4:56 Give me one verse where Jesus said I had no begining. Easy Chris " Revelation 1:8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the begining and the end saith the Lord. Which is and which was and which is to come the ALMIGHTY. Now unless you assume the Almighty had a begining have it your way Chris Jesus is God Almighty.
Jesus is not speaking in revelation 1:8 Jehovah God is speaking Theres many speakers in that chapter so we need to study and see which speaker changes Also in verse 1 we see God giving jesus a revelation so how can he be almighty God since he was given a revelation from his God We know that God is all knowing but yet in revelation 1 we see jesus has limited knowledge
@@AstariahJW The Lord God consistently refers to Himself as the Servant sent to Redeem and the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah 48:16 From the begining, from the time it was, there am ( I ) and now the Lord God and his Spirit have sent ( Me ) God speaks of Himself in the first and third Isaiah 49:4 Then ( I ) said I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought and in vain yet surely my judgement is with the Lord , and my work with (my God. ) Isaiah 49: 6 And now saith the Lord that formed ( Me ) from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him. Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and ( my God ) shall be my strength. Here's the Dilemma " can the Lord God and his Spirit send Himself ? Isaiah 48:16 Can the Lord God form himself in ( the womb ) Isaiah 43:10 call himself the Servant called from ( the womb ) to finish the work set out before him strengthened by his God Isaiah 49:4-5 ?
@@AstariahJW Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will ( I ) make a pillar in the Temple of ( my God ) and he shall go no more out: and ( I will ) write upon him the name of ( my God ) and the name of the city of ( my GOD ) which is new Jerusalem which comes down out of heaven from ( my God ) and ( I ) will write upon him ( My ) new name. Notice here Jesus speaks of himself in the first person referent ( I will make ) ( I will write ) followed in third person referent as ( my God ) I will ) write upon him the name of ( my God ) ending with ( I will ) write upon him ( my new name ) So the one who overcomes is given a name of his God . We know there is only ( one God and one name ) were called to teach and baptize others in that name is Jesus " Matthew 28:18-19 There is only one God and ( one name ) above ( every name ) Jesus"" Philippians 2:10 There is only one God whose ( name ) is written upon those who overcome Jesus "" Revelation 3:12 ______ Revelation 19:13,16 _______ And he was clothed with a gesture dipped in blood and ( his name ) is called the Word of God. Jesus " And he had on a venture and in his thigh a ( name written ) King of kings, Lord of lords. There is only one God ( Jesus" ) and one Lord ( Jesus" ) the Alpha and the Omega.
Jesus said hes the beginning of Gods creation Revelation 3:14 In proverbs 8 says jesus as wisdom was created by Jehovah God They get the trinity dogma from apostate men that crept into the church during creeds in 4th century
Lol you’ll find early church fathers talking about the trinity from the 1st century. They might not use the term “trinity” but definitely a multiplicity of persons in the godhead
@@dualtags4486 why is it so challenging to find the trinity dogma in the bible? Bibles teaching should simply teach it not twist scriptures to make it what u want it to say Especially with verses like john 1:1 and hebrews 1:8 And it causes contradictions which the bible should not do
@@dualtags4486 What Justin Martyr Taught One of the earliest Apologists was Justin Martyr, who lived from about 110 to 165 C.E. None of his extant writings mention three coequal persons in one God. For example, according to the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, Proverbs 8:22-30 says of the prehuman Jesus: “Yahweh created me when his purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works. . . . The deep was not, when I was born . . . Before the hills, I came to birth . . . I was by his [God’s] side, a master craftsman.” Discussing these verses, Justin says in his Dialogue With Trypho: “The Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.”9 Since the Son was born from God, Justin does use the expression “God” in connection with the Son. He states in his First Apology: “The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.”10 The Bible also refers to the Son of God by the title “God.” At Isaiah 9:6 he is called “Mighty God.” But in the Bible, angels, humans, false gods, and Satan are also called “gods.” (Angels: Psalm 8:5; compare Hebrews 2:6, 7. Humans: Psalm 82:6. False gods: Exodus 12:12; 1 Corinthians 8:5. Satan: 2 Corinthians 4:4.) In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word for “God,” ʼEl, simply means “Mighty One” or “Strong One.” The equivalent in the Greek Scriptures is the·osʹ. Moreover, the Hebrew term used at Isaiah 9:6 shows a definite distinction between the Son and God. There the Son is called “Mighty God,” ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, not “Almighty God.” That term in Hebrew is ʼEl Shad·daiʹ and applies uniquely to Jehovah God. Note, however, that while Justin calls the Son “God,” he never says that the Son is one of three equal persons, each of whom is God but the three forming only one God. Instead, he says in his Dialogue With Trypho: “There is . . . another God and Lord [the prehuman Jesus] subject to the Maker of all things [Almighty God]; who [the Son] is also called an Angel, because He [the Son] announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them. . . . The Son] is distinct from Him who made all things,-numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will.”11 An interesting passage occurs in Justin’s First Apology, chapter 6, where he defends against the pagan charge that Christians are atheists. He writes: “Both Him [God], and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore.”12 A translator of this passage, Bernhard Lohse, comments: “As if it were not enough that in this enumeration angels are mentioned as beings which are honored and worshiped by Christians, Justin does not hesitate to mention angels before naming the Holy Spirit.”13-See also An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.14 Thus, while Justin Martyr appears to have departed from pure Bible doctrine in the matter of who should be the object of a Christian’s worship, he clearly did not view the Son as equal to the Father, any more than the angels were considered to be His equal. Regarding Justin, we quote again from Lamson’s Church of the First Three Centuries: “Justin regarded the Son as distinct from God, and inferior to him: distinct, not, in the modern sense, as forming one of three hypostases, or persons, . . . but distinct in essence and nature; having a real, substantial, individual subsistence, separate from God, from whom he derived all his powers and titles; being constituted under him, and subject in all things to his will. The Father is supreme; the Son is subordinate: the Father is the source of power; the Son the recipient: the Father originates; the Son, as his minister or instrument, executes. They are two in number, but agree, or are one, in will; the Father’s will always prevailing with the Son.”15 In addition, nowhere does Justin say that the holy spirit is a person equal to the Father and to the Son. So in no sense can it honestly be said that Justin taught modern Christendom’s Trinity.
@@AstariahJW Why does Mark apply Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 to Jesus in Mark 1:1-4. He applies two OT passages of Yahweh to Jesus. If mark didn’t think he was divine then why did he?
@@dualtags4486 U know how hard trinitarians try to find support in the bible They even go beyond what is written and twist scriptures Heres the answer from the bible Application to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to Jehovah Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.-John 5:43; 8:29 Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.-Luke 11:31. Theres no doubt that jesus is a divine spirit creature but to try to find support that jesus is Jehovah God is unbiblical
Now that you see the Trinity, you should do a day of erasing videos like this. The Trinity is the truth in Scripture, Spirit, and logic. God is king of his people, God is the Shepherd, God Is all these prophecies we see in the the Old Testament. Thus, Jesus and the Trinity are easily found in the Old Testament. God bless that you see the truth now! Justify try to edit or erase what information you have that could possibly mislead someone if they just stumbled upon an isolated video like this. I'm not coming to demand anything, rather i didn’t know where else to comment. I only saw a short 3 minute video somewhere else with you mentioning Anthony Rogers, so i was looking to see if you had a Trinity video on your channel. Obviously, this is very new, and im just early. Anyway, God is good, true faith in the Son of God requires knowledge of God, so God brought you here from your faith. Continue to aid others see the same.
LaSala is giving a false choice. WHO SAYS that it's EITHER Literal OR Metaphorical in the case of Jesus, who is the Eternal God-- Yahweh the Son? WHO SAYS that a "True Son" would have to have a beginning in time or even in eternity? In Jesus' case, that logic cannot hold. To be TRULY GOD, He has to be eternal. If you are eternal, you can't have "come about" in time. If you're eternal you cannot have a beginning, no matter how awkward or insufficient human language is to describe it. Therefore, a TRUE SON of God would be ETERNALLY SON and ETERNALLY GOD. LaSala wants a verse that shows JESUS had no beginning: "Before Abraham came to be, I AM." "In the Beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God." If "God was the Word" as the Greek syntax has it in the text, then everything that God was, the Word was BEFORE ANYTHING HAD A BEGINNING. If the Son proceeds from the Father, then by nature He is eternal, and has no beginning. He, like YAHWEH the Father, IS the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega. Pristine Faith, I really appreciated all of your videos against Calvinism. I used to watch them regularly. But it's disturbing to see this kind of Arius-inspired interpretation gaining traction. I've been watching Tim Warner's videos lately, and he's gone south. He's even made his own translation of the Scriptures. RUN FROM THAT MAN.
I appreciate you watching, but how do you account for the Christological views of the early church fathers before Nicaea and Constantinople? Are you certain that your trust in modern scholars is appropriate?
@ThePristineFaith I think that your statement "Christological views of the early church fathers before Nicaea and Constantinople" is in itself loaded with presuppositions that may be in dispute. The Arians were some of the earliest heretics. Just because something has early roots doesn't mean it's right. Paul himself warned the believers WITH TEARS about the "savage wolves' that would come from their very midst and take disciples off to themselves-- THAT'S FIRST CENTURY error! Church fathers are ALWAYS to be taken in light of earlier Scriptural texts. I'm not necessarily arguing for any church father's understanding. I myself have come to LOATHE the destruction that Augustine has wrought on the Church due to his soteriology, which he brought from his Manichaean background. If you think that Christ had a literal beginning in time, then that cannot be reconciled with either Scripture or early church fathers. Jesus was "I AM" in the Beginning. Scripture is clear in arguing that Jesus wasn't' an angel, nor was He created in time, nor was he a lesser demi-god. He wasn't even WISDOM itself as Proverbs describes, though Mr. Warner likes to convince himself that Jesus was.
Proverbs says there is wisdom in the MULTITUDE of counsel. The Bible teaches that God's word endures forever. If the Trinitarian doctrine has become the standard throughout he generations, it's a pretty safe interpretation and perhaps dangerous for people to say it's not scriptural. At the very worse itsthe best eisegetical interpretation of God's ontological nature.
@@semi4 yeah- no construct is perfect. But the doctrine came about BECAUSE people were trying to understand what the Scriptures were revealing about God’s nature.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[1/2] เปิดแคมป์หลอนต้อนรับ 2 ตัวพ่อแห่งวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2uPuHYHgwiI/mqdefault.jpg)
4:56 Give me one verse where Jesus said I had no begining. Easy Chris "
Revelation 1:8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the begining and the end saith the Lord. Which is and which was and which is to come the ALMIGHTY.
Now unless you assume the Almighty had a begining have it your way Chris Jesus is God Almighty.
So does Jesus have an end?
@@BornAgainJohn if the eternal God has no begining how can he have an end ?
Jesus is not speaking in revelation 1:8
Jehovah God is speaking
Theres many speakers in that chapter so we need to study and see which speaker changes
Also in verse 1 we see God giving jesus a revelation so how can he be almighty God since he was given a revelation from his God
We know that God is all knowing but yet in revelation 1 we see jesus has limited knowledge
@@AstariahJW The Lord God consistently refers to Himself as the Servant sent to Redeem and the Holy One of Israel.
Isaiah 48:16
From the begining, from the time it was, there am ( I ) and now the Lord God and his Spirit have sent ( Me )
God speaks of Himself in the first and third
Isaiah 49:4
Then ( I ) said I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought and in vain yet surely my judgement is with the Lord , and my work with (my God. )
Isaiah 49: 6
And now saith the Lord that formed ( Me ) from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him. Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and ( my God ) shall be my strength.
Here's the Dilemma " can the Lord God and his Spirit send Himself ? Isaiah 48:16
Can the Lord God form himself in ( the womb ) Isaiah 43:10 call himself the Servant called from ( the womb ) to finish the work set out before him strengthened by his God Isaiah 49:4-5 ?
@@AstariahJW Revelation 3:12
Him that overcometh will ( I ) make a pillar in the Temple of ( my God ) and he shall go no more out: and ( I will ) write upon him the name of ( my God ) and the name of the city of ( my GOD ) which is new Jerusalem which comes down out of heaven from
( my God ) and ( I ) will write upon him ( My ) new name.
Notice here Jesus speaks of himself in the first person referent ( I will make )
( I will write ) followed in third person referent as ( my God )
I will ) write upon him the name of
( my God ) ending with
( I will ) write upon him ( my new name )
So the one who overcomes is given a name of his God . We know there is only ( one God and one name ) were called to teach and baptize others in that name is Jesus "
Matthew 28:18-19
There is only one God and ( one name ) above ( every name ) Jesus""
Philippians 2:10
There is only one God whose ( name ) is written upon those who overcome Jesus ""
Revelation 3:12
______ Revelation 19:13,16 _______
And he was clothed with a gesture dipped in blood and ( his name ) is called the Word of God. Jesus "
And he had on a venture and in his thigh a ( name written ) King of kings, Lord of lords.
There is only one God ( Jesus" ) and one Lord ( Jesus" ) the Alpha and the Omega.
Neither of these guys knows the real sense in which Yeshua is the "son of God".
Jesus said hes the beginning of Gods creation
Revelation 3:14
In proverbs 8 says jesus as wisdom was created by Jehovah God
They get the trinity dogma from apostate men that crept into the church during creeds in 4th century
Lol you’ll find early church fathers talking about the trinity from the 1st century. They might not use the term “trinity” but definitely a multiplicity of persons in the godhead
@@dualtags4486 why is it so challenging to find the trinity dogma in the bible?
Bibles teaching should simply teach it not twist scriptures to make it what u want it to say
Especially with verses like john 1:1 and hebrews 1:8
And it causes contradictions which the bible should not do
@@dualtags4486
What Justin Martyr Taught
One of the earliest Apologists was Justin Martyr, who lived from about 110 to 165 C.E. None of his extant writings mention three coequal persons in one God.
For example, according to the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, Proverbs 8:22-30 says of the prehuman Jesus: “Yahweh created me when his purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works. . . . The deep was not, when I was born . . . Before the hills, I came to birth . . . I was by his [God’s] side, a master craftsman.” Discussing these verses, Justin says in his Dialogue With Trypho:
“The Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.”9
Since the Son was born from God, Justin does use the expression “God” in connection with the Son. He states in his First Apology: “The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.”10 The Bible also refers to the Son of God by the title “God.” At Isaiah 9:6 he is called “Mighty God.” But in the Bible, angels, humans, false gods, and Satan are also called “gods.” (Angels: Psalm 8:5; compare Hebrews 2:6, 7. Humans: Psalm 82:6. False gods: Exodus 12:12; 1 Corinthians 8:5. Satan: 2 Corinthians 4:4.) In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word for “God,” ʼEl, simply means “Mighty One” or “Strong One.” The equivalent in the Greek Scriptures is the·osʹ.
Moreover, the Hebrew term used at Isaiah 9:6 shows a definite distinction between the Son and God. There the Son is called “Mighty God,” ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, not “Almighty God.” That term in Hebrew is ʼEl Shad·daiʹ and applies uniquely to Jehovah God.
Note, however, that while Justin calls the Son “God,” he never says that the Son is one of three equal persons, each of whom is God but the three forming only one God. Instead, he says in his Dialogue With Trypho:
“There is . . . another God and Lord [the prehuman Jesus] subject to the Maker of all things [Almighty God]; who [the Son] is also called an Angel, because He [the Son] announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them. . . .
The Son] is distinct from Him who made all things,-numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will.”11
An interesting passage occurs in Justin’s First Apology, chapter 6, where he defends against the pagan charge that Christians are atheists. He writes:
“Both Him [God], and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore.”12
A translator of this passage, Bernhard Lohse, comments: “As if it were not enough that in this enumeration angels are mentioned as beings which are honored and worshiped by Christians, Justin does not hesitate to mention angels before naming the Holy Spirit.”13-See also An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.14
Thus, while Justin Martyr appears to have departed from pure Bible doctrine in the matter of who should be the object of a Christian’s worship, he clearly did not view the Son as equal to the Father, any more than the angels were considered to be His equal. Regarding Justin, we quote again from Lamson’s Church of the First Three Centuries:
“Justin regarded the Son as distinct from God, and inferior to him: distinct, not, in the modern sense, as forming one of three hypostases, or persons, . . . but distinct in essence and nature; having a real, substantial, individual subsistence, separate from God, from whom he derived all his powers and titles; being constituted under him, and subject in all things to his will. The Father is supreme; the Son is subordinate: the Father is the source of power; the Son the recipient: the Father originates; the Son, as his minister or instrument, executes. They are two in number, but agree, or are one, in will; the Father’s will always prevailing with the Son.”15
In addition, nowhere does Justin say that the holy spirit is a person equal to the Father and to the Son. So in no sense can it honestly be said that Justin taught modern Christendom’s Trinity.
@@AstariahJW Why does Mark apply Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 to Jesus in Mark 1:1-4. He applies two OT passages of Yahweh to Jesus. If mark didn’t think he was divine then why did he?
@@dualtags4486
U know how hard trinitarians try to find support in the bible
They even go beyond what is written and twist scriptures
Heres the answer from the bible
Application to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to Jehovah
Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.-John 5:43; 8:29
Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through
whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.-Luke 11:31.
Theres no doubt that jesus is a divine spirit creature but to try to find support that jesus is Jehovah God is unbiblical
Now that you see the Trinity, you should do a day of erasing videos like this. The Trinity is the truth in Scripture, Spirit, and logic. God is king of his people, God is the Shepherd, God Is all these prophecies we see in the the Old Testament. Thus, Jesus and the Trinity are easily found in the Old Testament.
God bless that you see the truth now! Justify try to edit or erase what information you have that could possibly mislead someone if they just stumbled upon an isolated video like this. I'm not coming to demand anything, rather i didn’t know where else to comment. I only saw a short 3 minute video somewhere else with you mentioning Anthony Rogers, so i was looking to see if you had a Trinity video on your channel. Obviously, this is very new, and im just early. Anyway, God is good, true faith in the Son of God requires knowledge of God, so God brought you here from your faith. Continue to aid others see the same.
Evidence of the past of what these people did
LaSala is giving a false choice.
WHO SAYS that it's EITHER Literal OR Metaphorical in the case of Jesus, who is the Eternal God-- Yahweh the Son?
WHO SAYS that a "True Son" would have to have a beginning in time or even in eternity? In Jesus' case, that logic cannot hold.
To be TRULY GOD, He has to be eternal. If you are eternal, you can't have "come about" in time. If you're eternal you cannot have a beginning, no matter how awkward or insufficient human language is to describe it.
Therefore, a TRUE SON of God would be ETERNALLY SON and ETERNALLY GOD.
LaSala wants a verse that shows JESUS had no beginning:
"Before Abraham came to be, I AM."
"In the Beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God."
If "God was the Word" as the Greek syntax has it in the text, then everything that God was, the Word was BEFORE ANYTHING HAD A BEGINNING.
If the Son proceeds from the Father, then by nature He is eternal, and has no beginning.
He, like YAHWEH the Father, IS the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega.
Pristine Faith, I really appreciated all of your videos against Calvinism. I used to watch them regularly.
But it's disturbing to see this kind of Arius-inspired interpretation gaining traction.
I've been watching Tim Warner's videos lately, and he's gone south. He's even made his own translation of the Scriptures.
RUN FROM THAT MAN.
I appreciate you watching, but how do you account for the Christological views of the early church fathers before Nicaea and Constantinople? Are you certain that your trust in modern scholars is appropriate?
@ThePristineFaith I think that your statement "Christological views of the early church fathers before Nicaea and Constantinople" is in itself loaded with presuppositions that may be in dispute.
The Arians were some of the earliest heretics. Just because something has early roots doesn't mean it's right.
Paul himself warned the believers WITH TEARS about the "savage wolves' that would come from their very midst and take disciples off to themselves--
THAT'S FIRST CENTURY error!
Church fathers are ALWAYS to be taken in light of earlier Scriptural texts.
I'm not necessarily arguing for any church father's understanding.
I myself have come to LOATHE the destruction that Augustine has wrought on the Church due to his soteriology, which he brought from his Manichaean background.
If you think that Christ had a literal beginning in time, then that cannot be reconciled with either Scripture or early church fathers.
Jesus was "I AM" in the Beginning.
Scripture is clear in arguing that Jesus wasn't' an angel, nor was He created in time, nor was he a lesser demi-god.
He wasn't even WISDOM itself as Proverbs describes, though Mr. Warner likes to convince himself that Jesus was.
Proverbs says there is wisdom in the MULTITUDE of counsel. The Bible teaches that God's word endures forever. If the Trinitarian doctrine has become the standard throughout he generations, it's a pretty safe interpretation and perhaps dangerous for people to say it's not scriptural. At the very worse itsthe best eisegetical interpretation of God's ontological nature.
That comment was for @ThePristineFaith
@@semi4 yeah- no construct is perfect. But the doctrine came about
BECAUSE people were trying to understand what the Scriptures were revealing about God’s nature.