same way the Hebrew leaders were “god” and did so only to avoid the charge of blasphemy. The bottom line is that he isn’t equal to God or he lied about the scripture. Your call. The Son not always omniscient - Mk. 13:32 Nor always omnipotent - Matt. 28:18, Jn.17:2 The Son not always perfect - Lk. 13:32; Heb. 2:10, 5:8-9 The person of the Holy Ghost is never called God. In Jn. 14:26, Christ calls the Holy Ghost the Greek word "parakletos" (Strong's word #3875) meaning representative, intercessor, advocate. etc.. The Holy Ghost represents the Father to man. To my customers, I am my company. I am the "parakletos", though not the company.
I can't find my previous post where I showed the compelling case that the gospel accounts make for Jesus teaching a trinity. I will post it again piecemeal. And then respond to the points you made. Hopefully youtube will keep my posts up this time.
The gospel accounts strongly suggests that Jesus was instructing his disciples to think of the Jewish God as a trinity. In John 10:30 Jesus makes a statement that implies unity with the Father, “I and the Father are one.”Here, Jesus affirms a unique relationship with the Father. Many Christian tradition argue that this indicates that they are distinct yet unified in essence. Later in the same gospel account (John 14:16-17), Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit, showing a threefold relationship: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever-the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”In this passage, Jesus (the Son) mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit (the Advocate or Spirit of truth), presenting the three as distinct but with shared roles in God’s work. Even more compelling is the way John 14:16-17 parallels the opening of John’s Gospel (John 1:1-11), where it is said that the world did not receive the light. In both passages, the author presents a unique relationship to God: just as “the Word” is shown to have a special connection with God in John 1, the Holy Spirit is similarly shown to share this distinct connection in John 14. This literary parallel suggests that the author is intentionally hinting at the Holy Spirit’s unique relationship with God, comparable to the way the Word relates to God.
While the Gospel of John doesn’t explicitly outline the doctrine of the Trinity, it lays a compelling foundation for interpreting God as a unified being in three persons. The Gospel of Luke corroborates the trinity idea found implicitly in the Gospel of John. Notice as the end of the Gospel that Christ commands his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Already the trinity is strongly implied, although not formally articulated and unpacked. It is from this foundation that the early Christians explicitly formulated the doctrine of the trinity which was subsequently passed down for over two millennia.
@@joseflores8391 JF - The gospel accounts strongly suggests that Jesus was instructing his disciples to think of the Jewish God as a trinity. In John 10:30 Jesus makes a statement that implies unity with the Father, “I and the Father are one.”Here, Jesus affirms a unique relationship with the Father. Many Christian tradition argue that this indicates that they are distinct yet unified in essence. CII - In Jn. 17:11:20-23, Jesus says that the oneness he and the Father have is the same type of oneness that believers should have. A unity of doctrine and purpose. There is no pagan/Greek idea of a common essense/Ousia. JF - Later in the same gospel account (John 14:16-17), Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit, showing a threefold relationship: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever-the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”In this passage, Jesus (the Son) mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit (the Advocate or Spirit of truth), presenting the three as distinct but with shared roles in God’s work. CII - Sure, there is a Holy Ghost / Holy Spirit, but he is never identified as God. When you say "shared roles", are you saying that you are a Oneness / Jesus Only type of Christian? JF - Even more compelling is the way John 14:16-17 parallels the opening of John’s Gospel (John 1:1-11), where it is said that the world did not receive the light. In both passages, the author presents a unique relationship to God: just as “the Word” is shown to have a special connection with God in John 1, the Holy Spirit is similarly shown to share this distinct connection in John 14. This literary parallel suggests that the author is intentionally hinting at the Holy Spirit’s unique relationship with God, comparable to the way the Word relates to God. CII - No, It simply means that both represented God's truth and light and were rejected. I'm sure that I could find a similar passage refering to one or more of the apostles who were likewise rejected when presenting the light of the gospel.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him:
A person changes from Protestant to Catholicism is a perfect example of seeking the true path to know God. Unfortunately he doesn't have 100 years left to find the actual true path.
The True path IS Catholicism. Mormonism is false and made up. A scam by the Smiths. The Great Apostasy of the Church did not happen and Jesus did not remove the Authority He gave His Apostles to pass down to others. Joseph spoke of BoM stories long before his so called "visions". ‘"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they - rode, their cities, their buildings, with every particu- lar; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." Lucy Mack Smith - Biographical Sketches
I think it is important for human value and ethics to be in the likeness and image of God, male and female. The lengths people go to with ideas to obscure that is one of the primary battlefields of spirituality.
Isn't it curious how their understanding of God is lining up with a certain alphabet community that shall go nameless.. and the blindness of these Trinitarian purists to then stand as a moral agents against the nameless alphabet community.. I'd say it's hypocritical, but in reality I think it's just delusional
@@45s262 That is a strange claim, how is it similar to what you are comparing it to? I would say it’s the opposite, they want to be in the likeness and image of their pride and move away from the family not what God made for the family of Adam and Eve.
@@boltrooktwo It's similar because trinity supporters seem to have the idea God being vague and incomprehensible, therefore undefinable... as in a they them kind of mystery.
I’m a Catholic. Cameron didn’t do a fantastic job in this video. The main argument that Cameron is getting at is that no one until Joseph Smith believed God (the Father) was a seperate material being. Where His body parts are described in the Bible they have always been assumed to be metaphorical. Mormons do believe God the Father is a material being and this comes with a particular complication - a material being by nature must be created. And if God the Father was created, who created Him? Mormonism has a neat way of explaining this by stating that God isn’t the only god, but part of a series of gods. The challenge with this, is that the God of the Bible persistently asserts there are no other gods besides Him. So unless He is lying, there needs to be a good reason to state this assertion.
@@androcles7 No, Jesus assumed a material body. Humans are created as body and soul, so our embodiment is necessary to our being. If Jesus had always had a body, then at some point sure He would have had to be created. However, the Word became flesh. Perhaps I could clarify for the original commenter; rather than saying "a material being by nature must be created" I would say a being essentially material in nature must be created.
@@basedsigmalifter9482 so theoretically, God could also have started out as incorporeal and later assumed a body? But a question about your original response--don't you believe that God is unchanging? How does it square to say God is unchanging, but changed from incorporeal to corporeal?
@@basedsigmalifter9482 I believe his essence cannot change either, and isn't being incorporeal an intrinsic or indispensable quality? If it's not, then there should be no issue with the idea that God the father has a body
I am genuinely curious, you used the word perfected as in past tense. Do you believe God was once not perfect but when through a process to become so? If so, is this a doctrinal teaching of LDS? Maybe I read too much into it so please correct me if I misunderstood.
St. Paul writes that God created everything. Col. 1:16. For God to have a body, there would need be a space that always existed for His body to occupy. But then there would be something in heaven and earth that existed eternally with God and that is not also God. If God had a body, He could not have created this eternal something that His body occupies because it already would have had to exist for His body to occupy it. By that logic, God would not be the Creator of everything, as St. Paul writes. But that would mean a contradiction in Scripture, and if you hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, you cannot allow that contradiction to stand. So, if you say God has a body, you would have to either deny the inerrancy of Scripture, or deny Colossians is Scripture, or deny that the version of Colossians we have is reliable.
God’s having a body also seems at odds with God’s prohibiting the Israelites from making images of Him. If He had a body, then if He wanted them to know that, having them depict Him bodily in an image would seem to be the most straightforward way to do so.
Paul defines “all things” in the very verse you reference as: “whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers.” Paul is not saying that every particle of matter that exists came from God, but rather that everything that has order was ordered (ie created) by God. Also, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture. In fact, we believe that the Bible has had some of the more “plain and precious things taken away” (1 Nephi 13:28). Whether the verse in Colossians is corrupted would be a matter of some debate, but even as written it does not infer that God has no body. To your point about the Israelites not making images of God, the exact prohibition as found in Exodus 20:4-5 says “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” That is blatantly a prohibition against worshipping idols, or the works of one’s own hands.
Your considerate and thoughtful response is appreciated. Paul makes it clear he is talking about everything, hence the “visible and invisible” qualifier, as well as by beginning and ending by saying “all things.” “16For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.” He gives examples by referring to “thrones or powers or rulers or authorities,” but nowhere does the text indicate this examples are being used to narrow the category of all things. Rather, it appears these examples are being used to emphasize Christ’s sovereignty over these objects of worship as well. Respectfully, I do not know see how it would be fruitful for me to bring up any other Scriptures with you in this discusión if it is the case that LDS teaches some Scriptures are corrupted but that which ones are corrupted is disputed. Nevertheless, Isaiah 40:18 rhetorically points out that making an image of God is a fool’s errand: “18To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” Deuteronomy 4 elaborates that the prohibition against making idols applied to making ones of God: “15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.”
1. There is biblical evidence that the bones of holy people can heal others (2 Kings 13:21) 2. The Son of Man refers to Jesus and we do believe that Jesus is in heaven with his glorified body 3. Jesus is the distinct second person of the Holy Trinity. Yes, He is Fully Man and Fully God. The LDS premise is that the Father and Son are separate, so of course you can say that God and Jesus separately have bodies instead of what is actually True which is that God is pure spirit as Scripture says, but then He came down in the person of Jesus Christ and took on flesh We know that the early Church before the 2nd and 3rd centuries believed in the Trinity. They may not have called it the 'Trinity' until that time, but the concept is all over the Bible (and we can argue interpretations - but its clear that the Church has always interpreted it the way that we do today). If the Trinity is not true, then why would Jesus instruct his disciples to baptize in "the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"? Why not just in the name of the Father? or in the name of the Father and of the Spirit? Why did Jesus add himself to that equation?
Hebrews 1 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds 3 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 Pretty clear folks. Jesus having a spirit and a body is the EXPRESS IMAGE as His Father. Case closed. :>)
If having a spirit and a body were the reason Jesus was the image of the Father, then all human beings would be the image of the Father-because all human beings have a spirit and a body. Is there a further distinction you might draw?
@@michaeldulman5487 Yes. Genesis 1 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Joseph Smith did the ultimate "trust me bro" by not revealing his magic tablets. You call into Sam Shamoun's show to debate whatever point you want, he streams most days in the late afternoon.
@@HOLDFASTHOUND Joseph Smith revealed his "magic tablets" to over thirteen people, who signed sworn testimony to what they had seen. That's a higher standard of evidence than even most biblical events.
Mormons reject the Trinity. So you conflate God the Father and God the son. Trinitarians dont accept that God the Father has a physical body or that the Holy Spirit has a physical body. I appreciate the fact that you are clear on this video that you dont accept the Trinity. I think that will help everyone clearly understand what side of the issue they want to fall on.
You should debate Jay Dyer. He is constantly inviting Mormons to challenge him on his livestreams. If you win your audience will likely explode and if you lose you might become Eastern Orthodox.
Jay Dyer isn’t worth engaging for anyone who has goodwill and is genuinely seeking the truth. He is very proud, treats his guests disrespectfully and doesn’t care to promote the common good. He is bright, but is lacking in charity.
@@joseflores8391 Nah he’s funny af and pretty smart. His formal debates are solid and his opponents generally get mad at him because he makes better points. It would be awesome to see him formally debate a Mormon.
But it doesn’t say God is only spirit. The Godhead is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each has its own part and purpose and mission but acting as one God in unity. The purpose of The Father being the almighty God basically in charge, Jesus being our Savior to fulfill the Fathers command, and the Spirit to witness and testify to our hearts and minds that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God the Father.
@@gingermcgovern5682 It is quite clear it is referring to the Father, and not the entire Godhead. So, from what I'm getting from you, each person is their own separate God, yet they act like one God?
@@BiblicalTrinitarianeach is a separate personage and member of one Godhead. The Father being in charge. We learn from Christs own words in the Bible that it was God the Father he prayed to and whose will and command he submitted to and fulfilled. Christ also taught he would send his spirit which is the comforter. Christ represented and taught the will of the Father and the Spirit testified of its truthfulness. Three separate beings and roles as the Godhead to fulfill the purpose of saving us from the fall.
5:20 I do love the idea that everybody; Jesus, Mary, Moses, etc, is embodied up in Heaven except for God lol. “Oh gee being in those glorified bodies sure looks fun 😕”
The theory of the glass bowl representing the gospel is one testimony to me why the gospel can be true cuz all other religions have similar beliefs to the church but the church has beliefs that some other churches don't have
Protestant here. I really have to say that when you asked "Wich is more weird: saying that God the Father has a glorify body like the risen Jesus or carring arround the heads and body parts of dead people claiming they can heal the sick?"... even being SUPER critial to LDS Church, I have to say, with Catholics, that claiming the first one is waaaaaay more weird and even heretical than the second. note: despite the disagreements, Jacob is my favorite LDS apologist and I think the won the debate agains the cavinists of James White team. God Bless.
@rodrigoNuland Plus, Scripture actually has an instance of a dead body touching Elisha’s bones and reviving. If God is willing to use the dead body of one of His holy prophets to bring someone back to life, then by that logic, He very well might use the dead bodies of His saints to heal the living.
What it is in my opinion, is in large part the net positive effect LDS are having in a modern age.. So this is just the nipping at the heels by a few scrawny dogs
@@simonfalk1337 Have they ever let it slide? We've always talked about and disagreed on those things. But it's gotten more aggressive. If Jesus said to turn the other cheek does it matter who started it?
@IJN-33 I feel like some out of a kind of tolerance or liberalism have let it slide. Plus, think about it from the other side. If Mormonism is false you could make the argument that it is worse than atheism. It's worse to distort a good thing (the Gospel and who God is and what salvation is) than to deny it altogether. It's an abuse of a person's desire for God.
@@simonfalk1337 Unless it's true, then it's incredibly important. If it's true then sharing misinformation as that and so many videos do is a tragedy. If it's false it should be debunked with good information, not half baked arguments.
Respectfully, if this explanation is to be believed, Mormonism is like atheism in that there is nothing but creatures, God being just one among them. The Mormon has the same conceptual problem as the atheist. The Mormon God(s), apparently, is a creature that needs a cause. There is essentially no difference between God in Mormonism, on this account, and Zeus. There is a reason pagan mythology gave its gods origin stories and the Bible does not.
If God is three in one, without parts or passions, unable to be tempted or sin, in what way were we created in God's image, in his likeness? It's true that man gained the knowledge of good and evil like God, but that came after it says man was created in God's image and likeness.
And passions mean feelings, am I correct? Then how can you tell me that God loves me, if he doesn't have the capacity to have that feeling? I've often wanted to ask someone to explain that one.
Hi there! To answer your question, God is a person. Not an abstract force or inanimate object. We are persons as well, with intellect and will, though God's are perfect and ours is not. That would be a simple Christian interpretation. To use this verse of Genesis to prove God has a human body is what I would call theologically backwards, and also not historic Christianity. Also, in ancient context image and likeness refers to royal emissaries or ambassadors. So the role of humanity was to be God's ambassadors, to show forth some of His Glory, like an image shows something of a person but is not the person itself. There are two easy ways of reading that verse.
@@christinaandrew181 Interesting question. Passions do mean feelings, however love is deeper than feelings. The Bible says God IS love. Not that God is a loving person or an abstract force. God is love. Many of the things we can say about God are what God isn't, for example God does not change or God does not sin. Scripture gives us this statement that God is love. God constantly wills the good of the other, God is constantly self giving. Love is willing the good of the other and an authentic gift of self. God is love for all eternity in the Persons of the Trinity, but even though God is infinitely happy in this communion of love, He makes humans to share in this out of sheer goodness.
@@simonfalk1337 According to the traditions of the fathers, which took them hundreds of years of debating and compromising, God is not a person, but three persons of Spirit coequal coexisting, one person of which was not created or made, but incarnated as flesh in the express image of the Father. I am none of those things, nor is anyone else. We are one spirit in one body of flesh. As for your claim that Image and Likeness anciently meant a royal representative, that's just misinformation. Tzelem is a visual representation, it looks the same, or a representative figure, a smaller version of the original. Demut is a physical or external resemblance. Perhaps someone just added a new definition to these words, and foolishly added the same definition for both, meaning that the same thing is said twice in a row, because they realized the original definitions destroy the Trinity. They did the same thing in the 11th century with Elohim in the Old Testament and Theos in the New Testament, because men being called Gods by the God who cannot lie, for that goes against their man made Trinity. So they added the definitions of Human Beings, Judges, Magistrates or Rulers, they couldn't even decide which definition to add, just as long as men weren't being called Gods by God or Jesus Christ. However Jesus Christ said he was here to fulfill the law of Moses, and Jesus Christ said that the law of witnesses needs two men for a testimony to be true, and said he was one of the men that beareth witness of himself and that the Father was the second man to bear witness to make Jesus Christ's testimony true. I have to believe God and Jesus Christ over a bunch of men that took hundreds of years to decide who God is, contradicting the Bible, making changes to the Bible ever since to protect their man made Trinity. The word Trinity didn't even exist until about 170 A.D., and described it as God the Father, and his Word (Logos), and his Wisdom (Sophia), a female entity, while the Holy Spirit is always described as male in the New Testament. The Trinity couldn't be more unbiblical, but that's what you get when you try to make a God that is pleasing to as many people as possible.
@bartonbagnes4605 I am referencing how image and likeness was used in ancient terms, you are the one putting your own spin on it by insisting that image means God must have what we have, that is a physical body. Your point about Jesus bringing up two witnesses seems to not be relevant. In Trinitarian theology each of the persons is a person which can say "I." Thus Jesus's reference to the Father as His witness is totally compatible with Trinitarian theology. Also, changing the Bible? Really? Do you believe there was actually a prophecy in Genesis predicting Smith that was lost, or that John 1 sounded super different originally?
Listening to this dude talk about having hands and feet as something “alien” was hilarious. Bro was trying SO HARD to make something so normal sound so weird. 🤣
Can you explain what Christians believe this means? Because I’m willing to bet you have no idea. And what is more likely to be the “philosophies of men mingled with scripture”? Doctrine that is derived from a careful study of scripture, or doctrine a man claims came from God that then uses certain verses to try to support?
@@austinnajar when you no longer have prophets or refuse to listen to them, the link with God is lost. Then you are left with the philosophies of men to try and understand what truth is. There are around 44,000 different Christians sects all claiming to know truth and also the mind and will of God, waste of time it's like a lucky dip! The Jews stop listening to their prophet's therefore when the Messiah turned up they knew Him not. Therefore seen Him as an imposter that they would of eventually kill. Christ took their authority off them on the mount of transfiguration when The Father, Moses and Elijah turned up with priesthood keys to hand over to Christ, Peter, James and John. As there was no living prophet with those keys on the earth at that time, the last prophet was Malachi about 400 years previous. Christianity eventually lost it also and wandered away from truth and at the time of Joseph about 250 different religions on the earth none of which were correct! It why the promise of the angel turning up with a gospel in the last days was foreseen by John the beloved in the last days. Revelation 14:6 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Also the 3rd of April 1836 Elijah, Moses and Christ once again turned up in the Kirkland Temple to bestow keys and authority, so truth and priesthood ordnances can once again be on the earth. God is the same today yesterday and forever and unchangeable being, it's how He works, only He knows truth not man! No man or woman can start up Christ church without Christ permission, when He is the author of it, it's true and correct. The angel Moroni was that angel the gospel was the book of Mormon prepared over two thousand years ago for this purpose. As God knows the beginning from the end and knew what would happen to his prophets that they would be rejected and killed. The constitution of the USA made it possible to come forth again in 1797 and law was passed that people could not be persecuted for religious beliefs 7 and 8 years later two prophets were born by coincidence or by design? God knew that once truth returned to earth the devil would try to destroy those who were behind it. We had an extermination order upon us the Hawns Mill massacre but God saved a remnant to flourish despite the devil's best efforts to eradicate us from the earth. People if they doubt can get a personal witness from God by doing what James advised: James 1:5 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. From here it's up to you! Will you listen to this apostle? or not and be left in darkness, It's your choice!
I'd love to see Thoughtful Faith, Ward Radio, and/or Keystone do a response video to Trent Horn's latest anti Book of Mormon video from a few days ago if you have the time!
2 Maccabees 7:28 would love to step in and save the day, but alas, it’s deuterocanonical (though Doctrines and Covenants 91 says the Apocrypha have much truth in them, I assume that verse would not be considered to assert God’s truth).
0:50 hey Cameron, The only disturbing parallels are those between the ones who stoned and crucified the prophets for heresy and the views of God by modern Christians, catholics , and Protestants of today.. wake up! Unblock your ears!
Jesus body was not with him in heaven, prior to the incarnation. God per se is wholly other and transcendental. “We can only say what God is not” - St. Thomas Aquinas. Mormons simply do not worship the God of Christianity.
@@inotterwords6115 God is Spirit, and what that means in its fullest extant is not known, God as pure being per se, does not have a definition we can encapsulate, as St. Augustine says, “If you understood Him, he would not be God”
@@OniLeafNin Yes, but we also couldn't know to "its fullest extent" what it means to inhabit a physical body... that doesn't mean "we can only say what God is not". We can say that God had a body (in the form of Jesus Christ, for example), without requiring that we know "to its fullest extent" what exactly that entails.
@@inotterwords6115 We do know what that means, we do it everyday. We don’t have glorified bodies, but a glorified body is the result of the created order being perfected, the uncreated order is of a different category altogether.
@@OniLeafNin "We do know what that means, we do it everyday." Not the way God does it. We're not God. When God inhabits a body, it's likely not the same comprehensible way that we do. And it's worth saying that we do NOT know how our spirit inhabits our body, at least, not to "the fullest extent" standard.
Cameron’s critique does indeed seem sadly deficient. But tell me, is the human mind real? It occupies no space and has no substance. It can even function outside the boundaries of time, in a sense. Elder Pratt’s critique of the trinitarian Father can apply to the human mind. Does that mean the human mind does not exist? Or that the mind cannot possibly have any power?
Jacob, if you want to be taken seriously, and by seriously i mean as an adult. Do away with the pretentious intro and stop refering to people as cancer. Then you might get somewhere. Your attitude and actions the past 2 years are in direct conflict to words spoken by the 12 this past conference.
Like to add the three that Abraham fed before destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. A kid prepared in its mother’s milk. 7:00 Dispensational Bible believer is what I think and am. Armed up with a suit of armor shield and sword ready to pommel know how to sling a stone.
What a strange concept: worshiping a more relatable God. (Gen 1, v27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (John 14, v9) ...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father... (John 17, v3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Christians believe God made Himself relatable in the Incarnation, but we cannot know the divine nature. Romans 1:22-23 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Mormonism rejects the transcendent nature of God.
I agree that Cameron shouldn't be looking for slam dunks, and subjectively I don't enjoy this triumphalism over people I consider cousins in faith. The meat of this video is about the doctrine of God though, and I don't think you have defeated the orthodox Christian position or proved the Mormon position.
@@pigetstuck claiming to be Christian is generally irrelevant but as far as I know Mormonism is the only religious group claiming to be Christian that believes this.
0:46 I’m trying to decide who put up the ai art? Why is CC’s invisible incorporeal God depicted as a regular dude but the “hands and Feet” god of Muslims and LDS the deformed freak of nature? 😂
I think this video is largely a fishing expedition, i.e. "hit me up". But that aside, I always feel that veiled, thinly veiled, or not at all veiled, the use of the expression "creedal Christian" as used by Mormon apologists is always a pejorative. But beyond that the expression functions to open up a category of the possibility of a non-creedal Christian. 1 Cor. 13:3,4 : For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. You cannot be a Christian and not believe these words. 1 Cor 13:3,4 is a creed. It is in fact the earliest creed and one of many creeds in the New Testament. Christianity is creedal and there are no Christians who are not creedal. Christianity is in no way moving towards Mormonism, but it certainly does appear that the opposite is true. Here and there language is used in ways to find wiggle room into our space. But "meaningful differences" doesn't even begin to describe the chasm. As for the bulk of this content I find the Mormon view of God to be weak and substandard. The Mormon God is a derived and dependent God who is in subjection to things outside himself. The so called "eternal law of good" for example. And finally, Parley P Pratt and a dollar won't even get me through the register at the Dollar Tree.
You should have a one-on-one with this guy so you can both reach an understanding of one another while still respectfully disagreeing. The best we can do is try to build bridges of mutual respect. I’m not saying we should compromise what we believe, but rather find some common ground and build from there.
But first you have to establish the clear definitions of God the Father, Jesus God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is where the LDS…biblical Christian differ. Ie Biblical Christian God the Father has always existed no Gods before none after…Lds claim God the Father hasn’t always been God, He was once a man.
@thoughtfulfaith2020 I will be so surprised if @CapturingChristianity Cameron takes you up on your offer to get together and dialogue about the subject of God’s nature, because the sad truth is UA-camrs like Cameron are disingenuous, and would prefer to like you said “talk about us” rather than with us. They don’t want anyone pointing out to them that their entire argument is built upon a straw man. He prefers being right, rather than knowing the truth.
The restored gospel is not biblical, the gospel has always been, it has always existed. Not even Hades could destroy it. John 16:18 I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. People apostatized but the gospel has always remained. God is spirit John 4:24 God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Col 1:15 To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible. the only God, be honor and glory and ever, Amen. 1 Tim 1:17. Exodus 33:20 God says that NO ONE who looks directly at My face will live. Since Jesus was incarnated into human form it foreshadows the incarnation. Joseph Smith should have stuck with his first story he told regarding seeing just Jesus, that may be more believable, but God is invisible, He is spirit. There is no inconsistency with the gospel, the answers are there if you want to know who God is. His glory will overpower nature, His light would overwhelm any creature.
The bigotry one has to possess to not appreciate or learn from other faiths is disheartening albeit part of life. One thing I like about the LDS faith is the willingness to listen and respect other religions and beliefs. I know many people on all sides make stupid comments on social media or in life but to publish an ignorant opinion for the world to see as if it’s proof isn’t my idea of loving your neighbor. And he ain’t no prophet
It is interesting listening to you critique others’ arguments considering that you don’t do such a great job yourself. Besides, this is such a pointless exercise.
Yeah, that was one of his weak arguments. I thought the rest of his critiques were good though. The problem with tritinitarinism is that there is supposed to be just one God. Trinitarinism solves this problem, but saying that there are multiple personages goes against having one God and creates polytheistic gods. So, the issue ends up being a problem for Mormons and for Christians. It's all strange. It is interesting to note that Joseph as a trinitarian at first, as seen in the BoM, but later turned into a polytheist.
Cameron: *makes a vid about the parallels between Islam and Mormonism* Jacob: “stop straw manning us” That’s basically what this video is Mormonism’s odd understanding of the incarnation is what leads to the idea that “Jesus has a body, why can’t the Father have a body?” The issue with this is that it assumes the Father also became incarnate at some point Now this is part of LDS theology, which is fine The issue is that the source of that theology is largely dependent on the bonus texts of the LDS, with appeals to scripture, similar to what Jacob brought up But we have a big problem We cannot take these references to God’s body as literal for 1 reason The Son of Man (which Jesus later tells us is himself) is not incarnate at the time of Daniel And if we want to say references to the Son of Man’s body are to be treated the same as other references to God’s body, then we would have to say that Jesus was incarnate before the incarnation However, we know this isn’t the case given what we read in the opening lines of St John’s Gospel So if we have good reason to believe references to the Son of Man’s body is figurative, and since the Son of Man is Jesus Then we can reasonably conclude that references to God’s body (in this case it would be the Father’s body) are figurative as well Jacob also put together this syllogism: P1 Jesus is God P2 Jesus has a body C God has a body The problem here is that Jacob seems to be conflating how “God” is used in P1 and in the conclusion In P1, God is used in reference to Christ’s divinity, as in he is the Son of God While in the conclusion, it seems that “God” is being used to refer to the Godhead Now I could be completely wrong, so Jacob if you see this, let me know PS Jacob’s representation of the development of Trinitarian Theology (what the LDS call a philosophy) is laughably bad PPS the LDS labeling of “Trinitarian Philosophy” shows a common issue in Mormonism of using the wrong words to describe something. It’s a Theology because it speaks (logos/λογος) of God (theo/θεό)
Also Jesus does appear pre-incarnate multiple times including in the Book of Mormon, and he has a human form, he just doesn't have flesh and bones yet. He isn't a formless aether before he's born.
@@TheMinskyTerrorist the doctrine and theology of the Trinity is just a summation of everything the Bible teaches and reveals about the nature of God. It comes from nowhere except scripture.
@@austinnajar If that's the case, why were the councils a mess of bishops all arguing with each other and excommunicating each other for heresy? Why was there still such disagreement over the interpretation of the wording? Why was there an east-west schism about a clause inserted by the Catholic church?
@@austinnajar Let’s be objective. The doctrine of the Trinity was first formulated among the early Christians (mid-2nd century and later) and fathers of the Church as they attempted to understand the relationship between Jesus and God in their scriptural documents and prior traditions. Nowhere in the text of any single book of the Old or New Testament is the doctrine of the trinity explicitly taught. The Bible is an anthology, or collection of books. To treat it like a singular book telling one cohesive narrative (like so many creedal Christians erroneously do) is something that factually cannot and should not be done. So, to cherry pick or proof text the Bible to support your presupposition that the doctrine of the trinity is summarily taught by the entirety of the Bible is illogical. No single author found within the Bible believed in the trinity and definitely did not teach it…and if I’m wrong…show me the author in the Bible who EXPLICITLY defines one God existing in three, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons (hypostases) sharing one essence/substance/nature.
Your ignorance of Christianity is obvious: Jesus has a body only because of the incarnation: the Father doesn't, and how did the Holy Spirit become a god if a body is nessasary to be a god in Mormonism. You people have the bigger problem of explaining the incoherence of Mormon gods.
A body is not necessary to become a god in Mormonism. God is a title (like sir, ma'am, mister, doctor, master, king, queen, LCSW, ... 😂). The title is given under some circumstances that I admit I don't fully understand but it appears to have to do with power and/or authority. Heavenly Father is a god. Heavenly mother also. The LDS church teaches that Jesus was a god before he even came to Earth, while he was still a spirit. We know there were other gods too, as there was a council in Heaven before the earth was created, when the gods conferred with each other. Who were these gods? Not sure. Perhaps for example they were the ones who had power and authority to create worlds under the direction of our Heavenly Parents (since the "gods said" let us go down and create a world like the other worlds we have created -- so maybe godhood is being able to govern and direct creation; Jesus did this and so did Adam for example, in our theology), or maybe there is some other criterion/criteria. How many other gods? Not sure. Do we worship any other gods such as these gods at the council? No. I am not trying to convince you this is truth, I'm just debunking the incorrect notion that you have, that one needs a body in order to be a god and thus we have a paradox; that is not correct Mormon doctrine so there is no paradox.
@@Sword_of_Labangreat response. What I love about our theology is that it works just fine with the Bible with no contradictions. Most Christians dislike it because it's new, not because they can actually disprove it--because they can't.
Saying God is a contingent composite creature that changes and has potential isn't just weird it's illogical and not true Mormons don't worship God they worship a super man
@@Brutici what causes the potential for God to change? Something besides God making God contingent and not supreme therefore not God Mormons do not worship God Mormons worship a super man
As a believing/professing Roman Catholic I mostly agree with your critique of Cameron. He should not venture into areas where he acknowledges his own ignorance. A point you missed is an inconsistency when Cameron initially presents Islam as believing that God has literal/physical body parts then later admits that the belief is metaphorical when contrasting it with Mormonism. Stay thoughtful, my friend!
Thank you for the clarification!
You're so much kinder than I want to be. It's hard to do, that's how I know it's Christ-like.
How can a person having a religious podcast not have a working knowledge of The Scriptures?
Especially without foundational knowledge like the original temple in Jerusalem.
@@elderinisrael Yeah, weird.
EXACTLY!!!! At least the mere basics😂
Welcome to UA-cam. 99% percent of it on any topic is someone average person who just likes talking about the topic and responding to videos without have watched or understood them. Ever learning, never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
I clearly *should* spend so much less time watching it.
@@AlecSorensen I’m glad with my channel I try to learn before I record.
I most certainly reject worshipping a formless, shapeless, immaterial, without body parts or passions, genderless god.
I'll take the my Father in Heaven created in His image version please.
👍🏻church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the best .. we're the only ones that believe Jesus is God's Son.. it blows the mind that that is so difficult to comprehend. They're rather twist and mutilate who God is in an effort to not be guilty of heresy.. weigh the two in a balance.. mutilate image and nature of God vs heretic as defined by corrupt men? I'm a heretic all day everyday.. Jesus Christ is God's Son, period!!
@45s262 I have so many questions. What do you mean Jesus is God's Son? Every Christian I have ever met says Jesus is the Son of God. If you mean God had sex with a heavenly mother or the Virgin Mary, then that's unique, but not in a good way.
It’s understandable to want a tangible connection to a Creator, one who feels relatable and personal. But in another theological tradition, being “created in God’s image” doesn’t necessarily mean God has a physical form. Instead, it can mean we share aspects of God’s nature, such as intellect, will, and moral capacity, that make us “persons.” The idea of a formless, omnipotent God highlights that God isn’t bound by physical limitations, which makes Him even more capable of understanding and caring for us in profound ways. In this view, God’s essence surpasses human limitations while still being infinitely relational.
@joseflores8391 thank you 👍
@@joseflores8391and who or what do you believe placed within each one of our souls a longing for a relatable, personable, approachable creator? This is one of the most common desires of individuals I speak to, who do not know God, but want to know Him. Do you long for an earthly father that is unseeable, unknowable, one that you can never hope to be even remotely like in form or function? No one does. People are not hardwired to expect or to accept the relationship between God and mankind that is spelled out in the creedal “understanding” of God. The open heart and the open mind want to reject it because it is not written on the heart and not imprinted on the mind.
Great work, Jacob. As a fan of both channels, I’m really pleased to see this response. Cameron seems to be really sincere in everything he examines, except our faith.
Apparently, this Catholic convert doesn't know his Bible or Quran either because they both use anthropomorphic symbolism is describing God. At any rate, it is better if he would use his channel to teach his own doctrines and beliefs and stop trashing the beliefs of others. I love the Thoughtful Faith channel. Thank you for your content.
Hi Jacob, will you ever address Connor Boyak's videos? It would be engaging and insightful.
Really, when it comes to people like that, I just tell them you are not educated enough to have a real opinion on the matter. It's the same way I deal with idiots who come out with half-baked takes on biology or ecology.
No, no, no. Jesus is God, and Jesus has a body, but God does not have a body. And Jesus and God are the same but different, separate people but not separate people - and all of this is easily provable by very intricate, labyrinthine philosophical jargon, none of which is found within the Bible. That is the Biblical view.
🤣And worse yet! God exists outside space and time which there is no such place.
You should study metaphysics before you ignorantly dismiss the case for created time and space. (Metaphysics is the philosophical study of first principles.) If the created world had a beginning, which overwhelming evidence suggests it did, what existed before time and space?
@@joseflores8391 Hello Jose. Time does not start with the creation of the earth. Although the creation of it does. Infinity will not allow a beginning nor and end of time or space. Both have always existed.
@@joseflores8391
36 All kingdoms have a law given;
37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.
38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.
(Doctrine & Covenants 88:36-39).
"The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity."
(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1976, p. 158).
John 5:19
"The Son can do NOTHING (meaning not a SINGLE thing. Nothing) of himself, but what he sees the FATHER DO.”
That’s Biblical and would include taking on physical body like His Father.
Great breakdown. I'd love to run into Jesus at the supermarket.
If you have done it to the least, you have done it to him. i.e., you see Jesus at the supermarket every time. So what do you say to him? If he appears to be struggling in life do you offer of your substance to help him out? I know I need to help him more than I do.
Cameron’s was one of the worst critiques of LDS theology I’ve ever seen. This was God Loves Mormons type content.
Yeah God loves Mormons is a liar!
Bertuzzi should have some more folks on his staff, so he doesn't commit these sorts of embarrassing errors.
It's so weird that God would have hands & feet that could be physically nailed to a cross & then that God would show his hands & feet to His followers...weird.
Please consider the following anti-Trinity scriptures:
The Father is greater than the Son - Jn. 14:28 If they are co-equal in every sense, how is this possible?
The Father is the only true God, while Christ is His subordinate - Jn. 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6 If they are co-equal in every sense, how is this possible?
The Father is the God of Christ - Jn. 20:17, 2 Cor. 11:31, Eph. 1:2,3,17, 1 Pet. 1:3, Heb. 1:1-9. This last verse shows that Christ is the perfect representation of the Father, as a photo may be the perfect representation of the thing. It is not the thing itself. The Father states that HE is the God of Christ.
The Father and the Son had different wills - Jn. 5:30, 6:38, Matt. 26:39-42 If they are co-equal in every sense, how is this possible?
The Son is, as are the faithful, to inherit from God - Rom. 8:17, Heb. 1:4. If Christ was fully God, he can't inherit anything since he already owns it.
Christ denies his alleged equality with the Father in Jn. 10:30-39. He compared his status as "God" to those Hebrew leaders likewise called "gods" in Ps. 82:6 in order to refute the charge of blasphemy. Christ either isn't equal to the Father being only figuratively God as the Hebrew leaders were, or he misapplied this scripture by indicating that he really is only God in the same way the Hebrew leaders were “god” and did so only to avoid the charge of blasphemy. The bottom line is that he isn’t equal to God or he lied about the scripture. Your call.
The Son not always omniscient - Mk. 13:32
Nor always omnipotent - Matt. 28:18, Jn.17:2
The Son not always perfect - Lk. 13:32; Heb. 2:10, 5:8-9
The person of the Holy Ghost is never called God. In Jn. 14:26, Christ calls the Holy Ghost the Greek word "parakletos" (Strong's word #3875) meaning representative, intercessor, advocate. etc.. The Holy Ghost represents the Father to man. To my customers, I am my company. I am the "parakletos", though not the company.
I can't find my previous post where I showed the compelling case that the gospel accounts make for Jesus teaching a trinity. I will post it again piecemeal. And then respond to the points you made. Hopefully youtube will keep my posts up this time.
The gospel accounts strongly suggests that Jesus was instructing his disciples to think of the Jewish God as a trinity.
In John 10:30 Jesus makes a statement that implies unity with the Father, “I and the Father are one.”Here, Jesus affirms a unique relationship with the Father. Many Christian tradition argue that this indicates that they are distinct yet unified in essence.
Later in the same gospel account (John 14:16-17), Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit, showing a threefold relationship: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever-the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”In this passage, Jesus (the Son) mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit (the Advocate or Spirit of truth), presenting the three as distinct but with shared roles in God’s work.
Even more compelling is the way John 14:16-17 parallels the opening of John’s Gospel (John 1:1-11), where it is said that the world did not receive the light. In both passages, the author presents a unique relationship to God: just as “the Word” is shown to have a special connection with God in John 1, the Holy Spirit is similarly shown to share this distinct connection in John 14. This literary parallel suggests that the author is intentionally hinting at the Holy Spirit’s unique relationship with God, comparable to the way the Word relates to God.
While the Gospel of John doesn’t explicitly outline the doctrine of the Trinity, it lays a compelling foundation for interpreting God as a unified being in three persons.
The Gospel of Luke corroborates the trinity idea found implicitly in the Gospel of John. Notice as the end of the Gospel that Christ commands his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Already the trinity is strongly implied, although not formally articulated and unpacked.
It is from this foundation that the early Christians explicitly formulated the doctrine of the trinity which was subsequently passed down for over two millennia.
@@joseflores8391 I'd like to see it. Thanks.
@@joseflores8391
JF - The gospel accounts strongly suggests that Jesus was instructing his disciples to think of the Jewish God as a trinity.
In John 10:30 Jesus makes a statement that implies unity with the Father, “I and the Father are one.”Here, Jesus affirms a unique relationship with the Father. Many Christian tradition argue that this indicates that they are distinct yet unified in essence.
CII - In Jn. 17:11:20-23, Jesus says that the oneness he and the Father have is the same type of oneness that believers should have. A unity of doctrine and purpose. There is no pagan/Greek idea of a common essense/Ousia.
JF - Later in the same gospel account (John 14:16-17), Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit, showing a threefold relationship: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever-the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”In this passage, Jesus (the Son) mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit (the Advocate or Spirit of truth), presenting the three as distinct but with shared roles in God’s work.
CII - Sure, there is a Holy Ghost / Holy Spirit, but he is never identified as God. When you say "shared roles", are you saying that you are a Oneness / Jesus Only type of Christian?
JF - Even more compelling is the way John 14:16-17 parallels the opening of John’s Gospel (John 1:1-11), where it is said that the world did not receive the light. In both passages, the author presents a unique relationship to God: just as “the Word” is shown to have a special connection with God in John 1, the Holy Spirit is similarly shown to share this distinct connection in John 14. This literary parallel suggests that the author is intentionally hinting at the Holy Spirit’s unique relationship with God, comparable to the way the Word relates to God.
CII - No, It simply means that both represented God's truth and light and were rejected. I'm sure that I could find a similar passage refering to one or more of the apostles who were likewise rejected when presenting the light of the gospel.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him:
A person changes from Protestant to Catholicism is a perfect example of seeking the true path to know God. Unfortunately he doesn't have 100 years left to find the actual true path.
The True path IS Catholicism. Mormonism is false and made up. A scam by the Smiths. The Great Apostasy of the Church did not happen and Jesus did not remove the Authority He gave His Apostles to pass down to others.
Joseph spoke of BoM stories long before his so called "visions".
‘"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they - rode, their cities, their buildings, with every particu- lar; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." Lucy Mack Smith - Biographical Sketches
I think it is important for human value and ethics to be in the likeness and image of God, male and female. The lengths people go to with ideas to obscure that is one of the primary battlefields of spirituality.
Isn't it curious how their understanding of God is lining up with a certain alphabet community that shall go nameless.. and the blindness of these Trinitarian purists to then stand as a moral agents against the nameless alphabet community.. I'd say it's hypocritical, but in reality I think it's just delusional
@@45s262 That is a strange claim, how is it similar to what you are comparing it to? I would say it’s the opposite, they want to be in the likeness and image of their pride and move away from the family not what God made for the family of Adam and Eve.
@@45s262you're ignorance is obvious little dude.
@@boltrooktwo It's similar because trinity supporters seem to have the idea God being vague and incomprehensible, therefore undefinable... as in a they them kind of mystery.
I’m a Catholic. Cameron didn’t do a fantastic job in this video. The main argument that Cameron is getting at is that no one until Joseph Smith believed God (the Father) was a seperate material being. Where His body parts are described in the Bible they have always been assumed to be metaphorical.
Mormons do believe God the Father is a material being and this comes with a particular complication - a material being by nature must be created. And if God the Father was created, who created Him? Mormonism has a neat way of explaining this by stating that God isn’t the only god, but part of a series of gods.
The challenge with this, is that the God of the Bible persistently asserts there are no other gods besides Him. So unless He is lying, there needs to be a good reason to state this assertion.
Jesus has a material body. Was He created?
@@androcles7 No, Jesus assumed a material body. Humans are created as body and soul, so our embodiment is necessary to our being. If Jesus had always had a body, then at some point sure He would have had to be created. However, the Word became flesh. Perhaps I could clarify for the original commenter; rather than saying "a material being by nature must be created" I would say a being essentially material in nature must be created.
@@basedsigmalifter9482 so theoretically, God could also have started out as incorporeal and later assumed a body? But a question about your original response--don't you believe that God is unchanging? How does it square to say God is unchanging, but changed from incorporeal to corporeal?
@ God’s divine nature cannot change, and it didn’t.
@@basedsigmalifter9482 I believe his essence cannot change either, and isn't being incorporeal an intrinsic or indispensable quality? If it's not, then there should be no issue with the idea that God the father has a body
As a former catholic, I agree. Transubstantiation is another doctrine that should preclude such criticism.😅
Why would we deny a Father who is perfected, omnipotent, and omniscient and who is approchable and real?
I am genuinely curious, you used the word perfected as in past tense. Do you believe God was once not perfect but when through a process to become so? If so, is this a doctrinal teaching of LDS? Maybe I read too much into it so please correct me if I misunderstood.
St. Paul writes that God created everything. Col. 1:16. For God to have a body, there would need be a space that always existed for His body to occupy. But then there would be something in heaven and earth that existed eternally with God and that is not also God. If God had a body, He could not have created this eternal something that His body occupies because it already would have had to exist for His body to occupy it. By that logic, God would not be the Creator of everything, as St. Paul writes. But that would mean a contradiction in Scripture, and if you hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, you cannot allow that contradiction to stand. So, if you say God has a body, you would have to either deny the inerrancy of Scripture, or deny Colossians is Scripture, or deny that the version of Colossians we have is reliable.
God’s having a body also seems at odds with God’s prohibiting the Israelites from making images of Him. If He had a body, then if He wanted them to know that, having them depict Him bodily in an image would seem to be the most straightforward way to do so.
Paul defines “all things” in the very verse you reference as: “whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers.” Paul is not saying that every particle of matter that exists came from God, but rather that everything that has order was ordered (ie created) by God.
Also, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture. In fact, we believe that the Bible has had some of the more “plain and precious things taken away” (1 Nephi 13:28). Whether the verse in Colossians is corrupted would be a matter of some debate, but even as written it does not infer that God has no body.
To your point about the Israelites not making images of God, the exact prohibition as found in Exodus 20:4-5 says “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” That is blatantly a prohibition against worshipping idols, or the works of one’s own hands.
Your considerate and thoughtful response is appreciated.
Paul makes it clear he is talking about everything, hence the “visible and invisible” qualifier, as well as by beginning and ending by saying “all things.” “16For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.” He gives examples by referring to “thrones or powers or rulers or authorities,” but nowhere does the text indicate this examples are being used to narrow the category of all things. Rather, it appears these examples are being used to emphasize Christ’s sovereignty over these objects of worship as well.
Respectfully, I do not know see how it would be fruitful for me to bring up any other Scriptures with you in this discusión if it is the case that LDS teaches some Scriptures are corrupted but that which ones are corrupted is disputed.
Nevertheless, Isaiah 40:18 rhetorically points out that making an image of God is a fool’s errand: “18To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?”
Deuteronomy 4 elaborates that the prohibition against making idols applied to making ones of God: “15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.”
“Objects of worship” because some ancient peoples (wrongly) worshipped them as gods.
Talking “about Mormons” is how “Christian’s” get clicks. Truth be dammed.
I would have liked to see you lay out the case for the Father not having a body... and interact with it more
1. There is biblical evidence that the bones of holy people can heal others (2 Kings 13:21)
2. The Son of Man refers to Jesus and we do believe that Jesus is in heaven with his glorified body
3. Jesus is the distinct second person of the Holy Trinity. Yes, He is Fully Man and Fully God. The LDS premise is that the Father and Son are separate, so of course you can say that God and Jesus separately have bodies instead of what is actually True which is that God is pure spirit as Scripture says, but then He came down in the person of Jesus Christ and took on flesh
We know that the early Church before the 2nd and 3rd centuries believed in the Trinity. They may not have called it the 'Trinity' until that time, but the concept is all over the Bible (and we can argue interpretations - but its clear that the Church has always interpreted it the way that we do today). If the Trinity is not true, then why would Jesus instruct his disciples to baptize in "the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"? Why not just in the name of the Father? or in the name of the Father and of the Spirit? Why did Jesus add himself to that equation?
Hebrews 1
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds
3 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
Pretty clear folks. Jesus having a spirit and a body is the EXPRESS IMAGE as His Father.
Case closed. :>)
If having a spirit and a body were the reason Jesus was the image of the Father, then all human beings would be the image of the Father-because all human beings have a spirit and a body. Is there a further distinction you might draw?
@@michaeldulman5487 Yes.
Genesis 1
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Joseph Smith did the ultimate "trust me bro" by not revealing his magic tablets. You call into Sam Shamoun's show to debate whatever point you want, he streams most days in the late afternoon.
You mean like any other Bible author?
@@HOLDFASTHOUND Joseph Smith revealed his "magic tablets" to over thirteen people, who signed sworn testimony to what they had seen. That's a higher standard of evidence than even most biblical events.
Cameron produce a platform where a lot of interesting people were able to debate and dicuss things but cameron himself has never been impressive
Mormons reject the Trinity. So you conflate God the Father and God the son. Trinitarians dont accept that God the Father has a physical body or that the Holy Spirit has a physical body. I appreciate the fact that you are clear on this video that you dont accept the Trinity. I think that will help everyone clearly understand what side of the issue they want to fall on.
Do you believe God the Father has a spirit body that looks like the body of Jesus Christ, as in human form?
@stephtimms1776 no.
@@MrPeach1 Do you believe Jesus has a spirit body that looks like his physical body? Do you believe we also have spirit bodies?
Jesus having a body does not mean the Father has a body because Jesus is not the Father. This is not difficult.
You're right, it doesn't prove it. But it at least suggests that it's not a crazy notion.
You should debate Jay Dyer. He is constantly inviting Mormons to challenge him on his livestreams.
If you win your audience will likely explode and if you lose you might become Eastern Orthodox.
Jay Dyer isn’t worth engaging for anyone who has goodwill and is genuinely seeking the truth. He is very proud, treats his guests disrespectfully and doesn’t care to promote the common good. He is bright, but is lacking in charity.
@@joseflores8391 Nah he’s funny af and pretty smart. His formal debates are solid and his opponents generally get mad at him because he makes better points. It would be awesome to see him formally debate a Mormon.
John 4:24
"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
There is no body of flesh nor bone.
But it doesn’t say God is only spirit. The Godhead is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each has its own part and purpose and mission but acting as one God in unity. The purpose of The Father being the almighty God basically in charge, Jesus being our Savior to fulfill the Fathers command, and the Spirit to witness and testify to our hearts and minds that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God the Father.
@@gingermcgovern5682 It is quite clear it is referring to the Father, and not the entire Godhead.
So, from what I'm getting from you, each person is their own separate God, yet they act like one God?
@@BiblicalTrinitarianeach is a separate personage and member of one Godhead. The Father being in charge. We learn from Christs own words in the Bible that it was God the Father he prayed to and whose will and command he submitted to and fulfilled. Christ also taught he would send his spirit which is the comforter. Christ represented and taught the will of the Father and the Spirit testified of its truthfulness. Three separate beings and roles as the Godhead to fulfill the purpose of saving us from the fall.
@@gingermcgovern5682 What exactly do you think the Trinity is?
God is spirit, but also has a body. Jesus was God, but had a body.
I watched the first 3 minutes of his video and I really just could not get through it
5:20 I do love the idea that everybody; Jesus, Mary, Moses, etc, is embodied up in Heaven except for God lol. “Oh gee being in those glorified bodies sure looks fun 😕”
I suspect this this response is a parody. Right?
Sometimes I wonder if these Christian creators have even read the Bible. At least do a bit of research for your points
God won’t appear in the supermarket?
The theory of the glass bowl representing the gospel is one testimony to me why the gospel can be true cuz all other religions have similar beliefs to the church but the church has beliefs that some other churches don't have
Protestant here. I really have to say that when you asked "Wich is more weird: saying that God the Father has a glorify body like the risen Jesus or carring arround the heads and body parts of dead people claiming they can heal the sick?"... even being SUPER critial to LDS Church, I have to say, with Catholics, that claiming the first one is waaaaaay more weird and even heretical than the second.
note: despite the disagreements, Jacob is my favorite LDS apologist and I think the won the debate agains the cavinists of James White team. God Bless.
@rodrigoNuland Plus, Scripture actually has an instance of a dead body touching Elisha’s bones and reviving. If God is willing to use the dead body of one of His holy prophets to bring someone back to life, then by that logic, He very well might use the dead bodies of His saints to heal the living.
What is up with this week? First Trent, then this? Catholics historically have been pretty cool.
What it is in my opinion, is in large part the net positive effect LDS are having in a modern age..
So this is just the nipping at the heels by a few scrawny dogs
Joseph Smith started the fight by saying all Churches are in darkness. I'm glad people aren't letting that slide anymore.
@@simonfalk1337 Have they ever let it slide? We've always talked about and disagreed on those things. But it's gotten more aggressive. If Jesus said to turn the other cheek does it matter who started it?
@IJN-33 I feel like some out of a kind of tolerance or liberalism have let it slide. Plus, think about it from the other side. If Mormonism is false you could make the argument that it is worse than atheism. It's worse to distort a good thing (the Gospel and who God is and what salvation is) than to deny it altogether. It's an abuse of a person's desire for God.
@@simonfalk1337 Unless it's true, then it's incredibly important. If it's true then sharing misinformation as that and so many videos do is a tragedy. If it's false it should be debunked with good information, not half baked arguments.
Nice break down, Jacob, of Cameron’s strawman and unchristian attack on Latter-day Saint beliefs and his superficial comparison with Islam.
Respectfully, if this explanation is to be believed, Mormonism is like atheism in that there is nothing but creatures, God being just one among them. The Mormon has the same conceptual problem as the atheist. The Mormon God(s), apparently, is a creature that needs a cause. There is essentially no difference between God in Mormonism, on this account, and Zeus. There is a reason pagan mythology gave its gods origin stories and the Bible does not.
If God is three in one, without parts or passions, unable to be tempted or sin, in what way were we created in God's image, in his likeness? It's true that man gained the knowledge of good and evil like God, but that came after it says man was created in God's image and likeness.
And passions mean feelings, am I correct? Then how can you tell me that God loves me, if he doesn't have the capacity to have that feeling? I've often wanted to ask someone to explain that one.
Hi there! To answer your question, God is a person. Not an abstract force or inanimate object. We are persons as well, with intellect and will, though God's are perfect and ours is not. That would be a simple Christian interpretation. To use this verse of Genesis to prove God has a human body is what I would call theologically backwards, and also not historic Christianity.
Also, in ancient context image and likeness refers to royal emissaries or ambassadors. So the role of humanity was to be God's ambassadors, to show forth some of His Glory, like an image shows something of a person but is not the person itself.
There are two easy ways of reading that verse.
@@christinaandrew181 Interesting question. Passions do mean feelings, however love is deeper than feelings. The Bible says God IS love. Not that God is a loving person or an abstract force. God is love. Many of the things we can say about God are what God isn't, for example God does not change or God does not sin. Scripture gives us this statement that God is love. God constantly wills the good of the other, God is constantly self giving. Love is willing the good of the other and an authentic gift of self. God is love for all eternity in the Persons of the Trinity, but even though God is infinitely happy in this communion of love, He makes humans to share in this out of sheer goodness.
@@simonfalk1337 According to the traditions of the fathers, which took them hundreds of years of debating and compromising, God is not a person, but three persons of Spirit coequal coexisting, one person of which was not created or made, but incarnated as flesh in the express image of the Father. I am none of those things, nor is anyone else. We are one spirit in one body of flesh. As for your claim that Image and Likeness anciently meant a royal representative, that's just misinformation. Tzelem is a visual representation, it looks the same, or a representative figure, a smaller version of the original. Demut is a physical or external resemblance. Perhaps someone just added a new definition to these words, and foolishly added the same definition for both, meaning that the same thing is said twice in a row, because they realized the original definitions destroy the Trinity. They did the same thing in the 11th century with Elohim in the Old Testament and Theos in the New Testament, because men being called Gods by the God who cannot lie, for that goes against their man made Trinity. So they added the definitions of Human Beings, Judges, Magistrates or Rulers, they couldn't even decide which definition to add, just as long as men weren't being called Gods by God or Jesus Christ. However Jesus Christ said he was here to fulfill the law of Moses, and Jesus Christ said that the law of witnesses needs two men for a testimony to be true, and said he was one of the men that beareth witness of himself and that the Father was the second man to bear witness to make Jesus Christ's testimony true. I have to believe God and Jesus Christ over a bunch of men that took hundreds of years to decide who God is, contradicting the Bible, making changes to the Bible ever since to protect their man made Trinity. The word Trinity didn't even exist until about 170 A.D., and described it as God the Father, and his Word (Logos), and his Wisdom (Sophia), a female entity, while the Holy Spirit is always described as male in the New Testament. The Trinity couldn't be more unbiblical, but that's what you get when you try to make a God that is pleasing to as many people as possible.
@bartonbagnes4605 I am referencing how image and likeness was used in ancient terms, you are the one putting your own spin on it by insisting that image means God must have what we have, that is a physical body.
Your point about Jesus bringing up two witnesses seems to not be relevant. In Trinitarian theology each of the persons is a person which can say "I." Thus Jesus's reference to the Father as His witness is totally compatible with Trinitarian theology.
Also, changing the Bible? Really? Do you believe there was actually a prophecy in Genesis predicting Smith that was lost, or that John 1 sounded super different originally?
Listening to this dude talk about having hands and feet as something “alien” was hilarious. Bro was trying SO HARD to make something so normal sound so weird. 🤣
Thanks for debunking his misrepresentation of Islam
Divine simplicity cannot be defended without negotiating with the scriptures and historical facts, and also by using philosophical strectches
Excellent video
Maybe you had to see if you can get him in a discussion on your channel
Let us make man in our image after our likeness! Again the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. Not a clue!
Can you explain what Christians believe this means? Because I’m willing to bet you have no idea.
And what is more likely to be the “philosophies of men mingled with scripture”? Doctrine that is derived from a careful study of scripture, or doctrine a man claims came from God that then uses certain verses to try to support?
@@austinnajarthey believe the opposite of what it says.
And they always forget that later the Bible says that Adam created Seth in his likeness and image.
@@austinnajar when you no longer have prophets or refuse to listen to them, the link with God is lost. Then you are left with the philosophies of men to try and understand what truth is. There are around 44,000 different Christians sects all claiming to know truth and also the mind and will of God, waste of time it's like a lucky dip!
The Jews stop listening to their prophet's therefore when the Messiah turned up they knew Him not. Therefore seen Him as an imposter that they would of eventually kill. Christ took their authority off them on the mount of transfiguration when The Father, Moses and Elijah turned up with priesthood keys to hand over to Christ, Peter, James and John. As there was no living prophet with those keys on the earth at that time, the last prophet was Malachi about 400 years previous. Christianity eventually lost it also and wandered away from truth and at the time of Joseph about 250 different religions on the earth none of which were correct! It why the promise of the angel turning up with a gospel in the last days was foreseen by John the beloved in the last days. Revelation 14:6
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
Also the 3rd of April 1836 Elijah, Moses and Christ once again turned up in the Kirkland Temple to bestow keys and authority, so truth and priesthood ordnances can once again be on the earth. God is the same today yesterday and forever and unchangeable being, it's how He works, only He knows truth not man!
No man or woman can start up Christ church without Christ permission, when He is the author of it, it's true and correct. The angel Moroni was that angel the gospel was the book of Mormon prepared over two thousand years ago for this purpose. As God knows the beginning from the end and knew what would happen to his prophets that they would be rejected and killed. The constitution of the USA made it possible to come forth again in 1797 and law was passed that people could not be persecuted for religious beliefs 7 and 8 years later two prophets were born by coincidence or by design? God knew that once truth returned to earth the devil would try to destroy those who were behind it. We had an extermination order upon us the Hawns Mill massacre but God saved a remnant to flourish despite the devil's best efforts to eradicate us from the earth. People if they doubt can get a personal witness from God by doing what James advised: James 1:5
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
From here it's up to you! Will you listen to this apostle? or not and be left in darkness, It's your choice!
This was so good. Loved your argument and presentation.
I'd love to see Thoughtful Faith, Ward Radio, and/or Keystone do a response video to Trent Horn's latest anti Book of Mormon video from a few days ago if you have the time!
Working on it
2 Maccabees 7:28 would love to step in and save the day, but alas, it’s deuterocanonical (though Doctrines and Covenants 91 says the Apocrypha have much truth in them, I assume that verse would not be considered to assert God’s truth).
Love the hat!
0:50 hey Cameron,
The only disturbing parallels are those between the ones who stoned and crucified the prophets for heresy and the views of God by modern Christians, catholics , and Protestants of today.. wake up! Unblock your ears!
I really need to start a podcast debunking this guy.
Jesus body was not with him in heaven, prior to the incarnation. God per se is wholly other and transcendental. “We can only say what God is not” - St. Thomas Aquinas. Mormons simply do not worship the God of Christianity.
"We can only say what God is not" directly contradicts Jesus explaining that God is Spirit.
@@inotterwords6115 God is Spirit, and what that means in its fullest extant is not known, God as pure being per se, does not have a definition we can encapsulate, as St. Augustine says, “If you understood Him, he would not be God”
@@OniLeafNin Yes, but we also couldn't know to "its fullest extent" what it means to inhabit a physical body... that doesn't mean "we can only say what God is not".
We can say that God had a body (in the form of Jesus Christ, for example), without requiring that we know "to its fullest extent" what exactly that entails.
@@inotterwords6115 We do know what that means, we do it everyday. We don’t have glorified bodies, but a glorified body is the result of the created order being perfected, the uncreated order is of a different category altogether.
@@OniLeafNin
"We do know what that means, we do it everyday."
Not the way God does it. We're not God. When God inhabits a body, it's likely not the same comprehensible way that we do.
And it's worth saying that we do NOT know how our spirit inhabits our body, at least, not to "the fullest extent" standard.
God is spirit...... not flesh.......the Biblical ignorance is astounding.
Cameron’s critique does indeed seem sadly deficient. But tell me, is the human mind real? It occupies no space and has no substance. It can even function outside the boundaries of time, in a sense. Elder Pratt’s critique of the trinitarian Father can apply to the human mind. Does that mean the human mind does not exist? Or that the mind cannot possibly have any power?
You forgot heavenly mother.
Jacob, if you want to be taken seriously, and by seriously i mean as an adult. Do away with the pretentious intro and stop refering to people as cancer. Then you might get somewhere.
Your attitude and actions the past 2 years are in direct conflict to words spoken by the 12 this past conference.
You must take him seriously enough to keep watching him
I LOVE your videos dude. Way to go!
This is one of your more tactful debunkings. Great work!
Like to add the three that Abraham fed before destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. A kid prepared in its mother’s milk. 7:00
Dispensational Bible believer is what I think and am. Armed up with a suit of armor shield and sword ready to pommel know how to sling a stone.
This guy bashes a Christian, defends a Pagan, and expects you to trust his theoretical conclusion....
But the Bible also says God has wings, if you're going to take God's hands literally you have to take God's wings literally too
Some things are clearly figurative, but when God Moses seeing his face but the Israelites only seeing his back parts, I kind of wonder ...
Where?
@@TheMinskyTerrorist Psalm 91:4
Summary: Cameron please ask me to be on your channel!
What a strange concept: worshiping a more relatable God.
(Gen 1, v27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(John 14, v9) ...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father...
(John 17, v3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Christians believe God made Himself relatable in the Incarnation, but we cannot know the divine nature.
Romans 1:22-23 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
Mormonism rejects the transcendent nature of God.
I agree that Cameron shouldn't be looking for slam dunks, and subjectively I don't enjoy this triumphalism over people I consider cousins in faith. The meat of this video is about the doctrine of God though, and I don't think you have defeated the orthodox Christian position or proved the Mormon position.
He has a guitar in background. May I must believe him
I wonder what wrote "Mene mene tekel upharsin"!
Well said!
Great video.
This was powerful. Thanks.
Thank you for another good video.
Does Mormonger know you used a syllogism?
which Christian groups say that the Father has a body?
The correct one
@@michaelhutchings6602 any others?
Exactly none. Any group that claims this is inherently non-Christian since they reject the doctrines surrounding who God is.
@@austinnajar how many claiming to be Christian??
@@pigetstuck claiming to be Christian is generally irrelevant but as far as I know Mormonism is the only religious group claiming to be Christian that believes this.
0:46 I’m trying to decide who put up the ai art? Why is CC’s invisible incorporeal God depicted as a regular dude but the “hands and Feet” god of Muslims and LDS the deformed freak of nature? 😂
I think this video is largely a fishing expedition, i.e. "hit me up". But that aside, I always feel that veiled, thinly veiled, or not at all veiled, the use of the expression "creedal Christian" as used by Mormon apologists is always a pejorative. But beyond that the expression functions to open up a category of the possibility of a non-creedal Christian. 1 Cor. 13:3,4 : For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. You cannot be a Christian and not believe these words. 1 Cor 13:3,4 is a creed. It is in fact the earliest creed and one of many creeds in the New Testament. Christianity is creedal and there are no Christians who are not creedal. Christianity is in no way moving towards Mormonism, but it certainly does appear that the opposite is true. Here and there language is used in ways to find wiggle room into our space. But "meaningful differences" doesn't even begin to describe the chasm. As for the bulk of this content I find the Mormon view of God to be weak and substandard. The Mormon God is a derived and dependent God who is in subjection to things outside himself. The so called "eternal law of good" for example. And finally, Parley P Pratt and a dollar won't even get me through the register at the Dollar Tree.
You should have a one-on-one with this guy so you can both reach an understanding of one another while still respectfully disagreeing. The best we can do is try to build bridges of mutual respect. I’m not saying we should compromise what we believe, but rather find some common ground and build from there.
Bendiciones, saludos desde Lima Perú
But first you have to establish the clear definitions of God the Father, Jesus God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is where the LDS…biblical Christian differ. Ie Biblical Christian God the Father has always existed no Gods before none after…Lds claim God the Father hasn’t always been God, He was once a man.
Excellent video!
@thoughtfulfaith2020 I will be so surprised if @CapturingChristianity Cameron takes you up on your offer to get together and dialogue about the subject of God’s nature, because the sad truth is UA-camrs like Cameron are disingenuous, and would prefer to like you said “talk about us” rather than with us. They don’t want anyone pointing out to them that their entire argument is built upon a straw man. He prefers being right, rather than knowing the truth.
Very well put
He made a response and it was kinda embarrassing when he exposed your terrible logic.
The restored gospel is not biblical, the gospel has always been, it has always existed. Not even Hades could destroy it. John 16:18 I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. People apostatized but the gospel has always remained.
God is spirit John 4:24 God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Col 1:15 To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible. the only God, be honor and glory and ever, Amen. 1 Tim 1:17. Exodus 33:20 God says that NO ONE who looks directly at My face will live. Since Jesus was incarnated into human form it foreshadows the incarnation. Joseph Smith should have stuck with his first story he told regarding seeing just Jesus, that may be more believable, but God is invisible, He is spirit.
There is no inconsistency with the gospel, the answers are there if you want to know who God is. His glory will overpower nature, His light would overwhelm any creature.
Well done.
Jo and mo? Cmon man.. that was crossing the line..😂
At the moment of me joining this vid there are 666 likes to this video
For me, the trinitarian explanation of the Hellenistic nature of God makes the resurrection and the transfiguration of Christ meaningless
Can you elaborate?
@@joseflores8391 why did Jesus rise at all? What was the point of the resurrection?
The bigotry one has to possess to not appreciate or learn from other faiths is disheartening albeit part of life. One thing I like about the LDS faith is the willingness to listen and respect other religions and beliefs. I know many people on all sides make stupid comments on social media or in life but to publish an ignorant opinion for the world to see as if it’s proof isn’t my idea of loving your neighbor. And he ain’t no prophet
6:26 now that was funny
Didn't Cameron his pope say all religions lead to God?
Thank you for exposing dishonest people
It is interesting listening to you critique others’ arguments considering that you don’t do such a great job yourself. Besides, this is such a pointless exercise.
Yeah, that was one of his weak arguments. I thought the rest of his critiques were good though.
The problem with tritinitarinism is that there is supposed to be just one God. Trinitarinism solves this problem, but saying that there are multiple personages goes against having one God and creates polytheistic gods. So, the issue ends up being a problem for Mormons and for Christians. It's all strange.
It is interesting to note that Joseph as a trinitarian at first, as seen in the BoM, but later turned into a polytheist.
Great job
This channel has become a joke
Cameron: *makes a vid about the parallels between Islam and Mormonism*
Jacob: “stop straw manning us”
That’s basically what this video is
Mormonism’s odd understanding of the incarnation is what leads to the idea that “Jesus has a body, why can’t the Father have a body?”
The issue with this is that it assumes the Father also became incarnate at some point
Now this is part of LDS theology, which is fine
The issue is that the source of that theology is largely dependent on the bonus texts of the LDS, with appeals to scripture, similar to what Jacob brought up
But we have a big problem
We cannot take these references to God’s body as literal for 1 reason
The Son of Man (which Jesus later tells us is himself) is not incarnate at the time of Daniel
And if we want to say references to the Son of Man’s body are to be treated the same as other references to God’s body, then we would have to say that Jesus was incarnate before the incarnation
However, we know this isn’t the case given what we read in the opening lines of St John’s Gospel
So if we have good reason to believe references to the Son of Man’s body is figurative, and since the Son of Man is Jesus
Then we can reasonably conclude that references to God’s body (in this case it would be the Father’s body) are figurative as well
Jacob also put together this syllogism:
P1 Jesus is God
P2 Jesus has a body
C God has a body
The problem here is that Jacob seems to be conflating how “God” is used in P1 and in the conclusion
In P1, God is used in reference to Christ’s divinity, as in he is the Son of God
While in the conclusion, it seems that “God” is being used to refer to the Godhead
Now I could be completely wrong, so Jacob if you see this, let me know
PS
Jacob’s representation of the development of Trinitarian Theology (what the LDS call a philosophy) is laughably bad
PPS
the LDS labeling of “Trinitarian Philosophy” shows a common issue in Mormonism of using the wrong words to describe something.
It’s a Theology because it speaks (logos/λογος) of God (theo/θεό)
All the concepts of the trinity, especially the creeds, are "bonus texts"
Also Jesus does appear pre-incarnate multiple times including in the Book of Mormon, and he has a human form, he just doesn't have flesh and bones yet. He isn't a formless aether before he's born.
@@TheMinskyTerrorist the doctrine and theology of the Trinity is just a summation of everything the Bible teaches and reveals about the nature of God. It comes from nowhere except scripture.
@@austinnajar If that's the case, why were the councils a mess of bishops all arguing with each other and excommunicating each other for heresy? Why was there still such disagreement over the interpretation of the wording? Why was there an east-west schism about a clause inserted by the Catholic church?
@@austinnajar Let’s be objective. The doctrine of the Trinity was first formulated among the early Christians (mid-2nd century and later) and fathers of the Church as they attempted to understand the relationship between Jesus and God in their scriptural documents and prior traditions. Nowhere in the text of any single book of the Old or New Testament is the doctrine of the trinity explicitly taught. The Bible is an anthology, or collection of books. To treat it like a singular book telling one cohesive narrative (like so many creedal Christians erroneously do) is something that factually cannot and should not be done. So, to cherry pick or proof text the Bible to support your presupposition that the doctrine of the trinity is summarily taught by the entirety of the Bible is illogical. No single author found within the Bible believed in the trinity and definitely did not teach it…and if I’m wrong…show me the author in the Bible who EXPLICITLY defines one God existing in three, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons (hypostases) sharing one essence/substance/nature.
Your ignorance of Christianity is obvious: Jesus has a body only because of the incarnation: the Father doesn't, and how did the Holy Spirit become a god if a body is nessasary to be a god in Mormonism.
You people have the bigger problem of explaining the incoherence of Mormon gods.
A body is not necessary to become a god in Mormonism. God is a title (like sir, ma'am, mister, doctor, master, king, queen, LCSW, ... 😂). The title is given under some circumstances that I admit I don't fully understand but it appears to have to do with power and/or authority. Heavenly Father is a god. Heavenly mother also. The LDS church teaches that Jesus was a god before he even came to Earth, while he was still a spirit. We know there were other gods too, as there was a council in Heaven before the earth was created, when the gods conferred with each other. Who were these gods? Not sure. Perhaps for example they were the ones who had power and authority to create worlds under the direction of our Heavenly Parents (since the "gods said" let us go down and create a world like the other worlds we have created -- so maybe godhood is being able to govern and direct creation; Jesus did this and so did Adam for example, in our theology), or maybe there is some other criterion/criteria. How many other gods? Not sure. Do we worship any other gods such as these gods at the council? No.
I am not trying to convince you this is truth, I'm just debunking the incorrect notion that you have, that one needs a body in order to be a god and thus we have a paradox; that is not correct Mormon doctrine so there is no paradox.
@@Sword_of_Labangreat response. What I love about our theology is that it works just fine with the Bible with no contradictions. Most Christians dislike it because it's new, not because they can actually disprove it--because they can't.
Saying God is a contingent composite creature that changes and has potential isn't just weird it's illogical and not true
Mormons don't worship God they worship a super man
We worship God. a super man isn't perfect.
also, can you explain God being able to change is illogical
@@Brutici what causes the potential for God to change? Something besides God making God contingent and not supreme therefore not God
Mormons do not worship God Mormons worship a super man
@@Brutici the Mormon God isn't perfect he changes constantly accusing to the Mormons