Gah! You can’t spring Mike Winger on us without warning. Freaking jump scares.

Ouch, he pulled out "laughably." You know it's bad when he does that.

I am no longer a fundamentalist Christian, but what I used to find traumatizing Dan makes engaging and interesting.

Wow, I must be learning from watching Dan's vids! I actually figured it out that the other guy was changing the argument the original video was stating before Dan's explanation.

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Arius has entered the chat...

A much more problematic passage is, "Why do you call me good? Not one is good but the father." Here we have the internal quality being called out, and Christ apparently is not co-terminus with it, and, what's more, Christ is apparently not perfect, as other passages indicate (to go the extra steel-man mile and presume good here means perfect, as to call him not good would be an even harder pill to swallow).

It’s a funny thing that the only people who understand the trinity seem to be those to confessionally believe it

I thought for a second that Mike Winger said "alright lets see it"

This doesn't debunk Christianity, it causes issues with some Christians interpretations. But Mike doesn't handle it very well.

And here I am wondering what "hypostasi" and "ousia" are...

The "mystery" of the Trinity, for me, is an incoherent mess. If even its supporters have trouble explaining the doctrine, and fall back on "it's a mystery," the concept lacks something it should have.

Without looking at the video, I deduce the answer is no, otherwise no reason to post a response about it. Am I rite?

I recall Tertullian kinda invented "trinity" around 200 CE only to reject it himself as idolatry later. 1 John 5:7-8 " father son ghost" is an admitted later insertion by church fathers modified edited translation not found in original koine Greek. An Obscure Mathew passage was " found" later to be shown as another later Years in order for Erasmus and to include 1 John. Comma Johanium debate went on for centuries in church councils over these insertions also John 7:53, John 8: 11, Mark 16:9-20 not in earliest original koine Greek new testament. Mathew 17:21 was removed.

Wow, this explains it so well. Great job! Thanks

I’d like to take this time in our program to say how tired I am of the word “debunked” unless no never mind definitely definitely tired

Hi Dan, could you elaborate on the concepts of Hypostasi and Ousia, Thanks.

Great video, Dan! I was wondering, do you have video that explains what hypostasis and ousia are, or would you be willing to give a short definition to terminology you mention? Unfortunately, I'm not a Biblical scholar, and I kinda get lost in the translation, if you will, and find it difficult to follow along with some of it. I can tell that those terms are important, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned them, but I don't know why they're important. I appreciate your work!

So what? Jesus was praying to himself? That’s what Mike is getting at. I would like to add that the original creator should’ve added in Numbers 23:19, which says that God cannot lie. If God cannot lie, then we have a problem if Jesus is claimed to be God. Because if Jesus told the truth, God would indeed be separate from Jesus, as presented in John 17:3. Thus making him not God.

Minds are about to blow

John.14 [1] Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. Matthew 16:17 “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” John 14:28 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. John 10:36 “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” This is Our Lord Jesus, which the Father hath sent.

Apologetics is not an attempt to disprove the arguments of critics. Apologetics is aimed at making believers feel better.

Mike Winger has 689k subscribers. They are the ones he is trying to reassure of their delusion and now they can sleep better.

What's the deal with the divine name theology that allowed Jews to invent name-bearers starting with the angel of YHWH, and then as you've pointed out, moved on to Yahoel, Jesus, Metatron, etc? This seems to be a basic violation of earlier Jewish theology that God shares his glory with no one. (yes in itself the idea that other gods didn't exist was crated during or after Exile, but even before, as a whole nobody could really challenge YHWH, a few exceptions like the Chemosh episode nothwithstanding) How is sharing his name and attributes not incompatible with the prohibition of idolatry?

Mike is characteristic of the commonplace failure to read a text on its own terms without imposing an anachronistic and irrelevant framework.

The concept of the Trinity over complicates the divinity of Christ, which is the reason why I question most of Christendom for its fallacies.

John 17.3 debunks trinitarianism, the false religion. So does John 20.17, Rev 1.5-6, Rev 3.12, and many other scriptures.

Mike’s argument might work only if the son is the father and the father is the son which is modalism. And is it one in three or three in one or is it all nonsensical? I’m confused Mike.

I really would like to hear Mike's response.

Keeping that in mind, looking at the totality of Eastern Mediterranean literature of that day (95 -130CE), who is the father, is it Zoroastrus, Zeus, Ouranous/Cronos (El), and or Adonai? Not talking about what Jesus believed, but what the author of this layer of John believed.

Wow, Dan and Mike in one video, what a treat

The Trinity reminds me of a Star Trek scene (stolen from the novel 1984) where Picard is shown four lights and is tortured to get him to say there are five. As Christians, we are shown three beings and are required to answer that they are one.

Dan, you give this "critic" way more credit than he deserves. Im not a christian (disclaimer) but nowhere does he mention any of the historical nuance that you brought (that could either be answered or not by mike idk). He just said, heres a verse that debunks christianity. The question is then, does this verse actually debunk christianity, the answer purely based on the trinity is, no. Now you brought to the table a different point that assists his argument and reconstructs it as a more valid one that relies on the historical use of these words, but you cannot give him the credit for it nor can you judge mike for not answering something that wasnt brought up. Edit: i didnt understand why it seemed to me you strawmanned mike at your last sentence so i checked up the clip again. It may be that im too charitable with mike, but i understood it when he said "proved" as proved under the trinitarian presupposition. In other words, that accepting christianity would lead to that conclusion. The reason thats how i understood it is due to the "critic's" way of presenting the argument through the process of elimination, what he did is presuppose christianity and tries to argue that that presupposition leads to a contradiction. His argument goes like this, you need to believe in the bible that says this about jesus in order to be a christian, you also need to believe in the trinity to be a christian, this verse is antitrinitarian therefore, christianity is false. So mikes response only makes sense if he says, lets suppose i believe both, can i reconcile it in a way that proves a doctrone under the christian presupposition. Now i dont like making personal judgements but it might mean something about you if you are willing to be way more charitable than necessary with a "critic" of christianity but not willing to be charitable enough with a christian and risking straw manning him for not using the most precise language.

Hey, loved the vid. I'm disappointed that I only watched it just now instead of when it came out. Anyway, I really hope you read this comment because in light of your analysis of verse 3, I really want to know what you make of verse 5. Does Jesus believe himself (though not God or a god - from verse 3) to be pre-existing?

As a Christian, but not a biblical literalist, I've adopted three general assumptions about God, God is all-powerful, all-knowing (omniscient) and all-being. I push the third assumption a little bit further than most by suggesting that not only does God exist at all places at once, God IS everything; The observable universe and all other possible realities. While I also believe that Jesus was predestined for everything he did (so is everyone else) he didn't have to be divine to accomplish it. The only real miracle that I believe Jesus accomplished was that he became the most influential voice in Western Civilization, and his philosophy started a dialogue about ethical and compassionate behavior that still continues, and serves to improve and enrich people's lives. Since God is everything, then Jesus was a part of God (as well as everyone else).

Good video, Dan.

Dan please explain Deutoronmy 18:18 thanks.

Hi Dan, I have a dumb question: how can you tell when a concept is introduced in history?

Owned

Two characters in this one whom I’m not overly sympathetic towards in general. But very interesting video and well handled 🙏

I can watch this all day

In context Jesus is showing that he is also the father , When I praise you, you are praising me, When I am creating you are creating , when I am giving eternal life you are giving eternal life. God in able to be in multiple places he is all powerful, in this way he’s able to reference himself like he’s talking to another person but he’s still talking to another part of “himself”“the father” as shown by their shared actions. So when he says they must know you the only true god , he is talking that part of “himself” glorifying specifically the part that is called the father and still following the theme of including himself with these shared powers. Think about it like this when your looking into a mirror and talking to what you are seeing “You got this , Your the best , Only you can do it” are referencing yourself from outside in. However the “you” is still me, then Jesus uses “and Jesus” talking about himself third person, following the theme of inclusion. The Jesus part of god is glorifying the father part of god however when he aims his glory and acknowledges at you “the only true god” which doesn’t exclude himself but it is directed at the father. The father says that Jesus created the heavens and the earth , but Genesis says that God made the heavens and the earth, it is an example how they acknowledge and glorify each other without excluding the other parts that are all still God.

Dan consistently gives an excellent demonstration of a mastery of the subject.

I don't think Dan is attacking 'apologetics' here (if apologetics means rational argument for the acceptance of certain theological propositions) ... he is attacking bad apologetics, where the apologist does not even address the real question. I think it's important that we don't automatically ascribe a pejorative meaning to 'apologetics' - it is simply the application of logic (when done properly) to facts revealed by proper scholasticism.

Okay, I deconstructed about 15 years ago and the process for me continues. I know the Gospels charted the evolution of the character of Jesus though the decades following his life and it's claimed by believers that the Gospel of John portrays him definitively as God... so if that's not the case, what was "John" trying to say about Jesus? I guess I need to go back and revisit with a new lens...

Thank you Dan mclellen

What century was this? 1 john 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

I love the way Dan casually uses words like Hypostasis and Ousia.

1. Deuteronomy 4:35,39 - Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (39) Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. 2. Deuteronomy 6:4 - Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD. [Note in Mark 12:28-34 how Jesus and a Jewish scribe he encountered understood this text.] 3. Deuteronomy32:39 - See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. 4. 2 Samuel 7:22 - Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. 5. 1 Kings 8:60 - That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else. 6. 2 KINGS 5:15 - And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant. 7. 2 Kings 19:15 - And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. 8. 1 Chronicles 17:20 - O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. 9. Nehemiah 9:6 - Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou has made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee. 10. Psalm 18:31 - For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? 11. Psalm 86:10 - For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone. 12. Isaiah 37:16,20 - O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou has made heaven and earth. (20) Now therefore, O LORD our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the LORD, even thou only. 13. Isaiah43:10,11 - Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, 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. 14. Isaiah44:6,8 - Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.Fear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. 15. Isaiah 45:21 - Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time: who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me. 16. Isaiah 46:9 - For I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me. 17. Hosea 13:4 - Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me; for there is no savior beside me. 18. Joel 2:27 - And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed. 19. Zechariah 14:9 - And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one. 20. Mark 12:29-34 -And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question. 21. John 17:3 - And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 22. Romans 3:30 - Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 23. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 - As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, andthat there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 24. Galatians 3:20 - Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 25. Ephesians 4:6 - One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 26. 1 Timothy 1:17 - Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 27. 1 Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 28. James 2:19 - Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

if you can't convince them confuse them لا حول ولا قوة الا بالله 🤣

The trinity is not difficult to understand. It's a kludge.

I am not a biblical scholar, so have no real historical or conceptual understanding of the whole trinitarian concept; where it came from, why it’s necessary for Christian theology, who or what the heck the “Holy Spirit” is, etc. I was raised Roman Catholic and went to Catholic school and remember that when the instruction veered into the realm of the Trinity, it all just turned into word salad in my head. I like to think that I’m a critical-thinking reasonably intelligent person, so in my mind I either have some sort of mental deficit when it comes to understanding the Trinity, or the idea is as really nonsensical as it seems to me to be. Usually non-intuitive religious ideas are invented in order to maximize a church’s power base or to make money (e.g., the concept of “Purgatory,” from which loved ones of the deceased can “reduce the sentence” by purchasing “indulgences” from the church). I not only do not understand trinitarianism, but can’t see where it fits into the profit/power concept. As Dan has frequently pointed out, the concept of the trinity was invented - or at least accepted - a few centuries after the New Testament was written. One wonders about the reasoning behind its origin and growth.

John 14:8-9 King James Version 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, 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?

Nice to see that good ole Mike Wingnut is entirely consistent. The concept of the trinity is logically incoherent. Other logically incoherent concepts - a married bachelor, or a square circle. Or, apparently, an honest response from Mikey. This verse does not 'prove the trinity,' as Mikey claims, since in it jesus explicitly excludes himself from being the One True God. Even if somehow Wingnut could make the trinity logically possible, here we have his lord and master specifically saying he is not part of it. And I insult Mikey because he insults lots of other people in his spewings.

Spot on ! John 17 :3, clearly differentiates between Jesus and the only true God. The reason is simple : The claim of the first Christians was, NOT that Jesus was God, but that he was the messiah, the Son of God(Mat 16 :16). This makes him one other than Giod.

There actually is another option, but probably unpalatable to apologetics: accept that Gospel understanding of Jesus was improved by later philosophy, leading to Jesus' meaning being different from what was recorded in the Gospels (in this verse in particular). Jesus was talking about Trinity, but none of the trasmitted and recorded Gospels knew how to properly phrase it, until the doctrines of Trinity were developed. But they're not gonna say that, cause that exposes more uncertainties.

In at least one of his letters from the early second century Ignatius of Antioch tells his readers that when they are partaking in the Eucharist they are consuming the body and blood of God. Ignatius, who had been a disciple of the apostle John, whose letters echo John's admonishment to adhere to what they were taught by the apostles leaves me to believe that the belief of Jesus is God was early. According to Craig Evans, there isn't a scholar who doubts the authenticity of Ignatius's letters.

I'm so tired of the problems that the trinity creates. My god, Nicea was a disgrace.

"We three We're not alone, living to eternity My echo, my shadow, and me"

Couldn’t an argument be made that we are all presupposing Jesus said any of the things attributed to him?

OMG...I can't stand the Trinitarians who simply won't even listen to the other side's arguments and valid points, and who won't acknowledge that "Trinitarianism" was created later and wasn't even what the first Christians believed.

In the end, this is what you get with bible-onlyism. I don't think the bible is itself trinitarian but it was the begining of a process of thought that led to trinitarianism. The thinking that led to trinity is part of Christian tradition, which along with reason and experience are essential parts of Christian wisdom. Bible-onlyism has led the church to some dumb dogmas.

What about John 17:5?

This is going to depend on interpretation. Keep in mind that the Hebrew and Greek equivalents for our "and" can mean "even" in some rare situations. So, one could interpret John 17:3 as saying, "... even Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." In that case, Jesus would be distinguishing Jesus Christ from God the Father without denying Divine status for Himself. It would also fit in better with John 1:1-3. But we should also keep in mind the possibility of a parenthetical in John 17:3.

Is it just me or Dan seemed pretty annoyed/mad at the presupposing delusions that Mike was spewing? The amount of mental gymnastics needed to make a simple point just proves the Trinity isn't biblical.

Ousia and hypostasis was only used by the Greek Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies. They were not in the original language or concepts of the early Jewish disciples of Christ. In Greek philosophy the ousia was the primary nature or essence of something that makes it what it is. For example the ousia of the rock is all the qualities and essence that make a rock a rock. While the hypostasis represent the different types of rocks ... sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic. All rocks share the common rock ousia (essence). But if we put three rocks in a basket we still would have three rocks, not one. And with three persons having the ousia of a God we would still end up with three Gods, not one ousia. The only reason we got the Trinity is because the emperors demanded it by law when they signed the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD and thus making their Triune God the central issue in Rome's new religion. They also authorized the punishment of all (the heretics) who would not go along with it, and started the "so called Christian" on "Christian" persecutions that persisted until the 19th century when Kingdoms became more like democratic republics, and religion was replaced with nationalism, and the persecuted Christians in Europe and the Americas demanded a separation of church from state. The laws changed, now it is illegal to kill people because they don't go along with the Trinity doctrine.

In the Hebrew and its Aramaic equivalent, the point was to take the shema and reformulate to include Jesus. 'Hear O' Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.' Reformulated to 'God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ'. The unity included both in some way. The baptismal commission was then concluded, 'In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.' How that was so was considered divine mystery to the early Christians. That it was so was divine revelation.

The NT presents God as a spiritual family relationship of beings. The terms Father, Son, Children, Wife, Bother are used.

THE major problem with trinity is that it negated jesus sacrifice. Jesus died in exchange for Adams rebelion against God, thus mankinds fall etc. If jesus is really a man/god as trinitarians claim he could not qualify as an equal ransom sacrifice. Jesus as flesh and blood equal of adam. Jesus is the second adam. Sacrificed equally in exchange for the first Adam.

I HAVE to ask,,, WHEN.. did God die and leave the trinitarians in charge? ( about 200 years ad) ? 😢

Jesus and the father are one.. Jesus is the spoken word of God turned flesh. Why because his choosen people would not listen to Adoni under the old covenant, time and time again. Sometime haters forget that believers follow non-meritorius positive volition. Blessed are those who have not seen and believe.

The muslim guy tries disprove Christianity by attempting to disprove the Trinity. Therefore it was right from Mike's side to bring up Trinity in the same way Dan started with his linguistic argument against Trinity. So, I don't really understand this lecturing attitude. One may not have the words in the first century and still develop language later to clarify events that happened in the 1st century. Moreover, the existencein the 1st century and prior of Jewish concepts like the two powers in heaven are not even addressed.

In John 8, before John 17, Jesus told the Pharisees, "‘before Abraham was born, I am!" Jesus then hid as the Pharisees were ready to throw stones, as such a statement meant Jesus was saying he was equal to God. In fact, Jesus referred to himself as "I am" 7 times throughout scriptures, just as God referred to himself as I am in the old testament. Jesus does not make himself distinguishable from God when you take everything into context and not just one verse.

This is why I don’t like arguments from one excerpt of scripture. The full text/context should be taken into account when dealing with the scripture. I believe MW is arguing from his understanding of that full text/context That said I’d like to see a revisit from all three.

John 17:5 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (If man was made on the sixth day, and Jesus was around before the world began, what would that make Jesus?) Also, according to 17:3, eternal life still consists of knowing God, and Jesus Christ. Also, all this says is that Jesus Christ considers God to be the one true God and we don’t know if He is making the distinction between himself and God, or God and the idolatrous gods. Especially since the Greek word for “true” being used here is alethinos, meaning genuine or not counterfeit. Also, at the risk of imposing theology on the text which in my opinion you can’t adequately understand the text without considering the theological intent, Jesus may have thought it important to distinguish himself in this prayer so to emphasize that He is the way to knowing God. Lastly, the id is distinct from the ego is distinct from the superego (hypostasis) but they each would still be thought of as the personality (ousia).

I used to believe in the concept of the Trinity. Then I realized that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are tools that God uses to connect to humanity. They aren't God, and to worship them as if they are God is idolatry. But that's just my belief. I rarely share it with other Christians, 'cause they get pretty upset when they hear it.

If Jesus is God, why all the fuss that the body died and came back to life? If God can do anything He Wills, this means absolutely nothing at all. Therefore, all Jesus' miracles are nothing special either, so null and void.

Going off slightly on a tangent I always sensed that when Paul is writing theologically about Jesus as the Christ he is quite "adoptionist" in his approach something that would later be condemned.

No,.. I think because he uses the word Christian, Mike can use and defend the known theology of Christian’s, that being the trinity.

It's called straw-manning, Dan. Winger and his ilk are consummate practitioners. Just create a distorted, misunderstood synopsis of the opponent's position and bash it, while avoiding the real argument altogether.

Ain't it just terrible when such attractive people are wrong like a dufus. That boy should have left the creator alone. If he will get all fired up about studying his Hebrew and Greek, he will be a happier when he is old.

ONENESS makes way more sense than the TRINITY.

In John 17:3, Jesus is addressing to the Father the ONLY true God and Him. So not only the Father including Him, whom you have sent. For I (Jesus's flesh) and the Father (Spirit) are one (John 10 :30).

I would point out that if whoever the historical Jesus was said these exact words, He too would have been begging the question on the existence of this one true God.

Trinity is really a brilliant doctrine. If you’re in it, it’s nearly impossible to get out. A really insidious trap, without escape. You can switch in “god is god and god is not god” “not three gods but one god in three different but equal persons” 😂 It doesn’t matter what the Bible says, it could all be interpreted into the trinity. When you get to the point, that “one” doesn’t mean “1” for you anymore, than you know that you’re drifted completely away from truth.

To take it a step further, Hamza didn't disprove Christianity in 60 seconds; he disproved one of the several dogmas surrounding the relationship between Jesus and the "one true god." Many Christian sects don't accept the trinity as Biblical. I mean, they're still all wrong; it's like nerds fighting over whether the avengers could beat the x-men. All to say, the first creator's argument began from a place of bad faith, too (my understanding is that he is a Muslim apologist).

What about all the other places in the NT where Jesus says he is God?

I wish mike wasn't always like this, but he is. His entire brand of apologetics is just arguments like this.

Right they simply land up at the complete opposite of what the verse says... Somehow or anyhow... Based on nothing from the verse Ignore the verse and explain your arguement only to land up at the oppsite of the verse

I think the fact that apologetics exists debunks the bible.

It's incredibly obvious in reading through the Gospels that the early Christians believed in Adoptionism. Matthew 28:19 is the only verse that mentions the Trinity and it's been discovered to be a later insertion (we have early church fathers quoting Matthew 28:19 it does not mention the Trinity in their quotes). 1 John 5:7 which also references the Trinity does not appear in any of the earliest manuscripts. Meanwhile you have Mark 12:29-32 that literally has Jesus saying that God is "one".

From the outset I don’t believe one needs to be a trinitarian to be a Christian. Moreover those of us, like myself, who are trinitarians need to admit that the concept of the Trinity develops slowly as early as the mid-late 2nd Century and in earnest in the 4th century based upon theological philosophical speculation that makes creative use of the New Testament to solve pressing issues surrounding the manner in which Christians worshipped the One God and Christ as well as the manner in which the human being is divinized (yes, both Trinitarian and Christological speculations and eventually dogmas were intimately connected with how sinful human beings are made to be divine in and through the work of Christ - kind of a big point in Athanasius’ On the Incarnation). There’s no way to arrive at a developed doctrine of the Trinity from the text itself. This is less of a problem for Orthodox and Catholic traditions that do not see the biblical text as the final arbiter of Christian theology even if it is the wellspring of Christian speculation about the nature of the one God. All of this to say, the New Testament can neither prove nor disprove the Trinity. This fact is almost impossible for Protestant and Protestant adjacent traditions, especially of a more fundamentalist type to grasp.

For the uninitiated a definition of hypostasi and ousia would be helpful.

The nonsense of the trinity had to be created, because Cheesus had to become god, and christianity could not possibly, under any circumstances, be a polytheist religion.

Doesn't John say that Jesus is one with the Father. And that Jesus is "The Word." When I put my Hellenistic ears on, I hear John identifying Jesus with the "Word" or "Wisdom" that assisted at the time of Creation, right along with the "Spirit of God" blowing over the initial chaos. Jesus is being thought of like the "Angel of the Lord" or the "Spirit of God" or the "Shekinah": all expressions or manifestations of Yahweh when the deity interacts with the human realm. At first Yahweh walked around and talked and did stuff personally on the lands. During the Second Temple period, this was found to be disagreeable, and various intermediate expressions were assigned to Yahweh when the divine presence came among men. Fast forward a few hundred years and Christian Platonists had developed a trinitarian replacement for the post-exilic replacement for the Yahwistic original. Aren't we overdue for another update?

In John 17:21 - 22 Jesus says that the father and him are one.. so much for a debunker text used out if contrext..

It's very simple. There is no Trinity. There is a hierarchy.

John 10:30 KJV I and my Father are one. Scroll drop!

i like listening to Mike I enjoy watching him twist things into knots and stretch Armstrong can't reach as much as Mike does with his word salads

Mike Winger is, in fact, generally a laughably wrong person, incapable of dealing with either arguments or data.

The "simple debink" is itself simple to debunk without adressing the trinity or even divinity of Jesus. Jesus is not the father, he even says so. But he also says "“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6. Even if he isn't the father, following him is the only way to the father. Simple. No appologetics needed.