Excellent brother Anthony! Not enough people understand this. I was explaining this to someone who calls themselves a Christian and they said I was making it up... 😪
If people build their believe on a statement that is equally true and false at the same time, it’s like building a house on sand. 2. Corinthians 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us-by me and Silas and Timothy-was not “Yes” and “No,” but in him it has always been “Yes.” Jesus has a god? Yes and no Jesus knew the hour? Yes and no Jesus died? Yes and no God is one? Yes and no.
It's also the same reason Catholics & Orthodox don't believe it, sister: (intentional) Biblical illiteracy (as well as often Patristic illiteracy, for that matter, ironically).
It's understandable why many people do not get it. Many Christians unfortunatly are encouraged and even given excuses as to why they should not read their Old Testament.
Anthony Rogers is right on! This teaching is so vital because the doctrine of the Tri-Unity of God is still under attack today as it has always been. The false cults-JW's, Unitarianism, Islam and Rabbinic Judaism all deny the Trinity. “And YEHOVAH appeared unto him…and he saw THREE MEN standing there by him… and when he saw THEM… he bowed himself toward the ground, (in worship to all 3!)… Abraham then tellsALL THREE, “My ADON…rest YOURSELVES under the tree… And THEY SAID, “Do as you have said.”…and in verse 9, again it says, And THEY SAID to him, “Where is Sarah your woman?” but in verse 10 it says, And HE SAID…then in verse 13 it says, And YEHOVAH SAID. "THEY", "HE" and "YEHOVAH" are all the same. God doesn't need created angels to help Him speak! Then we see a discussion between the THREE MEN (YEHOVAH) discussing among themselves if they should reveal to Abraham what they were about to do to Sodom: “And THE MEN rose up from there, and looked toward Sodom” and one YEHOVAH said, “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?” (verse 17) And a second YEHOVAH said, “Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; "I will go down now” (verse 20-21) “And THE 2 MEN turned their faces from there and went toward Sodom.” First of all, God doesn’t need created angels to help Him speak, as we read in verses 5 and 9, so the "THEY SAID" are YEHOVAH speaking.. Second: God doesn’t discuss His decisions with created angels whether He is going to do something as we see in verses 17-20. as Paul wrote: "Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will:" (Eph. 1:11) Third, verse 1 says YEHOVAH appeared to Abraham, NOT YEHOVAH and two angels. YEHOVAH appeared and he saw THREE MEN! Genesis contains the vital revelations of God so it stands to reason that His most important aspect of His nature would be revealed here as we see in chapter 18-19, He is THREE! .
@gunstar168 How can this be as Jehovah God GAVE Jesus his new name? King James Version Philippians 2:9 "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"
@@FrankLee-gq8yc Because the Son is the not the Father, despite both being the same Jehovah God. Thus, the Son can be honored by the Father, who are ONE God (not two gods or a god and a mere creature serving that god) - John 10:30.
Amen 🙏 thank you, Pastor Anthony Rogers and GOD OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST'S FATHER BLESS YOU ABUNDANTLY IN WHATEVER YOUR NEEDS MIGHT BE, IN CHRIST JESUS'S STRONG AND POWERFUL NAME, I pray, Amen ✝️👑🙏❤️
I initially dislike this video, after hearing the first statements I immediately said that's a lie and I was about to turn it off. Then I heard the rest of it, it is absolutely on point
Interesting that "angel of the LORD" is consistently used to refer to God only. So then, the "of" in "angel OF the LORD" is indicative of what the angel's substance is rather than "a place where the angel comes from", hence Him saying "I am God" (eg, Exodus 3:6) and others calling Him God (such as Hagar in Genesis 16:13). There's no contradiction in God (ie, any of the Persons) incarnating Himself this way, either, because God having the ability to take whatever form He wishes has nothing to do with what Persons are part of the Trinity. There's also no contradiction with the later Virgin Birth, either, as God can incarnate Himself in these forms without needing to be take on flesh (as His purpose for taking on flesh was not primarily so that He could be better known but so that He could provide Himself the perfect sacrifice and satisfaction in place of our flesh).
Hey, just wanted to share the true Gospel that all men need, the Bible says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) this means we all deserve death and separation from a perfect and holy God. But God did not leave us for dead, He sent His only begotten Son to die in yours and my place, so that anyone who believes in Him and repents of sin will be saved from separation from God, and have eternal life! I urge you please put your faith in Jesus Christ and follow Him, He promises to save all who cry out to Him and have a humble heart. We arent guaranteed another day so we must repent of sin and seek Him today while He may be found.
If you combine Moses witness law with Christ's crucifixion then you will understand that the trinity was and remains essential for the Crucifixion to be valid.
@AA-ws3vd He believed the Gospel (GOOD News): that Jesus saves you undeservedly yet completely if you call upon His name (Romans 10:13). Jesus can save BECAUSE He is Almighty (being the Second Person of the Trinity). So, it is believing the Gospel that saves, as the thief did, and it is WHO the Gospel is as to why that belief saves.
Serious question, as someone who affirms the Trinity as best explaining scripture's description of God. I can see that affirming the deity of Jesus is central to salvation, per John 8, but what is the basis for saying the same about the Trinity? Is someone's understanding of "modes/manifestations" vs "persons" going to damn someone who worships Jesus as God to Hell because they didn't think that there was any difference?
Because some people have the idea that adhearing to the Nicean creed and signing up to the 'council of churches' is paramount. Whereas Jesus clearly stated the "one doing the will of my father who is in the heavens" will enter into the kingdom. He categorically told all, including satan, there is only one we should worship. His Father, God Almighty. Luke4:8
@@Charles.Wright hi. we are told why in rev5, where it has that awesome scene where no one was worthy to open the scroll held by God in his hand... then along came the lamb, who APPROACHED God and took the scroll from his hand: King James Version Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; He redeemed mankind TO God. He was obedient to his Father to the death. Definitely worthy of all honor and glory for sure
@@FrankLee-gq8ycI agree that He is worthy of all honour and glory as the One who came down from heaven, to do The Father’s Will, and gave His Life for us. However, for a reason not so different, and of great importance, as the One who is the effulgence of The Father’s Glory, and the EXACT Imprint of His Nature, He is more than worthy of our worship. He is the One by, through and in whom ALL THINGS are created; and who sustains the universe by the word of His Power, and in Him, ALL THINGS exist. As surely as The Father is the True God and Creator, so is The Son because the two Persons share One Nature and Name. Same with The Holy Spirit.
@abbyboat5730 Great word, effulgence. If Jesus was the same as God Almighty before he came to earth, how is it possible that upon his return to heaven, when he was rewarded for his obedience to his father this happens: Phil2:9 "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name," If Jesus was equal to the father when he left, then is elevated upon his return, is he now higher in rank than his father? Is his new name (which we don't know) above even the name of YHWH, the Almighty? We know this is not the case as in 1cor15 we see a ressurected Jesus, having successfully ruled the Kingdom for 1000 years, humbly hand the kingdom to his God and Father.. And then: 27 "For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ." Is Jesus equal with the Father? 28 "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." Christ, even with his new name, is always subject to his Father. He never claimed to be equal and always directed praise and worship to his father. Sorry if I'm being annoying but it's kinda important stuff. (Ex20:2,3)
Can you explain to me why John says the word is in the beginning and not Jesus? I am have problems with this because he must know it is jesus because more then likely he has read the old testament and if that is the case I don't understand why he does not put Jesus there
Because Jesus is the name of the flesh that the Word became. . . ***Luke 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. . . ***Matthew 1:21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” . . will be, shall
Where in scripture does it say Jesus came in the flesh, I read the word became flesh with that said I am trying to find verses in the old testament that Jesus is the word I can't find any
If Jesus name was use in the old testament then why did John not know this because he does not use the name Jesus as being in the beginning he uses the word as being in the beginning and says the word became flesh, then we are told about Jesus, help me understand this because this is what I read from the bible
Yeah you’re right all previous religions/ civilizations had triads of deities, that’s why God chose Israel so He could show them the real triad/ triune/ trinity to believe in. Saul/ Paul must have forgotten that Acts14:11 he could have preached Jesus to them right then and there,God did come down to us and his name is Jesus ,always perplexed me why he didn’t they were so close. Plus to make it even easier Duet 6:4 clearly states God as triune , trinity ,triad, 3 in 1 so much confusion for nothing
Honest question, are you being ironic or sarcastic? Deuteronomy 6:4 “Listen, Israel: our God is Jehovah; Jehovah is one;" How could that be used to show God is triune? What am I missing?
@@FrankLee-gq8yc God is mentioned three times in that verse (1. "The LORD our 2. God is one 3. LORD"), yet is referring to the same 1 God. That's the very definition of "Trinity". But there are even stronger verses that refer to Jesus being God, such as when He identifies Himself as the LORD Shepherd of Psalm 23:1 in John 10:14.
This is the formulation of the "idea" of the trinity lie , it was an excuse to make christianity palatable to the pagans but was clearly a poisoning of it for power and wealth. Under the influence of Stoic philosophy, Tertullian believes that all real things are material. God is a spirit, but a spirit is a material thing made out of a finer sort of matter. At the beginning, God is alone, though he has his own reason within him. Then, when it is time to create, he brings the Son into existence, using but not losing a portion of his spiritual matter. Then the Son, using a portion of the divine matter shared with him, brings into existence the Spirit. And the two of them are God’s instruments, his agents, in the creation and governance of the cosmos. The Son, on this theory, is not God himself, nor is he divine in the same sense that the Father is. Rather, the Son is “divine” in that he is made of a portion of the matter that the Father is composed of. This makes them “one substance” or not different as to essence. But the Son isn’t the same god as the Father, though he can, because of what he’s made of, be called “God”. Nor is there any tripersonal God here, but only a tripersonal portion of matter - that smallest portion shared by all three. The one God is sharing a portion of his stuff with another, by causing another to exist out of it, and then this other turns around and does likewise, sharing some of this matter with a third. Against the common believers concerned with monotheism, Tertullian argues that although the above process results in two more who can be called “God”, it does not introduce two more gods - not gods in the sense that Yahweh is a god. There is still, as there can only be, one ultimate source of all else, the Father. Thus, monotheism is upheld. The one God is unipersonal both at the start and the end of this process. Nor are the persons equally divine; Tertullian holds that the Son is “ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only” (Tertullian, Praxeas, ch. 27; Matthew 24:36). What is Tertullian’s answer to his “monarchian” critics? First, he strongly emphasizes that these are truly three; none of the three is identical to any other. They are “undivided” in the sense that the Father, in sharing some of his matter, never loses any; rather, that matter comes to simultaneously compose more than one being. The chart above might suggest that this portion of matter is one thing with three parts; but it is conceived of merely as a quantity of matter. The Father is one entity, the Son is a second, and the Spirit is a third. Nor are they parts of any whole; the latter two simply share some of the Father’s divine stuff. Tertullian does not argue that the three compose or otherwise are the one God. Instead, Tertullian replies that a king may share his one kingdom with subordinate rulers, and yet it may still be one kingdom. Likewise, God (i.e. the Father) may share the governance of the cosmos with his Son (Praxeas, ch. 4) Despite these fundamental differences from later orthodoxy, Tertullian is now hailed by trinitarians for his use of the term “Trinity” (Latin: trinitas) and his view that it (at the last stage) consists of three persons with a common or shared “substance”. Then you have all the other pagan attachments which were "christianised" , the Tammuz cross for example. These churches are full on sun and baal worship with a christian disguise on.
“Using a portion of the divine matter shared with him”?? No brother, each person of the Holy Trinity is fully God not partially. The whole Bible alludes to the fact that the Son pre-existed before He entered creation as Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Hebrews 1 clearly showcases the divinity of the Son and that He was involved in creation. Not only that but the Son never created the Holy Spirit, rather it has always existed and was also involved in creation as Genesis 1:2 says that the Spirit of God was hovering above the face of the waters.
@@eniolaelisery1503 I believe that the son was with God at the beginning and thats the key word WITH and the reason he is called the son is because Jesus is , a begotten offspring created from his own being . You cannot have an eternal son though otherwise why be called that , I believe Jesus was produced at the beginning of time , our physical reality. Then God made the universe through him .
Often Angels who were sent to represent YHWH were referred to as "YHWH (Yahweh) by the one the were speaking to. They are creatures. That was not blasphemous. It was like talking to a CEO via his secretary. When Gideon saw God, did he physically SEE Yahweh? Rotherham Judges 6:14 "And Yahweh turned unto him, and said-Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel out of the hand of Midian,-have I not sent thee?" Was this Yahweh in the flesh? No. Rotherham Judges 6:11 "Then came the messenger of Yahweh, and sat down under the oak which was in Ophrah,...." The bible is consistent, no man may look upon God's face and live. Angels came in YHWH's name.
If that is the case, then why did Jacob refer to the Angel as God in Genesis 48:15-16? "Then he blessed Joseph and said, “May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked faithfully, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, 16 the Angel who has delivered me from all harm -may he bless these boys. May they be called by my name and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they increase greatly on the earth.” That is the NIV, but in every translation and in the original texts, "bless" is singular, meaning that Jacob is calling the Angel God. This angel is always singular, never plural. Yes, angels do appear, but there is one Angel that receives worship due to God. Also, when you read pre-Second Temple literature, the Angel in question is always referred to as God, and there was a struggle to define this. "When Gideon saw God, did he physically SEE Yahweh" What about Isaiah 6? Did Isaiah see the Lord on the throne highly exalted, or not? Or when Moses saw God's back? "Judges 6:14 "And Yahweh turned unto him, and said-Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel out of the hand of Midian,-have I not sent thee?" Was this Yahweh in the flesh?" That's not what "in the flesh" is referring to. It refers to the Incarnation. When no one has seen God in John 1:18, "seeing" is also paralleled with revelation (how "those with ears cannot hear").
@@samueljennings4809 You're right, I shouldn't have used "in the flesh" as that adds another level. So when Gideon clicked he was speaking to an angel, do you think he perceived that angel to be YHWH himself? King James Version Judges 6:22 "And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face." I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone say God Almighty is an angel. Have I misunderstood? The word "angel" (mal·ʼakhʹ in Hebrew, agʹge·los in Greek) literally means messenger. God Almighty has messengers, he isn't one himself surely?
@FrankLee-gq8yc Angel simply means messenger. Just as Jesus is God he is the Word of God. He was sent with a message. That makes him a messenger. The Bible says that the angel of the Lord was YHWH God. To say that a creature is YHWH God is blasphemy and idolatry. The Angel of the Lord is the Lord.
@@FrankLee-gq8ycIn the KJV it is translated as an Angel of the lord however in the original Hebrew it is the Angel of the lord, easy to see why you use the KJV it suits your agenda. 2:00
@colinblackie9654 nice. No agenda. What translation do you prefer? American Standard Version Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live. Was God speaking lies here? "An angel" or "the angel", either way it was a messenger of YHWH, surely?
Can i get you on a livestream bro? Your insight is amazing would also like you to do a defence of calvinism or anything you choosem weve already had kelly powers on the stream and im looking forward to more of him let me know if you are interested God bless Anthony Rodgers @Ousias1
Amen brother, God bless you and your ministry! To God be All the Glory!
God is using you mightily!
Excellent brother Anthony! Not enough people understand this. I was explaining this to someone who calls themselves a Christian and they said I was making it up... 😪
If people build their believe on a statement that is equally true and false at the same time, it’s like building a house on sand.
2. Corinthians 1:19
For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us-by me and Silas and Timothy-was not “Yes” and “No,” but in him it has always been “Yes.”
Jesus has a god? Yes and no
Jesus knew the hour? Yes and no
Jesus died? Yes and no
God is one? Yes and no.
It's also the same reason Catholics & Orthodox don't believe it, sister: (intentional) Biblical illiteracy (as well as often Patristic illiteracy, for that matter, ironically).
It's understandable why many people do not get it. Many Christians unfortunatly are encouraged and even given excuses as to why they should not read their Old Testament.
Amen, brother. Glory to God!
Excellent video brother ❤
Anthony Rogers is right on! This teaching is so vital because the doctrine of the Tri-Unity of God is still under attack today as it has always been. The false cults-JW's, Unitarianism, Islam and Rabbinic Judaism all deny the Trinity.
“And YEHOVAH appeared unto him…and he saw THREE MEN standing there by him…
and when he saw THEM… he bowed himself toward the ground, (in worship to all 3!)…
Abraham then tellsALL THREE, “My ADON…rest YOURSELVES under the tree…
And THEY SAID, “Do as you have said.”…and in verse 9, again it says, And THEY SAID to him, “Where is Sarah your woman?” but in verse 10 it says, And HE SAID…then in verse 13 it says, And YEHOVAH SAID. "THEY", "HE" and "YEHOVAH" are all the same. God doesn't need created angels to help Him speak!
Then we see a discussion between the THREE MEN (YEHOVAH) discussing among themselves if they should reveal to Abraham what they were about to do to Sodom:
“And THE MEN rose up from there, and looked toward Sodom”
and one YEHOVAH said, “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?” (verse 17)
And a second YEHOVAH said, “Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
"I will go down now” (verse 20-21) “And THE 2 MEN turned their faces from there and went toward Sodom.”
First of all, God doesn’t need created angels to help Him speak, as we read in verses 5 and 9, so the "THEY SAID" are YEHOVAH speaking..
Second: God doesn’t discuss His decisions with created angels whether He is going to do something as we see in verses 17-20.
as Paul wrote: "Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will:" (Eph. 1:11)
Third, verse 1 says YEHOVAH appeared to Abraham, NOT YEHOVAH and two angels. YEHOVAH appeared and he saw THREE MEN!
Genesis contains the vital revelations of God so it stands to reason that His most important aspect of His nature would be revealed here as we see in chapter 18-19, He is THREE!
.
Thank you so much for your teaching! God Bless!
Awesome. One of my favorites is the lord sending fire and brimstone from the lord out of heaven
***Genesis 19:24
Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens.
American Standard Version
Genesis 19:24
Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven;
@@FrankLee-gq8yc Indeed, since Jesus is Jehovah God: Acts 4:12.
@gunstar168 How can this be as Jehovah God GAVE Jesus his new name?
King James Version
Philippians 2:9
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"
@@FrankLee-gq8yc Because the Son is the not the Father, despite both being the same Jehovah God. Thus, the Son can be honored by the Father, who are ONE God (not two gods or a god and a mere creature serving that god) - John 10:30.
Amen 🙏 thank you, Pastor Anthony Rogers and GOD OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST'S FATHER BLESS YOU ABUNDANTLY IN WHATEVER YOUR NEEDS MIGHT BE, IN CHRIST JESUS'S STRONG AND POWERFUL NAME, I pray, Amen ✝️👑🙏❤️
I initially dislike this video, after hearing the first statements I immediately said that's a lie and I was about to turn it off. Then I heard the rest of it, it is absolutely on point
Awesome teaching!
Interesting that "angel of the LORD" is consistently used to refer to God only. So then, the "of" in "angel OF the LORD" is indicative of what the angel's substance is rather than "a place where the angel comes from", hence Him saying "I am God" (eg, Exodus 3:6) and others calling Him God (such as Hagar in Genesis 16:13). There's no contradiction in God (ie, any of the Persons) incarnating Himself this way, either, because God having the ability to take whatever form He wishes has nothing to do with what Persons are part of the Trinity. There's also no contradiction with the later Virgin Birth, either, as God can incarnate Himself in these forms without needing to be take on flesh (as His purpose for taking on flesh was not primarily so that He could be better known but so that He could provide Himself the perfect sacrifice and satisfaction in place of our flesh).
Jesus❤✞ is the way the truth and the life
Hey,
just wanted to share the true Gospel that all men need, the Bible says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) this means we all deserve death and separation from a perfect and holy God. But God did not leave us for dead, He sent His only begotten Son to die in yours and my place, so that anyone who believes in Him and repents of sin will be saved from separation from God, and have eternal life! I urge you please put your faith in Jesus Christ and follow Him, He promises to save all who cry out to Him and have a humble heart. We arent guaranteed another day so we must repent of sin and seek Him today while He may be found.
hi. where to find all verses collected about Trinity in Old Testament? i want to make video in russian language.
I love you brother
If you combine Moses witness law with Christ's crucifixion then you will understand that the trinity was and remains essential for the Crucifixion to be valid.
Can we get the link to the full video
Please clarify one thing.
The thief on the cross sent to Paradise, knew this on a basic level?
The Thief believes Jesus, meaning he took Jesus at his words. That means everything Jesus claimed to be, he believed that
@AA-ws3vd He believed the Gospel (GOOD News): that Jesus saves you undeservedly yet completely if you call upon His name (Romans 10:13). Jesus can save BECAUSE He is Almighty (being the Second Person of the Trinity).
So, it is believing the Gospel that saves, as the thief did, and it is WHO the Gospel is as to why that belief saves.
AMEN.....PRAY FOR THE MORMONS .........
Actually it does, but we have to dig deep
Serious question, as someone who affirms the Trinity as best explaining scripture's description of God. I can see that affirming the deity of Jesus is central to salvation, per John 8, but what is the basis for saying the same about the Trinity? Is someone's understanding of "modes/manifestations" vs "persons" going to damn someone who worships Jesus as God to Hell because they didn't think that there was any difference?
Because some people have the idea that adhearing to the Nicean creed and signing up to the 'council of churches' is paramount.
Whereas Jesus clearly stated the "one doing the will of my father who is in the heavens" will enter into the kingdom.
He categorically told all, including satan, there is only one we should worship.
His Father, God Almighty.
Luke4:8
@@FrankLee-gq8ycthen why is the Lamb worthy of all honor and praise (etc)?
@@Charles.Wright hi.
we are told why in rev5, where it has that awesome scene where no one was worthy to open the scroll held by God in his hand... then along came the lamb, who APPROACHED God and took the scroll from his hand:
King James Version
Revelation 5:9
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
He redeemed mankind TO God.
He was obedient to his Father to the death.
Definitely worthy of all honor and glory for sure
@@FrankLee-gq8ycI agree that He is worthy of all honour and glory as the One who came down from heaven, to do The Father’s Will, and gave His Life for us. However, for a reason not so different, and of great importance, as the One who is the effulgence of The Father’s Glory, and the EXACT Imprint of His Nature, He is more than worthy of our worship.
He is the One by, through and in whom ALL THINGS are created; and who sustains the universe by the word of His Power, and in Him, ALL THINGS exist.
As surely as The Father is the True God and Creator, so is The Son because the two Persons share One Nature and Name. Same with The Holy Spirit.
@abbyboat5730 Great word, effulgence.
If Jesus was the same as God Almighty before he came to earth, how is it possible that upon his return to heaven, when he was rewarded for his obedience to his father this happens:
Phil2:9 "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,"
If Jesus was equal to the father when he left, then is elevated upon his return, is he now higher in rank than his father?
Is his new name (which we don't know) above even the name of YHWH, the Almighty?
We know this is not the case as in 1cor15 we see a ressurected Jesus, having successfully ruled the Kingdom for 1000 years, humbly hand the kingdom to his God and Father..
And then:
27 "For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."
Is Jesus equal with the Father?
28 "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."
Christ, even with his new name, is always subject to his Father.
He never claimed to be equal and always directed praise and worship to his father.
Sorry if I'm being annoying but it's kinda important stuff.
(Ex20:2,3)
We're in the Bible does the Trinity the Son and the father talk?
The Father calls the Son God in Hebrew
You can start with Psalm 2 and 110.
John 12:28
He was the God of 3 persons, God of Abraham God of Isaac, God of jacob.
@frederickanderson1860 Amen, brother: Exodus 3:2-6.
Can you explain to me why John says the word is in the beginning and not Jesus? I am have problems with this because he must know it is jesus because more then likely he has read the old testament and if that is the case I don't understand why he does not put Jesus there
Because Jesus is the name of the flesh that the Word became.
.
.
***Luke 1:32
He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.
.
.
***Matthew 1:21
And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
.
.
will be, shall
Where in scripture does it say Jesus came in the flesh, I read the word became flesh with that said I am trying to find verses in the old testament that Jesus is the word I can't find any
@@Bible33AD428why would the OT use the name Jesus before he was born/incarnated?
If Jesus name was use in the old testament then why did John not know this because he does not use the name Jesus as being in the beginning he uses the word as being in the beginning and says the word became flesh, then we are told about Jesus, help me understand this because this is what I read from the bible
I miss understood your response
Yeah you’re right all previous religions/ civilizations had triads of deities, that’s why God chose Israel so He could show them the real triad/ triune/ trinity to believe in. Saul/ Paul must have forgotten that Acts14:11 he could have preached Jesus to them right then and there,God did come down to us and his name is Jesus ,always perplexed me why he didn’t they were so close. Plus to make it even easier Duet 6:4 clearly states God as triune , trinity ,triad, 3 in 1 so much confusion for nothing
Honest question, are you being ironic or sarcastic?
Deuteronomy 6:4
“Listen, Israel: our God is Jehovah; Jehovah is one;"
How could that be used to show God is triune?
What am I missing?
@@FrankLee-gq8yc God is mentioned three times in that verse (1. "The LORD our 2. God is one 3. LORD"), yet is referring to the same 1 God. That's the very definition of "Trinity". But there are even stronger verses that refer to Jesus being God, such as when He identifies Himself as the LORD Shepherd of Psalm 23:1 in John 10:14.
This is the formulation of the "idea" of the trinity lie , it was an excuse to make christianity palatable to the pagans but was clearly a poisoning of it for power and wealth.
Under the influence of Stoic philosophy, Tertullian believes that all real things are material. God is a spirit, but a spirit is a material thing made out of a finer sort of matter. At the beginning, God is alone, though he has his own reason within him. Then, when it is time to create, he brings the Son into existence, using but not losing a portion of his spiritual matter. Then the Son, using a portion of the divine matter shared with him, brings into existence the Spirit. And the two of them are God’s instruments, his agents, in the creation and governance of the cosmos.
The Son, on this theory, is not God himself, nor is he divine in the same sense that the Father is. Rather, the Son is “divine” in that he is made of a portion of the matter that the Father is composed of. This makes them “one substance” or not different as to essence. But the Son isn’t the same god as the Father, though he can, because of what he’s made of, be called “God”. Nor is there any tripersonal God here, but only a tripersonal portion of matter - that smallest portion shared by all three. The one God is sharing a portion of his stuff with another, by causing another to exist out of it, and then this other turns around and does likewise, sharing some of this matter with a third.
Against the common believers concerned with monotheism, Tertullian argues that although the above process results in two more who can be called “God”, it does not introduce two more gods - not gods in the sense that Yahweh is a god. There is still, as there can only be, one ultimate source of all else, the Father. Thus, monotheism is upheld. The one God is unipersonal both at the start and the end of this process. Nor are the persons equally divine; Tertullian holds that the Son is “ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only” (Tertullian, Praxeas, ch. 27; Matthew 24:36).
What is Tertullian’s answer to his “monarchian” critics? First, he strongly emphasizes that these are truly three; none of the three is identical to any other. They are “undivided” in the sense that the Father, in sharing some of his matter, never loses any; rather, that matter comes to simultaneously compose more than one being. The chart above might suggest that this portion of matter is one thing with three parts; but it is conceived of merely as a quantity of matter. The Father is one entity, the Son is a second, and the Spirit is a third. Nor are they parts of any whole; the latter two simply share some of the Father’s divine stuff. Tertullian does not argue that the three compose or otherwise are the one God. Instead, Tertullian replies that a king may share his one kingdom with subordinate rulers, and yet it may still be one kingdom. Likewise, God (i.e. the Father) may share the governance of the cosmos with his Son (Praxeas, ch. 4)
Despite these fundamental differences from later orthodoxy, Tertullian is now hailed by trinitarians for his use of the term “Trinity” (Latin: trinitas) and his view that it (at the last stage) consists of three persons with a common or shared “substance”.
Then you have all the other pagan attachments which were "christianised" , the Tammuz cross for example. These churches are full on sun and baal worship with a christian disguise on.
“Using a portion of the divine matter shared with him”?? No brother, each person of the Holy Trinity is fully God not partially. The whole Bible alludes to the fact that the Son pre-existed before He entered creation as Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Hebrews 1 clearly showcases the divinity of the Son and that He was involved in creation. Not only that but the Son never created the Holy Spirit, rather it has always existed and was also involved in creation as Genesis 1:2 says that the Spirit of God was hovering above the face of the waters.
@@eniolaelisery1503 I believe that the son was with God at the beginning and thats the key word WITH and the reason he is called the son is because Jesus is , a begotten offspring created from his own being . You cannot have an eternal son though otherwise why be called that , I believe Jesus was produced at the beginning of time , our physical reality. Then God made the universe through him .
Often Angels who were sent to represent YHWH were referred to as "YHWH (Yahweh) by the one the were speaking to.
They are creatures. That was not blasphemous. It was like talking to a CEO via his secretary.
When Gideon saw God, did he physically SEE Yahweh?
Rotherham
Judges 6:14
"And Yahweh turned unto him, and said-Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel out of the hand of Midian,-have I not sent thee?"
Was this Yahweh in the flesh?
No.
Rotherham
Judges 6:11
"Then came the messenger of Yahweh, and sat down under the oak which was in Ophrah,...."
The bible is consistent, no man may look upon God's face and live.
Angels came in YHWH's name.
If that is the case, then why did Jacob refer to the Angel as God in Genesis 48:15-16?
"Then he blessed Joseph and said,
“May the God before whom my fathers
Abraham and Isaac walked faithfully,
the God who has been my shepherd
all my life to this day,
16
the Angel who has delivered me from all harm
-may he bless these boys.
May they be called by my name
and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac,
and may they increase greatly
on the earth.”
That is the NIV, but in every translation and in the original texts, "bless" is singular, meaning that Jacob is calling the Angel God. This angel is always singular, never plural. Yes, angels do appear, but there is one Angel that receives worship due to God. Also, when you read pre-Second Temple literature, the Angel in question is always referred to as God, and there was a struggle to define this.
"When Gideon saw God, did he physically SEE Yahweh"
What about Isaiah 6? Did Isaiah see the Lord on the throne highly exalted, or not? Or when Moses saw God's back?
"Judges 6:14
"And Yahweh turned unto him, and said-Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel out of the hand of Midian,-have I not sent thee?"
Was this Yahweh in the flesh?"
That's not what "in the flesh" is referring to. It refers to the Incarnation. When no one has seen God in John 1:18, "seeing" is also paralleled with revelation (how "those with ears cannot hear").
@@samueljennings4809 You're right, I shouldn't have used "in the flesh" as that adds another level.
So when Gideon clicked he was speaking to an angel, do you think he perceived that angel to be YHWH himself?
King James Version
Judges 6:22
"And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face."
I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone say God Almighty is an angel.
Have I misunderstood?
The word "angel" (mal·ʼakhʹ in Hebrew, agʹge·los in Greek) literally means messenger.
God Almighty has messengers, he isn't one himself surely?
@FrankLee-gq8yc
Angel simply means messenger. Just as Jesus is God he is the Word of God. He was sent with a message. That makes him a messenger. The Bible says that the angel of the Lord was YHWH God. To say that a creature is YHWH God is blasphemy and idolatry. The Angel of the Lord is the Lord.
@@FrankLee-gq8ycIn the KJV it is translated as an Angel of the lord however in the original Hebrew it is the Angel of the lord, easy to see why you use the KJV it suits your agenda. 2:00
@colinblackie9654 nice.
No agenda. What translation do you prefer?
American Standard Version
Exodus 33:20
And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live.
Was God speaking lies here?
"An angel" or "the angel", either way it was a messenger of YHWH, surely?
Can i get you on a livestream bro? Your insight is amazing would also like you to do a defence of calvinism or anything you choosem weve already had kelly powers on the stream and im looking forward to more of him let me know if you are interested God bless Anthony Rodgers @Ousias1