Yeah, he's great as an anti-apologist against trinitarianism - he's probably my favorite also. He keeps it strictly Biblical, and I honestly love the sarcasm and rolling of the eyes - everyone should have a level of indignation towards such a demented and perverse doctrine.
Yea....And HE closes the ears and eyes and understanding of those who profane HIS Sabbath and Commandments. Yahushua is the TRUTH.....the Truth is the Torah..... Yahushua is the Torah. The 10 Commandments is the TRUTH. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and your Torah is the Truth. Trouble and anguish have taken hold on me: yet your commandments are my delights. The righteousness of your testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live. Tehilliym (Psalms) 119:142-144
@@Antimessiah-p4bthe outward laws concerning the flesh helped preserve mortal life for israel, and it set them apart from the nations of the earth so that God could bring the messiah into the world through them, but they didn’t directly bring eternal life which is why Christ had to come so that through his perfect example of servitude unto death, his resurrection in God’s spirit, and the pouring out of that spirit we can die to ourselves and walk in the fruit of righteousness until we completely put off the flesh and are raised in the perfect likeness of Jesus. Circumcision of flesh and abstaining from meats won’t save you.
@goziah Are you hated by all for His name's sake.......(No you're not). Christianity is infac the most popular and capitalistic endorsed religion of all. ALL christolics(christian/catholic) are united under "jesus" and Sunday Law⚫ period I am hated for His name's sake, the NAME Yahusha haMasiach. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endures to the end shall be saved. Mattithyahu (Matthew) 10:22 By ONE NAME ONLY!.....Neither is there yeshu'ah (salvation) in any other: for there is no other name(Yahusha)under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Ma'asiym (Acts) 4:12 Do you see the word "yeshu'ah"..…? That's not His name either...... it's written many times in original scripture and refers also to 10 hebrew people by that name. Much corruption in your bible. This is where Yesu, Yeshua, Yiso, Jeshu comes from.....and is entirely fake. Yahusha(Hebrew)Yoshua(English) Ἰησοῦς...Iessous(Greek) is not "jesus". You see those who deliberately CORRUPTED the original content of scripture couldn't foresee that they will be exposed. And where Hebrews 4 is the evidence.....
I was always struck by the NT writings that depict Jesus as a faithful, pious Jew who prayed to and worshipped his God. Hundreds of times in the NT, Jesus is clearly differentiated from God. Jesus has a God. The resurrected Jesus had a God. (John 20 :17). In Revelation, the glorified Jesus in heaven itself still has a God.(Rev 3 :12).
Great work. Future discussions I'd like to see addressed are all passages that relate to God acting through (dia) the Son in regards to creating or making or reshaping things. What is the context of what this means to the Apostles? Ref - Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, John 1 etc Trinitarians love to appeal to this creation language as evidence of personal pre-existence.
This is one of the best and clearest presentations on the case for why Jesus is NOT God that I have ever heard (and I've listened to dozens of lectures and debates on this topic). Excellent work. So clear, so logical, so fair.
I said, YOU are elohim (divine beings) and are ALL Sons of the Most High. Psalm 82:6 "To whomever overcomes he will inherit ALL THINGS. I will be his Elohim and he will be MY SON". Revelation 21:7. Everyone Begotten of the Fathers incorruptible seed are his divine Sons.
There are at least 2 plausible ways unitarians can read John 20:28: first, that Jesus is being called god because he represents God, second, that it is a dual declaration. In any case, it is anachronistic to read it as saying “my Lord and my one person of the tripersonal God”. 😆
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance It wouldn't be a mere representation of God because "my God" when used by a believer in the Bible always refers to the Almighty.
What do Unitarian Christians believe to be the central teaching of Christianity? In other words, what is the Gospel according to Unitarian Christianity? Thanks in advance.
It's resumed in this biblical simple but clear verse John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. KJ version. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Not God the Son. Big difference.
Really good question; my understanding of the Gospel is it's the revelation of Gods Kingdom on earth, and faith in Jesus Christ provides redemption from sin and enters us into Gods heavenly and eternal City.
How to get saved/born again-eternal life. Romans 10:9 says, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". You must beleive entity A-God, did something for another entity B-Jesus. God did not raise God or Jesus did not raise Jesus. One of the sublet devils tricks on this is hearing Christians say, 'when Jesus raised from the dead', sorry God raised Jesus from the dead.
I am a Unitarian Christian, however I have to acknowledge that there are many theologians now and over the centuries who are smarter than me and know the bible better than me who believe Jesus is God and God is a trinity. I cannot say that FF Bruce, RC Sproul, Gerald Bray and Raymond Brown are wrong and I am right.
To follow up what UCA said, I agree that you can as well. Did Jesus and Paul not warn that many false teachers will come? Did Paul not warn against the time when they will not endure sound doctrine? My question to you would be, how deep have you looked in to the trinity, and the deity of Christ? How much time have you spent on this topic? I came to my conclusion many months ago now, after praying day and night, and spending hours listening to many speakers on this channel, across various TH-cam channels. There is one key passage that turned me from on the fence, to abruptly pushing me on to the unitarian side. That verse is Deut 18:18, when God tells Moses he will raise up a prophet like him, and put His words in his mouth. This is confirmed to be Jesus in Acts, by both Stephen and Peter. For me this put to rest all of the ambiguity in Johns gospel of any 'deity' claims by Christ. And it further highlighted those passages in John, that appears to (rightfully) distinguish between Jesus and God as separate entities (Jesus a man, and the Father who alone is God Almighty). Then there's other passages that give more information, like Jesus' baptism mentioned in Acts 10:37-38 and it's parallel with Johns prologue 1:1-18 (the word that was made flesh, at Jesus' baptism). It's clear to see that Gods word, came to the world through the man Jesus Christ. Jesus was a man, a prophet, whom God spoke through 'in these last days' Hebrews 1:2. Lastly, understanding what Gods 'word' is, and how it was communicated through the man Jesus Christ, was key to my understanding and vehement denial of the trinity/deity of Christ. This side of the Christian theological discussion being the Biblical Unitarians, just made SENSE to me. Satisfaction was achieved. There of course were times where I wasn't sure because of other arguments, but I kept my chase for the truth, kept praying, and the enlightenment hit me. The interpretations were reasonable and responsible. But to come back to other pastors being wrong, Paul says everyone must work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. How can we be responsible and let others tell us the truth? Just because someone is a pastor or has a large following, doesn't mean they are correct. There are many different popular theologians with vastly different beliefs. Can they all be correct? Are there many lords, many faiths, many baptisms? Are there many hopes of our calling? (Eph 4). There is only one truth, and though I cannot judge others if I disagree with their conclusions, I do believe that it is dangerous to get such key parts of the gospel, and of God, wrong. So, what is the gospel? And who is Jesus, and who is God? Because Jesus showed doubt that there would be faith on the earth upon his return. Does that seem to suggest that the truth will be in majority, or in a minority? Biblical Unitarians also seem to mostly be in agreement that eternal torment/hell isn't true, but more of a 'soul sleep' until the time of resurrection. Just remember, 'you will know them by their fruits'. It's not just the trinity that can help you find what the truth is.
Be careful where you place your faith and trust - since the inception of God revealing Himself to man, it appears that the majority of the leaders of the people were in error. God sent into exile the entirety of the Jewish nation for their perverse understanding of His Laws and authority. It was the Jewish leaders that crucified Christ. Be wary if you are part of the majority - many are called, but few are chosen. If you can't comprehend something, then you cannot be convicted of it - God will not mitigate on your behalf if you try to justify your beliefs by that of FF Bruce, RC Sproul, Gerald Bray and Raymond Brown. None of these men will come to your aid or will be able to, on Judgment Day.
why people often misread Acts 20:28. Acts 20:28 (KJV) "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Why People Misread Acts 20:28 Misidentifying the Antecedent of "His": The pronoun "his" refers to the last mentioned person before it appears. However, many readers mistakenly assume that "his" refers to "the church of God," "the kingdom of God," "the grace of God," or "God" based on the surrounding phrases. Since "the church of God," "the kingdom of God," and "the grace of God" are not persons, this assumption is grammatically incorrect. Ignoring the Context of Acts 20:24: In Acts 20:24, Paul explicitly mentions the Lord Jesus as the source of his ministry: "the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus." Many readers fail to connect this context to Acts 20:28, where the pronoun "his" appears. Overlooking the Role of the Holy Ghost: The phrase "the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" introduces the Holy Spirit as the one who appoints the elders. However, the Holy Spirit is not a literal person, so "his" cannot refer to the Holy Spirit. Correct Grammatical Explanation The Pronoun "His" Refers to a Person: Pronouns in English and Greek typically refer to persons, not abstract concepts or groups. In Acts 20:28, the pronoun "his" must refer to the last mentioned person before it appears. The Last Mentioned Person: The last mentioned person before "his" appears is the Lord Jesus, as Paul explicitly mentions Him in Acts 20:24: "the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus." Therefore, "his" in Acts 20:28 logically refers to Jesus. The Phrase "His Own Blood": The phrase "his own blood" refers to Jesus' blood, which was shed on the cross for the redemption of the church. This aligns with the broader biblical teaching that Jesus' death was the ultimate sacrifice for humanity (e.g., Romans 5:9, Ephesians 1:7). Addressing Common Misinterpretations "His" Refers to "the Church of God": This is incorrect because "the church of God" is not a person. Pronouns refer to persons, not objects or groups. "His" Refers to "the Kingdom of God" or "the Grace of God": This is incorrect because "the kingdom of God" and "the grace of God" are abstract concepts or attributes of God, not persons. "His" Refers to "God": This is incorrect because "God" is not the last mentioned person in the immediate context. The phrase "the church of God" does not refer to God as a person. "His" Refers to "the Holy Ghost": This is incorrect because the Holy Spirit is not a literal person but the power or presence of God. Therefore, "his" cannot refer to the Holy Spirit. Conclusion The pronoun "his" in Acts 20:28 refers to Jesus, as He is the last mentioned person in the immediate context (Acts 20:24). The phrase "his own blood" refers to Jesus' blood, which was shed for the redemption of the church. This interpretation is grammatically correct and aligns with the broader biblical teaching on redemption. Thank you for pointing out the importance of careful grammatical analysis-it truly clarifies the meaning of the verse!
It's simpler than that. Word studies are oftentimes unhelpful. The plain fact that a lot of language YHWH uses about Himself is used by Christ is enough to convince a person of average intelligence, which are the majority of Christ's followers. God walks upon the sea (Job 9:8) and so does Jesus. In several places throughout Isaiah, God proclaims "I am He" and so does Christ in John's gospel. There are many other examples. Point is, these are more convincing to a farmhand than a lecture on grammar.
@Sketchup-fe6ef According to you, when God appeared to Abram in Genesis 17:1 and declared as the Almighty, was it declared through an agent or was it God Himself who declared it without any intermediary?
Hi Sean Heb 1:8 Does not in no way call Jesus God. This is a miss understanding of the text. Hebrews 1:8 and the Context of Psalm 45:6-7 In the King James Version (KJV), Hebrews 1:8 reads: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." Notice that the phrase "He saith" is italicized, which indicates that it was added by the translators and is not present in the original Greek text of the New Testament. This is a crucial detail for understanding the passage. "He saith" Refers to the Prophet: The author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 45:6-7, which is a prophetic utterance. In this context, "He saith" refers to the prophet (or the inspired writer of Psalm 45) speaking about God and then addressing the king (the Son). Psalm 45:6-7 Context: In Psalm 45:6-7, the prophet first addresses God (the divine source of the king's authority) and then addresses the king (the Son) in the second part of the verse. The phrase "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" is the prophet speaking about God's eternal rule. The subsequent phrase, "a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom," is directed to the king (the Son). Hebrews 1:8-9 Interpretation: The author of Hebrews is using this prophetic passage to highlight the eternal and righteous nature of the Son's kingdom, which is applied to Jesus Christ. Importantly, the author does not claim that God is speaking to the Son. Instead, the prophet (or inspired writer) is the one speaking in Psalm 45:6-7. Conclusion Your point is accurate: the phrase "He saith" is italicized in the KJV, indicating that it was added by the translators and is not part of the original text. This phrase refers to the prophet (or inspired writer of Psalm 45) speaking in this passage. The author of Hebrews quotes this prophetic utterance to apply it to Jesus Christ, emphasizing His eternal and righteous kingship. This interpretation is clear and straightforward: the prophet addresses both God and the king (the Son) in Psalm 45:6-7, and the author of Hebrews uses this to highlight Jesus' role as the eternal King. Thank you for pointing this out! It's a great reminder of the importance of careful exegesis and understanding the original context of the text. There are many more verses like this that Christians are mis reading like Acts 20v28
An hour!? Well, Paul says Satan is the god of this eon so if he is a diety. My issue with trinnies is His alleged equality with the Most High or the SUPREME God, His Father. And yes, I believe the Son was His First Creation. In the beginning. The Son has a beginning, the Father does not. The Son has a God, the Father does not. The Son dies, the Father cannot. Trinnies get all like a Jewish lawyer in denying all this. I actually believe except for going to the cross, our Lord has been perfectly content being His Father's Numero Dos in His Father's universe.
This is a solid overview and very helpful. But these are not arguments against the Triune God rather they are arguments against the incarnation. I believe in the Triune God but I reject the incarnation because for me the triune God is the Living God who never dies.
In response to why modalism is wrong… modalism denies that the Father and the Son are two persons… and makes a mockery of Jesus when he prays to someone else (his Father) and when he obeys the will of someone else (his Father).
@UnitarianChristianAlliance How can the word "person" be equally used to designate both a finite human being and an infinite, eternal Spirit? The Father cannot be a person in the same respect as Jesus is a person, right? I suppose what I mean to say is that discussions of persons and natures and essences are not found in the Bible, but, are imported from philosophy.
29:30 - "Any difference between the two is a reason not to believe Jesus just is the Father."
It may be a lazy and carnal-minded reason not to believe, but of course it proves absolutely nothing. The omnipotent Father is perfectly capable of expressing himself on earth in genuine human form within our space-time continuum while also remaining unchanged according to his eternal existence far beyond our space-time continuum; in which case the Father according to his eternal existence far beyond our space-time continuum would be different from his own genuinely human expression within our space-time continuum.
------------------------------
1. God is a Spirit, a _unipersonal_ Spirit. (John 4:24) 2. God, the unipersonal Spirit, is love. (1 John 4:8,16) 3. The greatest demonstration of love is to lay down one's own life for others. (John 15:13) 4. So God, the unipersonal Spirit who is love, laid down his own life for us (1 John 3:16). He "came down from heaven" _without leaving heaven,_ and manifested _himself_ on earth in genuine human form ("God was manifest in the flesh" - 1 Tim.3:16), as _his own_ Son. He shed _his own_ blood on the cross, raised _himself_ from the dead, and now gives eternal life to all who believe on _him._ And _his_ name is revealed to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*
Amen. No one has yet shown me why the Oneness christology is wrong. They just burp out "Modalism!" and "Heresy!" without engaging the scriptural arguments.
Woah. I stumbled into the wild west of TH-cam with this one. This is one of the stupidest videos I've ever seen. Incredibly shallow understanding of the Trinitarianism view. And you don't believe in the deity of Christ because the authors don't just outright say it? Weak. Literally every single page of the Gospels is designed to show (and not tell) you that Jesus is God... how are you missing that? And as for Jesus being the "words of God" and representative: Jesus isn't just "the best representative of what God is saying to the world," He IS God's Word. What God speaks, thinks, feels, and desires IS who Jesus is. John 1 is unequivocally clear about this. I could go on and on about this. But I won't. I'm not gonna get into a heated argument with anyone. And I'm not going to waste any more energy in this space. All I'll say is this guy is completely missing Biblical-theological principles in his opinions and is wasting his time trying to reinvent the wheel. The representative view is just half-baked Trinitarianism that's scared of commitment.
This seems like a dishonest response. If Jesus is YHWH, it would be inconsistent with the rest of scripture to have to read between the lines to get that. I would argue the gospels are dripping with proof that He’s the Messiah. If John 1 is so unequivocally clear, or if that’s the big takeaway, why does John completely omit that from his purpose statement? John 20:31 “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
@@andy-simmons I'm sorry but that's just a poor reading of the Biblical corpus. John's point in writing is that you would believe in Jesus and have eternal life, yes. Yet John points out that Jesus is the manifested Logos (speech/spoken expression/the logic to all things) of God; that Jesus and the Father are one; that before Abraham was, Jesus was; that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Him; and "this is eternal life: that they know you and Jesus the Messiah whom you jave sent." (jhn 17) These are moments where Jesus is put on equal playing fields with YHWH. And there (literally) countless more. Apparently, for us to really believe that Jesus is the Messiah we must also believe that He is God. Why? Because only God can save us. Another fact plainly seen through the rest of Scripture.
Also this guy in the video red-herrings Philippians 2. He focuses on the "exact nature of" phrase yet ignores the full context. Paul is clear. Jesus is God who has lowered himself to be put to service for the benefit of others. If Jesus was just a man, he would have not needed to be lowered at all. He would have already been at the bottom of the barrel. He would have ironically needed to be "heightened" because he was without sin! No human being can be without sin... that's what the entire story of the Bible is about. If it were possible, why is Jesus born of a virgin? Why did the Holy Spirit conceive Jesus? There would be no reason for this if Jesus was "just a man."
I am tempted not to respond to your comment, but thought you should have a resource rebutting your claim that the speaker in this presentation doesn’t understand trinitarianism. th-cam.com/video/OmRatiDDOUY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Pqq_QQYSIVmpOuDD
The articles on Sean's website about the S/spirit are thorough and definitely worth your time - for anyone who is interested.
Thank you
This was great! No pretentious language or lofty ambitions-just a clear and sensible argument. Well done!
Sean is one my fav's, love the logic. Great teaching.
Yeah, he's great as an anti-apologist against trinitarianism - he's probably my favorite also. He keeps it strictly Biblical, and I honestly love the sarcasm and rolling of the eyes - everyone should have a level of indignation towards such a demented and perverse doctrine.
Need more teaching like this in churches
Oh that God our Father would open the ears and eyes of those that have hungry and humble hearts to hear this message.
Yea....And HE closes the ears and eyes and understanding of those who profane HIS Sabbath and Commandments. Yahushua is the TRUTH.....the Truth is the Torah..... Yahushua is the Torah. The 10 Commandments is the TRUTH.
Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and your Torah is the Truth. Trouble and anguish have taken hold on me: yet your commandments are my delights. The righteousness of your testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live. Tehilliym (Psalms) 119:142-144
@@Antimessiah-p4bthe outward laws concerning the flesh helped preserve mortal life for israel, and it set them apart from the nations of the earth so that God could bring the messiah into the world through them, but they didn’t directly bring eternal life which is why Christ had to come so that through his perfect example of servitude unto death, his resurrection in God’s spirit, and the pouring out of that spirit we can die to ourselves and walk in the fruit of righteousness until we completely put off the flesh and are raised in the perfect likeness of Jesus. Circumcision of flesh and abstaining from meats won’t save you.
@goziah Are you hated by all for His name's sake.......(No you're not). Christianity is infac the most popular and capitalistic endorsed religion of all. ALL christolics(christian/catholic) are united under "jesus" and Sunday Law⚫ period
I am hated for His name's sake, the NAME Yahusha haMasiach.
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endures to the end shall be saved. Mattithyahu (Matthew) 10:22
By ONE NAME ONLY!.....Neither is there yeshu'ah (salvation) in any other: for there is no other name(Yahusha)under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Ma'asiym (Acts) 4:12
Do you see the word "yeshu'ah"..…? That's not His name either...... it's written many times in original scripture and refers also to 10 hebrew people by that name. Much corruption in your bible. This is where Yesu, Yeshua, Yiso, Jeshu comes from.....and is entirely fake. Yahusha(Hebrew)Yoshua(English) Ἰησοῦς...Iessous(Greek) is not "jesus".
You see those who deliberately CORRUPTED the original content of scripture couldn't foresee that they will be exposed. And where Hebrews 4 is the evidence.....
I was always struck by the NT writings that depict Jesus as a faithful, pious Jew who prayed to and worshipped his God. Hundreds of times in the NT, Jesus is clearly differentiated from God. Jesus has a God. The resurrected Jesus had a God. (John 20 :17). In Revelation, the glorified Jesus in heaven itself still has a God.(Rev 3 :12).
Indubitably!
Amazing!!!
Great work.
Future discussions I'd like to see addressed are all passages that relate to God acting through (dia) the Son in regards to creating or making or reshaping things.
What is the context of what this means to the Apostles?
Ref - Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, John 1 etc
Trinitarians love to appeal to this creation language as evidence of personal pre-existence.
This is one of the best and clearest presentations on the case for why Jesus is NOT God that I have ever heard (and I've listened to dozens of lectures and debates on this topic). Excellent work. So clear, so logical, so fair.
...so Biblically sound
This was str8 up rad!
I said, YOU are elohim (divine beings) and are ALL Sons of the Most High. Psalm 82:6
"To whomever overcomes he will inherit ALL THINGS. I will be his Elohim and he will be MY SON". Revelation 21:7.
Everyone Begotten of the Fathers incorruptible seed are his divine Sons.
37:11 When a believer uses the expression "my God" in the Bible it always refers to the Almighty. (cf. John 20:28)
yeah not sure why Sean didn't offer that as a possible explanation.
There are at least 2 plausible ways unitarians can read John 20:28: first, that Jesus is being called god because he represents God, second, that it is a dual declaration.
In any case, it is anachronistic to read it as saying “my Lord and my one person of the tripersonal God”. 😆
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance It wouldn't be a mere representation of God because "my God" when used by a believer in the Bible always refers to the Almighty.
"my God" in the bible always refers to the Almighty is an unfounded assumption
@@vyrg7410 I agree, but I wrote: when a believer uses the expression "my God" in the Bible it always refers to the Almighty.
What do Unitarian Christians believe to be the central teaching of Christianity? In other words, what is the Gospel according to Unitarian Christianity? Thanks in advance.
It's resumed in this biblical simple but clear verse
John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
KJ version.
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Not God the Son. Big difference.
All crap
Really good question; my understanding of the Gospel is it's the revelation of Gods Kingdom on earth, and faith in Jesus Christ provides redemption from sin and enters us into Gods heavenly and eternal City.
@@luguetm4864 Just to simply believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God? No substitutionary atonement?
@@harrymoschops Does your understanding of the Gospel include any vicarious atonement? Also, are you Unitarian?
How to get saved/born again-eternal life. Romans 10:9 says, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". You must beleive entity A-God, did something for another entity B-Jesus. God did not raise God or Jesus did not raise Jesus. One of the sublet devils tricks on this is hearing Christians say, 'when Jesus raised from the dead', sorry God raised Jesus from the dead.
And the verdict is in: no evidence for the deity of Christ.
As always, thank you Sean for an excellent and sound exegesis on Biblical Christology.
Thank you for the great video.
very helpful, thanks for this teaching
I am a Unitarian Christian, however I have to acknowledge that there are many theologians now and over the centuries who are smarter than me and know the bible better than me who believe Jesus is God and God is a trinity. I cannot say that FF Bruce, RC Sproul, Gerald Bray and Raymond Brown are wrong and I am right.
Yes you can. Jesus called fishermen and tax collectors to be his disciples, not elites. The truth transcends status.
To follow up what UCA said, I agree that you can as well. Did Jesus and Paul not warn that many false teachers will come? Did Paul not warn against the time when they will not endure sound doctrine?
My question to you would be, how deep have you looked in to the trinity, and the deity of Christ? How much time have you spent on this topic? I came to my conclusion many months ago now, after praying day and night, and spending hours listening to many speakers on this channel, across various TH-cam channels.
There is one key passage that turned me from on the fence, to abruptly pushing me on to the unitarian side. That verse is Deut 18:18, when God tells Moses he will raise up a prophet like him, and put His words in his mouth. This is confirmed to be Jesus in Acts, by both Stephen and Peter. For me this put to rest all of the ambiguity in Johns gospel of any 'deity' claims by Christ. And it further highlighted those passages in John, that appears to (rightfully) distinguish between Jesus and God as separate entities (Jesus a man, and the Father who alone is God Almighty).
Then there's other passages that give more information, like Jesus' baptism mentioned in Acts 10:37-38 and it's parallel with Johns prologue 1:1-18 (the word that was made flesh, at Jesus' baptism).
It's clear to see that Gods word, came to the world through the man Jesus Christ. Jesus was a man, a prophet, whom God spoke through 'in these last days' Hebrews 1:2.
Lastly, understanding what Gods 'word' is, and how it was communicated through the man Jesus Christ, was key to my understanding and vehement denial of the trinity/deity of Christ. This side of the Christian theological discussion being the Biblical Unitarians, just made SENSE to me. Satisfaction was achieved. There of course were times where I wasn't sure because of other arguments, but I kept my chase for the truth, kept praying, and the enlightenment hit me. The interpretations were reasonable and responsible. But to come back to other pastors being wrong, Paul says everyone must work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. How can we be responsible and let others tell us the truth? Just because someone is a pastor or has a large following, doesn't mean they are correct. There are many different popular theologians with vastly different beliefs. Can they all be correct? Are there many lords, many faiths, many baptisms? Are there many hopes of our calling? (Eph 4). There is only one truth, and though I cannot judge others if I disagree with their conclusions, I do believe that it is dangerous to get such key parts of the gospel, and of God, wrong. So, what is the gospel? And who is Jesus, and who is God? Because Jesus showed doubt that there would be faith on the earth upon his return. Does that seem to suggest that the truth will be in majority, or in a minority? Biblical Unitarians also seem to mostly be in agreement that eternal torment/hell isn't true, but more of a 'soul sleep' until the time of resurrection.
Just remember, 'you will know them by their fruits'. It's not just the trinity that can help you find what the truth is.
@@TaxEvasi0n Thank you for taking the time to write me such a detailed reply. I appreciate it.
Be careful where you place your faith and trust - since the inception of God revealing Himself to man, it appears that the majority of the leaders of the people were in error. God sent into exile the entirety of the Jewish nation for their perverse understanding of His Laws and authority. It was the Jewish leaders that crucified Christ.
Be wary if you are part of the majority - many are called, but few are chosen.
If you can't comprehend something, then you cannot be convicted of it - God will not mitigate on your behalf if you try to justify your beliefs by that of FF Bruce, RC Sproul, Gerald Bray and Raymond Brown.
None of these men will come to your aid or will be able to, on Judgment Day.
why people often misread Acts 20:28.
Acts 20:28 (KJV)
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
Why People Misread Acts 20:28
Misidentifying the Antecedent of "His":
The pronoun "his" refers to the last mentioned person before it appears. However, many readers mistakenly assume that "his" refers to "the church of God," "the kingdom of God," "the grace of God," or "God" based on the surrounding phrases.
Since "the church of God," "the kingdom of God," and "the grace of God" are not persons, this assumption is grammatically incorrect.
Ignoring the Context of Acts 20:24:
In Acts 20:24, Paul explicitly mentions the Lord Jesus as the source of his ministry:
"the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus."
Many readers fail to connect this context to Acts 20:28, where the pronoun "his" appears.
Overlooking the Role of the Holy Ghost:
The phrase "the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" introduces the Holy Spirit as the one who appoints the elders. However, the Holy Spirit is not a literal person, so "his" cannot refer to the Holy Spirit.
Correct Grammatical Explanation
The Pronoun "His" Refers to a Person:
Pronouns in English and Greek typically refer to persons, not abstract concepts or groups.
In Acts 20:28, the pronoun "his" must refer to the last mentioned person before it appears.
The Last Mentioned Person:
The last mentioned person before "his" appears is the Lord Jesus, as Paul explicitly mentions Him in Acts 20:24:
"the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus."
Therefore, "his" in Acts 20:28 logically refers to Jesus.
The Phrase "His Own Blood":
The phrase "his own blood" refers to Jesus' blood, which was shed on the cross for the redemption of the church.
This aligns with the broader biblical teaching that Jesus' death was the ultimate sacrifice for humanity (e.g., Romans 5:9, Ephesians 1:7).
Addressing Common Misinterpretations
"His" Refers to "the Church of God":
This is incorrect because "the church of God" is not a person. Pronouns refer to persons, not objects or groups.
"His" Refers to "the Kingdom of God" or "the Grace of God":
This is incorrect because "the kingdom of God" and "the grace of God" are abstract concepts or attributes of God, not persons.
"His" Refers to "God":
This is incorrect because "God" is not the last mentioned person in the immediate context. The phrase "the church of God" does not refer to God as a person.
"His" Refers to "the Holy Ghost":
This is incorrect because the Holy Spirit is not a literal person but the power or presence of God. Therefore, "his" cannot refer to the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion
The pronoun "his" in Acts 20:28 refers to Jesus, as He is the last mentioned person in the immediate context (Acts 20:24). The phrase "his own blood" refers to Jesus' blood, which was shed for the redemption of the church. This interpretation is grammatically correct and aligns with the broader biblical teaching on redemption.
Thank you for pointing out the importance of careful grammatical analysis-it truly clarifies the meaning of the verse!
It's simpler than that. Word studies are oftentimes unhelpful. The plain fact that a lot of language YHWH uses about Himself is used by Christ is enough to convince a person of average intelligence, which are the majority of Christ's followers. God walks upon the sea (Job 9:8) and so does Jesus. In several places throughout Isaiah, God proclaims "I am He" and so does Christ in John's gospel. There are many other examples. Point is, these are more convincing to a farmhand than a lecture on grammar.
@@harrylime9611 Come on Harry that is very shallow thinking. Jesus calls himself a man but God never calls himself a man. Your logic is badly flawed
@Sketchup-fe6ef According to you, when God appeared to Abram in Genesis 17:1 and declared as the Almighty, was it declared through an agent or was it God Himself who declared it without any intermediary?
Hi Sean
Heb 1:8 Does not in no way call Jesus God.
This is a miss understanding of the text. Hebrews 1:8 and the Context of Psalm 45:6-7
In the King James Version (KJV), Hebrews 1:8 reads:
"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
Notice that the phrase "He saith" is italicized, which indicates that it was added by the translators and is not present in the original Greek text of the New Testament. This is a crucial detail for understanding the passage.
"He saith" Refers to the Prophet:
The author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 45:6-7, which is a prophetic utterance. In this context, "He saith" refers to the prophet (or the inspired writer of Psalm 45) speaking about God and then addressing the king (the Son).
Psalm 45:6-7 Context:
In Psalm 45:6-7, the prophet first addresses God (the divine source of the king's authority) and then addresses the king (the Son) in the second part of the verse.
The phrase "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" is the prophet speaking about God's eternal rule. The subsequent phrase, "a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom," is directed to the king (the Son).
Hebrews 1:8-9 Interpretation:
The author of Hebrews is using this prophetic passage to highlight the eternal and righteous nature of the Son's kingdom, which is applied to Jesus Christ.
Importantly, the author does not claim that God is speaking to the Son. Instead, the prophet (or inspired writer) is the one speaking in Psalm 45:6-7.
Conclusion
Your point is accurate: the phrase "He saith" is italicized in the KJV, indicating that it was added by the translators and is not part of the original text. This phrase refers to the prophet (or inspired writer of Psalm 45) speaking in this passage. The author of Hebrews quotes this prophetic utterance to apply it to Jesus Christ, emphasizing His eternal and righteous kingship.
This interpretation is clear and straightforward: the prophet addresses both God and the king (the Son) in Psalm 45:6-7, and the author of Hebrews uses this to highlight Jesus' role as the eternal King.
Thank you for pointing this out! It's a great reminder of the importance of careful exegesis and understanding the original context of the text.
There are many more verses like this that Christians are mis reading like Acts 20v28
Jesus was just a man. Men have made him god or a god.
Truly a man, but people underestimate what that means!
th-cam.com/video/F86zYRcfQvc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=R2XH0ivRYZWMv-sp
An hour!? Well, Paul says Satan is the god of this eon so if he is a diety. My issue with trinnies is His alleged equality with the Most High or the SUPREME God, His Father. And yes, I believe the Son was His First Creation. In the beginning. The Son has a beginning, the Father does not. The Son has a God, the Father does not. The Son dies, the Father cannot. Trinnies get all like a Jewish lawyer in denying all this. I actually believe except for going to the cross, our Lord has been perfectly content being His Father's Numero Dos in His Father's universe.
This is a solid overview and very helpful. But these are not arguments against the Triune God rather they are arguments against the incarnation. I believe in the Triune God but I reject the incarnation because for me the triune God is the Living God who never dies.
His name shall be wonderful counselor... ETERNAL FATHER...
All of those analogies don't work, they explain modalism. 15:00
Boy, have I got a video for you!
th-cam.com/video/mtJxn39zPVM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=3Q9MA2vpgE25EIsf
@@UnitarianChristianAllianceI dont understand why Modalism is wrong.
if you're saying that the son is the father that would seem to make a problem
In response to why modalism is wrong… modalism denies that the Father and the Son are two persons… and makes a mockery of Jesus when he prays to someone else (his Father) and when he obeys the will of someone else (his Father).
@UnitarianChristianAlliance How can the word "person" be equally used to designate both a finite human being and an infinite, eternal Spirit? The Father cannot be a person in the same respect as Jesus is a person, right? I suppose what I mean to say is that discussions of persons and natures and essences are not found in the Bible, but, are imported from philosophy.
29:30 - "Any difference between the two is a reason not to believe Jesus just is the Father."
It may be a lazy and carnal-minded reason not to believe, but of course it proves absolutely nothing. The omnipotent Father is perfectly capable of expressing himself on earth in genuine human form within our space-time continuum while also remaining unchanged according to his eternal existence far beyond our space-time continuum; in which case the Father according to his eternal existence far beyond our space-time continuum would be different from his own genuinely human expression within our space-time continuum.
------------------------------
1. God is a Spirit, a _unipersonal_ Spirit. (John 4:24)
2. God, the unipersonal Spirit, is love. (1 John 4:8,16)
3. The greatest demonstration of love is to lay down one's own life for others. (John 15:13)
4. So God, the unipersonal Spirit who is love, laid down his own life for us (1 John 3:16). He "came down from heaven" _without leaving heaven,_ and manifested _himself_ on earth in genuine human form ("God was manifest in the flesh" - 1 Tim.3:16), as _his own_ Son. He shed _his own_ blood on the cross, raised _himself_ from the dead, and now gives eternal life to all who believe on _him._ And _his_ name is revealed to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*
well you are appealing to ateporality and thats fine but... isnt that to say that the son was the father at some point in time?
Amen. No one has yet shown me why the Oneness christology is wrong. They just burp out "Modalism!" and "Heresy!" without engaging the scriptural arguments.
Woah. I stumbled into the wild west of TH-cam with this one. This is one of the stupidest videos I've ever seen. Incredibly shallow understanding of the Trinitarianism view. And you don't believe in the deity of Christ because the authors don't just outright say it? Weak. Literally every single page of the Gospels is designed to show (and not tell) you that Jesus is God... how are you missing that? And as for Jesus being the "words of God" and representative: Jesus isn't just "the best representative of what God is saying to the world," He IS God's Word. What God speaks, thinks, feels, and desires IS who Jesus is. John 1 is unequivocally clear about this. I could go on and on about this. But I won't. I'm not gonna get into a heated argument with anyone. And I'm not going to waste any more energy in this space. All I'll say is this guy is completely missing Biblical-theological principles in his opinions and is wasting his time trying to reinvent the wheel. The representative view is just half-baked Trinitarianism that's scared of commitment.
This seems like a dishonest response. If Jesus is YHWH, it would be inconsistent with the rest of scripture to have to read between the lines to get that. I would argue the gospels are dripping with proof that He’s the Messiah. If John 1 is so unequivocally clear, or if that’s the big takeaway, why does John completely omit that from his purpose statement?
John 20:31 “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
@@andy-simmons I'm sorry but that's just a poor reading of the Biblical corpus. John's point in writing is that you would believe in Jesus and have eternal life, yes. Yet John points out that Jesus is the manifested Logos (speech/spoken expression/the logic to all things) of God; that Jesus and the Father are one; that before Abraham was, Jesus was; that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Him; and "this is eternal life: that they know you and Jesus the Messiah whom you jave sent." (jhn 17) These are moments where Jesus is put on equal playing fields with YHWH. And there (literally) countless more. Apparently, for us to really believe that Jesus is the Messiah we must also believe that He is God. Why? Because only God can save us. Another fact plainly seen through the rest of Scripture.
Also this guy in the video red-herrings Philippians 2. He focuses on the "exact nature of" phrase yet ignores the full context. Paul is clear. Jesus is God who has lowered himself to be put to service for the benefit of others. If Jesus was just a man, he would have not needed to be lowered at all. He would have already been at the bottom of the barrel. He would have ironically needed to be "heightened" because he was without sin! No human being can be without sin... that's what the entire story of the Bible is about. If it were possible, why is Jesus born of a virgin? Why did the Holy Spirit conceive Jesus? There would be no reason for this if Jesus was "just a man."
I am tempted not to respond to your comment, but thought you should have a resource rebutting your claim that the speaker in this presentation doesn’t understand trinitarianism.
th-cam.com/video/OmRatiDDOUY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Pqq_QQYSIVmpOuDD
Yap yap yap.
Not one verse, apostle, Jesus or God ever preaches a triune God.
It’s manmade pagan nonsense.