TRINITY DEBATE : Andrew Harrison Vs Jacob Hansen (FULL DEBATE)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Marlin Wilson of "The Gospel Truth" channel hosted a debate between myself and Andrew Harrison (an Orthodox Christian) on the subject of the Trinity. The following are my closing remarks.
If you want to see the Q&A section following the debate please see the full video on Marlons channel using the following link. • Jacob Hansen Vs Andrew...
Be sure to check out Marlon Wilsons channel "The Gospel Truth"
#Trinity #Mormon #LDS #Debate
So we see that once again this is why we need modern day prophets.
Indeed. Protestants are as the Tower of Babel.
How do you spot a false prophet?
@@ernz8484-l2n A false prophet is one who lies.
@@dwRS1 How do you know when they lie?
@@ernz8484-l2n Maybe you don't know. Everyone has to find out for themselves. I do it by studying scriptures, try to live what Jesus taught and pray for guidance.
All the words you need to debate on the side of Trinitarian Theology: Divine substance, Hypostatic Union, Hypostasis, Essence, Sameness, Being, Persons. Just throw those around as an answer to any question in any which order until someone goes braindead because they have no idea what you are talking about and you win in utter defeat. Such has been the tactic for centuries and lives on today.
I had heard the terms hypostatic union and hypostasis before, but I thought to look them up after this and talk about an undefinable term. I kept reading and reading and there was not explanation, no simple definition.
This is exactly true. Just a bunch of nonsense words thrown around to confuse the nature of God
🦛 hippopotamus union.
Homoousian, Homoiousion, Monophysite, Diaphysite, etc. It's hard to imagine that the average Christian partitioner had any clue what these terms meant.
@@andrewolsen2711 And the above average partitioner was only using them because he was above average.
Jacob, have you tried reaching out to Matt Fradd from Pints With Aquinas? He released an episode with a former LDS who converted to Catholicism yesterday in which he invited any LDS watching to reach out to have a debate hosted by him on his channel. I think it would be awesome if he would let someone like you come on and present our views from a faithful perspective!
do it, Jacob! You're our only hope!
This would be interesting
With someone with that last name how can you debate him without it being ad hominem?
Anyone have his contact info? I would reach out.
@@hansenjacob1986 Good question. I just looked around and he doesn't have any on his YT or his website. 🤔
You killed it, Jacob. Great debate and I really appreciated all the points you brought up.
You were clear, concise and spoke truth Jacob! You won that debate by a mile. Very impressive! Thanks for sharing your wisdom and understanding of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ with all those with ears to hear.
Clapping hands all around for Jacob. Thank you for the debate, I loved listening. Jacob, you explained everything so well. Way to go!
I’ve said it a million times but I’ll say it again, every time a Christian tries to explain the Trinity, I’m left even more confused.
William Lane Craig of Reasonable Faith has a whole series of videos on the Trinity : if you want to know more check those out.
@@davidjanbaz7728 I just watched Williams video where he brings the analogy that God is comparable to Greek Mythological Creature Cerburus, the watchdog of Hades where he is has three heads (minds) that work to carry one body. Let's just say that if your best explanation of God is a mythical creature of the underworld, there is no explanation that will ever make sense to you except maybe your imagination, which is what God is for trinitarians.
@@jacobsamuelson3181not even close to what Trinitarians believe
@@jacobsamuelson3181 I see you missed his comparison to Greek though: you strawmaning of his example is typical Mormon ignorance !
Explain then who the individual is in Judges ch.13 : he is Called the Man of God; the Angel of the Lord and YHWH ( Jehovah himself) ?
And as Abram states to the King of Sodom YHWH ( Jehovah) is God Most High in Genesis 14: 22 .
Jesus as the Logos is this visible YHWH( Jehovah) in the Old Testament and is God Most High as Abram states.
But U and Mormonism have a Big Problem Genesis 19:24 has 2 YHWH's in that verse the invisible( Father) YHWH in Heaven and the visible Pre-incarnate Jesus YHWH on Earth that just talked to Abraham and Sarah with 2 angels who went to help Lot while Abraham was asking this visible YHWH: if he wouldn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there were 10 righteous people in the whole area.
So, How can Jesus be the Jehovah of the Jews who Jesus said was his Father: that. Makes Jesus his own Father that your Mormon prophets said had literal sex with Mary: just the same as humans do. Your Godhead and infinite regress of sexual parenting physical body gods only producing Spirit babies is an hilarious improvement over the trinity that you R clueless about!
Me too! I can’t make sense of it.
This was so awesome. you know your stuff Jacob.
Trinitarians say thousands of words, but at the same time don't say anything. I wonder if they hear themselves.
Interesting that Sola Escritura is PARAMOUNT unless when it comes to defining the Essence and Trinity and then they get to use Early Church Theologians from the 2nd the 3rd centuries to TRUMP the bible......hyprocrisy?.....maybe?
@@nomadbrad6391 Interesting. I hadn't considered that. I find it so simple to understand the Father and the Son as two separate beings. I like to define them as two different beings with the same divinity (which makes them ONE TRUE GOD). Why is it so hard for some people to untpderstand it!?
Lol exactly . They say a lot of nothing .
@@luizaraos.soteroluiz5327 you would have to define what you mean by divinity. That is a broad term.
You did a great job here. You were very calm and reasonable. Nothing against your opponent, but it strikes me that the deeper you get into talking about the trinity, the more tangled and confusing it sounds.
Great job Jacob! You do such a great job.
It never ceases to amaze me how confusing the Trinitarian logic is to follow. It keeps the general “saint” below clergy. But the LDS doctrine of the Godhead is SIMPLE to explain. My 5 year old can explain it to anyone and therefore, God is available to EVERYONE.
Watched it, you did a killer job my dude. Though I will also say that Andrew did a stand up job. its very, very difficult to discuss the issues with your own faith. And not many people in any faith ever do actively tackle those issues. Mormons are one of the few groups who have to regularly do so . . . so I think we have a bit of an edge going into these types of conversations.
I have never thought about that but you are right. The general Christian world doesn’t have the “opportunities” to defend their beliefs the way we do on the daily at times.
Tell 'em Jacob tell 'em! Woot woot! Mic drop in that opening statement!
The LDS guy is not only a much better debater, his argument was just better.
The evangelic sounded defensive, anxious, and a but unprepared. The LDS guy had his ducks in a row, made much more logical arguments and didn't seem like he was on the defense.
Regarding the issue of Nicaea creed. Just because they agreed didn’t mean they got it right. Peter and the apostles couldn’t even understand Jesus with him right next to him. They frequently didn’t have a clue what he was talking about. If they didn’t, how do we assume that men debating the interpretation of scripture got it right? They didn’t. God had to send a prophet to correct the interpretation that man got wrong after he left.
Not to mention that you can infer that not everyone agreed willingly when you have an impatient Emperor who was on a political campaign to solidify a extremely young and malleable religion as the apex to his empire.
Because the prophet can explain better than Jesus? That's the implication of your point.
@@valeried7210 Is your implication that Jesus in person visited those in Nicaea?
@@jacobsamuelson3181 no 🙂 he basically said the the apostles were even confused when Jesus was on earth, but the prophet has cleared things up better than that
This was fabulous!
Thank you for bearing testimony of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. ☀️💕
The fact that the trinity is incomprehensible is the strongest argument against it. God is not the author of confusion .
1 Corinthians 14:33 God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the Saints.
The doctrine of 3 distinct beings in one purpose is completely comprehensible. In fact it is so comprehensible that it moves us into action to join in that union of oneness as invited through commandments.
My favorite bit is when Andrew keeps saying "but the hypostasis!!!"
Further arguing that trinitarianism isn't a Greek invention while using a Greek invention to defend it... Not a good look for Andrew.
LDS here. In my opinion, Andrew did as good of a job of explaining his position as any trinitarian can, I guess. I have been trying to understand the position for a while now, and Andrew’s opening statement is one I did find helpful. I still wildly disagree for all the reasons Jacob mentioned, but Andrew deserves credit. That being said, the cross examination was bad for him IMO. He clearly does better when he has time to prepare a statement but not necessarily in real time. At least that’s what I saw here.
What part did Jacob didnt do so well?
@@jwjbros7926 Andrew is the one I felt didn’t do well on cross. Jacob crushed it from top to bottom, as always.
Good job Jacob, you inspire me to be a non-lazy learner. I’ve got a long way to go.
When Andrew Harrison tries to answer your logical questions and tries to explain his point of view, the only thing that comes to my mind is a phrase from the Princess Bride where Wesley says "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect"
It was good that Andrew came on. I was really trying to understand him explain the trinity, but i think he got confused and so again, I can't see the logic in it. It's great he gave it a go and came on to debate you, though, Jacob. :)
If they are are not distinct who was Gods Father referenced in Revelation 1:6
It's quite funny Jacob releasing videos after midnight: obviously he wants to be considered one of the midnight Mormons !
Lol
When family is your priority, why would he release it other times?
@@zionmama150 LOL 🤣as others have that Same priority but don't have to wait until after Midnight!
Who's that? I only know about Ward Radio 😉
@@davidjanbaz7728 you’re demanding him to be perfect and mocking him and arguing yet you claim to be saved? Weird…
As a trinitarian: Andrew did terrible. Just reading quotes without explanation doesn't prove anything. Terms should have been defined at the beginning of the debate.
.
After the first 10 minutes, my brain hurt.
As a former Catholic who became a Latter-day Saint later in life, from both when I was a kid raised in my former faith and now, I find pro-Trinity arguments to be nothing but recitations of the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. These are not their own words that they’re using and thus, almost seem like programmed phrases that robots and AI would cite. Also, they’re nothing but hype terms that do nothing but confuse both the believer and the investigator.
One of the most important and telling signs of intelligence is to be able to explain complex concepts in such a way that a child or an everyman with no prior knowledge can understand it. Latter-day Saints can do this in spades with the Godhead model compared to other Trinitarian-based Christians. I’d argue that because LDS Christians are always criticized and mocked and told things like “Mormons aren’t Christians”, “you guys are polytheistic”, etc., we’re often pushed to exercise our critical thinking skills to both explain our faith while also pushing back against our detractors. Jacob definitely did well in this debate.
Jacob, great job!
One of my favorite things in this world is to watch Trinitarians try and jump through hoops and talk in circles about such a Mickey Mouse kind of belief
In Daniel 7 Daniel has a vision of ‘One like the son of Man who comes with the clouds of heaven and approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. He was given ‘authority, glory, and sovereign power and sat at his right hand.’ This is what Jesus applied to Himself that the Jews accused him of blasphemy of. He was saying that He is going to sit at the right hand of the Father. Two beings Jesus coming into His presence and receiving his authority
Your closing statement was incredible. What a powerful way to end, with testimony and clarity 🙌🏼
Let's go Jacob!!!! This was a great debate. We need more of these.
Great job Jacob, so well done. Praying for you for the Trent Horn debate, he is so knowledgeable and the pinnicle of debaters - tough debate.
Pretty remarkable that only one side repeatedly calls to scripture to present their perspective.
Interesting that Sola Escritura is PARAMOUNT unless when it comes to defining the Essence and Trinity and then they get to use Early Church Theologians from the 2nd the 3rd centuries to TRUMP the bible......hyprocrisy?.....maybe?
Jacob used scriptures too. The difference is he didn’t just string together a bunch of them in a giant word salad without any explanation and expounding. Too many apologists tend to do this, and very little is actually shared or gained from it.
When Jacob discussed scriptures, he focused and expounded and actually had a discussion on the topic. It was so much more coherent, logical and easy to follow and engage in than, again, a giant scripture word salad.
This discussion is the ultimate example of why Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are needed in these days. They set the record straight, especially on the essentials that need to be set straight. The nonsense of trinity is a great example of a historical apostasy which obviously has occurred. God does not want you to be confused, and we are his children. Families are eternal in nature. What is even cooler than all of this, is you can go to God and ask him. If its important to you it's important to him. He answers prayers.
Andrew just confuses me
We need someone to ELI5 it for us.
I also think the Temptations said it best: "A Ball of Confusion."
Exactly Jacob!!! Thank you so much for another great debate!
If the Father does not have a body and is everywhere, what would the need be for the Holy Ghost?
Did God die when Christ died?
Great question
Seriously, this. And how could Christ be risen save the Father lifted Him?
And why does Christ say I have not ascended to my father? Who is Christ praying to in the garden of Gethsemane? Definitely 3 substances
@@Lola-sz8zu The Bible tells U : read it and stop asking this most ignorant of Mormon questions!
As Jesus can pray to his Father even being in the Trinity of One Being but not the same person.
👎NO 3 persons 1 substance!
What Mormon colleges don't teach Philosophy: so easy to understand the trinity when you know Philosophy!
I can see why David and His Churches are so angry at us and other churches. His God is dead. He stopped breathing. His Church is a hoax. He has no authority. He has no mouthpiece. All he has to put him to sleep at night is the teddy bear of the Bible that he has squeezed so tightly to its eyes has popped out. I would be upset too believing in a God that isn't real. Just know, there is a living God in Heaven, we can prove this by other ways then a 2000 year old book. He breathes today. His Word is his Church. He is relatable. He is personable. And He is not imaginary. He is not defined by 2nd century professors but is defined by revelation to prophets as well as the Holy Ghost which resides in every believer. You don't have to be angry anymore. There is hope.
Powerful closing. I was impressed by Andrew, as I am generally impressed by anyone that puts much effort in trying to understand God. Good job to both. It is obvious that our concept of God and the Trinitarian concept of God are irreconcilable with debate. Each concept is foreign to the other because the foundation is so different. It seems to me that Jacob is right that the Trinitarian view isn't based on the Bible but rather a rational created to make sense of biblical claims - which is understandable because the Bible text itself weaves in and out of the concept of separation (God, the Father, and Holy Ghost, most high, greater than, etc) and language like 'only living, one true, etc. That said, our view isn't based on the Bible either but rather, modern day revelation which helps unravel the issues of separation and oneness but even then, were left with some confusing language in the Old Testament regarding Jehovah which I think Jacob did a great job explaining. Point is, it's a really a confusing topic with only the Bible to rely on and make me grateful for my knowledge of modern revelation.
Appeals to Church Father's vs Appeals to Scripture
24:20 Jesus chose to claim inequality while in the flesh. My question is when did Jesus recant that claim? After His resurrection? From my reading in the Bible, never did Jesus recant that claim of inequality, not as a resurrected glorified exalted being, not as a bleeding corpse on the cross in the midst of mostly strangers? Why would Jesus willingly hide his trinitarian essence from the world and at the same time in John 17:3 state that to know who He is is one of the greatest and most important things one could do?
His inequality is respect to his human nature. So it wouldn't be recanted. It's important to know Jesus because He is the one to save you and he can only save because he is not like you.
@@valeried7210 Does Jesus still have a human nature?
@@jacobsamuelson3181 yes, Philippians 3:20-21; 1Timothy 2:5
@@valeried7210 Im confused on the scriptures you sent me, So Jesus is still 100% man because he has a body, and Jesus is still 100% God. While I believe this, It doesn't fit the Trinity. First you argue that Jesus the Son changed his nature bringing himself down to show men that He is real but inferior to His Father because of the Flesh, then you say this nature change is permanent and unchanging, meaning that Jesus because of flesh will always be inferior to the Father going against the trinitarian concept of equality and sharing the same substance. God the Father and the Son cannot be the same being if Phillipians and Timothy is true. Also read Corinthians 15:28. Where the Father subdues the Son and the Son subdues his followers and God will be all in all. This shows how the nature of God is different than the being of God.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 just so I'm clear on what you're trying to say - how does 1 Corinthians 15:28 show that the nature of God is different than the being of God, in your view?
Great presentation Jacob. Common sense and the clear truths of the restored gospel will always prevail over the philosophies of men mingled with scripture and the dogma of the creeds
I don't suppose you can make this sooner? I'll be in bed at that point XD
I learned a lot from this debate, for example "but you're not taking into asking the hypostatic union" is a get out of jail free card.
Seriously though i did learn from this, good job Jacob
At 1:06:52 Jacob should of brought up the evidence of people 600 years before Christ altering scripture. The reasons why Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Lehi who are all documented prophets upset about the changes perverting the gospel and throwing out the Atoning Christ of the first coming and throwing out him and his Father as separate beings. They combined them into one God and taught the conquering Christ of his second coming only. People were altering scripture throughout all time. Satan has been trying his very best throughout all the ages.
Where do you get that ignorance from?
@@davidjanbaz7728 Hey bro, how’s it going? I’ve been very fascinated that right off the bat I would be treated like this. I’m humble though and won’t deny some ignorance as I am a student and don’t know all things like God does. So I’ll try my best but hopefully you will not treat me or others online with hostility. It goes no where. So lately I’ve been fascinated with this topic and history. I’ve been studying scholars that have studied these same arguments since the beginning. I gotta go back to work but I’ll reply when I get home if you honestly interested in it and reading the scholarship.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Israel's Sin; Tree of Life;
Rod of Iron; Plain and
Precious Truths
Margaret Barker
I am not a scholar of Mormon texts and
traditions. I am a biblical scholar
specializing in the Old Testament, and
until some Mormon scholars made
contact with me a few years ago, I would
never have considered using Mormon
texts and traditions as part of my work.
Since that initial contact I have had many
good and fruitful exchanges and have
begun to look at these texts very closely. I
am still, however, very much an amateur
in this area. What I offer can only be the
reactions of an Old Testament scholar: are
the revelations to Joseph Smith
consistent with the situation in Jerusalem
in about 600 bce? Do the revelations to
Joseph Smith fit in that context, the reign
of King Zedekiah, who is mentioned at
the beginning of the First Book of Nephi,
which begins in the “first year of the reign
of Zedekiah”?
King Josiah's Reforms
In the eighteenth year of King Josiah’s
rule, according to the Bible, Josiah
ordered the High Priest Hilkiah to use tax
money to renovate the temple.
While Hilkiah was clearing the treasure
room of the Temple he discovered a scroll
described as "the book of the Law" or as
"the book of the law of Yahweh by the
hand of Moses".
Hilkiah brought this scroll to Josiah's
attention whereupon Josiah consulted
the prophetess Huldah, who assured him
that the evil foretold in the document for
nonobservance of its instructions, would
come, but not in his day; "because," she
said, "thine heart was tender and thou
didst humble thyself before the Lord."
Along with the destruction of the
instruments and emblems of the worship
of Baal, local sanctuaries, or High Places,
were destroyed, from Beer-sheba in the
south to Beth-el and the cities of Samaria
in the north.
Thus, Josiah sought to concentrate both
religious and political power in Jerusalem.
"Almost everything that Josiah swept
away can be matched in the religion of
the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"
* Margaret Barker, "What Did King Josiah
* Reform?" 527
Prophets speak out against some of
the reforms
"On the contrary, Jeremiah declared that
the reform had resulted only in an ever
more elaborate cultus without any real
return to the ancient paths; the demands
of Yahweh’s covenant having been lost
behind cultic externals.”
* John Bright, "“Jeremiah: A New
* Translation and Commentary”
“The prophet Jeremiah did not accept the
claim of antiquity and denounced the
book [Deuteronomy, or the book of the
Law] as a fraud manufactured by ‘the
deceitful pen of the scribes.”
* Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and
* the Making of the Hebrew Bible, 35.
Lehi's Message
"for he truly testified of their wickedness
and their abominations; and he testified
that the things which he saw and heard,
and also the things which he read in the
book, manifested plainly of the coming of
a Messiah, and also the redemption of
the world." (1 Ne. 1:8-19)
Both Lehi and later Nephi saw the de-
emphasis on the atoning mission of the
Messiah as an unfortunate result of
Josiah’s reforms.
The original temple tradition was that
Yahweh, the Lord, was the Son of the God
Most High, and was present on earth as
the Messiah. This means that the older
religion in Israel would have taught about
the Messiah. Thus finding Christ in the
Old Testament is exactly what we should
expect, though obscured by incorrect
reading of the scriptures. This is, I
suggest, one aspect of the restoration of
'the plain and precious things, which have
been taken away from them' (1 Ne.
13:40).
* Margaret Barker, "Joseph Smith and
* Preexilic Israelite Religion," 79.
* Barker, 76-77
Plain and Precious
There can also be no doubt that
teachings from the time of the first
temple have been lost, or rather, are now
to be found only in texts outside the
Bible.
* Barker, 77
Jewish tradition says that all the sacred
texts were lost when Jerusalem was
destroyed and that Ezra the scribe
restored them, inspired by God Most
High to dictate ninety-four books (2
Esdras 14). Only twenty-four of them
could be revealed; the rest were to be
kept secret. This story may refer to the
destruction of Jerusalem in 597 bce or to
the second destruction in 70 ce; either
way, it was recognized that the original
scriptures had been lost and that only a
fraction of those restored became the
public canon.
Justin Martyr, a Christian
writer in the middle of the second
century ce, claimed that the Jews had
been altering the scriptures
An Aramaic document from the same
period, known as the Scroll of Fasting,
lists the anniversaries of great events in
the second temple period as days on
which it was forbidden to fast. On the
third of Tishri it was forbidden to fast
because “the memory of the documents
was removed” or “the memory was
removed from the documents.” Some
records had been destroyed, and this was
a cause for celebration. It would be
interesting to know what these were!
The Book of 1 Enoch records that lying
words had been written, perverting the
eternal covenant. Sinners had altered the
truth as they made copies, made
fabrications, and written books in their
own name (1 Enoch 98:14-99:2; 104:10-
11).
The Qur’an also tells of people who had
altered the meaning of texts (2:75), had
composed texts they claimed as scripture
(2:79), and had accepted only part of the
sacred text (2:85). One passage describes
how some of the people of the Book
threw it away and chose instead to follow
evil teaching from Babylon (2:101-2). This
could easily be describing the people
who returned from Babylon and built the
second temple, people whom Enoch
called the apostate generation. There are
many similar references in the Qur’an, for
example, to people who look for
allegorical and hidden meanings rather
than the plain meaning of the text (3:7)
and who twist the words of scripture
(4:46). The Qur’an also mentions the Book
of Abraham and the Book of Moses,
described as “the Books of the earliest
(Revelation)” (53:36-37; 87:18-19). These
were prophecies in Arabia in the seventh
century ce
They resonate with the words of Nephi
about “plain and precious things taken
away from the book” (1 Nephi 13:28), as
well as Joseph Smith’s revelation of texts
called the Book of Moses and the Book of
Abraham
* Barker, 78
Melchizedek Priesthood
Lehi is not a descendent of Aaron and
does not hold the Aaronic priesthood.
The Book of Mormon claims access to the
Melchizedek priesthood.
"in the days of Melchizedek, who was
also a high priest after this same order
which I have spoken..."
"But Melchizedek having exercised
mighty faith and received the office of
the high priesthood according to the holy
order of God..." (Alma 13: 14, 18)
In 600 bce, the religion of Abraham was
not just a distant memory. This suggests
that the Melchizedek priesthood also
survived until the time of Josiah, who was
associated with the monarchy, as Psalm
110 makes clear. It was superseded in
Jerusalem by the Aaronic priesthood very
much later than we often suppose. It is
likely that Aaron’s family came to
prominence in Jerusalem only when
Moses did, as a result of King Josiah’s
changes around 600 bce.
* Barker, 80
Fleeing Prophet
Jeremiah (before Lehi) and Ezekiel (5
years after Lehi's call) were both
persecuted. So was Lehi:
"And when the Jews heard these things
they were angry with him; yea, even as
with the prophets of old, whom they had
cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they
also sought his life, that they might take
it away." (1 Ne. 1:20)
“Urijah had prophesied against Jerusalem,
thus infuriating the king and his officials.
Fearing for his life, Urijah fled to Egypt.
He was pursued by a posse of the king
headed by Elnatan and was captured and
returned to Jerusalem, where he was
executed and disrespectfully cast into a
grave.”
* Aaron Schade “The Kingdom of Judah:
* Politics, Prophets and Scribes in the
* Late Preexilic Period,”
Wonderfully done. Always learning something new.
One of the rules of grammer that Harrison violated over and over is that you cannot use a word to define itself. Numerous times he resorted to using the word Trinity to define the Trinity.
This was so good! I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Who was managing the affairs of the Universe while Jesus was on the cross? Who was he talking to when he said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do"? Was he casting his voice to heaven when he heard the voice of the Father say, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" If so, why? "19 And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved." Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. #restoration
Trying to describe god with the Trinity unfortunately sounds like describing someone with a personality disorder who has multiple personalities but is one person. In the scriptures Christ referring to the father isn’t referring to an actual father but himself..it just doesn’t compute. It seems kinda like a two face character or Jekyll and Hyde type person.
1. In John 14:28, Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I.” For many, this statement seems obvious: Jesus is not God. But is this really what our Lord was saying?
John 14:28 seems to be emphasizing the humanity of Christ. Thus, because Jesus is fully man, it would be appropriate to say the Father would be greater than the Son. The entire verse reads: “You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
Jesus was emphasizing here and in previous verses his impending death, resurrection, and departure from the apostles. This would apply to his humanity most particularly. Thus, the same Jesus who can say, “I and the Father are one” in John 10:30-as God-can say, “The Father is greater than I” in John 14:28-as man.
Thus when he says, the Father is greater than I, he does not mean I, as Son of God, but as Son of man, for in this way he is not only inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit, but even to the angels: “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:9). Again, in some things he was subject to human beings, as his parents (Luke 2:51). Consequently, he is inferior to the Father because of his human nature, but equal because of his divine nature.
2. It’s true John 17:3 says the Father is the only true God. But notice this verse doesn’t say that only the Father is true God. A trinitarian can affirm the first statement, but not the second. Trinitarians say the Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, and the Holy Spirit is the only true God. All three Persons are the one, true God.
For example, the Father is generally called ho theos (“the God”). The Son is usually ho kurios (“the Lord”). The Third Person of the Trinity is spoken of as to pneuma (“the Spirit”) or to pneuma to hagion (“the Holy Spirit”).
Although the three Persons of the Trinity are often distinguished in the New Testament by these titles, none of these names is the exclusive possession of any particular Person.
3. Whom did Jesus pray to?
He wasn’t praying to himself. He was praying to his Father.
People do talk to themselves from time to time, but this is not what Jesus was doing.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each God, but they are distinct, divine persons.
Consequently, it was natural for Jesus as one divine person to speak to his Father as another divine person-at least after Jesus became incarnate as a man and took on human modes of communication.
By praying, he was not giving the Father information that the Father did not already have. The same is true of us when we pray, as Jesus pointed out (Matt. 6:8). Prayer is not about giving God information, but about relating to him in a way suited to human nature. Having taken on human nature, it was natural for Jesus to relate to God in this manner. In doing so, he also set an example for us.
4. Was Jesus’ Human Nature Created?
The human nature that Jesus took on, since it is finite - was created. There was a time when it did not exist, and then there was a time when it did. The Father and the Holy Spirit cannot be said to be God and human, since they did not become incarnate as did Jesus.
This is great. I'm concerned that the Trinity position cannot provide any logical explanation for who God is. When I pray to go I feel and see a being of glory that is tangible and understandable.
As a Trinitarian, I give Andrew a 2 out of 5. He got a few good points in, but he needs to stop anticipating Jacob's argument and just answer questions straightforwardly in the rebuttal. Jacob would ask a question about Jesus' divine nature and he'd reply about Jesus's human nature and vice versa. Also, he got started on explaining the substance that the Father and Son share by saying it is eternal and immaterial, but I'm not sure why he couldn't have defined it further. He also needs to say "wait, let me finish" if he truly didn't finish before Jacob bulldozed ahead because he trailed off even slightly. But he didn't say anything heretical that I could tell, so that's good. Also I'm not even sure I'd in the affirmative for this question because the Father isn't in a hypostatic union. I would have asked it to be rephrased to cause less confusion. If LDS are looking to understand the Trinity, this debate isn't going to help you understand what we believe.
What were the good points that Andrew brought up ?
@@allieooop3923 agree with all of that. Sounds like you should be a debater. 🙂
@@jwjbros7926 that Yahweh is called the most high God in the OT. That Jacob was ignoring the hypostatic union, even though Andrew didn't spell out clearly how Jacob was acting as if the natures of Jesus are mixed.
@valeried7210
I agree that Jacob should add more clarity, and I also thought it was kind of a weak explanation.
Which YHWH is the most high God is the point that Jacob was pointing out. In the OT, it is difficult sometimes to pinpoint which one.
Jesus in the NT never claims to be the Father or first YHWH. He was claiming to be the second YHWH( Son of Man). Jesus corrected the Jews many times that he is not the Father/YHWH which is the most high God.
The Jews during the NT believes in two powers which consist of two Gods and two beings attested by Michael Heiser.
We have no issue if Jesus is claiming to be the most high as a Perfect Agent representation of the Father or Most High God in a divine investiture sense.
@jwjbros7926 there can only be one YHWH. That is what the name indicates. Andrew could have pressed that more. I think it is orthodox to say YHWH is the substance of God and also each of the 3 persons can take the name YHWH because the one God has a threeness.
To be clear, "The Trinity is a mystery which cannot be comprehended by human reason but is understood only through faith and is best confessed in the words of the Athanasian creed which states that we worship one God in trinity and trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance, that we are compelled by the Christian truth to confess that each distinct person is God and Lord, and that the deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is One, equal in glory and coequal in majesty."
Clear as mud.
You go Jake!!
Call the cops because Jacob just committed murder.
Solid work, Jacob. Time to move up to a bigger weight class…
If they’d stayed “consist” they wouldn’t have had a council. 🤷🏼♀️
No matter how i try to understand the doctrine of trinity it will only evade polytheism while the existence of the Father and Son is a deception
**I think** Jacob is lying or he made a mistake that seems impossible. I'm a little confused. 41:30 Jacob mentioned no godhead in old testament. Says ..."ancient people didn't have a 3 person godhead.......for either of us, we are in the same position.... The people didn't understand, and Jesus came to clarify" I started reading the BOM a couple months ago.....
Something that stuck out right away, was very specific talk of Jesus by name, baptism, Christs sacrifice.....and the godhead/Trinity
Mosiah 15:1-5
Mosiah 16:15
2 nephi 31 is lit up in my book like a Christmas tree.
2 nephi 31:21 absolutely teaches godhead/Trinity whatever name someone wants to put on it(doesn't matter to me).
I'm pretty sure it's in other places too, just don't have them marked.
I was thinking Jacob destroyed him. Now I'm questioning what I can trust that he's said. And, how could he make that mistake, was it on purpose? His face and body language was a little different during that conversation. Is he dishonest? Did he realize he made the mistake and kept rolling with it anyways?
That is a good point, I was thinking the same, since Adam had the knowledge of God the Father and God the Son. And all those scripture you cited of the BOM, the other guy didn’t catch him on that
I’m going to be honest, Andrew’s description make Jesus sound like a meat puppet embodied by the word of god and not any kind of actual being
I think the debate should be on... What is the true definition of substance? They keep using the word substance. What does it truly mean? Because are we not a form of substance from God as well? So of course Jesus would be
I can't remember who said this, but it would have been a nail in the coffin in the debate to ask.
If I go to heaven to meet God, and he reveals himself to me who will I meet?
Is it the Father or the Son or the Holy Ghost?
In my opinion, the answer for LDS is this is where the Kingdoms of Glory come to play. Heaven isn't just black and white. Each member of the Godhead will reign over its respective kingdom. For those who have accepted only the Holy Ghost as their God will receive the Telestial Kingdom. For those that accept the Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ will receive the terrestrial kingdom and for those who accept The Holy Ghost Jesus and the Father will receive the Celestial Kindgom. Each member of the God head will be God to that individual who accepts them as such.
Part of the reason this is such a tricky debate is because LDS believe that the Bible has errors. They believe that the Old Testament can be flawed by their “understandings” at the time they were written. If this debate were between a unitarian and a trinitarian it would have gone somewhere because they would both hold the belief of the Bible being inerrant.
In the same way I believe in biblical cosmology I believe that the the father and the son are Yahweh, as the Old Testament is clear on and is without error.
Down with the pagan god, The One - god of the Greek philosophers, it had no body, parts or passions. The self-existing singularity, wholey other from anything that exists. A separate species., unchanging, thus incapable of passion. The Biblical God was seen in human form in Ezekiel, a finger wrote the Law of Moses, legs that walked in Eden, a nose that smelled offerings, loved Jacob, hated Esau, wroth with Sodam, jealous with Israel, repented with Nineveh. Why pray to the new Greek God who cannot feel? Having no sympathy for our struggles, no disappointed in our failures, no joy in our success. How could prayer change a mind that cannot change?
I LOVE that he quotes Origen who his church tortured for his heretical beliefs and burned most of his writing! 😂
"How can matter be made out of non-matter?" That was a golden question, but it's a nothing burger to them because ultimately they don't believe that we come from God in the sense that we do and I'll explain.
First let me play devil's advocate here. I don't think Andrew is saying that God is immaterial. I think what he means to say is that God is of a type of matter, we'll call it divine matter, which has the unique characteristic of never having been created. In contrast, the creation (which includes us) is completely of a different type of matter that was created, we'll call it creation-matter.
In other words, God is of a different substance than the creation. I know he contradicts himself at times, but I got what he wanted to say. He is saying that God's substance is whatever that thing is that was not created. Again, I am gonna call it divine matter for simplicity although I know he would refrain from using the term matter altogether to describe the substance of God. So then, he is saying that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all 3 of that same substance or divine matter and in fact they are that same substance or divine matter, not part of it, but all of it, which is why they are one and there is no cutoff. However, Jesus took on a body which was made of creation-matter and he rose from the grave with a glorified body, which I suppose he would say is still creation-matter. So basically the substance of Jesus is separate from his body, and his body is just an appendage to his substance.
We humans however along with the rest of the creation are made up of creation-matter or creation substance and we have no divine matter or substance in us at all and that's what makes God God and human human.
Again it's that same unrelenting effort to separate God from humans. By imposing this non-created substance on God and imposing a created substance on man, they guarantee that you can never be like God, that you are of a different species. To them it's like we are hoping that a dog will become a lion one day and that's not even a fair analogy, because dogs and lions still have the same atoms in them, just rearranged differently down to their DNA. God and humans however, not even the same type of matter. Pastor Jeff from Hello Saints calls it "mortals". He said that when Adam and Eve were first placed in the garden of Eden they were still mortals, because that's just what they are even though they were in their highest possible state and could not die. They were perfect mortals. So consequently that's all you can aspire to become, a mortal like Adam and Eve were before sin entered the world. To them, that's our nature and our limit.
Meanwhile, the Bible says that we are the offspring of God.
I was also thinking the same thing, but if that were the issue, then the debate would be different, and the Trinity wouldn't be so far off from what we believe. We would instead be arguing that all things have a portion or nature that is sourced from the "uncreated", this thing we call "intelligence", and that it wasn't a quality reserved only for God. It seems, in the Trinitarian view, that the "uncreated" substance of which God is comprised is pre-supposed to be indivisible, and therefore divine substance cannot form more than one being. This seems to run into a particularly difficult problem, because if we consider this indivisible, uncreated substance to also be omnipotent, then it is limited as to its ability to divide itself, and therefore cannot be omnipotent. The more ineffable qualities are loaded onto the Trinitarian God, the more incoherent it seems to become.
If all the philosophical, latin jargon of "hypostasis" was meant to do was show that the Father and Son were made out of the same type of stuff, I think we'd agree, instead they use the idea to say they are made out of the same stuff. No wonder modalism became an idea. You'd do anything to sort that mess out.
@allieooop3923 But we are not united, for we have not chosen to be so, by mastering our flesh as Christ did, and submitting ourselves to the atonement we can become "one in spirit" with the Father and the Son and become fully realized heirs of exaltation whereas beforehand it only existed as potential. Christ did not uniquely "defy human nature" in his life, he defined it. He lived the kind of life that we should all be living, in loving service to others for the glory of the Father.
@@allieooop3923 It actually astounds me that those who are "Sola scriptura" don't take the Bible and Jesus seriously when He refers to God as Father and to those around as Brethren and Sons (Offspring) of God. You would think that it should be the other way around, where they take everything literal and we take a Trinitarian approach. It's rather odd to me why people have this great of an inferiority complex that they would kill their Savior and Diminish his word to meaning nothing.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 its strange that you would believe/ imbrace the lie of the haSatan in promising you to be like God as this is what haSatan corrupted Adam and Eve into disobedience of God's 1 restriction.
@allieooop3923 Thank you for the correction about defy vs deify. Flesh is not a different species from spirit. The flesh has different desires that we as spirits must bridle to reach our fullest potential as spirits with resurrected, perfected, and glorified bodies, just as Jesus and the Father.
Jacob please use the Greek when referring to one in the verses. It's simple it's written in neuter meaning one in purpose or unity. If they wanted it to mean one as in substance they would of written it in masculine. It ends the debate completely to a large extent. For example John 10:30 that means the adjective “one” isn't in masculine (εἷς), but it is neuter (ἕν). What’s the significance of it being neuter?
this means you couldn’t argue from this verse that the Father and the Son are one person.
Andrew: “Christianity was never influence by Greek or Hellenistic philosophy”
Andrew’s answer for literally everything: “The hypostatic union” or “logos”
It’s hard to argue about what the Old Testament means when you reject the context it was written in simply because the context is not written in the text itself.
At 25:00 "Presupposing a seperate unity of Gods into the text" Bro. It's not a presupposition. It's plainly stated. Which is more likely, that the nature of God is clearly stated in scripture and can be clearly articulated even by children? Or that the nature of God is muddled in scripture and requires mental gymnastics to even begin to articulate, and in the end require a person to shrug their shoulders and say "It's a mystery!"
@1:07:00 seems odd you never pointed out the pattern that Jesus had to constantly point out that there was someone more powerful than He that they should seek to worship. The Jews clearly werent familair with this concept and modern _believers_ have regressed into their error.
There is Spirit and there is Earth !!! YAH substance is SPIRIT HE IS DIVINE HOLY SPIRIT and we as Humans are of Earth substance.
The word… as in the one who comes to deliver the words of God the Father, the word is the spokesperson for God the Father
The spokesperson is a person in his own right that the Father sent to earth to speak on his behalf as his spokesperson
The spokesperson is the literal son of the Father, he is Yahweh the firstborn, he was with the Father when all of the “in the beginning” events were taking place
sheez as much as I love Catholicism I could never be one because this mystery of the trinity is just so stupid and since I didn’t grow up with it and this is considered so central to their entire system of belief and practice I could never be Catholic….lol
hey jacob, have you read trent horn's "20 answers mormonism?" or seen his youtube "3 reasons i'm not a mormon?" he invites a debate with an apologist from church, you or your friend that comes on (that sounds like a seminary teacher) should debate him...
his book was very non "anti" pretty friendly approach and gives solid arguments...i'd be down for a civil debate with a good ctholic apoloigist
The mental gymnastics andrew is doing to come to the conclusion that god is one is giving me a headache haha whats so hard about entertaining the idea that god and jesus may be separate? Ive looked into the trinitarian view and it does not add up to what the scriptures say.
17:55 All the Christians I have heard have said that John 17:21-2 is referring to One in Spirit, which God can maintain in PERFECT unity and the church cannot (yet). I have never heard the 'oneness of preaching' that you speak of.
Andrew 1:16 yr stumbling in words the simple very truthful answer Is YAH IS SPIRIT !!!
Simple question, where dos it say anywhere in the Bible that there are three Gods, you know, not one God but three Gods?
Another simple question, where does it say anywhere in the Bible that God has a body of flesh and bone a tangible as man’s?
1:17:37 its like he does not want to answer jacobs question and it is hard for me to understand either Andrew is avoiding the question or jacob is right?
wich jacob is right obviously!
Talking about the right hand of god refers to someone "looking" in heaven. That's the context. To refer to that as an abstraction is cope and a hilarious stretch as to be absurd, given its context. If it was an abstraction he would more likely say "I only saw Jesus."
Agree!
At least hes civil
Jacob, I wish in your opening you had pointed out that the Holy Spirit testifies of truth, and had given hope that anyone listening can hear the spirit speak peace to their soul testifying to the truth of what you say. The spirit of God is not the spirit of confusion.
Ye are free to judge, but be careful how you judge.
THESE EVANGELICALS ARE FULL OF EMPTY WORDS! 😊
How is God the father made of immaterial substance & Christ has a material body and share the same substance & essence?
its funny that every time jacob says something about god or anything reffering to it andrew cant just say yes to jacob is it really that hard to say yes or no? it is not. good job for both speakers.
How can I be friends with Marlon?
So, what happened to the body of Christ after he resurrected? It seems to me His body was of great importance. God the Father must also have an immortal body in that the Father and Son are one in purpose. They are not in the same body.
Jesus is quoted in John 4:24 as saying "God is Spirit". To answer the question "what is God" or "what is this divine substance" the answer is provided by Christ Himself. The "substance" that God is . . . is Spirit. THAT is God's "substance". So in the Trinitarian model that Jacob had up on the screen at the 1:14:00 minute mark, the center where it says "God" should also say "is Spirit". Because prior to Christ's incarnation (as YHWH) He was also Spirit, just like the Father was/is Spirit. The distinction between the Father and Son is that the Father is always Spirit while the Son took upon Himself the nature of Man (the human nature or human being) and thus the Hypostatic nature of Christ who is both God (being) and Man (being). Two natures in 1 Person.
Hey. Way after the fact here, but I think "spirit" even needs to be defined? Those 2-4th century Christians trained under Aristotleanism and Neoplatonism felt to define "pneuma" (spirit in Greek) which means wind or breath (as in breath of life), as an ethreal entity in that it has no matter and therefore no parts, hence the modern Christian view of the substance of God. But I'm not sure that is what was originally meant. This seems to be Greek philosophy mingled with Christianity. Jesus is saying: "God is life" if you're staying true to "pneuma" in the text. (See the usage of "breath" and "spirit" in the Genesis account. Using Stong's Concordance is best for this analysis which notes the connection between the usage of "pneuma" even as used in John 4:24 to "ruach" in Genesis 7:22 and Gen. 2:7.).
"Our version of God isn't inspired by Greek philosophy!"
*proceeds to use only Greek words from Greek philosophy to describe his version of God*
“His human nature did come into existence” = a verbose way of saying “he was created”
So the counter explanation of the trinity is that, jesus is another god?
Saying the word took on flesh makes Jesus sound like an inanimate thing. A robot with no will. a mechanism.
Jacob your debating someone who hasn't studied the prophecies and visions of Joseph smith and the book of mormon like you have and I feel sorry for your aponnant because you have the fullness of the gospel also there is so much extra in our religion
This essence and substance concept is hard to follow. I am made of the same substance you are, Jacob. I am skin, meat, blood, and bones, just like you. But that doesn't make us the same being. With the Father and Son being the same substance and/or essence or stuff, how does it make them the same being? Do they share a nervous system? Do they share a circulatory system?
Also matter is described by science as uncreated and eternal. As matter cannot be destroyed and cannot be created, how can matter not have the capacity to be divine?
@@ChristianRescue go to Google and search: "Can matter be destroyed?"
@@ChristianRescueI think your thinking of a Metallica song.
What hypostatic union.? False and unbiblical. Thd Word became a flesh man. That's who he is. Flesh and bone. Lk24,:39 Jn1,:14 Hb2:14 Heb10:5. ,God is never a trinity in SS. It never once means 3 persons. God is always ONE person.in SS. God is one. Mk12:29 Rom 3:30 Stop injecting your fase idea of substance. Substance is not found on these passages. Trinity is false . Why accept Nicea or any fallible fabricated council. ? God no.where tells us to believe in a trinity.