Refuting Objections to the Trinity (Part 1)
Рет қаралды 68,551
11 жыл бұрынTo help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
Many skeptics argue from scripture that the Trinity is not in the Bible. This video refutes most common objections that the Trinity is not in the Bible
What is the Trinity?
• What is the Trinity?
How to logically explain the Trinity:
• Video
The Trinity Explained (part 2):
• Video
The Trinity in the New Testament:
• The Trinity in the New...
The Trinity in the Old Testament:
• The Trinity in the Old...
What About Numbers 23:19:
• Video
The Truth about the Council of Nicaea:
• The Truth about the Co...
More on 1 Thessalonians 4:16:
travisthoughts.wordpress.com/2...
More on firstborn:
• Busted! The Watchtower...
www.equip.org/articles/firstbo...
www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-fir...
*If you are caught excessively commenting, being disrespectful, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whi...
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Well, if one denies the Trinity they are usually no loner considered a Christian, since the Trinity is a fundamental core belief. It affects the atonement, worship, and God's ontology. I point that out in the 2nd link in the information section. I was shocked to when I also was shocked when I found out how many people call themselves Christians and deny the Trinity.
@EasternOrthodoxChristian Жыл бұрын
Amen indeed
@Anteater23 8 ай бұрын
I know people who are definitely born again but don’t believe in the traditional trinity doctrine.
@7urak 7 ай бұрын
@@Anteater23Correct. God's forgiveness and guidance is not black and white only. The book of Jona demonstrates this
@danielmiller2886 7 ай бұрын
@@7urakcan you expand on what you mean by that, and how the book of Jonah exemplifies that? I just want to understand what you mean.
@gimel77 3 ай бұрын
You Trinitarians are so sanctimonious. All while teaching false doctrine.
@InspiringPhilosophy 10 жыл бұрын
That is not what He is claiming. Jesus is speaking of ontology, "before Abraham was I AM." This is saying that though Abraham had a beginning He did not. WHAT! Mormons do not! They rely on their own books for mormon understanding of scripture. The founders of JWs were self-educated and make several false prophecies. They started with a grave misunderstand of scripture with western eyes.
@juancarlosaliba4866 4 жыл бұрын
Don't forget some members of Iglesia ni Cristo might also comment here haha
@hotwax9376 3 жыл бұрын
@InspiringPhilosophy What's even more amazing is that Charles Taze Russell lied about knowing Greek and admitted he didn't know it when pressed by a lawyer. This alone should demonstrate that JW teachings are based on a very weak theological foundation.
@TheJesusNerd40 3 жыл бұрын
Isaiah 43:10 destroys WT JW and LDS Mormons, Mike.
@pleaseenteraname1103 Жыл бұрын
@@hotwax9376 He also claimed that the trinity is a three headed monster.
@onyinyenkemchor-albert8757 Жыл бұрын
I can not thank God for you enough. God bless you and give you even more soundness to help us all understand his word better. Thank you for this 🤍🤍🤍
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
I am not a modalist, so i agree. The word angel in the Bible is defined differently than our culture defines it.
@TheZymbo 7 жыл бұрын
Lots of heretical unitarians and JWs in this comment section. Yikes. Keep up the good work IP.
@dieselcowboy777 4 жыл бұрын
The bible said the great whore Roman catholic church was filled with the blood of the saints....not heretics... The vast majority of the saints the catholic church killed were non trinitarian saints
@dieselcowboy777 4 жыл бұрын
Non trinitarians were the orthodox church and they baptized in the name of jesus christ also....not in the trinity of titles.... They changed water baptism to the trinity of titles because they were also changing the view of godhead to trinity.... Neither the Trinity or baptizing in the trinity of titles were orthodox....everything early trinitarians wrote is false and the opposite is true....
@dieselcowboy777 4 жыл бұрын
Satan is going to use a trinitarian man called the Pope to become incarnated in....because the trinity is of the devil and the false doctrine that the Pope propgates and deceives you with
@x.r.d7744 2 жыл бұрын
@@dieselcowboy777 lol the catholic killed allot of protestants
@pleaseenteraname1103 Жыл бұрын
@@dieselcowboy777 source.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Thank you, and you make a good point. At times I get too confrontation. I'll try to tone down. Let me know what you think of any of my other videos.
@waynemccuen8213 4 жыл бұрын
Why did it take me more than 8 years to find this. Thx, gr8 stuff!
@jesse8786 8 жыл бұрын
Amazing video, amazing truth,well done,well explained and so simple to understand.
@gimarr 8 жыл бұрын
Really great info in your presentation! Thanks for sharing. I'll definitely be checking out your other videos as well!
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Thank you! It will be up either Friday or Saturday, and that will close out this series on the Trinity for a while. I need to return the Ontological and Teleological argument for a little bit. Then eventually I want to do a video explaining why Jesus had to die on the cross.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
No, see my video, "The Trinity in the Old Testament" for Deuteronomy 6:4. If you are asking questions particularly about the Trinity. See my video, "What is the Trinity. Both links are in the information section.
@Alexandru20101991 8 жыл бұрын
Keep reading Orthodox Christian Saints like Saint John Chrysostom!
@daved3713 8 жыл бұрын
+Alexandru-Vlad Curtasu Sorry, his antisemitism is revolting as is the churches history regarding that issue.
@Alexandru20101991 8 жыл бұрын
+dave d Did you even read him?
@PInk77W1 Ай бұрын
St John Chrysostom • Catholic
@InspiringPhilosophy 10 жыл бұрын
They did not se the word god like we do today, this is misreading scripture with western eyes. The angels were never called "I AM". So you are practically admitting you do not know the truth. Then why should I listen to you?
@gimel77 3 ай бұрын
You do not know the truth, so why should we listen to you?
@adrianmaderal6020 10 жыл бұрын
thanks for the enlightenment brother..
@eclipsesonic 11 жыл бұрын
I love your videos! You manage to make everything so concise and easy to follow. Looking forward to your next video on the Trinity.
@dieselcowboy777 4 жыл бұрын
Just another slave making carnal minded interpretation to validate the false catholic doctrime of trinity to corrupt your mind
@InspiringPhilosophy 10 жыл бұрын
And in Jonah 2:9 is says YHWH. Salvation only comes from YHWH. I don't understand your question.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Did you watch part 2? "The Trinity Explained 2 (with reason)". A link is in the information section. The idea is not hard to understand, as many people have told me. The details are obviously beyond our grasp. We cannot picture a 4D cube, for example.
@JasonRussoMetal 6 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this. Very well done.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Sure, in 3D world. See the first two links in the information section. I have two videos on how to logically explain the Trinity. I hope that helps.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
That is very kind of you. If you ever have any questions don't hesitate to ask me in a message. God Bless!
@VoiceofTruth-iv8pq 11 ай бұрын
1. Prov 8 :22. Unfortunately for our video maker, this scripture has been used from the second century on by Christian apologists to argue that the Son pre-existed . If he is going to insist on 'personification' then the best example of that is the Holy Spirit which in the OT is an it and also an it in the NT, but frequently personified, especially as the paraclete. 2. Christian apologists also used the Angel of the Lord/Yahweh's angel to argue that the Christ, the Son, pre-existed. But these logos theologians were platonists and believed the logos was a secondary/ intermediary God. The angel of the Lord, according to the Bible, to Jews and other Christian groups is an angel and not God himself. 3. Angels are called 'Sons of God'. 4. To escape the obvious conclusion of 'firstborn, the video maker engages in redefinitionism. He has no alternative otherwise his entire theology collapses. 5. We then have a whole list of scriptures that need to be explained away and assuming a Trinity allows him to do this. Hundreds of times Jesus is differentiated from God (not the Father ). He is shown to be subordinate etc but this is dismissed as Jesus in his human nature. But then he says after his resurrection, Jesus was once again fully divine. Unfortunately, the resurrected Jesus still had a God. (John 20 :17). The glorified Jesus in heaven still has a God )Rev 3 :12). Clearly, a 'God' who himself has a God is not the ultimate God.
@TheJesusNerd40 3 жыл бұрын
Love this Mike!
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Yes it is! I have one more video to do on the Trinity, which will be done before Christmas - "The Trinity Explained 2 (with Reason).
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I'm still getting links and the information section in order. Give me a few minutes, and links will be in the information section.
@christfollower5713 2 жыл бұрын
Thank u , thank u , thank u , really this helps alot 🙏🏻🙏🏻 u r a blessing brother
@Jamesjacob339 Жыл бұрын
Iam glad finally I found this channel.
@LawrenceKennard 11 жыл бұрын
This is the most CLEAR and concise teaching defending the Trinity I've seen. Albeit, reading some of the posts, you are guilty of casting your pearls before swine. Thank you. I'm subscribing!
@msm1876 11 жыл бұрын
Fine work, mi amigo!
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Well, I owe the credit of finding that quote to you, so thanks.
@ShufflinRhino 11 жыл бұрын
You deserve many more views. Any idea when your next vid'll be out?
@gnanendra550 11 ай бұрын
Amazing content. Out of box question, how do you edit these texts? What software did you use?
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
You do realize just a few verses later in verse 14 is says " the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". So the passage does say in verse one the Word is God, and the Word became flesh. So Word, who is God, came in the flesh. Obviously I'm not adding or subtracting.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
You do realize I go over Col 1:15 in this video? So your argument is already addressed. And you do this a lot. Just assert something. It is very unconvincing.
@bobcatallstar7 11 жыл бұрын
Excellent vid.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
No it doesn't, arche is used to mean origin or active cause at times. The verse doesn't contradict the rest of scripture that says Jesus is uncreated. It will be in my next video, "Refuting Objections to the Trinity (part 2)". And once again, Protokos doesn't refer to birth order, but rank.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
See my video, "The Trinity in the Old Testament." The Link is in the About Section.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
8:38 − 9:09, Jesus cooperated with the limits of being human, but after His resurrection He was no longer lacking omniscience (John 16:30). I hope this helps.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
You do realize 1 Corinthians 1:30 is not a quote of Proverbs 8. Paul and Solomon are not talking of the same topics. Paul is saying "And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption," In no way does this say Jesus is created. Again, see my video, "The Trinity in the New Testament"
@gigatt2006 11 жыл бұрын
I am truly blessed by these videos.... thank you. In regards to wisdom in Proverbs 8, I am surprised you did not call out that verse 2 and 3 also say "she" takes her stand and "she" cries aloud. Proverbs 3 also refers to wisdom as she. 13 Blessed are those who find wisdom, those who gain understanding, 14 for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Yes, that what I meant, and please try to take in context as I mean in your perspective "After the Resurrection He Went back to His Glory".
@marshallmatters9865 11 жыл бұрын
You are one of the most smartest person living in this last days. thanks for all the word of wisdom and knowledge you've teach us. A man with wisdom and knowledge will always look like a fool to others.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
No, you need to read the bottom of the information section. No, see my video, "What is the Trinity?"
@queenpele8623 7 жыл бұрын
I agree with the whole video except your statement that Jesus became fully divine again after His resurrection. The Incarnation is a permanent status. Jesus is still fully man and fully God.
@behradataei6479 5 жыл бұрын
But after his resurrection his body was not normal body like us .his body is spirtual body .he suddenly came in house when the door was lock but at the same time he can eat and drink and all of his apostle touched his body
@behradataei6479 5 жыл бұрын
After jesus come back to earth the first resurrection will happen and the believer who born with holyspirit will raise from grave and live with jesus for 1000 year with new spiritual body not our normal body (sin body)
@praisethelordjesuschrist3554 5 жыл бұрын
Behrad Ataei Christ knew no sin.
@canderssonswedican7486 5 жыл бұрын
He now has a glorified body now what does that mean?
@preciousgrace762 5 жыл бұрын
That before His incarnation Christ, the divine One, already was the Son of God {John 1:18; Rom. 8:3}. By incarnation He put on an element, the human flesh, which had nothing to do with divinity, that part of Him needed to be sanctified and uplifted by passing through death and resurrection. By resurrection His human nature was sanctified, uplifted and transformed, by resurrection He was designated the Son of God with His humanity { Rom. 1:4; Acts 13: 33; Heb.1:5}. His resurrection was His designation. Now as the Son of God, He possesses humanity as well as divinity. By incarnation He brought God into man, by resurrection He He brought man into God, that is, He brought His humanity into the divine sonship. In this way the only begotten Son of God was made the firstborn Son of God, possessing both divinity and humanity. God is using such a Christ, the firstborn Son, who possesses both divinity and humanity, as the producer and prototype, the model, to produce His many sons {Rom. 8:29-30}. And those who believed in and received His Son, will to be designated and revealed as the sons of God, as He was in glory of His resurrection {Rom.8:19; 21}, and with Him they will express God.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
This isn't saying Jesus had a beginning, it says Jesus is "the beginning". The is verse is telling us Jesus is where creation began. The writer is not saying Jesus was the 1st created being, but that the Logos is the point where God's creation began. The Greek word 'arche' means top, first, or corner. The Greeks called the first of something the 'arche', as the a begining starts at the "top." No way does the verse say Jesus was created.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Well this isn't really an issue. Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 and Jesus seems to refer to other apocrypha books like Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach. The New Testament writers didn't think these books were inspired, but they did have some true things in them (as guided by the Holy Spirit). Jude only quoted something that was true in Enoch and it does not mean that Enoch was inspired. Early church fathers would quote authoritatively from one apocrypha book, but then criticize it later.
@IanHydeFamousAdventurer 6 жыл бұрын
It sounds like a lot of people confuse positional traits with traits of being. Clearer teaching on these differences would probably avoid a lot of the misunderstandings people have regarding what scripture says about the Trinity.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
No, once we understand the original Greek, it doesn't refute the Trinity and I go on to show that. You are confusing the ontological structure with the economic structure of the Trinity.
@josephfierro2941 6 жыл бұрын
there is no direct mention of trinity in the old testament i think we should be honest about that.
@InspiringPhilosophy 6 жыл бұрын
kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eLSkaLF8uNnJYI0.html
@McintoshSteveAndrea 6 жыл бұрын
Good job
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
That doesn't make sense with the very next verse, which says "For in him all things were created". The entire universe was created in, through, and for Him, this is what the passage says He is the prOtokos of all creation. The phrasing doesn't have to include Him.
@ApologeticsArsenal 11 жыл бұрын
This series on the Trinity is the best yet.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Wow, that is a narrow understanding of the New Testament. Especially since I dealt with these types of objections in "Refuting Objections to the Trinity (Part 2)". Where does Jesus deny being God and you realize there is more than one person who is fully God? See my next video which explains this.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Then that contradicts Col 1:16 which says, "For in him all things were created". Col 1:15 just says Jesus the prOTokos of all creation. He is the head and has rank over all creation. Analogy: A rooster has to have rank over all hens, but that doesn't mean he is a hen because he is the highest rank of them.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Of course i don't dispute that. And if that is your argument then you do not understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is. Of course the Son's source is in the Father.
@abadonslayed 6 жыл бұрын
This is a solid video with great substance to support all the ideas... but the music is BRUTALLY Annoying!!! Bro please change the music!
@LawrenceKennard 11 жыл бұрын
No, thank you, but YOU are not the one who needs to tone it down. You are being the kind of apologists I strive to be. Keep the the great work!
@InspiringPhilosophy 10 жыл бұрын
Ok and? It is not about any old conclusion, but the best and most logical one. Which has the most explanatory power. The Bible is clear there is only one God, not separate demigods.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
I have a video on Nicaea by the way. If that is what you feel then fine, but your arguments were unconvincing. But in the end you can believe whatever you want.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Yes, I referred you to my other videos because every point you've given I already addressed. So my guess is you didn't pay attention because you didn't refute the verses I used with better interpretations. Instead, you ignored them and argued with other verses - out of context. Now you are just name calling, which only shows you've run out of valid points. The verses you quote are showing your misunderstand of the hypostatic union and were out of context as ablekiwi showed.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
You obviously didn't watch the video (6:51). The Trinity is not hard to understand see my two part video called "the Trinity explained (with reason)".
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
1st, image (eikOn) in Col. 1:15 means more than a representation, but like a reflection. 2nd, again the it doesn't say first created, but prOtokos. This has nothing to do with birth order or creation, but rank. There is no indication in the Greek first born has to mean first created, as i already said in the video. Again, see my video, "The Trinity in the New testament". You completely misunderstand the logical fallacy of an argument from silence.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
John 1:1 says the Word is God. John 1:14 says the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. How much more context do you need? It is clear that the word became flesh and the Word is God. See my video, "Refuting Objections to the Trinity (Part 2)".
@InspiringPhilosophy 10 жыл бұрын
I don't care if you disagree, you have refuted offered any rebuttal, and anything you have done has been refute. Remember that salvation can only come from the Lord (Jonah 2:9), who became man (John 1:14). So a man cannot be given credit for salvation, only God who became man can. I point this out here: /watch?v=G1FlAC3hz5c
@purplecat733 Жыл бұрын
I’m not disagreeing I just find it hard to say this is end all correct But helped answer some questions I had in regards to wisdom. What part of the trinity do u consider the pillar of fire over the ark of the cov is that the same as like comparatively to a messenger like something able to speak on behalf of God ? Just curious.
@bradshawfamilyfarm602 Жыл бұрын
Information is awesome, can't stand the music , it's distracting. Still gonna subscribe, thanks.
@InspiringPhilosophy 10 жыл бұрын
You are still thinking the the Triune God has to obey our physical laws like we do. Comparing the nature of Adam and Eve to God doesn't make sense since we are bound to 3D laws of space-time.
@peytonhemmelgarn4359 Жыл бұрын
I get into it a lot in instagram comment sections and had a guy claim God had to create sin since He created everything. That was a long convo
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Yes, you are trying to make God work in terms of 3 dimensional laws, or as we understand them in our universe. But God is not part of this universe and is above such conditions. Check out the two videos I mentioned. They are the first two links in the above information section.
@maryann1972 9 жыл бұрын
First of all a'd like to thank you for answering my burning questions so well am impressed and keep up the good work. Av questions on the spirits. How do you differentiate between good an evil spirits and are there God's spirit or it s just the Holy Spirit of God? Thanks in advance
@irfanjalal6293 4 ай бұрын
Thank you so much.
@steladimi4785 2 жыл бұрын
Great video, but the music is just annoying. Such important topic does not need music to accompany it.
@InspiringPhilosophy 10 жыл бұрын
It is not about the claim but about the best explanation and reason backing the claim. Anyone can make a claim, do they have the evidence to back it up.
@user-wh9lj5ng1k 2 ай бұрын
excelent video
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
First you completely ignore that Hebrews 1:10-12 directly calls the Son YHWH by quoting Psalm 102:25-27. Second, you are calling the Hebrews author a liar. Hebrews 1:8 says Psalm 45 is about the Son, not a king. Third, Psalm 45:6 says Elohim's throne will last forever and ever. No human king's throne will last forever. Your argument is utterly flawed.
@PresbyterianPaladin 9 жыл бұрын
I love the point you make at shortly after the 7 minute mark about the distinction of the title of firstborn as it applies to duty rather then birth order. as you can tell my name is Jacob so I know all about the story of my namesake. The story of which demonstrates your point to this effect, otherwise how could Jacob have taken the title of firstborn from esau? and im not refrencing the trickery played on his father but rather the exchange as ok'd by esau and as such he had no right to protest, his fathers blessing was given to the "owner of the birthright" lol but great video.
@InspiringPhilosophy 10 жыл бұрын
That is being ad hoc.
@felipethames4808 8 жыл бұрын
HI InspiriringPhilosophy! First of all , congrats for your videos i ve definitely learnt a lot about the topic. I just have one task to ask your opinion. I know that there is a group "door door people" that teaches that Jesus is a creature , comparing with the archangel Miguel. I totally disagree with them about Jesus being a creature. However i'm wondering if ,as the same way as you showed that the bible in the old testament describe Jesus as the angel of the Lord , maybe when it(bible) refers to the arcangel Miguel is just another name of Jesus. NOT that he is an Angel, but that it is another way to call Jesus. One curious point is that miguel meas " God like' so.. it is JESUS! Do you understand my point? as the same way you said that Jesus is described in the old testament as angel of the Lord , he is described in the new (apocalypse for example ) as Arcangel MIguel. Jesus is GOD! and has many names, Eternal Father, King of Kings, alpha and omega, Emanuel, ......and Miguel!! what is your opinion!? (remember im not denying that Jesus is GOD, ust saying that miguel is one of his names cited in the bible)
@InspiringPhilosophy 8 жыл бұрын
+Felipe Thames I don't think so. The Book of Jude suggest Michael is not the LORD, but has to call on the name of the Lord. He cannot cast Satan out on his own.
@felipethames4808 8 жыл бұрын
+InspiringPhilosophy first of all, sorry about the delay. In the book of jude says that Miguel and Satan were disputing the body of moses. One important thing is that "disputing " here doesnt means a fight (physically) but a debate. Let me explain why. If you check verse 9 when says that Miguel he "...did not dare accuse the devil of blasphemy.."it means that they were arguing and Miguel said to satan that he wouldnt accuse him of" blasphemy" and act with the same respect as Satan did. SO, Kindly Miguel(JESUS) said "The Lord rebuke you, The Lord!" and it doesnt means that miguel is not the LORD , he just didn't answered him at the same level of the arguments of blasphemy used by Satan. Now, i would like to ask you to remember your video about trinity in the old testament when you told us about the angel of the LORD. Remember when you cited Zechariah 3? it says: The LORD(angel of the Lord) said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?" I would like to call your attention to the phrase " THE LORD rebuke you, The Lord" so, i think your already know where im going to with this brief text. The dialogue is the same, the same situation the Angel of the Lord and Archangel Miguel arguing with Satan. Satan accusing , and blaspheming against God. then , kindly Jesus answer , the Lord rebuke you, the Lord. the similarity is so Big that if you neglected that Miguel is Jesus, you are saying that the Angel of the Lord is not Jesus as well. Finally, i would like to remember you , that just because Miguel is one of the names of Christ it doesnt means that JESUS isn't God. Jesus is God! as you showed previously and i agree with you. however I believe that you misunderstood the topic of Miguel. Because many people believe that miguel is not Jesus because it makes him a creature, but it is not true! at the same way that The angel of the lord isnt an Angel just because the name angel , Miguel isnt an archangel just because that. Besides of that i could tell you later some text in daniel and apocalipse and etc. that talk more about the Jesus being named as Miguel. Hope you understand my views. sorry about the english , it is not my first language. Waiting your comment. God Bless !
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
Yeah, the problem is there are several other places where prophets see God. Again, Dr. Michael Brown address all of these verses and explains they actually confirm the Trinity: /watch?v=cJvUlrNa-Z8
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
If you are just going to ignore what I say & attack a straw man the only person you are going to convince is yourself. Misrepresenting Christian theology & trying to force our beliefs to meet your presuppositions doesn't do you any good. You can either accept that we merely think God is 1 yet 3 persons & stop saying that means something completely different (like we are polytheists) or you can get lost & try your straw man arguments else where. Either way you are just making yourself look bad.
@misterauctor7353 Жыл бұрын
0:36 So the argument is since wisdom and word have the letter W in them, therefore Jesus is in Proverbs 8.
@Chronosara 11 жыл бұрын
Interesting points. However, I do wonder what you make of verses such as John 1:1, 5:18, 10:30-33 in respect to the mutability of Christ. I understand your citation of 2 Corinthians 13:4, but how does that make sense when juxtaposed with John 14:6, where Jesus says that He is the Life. You said that God does not change His Nature and you also stated that His power is unchanging. Would you consider those two things to be the same, similar, or not similar? I am just trying to better understand.
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
That is an argument from silence. What are you smoking? Col 1:15 says He is the firstborn OVER all creation. Which doesn't contradict anything, and is simply an understanding of the economic structure of the Trinity.
@emersonkennedy4189 11 жыл бұрын
I think that it is also worth pointing out that in Hebrews 1:8-12 the writer says that God calls Jesus "God" in verse 8 and then he calls Jesus "Lord" in verse 10. All the while saying that Jesus "laid the foundation in the beginning," (1:10) that "you are the same and your years will have no end." (1:11-12). Note: I use the ESV.
@Disegnarecomeivecchimaestri 5 ай бұрын
Can i ask you romans 1:4 and revelation3:14 (p.s. i speak italian not english sorry for errors) God bless you
@uncle-thomas79 3 ай бұрын
answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/?s=Revelation+3%3A14 www.youtube.com/@shamounian/search?query=Revelation%203%3A14
@gimel77 3 ай бұрын
The device used for wisdom in Proverbs 8 appears to be a similar one used in John 1. The "word" is eternal life, which pertains only to God, and God himself is that word of life. This eternal life was revealed to the world in the person of Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son (not "eternally begotten" as Trinitarians say, but begotten through Mary; the word "begotten" is only used for actual offspring). The Old Testament word for "god" literally means "mighty one" and is applied to angels and even people. God used angels a lot more than we probably understand, and he empowered them for certain tasks. Philippians 2 does NOT teach that Jesus was another divine person who was not the Father prior to becoming man. The "emptying" that Christ did was his earthly obedience to the Father. For example, when the soldiers came to arrest him, they fell backward, but he went with them anyway. The word "genomenos" in that passage refers to someone who already is a man, or who is fashioning himself that way, in likeness of men, or indistinguishable from everyone around him, not like he appeared in the Transfiguration. It does NOT refer to "becoming" a man. There are so many problems with the Trinitarian doctrine. It's quite simply false doctrine.
@adrianwalker3607 2 жыл бұрын
Wisdom is heavily personified in chapter 8 and 9, the other examples you give aren't at all. It needs to be noted that many of the early Church fathers, such as Origen, Lactantius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Cyprian etc. all identified Jesus as the Wisdom in the Proverbs. Even when Arius used Wisdom as a proof text as being created Jesus, Athanasius didn't dispute that it was Jesus. He argued that Arius was being overly literal with a poetic text, a rather weak argument it has to be said. Regarding the hebrew word qanah not meaning create, the problem with this argument is that the writers of the Septuagint used the word create in their translation. Also if it means possessed, this implied that God at sometime didn't have wisdom, which surely makes no sense.
@zekdom 2 жыл бұрын
“Also if it means possessed, this implies that God at sometime didn’t have wisdom, which surely makes no sense.” On that note, wouldn’t the same apply to “created”? Whether it’s “possessed” or “created,” both can imply that there was a time when God did not have wisdom, which is a conclusion that we must reject. In other words, that Proverbs passage is difficult to interpret alone. We need to look elsewhere in scripture to get a more complete picture.
@adrianwalker3607 2 жыл бұрын
@@zekdom "On that note, wouldn’t the same apply to “created”? Whether it’s “possessed” or “created,” both can imply that there was a time when God did not have wisdom, which is a conclusion that we must reject." Not if Jesus is the Wisdom in the Proverbs and he was created as put forth by Arius then it does make sense.
@zekdom 2 жыл бұрын
@@adrianwalker3607 Sincerely, I don’t follow. How does Arius’ explanation of creation avoid the implication that God didn’t have wisdom at one point? If there was a point when Jesus did not exist - and Proverbs 8:22 applies to Jesus - I don’t see how we can escape the implication that God didn’t always have wisdom.
@adrianwalker3607 2 жыл бұрын
@@zekdom No problem, I appreciate the tact. In the sense that Wisdom here isn't divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract but Jesus, who was created full of wisdom. And here is the symbol of wisdom. If he was created full of wisdom then this of course came from his Father, God / Yahweh / Jehovah. So Yahweh would have been without the symbol of wisdom, his son, but never not 'all knowing' as Jesus' wisdom would have come from his creator his Father Yahweh.
@zekdom 2 жыл бұрын
@@adrianwalker3607 I was hoping my curiosity would come across well; that is very difficult to convey online without hinting at malice. I appreciate your clarification. Okay so, your point is that Jesus is the **symbol** of wisdom who was created - thus avoiding the implication that God didn’t always have wisdom in terms of omniscience? That makes more sense. But one thing I’m still missing, and I’m not trying to be dense here… If Jesus is the symbol of wisdom and not a reference to God’s wisdom (omniscience), I still don’t see how “possessed” is more problematic than “created”. Couldn’t we say: both imply that the symbol of wisdom didn’t exist at one point - neither implying that God’s wisdom didn’t exist at one point?
@InspiringPhilosophy 10 жыл бұрын
I have two videos for this: /watch?v=bUy-H5MmeGU /watch?v=G1FlAC3hz5c
@gleasonparker1684 4 жыл бұрын
Do you have any books on KINDLE ?
@chaos2order4u 11 жыл бұрын
Fill me in with why Paul never addresses greetings from the 1/3 part of god in his epistles. Very heretical, since your god is three in one... Then to leave a part of him out.
@jomess7879 4 ай бұрын
God isn't made of three parts. He is made of three persons.
@beauxdodson642 4 жыл бұрын
Bara doesn't necessarily identify as create, bara means to, "fill or fatten."
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
If it is within God's ability and desire out of His love for us, then yes. God being complex in His nature can be more than one person. One came to earth, another is in Heaven. NO, you are taking what I said out of context. Dr. Brown, messianic scholar, has explained this passage in context with the rest of the Bible (Not added scripture). See the link in the information section, "What About Numbers 23:19"
@ryanroubert2483 3 жыл бұрын
All i wanna know if its Holy Spirit or Jesus in the context of prov.8. Its not a poetic personification
@davidgreen835 2 жыл бұрын
With respect to the word bara, despite the varied meanings of the word, there was a time when the heavens and the earth did not exist, so it falls right back to the basic meaning within the context of the verse, that 'create' or 'bara' means to bring into existence. The parallel you drew about the personification of wisdom, I do not consider to be a strong parallel, because unlike the heavens and the earth which have beginnings, wisdom have no beginning.
@2222pauline 11 жыл бұрын
tried to send a private message. Sorry You had locks in place Do you mind if I ask PLEASE . What group do You meet with ?
@LemoTetson Жыл бұрын
I believe in the Trinity but I have always wondered…why did God wait so long to reveal the Trinity? I know the OT has a few hints about the Trinity, but it’s really not totally spelled out until the NT.
@JustinMorgan105kg 5 жыл бұрын
This is a good video, but at 3:23, the NT was not written to or by Christians. Paul’s letters might be an exception, but Christianity as an organized religion wouldn’t exist within the same period of the writing of the New Testament. It was written for and to, primarily, Jews.
@TheCaledonianBoy 4 жыл бұрын
J-MO All those who follow Jesus Christ are Christian whether they were Jewish or non-Jewish. The writers of the NT may have been Jews by birth, but they were Christians by choice. At Acts 15 we see the gathering of older men in Jerusalem discussing the issue teaching the gentile Christians to follow the Law. the end result was a letter being sent to all the congregations by the apostles and older men. That can only be viewed as the early Christian church in action, Christianity
@yourfutureself3392 3 жыл бұрын
Could you please make a vid about a philosophical defense of the trinity, not a theological one. It could be very interesting.
@InspiringPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Zq1ihpirzqrHf2Q.html
@InspiringPhilosophy 11 жыл бұрын
You were warned against mass-commenting, nothing has been deleted since you stopped. Dr. Brown has already addressed this. You are confusing essence with abilities. God has the ability & has in the old testament taken on the form of man (Ex. 24, Gen. 18) to reveal Himself to us. God in essence is God, but He has the ability to take the form of flesh, which is what Jesus has done. Plainly, Jesus is a walking Shekhinah. God revealing Himself through flesh, while being God in heaven as the Father.
@gamer7916 11 жыл бұрын
Then what about Matthew 24:36?
@marshallmatters9865 11 жыл бұрын
Page 2 I wanted to hear the voice over and over again, till it becomes like my close friend everyday it speaks to me. It showed me many things and made me see many things. At that time i Didn't have a laptop. Anyway, after a year the voice was still talking to me and one day i was ignorant so i tell the voice that was talking to me to leave me alone and i curse it. The next day the voice was gone, it was one for about 3 weeks.