I think that it is okay to admit that the Gospels were not written with the Holy Trinity dogma in mind. I’m sure even the Gospel of John’s Jesus didn’t believe that he was co-omnipotent and co-omniscient with God the Father.
AMEN 🙏 Because John 1 is misunderstood Removing Mary and the conception of Jesus Christ to the Word of God JUST miraculously turning into a Human being.. When in Reality John 1 is an abbreviated expression of All that happened from the Creation of the world. Law by Moses and Grace through Jesus Christ 🙏
LOL 😂 at your ignorance: the John 20:28,29 wouldn't be in the Book: as Jesus didn't deny what Thomas said about Him. " the Lord of me and the GOD of me " If Jesus is another god besides the Father then you have Dan's Mormonism nonsense !!! The Trinity is from the Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology that Jesus taught including Paul and Rabbinic Judaism rejected in the 2nd century AD because it supported Christianity's claims of Jesus being both Lord and God/ the Visible YHWH of Genesis 19:24.
@@davidjanbaz7728 What is the meaning of AND ? Thomas saw God is Jesus Christ.( 2 Corinthians 5:19 ) They were jews and knew that God was a Spirit as explained by Jesus Christ ( John 4:24 ) . No jew in Jesus Christ time Ever said he was God at anytime. ( We are told to RIGHTLY Devide God's word ) Not just quote Scriptures to try to justify of denominational Doctrines. No Apostle of Jesus Christ Ever Taught this Trinity Doctrine. Every Apostles Epistle Salutation ( Clearly distinguished GOD ( The God of Jesus Christ and the one True God of the Bible ( The Father alone is God ) 1 Corinthians 8:6 . One God and One Lord Jesus ( NOTE ) One Lord Doesn't exclude THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.. Jesus Christ was made lord ( Acts 2:36 ) ... BY GOD ....
@@davidjanbaz7728 Jesus calls the father the only true God (John 17 3) and My God and your God (John 20 17). He calls the father greater than him too. Jesus is not the supreme GOD, but only a God like Satan. Ä And the Thomas verse refers to God the Father not Jesus. When I say to you "oh my God" When something amazing happens, I don't refer to you personally
2 True Stories: 1. I had a friend who was a monk in the Orthodox church (he later became a bishop) who said he loved going to Western churches on Trinity Sunday and hear them try to talk about the doctrine of the Trinity. "It's a mystery, you're not supposed to understand it!" 2. I was a Benedictine monk for 5 years. The novice-master said, "Anyone who pretends to understand the doctrine of the Trinity has fallen into heresy somewhere. Even St Augustine, who wrote a whole book on it, couldn't explain it."
I agree. I was a Dominican, and formation was completely immersed in Thomism. Aquinas spent a lot of time addressing the Trinity. The more I read, the less sense it made. This concept that it is "three persons in one God,"--each equally and fully God was contradictory. If each person in the Trinity is perfectly and eternally the infinite God in every aspect, what possibly distinguishes one from the other? Does one or two of them lack some perfection? If so, that cannot be God.
@@Infideles Yes, indeed, the more I studied, the more I began to wonder, "Why is our mythology true and everybody else's false?" And came to the conclusion that all of them are false. As a Jewish Lesbian comedian said, "all religions are the same, just guilt with different holidays."
In a sense it can be explained, It’s just that it can never be fully grasped, this guy claims he knows the truth about biblical literature but here is promoting Arianism. The truth is Jesus is fully God because he is eternal and addressed as the creator of all. The trinity is this: A) The Father is God, the Son is God, The Spirit is God, B) The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father C) There is only one God Thus God is three in person, One in essence/substance/nature/being. (the problem of logic can be introduced when you assert all three have the fullness of God, that’s when you have to admit that it’s out of human comprehension)
There are many important questions that the 1st century church didn't ask. Their assumption was a near-term eschaton. Some questions don't matter if Jesus is coming back soon, but if the believers need to pass on their traditions generation after generation, new questions become important.
It's very similar to how there are deputies of a sheriff. Or how we can say "President Bush invaded Iraq" even though he never left the Whitehouse during that time.
Your second example is a synecdoche, where a part (President Bush) represents the whole (the executive branch). This is a linguistic construct. Your first example is what we might call an empowered delegate. The sheriff’s deputy is a subordinate invested with the power and authority of the sheriff. In that sense, a deputy is an extension of the sheriff. This isn’t linguistic in the sense that we call “synecdoche” linguistic. This is more of a description of a structure of power. I hope this helps you as you continue to think critically.
If, as you often say, the Bible is negotiable and everyone is negotiating with it from their own position, and that it has no inherent meaning because it is just text (in a different video), then what reason is there to label the Christian belief in the Trinity redundant and unnecessary? Wouldn't it just be one "negotiation" vs another?
Jesus is not God. He prayed to his father, before his crucifixion. Jesus sweated blood before He was crucified. In His human state, Jesus did not want to endure a torturous death. Yet in the same breath, He prayed, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42). People also asked " when the world would end. Jesus told them " Only my Father knows"
Dan!!! If you’d ever watched any of my videos, you’d know that the title of this video should have been, “The Trinity is redundant & unnecessary & redundant.”
I've pretty much just always assumed that the concept of the Trinity was developed because Christians wanted Jesus to be God in addition to Yhwh also being God, but still wanted to be monotheistic. The reason for it being a trinity rather than a duality is because of the references in the New Testament to the spirit of God that seems to be a separate entity from Yhwh.
@dmnemaine You hit the nail on the head a polytheistic greek-jewish merge religion made a human into a god and pretended that two gods are one god. Later a third one is made up and one pretends that three is one.
In John 16:13 it says, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF; but whatsoever he shall HEAR, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." Who is this Spirit 'hearing' from? Does not the Trinity teach the Holy Spirit is co-equal and consubstantial with both the Father and the Son within the fullness of the Godhead according to their doctrine? Who is telling this Spirit of Truth what to say? The Father? The Son? Both? Are they not both Spirits? And if he cannot speak of himself, but only what he 'hears' . . . . and then who told the Spirit what words to speak? Would he not be subordinate to whomever is telling him what to say? John 4:24 says "God is a Spirit': and they that worship him must worship him in 'spirit and in truth' . . . . PERIOD! If the 'Spirit of truth' as stated above in John 16:13 is actually the very same 'Spirit' who is also the Spirit of God whom we worship in spirit and truth . . . so then why can God not simply speak of Himself when speaking to man . . . without channeling his words apparently thru a different Spirit and telling it what to say? Are the denominations that follow the Trinity doctrine so confused to believe and teach that God himself tells a separate Spirit of, or from Himself, what to say when speaking to mankind, or otherwise showing men 'things to come'? Why? And how does that work? What such foolishness!!!
I'd love it if you could bring on Dr. Kegan Chandler to talk about the Trinity sometime! He's a Unitarian scholar who wrote a robust, academic book explaining the evolution from Jewish Messianism to Orthodox Trinitarianism in Church history.
The development of the Trinity doctrine is actually pretty interesting: 1st step: The Hebrew Bible has the Book of Proverbs with a personification of God's wisdom, Wisdom, who says that she is the first work of God, and that God created the universe through her. Also the Angel of the Lord passages talk about a being who speaks in the first person as if he is God. 2nd step: Certain Jews, such as Philo, use that as as basis for a theology where there is one God, and one Logos (as Philo calls it) that God makes in primordial past, who is a personification of God's wisdom, and through which God creates and interacts with the universe. 3rd step: John (or Johannite disciples writing the gospel of John) and Paul accept logos theology but add the view that this Logos incarnated as Jesus. 4th step: This is held by various 'Apostolic Fathers', including Tertullian, who introduces the notion that God and the Logos (and the Holy Spirit as a third entity) are of the same substance. 5th step: Origen introduces the notion of 'eternal generation' and says the Logos and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal with the Father, even though their existence is caused by him. They are co-eternal, but still lesser and subordinate to the Father. Also, the trinity is not God, God is just the first member of the trinity. Here's where things get really interesting historically, that most people have no clue about today. 6th step: People think Nicene theologians believe in Trinity as one entity (/being) with three persons (/minds) 'inside' itself, but this is not true. They believe only the Father is God, and Son and Spirit are additional beings that are fully divine (and thus Son is 'God' in a sense, as in the Spirit). This full divinity is the big contribution these theologians make, they say that Son and Spirit are not only co-eternal with God, but are equal to him in power and glory and other things, and are not subordinate to him, they are equal to him in everything except in being not generated. These Nicene theologians say we shouldn't say there is three gods, but not because the Trinity is one God and one being, they say it's not tree gods because the Father, Son and Spirit share the same nature (and maybe we should count by nature), or because the Son and Spirit totally derive their divinity from the Father, so there is one God - the Father. Another reason why the Father, Son and Spirit should not be called three gods is because they always act together, there isn't any distinction in what they do, this is the doctrine of 'inseparability of operations' that they develop. 6th and a half step, bonus trivia: The Nicene Creed allows not only for this view, but even views like that of Constantine, who held that the Son isn't actually eternal, he was begotten some finite time ago, but he eternally existed in the Father "in potentiality", which is almost a reversion to the Tertullian view, but affirms everything said in the Nicene Creed. 7th step: Augustine and some other Latin theologians introduce the notion that the Trinity is God, not just that the Father is God (and Son is 'God' simply because he has the same divine essence like the Father, and same with Spirit), Trinity is a single entity and Father, Son and Spirit are 'within' it. But they add a second thing also, they totally rework the notion of Father and Son and Spirit being three minds, and say Trinity just has one mind (and the Father, Son and Spirit are some three eternal faculties of that eternal mind, like God's self-knowledge, intellect, and will). 8th step: A bit later Christians (maybe a century after Augustine) start mixing the first half of the Augustinian view, the contribution of "Trinity is God" with the previous view that Father, Son and Spirit are three minds, and we get the view that there is one God - the Trinity - who has three minds. It also starts to be commonplace to read this view into the words of Nicene theologians. 9th step: Later Christians (centuries later, especially in later Middle Ages and early Modern Age) accept that view of Trinity (one God with three minds), but return to the pre-Nicene concept of those minds by dropping the inseparability of operations. This is how we get the notion of the Trinity that people are familiar with today. Another trivia: the Catholic church has always considered, and to this day considered only the Augustinian view to be orthodox.
U left out the Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology from where the Trinity and Christianity actually come from: it's obviously your half truth is just another attempt at redaction propaganda scholarship.
1. The wisdom is a created being and not a person. This would refute the trinity 2. Philo didn't believe the Logos to be a being. He was also hellenistic and used Greek philosophy 3. The Logos is absent from the Torah. The word of God is only his spoken command as we see in Genesis 1. Everytime God wanted to create something he said let there be light etc.
So the thing I've always pondered is, do pine trees have a Christ? Because mathematically it's not hard to model these ideas-other commenters here have said “it's a mystery, you're not supposed to understand it” but I could say the same about category theory-but these constructions give you, at best, relative uniqueness, and not necessarily even that.
Is this the academic consensus Dan? As a Quaker, this is pretty close to what seems reasonable to me, but we are an orthopraxy not an Orthodoxy (mostly) so this isn't generally seen as a big deal. The key is how we act.
I'm familiar with most of this content from other scholars like Ehrman, Dale Allison,.... What's interesting to me is that the hymn in Phil 2 appears to make Jesus the angel of the LORD. Note that he didn't consider equality with God something to be sought after (unlike Satan mythology), and then after the crucifixion, Jesus is exalted higher than he was before and given a NAME above all other names. Ehrman read a book Christ as an angel by New Testament specialist Susan Garrett. He was convinced that he had Gal 4 wrong all along and laid out all the times where Paul used the same Greek construction. 100% of cases other than Gal 4, is clear Paul means he's giving an example of something. So the most reasonable way to interpret Gal 4 is that Paul is saying they received him the same way they would receive an angel, the angel Christ for example.
I once heard a rabbi in the Conservative Synagogue say that one could be a good Jew even if s/he didn't believe in god: orthopraxy was more important than orthodoxy.
Some of the reasons I reject a Trinitarian reading: Reason 1: All of the scholars who have the appropriate credentials ... say the Trinity took centuries (after the gospels were written) to develop. Reason 2: Even the Catholic church has admitted to that. And they'd know. Because that's the church all other Christians today got their biblical canon and that dogma from. Reason 3: A reader must choose to be strategically inconsistent with how they read all relevant texts, in order to adopt Trinitarian apologetics. Reason 4: Trinitarian dogma can't be the correct teaching, if it's not even a concept. It's not a concept. It's not a structure of concepts. It's just a jumble of gas-lighting word-salads meant to help create an Emperor's New Clothes effect. It's meant to help religious communities use it as an us-vs-them identity marker. "Everyone who is really one of us can see it". It's also meant to help religious leaders create an illusion of being "so special they can grasp it" and thus "must surely" have God-given spirit-glasses. It's also used a way to train recruits to gaslight themselves into a malleable fog-state; a mental state that renders members more susceptible to influence and surrender.
This is one of those questions/ideas that led most to my deconstruction. I still believe there was something perhaps Divine about Jesus, but I don't believe he need be explained in such a problematic way of the Trinity. It's limiting to God in ways I don't care for. It's too incongruous, I think is the word, with the Hebrew Bible. To me, at least
I appreciate your insight, Dan, and am ever grateful for the time you take out to share it with us. However, I vehemently disagree. The Christology you are suggesting would be that of modalism; that is, Jesus would be a mode of God's infinite manifestation. It's not that God just became Jesus, He is Jesus (so Jesus, the God became Jesus, the man). Not only does God, therefore, know what it's like being human, but a part of him always is. This is what we orthodox call the philanthropic God.
We were taught the trinity while studying at that mobius strip circle thing, as though it was some deep profundity instead of an obvious appeal to mystery and credulity. Even as a kid I knew that it didnt make sense.
Trying to understand the Trinity is akin to trying to put the ocean into a drinking glass. Folly. 1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. How do people miss this very clear verse. 3 are 1. No way around it. Stop lying on Jesus. The Trinity is biblical.
@@juanausensi499 God in three persons. Not split into thirds. Each person is individually the whole of God, all the persons are collectively one God. there is one God. God is indivisible. It's kind of a whole, distinct but also more united than anything else.
It is true that the angel of the Lord explains Jesus as being the authorized bearer of the divine name, but that isn’t what the Trinity was meaning to rectify. It was created to explain John 1:1 among other verses, and to understand how, if Jesus is a preexistent divine Logos, existing since before the creation of the world, both *as* God and *with* God, a theology had to be created that could define how Christ is both God, but also a separate individual as God. The Trinity was made to show that the Father is only one third of what God is, while being fully God Himself, while the Son and the Spirit are also fully God while also being the requisite persons of the Godhead.
It seems to me that the Trinity is deliberately impossible to understand to make it easy for the Church to call anyone a Heretic if they try to give any coherent explanation of the Trinity.
It functions like a personality test: if the person makes complains about the trinity making no sense, you know he is going to be problematic. If he doesn't, you know he is going to believe everything you are going to tell him.
@@juanausensi499 which, as far as I am aware, is where people strongly defend this idea of the trinity. If people don’t believe it, how is the trinitarian church that insists upon it, how are they to control the people?
This is one of those videos by Dan where I'm like, "yes and no." We have to think about the limitations of expression and understanding back in the ancient world. Trinitarian doctrine was more than merely trying to deal with the distinction between Jesus Christ and God the Father. It was also about considering the Holy Spirit as a distinct Person rather than merely as a force or personification.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I would disagree with Dan on the notion that the Trinity is redundant/unnecessary for Christian doctrine, at least under a Christian framework, @@reluctantheist5224. Yes, I recognize that Dan is not a Christian.
@@stalemateib3600That seems more like a "yes, but". Dan didn't say that the Trinity is redundant and unnecessary in the current Christian framework of interpretation. He said it is unnecessary and redundant to explain how the texts we have today developed, and what the authors meant to say in them. Obviously interpretive frameworks of the text that develop theology based on the current understanding of the trinity are going to treat the trinity as necessary.
Your fallacies: First up is a straw man. You reduce the Trinity to merely a "philosophical framework" imposed by Christians. But this misrepresents the full theological motivations behind the doctrine. Then there's a false dichotomy. You suggest that either Jesus must be explained through the Trinity OR the Hebrew Bible’s "angel of the Lord" suffices. This overlooks other interpretations that integrate both views or provide a broader theological perspective. Next, you beg the question. You assume that the Hebrew Bible’s "solution" is inherently sufficient and then dismiss the need for any additional doctrine. This presumes the adequacy of this "solution," which is actually what’s in question. After this, there's an appeal to tradition. You imply that because the Hebrew Bible addressed certain theological questions one way, any later reinterpretation, such as the Trinity, is unnecessary or redundant. This places value on the older text as somehow inherently more valid. Then you equivocate. By discussing the "name of God" within the angel and, later, within Jesus, you conflate different theological meanings of "name" across contexts. This, of course, leads to misleading parallels. And then you make a hasty generalization. You assume that the existence of figures like Metatron or the "angel of the Lord" in ancient Jewish texts fully explains the New Testament’s view of Jesus. To say this overlooks the diversity of Christologies in early Christianity is putting it nicely. Finally, your reasoning is circular. By asserting that the "angel of the Lord" concept solves the problem without needing the Trinity, you rely on your initial assumption that the Trinity is unnecessary. Praying for you, Dan. IC XC NIKA
Love that you're displaying your shirts now. Don't think we haven't all been wondering, "What's he gonna wear this time?" What do you think about Thor, both in comics and in history?
I've known this since coming to the faith , just a plane reading of the text shows that. I read most of the OT in one sit when I was young and saw that God was seeming where ever he place his name ..before I heard of the trinity I noticed this but later as I got really worried about theological drift as I learned about the universal church I simply stop using the word trinity I think it's better to show the concepts as the OT is filled with the plurality of God
So it's kind of what I had thought about in the past where God's representatives are not God himself, like how in China those carrying the imperial edict are representatives of the Emperor and their words are to be treated as the Emperor's words, to see the edict is the same as seeing the Emperor though neither the edict nor the carrier of the edict are in actuality the Emperor themselves. That would have been a commonly understood concept in pre and post Jesus Israel too, so I guess that might have been a better way of putting it.
That doesnt explain marks theology . Mark never refers to jesus as haveing Gods name within him or as an angel. He explicitly states that jesus is accused of blasphemy because he forgave sins and only God can forgive sins . So according to mark jesus is presented as yhwh himself
Or John 1:1, Col 2:9, etc... But what else would you expect from a Mormon apologetics channel? Every video posted here is done with a purpose to discredit established Christian ideas that oppose the LDS belief or to show examples of bad churches teaching bad theology.
@@kevinvallejo7047Indeed. I trust those who faithfully forged the way of church and doctrine who were closest to the original disciples than a click-baiting, money grabbing “scholar” who self-aggrandizes to dullards like yourself. Stay boring, buddy.
@@sammakesthings Aren't you fragile. Where did I make insult? I trust the Church Fathers who were closer in time with the events scholar Dan presumes to know.
whats up with the holy ghost? like I hear about it and its part of the trinity so it SOUNDS important but like....what does it Do? why is it in the trinity? it doesnt feel like it has a big role
At Jesus's baptism you have Father Son and Spirit present distinctly yet simultaneously. John refers to Jesus as the Son who is God, and to the Spirit as "another counsellor" so is an entity in some way like the Son.
@asmodeus304 - The ghost thing is like saying one's breath is an entity. Triple gods were just another copied element that was around in the Greek-Roman world and appeared in the 3rd century in the people who forgot the Jewish part in the Greek-Jewish religion called Christianity. The Roman goddess Diana was venerated from the late sixth century BC as diva triformis, "three-form goddess", and early on was conflated with the similarly depicted Greek goddess Hekate. Andreas Alföldi interpreted a late Republican numismatic image as Diana "conceived as a threefold unity of the divine huntress, the Moon goddess and the goddess of the nether world, Hekate". This coin shows that the triple goddess cult image still stood in the Lucus of Nemi in 43 BC. The Lake of Nemi was Triviae lacus for Virgil (Aeneid 7.516), while Horace called Diana montium custos nemoremque virgo ("keeper of the mountains and virgin of Nemi") and diva triformis ("three-form goddess"). In his commentary on Virgil, Maurus Servius Honoratus said that the same goddess was called Luna in heaven, Diana on earth, and Proserpina in hell. Spells and hymns in Greek magical papyri refer to the goddess (called Hecate, Persephone, and Selene, among other names) as "triple-sounding, triple-headed, triple-voiced..., triple-pointed, triple-faced, triple-necked". In one hymn, for instance, the "Three-faced Selene" is simultaneously identified as the three Charites, the three Moirai, and the three Erinyes; she is further addressed by the titles of several goddesses.[19] Translation editor Hans Dieter Betz notes: "The goddess Hekate, identical with Persephone, Selene, Artemis, and the old Babylonian goddess Ereschigal, is one of the deities most often invoked in the papyri."[20] E. Cobham Brewer's 1894 Dictionary of Phrase & Fable contained the entry, "Hecate: A triple deity, called Phoebe or the Moon in heaven, Diana on the earth, and Hecate or Proserpine in hell," and noted that "Chinese have the triple goddess Pussa".[21] The Roman poet Ovid, through the character of the Greek woman Medea, refers to Hecate as "the triple Goddess";[22] the earlier Greek poet Hesiod represents her as a threefold goddess, with a share in earth, sea, and starry heavens.[23] Hecate was depicted variously as a single womanly form; as three women back-to-back; as a three-headed woman, sometimes with the heads of animals; or as three upper bodies of women springing from a single lower body ("we see three heads and shoulders and six hands, but the lower part of her body is single, and closely resembles that of the Ephesian Artemis".)[24] The Olympian demiurgic triad in platonic philosophy was made up of Zeus (considered the Zeus [king of the gods] of the Heavens), Poseidon (Zeus of the seas), and Pluto/Hades (Zeus of the underworld). All were considered to be ultimately a monad; the same Zeus who gave rise to the Titanic demiurgic triad of Helios (the sun when in the sky), Apollo (the sun seen in the world of humankind), and Dionysus (god of mysteries, or the "sun" of the underworld), as in Plato's Phaedrus, concerning the myth of Dionysus and the Titans)
This can be explined in the story of the Exodus: 1. God chooses the Israelites and then rescues them from Eygpt. 2. God appears to Moses and to the people in His glory on Mount Sinai. 3. God comes to dwell with His people in the tabernacle as Holy Spirit. This tri-personality is seen all over the place in the OT and thenit culminates in the person and presence of Jesus. Also, it is important to say that the Holy Spirit is a "He."
@@MusicalRaichu I thought you might be interested in this.. since we're all "Sola Scripture"💯 I'd like to point something out since. I believe it's imperative to point out, that in ACTS 11, after being BAPTIZED in Yeshua's/Jesus Name... Was when, those of us following the "Apostles Doctrine", were first called "Christians". Unarguably the Acts Church baptized in Jesus name", there's absolutely no way to get around this ,FACT✓ Per the ORIGINAL LABEL & Meaning? In Acts in order to be CALLED a"Christian" one would follow the Apostles doctrine AND BAPTIZE, as the apostles did. 👍I'm reminding the 3rd century repackaged "Hindu Trinity baptizers", that they are the defectors... "Trinitarians" came 350 years AFTER the original Christians", 💪Original Christians are "reclaiming OUR title"
@@amosmgz In John 16:13 it says, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF; but whatsoever he shall HEAR, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." Who is this Spirit 'hearing' from? Does not the Trinity teach the Holy Spirit is co-equal and consubstantial with both the Father and the Son within the fullness of the Godhead according to their doctrine? Who is telling this Spirit of Truth what to say? The Father? The Son? Both? Are they not both Spirits? And if he cannot speak of himself, but only what he 'hears' . . . . and then who told the Spirit what words to speak? Would he not be subordinate to whomever is telling him what to say? John 4:24 says "God is a Spirit': and they that worship him must worship him in 'spirit and in truth' . . . . PERIOD! If the 'Spirit of truth' as stated above in John 16:13 is actually the very same 'Spirit' who is also the Spirit of God whom we worship in spirit and truth . . . so then why can God not simply speak of Himself when speaking to man . . . without channeling his words apparently thru a different Spirit and telling it what to say? Are the denominations that follow the Trinity doctrine so confused to believe and teach that God himself tells a separate Spirit of, or from Himself, what to say when speaking to mankind, or otherwise showing men 'things to come'? Why? And how does that work? What such foolishness!!!
Some things Jesus says in the later chapters of John only make sense in a Trinitarian light; and without a Trinitarian interpretation are contradictions. Jesus says he will go away but will send the Holy Spirit. He also says the Father will send the Holy Spirit. And says the Holy Spirit will come by his own will. Also, Jesus says he will remain with them always.
I somewhat agree, the concept of the trinity is an impossible theological band-aid put onto several confusing or contradictory passages to create the illusion of coherence.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a theological construct that highlights the several roles God plays in history and among his people. It has sometimes led to a three God interpretation, but that is not biblical. God is One. But the One God decrees and determines the course of things. He speaks into history (as he spoke light into the darkness in Genesis 1) and he acts to achieve his purposes. There is much we do not know about God. But these things we know and actually experience. To distinguish those things is not redundant; it reminds us of God's immanence and his transcendence.
Love all the comic tees as well as the knowledge. Personally, from what I’ve learned from Brandon at Mindshift, separating Jesus from the original god would have been optimal because most or the abhorrent, problematic and contradictory stuff that makes atheists to Yahweh are in the OT. Having Jesus be the same immutable creator is what makes the case that he is most certainly not a god of love.
I'm only vaguely remembering this, but wasn’t the Trinity derived from a specifically Greek philosophical idea? And no one had ever suggested to me that "the Angel of the Lord" was identical to G*d and Jesus.
Many many trinitarians believe that the angel of the lord is a second divine person next to Yahweh mainly trinitarians believe it and they believe that the New Testament reaveals jeusus as the angel of the Lord
Love your videos Dan. I would like to add that the so-called "Trinity" taught as "three persons as one" in the west created 325yrs after Jesus was never taught by the early followers of Jesus. What they did teach, and still do in the Near East, is called the "Kenome" which are the three attributes of God. ♡ Mind, Wisdom & Life. ♡
In Mormonism, God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are all separate entities, but they're all working towards the same goal, so in that they're unified. Always seemed like a simpler answer to me.
There were other explanations too. In Marks gospel Jesus is exalted to divine status at his death, and maybe his baptism? Paul called Jesus an angel, which also fits with Dans narrative
Definitely interesting, but I think this video title is a bit misleading. You are actually referring to the problems associated with the concept of the incarnation of deity in humanity, which is a different (albeit related) issue to the doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine arose from Christian efforts to retain the unicity of G-d inherited from Judaism yet reconcile it with a belief that the Divine somehow was also revealed in three "persons," Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Of course, just phrasing it this way presumes metaphysical and philosophical categories and assumptions that permeate Christian development of the idea of the Trinity - and the same observation also applies, of course, to the doctrine of the Incarnation of Jesus.) The imagery of an "angel" bearing the name of G-d would resolve or make the Trinity redundant only if Jews (and later Christians) understood and interpreted that angelic representative to be more than a literary metaphor and gave it ontological or metaphysical reality (again, such Greco-Roman philosophical categories were likely nowhere in the mind of the writers of the Hebrew scriptures). That, of course, would fly in the face of the expanding monotheism that characterized Judaism in the time of Jesus. If you have evidence that Jews in that time period viewed these figures (including, e.g., the Shekinah) as divine figures separate from G-d, that would be very interesting indeed.
From what I've come to understand and believe is that the Spirit is from the Father to the Son to us who have been called and chosen..John 6:44 HalleluYah ♡
No..our Father sends forth His Spirit/Thoughts and power via His Son to us who believe that Jesus is the only connection between us and Him! We are told to pray/speak to our Father 'in the name of Jesus'..who is the translater/ transmitter to us of all things from His Father! Imho anyway :)
There was no idea of a Trinity in the early church. Jesus would ever have called himself God in the trinitarian sense. He recognized his union with God as a son of God in spirit. You have to remember, Jesus was not a western man but a Jewish oriental eastern man. They didn’t think like we do. If anything, Jesus was more of a mystic, using allegories, mediphors and stories to teach spiritual principles in a manner that uneducated people could grasp them. He was stating what he knew to be true for him. Connection with the father creator. If anything, I think he’d be appalled that he was being worshiped on the same level as the creator. His whole life was about turning people onto who they were in God. Don’t call me good, the only one that’s good is my father in heaven. Always acknowledging the presence of God in his life. Always deferring to the creator. The trinity is more of a Roman idea especially since Rome had a trinity of Gods overruling it. The phrases like son of man simply meant he was human. Son of God meant simply that. We’re all sons and daughters of God and Jesus taught that. Father make them one as you and I are one. This connotes connection to God and each other and to creation. Western Christianity created the idea of God in the sky ready to hit us with lighting bolts if we do something wrong. The God separate from us. Comfortable to the Greco Roman mind. But not New Testament truth. Whether it’s Jesus saying I and the father are one, or Paul saying Christ lives in me, my hope of Glory. Connection to the God is being expressed. Thus, religion, in adoption of man made and other religious concepts into Jesus teachings, has only managed to do the same thing the Jewish church hierarchy of his day did. Lead people further from the truth through complex doctrine and dogma. Jesus made it simple. Love God, love your neighbor as yourself, (from the liberal school of Hillel), the sermon on the mount, Matt 25. Dan is not expressing a Mormon idea, but ideas confirmed by studying Jewish and Greco Roman thought of the first century as every historian knows who has done studies of the Bible and textural and biblical context knows. Our Christianity is so tainted by man-made doctrine, the point of Jesus teachings has been sorely missed. If you want the angry God, and always live in fear of Gods wrath with the resultant guilt and shame, you miss the point of what he was expressing.
@garytorresani8846 The authors of the gospels were Greeks, writing in greek and for Greeks. These stories are not meant for Americans in the 21 century nor are they meant to be read in anything but Greek. So English speakers 2000 years later from a foreign culture do not understand the basics of Greek philosophy, Homer, Euripides and Vergil. It is a typical merge religion of the time in which greek ideas are melted with Jewish to make up a new religion.
christianity in it core is a middle eastern religion, and it got influenced by greco roman influence, hence all the incoherences, that you dont find in judaism and islam by the way.
As a recovering Protestant Christian, this is one topic you cover that has me mentally protesting. It's the only time i ever wonder about your religious choice and if it's influencing your view on the topic. I suspect it's because the trinity was so deeply engrained in my religious training. Both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed declare the trinity in the early days of Christianity. I guess more deconstruction is needed. Or, could you be wrong? PS: you remain my hero/superhero
IMO religion shouldn't require mental gymnastics. Simplicity eases my mind. I never understood why the Holy Ghost was a being when it was described as an emotional state (KJV). And it was clear to me that a dying Jesus called *to* God, rather than say he was God. (Is there Truth in extremis? Did he recant?) So I never really became a Trinitarian and thought Christianity was monotheist. Much later, I encountered Augustine while studying Medieval English history and learned about religion in an American public school.
Curious where you see the Trinity in the Apostles Creed? The statements "I believe in God the Father almighty...and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord...I believe in the Holy Spirit..." nowhere say that Jesus or the Holy Spirit is God. Just that you believe in those beings. As for the Nicene creed, being adopted in 325 AD is I guess early in Christianity relative to 2000AD, but 300 years after the death of Jesus is a LOT of time for views to change from what the original authors were thinking. And Dan's point is that the Trinity is not necessary to explain what the original authors meant to say in their original texts, not that it wasn't a necessary dogma for later Christians to accept relatively (again, relative to 2000 years) early on in the church.
@@matthewnitz8367My Baptist Sunday school didn't explain or justify, just asked you to believe. They did have a teen program and one for adults which may have gone into details. I never heard the Apostles' Creed or the Catholic catechism until I read about Augustine. I do remember the term "Trinity" being used but I never truly understood its meaning, other than referring to God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost as a group. Or team? I do believe the term "Holy Ghost" was used to personify the concept as an actual Being. But I found this confusing because it didn't match how I read the KJV. After researching the early Church debates, I was drawn toward Arianism and Manichaeism; they seemed to be more sensible.
@noelhausler8006 The LDS concept of the afterlife, at least for white men at first and then all men after 1978, is pretty cool. You get to be the God of your own planet. If only it were real. But I just don't see a reason to believe it. Fortunately, there is no Mormon hell, and after you die, you can still be saved. So I've got that going for me. Which is nice.
God will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides God?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen. I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship God, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. If You should punish them - indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them - indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise. Simple Find out full story....
When we look for things to be redundant or unnecessary we have placed ourselves in the place of God. While we may not understand everything of God that doesn't mean that it is redundant or unnecessary. It simply means that with the limited knowledge, our current perspective, or the paradigm we see things through is preventing us from grasping the totality of the situation. I would say that creating billions of galaxies and stars would be unnecessary if I didn't simply know of the grandeur, beauty, and creativity of God. This video and many of the comments associated with it seem to fit another scripture that has a bit more context to it. Instead of pulling single verses out to make a point I will simply post it here for you to make your own judgments on. 'For Jewish people ask for signs and Greek people seek after wisdom, but we proclaim Messiah crucified-a stumbling block to Jewish people and foolishness to Gentile people, but to those who are called (both Jewish and Greek people), Messiah, the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brothers and sisters, that not many are wise according to human standards, not many are powerful, and not many are born well. Yet God chose the foolish things of the world so He might put to shame the wise; and God chose the weak things of the world so He might put to shame the strong; and God chose the lowly and despised things of the world, the things that are as nothing, so He might bring to nothing the things that are- so that no human might boast before God. But because of Him you are in Messiah Yeshua , who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness and holiness and redemption- so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in Adonai .”' - 1 Corinthians 1:22-31
How related is this to Michael Heiser 's assertion that the thesis of Two Powers in Heaven shows basically that a complex monotheism is precdented in the Hebrew Bible and Judaism prior to Christianity?
Pretty sure not even that is Trinitarian. Because the two power theory revolved around GOD (ALMIGHTY) and this angel known as 'Metatron' who possessed the divine name, basically this angel sat on God's right hand and was elevated to a high status by God. There were not two Gods, there was one that was the Almighty and another that was someone who possessed the name of the LORD hence he was elevated.
I grew up LDS and I always felt that there was redundancy in the trinity (godhead) concept, even if you believe in the LDS version, where the 3 (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) are separate individuals who just agree with each other 100%. In Polynesian lore, each deity takes the form of various elements of nature (syncronicities in weather, plants, sea creatures, water, air, fire, etc) and some deities share some aspects, but have distinct personalities. They work together at times and against each other at times and can be called upon for help. So, Polynesians can understand the redundancy between deities, but for Christians, there is a false narrative going on that there is no redundancy and everything makes perfect sense. But to me, it’s not so perfect and sometimes confusing.
With respect, Christians throughout the ages do not need everything to make perfect sense. The need for a perfect explanation is a modern development among mostly North American Christians. Rather - especially when you look at Orthodox tradition - there is an openness to the mystery of the divine nature, especially when talking about the Trinity. At risk of being reductionistic, for Christians the Trinity is more like a cherished impressionistic sketch than a photograph. So, not trying to convince anyone of anything per se, just pointing out that this may paint too broad a brush of Christians.
They are 3 separate beings, but one in purpose. This is only because it was shown me in a vision in February 2004, unexpectedly. But find out for yourselves if you desire.
The Trinity will always rely on best fit and best guess. If it makes you feel better it drives those of us who are preaching Laity just as mad as everyone else.
Fun fact: in the first two decades of the 1800s the majority of the inhabitants of Boston belonged to congregations that were NOT Trinitarian but various kinds of unitarian. See the book ‘The Boston Religion: Unitarianism in Its Capital City’ by Peter Tufts Richardson, 2003.
Yes a solution to the problem the Trinty was designed to address already existed. By the time of the first century, the problems raised by this solution were well known. It's kind of odd to do a video on the subject and not even start to get into the problems that the angel of the Lord created theologically. Many people believed that Yahweh himself was simply an angelic being representing God. Paul talks about this when he says the law given to Moses was mediated by the Angels. This whole discussion of Jesus being the son of or the sole representative of the higher God and the Israelite God being a lower being, was one of the main problems that Christianity addressed when it became orthodox and declared everything else a heresy.
Much of it boils down to a lack of understanding of Agency. In the Hebrew culture when someone comes in the name and authority of another they are often called by the name of the principle For example, when the Centurion sends forth Jewish Elders to go and meet Jesus because the Centurion didn't consider himself worthy to come to Jesus, the author will record the Centurion met with Jesus and Jesus and the Centurion spoke back and forth, but this is not literally true Read Matthew 8:5-10 and 13 (NASB) and compare it to Luke 7:1-10 (NASB) Or when it tells you that Jesus was there baptizing and all people were coming to HIM, we are told later that Jesus wasn't actually doing it, his disciples were... Compare John 3:22-26 (NASB) to John 4:1-3 (NASB) on and on an on...the same is with the angels who go forth and speak on Gods behalf with their name in them...they are called the LORD....I don't understand why people don't get this simple concept I have a great article on agency if anyone is interested cheers
Well, I tried to work out for myself decades ago exactly who/what was Jesus in relation to God according to the NT. I long ago came to the conclusion that the NT scriptures taken as a whole are simply ambiguous, unclear. It seems to me, therefore, that this argument has been going on for ? 1800 years and the lack of clarity is what led to the Council in the 4th century. I simply can't see a justification for a 3 persons in 1 God in the scriptures. The most I could possibly get out of reading them is that in some sense Jesus is God. (not that I'm that concerned about it either way but clearly millions of people have been preoccupied about it for going on 2 millennia)
The Trinity really destroys the best defense of the Redemption doctrine. If Jesus and God were distinct, we could explain that the evil God demands everyone go to hell, but Jesus sacrificing himself shocked God and got him to agree to a compromise where only people who didn't accept Jesus got sent to hell.
@@SuprousOxide except that the NT does not mention heII, it's about reconciling ALL to God. Christ's death was a purification rite that "takes away the sin of the WHOLE world". Just those who do not repent face "chastisement in the age" to come.
@clivespendlove5993 You hit the nail on that head. We have fice contradicting theologies in the story collection about a dead Aramaic speaking preacher. So fice greek storytellers came up with their Greek ideas for a Greek-speaking audience about a merge of Greek-Jewish religion. Every single story about Iesous (we have only greek sources so Jesus is the made-up roman version) contradicts the other and is made to show their own theology.
Redundant, and not necessary. In a nutshell. Why can't anyone just read that God, is a family of holy spirits? Ephesians 3:15 If we are to be joint heirs brethren with the 3rd leg of a trinity, that's still family. As long as elohim, and scripture say family, trinity is unnecessary.
i never even thought of the trinity like that. i saw "the son" as us. jesus just being the poster child or the representative of "the son." as an example for how we can be. i understand that's not biblical. but it *feels* good to think of it that way lol
If you take a look at Exodus chapters 1 to 6 its not exactly resolved, and the redactor seems to know it because in 6:3 hes doing the god shuffle. Before you knew me as El Shaddai, but actually, before they knew god as El. And in the text of Exodus El appears to be introducing Yahweh to Moses and in other places Yahweh appears to be sending and Angel to moses. Its pretty much a 🤬ed up mess. It appears the author of the text is aware of the Shaddayim, but doesn't realize they are gods against El and the Elohim in earlier literature. What is actually going on here. What we have here starts with Hezekiah and his reforms and continues under Yosiah the increasing isolation of Jerusalem even within Judea. King Yosiah goes over the border to attack the ritual sites of El and Asherah, and we learn from Jeremiah that the people resented this. Yosiah is attacking these sites because his Judeans are using them in defiance of his will. Then Yosiah, the magnificent king he was runs out and gets himself killed by Necho II, himself foolishly trying to put Assyria, already in its death spiral, long in the making, back together. This enters a short period of the collapse of the Yahwist state around Jerusalem. The archaelogy of the major towns around Jerusalem show continuity of culture, basically Jerusalem went it alone (err, with Egypts help . . .not very helpful) against Babylon. These defeats Jerusalem suffered indicate just how weak and isolate Jerusalen had become under Yosiah, Egypt, beat up by the Babylonians, still had enough forces to conquer Jerusalem twice. By the time the Jews were hauled off to southern mesopotamia, the settlements around Jerusalem that sided with Babylon were restoring their favored gods. And so this is what the small groups of the returning Yehud dealt with. Restoring a Jerusalem is still pretty much a hill top city with an isolated cult which seems to be so overwhelmed by outside influences that it even accepts Anat as a goddess in the Elephantine cult. In Nehemiah, Ezra reads out the Torah, from morning to midday, this was not the 5 scrolls of moses, but something much shorter. Between that reading and the end of the 4th century BCE the Yehud is in the act of trying to rebuild the majesty of the pre-exilic Israel within their text from sources that dont agree with each other, and are probably close to rubbish. What can they do, the scribes and the priest read over the text trying to harmonize stuff they cant really trash, but they cant exalt either. So they try to weave it together in a narrative such that the reader is ignoring the little inconsistencies here and there (like the fact the 10 afflictions on Egypt is not 10) and the crossing of the red sea is actually the Reed sea. What is the Torah? Its a law, and then a law that needed to be, and a needed law wrapped in a flesh of authority narrative with some new group identity rituals, and then a set of sanctified text, and then a law that needed to be walled off, and then a law that becomes god when the temple is not. The god fitting in the text is to fulfill these roles. When we examine the Torah in the context of what people in the first century roman empire Tetraarch believed it is impossible to do this without the lense created by the Maccabeans, who took obscur clusters of Jews and amplified their influence by the forcible conversion of non-Jews into their belief system. The text was obscure prior to the Maccabees, much like occult text in minor cults of today and noone particularly cared about it inconsistencies and contradictions, because it was "us" identity literature of a small group surrounded by essentially quasi believing pagans. Its only after the maccabean revolt that you need a kind of cultural enforcement that the inspection of the text takes on relevance.
I'm a gero for thos stuff. Unfortunately, as a newbie in Sanpete county, I've almost been burned at the stake for having any thought heyond dogma. I need to find other geeks who don't get their wranties in a pinkle to grow
Several sources for anyone who wishes to investigate the teachings and practices of the early Christians: Larry W. Hurtado "Lord Jesus Christ" Richard Bauckham "Jesus and the God of Israel" Simon J. Gathercole "The Preexistent Son"
I like Dan. He often talks a lot of sense. Here, he gives his perspective through his critical scholarship lenses. But behind this rests a number of presuppositions. But let's be honest. Yahweh's angel or the angel of the Lord is just that: Yahweh's messenger/spokesperson who carries the full authority of Yahweh. Law of Agency 101. It is true that since the early days of Christianity some have tried to find evidence of the 'Son' in the OT and looked to the figure of Yahweh's angel. Originally this was not a great problem as they saw the Son as a lesser or subordinate God, having been influenced by people like Philo and Greek philosophy. But once they adopted a triune formula, the angel had to become God himself, despite the fact there are passages where God is communicating with the angel. Today, some Evan gelical groups claim the Angel of the Lord is the preincarnate Jesus while other groups do not hold to this claim.
The numerical value of מֵטַטְרוֹן [314] equals that of שַׁדַּי [314]. But Metatron is still limited by a spiritual body and form and therefore is not God.
How do you reconcile this view with the data of the Gospels? Jesus clearly makes statements that would be inconceivable to a pious Jew of the time, unless that individual was making a claim to divinity. Seems to me, the only possible coherent challenge to these claims would be to deny the authenticity of the Gospels as source material.
Biblical scholars, both secular and religious, are nearly unanimous in acknowledging that the basic data points of the Gospels are historical (a man named Jesus, lived, taught and was cruficied under Pontius Pilate and His followers beloved He rose from the dead). Try again.
@@LewisVinewhere is the Demonstrable Evidence to back up your myth? There is ZERO Demonstrable Evidence that someone came back to life 2 days later for another 40 days! Just more lies!
But your statement "somehow God and not God" is kind of begging the question, in that Trinitarian doctrine doesn't say, "God and not God" because the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. It is the language of both Old and New Testaments which make us come to the conclusion of Trinitarianism, which states that Jesus can be "God, but not the Father" and the Father can be "God, but not the Son," and the Holy Spirit can be "God, but not the Son," and so on... It's thus YHWH the Father YHWH the Son (also the Person called the Word, and the Angel of YHWH in the OT) YHWH the Spirit
I wish you'd address naming, esp in the Hebrew Bible. it jumps out at me in a creation story: man was allowed to name the animals. here you quote the phrase [God saying] my name is in him. to me it seems the text is steeped in the bias that to name something is to have power over it. would appreciate your take.
Infinite Source flowed into the void in a wave pattern. IS then formed a circle, then a triangle, then a square, then more complicated shapes. IS eventually formed a brain, this is when IS became God. God then formed another being, The Son (Who is not Jesus), then God and The Son joined and became One and both created Spirit. The reason they become One is because only God can create, also, they have a mind connection. The Trinity then created Sons and sent them out to begin new universes. Michael/Jesus along with Spirit began this universe but Michael/Jesus had to experience many angel lives and then a primitive life before He could become One with God.
Even though i loathe the religion, the JWs got this one right. I have an affinity for Christadelphians who say Jesus had no prehuman existence, but i think the JW christology makes the most sense, biblically. Phillipians 2, 1 Corinthians 8 etc make perfect sense in their interpretation whereas the Trinity idea and the hypostatic union certainly has to be read into the texts. And it's no wonder that Jews such as rabbi Tovia Singer call Christians idolators but have a soft spot for JWs who reject the idea that Jesus is 1/3 Jehovah in the Hebrew Bible.
Phil 2 says two things, starting with 1 Jesus was in the "form of God" and ending with 2 "every knee shall bow and tongue confess", an explicit reference to the God of Israel from Isaiah. This narrows the "form of God" to the God of Israel. The Trinity resolves this, Father and Son are one being and Jesus is the Son incarnate. The Arian/JW view agrees with 1 but not 2. What Dan thinks agrees with 2 but no idea how it would agree with 1.
@@MusicalRaichu yes the Trinity has its own internal logic but it would be anathema for any 1st century Jew to say YHWH came in the flesh and I believe there's no way Paul was a trinitarian. People bowed to or showed godly respect to representatives of YHWH all the time. Moses was made God to pharaoh. Angels were called Elohim. David got some of that. You can't just say "well it says this about yhwh and applied it to Jesus so Jesus is yhwh." There is a much deeper meaning and quite scant evidence that anyone in the early Christian sects thought Jesus was YHWH himself.
@@cygnustsp the writers in the new testament would not have been trinitarian because that was a later resolution to the problem of Christ's identity. Paul doesn't seem to get it at first. It's only Philippians, one of Paul's last letters when he finally seems to identify Jesus with God. By the time Mark's gospel was written only a few years later, Jesus's identification with the God of Israel is indirect but unmistakable. By the time of John's gospel probably a few decades later, the identification is explicit "the word was God", to see him is to see God. I think by then Christianity and Judaism had separated, so I guess that allowed that to happen. How it all worked was thrashed out over the next few centuries. The trinity theory eventually became the majority consensus. Though it's not perfect either. Like how is Jesus both subordinate to the Father and co-equal with the Father? Ultimately, I think the best we can say is that Jesus is God's self-revelation (Heb 1.2-3, Jn 1.18, Col 1.15). To understand God we look at Jesus. But beyond that (like trinity or image bearing or whatever) is speculation. There may be value in it, but the main thing is to be imitators of Christ's character, obey his command to love, and help make known the present reality of his reign.
@@MusicalRaichu The whole story about a dead arameic speaking preacher being, becoming god is a standard greek-roman idea. Even Gaius Julius Ceasar turned into a god as was Alexander the great and Hercules.
Redundant language is constantly used for the purpose of emphasis. There, I could have said "for emphasis", but I changed it to "for the purpose of emphasis" to make it more emphatic.
@@tezzeriiYeah. It can be a legitimate stylistic choice for emphasis, but we should also be aware of redundancies and seek to simplify our speech. Emphatic constructions work best when we also speak accurately and succinctly.
The problem is that Jesus is not merely a created being whom bears Gods name. This problem was addressed much earlier with adoptionism and Arianism. Jesus is eternal. He is also the creator and sustainer. He is the first and the last. Jesus is given the attributes of God, he is not merely an image who represents God but he literally exists before creation, he comes fourth from the father eternally, he is One with the Father, he is the ultimate creator.
Yet Paul asserts that the Earthly Adam was created before the spiritual man of Jesus in 1 Cor. 15:45-47. God and Jesus can't be the same entity if God made Adam before Jesus. In 1 Cor. 15:27-28 Paul also clearly describes God granting authority over everything (except God himself) to Jesus. They can't be the same entity with different levels of authority and one remaining superior to the other even after ascension to a divine throne.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 This is a terrible reading of Cor. 15:45-47, Adam is said to be first, because he was the first man created. Jesus was never created nor was he always a man. The verse says 47 “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.” This shows Adam was created, while Jesus always was, and came to earth taking human flesh after Adam. Secondly 15:27-28 does not imply an ontological subordination of the Son, with monarchical trinitarianism the Son is less in role and subject to the father while still being equal in essence. The New Testament consistently teaches Jesus is eternal and equal with the Father in nature. One of the most explicit passages is Colossians 1:15-16 15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him.
@@BuffAle "firstborn" and "creation" both imply a start, meaning not eternal. Same with the often used "begotten son." When was he begotten, exactly? Was he always had been begotten? Overall, the rhetoric is clear that the father made the son, they are not thought of by the authors as fully co-eternal.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 Nope, firstborn means above, its a title of superiority above all creation, notice I specified the Son's human nature was created and not his divine nature. The son wasn't created, but eternally begotten of the father as expressed by the Nicene Creed. The father did not create the son, the Father regards the son as the God over him, Hebrews 1:8-10 "But of the Son he says," Your throne, O God, is forever and ever the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;"
@@BuffAle Resorting to citing the creed basically concedes the point that this was a later doctrine roughly imposed on the New Testament to try to patch up some ambiguous places where people were a little too lose with titles and proclamations about distant eons. Arguments about the "nature" of the two ignores the plain reading of many scenes where Jesus and God are distinct, with distinct knowledge and authority. Even John's scenes of Jesus and Moses and the Holy spirit judging souls has them as distinct from God. Read Mark 1 and really think if his baptism of Jesus with a speaking God who identifies Jesus as his son, and a Holy Spirit who descends then chases Jesus into the wilderness, honestly sounds like Mark imagines these three entities sharing one mind and will. As Dan keeps saying, the data shows this idea developed later, and isn't supported by most of the New Testament itself (and none of the Old).
what's redundant is believing god is just a man who became god, but who had a man-god above him, and again above him, and so on... now that's redundant.
They believe that Jesus was both God and man at the same time, meaning He was both the Son of God and God. Some people say He contains that essence of God and has two wills or two minds I believe.
@@BaperPag i'm actually addressing the beliefs of mormon's, which dan is. i didn't make that very clear. mormon's believe that the father god is literally a man, and just like him, they will all become gods eventually, too, with their own planets to rule over.
@@jimiberman3464 Mormons believe that God is a man? No, no, no. He could be a divine being that looks like a man, but He isn’t. Man and God are different. In fact, aren’t Mormon beliefs that if you do certain things you can become just like God? That is literally just like what Satan taught.
Dan getting spicy to start off the weekend.
Heresy. Straight to Hell. 😈
Yep, I agree. I felt even as a kid that the trinity was redundant somehow but couldn’t put my finger on it.
This video is going to blow up the Internet. Looking foward to hearing from every Apologist and Theologian under the sun.
The Trinity™️ *is* one of their sacred cows, for sure 😆
No apologist needed. In fact, he said almost nothing about the Trinity in the video. Glad the atheist types enjoyed it, though.
@@stevevasta The cognitive dissonance has set in, I see.
Yeah, no mention of the Trinity. 😅
@@kentstallard6512you mentioned Mr. Vasta, but said almost nothing about him.
@@stevevasta Oooh, so defensive, yet no reason given.
Can’t wait for the new trailer to drop for “Godzilla vs Metatron” (2024)!
I know, right? Every time I hear 'Metatron,' I can't help but imagine a Transformer haha
Metatron is a TH-camr too! @@oddlang687
I think that it is okay to admit that the Gospels were not written with the Holy Trinity dogma in mind. I’m sure even the Gospel of John’s Jesus didn’t believe that he was co-omnipotent and co-omniscient with God the Father.
Yes. If the Church had needed the NT to say otherwise, then we would have had our scribes make the necessary revisions.
AMEN 🙏 Because John 1 is misunderstood Removing Mary and the conception of Jesus Christ to the Word of God JUST miraculously turning into a Human being..
When in Reality John 1 is an abbreviated expression of All that happened from the Creation of the world. Law by Moses and Grace through Jesus Christ 🙏
LOL 😂 at your ignorance: the John 20:28,29 wouldn't be in the Book: as Jesus didn't deny what Thomas said about Him. " the Lord of me and the GOD of me "
If Jesus is another god besides the Father then you have Dan's Mormonism nonsense !!!
The Trinity is from the Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology that Jesus taught including Paul and Rabbinic Judaism rejected in the 2nd century AD because it supported Christianity's claims of Jesus being both Lord and God/ the Visible YHWH of Genesis 19:24.
@@davidjanbaz7728 What is the meaning of AND ? Thomas saw God is Jesus Christ.( 2 Corinthians 5:19 ) They were jews and knew that God was a Spirit as explained by Jesus Christ ( John 4:24 ) .
No jew in Jesus Christ time Ever said he was God at anytime. ( We are told to RIGHTLY Devide God's word ) Not just quote Scriptures to try to justify of denominational Doctrines.
No Apostle of Jesus Christ Ever Taught this Trinity Doctrine.
Every Apostles Epistle Salutation ( Clearly distinguished GOD ( The God of Jesus Christ and the one True God of the Bible ( The Father alone is God ) 1 Corinthians 8:6 . One God and One Lord Jesus ( NOTE ) One Lord Doesn't exclude THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.. Jesus Christ was made lord ( Acts 2:36 ) ... BY GOD ....
@@davidjanbaz7728 Jesus calls the father the only true God (John 17 3) and My God and your God (John 20 17). He calls the father greater than him too. Jesus is not the supreme GOD, but only a God like Satan.
Ä
And the Thomas verse refers to God the Father not Jesus. When I say to you "oh my God" When something amazing happens, I don't refer to you personally
2 True Stories:
1. I had a friend who was a monk in the Orthodox church (he later became a bishop) who said he loved going to Western churches on Trinity Sunday and hear them try to talk about the doctrine of the Trinity. "It's a mystery, you're not supposed to understand it!"
2. I was a Benedictine monk for 5 years. The novice-master said, "Anyone who pretends to understand the doctrine of the Trinity has fallen into heresy somewhere. Even St Augustine, who wrote a whole book on it, couldn't explain it."
I agree. I was a Dominican, and formation was completely immersed in Thomism. Aquinas spent a lot of time addressing the Trinity. The more I read, the less sense it made. This concept that it is "three persons in one God,"--each equally and fully God was contradictory. If each person in the Trinity is perfectly and eternally the infinite God in every aspect, what possibly distinguishes one from the other? Does one or two of them lack some perfection? If so, that cannot be God.
@@Infideles Yes, indeed, the more I studied, the more I began to wonder, "Why is our mythology true and everybody else's false?" And came to the conclusion that all of them are false. As a Jewish Lesbian comedian said, "all religions are the same, just guilt with different holidays."
It can never be explained for the same reason a square circle can never be explained. It's not a mystery, it's just devoid of logic.
In a sense it can be explained, It’s just that it can never be fully grasped, this guy claims he knows the truth about biblical literature but here is promoting Arianism. The truth is Jesus is fully God because he is eternal and addressed as the creator of all.
The trinity is this:
A) The Father is God, the Son is God, The Spirit is God,
B) The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father
C) There is only one God
Thus God is three in person, One in essence/substance/nature/being.
(the problem of logic can be introduced when you assert all three have the fullness of God, that’s when you have to admit that it’s out of human comprehension)
The concept of the Trinity seems to be a fourth century answer to a question never asked in the first.
There are many important questions that the 1st century church didn't ask. Their assumption was a near-term eschaton. Some questions don't matter if Jesus is coming back soon, but if the believers need to pass on their traditions generation after generation, new questions become important.
This is a perfect summary.
Trinity is Manmade conjecture from Satan. 1 John 2:23
The trinity is an attempt to stay monotheistic while worshipping someone who is not the supreme God and while worshipping 3 beings.
Except for the fact that there are multiple Christian writings affirming the Trinity before the fourth century.
Your claim is objectively wrong.
It's very similar to how there are deputies of a sheriff.
Or how we can say "President Bush invaded Iraq" even though he never left the Whitehouse during that time.
Heretic!
Yeah that's just polytheism
Your second example is a synecdoche, where a part (President Bush) represents the whole (the executive branch). This is a linguistic construct.
Your first example is what we might call an empowered delegate. The sheriff’s deputy is a subordinate invested with the power and authority of the sheriff. In that sense, a deputy is an extension of the sheriff. This isn’t linguistic in the sense that we call “synecdoche” linguistic. This is more of a description of a structure of power.
I hope this helps you as you continue to think critically.
@@MarcosElMalo2are you dressed as a witch in your avatar there? Just trying to figure out what I’m seeing 😂
@@kamilgregor just like the trinity
If, as you often say, the Bible is negotiable and everyone is negotiating with it from their own position, and that it has no inherent meaning because it is just text (in a different video), then what reason is there to label the Christian belief in the Trinity redundant and unnecessary? Wouldn't it just be one "negotiation" vs another?
Jesus is not God. He prayed to his father, before his crucifixion. Jesus sweated blood before He was crucified. In His human state, Jesus did not want to endure a torturous death. Yet in the same breath, He prayed, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42). People also asked " when the world would end. Jesus told them " Only my Father knows"
Dan!!! If you’d ever watched any of my videos, you’d know that the title of this video should have been, “The Trinity is redundant & unnecessary & redundant.”
your videos are great in their own right!!
I've pretty much just always assumed that the concept of the Trinity was developed because Christians wanted Jesus to be God in addition to Yhwh also being God, but still wanted to be monotheistic. The reason for it being a trinity rather than a duality is because of the references in the New Testament to the spirit of God that seems to be a separate entity from Yhwh.
@dmnemaine You hit the nail on the head a polytheistic greek-jewish merge religion made a human into a god and pretended that two gods are one god. Later a third one is made up and one pretends that three is one.
Exactly, it is as simple as that.
In John 16:13 it says, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF; but whatsoever he shall HEAR, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
Who is this Spirit 'hearing' from? Does not the Trinity teach the Holy Spirit is co-equal and consubstantial with both the Father and the Son within the fullness of the Godhead according to their doctrine? Who is telling this Spirit of Truth what to say? The Father? The Son? Both? Are they not both Spirits? And if he cannot speak of himself, but only what he 'hears' . . . . and then who told the Spirit what words to speak? Would he not be subordinate to whomever is telling him what to say?
John 4:24 says "God is a Spirit': and they that worship him must worship him in 'spirit and in truth' . . . . PERIOD! If the 'Spirit of truth' as stated above in John 16:13 is actually the very same 'Spirit' who is also the Spirit of God whom we worship in spirit and truth . . . so then why can God not simply speak of Himself when speaking to man . . . without channeling his words apparently thru a different Spirit and telling it what to say?
Are the denominations that follow the Trinity doctrine so confused to believe and teach that God himself tells a separate Spirit of, or from Himself, what to say when speaking to mankind, or otherwise showing men 'things to come'? Why? And how does that work?
What such foolishness!!!
This 3 in one belief can be traced back to ancient Babylon and Egypt.
@@loricusenza4887 The two-in-one is even older, and more common. And if we search enough, i'm sure we can find a four-in-one.
I'd love it if you could bring on Dr. Kegan Chandler to talk about the Trinity sometime! He's a Unitarian scholar who wrote a robust, academic book explaining the evolution from Jewish Messianism to Orthodox Trinitarianism in Church history.
💯
A nice relaxing and peaceful start to the weekend Dan. 😂
Dan swinging for the fences. I love it.
The development of the Trinity doctrine is actually pretty interesting:
1st step: The Hebrew Bible has the Book of Proverbs with a personification of God's wisdom, Wisdom, who says that she is the first work of God, and that God created the universe through her. Also the Angel of the Lord passages talk about a being who speaks in the first person as if he is God.
2nd step: Certain Jews, such as Philo, use that as as basis for a theology where there is one God, and one Logos (as Philo calls it) that God makes in primordial past, who is a personification of God's wisdom, and through which God creates and interacts with the universe.
3rd step: John (or Johannite disciples writing the gospel of John) and Paul accept logos theology but add the view that this Logos incarnated as Jesus.
4th step: This is held by various 'Apostolic Fathers', including Tertullian, who introduces the notion that God and the Logos (and the Holy Spirit as a third entity) are of the same substance.
5th step: Origen introduces the notion of 'eternal generation' and says the Logos and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal with the Father, even though their existence is caused by him. They are co-eternal, but still lesser and subordinate to the Father. Also, the trinity is not God, God is just the first member of the trinity. Here's where things get really interesting historically, that most people have no clue about today.
6th step: People think Nicene theologians believe in Trinity as one entity (/being) with three persons (/minds) 'inside' itself, but this is not true. They believe only the Father is God, and Son and Spirit are additional beings that are fully divine (and thus Son is 'God' in a sense, as in the Spirit). This full divinity is the big contribution these theologians make, they say that Son and Spirit are not only co-eternal with God, but are equal to him in power and glory and other things, and are not subordinate to him, they are equal to him in everything except in being not generated. These Nicene theologians say we shouldn't say there is three gods, but not because the Trinity is one God and one being, they say it's not tree gods because the Father, Son and Spirit share the same nature (and maybe we should count by nature), or because the Son and Spirit totally derive their divinity from the Father, so there is one God - the Father. Another reason why the Father, Son and Spirit should not be called three gods is because they always act together, there isn't any distinction in what they do, this is the doctrine of 'inseparability of operations' that they develop.
6th and a half step, bonus trivia: The Nicene Creed allows not only for this view, but even views like that of Constantine, who held that the Son isn't actually eternal, he was begotten some finite time ago, but he eternally existed in the Father "in potentiality", which is almost a reversion to the Tertullian view, but affirms everything said in the Nicene Creed.
7th step: Augustine and some other Latin theologians introduce the notion that the Trinity is God, not just that the Father is God (and Son is 'God' simply because he has the same divine essence like the Father, and same with Spirit), Trinity is a single entity and Father, Son and Spirit are 'within' it. But they add a second thing also, they totally rework the notion of Father and Son and Spirit being three minds, and say Trinity just has one mind (and the Father, Son and Spirit are some three eternal faculties of that eternal mind, like God's self-knowledge, intellect, and will).
8th step: A bit later Christians (maybe a century after Augustine) start mixing the first half of the Augustinian view, the contribution of "Trinity is God" with the previous view that Father, Son and Spirit are three minds, and we get the view that there is one God - the Trinity - who has three minds. It also starts to be commonplace to read this view into the words of Nicene theologians.
9th step: Later Christians (centuries later, especially in later Middle Ages and early Modern Age) accept that view of Trinity (one God with three minds), but return to the pre-Nicene concept of those minds by dropping the inseparability of operations.
This is how we get the notion of the Trinity that people are familiar with today.
Another trivia: the Catholic church has always considered, and to this day considered only the Augustinian view to be orthodox.
U left out the Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology from where the Trinity and Christianity actually come from: it's obviously your half truth is just another attempt at redaction propaganda scholarship.
Very good summary. So much is misunderstood about this.
@@davidjanbaz7728 the two powers in heaven is literally the name for the views held by the jews within the 1st and 2nd step i give above.
1. The wisdom is a created being and not a person. This would refute the trinity
2. Philo didn't believe the Logos to be a being. He was also hellenistic and used Greek philosophy
3. The Logos is absent from the Torah. The word of God is only his spoken command as we see in Genesis 1. Everytime God wanted to create something he said let there be light etc.
@@zelenisok no its not. Philo and Josephus explicitly say there is only one. And there were hellenistic and not orthodox Jewish.
So the thing I've always pondered is, do pine trees have a Christ? Because mathematically it's not hard to model these ideas-other commenters here have said “it's a mystery, you're not supposed to understand it” but I could say the same about category theory-but these constructions give you, at best, relative uniqueness, and not necessarily even that.
Is this the academic consensus Dan? As a Quaker, this is pretty close to what seems reasonable to me, but we are an orthopraxy not an Orthodoxy (mostly) so this isn't generally seen as a big deal. The key is how we act.
This sounds pretty adult to me. I like!
If I recall correctly Dan states that this is the overwhelming academic consensus in other videos.
I'm familiar with most of this content from other scholars like Ehrman, Dale Allison,.... What's interesting to me is that the hymn in Phil 2 appears to make Jesus the angel of the LORD. Note that he didn't consider equality with God something to be sought after (unlike Satan mythology), and then after the crucifixion, Jesus is exalted higher than he was before and given a NAME above all other names. Ehrman read a book Christ as an angel by New Testament specialist Susan Garrett. He was convinced that he had Gal 4 wrong all along and laid out all the times where Paul used the same Greek construction. 100% of cases other than Gal 4, is clear Paul means he's giving an example of something. So the most reasonable way to interpret Gal 4 is that Paul is saying they received him the same way they would receive an angel, the angel Christ for example.
I once heard a rabbi in the Conservative Synagogue say that one could be a good Jew even if s/he didn't believe in god: orthopraxy was more important than orthodoxy.
Some of the reasons I reject a Trinitarian reading:
Reason 1:
All of the scholars who have the appropriate credentials ... say the Trinity took centuries (after the gospels were written) to develop.
Reason 2:
Even the Catholic church has admitted to that. And they'd know. Because that's the church all other Christians today got their biblical canon and that dogma from.
Reason 3:
A reader must choose to be strategically inconsistent with how they read all relevant texts, in order to adopt Trinitarian apologetics.
Reason 4:
Trinitarian dogma can't be the correct teaching, if it's not even a concept.
It's not a concept.
It's not a structure of concepts.
It's just a jumble of gas-lighting word-salads meant to help create an Emperor's New Clothes effect.
It's meant to help religious communities use it as an us-vs-them identity marker. "Everyone who is really one of us can see it".
It's also meant to help religious leaders create an illusion of being "so special they can grasp it" and thus "must surely" have God-given spirit-glasses.
It's also used a way to train recruits to gaslight themselves into a malleable fog-state;
a mental state that renders members more susceptible to influence and surrender.
Well Reason 3 applies to most aspects of Christianity.
This is one of those questions/ideas that led most to my deconstruction. I still believe there was something perhaps Divine about Jesus, but I don't believe he need be explained in such a problematic way of the Trinity. It's limiting to God in ways I don't care for. It's too incongruous, I think is the word, with the Hebrew Bible. To me, at least
I appreciate your insight, Dan, and am ever grateful for the time you take out to share it with us. However, I vehemently disagree. The Christology you are suggesting would be that of modalism; that is, Jesus would be a mode of God's infinite manifestation. It's not that God just became Jesus, He is Jesus (so Jesus, the God became Jesus, the man). Not only does God, therefore, know what it's like being human, but a part of him always is. This is what we orthodox call the philanthropic God.
We were taught the trinity while studying at that mobius strip circle thing, as though it was some deep profundity instead of an obvious appeal to mystery and credulity. Even as a kid I knew that it didnt make sense.
I thought that God in 3 person's that are distinct and individually and collectively a single God made sense.
Trying to understand the Trinity is akin to trying to put the ocean into a drinking glass. Folly.
1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
How do people miss this very clear verse. 3 are 1.
No way around it. Stop lying on Jesus. The Trinity is biblical.
@@Trivdgun- pretty sure that was edited, if you look into other versions its not there. Coming from another trinitarian
@@Dude_bruh How? You can't be the third part of something and also the whole thing.
@@juanausensi499 God in three persons. Not split into thirds. Each person is individually the whole of God, all the persons are collectively one God. there is one God. God is indivisible. It's kind of a whole, distinct but also more united than anything else.
It is true that the angel of the Lord explains Jesus as being the authorized bearer of the divine name, but that isn’t what the Trinity was meaning to rectify.
It was created to explain John 1:1 among other verses, and to understand how, if Jesus is a preexistent divine Logos, existing since before the creation of the world, both *as* God and *with* God, a theology had to be created that could define how Christ is both God, but also a separate individual as God. The Trinity was made to show that the Father is only one third of what God is, while being fully God Himself, while the Son and the Spirit are also fully God while also being the requisite persons of the Godhead.
It seems to me that the Trinity is deliberately impossible to understand to make it easy for the Church to call anyone a Heretic if they try to give any coherent explanation of the Trinity.
And that’s basically what happened.
Trinity is Truly A confusion by Satan. It is A Roman Catholic Doctrine. Claiming in essence that Mary is the Mother of God.
It functions like a personality test: if the person makes complains about the trinity making no sense, you know he is going to be problematic. If he doesn't, you know he is going to believe everything you are going to tell him.
@@juanausensi499 Amen,The Trinity makes no sense
@@juanausensi499 which, as far as I am aware, is where people strongly defend this idea of the trinity. If people don’t believe it, how is the trinitarian church that insists upon it, how are they to control the people?
This is one of those videos by Dan where I'm like, "yes and no." We have to think about the limitations of expression and understanding back in the ancient world. Trinitarian doctrine was more than merely trying to deal with the distinction between Jesus Christ and God the Father. It was also about considering the Holy Spirit as a distinct Person rather than merely as a force or personification.
I would say rather than " yes and no " what you are saying is really " yes and also "
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I would disagree with Dan on the notion that the Trinity is redundant/unnecessary for Christian doctrine, at least under a Christian framework, @@reluctantheist5224. Yes, I recognize that Dan is not a Christian.
He's Mormon @@stalemateib3600
@@stalemateib3600 What religion do you think Dan is?
@@stalemateib3600That seems more like a "yes, but". Dan didn't say that the Trinity is redundant and unnecessary in the current Christian framework of interpretation. He said it is unnecessary and redundant to explain how the texts we have today developed, and what the authors meant to say in them. Obviously interpretive frameworks of the text that develop theology based on the current understanding of the trinity are going to treat the trinity as necessary.
Your fallacies:
First up is a straw man. You reduce the Trinity to merely a "philosophical framework" imposed by Christians. But this misrepresents the full theological motivations behind the doctrine.
Then there's a false dichotomy. You suggest that either Jesus must be explained through the Trinity OR the Hebrew Bible’s "angel of the Lord" suffices. This overlooks other interpretations that integrate both views or provide a broader theological perspective.
Next, you beg the question. You assume that the Hebrew Bible’s "solution" is inherently sufficient and then dismiss the need for any additional doctrine. This presumes the adequacy of this "solution," which is actually what’s in question.
After this, there's an appeal to tradition. You imply that because the Hebrew Bible addressed certain theological questions one way, any later reinterpretation, such as the Trinity, is unnecessary or redundant. This places value on the older text as somehow inherently more valid.
Then you equivocate. By discussing the "name of God" within the angel and, later, within Jesus, you conflate different theological meanings of "name" across contexts. This, of course, leads to misleading parallels.
And then you make a hasty generalization. You assume that the existence of figures like Metatron or the "angel of the Lord" in ancient Jewish texts fully explains the New Testament’s view of Jesus. To say this overlooks the diversity of Christologies in early Christianity is putting it nicely.
Finally, your reasoning is circular. By asserting that the "angel of the Lord" concept solves the problem without needing the Trinity, you rely on your initial assumption that the Trinity is unnecessary.
Praying for you, Dan. IC XC NIKA
Beautifully dissected! 🙌🏻
Love that you're displaying your shirts now. Don't think we haven't all been wondering, "What's he gonna wear this time?"
What do you think about Thor, both in comics and in history?
I've known this since coming to the faith , just a plane reading of the text shows that. I read most of the OT in one sit when I was young and saw that God was seeming where ever he place his name ..before I heard of the trinity I noticed this but later as I got really worried about theological drift as I learned about the universal church I simply stop using the word trinity
I think it's better to show the concepts as the OT is filled with the plurality of God
So it's kind of what I had thought about in the past where God's representatives are not God himself, like how in China those carrying the imperial edict are representatives of the Emperor and their words are to be treated as the Emperor's words, to see the edict is the same as seeing the Emperor though neither the edict nor the carrier of the edict are in actuality the Emperor themselves.
That would have been a commonly understood concept in pre and post Jesus Israel too, so I guess that might have been a better way of putting it.
That doesnt explain marks theology . Mark never refers to jesus as haveing Gods name within him or as an angel. He explicitly states that jesus is accused of blasphemy because he forgave sins and only God can forgive sins .
So according to mark jesus is presented as yhwh himself
Or John 1:1, Col 2:9, etc... But what else would you expect from a Mormon apologetics channel? Every video posted here is done with a purpose to discredit established Christian ideas that oppose the LDS belief or to show examples of bad churches teaching bad theology.
Mark doesn't assert that Jesus is God, and John the Baptist can forgive sins in Mark. Does that mean he's also God?
Everyone is God and not God. Everyone and everything. 🌹🌻🌲
Nah, I’ll trust the dudes from the ecumenical councils who know something.
go trust your dogmatic leaders
@@kevinvallejo7047Indeed. I trust those who faithfully forged the way of church and doctrine who were closest to the original disciples than a click-baiting, money grabbing “scholar” who self-aggrandizes to dullards like yourself. Stay boring, buddy.
@@HelloMrBeeno We can disagree without insults. Especially if it is in defence of faith.
@@sammakesthings Aren't you fragile. Where did I make insult? I trust the Church Fathers who were closer in time with the events scholar Dan presumes to know.
@@kevinvallejo7047 So, the church Fathers are dogmatic leaders? Ok.
whats up with the holy ghost? like I hear about it and its part of the trinity so it SOUNDS important but like....what does it Do? why is it in the trinity? it doesnt feel like it has a big role
At Jesus's baptism you have Father Son and Spirit present distinctly yet simultaneously. John refers to Jesus as the Son who is God, and to the Spirit as "another counsellor" so is an entity in some way like the Son.
@asmodeus304 - The ghost thing is like saying one's breath is an entity. Triple gods were just another copied element that was around in the Greek-Roman world and appeared in the 3rd century in the people who forgot the Jewish part in the Greek-Jewish religion called Christianity.
The Roman goddess Diana was venerated from the late sixth century BC as diva triformis, "three-form goddess", and early on was conflated with the similarly depicted Greek goddess Hekate. Andreas Alföldi interpreted a late Republican numismatic image as Diana "conceived as a threefold unity of the divine huntress, the Moon goddess and the goddess of the nether world, Hekate". This coin shows that the triple goddess cult image still stood in the Lucus of Nemi in 43 BC. The Lake of Nemi was Triviae lacus for Virgil (Aeneid 7.516), while Horace called Diana montium custos nemoremque virgo ("keeper of the mountains and virgin of Nemi") and diva triformis ("three-form goddess"). In his commentary on Virgil, Maurus Servius Honoratus said that the same goddess was called Luna in heaven, Diana on earth, and Proserpina in hell.
Spells and hymns in Greek magical papyri refer to the goddess (called Hecate, Persephone, and Selene, among other names) as "triple-sounding, triple-headed, triple-voiced..., triple-pointed, triple-faced, triple-necked". In one hymn, for instance, the "Three-faced Selene" is simultaneously identified as the three Charites, the three Moirai, and the three Erinyes; she is further addressed by the titles of several goddesses.[19] Translation editor Hans Dieter Betz notes: "The goddess Hekate, identical with Persephone, Selene, Artemis, and the old Babylonian goddess Ereschigal, is one of the deities most often invoked in the papyri."[20]
E. Cobham Brewer's 1894 Dictionary of Phrase & Fable contained the entry, "Hecate: A triple deity, called Phoebe or the Moon in heaven, Diana on the earth, and Hecate or Proserpine in hell," and noted that "Chinese have the triple goddess Pussa".[21] The Roman poet Ovid, through the character of the Greek woman Medea, refers to Hecate as "the triple Goddess";[22] the earlier Greek poet Hesiod represents her as a threefold goddess, with a share in earth, sea, and starry heavens.[23] Hecate was depicted variously as a single womanly form; as three women back-to-back; as a three-headed woman, sometimes with the heads of animals; or as three upper bodies of women springing from a single lower body ("we see three heads and shoulders and six hands, but the lower part of her body is single, and closely resembles that of the Ephesian Artemis".)[24]
The Olympian demiurgic triad in platonic philosophy was made up of Zeus (considered the Zeus [king of the gods] of the Heavens), Poseidon (Zeus of the seas), and Pluto/Hades (Zeus of the underworld). All were considered to be ultimately a monad; the same Zeus who gave rise to the Titanic demiurgic triad of Helios (the sun when in the sky), Apollo (the sun seen in the world of humankind), and Dionysus (god of mysteries, or the "sun" of the underworld), as in Plato's Phaedrus, concerning the myth of Dionysus and the Titans)
This can be explined in the story of the Exodus:
1. God chooses the Israelites and then rescues them from Eygpt.
2. God appears to Moses and to the people in His glory on Mount Sinai.
3. God comes to dwell with His people in the tabernacle as Holy Spirit.
This tri-personality is seen all over the place in the OT and thenit culminates in the person and presence of Jesus.
Also, it is important to say that the Holy Spirit is a "He."
@@MusicalRaichu
I thought you might be interested in this..
since we're all "Sola Scripture"💯 I'd like to point something out since. I believe it's imperative to point out, that in ACTS 11, after being BAPTIZED in Yeshua's/Jesus Name...
Was when, those of us following the "Apostles Doctrine", were first called "Christians".
Unarguably the Acts Church baptized in Jesus name", there's absolutely no way to get around this ,FACT✓
Per the ORIGINAL LABEL & Meaning? In Acts in order to be CALLED a"Christian" one would follow the Apostles doctrine AND BAPTIZE, as the apostles did.
👍I'm reminding the 3rd century repackaged "Hindu Trinity baptizers", that they are the defectors...
"Trinitarians" came 350 years
AFTER the original Christians",
💪Original Christians are "reclaiming OUR title"
@@amosmgz In John 16:13 it says, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF; but whatsoever he shall HEAR, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
Who is this Spirit 'hearing' from? Does not the Trinity teach the Holy Spirit is co-equal and consubstantial with both the Father and the Son within the fullness of the Godhead according to their doctrine? Who is telling this Spirit of Truth what to say? The Father? The Son? Both? Are they not both Spirits? And if he cannot speak of himself, but only what he 'hears' . . . . and then who told the Spirit what words to speak? Would he not be subordinate to whomever is telling him what to say?
John 4:24 says "God is a Spirit': and they that worship him must worship him in 'spirit and in truth' . . . . PERIOD! If the 'Spirit of truth' as stated above in John 16:13 is actually the very same 'Spirit' who is also the Spirit of God whom we worship in spirit and truth . . . so then why can God not simply speak of Himself when speaking to man . . . without channeling his words apparently thru a different Spirit and telling it what to say?
Are the denominations that follow the Trinity doctrine so confused to believe and teach that God himself tells a separate Spirit of, or from Himself, what to say when speaking to mankind, or otherwise showing men 'things to come'? Why? And how does that work?
What such foolishness!!!
Some things Jesus says in the later chapters of John only make sense in a Trinitarian light; and without a Trinitarian interpretation are contradictions.
Jesus says he will go away but will send the Holy Spirit. He also says the Father will send the Holy Spirit. And says the Holy Spirit will come by his own will. Also, Jesus says he will remain with them always.
I somewhat agree, the concept of the trinity is an impossible theological band-aid put onto several confusing or contradictory passages to create the illusion of coherence.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a theological construct that highlights the several roles God plays in history and among his people. It has sometimes led to a three God interpretation, but that is not biblical. God is One. But the One God decrees and determines the course of things. He speaks into history (as he spoke light into the darkness in Genesis 1) and he acts to achieve his purposes. There is much we do not know about God. But these things we know and actually experience. To distinguish those things is not redundant; it reminds us of God's immanence and his transcendence.
Love all the comic tees as well as the knowledge. Personally, from what I’ve learned from Brandon at Mindshift, separating Jesus from the original god would have been optimal because most or the abhorrent, problematic and contradictory stuff that makes atheists to Yahweh are in the OT. Having Jesus be the same immutable creator is what makes the case that he is most certainly not a god of love.
I'm only vaguely remembering this, but wasn’t the Trinity derived from a specifically Greek philosophical idea?
And no one had ever suggested to me that "the Angel of the Lord" was identical to G*d and Jesus.
Many many trinitarians believe that the angel of the lord is a second divine person next to Yahweh mainly trinitarians believe it and they believe that the New Testament reaveals jeusus as the angel of the Lord
Love your videos Dan. I would like to add that the so-called "Trinity" taught as "three persons as one" in the west created 325yrs after Jesus was never taught by the early followers of Jesus. What they did teach, and still do in the Near East, is called the "Kenome" which are the three attributes of God. ♡ Mind, Wisdom & Life. ♡
In Mormonism, God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are all separate entities, but they're all working towards the same goal, so in that they're unified. Always seemed like a simpler answer to me.
There were other explanations too. In Marks gospel Jesus is exalted to divine status at his death, and maybe his baptism? Paul called Jesus an angel, which also fits with Dans narrative
Definitely interesting, but I think this video title is a bit misleading. You are actually referring to the problems associated with the concept of the incarnation of deity in humanity, which is a different (albeit related) issue to the doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine arose from Christian efforts to retain the unicity of G-d inherited from Judaism yet reconcile it with a belief that the Divine somehow was also revealed in three "persons," Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Of course, just phrasing it this way presumes metaphysical and philosophical categories and assumptions that permeate Christian development of the idea of the Trinity - and the same observation also applies, of course, to the doctrine of the Incarnation of Jesus.) The imagery of an "angel" bearing the name of G-d would resolve or make the Trinity redundant only if Jews (and later Christians) understood and interpreted that angelic representative to be more than a literary metaphor and gave it ontological or metaphysical reality (again, such Greco-Roman philosophical categories were likely nowhere in the mind of the writers of the Hebrew scriptures). That, of course, would fly in the face of the expanding monotheism that characterized Judaism in the time of Jesus. If you have evidence that Jews in that time period viewed these figures (including, e.g., the Shekinah) as divine figures separate from G-d, that would be very interesting indeed.
From what I've come to understand and believe is that the Spirit is from the Father to the Son to us who have been called and chosen..John 6:44
HalleluYah ♡
You mean what you were taught to believe ;]
No..our Father sends forth His Spirit/Thoughts and power via His Son to us who believe that Jesus is the only connection between us and Him! We are told to pray/speak to our Father 'in the name of Jesus'..who is the translater/ transmitter to us of all things from His Father! Imho anyway :)
謝謝！
Hey Dan, are you interested in the Tuggy/White trinity debate occurring today?
Dr James white...... The Trinity is between Malachi and Matthew.😅
There was no idea of a Trinity in the early church. Jesus would ever have called himself God in the trinitarian sense. He recognized his union with God as a son of God in spirit. You have to remember, Jesus was not a western man but a Jewish oriental eastern man. They didn’t think like we do. If anything, Jesus was more of a mystic, using allegories, mediphors and stories to teach spiritual principles in a manner that uneducated people could grasp them. He was stating what he knew to be true for him. Connection with the father creator.
If anything, I think he’d be appalled that he was being worshiped on the same level as the creator. His whole life was about turning people onto who they were in God. Don’t call me good, the only one that’s good is my father in heaven. Always acknowledging the presence of God in his life. Always deferring to the creator.
The trinity is more of a Roman idea especially since Rome had a trinity of Gods overruling it.
The phrases like son of man simply meant he was human. Son of God meant simply that. We’re all sons and daughters of God and Jesus taught that. Father make them one as you and I are one. This connotes connection to God and each other and to creation.
Western Christianity created the idea of God in the sky ready to hit us with lighting bolts if we do something wrong. The God separate from us. Comfortable to the Greco Roman mind. But not New Testament truth. Whether it’s Jesus saying I and the father are one, or Paul saying Christ lives in me, my hope of Glory. Connection to the God is being expressed.
Thus, religion, in adoption of man made and other religious concepts into Jesus teachings, has only managed to do the same thing the Jewish church hierarchy of his day did. Lead people further from the truth through complex doctrine and dogma. Jesus made it simple. Love God, love your neighbor as yourself, (from the liberal school of Hillel), the sermon on the mount, Matt 25.
Dan is not expressing a Mormon idea, but ideas confirmed by studying Jewish and Greco Roman thought of the first century as every historian knows who has done studies of the Bible and textural and biblical context knows.
Our Christianity is so tainted by man-made doctrine, the point of Jesus teachings has been sorely missed. If you want the angry God, and always live in fear of Gods wrath with the resultant guilt and shame, you miss the point of what he was expressing.
@garytorresani8846 The authors of the gospels were Greeks, writing in greek and for Greeks. These stories are not meant for Americans in the 21 century nor are they meant to be read in anything but Greek. So English speakers 2000 years later from a foreign culture do not understand the basics of Greek philosophy, Homer, Euripides and Vergil. It is a typical merge religion of the time in which greek ideas are melted with Jewish to make up a new religion.
christianity in it core is a middle eastern religion, and it got influenced by greco roman influence, hence all the incoherences, that you dont find in judaism and islam by the way.
As a recovering Protestant Christian, this is one topic you cover that has me mentally protesting. It's the only time i ever wonder about your religious choice and if it's influencing your view on the topic. I suspect it's because the trinity was so deeply engrained in my religious training. Both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed declare the trinity in the early days of Christianity. I guess more deconstruction is needed. Or, could you be wrong? PS: you remain my hero/superhero
IMO religion shouldn't require mental gymnastics. Simplicity eases my mind.
I never understood why the Holy Ghost was a being when it was described as an emotional state (KJV). And it was clear to me that a dying Jesus called *to* God, rather than say he was God. (Is there Truth in extremis? Did he recant?) So I never really became a Trinitarian and thought Christianity was monotheist. Much later, I encountered Augustine while studying Medieval English history and learned about religion in an American public school.
Curious where you see the Trinity in the Apostles Creed? The statements "I believe in God the Father almighty...and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord...I believe in the Holy Spirit..." nowhere say that Jesus or the Holy Spirit is God. Just that you believe in those beings. As for the Nicene creed, being adopted in 325 AD is I guess early in Christianity relative to 2000AD, but 300 years after the death of Jesus is a LOT of time for views to change from what the original authors were thinking. And Dan's point is that the Trinity is not necessary to explain what the original authors meant to say in their original texts, not that it wasn't a necessary dogma for later Christians to accept relatively (again, relative to 2000 years) early on in the church.
@@matthewnitz8367My Baptist Sunday school didn't explain or justify, just asked you to believe. They did have a teen program and one for adults which may have gone into details.
I never heard the Apostles' Creed or the Catholic catechism until I read about Augustine. I do remember the term "Trinity" being used but I never truly understood its meaning, other than referring to God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost as a group. Or team?
I do believe the term "Holy Ghost" was used to personify the concept as an actual Being. But I found this confusing because it didn't match how I read the KJV.
After researching the early Church debates, I was drawn toward Arianism and Manichaeism; they seemed to be more sensible.
@noelhausler8006 The LDS concept of the afterlife, at least for white men at first and then all men after 1978, is pretty cool. You get to be the God of your own planet. If only it were real. But I just don't see a reason to believe it. Fortunately, there is no Mormon hell, and after you die, you can still be saved. So I've got that going for me. Which is nice.
Hey, the link says no longer available. I will keep trying. Thank you for all you are doing. I watch something of yours everyday now.
God will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides God?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship God, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.
If You should punish them - indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them - indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
Simple
Find out full story....
When we look for things to be redundant or unnecessary we have placed ourselves in the place of God. While we may not understand everything of God that doesn't mean that it is redundant or unnecessary. It simply means that with the limited knowledge, our current perspective, or the paradigm we see things through is preventing us from grasping the totality of the situation. I would say that creating billions of galaxies and stars would be unnecessary if I didn't simply know of the grandeur, beauty, and creativity of God. This video and many of the comments associated with it seem to fit another scripture that has a bit more context to it. Instead of pulling single verses out to make a point I will simply post it here for you to make your own judgments on.
'For Jewish people ask for signs and Greek people seek after wisdom, but we proclaim Messiah crucified-a stumbling block to Jewish people and foolishness to Gentile people, but to those who are called (both Jewish and Greek people), Messiah, the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brothers and sisters, that not many are wise according to human standards, not many are powerful, and not many are born well. Yet God chose the foolish things of the world so He might put to shame the wise; and God chose the weak things of the world so He might put to shame the strong; and God chose the lowly and despised things of the world, the things that are as nothing, so He might bring to nothing the things that are- so that no human might boast before God. But because of Him you are in Messiah Yeshua , who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness and holiness and redemption- so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in Adonai .”' - 1 Corinthians 1:22-31
God/Not God list at 4:34.
This video was much more interesting than the title indicates.
How related is this to Michael Heiser 's assertion that the thesis of Two Powers in Heaven shows basically that a complex monotheism is precdented in the Hebrew Bible and Judaism prior to Christianity?
Pretty sure not even that is Trinitarian. Because the two power theory revolved around GOD (ALMIGHTY) and this angel known as 'Metatron' who possessed the divine name, basically this angel sat on God's right hand and was elevated to a high status by God. There were not two Gods, there was one that was the Almighty and another that was someone who possessed the name of the LORD hence he was elevated.
Hey Dan, does Judaism today understand these passages through this context? As theophoros?
I grew up LDS and I always felt that there was redundancy in the trinity (godhead) concept, even if you believe in the LDS version, where the 3 (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) are separate individuals who just agree with each other 100%. In Polynesian lore, each deity takes the form of various elements of nature (syncronicities in weather, plants, sea creatures, water, air, fire, etc) and some deities share some aspects, but have distinct personalities. They work together at times and against each other at times and can be called upon for help. So, Polynesians can understand the redundancy between deities, but for Christians, there is a false narrative going on that there is no redundancy and everything makes perfect sense. But to me, it’s not so perfect and sometimes confusing.
With respect, Christians throughout the ages do not need everything to make perfect sense. The need for a perfect explanation is a modern development among mostly North American Christians. Rather - especially when you look at Orthodox tradition - there is an openness to the mystery of the divine nature, especially when talking about the Trinity. At risk of being reductionistic, for Christians the Trinity is more like a cherished impressionistic sketch than a photograph. So, not trying to convince anyone of anything per se, just pointing out that this may paint too broad a brush of Christians.
The word of God is inside of all His children. Not just the angel of God
That's the same as saying the scriptures are 'redundant and unnecessary'.
So, just to clarify, you’re saying that the Godhead is more correct than the Trinity?
If so I see this as an absolute win!
They are 3 separate beings, but one in purpose. This is only because it was shown me in a vision in February 2004, unexpectedly. But find out for yourselves if you desire.
The Trinity will always rely on best fit and best guess. If it makes you feel better it drives those of us who are preaching Laity just as mad as everyone else.
I truly appreciate this video, and it is very helpful!❤😊
Fun fact: in the first two decades of the 1800s the majority of the inhabitants of Boston belonged to congregations that were NOT Trinitarian but various kinds of unitarian. See the book ‘The Boston Religion: Unitarianism in Its Capital City’ by Peter Tufts Richardson, 2003.
This can be also found in Revelation 1
Christadelphian here. This is what I learned in Sunday School 😊
Excellent.. another term for the indwelling of the divine name.. "Divine Investiture"
If only angels and horses with wings existed they would liven up religion. But given probability, chance and physics it can be said they do not exist.
Yes a solution to the problem the Trinty was designed to address already existed. By the time of the first century, the problems raised by this solution were well known.
It's kind of odd to do a video on the subject and not even start to get into the problems that the angel of the Lord created theologically.
Many people believed that Yahweh himself was simply an angelic being representing God.
Paul talks about this when he says the law given to Moses was mediated by the Angels.
This whole discussion of Jesus being the son of or the sole representative of the higher God and the Israelite God being a lower being, was one of the main problems that Christianity addressed when it became orthodox and declared everything else a heresy.
Dr. Dan - I am sincerely asking you the question as a truth seeker. What do you say is the way to eternal salvation?
You're implying that there is one, that it has even been demonstrated as a possibility.
Much of it boils down to a lack of understanding of Agency.
In the Hebrew culture when someone comes in the name and authority of another they are often called by the name of the principle
For example, when the Centurion sends forth Jewish Elders to go and meet Jesus because the Centurion didn't consider himself worthy to come to Jesus, the author will record the Centurion met with Jesus and Jesus and the Centurion spoke back and forth, but this is not literally true
Read Matthew 8:5-10 and 13 (NASB) and compare it to Luke 7:1-10 (NASB)
Or when it tells you that Jesus was there baptizing and all people were coming to HIM, we are told later that Jesus wasn't actually doing it, his disciples were...
Compare John 3:22-26 (NASB) to John 4:1-3 (NASB)
on and on an on...the same is with the angels who go forth and speak on Gods behalf with their name in them...they are called the LORD....I don't understand why people don't get this simple concept
I have a great article on agency if anyone is interested
cheers
It’s myth, it’s that simple!
I like that Bible story where Lobo wrestled with an angel.
Be and not be? That's the question. The answer: proxy, power of attourney, etc. Now I understand how Ukraine can both be and not be the USA...
Well, I tried to work out for myself decades ago exactly who/what was Jesus in relation to God according to the NT. I long ago came to the conclusion that the NT scriptures taken as a whole are simply ambiguous, unclear. It seems to me, therefore, that this argument has been going on for ? 1800 years and the lack of clarity is what led to the Council in the 4th century.
I simply can't see a justification for a 3 persons in 1 God in the scriptures. The most I could possibly get out of reading them is that in some sense Jesus is God. (not that I'm that concerned about it either way but clearly millions of people have been preoccupied about it for going on 2 millennia)
The Trinity really destroys the best defense of the Redemption doctrine. If Jesus and God were distinct, we could explain that the evil God demands everyone go to hell, but Jesus sacrificing himself shocked God and got him to agree to a compromise where only people who didn't accept Jesus got sent to hell.
@@SuprousOxide except that the NT does not mention heII, it's about reconciling ALL to God. Christ's death was a purification rite that "takes away the sin of the WHOLE world". Just those who do not repent face "chastisement in the age" to come.
@clivespendlove5993 You hit the nail on that head. We have fice contradicting theologies in the story collection about a dead Aramaic speaking preacher. So fice greek storytellers came up with their Greek ideas for a Greek-speaking audience about a merge of Greek-Jewish religion. Every single story about Iesous (we have only greek sources so Jesus is the made-up roman version) contradicts the other and is made to show their own theology.
Redundant, and not necessary. In a nutshell.
Why can't anyone just read that God, is a family of holy spirits? Ephesians 3:15
If we are to be joint heirs brethren with the 3rd leg of a trinity, that's still family.
As long as elohim, and scripture say family, trinity is unnecessary.
i never even thought of the trinity like that. i saw "the son" as us. jesus just being the poster child or the representative of "the son." as an example for how we can be.
i understand that's not biblical. but it *feels* good to think of it that way lol
If you take a look at Exodus chapters 1 to 6 its not exactly resolved, and the redactor seems to know it because in 6:3 hes doing the god shuffle. Before you knew me as El Shaddai, but actually, before they knew god as El. And in the text of Exodus El appears to be introducing Yahweh to Moses and in other places Yahweh appears to be sending and Angel to moses. Its pretty much a 🤬ed up mess. It appears the author of the text is aware of the Shaddayim, but doesn't realize they are gods against El and the Elohim in earlier literature.
What is actually going on here. What we have here starts with Hezekiah and his reforms and continues under Yosiah the increasing isolation of Jerusalem even within Judea. King Yosiah goes over the border to attack the ritual sites of El and Asherah, and we learn from Jeremiah that the people resented this. Yosiah is attacking these sites because his Judeans are using them in defiance of his will. Then Yosiah, the magnificent king he was runs out and gets himself killed by Necho II, himself foolishly trying to put Assyria, already in its death spiral, long in the making, back together. This enters a short period of the collapse of the Yahwist state around Jerusalem. The archaelogy of the major towns around Jerusalem show continuity of culture, basically Jerusalem went it alone (err, with Egypts help . . .not very helpful) against Babylon.
These defeats Jerusalem suffered indicate just how weak and isolate Jerusalen had become under Yosiah, Egypt, beat up by the Babylonians, still had enough forces to conquer Jerusalem twice. By the time the Jews were hauled off to southern mesopotamia, the settlements around Jerusalem that sided with Babylon were restoring their favored gods.
And so this is what the small groups of the returning Yehud dealt with. Restoring a Jerusalem is still pretty much a hill top city with an isolated cult which seems to be so overwhelmed by outside influences that it even accepts Anat as a goddess in the Elephantine cult.
In Nehemiah, Ezra reads out the Torah, from morning to midday, this was not the 5 scrolls of moses, but something much shorter. Between that reading and the end of the 4th century BCE the Yehud is in the act of trying to rebuild the majesty of the pre-exilic Israel within their text from sources that dont agree with each other, and are probably close to rubbish. What can they do, the scribes and the priest read over the text trying to harmonize stuff they cant really trash, but they cant exalt either. So they try to weave it together in a narrative such that the reader is ignoring the little inconsistencies here and there (like the fact the 10 afflictions on Egypt is not 10) and the crossing of the red sea is actually the Reed sea.
What is the Torah? Its a law, and then a law that needed to be, and a needed law wrapped in a flesh of authority narrative with some new group identity rituals, and then a set of sanctified text, and then a law that needed to be walled off, and then a law that becomes god when the temple is not. The god fitting in the text is to fulfill these roles.
When we examine the Torah in the context of what people in the first century roman empire Tetraarch believed it is impossible to do this without the lense created by the Maccabeans, who took obscur clusters of Jews and amplified their influence by the forcible conversion of non-Jews into their belief system. The text was obscure prior to the Maccabees, much like occult text in minor cults of today and noone particularly cared about it inconsistencies and contradictions, because it was "us" identity literature of a small group surrounded by essentially quasi believing pagans. Its only after the maccabean revolt that you need a kind of cultural enforcement that the inspection of the text takes on relevance.
I'm a gero for thos stuff. Unfortunately, as a newbie in Sanpete county, I've almost been burned at the stake for having any thought heyond dogma. I need to find other geeks who don't get their wranties in a pinkle to grow
Several sources for anyone who wishes to investigate the teachings and practices of the early Christians:
Larry W. Hurtado "Lord Jesus Christ"
Richard Bauckham "Jesus and the God of Israel"
Simon J. Gathercole "The Preexistent Son"
Kinda already skeptical on the reliability of them with the titles. And aren’t those Christian apologists?
@@solidstorm6129 They are actual scholars, not media apologists.
Of you can just read what the Apostolic Fathers after the Apostles wrote. They are certainly Trinitarian.
Is this idea comparable to the LDS doctrine of Divine Investiture?
In the sense that they're both nonsense, yes.
@@alistairmackintosh9412nonsense as in you don't understand them?
Relationship with GOD ! Already separating God as an entity by itself. According to Jesus Christ, God is his God .
8 months late but love the lobo shirt dude
It blows my mind that someone could possess so much knowledge about the Bible and christianity.
I like Dan. He often talks a lot of sense. Here, he gives his perspective through his critical scholarship lenses. But behind this rests a number of presuppositions. But let's be honest. Yahweh's angel or the angel of the Lord is just that: Yahweh's messenger/spokesperson who carries the full authority of Yahweh. Law of Agency 101.
It is true that since the early days of Christianity some have tried to find evidence of the 'Son' in the OT and looked to the figure of Yahweh's angel. Originally this was not a great problem as they saw the Son as a lesser or subordinate God, having been influenced by people like Philo and Greek philosophy. But once they adopted a triune formula, the angel had to become God himself, despite the fact there are passages where God is communicating with the angel. Today, some Evan gelical groups claim the Angel of the Lord is the preincarnate Jesus while other groups do not hold to this claim.
The numerical value of מֵטַטְרוֹן [314] equals that of שַׁדַּי [314]. But Metatron is still limited by a spiritual body and form and therefore is not God.
How do you reconcile this view with the data of the Gospels? Jesus clearly makes statements that would be inconceivable to a pious Jew of the time, unless that individual was making a claim to divinity. Seems to me, the only possible coherent challenge to these claims would be to deny the authenticity of the Gospels as source material.
It’s myth, that’s how it’s reconciled.
Biblical scholars, both secular and religious, are nearly unanimous in acknowledging that the basic data points of the Gospels are historical (a man named Jesus, lived, taught and was cruficied under Pontius Pilate and His followers beloved He rose from the dead).
Try again.
@@LewisVinewhere is the Demonstrable Evidence to back up your myth?
There is ZERO Demonstrable Evidence that someone came back to life 2 days later for another 40 days! Just more lies!
@@LewisVine and where is the Demonstrable Evidence to back it up?
Have to love Christian cult lies!
@@LewisVine no one has died and come back to life 2 days later for 40 days!!
is this concept derived and a continuation of conceptualization of agent of deity ?
But your statement "somehow God and not God" is kind of begging the question, in that Trinitarian doctrine doesn't say, "God and not God" because the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
It is the language of both Old and New Testaments which make us come to the conclusion of Trinitarianism, which states that Jesus can be "God, but not the Father" and the Father can be "God, but not the Son," and the Holy Spirit can be "God, but not the Son," and so on...
It's thus
YHWH the Father
YHWH the Son (also the Person called the Word, and the Angel of YHWH in the OT)
YHWH the Spirit
I wish you'd address naming, esp in the Hebrew Bible. it jumps out at me in a creation story: man was allowed to name the animals. here you quote the phrase [God saying] my name is in him. to me it seems the text is steeped in the bias that to name something is to have power over it. would appreciate your take.
Is there a way to watch the event now that it’s passed?
What evidence Meloch was added post exile?
I missed your class, jesus god? Is there any way to watch it now?
I'm confused lol is there a trinity or not?! 😂
So Jesus isn’t God in the sense that they are One, but rather in the sense that he possesses the divine Name?
whoa whoa whoa... Lobo is the main man now?
Infinite Source flowed into the void in a wave pattern. IS then formed a circle, then a triangle, then a square, then more complicated shapes. IS eventually formed a brain, this is when IS became God. God then formed another being, The Son (Who is not Jesus), then God and The Son joined and became One and both created Spirit. The reason they become One is because only God can create, also, they have a mind connection.
The Trinity then created Sons and sent them out to begin new universes. Michael/Jesus along with Spirit began this universe but Michael/Jesus had to experience many angel lives and then a primitive life before He could become One with God.
So this is basically that Jesus is an agent of Adonai and speaks/acts with all of Adonai's authority.
Even though i loathe the religion, the JWs got this one right. I have an affinity for Christadelphians who say Jesus had no prehuman existence, but i think the JW christology makes the most sense, biblically. Phillipians 2, 1 Corinthians 8 etc make perfect sense in their interpretation whereas the Trinity idea and the hypostatic union certainly has to be read into the texts. And it's no wonder that Jews such as rabbi Tovia Singer call Christians idolators but have a soft spot for JWs who reject the idea that Jesus is 1/3 Jehovah in the Hebrew Bible.
Phil 2 says two things, starting with 1 Jesus was in the "form of God" and ending with 2 "every knee shall bow and tongue confess", an explicit reference to the God of Israel from Isaiah. This narrows the "form of God" to the God of Israel.
The Trinity resolves this, Father and Son are one being and Jesus is the Son incarnate. The Arian/JW view agrees with 1 but not 2. What Dan thinks agrees with 2 but no idea how it would agree with 1.
@@MusicalRaichu yes the Trinity has its own internal logic but it would be anathema for any 1st century Jew to say YHWH came in the flesh and I believe there's no way Paul was a trinitarian. People bowed to or showed godly respect to representatives of YHWH all the time. Moses was made God to pharaoh. Angels were called Elohim. David got some of that. You can't just say "well it says this about yhwh and applied it to Jesus so Jesus is yhwh." There is a much deeper meaning and quite scant evidence that anyone in the early Christian sects thought Jesus was YHWH himself.
@@cygnustsp the writers in the new testament would not have been trinitarian because that was a later resolution to the problem of Christ's identity.
Paul doesn't seem to get it at first. It's only Philippians, one of Paul's last letters when he finally seems to identify Jesus with God. By the time Mark's gospel was written only a few years later, Jesus's identification with the God of Israel is indirect but unmistakable.
By the time of John's gospel probably a few decades later, the identification is explicit "the word was God", to see him is to see God. I think by then Christianity and Judaism had separated, so I guess that allowed that to happen.
How it all worked was thrashed out over the next few centuries. The trinity theory eventually became the majority consensus. Though it's not perfect either. Like how is Jesus both subordinate to the Father and co-equal with the Father?
Ultimately, I think the best we can say is that Jesus is God's self-revelation (Heb 1.2-3, Jn 1.18, Col 1.15). To understand God we look at Jesus. But beyond that (like trinity or image bearing or whatever) is speculation. There may be value in it, but the main thing is to be imitators of Christ's character, obey his command to love, and help make known the present reality of his reign.
@@MusicalRaichu The whole story about a dead arameic speaking preacher being, becoming god is a standard greek-roman idea. Even Gaius Julius Ceasar turned into a god as was Alexander the great and Hercules.
Sir. What ways do you loath jw. Iv been jw 40..years.. Can't think of a reason.
Both trinitarians and Unitarians are gonna be mad at this one…
The phrase "redundant and unnecessary" is redundant and unnecessary. Redundancy includes the concept of unnecessity.
Redundant language is constantly used for the purpose of emphasis. There, I could have said "for emphasis", but I changed it to "for the purpose of emphasis" to make it more emphatic.
@@tezzeriiYeah. It can be a legitimate stylistic choice for emphasis, but we should also be aware of redundancies and seek to simplify our speech. Emphatic constructions work best when we also speak accurately and succinctly.
@@js1817 That's never going to happen !!
The problem is that Jesus is not merely a created being whom bears Gods name. This problem was addressed much earlier with adoptionism and Arianism. Jesus is eternal. He is also the creator and sustainer. He is the first and the last. Jesus is given the attributes of God, he is not merely an image who represents God but he literally exists before creation, he comes fourth from the father eternally, he is One with the Father, he is the ultimate creator.
Yet Paul asserts that the Earthly Adam was created before the spiritual man of Jesus in 1 Cor. 15:45-47. God and Jesus can't be the same entity if God made Adam before Jesus. In 1 Cor. 15:27-28 Paul also clearly describes God granting authority over everything (except God himself) to Jesus. They can't be the same entity with different levels of authority and one remaining superior to the other even after ascension to a divine throne.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 This is a terrible reading of Cor. 15:45-47, Adam is said to be first, because he was the first man created. Jesus was never created nor was he always a man. The verse says 47 “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.” This shows Adam was created, while Jesus always was, and came to earth taking human flesh after Adam. Secondly 15:27-28 does not imply an ontological subordination of the Son, with monarchical trinitarianism the Son is less in role and subject to the father while still being equal in essence. The New Testament consistently teaches Jesus is eternal and equal with the Father in nature. One of the most explicit passages is Colossians 1:15-16
15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him.
@@BuffAle "firstborn" and "creation" both imply a start, meaning not eternal. Same with the often used "begotten son." When was he begotten, exactly? Was he always had been begotten? Overall, the rhetoric is clear that the father made the son, they are not thought of by the authors as fully co-eternal.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 Nope, firstborn means above, its a title of superiority above all creation, notice I specified the Son's human nature was created and not his divine nature. The son wasn't created, but eternally begotten of the father as expressed by the Nicene Creed. The father did not create the son, the Father regards the son as the God over him, Hebrews 1:8-10 "But of the Son he says," Your throne, O God, is forever and ever the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;"
@@BuffAle Resorting to citing the creed basically concedes the point that this was a later doctrine roughly imposed on the New Testament to try to patch up some ambiguous places where people were a little too lose with titles and proclamations about distant eons. Arguments about the "nature" of the two ignores the plain reading of many scenes where Jesus and God are distinct, with distinct knowledge and authority. Even John's scenes of Jesus and Moses and the Holy spirit judging souls has them as distinct from God. Read Mark 1 and really think if his baptism of Jesus with a speaking God who identifies Jesus as his son, and a Holy Spirit who descends then chases Jesus into the wilderness, honestly sounds like Mark imagines these three entities sharing one mind and will. As Dan keeps saying, the data shows this idea developed later, and isn't supported by most of the New Testament itself (and none of the Old).
And what is necessary?
Not the Bible! Not the gods!
As an "ëx_christian"" you know pretty well what to expect@@Ex_christian
what's redundant is believing god is just a man who became god, but who had a man-god above him, and again above him, and so on... now that's redundant.
They believe that Jesus was both God and man at the same time, meaning He was both the Son of God and God. Some people say He contains that essence of God and has two wills or two minds I believe.
@@BaperPag i'm actually addressing the beliefs of mormon's, which dan is. i didn't make that very clear. mormon's believe that the father god is literally a man, and just like him, they will all become gods eventually, too, with their own planets to rule over.
@@jimiberman3464 Mormons believe that God is a man? No, no, no. He could be a divine being that looks like a man, but He isn’t. Man and God are different.
In fact, aren’t Mormon beliefs that if you do certain things you can become just like God? That is literally just like what Satan taught.
@@BaperPag well, that's what mormons believe. i agree with you though, it's a clown show.
I would love for you to talk comics sometime!
They went back and added in the word "malak" to the texts to back-fill this doctrine into it? So you are advocating a conspiracy theory.