Read the ENTIRE Bible. At the baptism of Christ, all three members of the Trinity show up at the same time. Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." They share the divine nature. At the Transfiguration, the Father speaks of HIs "beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Jesus also speaks of his divine, eternal nature when he says, "Before Abraham was born, I am." I AM = the name of God. The examples are numerous.
Cynthia, the doctrine of the trinity does not exist ANYWHERE in the Bible. Just because the three of them are in the Bible doesn't mean that each one of them is God and it doesn't mean that the three are one.
You need to learn how to read, Cynthia. The passage you are referring to has absolutely nothing to do with the trinity doctrine. Let me lecture you on that. The trinity doctrine declares that Jesus is God, the holy spirit is god, and god (Yahweh), is god. None of the passages you are referring to say that. You can keep looking all over the Bible. You will not see a legitimate passage saying that. I know the Bible, my dear. I say "legitimate" because dishonest Christians have inserted some words in the Bible to make it look like the trinity is there. This is fraud, of course. Christians have committed tons of fraud. The most egregious one is 1 Jn 5:7-8. But you probably didn't even know about that, did you? Your knowledge of the Bible is so, so poor!
In the beginning was the second member of the trinity and the second member of the trinity was with the first member of the trinity and the second member of the trinity was the first member of the trinity. Cool! Modalism 😂
What do you make of Jesus's comment to Mary after his resurrection, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." ? John 20:17
@@The_Literate_Christian One in thought and purpose. John 17:22,23 "The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. "
If you're hanging your whole argument for or against the trinity on this one verse you have missed so much of the bible and understanding the covenants and how God interacts and unveils himself throughout the ages.
@@carmelo1509 the trinity is an essential core doctrine of all who call themselves Christian. Anything else has long been called heretical. It’s not a point to just agree to disagree on. He is Creator Lord.
This verse is just one of many which are covered on this channel, to show that the Trinity is not a Bible teaching. We don't find it anywhere in the Bible clearly defined or described. Which we definitely should if it's as important as people say it is. Salvation is supposed to be dependent on it, yet God, Jesus, his apostles, and the prophets, don't ever introduce it, let alone explain it.
Does anyone remember when Jesus was baptized..and what happened? A voice from heaven spoke and said this is my son ..listen to him.. This was Jehovah the almighty speaking . The scriptures are Crystal clear. Jesus is God's son who has been given much power and is lord of the kingdom
The early church was monotheistic. Look at Peter's speech in Acts 2. "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know" v22.
@@jillthorpe8114 Indeed, my friend, the early church WAS monotheistic. But which verse says that ONE God equals ONE person? What do husband and wife become? ONE flesh or two?
😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇 *Why the only verse mentioning trinity in 1 John 5:7 was dropped from The 1952 RSV English translation of bible stating that there is no such verse in the original manuscripts and it has been inserted and concocted? Trinity also contradicts the teachings of Jesus which says "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only you shall serve (Luke 4:8). This means that you shall not worship Jesus. PERIOD* .
What has the inclusion or exclusion of this verse have to do with Jesus Christ being God or not. Would the weight of it be stronger than Isaiah 40:1 - 3 - 11 which tells us plainly that John the Baptist was preparing the way of the LORD God.
This verse can cause confusion when people are comparing translations so I personally find it useful to know something of its history. Isaiah 40:1,3,11 This starts with God’s promise that things will improve for Israel. As you say it then speaks of John the Baptist and his task of preparing the way for Jesus. This he did by preaching. He didn’t literally fill the valleys, etc. This is describing the complete overturning that Jesus’ preaching brought about. Jesus was doing God’s work and showed “the salvation of God”. As Jesus himself said in Gethsemane, “nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will”. (Matthew 26:39)
Daniel, first of all you are dead wrong about Isaiah 40. There is no John the Baptist there, and "the lord" in the Old Testament is not Jesus. Secondly, this is not about any of that. It's about the fact that the trinity doctrine i NOT in the Bible.
@@carmelo1509 Sorry my beloved, This is not about religious politics, it's is all about the truth. John the Baptist said that he was the voice of him crying in the wilderness (John 1:23, Matthew 3:3, and Malachi 3:1). Please read.
@@danielukpong4675 The Bible is mythology, Daniel. If you think the Bible is "the truth", then the Quran is "the truth," the Bhagavad Vita is "the truth", and the Greek gods." are the truth. Grow up, my friend. If you analyze that story with an open mind you will see that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist, not the other way round.
@@carmelo1509First show me where you see Jesus being a follower of John the baptist. Second you do know the bible is the oldest most well preserved, studied and scrutinized book in history we have? That is confirmed by literary style, analysis and archeological evidence. Brother you are may try to work around it but unfortunately someday you will have to face the truth.
The “G” word (God) is a misnomer. It is not the name of a person. It is more of a job description (elohim) used by more than just one entity (Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34).
John 1:1-3 shows that God always had a plan which would culminate in the sending of his son. As it says in v14 "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only son from the Father". The word is God's plan and purpose. Throughout the centuries he had sent prophets to tell people about Himself then the time came for Him to send His son, as it says in Hebrews 1:1,2. As God's son Jesus can show what God is like so much better than anyone else which is what it says in John 1:18. There's even a parable about it in Mark 12:1-11.
@@ericlewis4783 In the Greek there are 2 referents meaning that Thomas was addressing 2 different people. Something that gets lost in an English translation. Jesus also speaks to Mary after his resurrection "Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’" John 20:17
@@jillthorpe8114 Not sure exactly what you are trying to tell me. John 14:8-9 / John 8:58/ colossians 1:15-17 are just a few passages among countless others showing who Jesus is. No other sacrifice for sins would be enough if it wasn't God sacrificing himself for us.
@@ericlewis4783 I am pointing out that Jesus himself specifically says he has a God. I used his words to Mary in John 20:17 but there are several other verses such as, Matthew 27:46, Romans 15:6, Revelation 3:12. This is apart from verses where Jesus such things as God has sent him or that he is inferior to God. John 14:8-9 Jesus is telling Peter that he is showing the Father, the character of the Father. Notice he doesn’t say he is showing him God. John 8:58 In the previous verse Jesus said his father "is greater than all". The words I am in Greek are 'ecco aimi', the usual way of saying I am in Greek. It appears many times used by different people, eg the blind man in John 9:9. For more detail on this and more examples watch the video ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’. Colossians 1:15-17 The ‘image’ is not the same as the actual thing, it’s a representation of that thing. Jesus always said he came to represent or to show God. Ashe says to Peter in John 14:8-9, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.” Jesus does and speaks the things God tells him to. God cannot die. Which is why he sent his son, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16.
Your preaching to the choir,Bible never says He is.Just says He was birthed out of God in the beginning and He is His Father's Son.Not the Father's equal,but still mighty in power,given Him by the Father.
Thanks for your support. The choir may be present, but if you look at the other comments you can see that a fair number of people who have viewed the video don't agree with the facts it presents.
It is always interesting, though unfortunate, to hear people bemoan about the Trinity without taking time to study the Holy Scriptures. The Trinity is clearly laid out right from the Book of Genesis Chapter 1. Verse 1: "Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Verse 2: Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." The spoken Word is Jesus, who became flesh as the living Word. Here we see: God the Father, The Holy Spirit and the Son (Word). And in the same Genesis Chapter 1: Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: ...." Who are the 'US' in the verse? The Father, the Son(Word) and the Holy Spirit. There is no denying that the Trinity comes alive right from the Beginning of the Bible. So all the attempts to gaslight the Trinity by the error of ignorant people is null and void. God is not a simplicita as the tiny amoeba that has only one cell. The human male body on the other hand is said to have about 36 trillion cells, while female have about 28 trillion cells! This suggests complexity. Think about this for a moment. For God to be who he is, he cannot be a 'single cell' God, borrowing himan words to explain what I'm trying to communicate. Our God is not a cell, neither can he ever be a one. That He is who He is doesn't make Him three God's, He is absolutely one God but manifested as stated in the Scriptures. So truly, the Lord our God is One LORD. There is no doubt about that. Even the human being God created in his image and likeness, has three dimensions: spirit soul (mind) and body. Yet we refer to one person as one. Man's three dimensions are blended into oneness. Genesis 41:8 "And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled..." Exodus 31:3 " And I have filled him with the Spirit of God..." Isaiah 61:1 "The spirit of the Lord is upon me..." In the New Testament, right after Jesus was baptised, the Holy Trinity came on full display: Matthew 3:16 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The Father spoke from heaven, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Son.It was a confirmation of Scripture when the Father said: "This is my beloved Son, in whomI am well pleased". At the Baptism of Jesus, there was tge Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Period! Then John the Apostle, makes it even more bold and clearer in John 1: 1- 4: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men." So the Word created all things and without him nothing was made. Genesis Chapter 1 confirms John 1. How can he be creator if he is not God? Human reasoning can never destroy the Word of God but God's Word received with an open mind makes sense to the human mind when sincere. Those who think the Trinity is man made should know that they are mistaken. It is a fatal flaw to believe the lies of false prophets and teachers who are sinners and anti-Christ. Jesus is always waiting with open arms to save all who will repent from their sins and put their trust in Jesus Christ as their Saviour and accept Him as Lord. Amen. Whoever reads the above and still doubts the Trinity should honestly answer the following question Jesus the Pharisees: Matthew 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? You can post your answer in the comments section.
Good point. Interestingly there was no argument about the nature of God or the nature of Jesus in the New Testament. There were arguments about leaving other elements of Judaism behind (circumcision, diet, whether new converts should first adopt Judaism) but no controversy about Jesus. The controversy about the nature of Jesus and the nature of God began at the end of the second century and reached a peak in the fourth century. This shows that the Apostles didn't challenge the Jewish picture of God. We have a video on this at: czcams.com/video/0HnYxMKnGRs/video.html
Paul was a Jew. Peter was a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. Were all 3 out of their minds? Trinitarians are monotheists. Your inability to understand a concept does not prove it wrong.
@@ministryoftruth1451 ... 1. Not all Christians believe in a triune entity. 2. The issue was what Jews thought/believed. None of his apostles thought he was a god.
Read and study the ENTIRE Bible before drawing conclusions. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." They share the divine nature. Look at the baptism of Christ to see the Trinity in action. All three show up at the same time. John the Baptist acknowledges this.
the trinity is all the way back to being shown in the Abrahamic covenant where the Father uses the Spirit in the vision to foreshadow the Son as walking between to become the sacrifice. and there are so many other examples where you can draw conclusions of the trinity.
@@CynthiaSe-o9g all that scripture is saying is that they are close and on the same page. Just like how the scriptures say a husband and wife are "one flesh"..
Cynthia, Jesus also sad that when two people marry they become "one flesh." Is that literal? Of course not! And neither is John 10:30. Learn some grammar, my friend. It's called a METAPHOR. Think about the contradiction of what you're saying. If Jesus and Yahweh were literally "one" then they would not be distinct, would they? And what does the trinity doctrine state again? YEP! It says they ARE distinct. So you are demolishing your own beliefs.
@@CynthiaSe-o9g That is true brother but that is not the fullness of the truth or full counsel of God. There are also one in Person because the Holy Ghost is also the personal Spirit of the Father (that is God) and Son is also the Express Image of the Father's Person or the Reproduction and Revelation of the Father's Person.
Of course, the phrase "Are one" can mean "In agreement". This fits the context in this passage - Jesus has voiced his determination that no-one can snatch his followers from his hand, and earlier the passage points out that God has said the same thing.
He is taking 1 John 5: 7 as the sole premise for the Trinity whereas the church fathers who dogmatised the trinity never used it in the first place. For example Athanasius used the verse you just quoted in order to assert Christ's divinity. But let the fools be fools!
@@boldisorstefan9020 The point about most of the passages used as proof texts by Trinitarians is that they are easily read in a non=Trinirarian way. There is no passage which says that there are three persons in the godhead other than the Comma Johannaeum, which is spurrious. One has to ask why anyone would insist on inserting such a passage into the Bible.
@@GospelOnlineUK Because there was a lack of Greek manuscripts excluding the Comma Johanneum. If you were the head of the Catholic Church under these circumstances, would you have excluded this passage? Interpreting Trinitarian passages in a non-Trinitarian way is similar to how different legal scholars interpret the Constitution. For instance, originalists read the Constitution based on the intent of the Founding Fathers, while living constitutionalists interpret it as a dynamic document that should evolve with society. Each perspective is rooted in a different foundational belief, yet both are reading the same text. Just as a living constitutionalist cannot deny the original text of the Constitution, a non-Trinitarian cannot deny the passages in the Bible that have traditionally supported Trinitarian views.
@@boldisorstefan9020 Exactly. The later church authorities (initially Roman Catholic) felt that they needed a passage in the Bible which would express the doctrine of the Trinity, and knww that no such passage existed. The Comma Iohannaeum is not in the Greek fathers or the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and it was in only a minority of the Latin Manuscripts.
@@boldisorstefan9020 There are two points here. The first is the question of why Clement decided that the Comma Johannauem (CJ) should be included in the Clementine Vulgate, in spite of the fact that it was in only a minority of Vulgate manuscripts at the time. The second is whether passages which were written by people who were non-Trinitarian should be interpreted in a Trinitarian manner by later theologians who have Trinitarian beliefs. The Inclusion of The Comma Johannaeum Clement VIII ordered the inclusion of the CJ in the version of the Vulgate that he ordered made - this is the current version of the Vulgate used by the RC church. He did so in spite of the fact that most of the manuscripts of the Vulgate available to him did not include this passage. The new Vulgate was ordered because the College of Cardinals did not approve of the more scholarly revision of the Vulgate produced by Sixtus V. The revision was produced in under a month’s work, based on doctrinal interpretation and released two years after the Sixtine Vulgate. The inclusion of the CJ was for doctrinal reasons, not textual ones. This is a poor reason for changing the text of the Bible. It presumes that the Church (in this case the 16th century RC church) knows more about the teaching of the Apostles than the Apostles did. I can see the temptation that the RC Church had at this point; it wished to ensure that there was something in the Bible which would support their doctrinal stance, but this is the wrong way round. The Bible should not be changed to fit a later stance. Why not change the Bible to encourage abortion or same-sex marriage, or for that matter racism or infanticide? The Church was wrong to include an obviously spurious text in their version of the New Testament. Changing Interpretation to fit Later Teaching. You ask whether it is right to change one’s interpretation of a text of scripture to fit later theological ideas. The point, I think, is that the New Testament contains the teaching of the Apostles, who were personally chosen by Christ to convey his message. This means that their authority cannot be overturned by later tradition. What one has to do is to decide what the Apostles were teaching from the writings that they left, inspired by God. If a later theologian wishes to reinterpret them to fit, for example, Platonic philosophy, then he is on a downward slope, just as would be the case if one were to re-interpret the Bible to fit with postmodernism. The original teaching of the church was not Trinitarian; the doctrine of the Trinity was put together in the fourth century and refined in the fifth to seventh centuries. The roots of the Trinity go back to the logos theorists of the second and third centuries, but the earlier versions of the Logos theory do not match the later Trinity. The Church should not seek to change the Bible, or to force unnatural interpretations onto the Bible because of a new fashion of doctrine. What the members of the church should do, and the institution should follow suit, is to discover what the Apostles originally taught and what they wrote for us in the New Testament.
Here we Have the FATHER, The SON and the Holy Spirit manifesting themselves simultaneously. Luke 3:22: And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. John 1:32: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. Mark 1:10: And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: verse 11: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. verse 12: And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
Dear Jabbie, you seriously need to learn how to read. The doctrine of the trinity states that each of those those three are God. None of your references say that.
Wow, I can't believe you put so much effort into denying the deity of Jesus Christ. Just because false Roman Catholics affirm the Trinity doctrine, does not mean that the doctrine itself is wrong. On the contrary, evidence of the deity of Christ is all over the Bible. For people who actually read their Bibles, this is not a surprise. Here are some basic questions for you: 1. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Answers: God did - Acts 4:10, 13:30, Romans 6:4, 8:11, & others. Additional answer: Jesus raised Himself from the dead. "..Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up....he spake of the temple of his body." John 2:19 Is that a contradiction? Of course not. Jesus was Emmanuel, which means what? "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Matthew 1:23 He was "God with us.." in the flesh while on earth. 2. What Spirit indwells believers? Answers: "Spirit of God." 1 Corinthians 3:16 "Spirit of God," "Spirit of Christ," & "Spirit of Life." Romans 8:10, 1 Peter 1:11 (You think that's three separate Spirits? I hope not!) 3. How many Saviors are there? Answer: ONE "Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me." Hosea 13:4 (OT reference to Yᵊhōvâ) "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11 (OT reference to Yᵊhōvâ) "...and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me." Isaiah 45:21 (OT reference to Yᵊhōvâ) "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;" 1 Timothy 2:3 (NT reference to (NT reference to Yᵊhōvâ/Theos) "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." Jude 1:25 (NT reference to Yᵊhōvâ/Theos) "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:11 (NT reference to Jesus Christ our Savior) "Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour" Titus 1:4 (NT reference to Jesus Christ our Savior) "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Titus 2:13 (NT reference to Jesus Christ our Savior) -I could keep going, as there are several other verses. You think there are more than ONE Savior? No. THEY ARE ONE. 4. How many First and Last, Alpha and Omegas are there? Answer: ONE (OT references to Yᵊhōvâ) "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."Isaiah 44:6 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." Isaiah 48:12 (NT references to Jesus Christ) "...I am ALPHA AND OMEGA, the FIRST AND THE LAST: and, What thou seest, write in a book.." Revelation 1:11 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the FIRST AND THE LAST: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." Revelation 1:17-18 (Did God ever die? No, only Jesus died on the cross and is raised from the dead). "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the FIRST AND THE LAST, which was dead, and is alive;" Revelation 2:8 "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am ALPHA AND OMEGA, the BEGINNING AND THE END, the FIRST AND THE LAST." Revelation 22:12-13 You think there are more than ONE Alpha/Omega, First/Last? No, just ONE.
God is described as King of kings in 1 Timothy 6:15. Does that mean there's only one king of kings? And if Jesus is called King of kings, he must therefore be God? If so, what about Ezra 7:12, Ezekiel 26:7, and Daniel 2:37? If God is the only saviour, how was it possible for the judges of Israel to be called saviours in Nehemiah 9:27? Therefore Jesus being called saviour doesn't make him God. And when God says, 'there is no God (Elohim) else beside me', how is it possible that he also calls human judges gods (Elohim) in Psalm 82:6? And how is he able to call Moses an Elohim to Pharaoh in Exodus 7:1?
@@eddieyoung2104 Ezra 7:12 shows what Artaxerxes wrote (from himself) to Ezra the priest. He calls himself "Artaxerxes, king of kings... " Ezekiel 26:7 and Daniel 2:37 are both referring to King Nebuchadnezzar as (A) king of kings, not THE king of kings. Jesus IS (THE) King of Kings and Lord of Lords like God, His Father, not (A) king of kings or (A) Lord of Lords. God and His Son are ONE. Isaiah 9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." That's talking about Jesus Christ. He is God (The Son). Regarding Exodus 7:1, God gave Moses authority to speak in HIS Name and execute HIS judgment on Pharaoh. But God does not address Moses as He addressed Jesus in Hebrews 1:8-10 by saying, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." and "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.." Like Exodus 7:1, Psalm 82:6 refers to the fact that Israel was a chosen people above all other nations. "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, ABOVE ALL THE NATIONS that are upon the earth." Deuteronomy 14:2 He's not calling them Gods, as HE and His Son are ONE God in eternity. Now your turn. How many Alpha/Omega & First & Last are there? God gives Himself that title in the OT, and Jesus gives Himself that title in Revelation. Has anyone else in the Bible called themselves Alpha and Omega or The First and The Last?? Does Moses' spirit or any other spirit live inside us, along with the Spirit of Christ, or the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Life, which are ALL ONE SPIRIT? Do you deny that Jesus gave His own life and also raised it up by Himself? Is that a contradiction? And lastly, surely you don't deny the deity of Jesus Christ. However, if you don't believe that He and His Father are ONE, by necessity, you MUST believe that He is a separate (from the Father) deity. Do you realize that makes you a polytheist? Yes, you believe in multiple Gods. I believe in the ONE TRUE GOD who manifests Himself in three forms as the Scriptures obviously teach.
@@ByTheBook777 You make a good point about king of kings. God is indeed the King, and the others are a king. Thanks for pointing that out. With Jesus, in Revelation, it calls him King of kings, but doesn't specify 'the' or 'a', so he could be A king of kings. I would go with him being A king, while his father is THE king. And I would separate the Father and Jesus into two beings, because even Jesus calls his father, 'my God' several times. That means the Father is not the same being as Jesus, and also that he's higher in status. Therefore, Jesus can be a king of all kings of the earth, even though he has his father, as a king above him. The Isaiah 9:6 quote I don't think is a definitive one for proving that Jesus is part of a triune God. Just because it calls him the mighty God is not sufficient to prove he's part of a triune being with his father. 'Elohim' means 'mighty one' and when Jesus returns and reigns on the earth, he will do so as a mighty one, when the government shall be upon his shoulder. If we insist that him being called God makes him THE God, then we would also have to insist that when he's called 'everlasting Father', that means he's THE Father. However, that would be confounding the persons of the Trinity, which according to the official definition, ought not to be done. I believe Jesus began his existence in his mother's womb, through the power of God, and lived his life on earth as a mortal human being like us. Then when he was raised from the dead, he was made immortal and exalted to his father's right hand. So, I believe there is one God, who is the Father. And one Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Father's appointed saviour. And this saviour is the first human being to be made immortal, and we have the hope of being made like him, in the age to come. I know that doesn't answer all your questions, but this is long enough for now.
@@eddieyoung2104 Thanks for the reply. You believe Jesus began His existence in the womb, but what do you do with John 17:5 where Jesus says, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." ? What you're not understanding is that Jesus is God's Word(s) (come to life). In the very beginning, when God said, "Let there be light..." those very words ARE Jesus. That's why the Bible says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." You cannot separate God from His Word. Think of the Trinity like the SUN. The Sun has mass, which = God. The Sun emits light, which = Jesus (the Light of the World). The sun emits heat, which you can't see but you can feel, which = The Holy Spirit. Those are three distinct attributes, yet ONE Glorious SUN. You cannot separate them, and they are ALL in their very essence, the SUN. The Sun is the source of the light and heat, just as God the Father is the source of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They are ONE Glorious God.
@@ByTheBook777Amen brother, Here are some more verses referring to the Trinity in scripture. 2 Corinthians 13:14; Matt 28:19; Rom 14:17-18; 15:13-17; 15:30; 1 Cor 6:11, 17-19; 12:4-6; 2 Cor 1:21-22; 3:4 6; Gal 2:21-3:2; Eph 2:18; 21-22; 3:11-17; 4:4-6; 5:18-20; Phil 2:1, 6; Col 1:6-8; 1 Thess 1:1- 5; 4:2, 8; 5:18-19; 2 Thess 2:13, 14; 3:5; Tit 3:4-6; Heb 9:14; Jude 20-21.
With saying the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus is not God then that could be considered blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and indeed the only eternal sin. God did come in the flesh and God the Son Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to help us.
The holy spirit can be shown to be God's power, rather than God himself. The passage about blasphemy of the holy spirit, is talking about those who rejected the power of God, given to Jesus, to do miracles. In Luke 11:20, Jesus calls this power, 'the finger of God'. The Jews saw this and said it was by Beelzebub. That was the blasphemy.
1. John 23 "No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." 1. John, 4, 2 "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus the Messiah has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already."
Before Jesus rise up Lazaru, he prayed , oh father, i know that you always hear me, but because of the crowd, i will say it louder so that they will believe that you sent me," How Jesus tried to make people know that there is a sender but the trinity misleads the world, this maybe which John foreseen that there is tri unclean spirit that comes out from the mouth of false prophet, @1st, John, 4:1/Rev, 16:13-16,
Not competely true, if you look at the 'lost parables' in luke you will see- the parable of the lost son, is about the father, the parable of the lost sheep is about the son, and the parable of the lost coin is about the holy spirit.. i know it doesn't lay out the foundation of trinitarian belief, but it's something
Old Testament tells us of Three distinct personalities that are all divine. The Lord YHWH The Angel of YHWH (Gen 16:7; 22:9-16; 31:11-13; 32:24; Ex 3:1-5; Judges 6:11-24) The Spirit of God (Gen 1:2; Psalm 51:11; Isaiah 11:2; 63:10; 63:14) Seek and you will find. Matthew 7:7-8
No, they are not distinct, Rager. None of your references indicate they are distinct. If you follow the burning bush story or the Gideon story or any other story where the angel of Yahweh and Yahweh are both present, you will find that they are always interchangeable. Not distinct AT ALL!
@@carmelo1509 Prove it then. Saying no it isn’t does not equal a good argument. Burning Bush is a perfect example where the angel of the Lord speaks as if he’s YHWH yet is distinguished. Then YHWH says I will send forth an angel with my name. Not myself with you. You can argue with scripture all you want but it won’t change what it says. Stay blessed.
@@RagerTheStruggler As usual, Rager, you are lying about the Bible. In the burning bush story it is NOT TRUE that Yahweh said "I will send forth an angel with my name." You are making a mockery of your own book.
@@carmelo1509 I just did in my original comment and reply… burden on proof is now on you to disprove that. lol maybe you need to take a dummy 101 on how debates work. Better luck next time, stay blessed my friend.
Why are we asked to worship Jesus then if he is not God in the flesh? Why would God say he is his only beloved Son. Jesus walked through walls yet still ate food, he certainly acted God like. I wonder why you all persist in adding your own twist to what has been made obvious to believers. Very man and very God. @jillthorpe8114
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA so you took a VERY WELL KNOWN variant, which you obviously found about two days ago, and decided that surely must mean that Jesus is not God. HAHAHAHAHA
Did Cyprian have a Latin manuscript that contained the Comma? In order to answer this question we must make a clear distinction between a quotation and an interpretation. The former would indicate that at least one third century manuscript contained the Comma whereas the latter would simply show that at least one third century Christian understood 1 John 5.7-8 (without the Comma) as speaking about the Trinity. There are two reasons why this is not a quotation. Firstly, Cyrpian’s own wording precludes the possibility since he writes “de Patre et Filio et Spiritus sancto” or “concerning (the) Father and (the) Son and (the) Holy Spirit.” The little word de, translated “of,” “concerning,” or “about,” does not necessitate that the text actually mentioned them, rather it merely means that Cyprian thought the text concerned them. Of course, I am not saying that this alone is evidence that the text did not mention them, but I am saying that this cannot be used to prove that his Bible actually did include the Comma. An analogy would be the statement, “There is a passage about the Father speaking to the Son and the Holy Spirit saying ‘Let us make man.’” Of course, Genesis does not actually say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit anywhere, but this does not stop theologians from interpreting it thus. The second reason why this is definitely not a quotation from some lost Latin manuscript is that the Comma reads “Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus” or “(the) Father, (the) Word, and (the) Holy Spirit” whereas Cyprian writes “de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto” or “about (the) Father and (the) Son and (the) Holy Spirit.” Of course switching out Son for Word is a subtle change but it is enough to indicate that this is not a direct quotation. Even if Cyprian did not quote the later version of 1 John 5.7-8 he did read the earlier version in a Trinitarian sense. He understood the Spirit, the water, and the blood to be referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Daniel Wallace, himself a Trinitarian, writes, “Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5.7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely.”[9] From all of this, we can merely conclude that at least one third century Christian read 1 John 5.7-8 in a Trinitarian sense even though the Comma was omitted from the text he had.
Thanks for that comment. By the late third century the Logos theorists were working towards the later doctrine of the Trinity. They tended to use allegorical methods to interpret the scriptures, so it is quite likely that they would press any passage with a threefold structure into service to support their scheme for the godhead.
@@c434567557 The scriptures themselves were written by prophets and apostles, who very clearly have an anti-Trinitarian theology. However, most of the scribes who copied the manuscripts were working in monasteries. These scribes often had a theological bias. While in general they were reliable, where there was a choice of two readings they would tend to choose the one which was to their mind more orthodox, and occasionally they would "Correct" a text to make it more orthodox. This is one of the matters that Textual Critics need to take into account when determining which of several variants is the original. Fortunately, in almost every case the orthodox corruption did not catch on and remained a minority variant, usually one easily noticed by others and removed from further copies of the text by the scribes who wrote those copies. The UBS text is interesting in that the committee only represents one theological faction, which is strongly trinitarian. Even there, the Comma Johannaeum is seen not to be part of the original text. However, they did choose a rather unlikely variant in John 1:18; their original report shows that doctrinal considerations a large part of their choice here; more recent editions of the report remove the paragraphs which contain those reservations. The translation of the Greek text into English is another matter. Most translators are Trinitarian themselves, and know that their main market is American Evangelicals, who will be more likely to buy a Bible if it is strongly trinitarian in bias. Thus versions like the NIV and the Living Bible tend to have massive trinitarian bias. This is less so in versions like the RSV, which was made by linguists rather than theologians.
Yet, if the Trinity is a false teaching, then it would be better for God to not guide him back to it. That's providing that the presenter believed in the Trinity in the first place. God has been guiding many to see the truth about himself, and his son Jesus. That they are separate beings, and not a single triune being. Many with this Biblical Unitarian view, have come away from Trinitarian belief. And they have done so after examining the Bible for themselves, and finding that the Trinity isn't a teaching taught by it.
Jesus is not the name of true messiah. Paul is founder of Jesus Christ in antioch , turkey first christian in ACT 11:26 But Paul is is a pharasee in ACT 23:6 . Jesus is Pharasee name.
Your splitting hairs, Jesus is the english pronunciation, he is the Christ, the Messiah in Hebrew. Paul referred to him as Christ Jesus, and yes Jesus is the only way to everlasting life
@@ImArnold-zq5zo where is Jesus is taken.Jesus is not the name of messiah. The true messiah is a hebrew lineage to judah. Maria mother of messiah and Joseph in earth father is lineage to abraham to Jacob. When almighty god gave his name יהוה to moses in exodus 3:14. Satan muted the name יהוה of almighty god spirit with the help of Pharasee and saducee thousand year up to our generation millenium . Paul did not know how to pronunciation of name יהוה of god. 12 apostle of true messiah and 12 tribes of israel and Maria know how to pronunciation of name יהוה of god but Pharasee muted the 12 apostle of messiah and Maria but not the lost tribes of israel.in the East when almighty god spirit mentioned the name of Ophir in the East to king david about the temple. Ophir is a hebrew lineage to grand grand father eber. Ophir only have three tribes havila , sheba and tarsish and tribes of israel become a tribes of Ophir. Ophir and his tribes is hiding his language from hebrew to 17 pelegic ancient letter that converted to hebrew for safety of his tribes in the futures. Paul is founder of name Jesus to overlapped the true messiah son of Maria to name Jesus and he add Christ for the first christian in antioch, turkey in ACT:11:26 but Paul is a Pharasee in ACT 23:6 Paul is not in the lineage of benjamin(son of Jacob is a lie. Paul his mother is a jewish and his Father is a roman and his service is to Roman Empire killed many people. The true messiah is hatred to Pharasee and Saducee saying in the bible is a brood of Viper or generation to generation snake preacher. The name of Jesus Christ is continue to generation snake but the name יהוה of god is muted that Messiah is introduced the name of his Father in heaven. Father in heaven is not the name of god is only for messiah because his spirit is come from his Father or almighty gid spirit. Paul is also claiming to be a Father in filipos. Messiah is mentioned in praying " Our father in heaven is for messiah only but for us is " almighty god spirit in heaven". Remember Paul is claiming a "Father" and founder of name Jesus Christ in antioch, turkey in ACT 11:26 and he is a Pharasee. Pharasee and saduceee is not allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven by messiah because of there lineage to naamah wife of noah to lineage to Cain that his Father is a Serpent in genesis.from bible. Judah name in hebrew is yeshuda but in sound hebrew tetragrammaton is YaHaWadaH.
Jesus is the later equivalent of the name Joshua, the leader of Israel after Moses, found in the Old Testament. The name predates the Pharisees by many centuries (at least 12 centuries).
@@arturogutierrezjr4191 the English pronounce the name Jesus, you want to split hairs. He died on the cross was buried and rose from the dead. Christ isn't his name it's who he is, the Messiah in the Hebrew.
@@ImArnold-zq5zo This is my explanation why Jesus is not the name of Messiah. Remember is the lost tribes of israel ( son of Jacob), the three person visited to maria and Joseph is the youngest son of Jacob son is entering in new testament for hebrew family relationship when Maria born the Messiah in jerusalem. Melchor, gaspar and baltazar is corrupted by pharasee and saducee. When almighty god spirit gave his name יהוה to moses in exodus 3:14 i am that I am. Satan muted the name of almighty god spirit with the help of Pharasee and Saducee thousand thousand year up to now and why Jew believed to moses did not know how to pronunciation the name יהוה of almighty god spirit without using niqqud. Paul is founder of name Jesus to overlapped the name of messiah to Jesus by adding Christ for first christian in antioch, turkey in ACT11:25 - 26 but Paul is a Pharasee in ACT 23:6. The true Messiah is hatred to Pharasee and Saducee of saying " brood of Viper " or generation to generation snake. Paul did not know how to pronunciation the name יהוה of almighty god spirit. Paul muted the 12 apostle of messiah, maria and joseph but not the 12 son of Jacob during the invasion of assyrian empire( aramaic). The tribes of jacob or israel brought the name יהוה of god and how to pronunciation. Almighty god spirit is mentioned the name OPHIR to king david about the gold of temple. Tribes of israel is toward to East in town of Ophir and become a tribes of Ophir. And why Ophir and tribes of israel is lost in the bible in changing his language in hebrew and writing for safety of his tribes in the future. The new house of tribes of israel in mathew 15:24. Ophir is philippines now by searching the hint in bible mathew 6:33 kjv But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. They mentioned kingdom of god and righteousness. Kingdom of god is in Jerusalem for 30 year and when messiah back to heaven almighty god spirit transferred the kingdom of god to the country have fruitfull and righteouness in mathew 21:43 kjv Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you ( israel) and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.( ophir is mentioned by god to king david ) follow by Isaiah 24:15 Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires, even the name of the LORD God of Israel in the isles of the sea. Ophir is isle of the sea. Revelation 16:19 kjv And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her ... Ophir/ philippines have three part is luzon , visaya and mindanao. Deutiromy 7:6 kjv For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. Ophir/ philippines is found a 17 ancient letter that converted to hebrew or pelegic ancient letter. Arpaxzad, his son eber have two son peleg and yoktan. Peleg is lineage to Jacob or israel and yoktan lineage to Ophir and his two son havila and sheba. YHVH is yod ,he, Vav, he but Vav is not found in sound hebrew tetragrammaton instead Waw therefore YHVH is become YHWH is name of god יהוה . The 17 pelegic ancient have three vowel a, e/i, o/u but e/i, o/u is not paleo hebrew is sound " a " and 14 consonant ba, ka, da/ra, ga, ha, la, ma, na, nga, pa, sa, ta, wa, ya, original 17 ancient letter.but look sound " ah " and where is the name of יהוה almighty god gave to moses. YHWH is יהוה and in sound hebrew tetragrammaton is YaHaWaHa but in 17 pelegic ancient letter in sound " a " or " ah " is become YHWH is YaHaWaH the name יהוה of almighty god spirit gave to Moses . To Judah is YaHaWadaHa in sound hebrew tetragrammaton because of 17 pelegic ancient letter sound " a " or " ah " is become Judah is YaHaWadaH. To Messiah ( ? looking) his name is YaHaWasHai because of 17 pelegic ancient letter sound " a " or "ah" is Messiah is YaHaWasHi Ophir/ philippines is a place of Garden of Eden that bible is mentioned GREAT RIVER not ordinary river. Why jewish is always mentioned that the name of almighty god spirit iיהוה is " sacred name " that jew belong to muted the name יהוה gave to moses as well the pharasee and saducee.
As a diest I don’t subscribe to the inerrancy view point of scripture, there are obviously many and truth be told I find the Bible too contradictory. I do find studying and learning from it valuable to finding out why so many see it as inerrant yet believe only they are right.
A circumstantial case for the Comma of John: In 484 A.D. the bishop of Carthage with 400 bishops quoted the comma to an Arian Vandal king. Being the bishop of Carthage, he would have had access to the Scriptures of Cyprian, and he probably had a Vulgate, maybe a first edition. Also, Gregory Nazianzus wrote on the grammar, and he had a student named Jerome. Seems strong evidence to me. Blessings.
The earliest appearance of the Comma Johannaeum is from Priscillian (some think his successor) in the Liber Apologeticus, which is a collection of proof-texts from the Bible, some of which are altered for interpretative purposes. Priscillian died in 385AD. The Comma appears to be an interpretive gloss on the available text of John 5:7-8. The quotation may then appear in North Africa (eg. Carthage) in the fifth century; the council of Carthage would qualify as such a quotation. However, the quotation is of the form “It has been written, ‘The three are one’”. These words don’t appear anywhere in the Bible apart from the Comma Johannaeum, but the quotation may not be from the Bible - they might even be from Priscillian. The problem is that the alleged quotation is only three words, so it is difficult to decide where it came from. When it comes to the question of whether the Comma Johannaeum is part of the original text of 1 John, the evidence is very strong that it is a later addition. The external evidence is particularly strong: the comma doesn’t appear in any Greek manuscript before the 16th century except as a later marginal entry or (in one manuscript) direct translation from a copy of the vulgate. The passage does not appear in any of the Greek Fathers, or in any of the early translations of the New Testament into ancient languages (eg. Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Old Latin etc.). It does not appear in commentaries; even people like Athanasius who were arguing for a Trinity did not cite it; a few who did cite this passage use the passage without the Comma. I am not aware of the Grammatical point made by Gregory of Nazianus; certainly he did not make any direct citation of the passage. Have you a source for this reference in the writings of Gregory? Gregory may have been mentor to Jerome, but Jerome did not include the Comma Johannaeum in the Vulgate; it only appears in it much later, and only in one geographical area. There is a possible citation in Cyprian, but this is just “The three are one” which may be his own composition rather than a citation of any scripture. Pseudo-Cyprian does cite the text, but he is much later. The external evidence is overwhelming. For the absence of the comma we have many thousands of witnesses. For the inclusion of the comma we have a very small number of possible citations from North African Fathers and later Spanish vulgates. The internal evidence is that the Comma shows every sign of having been composed in Latin, not the Greek of the New Testament. It rather interrupts the dialectic of 1 John 5 to make a point which would be irrelevant to the main argument of that chapter. No modern textual critic would possibly accept the idea that the Comma Johannaeum is part of the original text of 1 John. This may be a little uncomfortable to look at, but it is a fairly open-and-shut case.
@@GospelOnlineUK Extant manuscripts are the ones that survived. Burgon made the point that was mainly because they weren't used continually in the orthodox churches. Edward Hills argued that Modalism of the 2nd and third centuries, may have been the cause of its omission in the texts of the East. The grammar problem is that without I John 5L7 the change in gender can't be explained, and you lose the parallelism. I believe Gregory talks of the grammar in his work on the Holy Spirit. Did Jerome put it in his Vulgate, the bishop of Carthage probably had a copy. Thus, the dialog goes on. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 This argument would suggest that the least common variant should be adopted whenever a possible variation exists. This isn't a tenable way of analysing textual variation. Your grammatical points don't really work; John doesn't use much parallelism in his letters, so there is no reason to expect it here. The full argument of the chapter would be broken into by the Comma Johannaeum in a way which much reduces its force. If you look at the wording of the CJ in the few Greek manuscripts where it appears you will see an absence of Greek definite articles. Latin does not have a definite article. This is one of several points which indicates a Latin, rather than a Greek, origin for the CJ. The point about the Comma Johannaeum is that one can trace its origin back to fourth century Spain and then see how it gradually spreads through the Latin world until it is officially adopted by the Roman Catholic church in 1592.
@@GospelOnlineUK If you translate I John 5:7 from the Latin to the Greek you correct the error in the Greek. Amazing. The main error was the change to masculine which the Comma corrects. Cyprian seems to quote it, and the Bishop of Carthage in 484 with over 400 bishops quotes it against an Arian Vandal king. Sabellianism in the 2nd and 3rd century could be the cause of its omission. The dialog goes on. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 The passages used in the early African witnesses are very short "The three are one". This may come from any of a number of theological treatises by later church fathers, or from a common verbal slogan at the time. Even if they are citing the Comma Johannaeum, they could have had it from Priscillian's work, the Liber Apologeticus. They are Latin fathers. Interestingly, a Sabellian would endorse the wording "The three are one". Priscillian, the person who seems to have devised the Comma Johannaeum was himself a Sabellian.
Wrong, Travis! Nowhere in the Bible does it talk about three persons in one god. You're drinking the kool-aid. And, speaking about devil worship, you Christians and Muslims are the only ones worshiping the devil. Nobody else believes in him.
@@brothermarion8224 So God was praying to God? John 14:16,17 " And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth," The Father sent the comforter. This is repeated even more clearly in v26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you". Jesus goes on to say in v28 that "the Father is greater than I".
Isaiah 40:11 is talking about God as a shepherd to His people. It’s a symbol used throughout scripture for someone looking after believers. Jesus used it in John 10. Then in John 21:15-17 this responsibility is also given to Peter. But it is the responsibility of all who are elders, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers,” Acts 20:28. Luke 2:11 is the announcement of Jesus’ birth to the shepherds. He is described as a saviour. This he achieved by dying on the cross as he says in Matthew 20:28, “even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”. God is immortal, He cannot die. So He gave His son as our saviour as it says in John 3:16.
@@brothermarion8224 This doesn't give an explanation of how God could die. What it does do is say that Jesus shows what God is like , full of 'grace and truth'.
1. The word “Saviour” is being used in a different sense in the various passage. God has saved us by sending Jesus to be our saviour. God is our only saviour because there is no-one else who could send us a saviour to save us from our sins, and God has sent us our one saviour, who is Jesus. 2. One has to be careful with equating names; they are often used of different people in different senses. A good example is the title “King of Kings”, which is applied to God in 1 Timothy 6:16, to Jesus in Revelation 17:14, and to Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:12, and Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel 26:7 and Daniel 2:37. 3. The judges of Israel are described as saviours in Nehemiah 9:27. This means that is not only God who is described as saviour. 4. It is clear that God refers to different people as saviour in different contexts. It is important to pay attention to the context when trying to understand the scriptures. 5. There are several passages which say that God has made Jesus our saviour (eg. Acts 5:31; Acts 13:23). These passages clearly distinguish Jesus from God.
Jesus talking to his disciples says in John 17:22,23 "The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."
Another thing we can notice is from the context of the previous two verses. This shows Jesus is speaking about being one in purpose. The Father and his son have the same purpose of protecting the sheep. They are one in that endeavour, rather than one in being. We have the same idea in 1 Corinthians 3:8. Paul speaking about himself and Apollos says, 'Now he that plants and he that waters are one...' They were one in teaching the gospel.
It implies that we have a saviour who could die for our sins, "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8
@@jillthorpe8114 I am trying to understand your reasoning. In Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. In Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. I see you do not believe in the Trinity. Who then do you say Jesus Christ is? Is he an angel, or a lesser God? Is he a human only sent by God as a Savior? In [Phl 2:5-11 KJV] 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; 11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. The Scriptures seem to indicate he is equal to God. Please explain.
@@jillthorpe8114and God Coming in the flesh and unto us a child is born means? What! Anti trinitarians seem to want to argue for the sake of it because at every corner they lack merit, as seen by everyone's comments.
@@c434567557 Romans 1:3,4 " concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, ". This verse makes it clear that Jesus was a human descendant of David. God is not descended from anyone. It is vital to understand who Jesus is because he died for our sins. "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.. Notice it says Jesus is Lord not God.
@@c434567557 Romans 1:3,4 "concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord," Jesus is a descendant of David. God is not descended from anybody. It's vital to understand who Jesus is as our salvation depends upon it, " because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9
The Lord rebuke you Heritics. [1Ti 3:16 KJV] 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1. The interpretation placed on 1 Timothy 3:16 depends on accepting a particular textual variant of the passage. This is the variant present in the AV/KJV but not in any more recent translation. When the overwhelmingly most commonly accepted variant “He” is used, the argument vanishes. 2. The textual variant “God” is restricted to a small area of the witnesses available. It is not found in any manuscript before the 9th century. It is not cited by any earlier writer, nor does it appear in any of the writings produced in the Trinitarian controversy of the 4th to 8th century. The only author to refer to the “God” variant before the end of the 4th century is Gregory of Nyassa (there is a possible reference by John Chrysostom). This is strong evidence that the original text had the word “He” not the word “God”. 3. Elsewhere in the letter (1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16), Paul writes that God is immortal (and so did not die on the cross), that he is invisible (and so was not seen). This makes a distinction with Jesus who died for our sins and was seen by multitudes, both before and after the resurrection. The letter makes distinctions between God and Jesus in 1 Timothy 5:21; 6:13, 15-16. Should I ask the Lord to rebuke you?
1. This passage in the Gospel of Matthew [Mt 1:23] (and its equivalent in Isaiah) is about a name given to Jesus. Names are not necessarily a description of the person that bears them, but may be given as a sign. Examples include: • Hosea 1:6 - the baby is called “No mercy” as a sign that God will not have mercy on Israel. • Hosea 1:9 - This baby is called “Not my people” as a sign that God has abandoned Israel. • Isaiah 8:3 - The child is to be called Maher-shalal-hash-baz in sign of God’s judgement. In a similar way, the name Immanuel is a guarantee to mankind that God is with us. 2. The name “Immanuel” was not only given to Jesus. It was given to an ordinary human child in the time of Isaiah. Isaiah 7:10-16 - here the child’s birth is prophesied; this is a child to be conceived in the time of king Ahaz of Judah (c700BC). The child is born in Isaiah 8:7,8; again, this prophecy is to be fulfilled in the near future, during the time of the Assyrian invasion of Israel. The child is an ordinary human being, born in a royal court at the time of the prophet Isaiah. It is not God. This shows that the name “Immanuel” can be given to someone who is not God. Notice that the name is given by God; it is not given in a false manner by an uninformed human parent. 3. The name “Immanuel” could mean “God with us” or “God is with us” (both the Hebrew name and its Greek translation could be rendered as either in English). Either way, the word is a sign that God is with us, and that he has sent the means to bring salvation. The fact that he has sent Jesus shows that God is with us, and that is the meaning of the name. 4. There are occasions throughout the Bible where God gives his name to a being who is not God in order to show that that being is acting as God’s agent. An example where this is stated explicitly is Exodus 23:20,21 “Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.” 5. Matthew 1:18 explains the origin of Jesus (the word usually translated “Birth” is the Greek “Genesis”). It tells us that the origin of Jesus is when the Holy Spirit acted on the virgin Mary to make her have a son.
The verse you quote was a reference to the Jews who rejected Jesus. Those who, a few verses later he calls, a generation of vipers, who attributed the power of God to Beelzebub. The presenter of this video doesn't fall into that category, so be careful what you accuse others of. Therefore there's nothing to suggest the presenter is against Jesus. To the contrary, he's very much for Jesus. He just doesn't believe in the Trinity teaching. And since the Trinity wasn't properly taught until the 4th century, then why should he believe it. Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets didn't teach or define it. And God himself doesn't either. So, in order to be true to the Bible, we have to question something that they didn't teach?
Wisdom is to read what the Father and Jesus say about themselves, and then believe accordingly. God says he's one. He doesn't say he's triune, or a trinity, or multi personal. Jesus says he's the son of God. He doesn't say he's God, or one person of a multi person Godhead.
Our Channel is Gospel Online because we bring the Real Gospel - the True good news about Jesus and the salvation he brings. We both love and follow Jesus. Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead, and by joining with him we can have salvation. Look at Romans 10:9 "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Notice that this verse tells us that Jesus is not God. Jesus died. God raised him from the dead. Why would anyone wish to replace the real Jesus, revealed in the Bible, with a construct made from Greek philosophy centuries later?
Isaiah 43:11 & Matthew 1:21 both refer to saviours. So does 2 Kings 13:5 (a saviour from the Syrians). Saviours can save from different things or in different ways. God is a saviour because he sent his son to be a saviour. Jesus is a saviour because he died for us. Something God could not do - die for our sins. Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1-3. John 1 1-3 shows that God always had a plan which would culminate in the sending of his son. As it says in v14 "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only son from the Father". The word is God's plan and purpose. Genesis 1 is the start of this purpose when He creates the world. Exodus 3:13,14 God uses the name “I am who I am”. In John 8:24 and in John 8:58,59 the words I am in Greek are 'ecco aimi', the usual way of saying I am in Greek. It appears many times used by different people, eg the blind man in John 9:9. For more detail on this and more examples watch the video ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’
Isaiah 43:11 & Matthew 1:21 both refer to saviours. So does 2 Kings 13:5 (a saviour from the Syrians). Saviours can save from different things or in different ways. God is a saviour because he sent his son to be a saviour. Jesus is a saviour because he died for us. Something God could not do - die for our sins. Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1-3. John 1 1-3 shows that God always had a plan which would culminate in the sending of his son. As it says in v14 "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only son from the Father". The word is God's plan and purpose. Genesis 1 is the start of this purpose when He creates the world. Exodus 3:13,14 God uses the name “I am who I am”. In John 8:24 and in John 8:58,59 the words I am in Greek are 'ecco aimi', the usual way of saying I am in Greek. It appears many times used by different people, eg the blind man in John 9:9. For more detail on this and more examples watch the video ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’
Without your comment, it is very difficult to see what you are trying to say here. Isaiah 43:11 - I think that you might be trying to say that because God is the only ultimate saviour, and Jesus is also properly described as saviour then Jesus must be God. However, Jesus and God are saviours in different senses from one another. The judges of Israel are described as saviours in Nehemiah 9:27; this is yet another sense. The word of God is, in the Bible, the way that God expresses himself, which he does in many ways. He oes this in creation, he does it in writing, he does it through prophets, and he expresses himself through angels. All these are described as the Word of God. When God shows himself in Jesus in the clearest way possible, Jesus can be described as the Word of God made flesh. In Exodus 3:14 we have the name of God as "Ho On" - not "Ego eimi". Your correspondence is incorrect and suggests that the theologians of your Church haven't bothered to read the Greek text. In any case, if John 8:24 is indicating God by the words "I am", then there is no reason to suppose that the sentence refers to Jesus. I may have read you correctly here, or it may be that you had some other ideas behind these parallels. Please let me know if I am correct here.
Isaiah 43:11 & Matthew 1:21 both refer to saviours. So does 2 Kings 13:5 (a saviour from the Syrians). Saviours can save from different things or in different ways. God is a saviour because he sent his son to be a saviour. Jesus is a saviour because he died for us. Something God could not do - die for our sins. Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1-3. John 1 1-3 shows that God always had a plan which would culminate in the sending of his son. As it says in v14 "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only son from the Father". The word is God's plan and purpose. Genesis 1 is the start of this purpose when He creates the world. Exodus 3:13,14 God uses the name “I am who I am”. In John 8:24 and in John 8:58,59 the words I am in Greek are 'ecco aimi', the usual way of saying I am in Greek. It appears many times used by different people, eg the blind man in John 9:9. For more detail on this and more examples watch the video ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’
Isaiah 43:11 & Matthew 1:21 both refer to saviours. So does 2 Kings 13:5 (a saviour from the Syrians). Saviours can save from different things or in different ways. God is a saviour because he sent his son to be a saviour. Jesus is a saviour because he died for us. Something God could not do - die for our sins. Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1-3. John 1 1-3 shows that God always had a plan which would culminate in the sending of his son. As it says in v14 "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only son from the Father". The word is God's plan and purpose. Genesis 1 is the start of this purpose when He creates the world. Exodus 3:13,14 God uses the name “I am who I am”. In John 8:24 and in John 8:58,59 the words I am in Greek are 'ecco aimi', the usual way of saying I am in Greek. It appears many times used by different people, eg the blind man in John 9:9. For more detail on this and more examples watch the video ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’
So why does he reply as he does to Peter in Matthew 16:15-17? "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.". He does not say that actually Peter is not quite right but says this has been "revealed" to him.
The greatest Trinitarian Gorgery in History! In the King James Version Bible, 1 John 5:7 ( For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.) This verse is not present in almost any modern day translations. It is simply not part of the Bible, and therefore should be rejected by Christians. The same section in most modern translations reads : ("For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.") Hosea 13:7-8 ((So I will be like a lion to them, like a leopard I will lurk by the path. 8 Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and rip them open; like a lion I will devour them- a wild animal will tear them apart.)) Lion, Leopard, Bear..... Would you call it trinity! LOL ofcourse not! You better know that the original Gospel was not in Greek but was in Aramaic which was spoken by Jesus and understood by the people of that time. Mathew 4:23 ""And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom"" where in Our Holy Book QURAN 5:46 "Then in the footsteps of the prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah-a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing." Let us see what these 32 christian Scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating christian denominations have to say about the Authorized Version (AV), or as it is better known, the KING JAMES Version (KJV). The complete quote of the RSV scholars is this: Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth centruy, the devlopment of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based. Made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. The brainwashing used to indoctrinate the trinity doctrine is still intese, and yes it is brainwashing. The Trinity is confusing and self-contradictory, and when questioned, Christians just say, "its a mystery!" Only a satan-led religion would say their God is a mystery.
I was interested in your comment on Christianity and the New Testament. The New Testament doesn’t teach that Jesus is God. On the contrary, it shows that Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin, and able to show us what God is like better than any prophet. I was also interested to see your comment on the common Trinitarian practice of using any passage with a threefold picture as evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity; as you correctly say, this argument doesn’t hold water. However, I would take issue with you on the idea that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic. Jesus clearly did speak Aramaic sometimes (and probably also spoke Hebrew - for example when he was reading the Old Testament in the synagogue in Capernaum. [Luke 4:18]) he also appears to have spoken Greek. We know from graffiti that there was a significant amount of Greek literacy in both Galilee and Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. However, the evidence of the Gospels is that they were originally written in Greek. We do not have a translation, we have the original language. This can be seen from stylistic analysis, and also from the presence of Aramaic words embedded in the text; these words would be highly unlikely in a translation. The Qur’an, of course, endorses the Bible, and in particular the Gospels. You cite part of a passage from the Qur’an which covers this point; there are many others which are more pointed still. Surah 5:46-48 reads: 46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God. 47. Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed they are (no better than) those who rebel. 48. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth confirming the scripture that came before it and guarding it in safety; so judge between them by what God hath revealed and follow not their vain desires diverging from the truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If God had so willed He would have made you a single people but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute. This is one of more than 50 passages in the Qur’an which endorse the Bible as true and an accurate record. This one concentrates on the Injil (Gospel). The passage says that the Injil exists as a document at the time of the Qur’an, because the people of the Injil are able to judge by it. It is described as “What God has revealed”. The passage says that the Qur’an is “Scripture which in truth confirms the scripture that came before it” - in other words it confirms the Bible. Is the Qur’an correct in this?
what and where it proves that Jesus peace be upon him is God? Show me any single unambiguous statement where Jesus Peace Be Upon Him Himself said I am God and Worship me, which is not difficult for him to say?
Dear friend, Faith is at the very base of Christian life. From the gospels you will understand and read that Jesus has been worshiped as God in the flesh… Look at Thomas full of unbelief…after having seen the stripes then he said...my savior and MY LORD prostrating him self!😊 Be wise and read the gospel asking GOD to reveal Jesus by the Holy Spirit to the glory of the Father. From genesis to revelation, GOD is progressing in revealing Him as 3 in One thats why he is GOD above all and you're nothing but a creature a sinner in need of rescue! He is the anointed One prophets have announced in the old testament… I which you would follow him the way the truth and the life - John 14/6. Please note what Jesus said precisely…
There is no passage in the Bible which says that Jesus is God. Indeed, the Bible is very clear that Jesus has a God, and that Jesus submitted to the will of his Father. However, Jesus did tell us that he is the Son of God. He shows us what God is like in a way which is greater than that of any prophet. He died and rose so that our sins can be forgiven. Understanding this is important for everyone in the world, because it allows us to build our lives on truth, and if we choose to follow Jesus to find eternal life.
@@GospelOnlineUK John 10:30-33, John 8:58, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, if you don't understand the principle of identity and equivalence, the principle of inference, the principle of sufficient condition and the principle of conjunction that you can use to understand the truth asserted in these passages, then you need a course in basic logic.
Read the ENTIRE Bible. At the baptism of Christ, all three members of the Trinity show up at the same time. Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." They share the divine nature. At the Transfiguration, the Father speaks of HIs "beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Jesus also speaks of his divine, eternal nature when he says, "Before Abraham was born, I am." I AM = the name of God. The examples are numerous.
Cynthia, the doctrine of the trinity does not exist ANYWHERE in the Bible. Just because the three of them are in the Bible doesn't mean that each one of them is God and it doesn't mean that the three are one.
@@carmelo1509 As Cynthia already said.....you should read the whole Bible my friend.
You need to learn how to read, Cynthia. The passage you are referring to has absolutely nothing to do with the trinity doctrine. Let me lecture you on that. The trinity doctrine declares that Jesus is God, the holy spirit is god, and god (Yahweh), is god. None of the passages you are referring to say that. You can keep looking all over the Bible. You will not see a legitimate passage saying that. I know the Bible, my dear.
I say "legitimate" because dishonest Christians have inserted some words in the Bible to make it look like the trinity is there. This is fraud, of course. Christians have committed tons of fraud. The most egregious one is 1 Jn 5:7-8. But you probably didn't even know about that, did you? Your knowledge of the Bible is so, so poor!
@@willemhallers-quaak716 Neither you nor Cynthia know half the stuff I know about the Bible.
@@carmelo1509 O, o, clever guy and obviously clairvoyant. Do'nt emberrass yourself my friend.
What on earth are you talking about???????????? John, chapter 1: ''1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.'' and then: ''14 Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.'' Whatever...totally whatever!!!
Two out of three aint bad.
Why do you think that material is proof of your claim? (Google 'proof texting'.)
In the beginning was the second member of the trinity and the second member of the trinity was with the first member of the trinity and the second member of the trinity was the first member of the trinity.
Cool! Modalism 😂
@@JohnLLJ ... You've just forced them to scurry to their dictionaries. Well done!
Jesus is God. Always has been, always will be.
What do you make of Jesus's comment to Mary after his resurrection, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." ? John 20:17
@@jillthorpe8114"I and the father are 1"
@@The_Literate_ChristianJohn 10:36
@@The_Literate_Christian One in thought and purpose. John 17:22,23 "The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. "
A grain of sand is the beach, a drop of water is the ocean.
Yes and no, your statement is too black-white .
If you're hanging your whole argument for or against the trinity on this one verse you have missed so much of the bible and understanding the covenants and how God interacts and unveils himself throughout the ages.
The doctrine of the trinity does not exist ANYWHERE in the Bible.
@@carmelo1509 what is your religion or doctrinal affiliation?
@@carmelo1509 the trinity is an essential core doctrine of all who call themselves Christian. Anything else has long been called heretical. It’s not a point to just agree to disagree on. He is Creator Lord.
You get baptised into the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Wake up@@carmelo1509
This verse is just one of many which are covered on this channel, to show that the Trinity is not a Bible teaching. We don't find it anywhere in the Bible clearly defined or described. Which we definitely should if it's as important as people say it is. Salvation is supposed to be dependent on it, yet God, Jesus, his apostles, and the prophets, don't ever introduce it, let alone explain it.
Does anyone remember when Jesus was baptized..and what happened? A voice from heaven spoke and said this is my son ..listen to him.. This was Jehovah the almighty speaking . The scriptures are Crystal clear. Jesus is God's son who has been given much power and is lord of the kingdom
Yes, that's what the Bible says: that Jesus is God's son. Which means he is not God.
The early church condemns you as a heretick.
I know. They've been anathematizing people for almost 2,000 years. It once got you burned at the stake. Now it gets you views on websites.
The early church was monotheistic. Look at Peter's speech in Acts 2. "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know" v22.
@@jillthorpe8114 Indeed, my friend, the early church WAS monotheistic. But which verse says that ONE God equals ONE person? What do husband and wife become? ONE flesh or two?
@@timstanford995 Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." and confirmed by Jesus in Mark 12:29.
@@jillthorpe8114 One being? Yes. One person? No.
😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇
*Why the only verse mentioning trinity in 1 John 5:7 was dropped from The 1952 RSV English translation of bible stating that there is no such verse in the original manuscripts and it has been inserted and concocted? Trinity also contradicts the teachings of Jesus which says "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only you shall serve (Luke 4:8). This means that you shall not worship Jesus. PERIOD*
.
What has the inclusion or exclusion of this verse have to do with Jesus Christ being God or not. Would the weight of it be stronger than Isaiah 40:1 - 3 - 11 which tells us plainly that John the Baptist was preparing the way of the LORD God.
This verse can cause confusion when people are comparing translations so I personally find it useful to know something of its history.
Isaiah 40:1,3,11 This starts with God’s promise that things will improve for Israel. As you say it then speaks of John the Baptist and his task of preparing the way for Jesus. This he did by preaching. He didn’t literally fill the valleys, etc. This is describing the complete overturning that Jesus’ preaching brought about. Jesus was doing God’s work and showed “the salvation of God”. As Jesus himself said in Gethsemane, “nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will”. (Matthew 26:39)
Daniel, first of all you are dead wrong about Isaiah 40. There is no John the Baptist there, and "the lord" in the Old Testament is not Jesus. Secondly, this is not about any of that. It's about the fact that the trinity doctrine i NOT in the Bible.
@@carmelo1509 Sorry my beloved, This is not about religious politics, it's is all about the truth. John the Baptist said that he was the voice of him crying in the wilderness (John 1:23, Matthew 3:3, and Malachi 3:1). Please read.
@@danielukpong4675 The Bible is mythology, Daniel. If you think the Bible is "the truth", then the Quran is "the truth," the Bhagavad Vita is "the truth", and the Greek gods." are the truth. Grow up, my friend. If you analyze that story with an open mind you will see that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist, not the other way round.
@@carmelo1509First show me where you see Jesus being a follower of John the baptist. Second you do know the bible is the oldest most well preserved, studied and scrutinized book in history we have? That is confirmed by literary style, analysis and archeological evidence.
Brother you are may try to work around it but unfortunately someday you will have to face the truth.
The “G” word (God) is a misnomer. It is not the name of a person. It is more of a job description (elohim) used by more than just one entity (Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34).
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and was God. John 1:1
John 1:1-3 shows that God always had a plan which would culminate in the sending of his son. As it says in v14 "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only son from the Father". The word is God's plan and purpose. Throughout the centuries he had sent prophets to tell people about Himself then the time came for Him to send His son, as it says in Hebrews 1:1,2. As God's son Jesus can show what God is like so much better than anyone else which is what it says in John 1:18. There's even a parable about it in Mark 12:1-11.
And Thomas answered and said unto him, my Lord and my God. John 20:28
@@ericlewis4783 In the Greek there are 2 referents meaning that Thomas was addressing 2 different people. Something that gets lost in an English translation.
Jesus also speaks to Mary after his resurrection "Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’" John 20:17
@@jillthorpe8114
Not sure exactly what you are trying to tell me. John 14:8-9 / John 8:58/ colossians 1:15-17 are just a few passages among countless others showing who Jesus is. No other sacrifice for sins would be enough if it wasn't God sacrificing himself for us.
@@ericlewis4783 I am pointing out that Jesus himself specifically says he has a God. I used his words to Mary in John 20:17 but there are several other verses such as, Matthew 27:46, Romans 15:6, Revelation 3:12. This is apart from verses where Jesus such things as God has sent him or that he is inferior to God.
John 14:8-9 Jesus is telling Peter that he is showing the Father, the character of the Father. Notice he doesn’t say he is showing him God.
John 8:58 In the previous verse Jesus said his father "is greater than all". The words I am in Greek are 'ecco aimi', the usual way of saying I am in Greek. It appears many times used by different people, eg the blind man in John 9:9. For more detail on this and more examples watch the video ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’.
Colossians 1:15-17 The ‘image’ is not the same as the actual thing, it’s a representation of that thing. Jesus always said he came to represent or to show God. Ashe says to Peter in John 14:8-9, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.” Jesus does and speaks the things God tells him to.
God cannot die. Which is why he sent his son, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16.
Your preaching to the choir,Bible never says He is.Just says He was birthed out of God in the beginning and He is His Father's Son.Not the Father's equal,but still mighty in power,given Him by the Father.
Thanks for your support. The choir may be present, but if you look at the other comments you can see that a fair number of people who have viewed the video don't agree with the facts it presents.
It is always interesting, though unfortunate, to hear people bemoan about the Trinity without taking time to study the Holy Scriptures. The Trinity is clearly laid out right from the Book of Genesis Chapter 1. Verse 1: "Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Verse 2: Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
The spoken Word is Jesus, who became flesh as the living Word. Here we see: God the Father, The Holy Spirit and the Son (Word). And in the same Genesis Chapter 1: Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: ...." Who are the 'US' in the verse? The Father, the Son(Word) and the Holy Spirit. There is no denying that the Trinity comes alive right from the Beginning of the Bible. So all the attempts to gaslight the Trinity by the error of ignorant people is null and void. God is not a simplicita as the tiny amoeba that has only one cell. The human male body on the other hand is said to have about 36 trillion cells, while female have about 28 trillion cells! This suggests complexity. Think about this for a moment. For God to be who he is, he cannot be a 'single cell' God, borrowing himan words to explain what I'm trying to communicate. Our God is not a cell, neither can he ever be a one. That He is who He is doesn't make Him three God's, He is absolutely one God but manifested as stated in the Scriptures. So truly, the Lord our God is One LORD. There is no doubt about that.
Even the human being God created in his image and likeness, has three dimensions: spirit soul (mind) and body. Yet we refer to one person as one. Man's three dimensions are blended into oneness.
Genesis 41:8 "And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled..."
Exodus 31:3 " And I have filled him with the Spirit of God..."
Isaiah 61:1 "The spirit of the Lord is upon me..."
In the New Testament, right after Jesus was baptised, the Holy Trinity came on full display:
Matthew 3:16 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
The Father spoke from heaven, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Son.It was a confirmation of Scripture when the Father said: "This is my beloved Son, in whomI am well pleased".
At the Baptism of Jesus, there was tge Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Period!
Then John the Apostle, makes it even more bold and clearer in John 1: 1- 4:
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."
So the Word created all things and without him nothing was made. Genesis Chapter 1 confirms John 1. How can he be creator if he is not God?
Human reasoning can never destroy the Word of God but God's Word received with an open mind makes sense to the human mind when sincere. Those who think the Trinity is man made should know that they are mistaken. It is a fatal flaw to believe the lies of false prophets and teachers who are sinners and anti-Christ. Jesus is always waiting with open arms to save all who will repent from their sins and put their trust in Jesus Christ as their Saviour and accept Him as Lord. Amen.
Whoever reads the above and still doubts the Trinity should honestly answer the following question Jesus the Pharisees:
Matthew 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
You can post your answer in the comments section.
No Jew in his right mind would have said that Jesus was a deity. They were, and are monotheists.
Good point.
Interestingly there was no argument about the nature of God or the nature of Jesus in the New Testament. There were arguments about leaving other elements of Judaism behind (circumcision, diet, whether new converts should first adopt Judaism) but no controversy about Jesus.
The controversy about the nature of Jesus and the nature of God began at the end of the second century and reached a peak in the fourth century. This shows that the Apostles didn't challenge the Jewish picture of God.
We have a video on this at: czcams.com/video/0HnYxMKnGRs/video.html
Paul was a Jew. Peter was a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. Were all 3 out of their minds? Trinitarians are monotheists. Your inability to understand a concept does not prove it wrong.
Christians are monotheists too. Saying otherwise is an ignorant understanding of the Trinity.
@@ministryoftruth1451 ... 1. Not all Christians believe in a triune entity. 2. The issue was what Jews thought/believed. None of his apostles thought he was a god.
One day their eyes will be opened
Read and study the ENTIRE Bible before drawing conclusions. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." They share the divine nature. Look at the baptism of Christ to see the Trinity in action. All three show up at the same time. John the Baptist acknowledges this.
the trinity is all the way back to being shown in the Abrahamic covenant where the Father uses the Spirit in the vision to foreshadow the Son as walking between to become the sacrifice. and there are so many other examples where you can draw conclusions of the trinity.
@@CynthiaSe-o9g all that scripture is saying is that they are close and on the same page. Just like how the scriptures say a husband and wife are "one flesh"..
Cynthia, Jesus also sad that when two people marry they become "one flesh." Is that literal? Of course not! And neither is John 10:30. Learn some grammar, my friend. It's called a METAPHOR.
Think about the contradiction of what you're saying. If Jesus and Yahweh were literally "one" then they would not be distinct, would they? And what does the trinity doctrine state again? YEP! It says they ARE distinct. So you are demolishing your own beliefs.
@@CynthiaSe-o9g That is true brother but that is not the fullness of the truth or full counsel of God. There are also one in Person because the Holy Ghost is also the personal Spirit of the Father (that is God) and Son is also the Express Image of the Father's Person or the Reproduction and Revelation of the Father's Person.
Of course, the phrase "Are one" can mean "In agreement". This fits the context in this passage - Jesus has voiced his determination that no-one can snatch his followers from his hand, and earlier the passage points out that God has said the same thing.
READ JOHN 1:1..... YOU DO NOT NEED AN IQ OF 120 TO FIGURE OUT
He is taking 1 John 5: 7 as the sole premise for the Trinity whereas the church fathers who dogmatised the trinity never used it in the first place. For example Athanasius used the verse you just quoted in order to assert Christ's divinity. But let the fools be fools!
@@boldisorstefan9020 The point about most of the passages used as proof texts by Trinitarians is that they are easily read in a non=Trinirarian way. There is no passage which says that there are three persons in the godhead other than the Comma Johannaeum, which is spurrious. One has to ask why anyone would insist on inserting such a passage into the Bible.
@@GospelOnlineUK Because there was a lack of Greek manuscripts excluding the Comma Johanneum. If you were the head of the Catholic Church under these circumstances, would you have excluded this passage? Interpreting Trinitarian passages in a non-Trinitarian way is similar to how different legal scholars interpret the Constitution. For instance, originalists read the Constitution based on the intent of the Founding Fathers, while living constitutionalists interpret it as a dynamic document that should evolve with society. Each perspective is rooted in a different foundational belief, yet both are reading the same text. Just as a living constitutionalist cannot deny the original text of the Constitution, a non-Trinitarian cannot deny the passages in the Bible that have traditionally supported Trinitarian views.
@@boldisorstefan9020 Exactly. The later church authorities (initially Roman Catholic) felt that they needed a passage in the Bible which would express the doctrine of the Trinity, and knww that no such passage existed. The Comma Iohannaeum is not in the Greek fathers or the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and it was in only a minority of the Latin Manuscripts.
@@boldisorstefan9020 There are two points here. The first is the question of why Clement decided that the Comma Johannauem (CJ) should be included in the Clementine Vulgate, in spite of the fact that it was in only a minority of Vulgate manuscripts at the time. The second is whether passages which were written by people who were non-Trinitarian should be interpreted in a Trinitarian manner by later theologians who have Trinitarian beliefs.
The Inclusion of The Comma Johannaeum
Clement VIII ordered the inclusion of the CJ in the version of the Vulgate that he ordered made - this is the current version of the Vulgate used by the RC church. He did so in spite of the fact that most of the manuscripts of the Vulgate available to him did not include this passage. The new Vulgate was ordered because the College of Cardinals did not approve of the more scholarly revision of the Vulgate produced by Sixtus V. The revision was produced in under a month’s work, based on doctrinal interpretation and released two years after the Sixtine Vulgate.
The inclusion of the CJ was for doctrinal reasons, not textual ones. This is a poor reason for changing the text of the Bible. It presumes that the Church (in this case the 16th century RC church) knows more about the teaching of the Apostles than the Apostles did.
I can see the temptation that the RC Church had at this point; it wished to ensure that there was something in the Bible which would support their doctrinal stance, but this is the wrong way round. The Bible should not be changed to fit a later stance. Why not change the Bible to encourage abortion or same-sex marriage, or for that matter racism or infanticide? The Church was wrong to include an obviously spurious text in their version of the New Testament.
Changing Interpretation to fit Later Teaching.
You ask whether it is right to change one’s interpretation of a text of scripture to fit later theological ideas. The point, I think, is that the New Testament contains the teaching of the Apostles, who were personally chosen by Christ to convey his message. This means that their authority cannot be overturned by later tradition. What one has to do is to decide what the Apostles were teaching from the writings that they left, inspired by God. If a later theologian wishes to reinterpret them to fit, for example, Platonic philosophy, then he is on a downward slope, just as would be the case if one were to re-interpret the Bible to fit with postmodernism.
The original teaching of the church was not Trinitarian; the doctrine of the Trinity was put together in the fourth century and refined in the fifth to seventh centuries. The roots of the Trinity go back to the logos theorists of the second and third centuries, but the earlier versions of the Logos theory do not match the later Trinity. The Church should not seek to change the Bible, or to force unnatural interpretations onto the Bible because of a new fashion of doctrine. What the members of the church should do, and the institution should follow suit, is to discover what the Apostles originally taught and what they wrote for us in the New Testament.
Here we Have the FATHER, The SON and the Holy Spirit manifesting themselves simultaneously.
Luke 3:22: And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
John 1:32: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
Mark 1:10: And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
verse 11: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
verse 12: And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
Dear Jabbie, you seriously need to learn how to read. The doctrine of the trinity states that each of those those three are God. None of your references say that.
@@carmelo1509 So if They are not GOD, who are they.?> ?> ?> ?>
@@jabbieforthetruth8757 Looks like you've given up, Jabbie. You CAN'T produce any biblical verse with the trinity doctrine in it. You lose.
@@carmelo1509 Yuck, yuck, yuck and more yuck.
1st Timothy 3:16
Philippians 2:10 & 11
John chapter 1
Especially John 1:13 & 14
Hebrews 1
@@carmelo1509 Answer the Question? ? ? ?
So if They are not GOD, who are they.?> ?> ?> ?>
Wow, I can't believe you put so much effort into denying the deity of Jesus Christ. Just because false Roman Catholics affirm the Trinity doctrine, does not mean that the doctrine itself is wrong. On the contrary, evidence of the deity of Christ is all over the Bible. For people who actually read their Bibles, this is not a surprise. Here are some basic questions for you:
1. Who raised Jesus from the dead?
Answers:
God did - Acts 4:10, 13:30, Romans 6:4, 8:11, & others.
Additional answer: Jesus raised Himself from the dead. "..Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up....he spake of the temple of his body." John 2:19
Is that a contradiction? Of course not. Jesus was Emmanuel, which means what? "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Matthew 1:23 He was "God with us.." in the flesh while on earth.
2. What Spirit indwells believers?
Answers:
"Spirit of God." 1 Corinthians 3:16
"Spirit of God," "Spirit of Christ," & "Spirit of Life." Romans 8:10, 1 Peter 1:11 (You think that's three separate Spirits? I hope not!)
3. How many Saviors are there?
Answer: ONE
"Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me." Hosea 13:4 (OT reference to Yᵊhōvâ)
"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11 (OT reference to Yᵊhōvâ)
"...and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me." Isaiah 45:21 (OT reference to Yᵊhōvâ)
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;" 1 Timothy 2:3 (NT reference to (NT reference to Yᵊhōvâ/Theos)
"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." Jude 1:25 (NT reference to Yᵊhōvâ/Theos)
"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:11 (NT reference to Jesus Christ our Savior)
"Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour" Titus 1:4 (NT reference to Jesus Christ our Savior)
"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Titus 2:13 (NT reference to Jesus Christ our Savior)
-I could keep going, as there are several other verses. You think there are more than ONE Savior? No. THEY ARE ONE.
4. How many First and Last, Alpha and Omegas are there?
Answer: ONE
(OT references to Yᵊhōvâ)
"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."Isaiah 44:6
"Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." Isaiah 48:12
(NT references to Jesus Christ)
"...I am ALPHA AND OMEGA, the FIRST AND THE LAST: and, What thou seest, write in a book.." Revelation 1:11
"And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the FIRST AND THE LAST: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." Revelation 1:17-18 (Did God ever die? No, only Jesus died on the cross and is raised from the dead).
"And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the FIRST AND THE LAST, which was dead, and is alive;" Revelation 2:8
"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am ALPHA AND OMEGA, the BEGINNING AND THE END, the FIRST AND THE LAST." Revelation 22:12-13
You think there are more than ONE Alpha/Omega, First/Last? No, just ONE.
God is described as King of kings in 1 Timothy 6:15. Does that mean there's only one king of kings? And if Jesus is called King of kings, he must therefore be God? If so, what about Ezra 7:12, Ezekiel 26:7, and Daniel 2:37?
If God is the only saviour, how was it possible for the judges of Israel to be called saviours in Nehemiah 9:27? Therefore Jesus being called saviour doesn't make him God.
And when God says, 'there is no God (Elohim) else beside me', how is it possible that he also calls human judges gods (Elohim) in Psalm 82:6? And how is he able to call Moses an Elohim to Pharaoh in Exodus 7:1?
@@eddieyoung2104
Ezra 7:12 shows what Artaxerxes wrote (from himself) to Ezra the priest. He calls himself "Artaxerxes, king of kings... "
Ezekiel 26:7 and Daniel 2:37 are both referring to King Nebuchadnezzar as (A) king of kings, not THE king of kings.
Jesus IS (THE) King of Kings and Lord of Lords like God, His Father, not (A) king of kings or (A) Lord of Lords. God and His Son are ONE.
Isaiah 9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." That's talking about Jesus Christ. He is God (The Son).
Regarding Exodus 7:1, God gave Moses authority to speak in HIS Name and execute HIS judgment on Pharaoh. But God does not address Moses as He addressed Jesus in Hebrews 1:8-10 by saying, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." and "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.."
Like Exodus 7:1, Psalm 82:6 refers to the fact that Israel was a chosen people above all other nations. "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, ABOVE ALL THE NATIONS that are upon the earth." Deuteronomy 14:2
He's not calling them Gods, as HE and His Son are ONE God in eternity. Now your turn. How many Alpha/Omega & First & Last are there? God gives Himself that title in the OT, and Jesus gives Himself that title in Revelation. Has anyone else in the Bible called themselves Alpha and Omega or The First and The Last??
Does Moses' spirit or any other spirit live inside us, along with the Spirit of Christ, or the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Life, which are ALL ONE SPIRIT?
Do you deny that Jesus gave His own life and also raised it up by Himself? Is that a contradiction?
And lastly, surely you don't deny the deity of Jesus Christ. However, if you don't believe that He and His Father are ONE, by necessity, you MUST believe that He is a separate (from the Father) deity. Do you realize that makes you a polytheist? Yes, you believe in multiple Gods. I believe in the ONE TRUE GOD who manifests Himself in three forms as the Scriptures obviously teach.
@@ByTheBook777 You make a good point about king of kings. God is indeed the King, and the others are a king. Thanks for pointing that out. With Jesus, in Revelation, it calls him King of kings, but doesn't specify 'the' or 'a', so he could be A king of kings. I would go with him being A king, while his father is THE king. And I would separate the Father and Jesus into two beings, because even Jesus calls his father, 'my God' several times. That means the Father is not the same being as Jesus, and also that he's higher in status. Therefore, Jesus can be a king of all kings of the earth, even though he has his father, as a king above him.
The Isaiah 9:6 quote I don't think is a definitive one for proving that Jesus is part of a triune God. Just because it calls him the mighty God is not sufficient to prove he's part of a triune being with his father. 'Elohim' means 'mighty one' and when Jesus returns and reigns on the earth, he will do so as a mighty one, when the government shall be upon his shoulder. If we insist that him being called God makes him THE God, then we would also have to insist that when he's called 'everlasting Father', that means he's THE Father. However, that would be confounding the persons of the Trinity, which according to the official definition, ought not to be done.
I believe Jesus began his existence in his mother's womb, through the power of God, and lived his life on earth as a mortal human being like us. Then when he was raised from the dead, he was made immortal and exalted to his father's right hand. So, I believe there is one God, who is the Father. And one Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Father's appointed saviour. And this saviour is the first human being to be made immortal, and we have the hope of being made like him, in the age to come.
I know that doesn't answer all your questions, but this is long enough for now.
@@eddieyoung2104 Thanks for the reply. You believe Jesus began His existence in the womb, but what do you do with John 17:5 where Jesus says, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." ?
What you're not understanding is that Jesus is God's Word(s) (come to life). In the very beginning, when God said, "Let there be light..." those very words ARE Jesus. That's why the Bible says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." You cannot separate God from His Word.
Think of the Trinity like the SUN. The Sun has mass, which = God. The Sun emits light, which = Jesus (the Light of the World). The sun emits heat, which you can't see but you can feel, which = The Holy Spirit.
Those are three distinct attributes, yet ONE Glorious SUN. You cannot separate them, and they are ALL in their very essence, the SUN. The Sun is the source of the light and heat, just as God the Father is the source of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They are ONE Glorious God.
@@ByTheBook777Amen brother, Here are some more verses referring to the Trinity in scripture. 2 Corinthians 13:14; Matt 28:19; Rom 14:17-18; 15:13-17; 15:30; 1 Cor
6:11, 17-19; 12:4-6; 2 Cor 1:21-22; 3:4 6; Gal 2:21-3:2; Eph 2:18;
21-22; 3:11-17; 4:4-6; 5:18-20; Phil 2:1, 6; Col 1:6-8; 1 Thess 1:1-
5; 4:2, 8; 5:18-19; 2 Thess 2:13, 14; 3:5; Tit 3:4-6; Heb 9:14; Jude 20-21.
With saying the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus is not God then that could be considered blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and indeed the only eternal sin. God did come in the flesh and God the Son Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to help us.
The holy spirit can be shown to be God's power, rather than God himself. The passage about blasphemy of the holy spirit, is talking about those who rejected the power of God, given to Jesus, to do miracles. In Luke 11:20, Jesus calls this power, 'the finger of God'. The Jews saw this and said it was by Beelzebub. That was the blasphemy.
@@eddieyoung2104 John 14.16-17, John 15.26, Romans 8.26, Ephesians 4.30
As we can see, there is a distinction between verse 7 and verse 8. Verse 7 is an eternal "Record" while verse 8 is the earthly agreement
1. John 23 "No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also."
1. John, 4, 2 "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus the Messiah has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already."
Before Jesus rise up Lazaru, he prayed , oh father, i know that you always hear me, but because of the crowd, i will say it louder so that they will believe that you sent me," How Jesus tried to make people know that there is a sender but the trinity misleads the world, this maybe which John foreseen that there is tri unclean spirit that comes out from the mouth of false prophet, @1st, John, 4:1/Rev, 16:13-16,
Not competely true, if you look at the 'lost parables' in luke you will see- the parable of the lost son, is about the father, the parable of the lost sheep is about the son, and the parable of the lost coin is about the holy spirit.. i know it doesn't lay out the foundation of trinitarian belief, but it's something
Old Testament tells us of Three distinct personalities that are all divine.
The Lord YHWH
The Angel of YHWH (Gen 16:7; 22:9-16; 31:11-13; 32:24; Ex 3:1-5; Judges 6:11-24)
The Spirit of God (Gen 1:2; Psalm 51:11; Isaiah 11:2; 63:10; 63:14)
Seek and you will find. Matthew 7:7-8
No, they are not distinct, Rager. None of your references indicate they are distinct. If you follow the burning bush story or the Gideon story or any other story where the angel of Yahweh and Yahweh are both present, you will find that they are always interchangeable. Not distinct AT ALL!
@@carmelo1509 Prove it then. Saying no it isn’t does not equal a good argument.
Burning Bush is a perfect example where the angel of the Lord speaks as if he’s YHWH yet is distinguished. Then YHWH says I will send forth an angel with my name. Not myself with you.
You can argue with scripture all you want but it won’t change what it says. Stay blessed.
@@RagerTheStruggler As usual, Rager, you are lying about the Bible. In the burning bush story it is NOT TRUE that Yahweh said "I will send forth an angel with my name." You are making a mockery of your own book.
@@carmelo1509 I just did in my original comment and reply… burden on proof is now on you to disprove that. lol maybe you need to take a dummy 101 on how debates work.
Better luck next time, stay blessed my friend.
@@carmelo1509 Exodus 23:21 i’m lying really? se-mi be-qir-bow. How does an angel also have the ability to forgive sins? bow; ki lo yis-sa le-pis-a-kem
Why are we asked to worship Jesus then if he is not God in the flesh? Why would God say he is his only beloved Son. Jesus walked through walls yet still ate food, he certainly acted God like. I wonder why you all persist in adding your own twist to what has been made obvious to believers. Very man and very God. @jillthorpe8114
1 John 5:7 is a known add-in by Erasmus. Give up your idolatry of the KJB and the heresies that go along with it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA so you took a VERY WELL KNOWN variant, which you obviously found about two days ago, and decided that surely must mean that Jesus is not God. HAHAHAHAHA
Did Cyprian have a Latin manuscript that contained the Comma? In order to answer this question we must make a clear distinction between a quotation and an interpretation. The former would indicate that at least one third century manuscript contained the Comma whereas the latter would simply show that at least one third century Christian understood 1 John 5.7-8 (without the Comma) as speaking about the Trinity. There are two reasons why this is not a quotation. Firstly, Cyrpian’s own wording precludes the possibility since he writes “de Patre et Filio et Spiritus sancto” or “concerning (the) Father and (the) Son and (the) Holy Spirit.” The little word de, translated “of,” “concerning,” or “about,” does not necessitate that the text actually mentioned them, rather it merely means that Cyprian thought the text concerned them. Of course, I am not saying that this alone is evidence that the text did not mention them, but I am saying that this cannot be used to prove that his Bible actually did include the Comma. An analogy would be the statement, “There is a passage about the Father speaking to the Son and the Holy Spirit saying ‘Let us make man.’” Of course, Genesis does not actually say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit anywhere, but this does not stop theologians from interpreting it thus. The second reason why this is definitely not a quotation from some lost Latin manuscript is that the Comma reads “Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus” or “(the) Father, (the) Word, and (the) Holy Spirit” whereas Cyprian writes “de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto” or “about (the) Father and (the) Son and (the) Holy Spirit.” Of course switching out Son for Word is a subtle change but it is enough to indicate that this is not a direct quotation.
Even if Cyprian did not quote the later version of 1 John 5.7-8 he did read the earlier version in a Trinitarian sense. He understood the Spirit, the water, and the blood to be referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Daniel Wallace, himself a Trinitarian, writes, “Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5.7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely.”[9] From all of this, we can merely conclude that at least one third century Christian read 1 John 5.7-8 in a Trinitarian sense even though the Comma was omitted from the text he had.
Thanks for that comment. By the late third century the Logos theorists were working towards the later doctrine of the Trinity. They tended to use allegorical methods to interpret the scriptures, so it is quite likely that they would press any passage with a threefold structure into service to support their scheme for the godhead.
@@GospelOnlineUKso you say the scripture were written with a pro trinitarian bias?
@@c434567557 The scriptures themselves were written by prophets and apostles, who very clearly have an anti-Trinitarian theology.
However, most of the scribes who copied the manuscripts were working in monasteries. These scribes often had a theological bias. While in general they were reliable, where there was a choice of two readings they would tend to choose the one which was to their mind more orthodox, and occasionally they would "Correct" a text to make it more orthodox. This is one of the matters that Textual Critics need to take into account when determining which of several variants is the original. Fortunately, in almost every case the orthodox corruption did not catch on and remained a minority variant, usually one easily noticed by others and removed from further copies of the text by the scribes who wrote those copies.
The UBS text is interesting in that the committee only represents one theological faction, which is strongly trinitarian. Even there, the Comma Johannaeum is seen not to be part of the original text. However, they did choose a rather unlikely variant in John 1:18; their original report shows that doctrinal considerations a large part of their choice here; more recent editions of the report remove the paragraphs which contain those reservations.
The translation of the Greek text into English is another matter. Most translators are Trinitarian themselves, and know that their main market is American Evangelicals, who will be more likely to buy a Bible if it is strongly trinitarian in bias. Thus versions like the NIV and the Living Bible tend to have massive trinitarian bias. This is less so in versions like the RSV, which was made by linguists rather than theologians.
Don’t hate on him, educate and pray for him. May God guide him back.
Yet, if the Trinity is a false teaching, then it would be better for God to not guide him back to it. That's providing that the presenter believed in the Trinity in the first place. God has been guiding many to see the truth about himself, and his son Jesus. That they are separate beings, and not a single triune being. Many with this Biblical Unitarian view, have come away from Trinitarian belief. And they have done so after examining the Bible for themselves, and finding that the Trinity isn't a teaching taught by it.
Jesus is not the name of true messiah. Paul is founder of Jesus Christ in antioch , turkey first christian in ACT 11:26 But Paul is is a pharasee in ACT 23:6 . Jesus is Pharasee name.
Your splitting hairs, Jesus is the english pronunciation, he is the Christ, the Messiah in Hebrew. Paul referred to him as Christ Jesus, and yes Jesus is the only way to everlasting life
@@ImArnold-zq5zo where is Jesus is taken.Jesus is not the name of messiah.
The true messiah is a hebrew lineage to judah. Maria mother of messiah and Joseph in earth father is lineage to abraham to Jacob. When almighty god gave his name יהוה to moses in exodus 3:14. Satan muted the name יהוה of almighty god spirit with the help of Pharasee and saducee thousand year up to our generation millenium . Paul did not know how to pronunciation of name יהוה of god. 12 apostle of true messiah and 12 tribes of israel and Maria know how to pronunciation of name יהוה of god but Pharasee muted the 12 apostle of messiah and Maria but not the lost tribes of israel.in the East when almighty god spirit mentioned the name of Ophir in the East to king david about the temple. Ophir is a hebrew lineage to grand grand father eber. Ophir only have three tribes havila , sheba and tarsish and tribes of israel become a tribes of Ophir. Ophir and his tribes is hiding his language from hebrew to 17 pelegic ancient letter that converted to hebrew for safety of his tribes in the futures. Paul is founder of name Jesus to overlapped the true messiah son of Maria to name Jesus and he add Christ for the first christian in antioch, turkey in ACT:11:26 but Paul is a Pharasee in ACT 23:6 Paul is not in the lineage of benjamin(son of Jacob is a lie.
Paul his mother is a jewish and his Father is a roman and his service is to Roman Empire killed many people. The true messiah is hatred to Pharasee and Saducee saying in the bible is a brood of Viper or generation to generation snake preacher. The name of Jesus Christ is continue to generation snake but the name יהוה of god is muted that Messiah is introduced the name of his Father in heaven. Father in heaven is not the name of god is only for messiah because his spirit is come from his Father or almighty gid spirit. Paul is also claiming to be a Father in filipos. Messiah is mentioned in praying " Our father in heaven is for messiah only but for us is " almighty god spirit in heaven". Remember Paul is claiming a "Father" and founder of name Jesus Christ in antioch, turkey in ACT 11:26 and he is a Pharasee. Pharasee and saduceee is not allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven by messiah because of there lineage to naamah wife of noah to lineage to Cain that his Father is a Serpent in genesis.from bible. Judah name in hebrew is yeshuda but in sound hebrew tetragrammaton is YaHaWadaH.
Jesus is the later equivalent of the name Joshua, the leader of Israel after Moses, found in the Old Testament. The name predates the Pharisees by many centuries (at least 12 centuries).
@@arturogutierrezjr4191 the English pronounce the name Jesus, you want to split hairs. He died on the cross was buried and rose from the dead. Christ isn't his name it's who he is, the Messiah in the Hebrew.
@@ImArnold-zq5zo This is my explanation why Jesus is not the name of Messiah. Remember is the lost tribes of israel ( son of Jacob), the three person visited to maria and Joseph is the youngest son of Jacob son is entering in new testament for hebrew family relationship when Maria born the Messiah in jerusalem. Melchor, gaspar and baltazar is corrupted by pharasee and saducee. When almighty god spirit gave his name יהוה to moses in exodus 3:14 i am that I am. Satan muted the name of almighty god spirit with the help of Pharasee and Saducee thousand thousand year up to now and why Jew believed to moses did not know how to pronunciation the name יהוה of almighty god spirit without using niqqud. Paul is founder of name Jesus to overlapped the name of messiah to Jesus by adding Christ for first christian in antioch, turkey in ACT11:25 - 26 but Paul is a Pharasee in ACT 23:6. The true Messiah is hatred to Pharasee and Saducee of saying " brood of Viper " or generation to generation snake. Paul did not know how to pronunciation the name יהוה of almighty god spirit. Paul muted the 12 apostle of messiah, maria and joseph but not the 12 son of Jacob during the invasion of assyrian empire( aramaic). The tribes of jacob or israel brought the name יהוה of god and how to pronunciation. Almighty god spirit is mentioned the name OPHIR to king david about the gold of temple. Tribes of israel is toward to East in town of Ophir and become a tribes of Ophir. And why Ophir and tribes of israel is lost in the bible in changing his language in hebrew and writing for safety of his tribes in the future. The new house of tribes of israel in mathew 15:24. Ophir is philippines now by searching the hint in bible mathew 6:33 kjv But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. They mentioned kingdom of god and righteousness. Kingdom of god is in Jerusalem for 30 year and when messiah back to heaven almighty god spirit transferred the kingdom of god to the country have fruitfull and righteouness in mathew 21:43 kjv Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you ( israel) and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.( ophir is mentioned by god to king david ) follow by Isaiah 24:15 Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires, even the name of the LORD God of Israel in the isles of the sea. Ophir is isle of the sea.
Revelation 16:19 kjv And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her ... Ophir/ philippines have three part is luzon , visaya and mindanao. Deutiromy 7:6 kjv For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. Ophir/ philippines is found a 17 ancient letter that converted to hebrew or pelegic ancient letter. Arpaxzad, his son eber have two son peleg and yoktan. Peleg is lineage to Jacob or israel and yoktan lineage to Ophir and his two son havila and sheba.
YHVH is yod ,he, Vav, he but Vav is not found in sound hebrew tetragrammaton instead Waw therefore YHVH is become YHWH is name of god יהוה . The 17 pelegic ancient have three vowel a, e/i, o/u but e/i, o/u is not paleo hebrew is sound " a " and 14 consonant ba, ka, da/ra, ga, ha, la, ma, na, nga, pa, sa, ta, wa, ya, original 17 ancient letter.but look sound " ah " and where is the name of יהוה almighty god gave to moses. YHWH is יהוה and in sound hebrew tetragrammaton is YaHaWaHa but in 17 pelegic ancient letter in sound " a " or " ah " is become YHWH is YaHaWaH the name יהוה of almighty god spirit gave to Moses . To Judah is YaHaWadaHa in sound hebrew tetragrammaton because of 17 pelegic ancient letter sound " a " or " ah " is become Judah is YaHaWadaH.
To Messiah ( ? looking) his name is
YaHaWasHai because of 17 pelegic ancient letter sound " a " or "ah" is Messiah is YaHaWasHi
Ophir/ philippines is a place of Garden of Eden that bible is mentioned GREAT RIVER not ordinary river. Why jewish is always mentioned that the name of almighty god spirit iיהוה is " sacred name " that jew belong to muted the name יהוה gave to moses as well the pharasee and saducee.
As a diest I don’t subscribe to the inerrancy view point of scripture, there are obviously many and truth be told I find the Bible too contradictory. I do find studying and learning from it valuable to finding out why so many see it as inerrant yet believe only they are right.
A circumstantial case for the Comma of John: In 484 A.D. the bishop of Carthage with 400 bishops quoted the comma to an Arian Vandal king. Being the bishop of Carthage, he would have had access to the Scriptures of Cyprian, and he probably had a Vulgate, maybe a first edition. Also, Gregory Nazianzus wrote on the grammar, and he had a student named Jerome. Seems strong evidence to me. Blessings.
The earliest appearance of the Comma Johannaeum is from Priscillian (some think his successor) in the Liber Apologeticus, which is a collection of proof-texts from the Bible, some of which are altered for interpretative purposes. Priscillian died in 385AD. The Comma appears to be an interpretive gloss on the available text of John 5:7-8.
The quotation may then appear in North Africa (eg. Carthage) in the fifth century; the council of Carthage would qualify as such a quotation. However, the quotation is of the form “It has been written, ‘The three are one’”. These words don’t appear anywhere in the Bible apart from the Comma Johannaeum, but the quotation may not be from the Bible - they might even be from Priscillian. The problem is that the alleged quotation is only three words, so it is difficult to decide where it came from.
When it comes to the question of whether the Comma Johannaeum is part of the original text of 1 John, the evidence is very strong that it is a later addition. The external evidence is particularly strong: the comma doesn’t appear in any Greek manuscript before the 16th century except as a later marginal entry or (in one manuscript) direct translation from a copy of the vulgate. The passage does not appear in any of the Greek Fathers, or in any of the early translations of the New Testament into ancient languages (eg. Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Old Latin etc.). It does not appear in commentaries; even people like Athanasius who were arguing for a Trinity did not cite it; a few who did cite this passage use the passage without the Comma.
I am not aware of the Grammatical point made by Gregory of Nazianus; certainly he did not make any direct citation of the passage. Have you a source for this reference in the writings of Gregory? Gregory may have been mentor to Jerome, but Jerome did not include the Comma Johannaeum in the Vulgate; it only appears in it much later, and only in one geographical area. There is a possible citation in Cyprian, but this is just “The three are one” which may be his own composition rather than a citation of any scripture. Pseudo-Cyprian does cite the text, but he is much later.
The external evidence is overwhelming. For the absence of the comma we have many thousands of witnesses. For the inclusion of the comma we have a very small number of possible citations from North African Fathers and later Spanish vulgates.
The internal evidence is that the Comma shows every sign of having been composed in Latin, not the Greek of the New Testament. It rather interrupts the dialectic of 1 John 5 to make a point which would be irrelevant to the main argument of that chapter.
No modern textual critic would possibly accept the idea that the Comma Johannaeum is part of the original text of 1 John.
This may be a little uncomfortable to look at, but it is a fairly open-and-shut case.
@@GospelOnlineUK Extant manuscripts are the ones that survived. Burgon made the point that was mainly because they weren't used continually in the orthodox churches. Edward Hills argued that Modalism of the 2nd and third centuries, may have been the cause of its omission in the texts of the East. The grammar problem is that without I John 5L7 the change in gender can't be explained, and you lose the parallelism. I believe Gregory talks of the grammar in his work on the Holy Spirit. Did Jerome put it in his Vulgate, the bishop of Carthage probably had a copy. Thus, the dialog goes on. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 This argument would suggest that the least common variant should be adopted whenever a possible variation exists. This isn't a tenable way of analysing textual variation.
Your grammatical points don't really work; John doesn't use much parallelism in his letters, so there is no reason to expect it here. The full argument of the chapter would be broken into by the Comma Johannaeum in a way which much reduces its force. If you look at the wording of the CJ in the few Greek manuscripts where it appears you will see an absence of Greek definite articles. Latin does not have a definite article. This is one of several points which indicates a Latin, rather than a Greek, origin for the CJ.
The point about the Comma Johannaeum is that one can trace its origin back to fourth century Spain and then see how it gradually spreads through the Latin world until it is officially adopted by the Roman Catholic church in 1592.
@@GospelOnlineUK If you translate I John 5:7 from the Latin to the Greek you correct the error in the Greek. Amazing. The main error was the change to masculine which the Comma corrects. Cyprian seems to quote it, and the Bishop of Carthage in 484 with over 400 bishops quotes it against an Arian Vandal king. Sabellianism in the 2nd and 3rd century could be the cause of its omission. The dialog goes on. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 The passages used in the early African witnesses are very short "The three are one". This may come from any of a number of theological treatises by later church fathers, or from a common verbal slogan at the time.
Even if they are citing the Comma Johannaeum, they could have had it from Priscillian's work, the Liber Apologeticus. They are Latin fathers. Interestingly, a Sabellian would endorse the wording "The three are one". Priscillian, the person who seems to have devised the Comma Johannaeum was himself a Sabellian.
JESUS is GOD. Genesis 18 has YHWH shown to be the THREE PERSONS. Let all anti-trinitarians stop their devil worship.
@@travisrepp1836 Sorry brother, that was not the Trinity. That was God and His 2 angels. Precisely God the Son and His 2 angels met Abraham.
Wrong, Travis! Nowhere in the Bible does it talk about three persons in one god. You're drinking the kool-aid.
And, speaking about devil worship, you Christians and Muslims are the only ones worshiping the devil. Nobody else believes in him.
Heretic. Repent to the Lord, we're fortunate he's so loving
1 John 5:7 says the three are ONE. The Trinity is not 1+1+1=3. The Trinity is 1×1×1=1
Jesus prays to God. If he is God who is he praying to?
@@jillthorpe8114Jesus was God in the flesh as a man but he was very God. Don't you even know that?
@@jillthorpe8114 Jesus, the WORD of God, Prayed to the Father, the MIND of God, and sent the comforter, the SPIRIT of God.
@@c434567557 That doesn't answer the question. Was he praying to himself?
@@brothermarion8224 So God was praying to God?
John 14:16,17 " And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth," The Father sent the comforter. This is repeated even more clearly in v26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you".
Jesus goes on to say in v28 that "the Father is greater than I".
Isaiah 40:11. + Luke 2:11. How is Jehovah the only Saviour, yet Jesus was born the Savior? Answer. Jesus is Jehovah.
Isaiah 40:11 is talking about God as a shepherd to His people. It’s a symbol used throughout scripture for someone looking after believers. Jesus used it in John 10. Then in John 21:15-17 this responsibility is also given to Peter. But it is the responsibility of all who are elders, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers,” Acts 20:28.
Luke 2:11 is the announcement of Jesus’ birth to the shepherds. He is described as a saviour. This he achieved by dying on the cross as he says in Matthew 20:28, “even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”. God is immortal, He cannot die. So He gave His son as our saviour as it says in John 3:16.
@@jillthorpe8114 JESUS is Jehovah. John 1:14.
@@brothermarion8224 This doesn't give an explanation of how God could die. What it does do is say that Jesus shows what God is like , full of 'grace and truth'.
1. The word “Saviour” is being used in a different sense in the various passage. God has saved us by sending Jesus to be our saviour. God is our only saviour because there is no-one else who could send us a saviour to save us from our sins, and God has sent us our one saviour, who is Jesus.
2. One has to be careful with equating names; they are often used of different people in different senses. A good example is the title “King of Kings”, which is applied to God in 1 Timothy 6:16, to Jesus in Revelation 17:14, and to Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:12, and Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel 26:7 and Daniel 2:37.
3. The judges of Israel are described as saviours in Nehemiah 9:27. This means that is not only God who is described as saviour.
4. It is clear that God refers to different people as saviour in different contexts. It is important to pay attention to the context when trying to understand the scriptures.
5. There are several passages which say that God has made Jesus our saviour (eg. Acts 5:31; Acts 13:23). These passages clearly distinguish Jesus from God.
John 10:30 (NKJV)
I and My Father are one.”
Jesus talking to his disciples says in John 17:22,23 "The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."
Means he's representing God. As a prophet. For us to reach God, we must follow the teachings of Christ pbuh.
@@comments7335 Agreed. So the disciples are also representing God when Jesus says they "may be one even as we are one".
Another thing we can notice is from the context of the previous two verses. This shows Jesus is speaking about being one in purpose. The Father and his son have the same purpose of protecting the sheep. They are one in that endeavour, rather than one in being.
We have the same idea in 1 Corinthians 3:8. Paul speaking about himself and Apollos says, 'Now he that plants and he that waters are one...' They were one in teaching the gospel.
A trinitarian Jesus is also not good.
Jesus was never a god ,never has been and never will be ,and never return again
John 3:16
If The Lord Jesus Christ is not God, what does this imply? What is the conclusion of the matter?
It implies that we have a saviour who could die for our sins, "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8
@@jillthorpe8114 I am trying to understand your reasoning.
In Jhn 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
In Col 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
I see you do not believe in the Trinity. Who then do you say Jesus Christ is? Is he an angel, or a lesser God? Is he a human only sent by God as a Savior?
In [Phl 2:5-11 KJV] 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; 11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The Scriptures seem to indicate he is equal to God. Please explain.
@@jillthorpe8114and God Coming in the flesh and unto us a child is born means? What! Anti trinitarians seem to want to argue for the sake of it because at every corner they lack merit, as seen by everyone's comments.
@@c434567557 Romans 1:3,4 " concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, ". This verse makes it clear that Jesus was a human descendant of David. God is not descended from anyone.
It is vital to understand who Jesus is because he died for our sins. "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.. Notice it says Jesus is Lord not God.
@@c434567557 Romans 1:3,4 "concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord," Jesus is a descendant of David. God is not descended from anybody.
It's vital to understand who Jesus is as our salvation depends upon it, " because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9
The Lord rebuke you Heritics. [1Ti 3:16 KJV] 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1. The interpretation placed on 1 Timothy 3:16 depends on accepting a particular textual variant of the passage. This is the variant present in the AV/KJV but not in any more recent translation. When the overwhelmingly most commonly accepted variant “He” is used, the argument vanishes.
2. The textual variant “God” is restricted to a small area of the witnesses available. It is not found in any manuscript before the 9th century. It is not cited by any earlier writer, nor does it appear in any of the writings produced in the Trinitarian controversy of the 4th to 8th century. The only author to refer to the “God” variant before the end of the 4th century is Gregory of Nyassa (there is a possible reference by John Chrysostom). This is strong evidence that the original text had the word “He” not the word “God”.
3. Elsewhere in the letter (1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16), Paul writes that God is immortal (and so did not die on the cross), that he is invisible (and so was not seen). This makes a distinction with Jesus who died for our sins and was seen by multitudes, both before and after the resurrection. The letter makes distinctions between God and Jesus in 1 Timothy 5:21; 6:13, 15-16.
Should I ask the Lord to rebuke you?
Hard to take any of this seriously.
They shall call his name Emanuel, God with us, so are we done, good
1. This passage in the Gospel of Matthew [Mt 1:23] (and its equivalent in Isaiah) is about a name given to Jesus. Names are not necessarily a description of the person that bears them, but may be given as a sign. Examples include:
• Hosea 1:6 - the baby is called “No mercy” as a sign that God will not have mercy on Israel.
• Hosea 1:9 - This baby is called “Not my people” as a sign that God has abandoned Israel.
• Isaiah 8:3 - The child is to be called Maher-shalal-hash-baz in sign of God’s judgement.
In a similar way, the name Immanuel is a guarantee to mankind that God is with us.
2. The name “Immanuel” was not only given to Jesus. It was given to an ordinary human child in the time of Isaiah. Isaiah 7:10-16 - here the child’s birth is prophesied; this is a child to be conceived in the time of king Ahaz of Judah (c700BC). The child is born in Isaiah 8:7,8; again, this prophecy is to be fulfilled in the near future, during the time of the Assyrian invasion of Israel.
The child is an ordinary human being, born in a royal court at the time of the prophet Isaiah. It is not God. This shows that the name “Immanuel” can be given to someone who is not God. Notice that the name is given by God; it is not given in a false manner by an uninformed human parent.
3. The name “Immanuel” could mean “God with us” or “God is with us” (both the Hebrew name and its Greek translation could be rendered as either in English). Either way, the word is a sign that God is with us, and that he has sent the means to bring salvation. The fact that he has sent Jesus shows that God is with us, and that is the meaning of the name.
4. There are occasions throughout the Bible where God gives his name to a being who is not God in order to show that that being is acting as God’s agent. An example where this is stated explicitly is Exodus 23:20,21 “Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.”
5. Matthew 1:18 explains the origin of Jesus (the word usually translated “Birth” is the Greek “Genesis”). It tells us that the origin of Jesus is when the Holy Spirit acted on the virgin Mary to make her have a son.
@@GospelOnlineUK it means exactly what the angel said, God with us, that's why the wise men brought gifts and worship
Matthew 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
You are in big trouble!!
The verse you quote was a reference to the Jews who rejected Jesus. Those who, a few verses later he calls, a generation of vipers, who attributed the power of God to Beelzebub. The presenter of this video doesn't fall into that category, so be careful what you accuse others of.
Therefore there's nothing to suggest the presenter is against Jesus. To the contrary, he's very much for Jesus. He just doesn't believe in the Trinity teaching. And since the Trinity wasn't properly taught until the 4th century, then why should he believe it. Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets didn't teach or define it. And God himself doesn't either. So, in order to be true to the Bible, we have to question something that they didn't teach?
Desiring to become wise, they became fools. Repent and come to the Triune God
Wisdom is to read what the Father and Jesus say about themselves, and then believe accordingly. God says he's one. He doesn't say he's triune, or a trinity, or multi personal. Jesus says he's the son of God. He doesn't say he's God, or one person of a multi person Godhead.
If you hate or don't believe in Him why do you named your channel as "Gospel"???
Gospel basically means good news. The good news is that Jesus dies for our sins. God cannot die.
Our Channel is Gospel Online because we bring the Real Gospel - the True good news about Jesus and the salvation he brings.
We both love and follow Jesus. Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead, and by joining with him we can have salvation. Look at Romans 10:9
"if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
Notice that this verse tells us that Jesus is not God. Jesus died. God raised him from the dead.
Why would anyone wish to replace the real Jesus, revealed in the Bible, with a construct made from Greek philosophy centuries later?
Isaiah 43.11 - Matthew 1.21
Genesis 1.1 - John 1.1-3 & 1.14
Exodus 3.13-14 - John 8.24 & 8.58
Isaiah 43:11 & Matthew 1:21 both refer to saviours. So does 2 Kings 13:5 (a saviour from the Syrians). Saviours can save from different things or in different ways. God is a saviour because he sent his son to be a saviour. Jesus is a saviour because he died for us. Something God could not do - die for our sins.
Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1-3. John 1 1-3 shows that God always had a plan which would culminate in the sending of his son. As it says in v14 "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only son from the Father". The word is God's plan and purpose. Genesis 1 is the start of this purpose when He creates the world.
Exodus 3:13,14 God uses the name “I am who I am”. In John 8:24 and in John 8:58,59 the words I am in Greek are 'ecco aimi', the usual way of saying I am in Greek. It appears many times used by different people, eg the blind man in John 9:9. For more detail on this and more examples watch the video ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’
Isaiah 43:11 & Matthew 1:21 both refer to saviours. So does 2 Kings 13:5 (a saviour from the Syrians). Saviours can save from different things or in different ways. God is a saviour because he sent his son to be a saviour. Jesus is a saviour because he died for us. Something God could not do - die for our sins.
Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1-3. John 1 1-3 shows that God always had a plan which would culminate in the sending of his son. As it says in v14 "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only son from the Father". The word is God's plan and purpose. Genesis 1 is the start of this purpose when He creates the world.
Exodus 3:13,14 God uses the name “I am who I am”. In John 8:24 and in John 8:58,59 the words I am in Greek are 'ecco aimi', the usual way of saying I am in Greek. It appears many times used by different people, eg the blind man in John 9:9. For more detail on this and more examples watch the video ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’
Without your comment, it is very difficult to see what you are trying to say here.
Isaiah 43:11 - I think that you might be trying to say that because God is the only ultimate saviour, and Jesus is also properly described as saviour then Jesus must be God. However, Jesus and God are saviours in different senses from one another. The judges of Israel are described as saviours in Nehemiah 9:27; this is yet another sense.
The word of God is, in the Bible, the way that God expresses himself, which he does in many ways. He oes this in creation, he does it in writing, he does it through prophets, and he expresses himself through angels. All these are described as the Word of God. When God shows himself in Jesus in the clearest way possible, Jesus can be described as the Word of God made flesh.
In Exodus 3:14 we have the name of God as "Ho On" - not "Ego eimi". Your correspondence is incorrect and suggests that the theologians of your Church haven't bothered to read the Greek text. In any case, if John 8:24 is indicating God by the words "I am", then there is no reason to suppose that the sentence refers to Jesus.
I may have read you correctly here, or it may be that you had some other ideas behind these parallels. Please let me know if I am correct here.
Isaiah 43:11 & Matthew 1:21 both refer to saviours. So does 2 Kings 13:5 (a saviour from the Syrians). Saviours can save from different things or in different ways. God is a saviour because he sent his son to be a saviour. Jesus is a saviour because he died for us. Something God could not do - die for our sins.
Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1-3. John 1 1-3 shows that God always had a plan which would culminate in the sending of his son. As it says in v14 "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only son from the Father". The word is God's plan and purpose. Genesis 1 is the start of this purpose when He creates the world.
Exodus 3:13,14 God uses the name “I am who I am”. In John 8:24 and in John 8:58,59 the words I am in Greek are 'ecco aimi', the usual way of saying I am in Greek. It appears many times used by different people, eg the blind man in John 9:9. For more detail on this and more examples watch the video ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’
Isaiah 43:11 & Matthew 1:21 both refer to saviours. So does 2 Kings 13:5 (a saviour from the Syrians). Saviours can save from different things or in different ways. God is a saviour because he sent his son to be a saviour. Jesus is a saviour because he died for us. Something God could not do - die for our sins.
Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1-3. John 1 1-3 shows that God always had a plan which would culminate in the sending of his son. As it says in v14 "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only son from the Father". The word is God's plan and purpose. Genesis 1 is the start of this purpose when He creates the world.
Exodus 3:13,14 God uses the name “I am who I am”. In John 8:24 and in John 8:58,59 the words I am in Greek are 'ecco aimi', the usual way of saying I am in Greek. It appears many times used by different people, eg the blind man in John 9:9. For more detail on this and more examples watch the video ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’
Jesus is God
So why does he reply as he does to Peter in Matthew 16:15-17? "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.". He does not say that actually Peter is not quite right but says this has been "revealed" to him.
The greatest Trinitarian Gorgery in History! In the King James Version Bible,
1 John 5:7 ( For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.)
This verse is not present in almost any modern day translations. It is simply not part of the Bible, and therefore should be rejected by Christians. The same section in most modern translations reads : ("For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.")
Hosea 13:7-8 ((So I will be like a lion to them,
like a leopard I will lurk by the path.
8 Like a bear robbed of her cubs,
I will attack them and rip them open;
like a lion I will devour them-
a wild animal will tear them apart.))
Lion, Leopard, Bear..... Would you call it trinity!
LOL ofcourse not!
You better know that the original Gospel was not in Greek but was in Aramaic which was spoken by Jesus and understood by the people of that time.
Mathew 4:23 ""And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom""
where in Our Holy Book QURAN 5:46 "Then in the footsteps of the prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah-a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing."
Let us see what these 32 christian Scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating christian denominations have to say about the Authorized Version (AV), or as it is better known, the KING JAMES Version (KJV). The complete quote of the RSV scholars is this:
Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth centruy, the devlopment of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based. Made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation.
The brainwashing used to indoctrinate the trinity doctrine is still intese, and yes it is brainwashing. The Trinity is confusing and self-contradictory, and when questioned, Christians just say, "its a mystery!" Only a satan-led religion would say their God is a mystery.
"You better know that the original Gospel was not in Greek but was in Aramaic"
Evidence?
You haven't actually read the entire Bible, have you?
you fell for the devils lie in trusting his modern perversions over God's perfect preserved word.
I was interested in your comment on Christianity and the New Testament. The New Testament doesn’t teach that Jesus is God. On the contrary, it shows that Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin, and able to show us what God is like better than any prophet.
I was also interested to see your comment on the common Trinitarian practice of using any passage with a threefold picture as evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity; as you correctly say, this argument doesn’t hold water.
However, I would take issue with you on the idea that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic. Jesus clearly did speak Aramaic sometimes (and probably also spoke Hebrew - for example when he was reading the Old Testament in the synagogue in Capernaum. [Luke 4:18]) he also appears to have spoken Greek. We know from graffiti that there was a significant amount of Greek literacy in both Galilee and Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. However, the evidence of the Gospels is that they were originally written in Greek. We do not have a translation, we have the original language. This can be seen from stylistic analysis, and also from the presence of Aramaic words embedded in the text; these words would be highly unlikely in a translation.
The Qur’an, of course, endorses the Bible, and in particular the Gospels. You cite part of a passage from the Qur’an which covers this point; there are many others which are more pointed still. Surah 5:46-48 reads:
46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God.
47. Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed they are (no better than) those who rebel.
48. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth confirming the scripture that came before it and guarding it in safety; so judge between them by what God hath revealed and follow not their vain desires diverging from the truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If God had so willed He would have made you a single people but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute.
This is one of more than 50 passages in the Qur’an which endorse the Bible as true and an accurate record. This one concentrates on the Injil (Gospel). The passage says that the Injil exists as a document at the time of the Qur’an, because the people of the Injil are able to judge by it. It is described as “What God has revealed”. The passage says that the Qur’an is “Scripture which in truth confirms the scripture that came before it” - in other words it confirms the Bible. Is the Qur’an correct in this?
@@lesliewilliam3777 All four canonical gospels were originally written in Greek,
what and where it proves that Jesus peace be upon him is God?
Show me any single unambiguous statement where Jesus Peace Be Upon Him Himself said I am God and Worship me, which is not difficult for him to say?
Show me any single unambiguous statement where Jesus said I am NOT God and DO NOT Worship me, which is not difficult for him to say?
We do not need to show you anything! Start by respecting Christians!
Dear friend,
Faith is at the very base of Christian life. From the gospels you will understand and read that Jesus has been worshiped as God in the flesh…
Look at Thomas full of unbelief…after having seen the stripes then he said...my savior and MY LORD prostrating him self!😊
Be wise and read the gospel asking GOD to reveal Jesus by the Holy Spirit to the glory of the Father.
From genesis to revelation, GOD is progressing in revealing Him as 3 in One thats why he is GOD above all and you're nothing but a creature a sinner in need of rescue! He is the anointed One prophets have announced in the old testament…
I which you would follow him the way the truth and the life - John 14/6.
Please note what Jesus said precisely…
There is no passage in the Bible which says that Jesus is God. Indeed, the Bible is very clear that Jesus has a God, and that Jesus submitted to the will of his Father.
However, Jesus did tell us that he is the Son of God. He shows us what God is like in a way which is greater than that of any prophet. He died and rose so that our sins can be forgiven. Understanding this is important for everyone in the world, because it allows us to build our lives on truth, and if we choose to follow Jesus to find eternal life.
@@GospelOnlineUK John 10:30-33, John 8:58, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, if you don't understand the principle of identity and equivalence, the principle of inference, the principle of sufficient condition and the principle of conjunction that you can use to understand the truth asserted in these passages, then you need a course in basic logic.