Bless you for making these videos. It's honestly shocking how many believers have subscribed themselves to the extrabiblical doctrine of the Trinity when the Bible is very plain about there being One God and One Mediator. More people need to see this!
Refreshing! It all comes back to the original meaning of a word. When the original meaning becomes "fuzzy" and confusing, its significance is lost and therefore everything built upon that confusion leads us astray and wandering into mystery. The wisdom of this world is not something we want to add to the wisdom of God. Allow God to speak via the entire context of his word and clarity will begin to reveal itself. I love the biblical unitarian approach because it is clear, simple, easy to ascertain, and gives comfort and certainty to an otherwise confusing theological world constructed by the wisdom of men.
So personable, and friendly! It inspires my trust when you enlist me as an equal, and NOT try to explain to me (like many Tri-un's do) that I can't understand something and need to follow blindly as they lead us into perdition. THANK YOU for giving me so many other references.
+GodsAndGeneralsBand You're likely speaking of the "Memra" of the Aramaic Targums... And there are even trinitarians who recognized this as a dead end for them. The "Memra" is the equivalent of "Word," as a metonym for YHWH. This was inserted into the Targums like the Hebrew "Adonai" to keep from saying the name of YHWH. But it is not another person, it's just a metonym---a periphrasis. It's not a 1:1 name, but anthropomorphic most often as the OT Scriptures often uses anthropomorphism's such as "hand, feet" of YHWH. Some may have erroneously thought it to be a person, but it is not... that would be, well idolatry to make it another person.
No Abdel, Muslims believe that Jesus is only a prophet who never died on the cross. Biblical Unitarians believe that Jesus is more than a prophet, but not God the father. He is still referred to as Lord. And they do believe that he died on the cross for the sins of humanity. You could say the beliefs are more similar to Muslims than Trinitarian beliefs, but definitely not the same as Islam.
@@Sars-jy6vr Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, a messenger, a servant, and the Messiah. Muslims just don't believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus sadly.
YES! "One," as used in the Hebrew, is NOT a, "Compound One," as the trinitarians is forced to espouse! The Title, "GOD," even as.... "ELOHIM," JEHOVAH, and, YAHWEH," is Always Singular in It's "Sense." ELOHIM, because of this pagan doctrine---is, of course, ALWAYS misrepresented, which just goes to illustrate the degree of Deception on their minds. So Sad! It's all RIGHT THERE in Scripture. Blind eyes are difficult to Open! Be blessed. Seek Wisdom.
The argument that "echad" carries no hint of "plurality" is immaterial to the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity, since the doctrine of the Trinity is not about "plurality." It is about unity. The doctrine of the Trinity does not state that there are three gods or that there are three "people" (as you have stated) in the Godhead. The word "echad" does carry the meaning of "unity" and "uniqueness" (as does the English word "one" and the Greek word "heis). In your discussion of the meaning of "one" (echad) you carefully choose out of the 960 occurrences the ones that indicate "singleness," although, I would dispute that in the instance where the Bible speaks of "one law," as the one law is made up of many commandments and ordinances. You ignore any of those occurrence that might have a different sense. In Genesis 2:24, it speaks of the husband and wife becoming “one flesh.” This is clearly not talking about a numerical “one” but rather a “oneness” or “unity.” Using the Shema of the Old Testament as proof against the doctrine of the Trinity is neither valid nor convincing. All Trintarians believe that the Lord our God is one and that there is one God.
dooglitas Honest question here from a fellow believer. Up front, I agree with the Biblical Unitarian concept of God. But I don't like to see the question of how to construct Jeshua's relationship to "the Father" divide us. My question is this: If Trinitarians truly believe "God is One" then why the need for the concept of the "Godhead". A single God implies that "entity" is complete as is. I used to not question the doctrine of the Trinity, but the more I learned about how it developed and then read the Bible line by line with the question in mind whether it was right, it seems pretty clear Jeshua is the Son of God, not God in the flesh. But I've also come to realize that by saying that we are not saying that Jeshua is then simply a prophet or "just a good man". He is a new creation, the only Son of God with all the power and authority of God, because God willed it. IMO, it does t make him God, as the source of that power is God. I think that's the heart of what's been debated for centuries. But when you really think about how the Biblical Unitarian view would change Christianity, it actually wouldn't change it much. Jeshua still is our spiritual Lord, who we can pray to as well as the Father. It actually magnifies his sacrifice on the cross and his perfect example of bending our wills to the Father. And it helps explain many conflicting and confusing events and dialogue in the Bible. But going back to the point of this video and your argument that Trinitarians believe the "echad" of the Bible doesn't imply a plurality of persons doesn't agree in practice. Most Trinitarians I speak with and read about try to argue that the word in Hebrew implies a plurality, thus justifying more than one person, and each person is God. So again, I am not sure how you can reconcile the argument that Trinitarians believe in the singular when the very concept needs a plurality, or why there is even the need for a "Godhead" concept.
I have watched a few of your excellent videos, and as an Anglican I must say you have given me some serious food for thought.
Bless you for making these videos. It's honestly shocking how many believers have subscribed themselves to the extrabiblical doctrine of the Trinity when the Bible is very plain about there being One God and One Mediator. More people need to see this!
Refreshing! It all comes back to the original meaning of a word. When the original meaning becomes "fuzzy" and confusing, its significance is lost and therefore everything built upon that confusion leads us astray and wandering into mystery. The wisdom of this world is not something we want to add to the wisdom of God. Allow God to speak via the entire context of his word and clarity will begin to reveal itself. I love the biblical unitarian approach because it is clear, simple, easy to ascertain, and gives comfort and certainty to an otherwise confusing theological world constructed by the wisdom of men.
So personable, and friendly! It inspires my trust when you enlist me as an equal, and NOT try to explain to me (like many Tri-un's do) that I can't understand something and need to follow blindly as they lead us into perdition. THANK YOU for giving me so many other references.
I'm with your teaching...hope to communicate with you...this is what I'm trying to teach with my Filipino brothers
great logic
Why Jehovah is in the bible if his name is yehowah
+GodsAndGeneralsBand
You're likely speaking of the "Memra" of the Aramaic Targums... And there are even trinitarians who recognized this as a dead end for them. The "Memra" is the equivalent of "Word," as a metonym for YHWH. This was inserted into the Targums like the Hebrew "Adonai" to keep from saying the name of YHWH. But it is not another person, it's just a metonym---a periphrasis. It's not a 1:1 name, but anthropomorphic most often as the OT Scriptures often uses anthropomorphism's such as "hand, feet" of YHWH. Some may have erroneously thought it to be a person, but it is not... that would be, well idolatry to make it another person.
You have the same beliefs about Jesus as Muslims have. Why is there not much communication between Unitarians and Muslims?
No Abdel, Muslims believe that Jesus is only a prophet who never died on the cross. Biblical Unitarians believe that Jesus is more than a prophet, but not God the father. He is still referred to as Lord. And they do believe that he died on the cross for the sins of humanity. You could say the beliefs are more similar to Muslims than Trinitarian beliefs, but definitely not the same as Islam.
@@Sars-jy6vr Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, a messenger, a servant, and the Messiah. Muslims just don't believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus sadly.
YES! "One," as used in the Hebrew, is NOT a, "Compound One," as
the trinitarians is forced to espouse! The Title, "GOD," even as....
"ELOHIM," JEHOVAH, and, YAHWEH," is Always Singular in
It's "Sense."
ELOHIM, because of this pagan doctrine---is, of course,
ALWAYS misrepresented, which just goes to illustrate the degree
of Deception on their minds.
So Sad! It's all RIGHT THERE in Scripture. Blind eyes are
difficult to Open!
Be blessed.
Seek Wisdom.
The argument that "echad" carries no hint of "plurality" is immaterial to the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity, since the doctrine of the Trinity is not about "plurality." It is about unity. The doctrine of the Trinity does not state that there are three gods or that there are three "people" (as you have stated) in the Godhead. The word "echad" does carry the meaning of "unity" and "uniqueness" (as does the English word "one" and the Greek word "heis). In your discussion of the meaning of "one" (echad) you carefully choose out of the 960 occurrences the ones that indicate "singleness," although, I would dispute that in the instance where the Bible speaks of "one law," as the one law is made up of many commandments and ordinances. You ignore any of those occurrence that might have a different sense. In Genesis 2:24, it speaks of the husband and wife becoming “one flesh.” This is clearly not talking about a numerical “one” but rather a “oneness” or “unity.” Using the Shema of the Old Testament as proof against the doctrine of the Trinity is neither valid nor convincing. All Trintarians believe that the Lord our God is one and that there is one God.
dooglitas Honest question here from a fellow believer. Up front, I agree with the Biblical Unitarian concept of God. But I don't like to see the question of how to construct Jeshua's relationship to "the Father" divide us. My question is this: If Trinitarians truly believe "God is One" then why the need for the concept of the "Godhead". A single God implies that "entity" is complete as is.
I used to not question the doctrine of the Trinity, but the more I learned about how it developed and then read the Bible line by line with the question in mind whether it was right, it seems pretty clear Jeshua is the Son of God, not God in the flesh. But I've also come to realize that by saying that we are not saying that Jeshua is then simply a prophet or "just a good man". He is a new creation, the only Son of God with all the power and authority of God, because God willed it. IMO, it does t make him God, as the source of that power is God. I think that's the heart of what's been debated for centuries. But when you really think about how the Biblical Unitarian view would change Christianity, it actually wouldn't change it much. Jeshua still is our spiritual Lord, who we can pray to as well as the Father. It actually magnifies his sacrifice on the cross and his perfect example of bending our wills to the Father. And it helps explain many conflicting and confusing events and dialogue in the Bible.
But going back to the point of this video and your argument that Trinitarians believe the "echad" of the Bible doesn't imply a plurality of persons doesn't agree in practice. Most Trinitarians I speak with and read about try to argue that the word in Hebrew implies a plurality, thus justifying more than one person, and each person is God. So again, I am not sure how you can reconcile the argument that Trinitarians believe in the singular when the very concept needs a plurality, or why there is even the need for a "Godhead" concept.