@@dvdcrndll Nibley, Peterson, muhlestein, and others too. Keep up the presuppositional apologetics with titles using words like logic and facts. Those always age so well bud.
It's unfortunate that the hierarchy of the Mormon organization. Because that is what it is. Knowingly and consciously worship Lucifer. This is a FACT. And no, YESHUA HAMASHIACH is NOT brothers with Lucifer. This is coming from someone who was raised LDS and is from Salt Lake City Utah.
You are calling him a scholar but all he did in this video was misrepresent a Protestant theologian who wouldn’t agree at all with the conclusions he drew from his lesson.
Really good video! I went through a phase watching Jeff Durbin and it rocked my faith. The trinity is something that even when I was close to becoming Christian I could never get my head round. It felt like a man made doctrine and not what the Bible said and them selecting a few passages to fit in with it!
I agree the trinity is a contradicting statement/doctrine. Much of what they teach makes sense and seems biblical but to make the trinity as it is defined by Jeff as their foundation is a demonstration of how doctrines become corrupt when men try to define Gods ways.
The concept of the Trinity would be contradictory IF the words person and being meant the same thing. Since those words do not have the same definition, the Trinity is not a contradiction albeit a paradox. God is much too big for man to understand. God is a mystery. LDS cannot understand the genealogy of the gods. The hymn, “if you could hie to kolob,” highlights that mystery. There is no first god in LDS theology. It is a mystery. The Trinity lines up with the Bible, but the genealogy of the gods does not. There is only one God. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Ghost is God. The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the Father.
@@bryanpratt5850 the Athanasian Creed separates God but most people don’t see the wording how the creed separates God and the next sentence Join him back together as three…. It’s confusion on a scale that can’t be measured. I really don’t think God intended to make it as confusing as Trinitarians make it. John 17:3 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. The use of the word AND clears it all up while the Athanasian Creed planning confuses the issue. This is Man Made confusion whereas God is way more simple than that. I just can’t accept a Triune God, it’s exponential confusion. It’s really as simple as this: D&C 130:22 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
Someone in early LDS church history, I don’t remember who, made the very poignant point that the difference between Latter-Day Saints and other Christians is that we actually believe the Bible and take it at its word, while other Christians do not. I think this is best shown with our difference in belief concerning the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer: I understand why it sounds shocking for most Christians to hear that we believe Jesus and Lucifer were once brothers. But take a moment to slow down and actually think about it. While we do believe that Jesus and Lucifer were once brothers as Lucifer was once an angel. This is only because they are both sons of God. Who is the father of the angels if not The Father? But I must note that just because Jesus and Lucifer were siblings doesn’t mean they’re at all chummy with each other. It has no bearing on their respective roles as advocate and adversary. The same cannot be said if you believe that Jesus created devil. This would make Jesus the father of devil, which to me is much more suggestive than to say they are merely siblings. And this is something they cannot get out of. If the scriptures are clear that Lucifer was an angel, and therefore a son of God. And surely he was created by none other than God, so he has no father but God. Then according to their view, they would have to admit that they believe that Lucifer was a son of God, and technically the son of Jesus (as they believe that Jesus and the Father are the same being), while in the same breath mocking us for saying he was once a sibling of Jesus. This is extra incriminating when we consider what they believe about the nature of Jesus himself. We believe that Jesus and the Father are different beings that are one, united in will and purpose. Jesus is also the Only Begotten Son of the Father, which is impossible in their view as they believe the two are both the same being, and also immaterial. Latter-Day Saints mean what they say when they say that Jesus is the literal, physical, Only Begotten Son of the Father. Jesus’s Y-Chromosome came from the Father’s DNA. This is not possible under the trinity. So when a trinitarian says that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son, what they really mean is that he is the only not-begotten metaphorical son of himself. Meaning that as far as a trinitarian is concerned, one can only be a son of God in the metaphorical sense that they are a creature created by God. Meaning that a trinitarian believes that Lucifer is a son of God, but that the person of Jesus is not! As only the physical human body of Jesus is created while the person of Christ is the uncreated God that is himself creating the body, and that body is created not begotten. And don’t let them you the excuse that “Lucifer wasn’t a son of God because he’s a created creature and not a son.” Because they don’t believe there are sons of God apart from created creatures.
Mormons take the bible as the word of God? The intro of the BoM states: "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible." Yet, there are many things that differ between the 2. Logic tells us that if 2 things differ, they cannot be comparable. Elohim is the plural form of a singular unit of God, used in Genesis during the creation. The proper translation of the original Hebrew in English is worded as "let us", which is proper, so there is a triune figure talking with itself and also used in the story of Babel. Jesus differentiates himself from God while on the cross using the singular form of "Eloi" when he became sin for us on the cross. It's not a hard piece to digest and if further expounded and backed up by other scriptures, that your BoM advises are comparable and correct. So, if your BoM advises these are correct, then your statements above cannot be correct because you are attempting to correct what the Christian bible clearly states, but yet is refuted by your logic. You are using circular reasoning which is not a proper method to use. Furthermore, the Christian bible does say that Jesus did create things, such as satan. Here's the logical trail: John 1:1 - 3: This states the Word of God (scriptures) was God (the Father) and became flesh (the Son). So here we have the comparable bible clearly stating that Jesus and God are in fact the same. How can God be with Himself and be "with" Himself and when did God become flesh? Well, these can only be fulfilled by Jesus. Secondly, it states that this duality created "all things". Let's pause here and now go to: Ezekiel 28:15 : This clearly states in this verse, that satan was "You were blameless in your ways from the day you were *created* till wickedness was found in you." So, scripture clearly states here that satan was *CREATED* in this verse. Now, when we use scripture with scripture, if Jesus was *with* and *was* God, and *created* all things, then we clearly see that in fact, Jesus was and is God and created satan. It's amazing what treasures we can discover when we study and, as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Isaiah 28:10-13 (which is ironically in your BoM's 2 Nephi 28), that we use scripture against scripture, we discover the truths of God and not those of our own.
@@dyerseve07 A few notes: The introduction to the Book of Mormon is not a part of the Book of Mormon. It’s not doctrine, just an explanation of the Book’s backstory. (Though the Book of Mormon Title Page is doctrinal). Logic does not tell us that if two things differ they cannot be comparable. Logic tells us that if two things differ they cannot be identical, they can certainly still be compared in any number of ways. Hebrew plural words can certainly be used to denote singular entities, this is a normal property of the Hebrew language. The idea that it is exceptionally used to denote trinitarianism is untenable as trinitarianism was not believed until the 3rd century A.D. We know when elohim is used in the singular vs. in the plural. Because the pronouns and verbs surrounding the subject are conjugated in the plural as well. So when Genesis says “let *us* make man in *our* image” those pronouns signal that we’re talking about multiple beings. Jehovah and elohim are also clearly distinguished in Genesis. The Bible also clearly teaches that Jehovah is just one of the many Sons of El, and that other sons of El were present before creation (Job 38:4-7) this includes Satan. We do believe, by the way, that Satan was created in the sense that Lucifer was made a son of God. But Lucifer existed before that point as well. You’re reading creation ex nihilo into the text when the pretext makes it clear that it’s supposed to refer to creation ex material. Finally, I find it interesting how you don’t realize that John 1:1 cannot be describing trinitarianism. Think about it: 1. The Word is God 2. The Word is with God. Now let’s define Word and God. Trinitarians will typically define the word as the person of Jesus, and God as the substance of the Trinity. If we rewrite the two propositions this way we get: 1. Jesus is the being known as God 2. Jesus is with the being known as God. But wait, if Jesus is that being, and it is a being of one undivided substance, then he cannot be alongside it. Especially if at this point, God exists outside of space, mutually exclusive from the rest of creation, (which at this point is yet to have been created) so it is impossible for anything to be with God where God is according to trinitarianism.
@@KnuttyEntertainment So the introduction of the BoM should be ignored? Understood. You are limiting God. Why would you limit God? God is outside of logic and complete understanding, the logic you are applying is a failed, before it starts, attempt to fully comprehend God, which we cannot do in our sin state. Jesus clearly stated he is the *only* begotten so of God, that he is God and the OT advises that and the book of John tells us God became flesh, through Jesus. These are easy to grasp concepts that are clearly laid out in scripture. Lucifer/satan was created by Jesus, who is God. There's literally nothing else in scripture (such as the twist of Job which are merely the angels (which satan was, and is described as such in scripture)). So, we can see that satan was a fallen angel, created by Jesus. By your logic, then satan is God as well and that just opens up a whole mess of issues, mainly that God then fell and messed up, which He cannot do. It seems you, and Mormons, try so hard to make it appear that you fully understand God, but if we could, He wouldn't really be worth worshipping or believing in, especially in our sinful state.
There’s a talk by Elder Jeffrey R Holland that he gave in 2016. He says that “We are New Testament - not Nicene - Christians.” I really loved that talk, and I think this video works well with it.
Missed opportunity to include John 17:20-23 in the theosis segment. At 4:30 Especially as it simultaneously undermines the trinity as a common response to theosis doctrine is that it only applies to transmissible qualities of god, but not God’s divine properties. John 17:20-23 shows that the same qualities that bind the Father and Son in Godhead-the qualities that we supposedly don’t inherit-are the same ones that God glorifies us with when we believe in him.
Read the context carefully. The quality that binds the Father and Son in the Godhead is love. Love is His essence, yet how can that be eternally true for God unless He can love someone else? Who else existed with God before anything else came to be? Love has to be something given, that draws someone into relationship through humble submission. Only a triune God can love eternally and sit on the throne, and submit, and draw men to himself.
@@valeried7210 Not only does that say nothing of homoousia, it actively goes against it. God needing someone else to love only makes sense if that someone else isn’t himself. And if that’s the context of John 17:20-23, then that love can make the apostles one with God the same way that Jesus is one with the father, even though that relationship of love between God and man would be fundamentally different than love within a triune being. So John 17:20-23 shows that not only is the trinity unnecessary to create that kind of oneness, but that because those two things would be opposed, and yet we are told they are analogous, the trinity simply doesn’t fit into that passage. Also, if God is a being that requires love and unity, a being that is whole and inseparable, and a being that is parental to Jesus and mankind in the fullest sense, then he would have to fully embody both the masculine and the feminine, the fatherly and the motherly, and the union between the two. The trinity would have to include a heavenly mother. Matthew 19:5-6 “5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
@@KnuttyEntertainment you used God "needs" and God "requires" without me saying that. I am saying that God's essence IS love. God NEEDs nothing, except out of love and to glorify himself He created the universe and man. Please read through all of the book of 1 John trying to think in that paradigm and you'll see it's confirming what I said about John 17.
@@valeried7210 You said “ONLY a Triune God can love eternally,” and, “HOW can that be eternally true for God UNLESS He can love someone else?” Which are just other ways of saying God NEEDS to be Triune, or that God REQUIRES someone else to love. If you’re saying that God doesn’t need anything and therefore doesn’t need to be Triune, I agree. I can also say that God can perfectly love without requiring him to be Triune.
@@KnuttyEntertainment God can't change his nature - if it is triune, then it is triune. What I'm saying is that if you apply perfect logic, you can understand that the God that exists HAS to be triune and can't be understood any other way based on what the scriptures teach. Think of the ways that we love. All of this is a reflection of God's eternal nature. (I'm still hazy though on whether LDS believe in eternal generation of spirit children or if they didn't have an existence at some point in time - that might affect how I'd argue what I'm saying.) 🙂
Thanks for posting this! Videos like this are needed. Our doctrine gets stronger with new scholarship into what the Bible actually teaches. Fascinating how Michel Heiser explained different heavenly beings with different responsibilities and glories.
The Nicene creed is a perfect example of the philosophies of men (Greek and Roman), mingled with scripture. And after it was decided on, isn’t it interesting that those who did not agree with it were executed? It’s very clear that by these events and actions the true authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ was not involved, however, pagan emperor Constantine definitely was involved. The real challenge we have is to strive to be peacemakers in an environment where we are constantly under attack for what we believe. Jesus Christ set the perfect example, when, from the cross, and in the agony and suffering of the atonement pleaded with His Father, in Heaven “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Jeff Durbin never brings out the full scriptural facts. Even though I do not believe in LDS doctrine, Durbin does not have the truth and his trinity doctrine is false too.
@@danielwoodruff3118 I believe that Jehovah is the only true GOD, the Most High and Living GOD…even the God of Jesus. I have faith in both. Jehovah and his Son. Jesus is the Son of the Most High. (Luke 1:32)
@@danielwoodruff3118 I belong to the worldwide Christian congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses. We have a legal agency for publishing yes. How about you?
Ahhh Jeff… a bit theatrical and pedantic. You’ll find it shocking, but Jeff and James White both have a huge disagreement with Dr. Eisner. Imagine that. 😂
So well done! Pastor Durbin, I am sure does not yet realize what he is doing by making these attempts to accuse the brethren. Bless his heart. He would do well to take a lesson from Pastor Jeff with Hello Saints, to seek first to understand, then to be understood. Let’s combine our efforts to serve and lift others in need. There is so much work to be done.
@@danielwoodruff3118 what if he’s actually fighting against the actual Church of Jesus Christ, like Saul/Paul of old? i’ll defend anyone’s right to believe or practice their religion how they see fit, and I do know that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has taught us to love our enemies, do good to them that hate us and pray for them that despitefully use us and persecute us.
@@boydjenkins That's not possible. If Saul had examined the Scriptures, he would have realized the truth of Christianity long before Jesus appeared to him along that road to Damascus. There's no parallel between that and this situation. You're actively leading people after a false god & gospel. Your beliefs have no basis in Scripture. Your deity doesn't vaguely resemble ours. That's not a valid analogy.
@@danielwoodruff3118 I respect your right to choose to believe that. God bless you brother. I’ll let God be the judge. Jesus Christ let us know how we can decide whether someone is a false prophet or a true prophet, he said “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:20 “As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are to be examples of how to interact with others-especially when we have differences of opinion. One of the easiest ways to identify a true follower of Jesus Christ is how compassionately that person treats other people. The Savior made this clear in His sermons to followers in both hemispheres. “Blessed are the peacemakers,” He said. “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” And then, of course, He gave the admonition that challenges each of us: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Before His death, the Savior commanded His Twelve Apostles to love one another as He had loved them. And then He added, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” The Savior’s message is clear: His true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade, and inspire-no matter how difficult the situation. True disciples of Jesus Christ are peacemakers.”
I`ve often compared the LDS belief that Lucifer was once our spiritual brother vs. the Protestant belief that God created him, by asking the question: Which is worse, that God had spiritual children, of which Lucifer chose to rebel against the Father (having free will), or that God created Lucifer, knowing (being omniscient) that he would become the devil..? In the first paradigm, we can all understand how a child can choose to rebel against his/her parents whereas the second would mean that God alone is responsible for the evil in existence.
@John Cline No, because in the LDS paradigm of omniscience, God knows our trajectory, but we have the free-will to change that. Like the city of Ninevah with Jonah where they were told they would be destroyed but chose to change and they were not destroyed. The LDS paradigm of God`s omniscience is the only one I`m aware of which allows for both free-will and omniscience; though C.S. Lewis taught something quite similar...
@John Cline In other words, all of us were created on a good path, but could choose to change that. This being said, I`m sure God knew that some would fall because that is inevitable with beings of free-will.
@@joshuafoster2539 are you saying that when God created Hitler that he had a whole different plan for him and when Hitler (using his free agency) rebelled and killed all those Jews God was completely caught off guard because He had no idea that was going to happen?
@@itstaylahn743 Not at all. C.S. Lewis described it as being like we are dots on a sheet of paper, and do not see what is ahead of us, but God sees us from above and can tell us exactly what is in front of us depending upon what direction we choose to go on that sheet. Therefore, Hitler was born in a neutral state but when he started to make choices, God could see what those choices would lead to. This is very very different from God knowing exactly what we will do at all times; which would require that there is no free-will because every act would have to be predetermined and only God would be responsible for our actions (or the devil`s)...
Great video. The doctrine of the trinity was composed to destroy the relationship between God and his children and the "Christian" church today had made it the measure of all things. Christ called the creeds "an abomination" for that very reason; the creeds mystify the nature of God and destroy our family relationship to Him.
@@danielwoodruff3118 LDS are not the ones who refer to the "doctrine of the trinity" composed during the 4th century as an incomprehensible mystery. The mysterious "triune" God is not explained in the Bible, even in the verse invented for Erasmus for the 3rd edition of his Greek text (1 John 5:7). If the triune nature of God is so evident in scripture, why was it the subject of debate from the 3rd century and even till today when multiple factions of "Christians" can argue over it and each can find "proof-texts" to support their position?
@@UtahKent Some aspects of Scripture are debatable. Modes of baptism, eschatological models, and the age of the Earth are all examples. However, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians all agree on certain basic things. There exists one eternal, infinite God who has revealed Himself to us in the form of three distinct Persons. God came to Earth in the Person of Jesus Christ and died a substitutionary death for our sins so that we could be reconciled to Him and forgiven our transgressions against Him. That's Christianity. All Christians throughout history have always worshipped the same triune God and exercised faith in the same gospel. That's what makes them churches and your organization a cult. I think all Christians (and even just normal people) can agree that the Bible doesn't teach that God was an exhalted man who screwed his polygamous goddess sex-slave wives in the pre-existence to produce billions of spirit children. I think anyone who isn't an idiot understands that the idea of *a convicted fraudster having received golden plates (that nobody else could see) from a native American angel that told him that the Jews of the Bible were living in North America as a civilization noboody had ever heard of or found traces of* is stupid. With respect, sir, to characterize your movement as a "religion" is insulting to all adherents to credible religions not founded by a sex-obsessed pedophile or exposed for unapologetic fraud.
Thanks for your efforts at the debate and with your channel and debunking Apologia Studios. Latter Day Saints ought to heed the call from God through his apostle M. Russell Ballard to stop letting only those who oppose us define us and put our side up as well! We latter day Saints appreciate your efforts in doing this!
Thank you Jacob for doing this video. They have put more recent videos out of them talking to missionaries and sadly the Elders they talk to have very little scriptural knowledge and so it makes them appear as the ones having the truth. I would love to see you do a reaction video to those. Stand tall in the defense of the faith brother. God bless!!
It’s interesting how people don’t realize that John 1:1 cannot be describing trinitarianism. Think about it: 1. The Word is God 2. The Word is with God. Now let’s define Word and God. Trinitarians will typically define the word as the person of Jesus, and God as the substance of the Trinity. If we rewrite the two propositions this way we get: 1. Jesus is the being known as God 2. Jesus is with the bring known as God. But wait, if Jesus is that being, and it is a being of one undivided substance, then he cannot be alongside it. Especially as at this point, God exists outside of space, mutually exclusive from the rest of creation, (which at this point is yet to have been created) so it is impossible for anything to be with God where God is.
@@danielwoodruff3118 I agree that there is only One True God, and that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are one. But what does that mean? Here’s my take on the trinity: For clarity, I believe in the Godhead, not the Trinity. I like to think of the Godhead like an actor and his two understudies all portraying Hamlet. There is only one character named Hamlet, and as far as the play is concerned, all three actors are the one true Hamlet. Their words and deeds are always the same. You could almost even say they are practically three beings as one person. God is much the same way: there is One True God, and that God is the Father. Jesus and the Holy Ghost stand in the place of God, representing him, so you can also say that they are God too. Now the trinity is the inverse of this. It says God is three persons in one being. Like Gollum and Smeagol, multiple personalities sharing a body; three who’s but one what. But that distinction almost immediately breaks down when you try to use it to actually explain scripture. Beyond that, this usage of persons and beings in no way corresponds to anything we can observe in reality. Being a human being is what makes you a specific person. As people use them today, the words “person” and “being” are nonsense terms with no concrete line between them, and if you press a trinitarian, they cannot define the terms beyond what I’ve already said. Ultimately they will cop out and say it’s a mystery beyond human comprehension, and that you cannot say what God is, only what he isn’t. This goes against scripture which says that we can clearly understand the Godhead through observation of the reality around us. (Romans 1:19-20) so the trinity, this concept that doesn’t correspond to any aspect of rational reality and is beyond human comprehension, is disqualified by scripture. Now even if we grant the idea that the nature of God is beyond us mere mortals, the trinity still doesn’t hold up. Pay close attention. There is a very important difference between something being beyond our comprehension because it is beyond our capacity, versus being incomprehensible because it goes against rationality. I can’t comprehend the 4th dimension because it’s beyond my capacity, but I can still approach it by extrapolating from the principles of the first three dimensions using math and logic (which is in line with Romans 1:19-20). However, a married bachelor is incomprehensible for an entirely different reason. I fully understand the component parts of marriage and bachelors, I just can’t reconcile the contradiction because it goes against rationality. There is nothing wrong with saying that God is beyond us in the first sense. I have no problem with someone claiming God is a 4th dimensional being. But God cannot be incomprehensible in the second sense because God is the fountainhead of rationality, if he, the source of logic, were to embody the illogical, he would be a God of confusion and a house divided against itself, which cannot stand. (Matthew 12:25, 1 Cor. 14:33) So how did rational people arrive at this irrational idea? Well let’s look at the original words used to describe the trinity. The technical terms for three persons in one being is three hypostases of one Ousia. And the idea of three persons sharing one substance is called Homoousia. Where do Christians get these idea from? They’ll tell you it’s from the Bible, but the terms trinity, homoousia, etc. do not appear in the Bible. Rather, the trinity can objectively be shown to derive from Greek philosophy, and not early Judeo-Christian theology. The God of the Trinity is much closer to the immaterial unmoved mover believed by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who called his followers “those who wrestle with God.” The terms hypostasis and ousia are terms prominent in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. In fact, Plato says that the Platonic forms of platonism are the definition of ousia/essence. And hypostasis meant the underlying substance of things. Literally Hypo=under + stasis=station/stance, so hypostasis is a direct one-to-one translation of sub-stance. Meaning that when you say God is three hypostases/persons in one ousia/being, you are actually literally saying that God is three substances of one platonic form, which is ironically actually closer to the doctrine of the Godhead that I’ve been promoting, which is that God is three separate beings, all acting as the united person/character/blueprint of God. So the early Christians, who did not believe in the modern trinity, tried to use the contemporary philosophical language of their day to describe God the way I am describing him, but that doctrine of the Godhead was obscured by the influence of the philosophies of men corrupting the original doctrine over the centuries. (Colossians 2:8-10) In fact, I can prove that the term Hypostasis used to refer to the substance of God, rather than the person, in the context of the trinity. In the original text of the Nicene creed (which invented the trinity) it says that “anyone who claims Christ is a separate hypostasis from the Father is made anathema.” Meaning that according to the original formulation, the modern rendering of the trinity as three hypostases/persons in one ousia/being, is wrong. It was only later on that hypostasis came to mean person instead of substance, and the trinity got inverted into what we have today. If the history doesn’t convince you, then I will show how the trinity re-defines the clear meaning of the words of scripture. I challenge anyone to show me any passage in scripture that teaches homoousia-the idea that God is one in substance-that could not very easily be understood to mean that God is one in will and purpose instead. On the other hand, I can point to several passages that not only make it clear that God is one in purpose, but also preclude the idea that he is one in substance. John 17:20-23 shows that all believers can become ONE with Jesus and the Father IN THE SAME MANNER as they are one with EACH OTHER. Romans 8:16-17 says much the same thing by calling us joint-heirs with Christ glorified together. How can Jesus be an heir of the Father if they are the same being, what could Jesus inherit from the Father that he doesn’t already have? And how could we also be heirs to that type of oneness? Furthermore, how can Jesus be begotten by the Father if he is the Father: can a man conceive himself? The baptism of Jesus also shows all three persons in different places and forms. Jesus in the water, the Holy Spirit as a dove, and the Father is heaven. The same thing happens again at Stephen’s martyrdom. The scripture itself supports the Godhead over the Trinity.
The elders assigned to my branch had the pleasure of running into a durbinite. We were reading the pamphlet he gave them and laughing at the obvious misrepresentations between conference sessions yesterday.
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.” ― C.S. Lewis
A good point: Mormons know the truth in their hearts, but choose to suppress it in favor of their sin, no different that any other stripe of unbeliever.
Thank our ETERNAL PARENT'S, for the restoration of THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, back on earth.
@@michaelmannucci8585 waiting for the diss track. Calvinism is loosely based on scripture being taken out of context. First century Christians believed in an embodied God, not a neoplatonic form.
“You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men [he’s not talking to men; he’s talking to angelic beings] you shall die, and fall like any prince. (Psalm 82:6-7)
Great video series! I would invite you to consider changing the title and at times the condescending tone. Brother Durban is one of our brethren who in the pre-mortal existence stood on the side of our other brother and I imagine supported and promoted our Heavenly Fathers plan. I don’t believe we are here to intellectually destroy anyone or bash them into submission. I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is our Lord’s restored Church. We invite Brother Durbin and others to consider adding to their faith the truths that we have come to know for ourselves. That time may not come until the return of our Lord and Savior; and until then may we treat one another with patience, in the Lord’s way, by invitation and a spirit of brotherly kindness.
While I totally agree with your sentiment, I don’t necessarily agree to your approach by your comment. Disagreement and debate is not “UnChristlike.” Alma and Amulek did not just invite the Zoromites to the true gospel- they challenged and reasoned with them. Same with John the Baptist. He invited with love, but also challenged the Scribes and Pharisees that thought they knew and had everything. Jesus did this and the early disciples did this. Yes…. We are to love, share and invite; however, we are also called to defend and sustain the Church and restored gospel. There is a tricky balance in this, and one needs the guidance of the Spirit to do it right. Having said that, this video is a fair challenge and refutation of Jeff’s talking points. See, it’s not so important that Jeff is wrong, it’s that the “gospel” he offers is of a far less glory and benefit both now and into the eternities. The restored gospel, IS the gospel. It is the pure truth and doctrine of Christ. It is worth defending. It is worth discussion and debate to those who so relentlessly attack. The truth will set us free. Jeff does have some truth and some light in Christ, no doubt. However, Jeff needs to be checked by his claims. It needs to be shown that they don’t hold any real weight at all. Yes, we will continue to extend the hand of fellowship and love always, regardless. But let’s not put that over spreading the gospel and gathering Israel. Plus, Jeff loves this. He literally wants to debate all the time.
As a reformed Protestant, I ask that you please refrain from referring to us as your "brothers." We practice entirely different religions and worship completely unrelated deities. This contributes to the perception of Mormons as "deceptive" and "dishonest."
@@danielwoodruff3118 “Come to Him and live” certainly denotes at least some personal effort. I thought you were completely against personal effort. Am I misunderstanding?
@@chrishumphries7489 Yes, it appears we do indeed have a misunderstanding. Salvation is analogous to endorsing a check you received in the mail as a gift from a friend. You don't have to do anyhting to "earn" it. It's yours. You've received it. All you have to do is "endorse" it and give it your signature. That's it. No asterix, qualifier, or conditions attached. Signing the check is like faith. Placing your trust in Jesus is just accepting/adopting for yourself the gift that you've already been offered. It's not a perfect analogy by any stretch, but I hope it helps.
Interestingly enough, in Genesis chapter 1 - 2:3. The first 7 days of creation. Then from 2:4 on it says LORD God, which any time it says LORD in all caps it is saying Jehovah or YHWH God. Which is Jesus. He then caused rain to fall giving life to earth and created man breathing life into his nostrils. Interesting when you see that it is right there.
I’m so glad you made this video, Jeff Durbin thinks he’s a pretty smart guy who has us all figured out and it makes me cringe. Any critical and honest thinking makes him nervous
I use to destroy Durbin, “Dr” White and Luke the Koala Bear in the comments on their TH-cam channel. Of course, they blocked me when realizing I was exposing their claims.
I somehow doubt that. More likely you were just being boorish and rude to their viewers, as Mormon apologists are. Your above comment suggests you could use a serious humility check.
I think there is an immense difference between what guys like Heiser and Boyd teach about “gods” and what the LDS faith has taught about God/gods. Now that many LDS people have realized the absurdity of an eternal succession of Gods, or to otherwise escape accusations of polytheism, they are reaching for other theories that can detach them from Smith’s blatantly anti-biblical theological teaching. The difference is, Heiser/Boyd teach that these “gods” are angels, fallen angels, etc. A non-fallen angel won’t provoke false worship. However, the LDS teach that obedient human beings become Gods-equal to Yahweh of Scripture. No way would Heiser/Boyd affirm the LDS teaching. False gods of Scripture are deceptive and are condemned; LDS theology has taught that they are exalted, namely exalted men. That is a difference that is not bridged by this clip and probably cannot be reconciled.
So if there are no other God's comparable to the Father, like Michael Heiser says, and He is the "most high" what does that say about His heavenly father and all the others before him like mormonism teaches must exist?
To us, there is no other God. “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
@@chrishumphries7489That's the early Christian doctrine contrasting the pagan practice of worshiping many Gods or polytheism to Christian monotheism. But thats not the LDS doctrine of how there are many Gods who exist and you can become one if you check all the boxes of mormonism well enough. Be honest. No gaslighting.
@@coachmarc2002 That’s the doctrine. Rewatch this video for a list of some scriptures that support theosis. Further, there are many Christian Biblical scholars and historians that now agree that Theosis was taught and believed by most early Christians. There are numerous Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers who speak and write about theosis. This is all not hard to find. There is abundant support for the doctrine. Is this gaslighting? You don’t have to believe it, but go investigate yourself. I believe it. Many sources now support it, the restoration has always taught it.
@@coachmarc2002 Neither do we, depending on what you mean by that. Can we become like the Father and the Son? Yes!! Can we ever ignore or replace the Father and Son? Absolutely not. Romans 8:16-17 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." - Are we joint heirs or partial heirs? Will we inherit glory (the glory of God) or not? Will will actually sit IN the throne of God, or not? There are other scriptures that suggest we may inherit "all things." Well, is this just a gift of God's "stuff", or is it also a gift of capacity, power, might, righteousness, etc? Would that not also include all things? 1 Corinthians 2:9, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him." This is one of the manifestations of the love of God, that He is actually willing to share ALL THINGS. Does God not have the power, ability or will to make others as Himself? Especially if He has literal children? (Acts 17: 28, Hebrews 12:9) God is not a selfish being at all. He is willing to lift up all others to Himself. Yet, He will always be our God and we will always reverence Him, no matter what we become or are. This is how much God loves us, and how much we need to love, respect and revere God forever and always.
Watched the videos and found it interesting that in most of the rebuttal, the Bible was used as defense not the Book of Mormon. So in that case, why is the book of Mormon necessary for faith in Christ?
The word of God is necessary for faith in Christ, which word the Book of Mormon contains as does the Bible. Jacob merely rebuts using the Bible because many people criticize when it isn't used.
@@kenton6804 Right. Good Point. Of course the Holy Spirit brings the testimony of Jesus Christ through His creation, his historical life, His written Word, and the testimony of witness. If I do not have the Book of Mormon, can one be saved?
So, the doctrine of the Trinity is from greek philosophy, but the doctrine, that there are millions of gods and one day you will become one is from the Bible...
I do not consider myself a scriptorian. But, I know enough about the Bible to know that any time some scripture is quoted to prove something, there is another one in there that contradicts it. Thus, I once heard Joseph Fielding McConkie reply when asked to prove something by the Bible for the benefit of some nonmember, "I can't prove it by the Bible. If all we had was the Bible we wouldn't be any better off than they are!" (paraphrased) And, wait, Jesus created Satan? How in the world is that more comforting than the thought that Lucifer (Satan) is Jesus' (and our) brother? *sheesh*
@@joshuafoster2539 I'm not trying to be witty or sly. All I did was repeat what Joseph Smith said. "You've all got to learn how to become gods yourselves." If you sincerely believe that, why did you take offense to my reply?
@@danielwoodruff3118 And with Joseph`s teachings I just provided the context :-) I`m quite certain no one likes to see their beliefs being misrepresented.
Jeff is good at approaching street apologetics like martial arts. Bob, weave, quick blows before the victim has time to react. I've watched his videos. When he gets frustrated, he overwhelms the other part, interrupts and turns into a bully.
I agree: Mormon platforms are sobering to visit in that one can observe demonic deception in such a profound and unique way. It should make us all the more grateful for the work that God has done in opening up our eyes to His truth while we were still spiritually dead.
Then is it a statement of imcomparbility when He says i am the only Saviour? I think not. Hiesees exegesis is lacking because no part of the grammer teaches they are statments of incomparbility, but absolute monotheism. Hieser was and is incorrect. I have noticed that each time a true believer started teaching error, they became sick physically, and went home prematurely. Remember Harold Camping, now Hieser, and many orhers before them and will be after them.
Got to hand it the guy in this video that Michael Heiser's comments and reasoning more compelling. Point to note seems like the guy in the video here is using a man to establish the truth, Mr. Durbin is quoting the Bible, surely Mr. Durbin is out of touch with good proper reasoning. Just like luciifer provided good sound reasoing with Eve to eat... Got to hand it this video really is providing an excelling comparison that we should all consider.
This view is looking a lot like dogma over reason. Apparently, we all should just trust Jeff’s interpretation of the Bible and never use any cultural, academic, or linguistic approaches to understand the text. Because he just understands it somehow without any of these things. If we were studying the Epic of Gilgamesh, would we really dismiss any scholarly approaches to the text and just think we inherently “get it”? These texts were written thousands of years before we were born by people who used different metaphors, had different beliefs, and had far different cultural environments. Have you ever lived in a different country or studied another language? Even if you know the language you don’t necessarily catch on to all the idioms and other subtleties. So no, you can’t understand the Biblical texts in their depth without scholarship, and even with scholarship, we don’t know what a lot of passages mean. Additionally, the meaning of a text is heavily impacted by why it was written, and for that, you need historical context…hence scholarship. Cite some scholarship to engage with this view, don’t just say we can’t trust reason, we can only trust tradition. Here’s another fun fact: is the serpent in Genesis Satan? Not according to the Jewish Study Bible. This Genesis text is far more complex and mysterious than you think. The snake is a snake. Other interpretations require eisegesis, not exegesis. In fact, funnily enough the snake actually is right. The fruit does make them “like the Gods, knowing good and evil”. Also, God told them that in the day they would eat they would die…and they don’t. “Thou shalt not surely die”, interestingly the snake’s explanation seems accurate, especially if they had then eaten of the tree of eternal life. This story is quite mysterious, and citing it like it’s a clear example of how we shouldn’t use reason is suspicious. We shouldn’t fall victim to the trap of walking into the forest of scripture and only hearing the voice we ourselves are yelling into it.
My understanding of Mormon scripture is that the word God can refer to God the Father, a divine Being of the same kind as His very own Son, and the word God can refer to the divine Elohim: an infinite, eternal, unchangeable UNION or LINEAGE that COLLECTIVELY has all tri-omni power and creates worlds without end. The finite divine Beings that are members of the divine Elohim are resurrected Beings like Jesus and his Father. Like all "living" beings They are eternal intelligences in eternal progression. When the resurrected Jesus or his Father speak they speak in behalf of all members of the divine Elohim. The term "a God" in this scripture must refer to the One Infinite God, and not to just God the Father. “By these things we know that there is "a God" [the divine Elohim] in heaven, who is INFINITE and ETERNAL, from everlasting to everlasting the same UNCHANGEABLE God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;" -D&C 20:17
Tanis Campbell is God our father a male and have an unchanging gender? God our Mother is female and they said… Let US make man in OUR image. You can’t make mortal men without having a Father and a Mother. The Elohim can include Mother and Father. I guess it would be possible for God our Father to organize man in his image without a Woman but he would have to break a lot of rules to do so. Mother and Father in my view are equal and both play a role in the creation of Mankind. God would be a tyrant God by not including Mother in the creation process. He would be exercising a violation of Agency against Mother.
And who are we to say God can't? What does it mean to be made in Their image? I think our language lacks the ability to fully describe God, and only offers the ability to communicate that God is, in the sense that God exists. Are we an image of God because we have physical bodies or because of our mental capacity? Is a father defined by the way they look or by the way they act? What are the rules for creating a mortal man?
@@taniscampbell5452 the Rosh on Beroshiet Be Rosh iet is in reference to the head God. The translators of Genesis apply it to the head of time (in the beginning) I believe this to be a mistake in translation. I believe the Rosh to be in reference to God (The Head God) some say it (God most High) this mistake causes many to accept a triune God. Not only Triune but immaterial God as well. we are organized as humans in the same way God is and vice versa. Genesis 5:3 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: this scripture is in the same language as Genesis 1:26 I accept that if Adam can begat a son after his image, then God can organize Adam in the same way that, Adam begat Seth. God is a spirit but he is more than spirit. God has a Body of flesh and Bones and I can prove it from the New Testament.
@@littlebigband2010 Bet, Resh, El, Shin, Yad, Taw. In the beginning. Bet, Resh(bar/son of) El, Shin(leader, destruction) Yad, Taw (hand/work, Cross/Sign) The Son of God is destroyed by his own hand upon the cross. (Bet)The House of(Resh) Man is (El)strengthened (Shin)eating (Yad) the work of (Taw)the sign. (Bet) The House (Resh) of Man, is in Bet, Resh(bar/Son of) El(God). It is all there in the first word. Actually incredibly clever use of the language. Alot can be interpreted from that first word. I have never heard of Resh interpreted the way you propose though. Interesting none the less.
@@taniscampbell5452 I don’t think suicide is the same as father sacrificing his only begotten son. Sorry I don’t buy it. Your explanations just add more questions. Self sacrifice or Suicide or even murdering your own son. Too many cans of worms when all you have to do is accept that God the Father and Jesus Christ and HG are seperate. They are One God. Defining God in the English language as a fellowship. “There is only one fellowship.” God desires all his Children to choose to join his fellowship.
For me, it’s just a simple as this: Is God all-powerful? If God is all powerful, can’t he make his children Gods if He believes they merit such a blessing? Heavenly Father already created one God and His name is Jesus Christ, who is our BROTHER. But He can’t create others??? Give me a break.
The Mormon understanding of Theosis, and the Christian understanding of Theosis are vastly different. In Eastern Christianity, Theosis is becoming one with God. Complete submission to him and unity with his Divine Will. Not sure what the equivalent is in Western Christianity. From my understanding, Mormonism's idea of Theosis is becoming a god, or at the very least, becoming like Heavenly Father or like Jesus Christ. I say "at the very least" because the Mormon idea of the God-head is Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost being worshipped as one God because of common purpose/life, not because they are in reality one divine being but rather 3 separate brings. Given that Mormon's hold that Heavenly Father is a glorified man, the Mormon idea of Theosis (becoming a god) makes sense. However, the unfortunate problem Mormonism runs into is that their understanding of God and the Christian understanding of God are completely different. As mentioned, the Mormon view is that Heavenly Father was once a man who was then glorified, and he "created" us for the same purpose. The Christian understanding of God is that he is the thing that is existence, through which and in which all other things exist. Self Persisting Existence is how St. Thomas Aquinas put it. Another way to word is using the name God gave himself in the Bible: I AM WHO AM. Now, the Christian understanding is that God is essentially different (as in different in his very essence) from man. And given that God is the thing that is (for the sake of brevity) his Essence and his Existence are the same. Man's essence (what he is) and his existence (that he is) are separate. So, from the Christian perceptive, it is literally impossible for man to become a god (not to mention that it is metaphysically contradictory to have two "gods" as one of the two would have to cause the other, make in the first one God, or they would have to be caused by something else, and that third thing would be God). Now, in Christianity, we believe that one is able to participate in the Divine Nature by the Will of God, as in God allows us to participate in his nature to some degree. Jacob mistakenly claims that the Trinity is 1 divine nature 3 divine and separate persons. This is not the Christian view. The orthodox view (not orthodox as in Eastern Orthodox) is that God is 1 divine nature, 3 divine persons, who are distinct from one another, yet not separate from one another. Jacob also claims that Trinitarian philosophy is "well after the New Testament was written" So what? The explanation for a thing can come after the discovery of a thing. Either way, Jacob cannot use this verse: "That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." John 17:21 Because Mormons believe both the Father and the Son have bodies. How can they be in each other if they both have bodies? Isn't the reasoning for the Holy Ghost not having a body is that so he can dwell in us? Also, Jacob claims that the Trinity is philosophically unsound, largely impart because he misunderstands it. At the same time, Mormons claim that the God-head is three divine beings. Two of those divine beings have bodies. GOD CANNOT HAVE A BODY. Why? Bodies are made of matter, and matter has potency. God, properly speaking, not the Mormon view, is pure act and does not have potency. Since matter is a type of potency (matter is subject to change), and since there is no potency in God, God cannot be made of matter, and therefore does not have a body (skipping a couple building blocks for brevity). I want to go on and on, but have to stop at some point. I encourage this Jacob to engage with Catholic thinkers (Joe Heschmeyer, Carlo Broussard and Trent Horn are really good) rather than Protestant ones. Catholicism and Mormonism have certain parallels that would result in a much more productive dialogue. PS Jacob claims to use facts and logic, yet juxtaposes Mormon ideas into his conclusions while also misrepresenting what he is arguing against.
Jeff Durbin acts like he knows the Bible perfectly, but this is showing that he doesn’t actually read everything except for what helps his confirmation bias. He does exactly what he blames all of latter-day Saints of doing.
The Trinity is three distinct persons, the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy spirit, sharing in one essence, substance and essence. The Trinity is God, God created all things through Jesus Christ. COL 1:16 . In regards to US in Genesis, it was referring to Adam and Eve will now know what evil is, God knew evil, but Adam and Eve did not know evil until they committed evil acts. The US is the Trinity, the three persons in the Trinity.
Why do you need to debate to each other, it makes me go away from christianity, to much negativity and moking different pastor vs pastor, preaches vs preacher. Like how can we then listen anyone?
That video has brought countless people chafed under Joseph Smith's yoke to freedom in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mocking it and its power does not help your cause.
@@danielwoodruff3118 I know it seems that way to you, or that you may know that Joseph Smith was a horrible person or that the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is a False Church, a cult, and or a broken religion, but I testify to you that it’s not. I sought God for a long time. He answered me, led me to the church, and I know you may not believe that, but I have received so many validations, confirmations, and just repeated answers to prayer that have led me be on the shadow of a doubt, to the conclusion that the book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith is a very misunderstood, miss characterized, targeted and slandered person but that he is actually a prophet, and he did do what the Lord told him to do ultimately, and that was restore Christ’s Church. I am not deceived. I am not lost, I am not confused, and I don’t worship a false Jesus. I walked the walk and talked to talk and sought after God with all my heart, mind might and strength, and I got to know him, and he led me. Not only did he lead me, but he led me in a way that was perfect for me, and at the right time, and I mean the right time, he led me to the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. Since joining and getting baptized, I have again received nothing but confirmation again, and again that this is indeed his true church restored to the earth. The book of Mormon makes the Bible makes so much more sense, and without it, we are handicapping ourselves from the whole truth.
@@Killthesefears I believe that you're sincere. If you don't mind my prodding, though, I am curious about your statement, "I have received so many validations, confirmations, and just repeated answers to prayer that have led me be on the shadow of a doubt, to the conclusion that the book of Mormon is true...". I realize this is a bit of a personal question and I understand if you'd rather not answer, but I would be interested to know what "validations, confirmations, and just repeated answers to prayer" you are referring to, if you're okay talking about it.
@@danielwoodruff3118 thank you for asking. I don’t mind answering at all. It’s hard to put into words what I’m trying to explain, but there are so many times that this has happened or something that is similar has happened and it mostly just Hass to do with God. As I’ve gotten to know him, I’ve gotten to know his characteristics and his traits so when special things happen, I am able to know and determine if it is Him or not. It is spiritual but we call them “tender mercies”. Anyway, they are just things that happen all the time that help me now that God loves me but they are also definitely conditional because there are times when I don’t know if I should do a certain thing or not and then I’ll experience him, teaching me, or showing me or pointing the direction I should go end and it was that kind of leader ship, that I experienced that led me to the book of Mormon. These are sacred intimate experiences, but the more you read scripture the more you gain a stronger understanding of who God is then the more you know when it is him doing some thing or showing you something and all the things that I’ve experienced from him have always lined up with who I know him to be. When it came to the stuff I didn’t understand or in a broader context to the stuff that I don’t understand I know that he will teach lead and instruct and guide me, that is how I got to the book of Mormon, and that was definitely a road that had a lot of questions in it because as most Christians would expect, you wouldn’t probably necessarily expect to be told by God that the book of Mormon is true, and that Mormons are good and that that is the way to go. He navigated me through that course and helped me to understand and he did it in such a kind and loving way that it left no doubt that it was him and everything that I was shown, taught and explained, was not only consistent with who I knew God to be and what I knew to be the truth, but it was also consistent with the truth that I know to be more true every day. Again, this was hard to explain and put into words but there you go and there is definitely more but here’s what I’ve got so far. And also if I tried to show you and list all the different instances that have showed me that God is real, and that the book of Mormon is scripture and a true history of his people, I would not have enough time to explain and also it’s happened so many times that I can’t remember them off the top of my head, but those memories get reignited when they are supposed to whenever it’s time.
Whose glory was revealed by a peep stone in a top hat? The decievers glory- whom gives promises inline with your lusts. Perpetual cosmic intercouse with a harem of spirit wives.
Psalms 90:2 “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Micah 5:2 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” But the lds church teaches that God hasn’t always been God. “As man now is, God once was: “As God now is, man may be.” Feeling that he had received “a sacred communication” that he should guard carefully, Lorenzo Snow did not teach the doctrine publicly until he knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught it. If God has been God from everlasting to everlasting then He could never have been a man, even for just a second of His existence. He has always been God and will always be God forever and ever.
@@maplelakemountain8880 Many have a western view of “gods” rather than a biblical one. The same is true with the title “Lord”. It doesn’t just apply to God or his Son. Others can be called “Lord”. Of course Jehovah is the Sovereign LORD and Jesus is his Messianic Lord. Big difference.
@@thoughtfulfaith2020 Here's a better idea: Why don't you reach out and ask Jeff to come on your show or go on his show? I am certain he would be open to that! Then he can't hide behind his fancy cinematography, right?
@michaelmannucci8585 I think he would, he already had the other Jeff from "hello Saints "on his show. The only difference is Jeff Durbin is aggressive about his religion.
I definitely don’t think the “other gods” are real at all so it’s kind of strange that you include a video from someone who suggests that pagan gods are real… correct me if I’m wrong there because I do really like all of your content. I don’t think that’s actual doctrine taught by the brethren. Obviously though I see the point that you’re trying to make that there are many real gods and we are destined to become one ourselves, but that doesn’t mean Zeus is real. I’m just commenting that it’s strange to include in your video. Please respond if you think I’m misinterpreting. Love your stuff!
Yahweh is The Creator - there is no other! There are no other worlds with other humans created by other gods. "I am The Alpha and The Omega, The First and The Last, The Beginning and The End." Revelations 22:13
17:52 Sorry it’s pretty easy to interpret this verse in the trinity. It’s referring to the 3 persons because within the trinity the persons have relationship with one another. But you do make a lot of good points in the video in other places.
Except then you have to prove that the people recording this story did so with trinitarianism in mind, when all evidence suggests that Trinitarianism was not believed in any form until thousands of years later and that Genesis was written through the lens of a Mesopotamian-esque phenomenology. Especially when YHWH and El are so clearly distinguished and are separate beings.
@@KnuttyEntertainment no you guys are talking from completely different worldviews they don’t have to prove the personage as much as you guys have to prove beings
@@maplelakemountain8880 1. Joseph Smith believed in and saw multiple beings. His testimony is both prophetic and reliable 2. The people writing the Bible also believed in and saw multiple beings. 3. Multiple beings/the Latter-Day Saint Godhead is a more consistent exegesis of the text than trinitarianism. 4. The origin of trinitarianism can be traced back to Greek philosophy, and not the beliefs of the biblical writers. 5. Seeing as trinitarianism is incoherent, illogical, and does not follow any rational pattern that can be observed elsewhere in nature but is completely alien to human comprehension of reality, it is therefore not unreasonable to expect proponents of trinitarianism to rationally justify their theory (which is inherently impossible). Or to expect them to at least prove that their theory is the same one held by the Biblical authors, which all evidence suggests it was not. There's my proof. Where's yours?
Take your exact biblical “proofs” and replace the word being with person and godhead with trinity and there’s my proof. ( my point with this rhetoric is your bringing vastly different assumptions from your worldview and criticizing someone’s else’s worldview from yours and because of this. People will always talk past each other) if you wanna have a productive conversation. Let’s bring our assumptions and presuppositions and tell the world why there more valid then someone else’s.
@@maplelakemountain8880 Seeing as neither of us have cited any actual references, I'll acknowledge points 2-4 as cancelling out between us, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, that does not explain away points 1 or 5. As neither can you impeach Joseph's testimony nor can you provide an adequate analogy for how the trinity is even supposed to work. Impeachability of Joseph Smith: th-cam.com/video/RMV90SEhPjY/w-d-xo.html
Yes, Pastor Durbin has sacrificed much to bring the gospel to your people. In response, you spit on him and make nonsensical videos attempting to "debunk" his presentation of Scripture. He has nothing to gain by sacrificing his time for you.
This is mormons twisting scripture. We know humans make gods for themselves. Putting anything before God is making that thing a Bible. There is only one God. He is our savior which we have only one. The one God who came to earth and died for our sins, Jesus. He is 1 of three persons of God. Isaiah 43:11 says "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour." We only have one savior and that is Jesus, God the Son.
Howdy. You lay out the argument in this podcast that when God himself, and his underlings, state He is the only God - He was merely employing hyperbole, in the same way fans of the Green Bay Packers employ such in lauding their team. Good job! Your argument is successful in the same way Fair Mormon is successful in taking fence-sitting Mormons and removing them from the fence, making them solid unbelievers. Your argument in this podcast that God was merely exaggerating, boasting about his preeminence reveals that you and Mormons believe in a god, I could not possibly respect. An entity, engaging in such trivial self aggrandizement is not worthy of anyone’s attention, let alone worship. Footnote: if your illustrious Dr. Michael Heiser is such a respected and authoritative scholar of God… Why isn’t he a Mormon? Have a nice day, whatever your name is. Helpful tip: you are utterly dripping with arrogance. This is rarely a good look. However, people who truly have Earned their gravitas can sometimes get away with such arrogance. But you would do well to keep in mind, those who have not earned their arrogance, will not benefit by putting it on display.
The Bible does plainly teach there is only one God, who has been God for eternity past. I’ll stick to the plain reading, as one should, honestly I believe it’s foolishness to take the words of a convicted glass looker over the revealed word of God.
@@djentile7773 Correct answers are more important of course. That is why your comment is not helpful regardless of how long or short it is. That is of course unless you are the sort of person that believes something to be true just because you declare it is.
If you haven’t seen the debate between Kwaku, a college aged LDS, you should watch it. kwaku destroys “Doctor” White and Durbin. It was two against one and Kwaku schooled them.
Kwaku made a fool of himself and his religion on an aired Christian program. So many people have seen/will see that debate and know that there is only One True Triune God.
I'm so glad you're on TH-cam. You are among the minds of scholars like Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner, and Blake Ostler!
Taper Dan? Really?
@@dvdcrndll Nibley, Peterson, muhlestein, and others too. Keep up the presuppositional apologetics with titles using words like logic and facts. Those always age so well bud.
Watch the God makers. You guys are deceived big time!
It's unfortunate that the hierarchy of the Mormon organization. Because that is what it is. Knowingly and consciously worship Lucifer. This is a FACT. And no, YESHUA HAMASHIACH is NOT brothers with Lucifer. This is coming from someone who was raised LDS and is from Salt Lake City Utah.
You are calling him a scholar but all he did in this video was misrepresent a Protestant theologian who wouldn’t agree at all with the conclusions he drew from his lesson.
Thanks Jacob for these wonderful videos.
Jeff Durbin can only debate teenage missionaries and comedians. 😂
Really good video! I went through a phase watching Jeff Durbin and it rocked my faith. The trinity is something that even when I was close to becoming Christian I could never get my head round. It felt like a man made doctrine and not what the Bible said and them selecting a few passages to fit in with it!
MUUUUUUUUUUUUURPH!
I agree the trinity is a contradicting statement/doctrine. Much of what they teach makes sense and seems biblical but to make the trinity as it is defined by Jeff as their foundation is a demonstration of how doctrines become corrupt when men try to define Gods ways.
The concept of the Trinity would be contradictory IF the words person and being meant the same thing. Since those words do not have the same definition, the Trinity is not a contradiction albeit a paradox. God is much too big for man to understand. God is a mystery. LDS cannot understand the genealogy of the gods. The hymn, “if you could hie to kolob,” highlights that mystery. There is no first god in LDS theology. It is a mystery. The Trinity lines up with the Bible, but the genealogy of the gods does not.
There is only one God.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Ghost is God.
The Father is not the Son.
The Son is not the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost is not the Father.
The Trinity is a man made doctrine
@@bryanpratt5850 the Athanasian Creed separates God but most people don’t see the wording how the creed separates God and the next sentence Join him back together as three…. It’s confusion on a scale that can’t be measured. I really don’t think God intended to make it as confusing as Trinitarians make it.
John 17:3
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The use of the word AND clears it all up while the Athanasian Creed planning confuses the issue. This is Man Made confusion whereas God is way more simple than that. I just can’t accept a Triune God, it’s exponential confusion.
It’s really as simple as this:
D&C 130:22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
Someone in early LDS church history, I don’t remember who, made the very poignant point that the difference between Latter-Day Saints and other Christians is that we actually believe the Bible and take it at its word, while other Christians do not.
I think this is best shown with our difference in belief concerning the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer:
I understand why it sounds shocking for most Christians to hear that we believe Jesus and Lucifer were once brothers. But take a moment to slow down and actually think about it.
While we do believe that Jesus and Lucifer were once brothers as Lucifer was once an angel. This is only because they are both sons of God. Who is the father of the angels if not The Father? But I must note that just because Jesus and Lucifer were siblings doesn’t mean they’re at all chummy with each other. It has no bearing on their respective roles as advocate and adversary.
The same cannot be said if you believe that Jesus created devil. This would make Jesus the father of devil, which to me is much more suggestive than to say they are merely siblings. And this is something they cannot get out of.
If the scriptures are clear that Lucifer was an angel, and therefore a son of God. And surely he was created by none other than God, so he has no father but God. Then according to their view, they would have to admit that they believe that Lucifer was a son of God, and technically the son of Jesus (as they believe that Jesus and the Father are the same being), while in the same breath mocking us for saying he was once a sibling of Jesus.
This is extra incriminating when we consider what they believe about the nature of Jesus himself. We believe that Jesus and the Father are different beings that are one, united in will and purpose. Jesus is also the Only Begotten Son of the Father, which is impossible in their view as they believe the two are both the same being, and also immaterial.
Latter-Day Saints mean what they say when they say that Jesus is the literal, physical, Only Begotten Son of the Father. Jesus’s Y-Chromosome came from the Father’s DNA. This is not possible under the trinity. So when a trinitarian says that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son, what they really mean is that he is the only not-begotten metaphorical son of himself. Meaning that as far as a trinitarian is concerned, one can only be a son of God in the metaphorical sense that they are a creature created by God.
Meaning that a trinitarian believes that Lucifer is a son of God, but that the person of Jesus is not! As only the physical human body of Jesus is created while the person of Christ is the uncreated God that is himself creating the body, and that body is created not begotten.
And don’t let them you the excuse that “Lucifer wasn’t a son of God because he’s a created creature and not a son.” Because they don’t believe there are sons of God apart from created creatures.
Mormons take the bible as the word of God?
The intro of the BoM states: "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the
Bible."
Yet, there are many things that differ between the 2. Logic tells us that if 2 things differ, they cannot be comparable.
Elohim is the plural form of a singular unit of God, used in Genesis during the creation. The proper translation of the original Hebrew in English is worded as "let us", which is proper, so there is a triune figure talking with itself and also used in the story of Babel. Jesus differentiates himself from God while on the cross using the singular form of "Eloi" when he became sin for us on the cross. It's not a hard piece to digest and if further expounded and backed up by other scriptures, that your BoM advises are comparable and correct. So, if your BoM advises these are correct, then your statements above cannot be correct because you are attempting to correct what the Christian bible clearly states, but yet is refuted by your logic. You are using circular reasoning which is not a proper method to use. Furthermore, the Christian bible does say that Jesus did create things, such as satan.
Here's the logical trail:
John 1:1 - 3: This states the Word of God (scriptures) was God (the Father) and became flesh (the Son). So here we have the comparable bible clearly stating that Jesus and God are in fact the same. How can God be with Himself and be "with" Himself and when did God become flesh? Well, these can only be fulfilled by Jesus. Secondly, it states that this duality created "all things". Let's pause here and now go to:
Ezekiel 28:15 : This clearly states in this verse, that satan was "You were blameless in your ways from the day you were *created* till wickedness was found in you."
So, scripture clearly states here that satan was *CREATED* in this verse.
Now, when we use scripture with scripture, if Jesus was *with* and *was* God, and *created* all things, then we clearly see that in fact, Jesus was and is God and created satan. It's amazing what treasures we can discover when we study and, as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Isaiah 28:10-13 (which is ironically in your BoM's 2 Nephi 28), that we use scripture against scripture, we discover the truths of God and not those of our own.
@@dyerseve07 A few notes:
The introduction to the Book of Mormon is not a part of the Book of Mormon. It’s not doctrine, just an explanation of the Book’s backstory. (Though the Book of Mormon Title Page is doctrinal).
Logic does not tell us that if two things differ they cannot be comparable. Logic tells us that if two things differ they cannot be identical, they can certainly still be compared in any number of ways.
Hebrew plural words can certainly be used to denote singular entities, this is a normal property of the Hebrew language. The idea that it is exceptionally used to denote trinitarianism is untenable as trinitarianism was not believed until the 3rd century A.D. We know when elohim is used in the singular vs. in the plural. Because the pronouns and verbs surrounding the subject are conjugated in the plural as well. So when Genesis says “let *us* make man in *our* image” those pronouns signal that we’re talking about multiple beings. Jehovah and elohim are also clearly distinguished in Genesis.
The Bible also clearly teaches that Jehovah is just one of the many Sons of El, and that other sons of El were present before creation (Job 38:4-7) this includes Satan. We do believe, by the way, that Satan was created in the sense that Lucifer was made a son of God. But Lucifer existed before that point as well. You’re reading creation ex nihilo into the text when the pretext makes it clear that it’s supposed to refer to creation ex material.
Finally, I find it interesting how you don’t realize that John 1:1 cannot be describing trinitarianism.
Think about it:
1. The Word is God
2. The Word is with God.
Now let’s define Word and God. Trinitarians will typically define the word as the person of Jesus, and God as the substance of the Trinity. If we rewrite the two propositions this way we get:
1. Jesus is the being known as God
2. Jesus is with the being known as God.
But wait, if Jesus is that being, and it is a being of one undivided substance, then he cannot be alongside it. Especially if at this point, God exists outside of space, mutually exclusive from the rest of creation, (which at this point is yet to have been created) so it is impossible for anything to be with God where God is according to trinitarianism.
@@KnuttyEntertainment So the introduction of the BoM should be ignored? Understood.
You are limiting God. Why would you limit God? God is outside of logic and complete understanding, the logic you are applying is a failed, before it starts, attempt to fully comprehend God, which we cannot do in our sin state. Jesus clearly stated he is the *only* begotten so of God, that he is God and the OT advises that and the book of John tells us God became flesh, through Jesus. These are easy to grasp concepts that are clearly laid out in scripture. Lucifer/satan was created by Jesus, who is God. There's literally nothing else in scripture (such as the twist of Job which are merely the angels (which satan was, and is described as such in scripture)).
So, we can see that satan was a fallen angel, created by Jesus. By your logic, then satan is God as well and that just opens up a whole mess of issues, mainly that God then fell and messed up, which He cannot do.
It seems you, and Mormons, try so hard to make it appear that you fully understand God, but if we could, He wouldn't really be worth worshipping or believing in, especially in our sinful state.
That is an interesting observation I have to think more about that
Ha, great comment!
Oh my goodness!!! Thank you so much for posting this! I love this!
Wow , Jacob thank you so much that was brilliant episode. I'm here for more. 🙏👍♥️
Glad you enjoyed it
Love ur content brother!
There’s a talk by Elder Jeffrey R Holland that he gave in 2016. He says that “We are New Testament - not Nicene - Christians.” I really loved that talk, and I think this video works well with it.
Jacob, these videos are brilliant. Keep up the amazing work
Missed opportunity to include John 17:20-23 in the theosis segment. At 4:30
Especially as it simultaneously undermines the trinity as a common response to theosis doctrine is that it only applies to transmissible qualities of god, but not God’s divine properties. John 17:20-23 shows that the same qualities that bind the Father and Son in Godhead-the qualities that we supposedly don’t inherit-are the same ones that God glorifies us with when we believe in him.
Read the context carefully. The quality that binds the Father and Son in the Godhead is love. Love is His essence, yet how can that be eternally true for God unless He can love someone else? Who else existed with God before anything else came to be? Love has to be something given, that draws someone into relationship through humble submission. Only a triune God can love eternally and sit on the throne, and submit, and draw men to himself.
@@valeried7210 Not only does that say nothing of homoousia, it actively goes against it. God needing someone else to love only makes sense if that someone else isn’t himself. And if that’s the context of John 17:20-23, then that love can make the apostles one with God the same way that Jesus is one with the father, even though that relationship of love between God and man would be fundamentally different than love within a triune being. So John 17:20-23 shows that not only is the trinity unnecessary to create that kind of oneness, but that because those two things would be opposed, and yet we are told they are analogous, the trinity simply doesn’t fit into that passage.
Also, if God is a being that requires love and unity, a being that is whole and inseparable, and a being that is parental to Jesus and mankind in the fullest sense, then he would have to fully embody both the masculine and the feminine, the fatherly and the motherly, and the union between the two. The trinity would have to include a heavenly mother.
Matthew 19:5-6
“5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
@@KnuttyEntertainment you used God "needs" and God "requires" without me saying that. I am saying that God's essence IS love. God NEEDs nothing, except out of love and to glorify himself He created the universe and man. Please read through all of the book of 1 John trying to think in that paradigm and you'll see it's confirming what I said about John 17.
@@valeried7210 You said “ONLY a Triune God can love eternally,” and, “HOW can that be eternally true for God UNLESS He can love someone else?”
Which are just other ways of saying God NEEDS to be Triune, or that God REQUIRES someone else to love. If you’re saying that God doesn’t need anything and therefore doesn’t need to be Triune, I agree. I can also say that God can perfectly love without requiring him to be Triune.
@@KnuttyEntertainment God can't change his nature - if it is triune, then it is triune. What I'm saying is that if you apply perfect logic, you can understand that the God that exists HAS to be triune and can't be understood any other way based on what the scriptures teach. Think of the ways that we love. All of this is a reflection of God's eternal nature. (I'm still hazy though on whether LDS believe in eternal generation of spirit children or if they didn't have an existence at some point in time - that might affect how I'd argue what I'm saying.) 🙂
Psalms 96:5
“For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.”
idols = not even close to God
DURBIN is DEBUNKED 👏👏👏👏 about time ,I’m so happy I found thoughtful faith ❤️❤️❤️
your mind is going to be blown when Pastor Jeff refutes this heresy by Thoughtful Faith next week. Turn on your notifications bud!
Durbin was not debunked. Jacob is a con man. Please do not listen to him; your soul is on the line.
Except durbin already responded putting little old Jacob in his place once again 😂 along with the wack theology mormons bring to to the table
Did you watch Pastor Jeff’s video yet?
Lol what like debunking him is difficult?
Thanks for posting this! Videos like this are needed. Our doctrine gets stronger with new scholarship into what the Bible actually teaches. Fascinating how Michel Heiser explained different heavenly beings with different responsibilities and glories.
Yet it twists scripture. There is only one God. All other gods are man made though our actions and the things we worship or idolize.
The Nicene creed is a perfect example of the philosophies of men (Greek and Roman), mingled with scripture. And after it was decided on, isn’t it interesting that those who did not agree with it were executed? It’s very clear that by these events and actions the true authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ was not involved, however, pagan emperor Constantine definitely was involved. The real challenge we have is to strive to be peacemakers in an environment where we are constantly under attack for what we believe. Jesus Christ set the perfect example, when, from the cross, and in the agony and suffering of the atonement pleaded with His Father, in Heaven “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
@boydjenkins you're absolutely right brother. Mass execution because of different doctrine considered heresy. It really is sad.
@av088r read psalm 82, there are many gods but only 1 GOD...
Well well done! This video has summarized all my recents thoughts on this very subject, and I couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo!
Excellent! Needs to be broadly shared!
I heard it was full of straw man arguments. I'm not impressed with Durbin's apolologetic tactics or his pastoral reputation.
But seriously Jacob. When will you and Jeff have a moderated debate? I know I’d be there and you’d get a lot of viewers. When do you want to do it?
Thank you for confronting these timely issues. You do an excellent job. I'm very grateful and am sharing with friends and family!!
I love your videos so much! Thank you! ☀️💕
This is like hearing nerds at a comic con debate star trek.
Jeff Durbin never brings out the full scriptural facts. Even though I do not believe in LDS doctrine, Durbin does not have the truth and his trinity doctrine is false too.
How would you characterize your faith, then?
@@danielwoodruff3118 I believe that Jehovah is the only true GOD, the Most High and Living GOD…even the God of Jesus. I have faith in both. Jehovah and his Son. Jesus is the Son of the Most High. (Luke 1:32)
@@NickHawaii
You're affiliated with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, I take it?
@@danielwoodruff3118 I belong to the worldwide Christian congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses. We have a legal agency for publishing yes. How about you?
@@NickHawaii
Reformed Anglican. Have you always associated yourself with the Jehovah's Witness movement or are you a convert from something else?
Ahhh Jeff… a bit theatrical and pedantic. You’ll find it shocking, but Jeff and James White both have a huge disagreement with Dr. Eisner. Imagine that. 😂
Doing the work for FAIR better than FAIR. Good one.
@@michaelmannucci8585 lol I’ll pass JD had his day. He’s not interesting amor relevant anymore.
Amazing work. Thank you for your research and sharing the great work of others.
I FREAKING LOVE THIS VIDEO!!! Thank you for all the work you do brother! Much appreciated & much love!
So well done! Pastor Durbin, I am sure does not yet realize what he is doing by making these attempts to accuse the brethren. Bless his heart. He would do well to take a lesson from Pastor Jeff with Hello Saints, to seek first to understand, then to be understood. Let’s combine our efforts to serve and lift others in need. There is so much work to be done.
Jeff Durbin is fighting the fight for the Triune God of Scripture that Pastor Jeff should be spearheading himself.
@@danielwoodruff3118 what if he’s actually fighting against the actual Church of Jesus Christ, like Saul/Paul of old?
i’ll defend anyone’s right to believe or practice their religion how they see fit, and I do know that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has taught us to love our enemies, do good to them that hate us and pray for them that despitefully use us and persecute us.
@@boydjenkins That's not possible. If Saul had examined the Scriptures, he would have realized the truth of Christianity long before Jesus appeared to him along that road to Damascus. There's no parallel between that and this situation. You're actively leading people after a false god & gospel. Your beliefs have no basis in Scripture. Your deity doesn't vaguely resemble ours. That's not a valid analogy.
@@danielwoodruff3118 I respect your right to choose to believe that. God bless you brother. I’ll let God be the judge. Jesus Christ let us know how we can decide whether someone is a false prophet or a true prophet, he said “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:20
“As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are to be examples of how to interact with others-especially when we have differences of opinion. One of the easiest ways to identify a true follower of Jesus Christ is how compassionately that person treats other people.
The Savior made this clear in His sermons to followers in both hemispheres. “Blessed are the peacemakers,” He said. “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” And then, of course, He gave the admonition that challenges each of us: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
Before His death, the Savior commanded His Twelve Apostles to love one another as He had loved them. And then He added, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
The Savior’s message is clear: His true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade, and inspire-no matter how difficult the situation. True disciples of Jesus Christ are peacemakers.”
@@boydjenkins You're clearly in a cult. Mormonism is evil.
I`ve often compared the LDS belief that Lucifer was once our spiritual brother vs. the Protestant belief that God created him, by asking the question: Which is worse, that God had spiritual children, of which Lucifer chose to rebel against the Father (having free will), or that God created Lucifer, knowing (being omniscient) that he would become the devil..? In the first paradigm, we can all understand how a child can choose to rebel against his/her parents whereas the second would mean that God alone is responsible for the evil in existence.
@John Cline No, because in the LDS paradigm of omniscience, God knows our trajectory, but we have the free-will to change that. Like the city of Ninevah with Jonah where they were told they would be destroyed but chose to change and they were not destroyed. The LDS paradigm of God`s omniscience is the only one I`m aware of which allows for both free-will and omniscience; though C.S. Lewis taught something quite similar...
@John Cline In other words, all of us were created on a good path, but could choose to change that. This being said, I`m sure God knew that some would fall because that is inevitable with beings of free-will.
@@joshuafoster2539 are you saying that when God created Hitler that he had a whole different plan for him and when Hitler (using his free agency) rebelled and killed all those Jews
God was completely caught off guard because He had no idea that was going to happen?
@@itstaylahn743 Not at all. C.S. Lewis described it as being like we are dots on a sheet of paper, and do not see what is ahead of us, but God sees us from above and can tell us exactly what is in front of us depending upon what direction we choose to go on that sheet. Therefore, Hitler was born in a neutral state but when he started to make choices, God could see what those choices would lead to. This is very very different from God knowing exactly what we will do at all times; which would require that there is no free-will because every act would have to be predetermined and only God would be responsible for our actions (or the devil`s)...
@@joshuafoster2539 so you’re saying that God doesn’t know what we will do at all times, therefore, His knowledge being limited?
Great video. The doctrine of the trinity was composed to destroy the relationship between God and his children and the "Christian" church today had made it the measure of all things. Christ called the creeds "an abomination" for that very reason; the creeds mystify the nature of God and destroy our family relationship to Him.
You don't have any relationship with Him. You don't even know who He is.
@@danielwoodruff3118 LDS are not the ones who refer to the "doctrine of the trinity" composed during the 4th century as an incomprehensible mystery. The mysterious "triune" God is not explained in the Bible, even in the verse invented for Erasmus for the 3rd edition of his Greek text (1 John 5:7).
If the triune nature of God is so evident in scripture, why was it the subject of debate from the 3rd century and even till today when multiple factions of "Christians" can argue over it and each can find "proof-texts" to support their position?
@@UtahKent Some aspects of Scripture are debatable. Modes of baptism, eschatological models, and the age of the Earth are all examples. However, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians all agree on certain basic things. There exists one eternal, infinite God who has revealed Himself to us in the form of three distinct Persons. God came to Earth in the Person of Jesus Christ and died a substitutionary death for our sins so that we could be reconciled to Him and forgiven our transgressions against Him. That's Christianity. All Christians throughout history have always worshipped the same triune God and exercised faith in the same gospel. That's what makes them churches and your organization a cult.
I think all Christians (and even just normal people) can agree that the Bible doesn't teach that God was an exhalted man who screwed his polygamous goddess sex-slave wives in the pre-existence to produce billions of spirit children. I think anyone who isn't an idiot understands that the idea of *a convicted fraudster having received golden plates (that nobody else could see) from a native American angel that told him that the Jews of the Bible were living in North America as a civilization noboody had ever heard of or found traces of* is stupid. With respect, sir, to characterize your movement as a "religion" is insulting to all adherents to credible religions not founded by a sex-obsessed pedophile or exposed for unapologetic fraud.
More more more!!
Thanks for your efforts at the debate and with your channel and debunking Apologia Studios. Latter Day Saints ought to heed the call from God through his apostle M. Russell Ballard to stop letting only those who oppose us define us and put our side up as well! We latter day Saints appreciate your efforts in doing this!
Thank you Jacob for doing this video. They have put more recent videos out of them talking to missionaries and sadly the Elders they talk to have very little scriptural knowledge and so it makes them appear as the ones having the truth. I would love to see you do a reaction video to those. Stand tall in the defense of the faith brother. God bless!!
This was painful to watch. Such a twisting of Heisers words and intentions. Yikes
Love it. Jeff seems to be a great guy. But he's obsessed with Mormons. And his arguments easily flayed.
That's a pretty absurd statement coming from a Mormon whose religious has been debunked as a hoax for decades now.
It’s interesting how people don’t realize that John 1:1 cannot be describing trinitarianism.
Think about it:
1. The Word is God
2. The Word is with God.
Now let’s define Word and God. Trinitarians will typically define the word as the person of Jesus, and God as the substance of the Trinity. If we rewrite the two propositions this way we get:
1. Jesus is the being known as God
2. Jesus is with the bring known as God.
But wait, if Jesus is that being, and it is a being of one undivided substance, then he cannot be alongside it. Especially as at this point, God exists outside of space, mutually exclusive from the rest of creation, (which at this point is yet to have been created) so it is impossible for anything to be with God where God is.
Yep! HO THEOS is with LOGOS and can’t be the same THEOS but qualitive.
@@NickHawaii are you a married Batchelor?
@@coachmarc2002 Haha!! Yeah I will always be a married Batchelor!😜
Totally untrue. There is only One True God. Come to Him and live. The stakes are too high for you to continue down this wicked path.
@@danielwoodruff3118 I agree that there is only One True God, and that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are one. But what does that mean?
Here’s my take on the trinity: For clarity, I believe in the Godhead, not the Trinity. I like to think of the Godhead like an actor and his two understudies all portraying Hamlet. There is only one character named Hamlet, and as far as the play is concerned, all three actors are the one true Hamlet. Their words and deeds are always the same. You could almost even say they are practically three beings as one person. God is much the same way: there is One True God, and that God is the Father. Jesus and the Holy Ghost stand in the place of God, representing him, so you can also say that they are God too.
Now the trinity is the inverse of this. It says God is three persons in one being. Like Gollum and Smeagol, multiple personalities sharing a body; three who’s but one what.
But that distinction almost immediately breaks down when you try to use it to actually explain scripture. Beyond that, this usage of persons and beings in no way corresponds to anything we can observe in reality. Being a human being is what makes you a specific person.
As people use them today, the words “person” and “being” are nonsense terms with no concrete line between them, and if you press a trinitarian, they cannot define the terms beyond what I’ve already said. Ultimately they will cop out and say it’s a mystery beyond human comprehension, and that you cannot say what God is, only what he isn’t. This goes against scripture which says that we can clearly understand the Godhead through observation of the reality around us. (Romans 1:19-20) so the trinity, this concept that doesn’t correspond to any aspect of rational reality and is beyond human comprehension, is disqualified by scripture.
Now even if we grant the idea that the nature of God is beyond us mere mortals, the trinity still doesn’t hold up. Pay close attention. There is a very important difference between something being beyond our comprehension because it is beyond our capacity, versus being incomprehensible because it goes against rationality. I can’t comprehend the 4th dimension because it’s beyond my capacity, but I can still approach it by extrapolating from the principles of the first three dimensions using math and logic (which is in line with Romans 1:19-20). However, a married bachelor is incomprehensible for an entirely different reason. I fully understand the component parts of marriage and bachelors, I just can’t reconcile the contradiction because it goes against rationality.
There is nothing wrong with saying that God is beyond us in the first sense. I have no problem with someone claiming God is a 4th dimensional being. But God cannot be incomprehensible in the second sense because God is the fountainhead of rationality, if he, the source of logic, were to embody the illogical, he would be a God of confusion and a house divided against itself, which cannot stand. (Matthew 12:25, 1 Cor. 14:33)
So how did rational people arrive at this irrational idea? Well let’s look at the original words used to describe the trinity. The technical terms for three persons in one being is three hypostases of one Ousia. And the idea of three persons sharing one substance is called Homoousia. Where do Christians get these idea from? They’ll tell you it’s from the Bible, but the terms trinity, homoousia, etc. do not appear in the Bible. Rather, the trinity can objectively be shown to derive from Greek philosophy, and not early Judeo-Christian theology.
The God of the Trinity is much closer to the immaterial unmoved mover believed by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who called his followers “those who wrestle with God.”
The terms hypostasis and ousia are terms prominent in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. In fact, Plato says that the Platonic forms of platonism are the definition of ousia/essence. And hypostasis meant the underlying substance of things. Literally Hypo=under + stasis=station/stance, so hypostasis is a direct one-to-one translation of sub-stance.
Meaning that when you say God is three hypostases/persons in one ousia/being, you are actually literally saying that God is three substances of one platonic form, which is ironically actually closer to the doctrine of the Godhead that I’ve been promoting, which is that God is three separate beings, all acting as the united person/character/blueprint of God.
So the early Christians, who did not believe in the modern trinity, tried to use the contemporary philosophical language of their day to describe God the way I am describing him, but that doctrine of the Godhead was obscured by the influence of the philosophies of men corrupting the original doctrine over the centuries. (Colossians 2:8-10)
In fact, I can prove that the term Hypostasis used to refer to the substance of God, rather than the person, in the context of the trinity. In the original text of the Nicene creed (which invented the trinity) it says that “anyone who claims Christ is a separate hypostasis from the Father is made anathema.” Meaning that according to the original formulation, the modern rendering of the trinity as three hypostases/persons in one ousia/being, is wrong. It was only later on that hypostasis came to mean person instead of substance, and the trinity got inverted into what we have today.
If the history doesn’t convince you, then I will show how the trinity re-defines the clear meaning of the words of scripture. I challenge anyone to show me any passage in scripture that teaches homoousia-the idea that God is one in substance-that could not very easily be understood to mean that God is one in will and purpose instead.
On the other hand, I can point to several passages that not only make it clear that God is one in purpose, but also preclude the idea that he is one in substance. John 17:20-23 shows that all believers can become ONE with Jesus and the Father IN THE SAME MANNER as they are one with EACH OTHER.
Romans 8:16-17 says much the same thing by calling us joint-heirs with Christ glorified together. How can Jesus be an heir of the Father if they are the same being, what could Jesus inherit from the Father that he doesn’t already have? And how could we also be heirs to that type of oneness? Furthermore, how can Jesus be begotten by the Father if he is the Father: can a man conceive himself?
The baptism of Jesus also shows all three persons in different places and forms. Jesus in the water, the Holy Spirit as a dove, and the Father is heaven. The same thing happens again at Stephen’s martyrdom. The scripture itself supports the Godhead over the Trinity.
Hinduism is not a modern religion, it's actually the oldest.
The elders assigned to my branch had the pleasure of running into a durbinite. We were reading the pamphlet he gave them and laughing at the obvious misrepresentations between conference sessions yesterday.
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”
― C.S. Lewis
A good point: Mormons know the truth in their hearts, but choose to suppress it in favor of their sin, no different that any other stripe of unbeliever.
Thank our ETERNAL PARENT'S, for the restoration of THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, back on earth.
Great video Jacob
Got 'em, Jake.
Great work.
@@michaelmannucci8585 waiting for the diss track.
Calvinism is loosely based on scripture being taken out of context.
First century Christians believed in an embodied God, not a neoplatonic form.
@@JaysonCarmona Looks like my comments have been deleted. I see Jake doens't want the truth out!
“You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, like men [he’s not talking to men; he’s talking to angelic beings] you shall die,
and fall like any prince. (Psalm 82:6-7)
"We know that an idol is nothimg. And there is no other god but one." 1Cor 8:4. Heiser is a scholar of the below average class.
Great video series! I would invite you to consider changing the title and at times the condescending tone. Brother Durban is one of our brethren who in the pre-mortal existence stood on the side of our other brother and I imagine supported and promoted our Heavenly Fathers plan. I don’t believe we are here to intellectually destroy anyone or bash them into submission. I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is our Lord’s restored Church. We invite Brother Durbin and others to consider adding to their faith the truths that we have come to know for ourselves. That time may not come until the return of our Lord and Savior; and until then may we treat one another with patience, in the Lord’s way, by invitation and a spirit of brotherly kindness.
While I totally agree with your sentiment, I don’t necessarily agree to your approach by your comment.
Disagreement and debate is not “UnChristlike.” Alma and Amulek did not just invite the Zoromites to the true gospel- they challenged and reasoned with them. Same with John the Baptist. He invited with love, but also challenged the Scribes and Pharisees that thought they knew and had everything. Jesus did this and the early disciples did this.
Yes…. We are to love, share and invite; however, we are also called to defend and sustain the Church and restored gospel. There is a tricky balance in this, and one needs the guidance of the Spirit to do it right. Having said that, this video is a fair challenge and refutation of Jeff’s talking points. See, it’s not so important that Jeff is wrong, it’s that the “gospel” he offers is of a far less glory and benefit both now and into the eternities.
The restored gospel, IS the gospel. It is the pure truth and doctrine of Christ. It is worth defending. It is worth discussion and debate to those who so relentlessly attack. The truth will set us free. Jeff does have some truth and some light in Christ, no doubt. However, Jeff needs to be checked by his claims. It needs to be shown that they don’t hold any real weight at all. Yes, we will continue to extend the hand of fellowship and love always, regardless. But let’s not put that over spreading the gospel and gathering Israel. Plus, Jeff loves this. He literally wants to debate all the time.
As a reformed Protestant, I ask that you please refrain from referring to us as your "brothers." We practice entirely different religions and worship completely unrelated deities. This contributes to the perception of Mormons as "deceptive" and "dishonest."
@@chrishumphries7489 There is only One True Triune God. Come to Him and live.
@@danielwoodruff3118 “Come to Him and live” certainly denotes at least some personal effort. I thought you were completely against personal effort. Am I misunderstanding?
@@chrishumphries7489
Yes, it appears we do indeed have a misunderstanding.
Salvation is analogous to endorsing a check you received in the mail as a gift from a friend. You don't have to do anyhting to "earn" it. It's yours. You've received it. All you have to do is "endorse" it and give it your signature. That's it. No asterix, qualifier, or conditions attached. Signing the check is like faith. Placing your trust in Jesus is just accepting/adopting for yourself the gift that you've already been offered.
It's not a perfect analogy by any stretch, but I hope it helps.
Hey Dude, did you learn the difference between “reformation” and “restoration” yet? I sure hope so!
Interestingly enough, in Genesis chapter 1 - 2:3. The first 7 days of creation. Then from 2:4 on it says LORD God, which any time it says LORD in all caps it is saying Jehovah or YHWH God. Which is Jesus. He then caused rain to fall giving life to earth and created man breathing life into his nostrils.
Interesting when you see that it is right there.
I’m so glad you made this video, Jeff Durbin thinks he’s a pretty smart guy who has us all figured out and it makes me cringe. Any critical and honest thinking makes him nervous
A rather silly and ironic statement, coming from a Mormon.
Thanks for what you are doing, you lighting the life of people.
Thanks you for talking about this. You are awesome man. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
If the so-called prophets and apostles can't prove the church is true, what makes you think you can?
I use to destroy Durbin, “Dr” White and Luke the Koala Bear in the comments on their TH-cam channel. Of course, they blocked me when realizing I was exposing their claims.
I somehow doubt that. More likely you were just being boorish and rude to their viewers, as Mormon apologists are. Your above comment suggests you could use a serious humility check.
I think there is an immense difference between what guys like Heiser and Boyd teach about “gods” and what the LDS faith has taught about God/gods. Now that many LDS people have realized the absurdity of an eternal succession of Gods, or to otherwise escape accusations of polytheism, they are reaching for other theories that can detach them from Smith’s blatantly anti-biblical theological teaching.
The difference is, Heiser/Boyd teach that these “gods” are angels, fallen angels, etc. A non-fallen angel won’t provoke false worship. However, the LDS teach that obedient human beings become Gods-equal to Yahweh of Scripture. No way would Heiser/Boyd affirm the LDS teaching. False gods of Scripture are deceptive and are condemned; LDS theology has taught that they are exalted, namely exalted men. That is a difference that is not bridged by this clip and probably cannot be reconciled.
So if there are no other God's comparable to the Father, like Michael Heiser says, and He is the "most high" what does that say about His heavenly father and all the others before him like mormonism teaches must exist?
To us, there is no other God. “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
@@chrishumphries7489That's the early Christian doctrine contrasting the pagan practice of worshiping many Gods or polytheism to Christian monotheism. But thats not the LDS doctrine of how there are many Gods who exist and you can become one if you check all the boxes of mormonism well enough. Be honest. No gaslighting.
@@coachmarc2002 That’s the doctrine. Rewatch this video for a list of some scriptures that support theosis. Further, there are many Christian Biblical scholars and historians that now agree that Theosis was taught and believed by most early Christians. There are numerous Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers who speak and write about theosis. This is all not hard to find. There is abundant support for the doctrine. Is this gaslighting? You don’t have to believe it, but go investigate yourself. I believe it. Many sources now support it, the restoration has always taught it.
@@chrishumphries7489 no early Christians believed man could become a God in the same sense as the Father or Christ is.
@@coachmarc2002 Neither do we, depending on what you mean by that. Can we become like the Father and the Son? Yes!! Can we ever ignore or replace the Father and Son? Absolutely not.
Romans 8:16-17 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."
Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."
- Are we joint heirs or partial heirs? Will we inherit glory (the glory of God) or not? Will will actually sit IN the throne of God, or not?
There are other scriptures that suggest we may inherit "all things." Well, is this just a gift of God's "stuff", or is it also a gift of capacity, power, might, righteousness, etc? Would that not also include all things?
1 Corinthians 2:9, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
This is one of the manifestations of the love of God, that He is actually willing to share ALL THINGS. Does God not have the power, ability or will to make others as Himself? Especially if He has literal children? (Acts 17: 28, Hebrews 12:9)
God is not a selfish being at all. He is willing to lift up all others to Himself. Yet, He will always be our God and we will always reverence Him, no matter what we become or are. This is how much God loves us, and how much we need to love, respect and revere God forever and always.
Watched the videos and found it interesting that in most of the rebuttal, the Bible was used as defense not the Book of Mormon. So in that case, why is the book of Mormon necessary for faith in Christ?
The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ. It restores precious truths and acts as evidence for the divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
The word of God is necessary for faith in Christ, which word the Book of Mormon contains as does the Bible. Jacob merely rebuts using the Bible because many people criticize when it isn't used.
thank you for your explanations. Can one follow Christ, be saved by Christ only with the Bible without the addition of the Book of Mormon?
@@rabbitwilliams1134 That's an interesting question, can you be saved without the Old Testament? Or without the New Testament?
@@kenton6804 Right. Good Point. Of course the Holy Spirit brings the testimony of Jesus Christ through His creation, his historical life, His written Word, and the testimony of witness. If I do not have the Book of Mormon, can one be saved?
So, the doctrine of the Trinity is from greek philosophy, but the doctrine, that there are millions of gods and one day you will become one is from the Bible...
I do not consider myself a scriptorian. But, I know enough about the Bible to know that any time some scripture is quoted to prove something, there is another one in there that contradicts it. Thus, I once heard Joseph Fielding McConkie reply when asked to prove something by the Bible for the benefit of some nonmember, "I can't prove it by the Bible. If all we had was the Bible we wouldn't be any better off than they are!" (paraphrased)
And, wait, Jesus created Satan? How in the world is that more comforting than the thought that Lucifer (Satan) is Jesus' (and our) brother? *sheesh*
Still haven't apologized for Miss characterizing the late Dr Heiser?
Jeff is right on.
I love it when people speak in Greek or Hebrew to try to convince you that they know what they`re talking about, haha. Not buying it Durbin.
Pastor Jeff Durbin is more well-read on the Bible than Jacob or any of these other Mormons could ever hope to be. Examine your pride.
@@danielwoodruff3118 Let`s agree to disagree ;-) Maybe it`s your pride that needs to be examined...
@@joshuafoster2539
With respect, I'm not the one who believes he's going to become a deity after he dies.
@@joshuafoster2539
I'm not trying to be witty or sly. All I did was repeat what Joseph Smith said. "You've all got to learn how to become gods yourselves." If you sincerely believe that, why did you take offense to my reply?
@@danielwoodruff3118 And with Joseph`s teachings I just provided the context :-) I`m quite certain no one likes to see their beliefs being misrepresented.
Jeff is good at approaching street apologetics like martial arts. Bob, weave, quick blows before the victim has time to react. I've watched his videos. When he gets frustrated, he overwhelms the other part, interrupts and turns into a bully.
I don’t agree with you. But I love hearing an opposing viewpoint.
So many lost people here its sad.
I agree: Mormon platforms are sobering to visit in that one can observe demonic deception in such a profound and unique way. It should make us all the more grateful for the work that God has done in opening up our eyes to His truth while we were still spiritually dead.
Then is it a statement of imcomparbility when He says i am the only Saviour? I think not. Hiesees exegesis is lacking because no part of the grammer teaches they are statments of incomparbility, but absolute monotheism. Hieser was and is incorrect.
I have noticed that each time a true believer started teaching error, they became sick physically, and went home prematurely. Remember Harold Camping, now Hieser, and many orhers before them and will be after them.
I think you really misrepresent the late Dr. Heiser.
Got to hand it the guy in this video that Michael Heiser's comments and reasoning more compelling. Point to note seems like the guy in the video here is using a man to establish the truth, Mr. Durbin is quoting the Bible, surely Mr. Durbin is out of touch with good proper reasoning. Just like luciifer provided good sound reasoing with Eve to eat... Got to hand it this video really is providing an excelling comparison that we should all consider.
This view is looking a lot like dogma over reason.
Apparently, we all should just trust Jeff’s interpretation of the Bible and never use any cultural, academic, or linguistic approaches to understand the text. Because he just understands it somehow without any of these things. If we were studying the Epic of Gilgamesh, would we really dismiss any scholarly approaches to the text and just think we inherently “get it”? These texts were written thousands of years before we were born by people who used different metaphors, had different beliefs, and had far different cultural environments. Have you ever lived in a different country or studied another language? Even if you know the language you don’t necessarily catch on to all the idioms and other subtleties. So no, you can’t understand the Biblical texts in their depth without scholarship, and even with scholarship, we don’t know what a lot of passages mean.
Additionally, the meaning of a text is heavily impacted by why it was written, and for that, you need historical context…hence scholarship. Cite some scholarship to engage with this view, don’t just say we can’t trust reason, we can only trust tradition.
Here’s another fun fact: is the serpent in Genesis Satan? Not according to the Jewish Study Bible. This Genesis text is far more complex and mysterious than you think. The snake is a snake. Other interpretations require eisegesis, not exegesis. In fact, funnily enough the snake actually is right. The fruit does make them “like the Gods, knowing good and evil”. Also, God told them that in the day they would eat they would die…and they don’t. “Thou shalt not surely die”, interestingly the snake’s explanation seems accurate, especially if they had then eaten of the tree of eternal life.
This story is quite mysterious, and citing it like it’s a clear example of how we shouldn’t use reason is suspicious. We shouldn’t fall victim to the trap of walking into the forest of scripture and only hearing the voice we ourselves are yelling into it.
My understanding of Mormon scripture is that the word God can refer to God the Father, a divine Being of the same kind as His very own Son, and the word God can refer to the divine Elohim: an infinite, eternal, unchangeable UNION or LINEAGE that COLLECTIVELY has all tri-omni power and creates worlds without end.
The finite divine Beings that are members of the divine Elohim are resurrected Beings like Jesus and his Father. Like all "living" beings They are eternal intelligences in eternal progression. When the resurrected Jesus or his Father speak they speak in behalf of all members of the divine Elohim.
The term "a God" in this scripture must refer to the One Infinite God, and not to just God the Father.
“By these things we know that there is "a God" [the divine Elohim] in heaven, who is INFINITE and ETERNAL, from everlasting to everlasting the same UNCHANGEABLE God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;" -D&C 20:17
God can be whatever God wants to be? Who are we to say God can't? Berashit bara Elohim et. He is who He is.
Tanis Campbell is God our father a male and have an unchanging gender? God our Mother is female and they said… Let US make man in OUR image. You can’t make mortal men without having a Father and a Mother. The Elohim can include Mother and Father. I guess it would be possible for God our Father to organize man in his image without a Woman but he would have to break a lot of rules to do so. Mother and Father in my view are equal and both play a role in the creation of Mankind. God would be a tyrant God by not including Mother in the creation process. He would be exercising a violation of Agency against Mother.
And who are we to say God can't? What does it mean to be made in Their image? I think our language lacks the ability to fully describe God, and only offers the ability to communicate that God is, in the sense that God exists. Are we an image of God because we have physical bodies or because of our mental capacity? Is a father defined by the way they look or by the way they act? What are the rules for creating a mortal man?
@@taniscampbell5452 the Rosh on Beroshiet Be Rosh iet is in reference to the head God. The translators of Genesis apply it to the head of time (in the beginning) I believe this to be a mistake in translation. I believe the Rosh to be in reference to God (The Head God) some say it (God most High) this mistake causes many to accept a triune God. Not only Triune but immaterial God as well. we are organized as humans in the same way God is and vice versa.
Genesis 5:3
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
this scripture is in the same language as Genesis 1:26
I accept that if Adam can begat a son after his image, then God can organize Adam in the same way that, Adam begat Seth.
God is a spirit but he is more than spirit. God has a Body of flesh and Bones and I can prove it from the New Testament.
@@littlebigband2010 Bet, Resh, El, Shin, Yad, Taw. In the beginning. Bet, Resh(bar/son of) El, Shin(leader, destruction) Yad, Taw (hand/work, Cross/Sign) The Son of God is destroyed by his own hand upon the cross. (Bet)The House of(Resh) Man is (El)strengthened (Shin)eating (Yad) the work of (Taw)the sign. (Bet) The House (Resh) of Man, is in Bet, Resh(bar/Son of) El(God). It is all there in the first word. Actually incredibly clever use of the language. Alot can be interpreted from that first word. I have never heard of Resh interpreted the way you propose though. Interesting none the less.
@@taniscampbell5452 I don’t think suicide is the same as father sacrificing his only begotten son. Sorry I don’t buy it. Your explanations just add more questions. Self sacrifice or Suicide or even murdering your own son. Too many cans of worms when all you have to do is accept that God the Father and Jesus Christ and HG are seperate. They are One God. Defining God in the English language as a fellowship. “There is only one fellowship.” God desires all his Children to choose to join his fellowship.
For me, it’s just a simple as this: Is God all-powerful? If God is all powerful, can’t he make his children Gods if He believes they merit such a blessing?
Heavenly Father already created one God and His name is Jesus Christ, who is our BROTHER. But He can’t create others??? Give me a break.
The Mormon understanding of Theosis, and the Christian understanding of Theosis are vastly different.
In Eastern Christianity, Theosis is becoming one with God. Complete submission to him and unity with his Divine Will. Not sure what the equivalent is in Western Christianity.
From my understanding, Mormonism's idea of Theosis is becoming a god, or at the very least, becoming like Heavenly Father or like Jesus Christ. I say "at the very least" because the Mormon idea of the God-head is Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost being worshipped as one God because of common purpose/life, not because they are in reality one divine being but rather 3 separate brings. Given that Mormon's hold that Heavenly Father is a glorified man, the Mormon idea of Theosis (becoming a god) makes sense.
However, the unfortunate problem Mormonism runs into is that their understanding of God and the Christian understanding of God are completely different. As mentioned, the Mormon view is that Heavenly Father was once a man who was then glorified, and he "created" us for the same purpose.
The Christian understanding of God is that he is the thing that is existence, through which and in which all other things exist. Self Persisting Existence is how St. Thomas Aquinas put it. Another way to word is using the name God gave himself in the Bible: I AM WHO AM.
Now, the Christian understanding is that God is essentially different (as in different in his very essence) from man. And given that God is the thing that is (for the sake of brevity) his Essence and his Existence are the same. Man's essence (what he is) and his existence (that he is) are separate.
So, from the Christian perceptive, it is literally impossible for man to become a god (not to mention that it is metaphysically contradictory to have two "gods" as one of the two would have to cause the other, make in the first one God, or they would have to be caused by something else, and that third thing would be God).
Now, in Christianity, we believe that one is able to participate in the Divine Nature by the Will of God, as in God allows us to participate in his nature to some degree.
Jacob mistakenly claims that the Trinity is 1 divine nature 3 divine and separate persons. This is not the Christian view. The orthodox view (not orthodox as in Eastern Orthodox) is that God is 1 divine nature, 3 divine persons, who are distinct from one another, yet not separate from one another. Jacob also claims that Trinitarian philosophy is "well after the New Testament was written" So what? The explanation for a thing can come after the discovery of a thing.
Either way, Jacob cannot use this verse:
"That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." John 17:21
Because Mormons believe both the Father and the Son have bodies. How can they be in each other if they both have bodies? Isn't the reasoning for the Holy Ghost not having a body is that so he can dwell in us?
Also, Jacob claims that the Trinity is philosophically unsound, largely impart because he misunderstands it. At the same time, Mormons claim that the God-head is three divine beings. Two of those divine beings have bodies. GOD CANNOT HAVE A BODY. Why? Bodies are made of matter, and matter has potency. God, properly speaking, not the Mormon view, is pure act and does not have potency. Since matter is a type of potency (matter is subject to change), and since there is no potency in God, God cannot be made of matter, and therefore does not have a body (skipping a couple building blocks for brevity).
I want to go on and on, but have to stop at some point.
I encourage this Jacob to engage with Catholic thinkers (Joe Heschmeyer, Carlo Broussard and Trent Horn are really good) rather than Protestant ones. Catholicism and Mormonism have certain parallels that would result in a much more productive dialogue.
PS
Jacob claims to use facts and logic, yet juxtaposes Mormon ideas into his conclusions while also misrepresenting what he is arguing against.
I'm pretty sure the Bible isn't trying to tell us that all other claims of "God" from other religions are real.
Jeff Durbin acts like he knows the Bible perfectly, but this is showing that he doesn’t actually read everything except for what helps his confirmation bias. He does exactly what he blames all of latter-day Saints of doing.
RIP michael heiser
The Trinity is three distinct persons, the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy spirit, sharing in one essence, substance and essence. The Trinity is God, God created all things through Jesus Christ. COL 1:16 .
In regards to US in Genesis, it was referring to Adam and Eve will now know what evil is, God knew evil, but Adam and Eve did not know evil until they committed evil acts. The US is the Trinity, the three persons in the Trinity.
Adam and Eve are in ONE flesh.... Adam and Eve are distinct different people.
Why do you need to debate to each other, it makes me go away from christianity, to much negativity and moking different pastor vs pastor, preaches vs preacher. Like how can we then listen anyone?
Excellent video. So glad to see that cheesy video debunked. Emotional sensationalism is ridiculous. This guy with his soft music playing. 😂
That video has brought countless people chafed under Joseph Smith's yoke to freedom in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mocking it and its power does not help your cause.
@@danielwoodruff3118 I know it seems that way to you, or that you may know that Joseph Smith was a horrible person or that the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is a False Church, a cult, and or a broken religion, but I testify to you that it’s not. I sought God for a long time. He answered me, led me to the church, and I know you may not believe that, but I have received so many validations, confirmations, and just repeated answers to prayer that have led me be on the shadow of a doubt, to the conclusion that the book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith is a very misunderstood, miss characterized, targeted and slandered person but that he is actually a prophet, and he did do what the Lord told him to do ultimately, and that was restore Christ’s Church. I am not deceived. I am not lost, I am not confused, and I don’t worship a false Jesus. I walked the walk and talked to talk and sought after God with all my heart, mind might and strength, and I got to know him, and he led me. Not only did he lead me, but he led me in a way that was perfect for me, and at the right time, and I mean the right time, he led me to the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. Since joining and getting baptized, I have again received nothing but confirmation again, and again that this is indeed his true church restored to the earth. The book of Mormon makes the Bible makes so much more sense, and without it, we are handicapping ourselves from the whole truth.
@@Killthesefears
I believe that you're sincere. If you don't mind my prodding, though, I am curious about your statement, "I have received so many validations, confirmations, and just repeated answers to prayer that have led me be on the shadow of a doubt, to the conclusion that the book of Mormon is true...". I realize this is a bit of a personal question and I understand if you'd rather not answer, but I would be interested to know what "validations, confirmations, and just repeated answers to prayer" you are referring to, if you're okay talking about it.
@@danielwoodruff3118 thank you for asking. I don’t mind answering at all. It’s hard to put into words what I’m trying to explain, but there are so many times that this has happened or something that is similar has happened and it mostly just Hass to do with God. As I’ve gotten to know him, I’ve gotten to know his characteristics and his traits so when special things happen, I am able to know and determine if it is Him or not. It is spiritual but we call them “tender mercies”. Anyway, they are just things that happen all the time that help me now that God loves me but they are also definitely conditional because there are times when I don’t know if I should do a certain thing or not and then I’ll experience him, teaching me, or showing me or pointing the direction I should go end and it was that kind of leader ship, that I experienced that led me to the book of Mormon. These are sacred intimate experiences, but the more you read scripture the more you gain a stronger understanding of who God is then the more you know when it is him doing some thing or showing you something and all the things that I’ve experienced from him have always lined up with who I know him to be. When it came to the stuff I didn’t understand or in a broader context to the stuff that I don’t understand I know that he will teach lead and instruct and guide me, that is how I got to the book of Mormon, and that was definitely a road that had a lot of questions in it because as most Christians would expect, you wouldn’t probably necessarily expect to be told by God that the book of Mormon is true, and that Mormons are good and that that is the way to go. He navigated me through that course and helped me to understand and he did it in such a kind and loving way that it left no doubt that it was him and everything that I was shown, taught and explained, was not only consistent with who I knew God to be and what I knew to be the truth, but it was also consistent with the truth that I know to be more true every day. Again, this was hard to explain and put into words but there you go and there is definitely more but here’s what I’ve got so far. And also if I tried to show you and list all the different instances that have showed me that God is real, and that the book of Mormon is scripture and a true history of his people, I would not have enough time to explain and also it’s happened so many times that I can’t remember them off the top of my head, but those memories get reignited when they are supposed to whenever it’s time.
Yes Jeff... We are very familiar about that 😂. Jacob 🤯
Whose glory was revealed by a peep stone in a top hat? The decievers glory- whom gives promises inline with your lusts. Perpetual cosmic intercouse with a harem of spirit wives.
What a waste of time. Just man up and have Jacob on your show instead of putting words in his mouth the entire time.
Here is Jeff's response.
th-cam.com/users/liveB4X7LlIA7j4?feature=share
those are boasts in the middle east
Psalms 90:2 “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”
Micah 5:2 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
But the lds church teaches that God hasn’t always been God.
“As man now is, God once was: “As God now is, man may be.” Feeling that he had received “a sacred communication” that he should guard carefully, Lorenzo Snow did not teach the doctrine publicly until he knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught it.
If God has been God from everlasting to everlasting then He could never have been a man, even for just a second of His existence. He has always been God and will always be God forever and ever.
This Ptr Durbin is pitiful, but the people who believe in him are even more pitiful. Change Ptr Durbin😪.
Doug Wilson admits that he believes the Greek Gods exist but not as divine beings but as demonic ones
Angels are called gods in Psalm 8:5. It’s biblical. Of course not on the same Par as the Most High God Jehovah. (Psalm 83:18)
@@NickHawaii I honestly think a lot of this talking past each other is caused by a difference of language.
@@maplelakemountain8880 Many have a western view of “gods” rather than a biblical one. The same is true with the title “Lord”. It doesn’t just apply to God or his Son. Others can be called “Lord”. Of course Jehovah is the Sovereign LORD and Jesus is his Messianic Lord. Big difference.
@@NickHawaii you mean your interpretation of the Bible?
@@NickHawaii Psalm 89:6 is another great verse about Jehovah's superiority among the Sons of El.
And the Hebrew in Jeff's video is backwards. I know Hebrew and so he looses all credibility for me.
Deleting my comment, Jake? Scared the truth will get out?
Lol. I did not delete anything. Would you like to come on my show and discuss what you felt he refuted? I encourage everyone to go see Jeffs video.
@@thoughtfulfaith2020 Here's a better idea: Why don't you reach out and ask Jeff to come on your show or go on his show? I am certain he would be open to that! Then he can't hide behind his fancy cinematography, right?
@@michaelmannucci8585 I don't think Jeff wants to. But yeah it would be interesting.
@@frankszulakiewicz5826 100% wrong. They would 100% have him on the show. Jake would never put himself in that position.
@michaelmannucci8585 I think he would, he already had the other Jeff from "hello Saints "on his show. The only difference is Jeff Durbin is aggressive about his religion.
Poor Paul. I'd hate to have to debate Jacob.
I definitely don’t think the “other gods” are real at all so it’s kind of strange that you include a video from someone who suggests that pagan gods are real… correct me if I’m wrong there because I do really like all of your content. I don’t think that’s actual doctrine taught by the brethren. Obviously though I see the point that you’re trying to make that there are many real gods and we are destined to become one ourselves, but that doesn’t mean Zeus is real. I’m just commenting that it’s strange to include in your video. Please respond if you think I’m misinterpreting. Love your stuff!
Mind, Body and Soul or Spirit.
Yahweh is The Creator - there is no other! There are no other worlds with other humans created by other gods.
"I am The Alpha and The Omega, The First and The Last, The Beginning and The End."
Revelations 22:13
These comments seem oddly groomed.
Jesus is the way
Then your God is not the God of the Universe. He is just one of many, like pagan Hindus
17:52 Sorry it’s pretty easy to interpret this verse in the trinity. It’s referring to the 3 persons because within the trinity the persons have relationship with one another. But you do make a lot of good points in the video in other places.
Except then you have to prove that the people recording this story did so with trinitarianism in mind, when all evidence suggests that Trinitarianism was not believed in any form until thousands of years later and that Genesis was written through the lens of a Mesopotamian-esque phenomenology. Especially when YHWH and El are so clearly distinguished and are separate beings.
@@KnuttyEntertainment no you guys are talking from completely different worldviews they don’t have to prove the personage as much as you guys have to prove beings
@@maplelakemountain8880
1. Joseph Smith believed in and saw multiple beings. His testimony is both prophetic and reliable
2. The people writing the Bible also believed in and saw multiple beings.
3. Multiple beings/the Latter-Day Saint Godhead is a more consistent exegesis of the text than trinitarianism.
4. The origin of trinitarianism can be traced back to Greek philosophy, and not the beliefs of the biblical writers.
5. Seeing as trinitarianism is incoherent, illogical, and does not follow any rational pattern that can be observed elsewhere in nature but is completely alien to human comprehension of reality, it is therefore not unreasonable to expect proponents of trinitarianism to rationally justify their theory (which is inherently impossible). Or to expect them to at least prove that their theory is the same one held by the Biblical authors, which all evidence suggests it was not.
There's my proof.
Where's yours?
Take your exact biblical “proofs” and replace the word being with person and godhead with trinity and there’s my proof. ( my point with this rhetoric is your bringing vastly different assumptions from your worldview and criticizing someone’s else’s worldview from yours and because of this. People will always talk past each other) if you wanna have a productive conversation. Let’s bring our assumptions and presuppositions and tell the world why there more valid then someone else’s.
@@maplelakemountain8880 Seeing as neither of us have cited any actual references, I'll acknowledge points 2-4 as cancelling out between us, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, that does not explain away points 1 or 5. As neither can you impeach Joseph's testimony nor can you provide an adequate analogy for how the trinity is even supposed to work.
Impeachability of Joseph Smith: th-cam.com/video/RMV90SEhPjY/w-d-xo.html
Poor guy. Out in the cold. No hat. Sanctimonious music playing in the background.
Yes, Pastor Durbin has sacrificed much to bring the gospel to your people. In response, you spit on him and make nonsensical videos attempting to "debunk" his presentation of Scripture. He has nothing to gain by sacrificing his time for you.
This is mormons twisting scripture. We know humans make gods for themselves. Putting anything before God is making that thing a Bible. There is only one God. He is our savior which we have only one. The one God who came to earth and died for our sins, Jesus. He is 1 of three persons of God. Isaiah 43:11 says "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour." We only have one savior and that is Jesus, God the Son.
Amen!
Howdy. You lay out the argument in this podcast that when God himself, and his underlings, state He is the only God - He was merely employing hyperbole, in the same way fans of the Green Bay Packers employ such in lauding their team. Good job! Your argument is successful in the same way Fair Mormon is successful in taking fence-sitting Mormons and removing them from the fence, making them solid unbelievers. Your argument in this podcast that God was merely exaggerating, boasting about his preeminence reveals that you and Mormons believe in a god, I could not possibly respect. An entity, engaging in such trivial self aggrandizement is not worthy of anyone’s attention, let alone worship. Footnote: if your illustrious Dr. Michael Heiser is such a respected and authoritative scholar of God… Why isn’t he a Mormon? Have a nice day, whatever your name is. Helpful tip: you are utterly dripping with arrogance. This is rarely a good look. However, people who truly have Earned their gravitas can sometimes get away with such arrogance. But you would do well to keep in mind, those who have not earned their arrogance, will not benefit by putting it on display.
Jacob, you should apologize for misrepresenting Dr. Heiser. What a shoddy piece of scholarship and lack of integrity on your part.
Seems pretty well represented. No apology necessary.
The Bible does plainly teach there is only one God, who has been God for eternity past. I’ll stick to the plain reading, as one should, honestly I believe it’s foolishness to take the words of a convicted glass looker over the revealed word of God.
Are you a convicted glass looker?
Glass looking is bad because...... it just is OKAY!
Mormons don’t care how sleazy or diabolical Joe Smith was.
You are incorrect.
Great argument.
@@thekolobsocietyWhat is more important...Long sentences or correct answers?
@@djentile7773 Correct answers are more important of course. That is why your comment is not helpful regardless of how long or short it is. That is of course unless you are the sort of person that believes something to be true just because you declare it is.
If you haven’t seen the debate between Kwaku, a college aged LDS, you should watch it. kwaku destroys “Doctor” White and Durbin. It was two against one and Kwaku schooled them.
Kwaku made a fool of himself and his religion on an aired Christian program. So many people have seen/will see that debate and know that there is only One True Triune God.