@@UnitarianChristianAlliance this is only a problem if greater means eternally greater in all senses. The sense in which the Father is greater than the Son is in regards to the Son’s human nature. As the Son emptied himself and took on the form of a servant (phillipians 2:5-8). When Paul writes Jesus became a ‘servant’ it necessarily entails he had a master and as Jesus explains ‘the servant is not greater than his Lord’ (John 15:20). The Unitarian view fails to explain how Jesus became a servant if he was never at one point equal to the Father in every regard. If Jesus is just a man Paul would be explaining in phillipians 2 that a servant took on the form of a servant which simply doesn’t make sense.
@@issaavedra can any almighty god have one greater then them? greater then all would also include the father being greater then the holy spirit will it not?
A big fan of William Lane Craig here that thinks this is the ONLY topic in which he doesn’t have the high ground. In every single debate with atheists Craig is our man, he’s skilful and awesome. In this exchange though he performed poorly (not because of him but because the trinity is indefensible) I still cannot believe he invested so much time in that dubious “identity relationship” thinking that this is the “dagger against Unitarianism”. Surely people in antiquity knew that Plato was Plato and not Aristotle and that Aristotle was Aristotle and not Socrates!
I find it interesting that the subject was Trinity, yet I didn't hear a single question in the Q&A about Trinity; rather, all people seemed to care about was the deity of Christ.
@@NashRespect Yes but the trinitarian still must argue that Jesus is divine for trinitarianism to be true. Since the trinitarians are only against a unitarian instead of a modalist, the focus is on the deity of Christ.
Hasker has done great work, especially on divine foreknowledge (was one of the authors of the blockbuster “The Openness of God” book in the 90’s) and the problem of evil. He’s a top notch analytic theologian, he just happens to be wrong about the Trinity. But even the way he is wrong is interesting, he’s fully committed to the full relational interactions between God and Jesus, so he ends up with a kind of tritheism.
In re "no greater love" question: the context is the greatest love *man* has. God is greater than men, and the greatest love is within the category of what men can do
These questions about Jesus possessing attributes of deity towards the end of this debate are misguided IMO. The questioners presuppose in their thinking that these attributes that Messiah possesses are original to His Being. The NTs language on this topic plainly states that the Messiah's divine attributes are not original to Him but rather derivative; they come from another source; and that source is the Father. Matthew 9:6-8 - But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”-then He *said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, pick up your stretcher and go home.” And he got up and [c]went home. But when the crowds saw this, they were [d]awestruck, and they glorified God, 👉who had given such authority to men👈 Matthew 11:27 - All things have been 👉handed over to Me👈 by My Father… Matthew 28:18 - And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been 👉given to Me👈 Luke 4:18 - “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He 👉anointed Me👈 to bring good news to the poor. Luke 11:20 - But if I cast out the demons 👉by the finger of God👈, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. John 5:26-27 - For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He 👉gave👈 to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He 👉gave Him authority👈 to execute judgement, because He is [k]the Son of Man. John 7:16-17 - So Jesus answered them and said, 👉“My teaching is not My own, but His who sent Me.👈 If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is 👉of God👈, or I am speaking from Myself. John 8:40 - But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I 👉heard from God👈; this Abraham did not do. Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man [u]attested to you by God with [v]miracles and wonders and [w]signs which 👉God performed through Him👈 in your midst, just as you yourselves know- Acts 10:36-38 - The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching [x]peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)- you yourselves know the thing that happened throughout Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. [y]You know of Jesus of Nazareth, 👉how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power,👈 [z]and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, 👉for God was with Him.👈 Hebrews 1:4 - having 👉become👈 so much better than the angels, to the extent that He has 👉inherited👈 a more excellent name than they.
The original Trinitarian view of the Undivided Church of the first millennium, i.e. Monarchia, agrees with this wholeheartedly. The later innovative trinitarian views put forward by general evangelical protestants cannot account for Christ deriving His being and person from the Father. Dr. Beau Branson is a proponent of the original position, Monarchia, and represents the Orthodox view in this discussion.
The early Trinitarian church Fathers took this view in that the Father is the source or fountainhead of divinity within the Trinity. That's how those passages were interpreted. The problem for the unitarian is that Jesus "derives" his divinity from the Father and therefore has the same divinity as the Father. God does not share this with any creature nor has any prophet or angel make these claims. But to futher this idea by analogy would be a child derives its human nature from its source as an offspring. You quoted John 5 but in verses 16-17 & 19 notice the works of the Father are the works of the Son which supports the monarchian Trinity view that is one divine power at work. There is also the incarnation at play here; that being in Jesus' humiliation, as servant, He submits to the Father willingly.
@@andys3035 You sound knowledgable and word confident, but biblically there is no divinity in Jesus prior to being resurrected, except as prophetic perfect against those who would make themselves gods, ha satan in hebrew. it is written. "He was raised (in authority) so much higher than angels," so if angels can be considered "divine" ( as they are to most but the stern minority) then Jesus is now a divine being, second only to the father who was always the God most high, i.e. higher than the other would be "gods of the nations." So is it you insisting on pre divinity which then projects your worldview onto unitarians as their logic problem? Seems that is what i heard you say.
How does dr Craig get that 1Jn 5:20 KJV states that Jesus is God? "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." It so clearly states that Jesus is the son of God - not once, but twice in case it is missed. Jesus points to the true God as also stated in Joh 17:3 KJV "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Dale Tuggy dominated. His opening statement was the best I've heard in any debate or discussion, and his succinct answers to questions were home runs every time.
Yeah I think the reason Sunny da`awist pick debates with only trinitarians is because they know that trinitarians only read the bible selectively so they become Easy prey in debates. However I have never seen somebody like Hijab or Ali Dawah go into A debate with untiarians like dr Tugy because they know that it would be musch harder to punch holes in the interpretation as Dr Tugy showed at the end when all the trinitarians one by one started attacking him with the Gospel of John.
@@economician that is true but the reason is that historically the christianity means trinity and so they are the dominant and relevant group to engage with as opposed to unitarians who are pretty marginalized(I doubt how many people even know they exist) but I have seen dr. tuggy engage with muslims. one more point would be that the differences become very less in the abrahamic religions if christianity is unitarian. Guys like Hijab and Ali are more concerned with the general population rather than a small group.
@@ManlyServant yeah… i agree with him on a lot of points… the understanding of the Trinity took the church a good 300 yrs atleast.. But as a Catholic our epistemology is very different from the Protestant epistemology… so we actually don’t have this problem that other Protestant have… But I appreciate the discussion. I love how it was put.. But Gregory nissa said this…. Well we don’t care what Gregory nissa said. It has to be in the biblical and coherent… Sola scriptura right there 😀…
@@navienslavement Always? Should I prove to you that I can lie about you in a complicated way? Those comments gets weirder and weirder. And truth I guess is.............................. or must be according to you.............. complicated?
On one side of the panel: The ancients simply did not understand the modern relation of identity as an asymmetric reflective transitive equivalence relation that A is B, B is C, C is A that conception of the transitivity of relation was simply not grasped and I think this revelation is a dagger to the heart of Unitarianism On the other side of the panel: Man look, Yahweh is the One True God, Jesus is His Messiah and God uses the holy spirit to empower His servants. Clearly someone has lost sight of what the Bible teaches and I think it's obvious just who it is.
Indeed, see what Tuggy’s continual pressure from his analysis leads to… more and more desperate moves by the other side. When the wider Christian world starts realizing what is happening within this in academia, it’s going to shock people, and hopefully cause them to reevaluate their views.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance I could not agree more. Craig is simply not in his element here and I think he knows it too. They didn't have the language to explain what they believed, really that's all you got Craig, oh and also apparently we're pagans right let's not forget that. Most of his argumentation was just wit and rhetoric, there wasn't really much substance. But I do appreciate though, his willingness to engage with us in dialogue, as well as the other panelists. Usually trinitarians treat us like modern day lepers so I'm grateful to them for that.
I like the consistency and clarity of Unitarianism. I am still agnostic about the pre-existence of Jesus. I'm basically open to NT not being completely univocal on the matter.
John 17 v 4 I have glorified+ you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do.+ 5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.+ Look at verse 5...Jesus was in a glorious position with the Father before the world was...Also JOhn 1:1 In the beginning the Word was with God..and became flesh...The NT is absolutely equivocal on the pre existence of Jesus before he was born as a human -- See also Colossians 1:15 and Rev 3:14 Jesus was the first creation of the Father and was used by him to bring everything else into existence.
@@Ice2Eskimosokay but how dafuq does a created being invent every aspect of creation? The detail of invention in the quadrillions upon quadrillions of moving pieces is so extraordinary as to be essentially impossible. Not to mention this created being would need to be capable of envisioning all future inventions and progressions of the inventions at every step of the way and know that the laws of physics would hold soundly. I’m sorry, the Trinity makes little sense, but so does Christ being creeted
Interesting to hear Craigs introduction. I was almost alarmed that instead of outlining his position in this panel discussion, he immediately is on some sort of defensive position, naming Tuggy more than he names Jesus (I didnt count them but I get the impression) so I dont know what position Craig has (about 20 minutes in) except that he seems to have taken a beating somewhere, and is all out to defend himself against the fearsome Tuggy. I am resisting the excitement urge to jump forward to Tuggy's address, I will give the other two a go fair listen. Quick edit.... I cant believe Craig just used 1John5:20 as a proof that Jesus is God.... unbelievable, can he not see there are two involved here a father and a son. The son shows us his father, the true God. (NOT BY HAVING TO BE HIS OWN FATHER) It doesnt say Jesus is the true God. People keep telling me I should listen to William Lane Craig.... no, I might not have a doctorate, but i did pass my english exam, and even without that I can still see the son showing us the work of the father here! almost criminal.
Yup, same. I was very disappointed at Dr. WLC's approach. Instead of arguing for a view, he just went on full blast of someone else's view. Super unprofessional and very telling.
Around 1:22:00 Tuggy was asked about the Hebrew word for "one," i.e., Echad. Tuggy answered that "the word one by itself doesn't tell you if the thing is simple or if it has parts." The fact is ECHAD is the ordinary counting number “one,” appearing more than 900 times throughout the scriptures. The word functions just as the word “one” in English. For example, "eleven" in Hebrew is "ten" and ECHAD; Abraham “was ECHAD,” i.e., "Abraham was only one person” (Eze 33:24, NAB, Holman, et al.). When ECHAD is used with collective nouns like “family” or “bunch,” ECHAD retains its standard meaning, I.e., "one family” not "two families"; "one bunch" not "two bunches.” So, the idea of plurality comes from the collective nouns (family, bunch) and not from the word “one.” Again, the word “one,” in any language, never changes to a plural meaning! The Trini trick is to transfer the plurality in the collective noun to the word “one” or, even worse, to the word "LORD" in the phrase “one LORD” of the Shema in Deut. 6:4. For Christian scholars, linguists, apologists and pastors to continue to do this is misleading to say the least and at worst a striking falsehood! For more see our many videos on this in our channels. carlos@thehumanjesus.org
@@socketman your welcome. Dale basically contradicted his own published work. WlC fact checked him in real time. It is just dishonest acting like the other contributors have vastly different perspectives on the Trinity. By Dale's past definition, they would all be acceptable Trinitarian views. If you believe Dale is right, one can not believe the Bible is inspired or preserved.
O the beauty of the simplicity of Tuggy's presentation, compared to the speculative theories of his opponents. And what was up with Branson? His 1st question to Tuggy about how many saviors are there is such a low level online apologist argument. Branson's other point about OT theophanies is also so lame and easily answerable within the Biblical Unitarian perspective. Dale Tuggy you did a great job with your presentation and in answering the questions.
As Unitarian how do you interpret Verses like “ in him the fullness of deity resides” ? Or I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died and behold I live forevermore Rev 1:17-19..
I cannot speak for Unitarians, through as a true follower of Christ, I would offer the following; Deity = godliness Fullness = GOD's Holy Spirit ie, Jesus was filled with GOD's Holy Spirit, just as we are destined to be filled with GOD's Holy Spirit - see; _'...that they may be one, as we are one'_ As for *the first and last to die;* 'the record shows that Jesus was the first to be resurrected under the New Covenant with GOD, and the last to die under the Old Covenant with GOD That said, the words first and last in scripture, are used by both Jesus and His Father, as a form of absolution or completeness, in-that YHWH is the first and last GOD, whereas Jesus is the first and last to die, in fulfillment of the prophecy of salvation, ie, ending the curse upon mankind with GOD
@@smalltimer4370 but the text says I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST and I DIED AND BEHOLD I LIVE FOREVER MORE.. I’m just curious after that title how do they deny the deity of Christ “Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord, the FIRST , and with the LAST ; I am he.” Isaiah 41:4 ESV “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST ; besides me there is no god.” Isaiah 44:6 ESV The text doesn’t say last to die. And the first and last is a follow up.. to “I am the ALPHA and the OMEGA, the FIRST and the LAST , the beginning and the end.”” Revelation 22:13 ESV Covenantal death… I suppose that could be an interpretation
@@roshankurien203 We could begin by defining what 'deity of Christ' means - ie, Is this from scripture, and if so, from what writing do we conclude that such a term must be met, upheld etc. As for the topic in question, here are few points for consideration; The account In Isaiah references YHWH declaring Himself, as the first and last GOD - as outlined in verses; 4 through 6 Whereas in Revelation, we find Jesus declaring Himself, he first and last to die - see; firstborn of the dead, I was dead, and I am alive, etc, etc. And so the issue with such contentions, is that of a lack of admission, in-that the details in each respective account, is now presented out of their respective contexts. PS, the first and last in Rev 22, proves to be Jesus' own GOD and Father(YWHH), though here again, and as the passage is often cited out-of-context, the nature of the statement, as is, its intended use, is therefore obscured as a result.
The very fact that the Trinity is being discussed and attempts are being made to explain it proves that is is non-scriptural. No Christian in the first Century had any doubts as to who their Leader Jesus was. He certainly was not God in any human form. John clearly declared: (John 1:34) And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one is the SON of God.”
@@boardbill5852: Wouldn't that too be an opinion. If the Trinity was an established fact, there will be no debate. What does '4 views' suggest. A fact or opinion? No Christian has ever believed in a Trinity. This Trinity concept was what the apostate church came up with centuries after Jesus. Acts 20:30 foretold such. True Christians believe: 1 Corinthians 8:6 there is actually TO US ONE GOD, THE FATHER, from whom all things are and we for him; AND there is one Lord, Jesus Christ,
@@jimjuri6490 Your comment is fallacious. It is no way different from the atheists who argue that all religion is absurd because there are competing religions. Unitarianism is not unitary either; Modalism vs Arianism for instance. So then the same thing could be argued against Unitarians as well.
@@jimjuri6490 I agree, true Christians do believe in One God, the Father Almighty as the Nicene creed itself states. True Christians also accept the Trinity as defined by the councils and the all the teachings of the church whether oral or written.
@@jimjuri6490 But if the early church really held to some sort of Unitarian view as their original belief I see no reason to attempt to resurrect it from the dead. A Dead religion is as dead as the god it worshiped.
Yep, the “small c” catholic tradition is very influential on people, even Protestants. Pointing out a mistake in the broader tradition makes people very uncomfortable. But that’s exactly what Protestants already think about the tradition, they just haven’t had to do so themselves, they are inheriting the pruning of those mistakes done by the courageous reformers.
LOL! Who compiled that Bible you think you are interpreting. Talk about putting the horse before the cart!! You have zero grounds to historically account for and philosophically justify that Bible you have in your hands. Just think for a second
Now I know why Jesus said: "Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” A little child is not going to read the actual words of Jesus and his disciples/apostles and come away convinced that God is "tri-personal". If, after over 2000 years, there is not one clear and concise definition of the Trinity (there are three versions just in this debate) then how can The Trinity possibly be THE instrument of salvation? As an aside, Dr. Craig seems bent on dissuading Dr. Tuggy...but in Craig's opening statement he referred to Jesus as uncreated and then later as the created being of God from which the spirit pours forth. Which is it??
Hebrews 5:11-14 (ESV): 11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. 1 Corinthians 2:6-7 (ESV): 6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 1 Corinthians 13:11 (ESV): 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. Grow up.
Your non sequitur argument is based on a faulty interpretation of that verse. 1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
Dale Tuggy: "There is no hint of the Trinity in the Old Testament." Everyone: "What about all these countless references to multiple divine persons in the Old Testament?" Dale Tuggy: "Those are just metaphors." LMAO
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance Each time someone from the audience or otherwise points out the existence of several Divine Persons in the Old Testament, Dale Tuggy always responds with "actually it's just metaphor". This is exactly what muslims do when they're presented with irrefutable fact that Jesus is the Messiah: "but it's just metaphor!"
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance 1:15:40 Tuggy explicitly says that Paul quotes the Old Testament in a metaphorical way when talking about Jesus. Also a basic Google search yields countless passages of the Old Testament talking about multiple Divine Persons. But anyway, thanks for revealing yourself as a liar.
No, he didn’t say Paul references the OT in a metaphorical way, he said Paul (and other NT authors) reference the OT to show that Jesus is a fulfillment of those passages, which does not require Jesus to be God. Your decision to call me a liar is uncharitable, as is your misrepresentation of what Tuggy said. The Bible says Moses is the savior of Israel, and also, that God is the savior of Israel. Moses would be God too on your reasoning.
I was confused. I grabbed my popcorn expecting to hear some interesting models on the Trinity. Then one guy couldn’t make the event and Tuggy isn’t even a trinitarian. Eyebrow raised. Then he says he’s a Soscinian and doesn’t believe Jesus existed before the incarnation. Who put this together? No audience even asked Beau questions because everyone was trying to prove the deity of Jesus to a Unitarian at a 4 views trinitarian panel with a Soscinian who lacked Anthony Buzzard’s accent.
On a real note though, I do feel like you know a great deal about these subjects even though you let on that you didn't know that it would be a discussion including Unitarian theology.
In re WLC assertion that God must be a triad to love perfectly is belied by the fact that God has foreknowledge, and loved us before we existed. He can this love that which will be and could be, and doesn't require that which already is in order to love
Dr. Tuggy has responded to this argument from love in his published work and in his podcast, if you’d like to hear his response. Notice, Dr. Craig did not press this argument in the discussion.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance I'll have to check it out. I am concerned about the explicit reliance and preference by the trinitarians on Greek philosophy when it's Jewish texts and culture we are dealing with. I also highly doubt that identity as we know it was foreign to ancient thinkers
We definitely want to locate the authors and their audiences in their time and place, so we don’t apply anachronism to their claims. The idea of a single God that is three persons is definitely an example of an anachronism if we think the New Testament authors held it.
Good point and it also relates to the trinity argument that of "restoring the glory I (Jesus) had with God in the beginning." God is clearly stated as "loving His creation" and did He not "So Love the world" as to send His only begotten son? Exactly your point. Blessings.
@@youxtuberz5229 Most Unitarians were at one point Trinitarians who became Unitarians usually at a significant personal cost. As such we do not take matters of heresy lightly.
@@youxtuberz5229 The bible actually very clearly states alllllll over front to back that the messiah Jesus is inferior to Yahweh. Would you like me to point out a few?
While listening to the first three speakers, this scripture comes to mind, "But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2Cor 11:3) Those concepts they present for the trinity are so complex and far from the simplicity of the gospel and the Word of God. Might I even say they're foreign to the scriptures? Without the help of the church and church doctrine, no one would arrive at the trinity by just reading the bible, you need help to get there. The fourth speaker is clear and you know what he means, not this mumbo jumbo these others are proclaiming. I don't need help understanding that Jesus was a man appointed by God, it's clearly in the bible. But I seem to need a lot of help understanding that there's a trinity, because it's hidden in the bible. Paul said that the mystery has been revealed, we have only One God, the Father and one lord, Jesus the Messiah.... yet we seem to have begotten a new mystery after that... the trinity. That's not from God, He already revealed the mystery. That's something learned men have put together to obscure the clarity of the Word of God. Plain truth gets ignored by comlicated dogma's, statements and doctrines. I'll stick with the simplicity Dale Tuggy brought forth.
To claim that something is or is not biblical is insufficient for establishing its truth, as this assertion often relies on a form of self-referential reasoning. The claim presupposes that the Bible itself is the standard by which one determines whether a concept is "biblical," yet it does not provide an external justification for this standard. This creates a circular argument where the Bible is used to validate itself without proving its authority or truth outside of its own framework. For instance, when the Old and New Testaments declare statements like "His comings are from ancient days" or "a son will be born and he shall be called Mighty God, Wonderful Counselor," these claims are assumed to be true because they are found in the Bible. However, if someone challenges whether these statements are "biblical," the person defending the claim must provide a criterion for what counts as biblical beyond simply citing the text itself. Thus, in debates about biblical authenticity, the individual asserting something is biblical can never fully succeed in their argument unless the person denying the claim provides a clear and external standard for what constitutes "biblical" in the first place. Without this external yardstick, the argument remains trapped within its self-referential structure, unable to appeal to an objective measure of truth.
I asked Tuggy during the Q&A about Romans 10 that is, why Paul links Joel 2:32 to Jesus. Tuggy responded that Paul saw an application from this passage on Jesus. However, he did not address the OT context of the theme of calling upon the name of the Lord. As Gordon notes, to call on the name of the Lord is used in Genesisseveralf times (Genesis 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25), and it seems to be an umbrella phrase for worship, most obviously prayer and sacrifice. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, 1987), 116. Why does Paul command us to call upon the name of Jesus for salvation, if God himself is the object of calling upon a name for salvation in the OT? Here are some examples: “Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you will honor me” (Psalm 50:15) In the LXX it means “to call on the Lord in prayer” Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 116. “I shall call upon God and the LORD will save me” (Psalm 55:16, cf. Psalms 86:7; 91:15). “I call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from my enemies” (Psalm 18:3).
Yahshua literally means Yahweh saves or the salvation of Yahweh. The salvation Christ brings is not his, but the father's. The father has allowed him to be the mediator of the covenant and whoever calls on him shall be saved (by the father). He's the way to the father
If these two men don’t count as Christians, I don’t know who would… think we should be careful to recognize the biblical mandate for Christians, and not insert our own criteria for who belongs to Christ.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance If the standard for having the Spirit of God (salvation) is believing that Jesus Christ was a man, who came in the flesh of a man, then a majority of the world are believers having eternal life. Most people who believe Jesus lived, believe He was a good man. But if the Apostle meant one must believe God came in the flesh of a man, Jesus Christ, then only persons who believe this have the Spirit of God, which greatly narrows the path to eternal life. 1 John 4:2-3 KJV Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: [3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 2 John 1:7 KJV For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Who decides who is and isn't Christian? Thing of it is, most people today have no clue as to what a Christian actually is, let alone, who qualifies as Christian and not
I love how Dale Tuggy always remains calm and centred in these debates. He doesn’t seem to be threatened or phased by any of the weird questions coming from the trinitarian camp.
Too much clever talk, no scriptural substance. Deu 6.4 Jn 12.45, & 14.9, 1 Tim 2.16. Trinity is un-scriptural, a carnal manufacture of men with confused traditions originating at the council of Nicea 325 AD.
Does the bible give an underlying definition of persons terms of being? Yes it does. In Gen 2 we have described how eve (and adam) are not animals. Of all the living beings (and this includes adam) only eve is not formed from the ground. She is made from adam. There is a oneness to the persons of adam and eve that is (presumably) not so with the animals. Presumably the male and female animals are made separately from the ground and the female animals are not built out of the male animals. So we have a definition of personhood. Personhood (at leat as opposed to animalhood or kinds) necessarily entails oneness of being. That is one cannot be a person if there is not oneness of being. Gen 2 is the descriptive answer to the questions raised in Gen 1. How is man like God? How can man in Gen 1 be described the both the singular and the plural? How can God in Gen 1 similarly be described in the singular and the plural? The building of eve out of adam descriptively shows you how. Man is like God because he is persons in one being.
Indeed. The woman came forth from Adam and they were immediately joined together in a holy union of one flesh, bringing forth children after their kind (flesh) to populate the earth. Therefore, the image must be like its Creator, two Persons (Almighty God and the Word of God - John 1:1-2), in a Holy Union of one Spirit, bringing forth children after their kind (spirit) to populate the Kingdom of God. Genesis 2:23 NASB95 … She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." John 16:28 KJV I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: …
Matt 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” As the children approached, Jesus quizzed them as to who he was. Then he asked many questions regarding original sin, which theory of atonement they believed, what they thought of the trinity and whether or not they believed in purgatory. The children failed the test, so Jesus shooed them away until they got their theology right. ;-)
JESUS was called Son-of-Man a grand total of 88 times in the New Testament AND was our Saviors "own" favorite self-designated title. Enoch 400-200BC Dead Sea Scrolls 46: 1-6 1.And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. 2.And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that 3. Son-o-f Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This is the son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness, And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden. 4. And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats, and the strong from their thrones and shall loosen the reins of the strong, and break the teeth of the sinners. 5.And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms because they do not extol and praise Him, nor humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them. 6.And he shall put down the countenance of the strong, and shall fill them with shame. 🎯Daniel 7:13-14. “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." [Jesus/Son-of-Man is presented to God/Ancient Old, after leaving his Apostles on a cloud in Galilee.] ⭐Enoch 48: 2-6 2. And at that hour that Son-of-Man was named in the presence of the "Lord-of-Spirits", and his name before the Head of Days. [JESUS/Son-of-Man & GOD] 3.Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of Spirits. 4.He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, and he shall be the "light of the Gentiles, and the hope of those who are troubled of heart. 5.All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him, and will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits. 6 And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, before the creation of the world and for evermore. [DANIEL 7:13 Acts 7JESUS/Son-of-Man AND 👉LORD-Of-Spirits=GOD] Enoch 62: 1-3 1.And thus the Lord commanded the kings and the mighty and the exalted, and those who dwell on the earth, and said: Open your eyes and lift up your horns if ye are able to recognize the Elect One. 2.And the Lord of Spirits seated him on the throne of His glory, and the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him, and the word of his mouth slays all the sinners, and all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face. 3.And there shall stand up in that day all the kings and the mighty, and the exalted and those who hold the earth, and they shall see and recognize How he sits on the throne of his glory, and righteousness is judged before him, and no lying word is spoken before him. 4.Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail, [and she has pain in bringing forth] when her child enters the mouth of the womb, and she has pain in bringing forth. 5.And one portion of them shall look on the other, and they shall be terrified, and they shall be downcast of countenance, and pain shall seize them, when they see that Son of Man Sitting on the throne of his glory. 6.And the kings and the mighty and all who possess the earth shall bless and glorify and extol him who rules over all, who was hidden. 7.For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, and the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might, and revealed him to the elect. 8.And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown, and all the elect shall stand before him on that day. 9.And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth shall fall down before him on their faces, and worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man, and petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands. There's no need for that pre-flood HINDU-Mystery-Trinity. Grafted into and partaking into a ancient messianic "monotheistic religion", GENTILES came in and change absolutely everything, The Apostles leave us with 27 books and nine authors who claim Jesus has a God, Anonymous community of scribes write a "gospel of John Memoir", after he passes away [see chapter 21] and all of a sudden we've rearranged everything they had left us. PGA6n converts, added a new God "every hundred years", until Constantine stopped the madness. Enoch was in circulation hundreds of years before Jesus came on the scene and would have been exactly what they were expecting and anticipating and why Jesus was so widely accepted as the son-of-man and Jewish messiah. For us to ignore this and to invent a new religion with a three headed God man is hideous and disgraceful. Acts 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the "Glory of God, and 🫴"Jesus standing" at the right hand of 👉God. 56. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and "🫴The Son of Man, "standing" at the right hand of 👉God.” Ancient-Of-Days/God is a separate person then the Son-of-Man= Jesus And of course Jesus gets worshiped, its obviously "Gods idea". John 17"5 THIS is the glory that Jesus was promised "before the world even began", and was claiming it in John how beautiful. Rev 3:21 KJV To him that overcomith , will I grant to sit with me on 👉🔥"My Throne"; even as I also overcame, and am set down with 👉"My Father" on his throne. Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the 👉"Son Of Man👈 will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus bless you!!🤗
Why do you think that? I have enjoyed much of his work, but this was MAJORly disappointing. He relied solely on rhetoric in a very formal academic discussion. It was super out of place.
Trinitarians are really binitarians. Luke 1: v35 Angel Gabriel: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee [Mary] and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Malachi 2: v10 Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? Seems more than easy to think the Holy Spirit is the Heavenly Father. Go to a man of God who knows the difference between titles baptism and baptism in the title-name-title of Lord Jesus Christ
What I find disturbing about all 4 presenters was the fact that they relied on everything but the scriptures. The appeal to scripture to prove their views was almost completely absent. I will acknowledge that William Lane Craig did have 8 scriptures that he felt proved the divinity of Christ. Why were they all not read and discussed in detail? I would have much preferred scholars with degrees in biblical languages to discuss this topic only from the standpoint of the scriptures. Because in reality, what else matters but what the inspired text says. If you can't prove your doctrine from scripture you have nothing to offer to anyone.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance Dr. Tuggy's area of speciality is that of philosophy and it shows in the debates I have seen where he has participated. In my email exchange with Dale he was incapable of responding to the scriptures I provided in support of my views. He gave up almost immediately. This identified his weakness as a debater. This would be my recommendation for a more fruitful debate with any trinitarian. One can not merely trot out your favourite scriptures that you feel confident will support your views. One must first deal with the scriptures that your opponent produces. Start there. If you can successfully dismantle his argument by explaining why his scriptures don't prove his point then you are well on your way to winning the debate. After thoroughly explaining why his scripture proof texts don't work, you are now free to provide the scriptures that support your view. I have watched countless debates between Unitarians and trinitarians and this methodology is almost never used by Unitarians, , yet it's the only way to win this argument. This subject has been of interest for almost 50 years now and I have seen what works and what always fails in successfully providing a bullet proof argument.
I am not a trinitarian as I see too many problems with this understanding of the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But having said that I thought William Lane Craigs initial comments defended his position well on the nature of Christ. Tale Tuggy should have dealt with every scripture sited by Craig. They are not impossible passages to explain from an Arian position but definitely present problems for strict Unitarians. Unitarians have to do a much better job of dealing with the inspired texts directly to gain credibility with their theological position. They often avoid discussing these more difficult texts because they don't have answers for them that hold water.
I think you will like Tuggy’s approach in the book. He offers 20 facts from the Bible that make more sense on unitarianism than trinitarianism. It completely overshadows the proof text wars by contextualizing them.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance I am not a trinitarian so in this respect Tale Tuggy and I are somewhat on the same page but I have exchanged emails with him in the past were he either refused to make a comment on a particular passage or outright said he chose not to debate the topic. My position would be characterised as an Arian one, and therefore I subscribe to the actual pre-existence of Christ prior to his coming to earth as a man. I also accept the divinity of Christ which took place after his resurrection. I have spoken to some Unitarians who believe that Jesus is still somehow a man. So I share some beliefs that typical Unitarians have but definitely not all. I did enjoy this presentation very much and I respect various views even if I don't support them. It's good to have friendly dialogue amongst Christians with different Christological viewpoints.
@cognoscenticycles4351 Father Jesus after the resurrection has a glorified version of his old human body. Father Jesus the Holy Spirit will never be separated from His glorified body. Old Testament: God is the disembodied Holy Spirit. New Testament: God is the embodied Holy Spirit
I also have been underwhelmed by Tuggy, specifically in his exegesis and understanding of mediation. Eg., his view that Jesus is a mediator 'between' God and Man, therefore he can not be God. He does affirm that a member of the class 'Man', ie., the man Jesus, can be a mediator for that class. I think he is the best proponent of Arianism, which does not bode well for it.
What was there before creation? Was God alone? Or was jesus, the logos sitting there with him? If the logos were within him, that is God alone. God is omnipresent, knows all, doesn't have to speak to anyone, including himself. When God spoke, he created the word from him. I believe Jesus is divine different than all other creation but he came from God. Father precurses the son, it's that simple. Everything else about jesus stays true. Any father would give their life to save their sons, it's worse to lose a child than die yourself. So God's only begotten son coming to earth, taking flesh, and dying for all our sins is just as much as a sacrifice than if God himself were killed. The excuse that our salvation would be lost if jesus were not exactly the one God is silly, gods only begotten son sacrificed himself for us all, God gave up his son to perish, God knows all and did that for man kind. What's so blasphemous with all that?
We do not confess 3 Gods but 1 God in 3 persons, the consubstantial Trinity. The divine Persons do not share the one divinity among themselves, but each of them is God, whole and entire. The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, that is by nature one God. In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Each of the Persons is that supreme reality, viz. the divine substance, essence or nature.
@@aussierob7177 what is God? trinity what is Jesus? Jesus is God is Jesus the trinity? no i used to be delusional like you,i couldnt even understand the things above,thank God now i understand the fault in mind,you cant call Jesus fully God like nicene creed says cuz in trinity Jesus is 1/3 of god
@@aussierob7177 i use to believe in this brainrot,and then i open my mind and humble my mind,soul and heart and ready to get any conclusion and get rid of ALL assumptions,paul talks about this,that idol lovers will get strong delusion
There is no trinity in the scriptures, no triune God exists. Jesus - the directly concerned Person - had NO IDEA of what a trinity is supposed to be: He not even spoke ONE WORD about the existence of a triune God! He always said that God is made by A. the Father and B. the Son: "I am in the Father and the Father in me". PERIOD. The Holy Spirit is NOT a THIRD Person, as neither is the "apostles' Comforter". The Father dwells in Jesus " "I say not on my own but from the FATHER WHO DWELLS IN ME.". The Father who is in Jesus IS A SPIRIT: "God [the Father] is a spirit" (Jn. 4:23,24). ONLY THAT SINGLE SPIRIT - WHO IS THE FATHER - IS WITH JESUS: "I am not ALONE because the Father is with me" i.e. just Father and Jesus. That Spirit is called "Holy Spirit" by Jesus (see the Jesus' sermon on the TWO blasphemies). That Spirit (the Father) dealt with Mary's pregnancy, helped Jesus etc...made EVERYTHING. Jesus states: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." (Jn. 6:46). "Not seen the Father": there are only TWO possibilities: either the Father is INVISIBLE or the Father is not seen because ABSENT. The second is true: the Father is absent, so that the Spirit - who is the Father in the form of a spirit - comes from the ABSENT Father "the world has not known you" (Jn. 17:25), only Jesus DID it (in the past). This means that the Father is only VIRTUALLY here (actually NOBODY is here) i.e. the real Father is absent.
From what I gather you seem to think that the Holy Spirit is the Father. I don’t really see how that could be the case when Christ makes it pretty clear that no one has seen the Father at any time neither have they seen his form. But the Holy Spirit was seen at the Baptism of Jesus.
@@freightshayker My comment has nothing suggesting He did or didn’t, but what is clear is that He appeared visibly in a bodily shape like a dove. Ergo, the Holy Spirit isn’t the Father.
@@boardbill5852 The Holy Spirit is not the Father? Luke 1: v35 Angel Gabriel: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee [Mary] and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that holy ... THING ... which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. The Holy Ghost person comes upon Mary but it's a different Father God person Who overshadows Mary? ... or is the Holy Ghost the one Who Himself holds power of the Highest? And does Angel Gabriel disrespect Lord Jesus by calling Him a thing? ... or is the Holy "thing" simply referring to Father Jesus' own human body aka the last Adam aka the only begotten Son of God? So the flesh and blood body of Father God Himself. Because only the flesh and blood body died on the cross. The Holy Spirit did not die on the cross. Acts 20: v28 To feed the church which He [Father God] purchased with His own blood. Matthew 27: v50 Jesus when He had cried again with a loud voice yielded up the Ghost. Malachi 2: v10 Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? You my friend as a trinitarian fail to understand that if Father God sent some other Son-Spirit person then Father God would have established child sacrifice for remission of sin. And Father God would have been inconsistent sending Israelites to stop Caananites who were sacrificing their own children to Molech. As well. John 12: v31 Is that Father God aka Prince of this world being cast out of Heaven?
@@boardbill5852 The Holy SPIRIT is the Father, however IN THE FORM OF A SPIRIT. He comes from the Father WHO IS NOT A SPIRIT, the world never knew Him, never saw Him. "the world has not known you". This means that the Father is actually AWAY and is here just in the form of a spirit, this means NOBODY is actually here.
Hard to believe that so many here think Tuggy came out on top...I assume that you are progressive Christians? Although not being able to fully comprehend the Trinity, we can certainly apprehend the Trinity as revealed in Scripture. To think that we, as finite creatures, can fully comprehend the creator God of the universe, (or reduce him to a monad) is the height of arrogance...or spiritual pride. Tuggy's arguments are built on ignoring the data found in Scripture. Both here, and in his other debate with WLC, Scripture takes a 'back seat' and so-called tradition is place in the front or drivers seat. This is why outside of 'dyed in the wool' unitarians, Tuggy finds few adherents of his view.
There was a question in the Q&A about this, so if you’d like to hear Dr. Tuggy’s response, you could go listen there. But to answer here, titles like “Alpha and Omega” can be applied to different persons. God is the “Alpha and Omega” for various reasons (including being eternal), and Jesus is the “Alpha and Omega” for other reasons (such as being the author and finisher of our faith). This is not a name of God, it is a title, like lord (which is applied to many different persons in different ways), or savior, which can be used of different persons for different reasons. Note that Jesus refers to God as “my God” twice in Revelation, so unless you are comfortable with God having a God, you don’t want to read Revelation as saying Jesus is God.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance The problem with Jesus being Alpha and Omega is that this refers to him having no beginning. This puts a doubt on the Unitarian view of Jesus.
You are assuming the phrase is dealing with chronology, time, when it doesn’t explicitly say that. It’s just saying “a to z” which requires context to determine its meaning.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance You stated that the title applies to God. Now, you are contradicting yourself. So, the title for God does not have a chronological and timely meaning?
My point is as a title, it has to be interpreted as to its meaning, and having eternality isn’t the only, or even the primary meaning. Note God doesn’t have a beginning, he’s eternal.
The triune god and trinity is nothing more than a product of corruption of the true worship established by Jesus Christ. Case and point, no one worshipped such a god in Bible history, none before, nor after Jesus' death and resurrection. In addition to this, one would think that the worship and doctrine established by Jesus Christ Himself would be enough to conclude the truth of matters - but here again, there are plenty of people of this earth will have none of that, and in-favor of a god and doctrine of men. True followers of Christ will worship, teach and preach as Jesus did in His ministry - and we all know without a doubt that Jesus did not worship, teach or preach a triune god at any point in His ministry on earth - no one in all of Bible history ever did such a thing in-fact.
Woah what I couldn't believe my eyes. Impressive impressive if only Jehovah's witnesses were open enough to interact in such dialogues then it would have been perfect.
They have done so, Biola University invited my close friend and brother Hal Flemings a known JW. After that Biola never invited him back 😅 - he was never disrespectful..
I would you do some research and use the following research terms " how do you know who wins a debate" - I don't want to do the work for you and rob you of learning my friend. @@-RedeemedOne
@ronaldogaro3575 and none of you have a proper Liturgy, Communion, or an Ordination process that resembles anything like the early church or Apostles. You're a book club.
@@BarbaPamino You should read 'Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century Book by Ray Pritz' 'Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries Book by Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik' And 'The Judaisms of Jesus' Followers: An Introduction to Early Christianity in Its Jewish Context Book by Juan Marcos Bejarano Gutierrez' This belief you have that a liturgy and ordination process is somehow like the apostles is sadly mistaken.
Although all panelists were awesome, I would argue that Tuggy´s argument was the most weak one. This should realy make unitarians think if their view is Biblical. Hasker and Craig presented solid defeaters of unitarianism.
The biblical scripture was cited, which Tuggy did not respond to. He provided a very awkward interpretation, especially of the passages Craig quoted. Tuggy should really think (I do not mean an authority phallacy here) that the majority of scholars deny that his interpretation is correct. If his interpretation is incorrect, then his whole argument is worthless; hence, he is a defeater.@@UnitarianChristianAlliance
@@juancbra1579 While I do not agree with Dale Tuggy on the preexistence issue, IMO, his arguments leaned more on simple and face value handling of Scripture. The others relied on a seriously faulty premise, that the word "God" implies a particular ontological nature. It does not, which is why even Satan is called "the god of this world." The word "God" refers to sovereignty, not to ontological nature. And Jesus' sovereignty is clearly derivative, what was given to Him by His Father (Matt. 28:18). Thus, He is at times in the ROLE of God within a certain sphere of authority assigned to Him by His Father. But the biblical references to Him as "God" (and the very early patristic references to Him as "God") say absolutely nothing about His ontological nature. Yet, the Trinitarians again and again presupposed that merely being called "God" proves "divinity." Trinitarians should be backed into a corner and forced to PROVE FROM SCRIPTURE that the term "God" EVER means having a particular ontological nature. They cannot do it without using circular reasoning, presupposing Trinitarianism. My criticism of Biblical Unitarian methodology in their engagement with Trinitarians is in getting sucked into trying to explain away every passage that refers to Jesus as "God" (eg. Psalm 45:6-7, etc). The best and simplest approach IMO is to keep hammering the "agency" argument. God's personal "Agent" in the OT -- the "Angel of Yahweh" -- is repeatedly CALLED both God & Yahweh (Theos/Kurios - LXX), yet He was not Himself "God" and "Yahweh." The reasoning for this is clearly explained in Exod. 23:20-23 where God says, "My name is in Him" (Heb.) or "My name is upon Him" (LXX). Whether or not one claims that the Angel of Yahweh was the pre-human Son, the fact remains that Jesus as Man certainly fills the same ROLE as God's personal Agent in the NT that the Angel of Yahweh filled in the OT. So, even without literal preexistence, Jesus can be rightly called "God" in certain circumstances just as the Angel of Yahweh was. God places His name and titles (thus His personal authority) on His personal Agent. I imagine that BUs probably won't use this argument (even though it is extremely effective against Trinitarianism) simply because the next baby-step is that the Angel of Yahweh was indeed the Son of God, (which is rejected primarily on philosophical grounds and not on exegetical grounds).
@@TimWarner4Winds how do you reconcile Hebrews 1:1 if Jesus is the angel of the Lord he's been speaking to the fathers from the beginning.... God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His son. I'm curious about your opinion because this was the final verse that made me change my mind from believing Jesus was the angel of the Lord in the OT.
@@jawnatutorow I wrote a detailed analysis of that argument often used by BUs to deny preexistence. I believe the argument is based on a misunderstanding of who the "fathers" were, and the reason God spoke to them through the prophets. You can read it at the following link: www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Hebrews_1.pdf Let me know if you think it is unconvincing or can find fault with its reasoning or exegesis.
We have someone who doesn't know what hell is. Probably the easiest mainstream doctrine to shoot down, and here you are with your chest out throwing the heresy card around, promoting even more damaging doctrines that push more people away from God then it brings to God.
"No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us--eternal life" (1 John 2:23-25).
Dr Beau Branson - top quality! 👌
He's a Modalist in disguise & ignorant about the Monarchia & the fathers & also buddies with a psych wicked clown Jay Dyer.
Dr. Beau Branson presents the best and most historical argument for the Trinity
Yet he has one person greater than the other two persons…
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance it depends in what sense
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance this is only a problem if greater means eternally greater in all senses. The sense in which the Father is greater than the Son is in regards to the Son’s human nature. As the Son emptied himself and took on the form of a servant (phillipians 2:5-8). When Paul writes Jesus became a ‘servant’ it necessarily entails he had a master and as Jesus explains ‘the servant is not greater than his Lord’ (John 15:20). The Unitarian view fails to explain how Jesus became a servant if he was never at one point equal to the Father in every regard. If Jesus is just a man Paul would be explaining in phillipians 2 that a servant took on the form of a servant which simply doesn’t make sense.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance And what is the problem with that? In the EO Church we believe the One God is The Father.
@@issaavedra can any almighty god have one greater then them? greater then all would also include the father being greater then the holy spirit will it not?
A big fan of William Lane Craig here that thinks this is the ONLY topic in which he doesn’t have the high ground. In every single debate with atheists Craig is our man, he’s skilful and awesome. In this exchange though he performed poorly (not because of him but because the trinity is indefensible)
I still cannot believe he invested so much time in that dubious “identity relationship” thinking that this is the “dagger against Unitarianism”. Surely people in antiquity knew that Plato was Plato and not Aristotle and that Aristotle was Aristotle and not Socrates!
Worrrrrd
If you know how to count the person, with in the father and son talk to each other.
Defending the trinity will make a genius fumble around like an idiot.
I find it interesting that the subject was Trinity, yet I didn't hear a single question in the Q&A about Trinity; rather, all people seemed to care about was the deity of Christ.
Yeah, echos of Nicea
The deity of Christ is essential to the Trinity...
Is that not the point?
@@yusucc yet the deity of the man Christ Jesus could be true yet the Trinity be false.
@@NashRespect Yes but the trinitarian still must argue that Jesus is divine for trinitarianism to be true. Since the trinitarians are only against a unitarian instead of a modalist, the focus is on the deity of Christ.
I can't be more thrilled that Tuggy, Craig, and Branson are interacting in depth on this issue. I don't know as much about Hasker.
Hasker has done great work, especially on divine foreknowledge (was one of the authors of the blockbuster “The Openness of God” book in the 90’s) and the problem of evil. He’s a top notch analytic theologian, he just happens to be wrong about the Trinity. But even the way he is wrong is interesting, he’s fully committed to the full relational interactions between God and Jesus, so he ends up with a kind of tritheism.
In re "no greater love" question: the context is the greatest love *man* has. God is greater than men, and the greatest love is within the category of what men can do
Thanks for posting this! Is there a video version of it?
Potentially in the future, will post here if so.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance
I wanna see dr. Tuggy vs dr. White.... That would be awesome!
These questions about Jesus possessing attributes of deity towards the end of this debate are misguided IMO. The questioners presuppose in their thinking that these attributes that Messiah possesses are original to His Being. The NTs language on this topic plainly states that the Messiah's divine attributes are not original to Him but rather derivative; they come from another source; and that source is the Father.
Matthew 9:6-8 - But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”-then He *said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, pick up your stretcher and go home.” And he got up and [c]went home. But when the crowds saw this, they were [d]awestruck, and they glorified God, 👉who had given such authority to men👈
Matthew 11:27 - All things have been 👉handed over to Me👈 by My Father…
Matthew 28:18 - And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been 👉given to Me👈
Luke 4:18 - “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He 👉anointed Me👈 to bring good news to the poor.
Luke 11:20 - But if I cast out the demons 👉by the finger of God👈, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
John 5:26-27 - For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He 👉gave👈 to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He 👉gave Him authority👈 to execute judgement, because He is [k]the Son of Man.
John 7:16-17 - So Jesus answered them and said, 👉“My teaching is not My own, but His who sent Me.👈 If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is 👉of God👈, or I am speaking from Myself.
John 8:40 - But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I 👉heard from God👈; this Abraham did not do.
Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man [u]attested to you by God with [v]miracles and wonders and [w]signs which 👉God performed through Him👈 in your midst, just as you yourselves know-
Acts 10:36-38 - The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching [x]peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)- you yourselves know the thing that happened throughout Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. [y]You know of Jesus of Nazareth, 👉how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power,👈 [z]and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, 👉for God was with Him.👈
Hebrews 1:4 - having 👉become👈 so much better than the angels, to the extent that He has 👉inherited👈 a more excellent name than they.
Exactly. Absolutely. And why cant they see that? Why did I not see that for 4 decades as a trinitarian.
Shout it bro.
💯NICE!
The original Trinitarian view of the Undivided Church of the first millennium, i.e. Monarchia, agrees with this wholeheartedly.
The later innovative trinitarian views put forward by general evangelical protestants cannot account for Christ deriving His being and person from the Father.
Dr. Beau Branson is a proponent of the original position, Monarchia, and represents the Orthodox view in this discussion.
The early Trinitarian church Fathers took this view in that the Father is the source or fountainhead of divinity within the Trinity. That's how those passages were interpreted. The problem for the unitarian is that Jesus "derives" his divinity from the Father and therefore has the same divinity as the Father. God does not share this with any creature nor has any prophet or angel make these claims. But to futher this idea by analogy would be a child derives its human nature from its source as an offspring.
You quoted John 5 but in verses 16-17 & 19 notice the works of the Father are the works of the Son which supports the monarchian Trinity view that is one divine power at work. There is also the incarnation at play here; that being in Jesus' humiliation, as servant, He submits to the Father willingly.
@@andys3035 You sound knowledgable and word confident, but biblically there is no divinity in Jesus prior to being resurrected, except as prophetic perfect against those who would make themselves gods, ha satan in hebrew. it is written. "He was raised (in authority) so much higher than angels," so if angels can be considered "divine" ( as they are to most but the stern minority) then Jesus is now a divine being, second only to the father who was always the God most high, i.e. higher than the other would be "gods of the nations."
So is it you insisting on pre divinity which then projects your worldview onto unitarians as their logic problem? Seems that is what i heard you say.
How does dr Craig get that 1Jn 5:20 KJV states that Jesus is God? "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." It so clearly states that Jesus is the son of God - not once, but twice in case it is missed. Jesus points to the true God as also stated in Joh 17:3 KJV "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Craig grasps on every possible deity of Christ proof text, including ones other trinitarians recognize are not helpful to their case.
Also "Him who is true" clearly indicates whom the "true God" statement is referring to.
Dale Tuggy dominated. His opening statement was the best I've heard in any debate or discussion, and his succinct answers to questions were home runs every time.
One of his best. Not the best. He's damn good though. Best in the debate
Yeah I think the reason Sunny da`awist pick debates with only trinitarians is because they know that trinitarians only read the bible selectively so they become Easy prey in debates. However I have never seen somebody like Hijab or Ali Dawah go into A debate with untiarians like dr Tugy because they know that it would be musch harder to punch holes in the interpretation as Dr Tugy showed at the end when all the trinitarians one by one started attacking him with the Gospel of John.
@@economician that is true but the reason is that historically the christianity means trinity and so they are the dominant and relevant group to engage with as opposed to unitarians who are pretty marginalized(I doubt how many people even know they exist) but I have seen dr. tuggy engage with muslims. one more point would be that the differences become very less in the abrahamic religions if christianity is unitarian. Guys like Hijab and Ali are more concerned with the general population rather than a small group.
Unitarianism is a heresy. Repent. Jesus IS equal with God. The Bible speaks on this in many occasions for crying out loud...
Agreed
Remember. Whoever you already agree with will “win” in your mind.
Correct! What our learned and knew we stell need to believe of it.
nah,dale tuggy won
I’m Catholic and think dale tuggy won the debate
@@roshankurien203 dale tuggy helped me leaving my super strong belief in trinity,i aspire to be an apologist like him one day
@@ManlyServant yeah… i agree with him on a lot of points… the understanding of the Trinity took the church a good 300 yrs atleast.. But as a Catholic our epistemology is very different from the Protestant epistemology… so we actually don’t have this problem that other Protestant have…
But I appreciate the discussion.
I love how it was put..
But Gregory nissa said this…. Well we don’t care what Gregory nissa said. It has to be in the biblical and coherent… Sola scriptura right there 😀…
Dr. Tuggy starts his opening at 29:05
Nobody cares. The guys a heretic. Unitarianism is a heresy.
Dale Tuggy speaks so plainly and clearly.
Lies are always so simple
@@navienslavement Always? Should I prove to you that I can lie about you in a complicated way? Those comments gets weirder and weirder. And truth I guess is.............................. or must be according to you.............. complicated?
@@navienslavement Wut?
@@navienslavementpagan you are
Yet wrong
On one side of the panel:
The ancients simply did not understand the modern relation of identity as an asymmetric reflective transitive equivalence relation that A is B, B is C, C is A that conception of the transitivity of relation was simply not grasped and I think this revelation is a dagger to the heart of Unitarianism
On the other side of the panel:
Man look, Yahweh is the One True God, Jesus is His Messiah and God uses the holy spirit to empower His servants.
Clearly someone has lost sight of what the Bible teaches and I think it's obvious just who it is.
Indeed, see what Tuggy’s continual pressure from his analysis leads to… more and more desperate moves by the other side. When the wider Christian world starts realizing what is happening within this in academia, it’s going to shock people, and hopefully cause them to reevaluate their views.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance I could not agree more. Craig is simply not in his element here and I think he knows it too. They didn't have the language to explain what they believed, really that's all you got Craig, oh and also apparently we're pagans right let's not forget that. Most of his argumentation was just wit and rhetoric, there wasn't really much substance. But I do appreciate though, his willingness to engage with us in dialogue, as well as the other panelists. Usually trinitarians treat us like modern day lepers so I'm grateful to them for that.
I like the consistency and clarity of Unitarianism. I am still agnostic about the pre-existence of Jesus. I'm basically open to NT not being completely univocal on the matter.
How is John 1 unclear about this? Tuggy is a self indulged ego possessed demon worshipper. Plain and simple.
John 17 v 4 I have glorified+ you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do.+ 5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.+
Look at verse 5...Jesus was in a glorious position with the Father before the world was...Also JOhn 1:1 In the beginning the Word was with God..and became flesh...The NT is absolutely equivocal on the pre existence of Jesus before he was born as a human -- See also Colossians 1:15 and Rev 3:14 Jesus was the first creation of the Father and was used by him to bring everything else into existence.
@@Ice2Eskimosokay but how dafuq does a created being invent every aspect of creation? The detail of invention in the quadrillions upon quadrillions of moving pieces is so extraordinary as to be essentially impossible. Not to mention this created being would need to be capable of envisioning all future inventions and progressions of the inventions at every step of the way and know that the laws of physics would hold soundly. I’m sorry, the Trinity makes little sense, but so does Christ being creeted
Interesting to hear Craigs introduction. I was almost alarmed that instead of outlining his position in this panel discussion, he immediately is on some sort of defensive position, naming Tuggy more than he names Jesus (I didnt count them but I get the impression) so I dont know what position Craig has (about 20 minutes in) except that he seems to have taken a beating somewhere, and is all out to defend himself against the fearsome Tuggy.
I am resisting the excitement urge to jump forward to Tuggy's address, I will give the other two a go fair listen.
Quick edit.... I cant believe Craig just used 1John5:20 as a proof that Jesus is God.... unbelievable, can he not see there are two involved here a father and a son. The son shows us his father, the true God. (NOT BY HAVING TO BE HIS OWN FATHER) It doesnt say Jesus is the true God. People keep telling me I should listen to William Lane Craig.... no, I might not have a doctorate, but i did pass my english exam, and even without that I can still see the son showing us the work of the father here! almost criminal.
Yup, same. I was very disappointed at Dr. WLC's approach. Instead of arguing for a view, he just went on full blast of someone else's view. Super unprofessional and very telling.
Great job Dale!! Wow, the second guy was painful to listen to
Around 1:22:00 Tuggy was asked about the Hebrew word for "one," i.e., Echad. Tuggy answered that "the word one by itself doesn't tell you if the thing is simple or if it has parts." The fact is ECHAD is the ordinary counting number “one,” appearing more than 900 times throughout the scriptures. The word functions just as the word “one” in English. For example, "eleven" in Hebrew is "ten" and ECHAD; Abraham “was ECHAD,” i.e., "Abraham was only one person” (Eze 33:24, NAB, Holman, et al.).
When ECHAD is used with collective nouns like “family” or “bunch,” ECHAD retains its standard meaning, I.e., "one family” not "two families"; "one bunch" not "two bunches.” So, the idea of plurality comes from the collective nouns (family, bunch) and not from the word “one.”
Again, the word “one,” in any language, never changes to a plural meaning!
The Trini trick is to transfer the plurality in the collective noun to the word “one” or, even worse, to the word "LORD" in the phrase “one LORD” of the Shema in Deut. 6:4.
For Christian scholars, linguists, apologists and pastors to continue to do this is misleading to say the least and at worst a striking falsehood!
For more see our many videos on this in our channels.
carlos@thehumanjesus.org
Good discussion. Maybe I'm biased, but Dale definitely came out on top with clear concise answers
clear and concise doesn't mean better
You are nuts.
@@jwatson181 thanks?
@@socketman your welcome. Dale basically contradicted his own published work. WlC fact checked him in real time. It is just dishonest acting like the other contributors have vastly different perspectives on the Trinity. By Dale's past definition, they would all be acceptable Trinitarian views. If you believe Dale is right, one can not believe the Bible is inspired or preserved.
O the beauty of the simplicity of Tuggy's presentation, compared to the speculative theories of his opponents. And what was up with Branson? His 1st question to Tuggy about how many saviors are there is such a low level online apologist argument. Branson's other point about OT theophanies is also so lame and easily answerable within the Biblical Unitarian perspective. Dale Tuggy you did a great job with your presentation and in answering the questions.
Nehemiah 9:27 says God sent Israel "SAVIORS who delivered them from their enemies."
And theophanies are always unipersonal in the OT.
@@thehumanjesusDr. Branson would agree that all the theophanies were of one person and that they were all the Son.
UNITARIAN CANT SOlVE THEOPHANIES,,
As Unitarian how do you interpret
Verses like “ in him the fullness of deity resides” ?
Or I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died and behold I live forevermore Rev 1:17-19..
I cannot speak for Unitarians, through as a true follower of Christ, I would offer the following;
Deity = godliness
Fullness = GOD's Holy Spirit
ie, Jesus was filled with GOD's Holy Spirit, just as we are destined to be filled with GOD's Holy Spirit - see; _'...that they may be one, as we are one'_
As for *the first and last to die;* 'the record shows that Jesus was the first to be resurrected under the New Covenant with GOD, and the last to die under the Old Covenant with GOD
That said, the words first and last in scripture, are used by both Jesus and His Father, as a form of absolution or completeness, in-that YHWH is the first and last GOD, whereas Jesus is the first and last to die, in fulfillment of the prophecy of salvation, ie, ending the curse upon mankind with GOD
@@smalltimer4370 but the text says I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST and I DIED AND BEHOLD I LIVE FOREVER MORE.. I’m just curious after that title how do they deny the deity of Christ
“Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord, the FIRST , and with the LAST ; I am he.”
Isaiah 41:4 ESV
“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST ; besides me there is no god.”
Isaiah 44:6 ESV
The text doesn’t say last to die. And the first and last is a follow up.. to
“I am the ALPHA and the OMEGA, the FIRST and the LAST , the beginning and the end.””
Revelation 22:13 ESV
Covenantal death… I suppose that could be an interpretation
@@roshankurien203
We could begin by defining what 'deity of Christ' means - ie, Is this from scripture, and if so, from what writing do we conclude that such a term must be met, upheld etc.
As for the topic in question, here are few points for consideration;
The account In Isaiah references YHWH declaring Himself, as the first and last GOD - as outlined in verses; 4 through 6
Whereas in Revelation, we find Jesus declaring Himself, he first and last to die - see; firstborn of the dead, I was dead, and I am alive, etc, etc.
And so the issue with such contentions, is that of a lack of admission, in-that the details in each respective account, is now presented out of their respective contexts.
PS, the first and last in Rev 22, proves to be Jesus' own GOD and Father(YWHH), though here again, and as the passage is often cited out-of-context, the nature of the statement, as is, its intended use, is therefore obscured as a result.
The very fact that the Trinity is being discussed and attempts are being made to explain it proves that is is non-scriptural.
No Christian in the first Century had any doubts as to who their Leader Jesus was. He certainly was not God in any human form.
John clearly declared:
(John 1:34) And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one is the SON of God.”
In no way does discussing a view and attempting to offer explanations for it disqualify it from being true or scriptural.
@@boardbill5852: Wouldn't that too be an opinion.
If the Trinity was an established fact, there will be no debate.
What does '4 views' suggest. A fact or opinion?
No Christian has ever believed in a Trinity. This Trinity concept was what the apostate church came up with centuries after Jesus.
Acts 20:30 foretold such.
True Christians believe:
1 Corinthians 8:6 there is actually TO US ONE GOD, THE FATHER, from whom all things are and we for him; AND there is one Lord, Jesus Christ,
@@jimjuri6490 Your comment is fallacious. It is no way different from the atheists who argue that all religion is absurd because there are competing religions. Unitarianism is not unitary either; Modalism vs Arianism for instance. So then the same thing could be argued against Unitarians as well.
@@jimjuri6490 I agree, true Christians do believe in One God, the Father Almighty as the Nicene creed itself states. True Christians also accept the Trinity as defined by the councils and the all the teachings of the church whether oral or written.
@@jimjuri6490 But if the early church really held to some sort of Unitarian view as their original belief I see no reason to attempt to resurrect it from the dead. A Dead religion is as dead as the god it worshiped.
Trinitarians are following the church, not the bible .
Yep, the “small c” catholic tradition is very influential on people, even Protestants. Pointing out a mistake in the broader tradition makes people very uncomfortable. But that’s exactly what Protestants already think about the tradition, they just haven’t had to do so themselves, they are inheriting the pruning of those mistakes done by the courageous reformers.
LOL! Who compiled that Bible you think you are interpreting. Talk about putting the horse before the cart!! You have zero grounds to historically account for and philosophically justify that Bible you have in your hands. Just think for a second
Sorry it’s the other way round. Any other way other than trinitarian is heretic.
@@orthochristosthat’s exactly right. These unitarians are complete frauds and phoneys - heretics!
Now I know why Jesus said: "Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
A little child is not going to read the actual words of Jesus and his disciples/apostles and come away convinced that God is "tri-personal". If, after over 2000 years, there is not one clear and concise definition of the Trinity (there are three versions just in this debate) then how can The Trinity possibly be THE instrument of salvation? As an aside, Dr. Craig seems bent on dissuading Dr. Tuggy...but in Craig's opening statement he referred to Jesus as uncreated and then later as the created being of God from which the spirit pours forth. Which is it??
Hebrews 5:11-14 (ESV): 11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
1 Corinthians 2:6-7 (ESV): 6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
1 Corinthians 13:11 (ESV): 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
Grow up.
Your non sequitur argument is based on a faulty interpretation of that verse.
1 Corinthians 14:20
Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
@@boardbill5852 i was referring to matt 18:3.
@@letusgather...7820 I am aware
Dale Tuggy: "There is no hint of the Trinity in the Old Testament."
Everyone: "What about all these countless references to multiple divine persons in the Old Testament?"
Dale Tuggy: "Those are just metaphors."
LMAO
What timestamp is that interaction?
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance Each time someone from the audience or otherwise points out the existence of several Divine Persons in the Old Testament, Dale Tuggy always responds with "actually it's just metaphor". This is exactly what muslims do when they're presented with irrefutable fact that Jesus is the Messiah: "but it's just metaphor!"
I was there and have listened to the video several times, I don’t remember that response. And there are no OT references to multiple divine persons.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance 1:15:40 Tuggy explicitly says that Paul quotes the Old Testament in a metaphorical way when talking about Jesus. Also a basic Google search yields countless passages of the Old Testament talking about multiple Divine Persons. But anyway, thanks for revealing yourself as a liar.
No, he didn’t say Paul references the OT in a metaphorical way, he said Paul (and other NT authors) reference the OT to show that Jesus is a fulfillment of those passages, which does not require Jesus to be God. Your decision to call me a liar is uncharitable, as is your misrepresentation of what Tuggy said.
The Bible says Moses is the savior of Israel, and also, that God is the savior of Israel. Moses would be God too on your reasoning.
I was confused. I grabbed my popcorn expecting to hear some interesting models on the Trinity. Then one guy couldn’t make the event and Tuggy isn’t even a trinitarian. Eyebrow raised. Then he says he’s a Soscinian and doesn’t believe Jesus existed before the incarnation. Who put this together? No audience even asked Beau questions because everyone was trying to prove the deity of Jesus to a Unitarian at a 4 views trinitarian panel with a Soscinian who lacked Anthony Buzzard’s accent.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
This was a hilarious comment lol
On a real note though, I do feel like you know a great deal about these subjects even though you let on that you didn't know that it would be a discussion including Unitarian theology.
"Mighty-thin soup" 🤣
In re WLC assertion that God must be a triad to love perfectly is belied by the fact that God has foreknowledge, and loved us before we existed. He can this love that which will be and could be, and doesn't require that which already is in order to love
Dr. Tuggy has responded to this argument from love in his published work and in his podcast, if you’d like to hear his response. Notice, Dr. Craig did not press this argument in the discussion.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance I'll have to check it out.
I am concerned about the explicit reliance and preference by the trinitarians on Greek philosophy when it's Jewish texts and culture we are dealing with. I also highly doubt that identity as we know it was foreign to ancient thinkers
We definitely want to locate the authors and their audiences in their time and place, so we don’t apply anachronism to their claims. The idea of a single God that is three persons is definitely an example of an anachronism if we think the New Testament authors held it.
Good point and it also relates to the trinity argument that of "restoring the glory I (Jesus) had with God in the beginning." God is clearly stated as "loving His creation" and did He not "So Love the world" as to send His only begotten son? Exactly your point.
Blessings.
Well done Dr. Tuggy on helping put Biblical Unitarianism on the map.
Aptly named by God, towing this boat through this valley of decision that we're in.
Repent. Unitarianism is a heresy. Literally the Bible shows Jesus is equal to God in many occasions...how clearer do you want it to be?
@@youxtuberz5229 Most Unitarians were at one point Trinitarians who became Unitarians usually at a significant personal cost. As such we do not take matters of heresy lightly.
@@youxtuberz5229 The bible actually very clearly states alllllll over front to back that the messiah Jesus is inferior to Yahweh. Would you like me to point out a few?
Tuggy believes Jesus is a special dude.
While listening to the first three speakers, this scripture comes to mind, "But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2Cor 11:3) Those concepts they present for the trinity are so complex and far from the simplicity of the gospel and the Word of God. Might I even say they're foreign to the scriptures? Without the help of the church and church doctrine, no one would arrive at the trinity by just reading the bible, you need help to get there. The fourth speaker is clear and you know what he means, not this mumbo jumbo these others are proclaiming. I don't need help understanding that Jesus was a man appointed by God, it's clearly in the bible. But I seem to need a lot of help understanding that there's a trinity, because it's hidden in the bible. Paul said that the mystery has been revealed, we have only One God, the Father and one lord, Jesus the Messiah.... yet we seem to have begotten a new mystery after that... the trinity. That's not from God, He already revealed the mystery. That's something learned men have put together to obscure the clarity of the Word of God. Plain truth gets ignored by comlicated dogma's, statements and doctrines. I'll stick with the simplicity Dale Tuggy brought forth.
To claim that something is or is not biblical is insufficient for establishing its truth, as this assertion often relies on a form of self-referential reasoning. The claim presupposes that the Bible itself is the standard by which one determines whether a concept is "biblical," yet it does not provide an external justification for this standard. This creates a circular argument where the Bible is used to validate itself without proving its authority or truth outside of its own framework.
For instance, when the Old and New Testaments declare statements like "His comings are from ancient days" or "a son will be born and he shall be called Mighty God, Wonderful Counselor," these claims are assumed to be true because they are found in the Bible. However, if someone challenges whether these statements are "biblical," the person defending the claim must provide a criterion for what counts as biblical beyond simply citing the text itself.
Thus, in debates about biblical authenticity, the individual asserting something is biblical can never fully succeed in their argument unless the person denying the claim provides a clear and external standard for what constitutes "biblical" in the first place. Without this external yardstick, the argument remains trapped within its self-referential structure, unable to appeal to an objective measure of truth.
This should have been Five views with Dr. David K Bernard representing Oneness
Tuggy rocks!
16:35 - If WLCs "God is an immaterial tripersonal being" definition is true ... then who is Jesus' God? According to the Bible, Jesus has a God ...
Right, Dr. Tuggy pressed him on this, in the cross examination questions if I remember correctly, and also does so in the book at length.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance I can't wait to pick up a copy of this book. I hope they sell it at Koorong in Australia!
Teaching barbarians to read was by far the worst heresy of all the papist heresies.
Love it!!
When does this book come out?
In a few months. Will do a release announcement to promote it.
1:19:59 Tuggy throwing shade at St John says a lot…
I asked Tuggy during the Q&A about Romans 10 that is, why Paul links Joel 2:32 to Jesus. Tuggy responded that Paul saw an application from this passage on Jesus. However, he did not address the OT context of the theme of calling upon the name of the Lord. As Gordon notes, to call on the name of the Lord is used in Genesisseveralf times (Genesis 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25), and it seems to be an umbrella phrase for worship, most obviously prayer and sacrifice. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, 1987), 116. Why does Paul command us to call upon the name of Jesus for salvation, if God himself is the object of calling upon a name for salvation in the OT? Here are some examples:
“Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you will honor me” (Psalm 50:15) In the LXX it means “to call on the Lord in prayer” Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 116.
“I shall call upon God and the LORD will save me” (Psalm 55:16, cf. Psalms 86:7; 91:15).
“I call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from my enemies” (Psalm 18:3).
Yahshua literally means Yahweh saves or the salvation of Yahweh. The salvation Christ brings is not his, but the father's. The father has allowed him to be the mediator of the covenant and whoever calls on him shall be saved (by the father). He's the way to the father
I thought Dale was clearly the best informed , best poised, most precise in his answers. I thought WLC was clearly disrespectful of Dr Tuggy
When is this book scheduled for release?
Soon, will announce on the channel as soon as it does.
What I took away from this talk is that Dale tuggy is not a Christian.
Not so sure about WLC either... 😅
If these two men don’t count as Christians, I don’t know who would… think we should be careful to recognize the biblical mandate for Christians, and not insert our own criteria for who belongs to Christ.
🤷
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance If the standard for having the Spirit of God (salvation) is believing that Jesus Christ was a man, who came in the flesh of a man, then a majority of the world are believers having eternal life. Most people who believe Jesus lived, believe He was a good man.
But if the Apostle meant one must believe God came in the flesh of a man, Jesus Christ, then only persons who believe this have the Spirit of God, which greatly narrows the path to eternal life.
1 John 4:2-3 KJV
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 KJV
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Who decides who is and isn't Christian?
Thing of it is, most people today have no clue as to what a Christian actually is, let alone, who qualifies as Christian and not
Ahh... the Trinity.
A concept so simple, so common sense, so accepted that it takes 1000 different versions to explain it.
🤣😆👍
I love how Dale Tuggy always remains calm and centred in these debates. He doesn’t seem to be threatened or phased by any of the weird questions coming from the trinitarian camp.
Same! He said later that he knew it was because people were praying for him
No he isn't lol. He was literally the only person cutting people off.
Too much clever talk, no scriptural substance. Deu 6.4 Jn 12.45, & 14.9, 1 Tim 2.16. Trinity is un-scriptural, a carnal manufacture of men with confused traditions originating at the council of Nicea 325 AD.
Does the bible give an underlying definition of persons terms of being? Yes it does. In Gen 2 we have described how eve (and adam) are not animals. Of all the living beings (and this includes adam) only eve is not formed from the ground. She is made from adam. There is a oneness to the persons of adam and eve that is (presumably) not so with the animals. Presumably the male and female animals are made separately from the ground and the female animals are not built out of the male animals. So we have a definition of personhood. Personhood (at leat as opposed to animalhood or kinds) necessarily entails oneness of being. That is one cannot be a person if there is not oneness of being. Gen 2 is the descriptive answer to the questions raised in Gen 1. How is man like God? How can man in Gen 1 be described the both the singular and the plural? How can God in Gen 1 similarly be described in the singular and the plural? The building of eve out of adam descriptively shows you how. Man is like God because he is persons in one being.
Indeed. The woman came forth from Adam and they were immediately joined together in a holy union of one flesh, bringing forth children after their kind (flesh) to populate the earth. Therefore, the image must be like its Creator, two Persons (Almighty God and the Word of God - John 1:1-2), in a Holy Union of one Spirit, bringing forth children after their kind (spirit) to populate the Kingdom of God.
Genesis 2:23 NASB95
… She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."
John 16:28 KJV
I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: …
Matt 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
As the children approached, Jesus quizzed them as to who he was. Then he asked many questions regarding original sin, which theory of atonement they believed, what they thought of the trinity and whether or not they believed in purgatory. The children failed the test, so Jesus shooed them away until they got their theology right. ;-)
ha ha. good one.
But he did give them better toys than the trinity did.
good work Dr. William Lane Craig
All he said was you guys are pagans and also they didn't have the language to explain what they believed. Why is that a good job?
@@ronaldogaro3575blah blah make few more comments without using brain,just to make comment section better for you
JESUS was called Son-of-Man a grand total of 88 times in the New Testament AND was our Saviors "own" favorite self-designated title.
Enoch 400-200BC Dead Sea Scrolls 46: 1-6
1.And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels.
2.And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that
3. Son-o-f Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This is the son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness, And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden.
4. And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats, and the strong from their thrones and shall loosen the reins of the strong, and break the teeth of the sinners.
5.And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms because they do not extol and praise Him, nor humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them.
6.And he shall put down the countenance of the strong, and shall fill them with shame.
🎯Daniel 7:13-14.
“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."
[Jesus/Son-of-Man is presented to God/Ancient Old, after leaving his Apostles on a cloud in Galilee.]
⭐Enoch 48: 2-6
2. And at that hour that Son-of-Man was named in the presence of the "Lord-of-Spirits", and his name before the Head of Days. [JESUS/Son-of-Man & GOD]
3.Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
4.He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, and he shall be the "light of the Gentiles, and the hope of those who are troubled of heart.
5.All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him, and will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.
6 And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, before the creation of the world and for evermore.
[DANIEL 7:13 Acts 7JESUS/Son-of-Man AND 👉LORD-Of-Spirits=GOD]
Enoch 62: 1-3
1.And thus the Lord commanded the kings and the mighty and the exalted, and those who dwell on the earth, and said: Open your eyes and lift up your horns if ye are able to recognize the Elect One.
2.And the Lord of Spirits seated him on the throne of His glory, and the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him, and the word of his mouth slays all the sinners, and all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face.
3.And there shall stand up in that day all the kings and the mighty, and the exalted and those who hold the earth, and they shall see and recognize How he sits on the throne of his glory, and righteousness is judged before him, and no lying word is spoken before him.
4.Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail, [and she has pain in bringing forth] when her child enters the mouth of the womb, and she has pain in bringing forth.
5.And one portion of them shall look on the other, and they shall be terrified, and they shall be downcast of countenance, and pain shall seize them, when they see that Son of Man Sitting on the throne of his glory.
6.And the kings and the mighty and all who possess the earth shall bless and glorify and extol him who rules over all, who was hidden.
7.For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, and the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might, and revealed him to the elect.
8.And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown, and all the elect shall stand before him on that day.
9.And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth shall fall down before him on their faces, and worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man, and petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands. There's no need for that pre-flood HINDU-Mystery-Trinity. Grafted into and partaking into a ancient messianic "monotheistic religion", GENTILES came in and change absolutely everything, The Apostles leave us with 27 books and nine authors who claim Jesus has a God, Anonymous community of scribes write a "gospel of John Memoir", after he passes away [see chapter 21] and all of a sudden we've rearranged everything they had left us. PGA6n converts, added a new God "every hundred years", until Constantine stopped the madness. Enoch was in circulation hundreds of years before Jesus came on the scene and would have been exactly what they were expecting and anticipating and why Jesus was so widely accepted as the son-of-man and Jewish messiah. For us to ignore this and to invent a new religion with a three headed God man is hideous and disgraceful. Acts 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the "Glory of God, and 🫴"Jesus standing" at the
right hand of 👉God.
56. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and
"🫴The Son of Man, "standing" at
the right hand of 👉God.” Ancient-Of-Days/God is a separate person then the Son-of-Man= Jesus And of course Jesus gets worshiped, its obviously "Gods idea". John 17"5 THIS is the glory that Jesus was promised "before the world even began", and was claiming it in John how beautiful. Rev 3:21 KJV
To him that overcomith , will I grant to sit with me on
👉🔥"My Throne"; even as I also overcame,
and am set down with
👉"My Father" on his throne.
Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the 👉"Son Of Man👈 will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Jesus bless you!!🤗
Why do you think that? I have enjoyed much of his work, but this was MAJORly disappointing. He relied solely on rhetoric in a very formal academic discussion. It was super out of place.
AM READY TO TAKE ANY HERESY BUT NOT DENYING JESUS IS GOD,,
Are you ready to pursue truth to wherever it leads?
Trinitarians are really binitarians.
Luke 1: v35
Angel Gabriel: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee [Mary] and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Malachi 2: v10
Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us?
Seems more than easy to think the Holy Spirit is the Heavenly Father.
Go to a man of God who knows the difference between titles baptism and baptism in the title-name-title of Lord Jesus Christ
What I find disturbing about all 4 presenters was the fact that they relied on everything but the scriptures. The appeal to scripture to prove their views was almost completely absent. I will acknowledge that William Lane Craig did have 8 scriptures that he felt proved the divinity of Christ. Why were they all not read and discussed in detail? I would have much preferred scholars with degrees in biblical languages to discuss this topic only from the standpoint of the scriptures. Because in reality, what else matters but what the inspired text says. If you can't prove your doctrine from scripture you have nothing to offer to anyone.
Tuggy’s entire case was based on scripture, he offered 5 facts from scripture (out of the 20 facts from scripture in the book).
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance Dr. Tuggy's area of speciality is that of philosophy and it shows in the debates I have seen where he has participated. In my email exchange with Dale he was incapable of responding to the scriptures I provided in support of my views. He gave up almost immediately. This identified his weakness as a debater. This would be my recommendation for a more fruitful debate with any trinitarian. One can not merely trot out your favourite scriptures that you feel confident will support your views. One must first deal with the scriptures that your opponent produces. Start there. If you can successfully dismantle his argument by explaining why his scriptures don't prove his point then you are well on your way to winning the debate. After thoroughly explaining why his scripture proof texts don't work, you are now free to provide the scriptures that support your view.
I have watched countless debates between Unitarians and trinitarians and this methodology is almost never used by Unitarians, , yet it's the only way to win this argument. This subject has been of interest for almost 50 years now and I have seen what works and what always fails in successfully providing a bullet proof argument.
I am not a trinitarian as I see too many problems with this understanding of the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But having said that I thought William Lane Craigs initial comments defended his position well on the nature of Christ. Tale Tuggy should have dealt with every scripture sited by Craig. They are not impossible passages to explain from an Arian position but definitely present problems for strict Unitarians. Unitarians have to do a much better job of dealing with the inspired texts directly to gain credibility with their theological position. They often avoid discussing these more difficult texts because they don't have answers for them that hold water.
I think you will like Tuggy’s approach in the book. He offers 20 facts from the Bible that make more sense on unitarianism than trinitarianism. It completely overshadows the proof text wars by contextualizing them.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance I am not a trinitarian so in this respect Tale Tuggy and I are somewhat on the same page but I have exchanged emails with him in the past were he either refused to make a comment on a particular passage or outright said he chose not to debate the topic. My position would be characterised as an Arian one, and therefore I subscribe to the actual pre-existence of Christ prior to his coming to earth as a man. I also accept the divinity of Christ which took place after his resurrection. I have spoken to some Unitarians who believe that Jesus is still somehow a man. So I share some beliefs that typical Unitarians have but definitely not all. I did enjoy this presentation very much and I respect various views even if I don't support them. It's good to have friendly dialogue amongst Christians with different Christological viewpoints.
@cognoscenticycles4351
Father Jesus after the resurrection has a glorified version of his old human body. Father Jesus the Holy Spirit will never be separated from His glorified body.
Old Testament: God is the disembodied Holy Spirit. New Testament: God is the embodied Holy Spirit
I also have been underwhelmed by Tuggy, specifically in his exegesis and understanding of mediation. Eg., his view that Jesus is a mediator 'between' God and Man, therefore he can not be God. He does affirm that a member of the class 'Man', ie., the man Jesus, can be a mediator for that class.
I think he is the best proponent of Arianism, which does not bode well for it.
it seems that a lot of these people were trying to evangelize a man who doesn’t need it.
i hope trinitarians repent of their folly.
What was there before creation? Was God alone? Or was jesus, the logos sitting there with him? If the logos were within him, that is God alone. God is omnipresent, knows all, doesn't have to speak to anyone, including himself. When God spoke, he created the word from him. I believe Jesus is divine different than all other creation but he came from God. Father precurses the son, it's that simple. Everything else about jesus stays true.
Any father would give their life to save their sons, it's worse to lose a child than die yourself. So God's only begotten son coming to earth, taking flesh, and dying for all our sins is just as much as a sacrifice than if God himself were killed. The excuse that our salvation would be lost if jesus were not exactly the one God is silly, gods only begotten son sacrificed himself for us all, God gave up his son to perish, God knows all and did that for man kind. What's so blasphemous with all that?
We do not confess 3 Gods but 1 God in 3 persons, the consubstantial Trinity. The divine Persons do not share the one divinity among themselves, but each of them is God, whole and entire. The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, that is by nature one God. In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Each of the Persons is that supreme reality, viz. the divine substance, essence or nature.
then each person is 1/3 or other division of that god,but you guys say each is fully god
@@ManlyServant Each Person is fully God. why is this so hard for you to understand ?
@@aussierob7177 what is God?
trinity
what is Jesus?
Jesus is God
is Jesus the trinity?
no
i used to be delusional like you,i couldnt even understand the things above,thank God now i understand the fault in mind,you cant call Jesus fully God like nicene creed says cuz in trinity Jesus is 1/3 of god
@@aussierob7177 i use to believe in this brainrot,and then i open my mind and humble my mind,soul and heart and ready to get any conclusion and get rid of ALL assumptions,paul talks about this,that idol lovers will get strong delusion
There is no trinity in the scriptures, no triune God exists. Jesus - the directly concerned Person - had NO IDEA of what a trinity is supposed to be: He not even spoke ONE WORD about the existence of a triune God! He always said that God is made by A. the Father and B. the Son: "I am in the Father and the Father in me". PERIOD. The Holy Spirit is NOT a THIRD Person, as neither is the "apostles' Comforter". The Father dwells in Jesus " "I say not on my own but from the FATHER WHO DWELLS IN ME.". The Father who is in Jesus IS A SPIRIT: "God [the Father] is a spirit" (Jn. 4:23,24). ONLY THAT SINGLE SPIRIT - WHO IS THE FATHER - IS WITH JESUS: "I am not ALONE because the Father is with me" i.e. just Father and Jesus. That Spirit is called "Holy Spirit" by Jesus (see the Jesus' sermon on the TWO blasphemies). That Spirit (the Father) dealt with Mary's pregnancy, helped Jesus etc...made EVERYTHING.
Jesus states: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." (Jn. 6:46). "Not seen the Father": there are only TWO possibilities: either the Father is INVISIBLE or the Father is not seen because ABSENT. The second is true: the Father is absent, so that the Spirit - who is the Father in the form of a spirit - comes from the ABSENT Father "the world has not known you" (Jn. 17:25), only Jesus DID it (in the past). This means that the Father is only VIRTUALLY here (actually NOBODY is here) i.e. the real Father is absent.
From what I gather you seem to think that the Holy Spirit is the Father. I don’t really see how that could be the case when Christ makes it pretty clear that no one has seen the Father at any time neither have they seen his form. But the Holy Spirit was seen at the Baptism of Jesus.
@@boardbill5852
The Holy Spirit existed as a dove from eternal past before He spoke anything into existence?
@@freightshayker My comment has nothing suggesting He did or didn’t, but what is clear is that He appeared visibly in a bodily shape like a dove. Ergo, the Holy Spirit isn’t the Father.
@@boardbill5852
The Holy Spirit is not the Father?
Luke 1: v35
Angel Gabriel: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee [Mary] and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that holy ... THING ... which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The Holy Ghost person comes upon Mary but it's a different Father God person Who overshadows Mary? ... or is the Holy Ghost the one Who Himself holds power of the Highest?
And does Angel Gabriel disrespect Lord Jesus by calling Him a thing? ... or is the Holy "thing" simply referring to Father Jesus' own human body aka the last Adam aka the only begotten Son of God?
So the flesh and blood body of Father God Himself.
Because only the flesh and blood body died on the cross. The Holy Spirit did not die on the cross.
Acts 20: v28
To feed the church which He [Father God] purchased with His own blood.
Matthew 27: v50
Jesus when He had cried again with a loud voice yielded up the Ghost.
Malachi 2: v10
Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us?
You my friend as a trinitarian fail to understand that if Father God sent some other Son-Spirit person then Father God would have established child sacrifice for remission of sin.
And Father God would have been inconsistent sending Israelites to stop Caananites who were sacrificing their own children to Molech.
As well. John 12: v31
Is that Father God aka Prince of this world being cast out of Heaven?
@@boardbill5852 The Holy SPIRIT is the Father, however IN THE FORM OF A SPIRIT. He comes from the Father WHO IS NOT A SPIRIT, the world never knew Him, never saw Him. "the world has not known you". This means that the Father is actually AWAY and is here just in the form of a spirit, this means NOBODY is actually here.
Three Trinitarians with white shirts and Dale Tuggy (the only Unitarian) wearing a black shirt. Bad subliminal message 😮😮
It was a maroon shirt, my phone camera did a bad job.
@@UnitarianChristianAllianceWell at least you didn't look like a Mormon. 😁
@@TimWarner4Winds love it LOL
So many different versions of the trinity makes your head spin so fast makes u look like u have 3 heads lol
😆
Hard to believe that so many here think Tuggy came out on top...I assume that you are progressive Christians? Although not being able to fully comprehend the Trinity, we can certainly apprehend the Trinity as revealed in Scripture. To think that we, as finite creatures, can fully comprehend the creator God of the universe, (or reduce him to a monad) is the height of arrogance...or spiritual pride. Tuggy's arguments are built on ignoring the data found in Scripture. Both here, and in his other debate with WLC, Scripture takes a 'back seat' and so-called tradition is place in the front or drivers seat. This is why outside of 'dyed in the wool' unitarians, Tuggy finds few adherents of his view.
Awesome work from Dr. William Lane Craig!
Is Jesus Christ the Alpha and Omega?
There was a question in the Q&A about this, so if you’d like to hear Dr. Tuggy’s response, you could go listen there.
But to answer here, titles like “Alpha and Omega” can be applied to different persons. God is the “Alpha and Omega” for various reasons (including being eternal), and Jesus is the “Alpha and Omega” for other reasons (such as being the author and finisher of our faith).
This is not a name of God, it is a title, like lord (which is applied to many different persons in different ways), or savior, which can be used of different persons for different reasons.
Note that Jesus refers to God as “my God” twice in Revelation, so unless you are comfortable with God having a God, you don’t want to read Revelation as saying Jesus is God.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance
The problem with Jesus being Alpha and Omega is that this refers to him having no beginning. This puts a doubt on the Unitarian view of Jesus.
You are assuming the phrase is dealing with chronology, time, when it doesn’t explicitly say that. It’s just saying “a to z” which requires context to determine its meaning.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance
You stated that the title applies to God. Now, you are contradicting yourself. So, the title for God does not have a chronological and timely meaning?
My point is as a title, it has to be interpreted as to its meaning, and having eternality isn’t the only, or even the primary meaning. Note God doesn’t have a beginning, he’s eternal.
The triune god and trinity is nothing more than a product of corruption of the true worship established by Jesus Christ.
Case and point, no one worshipped such a god in Bible history, none before, nor after Jesus' death and resurrection.
In addition to this, one would think that the worship and doctrine established by Jesus Christ Himself would be enough to conclude the truth of matters - but here again, there are plenty of people of this earth will have none of that, and in-favor of a god and doctrine of men.
True followers of Christ will worship, teach and preach as Jesus did in His ministry - and we all know without a doubt that Jesus did not worship, teach or preach a triune god at any point in His ministry on earth - no one in all of Bible history ever did such a thing in-fact.
Where are the serious intellectuals like Sam Shamoun? 😂 Wow craig really abused 1st john 5:20.
Hah! Thankfully Sam isn’t scholarly enough to be at this particular conference.
Woah what I couldn't believe my eyes. Impressive impressive if only Jehovah's witnesses were open enough to interact in such dialogues then it would have been perfect.
They have done so, Biola University invited my close friend and brother Hal Flemings a known JW. After that Biola never invited him back 😅 - he was never disrespectful..
@@InvestigadorTJ Fascinating I'll have to check that out. Do you have the link.
@@ronaldogaro3575 no link. I don’t think it was published in YT. But it’s one of those jewels 💎 to hold on
William Lane Craig is a master and once again, wins the debate.
What do you make of his “the new testament authors didn’t understand identity” argument?
How do you know who wins a debate?
I would you do some research and use the following research terms " how do you know who wins a debate" - I don't want to do the work for you and rob you of learning my friend. @@-RedeemedOne
William lane craig dominated by far
what is zelenskiy doing there
Hah! That is Dr. Chad McIntosh, the editor of the book.
Unitarianism and Dale tuggy are both jokes. Christ is true God
Yeah this joke has been around for 2000 years and we're not going anywhere
@@ronaldogaro3575nothing about how the Arians worshipped looks anything like your modern book club.
@@BarbaPamino Unitarianism has been around for 2000 years mate we may disagree on particulars but we're still all Unitarians man.
@ronaldogaro3575 and none of you have a proper Liturgy, Communion, or an Ordination process that resembles anything like the early church or Apostles. You're a book club.
@@BarbaPamino You should read 'Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century
Book by Ray Pritz'
'Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries
Book by Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik'
And
'The Judaisms of Jesus' Followers: An Introduction to Early Christianity in Its Jewish Context
Book by Juan Marcos Bejarano Gutierrez'
This belief you have that a liturgy and ordination process is somehow like the apostles is sadly mistaken.
Although all panelists were awesome, I would argue that Tuggy´s argument was the most weak one. This should realy make unitarians think if their view is Biblical. Hasker and Craig presented solid defeaters of unitarianism.
What defeaters would you want unitarians to pay most attention to?
The biblical scripture was cited, which Tuggy did not respond to. He provided a very awkward interpretation, especially of the passages Craig quoted. Tuggy should really think (I do not mean an authority phallacy here) that the majority of scholars deny that his interpretation is correct. If his interpretation is incorrect, then his whole argument is worthless; hence, he is a defeater.@@UnitarianChristianAlliance
@@juancbra1579 While I do not agree with Dale Tuggy on the preexistence issue, IMO, his arguments leaned more on simple and face value handling of Scripture. The others relied on a seriously faulty premise, that the word "God" implies a particular ontological nature. It does not, which is why even Satan is called "the god of this world." The word "God" refers to sovereignty, not to ontological nature. And Jesus' sovereignty is clearly derivative, what was given to Him by His Father (Matt. 28:18). Thus, He is at times in the ROLE of God within a certain sphere of authority assigned to Him by His Father. But the biblical references to Him as "God" (and the very early patristic references to Him as "God") say absolutely nothing about His ontological nature. Yet, the Trinitarians again and again presupposed that merely being called "God" proves "divinity." Trinitarians should be backed into a corner and forced to PROVE FROM SCRIPTURE that the term "God" EVER means having a particular ontological nature. They cannot do it without using circular reasoning, presupposing Trinitarianism.
My criticism of Biblical Unitarian methodology in their engagement with Trinitarians is in getting sucked into trying to explain away every passage that refers to Jesus as "God" (eg. Psalm 45:6-7, etc). The best and simplest approach IMO is to keep hammering the "agency" argument. God's personal "Agent" in the OT -- the "Angel of Yahweh" -- is repeatedly CALLED both God & Yahweh (Theos/Kurios - LXX), yet He was not Himself "God" and "Yahweh." The reasoning for this is clearly explained in Exod. 23:20-23 where God says, "My name is in Him" (Heb.) or "My name is upon Him" (LXX). Whether or not one claims that the Angel of Yahweh was the pre-human Son, the fact remains that Jesus as Man certainly fills the same ROLE as God's personal Agent in the NT that the Angel of Yahweh filled in the OT. So, even without literal preexistence, Jesus can be rightly called "God" in certain circumstances just as the Angel of Yahweh was. God places His name and titles (thus His personal authority) on His personal Agent. I imagine that BUs probably won't use this argument (even though it is extremely effective against Trinitarianism) simply because the next baby-step is that the Angel of Yahweh was indeed the Son of God, (which is rejected primarily on philosophical grounds and not on exegetical grounds).
@@TimWarner4Winds
how do you reconcile Hebrews 1:1 if Jesus is the angel of the Lord he's been speaking to the fathers from the beginning....
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His son.
I'm curious about your opinion because this was the final verse that made me change my mind from believing Jesus was the angel of the Lord in the OT.
@@jawnatutorow I wrote a detailed analysis of that argument often used by BUs to deny preexistence. I believe the argument is based on a misunderstanding of who the "fathers" were, and the reason God spoke to them through the prophets. You can read it at the following link:
www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Hebrews_1.pdf
Let me know if you think it is unconvincing or can find fault with its reasoning or exegesis.
Heads up to the unitarians, this heresy will land you in hell
Believing in one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ..... Will land us in hell?
We have someone who doesn't know what hell is. Probably the easiest mainstream doctrine to shoot down, and here you are with your chest out throwing the heresy card around, promoting even more damaging doctrines that push more people away from God then it brings to God.
"No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us--eternal life" (1 John 2:23-25).
Not according to Christ and his God
Tuggy was embarrassingly incoherent and ad hoc.
Interesting, do you have an example of Tuggy being incoherent?
I believe everything in the book of Acts. Yahweh is God the father. Jesus is a man attested to you by God.
Yes yes very incoherent 🙄
Why no video...smh
Take a look at my response here in the comments regarding that. The context of the presentation made for complexity in that regard.