We can't completely understand the union between the FATHER and the SON but it is clear due to the Blessed scriptures Philippians ch 2 : GOD has bestowed on HIS SON'S NAME A NAME THAT IS ABOVE EVERY NAME AMEN 🙏 The Blessed LORD is the only way to the FATHER john 14:6
Great scriptures showing the God-HEAD in biblical context and the revealing of the Father's beloved from eternity to all creation and creatures ! 1 john 1:1-2, revelation 5:3-6, Micah 5:2, revelation 5:13-14 Shalom in Sonship
Excellent explanation of a difficult concept! You did a good job of showing what the Apostles early church Fathers believed about the nature of God, the persons of God.
O boys explained it to others as if I was talking about myself and my son building something my son built it through me as I built it through my son and the great spirit between us the love and the kind The comforts us as we look at each other with adoring eyes. Brother I am so grateful for this work to you done My eyes who failed me and I can't see very well I can't afford glasses So high has to rely on those that have been so kind to read and to do research as you have I am so grateful you are an answer to my prayers May our Lord God continue to bless your work And may the angels continue to guide your hand in finding the Lord's Word
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST ARE THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN BAPTISED IN THE NAME OF CHRIST AS ALL THE APOSTLES DID. 1 Corinthians 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptised into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit. John 7:37-39 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Colossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Acts 19:4 And Paul said, “John baptised with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, JESUS.” Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptised in THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. Acts 8:16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptised IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, they were baptised, both men and women. Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptised every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptised IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. Then they asked him to remain for some days. Acts 8:16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptised in the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. Romans 6:3-4 Do you not know that all of us who have been BAPTISED INTO CHRIST JESUS WERE BAPTISED INTO HIS DEATH? “””” [NO NOT INTO THE TRINITY ROM WHICH THE NAME OF JESUS IS OMITTED] “”” WE WERE BURIED THEREFORE WITH HIM BY BAPTISM INTO DEATH, IN ORDER THAT, JUST AS CHRIST WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD BY THE GLORY OF THE FATHER, WE TOO MIGHT WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE. HAVE YOU GOT IT YET - THE DISCIPLES WOULD NEVER DISOBEY THEIR LORD AND SAVIOUR.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. 2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
In Answer to Mr. Nice Guy: The Spirit of Truth reveals the following, about 1Tim 3:16. Through the flesh of Jesus, God is manifested, exactly as he is manifested through our flesh; as we allow, even as Jesus allowed: saying, "Not My Will, But Yours, Oh God." And also, he prayed to God, saying: Nothing is impossible for You, If it be Your Will, Let this cup pass from ME: Mark 14:35, And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. Mark 14:36, And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what you will. However, the key to getting to the true translation of 1Tim 3:16, is that it says: that this person was, "Received Up Into Glory." "He that ascended, is he that first descended" "He that descended, died on the Cross, for our sins" Eph 4:9 Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) So, again we ask the question: Can God Die, when every bible verse declares that God, is IMMORTAL and is NOT the Son of Man? We are well-informed that Christ descended, but only because He Was Mortal; Because, God Made Him To Be Sin, that he might die, for us. The Nature of Jesus, was sinful flesh, just like us. 2Co 5:2 For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. However, unlike us, he did not sin, but remained obedient to the word of God; it is only for that reason that God raised him from the dead. Heb 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; * God resurrected Jesus, because he reverenced (feared) God. So then, 1Tim 3:16 describes Jesus, the one who descended, upon his death; and ascended, at his resurrection; Rom 1:4 (AKJV) And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: * It is of no importance, all else in his man's life: The only sign that matters is that God raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand. Resurrection and ascension is the definitive sign that Jesus became, Son of God, as was his continual testimony; according to the spirit of holiness at work in him, as he allowed and obeyed. Heb 5:8 (AKJV) Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb 5:9 (AKJV) And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him; And afterwards, God sat him down at his own right hand of glory. Heb 10:12 (AKJV) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; Note: * One, is Man. * The Other, is God. No One, reading the scripture, immediately above, would dare to say that God, is the man, who "offered one sacrifice for sins," would he? No One, reading the scripture, immediately above, would be so demon possessed, as to think we would believe that the man, sat down on the right hand of himself, right? It would appear that the human author of Hebrews 10:12, wrote that verse, with certainty that the reader would most definitely understand that: * Yeshua or Jesus, is: This Man...sat down on the right hand of God. * YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah, is: God, he who resurrected the man and sat him down, on his right side. -- For Your Consideration: In Yeshua's Name: 1KingOfWonders
God is not a family, God is creating a family- you could say that but God himself is one being and not a family. The Church of God uses that terminology that you did calling God a family, and implying that Jesus pre-existed.
@@mr.e1220 I disagree. God is not "creating a family". he IS a family. he created himself. Jesus said "when you have seen me you have seen the father." I think that many people are looking for some magical exterior being that lives out in the cosmos someware. and according to Revelation 13:3, the people are going to get exactly what they asked for.
THE BEST TRINITY VERSE IN THE BIBLE: Isaiah 48:16 "now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent Me.”...The Lord God the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus ( the Me in the verse and it's Jesus because it's written in capital letter, not small letter )
我喜欢耶稣InfinityTemplar - Has you "one" god ever been a man? You see, God testified in the Law that He never changes and is not a man nor the son of man. That eliminates any possibility that God ever aped the gods of the heathen by becoming a human avatar like Buddha or Vishnu. Do you believe God?
ElCineHefe Yeah, Elohim has always been Echad (a composite being). And Daniel 7 talks about the son of man coming with the authority of God and is to be worshiped. Since scripture says to have no other gods but Elohim, yet also says the son of man is to be worship. Its reasonable to conclude that the son of man is a piece of this composite being. Edit The son of man is a description/title given to a specific individual. Its not talking about mankind or humanity.
我喜欢耶稣InfinityTemplar - Listen to yourself. You're saying monotheism but always describing a polytheistic pantheon. Yes, you have one pantheon of gods but that is in no way monotheistic.
I am hungry to really get to grips with all this and to definitively understand how the traditions and rites of Catholicism came into being. I have always argued that the Roman church (as it became and as it is today) was quite different from earlier Christianity. Whilst they retain the doctrine of the Trinity, they seem to have travelled miles away from the simplicity of the early Christians. They claim these early Church Father’s as their own, inasmuch as they quote their traditions - and are adamant that only Catholicism is the one and only true church. I just can’t agree with the latter. So thank you for these teaching videos.
Thank you for commenting. What you say is true: the Catholic Church has substantially changed since the time of the Pre-Nicene Church and the Council of Nicaea. Speaking personally, after researching the Pre-Nicene Church and the Catholic Church, I found that there are many doctrines that are different. At the same time, I found that there are a few doctrines that are the same. In other words, while I can explain why the Catholic Church is not the Pre-Nicene Church, since researching the history and the doctrines, I have more respect for the Catholic Church today than I did years ago. No matter what church we may be talking about, I wish that all of them were more mindful about looking at the Pre-Nicene Church for help. God bless you!
Post-Apostolic Church Thank you very much for taking the time to comment on my comment, re the RC Church vis-a-vis the Pre-Nicean earlier Christianity. I wish I could find out more as to the particular differences in Christianity that occurred Post - Nicene, and how the changes progressed, and why and how these differ from the original purity of the Gospel as preached by the Apostles and their immediate followers. I think Tertullian did question the ‘upon this rock’ verse in Matthew, or was it Origen? Also, did the Pre-N’s actually believe in transubstantiation and the real presence in the bread? I do thank the RC for holding on to as many early writings that they came across, but wonder how many of these early writings are still kept under wraps in the vaults of the Vatican? Also, the elevation of Mary.... did the early Apostles speak of her in such exalted tones? If she was assumed into Heaven, then why didn’t John not even mention it (as she was in his care after the crucifixion)? As you can see, I am thirsty for knowledge on all this - so if at some point you can, by pointing to these precious writings, shed some light on what has become quite a divisive topic these days between Catholics and non Catholics, I would be extremely grateful! If anything, the early father’s teachings and writings could do a lot to unite Christians worldwide, and also their teachings could be of enormous encouragement in this present day and age, as Christians again face increasing persecution. Thank you - and God bless you!
@@jenniebugs1 I'll be glad to answer your questions. The Pre-Nicene Christians rejected transsubstantiation. They wouldn't have a problem with Real Pressence, but it appears that their beliefs were closer to what is called consubstatiation. Yes, the Pre-Nicene Christians spoke very, very favorably of Mary. And we should also, as the Bible says that everyone should call her blessed. However, in no way did the Pre-Nicene Christians elevate Mary to how the Catholic Church has. No, she was not assumed into heaven. The early Christians wrote that she was buried in Ephesus. I would say that the Pre-Nicene view of Mary is the same as today's Orthodox view of Mary. God bless!
Oh my lord! How on this earth have you distorted scriptures. Jesus was telling the disciples to become one in unity, mindset, purpose etc. When he says "Us" he means he AND the father, he and the Father are two separate entities. He is even stating that God the Father sent him. Could this verse be any more clearer , it is light years away from the Trinity.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Because I agree what what you say here about the Son and the Father being two entities and Jesus talking about unity. You might have misunderstood either what I was trying to say or misunderstand what the Trinity is. Please explain where the distortion of the Scripture is. Blessings to you!
Post-Apostolic Church Since Jesus and God are two living entities and only one is God, take a guess what happens to monotheism the moment you have two or more gods.
Robert Vann after the resurrection the apostles made it clear that Christ in his glorified form knew all things. And nothing can be hidden from him. It is not for men to know the day of the coming of Christ because then they’d repent the hour before he returns so stop making the mistake of limiting God to your own understanding because you’ll fail by the scripture. Read genesis 18 and tell me if you believe that chapter
Emad Hamdi Do you mean the 3 men presenting at Abraham’s tent referred to as “The Lord” were the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? (No debates here, just wanting to clarify so I understand your post)
Thank you for commenting! Great question. The Father and Son are co-equal in their nature. They are both equally divine/deity/God. They both have eternally existed. Just as men and women are co-equal in their nature. They are both human. The Father is greater than the Son in their authority. The Father has authority over the Son. The Father is the source of Son's authority. And the Son always does what the Father tells Him to do. Just as men and women have different aspects of authority. The woman has the authority in childbirth; the man has the authority as head of the family. At least, that's God's design in the authority between humans. Hopefully showing the difference between nature and authority, this makes sense. The analogy of the nature/authority between man and woman help me understand it. God bless you!
@rami Thank you for asking. I don't see how Jesus' ascension would change His nature or the number of gods. There is only one God/Deity. Yet God has shown that God has three persons. The Father is deity and the Son is deity. But they are two persons. In a similar way, a marriage is one thing, but a marriage has two people. A family is one unit, but can have multiple people. There is one God/Deity, but there are three persons of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I hope this explanation helps. When Jesus ascended into heaven, He did not change His deity, nor did He change his humanity. Even when in heaven, Jesus remained both God and human. God bless you!
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV (Who was manifested in the flesh?) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (Who was made flesh? John 1:14 KJV) Jesus Christ = God, fully God, fully human (He was made flesh through the virgin birth). Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:23 KJV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 KJV) Triune God For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7 KJV) Father (God the Father), the Word (Jesus Christ, read John 1:14 KJV) and the Holy Ghost (the Holy Spirit): and these 3 and 1. The Hebrew word ECHAD (Oneness): Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one [Echad] LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one [Echad] flesh. (Genesis 2:24 KJV) Paul wrote: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness... (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV) Don't let those modern "bibles" corrupt you. And not because of a "semi-Arian" claimed it so we need to disregard it (WE HAVE TO CHECK WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, NOT WHAT A MAN SAID OR MIGHT HAVE SAID). Read your Bibles (I'm not a KJVoist, but start there so you won't get confused by the modern "bibles"). In Mathew 4 we clearly read about satan tempting Christ, he (satan) was quoting Scriptures which was 100% correct BUT with the wrong motives, to twist is, to lead to confusion, just like he did with Adam and Eve! Not because of a philosopher, an apostate, satan or anyone else claims something that is true (from the Bible) with the intention to twist it, doesn't make it less true if we (Christians) know the Truth from what the Bible preaches. Christ and the Apostles performed signs and wonders, Christ Himself warns against copycats (For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. Mark 13:22 KJV). GET UNDERSTANDING & SEEK DISCERNMENT LIKE GOLD! Christ as we know Him, and as He claimed, is the Son of God, when anyone opens his/her mouth to say "If He (Christ) is the Son of God" we should know their MO is to twist or lead us to doubt. Stand with the Word of God (Make sure you know what the Bible says, a good Bible, go with KJV first). BE CAREFUL: Paul was a zealous person, he persecuted believers thinking that he was doing God a favor, yet after know the Truth he warns: 3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that THEY TEACH NO OTHER DOCTRINE, 4 Neither give heed to FABLES and ENDLESS GENEALOGIES, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. 5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: 6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto VAIN JANGLING; 7 Desiring to be TEACHERS OF THE LAW; UNDERSTANDING NEITHER WHAT THEY SAY, NOR WHEREOF THEY AFFIRM. (1 Timothy 4:3-7 KJV) Blessings!
Thank you for the time you took and rhe careful dividing of the word.. John chapter one said that Jesus was the word. Chapter 1 verse says the word made everything that means he must be God and then the the word was manifested and wealth Among Us. And his name was God with us Emmanuel. It's clear in the Old Testament there was one God and it's clear in the New Testament that there is one God. The reference he made about chapter 26 of Matthew the Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost is not in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which is from the first century and it said baptize in the name of Jesus or YAHushua Yahweh is salvation.
One of the reasons that there are so many Bibles, publishers like to insert or extract words so as to twist verses in favor of the Trinity doctrine. This is what causes artificial contradictions between versus and throws the Bible into chaos. Nevertheless, the Bible is God's word; and therefore, as men make edits, so as to slant one section towards their particular flavor of doctrine, they must, elsewhere, correct a section, which then opposes that slant. And so his own edition of God word, condemns both, him and that doctrine. Again that is why it says the sum of God's word is Truth. MLV'19 Psa 119:160: "The sum of your word is truth and every one of your righteous ordinances is everlasting." The verse sited, in Timothy, where it says: God was manifested in the flesh. if you check most earlier versions, it does not say that God was manifested in the flesh; it says, he was manifested in the flesh, speaking of the one from above, Yeshua. It says he that ascended, first descended. He who knew no sin, was manifested in flesh that by Nature was sinful. Death had dominion over him, as the book of Romans says. So again we must ask: Where in the Bible does it say that God died or that God can die? One universal truth, is that God cannot die and yet be God. That is unless, you're speaking of some pagan idea of God, which is where the idea of Trinity came from. In both spiritual and carnal things, logic must have its place of rule, by which we might truthfully judge, things carnal and things spiritual. If scripture contradicts scripture, then logically, the enemy has placed his elements, even in the word of God, through his emissaries. Therefore it must be logic, reasoning, line upon line precept upon precept, here a little there a little; as the prophet Isaiah said. So that those who seek light may uncover it and those who seek tradition and doctrines of men may fall, be broken and cursed; as the same prophet said. Yet, it is the Holy Spirit that whispers logic in the heart of a man concerning the word of God. It almost matters nothing, to compare one Bible to the next. What is important, is that one reads the Bible with an open heart, open mind, and opened eyes; as attained to, through the Holy Spirit, witnessing to the heart that accepts counsel. And, let us remember that not all men have come unto all the truth. And so, I humbly ask forgiveness, for any perceived rudeness, exhibited during my explanation. For your consideration, 1kingofwonders
I don’t know if I have commented on this before but when Christ said the Father gave all authority to him......I sometimes struggle with this mystery. So I default to praying to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit But when I think on this I study John chapter 1. Also what do we do with Colossians “.......by him (Christ) all things are held together....” paraphrased. I don’t distinguish in praise of the Son because the Father is pleased in the Son and is worthy of all praise. The visual of Revelation 4......wow I want to see that
Good thoughts. Thank you for commenting. When I think about the authority that the Father gave the Son, I think of 1Cor 15:24-28. Paul can be confusing there because he uses lots of pronouns. But if you read it a couple times, you can see how God has given authority to Jesus (John 5:26-27). But when ALL things are complete, then everything (and all authority) will be given back to the Father. The Father is the One who will be all in all. God bless!
The Father and the Son are one. The Word of God became flesh. It took on the DNA of men. So all of God's Word was in Him, all promises. The body of Jesus, the form came after the birth. Thats why God has begotten an only born son. Every Word Jesus spoke was that of the Father. Jesus is the true vine, fullfilling of the law of God and the blood sacrifice for our sins, our High Priest for ever. The first.
Strange I have not heard this verse being mentioned. Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Jesus said that the Father was greater than him for the simple reason that at that stage in his earthly journey he was in a human body.
No, He said that because His Father is His Father. The son was begotten, the firstborn of all creation. He has a fullness of deity because His Father is God, just like you are just as much human as your father.
Notice the words of our Lord Jesus. John 5:19 “Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner.” If the Son is doing EXACTLY everything what the Father is doing-manner, behavior etc., he has reflected his Father perfectly. Just like the saying goes, “Like father like son”. Jesus Christ perfectly portrayed his Fathers ‘s qualities and thus can confidently say “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” and Paul can say in the scripture you quoted.-John 14:9
Thank you for commenting. Who were the seven spirits before the throne? I'm not sure. Personally, I believe we know the names of three of them: Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael. Who was Melchizedek? He was God's high priest of Salem (Jerusalem) during the time of Abraham. He had a priesthood that pre-dated the Mosaic (Aaron's) priesthood. Who spoke with Abraham concerning Sodom? I agree with the early Christians on this question. The person speaking with Abraham was the pre-incarnate Word, also called The Angel of the Lord. Do you have any thoughts on these things as well? God bless you!
Jesus said to his disciple: "Why do you say, 'show us the Father', do you not know he who has seen me has seen the Father?" Homoousion - One in essense.
In the greek: "Says to him the Jesus, so long a time with you, I AM, and not you have known Me, Phillip?" Is not Jesus the Word of God, that became flesh. The promise, the living Word. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. " God spoke at it became in to being.
the funny thing if you break down the greek word "the devil" in hebrews 2:14 the word is "daibolon" dia- divide bolon - to cast dice/lots. the passage translates to "the divided who cast dice" which the word bolon was used a lot for the roman court system where the jury was a select group of random jurors selected by lots. and a lot of court cases it was one side of the jury being political would pick a side despite evidence. so you would get split juries who picked there sides off of political tribal alignment rather then being objective. and if they could not decide some of the jury would cast a die, so that what they believed the gods would make the decision, so if it was a life or death case they could use the dice as a cop-out rather then take the responsibility for the decision, mentally and politically. so a life or death case could be decided by a dice role, or a just getting a bad set of jury who where all the same tribal political organization who would just pick the opposite of there rival jurors.
Thank you for commenting. Here is my answer. "Person" is the best English word to represent the Greek word hypostases. Hypostases was the term that the early Christians used to describe each individual of the Divinity. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch You gave me a definition. Can you come up with "who" gave us the concept that God was three "persons?" Since it is not a biblical idea or precept. I can come up with my own ideas of what I think God is like, but is it biblical?
@@r.e.jr.1152 The bible clearly shows the son to be divine yet numerically distinct from the Father. The term person is simply a way to articulate such idea.
@@Anaxagoras-qr5zn Where in the bible does Jesus teach that he is "distinct" from the Father? Everything he taught about this subject is contrary to what you are saying. I and my Father are one. You've seen me, you've seen the Father. To know me is to know the Father. The Father that dwells in me. I dwell in the Father. To reject the Son is to reject the Father. If you have the Son, you have the Father.
True Clement of Rome stated "have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of Grace shed upon us? ( 1st epistle to the Corinthians ). His comments are very pertinent since he was likely an apostle of John. His words have been claimed to be 'evidence of the trinity'. This is total wrong since the definition requires, yeh, demands that 'there are three PERSONS in one God'. Not until years LATER was this notion considered. Lets be clear to proclaim matt 28:19 is not accepting a 'trinity'!
Excellent research!!!! The Nicene Council sure confuses the pureness of Christ’s message. Yes, a Father who is over all, a son who is sent as a Savior to teach us, die for us and take our sins upon him that we may also live with him and the father eternally, both who have physical separate bodies and the Holy Spirit who can dwell within us. All separate but with one in purpose. Have you investigated the Church of Jesus Christ Latterday Saints? We believe also that the gospel and been very distorted and apostisized. We believe the gospel and it’s original teachings from Jesus Christ have been “restored”. I have enjoyed your presentations as they are also what I believe.
Thank you for commenting. I hope you will take the time to check out more videos on this channel. Yes, I have investigated the LDS church. God bless you!
suzen naughton No, the Book of Mormon is the documentation of a Jewish family who immigrated to the Americas in 600 BC. It is another testament of a Jesus Christ being the Savior to the world. His birth was prophesied about and anticipated by the ancient people and Jesus visited them after his death and before the ascension. That is why native people were expecting a “white god” to come again. The church of Jesus Christ Latterday Saints we believe is the restoration of Jesus Christ original church. We believe through the prophet Joseph Smith whom was visited by God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ that he was instructed how to restore the church. We believe the priesthood was restored by angelic visits of Peter, James, and John. We believe Joseph Smith was taught by many angelic prophets to the true meaning of God and his plan for us. We use the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price ( Books of Moses and Abraham) and the restoration is documented in the Doctrine of Covenants.
I'm so glad that many are waking up to this reality and immersing themselves in Scripture with an earnest love for the truth which only God can provide through His Holy Spirit. Bless you brother in Christ. Also consider evidence of the Son in the Old Testament. Who was the LORD of Hosts? "The LORD" being the Father's name, Yahweh. So, it is "Yahweh of Hosts." The Son's name is Yahshua. He literally carries His Father's name, as we see in over 40 places in the Old Testament, Yahweh is shortened to Yah. Notice how in many of the prophecies of the Old Testament and in many of the times when God speaks to His servants there are often changes in who is speaking. There is clearly one person speaking and then another speaking, making reference to the one who was just speaking, yet it is God speaking. The Word speaks for God and as God, because He only ever does what the Father tells Him to. It's been that way from the beginning. It is His very nature as the Word, THE Prophet of God. Very interesting study. I'm writing a book on the subject after being pursued heavily by "One God" only believers who made a serious attempt to convince me I was apostate in my beliefs about the triune nature of God, even as a subordinationist. Early church history is really important to read and understand. Others stated similar things as Tertullian, like Iraeneus and Origen as well as Arius. Thank you for sharing your insights.
Thank you for commenting! Godspeed to you and your studies! You shared some good points that Scripture brings out. When it comes to the nature of God, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Origen taught the same things about the nature of God. Arius was a man who brought a whole lot of new teaching about the nature of God. It was because of his teaching that caused the Council of Nicaea. God bless you and your studies!
Thank you for commenting. When I look at every baptism the disciples performed, sometimes the Scriptures say it was in the name of the Lord Jesus. Sometimes, the Scriptures don't mention any name. I can answer your question. But first, can you explain why some baptisms the disciples performed mention no name? God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch , I would like an answer to this regardless of whether @graemedown8970 gets back to you. I was raised oneness, and I have come to believe in the Trinity, but I am trying to reconcile some things. I studied and researched for years and know all of the common explanations. Your insights would be appreciated.
@@christopherm7702 I greatly appreciate you asking! To recap... 1) Original comment says "every baptism the disciples performed were in the name of Jesus only." To this, I say not every baptism. Just a simple search for baptism in the New Testament shows that the apostles used different phrases to describe baptism. 2) To answer your question, I would like to focus on Matt 28:19. There, Jesus mentions all three Persons of the Trinity. Secondly, if you look at Jesus' baptism, all three Persons of the Trinity are there (and they are not the same person!)... Jesus being baptized, the Spirit descending like a dove, and the Father speaking from heaven. If I haven't address your questions or curiosity, I am honored to discuss more. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch Thank you for your reply. Yes, I already understood the points you made and have heard these many times before. Having said that, every time any name is mentioned in Acts, it refers to Jesus, even if it says "in the name of the "Lord," who they understood as the Lord Jesus, etc. I would love to discuss this in more detail. I am not trying to convert you to my background; I believe there is more to it than what you described.
Thank you for asking. About Matt 28:19, I have not met anyone who has denied that verse. Scholars and history is solid that this verse belongs in Matthew. I'm not sure what they have to say against it. About 1John 5:7, are you talking about the phrase where it says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One? Most translations do not include this phrase anymore. I believe this is a good thing. Turns out, that phrase was never found in any Christian writing before the year 350 AD. Because of that, that phrase is not genuine. The Pre-Nicene Christians did not need that phrase for them to believe in the Trinity. Of course, if it existed during that time, they would have used it! But they didn't because it didn't exist before 350 AD. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch Amen thank you for answering me brother in Christ! I do know that some muslims claim matt 28 19 is a forgery according to scholars but I don't believe them. I'm thankful for your reply! Btw have you ever planned to make a video what the pre nicene christians believed about Jesus Christ. I know Ignatius said alot of cool things about Jesus. Have a blessed day! God bless you.
@@fancopy12 Absolutely. I will make a series of videos about what they believed about Jesus. I just need to put in the time and work to get it done. There is one (maybe two) video left on Father God. After that, there will be a number of videos on God the Son. :)
I appreciate this video. I'm trying to learn more about the pre-Nicene Christians and their theology. What book(s) would you suggest for a beginner who wants to learn more about early Christian theology? Trying to talk to evangelicals about Christianity and showing how Christianity today is not the same as very early Christianity is like talking to a brick wall.
Thank you for asking. Beyond any other book, I recommend Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (link below). What makes it the best is that it is a collection of quotes from the Pre-Nicene Church. This makes it a primary source, letting those early Christians speaks for themselves. With other books, you learn about the Pre-Nicene Christians second-hand. God bless you! www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Early-Christian-Beliefs-Reference/dp/1565633571
I have not heard that the authenticity of Matt 28:19 was questioned. Will you point me in the direction of someone who questions the authenticity of Matt 28:19? Or, are you thinking about the last 12 verses of Mark (which is questioned by some some folks)?
Here's the link to the Eastern Orthodox Christian discord server: discord.gg/pwuHwTtZhu We had 800 members 1.5 years ago now we have 6000 members made up of Orthodox clergy and Orthodox laymen, but also many enquirers made up of protestants, evangelicals, muslims, roman catholics, pagans, etc. Come join us for weekly debates, endless pdf's on orthodox theology, logic, the formation of the cannon of scripture, the history of the church etc. All welcome. People are being converted and baptised and chrismated every week by the grace of God and thanks to the efforts of the members in the server.
We are body,soul and Spirit just as Jesus was son of man ,had the soul of the son but had the spirit of the father.The father is like the sun(love) and christ is the wisdom(light and warmth) as he explained.
Great lesson, but you missed speaking about the third person of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit who is the one most intimately involved in the life of the disciple since Pentecost, convicting, teaching and interceding with the Father and the Son. Surely the early church fathers had something to say about Him too?
Thank you for commenting. Yes, the early Christians had many things to say about the Holy spirit. I will be continuing this series and make videos about what they said about the Holy Spirit. I'm hoping to do that later this year. God bless!
"These three agree as one", is how I've always heard the trinity defined. But I have been always confused about them being one person or three. Meaning each has their own personality, will, individuality. They work together as one. But do so voluntarily. Do I got that correct?
Don't confuse yourself with these doctrines. Jesus claimed to be the person of the Father, he said if you know me you know the Father. Jesus did not speak his own words, every word Jesus spoke was the Father speaking, and all the miracles he did were done by the Holy Spirit, but Jesus says it was the Father doing it. You should understand that the only person of God is the person Jesus Christ manifested which is the person of the Father. God does not suffer from multiple personality disorder. Jesus Christ is the great IAM, the invisible God and Father that came down in the form of a man, and the Pharisees neither saw his shape nor heard his voice! John 5:37And the Father Himself, who hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape.
@@ivanmeouch95 Thanks, it kind of all washed it self away after sleeping on it. I think, the carnal mind, just can't completely wrap itself around some spiritual realities. Probably better just to learn to live with certain mysteries, and go on with life. "Rejoice not that the demons are made subject to you, but rather rejoice that your names are written in Heaven." It's all by faith.
@@Howie47 Jesus said if you know Him you know the Father, as in; he is the exact likeness of His Father, with the same will. It is very simple. There is one God, our Father, who is without origin and all things find origin in Him. The Father had a Son, begotten not made, out of His very own substance. The Son is a son. You've heard the very popular verse I'm sure, "For God so loved the earth He sent His only begotten Son...". The Son is obedient to the Father, the Son's God is His Father (of course). God the Father is the one true God, but the Son is filled with deity as a result of being the Son of God, just like you are just as much human as your father. The Son, Father, and Spirit are a trinity in that They all are one, but this is not a numerical one, but that They share the same will/goals.
Hey, i have a question regarding Bishops/overseers, deacons and the like. What were there roles? What can we read that would give a good outline of how they did things back then? Its obvious they slightly resembled the RCC in terms of authoritative positions (excluding the authority of the pope, as many church fathers wrote against the superiority of the Bishop in Rome), but problems are the confusion in how they did things, how close we have to come to be on their level, and the fact that we dont have bishops today that are faithful. How can we know who the authoritative descendants of (that is, those who have been appointed) the apostles by rite of succession. They seemed to be a major part of the church.
Thanks for commenting and asking so many questions! I cannot sufficiently answer them at the moment. There is just too much information! Eventually, I plan to share a video on this subject which will explain the details. I'll make some brief statements below. Feel free to ask more questions, but please keep them simple. :) Through the first century (certainly in the Scriptures and in Clement of Rome's letter), bishops and overseers were the same role. Starting with Ignatius, the disciple of John, he wrote that the roles were separate. The job of the bishop/overseers through Pre-Nicene Christianity was to teach and to shepherd their congregation(s). The job of the deacons were to assist in the worship service and to serve the congregation in smaller things such as taking the Lord's Supper to those who were not able to attend. No, I would say the roles of bishops/overseers and deacons were very different during Pre-Nicene Christianity than they are now in the RCC. As to the descendants/succession of bishops, it is debatable that this is even a thing. Over the first 3 centuries of Christianity, we only have the succession of bishops from less than a handful of cities (such as Rome, Jerusalem, etc.). Now, if succession was a thing, then why didn't the Pre-Nicene Christian writers give their own list of successions? On the other side, the Pre-Nicene Christians did write about apostolic succession, but they recognized the succession of the apostles' teachings as more important than the succession of bishops. I would not say that Tertullian and Cyprian supported infant baptism because infant baptism today is different than it was back then. Today, it is taught by many Christian groups that infants are baptized to be saved. In Pre-Nicene Christianity, they did not believe that. They believed that one must have faith before baptism. Today that this called "believer's baptism." What they discussed was the age of the person. Tertullian wrote that the age of a person had made no difference if they wanted to be baptized. He quoted Jesus, saying that people should let the children come to Him. What age would one expect a young person to come to faith? Tertullian said the age of 14 is typical because it was the age when sexual desires usually began. In Pre-Nicene Christianity, I don't think it would have been a big deal if someone baptized their infant or very young child. That is, it wouldn't be illegal. But I believe it was up to the congregation, the parents, and/or the child as to which baptismal practices they promoted. As to my personal belief, I reject the practice of infant baptism, but if parents want to baptize their child, I won't say it is sin. I believe the person who is baptized needs to be able to confess Jesus as the Son of God and truly believe it. Otherwise, how can that baptism follow what Peter said (1Pet 3:21) about the person's mind-set? Those are my thoughts. Feel free to continue the discussion. :) That's so great that you have Mr. Bercot's Dictionary! I feel that it is the single greatest book in the world outside of the Scriptures!
Thank you for saying that. Yes, I will certainly do this! Currently, I'm in the middle of a series on Father God. Next, I will do a series on Jesus, the Son. After that, I will do a series on the Holy Spirit. It might be a year or two before I get there. But videos on the Holy Spirit are coming! God bless!
Post-Apostolic Church Thanks, looking forward to it. I'm a very slow reader and under the impression that the pre-Nicene fathers were not as articulate about the Holy Spirit as the Father and the Son, so I very much appreciate your efforts.
Thank you for the encouragement! I would not say the early Christians were not as articulate about the Holy Spirit. But as far as the amount of writings, yes, they did not write as much about the Holy Spirit than either the Father or the Son.
We have first to see if this called person receives the treatment of a person as the Father and the Son; if all requirements and characteristics of the treatment are fulfilled then we can say the Holy Spirit is a person in equality to the Father and the Son. CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE IN THE FATHER AND THE SON BUT NOT IN THE SPIRIT 1) Never seen in the throne. Apocalypse 22: 1 2) Prayers are never made to Holy Spirit 3) Never be worshiped or praised Revelation 5: 13- 14 4) It never been mentioned by a personal name. Revelation 14: 1 5) The term God is never applied to the Holy spirit as it occurs with the Father and the Son. 6) In the greetings of the new testament letters it is never been included as it is done with Father and the Son.( it would be disrespectful ). 1 Timothy 1: 1-2; Titus 1: 1; 1 Corinthians 1: 3 The apostles never treated the Holy Spirit as a person in equality to the Father and the Son
It's amazing how many verses that Trinitarians use to show a distinction between the Father and Son make way more sense when you understand that the term "Son" always refers to the incarnation, and never to his divine nature. I.e. those distinctions those verses show are distinctions between the physical and divine natures of Christ, not between the eternal Son and Father. For example, at Gethsemane, Jesus, in his divine nature, had no reason to fear the cross, but in his physical nature he had good reasons. So his prayer there is indisputably him submitting his fleshly will to the divine will of God. It's not the Son's divine will submitting to the Father's. That doesn't make sense even in Trinitarianism. Also, read context. Matthew 28:19 doesn't make sense as a trinitarian claim when you consider what that "therefore" ties it too. On the contrary, it emphasizes that all three are manifested in Christ. And the immediate context of John 10:30 didn't fit the meaning of "one" from 7 chapters later. The immediate context is clearly a claim to divinity, and how he claimed that divinity makes it also a claim to be the Father. The word "one" is flexible, and only immediate context can tell you how to understand it. It's clearly not used the same in chapter 10 as in chapter 17.
@@brenosantana1458 I'm not sure what you're getting at. The claims against Matthew 28:19's authenticity are highly problematic, but whether it was there originally or added later by Trinitarians, both possibilites are problematic for trinitarianism.
The easiest way to understand the Trinity is to think of the beginning given in John rather like Quantum Physics. When God first created this reality He made photons, the smallest measure of energy and matter and He made sound with phonons being the smallest unit of measurement. Then He created a body to dwell in. Before this reality the only thing we can know of what God was like is that God is Love. What is of God outside the body of Christ would be the Holy Spirit. Genesis is the Newtonian version of Creation and John is the Quantum Physics version.
Thank you for comment and your question. One of the core values of this channel is not to share anything about my personal history or belief. It is the purpose of this channel to be as unbias as possible in presenting the faith and history of the Pre-Nicene Church. Because of that, I do not share my personal information. Besides, it is my personal goal to model my faith and practices after the Scriptures and the Pre-Nicene Christians ...instead of one of the denominations that exist today. Thank you for your understanding. God bless you!
Yes, but these were the guys that were directly discipled by the apostles, some of them had actually met Christ. And you think that your priests and preachers today are the one's that got it right? Rather than the ones who preserved the church through the martyrdom it endured?
INDEED THE ONENESS OF GOD IS IMMEASURABLE Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. John 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 1 Peter 3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 20 On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. GOD IS ONE SPIRIT. READ WELL - THE ONENESS OF GOD AND IN GOD IS ESSENTIAL FOR OUR SALVATION. IT IS NOT - INTELLECTUAL CALCULATION THAT REVEALS THIS TO US BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT THROUGH DISCERNMENT.
ACTS 4 13 When they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realised that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and recognised that they had been with Jesus. JESUS ANSWERED, “THE MOST IMPORTANT IS, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE LORD OUR GOD, THE LORD IS ONE. EPHESIANS 4:5-6 ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, WHO IS OVER ALL AND THROUGH ALL AND IN ALL. MARK 12:29-32 ROMANS 8:1 THERE IS THEREFORE NOW NO CONDEMNATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS. JOHN 10:30 I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.” JOHN 14:20 IN THAT DAY YOU WILL KNOW THAT I AM IN MY FATHER, AND YOU IN ME, AND I IN YOU. JAMES 2:19 YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS ONE; YOU DO WELL. EVEN THE DEMONS BELIEVE-AND SHUDDER! ZECHARIAH 14:9 AND THE LORD WILL BE KING OVER ALL THE EARTH. ON THAT DAY THE LORD WILL BE ONE AND HIS NAME ONE. JUDE 1:4 FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE HAVE CREPT IN UNNOTICED WHO LONG AGO WERE DESIGNATED FOR THIS CONDEMNATION, UN-GODLY PEOPLE, WHO PERVERT THE GRACE OF OUR GOD INTO SENSUALITY AND DENY OUR ONLY MASTER AND LORD, JESUS CHRIST. ISAIAH 43:10 “YOU ARE MY WITNESSES,” DECLARES THE LORD, “AND MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN, THAT YOU MAY KNOW AND BELIEVE ME AND UNDERSTAND THAT I AM HE. BEFORE ME NO GOD WAS FORMED, NOR SHALL THERE BE ANY AFTER ME. GALATIANS 3:20 NOW AN INTERMEDIARY IMPLIES MORE THAN ONE, BUT GOD IS ONE. 1 TIMOTHY 2:5 FOR THERE IS ONE GOD, AND THERE IS ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS, ISAIAH 45:21-22 DECLARE AND PRESENT YOUR CASE; LET THEM TAKE COUNSEL TOGETHER! WHO TOLD THIS LONG AGO? WHO DECLARED IT OF OLD? WAS IT NOT I, THE LORD? AND THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BESIDES ME, A RIGHTEOUS GOD AND A SAVIOUR; THERE IS NONE BESIDES ME. “TURN TO ME AND BE SAVED, ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH! FOR I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NO OTHER. ISAIAH 44:8 FEAR NOT, NOR BE AFRAID; HAVE I NOT TOLD YOU FROM OF OLD AND DECLARED IT? AND YOU ARE MY WITNESSES! IS THERE A GOD BESIDES ME? THERE IS NO ROCK; I KNOW NOT ANY.” ISAIAH 44:6 THUS SAYS THE LORD, THE KING OF ISRAEL AND HIS REDEEMER, THE LORD OF HOSTS: “I AM THE FIRST AND I AM THE LAST; BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD. 1 CORINTHIANS 8:6 YET FOR US THERE IS ONE GOD, THE FATHER, FROM WHOM ARE ALL THINGS AND FOR WHOM WE EXIST, AND ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST, THROUGH WHOM ARE ALL THINGS AND THROUGH WHOM WE EXIST. 1 CORINTHIANS 8:4 THEREFORE, AS TO THE EATING OF FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS, WE KNOW THAT “AN IDOL HAS NO REAL EXISTENCE,” AND THAT “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE.” 1 CORINTHIANS 12:13 FOR BY ONE SPIRIT ARE WE ALL BAPTISED INTO ONE BODY, WHETHER WE BE JEWS OR GENTILES, WHETHER WE BE BOND OR FREE; AND HAVE BEEN ALL MADE TO DRINK INTO ONE SPIRIT. JOHN 17:21-23 THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE; AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, AND I IN THEE, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US: THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT THOU HAST SENT ME… GOD BLESS YOU - ALL WHO BELIEVE IN CHRIST JESUS ARE IN ONE SPIRIT FOR GOD IS ONE. IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS OR DOUBT DON'T HESITATE TO ASK ME. BETTER STILL PRAY TO THE LORD AND THE HOLY SPIRIT THE BREATHE OF GOD WILL ANSWER YOU. JOHN 20 22 AND WITH THAT HE BREATHED ON THEM AND SAID, “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT. JOB 32:8 BUT IT IS THE SPIRIT IN MAN, THE BREATH OF THE ALMIGHTY THAT MAKES HIM UNDERSTAND. PRAISE THE LORD. MATTHEW 12 (“”” GOD IS ONE “”””) 25 HOWEVER, KNOWING WHAT THEY WERE THINKING, YESHUA SAID TO THEM, “EVERY KINGDOM DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF WILL BE RUINED, AND EVERY CITY OR HOUSEHOLD DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF WILL NOT SURVIVE “””” GOD IS ONE “””” REVELATION 13 BELOW A KINGDOM DIVIDED >>> BUILT ON SAND OF THE TRINITY 3 AND I SAW THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS THAT LOOKED LIKE FROGS COMING OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF THE DRAGON, THE BEAST, AND THE FALSE PROPHET. THE TRINITY = THE TRINITY OF THE PAGANS - THERE IS NO OTHER TRINITY. FOR - “””” GOD IS ONE “””” 1 KINGS 18 21 ELIJAH WENT BEFORE THE PEOPLE AND SAID, “HOW LONG WILL YOU WAVER BETWEEN TWO OPINIONS? IF THE LORD IS GOD, FOLLOW HIM; BUT IF BAAL IS GOD, FOLLOW HIM.” - BUT - THE PEOPLE SAID NOTHING. [THE TRINITY COULD BE THE MAIN IDOL OF BAAL IN THE END TIMES. IT IS THE MAIN IDOL THAT CHALLENGES THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF JESUS DIRECT. [ -WHO WILL HAVE THE COURAGE TO EXPOSE AND CHALLENGE IT? - THE 2 WITNESSES OF COURSE - ] BUT THE 2 WITNESSES WILL BE CHALLENGED BY THE TRINITY OF THE DRAGON THE BEAST AND THE FALSE PROPHET MATTHEW 12 (“”” GOD IS ONE “”””) 25 HOWEVER, KNOWING WHAT THEY WERE THINKING, YESHUA SAID TO THEM, “EVERY KINGDOM DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF WILL BE RUINED, AND EVERY CITY OR HOUSEHOLD DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF WILL NOT SURVIVE “””” GOD IS ONE “””” REVELATION 13 3 AND I SAW THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS THAT LOOKED LIKE FROGS COMING OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF THE DRAGON, THE BEAST, AND THE FALSE PROPHET. 1 KINGS 18 21 ELIJAH WENT BEFORE THE PEOPLE AND SAID, “HOW LONG WILL YOU WAVER BETWEEN TWO OPINIONS? IF THE LORD IS GOD, FOLLOW HIM; BUT IF BAAL IS GOD, FOLLOW HIM.” - BUT - THE PEOPLE SAID NOTHING. ELIJAH REPEATS HIMSELF AS AN END TIME WITNESS. ELIJAH WENT BEFORE THE PEOPLE AND SAID, “HOW LONG WILL YOU WAVER BETWEEN TWO OPINIONS? IF JESUS IS YOURLORD AND GOD, FOLLOW HIM; BUT IF THE TRINITY IS YOUR GOD, FOLLOW HIM.” - BUT - THE PEOPLE SAID NOTHING. 2 CORINTHIANS 3 3 I AM AFRAID, HOWEVER, THAT JUST AS EVE WAS DECEIVED BY THE SERPENT’S CUNNING, YOUR MINDS MAY BE LED ASTRAY FROM YOUR SIMPLE AND PURE DEVOTION TO CHRIST.
Thank you for commenting. Yes, I've heard folks say that God was speaking to angels when He said "Us." However, this doesn't make sense. I've asked these folks some simple questions, and they either decide not to answer or they change the subject. For example, I've asked, "If those are angels, does this mean that the Bible says that angels helped create humans?" In the end, the idea that the "Us" are angels is a neat thought. However, it cannot possibly be true compared to the idea that "Us" is the Word/Christ and the Spirit. God bless you!
Have you considered the us in Genesis is speaking of Adam and Eve, because they are the ones who help create humans. God created them in His image they (and we) continue creating humans in the image God made us in. Plus God does not speak in plural form on any other creation day, either He doesn't include His son on any other day... Or he just wasn't there.
Thank you for commenting. You are correct. Both the Father and the Son are God (Deity / Divine). But the Father is not the same as the Son. For example, this statement would be incorrect: "The Son is God those who see the Son has seen God the Father." This is incorrect because the apostles said that they saw and heard and touched the Son, but no one has seen or can see the Father. God bless you!
Reformed Christian what is the definition of the trini!y? A word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine. Why didn’t MESSIAH teach and explain such important information about the GODHEAD. This appears to be a man made doctrine.
@@lauratempestini5719 the word not being found in scripture has nothing to do with whether it is valid or not. It's a shorthand way of describing God. God is one divine essence eternally existing in three persons = father, son, and holy spirit. These three are ONE = unity. Aka, Triune. Aka, a "Trinity". It's not man made at all. Anyone who says that hasn't studied the scriptures or the early church well enough. This definition of God is held since the beginning. Notice how scripture says there is only one God and yet calls the Father, Son, and Spirit God. And yet the scriptures DO NOT say the Son is PART of God, but says he is fully God (Colossians 2:9). The scriptures say Jesus was with God the Father and yet was God himself (John 1:1, 1:18). So God cannot be ONE and THREE in the same way, especially since the Son prays to the Father (so the Father and the Son cannot be the same person). Jesus is God. Fully God. Truly God. Indivisibly God.
@@lauratempestini5719 and Messiah did teach and express such things. For instance, he said "I and the Father are One", yet he clearly prayed to the Father, making him and the Father distinct. He called himself the Alpha and Omega. He taught his apostles to proclaim him as God, and if people WORSHIP him then he must be God, or he's a blasphemer. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Spirit is God. All three are equally God. Always been taught by the church, and is very plain in scripture.
@@lauratempestini5719 True doctrine of the trinity, as it was coined by the church fathers, is the foundation of the new testament. Don't listen to these dummies with modern ideas, trinity was not a word used to explain our monotheism or express it. It expresses their roles, harmony, and shared essence. God the Father is the true God, and the Son and the Spirit proceed from Him. Read your Bibles, read your church fathers, people. Quit coming up with new ideas. Be orthodox.
Jesus Christ said in John 14 that, If you has seen Me, you have seen the Father. Do you not believe that I AM in My Father and My Father lives in Me? Believe Me or else believe the Work, because they (the works itself) testify about this. Amen!! Father,Son, and The Holy Spirit are One (in essence, in power and in authority) !! Plural oneness!! As our body, it has many parts but are one!!
Very true. No wonder Paul himself speaks about Christ's relationship to Father God in the terms of a body. See 1Cor 11:3. I like thinking about the Divinity as a plural oneness. As Jesus said, "I and the Father are [plural] one [united]" John 10:30. God bless!
This channel does not have allegiance to any specific Christian group--except the early Christians who lived before the Council of Nicaea (Pre-Nicene). Speaking personally, I do not identify myself as Catholic.
new comment: what if God was your Great Grandfather, and your Great Grandson was judging someone you met yet did not know, except by family history, for your current condition and you will also be judged by your great grandson for the legacy you left him in. Incomplete.
You're welcome. It is confusing and often difficult to understand the nature of God. I'm thankful to the early Christians who explained it so well. They have certainly helped me!
owchywawa - You cannot gain a truthful understanding of things that are not true. That's why Roman polytheism masquerading as monotheism will never make truthful sense.
regarding John's statement- In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. Some Bible authorities said that this is the correct translation of the greek statement of John about the Word. Jesus was a god, not God. It is only the Father who is God.
@@Anaxagoras-qr5zn Nope you' re wrong. It's Jehovah's Witnesses sense. They are right in claiming that Jehovah is the only God. The Trinity is the Ancient Church's Father's philosophic invention. their is no Godhead, the nature of 3 persons in one godhead, mentioned in the Bible.
God himself says," I AM THAT I AM". " I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD",Paulus Apostolus," The KING eternal, immortal,invisible, THE ONLY GOD" 1 Timothy 1:17. Revelation 22:13 "I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA". The Arabian Christian Church (Islam) rightly rejects the pagan doctrine of Trinity imposed by the mystery Babylon Church, which expelled, excommunicated and exiled those Bishops who rejected the heathen Credo at the Nicest Council.Christianity's loss is the gain for the Arbian Church.
I too speak words that does not produce a second personality and I too have a spirit that does not produce an additional third personality. There is only one person of God the Father and that person was revealed to us by the person of Jesus Christ. God is our Saviour and beside him there is no other, he appeared to Moses and called himself IAM, Jesus appeared to us and called himself IAM. The Lord Jesus said if you see me you see the Father, if you know me you know the Father, my words are the words of the Father and my works are the works of the Father. The one true God and Father came down in the form of a man to save us from our sins. The new name you quoted in Revelation is Jesus Christ.
Tertullian himself admitted that the Oneness Monarchians "always make up the majority of believers" (Tertullian Against Praxeus 3 - Tertullian lived from 160-225 AD). Like Arius, Tertullian was not a true Trinitarian. He actually taught that the Son was created before his birth. Anyone who reads Tertullian Against Hermogenes chapter three will find that Tertullian wrote, "...there was a time when neither sin existed with Him, NOR A SON." Therefore, the Oneness Monarchians were the only early Christians who believed in the true deity of Jesus Christ before the trinity doctrine was fully developed. How could Tertullian have believed in the alleged "coequality" between the Father and the Son when he believed that the Son was created (Arianism)? The scriptures that the author cites only proves that the Son is the man who had his beginning by his virgin begetting which destroys Trinitarian theology. Hebrews 1:8-9 in the Greek text says, "To the Son, your throne O God..." The words "He says" does not appear in Hebrews 1:8 because the Psalmist simply prophesied that the Messiah would be called God in Psalm 45:6-7 who would have a God because the Son is "God with us" as a true man living among men who will sit on the throne of David. 1 Chronicles 29:23 calls the throne of David "the throne of Yahweh" and Rev. 22:3 calls the throne of David "the throne of God and of the Lamb" because the lamb is God with us as a man who will sit on the throne of David. I have just one quote from Ignatius which completely annihilates the Trinitarian idea that a God the Son could be seen in the Hebrew Scriptures while the Father and Holy Spirit could not. Anyone can turn to Ignatius' Epistle to Polycarp 3:2 and read, "Look for Him who is above time - the Timeless, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible, the Impassible, who became subject to suffering on our account and for our sake endured everything." Ignatius of Antioch to Polycarp of Smyrna 3:2 The earliest Christian witness believed that Jesus is the Invisible God who "became visible" for our sake. There can only be One Invisible Heavenly Father who for our sake became visible through His own Word and through His own Holy Spirit Who came down from heaven to become incarnate. Would the author of these videos be willing to participate in a moderated debate with a Oneness apologist concerning what the majority of the earliest Christians believed? If so, he can contact me via our website at ApostolicChristianFaith .com through our Contact Page.
When Tertullian said, "who always constitute the majority of believers," he was not talking about those who believed in Monarchianism/Modalism. He was talking about how the majority of believers do not have a satisfactory understanding of the nature of God. To the average believer, they are not concerned about the nature of God or the Persons of God--that is, how God is three in one. Tertullian is not saying that the average believer believes that in Monarchianism. You can read Tertullian in context here. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iii.html When Tertullian talked about the Son not existing, he was not saying that there was a time when the Logos/the Son/Jesus/the Christ/the Word did not exist. He is saying that there was a time when the Word/Logos was not the Son--because the Word/Logos had not been born of God and Mary. For example, during the times of the Old Testament, there was no Son (though there was Word/Logos). But when Jesus was born of God and Mary, it was at that time that the Word/Logos became the Son. You can read Tertullian in context here. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.v.iii.html Therefore, Tertullian did not believe that the Son was created. He wrote against this belief. Ignatius did not call God the Father both invisible and subject to suffering. Ignatius wrote that there was a time when Jesus/Logos/Word was impassible and as invisible as God the Father. But when Jesus came in the flesh, He became visible, touchable, and suffered. In fact, Igantius says the same thing as I shared in this video: Jesus became these things while the Father most certainly did not. These differences--as shown in Scripture--prove that the Father and the Son must be two separate Persons. In case you missed it, here is there video. th-cam.com/video/dxqQWgi5CZc/w-d-xo.html So yes, Jesus is the Invisible God who became visible for our sake. However, it does not agree with John and Paul to say--as you said--, "There can only be One Invisible Heavenly Father who for our sake became visible." See John 1:18, 1Tim 6:15-16. If you truly want to destroy Trinitarian belief, then you should try to prove that the apostle John was mistaken in what he said about the Son being seen while the Father has never been seen. Of the New Testament writers, John was the most outspoken Trinitarian. I am very curious what you would say in response to what John wrote. Would I be willing to debate? Perhaps. I cannot promise anything. I feel there are better uses of time to serve God than to debate. Paul didn't speak very highly of debating and arguing unless it was to take every thought captive in obedience to Christ. Also, I'm not convinced debates are all that beneficial. There are already plenty of them on the Internet. And anyone can contrast yours and my resources that we have already shared. Lastly, unlike the early Christians who called Monarchianism heresy, personally speaking, I am not so quick to condemn. Though the doctrine of the nature of God is important, I do not believe that doctrine is as important as the weightier matters of God such as life and godliness, faith and obedience. Blessings to you.
There is no evidence that Tertullian was not addressing the Modalists when he wrote that they that always make up the majority of believers rejected his theology in Against Praxeues (which was a polemic directed against Modalism - chapter 3). Tertullian believed that the Word of God the Father assumed a form and voice when God said, "Let there be light in Genesis 1:3. AGAINST PRAXEUS CHAPTER 7 Then, therefore, does THE WORD also Himself ASSUME HIS OWN FORM AND GLORIOUS GARB, HIS OWN SOUND AND VOCAL UTTERANCE, WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT (Genesis 1:3) This is the perfect NATIVITY OF THE WORD, when He proceeds forth from God- FORMED BY HIM FIRST to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom ... or by proceeding from Himself HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON, because begotten before all things; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART [THE FATHER’S].” Tertullian wrote in Against Praxeus 7 that "HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON" "WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT." YOU HAVE CLEARLY MISUNDERSTOOD TERTULLIAN WHEN YOU WROTE THAT TERTULLIAN DID NOT BELIEVE IN A PRE-INCARNATE SON, BUT ONLY IN A PRE-INCARNATE WORD WHO BECAME THE SON AT BETHLEHEM. Tertullian clearly stated that the Son was BEGOTTEN “from the womb of the Father’s heart” when God said, “Let there be light in” in Genesis 1:3. "THIS IS THE PERFECT NATIVITY OF THE WORD." The definition of "Nativity" is "the occasion of a person's birth" as "the place of my nativity." Hence, Tertullian taught a pre-incarnate created Son who's birth (nativity) occurred prior to the incarnation. Therefore the chief founding father of Trinitarian theology was really an Arian who wrote in Against Hermogenes chapter 3. "God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. FOR HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE FATHER PREVIOUS TO THE SON, nor a judge previous to sin. THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A TIME WHEN NEITHER SIN EXISTED WITH HIM, NOR THE SON; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as HE BECAME THE FATHER BY THE SON, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.” Tertullian clearly taught that God was not always a Father to the Son but became a Father when the Son was begotten. Any Trinitarian who says otherwise is not being truly honest when reading the writings of Tertullian. More info at ApostolicChristianFaith .com
Thank you for sharing what you believe. I have weighed the evidence against Tertullian's words and believe you are wrong. I have shared what I believe, and you believe I am wrong. At this point, I don't know what would convince you, and what you have shared with me has not convinced me. Is there any reason for us to continue our discussion when we have different interpretations from the same evidence? I'll even give you an advantage. Re-watch my video on the Persons of God. Look at each of the Scriptures I bring up and try to prove that my interpretation of them are wrong. For example, when God refers to Himself in the plural, what else does that mean except that God is more than one Person (Monarchianism)? I will always be convicted of the truth because of the Scriptures. And on the other hand, if you cannot explain the Scriptures in that video in light on Monarchianism, I hope and pray that the Scriptures will convict you of the truth. th-cam.com/video/dxqQWgi5CZc/w-d-xo.html Blessings to you.
Tertullian believed that the Word of God the Father assumed a form and voice when God said, "Let there be light in Genesis 1:3. AGAINST PRAXEUS CHAPTER 7 Then, therefore, does THE WORD also Himself ASSUME HIS OWN FORM AND GLORIOUS GARB, HIS OWN SOUND AND VOCAL UTTERANCE, WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT (Genesis 1:3) This is the perfect NATIVITY OF THE WORD, when He proceeds forth from God- FORMED BY HIM FIRST to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom ... or by proceeding from Himself HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON, because begotten before all things; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART [THE FATHER’S].” Tertullian wrote in Against Praxeus 7 that "HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON" "WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT." YOU HAVE CLEARLY MISUNDERSTOOD TERTULLIAN WHEN YOU WROTE THAT TERTULLIAN DID NOT BELIEVE IN A PRE-INCARNATE SON, BUT ONLY IN A PRE-INCARNATE WORD WHO BECAME THE SON AT BETHLEHEM. Tertullian clearly stated that the Son was BEGOTTEN “from the womb of the Father’s heart” when God said, “Let there be light in” in Genesis 1:3. "THIS IS THE PERFECT NATIVITY OF THE WORD." The definition of "Nativity" is "the occasion of a person's birth" as "the place of my nativity." Hence, Tertullian taught a pre-incarnate created Son who's birth (nativity) occurred prior to the incarnation. Therefore the chief founding father of Trinitarian theology was really an Arian. You have not presented anything that I have not already heard and refuted. God spoke in the plurality of majesty in the Hebrew tongue as was common in other Semitic languages of that time. You can view my TH-cam Videos entitled, "Does Echad and Elohim Support the Trinity? And "Let Us Make Man Genesis 1:26." These videos can be easily accessed by typing in these titles on the TH-cam Search. I also have written Articles on our website at www.ApostolicChristianFaith .com
Sorry, TH-cam did not tell me you made this comment. No, the early Christians did not believe in sola scriptua (Scripture Only). A number of their beliefs came from "apostolic tradition." These are the beliefs that were handed down from the apostles. Keep in mind, apostolic tradition today (also called Holy Tradition) is not the same as apostolic tradition in 300 AD.
Yes, that is correct. The early Christians who lived in those two centuries after the apostles are our window into both Christian history and Tradition. If you are curious about these things and want a crash course, I highly recommend this book. Outside of the Bible, I believe it is the single greatest resource anyone can find. www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Early-Christian-Beliefs-Reference/dp/1565633571
How can the Son be under or subject to the Father when the Son has no will that is separate or apart from the Father's will? This presentation is as absurd as determining how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Thank you for commenting. To answer your question, it is because the Son decided that His will should be the same as His Father's will. So while the Father's will is the source, the Son's will is the action. God bless!
@@PostApostolicChurch Some people's hearts are just too hard, my friend. God bless you. It is very encouraging to find a group of people who also read the early church fathers and understand the truth, I was really alone there for a while.
I really think the word Trinity needs to be left out...it just confuses people because it is used in different ways. Also saying Jesus is Divine might work better...he is NOT his Father.
Nope. God created the new creation and the kingdom through his son the new Heaven and the new Earth, but not the Genesis Earth of rocks and birds and animals and trees. All you have to do is read Genesis and Jobe to know the Creator did all of this alone by himself. Read Isaiah 44:24 and get a clue
Please read on... Is. 44: 11 Thus saith the LORD, THE HOLY ONE of ISRSAEL , AND HIS MAKER, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. 12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. 13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts. THE HOLY ONE of Israel is MESSIAH. and HE was made!!! There is no captivity in the new earth and new heaven.
@@lauratempestini5719 I was being kind. When I said get a clue I didn't mean it in the sarcastic way. I meant they will get a clue and finally the truth will Dawn on them. The verses that you mentioned are also very clear that that is a single being , the Father creating everything! Amen
Should be named the Great Apostasy Church. MRI studies need to be done to consider why people believe in the Trinity and some believe in one God and Father and only begotten son Jesus. Simple concept vs complicated.
The Father did not become flesh, as both the Father and the Son are two distinct beings and persons, but the Scriptures do not reveal much about the Father before the creation.... The Scriptures do not condemn the doctrine of the Father having a physical body Himself. Otherwise, if the Son had a physical body, and the Father hadn't, wouldn't this make the Son greater than the Father in some way? And since there is always an increase with God, and the resurrection is a sure thing, having a perfected and immortal body, what does that say about the Father, and why He commanded that the Son create bodies for us in the first place?
Thanks for commenting! I do not believe that having a physical body makes the Son greater. Instead, I believe the omni-presence of the Father is one aspect that makes Him greater than the Son. Now that the Son has a physical body, the Son is cannot be omni-present. Interesting topic! God bless!
It is an interesting topic! Let me add, however, that Jesus did appear to the disciples while they locked themselves in. In other words, the physical body of the Son is not limited by the physical world. And all this happened before the ascension, meaning that the Son had not yet received all of His glory at that point. And if the Son shall return with all of the glory of the Only Begotten Son, in His resurrected body just as He ascended with it, are you certain that the body does not add to His greatness? On the other hand, who else do not have (and will never have) a body of flesh and bones if not the devil and his angels? Is the devil equal with the Father? As Paul would say : "God forbid!" But a physical body, and even a perfected body, adds to our glory with the Son (Romans 8:17). Furthermore, if seeing the Son is seeing the Father, and if the Son does everything that He has seen the Father do, and the Son has a body, is it not a valid conclusion that the Father would also have a body (a body that the Father already had before the Creation)?
This is a very fun and interesting philosophical topic. :) I see what you're saying about having a body. But I do not see how something physical can make something greater than something spiritual. Because Father God and Satan are both spiritual/ethereal, this does not make them equal! It's like saying that a newborn baby is equal to the king of an Empire. That is not a fair comparison. Father God is just that: god/deity. Satan is not deity. He is a created spiritual being. They are not equal at all. One is good; one is evil. One is all-powerful; one deceives people into believing that he has power. Here is what I believe is what makes Jesus special... being both divine/deity AND bodily/human. It's that Jesus bridges the gap between two dimensions: physical and spiritual. Because Jesus has lived as both God and as Man, this is what makes Jesus the superior High Priest who can sympathize with mankind. With this ability, Jesus can make righteous judgment upon every person. In my opinion, this is one aspect that makes Jesus greater than Father God: Jesus is better at sympathizing with human weakness and pain. Those are things that Father God has not experienced. And in the end, Father God is greater than the Son for many reasons. First, it is because Father God cannot die! Jesus has physically died. For more reasons, there are verses in this video that explain from Jesus' own mouth the truth that Father God is greater. After all, Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I." For me, that solves it right there. :) What do you think? This is a fun discussion! God bless!
We agree that Satan is an evil and created being. Satan is not a deity for a very good reason; he rebelled against Heavenly Father. And this is exactly why Jesus is God; He does everything that the Father would do. This is why Jesus has lived a perfect life. From His own mouth : "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30) Jesus is perfect because He did everything selflessly. Whereas Satan wanted to do everything selfishly. And as a side note, as a food for thought, Heavenly Father gave all judgement unto the Son, effectively suffering that His children would choose wickedness. This is a selfless act on His part. The Master Architect of all have entrusted the creation unto the Son, and it's judgement thereof. What kind of trust does this required? And what kind of love in return from our Lord? But let's get back on the "physical body" portion of this discussion :) There is one thing that will eternally differentiate us from Satan; our physical birth. The unification of our spirit with a physical body is the prerequisite for a fullness of Joy on the day we will be glorified with our Lord, and return unto the presence of the Father. Do you see the increase? Before our physical birth, we were but innocent spirits, not knowing good from evil. Just like Adam in the garden, just like new born babies; innocent and pure. When Adam transgressed the law, and sinned against the will of God through his disobedience, he got to know the opposite of innocence; guilt. This was the next step for Adam, and this is why God said that he then became like one of them (i.e. Heavenly Father and the Son God). This characteristic is being passed down through our corruptible state, and pure innocent babies get to know guilt, suffering, and all manners of wickedness in order to discern between good and evil. The Fall was a positive thing! It was a step towards knowing God. Heavenly Father knew this, and this is why a Redeemer had been chosen before the foundation of the world (John 1:1). Heavenly Father knew that if knowing wickedness was a necessary step, then being redeemed and having to atone would also be necessary. Unlike many who believe in the Nicene Creed, Jesus was also among us, children spirit of the same Father God (John 20:17). However, unlike us, He was a more mature spirit, more like our Father, than us. The Son God (i.e. Jesus) went through everything that we have to go through; He was born, He lived, He endured temptations, limitations, suffered pain, etc., He died, He resurrected, and He returned to the Father. This is what He means by : "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6, see also John 13:15). It means that His life is the perfect template for us, and the only way we can return to the Father. Except that we do not have the power to reclaim our dead bodies from the debts of sins! And this is why the Gospel is about a Messiah; Jesus has the power over death because death has no power over Him, either physically or spiritually. And this is why we do not have this power. But if we were perfect, we could. If we were perfect like Him, nothing would be impossible. The Good News is this : the keys of death and Hell is now in the hand of Christ (Rev. 1:18). Remember about the increase? The resurrection is the next increase. Without Christ, we'd be dammed. But, through His grace, we shall all be made incorruptible. Indeed! Both just and unjust. Both righteous and wicked (Acts 24:15). Why? Because the Final Judgement can only be made with our physical bodies. Why? Because those who do not have a body receive no judgement whatsoever. ONLY THOSE who have a body can receive the grace from God; this is why a physical body is so important, and why it is an increase. This is what separates us from God and the devil. Therefore, an incorruptible body is an increase from a corruptible body, which is an increase from a body who has never known suffering. What's next? Well, a glorified body, of course! And this is why Jesus ascended and why we shall also ascend like Him (Romans 8:17). A glorified body brings us ever so closer to Heavenly Father and ever so further away from Satan. And this is why Heavenly HAS to have a body also. Because if the Father has no physical body, then how can the Son do everything He has seen the father do, without doing nothing of Himself? In other words, how can the Son be different from the Father while still be exactly like Him? You see, the problem most people have is that they attribute John 1:1 as a timeless verse, where "in the beginning" means "before time". But if the Son is also a Son of Heavenly Father, then the Father came before the Son... how can the Son be in the beginning? But this is not what John writes; "in the beginning" means "when the Plan of Heavenly Father was set in motion" (Genesis 1:1). And this Plan required a Savior, and the Lord was chosen to be God for us in that Plan. To better understand how this is so, consider how Moses was selected to deliver the Hebrews from Egypt, and how he as made a god unto Pharaoh, with Aaron as prophet (Exodus 7:1)? This is the same for the Son; being elected God unto us, with prophets to speak in His stead. And thus, there are not two gods, but one God; Heavenly Father, and the Son, being One, meaning acting perfectly instead of the Father unto us. And if the Son is One in every aspects, including the incorruptible and glorified aspect, and that we can also receive the same, what does that tell of He who sent Jesus Christ to be our perfect example, even unto perfection, like our Father in Heaven? Nothing actually suggests that Heavenly Father has no physical body. What about John 4:24? This verse does not say that Heavenly Father does not have a physical body. Jesus was teaching the higher spiritual law and the meaning of the law. (What's currently physical is corruptible, not yet made incorruptible and much less glorified!) It was about putting behind the letter of the law (which had been corrupted by the Pharisees anyway) into a spiritual understanding of it : "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." (Heb. 7:19) This was one of the first teachings from Jesus about the new law, and it meant that the true worship of Heavenly Father is not through a corruptible physical requirement, but a more pure requirement. (Compare with Ephesians 2:8-9). In the Scriptures, what's defined as physical means "lesser" or "corruptible" while what's defined as spiritual means "higher" or "incorruptible". Because what's being corrupted is because of our current corruptible physical state. But when we will be made incorruptible, there will no longer be a distinction between physical and spiritual... I could continue, but I'm afraid I will reach TH-cam's limit pretty soon!
I really, really like the things you said. I think I see your thinking about the physicaly body being a marvelous thing. In your paragraph about the Ressurection being an increase--because we have a physical body--is a great paragraph. I'm glad to see that you have a great understanding of Resurrection. After all, it will be a resurrection of our physical bodies! Many Christians today do not understand this. Anyway, I see what you are saying about why having a physical body is so much greater than not having one. (However, Satan--without a body--could roam to and fro on the earth (Job 1:7). We cannot do that, haha.) I undestand what you're saying. Here is why I think Father God is greater than the Son and us (even though Jesus and we have bodies). Even though we have bodies, and even though we will have glorified bodies at the resurrection, even after all that increase, I still believe that Father God (without a body) is greater. As I said earlier, He is greater because of His omnipresence. And then there is His perfection (never sinned, never suffered). I think the main reason why Father God is the greatest is that He is SOURCE of all things. He didn't created the Son, but Father God is the "source" of the Son (as you quoted John 5:30). God is the source/creator of the universe and all of us. And moving forward in time, God is the one who continues to sustain all things by His power. So yeah, I particularly liked your words regarding resurrection and physical bodies of glory. -- You said, "Nothing actually suggests that Heavenly Father has no physical body." This is where we might disagree. The Bible doesn't explicitly say the Father does not have a body. But there are two passages that tell me that Father God cannot have a body. And it has to do with God's Invisibility. You see, because of these verses, showing that God cannot be seen, I believe this is because God does not have a body. John 1:18. No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son the One who is at the Father’s side He has revealed Him. 1Tim 6:16. The only One who has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; no one has seen or can see Him. Not too long from now, I plan to release a video on the Invisibility of God the Father. -- I really, really like how your write and think. Have you thought about making your own videos or blog? :)
Right at the very beginning of the video the speaker injects preconceived Trinitarian theology, thus, the game is Rigged from the start! He starts with Tertullian, but cherry picks and omits what other things Tertullian said! In Gen 1:26 we read: "Let us make man in our image" How does one get an articulated 4th century ce Trinitarian doctrine from Gen 1:26 with its Neo-Platonic substance sharing concept? In Gen 1:27 the singular verb "bara" (create) snd singular pronoun "he" or "him" is used of "God" and in fact throughout the OT the noun "elohim" (God) is construed with singular verbs, pronouns and adjectives, also, the term "God" is not limited to just "elohim" but the singular "Eloah" used of "God" some 70 times, appropriate if "God" was plural! Incidentally, the term "elohim" is technically plural and means "Gods", making Trinitarians Polytheists!
@@PostApostolicChurch GOD the LIVING WORD from whom all power flows .The Beginning and the End ,the ALPHA AND OMEGA the LIVING WORD . He who has no beginning or end .Some things God will have to show you personally for NONE SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORD OF GOD IS A LIVING BEING so you will have to see that to fully grasp what you are reading
@@PostApostolicChurch it is written that the pure in heart shall see God .Years ago God allowed me to visit heaven and i saw THE LIVING WORD OF GOD THE ALPHA AND OMEGA the BEGINNING AND THE END . I saw Him from whom all power flows .And these debates on the person of God are a waste of time unless you have seen the LIVING WORD OF GOD . for then only can you begin to grasp what the scriptures are saying .JOHN WROTE THAT in the beginning was THE WORD . and the Word was God .When you see Him then only will you understand those words written by John . SO ENDLESS DEBATES ON THE PERSON OF GOD ARE A WASTE OF TIME . for when we get to heaven it will not be to teach but to learn . BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES AS A CHILD to learn the things that God wants you to know
John 17:3-5 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
@@brenosantana1458 What those verses have in common are burnt offerings. Neither Paul nor any apostle (Peter, John, James, etc.) mentioned offerings. Those verses have nothing to do with Paul.
@@brenosantana1458 I don't understand. You said test Paul and you gave three verses. The logical conclusion is one should use these verses to test Paul. Now you say they have nothing to do with Paul. ??? I'm reading Romans at the moment. Poor Paul had major problems expressing himself clearly.
The incarnation is a mystery, and it seems apparent that Philosopher Christians like Justin Martyr, Tertullian (in opposition to a true believer ("Praxeas") in the Oneness of God in Christ) have conceived and built this Trinitarian (initially it was binatarian) philosophy which has blinded so many Christians. How sad to follow such blind philosophers! Revelation 1:8, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. There cannot be two "Almightys". No Jewish Christian would embrace the Trinitarian heresy. This teaching of multiple divine Persons mocks the central theme of the Old Testament "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4). Read Isaiah 43:10-11 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [YHWH], and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he : before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior." Only one divine person was manifest in the flesh, and he [Jesus] is the only true God manifest in the flesh for our salvation. The men you quote, Tertullian (became a Montanist) and others, were not true Christians. They were not Apostolic.
@@brenosantana1458 As a human born of a woman, Jesus acknowledged the God of creation and the God of the Old Testament (YHWH) as the "only true God". Jesus, however, is this only true God manifest in the flesh. Simply said, God made a baby in the womb of the virgin. God then got in that baby and became our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. God is a Spirit. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [the only true God] also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death [Satan], that is, the devil; is the devil. Hebrews 2:14 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. -Hebrews 2:16 It is amazing that the great God (YHWH) became one of us that he might dies in the flesh for our sins, rise from the dead, and be the author of salvation for his own creatures (the children of Adam). There is only one Lord! His name is Jesus (YHWH has become our savior).
@@Gaul1748 Consider the God of Jesus being the only true God. God is not a man and he does not change. The father sent Jesus, they are two persons. He did not pray to himself, he did to his God.
@@brenosantana1458 Yes, I have heard this. However, it does not consider the actuality of the incarnation (the enfleshment). If the "trinity" doctrine had been taught by the apostles and the well educated Apostle Paul, there might be some credence to the doctrine. Jesus admitted that he was God the Father in John 14. He said to Philip when Philip wanted to see the Father: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? (John 14:9). It is the incarnation (the enfleshment of God the Father as the Son) and not the dogma of the "three persons" developed by theologians. Such a doctrine was not known by Jesus or the Apostles. It is not specifically taught in the Scriptures, but only by strained interpretations of Holy Writ. God was manifest in the flesh, seen of angels, and preached unto the Gentiles. Jesus is God the Father manifest in the flesh. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord (Deut 6:44). Not three! Why add such an interpretation to the Scriptures? Thank you.
People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’- stop [this], that is better for you- God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. The Women - 4:171
This reasoning of Tertuillan only is supported by NON- Synoptic sources and gospels. Had this actually been spoken by Jesus it would be recorded in the Synoptic Gospels as well. There is far too much synergy among whoever wrote the Gospel of John, the Epistles of Paul and Timothy and Revelations to the exclusion of all other writings. What I believe I see is a disenfrachised Pharisee....Paul....seeing to Hyjack the teachings of Jesus to formulate Christ-Consciousness and his own organization.
I dont see where in matt 28:9 he says these 3 are God. We know the father and son are, from previous. The holy spirit is God? No, the spirit of God. Big difference. It is the mind and life of them, not another God. How many Gods do you want man.
As taught by Jesus four gospels long, the Persons of God are only TWO: the Father and the Son. Jesus goes into even deeper detail and teaches that He is not a DISTINCT Being from the Father (like a regular son), rather Jesus is INSIDE Him: (for ex. "I am IN THE FATHER and the Father in me"). Thus, you know that Father and Son are not distinct, i.e. TWO in number. Yet aren't They exactly the same ONE (a relationship between Them indeed couldn't exist in this case). You can say that God - as a whole - is more than One and less than Two in number. The Holy Spirit (aka "Spirit of God") is not a third Person, He is "God who is a spirit" (Jn. 4:23,24). Also God who is NOT a spirit existed, but "the world has not known you", only the Son did it. Nobody has ever seen Him, just the Son.
Biblical Unitarian here to say, what if Jesus is “God’s son” and not “God”. Son by virtue of his miracle birth (Luke 1:35) and son by virtue of being the Davidic King (Psalm2)? Not “God the Son” but “God’s Son”. Tbf I haven’t given this video a watch yet (which means I really have no right commenting right now) nor have I given the pre-nicene Fathers the full study they deserve. And I’m always willing to let new evidence guide me to being wrong if I am. But it seems like scripture clearly paints Jesus as a man, a human being, in fact a 2nd Adam, that had God in his life in a very special way from day 1. He was extremely empowered by God to the point of even being made seemingly #2 in the Universe, like when Pharaoh shared his throne with Joseph. However perhaps this idea of the Trinity and Jesus literally being God was a dispensation or revealing at a later date to the Church Fathers. Ngl 1 Corinthians 15 is one of the texts that really convinced me that Jesus was not God….
Thank you for commenting. I really appreciate your comment and I really like the way you think. I am excited to join you in a good discussion! :) Are you offering the possibility that Jesus is God's son but not divine/deity? As you know when anything gives birth to anything, those things share the same nature. Humans give birth to humans. Horses give birth to horses. So if Jesus is God's son, being born from God, then wouldn't Jesus have the same nature as Father God, which is being deity? Or, if you would, how would you explain that Jesus is God's son but NOT share in Father God's deity? When it comes to Jesus being God, I think of what the apostle John wrote about Jesus. John called Jesus God at least a couple times. For example, John said, "We are in the true One--that is, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." Doesn't the Bible call Jesus God (that is, Jesus is deity exactly like Father God)? Please, friend, I would really love to hear what you have to say about 1Cor 15. From that chapter, what was it that made you believe Jesus was not God?
@@PostApostolicChurch Sure. Good question. Fair question. But one that I think is the wrong way of viewing Jesus sonship. As I said his sonship is tied to being the Davidic King (The Davidic King was Gods son, John 1:49). And Luke (and Matthew) give us the added surprise that he is son even by the very way in which he came into existence! Yes, horses beget horses. But God “fathers” Jesus in Mary’s womb, through his creative “power” - through his Holy Spirit (these are most likely synonymous terms). God has the ability to make/create/form and he has used this power in Genesis to make Adam and the world. The same spirit/power that hovered over the water of Genesis, that overshadowed the tabernacle, now hovered upon and overshadowed Mary, and by its power started life in her womb. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Luke in chapter 3 also tosses the term “son of God” to Adam in his genealogy. He is making a comparison/contrast between Adam and Jesus. Adam the other human being started by God himself directly, but from/in dirt not a woman’s womb. To be frank, though well meaning, Jesus clearly didn’t literally have Gods nature. Jesus could and did die. He could be and was tempted. He was completely reliant on others (God). He had a God and was therefore not the most high (believe me I know all the arguments against what I’m saying right now, I was a former believer in the Trinity and the deity of Jesus, I just don’t think those arguments come from scripture). He was not all-powerful. He was not all-knowing. Everything had to be given to him. Etc. He was not a “son” in the exact literal sense of how human beings have a son and pass genetic material, for God is not a man. Many people are God’s children in the Bible, literally called his “sons”/“sons of God”. Adam. Angels/heavenly beings. Israel. Godly appointed Kings. Righteous and Moral humans. Jesus. Christians at conversion! But there is no question that not one of them literally possess’s Gods full nature or deity. To answer more succinctly, Jesus is not deity because his sonship is supposed to be understood in light of his Jewish cultural backdrop and heritage, AND, in light of the Angel Gabriel’s explanation of his birth in Luke 1:35. (The child to be born won’t be started by a man, Joseph, but by God himself’s power/spirit). I’m very curious that you, who seem like a very learned man, would ask me “why do they call him God”. Surely you know! If I were to be annoyingly coy and cryptic I would answer, why haven’t you read John 10:34 (Psalm 82)? And I would say something like when you know the answer to that, you will know the answer to the question of “Why do they call him God”. 😂 but I will not be so annoying. Long story short, there’s nothing wrong with giving men the title “God”. I should also repeat that it’s a “title”. It’s only modern tradition that says “you can’t do that!”. That’s not biblical though. Just a simple fact that the Davidic King (psalm 45, Hebrews 1), judges (psalm 82), potentially some Angels, were freely given the title “God” with absolute no fuss, called “God” “Gods” by God himself even. It seems certain authorized agents of God, representing him on his behalf on his orders by his authority in obedience, were sometimes applied the title. Little g “gods”. Nobody was confused or shocked. Very easy to understand that they are not obviously the “One true, most high, all mighty, God”. Now as for 1 John it is an assumption to assume that “true God” refers to Jesus. It’s, if I may be so bold, clearly referring to the Father. Believe me if “only true God” were ever applied to Jesus, especially unambiguously, I would not be here trying to persuade you nor would I probably have been persuaded of the position I’m in. Btw a quick glance into the footnotes of the NET Bible, and they at least admit that this is a grammatical obscurity and that context must determine who “true God” is referring to (they lean towards Jesus, but at least they admit this is not some clear cut unambiguous statement). In my opinion my friend one should not start with the grammatically difficult or textually variant verses when trying to figure out who Jesus is in scripture. Instead start with the easy, clear, straightforward verses. Then move on to the more “difficult”. For example John 17:3 and John 20:31. Jesus, unambiguously, calls God, his Father, the one who is actually the “only true God”. Not just any God, but the only and true one. He calls himself the one whom this only and true God has sent, marking himself as a separate and distinct being. (Interestingly, Augustine was so disturbed by this text he actually tried to rearrange the order of the words!) John himself gives his purpose statement in John 20:31 (thank God!), his purpose of why he wrote his entire gospel and what he desperately wants us to leave believing! He says, in no ambiguous terms, “I wrote everything so that [at the end of the day] you may believe [two things], that Jesus is the Messiah (King of Israel), God’s son!” Son of the living God. Man I want to write more but I don’t want to bombard you. I just want to encourage you to look into these matters. And to be open minded and in prayer when you do. And to just let evidence guide you (I’m sure you already do all these things but I want to encourage more). And to come into scripture empty and blank with regards to christology, to let the text speak to you and formulate your opinion as if you were clueless as to who Jesus was and had to learn verse by verse.
@@youngknowledgeseeker I really like your comparison in Adam being a son of God and Jesus being a Son of God. The Spirit being involved in the Creation and also being involved in Mary is a super cool parallel! Father God fathered both Adam and Jesus. You shared your beliefs about Jesus not being deity because He: died, was tempted, relied on Father God, and was not the Most High. I agree that Jesus did all those things. However, I also believe that Jesus was deity. After all, there were things that Jesus could do that no prophet could have done. The way Jesus spoke with His Father was in a literal sense (unlike anyone else could claim, see John 5:18). Jesus could forgive sins, which human beings cannot do (see the story where Jesus heals the paralytic). You mentioned some of the human characteristics of Jesus. Wouldn't you say that Jesus also had divine characteristics too? You brought up John 10:34. I'm glad you did. That is a place where the word God/Deity is used differently than in other places. Of course, I'm sure you would agree that "God" can have different meanings. As you said, "God" is a title! So yes, John 10:34 is a good verse to show that we need to get more specific in what we mean by "God." After all, if God calls everyone "gods," then does that make all of humanity equal with the God? I doubt you believe that. Of course, one question at hand is: Is Jesus equal to Father God? Does Jesus have the same divine nature as Father God? Is Jesus Deity? To arrive at an answer, I think we need is some evidence that is super duper explicit. Thank you for addressing 1John 5. I checked out this verse (also in the Greek) to see if there was any chance that this phrase applies to the Father. It is extremely unlikely. The only reference to Father God in this verse is the pronoun in from of Jesus' name. "...in His Son Jesus Christ." But based on how sentences work, the next time a pronoun is used, it is referring to the last person spoken of. So if the next phrase is, "He is the true God and eternal life," the "he" is referring to "Jesus Christ." So, I disagree with you about what John said in 1John 5. You said that we should use the more simpler verses, then move to the more difficult ones. I agree! You mentioned John 17:3. You bring up a good verse, and we can talk about that one. But I have a couple that are even more simpler as well as more explicit.... When Thomas is talking to Jesus, he calls Jesus, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28-29). Now, if Jesus was not God, shouldn't Jesus have corrected Thomas? I think there is a simpler and most explicit verse that explains whether Jesus is God/Deity or not. Paul said: "Because in Him [Jesus] resides all the fullness of the Divinity bodily" (Col 2:9). I'm sure you've seen this verse before. What are your thoughts about it? I really appreciate you having this discussion with me. It is very wonderful when people can discuss things without being disgusting with each other. My next video for this channel is all about this topic: the Pre-Nicene Christians believed that Jesus is God/Deity. So the timing is very appropriate. :) God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch John 5:18 - John is also a gospel of constant misunderstanding by the Jews. Look at Jesus lengthy response to their accusation. Basically, of course I’m not literally making myself God, and also it’s God exalting me to this status and these prerogatives, not some equality I have inherently to indicate some secret nature I share with him. Yes it’s more than previous prophets we’ve seen. And your supposed to be amazed and shocked! But, I would say, it’s a false hierarchy to say anything higher than a prophet we’ve seen before therefore = God. Let God be judge of how much he wants to empower and share with a man. It’s his choice not ours. Yes Jesus forgave sins, but who said God can’t share that privilege. No philosophical answers, just the question, who said that, who made this supposed rule. Not God. The Pharisees say this, and because until then no man did have that authority. Please please please read Matthew 9:8. What conclusion does the crowd/Matthew come to? They are never corrected if they had come to a false premise. Not to mention that imo Jesus imparts the same authority outright to his own disciples eventually. My friend the questions your asking are not bad. I had to ask the same ones before. Yes he had divine “characteristics” (I would say “prerogatives”). But none that are solely exclusive to God. He is not literally uncreated. He is never the un-equaled one. He is not the creator of all things beyond being a symbolic embodiment of the word (See Revelation 4). He is not the one with immortality automatically inherent in himself. He is not the one to whom ultimate allegiance must be given by all. But sure, he has some divine “prerogatives”, but, as he said, they were all “given” to him, and if they weren’t he’d have none of them. And they are not his to exercise at his leisure or whim, but according to the character and direction of God. He has been made a judge, a king, someone able to forgive sin, even someone somewhat connected with the giving of the spirit and also associated with its actions. This is a man exalted beyond belief and it’s supposed to get mankind excited about just what exactly God is willing to do with a man who simply obeys and trusts him. I think you somewhat repeated the point I already made about John 10? Not exactly sure what your adding to what I was saying? But yes, we agree, obviously (though not everyone is taught this), being called God doesn’t make you the God. So when Jesus is called God…..(btw it’s only 2 times he’s called God for sure, the rest of the claims, maybe 5-7 or something, have issues of textual variants or syntax confusion, doesn’t mean those others couldn’t be calling him God, but let’s start with the straightforward verses that have no issues) Not to sound “know-it-all” but the answer is obviously no, he is not equal (which he and scripture say over and over and over again even until Revelation), he is not literal deity (this breaks the Shema!), and no he is not equal in divine nature, nor does he have actual divine nature the way we think and speak of “nature”. The guy was a human being, a man. Btw, I want to stress, I came to these conclusions from scripture, not from being raised to believe any of this. In fact, I believed the opposite before, I truly believed he was supposed to be God in scripture and in the Trinity. Yes, when you grow up believing, or are taught your whole life, or come to believe that he is God, yes “you” will need “super-duper-explicit” proof he’s not God. But if you come to scripture with a blank slate and just read it to try and let it communicate with you, you don’t come with a war on your mind of “IT MUST BE PROVEN SUPER DUPER OR ELSE I JUST BELIEVE HE’S GOD”. But I get it, I DID come with a war in my mind and thankfully God was merciful to me in my sincere and desperate prayers for “truth”. On 1st John I’ve already made my point (I hate having to speak like that, “I have made my point“ because then it sounds like this is just an argument between me and you, or an argument of opinions and “viewpoints”, but it’s not, these are just the facts). 1st John will ultimately be determined by context not grammar. Also why would we want to start with the grammatically ambiguous or textually variant verses? It’s just not smart, when investigating you wanna work from the ground up. When you say you disagree with “me” on it it’s very strange, I don’t understand how you can disagree with a fact. it’s not “just me” this is a well-known fact in commentaries and scholarship. You can find a bunch of examples in the New Testament where similar structured sentences don’t have the closest noun determining the reference. The CEV, unless they’ve changed, for example, recognizes this and translates the passage in a way that reflects that “true God” refers to the Father. The Thomas one may be the passage that will need #1 attention out of them all. And rightfully so. Unfortunately when coming to scripture most of us come with the already preconceived idea that Jesus is God, not only is he God but he MUST be God. Coming into the text with this idea already in mind when reading Thomas’s confession it is a confirmation. However if we came in as a 1st century Jew l, or perhaps as one with a blank slate, this would instead raise some questions first. But anyways, long story short, Thomas is finally seeing his God in Jesus fully. John has a theme of Jesus being the embodiment of Gods word, as if it became a human being and flesh. He has a theme of the Father being in Jesus to the point that when you hear Jesus words or see his actions, as they pertain to his ministry that is, you have actually seen the Father (yet he’s not actually his own Father!). John has a sort of crescendo ending to this theme where Thomas finally understands this. I think it would be wise to keep John’s purpose statement in 20:31 in mind always. Also the Shema, Jesus very own personal creed. We are also prayed to have the fullness dwell in us. I don’t think that means exactly what you think it means (or rather what we are taught it means) Pre - Nicene Fathers. I’ve been putting off studying them in depth for myself, reading them for myself etc (I have to master Greek more). But from those who have I’ve basically heard that a lot of the ones (or maybe just some) that are presented as believing in his deity, really are more ambiguous than that or people selectively only show quotations that seem to support his deity but don’t show quotes for one’s that seem to show they don’t believe that.
@@PostApostolicChurch Yes it is amazing to meet any Christian, or even non-Christian, who has the capacity to simply have a genuine and dare I say open minded conversation. It’s an even greater amazement to meet one who’s sole goal is actually truth and is open to anything, even being wrong, so long as it’s the truth. So while I am on here and in life to simply help share information, information I try to make sure is correct (I hope I am forgiven for anytime I have accidentally spoken incorrectly), I know that youtube comment sections are not really made for this kind of thing or serious truth seeking (though it can help). It took me 2 years of serious study/reading/and prayer to finally fully see that there seems to be absolutely no way Jesus is God in scripture. It took 2 years because I believed so strongly that he was God and was so fearful that it was wrong not to think that that I had to investigate every single little thing I could relating to the subject. And pray about it while I did it. Specifically for the truth and for God to eliminate any error I might have in my understanding even if it was Jesus being God. I say this because I want to say I am not trying to get you to believe different through this chat right now (just sharing info you might never have heard or may never get to hear in the future). What I would encourage you to do is to check out “Biblical Unitarians”, through Google or TH-cam. “Anthony Buzzard” “Dustin Smith” “21stoneGod” are some good resources, but simply Googleing or TH-caming “Biblical Unitarian” will get you some good sources. I encourage you, look into it or try to “debunk” it or whatever. I don’t mind talking to you about these things, but that’s where you’ll find the most scholarship relating to all the things we are talking about. If you really do love truth, and if your always open to the potential of God teaching you more if per chance there is more, you won’t go wrong investigating this. Edit: Never forget the Shema! Jesus’s own creed in Mark 12!
It doesnt appear to me that Tertulliaan is a Trinitarian. He and I are in total agreement regarding Vol. 3 pg 604. He makes it clear that he believes the Father is distinct from the Son (Jesus). He also notes the difference between one who sents and the one being sent. I am confused and perplexed by Tertullian, I am not exactly certain what his platform is! He seems to be straddling the fence.
Thanks for sharing that. No, that is what Trinitarians believe: that the Father and the Son are distinct. You are reading that correctly. Trinitarians also believe that both the Father and the Son are divine/diety, having the same divine nature. But yes, Father God and the Son of God have a few very stark distinctions between Them.
Thanks for asking! Clement of Rome was a disciple of Peter and Paul. It's very likely that Clement of the Rome is the same Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3. I shared a quotation from Clement of Rome in my first video in this series, where he said, "Have we not one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us?" There, by denoting "one God" and "one Christ," he shows that there are at least two Persons of the Divinity. And of course, Clement mentions the Spirit also. The same is done in Paul's own writings. In Eph 4:3-6, he shows the Persons of the Divinity, saying, "one Spirit," "one Lord," and "one God and Father of all." Yes, there are a lot of writings from Tertullian. No, he was not influenced my Plato and his teachings. For example, Plato taught that the flesh is evil and cannot be redeemed. On the other hand, all the Pre-Nicene Christians, including Tertullian, rejected this notion by Plato and preached the resurrection of the flesh, our bodies. So there is no worry about Tertullian being influenced by the teachings of Plato. He rejected any philosophy that opposed the doctrine about Christ. I hope I have answered your questions well enough. God bless!
I am not planning on making a video about that. In an upcoming video, I will briefly talk about God's gender. Basically, even though the Scriptures refer to God in the masculine, we aren't to think of God has actually being masculine. That is, God has no gender. But the times gender is applied to God, it is done so to help us understand God's nature. For example, your comment reminded me of the times in the Old Testament, when God speaks about Himself like a mother who takes care of her child. We see that Father God also has a motherly love toward mankind. In short, I don't think we should take any mention about the gender (pronoun or otherwise) of God as literal. The only exception is Jesus in the flesh--since His birth, He is definitely male. Those are my thoughts; feel free to share anything more you're thinking about. God bless! :)
Very bad answer. God has revealed Himself ONLY in the masculine form. The only time feminine pronouns are applied to God are in metaphor. He is "like" a mother with regard to certain actions He does. The scriptures also refer to God in a metaphoric sense as animals and inanimate objects. He is "like" a mother hen with regard to certain actions He does. Does that mean we should refer to God as the almighty hen? No, that's absurd. However, the Scriptures do not say he is "like" a father, He IS the Father. From Genesis to Revelation, God is never called "she" or "her", but always "Him", "He", and "His". He is always named "God our Father" and never "God our mother". The Holy Spirit is likewise never referred to with female pronouns. The Spirit is always "Him", "He", and "His". There is no Scriptural reason to assume the Holy Spirit is a "female person" as the OP asked. That concept comes from a pagan understanding of the Trinity being Father, mother, and Son. It is false. God has revealed Himself as "He" and "Father", and that is how we ought to understand/address Him.
Thanks for joining the conversation, Michael! Neither the masculine and feminine pronouns for the Father and for the Spirit are to be taken literally. Father God does not literally have a gender. Male and female are ONLY human attributes. As you said, it is true that Father God has chosen to reveal Himself in the masculine gender. But this does not make God male. This was the belief of the early Christians. God bless! Arnobius wrote, That no thoughtless person may raise a false accusation against us, as though we believed God whom we worship to be male,-that is, for this reason that when we speak of Him we use a masculine word,-let him understand that it is not sex which is expressed, but His name, and its meaning according to custom, and the way in which we are in the habit of using words. For the Deity is not male, but His name is of the masculine gender. (Arnobius. AD 305. ANF, vol 6, page 466.) (www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.xii.iii.iii.viii.html)
We have first to see if this called person receives the treatment of a person as the Father and the Son; if all requirements and characteristics of the treatment are fulfilled then we can say the Holy Spirit is a person in equality to the Father and the Son. CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE IN THE FATHER AND THE SON BUT NOT IN THE SPIRIT 1) Never seen in the throne. Apocalypse 22: 1 2) Prayers are never made to Holy Spirit 3) Never be worshiped or praised Revelation 5: 13- 14 4) It never been mentioned by a personal name. Revelation 14: 1 5) The term God is never applied to the Holy spirit as it occurs with the Father and the Son. 6) In the greetings of the new testament letters it is never been included as it is done with Father and the Son.( it would be disrespectful ). 1 Timothy 1: 1-2; Titus 1: 1; 1 Corinthians 1: 3 The apostles never treated the Holy Spirit as a person in equality to the Father and the Son
No matter how you slice it and dice it, there is God with God. Yet the Bible says there is only ONE GOD, The Father in many many places. Jesus even confirms the jewish scribes are correct in their view of God in Mark 12:29 where he quotes the Shema. We know Jews werent and still arent trinitarian. This leads me to believe the way people view John 1:1 is incorrect, anywhere when you start adding gods, you can guarantee its the wrong interpretation.
Almost every church claims that they practice the teachings of the early church. However, as I research churches today, I have not found one that practices everything the early church did. But there are a lot of churches that come close. Are you looking for a church? :) Casi todas las iglesias dicen que practican las enseñanzas de la iglesia primitiva. Sin embargo, mientras estudio iglesias hoy en día, no he encontrado una que practique todo lo que hizo la iglesia primitiva. Pero hay muchas iglesias que se acercan. ¿Estás buscando una iglesia? :)
Fantastic! In what city do you live? I can see which churches are in your area. ¡Fantástico! ¿En que ciudad vives? Puedo ver que iglesias están en su área.
This is pleasantly surprising that the early Christians could suppress their antisemitism for true doctrine. Great! While you're properly understanding many of these things, beware of this one as well: if a man has a son, his son is of the same tissue as his father. His father is the greater one and the one with more authority knowledge and power. But both are from the same tissue... The same matter... God made this on purpose. As a parable from creation itself so that we can understand how He is God and has a Son. The rest of all things made, seen and unseen, are not from the same tissue of God. Rather God made them from nothing and some from dust. But the Son is from the tissue of God. Which is why He is the only Son and therefore eternal. This is what the saying "he came forth from the father" means. And as for There's no Trinity. Now as for the confusion for the Holy Spirit. That comes from the lack of understanding hebrew. In hebrew, there are neither spirits nor souls. The proper translation of it is more like: the special motivator. For the word wrongly translated as spirit, means wind. The wind moves things and is not seen. Therefore it is to be understood as the Set Apart Motivation/Power. Which is why blaspheming is never forgivable... It takes a rare certain kind of person, to see the Power of God and still not believe. It's therefore necessary that such a person will never be forgiven... He's never going to seek forgiveness in the first place... This is truly astonishing, being Gentiles they of course allowed some leaks of Greek (from which they got their spirits and souls and all other odd things)understanding in their doctrines and strayed from the apostles but, this truly is impressive.
Thank you for commenting. I like what you said about the Son being of the same "tissue" as the Father. To add upon that, Jesus, the Son of God, was also the son of Mary. So Jesus and Mary had the same "tissue" also. Through this wonderful miracle, Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Man. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch well that's tissue from the flesh when he was human. He was fully human and he gets the tissue from Mary... I'm talking about why He as The Jewish Messiah is the Son of God and why he's different from the rest of created beings who are also immortal and powerful.(the ones you see called sons of god in your Bible) ..so that his claims aren't blasphemy.. And why the Father is greater both in power and rank and knowledge... And why the lack of hebrew knowledge among the gentile converts created the Trinity....
I believe thatt he Bible teach about Binity. Tertullian and the rest made a philosophical conclusion without understanding the Bible because it was not compiled yet. In John 14, Jesus said that He will send another Comforter, the Holy Spirit of truth. So, there are four Spirits already. The Father in heaven, the Son in Jesus speaking, another Holy Spirit and the previous One. In Revelation, 2 thrones for 2 Persons, not 3. So, the Father has a Holy Spirit, the Son as well; Spirit of God the Father and Spirit of Christ. So only 2, not 3.
You both are deceived or are deceiving, take it from me a former Muslim God is a Trinity in the Bible. And you better study the Bible or die in ignorance.
We can't completely understand the union between the FATHER and the SON but it is clear due to the Blessed scriptures
Philippians ch 2 : GOD has bestowed on HIS SON'S NAME A NAME THAT IS ABOVE EVERY NAME AMEN 🙏
The Blessed LORD is the only way to the FATHER john 14:6
Great scriptures showing the God-HEAD in biblical context and the revealing of the Father's beloved from eternity to all creation and creatures !
1 john 1:1-2, revelation 5:3-6, Micah 5:2, revelation 5:13-14
Shalom in Sonship
What a wonderful series this is. Thanks, brother.
Excellent explanation of a difficult concept! You did a good job of showing what the Apostles early church Fathers believed about the nature of God, the persons of God.
Thank you for compiling these ptl
This is Great for All People!!!!!
Absolutely Amazing! I'm really enjoying your all of your videos, and I'm thankful for how quick you're putting them out!
You're welcome! :)
Just preach
DO NOT to INTO WHAT OTHERS DO WRONG OR NOT wrong
JUST PREACH
DO NOT GO INTO WHAT OTHERS DO WRONG OR NOT WRONG
GOD TAKES CARE OF THAT
JUST ONLY PREACH
I am really enjoying this latest series. Well done.
Thank you!
This is better than The Bible Project. Thank you for taking the time to make these
O boys explained it to others as if I was talking about myself and my son building something my son built it through me as I built it through my son and the great spirit between us the love and the kind The comforts us as we look at each other with adoring eyes. Brother I am so grateful for this work to you done My eyes who failed me and I can't see very well I can't afford glasses So high has to rely on those that have been so kind to read and to do research as you have I am so grateful you are an answer to my prayers May our Lord God continue to bless your work And may the angels continue to guide your hand in finding the Lord's Word
Thanks for the exposition and format...full of truth...helping believers to grasp difficult concepts.
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST ARE THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN BAPTISED IN THE NAME OF CHRIST AS ALL THE APOSTLES DID. 1 Corinthians 12:13
For in one Spirit we were all baptised into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit. John 7:37-39
On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Colossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:4
And Paul said, “John baptised with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, JESUS.”
Acts 19:5
On hearing this, they were baptised in THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.
Acts 8:16
for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptised IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, they were baptised, both men and women.
Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptised every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 10:48
And he commanded them to be baptised IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
Acts 8:16
for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptised in the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.
Romans 6:3-4
Do you not know that all of us who have been
BAPTISED INTO CHRIST JESUS WERE BAPTISED INTO HIS DEATH?
“””” [NO NOT INTO THE TRINITY ROM WHICH THE NAME OF JESUS IS OMITTED] “””
WE WERE BURIED THEREFORE WITH HIM BY BAPTISM INTO DEATH, IN ORDER THAT, JUST AS CHRIST WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD BY THE GLORY OF THE FATHER, WE TOO MIGHT WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE.
HAVE YOU GOT IT YET - THE DISCIPLES WOULD NEVER DISOBEY THEIR LORD AND SAVIOUR.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
see post above
Mark 12 28 34.
This series is really helping me understand pre Niciean Hermeneutics
These videos are so good, you did all the work for us, thanks
Thank you so much for the encouragement! God bless!
melissa - Don't be lazy. No one can seek out God for you.
In Answer to Mr. Nice Guy: The Spirit of Truth reveals the following, about 1Tim 3:16. Through the flesh of Jesus, God is manifested, exactly as he is manifested through our flesh; as we allow, even as Jesus allowed: saying, "Not My Will, But Yours, Oh God." And also, he prayed to God, saying: Nothing is impossible for You, If it be Your Will, Let this cup pass from ME:
Mark 14:35, And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.
Mark 14:36, And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what you will.
However, the key to getting to the true translation of 1Tim 3:16, is that it says: that this person was, "Received Up Into Glory."
"He that ascended, is he that first descended"
"He that descended, died on the Cross, for our sins"
Eph 4:9 Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
So, again we ask the question: Can God Die, when every bible verse declares that God, is IMMORTAL and is NOT the Son of Man?
We are well-informed that Christ descended, but only because He Was Mortal; Because, God Made Him To Be Sin, that he might die, for us. The Nature of Jesus, was sinful flesh, just like us.
2Co 5:2 For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
However, unlike us, he did not sin, but remained obedient to the word of God; it is only for that reason that God raised him from the dead.
Heb 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
* God resurrected Jesus, because he reverenced (feared) God.
So then, 1Tim 3:16 describes Jesus, the one who descended, upon his death; and ascended, at his resurrection;
Rom 1:4 (AKJV) And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
* It is of no importance, all else in his man's life: The only sign that matters is that God raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand.
Resurrection and ascension is the definitive sign that Jesus became, Son of God, as was his continual testimony; according to the spirit of holiness at work in him, as he allowed and obeyed.
Heb 5:8 (AKJV) Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 (AKJV) And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him;
And afterwards, God sat him down at his own right hand of glory.
Heb 10:12 (AKJV) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Note:
* One, is Man.
* The Other, is God.
No One, reading the scripture, immediately above, would dare to say that God, is the man, who "offered one sacrifice for sins," would he?
No One, reading the scripture, immediately above, would be so demon possessed, as to think we would believe that the man, sat down on the right hand of himself, right?
It would appear that the human author of Hebrews 10:12, wrote that verse, with certainty that the reader would most definitely understand that:
* Yeshua or Jesus, is: This Man...sat down on the right hand of God.
* YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah, is: God, he who resurrected the man and sat him down, on his right side.
-- For Your Consideration: In Yeshua's Name: 1KingOfWonders
Mark 12 28 34.
it appears that God is a family unit. just like on earth.
God is not a family, God is creating a family- you could say that but God himself is one being and not a family. The Church of God uses that terminology that you did calling God a family, and implying that Jesus pre-existed.
@@mr.e1220 I disagree. God is not "creating a family". he IS a family. he created himself. Jesus said "when you have seen me you have seen the father." I think that many people are looking for some magical exterior being that lives out in the cosmos someware. and according to Revelation 13:3, the people are going to get exactly what they asked for.
@@mikesommers9557 wow. Good luck with that. U didn't Arrive at that conclusion by studying the scriptures.ur brain is in the way. Wrong again!
@@mikesommers9557 Christ's point there was that He is the exact image of His Father.
@@mr.e1220 Jesus easily existed before the world came into existence
THE BEST TRINITY VERSE IN THE BIBLE: Isaiah 48:16 "now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent Me.”...The Lord God the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus ( the Me in the verse and it's Jesus because it's written in capital letter, not small letter )
How many gods do you have exactly?
ElCineHefe
One
我喜欢耶稣InfinityTemplar - Has you "one" god ever been a man?
You see, God testified in the Law that He never changes and is not a man nor the son of man.
That eliminates any possibility that God ever aped the gods of the heathen by becoming a human avatar like Buddha or Vishnu.
Do you believe God?
ElCineHefe
Yeah, Elohim has always been Echad (a composite being). And Daniel 7 talks about the son of man coming with the authority of God and is to be worshiped. Since scripture says to have no other gods but Elohim, yet also says the son of man is to be worship. Its reasonable to conclude that the son of man is a piece of this composite being.
Edit
The son of man is a description/title given to a specific individual. Its not talking about mankind or humanity.
我喜欢耶稣InfinityTemplar - Listen to yourself. You're saying monotheism but always describing a polytheistic pantheon.
Yes, you have one pantheon of gods but that is in no way monotheistic.
When God refer to himself as us. This is an example of majesty plurality
Exactly
I’ve been watching several of your videos and have subscribed to your channel as well as shared them with others. Love your series on the LXX.
I am hungry to really get to grips with all this and to definitively understand how the traditions and rites of Catholicism came into being. I have always argued that the Roman church (as it became and as it is today) was quite different from earlier Christianity. Whilst they retain the doctrine of the Trinity, they seem to have travelled miles away from the simplicity of the early Christians. They claim these early Church Father’s as their own, inasmuch as they quote their traditions - and are adamant that only Catholicism is the one and only true church. I just can’t agree with the latter. So thank you for these teaching videos.
This is my problem too RCC is just not what the simple Christians worshipping Trinity were, its a decoy of the Devil to pervert.
Thank you for commenting. What you say is true: the Catholic Church has substantially changed since the time of the Pre-Nicene Church and the Council of Nicaea. Speaking personally, after researching the Pre-Nicene Church and the Catholic Church, I found that there are many doctrines that are different. At the same time, I found that there are a few doctrines that are the same. In other words, while I can explain why the Catholic Church is not the Pre-Nicene Church, since researching the history and the doctrines, I have more respect for the Catholic Church today than I did years ago. No matter what church we may be talking about, I wish that all of them were more mindful about looking at the Pre-Nicene Church for help. God bless you!
Post-Apostolic Church Thank you very much for taking the time to comment on my comment, re the RC Church vis-a-vis the Pre-Nicean earlier Christianity. I wish I could find out more as to the particular differences in Christianity that occurred Post - Nicene, and how the changes progressed, and why and how these differ from the original purity of the Gospel as preached by the Apostles and their immediate followers. I think Tertullian did question the ‘upon this rock’ verse in Matthew, or was it Origen? Also, did the Pre-N’s actually believe in transubstantiation and the real presence in the bread? I do thank the RC for holding on to as many early writings that they came across, but wonder how many of these early writings are still kept under wraps in the vaults of the Vatican? Also, the elevation of Mary.... did the early Apostles speak of her in such exalted tones? If she was assumed into Heaven, then why didn’t John not even mention it (as she was in his care after the crucifixion)? As you can see, I am thirsty for knowledge on all this - so if at some point you can, by pointing to these precious writings, shed some light on what has become quite a divisive topic these days between Catholics and non Catholics, I would be extremely grateful! If anything, the early father’s teachings and writings could do a lot to unite Christians worldwide, and also their teachings could be of enormous encouragement in this present day and age, as Christians again face increasing persecution. Thank you - and God bless you!
@@jenniebugs1 I'll be glad to answer your questions.
The Pre-Nicene Christians rejected transsubstantiation. They wouldn't have a problem with Real Pressence, but it appears that their beliefs were closer to what is called consubstatiation.
Yes, the Pre-Nicene Christians spoke very, very favorably of Mary. And we should also, as the Bible says that everyone should call her blessed. However, in no way did the Pre-Nicene Christians elevate Mary to how the Catholic Church has. No, she was not assumed into heaven. The early Christians wrote that she was buried in Ephesus. I would say that the Pre-Nicene view of Mary is the same as today's Orthodox view of Mary.
God bless!
Post-Apostolic Church Wow! That’s very informative! Thank you x
Oh my lord! How on this earth have you distorted scriptures. Jesus was telling the disciples to become one in unity, mindset, purpose etc. When he says "Us" he means he AND the father, he and the Father are two separate entities. He is even stating that God the Father sent him. Could this verse be any more clearer , it is light years away from the Trinity.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Because I agree what what you say here about the Son and the Father being two entities and Jesus talking about unity. You might have misunderstood either what I was trying to say or misunderstand what the Trinity is. Please explain where the distortion of the Scripture is. Blessings to you!
Post-Apostolic Church Since Jesus and God are two living entities and only one is God, take a guess what happens to monotheism the moment you have two or more gods.
Robert Vann after the resurrection the apostles made it clear that Christ in his glorified form knew all things. And nothing can be hidden from him. It is not for men to know the day of the coming of Christ because then they’d repent the hour before he returns so stop making the mistake of limiting God to your own understanding because you’ll fail by the scripture. Read genesis 18 and tell me if you believe that chapter
Emad Hamdi Do you mean the 3 men presenting at Abraham’s tent referred to as “The Lord” were the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? (No debates here, just wanting to clarify so I understand your post)
1 Tim. 3:16 declared that the trinity is a mystery indeed, so no wonder many don't even understand the doctrine.
Excellent work! Keep it up brother. You are doing a wonderful job on these.
Thanks, brother! Always great to have you comment on my videos. :)
Question: How can the Father and the Son be co-equal if the Father is greater in authority than the Son?
Thank you for commenting! Great question. The Father and Son are co-equal in their nature. They are both equally divine/deity/God. They both have eternally existed. Just as men and women are co-equal in their nature. They are both human. The Father is greater than the Son in their authority. The Father has authority over the Son. The Father is the source of Son's authority. And the Son always does what the Father tells Him to do. Just as men and women have different aspects of authority. The woman has the authority in childbirth; the man has the authority as head of the family. At least, that's God's design in the authority between humans. Hopefully showing the difference between nature and authority, this makes sense. The analogy of the nature/authority between man and woman help me understand it. God bless you!
It is not co equal. Only the father is God. Deut 4 35.
@rami Thank you for asking. I don't see how Jesus' ascension would change His nature or the number of gods. There is only one God/Deity. Yet God has shown that God has three persons. The Father is deity and the Son is deity. But they are two persons. In a similar way, a marriage is one thing, but a marriage has two people. A family is one unit, but can have multiple people. There is one God/Deity, but there are three persons of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I hope this explanation helps.
When Jesus ascended into heaven, He did not change His deity, nor did He change his humanity. Even when in heaven, Jesus remained both God and human. God bless you!
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(Who was manifested in the flesh?)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(Who was made flesh? John 1:14 KJV)
Jesus Christ = God, fully God, fully human (He was made flesh through the virgin birth).
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:23 KJV)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 KJV)
Triune God
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7 KJV)
Father (God the Father), the Word (Jesus Christ, read John 1:14 KJV) and the Holy Ghost (the Holy Spirit): and these 3 and 1.
The Hebrew word ECHAD (Oneness):
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one [Echad] LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV)
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one [Echad] flesh. (Genesis 2:24 KJV)
Paul wrote: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness... (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV)
Don't let those modern "bibles" corrupt you. And not because of a "semi-Arian" claimed it so we need to disregard it (WE HAVE TO CHECK WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, NOT WHAT A MAN SAID OR MIGHT HAVE SAID). Read your Bibles (I'm not a KJVoist, but start there so you won't get confused by the modern "bibles").
In Mathew 4 we clearly read about satan tempting Christ, he (satan) was quoting Scriptures which was 100% correct BUT with the wrong motives, to twist is, to lead to confusion, just like he did with Adam and Eve! Not because of a philosopher, an apostate, satan or anyone else claims something that is true (from the Bible) with the intention to twist it, doesn't make it less true if we (Christians) know the Truth from what the Bible preaches. Christ and the Apostles performed signs and wonders, Christ Himself warns against copycats (For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. Mark 13:22 KJV). GET UNDERSTANDING & SEEK DISCERNMENT LIKE GOLD!
Christ as we know Him, and as He claimed, is the Son of God, when anyone opens his/her mouth to say "If He (Christ) is the Son of God" we should know their MO is to twist or lead us to doubt. Stand with the Word of God (Make sure you know what the Bible says, a good Bible, go with KJV first).
BE CAREFUL: Paul was a zealous person, he persecuted believers thinking that he was doing God a favor, yet after know the Truth he warns:
3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that THEY TEACH NO OTHER DOCTRINE,
4 Neither give heed to FABLES and ENDLESS GENEALOGIES, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto VAIN JANGLING;
7 Desiring to be TEACHERS OF THE LAW; UNDERSTANDING NEITHER WHAT THEY SAY, NOR WHEREOF THEY AFFIRM.
(1 Timothy 4:3-7 KJV)
Blessings!
Thank you so much for commenting! God bless!
@@PostApostolicChurch Thanks for your videos. God bless!
Thank you for the time you took and rhe careful dividing of the word.. John chapter one said that Jesus was the word. Chapter 1 verse says the word made everything that means he must be God and then the the word was manifested and wealth Among Us. And his name was God with us Emmanuel. It's clear in the Old Testament there was one God and it's clear in the New Testament that there is one God. The reference he made about chapter 26 of Matthew the Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost is not in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which is from the first century and it said baptize in the name of Jesus or YAHushua Yahweh is salvation.
Mark 12 28 34.
One of the reasons that there are so many Bibles, publishers like to insert or extract words so as to twist verses in favor of the Trinity doctrine. This is what causes artificial contradictions between versus and throws the Bible into chaos. Nevertheless, the Bible is God's word; and therefore, as men make edits, so as to slant one section towards their particular flavor of doctrine, they must, elsewhere, correct a section, which then opposes that slant. And so his own edition of God word, condemns both, him and that doctrine. Again that is why it says the sum of God's word is Truth.
MLV'19 Psa 119:160: "The sum of your word is truth and every one of your righteous ordinances is everlasting."
The verse sited, in Timothy, where it says: God was manifested in the flesh. if you check most earlier versions, it does not say that God was manifested in the flesh; it says, he was manifested in the flesh, speaking of the one from above, Yeshua. It says he that ascended, first descended. He who knew no sin, was manifested in flesh that by Nature was sinful. Death had dominion over him, as the book of Romans says.
So again we must ask: Where in the Bible does it say that God died or that God can die?
One universal truth, is that God cannot die and yet be God. That is unless, you're speaking of some pagan idea of God, which is where the idea of Trinity came from.
In both spiritual and carnal things, logic must have its place of rule, by which we might truthfully judge, things carnal and things spiritual.
If scripture contradicts scripture, then logically, the enemy has placed his elements, even in the word of God, through his emissaries.
Therefore it must be logic, reasoning, line upon line precept upon precept, here a little there a little; as the prophet Isaiah said. So that those who seek light may uncover it and those who seek tradition and doctrines of men may fall, be broken and cursed; as the same prophet said.
Yet, it is the Holy Spirit that whispers logic in the heart of a man concerning the word of God. It almost matters nothing, to compare one Bible to the next. What is important, is that one reads the Bible with an open heart, open mind, and opened eyes; as attained to, through the Holy Spirit, witnessing to the heart that accepts counsel. And, let us remember that not all men have come unto all the truth. And so, I humbly ask forgiveness, for any perceived rudeness, exhibited during my explanation.
For your consideration,
1kingofwonders
I needed this
I don’t know if I have commented on this before but when Christ said the Father gave all authority to him......I sometimes struggle with this mystery. So I default to praying to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
But when I think on this I study John chapter 1.
Also what do we do with Colossians “.......by him (Christ) all things are held together....” paraphrased.
I don’t distinguish in praise of the Son because the Father is pleased in the Son and is worthy of all praise. The visual of Revelation 4......wow I want to see that
Good thoughts. Thank you for commenting. When I think about the authority that the Father gave the Son, I think of 1Cor 15:24-28. Paul can be confusing there because he uses lots of pronouns. But if you read it a couple times, you can see how God has given authority to Jesus (John 5:26-27). But when ALL things are complete, then everything (and all authority) will be given back to the Father. The Father is the One who will be all in all. God bless!
The Father and the Son are one. The Word of God became flesh. It took on the DNA of men. So all of God's Word was in Him, all promises. The body of Jesus, the form came after the birth. Thats why God has begotten an only born son. Every Word Jesus spoke was that of the Father. Jesus is the true vine, fullfilling of the law of God and the blood sacrifice for our sins, our High Priest for ever. The first.
Strange I have not heard this verse being mentioned.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Jesus said that the Father was greater than him for the simple reason that at that stage in his earthly journey he was in a human body.
No, He said that because His Father is His Father. The son was begotten, the firstborn of all creation. He has a fullness of deity because His Father is God, just like you are just as much human as your father.
@@anobleroman8906
I agree with you 100% There is a principle. You beget your own kind.
Mark 12 28 34.
The son of man is a man
Notice the words of our Lord Jesus.
John 5:19 “Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner.”
If the Son is doing EXACTLY everything what the Father is doing-manner, behavior etc., he has reflected his Father perfectly. Just like the saying goes, “Like father like son”.
Jesus Christ perfectly portrayed his Fathers ‘s qualities and thus can confidently say “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” and Paul can say in the scripture you quoted.-John 14:9
Here is an interesting question, who were the seven spirits before the throne. Who was Meckelzedeck, and who spoke with Abraham concerning Sodom?
Thank you for commenting.
Who were the seven spirits before the throne? I'm not sure. Personally, I believe we know the names of three of them: Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael.
Who was Melchizedek? He was God's high priest of Salem (Jerusalem) during the time of Abraham. He had a priesthood that pre-dated the Mosaic (Aaron's) priesthood.
Who spoke with Abraham concerning Sodom? I agree with the early Christians on this question. The person speaking with Abraham was the pre-incarnate Word, also called The Angel of the Lord.
Do you have any thoughts on these things as well? God bless you!
Thanks fir the video
Jesus said to his disciple: "Why do you say, 'show us the Father', do you not know he who has seen me has seen the Father?" Homoousion - One in essense.
In the greek: "Says to him the Jesus, so long a time with you, I AM, and not you have known Me, Phillip?" Is not Jesus the Word of God, that became flesh. The promise, the living Word. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. " God spoke at it became in to being.
the funny thing if you break down the greek word "the devil" in hebrews 2:14 the word is "daibolon" dia- divide bolon - to cast dice/lots. the passage translates to "the divided who cast dice" which the word bolon was used a lot for the roman court system where the jury was a select group of random jurors selected by lots. and a lot of court cases it was one side of the jury being political would pick a side despite evidence. so you would get split juries who picked there sides off of political tribal alignment rather then being objective. and if they could not decide some of the jury would cast a die, so that what they believed the gods would make the decision, so if it was a life or death case they could use the dice as a cop-out rather then take the responsibility for the decision, mentally and politically. so a life or death case could be decided by a dice role, or a just getting a bad set of jury who where all the same tribal political organization who would just pick the opposite of there rival jurors.
Where did they get the term "Persons" for God? I know you will not be able to answer this!
Thank you for commenting. Here is my answer. "Person" is the best English word to represent the Greek word hypostases. Hypostases was the term that the early Christians used to describe each individual of the Divinity. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch
You gave me a definition. Can you come up with "who" gave us the concept that God was three "persons?"
Since it is not a biblical idea or precept.
I can come up with my own ideas of what I think God is like, but is it biblical?
@@r.e.jr.1152 The bible clearly shows the son to be divine yet numerically distinct from the Father. The term person is simply a way to articulate such idea.
@@Anaxagoras-qr5zn
Where in the bible does Jesus teach that he is "distinct" from the Father? Everything he taught about this subject is contrary to what you are saying.
I and my Father are one.
You've seen me, you've seen the Father.
To know me is to know the Father.
The Father that dwells in me.
I dwell in the Father.
To reject the Son is to reject the Father.
If you have the Son, you have the Father.
@@r.e.jr.1152 Are you trying to say that the Father and son are the same
True Clement of Rome stated "have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of Grace shed upon us? ( 1st epistle to the Corinthians ). His comments are very pertinent since he was likely an apostle of John. His words have been claimed to be 'evidence of the trinity'. This is total wrong since the definition requires, yeh, demands that 'there are three PERSONS in one God'. Not until years LATER was this notion considered. Lets be clear to proclaim matt 28:19 is not accepting a 'trinity'!
Excellent research!!!! The Nicene Council sure confuses the pureness of Christ’s message. Yes, a Father who is over all, a son who is sent as a Savior to teach us, die for us and take our sins upon him that we may also live with him and the father eternally, both who have physical separate bodies and the Holy Spirit who can dwell within us. All separate but with one in purpose. Have you investigated the Church of Jesus Christ Latterday Saints? We believe also that the gospel and been very distorted and apostisized. We believe the gospel and it’s original teachings from Jesus Christ have been “restored”. I have enjoyed your presentations as they are also what I believe.
Thank you for commenting. I hope you will take the time to check out more videos on this channel. Yes, I have investigated the LDS church. God bless you!
Michelle, are you implying that the Book of Mormon is the restored "restored" gospel of Jesus Christ?
suzen naughton No, the Book of Mormon is the documentation of a Jewish family who immigrated to the Americas in 600 BC. It is another testament of a Jesus Christ being the Savior to the world. His birth was prophesied about and anticipated by the ancient people and Jesus visited them after his death and before the ascension. That is why native people were expecting a “white god” to come again. The church of Jesus Christ Latterday Saints we believe is the restoration of Jesus Christ original church. We believe through the prophet Joseph Smith whom was visited by God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ that he was instructed how to restore the church. We believe the priesthood was restored by angelic visits of Peter, James, and John. We believe Joseph Smith was taught by many angelic prophets to the true meaning of God and his plan for us. We use the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price ( Books of Moses and Abraham) and the restoration is documented in the Doctrine of Covenants.
Very Truly an answer to prayer!!!!
Outstanding 👍 good Word
I'm so glad that many are waking up to this reality and immersing themselves in Scripture with an earnest love for the truth which only God can provide through His Holy Spirit. Bless you brother in Christ. Also consider evidence of the Son in the Old Testament. Who was the LORD of Hosts? "The LORD" being the Father's name, Yahweh. So, it is "Yahweh of Hosts." The Son's name is Yahshua. He literally carries His Father's name, as we see in over 40 places in the Old Testament, Yahweh is shortened to Yah. Notice how in many of the prophecies of the Old Testament and in many of the times when God speaks to His servants there are often changes in who is speaking. There is clearly one person speaking and then another speaking, making reference to the one who was just speaking, yet it is God speaking. The Word speaks for God and as God, because He only ever does what the Father tells Him to. It's been that way from the beginning. It is His very nature as the Word, THE Prophet of God. Very interesting study. I'm writing a book on the subject after being pursued heavily by "One God" only believers who made a serious attempt to convince me I was apostate in my beliefs about the triune nature of God, even as a subordinationist. Early church history is really important to read and understand. Others stated similar things as Tertullian, like Iraeneus and Origen as well as Arius. Thank you for sharing your insights.
Thank you for commenting! Godspeed to you and your studies! You shared some good points that Scripture brings out. When it comes to the nature of God, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Origen taught the same things about the nature of God. Arius was a man who brought a whole lot of new teaching about the nature of God. It was because of his teaching that caused the Council of Nicaea. God bless you and your studies!
When you explain matt 28:19 you say this is the trinity. Can you explain why every baptism the disciples performed were in rhe name of Jesus only?
Thank you for commenting. When I look at every baptism the disciples performed, sometimes the Scriptures say it was in the name of the Lord Jesus. Sometimes, the Scriptures don't mention any name. I can answer your question. But first, can you explain why some baptisms the disciples performed mention no name? God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch , I would like an answer to this regardless of whether @graemedown8970 gets back to you. I was raised oneness, and I have come to believe in the Trinity, but I am trying to reconcile some things. I studied and researched for years and know all of the common explanations. Your insights would be appreciated.
@@christopherm7702 I greatly appreciate you asking! To recap...
1) Original comment says "every baptism the disciples performed were in the name of Jesus only." To this, I say not every baptism. Just a simple search for baptism in the New Testament shows that the apostles used different phrases to describe baptism.
2) To answer your question, I would like to focus on Matt 28:19. There, Jesus mentions all three Persons of the Trinity. Secondly, if you look at Jesus' baptism, all three Persons of the Trinity are there (and they are not the same person!)... Jesus being baptized, the Spirit descending like a dove, and the Father speaking from heaven.
If I haven't address your questions or curiosity, I am honored to discuss more. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch Thank you for your reply. Yes, I already understood the points you made and have heard these many times before. Having said that, every time any name is mentioned in Acts, it refers to Jesus, even if it says "in the name of the "Lord," who they understood as the Lord Jesus, etc. I would love to discuss this in more detail. I am not trying to convert you to my background; I believe there is more to it than what you described.
@@christopherm7702 Out of interest, are you able to say, what in particular led you to believe in the Trinity? I'm on a similar journey.
What do you say to ppl who say manuscripts deny matthew 28 19 and 1 John 5 7
Thank you for asking. About Matt 28:19, I have not met anyone who has denied that verse. Scholars and history is solid that this verse belongs in Matthew. I'm not sure what they have to say against it. About 1John 5:7, are you talking about the phrase where it says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One? Most translations do not include this phrase anymore. I believe this is a good thing. Turns out, that phrase was never found in any Christian writing before the year 350 AD. Because of that, that phrase is not genuine. The Pre-Nicene Christians did not need that phrase for them to believe in the Trinity. Of course, if it existed during that time, they would have used it! But they didn't because it didn't exist before 350 AD. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch
Amen thank you for answering me brother in Christ! I do know that some muslims claim matt 28 19 is a forgery according to scholars but I don't believe them. I'm thankful for your reply!
Btw have you ever planned to make a video what the pre nicene christians believed about Jesus Christ. I know Ignatius said alot of cool things about Jesus.
Have a blessed day! God bless you.
@@fancopy12 Absolutely. I will make a series of videos about what they believed about Jesus. I just need to put in the time and work to get it done. There is one (maybe two) video left on Father God. After that, there will be a number of videos on God the Son. :)
@@PostApostolicChurch
Awesome bro!
Can't wait!
I appreciate this video. I'm trying to learn more about the pre-Nicene Christians and their theology. What book(s) would you suggest for a beginner who wants to learn more about early Christian theology? Trying to talk to evangelicals about Christianity and showing how Christianity today is not the same as very early Christianity is like talking to a brick wall.
Thank you for asking. Beyond any other book, I recommend Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (link below). What makes it the best is that it is a collection of quotes from the Pre-Nicene Church. This makes it a primary source, letting those early Christians speaks for themselves. With other books, you learn about the Pre-Nicene Christians second-hand. God bless you!
www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Early-Christian-Beliefs-Reference/dp/1565633571
@@PostApostolicChurch Ah, just what I was hoping for! Thank you for your quick reply!
Matt 28:19 is not found in earliest of the manuscript . it is thought to be an interpolation of the later days. what about that?
I have not heard that the authenticity of Matt 28:19 was questioned. Will you point me in the direction of someone who questions the authenticity of Matt 28:19? Or, are you thinking about the last 12 verses of Mark (which is questioned by some some folks)?
@@PostApostolicChurch There is internal evidence for the baptism in the name of the son and some manuscripts
Here's the link to the Eastern Orthodox Christian discord server:
discord.gg/pwuHwTtZhu
We had 800 members 1.5 years ago now we have 6000 members made up of Orthodox clergy and Orthodox laymen, but also many enquirers made up of protestants, evangelicals, muslims, roman catholics, pagans, etc. Come join us for weekly debates, endless pdf's on orthodox theology, logic, the formation of the cannon of scripture, the history of the church etc. All welcome. People are being converted and baptised and chrismated every week by the grace of God and thanks to the efforts of the members in the server.
link again please
We are body,soul and Spirit just as Jesus was son of man ,had the soul of the son but had the spirit of the father.The father is like the sun(love) and christ is the wisdom(light and warmth) as he explained.
AMEN!
Great lesson, but you missed speaking about the third person of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit who is the one most intimately involved in the life of the disciple since Pentecost, convicting, teaching and interceding with the Father and the Son. Surely the early church fathers had something to say about Him too?
Thank you for commenting. Yes, the early Christians had many things to say about the Holy spirit. I will be continuing this series and make videos about what they said about the Holy Spirit. I'm hoping to do that later this year. God bless!
Thanks for all of these. I've learned a lot.
You're welcome! :)
Thankyou
"These three agree as one", is how I've always heard the trinity defined. But I have been always confused about them being one person or three. Meaning each has their own personality, will, individuality. They work together as one. But do so voluntarily. Do I got that correct?
Don't confuse yourself with these doctrines. Jesus claimed to be the person of the Father, he said if you know me you know the Father. Jesus did not speak his own words, every word Jesus spoke was the Father speaking, and all the miracles he did were done by the Holy Spirit, but Jesus says it was the Father doing it. You should understand that the only person of God is the person Jesus Christ manifested which is the person of the Father. God does not suffer from multiple personality disorder. Jesus Christ is the great IAM, the invisible God and Father that came down in the form of a man, and the Pharisees neither saw his shape nor heard his voice!
John 5:37And the Father Himself, who hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape.
@@ivanmeouch95 Thanks, it kind of all washed it self away after sleeping on it. I think, the carnal mind, just can't completely wrap itself around some spiritual realities. Probably better just to learn to live with certain mysteries, and go on with life. "Rejoice not that the demons are made subject to you, but rather rejoice that your names are written in Heaven." It's all by faith.
@@Howie47 Jesus said if you know Him you know the Father, as in; he is the exact likeness of His Father, with the same will.
It is very simple. There is one God, our Father, who is without origin and all things find origin in Him. The Father had a Son, begotten not made, out of His very own substance. The Son is a son. You've heard the very popular verse I'm sure, "For God so loved the earth He sent His only begotten Son...".
The Son is obedient to the Father, the Son's God is His Father (of course). God the Father is the one true God, but the Son is filled with deity as a result of being the Son of God, just like you are just as much human as your father.
The Son, Father, and Spirit are a trinity in that They all are one, but this is not a numerical one, but that They share the same will/goals.
@@ivanmeouch95 John 17
Only the Father is God. Deut 4 35.
Great work! Currently witnessing to a Oneness Pentecostal and can use all the help I can get.
maybe best to watch this the first time with eyes closed, then again with eyes OPEN
if you can't watch it with eyes closed, then spend the time and like the video and then listen while you comment.
Hey, i have a question regarding Bishops/overseers, deacons and the like. What were there roles? What can we read that would give a good outline of how they did things back then? Its obvious they slightly resembled the RCC in terms of authoritative positions (excluding the authority of the pope, as many church fathers wrote against the superiority of the Bishop in Rome), but problems are the confusion in how they did things, how close we have to come to be on their level, and the fact that we dont have bishops today that are faithful. How can we know who the authoritative descendants of (that is, those who have been appointed) the apostles by rite of succession. They seemed to be a major part of the church.
Also, what is your belief on infant baptism? Tertullian and Cyprian seemed to support it (info gained by the Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs.).
Thanks for commenting and asking so many questions! I cannot sufficiently answer them at the moment. There is just too much information! Eventually, I plan to share a video on this subject which will explain the details. I'll make some brief statements below. Feel free to ask more questions, but please keep them simple. :)
Through the first century (certainly in the Scriptures and in Clement of Rome's letter), bishops and overseers were the same role. Starting with Ignatius, the disciple of John, he wrote that the roles were separate. The job of the bishop/overseers through Pre-Nicene Christianity was to teach and to shepherd their congregation(s). The job of the deacons were to assist in the worship service and to serve the congregation in smaller things such as taking the Lord's Supper to those who were not able to attend.
No, I would say the roles of bishops/overseers and deacons were very different during Pre-Nicene Christianity than they are now in the RCC.
As to the descendants/succession of bishops, it is debatable that this is even a thing. Over the first 3 centuries of Christianity, we only have the succession of bishops from less than a handful of cities (such as Rome, Jerusalem, etc.). Now, if succession was a thing, then why didn't the Pre-Nicene Christian writers give their own list of successions? On the other side, the Pre-Nicene Christians did write about apostolic succession, but they recognized the succession of the apostles' teachings as more important than the succession of bishops.
I would not say that Tertullian and Cyprian supported infant baptism because infant baptism today is different than it was back then. Today, it is taught by many Christian groups that infants are baptized to be saved. In Pre-Nicene Christianity, they did not believe that. They believed that one must have faith before baptism. Today that this called "believer's baptism." What they discussed was the age of the person. Tertullian wrote that the age of a person had made no difference if they wanted to be baptized. He quoted Jesus, saying that people should let the children come to Him. What age would one expect a young person to come to faith? Tertullian said the age of 14 is typical because it was the age when sexual desires usually began. In Pre-Nicene Christianity, I don't think it would have been a big deal if someone baptized their infant or very young child. That is, it wouldn't be illegal. But I believe it was up to the congregation, the parents, and/or the child as to which baptismal practices they promoted. As to my personal belief, I reject the practice of infant baptism, but if parents want to baptize their child, I won't say it is sin. I believe the person who is baptized needs to be able to confess Jesus as the Son of God and truly believe it. Otherwise, how can that baptism follow what Peter said (1Pet 3:21) about the person's mind-set?
Those are my thoughts. Feel free to continue the discussion. :)
That's so great that you have Mr. Bercot's Dictionary! I feel that it is the single greatest book in the world outside of the Scriptures!
Could you make a video about the Holy Spirit?
Thank you for saying that. Yes, I will certainly do this! Currently, I'm in the middle of a series on Father God. Next, I will do a series on Jesus, the Son. After that, I will do a series on the Holy Spirit. It might be a year or two before I get there. But videos on the Holy Spirit are coming! God bless!
Post-Apostolic Church Thanks, looking forward to it. I'm a very slow reader and under the impression that the pre-Nicene fathers were not as articulate about the Holy Spirit as the Father and the Son, so I very much appreciate your efforts.
Thank you for the encouragement!
I would not say the early Christians were not as articulate about the Holy Spirit. But as far as the amount of writings, yes, they did not write as much about the Holy Spirit than either the Father or the Son.
@@PostApostolicChurch I wonder why?
We have first to see if this called person receives the treatment of a person as the Father and the Son; if all requirements and characteristics of the treatment are fulfilled then we can say the Holy Spirit is a person in equality to the Father and the Son.
CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE IN THE FATHER AND THE SON BUT NOT IN THE SPIRIT
1) Never seen in the throne. Apocalypse 22: 1
2) Prayers are never made to Holy Spirit
3) Never be worshiped or praised Revelation 5: 13- 14
4) It never been mentioned by a personal name. Revelation 14: 1
5) The term God is never applied to the Holy spirit as it occurs with the Father and the Son.
6) In the greetings of the new testament letters it is never been included as it is done with Father and the Son.( it would be disrespectful ). 1 Timothy 1: 1-2; Titus 1: 1; 1 Corinthians 1: 3
The apostles never treated the Holy Spirit as a person in equality to the Father and the Son
It's amazing how many verses that Trinitarians use to show a distinction between the Father and Son make way more sense when you understand that the term "Son" always refers to the incarnation, and never to his divine nature. I.e. those distinctions those verses show are distinctions between the physical and divine natures of Christ, not between the eternal Son and Father. For example, at Gethsemane, Jesus, in his divine nature, had no reason to fear the cross, but in his physical nature he had good reasons. So his prayer there is indisputably him submitting his fleshly will to the divine will of God. It's not the Son's divine will submitting to the Father's. That doesn't make sense even in Trinitarianism.
Also, read context. Matthew 28:19 doesn't make sense as a trinitarian claim when you consider what that "therefore" ties it too. On the contrary, it emphasizes that all three are manifested in Christ. And the immediate context of John 10:30 didn't fit the meaning of "one" from 7 chapters later. The immediate context is clearly a claim to divinity, and how he claimed that divinity makes it also a claim to be the Father. The word "one" is flexible, and only immediate context can tell you how to understand it. It's clearly not used the same in chapter 10 as in chapter 17.
Please remember; the trinity is our word, coined by Tertullian himself. We cannot allow them to pervert what is true, and taint a good term.
See about the authenticity of Mt 28 19.
Incarnation?
@@brenosantana1458 I'm not sure what you're getting at. The claims against Matthew 28:19's authenticity are highly problematic, but whether it was there originally or added later by Trinitarians, both possibilites are problematic for trinitarianism.
@@rwbaira Consider the messiah having not a divine nature.
@@brenosantana1458 I haven't looked into that theory very deeply, but what I have heard I've found to be problematic as well.
The easiest way to understand the Trinity is to think of the beginning given in John rather like Quantum Physics. When God first created this reality He made photons, the smallest measure of energy and matter and He made sound with phonons being the smallest unit of measurement. Then He created a body to dwell in. Before this reality the only thing we can know of what God was like is that God is Love. What is of God outside the body of Christ would be the Holy Spirit. Genesis is the Newtonian version of Creation and John is the Quantum Physics version.
Good stuff. May I ask what denomination you're a part of (if any)? This channel is really useful.
Thank you for comment and your question. One of the core values of this channel is not to share anything about my personal history or belief. It is the purpose of this channel to be as unbias as possible in presenting the faith and history of the Pre-Nicene Church. Because of that, I do not share my personal information. Besides, it is my personal goal to model my faith and practices after the Scriptures and the Pre-Nicene Christians ...instead of one of the denominations that exist today. Thank you for your understanding. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch love that. Keep doing what you're doing.
Tbh i dont understand why knowing someones denomination is such an important thing
@@zhihanlim3500 Its not, I'M Always interested in that stuff tho.
Luke 24:44 to 53 . Fullfils Matthew 28:19 .
Plus The Apostles are the final authority, NOT any church father.
Yes, but these were the guys that were directly discipled by the apostles, some of them had actually met Christ. And you think that your priests and preachers today are the one's that got it right? Rather than the ones who preserved the church through the martyrdom it endured?
See the authenticity of the verce in Mat 28 19.
Very true
INDEED THE ONENESS OF GOD IS IMMEASURABLE
Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
John 3:35
The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.
1 Peter 3:22
who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
Matthew 11:27
All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
20 On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you.
GOD IS ONE SPIRIT. READ WELL - THE ONENESS OF GOD AND IN GOD IS ESSENTIAL FOR OUR SALVATION. IT IS NOT - INTELLECTUAL CALCULATION THAT REVEALS THIS TO US BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT THROUGH DISCERNMENT.
ACTS 4
13 When they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realised that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and recognised that they had been with Jesus.
JESUS ANSWERED, “THE MOST IMPORTANT IS, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL:
THE LORD OUR GOD, THE LORD IS ONE.
EPHESIANS 4:5-6
ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, WHO IS OVER ALL AND THROUGH ALL AND IN ALL.
MARK 12:29-32
ROMANS 8:1
THERE IS THEREFORE NOW NO CONDEMNATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS.
JOHN 10:30
I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.”
JOHN 14:20
IN THAT DAY YOU WILL KNOW THAT I AM IN MY FATHER, AND YOU IN ME, AND I IN YOU.
JAMES 2:19
YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS ONE; YOU DO WELL. EVEN THE DEMONS BELIEVE-AND SHUDDER!
ZECHARIAH 14:9
AND THE LORD WILL BE KING OVER ALL THE EARTH. ON THAT DAY THE LORD WILL BE ONE AND HIS NAME ONE.
JUDE 1:4
FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE HAVE CREPT IN UNNOTICED WHO LONG AGO WERE DESIGNATED FOR THIS CONDEMNATION, UN-GODLY PEOPLE, WHO PERVERT THE GRACE OF OUR GOD INTO SENSUALITY AND DENY OUR ONLY MASTER AND LORD, JESUS CHRIST.
ISAIAH 43:10
“YOU ARE MY WITNESSES,” DECLARES THE LORD, “AND MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN, THAT YOU MAY KNOW AND BELIEVE ME AND UNDERSTAND THAT I AM HE. BEFORE ME NO GOD WAS FORMED, NOR SHALL THERE BE ANY AFTER ME.
GALATIANS 3:20
NOW AN INTERMEDIARY IMPLIES MORE THAN ONE, BUT GOD IS ONE.
1 TIMOTHY 2:5
FOR THERE IS ONE GOD, AND THERE IS ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS,
ISAIAH 45:21-22
DECLARE AND PRESENT YOUR CASE; LET THEM TAKE COUNSEL TOGETHER! WHO TOLD THIS LONG AGO? WHO DECLARED IT OF OLD? WAS IT NOT I, THE LORD? AND THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BESIDES ME, A RIGHTEOUS GOD AND A SAVIOUR; THERE IS NONE BESIDES ME. “TURN TO ME AND BE SAVED, ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH! FOR I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NO OTHER.
ISAIAH 44:8
FEAR NOT, NOR BE AFRAID; HAVE I NOT TOLD YOU FROM OF OLD AND DECLARED IT? AND YOU ARE MY WITNESSES! IS THERE A GOD BESIDES ME? THERE IS NO ROCK; I KNOW NOT ANY.”
ISAIAH 44:6
THUS SAYS THE LORD, THE KING OF ISRAEL AND HIS REDEEMER, THE LORD OF HOSTS: “I AM THE FIRST AND I AM THE LAST; BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD.
1 CORINTHIANS 8:6
YET FOR US THERE IS ONE GOD, THE FATHER, FROM WHOM ARE ALL THINGS AND FOR WHOM WE EXIST, AND ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST, THROUGH WHOM ARE ALL THINGS AND THROUGH WHOM WE EXIST.
1 CORINTHIANS 8:4
THEREFORE, AS TO THE EATING OF FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS, WE KNOW THAT “AN IDOL HAS NO REAL EXISTENCE,” AND THAT “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE.”
1 CORINTHIANS 12:13
FOR BY ONE SPIRIT ARE WE ALL BAPTISED INTO ONE BODY, WHETHER WE BE JEWS OR GENTILES, WHETHER WE BE BOND OR FREE; AND HAVE BEEN ALL MADE TO DRINK INTO ONE SPIRIT.
JOHN 17:21-23
THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE; AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, AND I IN THEE, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US: THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT THOU HAST SENT ME…
GOD BLESS YOU - ALL WHO BELIEVE IN CHRIST JESUS ARE IN ONE SPIRIT FOR GOD IS ONE.
IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS OR DOUBT DON'T HESITATE TO ASK ME.
BETTER STILL PRAY TO THE LORD AND THE HOLY SPIRIT THE BREATHE OF GOD WILL ANSWER YOU.
JOHN 20
22 AND WITH THAT HE BREATHED ON THEM AND SAID, “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.
JOB 32:8
BUT IT IS THE SPIRIT IN MAN, THE BREATH OF THE ALMIGHTY THAT MAKES HIM UNDERSTAND.
PRAISE THE LORD.
MATTHEW 12 (“”” GOD IS ONE “”””)
25 HOWEVER, KNOWING WHAT THEY WERE THINKING, YESHUA SAID TO THEM, “EVERY KINGDOM DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF WILL BE RUINED, AND EVERY CITY OR HOUSEHOLD DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF WILL NOT SURVIVE “””” GOD IS ONE “”””
REVELATION 13 BELOW A KINGDOM DIVIDED >>> BUILT ON SAND OF THE TRINITY 3 AND I SAW THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS THAT LOOKED LIKE FROGS COMING OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF THE DRAGON, THE BEAST, AND THE FALSE PROPHET.
THE TRINITY = THE TRINITY OF THE PAGANS - THERE IS NO OTHER TRINITY. FOR - “””” GOD IS ONE “”””
1 KINGS 18 21 ELIJAH WENT BEFORE THE PEOPLE AND SAID, “HOW LONG WILL YOU WAVER BETWEEN TWO OPINIONS? IF THE LORD IS GOD, FOLLOW HIM; BUT IF BAAL IS GOD, FOLLOW HIM.” - BUT - THE PEOPLE SAID NOTHING.
[THE TRINITY COULD BE THE MAIN IDOL OF BAAL IN THE END TIMES. IT IS THE MAIN IDOL
THAT CHALLENGES THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF JESUS DIRECT.
[ -WHO WILL HAVE THE COURAGE TO EXPOSE AND CHALLENGE IT? - THE 2 WITNESSES OF COURSE - ]
BUT THE 2 WITNESSES WILL BE CHALLENGED BY THE TRINITY OF THE DRAGON THE BEAST AND THE FALSE PROPHET
MATTHEW 12 (“”” GOD IS ONE “”””)
25 HOWEVER, KNOWING WHAT THEY WERE THINKING, YESHUA SAID TO THEM, “EVERY KINGDOM DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF WILL BE RUINED, AND EVERY CITY OR HOUSEHOLD DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF WILL NOT SURVIVE “””” GOD IS ONE “”””
REVELATION 13 3 AND I SAW THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS THAT LOOKED LIKE FROGS COMING OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF THE DRAGON, THE BEAST, AND THE FALSE PROPHET.
1 KINGS 18 21 ELIJAH WENT BEFORE THE PEOPLE AND SAID, “HOW LONG WILL YOU WAVER BETWEEN TWO OPINIONS? IF THE LORD IS GOD, FOLLOW HIM; BUT IF BAAL IS GOD, FOLLOW HIM.” - BUT - THE PEOPLE SAID NOTHING.
ELIJAH REPEATS HIMSELF AS AN END TIME WITNESS.
ELIJAH WENT BEFORE THE PEOPLE AND SAID, “HOW LONG WILL YOU WAVER BETWEEN TWO OPINIONS? IF JESUS IS YOURLORD AND GOD, FOLLOW HIM; BUT IF THE TRINITY IS YOUR GOD, FOLLOW HIM.” - BUT - THE PEOPLE SAID NOTHING.
2 CORINTHIANS 3 3 I AM AFRAID, HOWEVER, THAT JUST AS EVE WAS DECEIVED BY THE SERPENT’S CUNNING, YOUR MINDS MAY BE LED ASTRAY FROM YOUR SIMPLE AND PURE DEVOTION TO CHRIST.
Test Paul.
I’m wondering about if others say that when God said Us He might of speaking to the angels.
Thank you for commenting. Yes, I've heard folks say that God was speaking to angels when He said "Us." However, this doesn't make sense. I've asked these folks some simple questions, and they either decide not to answer or they change the subject. For example, I've asked, "If those are angels, does this mean that the Bible says that angels helped create humans?" In the end, the idea that the "Us" are angels is a neat thought. However, it cannot possibly be true compared to the idea that "Us" is the Word/Christ and the Spirit. God bless you!
Have you considered the us in Genesis is speaking of Adam and Eve, because they are the ones who help create humans. God created them in His image they (and we) continue creating humans in the image God made us in.
Plus God does not speak in plural form on any other creation day, either He doesn't include His son on any other day... Or he just wasn't there.
Since the Son is God those who see the Son has seen God?
Thank you for commenting. You are correct. Both the Father and the Son are God (Deity / Divine). But the Father is not the same as the Son. For example, this statement would be incorrect: "The Son is God those who see the Son has seen God the Father." This is incorrect because the apostles said that they saw and heard and touched the Son, but no one has seen or can see the Father. God bless you!
Early Christianity on: The Person of God
Father, Son and the Holy Spirit the Holy Three in One; Blessed Trinity! God's peace be with you
Reformed Christian what is the definition of the trini!y?
A word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.
Why didn’t MESSIAH teach and explain such important information about the GODHEAD. This appears to be a man made doctrine.
@@lauratempestini5719 the word not being found in scripture has nothing to do with whether it is valid or not. It's a shorthand way of describing God. God is one divine essence eternally existing in three persons = father, son, and holy spirit. These three are ONE = unity.
Aka, Triune. Aka, a "Trinity".
It's not man made at all. Anyone who says that hasn't studied the scriptures or the early church well enough.
This definition of God is held since the beginning. Notice how scripture says there is only one God and yet calls the Father, Son, and Spirit God. And yet the scriptures DO NOT say the Son is PART of God, but says he is fully God (Colossians 2:9). The scriptures say Jesus was with God the Father and yet was God himself (John 1:1, 1:18). So God cannot be ONE and THREE in the same way, especially since the Son prays to the Father (so the Father and the Son cannot be the same person). Jesus is God. Fully God. Truly God. Indivisibly God.
@@lauratempestini5719 and Messiah did teach and express such things. For instance, he said "I and the Father are One", yet he clearly prayed to the Father, making him and the Father distinct. He called himself the Alpha and Omega. He taught his apostles to proclaim him as God, and if people WORSHIP him then he must be God, or he's a blasphemer. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Spirit is God. All three are equally God. Always been taught by the church, and is very plain in scripture.
Reformed Christian But where is MESSIAH ‘S teaching of such an important doctrine.
Husband and wives are one.
It individuals
@@lauratempestini5719 True doctrine of the trinity, as it was coined by the church fathers, is the foundation of the new testament. Don't listen to these dummies with modern ideas, trinity was not a word used to explain our monotheism or express it. It expresses their roles, harmony, and shared essence. God the Father is the true God, and the Son and the Spirit proceed from Him. Read your Bibles, read your church fathers, people. Quit coming up with new ideas. Be orthodox.
Jesus Christ said in John 14 that, If you has seen Me, you have seen the Father. Do you not believe that I AM in My Father and My Father lives in Me? Believe Me or else believe the Work, because they (the works itself) testify about this. Amen!! Father,Son, and The Holy Spirit are One (in essence, in power and in authority) !! Plural oneness!! As our body, it has many parts but are one!!
Very true. No wonder Paul himself speaks about Christ's relationship to Father God in the terms of a body. See 1Cor 11:3.
I like thinking about the Divinity as a plural oneness. As Jesus said, "I and the Father are [plural] one [united]" John 10:30.
God bless!
Post-Apostolic Church Tell me truly, are you Catholic brother? And yes, I quoted The Apostle Paul when I wrote about the body.
This channel does not have allegiance to any specific Christian group--except the early Christians who lived before the Council of Nicaea (Pre-Nicene). Speaking personally, I do not identify myself as Catholic.
Read John 17
new comment: what if God was your Great Grandfather, and your Great Grandson was judging someone you met yet did not know, except by family history, for your current condition and you will also be judged by your great grandson for the legacy you left him in. Incomplete.
The Father is not begotten, the Son is begotten which indicates the Son had a beginning.
Begotten
BEGOT', BEGOT'TEN, pp. of get. Procreated generated.
Each member of the Trinity have different OFFICES. Same authority, same nature, same God.
Thanks for this. I've been trying to understand this doctrine to the best I possibly can.
You're welcome. It is confusing and often difficult to understand the nature of God. I'm thankful to the early Christians who explained it so well. They have certainly helped me!
owchywawa - You cannot gain a truthful understanding of things that are not true.
That's why Roman polytheism masquerading as monotheism will never make truthful sense.
See the opinion of Jesus about who God is.
Greatness
regarding John's statement- In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. Some Bible authorities said that this is the correct translation of the greek statement of John about the Word. Jesus was a god, not God. It is only the Father who is God.
dosdadio siapa I have heard this too; do you know of any resources. God means ruler right?
See Deut 4 35. Only the father is God.
About the word, it doesn't mean Jesus in John 1 1. See John 1 3. Only the father is the criator Isaiah 44 24.
Ask me if you want.
That's jehova witness nonsense
@@Anaxagoras-qr5zn Nope you' re wrong. It's Jehovah's Witnesses sense. They are right in claiming that Jehovah is the only God. The Trinity is the Ancient Church's Father's philosophic invention. their is no Godhead, the nature of 3 persons in one godhead, mentioned in the Bible.
It's about time the sound is at a decent hearable level
God himself says," I AM THAT I AM". " I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD",Paulus Apostolus," The KING eternal, immortal,invisible, THE ONLY GOD" 1 Timothy 1:17. Revelation 22:13
"I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA". The Arabian Christian Church (Islam) rightly rejects the pagan doctrine of Trinity imposed by the mystery Babylon Church, which expelled, excommunicated and exiled those Bishops who rejected the heathen Credo at the Nicest Council.Christianity's loss is the gain for the Arbian Church.
I too speak words that does not produce a second personality and I too have a spirit that does not produce an additional third personality. There is only one person of God the Father and that person was revealed to us by the person of Jesus Christ. God is our Saviour and beside him there is no other, he appeared to Moses and called himself IAM, Jesus appeared to us and called himself IAM. The Lord Jesus said if you see me you see the Father, if you know me you know the Father, my words are the words of the Father and my works are the works of the Father. The one true God and Father came down in the form of a man to save us from our sins. The new name you quoted in Revelation is Jesus Christ.
God does not change.
Human's mindset is real poison on four gospel, limited by languages , not by enlightement of Holy Spirit
Tertullian himself admitted that the Oneness Monarchians "always make up the majority of believers" (Tertullian Against Praxeus 3 - Tertullian lived from 160-225 AD). Like Arius, Tertullian was not a true Trinitarian. He actually taught that the Son was created before his birth. Anyone who reads Tertullian Against Hermogenes chapter three will find that Tertullian wrote, "...there was a time when neither sin existed with Him, NOR A SON." Therefore, the Oneness Monarchians were the only early Christians who believed in the true deity of Jesus Christ before the trinity doctrine was fully developed.
How could Tertullian have believed in the alleged "coequality" between the Father and the Son when he believed that the Son was created (Arianism)? The scriptures that the author cites only proves that the Son is the man who had his beginning by his virgin begetting which destroys Trinitarian theology.
Hebrews 1:8-9 in the Greek text says, "To the Son, your throne O God..." The words "He says" does not appear in Hebrews 1:8 because the Psalmist simply prophesied that the Messiah would be called God in Psalm 45:6-7 who would have a God because the Son is "God with us" as a true man living among men who will sit on the throne of David. 1 Chronicles 29:23 calls the throne of David "the throne of Yahweh" and Rev. 22:3 calls the throne of David "the throne of God and of the Lamb" because the lamb is God with us as a man who will sit on the throne of David.
I have just one quote from Ignatius which completely annihilates the Trinitarian idea that a God the Son could be seen in the Hebrew Scriptures while the Father and Holy Spirit could not. Anyone can turn to Ignatius' Epistle to Polycarp 3:2 and read,
"Look for Him who is above time - the Timeless, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible, the Impassible, who became subject to suffering on our account and for our sake endured everything." Ignatius of Antioch to Polycarp of Smyrna 3:2
The earliest Christian witness believed that Jesus is the Invisible God who "became visible" for our sake. There can only be One Invisible Heavenly Father who for our sake became visible through His own Word and through His own Holy Spirit Who came down from heaven to become incarnate.
Would the author of these videos be willing to participate in a moderated debate with a Oneness apologist concerning what the majority of the earliest Christians believed? If so, he can contact me via our website at ApostolicChristianFaith .com through our Contact Page.
When Tertullian said, "who always constitute the majority of believers," he was not talking about those who believed in Monarchianism/Modalism. He was talking about how the majority of believers do not have a satisfactory understanding of the nature of God. To the average believer, they are not concerned about the nature of God or the Persons of God--that is, how God is three in one. Tertullian is not saying that the average believer believes that in Monarchianism. You can read Tertullian in context here. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iii.html
When Tertullian talked about the Son not existing, he was not saying that there was a time when the Logos/the Son/Jesus/the Christ/the Word did not exist. He is saying that there was a time when the Word/Logos was not the Son--because the Word/Logos had not been born of God and Mary. For example, during the times of the Old Testament, there was no Son (though there was Word/Logos). But when Jesus was born of God and Mary, it was at that time that the Word/Logos became the Son. You can read Tertullian in context here. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.v.iii.html
Therefore, Tertullian did not believe that the Son was created. He wrote against this belief.
Ignatius did not call God the Father both invisible and subject to suffering. Ignatius wrote that there was a time when Jesus/Logos/Word was impassible and as invisible as God the Father. But when Jesus came in the flesh, He became visible, touchable, and suffered. In fact, Igantius says the same thing as I shared in this video: Jesus became these things while the Father most certainly did not. These differences--as shown in Scripture--prove that the Father and the Son must be two separate Persons. In case you missed it, here is there video.
th-cam.com/video/dxqQWgi5CZc/w-d-xo.html
So yes, Jesus is the Invisible God who became visible for our sake. However, it does not agree with John and Paul to say--as you said--, "There can only be One Invisible Heavenly Father who for our sake became visible." See John 1:18, 1Tim 6:15-16.
If you truly want to destroy Trinitarian belief, then you should try to prove that the apostle John was mistaken in what he said about the Son being seen while the Father has never been seen. Of the New Testament writers, John was the most outspoken Trinitarian. I am very curious what you would say in response to what John wrote.
Would I be willing to debate? Perhaps. I cannot promise anything. I feel there are better uses of time to serve God than to debate. Paul didn't speak very highly of debating and arguing unless it was to take every thought captive in obedience to Christ. Also, I'm not convinced debates are all that beneficial. There are already plenty of them on the Internet. And anyone can contrast yours and my resources that we have already shared. Lastly, unlike the early Christians who called Monarchianism heresy, personally speaking, I am not so quick to condemn. Though the doctrine of the nature of God is important, I do not believe that doctrine is as important as the weightier matters of God such as life and godliness, faith and obedience. Blessings to you.
There is no evidence that Tertullian was not addressing the Modalists when he wrote that they that always make up the majority of believers rejected his theology in Against Praxeues (which was a polemic directed against Modalism - chapter 3).
Tertullian believed that the Word of God the Father assumed a form and voice when God said, "Let there be light in Genesis 1:3.
AGAINST PRAXEUS CHAPTER 7
Then, therefore, does THE WORD also Himself ASSUME HIS OWN FORM AND GLORIOUS GARB, HIS OWN SOUND AND VOCAL UTTERANCE, WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT (Genesis 1:3) This is the perfect NATIVITY OF THE WORD, when He proceeds forth from God- FORMED BY HIM FIRST to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom ... or by proceeding from Himself HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON, because begotten before all things; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART [THE FATHER’S].”
Tertullian wrote in Against Praxeus 7 that "HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON" "WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT."
YOU HAVE CLEARLY MISUNDERSTOOD TERTULLIAN WHEN YOU WROTE THAT TERTULLIAN DID NOT BELIEVE IN A PRE-INCARNATE SON, BUT ONLY IN A PRE-INCARNATE WORD WHO BECAME THE SON AT BETHLEHEM.
Tertullian clearly stated that the Son was BEGOTTEN “from the womb of the Father’s heart” when God said, “Let there be light in” in Genesis 1:3. "THIS IS THE PERFECT NATIVITY OF THE WORD." The definition of "Nativity" is "the occasion of a person's birth" as "the place of my nativity." Hence, Tertullian taught a pre-incarnate created Son who's birth (nativity) occurred prior to the incarnation. Therefore the chief founding father of Trinitarian theology was really an Arian who wrote in Against Hermogenes chapter 3.
"God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not
always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. FOR HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE FATHER PREVIOUS TO THE SON, nor a judge previous to sin. THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A TIME WHEN NEITHER SIN EXISTED WITH HIM, NOR THE SON; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the
latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of
which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as HE BECAME THE FATHER BY THE SON, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.”
Tertullian clearly taught that God was not always a Father to the Son but became a Father when the Son was begotten. Any Trinitarian who says otherwise is not being truly honest when reading the writings of Tertullian.
More info at ApostolicChristianFaith .com
Thank you for sharing what you believe. I have weighed the evidence against Tertullian's words and believe you are wrong. I have shared what I believe, and you believe I am wrong. At this point, I don't know what would convince you, and what you have shared with me has not convinced me. Is there any reason for us to continue our discussion when we have different interpretations from the same evidence?
I'll even give you an advantage. Re-watch my video on the Persons of God. Look at each of the Scriptures I bring up and try to prove that my interpretation of them are wrong. For example, when God refers to Himself in the plural, what else does that mean except that God is more than one Person (Monarchianism)? I will always be convicted of the truth because of the Scriptures. And on the other hand, if you cannot explain the Scriptures in that video in light on Monarchianism, I hope and pray that the Scriptures will convict you of the truth.
th-cam.com/video/dxqQWgi5CZc/w-d-xo.html
Blessings to you.
Tertullian believed that the Word of God the Father assumed a form and voice when God said, "Let there be light in Genesis 1:3.
AGAINST PRAXEUS CHAPTER 7
Then, therefore, does THE WORD also Himself ASSUME HIS OWN FORM AND GLORIOUS GARB, HIS OWN SOUND AND VOCAL UTTERANCE, WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT (Genesis 1:3) This is the perfect NATIVITY OF THE WORD, when He proceeds forth from God- FORMED BY HIM FIRST to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom ... or by proceeding from Himself HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON, because begotten before all
things; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART [THE FATHER’S].”
Tertullian wrote in Against Praxeus 7 that "HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON" "WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT."
YOU HAVE CLEARLY MISUNDERSTOOD TERTULLIAN WHEN YOU WROTE THAT TERTULLIAN DID NOT BELIEVE IN A PRE-INCARNATE SON, BUT ONLY IN A PRE-INCARNATE WORD WHO BECAME THE SON AT BETHLEHEM.
Tertullian clearly stated that the Son was BEGOTTEN “from the womb of the Father’s heart” when God said, “Let there be light in” in Genesis
1:3. "THIS IS THE PERFECT NATIVITY OF THE WORD." The definition of
"Nativity" is "the occasion of a person's birth" as "the place of my
nativity." Hence, Tertullian taught a pre-incarnate created Son who's
birth (nativity) occurred prior to the incarnation. Therefore the chief
founding father of Trinitarian theology was really an Arian.
You have not presented anything that I have not already heard and refuted. God spoke in the plurality of majesty in the Hebrew tongue as was common in other Semitic languages of that time. You can view my TH-cam Videos entitled, "Does Echad and Elohim Support the Trinity? And "Let Us Make Man Genesis 1:26."
These videos can be easily accessed by typing in these titles on the TH-cam Search. I also have written Articles on our website at www.ApostolicChristianFaith .com
@@PostApostolicChurch Amen.
What did Early church fathers say about the authority of scripture?
I'm not sure what you mean. Can be you more specific? I mean, they held Scripture in the highest authority.
Post-Apostolic Church
"Sola scriptura"
Sorry, TH-cam did not tell me you made this comment. No, the early Christians did not believe in sola scriptua (Scripture Only). A number of their beliefs came from "apostolic tradition." These are the beliefs that were handed down from the apostles. Keep in mind, apostolic tradition today (also called Holy Tradition) is not the same as apostolic tradition in 300 AD.
Post-Apostolic Church Where can we find these traditions they passed down? do we know just by studying the church fathers?
Yes, that is correct. The early Christians who lived in those two centuries after the apostles are our window into both Christian history and Tradition. If you are curious about these things and want a crash course, I highly recommend this book. Outside of the Bible, I believe it is the single greatest resource anyone can find.
www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Early-Christian-Beliefs-Reference/dp/1565633571
How can the Son be under or subject to the Father when the Son has no will that is separate or apart from the Father's will? This presentation is as absurd as determining how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Thank you for commenting. To answer your question, it is because the Son decided that His will should be the same as His Father's will. So while the Father's will is the source, the Son's will is the action. God bless!
@@PostApostolicChurch Some people's hearts are just too hard, my friend. God bless you. It is very encouraging to find a group of people who also read the early church fathers and understand the truth, I was really alone there for a while.
I really think the word Trinity needs to be left out...it just confuses people because it is used in different ways. Also saying Jesus is Divine might work better...he is NOT his Father.
GOD CREATED ALL THINGS BY HIS SON.
Hadley Bee here is an excellent website of well researched and documented by the late Bryan Huie herealittletherealittle.net
Nope. God created the new creation and the kingdom through his son the new Heaven and the new Earth, but not the Genesis Earth of rocks and birds and animals and trees. All you have to do is read Genesis and Jobe to know the Creator did all of this alone by himself. Read Isaiah 44:24 and get a clue
Mr. C Be Kind!!
Please read on... Is. 44: 11 Thus saith the LORD, THE HOLY ONE of ISRSAEL , AND HIS MAKER, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. 12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. 13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.
THE HOLY ONE of Israel is MESSIAH. and HE was made!!!
There is no captivity in the new earth and new heaven.
@@lauratempestini5719 I was being kind. When I said get a clue I didn't mean it in the sarcastic way. I meant they will get a clue and finally the truth will Dawn on them. The verses that you mentioned are also very clear that that is a single being , the Father creating everything! Amen
Should be named the Great Apostasy Church.
MRI studies need to be done to consider why people believe in the Trinity and some believe in one God and Father and only begotten son Jesus.
Simple concept vs complicated.
The Father did not become flesh, as both the Father and the Son are two distinct beings and persons, but the Scriptures do not reveal much about the Father before the creation.... The Scriptures do not condemn the doctrine of the Father having a physical body Himself. Otherwise, if the Son had a physical body, and the Father hadn't, wouldn't this make the Son greater than the Father in some way? And since there is always an increase with God, and the resurrection is a sure thing, having a perfected and immortal body, what does that say about the Father, and why He commanded that the Son create bodies for us in the first place?
Thanks for commenting!
I do not believe that having a physical body makes the Son greater. Instead, I believe the omni-presence of the Father is one aspect that makes Him greater than the Son. Now that the Son has a physical body, the Son is cannot be omni-present. Interesting topic!
God bless!
It is an interesting topic! Let me add, however, that Jesus did appear to the disciples while they locked themselves in. In other words, the physical body of the Son is not limited by the physical world. And all this happened before the ascension, meaning that the Son had not yet received all of His glory at that point. And if the Son shall return with all of the glory of the Only Begotten Son, in His resurrected body just as He ascended with it, are you certain that the body does not add to His greatness? On the other hand, who else do not have (and will never have) a body of flesh and bones if not the devil and his angels? Is the devil equal with the Father? As Paul would say : "God forbid!" But a physical body, and even a perfected body, adds to our glory with the Son (Romans 8:17). Furthermore, if seeing the Son is seeing the Father, and if the Son does everything that He has seen the Father do, and the Son has a body, is it not a valid conclusion that the Father would also have a body (a body that the Father already had before the Creation)?
This is a very fun and interesting philosophical topic. :) I see what you're saying about having a body. But I do not see how something physical can make something greater than something spiritual. Because Father God and Satan are both spiritual/ethereal, this does not make them equal! It's like saying that a newborn baby is equal to the king of an Empire. That is not a fair comparison. Father God is just that: god/deity. Satan is not deity. He is a created spiritual being. They are not equal at all. One is good; one is evil. One is all-powerful; one deceives people into believing that he has power.
Here is what I believe is what makes Jesus special... being both divine/deity AND bodily/human. It's that Jesus bridges the gap between two dimensions: physical and spiritual. Because Jesus has lived as both God and as Man, this is what makes Jesus the superior High Priest who can sympathize with mankind. With this ability, Jesus can make righteous judgment upon every person. In my opinion, this is one aspect that makes Jesus greater than Father God: Jesus is better at sympathizing with human weakness and pain. Those are things that Father God has not experienced.
And in the end, Father God is greater than the Son for many reasons. First, it is because Father God cannot die! Jesus has physically died. For more reasons, there are verses in this video that explain from Jesus' own mouth the truth that Father God is greater. After all, Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I." For me, that solves it right there. :)
What do you think? This is a fun discussion! God bless!
We agree that Satan is an evil and created being. Satan is not a deity for a very good reason; he rebelled against Heavenly Father. And this is exactly why Jesus is God; He does everything that the Father would do. This is why Jesus has lived a perfect life. From His own mouth : "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30) Jesus is perfect because He did everything selflessly. Whereas Satan wanted to do everything selfishly.
And as a side note, as a food for thought, Heavenly Father gave all judgement unto the Son, effectively suffering that His children would choose wickedness. This is a selfless act on His part. The Master Architect of all have entrusted the creation unto the Son, and it's judgement thereof. What kind of trust does this required? And what kind of love in return from our Lord?
But let's get back on the "physical body" portion of this discussion :) There is one thing that will eternally differentiate us from Satan; our physical birth. The unification of our spirit with a physical body is the prerequisite for a fullness of Joy on the day we will be glorified with our Lord, and return unto the presence of the Father. Do you see the increase?
Before our physical birth, we were but innocent spirits, not knowing good from evil. Just like Adam in the garden, just like new born babies; innocent and pure. When Adam transgressed the law, and sinned against the will of God through his disobedience, he got to know the opposite of innocence; guilt. This was the next step for Adam, and this is why God said that he then became like one of them (i.e. Heavenly Father and the Son God). This characteristic is being passed down through our corruptible state, and pure innocent babies get to know guilt, suffering, and all manners of wickedness in order to discern between good and evil. The Fall was a positive thing! It was a step towards knowing God.
Heavenly Father knew this, and this is why a Redeemer had been chosen before the foundation of the world (John 1:1). Heavenly Father knew that if knowing wickedness was a necessary step, then being redeemed and having to atone would also be necessary. Unlike many who believe in the Nicene Creed, Jesus was also among us, children spirit of the same Father God (John 20:17). However, unlike us, He was a more mature spirit, more like our Father, than us. The Son God (i.e. Jesus) went through everything that we have to go through; He was born, He lived, He endured temptations, limitations, suffered pain, etc., He died, He resurrected, and He returned to the Father. This is what He means by : "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6, see also John 13:15). It means that His life is the perfect template for us, and the only way we can return to the Father.
Except that we do not have the power to reclaim our dead bodies from the debts of sins! And this is why the Gospel is about a Messiah; Jesus has the power over death because death has no power over Him, either physically or spiritually. And this is why we do not have this power. But if we were perfect, we could. If we were perfect like Him, nothing would be impossible. The Good News is this : the keys of death and Hell is now in the hand of Christ (Rev. 1:18).
Remember about the increase? The resurrection is the next increase. Without Christ, we'd be dammed. But, through His grace, we shall all be made incorruptible. Indeed! Both just and unjust. Both righteous and wicked (Acts 24:15). Why? Because the Final Judgement can only be made with our physical bodies. Why? Because those who do not have a body receive no judgement whatsoever. ONLY THOSE who have a body can receive the grace from God; this is why a physical body is so important, and why it is an increase. This is what separates us from God and the devil. Therefore, an incorruptible body is an increase from a corruptible body, which is an increase from a body who has never known suffering.
What's next? Well, a glorified body, of course! And this is why Jesus ascended and why we shall also ascend like Him (Romans 8:17). A glorified body brings us ever so closer to Heavenly Father and ever so further away from Satan. And this is why Heavenly HAS to have a body also. Because if the Father has no physical body, then how can the Son do everything He has seen the father do, without doing nothing of Himself? In other words, how can the Son be different from the Father while still be exactly like Him?
You see, the problem most people have is that they attribute John 1:1 as a timeless verse, where "in the beginning" means "before time". But if the Son is also a Son of Heavenly Father, then the Father came before the Son... how can the Son be in the beginning? But this is not what John writes; "in the beginning" means "when the Plan of Heavenly Father was set in motion" (Genesis 1:1). And this Plan required a Savior, and the Lord was chosen to be God for us in that Plan. To better understand how this is so, consider how Moses was selected to deliver the Hebrews from Egypt, and how he as made a god unto Pharaoh, with Aaron as prophet (Exodus 7:1)? This is the same for the Son; being elected God unto us, with prophets to speak in His stead.
And thus, there are not two gods, but one God; Heavenly Father, and the Son, being One, meaning acting perfectly instead of the Father unto us. And if the Son is One in every aspects, including the incorruptible and glorified aspect, and that we can also receive the same, what does that tell of He who sent Jesus Christ to be our perfect example, even unto perfection, like our Father in Heaven? Nothing actually suggests that Heavenly Father has no physical body.
What about John 4:24? This verse does not say that Heavenly Father does not have a physical body. Jesus was teaching the higher spiritual law and the meaning of the law. (What's currently physical is corruptible, not yet made incorruptible and much less glorified!) It was about putting behind the letter of the law (which had been corrupted by the Pharisees anyway) into a spiritual understanding of it : "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." (Heb. 7:19) This was one of the first teachings from Jesus about the new law, and it meant that the true worship of Heavenly Father is not through a corruptible physical requirement, but a more pure requirement. (Compare with Ephesians 2:8-9). In the Scriptures, what's defined as physical means "lesser" or "corruptible" while what's defined as spiritual means "higher" or "incorruptible". Because what's being corrupted is because of our current corruptible physical state. But when we will be made incorruptible, there will no longer be a distinction between physical and spiritual...
I could continue, but I'm afraid I will reach TH-cam's limit pretty soon!
I really, really like the things you said.
I think I see your thinking about the physicaly body being a marvelous thing. In your paragraph about the Ressurection being an increase--because we have a physical body--is a great paragraph. I'm glad to see that you have a great understanding of Resurrection. After all, it will be a resurrection of our physical bodies! Many Christians today do not understand this. Anyway, I see what you are saying about why having a physical body is so much greater than not having one.
(However, Satan--without a body--could roam to and fro on the earth (Job 1:7). We cannot do that, haha.)
I undestand what you're saying. Here is why I think Father God is greater than the Son and us (even though Jesus and we have bodies). Even though we have bodies, and even though we will have glorified bodies at the resurrection, even after all that increase, I still believe that Father God (without a body) is greater. As I said earlier, He is greater because of His omnipresence. And then there is His perfection (never sinned, never suffered). I think the main reason why Father God is the greatest is that He is SOURCE of all things. He didn't created the Son, but Father God is the "source" of the Son (as you quoted John 5:30). God is the source/creator of the universe and all of us. And moving forward in time, God is the one who continues to sustain all things by His power. So yeah, I particularly liked your words regarding resurrection and physical bodies of glory.
--
You said, "Nothing actually suggests that Heavenly Father has no physical body."
This is where we might disagree. The Bible doesn't explicitly say the Father does not have a body. But there are two passages that tell me that Father God cannot have a body. And it has to do with God's Invisibility. You see, because of these verses, showing that God cannot be seen, I believe this is because God does not have a body.
John 1:18. No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son the One who is at the Father’s side He has revealed Him.
1Tim 6:16. The only One who has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; no one has seen or can see Him.
Not too long from now, I plan to release a video on the Invisibility of God the Father.
--
I really, really like how your write and think. Have you thought about making your own videos or blog? :)
Right at the very beginning of the video the speaker injects preconceived Trinitarian theology, thus, the game is Rigged from the start!
He starts with Tertullian, but cherry picks and omits what other things Tertullian said!
In Gen 1:26 we read:
"Let us make man in our image"
How does one get an articulated 4th century ce Trinitarian doctrine from Gen 1:26 with its Neo-Platonic substance sharing concept?
In Gen 1:27 the singular verb "bara" (create) snd singular pronoun "he" or "him" is used of "God" and in fact throughout the OT the noun "elohim" (God) is construed with singular verbs, pronouns and adjectives, also, the term "God" is not limited to just "elohim" but the singular "Eloah" used of "God" some 70 times, appropriate if "God" was plural!
Incidentally, the term "elohim" is technically plural and means "Gods", making Trinitarians Polytheists!
You cannot understand the PERSON OF GOD from only reading the bible .You have to include the BOOKS OF ENOCH to get a full grasp on the PERSON OF GOD
Thank you for commenting. For those of us who have not read Enoch, will you give us a taste of what Enoch says about the person of God? God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch GOD the LIVING WORD from whom all power flows .The Beginning and the End ,the ALPHA AND OMEGA the LIVING WORD . He who has no beginning or end .Some things God will have to show you personally for NONE SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORD OF GOD IS A LIVING BEING so you will have to see that to fully grasp what you are reading
@@PostApostolicChurch it is written that the pure in heart shall see God .Years ago God allowed me to visit heaven and i saw THE LIVING WORD OF GOD THE ALPHA AND OMEGA the BEGINNING AND THE END . I saw Him from whom all power flows .And these debates on the person of God are a waste of time unless you have seen the LIVING WORD OF GOD . for then only can you begin to grasp what the scriptures are saying .JOHN WROTE THAT in the beginning was THE WORD . and the Word was God .When you see Him then only will you understand those words written by John . SO ENDLESS DEBATES ON THE PERSON OF GOD ARE A WASTE OF TIME . for when we get to heaven it will not be to teach but to learn . BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES AS A CHILD to learn the things that God wants you to know
JOHN 17:3
John 17:3-5
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
The Christians in Biblical times did not have a trinity. Trinities are heathen: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity
Test Paul if you believe in him as apostle.
Psalms 40 6, Jeremiah 7 22, Hosea 6 6.
@@brenosantana1458 What those verses have in common are burnt offerings. Neither Paul nor any apostle (Peter, John, James, etc.) mentioned offerings. Those verses have nothing to do with Paul.
@@grasonicus I didint make a connection between them. They are 2 topics.
@@brenosantana1458 I don't understand. You said test Paul and you gave three verses. The logical conclusion is one should use these verses to test Paul. Now you say they have nothing to do with Paul. ??? I'm reading Romans at the moment. Poor Paul had major problems expressing himself clearly.
@@grasonicus They are different points. One is about Paul and another about sacrifices.
The incarnation is a mystery, and it seems apparent that Philosopher Christians like Justin Martyr, Tertullian (in opposition to a true believer ("Praxeas") in the Oneness of God in Christ) have conceived and built this Trinitarian (initially it was binatarian) philosophy which has blinded so many Christians. How sad to follow such blind philosophers! Revelation 1:8, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. There cannot be two "Almightys". No Jewish Christian would embrace the Trinitarian heresy. This teaching of multiple divine Persons mocks the central theme of the Old Testament "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4). Read Isaiah 43:10-11 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [YHWH], and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he : before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior." Only one divine person was manifest in the flesh, and he [Jesus] is the only true God manifest in the flesh for our salvation. The men you quote, Tertullian (became a Montanist) and others, were not true Christians. They were not Apostolic.
Who is the only true God according to Jesus?
Incarnation, what do you mean?
@@brenosantana1458 As a human born of a woman, Jesus acknowledged the God of creation and the God of the Old Testament (YHWH) as the "only true God". Jesus, however, is this only true God manifest in the flesh. Simply said, God made a baby in the womb of the virgin. God then got in that baby and became our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. God is a Spirit.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [the only true God] also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death [Satan], that is, the devil;
is the devil. Hebrews 2:14
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. -Hebrews 2:16 It is amazing that the great God (YHWH) became one of us that he might dies in the flesh for our sins, rise from the dead, and be the author of salvation for his own creatures (the children of Adam). There is only one Lord! His name is Jesus (YHWH has become our savior).
@@Gaul1748 Consider the God of Jesus being the only true God. God is not a man and he does not change. The father sent Jesus, they are two persons. He did not pray to himself, he did to his God.
@@brenosantana1458 Yes, I have heard this. However, it does not consider the actuality of the incarnation (the enfleshment). If the "trinity" doctrine had been taught by the apostles and the well educated Apostle Paul, there might be some credence to the doctrine. Jesus admitted that he was God the Father in John 14. He said to Philip when Philip wanted to see the Father: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? (John 14:9). It is the incarnation (the enfleshment of God the Father as the Son) and not the dogma of the "three persons" developed by theologians. Such a doctrine was not known by Jesus or the Apostles. It is not specifically taught in the Scriptures, but only by strained interpretations of Holy Writ. God was manifest in the flesh, seen of angels, and preached unto the Gentiles. Jesus is God the Father manifest in the flesh. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord (Deut 6:44). Not three! Why add such an interpretation to the Scriptures? Thank you.
@@Gaul1748 Continue in John chapter 14, he did not say that he was God.
Did you see the passage in Hebrew of Deut 6 4?
People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’- stop [this], that is better for you- God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.
The Women - 4:171
This reasoning of Tertuillan only is supported by NON- Synoptic sources and gospels. Had this actually been spoken by Jesus it would be recorded in the Synoptic Gospels as well. There is far too much synergy among whoever wrote the Gospel of John, the Epistles of Paul and Timothy and Revelations to the exclusion of all other writings. What I believe I see is a disenfrachised Pharisee....Paul....seeing to Hyjack the teachings of Jesus to formulate Christ-Consciousness and his own organization.
God=Father
Breath=Spirit
Word=Son
Father=Soul
Spirit =Spirit
Son= Body
Soul=mind,will,emotions
Spirit =Spirt
Body=Jesus
I dont see where in matt 28:9 he says these 3 are God. We know the father and son are, from previous. The holy spirit is God? No, the spirit of God. Big difference. It is the mind and life of them, not another God. How many Gods do you want man.
As taught by Jesus four gospels long, the Persons of God are only TWO: the Father and the Son. Jesus goes into even deeper detail and teaches that He is not a DISTINCT Being from the Father (like a regular son), rather Jesus is INSIDE Him: (for ex. "I am IN THE FATHER and the Father in me"). Thus, you know that Father and Son are not distinct, i.e. TWO in number. Yet aren't They exactly the same ONE (a relationship between Them indeed couldn't exist in this case). You can say that God - as a whole - is more than One and less than Two in number. The Holy Spirit (aka "Spirit of God") is not a third Person, He is "God who is a spirit" (Jn. 4:23,24). Also God who is NOT a spirit existed, but "the world has not known you", only the Son did it. Nobody has ever seen Him, just the Son.
Biblical Unitarian here to say, what if Jesus is “God’s son” and not “God”. Son by virtue of his miracle birth (Luke 1:35) and son by virtue of being the Davidic King (Psalm2)? Not “God the Son” but “God’s Son”.
Tbf I haven’t given this video a watch yet (which means I really have no right commenting right now) nor have I given the pre-nicene Fathers the full study they deserve. And I’m always willing to let new evidence guide me to being wrong if I am. But it seems like scripture clearly paints Jesus as a man, a human being, in fact a 2nd Adam, that had God in his life in a very special way from day 1. He was extremely empowered by God to the point of even being made seemingly #2 in the Universe, like when Pharaoh shared his throne with Joseph.
However perhaps this idea of the Trinity and Jesus literally being God was a dispensation or revealing at a later date to the Church Fathers.
Ngl 1 Corinthians 15 is one of the texts that really convinced me that Jesus was not God….
Thank you for commenting. I really appreciate your comment and I really like the way you think. I am excited to join you in a good discussion! :)
Are you offering the possibility that Jesus is God's son but not divine/deity? As you know when anything gives birth to anything, those things share the same nature. Humans give birth to humans. Horses give birth to horses. So if Jesus is God's son, being born from God, then wouldn't Jesus have the same nature as Father God, which is being deity? Or, if you would, how would you explain that Jesus is God's son but NOT share in Father God's deity?
When it comes to Jesus being God, I think of what the apostle John wrote about Jesus. John called Jesus God at least a couple times. For example, John said, "We are in the true One--that is, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." Doesn't the Bible call Jesus God (that is, Jesus is deity exactly like Father God)?
Please, friend, I would really love to hear what you have to say about 1Cor 15. From that chapter, what was it that made you believe Jesus was not God?
@@PostApostolicChurch Sure. Good question. Fair question. But one that I think is the wrong way of viewing Jesus sonship.
As I said his sonship is tied to being the Davidic King (The Davidic King was Gods son, John 1:49). And Luke (and Matthew) give us the added surprise that he is son even by the very way in which he came into existence!
Yes, horses beget horses. But God “fathers” Jesus in Mary’s womb, through his creative “power” - through his Holy Spirit (these are most likely synonymous terms). God has the ability to make/create/form and he has used this power in Genesis to make Adam and the world. The same spirit/power that hovered over the water of Genesis, that overshadowed the tabernacle, now hovered upon and overshadowed Mary, and by its power started life in her womb. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Luke in chapter 3 also tosses the term “son of God” to Adam in his genealogy. He is making a comparison/contrast between Adam and Jesus. Adam the other human being started by God himself directly, but from/in dirt not a woman’s womb.
To be frank, though well meaning, Jesus clearly didn’t literally have Gods nature. Jesus could and did die. He could be and was tempted. He was completely reliant on others (God). He had a God and was therefore not the most high (believe me I know all the arguments against what I’m saying right now, I was a former believer in the Trinity and the deity of Jesus, I just don’t think those arguments come from scripture). He was not all-powerful. He was not all-knowing. Everything had to be given to him. Etc. He was not a “son” in the exact literal sense of how human beings have a son and pass genetic material, for God is not a man.
Many people are God’s children in the Bible, literally called his “sons”/“sons of God”. Adam. Angels/heavenly beings. Israel. Godly appointed Kings. Righteous and Moral humans. Jesus. Christians at conversion! But there is no question that not one of them literally possess’s Gods full nature or deity. To answer more succinctly, Jesus is not deity because his sonship is supposed to be understood in light of his Jewish cultural backdrop and heritage, AND, in light of the Angel Gabriel’s explanation of his birth in Luke 1:35. (The child to be born won’t be started by a man, Joseph, but by God himself’s power/spirit).
I’m very curious that you, who seem like a very learned man, would ask me “why do they call him God”. Surely you know! If I were to be annoyingly coy and cryptic I would answer, why haven’t you read John 10:34 (Psalm 82)? And I would say something like when you know the answer to that, you will know the answer to the question of “Why do they call him God”. 😂 but I will not be so annoying.
Long story short, there’s nothing wrong with giving men the title “God”. I should also repeat that it’s a “title”. It’s only modern tradition that says “you can’t do that!”. That’s not biblical though. Just a simple fact that the Davidic King (psalm 45, Hebrews 1), judges (psalm 82), potentially some Angels, were freely given the title “God” with absolute no fuss, called “God” “Gods” by God himself even. It seems certain authorized agents of God, representing him on his behalf on his orders by his authority in obedience, were sometimes applied the title. Little g “gods”. Nobody was confused or shocked. Very easy to understand that they are not obviously the “One true, most high, all mighty, God”.
Now as for 1 John it is an assumption to assume that “true God” refers to Jesus. It’s, if I may be so bold, clearly referring to the Father. Believe me if “only true God” were ever applied to Jesus, especially unambiguously, I would not be here trying to persuade you nor would I probably have been persuaded of the position I’m in. Btw a quick glance into the footnotes of the NET Bible, and they at least admit that this is a grammatical obscurity and that context must determine who “true God” is referring to (they lean towards Jesus, but at least they admit this is not some clear cut unambiguous statement).
In my opinion my friend one should not start with the grammatically difficult or textually variant verses when trying to figure out who Jesus is in scripture. Instead start with the easy, clear, straightforward verses. Then move on to the more “difficult”. For example John 17:3 and John 20:31. Jesus, unambiguously, calls God, his Father, the one who is actually the “only true God”. Not just any God, but the only and true one. He calls himself the one whom this only and true God has sent, marking himself as a separate and distinct being.
(Interestingly, Augustine was so disturbed by this text he actually tried to rearrange the order of the words!)
John himself gives his purpose statement in John 20:31 (thank God!), his purpose of why he wrote his entire gospel and what he desperately wants us to leave believing! He says, in no ambiguous terms, “I wrote everything so that [at the end of the day] you may believe [two things], that Jesus is the Messiah (King of Israel), God’s son!” Son of the living God. Man I want to write more but I don’t want to bombard you. I just want to encourage you to look into these matters. And to be open minded and in prayer when you do. And to just let evidence guide you (I’m sure you already do all these things but I want to encourage more). And to come into scripture empty and blank with regards to christology, to let the text speak to you and formulate your opinion as if you were clueless as to who Jesus was and had to learn verse by verse.
@@youngknowledgeseeker I really like your comparison in Adam being a son of God and Jesus being a Son of God. The Spirit being involved in the Creation and also being involved in Mary is a super cool parallel! Father God fathered both Adam and Jesus.
You shared your beliefs about Jesus not being deity because He: died, was tempted, relied on Father God, and was not the Most High. I agree that Jesus did all those things. However, I also believe that Jesus was deity. After all, there were things that Jesus could do that no prophet could have done. The way Jesus spoke with His Father was in a literal sense (unlike anyone else could claim, see John 5:18). Jesus could forgive sins, which human beings cannot do (see the story where Jesus heals the paralytic). You mentioned some of the human characteristics of Jesus. Wouldn't you say that Jesus also had divine characteristics too?
You brought up John 10:34. I'm glad you did. That is a place where the word God/Deity is used differently than in other places. Of course, I'm sure you would agree that "God" can have different meanings. As you said, "God" is a title! So yes, John 10:34 is a good verse to show that we need to get more specific in what we mean by "God." After all, if God calls everyone "gods," then does that make all of humanity equal with the God? I doubt you believe that.
Of course, one question at hand is: Is Jesus equal to Father God? Does Jesus have the same divine nature as Father God? Is Jesus Deity? To arrive at an answer, I think we need is some evidence that is super duper explicit.
Thank you for addressing 1John 5. I checked out this verse (also in the Greek) to see if there was any chance that this phrase applies to the Father. It is extremely unlikely. The only reference to Father God in this verse is the pronoun in from of Jesus' name. "...in His Son Jesus Christ." But based on how sentences work, the next time a pronoun is used, it is referring to the last person spoken of. So if the next phrase is, "He is the true God and eternal life," the "he" is referring to "Jesus Christ." So, I disagree with you about what John said in 1John 5.
You said that we should use the more simpler verses, then move to the more difficult ones. I agree! You mentioned John 17:3. You bring up a good verse, and we can talk about that one. But I have a couple that are even more simpler as well as more explicit....
When Thomas is talking to Jesus, he calls Jesus, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28-29). Now, if Jesus was not God, shouldn't Jesus have corrected Thomas?
I think there is a simpler and most explicit verse that explains whether Jesus is God/Deity or not. Paul said: "Because in Him [Jesus] resides all the fullness of the Divinity bodily" (Col 2:9). I'm sure you've seen this verse before. What are your thoughts about it?
I really appreciate you having this discussion with me. It is very wonderful when people can discuss things without being disgusting with each other. My next video for this channel is all about this topic: the Pre-Nicene Christians believed that Jesus is God/Deity. So the timing is very appropriate. :) God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch John 5:18 - John is also a gospel of constant misunderstanding by the Jews. Look at Jesus lengthy response to their accusation. Basically, of course I’m not literally making myself God, and also it’s God exalting me to this status and these prerogatives, not some equality I have inherently to indicate some secret nature I share with him. Yes it’s more than previous prophets we’ve seen. And your supposed to be amazed and shocked! But, I would say, it’s a false hierarchy to say anything higher than a prophet we’ve seen before therefore = God. Let God be judge of how much he wants to empower and share with a man. It’s his choice not ours.
Yes Jesus forgave sins, but who said God can’t share that privilege. No philosophical answers, just the question, who said that, who made this supposed rule. Not God. The Pharisees say this, and because until then no man did have that authority. Please please please read Matthew 9:8. What conclusion does the crowd/Matthew come to? They are never corrected if they had come to a false premise. Not to mention that imo Jesus imparts the same authority outright to his own disciples eventually.
My friend the questions your asking are not bad. I had to ask the same ones before. Yes he had divine “characteristics” (I would say “prerogatives”). But none that are solely exclusive to God. He is not literally uncreated. He is never the un-equaled one. He is not the creator of all things beyond being a symbolic embodiment of the word (See Revelation 4). He is not the one with immortality automatically inherent in himself. He is not the one to whom ultimate allegiance must be given by all. But sure, he has some divine “prerogatives”, but, as he said, they were all “given” to him, and if they weren’t he’d have none of them. And they are not his to exercise at his leisure or whim, but according to the character and direction of God. He has been made a judge, a king, someone able to forgive sin, even someone somewhat connected with the giving of the spirit and also associated with its actions. This is a man exalted beyond belief and it’s supposed to get mankind excited about just what exactly God is willing to do with a man who simply obeys and trusts him.
I think you somewhat repeated the point I already made about John 10? Not exactly sure what your adding to what I was saying? But yes, we agree, obviously (though not everyone is taught this), being called God doesn’t make you the God. So when Jesus is called God…..(btw it’s only 2 times he’s called God for sure, the rest of the claims, maybe 5-7 or something, have issues of textual variants or syntax confusion, doesn’t mean those others couldn’t be calling him God, but let’s start with the straightforward verses that have no issues)
Not to sound “know-it-all” but the answer is obviously no, he is not equal (which he and scripture say over and over and over again even until Revelation), he is not literal deity (this breaks the Shema!), and no he is not equal in divine nature, nor does he have actual divine nature the way we think and speak of “nature”. The guy was a human being, a man. Btw, I want to stress, I came to these conclusions from scripture, not from being raised to believe any of this. In fact, I believed the opposite before, I truly believed he was supposed to be God in scripture and in the Trinity.
Yes, when you grow up believing, or are taught your whole life, or come to believe that he is God, yes “you” will need “super-duper-explicit” proof he’s not God. But if you come to scripture with a blank slate and just read it to try and let it communicate with you, you don’t come with a war on your mind of “IT MUST BE PROVEN SUPER DUPER OR ELSE I JUST BELIEVE HE’S GOD”. But I get it, I DID come with a war in my mind and thankfully God was merciful to me in my sincere and desperate prayers for “truth”.
On 1st John I’ve already made my point (I hate having to speak like that, “I have made my point“ because then it sounds like this is just an argument between me and you, or an argument of opinions and “viewpoints”, but it’s not, these are just the facts). 1st John will ultimately be determined by context not grammar. Also why would we want to start with the grammatically ambiguous or textually variant verses? It’s just not smart, when investigating you wanna work from the ground up. When you say you disagree with “me” on it it’s very strange, I don’t understand how you can disagree with a fact. it’s not “just me” this is a well-known fact in commentaries and scholarship. You can find a bunch of examples in the New Testament where similar structured sentences don’t have the closest noun determining the reference. The CEV, unless they’ve changed, for example, recognizes this and translates the passage in a way that reflects that “true God” refers to the Father.
The Thomas one may be the passage that will need #1 attention out of them all. And rightfully so. Unfortunately when coming to scripture most of us come with the already preconceived idea that Jesus is God, not only is he God but he MUST be God. Coming into the text with this idea already in mind when reading Thomas’s confession it is a confirmation. However if we came in as a 1st century Jew l, or perhaps as one with a blank slate, this would instead raise some questions first. But anyways, long story short, Thomas is finally seeing his God in Jesus fully. John has a theme of Jesus being the embodiment of Gods word, as if it became a human being and flesh. He has a theme of the Father being in Jesus to the point that when you hear Jesus words or see his actions, as they pertain to his ministry that is, you have actually seen the Father (yet he’s not actually his own Father!). John has a sort of crescendo ending to this theme where Thomas finally understands this. I think it would be wise to keep John’s purpose statement in 20:31 in mind always. Also the Shema, Jesus very own personal creed.
We are also prayed to have the fullness dwell in us. I don’t think that means exactly what you think it means (or rather what we are taught it means)
Pre - Nicene Fathers. I’ve been putting off studying them in depth for myself, reading them for myself etc (I have to master Greek more). But from those who have I’ve basically heard that a lot of the ones (or maybe just some) that are presented as believing in his deity, really are more ambiguous than that or people selectively only show quotations that seem to support his deity but don’t show quotes for one’s that seem to show they don’t believe that.
@@PostApostolicChurch Yes it is amazing to meet any Christian, or even non-Christian, who has the capacity to simply have a genuine and dare I say open minded conversation. It’s an even greater amazement to meet one who’s sole goal is actually truth and is open to anything, even being wrong, so long as it’s the truth.
So while I am on here and in life to simply help share information, information I try to make sure is correct (I hope I am forgiven for anytime I have accidentally spoken incorrectly), I know that youtube comment sections are not really made for this kind of thing or serious truth seeking (though it can help). It took me 2 years of serious study/reading/and prayer to finally fully see that there seems to be absolutely no way Jesus is God in scripture. It took 2 years because I believed so strongly that he was God and was so fearful that it was wrong not to think that that I had to investigate every single little thing I could relating to the subject. And pray about it while I did it. Specifically for the truth and for God to eliminate any error I might have in my understanding even if it was Jesus being God.
I say this because I want to say I am not trying to get you to believe different through this chat right now (just sharing info you might never have heard or may never get to hear in the future). What I would encourage you to do is to check out “Biblical Unitarians”, through Google or TH-cam. “Anthony Buzzard” “Dustin Smith” “21stoneGod” are some good resources, but simply Googleing or TH-caming “Biblical Unitarian” will get you some good sources.
I encourage you, look into it or try to “debunk” it or whatever. I don’t mind talking to you about these things, but that’s where you’ll find the most scholarship relating to all the things we are talking about.
If you really do love truth, and if your always open to the potential of God teaching you more if per chance there is more, you won’t go wrong investigating this.
Edit: Never forget the Shema! Jesus’s own creed in Mark 12!
It doesnt appear to me that Tertulliaan is a Trinitarian. He and I are in total agreement regarding Vol. 3 pg 604. He makes it clear that he believes the Father is distinct from the Son (Jesus). He also notes the difference between one who sents and the one being sent. I am confused and perplexed by Tertullian, I am not exactly certain what his platform is! He seems to be straddling the fence.
Thanks for sharing that. No, that is what Trinitarians believe: that the Father and the Son are distinct. You are reading that correctly. Trinitarians also believe that both the Father and the Son are divine/diety, having the same divine nature. But yes, Father God and the Son of God have a few very stark distinctions between Them.
Can you show any quotations from any of Pauls disciples referencing to a trinity doctrine. Everything that you quoted here is from 150ad and on?
The majority of what you have quoted here is from tertulian! In who also was influenced by plato the philosophers teachings.
Thanks for asking! Clement of Rome was a disciple of Peter and Paul. It's very likely that Clement of the Rome is the same Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3. I shared a quotation from Clement of Rome in my first video in this series, where he said, "Have we not one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us?" There, by denoting "one God" and "one Christ," he shows that there are at least two Persons of the Divinity. And of course, Clement mentions the Spirit also.
The same is done in Paul's own writings. In Eph 4:3-6, he shows the Persons of the Divinity, saying, "one Spirit," "one Lord," and "one God and Father of all."
Yes, there are a lot of writings from Tertullian. No, he was not influenced my Plato and his teachings. For example, Plato taught that the flesh is evil and cannot be redeemed. On the other hand, all the Pre-Nicene Christians, including Tertullian, rejected this notion by Plato and preached the resurrection of the flesh, our bodies. So there is no worry about Tertullian being influenced by the teachings of Plato. He rejected any philosophy that opposed the doctrine about Christ.
I hope I have answered your questions well enough. God bless!
The trinity is not in the Bible. The idea came later.
If it is one God and one Christ and the father is God, Christ is not God. Without entering in the legitimacy of the letters.
Do you have any videos about the Holy Spirit possibly being a feminine person ? I have heard at least one early church father taught this. Thanks
I am not planning on making a video about that. In an upcoming video, I will briefly talk about God's gender. Basically, even though the Scriptures refer to God in the masculine, we aren't to think of God has actually being masculine. That is, God has no gender. But the times gender is applied to God, it is done so to help us understand God's nature. For example, your comment reminded me of the times in the Old Testament, when God speaks about Himself like a mother who takes care of her child. We see that Father God also has a motherly love toward mankind. In short, I don't think we should take any mention about the gender (pronoun or otherwise) of God as literal. The only exception is Jesus in the flesh--since His birth, He is definitely male. Those are my thoughts; feel free to share anything more you're thinking about. God bless! :)
Very bad answer. God has revealed Himself ONLY in the masculine form. The only time feminine pronouns are applied to God are in metaphor. He is "like" a mother with regard to certain actions He does. The scriptures also refer to God in a metaphoric sense as animals and inanimate objects. He is "like" a mother hen with regard to certain actions He does. Does that mean we should refer to God as the almighty hen? No, that's absurd. However, the Scriptures do not say he is "like" a father, He IS the Father. From Genesis to Revelation, God is never called "she" or "her", but always "Him", "He", and "His". He is always named "God our Father" and never "God our mother".
The Holy Spirit is likewise never referred to with female pronouns. The Spirit is always "Him", "He", and "His".
There is no Scriptural reason to assume the Holy Spirit is a "female person" as the OP asked. That concept comes from a pagan understanding of the Trinity being Father, mother, and Son. It is false. God has revealed Himself as "He" and "Father", and that is how we ought to understand/address Him.
Thanks for joining the conversation, Michael!
Neither the masculine and feminine pronouns for the Father and for the Spirit are to be taken literally. Father God does not literally have a gender. Male and female are ONLY human attributes. As you said, it is true that Father God has chosen to reveal Himself in the masculine gender. But this does not make God male. This was the belief of the early Christians. God bless!
Arnobius wrote,
That no thoughtless person may raise a false accusation against us, as though we believed God whom we worship to be male,-that is, for this reason that when we speak of Him we use a masculine word,-let him understand that it is not sex which is expressed, but His name, and its meaning according to custom, and the way in which we are in the habit of using words. For the Deity is not male, but His name is of the masculine gender.
(Arnobius. AD 305. ANF, vol 6, page 466.)
(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.xii.iii.iii.viii.html)
One church father even believed in the Phoenix who died and resurrected every 500 years. Are you going to believe that?
We have first to see if this called person receives the treatment of a person as the Father and the Son; if all requirements and characteristics of the treatment are fulfilled then we can say the Holy Spirit is a person in equality to the Father and the Son.
CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE IN THE FATHER AND THE SON BUT NOT IN THE SPIRIT
1) Never seen in the throne. Apocalypse 22: 1
2) Prayers are never made to Holy Spirit
3) Never be worshiped or praised Revelation 5: 13- 14
4) It never been mentioned by a personal name. Revelation 14: 1
5) The term God is never applied to the Holy spirit as it occurs with the Father and the Son.
6) In the greetings of the new testament letters it is never been included as it is done with Father and the Son.( it would be disrespectful ). 1 Timothy 1: 1-2; Titus 1: 1; 1 Corinthians 1: 3
The apostles never treated the Holy Spirit as a person in equality to the Father and the Son
No matter how you slice it and dice it, there is God with God. Yet the Bible says there is only ONE GOD, The Father in many many places. Jesus even confirms the jewish scribes are correct in their view of God in Mark 12:29 where he quotes the Shema. We know Jews werent and still arent trinitarian. This leads me to believe the way people view John 1:1 is incorrect, anywhere when you start adding gods, you can guarantee its the wrong interpretation.
¿Which churches exist that practice the TEACHINGS of the early church today?
Almost every church claims that they practice the teachings of the early church. However, as I research churches today, I have not found one that practices everything the early church did. But there are a lot of churches that come close. Are you looking for a church? :)
Casi todas las iglesias dicen que practican las enseñanzas de la iglesia primitiva. Sin embargo, mientras estudio iglesias hoy en día, no he encontrado una que practique todo lo que hizo la iglesia primitiva. Pero hay muchas iglesias que se acercan. ¿Estás buscando una iglesia? :)
Post-Apostolic Church
yes!
Fantastic! In what city do you live? I can see which churches are in your area.
¡Fantástico! ¿En que ciudad vives? Puedo ver que iglesias están en su área.
I live in puerto rico and the local churches are evangelical and catholic
Post-Apostolic Church
My church is Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church_(Disciples_of_Christ)
This is pleasantly surprising that the early Christians could suppress their antisemitism for true doctrine. Great! While you're properly understanding many of these things, beware of this one as well: if a man has a son, his son is of the same tissue as his father. His father is the greater one and the one with more authority knowledge and power. But both are from the same tissue... The same matter...
God made this on purpose. As a parable from creation itself so that we can understand how He is God and has a Son.
The rest of all things made, seen and unseen, are not from the same tissue of God. Rather God made them from nothing and some from dust.
But the Son is from the tissue of God. Which is why He is the only Son and therefore eternal. This is what the saying "he came forth from the father" means.
And as for
There's no Trinity.
Now as for the confusion for the Holy Spirit. That comes from the lack of understanding hebrew. In hebrew, there are neither spirits nor souls. The proper translation of it is more like: the special motivator. For the word wrongly translated as spirit, means wind. The wind moves things and is not seen. Therefore it is to be understood as the Set Apart Motivation/Power. Which is why blaspheming is never forgivable... It takes a rare certain kind of person, to see the Power of God and still not believe. It's therefore necessary that such a person will never be forgiven... He's never going to seek forgiveness in the first place... This is truly astonishing, being Gentiles they of course allowed some leaks of Greek (from which they got their spirits and souls and all other odd things)understanding in their doctrines and strayed from the apostles but, this truly is impressive.
Thank you for commenting. I like what you said about the Son being of the same "tissue" as the Father. To add upon that, Jesus, the Son of God, was also the son of Mary. So Jesus and Mary had the same "tissue" also. Through this wonderful miracle, Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Man. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch well that's tissue from the flesh when he was human. He was fully human and he gets the tissue from Mary...
I'm talking about why He as The Jewish Messiah is the Son of God and why he's different from the rest of created beings who are also immortal and powerful.(the ones you see called sons of god in your Bible) ..so that his claims aren't blasphemy.. And why the Father is greater both in power and rank and knowledge... And why the lack of hebrew knowledge among the gentile converts created the Trinity....
I believe thatt he Bible teach about Binity. Tertullian and the rest made a philosophical conclusion without understanding the Bible because it was not compiled yet. In John 14, Jesus said that He will send another Comforter, the Holy Spirit of truth. So, there are four Spirits already. The Father in heaven, the Son in Jesus speaking, another Holy Spirit and the previous One. In Revelation, 2 thrones for 2 Persons, not 3. So, the Father has a Holy Spirit, the Son as well; Spirit of God the Father and Spirit of Christ. So only 2, not 3.
The Trinity aka the most controversial concept in all of Christianity.
i ask why the lie? Why would Satan want this deception????
You both are deceived or are deceiving, take it from me a former Muslim God is a Trinity in the Bible. And you better study the Bible or die in ignorance.