I wish my Mormon parents would read early church fathers rather than think I’m clinically insane for believing in the Trinity

The first thing came to my mind when I saw this video in recommendation is Muhammed Hijab asking Jay Smith to quote one early church father who believed in trinity, Jay ended quoting 5. It was legendary.

Glory be To the Father and to The Son and to The Holy spirit

I did not know that this was a point of dispute.

Ignatius who was desciple of John said in "Epistle to Ephesians chapter 7: there is one physician who is possessed both of spirit and flesh, BOTH MADE AND NOT MADE, CREATED AND UNCREATED, BORN AND UNBORN, GOD EXISTING IN FLESH Epistle to ephesians chapter 19: GOD HIMSELF MANIFESTED IN HUMAN FORM FOR THE RENEWAL OF ETERNAL LIFE" 1st century very early Christian and even disciple to none other than John himself said it period.

I grew up as a Oneness pentacostal. I've done some reading of Justin Martyr and it was very helpful in moving to a better understanding of the Trinity. Video like these have been very helpful for me over the last few years. Thanks!

Before the Nicea Council, there are several early church fathers affirming the Trinity. While Tertullian had new theological concepts and advanced the development of early Church doctrine, he is the first on record to use the term 'Trinity,' (from Latin "trinitas). Nevertheless, the earliest reference among this group is feasibly made by Polycarp. Worthwhile, to explore further also, is the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD. Hope this helps. God bless. Pastor John

Thank you Mike! I’m doing a study on the Trinity directed to Mormons! This is so helpful!

It seems the idea of the trinity has been there since the beginning, but the terminology came later. It's like early astronomers always knew there was a "morning star" but later astronomers clarified it was the planet Venus.

Thank you soo much. I am forwarding this to my Jehovah friends who believes the trinity was invented by 4th century church. Pretty sure they won’t watch, but then it’s on them.

And Jesus Himself Tells To Baptize Everyone in the name of God Our Father The Son And The Holy Ghost !

Not just the early Church. Early Judaism taught a plurality within the Godhead for centuries before Jesus incarnated, until rabbis decided to retroactively label their own theology a heresy as a reaction against Christianity.

Gregory of Thaumaturgus is so underrated he describes the Trinity so clearly

What a great production, you absolutely nailed it! Clear, thorough and a delight. Thank you.

This new editing is amazing. Keep up the great work IP!

Praise Father , Son , and Holy Ghost. Amen 🎶

Hi Michael, just watched your video. Great stuff. I follow your work now for quite a while. I am a Roman Catholic. Not a true believer, neither an atheist. Somewhere between Santayana, Montaigne and Descartes. 250 years after I. Kant, D. Humes and M. Montaigne total certainty seems an anachronism to me. I did like what you said about hell (chat with Alex O`Connor). Did not listen out any kind of sadism and malicious joy, that you got it all right and want others (the non believers) to suffer👋👋. So common among Christians. In my opinion everyone should moderate their certainties. Also what you mentioned about the social advantages of being a believer (another chat with someone). Your work is intellectually honest, never shrill and always sincere. Its much appreciated by me. Keep going. Thank you!❤🎉❤ Andy By the way: I think Tertullian became a Montanist at the end of his life. He switched sides. I guess that is why he did not become an actual "church father". He also opposed Christians who interpreted Mathew 10,28 as annihilation and always saw the non believers in eternal hell. Origenes to me was the wisest of all. Good heart. Assumingly that is why he was considered a heretic by my Church-))

The late Chuck Missler liked to say that man is too fallen to comprehend perfect unity.

Great video as always brother thank you and all glory to God

Thank you for making this!

Brother thank you for the research to make this great video. It has encouraged my heart greatly

Thanks again for all you do

Thank you brother for the research and the info!

I love this because it literally punches any doubt in the face so hard

Video of straight facts great job ip!!

The thought of God and his love for us makes me so happy .🔥 Love your video.♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️

Informative and briliant! Glory to our triune God!

Thanks for your work on this!

Great Video!

I love when you source the Fathers...great work, as usual. Glory to the Father & to the Son & to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the Beginning, is now & will be evermore, world without end, unto the ages of ages. Amén.

Brilliantly and perfectly executed

Just had a conversation with some Witnesses yesterday so this is a good video to see on my home page!

The Trinity is also in the old testament. The Spirit of God and The Angel of the Lord are both treated and described as the one and only God, but distinct persons. The Trinity did not start with the new testament or later church figures.

Great and noteworthy sources in this video. Thanks, IP!

great video

Awesome video, thanks!!!

Bravo! I have been saying this for years. The Trinity concept was part of Christianity from the very beginning. In fact, may Jews of the first century also believed that God was a Trinity of Persons. Philo, the 1st century Jewish philosopher, asserted that God manifested Himself in 3 different "emanations" in the Hebrew Tanakh.

Impressive. Very based

Excellent video! Good work!

Thanks for this!

Great stuff, IP.

God bless you IP! You're doing the Lord's work 🙏🏻🙏🏻

The diety of Christ is the cornerstone of Christianity, as supported by scripture.

My girlfriend and her mom are Oneness Pentecostals. Every service I go to the pastor, or whoever else is teaching, always bring up how their doctrine is sound doctrine and the other doctrines are false and dangerous. They also mention that Oneness is right because there isn’t 3 Gods (referring to the Trinity.) I am not joking when I say it is every single service they are talking about how they have sound doctrine, and will blatantly call out baptists for having unsound doctrine because they believe “you can believe in Jesus and live however you want and be saved.” I have had multiple conversations with people in this church about the Trinity, yet there response is always 1. The Trinity teaches 3 Gods 2. Christianity never taught the Trinity because the Bible says One God, One faith, one baptism

Excellent scholarship as expected of IP

Thank you for your ministry, and for bringing to light all this scholarship. Perhaps soon I'll muster the spine to show this to my Unitarian relatives.

Amen. A very helpful compilation to draw from. Great work and emphasis on trinitarian belief before the Counsel of Nicea which non-believers put far too much emphasis on, in terms of how much it modified.

Thank you for sharing this video. As always, excellent work.

150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: 'God went up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 37) 150 AD Justin Martyr quotes Hebrews 1:8 to prove the Deity of Christ. "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 56) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 63. 150 AD Justin Martyr in Chap. LXVI. He (Justin) Proves From Isaiah That God Was Born From A Virgin. (Chapter Title, Chap. LXVI) 150 AD Justin Martyr "And Trypho said, "You endeavor to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured to be born and become man...some Scriptures which we mention, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and [to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 68)

Time-stamp 3:43, 4:10 - Clement of Alexandria Stromata 5.11, 13 on the Holy Spirit 6:05, 6:30 - Hippolytus of Rome Against Noetus 7:19 - Gregory the wonder worker 8:05 - Irenaeus 8:30 - Irenaeus’ presentation of the three, as the three points of faith (Dem. of Apostolic Preaching 6) 9:23 - Justin Martyr 9:40 - Justin’s First Apology on the Spirit 10:01 - Justin Martyr talks about baptism in the name of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. 10:26 - Justin Martyr on second and third place 11:20 - Ignatius 12:12 - Odes of Solomon 12:37 - The Epistle of the Apostles 12:47 - Athenagoras of Athens 13:00 - Theophilus of Antioch 14:19 - The Didache and baptism

I did not realize the phos hilaron was that old, nice to know that for when I pray evensong

Matthew 28: baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Very informative video.

Mike anyway you would have a conversation with William lane craig? That would be epic

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! Happy Easter-He is risen!

It also shows the trinity was a controversial idea from the beginning. That's why early church fathers open their statements like, "Indeed, there is only one God .... yes, Christians are monotheists ..."

Great material 👍👍🙏🏻🙏🏻

Excellent work 👏🏼

I actually found two even earlier references in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians: In chapter 2 we read: “Content with the provision which GOD had made for you, and carefully attending to HIS words, you were inwardly filled with HIS doctrine, and HIS SUFFERINGS were before your eyes.” [Emphasis mine]. This could only be referring to Christ since he is the God that suffered (if you follow the pronouns). In Chapter 13, Clement writes "...and let us act according to that which is written, FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT SAYS “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, neither let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him that glories glory in the Lord, in diligently seeking Him, and doing judgment and righteousness." [Emphasis mine]. Here Clement is citing Jeremiah 9:23-24. But if you go and read the passage, it is the LORD (YHWH) who says these words: "Thus says the LORD, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches..." But Clement says it was the Holy Spirit who said these words - showing that understood the Spirit to be God.

In your video stating you won't tell us what your denomination is, I could be wrong but at least based off this video I can tell you are western christian because of the diagram of the Trinity you use. The filioque orientals and easterners dispute with us westerners.

Silassien Amesginu!!! Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty! Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee; Holy, holy, holy! merciful and mighty! God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!

This is a good compilation! The only thing I wish you would have addressed is Tertullian’s statement about the Son being a portion of the whole substance, while the Father is the whole (Against Praxeus Chapter 9). That kind of language doesn’t work with many trinitarian models. That said, it might harmonize with a Monarchy of the Father trinitarian model, but I would have to ask a monarchal trinitarian about Tertullian’s language here.

Looking forward to this. Love IP's playlist on the trinity explained: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z81zqZB3ptDLoKc.html

Amen❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊😊

Thrice Holy Triune God, be glorified in us your servants.

This is such an informative video, with proper primary sources. Deffinetly a good refference for all those opposing trinitarianism as the real doctrine of Christianity. Man, some people hold to their uninformed views about Trinity being "made up" by Constantine or something... This video might help ...

I'm a Trinitarian but I do not like this tactic and bringing up every Early Church quote that supports our position but ignoring the ones that don't. Justin places the genesis of the Logos as a voluntary act of the Father at the beginning of creation which is essentially Arianism. The Only Think you Have to believe to be able to call yourself a Christian is that Jesus is the Son fo God, 1 John 4:15 is clear that no one who believes that cna have their status as a true believer questioned.

If anyone is Catholic, they should mention the vision in which Catherine Emmerich saw Holy Trinity in the form of Three Concentric Circles

That's good thanks mate for legend.

I appreciate your video, it would be helpful if you dated the people you mentioned and or their works.

Honestly? The whole concept of the Trinity made so much sense after I found out about systems. One human being, many persons. One God, three Persons. It's so much easier to understand it after you know about plurality as a whole - thanks for the video :D

With all due respect to your video here, this is not the “trinity” that I’ve ever known about The Co equal co eternal etc It’s been an established fact that church fathers before the Nicene creed were in dispute with church fathers after the council Having one or two doesn’t help when many of them teach different ways of the Trinity If you mean by the word trinity that three entities shared to be God then at least after the 150 ac to 299 ac There are church fathers who thought about Jesus and the holy spirit to be god but they have their own definition of what Jesus to be god means Church fathers are not a bunch Of Ignorant that don’t know what the Bible says They know it Just like Tertullian who was more of an orthodoxy that he only accepted the Bible’s verses and what the people before him believed in And his conclusions made him a heretic !! Don’t you see the Irony? That your church fathers either they are heretics or not considered saints due to the Athanasius teachings that won in the end There are many differences in reading the church history when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity with respect to the Bible verses

Michael, does belief in the Trinity require belief in a tripersonal God (contra Branson) or is it as he thinks consistent with believing the one true God to be identical with the Father alone, with the others being divine in some sense because of him?

MORE CHURCH HISTORY CONTENT PLEASE

There were heresies and false teachers creeping into the church in the first century (Jude 1:4). By the second century, once all the apostles were dead, apostasy really got going. By the fourth century, when the trinity was officially adopted, the falling away prophesied by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 was approaching rock bottom and the Catholic Church began persecuting anyone who would not believe like they did. What ‘church fathers’ taught is not a safe guide. For example, Origen also taught universal salvation and reportedly castrated himself.

How could normal man take on the sins of all other men? The moral weight of his sacrifice would be meaningless.

Hey IP, one interesting argument that I've heard is that since Jesus is the Logos, in Genesis 1, god the father basically orders the logos by speaking. Would that not imply subordination to god the father? Is there another linguistic explanation, or is that simply reading too much into it? What is your take? Also a few other questions that have been bugging me recently, hope you can help clarify. Since Jesus the logos is considered both fully god and fully human, what exactly was his pre-existence before his worldly birth? Did his birth restrict his powers/knowledge? Did he take on human nature by birth or did he have also human nature before? If so, how? And since god is considered eternally unchanging, how is it possible for Jesus to incarnate in a human body, is that not considered a change?

God Blessed you all In Jesus mighty and powerful name I pray amen and amen 🙏✝️

Just read the Athenisian Creed. While it was not written by Athenisus himself, it was written by an early church father monk. You must confess it to be considered part of the church catholic.

Look! Why this preoccupation with the 'church fathers'? with objective insight its clear they bent over backwards to present 'christianity' in the popular terms of Greek philosophy! This is a FACT. Paul said when discussing those who were trying to subvert the faith of the brothers "Through US he (Jesus) told you the good news. Through US .." & Jude, Jesus half brother said clearly in 55AD ( long BEFORE the 'church fathers'!) "I write to urge you to defend stoutly the TRUTH WHICH GOD GAVE ONCE FOR ALL TO HIS PEOPLE.." (Jude 3). Paul warned that AFTER the apostles died that "Men would enter the flock" and that the true teachings would be 'twisted. ( please read SActs 20:28-30) From where would this deviation come "From amoung you (bishops) yourselves"! We dont need theologians & teachers!

Later, Clement of Alexandria shed off the Platonic ideas for purer Catholic Tradition, as in Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? In it he says that the signet ring placed on the finger of the returning prodigal son is the Seal of the NAME of the TRINITY. Earlier Clement was only a cathechist, but later he became a better informed actual Preist.

Do you edit on After Effects or in Premiere?

An interesting argument to promote a theological theory. I recommend taking your information directly from the source of the biblical text.

God is love. He is eternally loving. But this necessitates that there be an eternal object of his loving affection. A unitarian God before creation could not be love. But if God is one in three persons, then He can truly be eternal love where even before any other beings existed the Father Son and Spirit were in a state of eternal love with one another. The trinity makes sense of and helps us further understand the attributes (i.e. love) and work (i.e. atonement) of God. This beautiful mystery lies right at the heart of sacred scripture and has been proclaimed by faithful saints from the beginning!

good one

Why does it sound like you're using the Garden of Sinners soundtrack in the background lol

Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

If God is greater than his creation in power in knowldge in Goodness . Its not hard to concieve of God as being greater in persons

It’s like there is a cloud of witnesses affirming this doctrine and not only a doctrine but God himself.

Something that is important to note is that Christians didn't invent the Trinity -- the Trinity arises directly from the old Testament where there is unseen Yahweh in heaven, visible physical Yahweh, and Holy Spirit Yahweh. Second Temple Judaism recognized the first two in the "Two Powers" doctrine; a few rabbis noticed that the Holy Spirit is Yahweh but distinct from the other two, making three Powers in heaven. So the Trinity does not come from Greek philosophy, it comes from Judaism. Certainly they didn't go to full-fledged trinitarianism, but they were definitely binitary. In the second century Judaism rejected the "Two Powers" doctrine because it led many to recognize that Jesus is the visible, physical Yahweh.

Trinity is early before NT

Your timing is perfect. Unitarians are trying to go on the rise by twisting scripture. This is a great, well researched tool for refutation.

This is exceptionally similar to the Vedic concept of an avatar.

The earliest heresies were rationalizations that contended FOR the deity of Christ often at the expense of his personhood.

According to Scripture, Christ founded a visible Church that would never go out of existence and had authority to teach and discipline believers (see Matt. 16:18-19, 18:17). St. Paul tells us this Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and it was built on “the foundation of the apostles” (Eph. 2:20). Paul also tells us the Church would have a hierarchy composed of deacons (1 Tim. 3:8-13); presbyters, from where we get the English word priest (1 Tim. 5:17); and bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-7). Paul even instructed one of these bishops, Titus, to appoint priests on the island of Crete (Titus 1:5). In A.D. 110, St. Ignatius of Antioch told his readers, “Follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8) Unlike the apostles, Christ’s Church would exist for all ages, so the apostle’s passed on to their successors the authority to bind and loose doctrine (see Matt. 18:18), forgive sins (see John 20:23), and speak on behalf of Christ (see Luke 10:16). Acts 1:20, for example, records how after Judas’s death Peter proclaimed that Judas’s office (or, in Greek, his bishoporic) would be transferred to a worthy successor. In 1 Timothy 5:22, Paul warned Timothy to “not be hasty in the laying on of hands” when he appointed new leaders in the church. At the end of the first century, Clement of Rome, who according to ancient tradition was ordained by Peter himself, wrote, “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop . . . [so they made preparations that] . . . if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1-3). Just as the apostles’ authority was passed on their successors, Peter’s authority as the leader of the apostles and the rock on whom the Church was built (Matt 16:18) was passed on to his successor. This man inherited the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19) and Peter’s duty to shepherd Christ’s flock (see John 21:15-17). Peter’s successor was the pastor of Christ’s church and a spiritual father to the Lord’s children (1 Cor. 4:15), thus explaining his offices future title pope, which comes from papa, the Latin word for father. Myth #2 - The Bishop of Rome had no special authority in the early Church. Peter was never even in Rome! Both the New Testament and the early Church Fathers testify to Peter being in Rome. At the end of his first letter, Peter says he is writing from “Babylon” (5:13), which was a common code word for Rome, because both empires were lavish persecutors of God’s people (see Rev. 17-18; Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 6). In the words of Protestant scholar D.A. Carson, Peter was “in Rome about 63 (the probable date of 1 Peter). Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who died in 54 (H.E. 2.14.6)” (An Introduction to the New Testament, 180). Peter may not have always been present in Rome (which would explain why Paul does not address him in his epistle to the Romans), but there is a solid tradition that Peter founded the Church in Rome and later died there. For example, Paul says the Roman Church was founded by “another man” (Rom. 15:21), and St. Ignatius of Antioch told the Christians in Rome he would not command them in the same way Peter had previously commanded them. At the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus wrote, “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3). A priest named Gaius who lived during Irenaeus’s time even told a heretic named Proclus that “the trophies of the apostles” (i.e., their remains) were buried at Vatican Hill (Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5). Indeed, archaeological evidence unearthed in the twentieth century revealed a tomb attributed to Peter underneath St. Peter’s basilica in Rome. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Saints, “it is probable that the tomb is authentic. It is also significant that Rome is the only city that ever claimed to be Peter’s place of death” (353). In regard to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor, in the first century Clement of Rome (the fourth pope) intervened in a dispute in the Church of Corinth. He warned those who disobeyed him that they would “involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger,” thus demonstrating his authority over non-Roman Christians. St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Roman Church as the one that teaches other churches and “presides in love” over them. In fact, the writings of Pope Clement (A.D. 92-99) and Pope Soter (A.D. 167-174) were so popular that they were read in the Church alongside Scripture (Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9). In A.D. 190, Pope St. Victor I excommunicated an entire region of churches for refusing to celebrate Easter on its proper date. While St. Irenaeus thought this was not prudent, neither he nor anyone else denied that Victor had the authority to do this. Indeed, Irenaeus said, “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome] on account of its preeminent authority” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2). Keep in mind that all of this evidence dates a hundred to two hundred years before Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire, thus deflating the Fundamentalist theory that the papacy was created by the Roman emperor in the fourth century. Some people object that if Peter and his successors had special authority, why didn’t Christ say so when the apostles argued about “who was the greatest” (Luke 22:24)? The reason is that Christ did not want to contribute to their misunderstanding that one of them would be a privileged king. Jesus did say, however, that among the apostles there would be a “greatest” who would rule as a humble servant (Luke 22:26). That’s why since the sixth century popes have called themselves servus servorum Dei, or “servant of the servants of God.” Pope Gregory I used the title in his dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Faster, who called himself the “Universal Bishop.” Gregory didn’t deny that one bishop had primacy over all the others, since in his twelfth epistle Gregory explcitly says Constaninople was subject to the authority of the pope. Instead, he denied that the pope was the bishop of every individual territory, since this would rob his brother bishops of their legitimate authority, even though they were still subject to him as Peter’s successor.

The theological theory of Trinity is a human devised term and study. It is a human interpretation of the bible. The source is the bible. Different theological theories have also developed from the same source. All from the bible - unless one considers that the church came to speak with divine inspiration…. The question then arises, is the bible not enough and must be expounded on or added to?

Your first item is the Phos Hilaron, which some people claim Basil wrote. Maybe it is older as he claims, but does the ancient version actually have the trinity in it? What does Basil actually say: 'Our fathers thought that they should welcome the gift of evening lifght with something better than silence, so they gave thanks as soon as it appeared. We cannot say who composed these words of thanksgiving at the lighting of the lamps, but the people use these ancient words, and no one accuses them of blaspheming for sing: "We praise Father, Son, and God's Holy Spirit." -- St. Basil the Great *On the Holy Spirit* par. 73 It might be considered significant because it includes praise for the holy spirit, but it doesn't identify the hs as God, or the son for that matter. It certainly isn't the same as the versions used today, which have had the trinity added in. Why would that need to be done if the tripersonal God was part of ancient worship in the earlier centuries?

Satan knows that if you don't understand God's nature, you won't understand your own. Selling the modern "trinity" is one of Satans most impressive accomplishments.

Of course the trinity was always taught. The Orthodox church is the evidence of this.

I would disagree with the last sentence. I find that the full knowledge and understand if the Trinity is irrelevant to a Christian. Maybe if he likes to debate but in any other situation it's pretty much useless. Just basic understanding is enough.