The first thing came to my mind when I saw this video in recommendation is Muhammed Hijab asking Jay Smith to quote one early church father who believed in trinity, Jay ended quoting 5. It was legendary.
Muslims have been getting in on it too, because if you read the Quran, it said Jesus and his followers were devout Muslims. Unfortunately the Gospels and history don't bear that assertion out.
Hi Michael, just watched your video. Great stuff. I follow your work now for quite a while. I am a Roman Catholic. Not a true believer, neither an atheist. Somewhere between Santayana, Montaigne and Descartes. 250 years after I. Kant, D. Humes and M. Montaigne total certainty seems an anachronism to me. I did like what you said about hell (chat with Alex O`Connor). Did not listen out any kind of sadism and malicious joy, that you got it all right and want others (the non believers) to suffer👋👋. So common among Christians. In my opinion everyone should moderate their certainties. Also what you mentioned about the social advantages of being a believer (another chat with someone). Your work is intellectually honest, never shrill and always sincere. Its much appreciated by me. Keep going. Thank you!❤🎉❤ Andy By the way: I think Tertullian became a Montanist at the end of his life. He switched sides. I guess that is why he did not become an actual "church father". He also opposed Christians who interpreted Mathew 10,28 as annihilation and always saw the non believers in eternal hell. Origenes to me was the wisest of all. Good heart. Assumingly that is why he was considered a heretic by my Church-))
How can Jesus be “God” and have a “God” at the same time? Check out the verses below that clearly show that our Father is the “God” of our Lord Jesus Christ: Ephesians 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. Romans 15:6 …so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort… Ephesians 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 1 Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! The above verses are very clear. Jesus Christ has a God. Who is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ? Ephesians 1:17 very clearly says that this God is our glorious Father. Jesus Christ himself called our Father his “God” and Father many different times in Scripture. John 20:17 (KJV) …I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'” Revelation 3:12 Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name. Revelation 3:21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. Reply
I grew up as a Oneness pentacostal. I've done some reading of Justin Martyr and it was very helpful in moving to a better understanding of the Trinity. Video like these have been very helpful for me over the last few years. Thanks!
Who is Jesus interceding to in Hebrews 7:25? Second, who sent the Lord in Isaiah 48:12-16? Third, who sent the Lord in Zechariah 2:8? Fourth, how are the Father and Son two witnesses if they are on person in John 8:15-17? Fifth, how can the Lord speak to the Son prior to the incarnation in Psalm 110:1? Sixth, how can the Son of Man come to the Ancient or Days in Daniel 7:13 if he is the Father? Seventh, how does the Father respond to Jesus in John 12:288 if he is Jesus? @@rushramel
@@monteontopyeah it's complete nonsense. It means that Jesus is the source of existence (because he is God), not that Jesus is the person of the Father
@@rushramelWhat's your explanation for the Father speaking at the baptism of Jesus and at the Transfiguration? Likewise, how do you explain Jesus praying to the Father in Gethsemane saying, "thy will not my will be done?" I'm genuinely curious as to what interpretation Oneness people attempt to use to edit main such things. Jesus said he has to go to the Father, and speaks of the Father as separate in heaven many times.
@@IffmeisterExactly, they literally butcher the bible and make mince meat out of it, John 16:13 and John 8:16-18 makes their whole theology crumble apart
@@antichrist_revealed Jesus is the Son of God. He Himself said that. But He is also God. He accepted worship which only God can receive. Even the religious elders understood He was calling Himself God and that's part of the reason why they killed Him.
Before the Nicea Council, there are several early church fathers affirming the Trinity. While Tertullian had new theological concepts and advanced the development of early Church doctrine, he is the first on record to use the term 'Trinity,' (from Latin "trinitas). Nevertheless, the earliest reference among this group is feasibly made by Polycarp. Worthwhile, to explore further also, is the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD. Hope this helps. God bless. Pastor John
Wouldn't these persons mentioned be those who came into prominence after the death of the Apostles? Acts 20:29.. After my going away... 30 and from AMONG YOU yourselves men will rise and SPEAK TWISTED THINGS to draw away the disciples after themselves. This is how the Trinity came to be labelled a Christian tenet.
It seems the idea of the trinity has been there since the beginning, but the terminology came later. It's like early astronomers always knew there was a "morning star" but later astronomers clarified it was the planet Venus.
I read and have read through the Bible. Have never seen anything that portrays God Almighty as Triune. Nothing. What I read is that Jehovah is THE Almighty and Jesus is His Son. Jesus very clearly stated he was Gods SON. He never says he is part of a Triune Almighty Godhead… not once! There is no reference to any triune being in scripture. An almighty of 3 is not Almighty.. it shows reliance. In the trinity can the Father be Almighty alone? Can the Son?
@@hereweare9096"I and the Father are one", "All things that the Father has are Mine.". Also people worshipped Jesus and Jesus accepted all of them. Angel said you have to worship only the God. So just with this 4 facts your whole claim is debunked and i wonder did you really read the bible.
@@hereweare9096 It is irrelevant where he got it from, all that matters is that he possesses all power. If he has all power, then he is Almighty. Simple as ABC
Ignatius who was desciple of John said in "Epistle to Ephesians chapter 7: there is one physician who is possessed both of spirit and flesh, BOTH MADE AND NOT MADE, CREATED AND UNCREATED, BORN AND UNBORN, GOD EXISTING IN FLESH Epistle to ephesians chapter 19: GOD HIMSELF MANIFESTED IN HUMAN FORM FOR THE RENEWAL OF ETERNAL LIFE" 1st century very early Christian and even disciple to none other than John himself said it period.
@BornAgainEnglishmanKJV There’s no legitimate anything if you want 100% proof for everything. You could even say the Gospels authors are anonymous because there’s no concrete evidence that whoever wrote it wrote it, realistically. But we know that they can’t be anonymous because no one accepts letters, especially a special teaching like a gospel, from someone who didn’t even address their name. Common sense tells you everything.
This is nonsense, considering Ignatius is a father received in traditions like the Syriac, which is the oldest tradition and which was removed from much of the empire and largely did its own thing. 7 of the letters are legit, the scholarly consensus changed for a reason@BornAgainEnglishmanKJV
Not just the early Church. Early Judaism taught a plurality within the Godhead for centuries before Jesus incarnated, until rabbis decided to retroactively label their own theology a heresy as a reaction against Christianity.
@jordandthornburg yes they did. Read Alan Segal's "Two Powers in Heaven." Segal was a Jew who taught rabbinics, he had no interest in promoting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. He just laid out the facts as they are.
@@ethan46199 I’ve read that book. I don’t remember where he even claimed such a thing. What page does he state Judaism believed in multiple persons in God until later it was condemned?
@@jordandthornburg Segal himself deliberately avoids drawing any clear conclusions, again because he was a Jew who was averse to the doctrine of the Trinity. nevertheless, the facts he lays out lend themselves very easily to that history. it's clear to anyone who isn't motivated to deny it.
Thank you soo much. I am forwarding this to my Jehovah friends who believes the trinity was invented by 4th century church. Pretty sure they won’t watch, but then it’s on them.
So that passage in Matthew is a bit questionable but it could very well be legit; however, "It was also part of the customary use of the word “name” that it was often used in the singular even when there was more than one person involved. It is sometimes claimed that because Matthew 28:19 says the “name” (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that the three must be one God, but that is not true, as a study of the word “name” in the Bible and biblical culture shows. The word “name” in the singular was often used of two or more. For example, Genesis 48:16 (KJV) says, “…the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac.” Some modern versions read, “names of my fathers,” but the Hebrew text uses the singular, “name.” We see the same distributive use of the word “name” in verses such as 1 Samuel 17:13, where the “name” of Jesse’s three oldest sons was Eliab, then Abinadab, then Shammah. No one claims that the three eldest sons of Jesse, the father of David, were somehow “one,” it is just that the Bible sometimes uses “name” in a distributive sense." www.revisedenglishversion.com/Matthew/chapter28/19?__hstc=56714805.95e6a7c3e49af964d502d9571261904f.1706596503252.1706642395801.1707514693751.3&__hssc=56714805.2.1707514693751&__hsfp=3828489826
Time-stamp 3:43, 4:10 - Clement of Alexandria Stromata 5.11, 13 on the Holy Spirit 6:05, 6:30 - Hippolytus of Rome Against Noetus 7:19 - Gregory the wonder worker 8:05 - Irenaeus 8:30 - Irenaeus’ presentation of the three, as the three points of faith (Dem. of Apostolic Preaching 6) 9:23 - Justin Martyr 9:40 - Justin’s First Apology on the Spirit 10:01 - Justin Martyr talks about baptism in the name of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. 10:26 - Justin Martyr on second and third place 11:20 - Ignatius 12:12 - Odes of Solomon 12:37 - The Epistle of the Apostles 12:47 - Athenagoras of Athens 13:00 - Theophilus of Antioch 14:19 - The Didache and baptism
@@hereweare9096 That’s not the focus of this video; it’s about the history of the church before the First Council of Nicaea. If you want scripture-videos, Inspiring Philosophy uploaded numerous videos in the past. You can find them easily. I can even elaborate on a few passages, if you’re interested in a conversation.
I love when you source the Fathers...great work, as usual. Glory to the Father & to the Son & to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the Beginning, is now & will be evermore, world without end, unto the ages of ages. Amén.
The Trinity is also in the old testament. The Spirit of God and The Angel of the Lord are both treated and described as the one and only God, but distinct persons. The Trinity did not start with the new testament or later church figures.
The Old Testament never mentions that God is a tripersonal being. The Old Testament writers never say anything like "we worship a God who is three" or anything remotely close to that. We have God showing up and God's agents that act on his behalf. If an agent acts on another's behalf it is not uncommon to credit their actions as if the one they are doing it for is doing it to them. We still do things like this all the time: if a country is invaded we may say that Prime Minister SoandSo invaded country SuchandSuch despite him never setting foot in the country.
@@israelcowl6764 We are not discussing global conflicts; we are talking about the triune nature of the one true God. Your example does not relate to the topic. The Old Testament describes God in more than one persona on multiple occasions. The Angel of the Lord and The Spirit of God God are described as separate personas of God, but both are God. Multiple examples exist in the Old and New Testament of angels showing up on God's behalf, such as the two who rescued Lot's family during the destruction of Sodom and Gamora and the Angel Gabriel when he appeared to Mary. The Bible distinguishes between these angels and The Angel of the Lord because the Angel of the Lord is much more than just an angel. He is described and treated as God himself. Genesis 16:7-13, the Angel of the Lord says to Hagar, "I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count." Exodus 3:2-6, The Angel of the Lord is the persona who appears to Moses in the burning bush and later identifies himself as Yahwe, the one true God. Judges 13:18-22, Manoah offers a sacrifice to the Angel of the Lord, and he accepts it himself. Why would a sacrifice be provided to an agent who acts on behalf of God? Would that not be blasphemous if anyone but God himself? It was not done in the temple. Saying the Angel of the Lord is just "an agent acting on God's behalf" ignores his significance and the multiple examples in scripture where he is described as God himself. Let's do the same with the Spirit of God. Isaiah 61:1, "The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, proclaim freedom for captives and release from darkness for the prisoners." The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord has a distinct role in the Godhead, which indicates agency and a separate persona while also being God. Exodus 31:1-3, "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God." Again, God describes the Spirit as having a specific role and separates his persona. This is the same Spirit of God described as hovering over the surface of the waters in Genesis 1:2. And let us not forget Genesis 1:26, "Let us make mankind in OUR image, in OUR likeness," Last time I checked, we are only made in the image of God, not in the image of his angels. There is no example of God saying outright, "I am three in one," but if we read scripture, we can see it very clearly. This is only the tip of the iceberg; many other examples exist in the Old Testament, and I encourage you to study this further. There is only one true God, and the only way to have a relationship with him is through his son, Jesus Christ, who is also God. God is triune in nature, but he is still one. God bless.
@@israelcowl6764God in the Old Testament never says that he is just one person The prophets especially Abraham, Moses and Isaiah became the gift to recognize that God has 3 persons Moses wrote about the angel of the Lord who appeared to him as YHWH and who claimed to be the God of Bethel(Genesis 31:11-13,Exodus 3:2+16) and Isaiah wrote about the 3 divine Persons of YHWH who saved Israel from the slavery(Isaiah 48:16,63:9-10) Mary and Joseph also received the gift of understanding God having 3 persons
I think you can find trinity or duality or even God being four in one if you search for bible quotes that support your opinion. I think why not ask Jesus himself and read the bible who and how he really is?
No Trinity 2 Kings 17:27-29 The Tent of Moses is the Tent of David, which is the House of David, the Samaritan Temple. When Jesus said I AM, did he proof to the Jews that he was God of the Samaritans! Yahweh is from the Samaritans. John 4:22 Samaritans had their own temple! Within the region of Samaria, in the city of Sychar, was Jacob’s well. This was the location of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman, who asked, “Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?” (John 4:12). Later in the conversation, she brought up a centuries-old controversy: “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem” (verse 20). “This mountain” is a reference to Mount Gerizim in the central Samaritan highlands, the place where the Samaritans had built their own temple, which they considered the true temple of God. John 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews.
Bravo! I have been saying this for years. The Trinity concept was part of Christianity from the very beginning. In fact, may Jews of the first century also believed that God was a Trinity of Persons. Philo, the 1st century Jewish philosopher, asserted that God manifested Himself in 3 different "emanations" in the Hebrew Tanakh.
My girlfriend and her mom are Oneness Pentecostals. Every service I go to the pastor, or whoever else is teaching, always bring up how their doctrine is sound doctrine and the other doctrines are false and dangerous. They also mention that Oneness is right because there isn’t 3 Gods (referring to the Trinity.) I am not joking when I say it is every single service they are talking about how they have sound doctrine, and will blatantly call out baptists for having unsound doctrine because they believe “you can believe in Jesus and live however you want and be saved.” I have had multiple conversations with people in this church about the Trinity, yet there response is always 1. The Trinity teaches 3 Gods 2. Christianity never taught the Trinity because the Bible says One God, One faith, one baptism
It’s literally called a TRINITY which means - of three.. Trinitarians say that there are three.. God the Father God the Son God the Holy Spirit They cannot be each other / of each other are separate.., So that’s THREE GODS - TRINTY
@hereweare9096 No, it would only be three if Trinity meant "three beings." We believe God is One "being", but three "persons." Thats not a contradiction. My being is human. My person is Julian. God's being is God. God's persons are Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They are coequal and coeternal. There may indeed be one baptism, but we baptize in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit. That's part of Scripture, too.
@@JulianGentry Trinity - a group of three people or things. noun: trinity; plural noun: trinities "the wine was the first of a trinity of three excellent vintages" the state of being three. noun: trinity
It also shows the trinity was a controversial idea from the beginning. That's why early church fathers open their statements like, "Indeed, there is only one God .... yes, Christians are monotheists ..."
Thank you for your ministry, and for bringing to light all this scholarship. Perhaps soon I'll muster the spine to show this to my Unitarian relatives.
We've seen it, and it's wrong! Look up Sean Finnegan's "The Trinity Before Nicea". His paper shows conclusive proof that at least 6 Eary Church Fathers did NOT believe the Trinity. IP hasn't done his homework properly on this one.
@@lizzard13666They did believe in the trinity. 200 AD Tertullian "Never did any angel descend for the purpose of being crucified, of tasting death, and of rising again from the dead." (The Flesh of Christ, ch 6) 200 AD Tertullian "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed." (Against Praxeas, ch 11) 200 AD Tertullian "The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ, 5:6-7). 200 AD Tertullian "[God speaks in the plural 'Let us make man in our image'] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit." (Against Praxeas, ch 12) 200 AD Tertullian "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25) 200 AD Tertullian "As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)
150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: 'God went up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 37) 150 AD Justin Martyr quotes Hebrews 1:8 to prove the Deity of Christ. "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 56) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 63. 150 AD Justin Martyr in Chap. LXVI. He (Justin) Proves From Isaiah That God Was Born From A Virgin. (Chapter Title, Chap. LXVI) 150 AD Justin Martyr "And Trypho said, "You endeavor to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured to be born and become man...some Scriptures which we mention, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and [to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 68)
How can Jesus be “God” and have a “God” at the same time? Check out the verses below that clearly show that our Father is the “God” of our Lord Jesus Christ: Ephesians 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. Romans 15:6 …so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort… Ephesians 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 1 Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! The above verses are very clear. Jesus Christ has a God. Who is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ? Ephesians 1:17 very clearly says that this God is our glorious Father. Jesus Christ himself called our Father his “God” and Father many different times in Scripture. John 20:17 (KJV) …I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'” Revelation 3:12 Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name. Revelation 3:21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. Reply
>“…there is … another god and lord SUBJECT to the MAKER of all things who is also called an ANGEL… He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called ‘God’, is DISTINCT from Him who MADE ALL THINGS… it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called lord by the Holy Spirit BESIDES Him who is considered Maker of all things… He is the lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the Heavens, i.e; the Maker of all things‘”. - *Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (150-160s A.D)* >"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union…. we propound NOTHING DIFFERENT from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter" - *Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (150-160s A.D)* >“…never should fall from the belief by which it is most clearly proclaimed that this BEING ALONE is truly God and Father… there is but one true God… He alone is our Father… the Father Himself is ALONE called GOD, who has a real existence… the Scriptures acknowledge Him [the Father] ALONE as God… the Lord [Jesus Christ] confesses Him alone as his own Father, and knows no other…Lord [Jesus Christ] himself handing down to his disciples, that He the FATHER is the ONLY God and Lord who ALONE is God and ruler of all, -it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect“. - *Irenaeus, Against Heresies (175-189 A.D)* >"Since they did not understand that this was said of Wisdom, which was the first of the CREATION of God“. - *Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (180-215 A.D)* >"For we thus understand ‘I begot thee before the morning star’ with reference to the first-CREATED Word of God…”. - *Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus* >“Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the character of a Second Person; ‘At the first the Lord CREATED me as the beginning of His ways… moreover, before all the hills did He beget me’. That is to say; ‘He CREATED AND generated me in His own intelligence’…" - *Tertullian, Against Praxeas (170-200s A.D)* >“God… has NOT always been Father… merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son… There was, however, a time when NEITHER sin EXISTED with Him, NOR the Son… the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and CREATED, for the special reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and UNCREATED. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet NOT without a BEGINNING - I mean His wisdom, which was then born and CREATED... how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be OLDER, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word?” - *Tertullian, Against Hermogenes (170-200s A.D)* >“Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe him when he says; ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I'”. - *Origen, Against Celsus (200-250s A.D)* >“…in the Proverbs. ‘God,’ we read, ‘created me the beginning of His ways... the Father is his beginning in the SAME WAY Christ is the beginning of those who are made according to the image of God. For if men are according to the image, but the image according to the Father; in the first case the Father is the beginning of Christ" - *Origen, Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 1* "We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe NOTHING to be UNCREATED but the FATHER…" - *Origen, Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2* >"...the Father also precedes him… it is essential that He who knows no beginning must go before him who has a beginning… having a beginning because he is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by his nativity, although he has a beginning in that he is born… IF he had NOT been born - compared with Him who was unborn, [resulting in] an EQUALITY being manifested in both - he would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods... and as being found EQUAL… would have reasonably given two Gods, and thus Christ would have been the cause of two Gods. Had he been formed WITHOUT beginning as the Father… this would have made two beginnings, and consequently would have shown to us two Gods also… Moreover, the Son is god of all ELSE, because God the Father put before all him whom He begot." - *Novatian, A Treatise of Concerning the Trinity (220s-250s A.D)* Whilst the church fathers used language like "God from God" and Triune-like language and talk of substances and hypostases when referring to the Son's begetting, it's also clear that they didn't have the same understanding of just what the "Trinity" was as later Christians did past the 4th century down to this day. These writers viewed the Son of God as a subordinate individual to be literally begotten of God's being, some even stating that he was of God’s eternal substance, but at the same time calling him “created”, having a “beginning” and not always “being in existence”, and these early writers go as far to say that calling the Son; “the True God” or “the Most High God”, is “blasphemous” and “heretical”. They recognise he is called "God" for his origins and the divine authority he represents, but not because it's his identity or that he's part of a three-in-one being. The 4th century fathers of Nicaea, took 'from' the language of the church fathers, that much is true, but they then further evolved it into something else that these church fathers did not at all subscribe to.
I actually found two even earlier references in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians: In chapter 2 we read: “Content with the provision which GOD had made for you, and carefully attending to HIS words, you were inwardly filled with HIS doctrine, and HIS SUFFERINGS were before your eyes.” [Emphasis mine]. This could only be referring to Christ since he is the God that suffered (if you follow the pronouns). In Chapter 13, Clement writes "...and let us act according to that which is written, FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT SAYS “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, neither let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him that glories glory in the Lord, in diligently seeking Him, and doing judgment and righteousness." [Emphasis mine]. Here Clement is citing Jeremiah 9:23-24. But if you go and read the passage, it is the LORD (YHWH) who says these words: "Thus says the LORD, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches..." But Clement says it was the Holy Spirit who said these words - showing that understood the Spirit to be God.
There is a major textual variant in that exact spot in chapter two. Other texts say “the provision which Christ had made for you”. That reading wouldn’t support the trinity. Actually neither reading would support the trinity itself. That would teach the idea Jesus just is the one God which is more akin to modalism or oneness doctrine.
@@jordandthornburgto say that Jesus is God is not to say the Father and Spirit aren't God. The scriptures identify all three as God, and nowhere are the three conflated as one person.
@@tynytian if you say Jesus just is God, I.e. they are identical, it is to say that Jesus is the father, since the father just is God clearly and unavoidably in scripture. That is how identity works.
A command (if it was one) disregarded by Jesus' disciples. Acts 2:38 Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit. The holy spirit is a GIFT from God.
@@Hithereitsme32 : How did someone come up with such a theory? God's name is Jehovah. God's son's name is Jesus. God's holy spirit???? Why no name?? Because ONLY Jehovah is God (John 17:3). Jesus is God's SON and not God. God's holy spirit is the power God USES to get things done. (1 Corinthians 8:6) there is actually to us ONE GOD, THE FATHER,
@@Hithereitsme32 : 'ARE one' means two individuals working with one purpose. 'The Board of Directors are one on this issue' means what? That all the members are one individual???? Jesus explains what 'ARE one' means. In prayer to his God Jehovah, Jesus said: (John 17:22) I have given THEM (Jesus' disciples) the glory that you have given me, in order that THEY MAY BE ONE JUST AS WE ARE ONE. Let me know if understanding this simple statement is hard. Please!
Your quote from Pliny at 14:13 says they sang a hymn to Jesus as a god. Also, the next writer says they don't think it offensive to God that they also worship his servant. If you think about it, this person is not a christian, and obviously does not believe in Jesus and so is more than likely quoting christians that this is what they do. That is, they worship God and his servant Jesus. Daniel was worshipped by Nebuchadnezzar but not because he thought Daniel was God, but he was showing reverence to God's servant which I think, was pleasing to God. And I think this was similar to what the early Christians were doing. They knew that Jesus was called God's servant, a man, the anointed and that God had made him lord in Acts
Sarah talks to the Trinity, in person, at the start of the old testament. There are many passages where two persons of God are present. There are many passages where Jesus Christ directly acknowledges the other two persons of God.
You really should have acknowledged that numerous passages in the New Testament describe the relationship between Jesus and God in binitarian terms (e.g. Romans 8:11; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Galatians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:2; 1 Peter 1:20-21; 2 John 1:3, 9), confirming the presence of at least a binitarian theology during the early New Testament era. According to Boyarin, “There is significant evidence … that in the first century many - perhaps most - Jews held a binitarian doctrine of God”. (Boyarin 2006, 131) Some examples of early church Binitarianism: • The writer of the _Shepherd of Hermas_ (c.100-c.160), at 59:5: _The holy pre-existent spirit, which created the whole creation, God made to dwell in flesh that He desired._ Similarly, at 78:1: _I wish to show thee all things that the Holy Spirit, which spake with thee in the form of the Church, showed unto thee. For that Spirit is the Son of God._ • Psuedo-Clement (c.130-160), at _2 Clement_ 14:4, wrote: _But if we say that the flesh is the Church and the spirit is Christ, then he that hath dealt wantonly with the flesh hath dealt wantonly with the Church. Such an one therefore shall not partake of the spirit, which is Christ._ • In his _Dialogue with Trypho, 61.1,_ Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) equated the logos, Son and Holy Spirit, saying: _God has begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures a kind of Reasonable Power from Himself, which is also called by the Holy Spirit the Glory of the Lord, and sometimes Son, and sometimes Wisdom, and sometimes Angel, and sometimes God, and sometimes Lord and Word. Sometimes also He speaks of Himself as Chief Commander, when He appeared in the form of a man to Joshua the son of Nun. For He can have all these names_ The doctrine of the Trinity as known since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 wasn't taught in the New Testament or in the early church. Indeed, the deity of the Holy Spirit wasn't agreed for at least 350 years. The first Christian theologian to explicitly call the Holy Spirit God was Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), in his _Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit,_ written and delivered in Constantinople between 379 and 381, probably during the second half of 380. At paragraph 27 of his _Fifth Theological Oration,_ Gregory of Nazianzus openly admitted the early Church did not have a Trinitarian doctrine or teach the (separate) divinity of the Holy Spirit and would have rejected both. The revelation of the Holy Spirit's full deity (as opposed to being a lesser divinity), according to Gregory, is one of those truths Jesus told the Apostles they were not ready to hear but would be revealed later (John 16:12-13). Gregory was also critical of his contemporaries, Basil of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nyssa, for their unwillingness to state the Holy Spirit's full deity. Other Christian theologians (e.g. Basil of Caeasrea) had spoken previously of the the Holy Spirit as divine and a member of the Trinity, but declined to call the Holy Spirit God in the same sense that the Father and Son were called God.
According to Scripture, Christ founded a visible Church that would never go out of existence and had authority to teach and discipline believers (see Matt. 16:18-19, 18:17). St. Paul tells us this Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and it was built on “the foundation of the apostles” (Eph. 2:20). Paul also tells us the Church would have a hierarchy composed of deacons (1 Tim. 3:8-13); presbyters, from where we get the English word priest (1 Tim. 5:17); and bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-7). Paul even instructed one of these bishops, Titus, to appoint priests on the island of Crete (Titus 1:5). In A.D. 110, St. Ignatius of Antioch told his readers, “Follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8) Unlike the apostles, Christ’s Church would exist for all ages, so the apostle’s passed on to their successors the authority to bind and loose doctrine (see Matt. 18:18), forgive sins (see John 20:23), and speak on behalf of Christ (see Luke 10:16). Acts 1:20, for example, records how after Judas’s death Peter proclaimed that Judas’s office (or, in Greek, his bishoporic) would be transferred to a worthy successor. In 1 Timothy 5:22, Paul warned Timothy to “not be hasty in the laying on of hands” when he appointed new leaders in the church. At the end of the first century, Clement of Rome, who according to ancient tradition was ordained by Peter himself, wrote, “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop . . . [so they made preparations that] . . . if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1-3). Just as the apostles’ authority was passed on their successors, Peter’s authority as the leader of the apostles and the rock on whom the Church was built (Matt 16:18) was passed on to his successor. This man inherited the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19) and Peter’s duty to shepherd Christ’s flock (see John 21:15-17). Peter’s successor was the pastor of Christ’s church and a spiritual father to the Lord’s children (1 Cor. 4:15), thus explaining his offices future title pope, which comes from papa, the Latin word for father. Myth #2 - The Bishop of Rome had no special authority in the early Church. Peter was never even in Rome! Both the New Testament and the early Church Fathers testify to Peter being in Rome. At the end of his first letter, Peter says he is writing from “Babylon” (5:13), which was a common code word for Rome, because both empires were lavish persecutors of God’s people (see Rev. 17-18; Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 6). In the words of Protestant scholar D.A. Carson, Peter was “in Rome about 63 (the probable date of 1 Peter). Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who died in 54 (H.E. 2.14.6)” (An Introduction to the New Testament, 180). Peter may not have always been present in Rome (which would explain why Paul does not address him in his epistle to the Romans), but there is a solid tradition that Peter founded the Church in Rome and later died there. For example, Paul says the Roman Church was founded by “another man” (Rom. 15:21), and St. Ignatius of Antioch told the Christians in Rome he would not command them in the same way Peter had previously commanded them. At the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus wrote, “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3). A priest named Gaius who lived during Irenaeus’s time even told a heretic named Proclus that “the trophies of the apostles” (i.e., their remains) were buried at Vatican Hill (Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5). Indeed, archaeological evidence unearthed in the twentieth century revealed a tomb attributed to Peter underneath St. Peter’s basilica in Rome. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Saints, “it is probable that the tomb is authentic. It is also significant that Rome is the only city that ever claimed to be Peter’s place of death” (353). In regard to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor, in the first century Clement of Rome (the fourth pope) intervened in a dispute in the Church of Corinth. He warned those who disobeyed him that they would “involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger,” thus demonstrating his authority over non-Roman Christians. St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Roman Church as the one that teaches other churches and “presides in love” over them. In fact, the writings of Pope Clement (A.D. 92-99) and Pope Soter (A.D. 167-174) were so popular that they were read in the Church alongside Scripture (Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9). In A.D. 190, Pope St. Victor I excommunicated an entire region of churches for refusing to celebrate Easter on its proper date. While St. Irenaeus thought this was not prudent, neither he nor anyone else denied that Victor had the authority to do this. Indeed, Irenaeus said, “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome] on account of its preeminent authority” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2). Keep in mind that all of this evidence dates a hundred to two hundred years before Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire, thus deflating the Fundamentalist theory that the papacy was created by the Roman emperor in the fourth century. Some people object that if Peter and his successors had special authority, why didn’t Christ say so when the apostles argued about “who was the greatest” (Luke 22:24)? The reason is that Christ did not want to contribute to their misunderstanding that one of them would be a privileged king. Jesus did say, however, that among the apostles there would be a “greatest” who would rule as a humble servant (Luke 22:26). That’s why since the sixth century popes have called themselves servus servorum Dei, or “servant of the servants of God.” Pope Gregory I used the title in his dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Faster, who called himself the “Universal Bishop.” Gregory didn’t deny that one bishop had primacy over all the others, since in his twelfth epistle Gregory explcitly says Constaninople was subject to the authority of the pope. Instead, he denied that the pope was the bishop of every individual territory, since this would rob his brother bishops of their legitimate authority, even though they were still subject to him as Peter’s successor.
I'm a Trinitarian but I do not like this tactic and bringing up every Early Church quote that supports our position but ignoring the ones that don't. Justin places the genesis of the Logos as a voluntary act of the Father at the beginning of creation which is essentially Arianism. The Only Think you Have to believe to be able to call yourself a Christian is that Jesus is the Son fo God, 1 John 4:15 is clear that no one who believes that cna have their status as a true believer questioned.
@@ThePizzaMan-rr3ir Dialogue of Justin - PHILOSOPHER AND MARTYR, WITH TRYPHO, A JEW
CHAP. LXI. "I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning,(4)[who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun).
CHAP. LXII. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God, who has also declared this same thing in the revelation made by Joshua the son of Nave(Nun).
@@ThePizzaMan-rr3ir Biblically Jesus was begotten in the Womb of Mary, the idea of a Pre-Creation begetting is Arianism that was snuck into the revision of the Nicene Creed.
Pre-creation begetting is not arianism. It is found in other creeds like eusebius's creed. Also, the usage of the word begotten in the Fathers refer to pre-creation.@@Kuudere-Kun
Look! Why this preoccupation with the 'church fathers'? with objective insight its clear they bent over backwards to present 'christianity' in the popular terms of Greek philosophy! This is a FACT. Paul said when discussing those who were trying to subvert the faith of the brothers "Through US he (Jesus) told you the good news. Through US .." & Jude, Jesus half brother said clearly in 55AD ( long BEFORE the 'church fathers'!) "I write to urge you to defend stoutly the TRUTH WHICH GOD GAVE ONCE FOR ALL TO HIS PEOPLE.." (Jude 3). Paul warned that AFTER the apostles died that "Men would enter the flock" and that the true teachings would be 'twisted. ( please read SActs 20:28-30) From where would this deviation come "From amoung you (bishops) yourselves"! We dont need theologians & teachers!
Greetings! Which of these men's writings were given by inspiration of God that we should consult them for doctrine? ====================== "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...." (2Timothy 3:16). ====================== ====================== "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD. Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith. Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD." (Jeremiah 23:28-32). ====================== Until Christ is fully formed in us all, -james
@@HeWhoHasSeenMe My comment was exactly in agreement with yours! The last words of the NT are "If anyone adds to the words of this prophecy, God will add to him the plagues that are written herin" Rev 22:18. The 'church Fathers' who formed what led to the 'othodox' teachings of the 3rd century church based their beliefs more on human philosophy rather than the inspired word of God! Paul & Peter warned us that this would happen! ( Acts 20:28-30. 2 Peter 2:1-3.
Greetings! I didn't have much time to explain my response earlier: I wasn't disageeing with you, but just adding to your comment. I apologize if it appeared otherwise. We are in agreement regarding reliance on extra-canonical writings for formulating or supporting doctrine. Until Christ is fully formed in us all, -james
@@HeWhoHasSeenMe Actually I remember Jesus words when he promised the discples "The Holy Spirit will BRING BACK what I told you"(John 14:26) He didnt say; "men will in future times clairfy what I have told you, listen tothen" did he? No, in fact there are many WARNINGS that we should NOT heed the teachings of post early Christianity. I have studied in detail the teachings of the so called 'church Fathers' and to be honest they contradicted what Jesus taught. They did NOT enhance it!"
Honestly? The whole concept of the Trinity made so much sense after I found out about systems. One human being, many persons. One God, three Persons. It's so much easier to understand it after you know about plurality as a whole - thanks for the video :D
So God is more like a club house of individuals? The group is God but no individual is actually God but can act on part of the group. Like the 12 apostles being the 12. If a few showed up people could say the 12 came by here earlier. They even call them the 12 after Judas dies. There is just no reason not to consider this Tritheism.
@@israelcowl6764 That- isn't what I said though. There is one God. Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God, The Father is God. Jesus =/= the Father, but both are God. They share one nature, they are one, but they're different persons all the same. In systems, whoever is fronting is no less "human" (in the biological sense) than the next person. They're still the same organism but are different persons, who can have relationships with each other and the like.
@@kaj4life1 Well, probably not?? I just shared an observation, is all. Though, frankly, He is God, so trying to lock Him down to existing in only the way that you can personally understand is, frankly, a little weird? Like, you can concieve Him beeing all-seeing, all-knowing, both being fully God and fully man, being the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the Father =/= the holy Spirit =/= Jesus but still all be only one God and that's fine. However, when I use terminology you don't like you suddenly just say "nuh uh". Who's to say that God doesn't experience the world as different Persons who are all One Being as it is with Systems? Why do you assume that your Human experience is the "correct and only one" that God can have?
In your video stating you won't tell us what your denomination is, I could be wrong but at least based off this video I can tell you are western christian because of the diagram of the Trinity you use. The filioque orientals and easterners dispute with us westerners.
The orientation of the triangle doesn't really matter. I get what you're saying, but the one used here is only meant to express essense v. persons, not hypostatic origins. We Orthodox would perhaps prefer the top-pointing triangle more since it doesn't visually imply filioque as much, but either one works. IP is definitely a Protestant.
@@tynytian I fully agree that IP is def a protestant haha. I've always wanted to ask en Orthodox Church member what their views on protestants are? Don't you us as heretics? Or sects?
@@aitornavarro6597 there's a distinction between a formal heretic and a material heretic. A formal heretic is someone who is declared so by a church council, like Arius, Origin, Sebaellius, etc. A material heretic is someone who believes something condemned formally by the church, but may or may not be aware of that fact. Augustine, for example, taught the filioque and inherited guilt through Adam, which the Orthodox church rejects officially, though Augustine wasn't aware of this during his life, so we still consider him a saint. We would consider protestants to be heretical, and thus not really part of the body of Christ. We wouldn't therefore say that you're hellbound, since Christ is the ultimate judge and knows better than us who will be saved. We don't believe in sects or denominations of Christianity. The bible says to hold fast to the faith once delivered, as specific set of teachings given by Christ to His disciples who taught them to faithful men after them as bishops to lead the church. We believe the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved those teachings in holy tradition, which includes the bible and is not separate from it. Therefore, if one isn't joined to the visible body of the church, we wouldn't consider one to be christian in the truest sense. Again, though, that is ultimately for God to judge. There are many outside the church who are much more zealous than those formally inside.
9:20 Justin Martyr did not affirm Trinitarian theology. He clearly says Jesus is “another god” in his Dialogue with Trypho. “There is, and there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things.” (Trypho, ch. 56) Justin Martyr also acknowledged that there were Christians in his day that did not believe Jesus was God himself.
He did affirm the trinity. 150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: 'God went up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 37) 150 AD Justin Martyr quotes Hebrews 1:8 to prove the Deity of Christ. "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 56) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 63. 150 AD Justin Martyr in Chap. LXVI. He (Justin) Proves From Isaiah That God Was Born From A Virgin. (Chapter Title, Chap. LXVI) 150 AD Justin Martyr "And Trypho said, "You endeavor to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured to be born and become man...some Scriptures which we mention, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and [to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 68)
@@misterauctor7353 No one is denying that Justin claimed Jesus was "God." I'm just pointing out that he explained this as Jesus being "another God" different numerically from the true God. This is not Trinitarian. So the assertion that Justin Martyr affirmed the Trinity is false, unless the Trinity consists of the true God and "another God." Justin says that there are men in his day who acknowledge Jesus to be Christ but who do not believe he was God or that he was born of a virgin. He even hints at the possibility that most Christians would possibly affirm those things: "Now assuredly, Trypho,"I continued,"[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father’s will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends,” I said, “of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so." (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 48. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 219) Trypho says to Justin: "Answer me then, first, how you can show that there is another God besides the Maker of all things; and then you will show, [further], that He submitted to be born of the Virgin.”" (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 50. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 220) Justin replies: "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them.” (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 56. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 223) Trypho responds: "You have not proved from this that there is another God besides Him who appeared to Abraham, and who also appeared to the other patriarchs and prophets." (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 56. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 223) Justin replies: "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,-numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world-above whom there is no other God-has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with." (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 56. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 223) Trypho says they have never heard anyone explaining things regarding Christ as Justin was, even though Trypho was familiar with Christians and the Gospel: "We are not prepared for such perilous replies; since never yet have we heard any man investigating, or searching into, or proving these matters; nor would we have tolerated your conversation, had you not referred everything to the Scriptures." (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 56. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 224) Trypho refers to the Christian beliefs that he has heard of before, which are the beliefs of the Ebionite Jews, who predated Trinitarianism (and even Justin's "another God" doctrine): "“Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ].” (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 49. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 219)
he did say that but its more in the sense of what Nicea said: "...True God from True God. Begotten not made...". Justin in many other places says there is only One God. Also, at the time of justin there was no official formula or creed so the wording could be confusing like that. The Shepperd of Hermas is another example of how the wording of some of the fathers can be confusing while still being orthodox.
@@ThePizzaMan-rr3ir”another God” is not Trinitarian. And Justin admits that Christians in his day didn’t believe as he did. Furthermore, I am quoting from his Dialogue with Trypho, where he is discussing Scripture with a Jew. I am not quoting from his subsequent apologies which were contrasting the false gods of the Greco-Roman society. When he is describing Jesus he clearly says he is “another God.” And he even hints at the majority of Christians being in disagreement with him. The Jew he is debating never even heard of such arguments even though he knew Christians and had studied the Gospel himself. All of this is evidence that the earliest Christians (being Jews) did not hold to the 2nd century polytheistic concepts that Justin presents. He does confess that there is one God above all others but then says Jesus is “another god.” All of what I’m saying is simple. Pushing these points aside and say he was orthodox and representative of the earliest Christian beliefs is simply a conclusion that is driven by presupposition and desire. And since this is the earliest source that declares “the divinity of Jesus” we have clear proof that such a doctrine was not what the original Christians believed. Perpetuation of that falsehood is actually helping to validate the coming antichrist doctrine, which will say Jesus is God, but different from the Father who is also God. The doctrine will be explained differently though, asserting that both are transcendent and Jesus is a lesser evolved version of the Father, but the two interact in the same way a hypothetical time traveler would communicate with his younger/older self. I know it sounds unusual, but remember this point. The antichrist doctrine will be tied to transcendence beyond time and space and the whole parallel dimensions, multiple timelines themes. The majority of the world believes the Trinity doctrine (condemning all who do not) and this is going to fit right into the antichrist agenda. The whole push for continued sin while being saved and the notion that Jesus had different flesh than we have is also part of the antichrist agenda
With all due respect to your video here, this is not the “trinity” that I’ve ever known about The Co equal co eternal etc It’s been an established fact that church fathers before the Nicene creed were in dispute with church fathers after the council Having one or two doesn’t help when many of them teach different ways of the Trinity If you mean by the word trinity that three entities shared to be God then at least after the 150 ac to 299 ac There are church fathers who thought about Jesus and the holy spirit to be god but they have their own definition of what Jesus to be god means Church fathers are not a bunch Of Ignorant that don’t know what the Bible says They know it Just like Tertullian who was more of an orthodoxy that he only accepted the Bible’s verses and what the people before him believed in And his conclusions made him a heretic !! Don’t you see the Irony? That your church fathers either they are heretics or not considered saints due to the Athanasius teachings that won in the end There are many differences in reading the church history when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity with respect to the Bible verses
God is love. He is eternally loving. But this necessitates that there be an eternal object of his loving affection. A unitarian God before creation could not be love. But if God is one in three persons, then He can truly be eternal love where even before any other beings existed the Father Son and Spirit were in a state of eternal love with one another. The trinity makes sense of and helps us further understand the attributes (i.e. love) and work (i.e. atonement) of God. This beautiful mystery lies right at the heart of sacred scripture and has been proclaimed by faithful saints from the beginning!
I don't recall Unitarians ever fraudulently inserting verses into the Bible, or blatantly pretending that Greek words don't mean what they actually mean
There were heresies and false teachers creeping into the church in the first century (Jude 1:4). By the second century, once all the apostles were dead, apostasy really got going. By the fourth century, when the trinity was officially adopted, the falling away prophesied by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 was approaching rock bottom and the Catholic Church began persecuting anyone who would not believe like they did. What ‘church fathers’ taught is not a safe guide. For example, Origen also taught universal salvation and reportedly castrated himself.
@@evangelium5376 The maker of this video used Origen as one of the pre-nicaean ‘church fathers’ who developed the trinity. And indeed, his eternal generation doctrine is fundamental to the trinitarian theology espoused by both the orthodox and Catholic Churches. They may have anathematised Origen, but they still kept his mystical teachings
Something that is important to note is that Christians didn't invent the Trinity -- the Trinity arises directly from the old Testament where there is unseen Yahweh in heaven, visible physical Yahweh, and Holy Spirit Yahweh. Second Temple Judaism recognized the first two in the "Two Powers" doctrine; a few rabbis noticed that the Holy Spirit is Yahweh but distinct from the other two, making three Powers in heaven. So the Trinity does not come from Greek philosophy, it comes from Judaism. Certainly they didn't go to full-fledged trinitarianism, but they were definitely binitary. In the second century Judaism rejected the "Two Powers" doctrine because it led many to recognize that Jesus is the visible, physical Yahweh.
Been watching the debate on early church beliefs. The lies, misrepresentation, mistranslations and venom have not changed in 2000 years. Standing back, I doubt that any side is actually Christian.
This is a good compilation! The only thing I wish you would have addressed is Tertullian’s statement about the Son being a portion of the whole substance, while the Father is the whole (Against Praxeus Chapter 9). That kind of language doesn’t work with many trinitarian models. That said, it might harmonize with a Monarchy of the Father trinitarian model, but I would have to ask a monarchal trinitarian about Tertullian’s language here.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Request: Would you dedicate a short clip/video to Tertullian’s portion language in Against Praxeus? (However long you want, of course.) Providing a direct answer to this question would be most helpful to people who are reading through the pre-Nicene writers.
When we refer to Jesus, we kind of limit him to his bodily presence on earth with the disciples. So, had to be limited, confined to human boundaries, so, yeah, it's ok to say he was just a "portion". But as a risen Anointed, not anymore. The shady part is when saying "portion of the substance". Hmmm that doesn't sound right.
@@InspiringPhilosophyJust to clarify, you said, “so he didn’t say Jesus was not partially God”… The inclusion of both “didn’t” and “not” makes it sound like Tertullian accepted that Jesus is partially God, that he didn’t say that Jesus wasn’t partially God. Did you mean to phrase it as, “so he didn’t say Jesus was partially God”? If you could elaborate a bit, that would be helpful.
Christ be with you Jesus didn't tell us to do that. He told us we would know a teaching not by whether it is in the bible or not but by its fruit. God bless you
@@israelcowl6764 we also have atheists doing good work. Ones actions do not prove the original doctrines or teachings. The essence of Christianity has permeated and influenced all of the Western world - and atheists cannot explain where their morality comes from.
No IP you don't understand, the Quran said that the trinity is wrong. And also that it includes Mary, mother of Jesus and sister of Aaron. Everyone would know this if the Ezra worshipping Jews hadn't hidden it from everybody when they removed the book of the council of Nicaea.
Surely, the disbeliever is the one who says Allah is One not Three. On the Day of Judgement, the Father will ask the Son, "Did you say to the people not to worship you and your mother besides me and the Holy Spirit" and he will reply "I would never say what I had no right to say- if I had said such a thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen"
For goodness sake. The council of nicea had NOTHING to do with the books of the canon of the Bible. It was a DEBATE between Arianism and the trinity in which teaching aligned more with scripture. This is not hidden stuff either. Just look at the historical documents of the council we have today. Nothing about books being chosen and removed. So please check your facts before you post this stuff. It’s a myth that books were removed by the council. You’re committing pseudo history.
Thanks for this. But consider this: John the Baptist had to ‘Prepare the way of the LORD’, which is a quote from Isaiah 40 where the Hebrew for LORD is Yahweh/Jehovah, i.e. he had to prepare the way of God. Jesus began his public ministry at his baptism and guess what … the Trinity showed up. It was the first and greatest self-revelation of the Trinity in human recorded history and a massive statement. The New Testament revelation of God as the Trinity was the very first thing Jesus did.
John the Baptizer was raised to prepare the way for the Messiah. Not God. God was going to SEND a Messiah. John's own words show this. (Matthew 11:2, 3) But John, having heard in jail about the works of the Christ, sent his disciples 3 to ask him: “Are you the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one?” What different one could be expected if God was to come?
@@jimjuri6490 In my book John the Baptist: A Biography I look at the various ways this passage is interpreted, and what John was saying to Jesus in this coded message was that his time of preparing the way was over and it was time for Jesus to witness to himself. Jesus’ coded reply in verses 4-15 is a fascinating reference to his own commissioning text in Isaiah (see Luke 4:17-21), but leaving out the bit about captives being released. God bless you.
@@charlescroll9870 : What coded message can there be in a straightforward statement. Were all the historical accounts about Jesus meant to mislead people? Sorry! That would make no sense. There was no deception by God's prophets. This was written about Jesus: (1 Peter 2:22) He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth. Is this a statement about a creature of God or about Almighty God himself?
@ Dear jimjuri, I don’t think you understand me, I am not talking about a deception. In my book John the Baptist: A Biography I spend 6 pages (pp. 160-166) discussing this interaction between Jesus and John. It is an important moment in their respective ministries and the last time they were in touch. It is well worth taking the time to think it through.
Just read the Athenisian Creed. While it was not written by Athenisus himself, it was written by an early church father monk. You must confess it to be considered part of the church catholic.
There are a bunch of Christians that believed a bunch of different things. Some Christians got into bed with the government and began to kill and banish those they deemed unfit, labeled them heretical, and picked out "church fathers." Why would this give me any reason to believe that the Athenisian Creed is correct?
There’s no confusion about God being one. The Trinity is more about the omini present nature of God. How he is one and still be different things or at things place same time. Eg moses and the burning bush.
Is a 4D cube one (4D) cube or is it 8 3d cubes? It's both. God's existence is qualitatively infinitely more complex than we humans. It would be like explaining the concept and details of a "person" that exists in 11 spatial dimensions to a sentient 2D cartoon ant.
The theological theory of Trinity is a human devised term and study. It is a human interpretation of the bible. The source is the bible. Different theological theories have also developed from the same source. All from the bible - unless one considers that the church came to speak with divine inspiration…. The question then arises, is the bible not enough and must be expounded on or added to?
@@evangelium5376 are you suggesting the church “leaders” can make new teachings beyond the bible? I would be interested if you could provide me the source. Thanks.
@@antbrown9066 - No. They are not like first order apostles, whom are given revelatory privileges. They can make clarifications and interpretations, however, and have the divine commission to do so.
@@evangelium5376 so they act with divine inspiration to explain things to the people who cannot make the correct assessment of the word and may interpret incorrectly? Show me the text that supports this.
@@antbrown9066 - You can watch Perry Robinson's talks on apostolic succession, where he goes through the scripture on the ecclesial system of the old and new testaments, and furthermore treats with common counterarguments from high church reformed critics, et al. In short, the point is that there is a system of ordination which conveys a real spiritual gift amongst the new covenant, as it was with the old, and it is the system of ordination which establishes a hierarchy of both normativity and accountability.
Amen. A very helpful compilation to draw from. Great work and emphasis on trinitarian belief before the Counsel of Nicea which non-believers put far too much emphasis on, in terms of how much it modified.
I'm a new Christian who has been exposed to Trinitarianism (which seems to be the prevailing belief of the majority of Christians nowadays) as well as Unitarianism (a much smaller group of people). I've heard highly intelligent arguments from both sides. What I don't understand is when people on one side start saying that the other will "lose their salvation" by not accepting their own side's beliefs.
True Christians have always been oppressed by persecution and accusation since before the Council of Nicea. The Bishops of Alexandria and Rome appealed to the Roman Emperor Aurelian to have the Bishop of the NT city Antioch replaced because he did not consent to their notion that Jesus was a being who consciously preexisted his humanity. Look up Paul of Samosata, The Council of Rimini, The Edict of Thessalonica, The Polish Brethren, The Racovian Catechism Catechism, Michael Servetus, etc
If you deny the trinity you are denying the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, which does make you loose your salvation because you deny Christ God who said that whoever believes in him shall be saved
@@manuelserrano4697I believe in the Biblical Christ. The Trinity doctrine is not biblical. There is only one true God, that’s the Father. John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6. The Apostles repeatedly refer to “the God of Jesus” (Ephesians 1:17, Colossians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3). When you believe the biblical Christ, your manner of speaking will match theirs. They never say Trinity, nor divinity of Christ, etc. Your belief comes from Greco-Roman influences, passed down from Roman society through the Romans Catholic Church, retained through the Protestant split. It is not biblical.
@@manuelserrano4697I hear ya. And I don't speak for all Unitarians, but the few that I know 100% submit themselves to the lordship of Jesus as the Messiah that God sent. And they take the Holy Spirit very seriously as the power of the Father in the world. Not sure why God would reject them based on what can be seen (what I see) as a technicality. On the other hand, if they are right (and you are incorrect in believing that Jesus is God), not sure why God would reject you, either, as God would have to then "waste" most professing Christians nowadays.
Well… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
@@eew8060 What doesnt make sense . Gods power Gods knowledge and his goodness are all aspects of God that each individually can be difficult to comprehend yet we all affirm them . Because he has them to the maximal extent . There is nothing that would restrict or limit God to being one person . So being multiple persons would be better and great makeing property of God
@@DiverRamada Why are you using the term limit as in reference to God? An Almighty would not NEED 2 others to be Almighty. Almighty is above All! Supreme! The Trinitarian doctrine has the Almighty as being of three persons. So none are considered to be powerful unless together? So that would be a deficiency… in the Trinitarian doctrine Can the Father be Almighty alone? Can the Son? Can the HS? That shows a reliance. A TRUE Almighty is ONE ALONE.. all powerful! Requiring no one else! That is true power/ a true God!
At the end of the day, we are talking about The Being myriads of dimenions above our own. Isaiah literally describes Jesus as the "Arm of the Lord"...how much would an amoeba comprehend our arm versus our head or our bodily being!
Clever men with clever philosophies would blind many to the truth, both then and now. Those clever people tried unsuccessfully to imagine one god in three persons or else three persons in one god. Look at all these pagan ideas that have crept into the church. Trinity. God the Son. Good Friday. Easter Monday. Easter eggs. Easter bunnies. Hot cross buns. Celebrating the birth of the Lord, as we are never asked to do that. Christmas trees. 25 December. Lent. Ash Wednesday. Shrove Tuesday. Saints Days. Carved idols. Rosary. Holy water. A round wafer at the Mass. Monks. Nuns. Monasteries. etc. None of these ideas is scriptural. The Apostles never used the word trinity and there is no real meaning to the concept of trinity. After the AD 325 council of nicaea, the roman catholic church began changing or adding words with a reckless disregard for staying scriptural. When the church agreed to add unscriptural words to the Bible, then Trinity could make its official entrance into the church. It is the first unscriptural word entered the church at the council of nicaea in ad 325. This opened a can of worms and more and more unscriptural words had to be accepted in their attempts to explain the Trinity.
I would disagree with the last sentence. I find that the full knowledge and understand if the Trinity is irrelevant to a Christian. Maybe if he likes to debate but in any other situation it's pretty much useless. Just basic understanding is enough.
@@Cry4Tanelorn The bible clearly teaches open theism throughout. The early Christians are unitarian and open theists. "Church Fathers" that lived hundreds of years after Jesus and loved mixing neoplatonic like thinking with the Bible are not who Christians should follow. Christians should follow Christ. Jesus was a unitarian (John 17:3) and an open theist (Matt 26:53).
Some of the ideas behind the Trinity date back to the early church, yes, but there were many competing ideas about God's nature in the first few hundred years of the church. It's silly to say that early church leaders taught the Trinity, especially since the Trinity is not in the Bible.
FATHER IS THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT SON OF GOD IS THE FATHER MANIFEST IN HUMAN FLESH AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD AND SIMULTANEOUSLY THE SPIRIT OF GOD THROUGH HIS WORDS AND POWER THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST THAT EVERY BORN AGAIN PERSON HAVE
No He isn't. The New Testament clearly distinguishes the Father from the Son and Spirit. Unless you wanna deny all the "Son of God" language, or that Jesus was praying to somebody else, you have to distinguish the persons.
@@tynytian huh! So you are the one distinguishing and dividing God into separate persons can you divide yourself into three persons and see if you live? 😂😂 You are an heretic for dividing a Jewish one person God into three persons by your hypocritical understanding from Greek Hellenistic converts in 3rd and 4th centuries, what you instead must do is you must go back to the 1st and 2nd centuries and you'll find nothing in trinitarian divisions of God but instead you'll find monarchian oneness Godhead
@@tynytian you are a heretic for denying that God termed FATHER came to us and given himself to us termed as SON and who in turn is living among us now termed as the HOLY SPIRIT or SPIRIT OF CHRIST, all three are terms used for one person GOD
@@coxfordGamer the trinity is the most confusing, made up doctrine by the gentiles and nothing Jewish. Remember. You’re using a Jewish religion, scriptures, and worshipping a Jewish man as a God. That’s idolatry.
@mooshei8165 Isaiah 35:4-6 says God would come and save me, tells me what God would do, Jesus did all of Isaiah 35:4-6 so Jesus must be the one God of the old testament come.
@mooshei8165 furthermore John 1 teaches the one who came and was in the world made it, the God of Israel said I have made the earth, yet John and Paul tells me Jesus did, and scripture says there is only one God and one creator. Paul said the Lord took upon himself, the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of a man. Jesus is the God of the old testament come as a man, if he isn't then he's a different person which is trinity.
Later, Clement of Alexandria shed off the Platonic ideas for purer Catholic Tradition, as in Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? In it he says that the signet ring placed on the finger of the returning prodigal son is the Seal of the NAME of the TRINITY. Earlier Clement was only a cathechist, but later he became a better informed actual Priest.
To be honest, I don't get why people trust the church fathers on their views on the Holy Trinity and the canon of the New Testament, but not in their view of the Eucharist, infant baptism, regenerative baptism, 3 fold ecclesiology and more
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I wish my Mormon parents would read early church fathers rather than think I’m clinically insane for believing in the Trinity
Do Mormons believe in 3 Gods?
@@thewheyoflife3548 yes
@@thewheyoflife3548 Yeah
Mormons literally believe that Joseph smith saw visions through a hat of I’m not mistaken. If anyone is insane it’s them.
They would reject the early church father's because they believe all solid teaching and authority disappeared after the apostles died remember?
The first thing came to my mind when I saw this video in recommendation is Muhammed Hijab asking Jay Smith to quote one early church father who believed in trinity, Jay ended quoting 5. It was legendary.
can you post the link please?
Sorry what's the title of the video
Please tell us the video title 😂😂
The video is a short . I seen it myself .it's at speakers corner.
Oh that edited video by a Christian. And all those church fathers??
I did not know that this was a point of dispute.
Oh it is lol
Unitarians, Modalists, Arians, and others have made a frustrating resurgence.
For Muslims who try to cling to everything that might validate their ludicrous beliefs, it is.
Muslims have been getting in on it too, because if you read the Quran, it said Jesus and his followers were devout Muslims. Unfortunately the Gospels and history don't bear that assertion out.
@@Sousabird
Read the 4 verses in Quran mentioning Muhammad by name. That's not Muhammad :D
Glory be To the Father and to The Son and to The Holy spirit
Amen
Oh brother you have no idea, God be with us all
@@westoncampbell9388 what do you mean ?
@@westoncampbell9388 what do you mean
I love the trinity!
Hi Michael, just watched your video. Great stuff. I follow your work now for quite a while. I am a Roman Catholic. Not a true believer, neither an atheist. Somewhere between Santayana, Montaigne and Descartes. 250 years after I. Kant, D. Humes and M. Montaigne total certainty seems an anachronism to me. I did like what you said about hell (chat with Alex O`Connor). Did not listen out any kind of sadism and malicious joy, that you got it all right and want others (the non believers) to suffer👋👋. So common among Christians. In my opinion everyone should moderate their certainties. Also what you mentioned about the social advantages of being a believer (another chat with someone). Your work is intellectually honest, never shrill and always sincere. Its much appreciated by me. Keep going. Thank you!❤🎉❤ Andy
By the way: I think Tertullian became a Montanist at the end of his life. He switched sides. I guess that is why he did not become an actual "church father". He also opposed Christians who interpreted Mathew 10,28 as annihilation and always saw the non believers in eternal hell. Origenes to me was the wisest of all. Good heart. Assumingly that is why he was considered a heretic by my Church-))
How can Jesus be “God” and have a “God” at the same time? Check out the verses below that clearly show that our Father is the “God” of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Ephesians 1:17
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.
Romans 15:6
…so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort…
Ephesians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
1 Peter 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
The above verses are very clear. Jesus Christ has a God. Who is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ? Ephesians 1:17 very clearly says that this God is our glorious Father.
Jesus Christ himself called our Father his “God” and Father many different times in Scripture.
John 20:17 (KJV)
…I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'”
Revelation 3:12
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.
Revelation 3:21
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Reply
@@JeffSmith-it4tm How can Father have God?
Hebrew 1 8...
I grew up as a Oneness pentacostal. I've done some reading of Justin Martyr and it was very helpful in moving to a better understanding of the Trinity. Video like these have been very helpful for me over the last few years. Thanks!
@@rushramelEverlasting Father ( Abi-ad) means Father of Eternity or source of eternity, because the Son is Eternal, thats horrible eisegesis
Who is Jesus interceding to in Hebrews 7:25? Second, who sent the Lord in Isaiah 48:12-16? Third, who sent the Lord in Zechariah 2:8? Fourth, how are the Father and Son two witnesses if they are on person in John 8:15-17? Fifth, how can the Lord speak to the Son prior to the incarnation in Psalm 110:1? Sixth, how can the Son of Man come to the Ancient or Days in Daniel 7:13 if he is the Father? Seventh, how does the Father respond to Jesus in John 12:288 if he is Jesus? @@rushramel
@@monteontopyeah it's complete nonsense. It means that Jesus is the source of existence (because he is God), not that Jesus is the person of the Father
@@rushramelWhat's your explanation for the Father speaking at the baptism of Jesus and at the Transfiguration? Likewise, how do you explain Jesus praying to the Father in Gethsemane saying, "thy will not my will be done?"
I'm genuinely curious as to what interpretation Oneness people attempt to use to edit main such things. Jesus said he has to go to the Father, and speaks of the Father as separate in heaven many times.
@@IffmeisterExactly, they literally butcher the bible and make mince meat out of it, John 16:13 and John 8:16-18 makes their whole theology crumble apart
Great Video!
Thank you for the donation.
Thank you Mike! I’m doing a study on the Trinity directed to Mormons! This is so helpful!
We can do without your trinitarian heresy
@@MichaelHodgkinson genuinely asking: what about the Trinity is heretical?
@@MichaelHodgkinsonheretic calling us heretics lmao
@@antichrist_revealed Jesus is the Son of God. He Himself said that. But He is also God. He accepted worship which only God can receive. Even the religious elders understood He was calling Himself God and that's part of the reason why they killed Him.
@@antichrist_revealed Thomas called Jesus "my Lord and my God."
Before the Nicea Council, there are several early church fathers affirming the Trinity.
While Tertullian had new theological concepts and advanced the development of early Church doctrine, he is the first on record to use the term 'Trinity,' (from Latin "trinitas).
Nevertheless, the earliest reference among this group is feasibly made by Polycarp.
Worthwhile, to explore further also, is the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD.
Hope this helps. God bless.
Pastor John
Wouldn't these persons mentioned be those who came into prominence after the death of the Apostles?
Acts 20:29.. After my going away...
30 and from AMONG YOU yourselves men will rise and SPEAK TWISTED THINGS to draw away the disciples after themselves.
This is how the Trinity came to be labelled a Christian tenet.
It seems the idea of the trinity has been there since the beginning, but the terminology came later. It's like early astronomers always knew there was a "morning star" but later astronomers clarified it was the planet Venus.
I read and have read through the Bible. Have never seen anything that portrays God Almighty as Triune. Nothing. What I read is that Jehovah is THE Almighty and Jesus is His Son.
Jesus very clearly stated he was Gods SON. He never says he is part of a Triune Almighty Godhead… not once! There is no reference to any triune being in scripture.
An almighty of 3 is not Almighty.. it shows reliance. In the trinity can the Father be Almighty alone? Can the Son?
@@hereweare9096"I and the Father are one", "All things that the Father has are Mine.". Also people worshipped Jesus and Jesus accepted all of them. Angel said you have to worship only the God. So just with this 4 facts your whole claim is debunked and i wonder did you really read the bible.
@@hereweare9096Almighty is merely a title that connotes having all power. Jesus has all power, therefore he is Almighty.
@@patrick953 Jesus was GIVEN authority/ power.
@@hereweare9096 It is irrelevant where he got it from, all that matters is that he possesses all power. If he has all power, then he is Almighty. Simple as ABC
Ignatius who was desciple of John said in "Epistle to Ephesians chapter 7: there is one physician who is possessed both of spirit and flesh, BOTH MADE AND NOT MADE, CREATED AND UNCREATED, BORN AND UNBORN, GOD EXISTING IN FLESH
Epistle to ephesians chapter 19: GOD HIMSELF MANIFESTED IN HUMAN FORM FOR THE RENEWAL OF ETERNAL LIFE" 1st century very early Christian and even disciple to none other than John himself said it period.
Literally the first thing that came to my mind; Ignatius of Antioch.
@BornAgainEnglishmanKJV There’s no legitimate anything if you want 100% proof for everything. You could even say the Gospels authors are anonymous because there’s no concrete evidence that whoever wrote it wrote it, realistically. But we know that they can’t be anonymous because no one accepts letters, especially a special teaching like a gospel, from someone who didn’t even address their name. Common sense tells you everything.
@BornAgainEnglishmanKJV Most Scholars accept at least 7 letters of him as authentique
ruclips.net/video/wm91qI8yjQQ/видео.htmlfeature=shared
This is nonsense, considering Ignatius is a father received in traditions like the Syriac, which is the oldest tradition and which was removed from much of the empire and largely did its own thing. 7 of the letters are legit, the scholarly consensus changed for a reason@BornAgainEnglishmanKJV
What a great production, you absolutely nailed it! Clear, thorough and a delight. Thank you.
This new editing is amazing. Keep up the great work IP!
Great and noteworthy sources in this video. Thanks, IP!
Not just the early Church. Early Judaism taught a plurality within the Godhead for centuries before Jesus incarnated, until rabbis decided to retroactively label their own theology a heresy as a reaction against Christianity.
Bingo. Philo of Alexandria definitely believed this.
No they didn’t man.
@jordandthornburg yes they did. Read Alan Segal's "Two Powers in Heaven." Segal was a Jew who taught rabbinics, he had no interest in promoting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. He just laid out the facts as they are.
@@ethan46199 I’ve read that book. I don’t remember where he even claimed such a thing. What page does he state Judaism believed in multiple persons in God until later it was condemned?
@@jordandthornburg Segal himself deliberately avoids drawing any clear conclusions, again because he was a Jew who was averse to the doctrine of the Trinity. nevertheless, the facts he lays out lend themselves very easily to that history. it's clear to anyone who isn't motivated to deny it.
Brother thank you for the research to make this great video. It has encouraged my heart greatly
Thank you soo much. I am forwarding this to my Jehovah friends who believes the trinity was invented by 4th century church. Pretty sure they won’t watch, but then it’s on them.
@Gerhard2770
I'm a JW and I'm watching now
@@eew8060welcome❤
I’m a JW too.
Previously a Catholic.
@@hereweare9096you should watch Dwong on the filioque to get a better understanding of the trinity
@@eew8060 watch Dwong on the filioque to get a better understanding of the trinity
The diety of Christ is the cornerstone of Christianity, as supported by scripture.
Deity my brother ❤
False.
@@RedCloudGawdian
False.
"False" proceeds not to give proof as to why its false:
😂@@stevenfrasier5718
@@stevenfrasier5718 get a life
Excellent scholarship as expected of IP
No it isn’t. It’s biased.
@@BrotherTris biased by linking sources to early church fathers???
@@BrotherTrisJesus, the apostles and the church fathers were so biased when they taught the Trinity I guess
@@dimitris_zaha Where does Jesus TEACH the TRINITY in the Bible? I’d like to read that..
@@hereweare9096 when he claimed to be God like in John 8:58, even the Jews understood what Jesus meant and tried to stone him for blasphemy
And Jesus Himself Tells To Baptize Everyone in the name of God Our Father The Son And The Holy Ghost !
So that passage in Matthew is a bit questionable but it could very well be legit; however, "It was also part of the customary use of the word “name” that it was often used in the singular even when there was more than one person involved. It is sometimes claimed that because Matthew 28:19 says the “name” (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that the three must be one God, but that is not true, as a study of the word “name” in the Bible and biblical culture shows. The word “name” in the singular was often used of two or more. For example, Genesis 48:16 (KJV) says, “…the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac.” Some modern versions read, “names of my fathers,” but the Hebrew text uses the singular, “name.” We see the same distributive use of the word “name” in verses such as 1 Samuel 17:13, where the “name” of Jesse’s three oldest sons was Eliab, then Abinadab, then Shammah. No one claims that the three eldest sons of Jesse, the father of David, were somehow “one,” it is just that the Bible sometimes uses “name” in a distributive sense." www.revisedenglishversion.com/Matthew/chapter28/19?__hstc=56714805.95e6a7c3e49af964d502d9571261904f.1706596503252.1706642395801.1707514693751.3&__hssc=56714805.2.1707514693751&__hsfp=3828489826
Yes. He also claimed the father was superior to the son.
@@israelcowl6764 Such a Good News thanks For Letting me Know ,
@@antbrown9066 In many ways I am superior to my son but my son is still fully human.
@@lesliewilliam3777 yes he is human. But he is not you. You and him are not one. You may operate as one if you have trained him and he respects you.
Time-stamp
3:43, 4:10 - Clement of Alexandria
Stromata 5.11, 13 on the Holy Spirit
6:05, 6:30 - Hippolytus of Rome
Against Noetus
7:19 - Gregory the wonder worker
8:05 - Irenaeus
8:30 - Irenaeus’ presentation of the three, as the three points of faith (Dem. of Apostolic Preaching 6)
9:23 - Justin Martyr
9:40 - Justin’s First Apology on the Spirit
10:01 - Justin Martyr talks about baptism in the name of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
10:26 - Justin Martyr on second and third place
11:20 - Ignatius
12:12 - Odes of Solomon
12:37 - The Epistle of the Apostles
12:47 - Athenagoras of Athens
13:00 - Theophilus of Antioch
14:19 - The Didache and baptism
So no Biblical scriptures??
@@hereweare9096 That’s not the focus of this video; it’s about the history of the church before the First Council of Nicaea.
If you want scripture-videos, Inspiring Philosophy uploaded numerous videos in the past. You can find them easily.
I can even elaborate on a few passages, if you’re interested in a conversation.
@@zekdom Yes. That would be good.
@@hereweare9096 Oh, cool! So what do you see when you read John 10:30 and Matthew 28:19? (We can cover one passage at a time.)
@@zekdom John 10:30 - Jesus is of the same mind/purpose as His Father.
Matt 28:19 - Jesus is given authority
Thanks again for all you do
I love when you source the Fathers...great work, as usual.
Glory to the Father & to the Son & to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the Beginning, is now & will be evermore, world without end, unto the ages of ages. Amén.
Thank you for making this!
The Trinity is also in the old testament. The Spirit of God and The Angel of the Lord are both treated and described as the one and only God, but distinct persons. The Trinity did not start with the new testament or later church figures.
The Old Testament never mentions that God is a tripersonal being. The Old Testament writers never say anything like "we worship a God who is three" or anything remotely close to that. We have God showing up and God's agents that act on his behalf. If an agent acts on another's behalf it is not uncommon to credit their actions as if the one they are doing it for is doing it to them. We still do things like this all the time: if a country is invaded we may say that Prime Minister SoandSo invaded country SuchandSuch despite him never setting foot in the country.
@@israelcowl6764 We are not discussing global conflicts; we are talking about the triune nature of the one true God. Your example does not relate to the topic. The Old Testament describes God in more than one persona on multiple occasions. The Angel of the Lord and The Spirit of God God are described as separate personas of God, but both are God.
Multiple examples exist in the Old and New Testament of angels showing up on God's behalf, such as the two who rescued Lot's family during the destruction of Sodom and Gamora and the Angel Gabriel when he appeared to Mary. The Bible distinguishes between these angels and The Angel of the Lord because the Angel of the Lord is much more than just an angel. He is described and treated as God himself.
Genesis 16:7-13, the Angel of the Lord says to Hagar, "I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count."
Exodus 3:2-6, The Angel of the Lord is the persona who appears to Moses in the burning bush and later identifies himself as Yahwe, the one true God.
Judges 13:18-22, Manoah offers a sacrifice to the Angel of the Lord, and he accepts it himself. Why would a sacrifice be provided to an agent who acts on behalf of God? Would that not be blasphemous if anyone but God himself? It was not done in the temple.
Saying the Angel of the Lord is just "an agent acting on God's behalf" ignores his significance and the multiple examples in scripture where he is described as God himself.
Let's do the same with the Spirit of God.
Isaiah 61:1, "The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, proclaim freedom for captives and release from darkness for the prisoners." The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord has a distinct role in the Godhead, which indicates agency and a separate persona while also being God.
Exodus 31:1-3, "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God." Again, God describes the Spirit as having a specific role and separates his persona. This is the same Spirit of God described as hovering over the surface of the waters in Genesis 1:2.
And let us not forget Genesis 1:26, "Let us make mankind in OUR image, in OUR likeness," Last time I checked, we are only made in the image of God, not in the image of his angels.
There is no example of God saying outright, "I am three in one," but if we read scripture, we can see it very clearly.
This is only the tip of the iceberg; many other examples exist in the Old Testament, and I encourage you to study this further. There is only one true God, and the only way to have a relationship with him is through his son, Jesus Christ, who is also God. God is triune in nature, but he is still one. God bless.
@@israelcowl6764God in the Old Testament never says that he is just one person The prophets especially Abraham, Moses and Isaiah became the gift to recognize that God has 3 persons Moses wrote about the angel of the Lord who appeared to him as YHWH and who claimed to be the God of Bethel(Genesis 31:11-13,Exodus 3:2+16) and Isaiah wrote about the 3 divine Persons of YHWH who saved Israel from the slavery(Isaiah 48:16,63:9-10)
Mary and Joseph also received the gift of understanding God having 3 persons
I think you can find trinity or duality or even God being four in one if you search for bible quotes that support your opinion. I think why not ask Jesus himself and read the bible who and how he really is?
No Trinity 2 Kings 17:27-29
The Tent of Moses is the Tent of David, which is the House of David, the Samaritan Temple. When Jesus said I AM, did he proof to the Jews that he was God of the Samaritans!
Yahweh is from the Samaritans. John 4:22 Samaritans had their own temple! Within the region of Samaria, in the city of Sychar, was Jacob’s well. This was the location of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman, who asked, “Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?” (John 4:12). Later in the conversation, she brought up a centuries-old controversy: “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem” (verse 20). “This mountain” is a reference to Mount Gerizim in the central Samaritan highlands, the place where the Samaritans had built their own temple, which they considered the true temple of God. John 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews.
The late Chuck Missler liked to say that man is too fallen to comprehend perfect unity.
That's why fallen men came up with the modern trinity
@@HaleStorm49I don’t think you got what he was saying
@@amari117 there are men that have comprehended perfect unity and there are the men who decided the doctrine of the Trinity. They aren't the same men
@@HaleStorm49 Where are these men that have comprehended perfect unity?
@@amari117 Peter, James, John, Stephen, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Ether, Elisha, Enoch, Joseph, Jacob, etc
Chuck shouldn't speak for more capable men
Gregory of Thaumaturgus is so underrated he describes the Trinity so clearly
Video of straight facts great job ip!!
Thanks! ❤
Thank you for the donation.
Bravo! I have been saying this for years. The Trinity concept was part of Christianity from the very beginning. In fact, may Jews of the first century also believed that God was a Trinity of Persons. Philo, the 1st century Jewish philosopher, asserted that God manifested Himself in 3 different "emanations" in the Hebrew Tanakh.
The thought of God and his love for us makes me so happy .🔥
Love your video.♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
My girlfriend and her mom are Oneness Pentecostals. Every service I go to the pastor, or whoever else is teaching, always bring up how their doctrine is sound doctrine and the other doctrines are false and dangerous. They also mention that Oneness is right because there isn’t 3 Gods (referring to the Trinity.)
I am not joking when I say it is every single service they are talking about how they have sound doctrine, and will blatantly call out baptists for having unsound doctrine because they believe “you can believe in Jesus and live however you want and be saved.”
I have had multiple conversations with people in this church about the Trinity, yet there response is always
1. The Trinity teaches 3 Gods
2. Christianity never taught the Trinity because the Bible says One God, One faith, one baptism
As them to leave. That Oneness crap is terrible, heretical, and takes tons of mental gymnastics to justify.
It’s literally called a TRINITY which means - of three.. Trinitarians say that there are three..
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
They cannot be each other / of each other are separate..,
So that’s THREE GODS - TRINTY
@hereweare9096 No, it would only be three if Trinity meant "three beings." We believe God is One "being", but three "persons." Thats not a contradiction.
My being is human.
My person is Julian.
God's being is God.
God's persons are Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
They are coequal and coeternal.
There may indeed be one baptism, but we baptize in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit. That's part of Scripture, too.
One analogy I’ve found helpful is with water, ice, and clouds. All three are of one substance -H2O- and yet their manfistation is distinct.
@@JulianGentry Trinity - a group of three people or things.
noun: trinity; plural noun: trinities
"the wine was the first of a trinity of three excellent vintages"
the state of being three.
noun: trinity
Praise Father , Son , and Holy Ghost. Amen 🎶
I love this because it literally punches any doubt in the face so hard
Great video as always brother thank you and all glory to God
It also shows the trinity was a controversial idea from the beginning. That's why early church fathers open their statements like, "Indeed, there is only one God .... yes, Christians are monotheists ..."
It wasn't controversial amongst Christians, it was controversial to those outside of it.
@@irfanmehmud63 It doesn’t make it false or not part of the original tradition.
We’ve never been under the impression of God being more than 1.
Thank you for your ministry, and for bringing to light all this scholarship. Perhaps soon I'll muster the spine to show this to my Unitarian relatives.
We've seen it, and it's wrong! Look up Sean Finnegan's "The Trinity Before Nicea". His paper shows conclusive proof that at least 6 Eary Church Fathers did NOT believe the Trinity. IP hasn't done his homework properly on this one.
@@lizzard13666They did believe in the trinity.
200 AD Tertullian "Never did any angel descend for the purpose of being crucified, of tasting death, and of rising again from the dead." (The Flesh of Christ, ch 6)
200 AD Tertullian "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed." (Against Praxeas, ch 11)
200 AD Tertullian "The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ, 5:6-7).
200 AD Tertullian "[God speaks in the plural 'Let us make man in our image'] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit." (Against Praxeas, ch 12)
200 AD Tertullian "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25)
200 AD Tertullian "As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)
@@lizzard13666"IP... one."
He has, liar.
Impressive. Very based
Thank you brother for the research and the info!
150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63)
150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)
150 AD Justin Martyr "Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: 'God went up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 37)
150 AD Justin Martyr quotes Hebrews 1:8 to prove the Deity of Christ. "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 56)
150 AD Justin Martyr "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 63.
150 AD Justin Martyr in Chap. LXVI. He (Justin) Proves From Isaiah That God Was Born From A Virgin. (Chapter Title, Chap. LXVI)
150 AD Justin Martyr "And Trypho said, "You endeavor to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured to be born and become man...some Scriptures which we mention, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and [to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 68)
How can Jesus be “God” and have a “God” at the same time? Check out the verses below that clearly show that our Father is the “God” of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Ephesians 1:17
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.
Romans 15:6
…so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort…
Ephesians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
1 Peter 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
The above verses are very clear. Jesus Christ has a God. Who is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ? Ephesians 1:17 very clearly says that this God is our glorious Father.
Jesus Christ himself called our Father his “God” and Father many different times in Scripture.
John 20:17 (KJV)
…I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'”
Revelation 3:12
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.
Revelation 3:21
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Reply
>“…there is … another god and lord SUBJECT to the MAKER of all things who is also called an ANGEL… He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called ‘God’, is DISTINCT from Him who MADE ALL THINGS… it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called lord by the Holy Spirit BESIDES Him who is considered Maker of all things… He is the lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the Heavens, i.e; the Maker of all things‘”. - *Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (150-160s A.D)*
>"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union…. we propound NOTHING DIFFERENT from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter" - *Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (150-160s A.D)*
>“…never should fall from the belief by which it is most clearly proclaimed that this BEING ALONE is truly God and Father… there is but one true God… He alone is our Father… the Father Himself is ALONE called GOD, who has a real existence… the Scriptures acknowledge Him [the Father] ALONE as God… the Lord [Jesus Christ] confesses Him alone as his own Father, and knows no other…Lord [Jesus Christ] himself handing down to his disciples, that He the FATHER is the ONLY God and Lord who ALONE is God and ruler of all, -it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect“. - *Irenaeus, Against Heresies (175-189 A.D)*
>"Since they did not understand that this was said of Wisdom, which was the first of the CREATION of God“. - *Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (180-215 A.D)*
>"For we thus understand ‘I begot thee before the morning star’ with reference to the first-CREATED Word of God…”. - *Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus*
>“Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the character of a Second Person; ‘At the first the Lord CREATED me as the beginning of His ways… moreover, before all the hills did He beget me’. That is to say; ‘He CREATED AND generated me in His own intelligence’…" - *Tertullian, Against Praxeas (170-200s A.D)*
>“God… has NOT always been Father… merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son… There was, however, a time when NEITHER sin EXISTED with Him, NOR the Son… the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and CREATED, for the special reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and UNCREATED. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet NOT without a BEGINNING - I mean His wisdom, which was then born and CREATED... how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be OLDER, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word?”
- *Tertullian, Against Hermogenes (170-200s A.D)*
>“Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe him when he says; ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I'”. - *Origen, Against Celsus (200-250s A.D)*
>“…in the Proverbs. ‘God,’ we read, ‘created me the beginning of His ways... the Father is his beginning in the SAME WAY Christ is the beginning of those who are made according to the image of God. For if men are according to the image, but the image according to the Father; in the first case the Father is the beginning of Christ" - *Origen, Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 1*
"We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe NOTHING to be UNCREATED but the FATHER…" - *Origen, Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2*
>"...the Father also precedes him… it is essential that He who knows no beginning must go before him who has a beginning… having a beginning because he is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by his nativity, although he has a beginning in that he is born… IF he had NOT been born - compared with Him who was unborn, [resulting in] an EQUALITY being manifested in both - he would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods... and as being found EQUAL… would have reasonably given two Gods, and thus Christ would have been the cause of two Gods. Had he been formed WITHOUT beginning as the Father… this would have made two beginnings, and consequently would have shown to us two Gods also… Moreover, the Son is god of all ELSE, because God the Father put before all him whom He begot." - *Novatian, A Treatise of Concerning the Trinity (220s-250s A.D)*
Whilst the church fathers used language like "God from God" and Triune-like language and talk of substances and hypostases when referring to the Son's begetting, it's also clear that they didn't have the same understanding of just what the "Trinity" was as later Christians did past the 4th century down to this day.
These writers viewed the Son of God as a subordinate individual to be literally begotten of God's being, some even stating that he was of God’s eternal substance, but at the same time calling him “created”, having a “beginning” and not always “being in existence”, and these early writers go as far to say that calling the Son; “the True God” or “the Most High God”, is “blasphemous” and “heretical”. They recognise he is called "God" for his origins and the divine authority he represents, but not because it's his identity or that he's part of a three-in-one being.
The 4th century fathers of Nicaea, took 'from' the language of the church fathers, that much is true, but they then further evolved it into something else that these church fathers did not at all subscribe to.
I actually found two even earlier references in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians:
In chapter 2 we read: “Content with the provision which GOD had made for you, and carefully attending to HIS words, you were inwardly filled with HIS doctrine, and HIS SUFFERINGS were before your eyes.” [Emphasis mine]. This could only be referring to Christ since he is the God that suffered (if you follow the pronouns).
In Chapter 13, Clement writes "...and let us act according to that which is written, FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT SAYS “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, neither let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him that glories glory in the Lord, in diligently seeking Him, and doing judgment and righteousness." [Emphasis mine].
Here Clement is citing Jeremiah 9:23-24. But if you go and read the passage, it is the LORD (YHWH) who says these words: "Thus says the LORD, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches..." But Clement says it was the Holy Spirit who said these words - showing that understood the Spirit to be God.
There is a major textual variant in that exact spot in chapter two. Other texts say “the provision which Christ had made for you”. That reading wouldn’t support the trinity. Actually neither reading would support the trinity itself. That would teach the idea Jesus just is the one God which is more akin to modalism or oneness doctrine.
@@jordandthornburgto say that Jesus is God is not to say the Father and Spirit aren't God. The scriptures identify all three as God, and nowhere are the three conflated as one person.
@@tynytian if you say Jesus just is God, I.e. they are identical, it is to say that Jesus is the father, since the father just is God clearly and unavoidably in scripture. That is how identity works.
@@tynytian the scriptures call all three god. That is not the same thing as identifying all three as the one God. It doesn’t do that.
"the holy spirit says..." is a figure of speech. It means "God's spirit caused the prophet to say...".
Matthew 28: baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
A command (if it was one) disregarded by Jesus' disciples.
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.
The holy spirit is a GIFT from God.
@@jimjuri6490in the name of Jesus means in the name of the father son and holy spirit
@@Hithereitsme32 : How did someone come up with such a theory?
God's name is Jehovah.
God's son's name is Jesus.
God's holy spirit???? Why no name??
Because ONLY Jehovah is God (John 17:3).
Jesus is God's SON and not God.
God's holy spirit is the power God USES to get things done.
(1 Corinthians 8:6) there is actually to us ONE GOD, THE FATHER,
@@jimjuri6490 Jesus is God, “the father and I are one”
@@Hithereitsme32 : 'ARE one' means two individuals working with one purpose.
'The Board of Directors are one on this issue' means what? That all the members are one individual????
Jesus explains what 'ARE one' means.
In prayer to his God Jehovah, Jesus said:
(John 17:22) I have given THEM (Jesus' disciples) the glory that you have given me, in order that THEY MAY BE ONE JUST AS WE ARE ONE.
Let me know if understanding this simple statement is hard. Please!
Your quote from Pliny at 14:13 says they sang a hymn to Jesus as a god.
Also, the next writer says they don't think it offensive to God that they also worship his servant. If you think about it, this person is not a christian, and obviously does not believe in Jesus and so is more than likely quoting christians that this is what they do. That is, they worship God and his servant Jesus. Daniel was worshipped by Nebuchadnezzar but not because he thought Daniel was God, but he was showing reverence to God's servant which I think, was pleasing to God. And I think this was similar to what the early Christians were doing. They knew that Jesus was called God's servant, a man, the anointed and that God had made him lord in Acts
Sarah talks to the Trinity, in person, at the start of the old testament.
There are many passages where two persons of God are present. There are many passages where Jesus Christ directly acknowledges the other two persons of God.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! Happy Easter-He is risen!
You really should have acknowledged that numerous passages in the New Testament describe the relationship between Jesus and God in binitarian terms (e.g. Romans 8:11; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Galatians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:2; 1 Peter 1:20-21; 2 John 1:3, 9), confirming the presence of at least a binitarian theology during the early New Testament era. According to Boyarin, “There is significant evidence … that in the first century many - perhaps most - Jews held a binitarian doctrine of God”. (Boyarin 2006, 131)
Some examples of early church Binitarianism:
• The writer of the _Shepherd of Hermas_ (c.100-c.160), at 59:5:
_The holy pre-existent spirit, which created the whole creation, God made to dwell in flesh that He desired._
Similarly, at 78:1:
_I wish to show thee all things that the Holy Spirit, which spake with thee in the form of the Church, showed unto thee. For that Spirit is the Son of God._
• Psuedo-Clement (c.130-160), at _2 Clement_ 14:4, wrote:
_But if we say that the flesh is the Church and the spirit is Christ, then he that hath dealt wantonly with the flesh hath dealt wantonly with the Church. Such an one therefore shall not partake of the spirit, which is Christ._
• In his _Dialogue with Trypho, 61.1,_ Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) equated the logos, Son and Holy Spirit, saying:
_God has begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures a kind of Reasonable Power from Himself, which is also called by the Holy Spirit the Glory of the Lord, and sometimes Son, and sometimes Wisdom, and sometimes Angel, and sometimes God, and sometimes Lord and Word. Sometimes also He speaks of Himself as Chief Commander, when He appeared in the form of a man to Joshua the son of Nun. For He can have all these names_
The doctrine of the Trinity as known since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 wasn't taught in the New Testament or in the early church. Indeed, the deity of the Holy Spirit wasn't agreed for at least 350 years.
The first Christian theologian to explicitly call the Holy Spirit God was Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), in his _Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit,_ written and delivered in Constantinople between 379 and 381, probably during the second half of 380. At paragraph 27 of his _Fifth Theological Oration,_ Gregory of Nazianzus openly admitted the early Church did not have a Trinitarian doctrine or teach the (separate) divinity of the Holy Spirit and would have rejected both. The revelation of the Holy Spirit's full deity (as opposed to being a lesser divinity), according to Gregory, is one of those truths Jesus told the Apostles they were not ready to hear but would be revealed later (John 16:12-13). Gregory was also critical of his contemporaries, Basil of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nyssa, for their unwillingness to state the Holy Spirit's full deity.
Other Christian theologians (e.g. Basil of Caeasrea) had spoken previously of the the Holy Spirit as divine and a member of the Trinity, but declined to call the Holy Spirit God in the same sense that the Father and Son were called God.
God bless you IP! You're doing the Lord's work 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Just had a conversation with some Witnesses yesterday so this is a good video to see on my home page!
According to Scripture, Christ founded a visible Church that would never go out of existence and had authority to teach and discipline believers (see Matt. 16:18-19, 18:17). St. Paul tells us this Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and it was built on “the foundation of the apostles” (Eph. 2:20). Paul also tells us the Church would have a hierarchy composed of deacons (1 Tim. 3:8-13); presbyters, from where we get the English word priest (1 Tim. 5:17); and bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-7).
Paul even instructed one of these bishops, Titus, to appoint priests on the island of Crete (Titus 1:5). In A.D. 110, St. Ignatius of Antioch told his readers,
“Follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8)
Unlike the apostles, Christ’s Church would exist for all ages, so the apostle’s passed on to their successors the authority to bind and loose doctrine (see Matt. 18:18), forgive sins (see John 20:23), and speak on behalf of Christ (see Luke 10:16). Acts 1:20, for example, records how after Judas’s death Peter proclaimed that Judas’s office (or, in Greek, his bishoporic) would be transferred to a worthy successor. In 1 Timothy 5:22, Paul warned Timothy to “not be hasty in the laying on of hands” when he appointed new leaders in the church.
At the end of the first century, Clement of Rome, who according to ancient tradition was ordained by Peter himself, wrote,
“Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop . . . [so they made preparations that] . . . if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1-3).
Just as the apostles’ authority was passed on their successors, Peter’s authority as the leader of the apostles and the rock on whom the Church was built (Matt 16:18) was passed on to his successor. This man inherited the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19) and Peter’s duty to shepherd Christ’s flock (see John 21:15-17). Peter’s successor was the pastor of Christ’s church and a spiritual father to the Lord’s children (1 Cor. 4:15), thus explaining his offices future title pope, which comes from papa, the Latin word for father.
Myth #2 - The Bishop of Rome had no special authority in the early Church. Peter was never even in Rome!
Both the New Testament and the early Church Fathers testify to Peter being in Rome. At the end of his first letter, Peter says he is writing from “Babylon” (5:13), which was a common code word for Rome, because both empires were lavish persecutors of God’s people (see Rev. 17-18; Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 6).
In the words of Protestant scholar D.A. Carson, Peter was “in Rome about 63 (the probable date of 1 Peter). Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who died in 54 (H.E. 2.14.6)” (An Introduction to the New Testament, 180). Peter may not have always been present in Rome (which would explain why Paul does not address him in his epistle to the Romans), but there is a solid tradition that Peter founded the Church in Rome and later died there.
For example, Paul says the Roman Church was founded by “another man” (Rom. 15:21), and St. Ignatius of Antioch told the Christians in Rome he would not command them in the same way Peter had previously commanded them. At the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus wrote, “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3).
A priest named Gaius who lived during Irenaeus’s time even told a heretic named Proclus that “the trophies of the apostles” (i.e., their remains) were buried at Vatican Hill (Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5). Indeed, archaeological evidence unearthed in the twentieth century revealed a tomb attributed to Peter underneath St. Peter’s basilica in Rome. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Saints, “it is probable that the tomb is authentic. It is also significant that Rome is the only city that ever claimed to be Peter’s place of death” (353).
In regard to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor, in the first century Clement of Rome (the fourth pope) intervened in a dispute in the Church of Corinth. He warned those who disobeyed him that they would “involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger,” thus demonstrating his authority over non-Roman Christians.
St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Roman Church as the one that teaches other churches and “presides in love” over them. In fact, the writings of Pope Clement (A.D. 92-99) and Pope Soter (A.D. 167-174) were so popular that they were read in the Church alongside Scripture (Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9).
In A.D. 190, Pope St. Victor I excommunicated an entire region of churches for refusing to celebrate Easter on its proper date. While St. Irenaeus thought this was not prudent, neither he nor anyone else denied that Victor had the authority to do this. Indeed, Irenaeus said, “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome] on account of its preeminent authority” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2).
Keep in mind that all of this evidence dates a hundred to two hundred years before Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire, thus deflating the Fundamentalist theory that the papacy was created by the Roman emperor in the fourth century.
Some people object that if Peter and his successors had special authority, why didn’t Christ say so when the apostles argued about “who was the greatest” (Luke 22:24)? The reason is that Christ did not want to contribute to their misunderstanding that one of them would be a privileged king. Jesus did say, however, that among the apostles there would be a “greatest” who would rule as a humble servant (Luke 22:26). That’s why since the sixth century popes have called themselves servus servorum Dei, or “servant of the servants of God.”
Pope Gregory I used the title in his dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Faster, who called himself the “Universal Bishop.” Gregory didn’t deny that one bishop had primacy over all the others, since in his twelfth epistle Gregory explcitly says Constaninople was subject to the authority of the pope. Instead, he denied that the pope was the bishop of every individual territory, since this would rob his brother bishops of their legitimate authority, even though they were still subject to him as Peter’s successor.
I'm a Trinitarian but I do not like this tactic and bringing up every Early Church quote that supports our position but ignoring the ones that don't. Justin places the genesis of the Logos as a voluntary act of the Father at the beginning of creation which is essentially Arianism.
The Only Think you Have to believe to be able to call yourself a Christian is that Jesus is the Son fo God, 1 John 4:15 is clear that no one who believes that cna have their status as a true believer questioned.
What is the reference about justin martyr? Justin says Jesus is eternal.
@@ThePizzaMan-rr3ir
Dialogue of Justin -
PHILOSOPHER AND MARTYR, WITH TRYPHO, A JEW
CHAP. LXI. "I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning,(4)[who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun).
CHAP. LXII. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God, who has also declared this same thing in the revelation made by Joshua the son of Nave(Nun).
@@Kuudere-KunJustin is saying Jesus is begotten from the father like the nicean creed says "...Begotten not made...".
@@ThePizzaMan-rr3ir Biblically Jesus was begotten in the Womb of Mary, the idea of a Pre-Creation begetting is Arianism that was snuck into the revision of the Nicene Creed.
Pre-creation begetting is not arianism. It is found in other creeds like eusebius's creed. Also, the usage of the word begotten in the Fathers refer to pre-creation.@@Kuudere-Kun
Look! Why this preoccupation with the 'church fathers'? with objective insight its clear they bent over backwards to present 'christianity' in the popular terms of Greek philosophy! This is a FACT. Paul said when discussing those who were trying to subvert the faith of the brothers "Through US he (Jesus) told you the good news. Through US .." & Jude, Jesus half brother said clearly in 55AD ( long BEFORE the 'church fathers'!) "I write to urge you to defend stoutly the TRUTH WHICH GOD GAVE ONCE FOR ALL TO HIS PEOPLE.." (Jude 3). Paul warned that AFTER the apostles died that "Men would enter the flock" and that the true teachings would be 'twisted. ( please read SActs 20:28-30) From where would this deviation come "From amoung you (bishops) yourselves"! We dont need theologians & teachers!
Greetings!
Which of these men's writings were given by inspiration of God that we should consult them for doctrine?
======================
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...." (2Timothy 3:16).
======================
======================
"The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD.
Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?
Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.
Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.
Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD." (Jeremiah 23:28-32).
======================
Until Christ is fully formed in us all,
-james
@@HeWhoHasSeenMe My comment was exactly in agreement with yours! The last words of the NT are "If anyone adds to the words of this prophecy, God will add to him the plagues that are written herin" Rev 22:18. The 'church Fathers' who formed what led to the 'othodox' teachings of the 3rd century church based their beliefs more on human philosophy rather than the inspired word of God! Paul & Peter warned us that this would happen! ( Acts 20:28-30. 2 Peter 2:1-3.
@@kiwihans100 Greetings!
I was agreeing with you.
Until Christ is fully formed in us all,
-james
Greetings!
I didn't have much time to explain my response earlier: I wasn't disageeing with you, but just adding to your comment. I apologize if it appeared otherwise. We are in agreement regarding reliance on extra-canonical writings for formulating or supporting doctrine.
Until Christ is fully formed in us all,
-james
@@HeWhoHasSeenMe Actually I remember Jesus words when he promised the discples "The Holy Spirit will BRING BACK what I told you"(John 14:26) He didnt say; "men will in future times clairfy what I have told you, listen tothen" did he? No, in fact there are many WARNINGS that we should NOT heed the teachings of post early Christianity. I have studied in detail the teachings of the so called 'church Fathers' and to be honest they contradicted what Jesus taught. They did NOT enhance it!"
I did not realize the phos hilaron was that old, nice to know that for when I pray evensong
Thrice Holy Triune God, be glorified in us your servants.
Honestly? The whole concept of the Trinity made so much sense after I found out about systems. One human being, many persons. One God, three Persons. It's so much easier to understand it after you know about plurality as a whole - thanks for the video :D
So God is more like a club house of individuals? The group is God but no individual is actually God but can act on part of the group. Like the 12 apostles being the 12. If a few showed up people could say the 12 came by here earlier. They even call them the 12 after Judas dies. There is just no reason not to consider this Tritheism.
God does not have an identity disorder.
How is one human many persons?
@@israelcowl6764 That- isn't what I said though. There is one God. Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God, The Father is God. Jesus =/= the Father, but both are God. They share one nature, they are one, but they're different persons all the same.
In systems, whoever is fronting is no less "human" (in the biological sense) than the next person. They're still the same organism but are different persons, who can have relationships with each other and the like.
@@kaj4life1 Well, probably not?? I just shared an observation, is all.
Though, frankly, He is God, so trying to lock Him down to existing in only the way that you can personally understand is, frankly, a little weird? Like, you can concieve Him beeing all-seeing, all-knowing, both being fully God and fully man, being the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the Father =/= the holy Spirit =/= Jesus but still all be only one God and that's fine.
However, when I use terminology you don't like you suddenly just say "nuh uh". Who's to say that God doesn't experience the world as different Persons who are all One Being as it is with Systems? Why do you assume that your Human experience is the "correct and only one" that God can have?
Great stuff, IP.
In your video stating you won't tell us what your denomination is, I could be wrong but at least based off this video I can tell you are western christian because of the diagram of the Trinity you use. The filioque orientals and easterners dispute with us westerners.
The orientation of the triangle doesn't really matter. I get what you're saying, but the one used here is only meant to express essense v. persons, not hypostatic origins. We Orthodox would perhaps prefer the top-pointing triangle more since it doesn't visually imply filioque as much, but either one works. IP is definitely a Protestant.
@@tynytian I fully agree that IP is def a protestant haha. I've always wanted to ask en Orthodox Church member what their views on protestants are? Don't you us as heretics? Or sects?
@@aitornavarro6597 there's a distinction between a formal heretic and a material heretic. A formal heretic is someone who is declared so by a church council, like Arius, Origin, Sebaellius, etc. A material heretic is someone who believes something condemned formally by the church, but may or may not be aware of that fact. Augustine, for example, taught the filioque and inherited guilt through Adam, which the Orthodox church rejects officially, though Augustine wasn't aware of this during his life, so we still consider him a saint. We would consider protestants to be heretical, and thus not really part of the body of Christ. We wouldn't therefore say that you're hellbound, since Christ is the ultimate judge and knows better than us who will be saved.
We don't believe in sects or denominations of Christianity. The bible says to hold fast to the faith once delivered, as specific set of teachings given by Christ to His disciples who taught them to faithful men after them as bishops to lead the church. We believe the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved those teachings in holy tradition, which includes the bible and is not separate from it. Therefore, if one isn't joined to the visible body of the church, we wouldn't consider one to be christian in the truest sense. Again, though, that is ultimately for God to judge. There are many outside the church who are much more zealous than those formally inside.
Brilliantly and perfectly executed
9:20 Justin Martyr did not affirm Trinitarian theology. He clearly says Jesus is “another god” in his Dialogue with Trypho.
“There is, and there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things.” (Trypho, ch. 56) Justin Martyr also acknowledged that there were Christians in his day that did not believe Jesus was God himself.
He did affirm the trinity.
150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63)
150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)
150 AD Justin Martyr "Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: 'God went up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 37)
150 AD Justin Martyr quotes Hebrews 1:8 to prove the Deity of Christ. "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 56)
150 AD Justin Martyr "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 63.
150 AD Justin Martyr in Chap. LXVI. He (Justin) Proves From Isaiah That God Was Born From A Virgin. (Chapter Title, Chap. LXVI)
150 AD Justin Martyr "And Trypho said, "You endeavor to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured to be born and become man...some Scriptures which we mention, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and [to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 68)
@@misterauctor7353 No one is denying that Justin claimed Jesus was "God." I'm just pointing out that he explained this as Jesus being "another God" different numerically from the true God. This is not Trinitarian. So the assertion that Justin Martyr affirmed the Trinity is false, unless the Trinity consists of the true God and "another God."
Justin says that there are men in his day who acknowledge Jesus to be Christ but who do not believe he was God or that he was born of a virgin. He even hints at the possibility that most Christians would possibly affirm those things: "Now assuredly, Trypho,"I continued,"[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father’s will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends,” I said, “of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so." (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 48. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 219)
Trypho says to Justin: "Answer me then, first, how you can show that there is another God besides the Maker of all things; and then you will show, [further], that He submitted to be born of the Virgin.”" (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 50. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 220)
Justin replies: "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them.” (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 56. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 223)
Trypho responds: "You have not proved from this that there is another God besides Him who appeared to Abraham, and who also appeared to the other patriarchs and prophets." (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 56. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 223)
Justin replies: "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,-numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world-above whom there is no other God-has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with." (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 56. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 223)
Trypho says they have never heard anyone explaining things regarding Christ as Justin was, even though Trypho was familiar with Christians and the Gospel: "We are not prepared for such perilous replies; since never yet have we heard any man investigating, or searching into, or proving these matters; nor would we have tolerated your conversation, had you not referred everything to the Scriptures." (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 56. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 224)
Trypho refers to the Christian beliefs that he has heard of before, which are the beliefs of the Ebionite Jews, who predated Trinitarianism (and even Justin's "another God" doctrine): "“Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ].” (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 49. ANF, Vol. 1 p. 219)
he did say that but its more in the sense of what Nicea said: "...True God from True God. Begotten not made...". Justin in many other places says there is only One God. Also, at the time of justin there was no official formula or creed so the wording could be confusing like that. The Shepperd of Hermas is another example of how the wording of some of the fathers can be confusing while still being orthodox.
@@ThePizzaMan-rr3ir”another God” is not Trinitarian. And Justin admits that Christians in his day didn’t believe as he did. Furthermore, I am quoting from his Dialogue with Trypho, where he is discussing Scripture with a Jew. I am not quoting from his subsequent apologies which were contrasting the false gods of the Greco-Roman society. When he is describing Jesus he clearly says he is “another God.” And he even hints at the majority of Christians being in disagreement with him. The Jew he is debating never even heard of such arguments even though he knew Christians and had studied the Gospel himself. All of this is evidence that the earliest Christians (being Jews) did not hold to the 2nd century polytheistic concepts that Justin presents. He does confess that there is one God above all others but then says Jesus is “another god.” All of what I’m saying is simple. Pushing these points aside and say he was orthodox and representative of the earliest Christian beliefs is simply a conclusion that is driven by presupposition and desire. And since this is the earliest source that declares “the divinity of Jesus” we have clear proof that such a doctrine was not what the original Christians believed. Perpetuation of that falsehood is actually helping to validate the coming antichrist doctrine, which will say Jesus is God, but different from the Father who is also God. The doctrine will be explained differently though, asserting that both are transcendent and Jesus is a lesser evolved version of the Father, but the two interact in the same way a hypothetical time traveler would communicate with his younger/older self. I know it sounds unusual, but remember this point. The antichrist doctrine will be tied to transcendence beyond time and space and the whole parallel dimensions, multiple timelines themes. The majority of the world believes the Trinity doctrine (condemning all who do not) and this is going to fit right into the antichrist agenda. The whole push for continued sin while being saved and the notion that Jesus had different flesh than we have is also part of the antichrist agenda
With all due respect to your video here, this is not the “trinity” that I’ve ever known about
The Co equal co eternal etc
It’s been an established fact that church fathers before the Nicene creed were in dispute with church fathers after the council
Having one or two doesn’t help when many of them teach different ways of the Trinity
If you mean by the word trinity that three entities shared to be God then at least after the 150 ac to 299 ac
There are church fathers who thought about Jesus and the holy spirit to be god but they have their own definition of what Jesus to be god means
Church fathers are not a bunch Of Ignorant that don’t know what the Bible says
They know it
Just like Tertullian who was more of an orthodoxy that he only accepted the Bible’s verses and what the people before him believed in
And his conclusions made him a heretic !! Don’t you see the Irony? That your church fathers either they are heretics or not considered saints due to the Athanasius teachings that won in the end
There are many differences in reading the church history when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity with respect to the Bible verses
God is love. He is eternally loving. But this necessitates that there be an eternal object of his loving affection. A unitarian God before creation could not be love. But if God is one in three persons, then He can truly be eternal love where even before any other beings existed the Father Son and Spirit were in a state of eternal love with one another.
The trinity makes sense of and helps us further understand the attributes (i.e. love) and work (i.e. atonement) of God. This beautiful mystery lies right at the heart of sacred scripture and has been proclaimed by faithful saints from the beginning!
God = Love Given, Love Received and Love Shared
If God can die then the Old Testament is trash and cannot be trusted
_A unitarian God before creation could not be love._
Why not? Can you provide any *Biblical* proof to support this unfounded claim you're making?
@@Jason-Austin
The claim is simple to understand . There is no one to love prior to creation .
@@Jason-AustinWho or what is he loving before all Creation ? Himself ?
Your timing is perfect. Unitarians are trying to go on the rise by twisting scripture. This is a great, well researched tool for refutation.
Nope. It’s Trinitarians who twist scripture.
Prove it. Cite your verses and references.@@hereweare9096
I don't recall Unitarians ever fraudulently inserting verses into the Bible, or blatantly pretending that Greek words don't mean what they actually mean
Prove your claim. Show us scripture that we twisted, instead of making baseless claims.@@hereweare9096
Informative and briliant! Glory to our triune God!
Thanks for your work on this!
There were heresies and false teachers creeping into the church in the first century (Jude 1:4). By the second century, once all the apostles were dead, apostasy really got going. By the fourth century, when the trinity was officially adopted, the falling away prophesied by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 was approaching rock bottom and the Catholic Church began persecuting anyone who would not believe like they did.
What ‘church fathers’ taught is not a safe guide. For example, Origen also taught universal salvation and reportedly castrated himself.
Falling away of Paul vs The eternal safe church of Christ in Mathew 16.
Prots
Origen is anathematized by Catholic and Orthodox churches, so I don't think using him is a good example of your point lol
@@evangelium5376 The maker of this video used Origen as one of the pre-nicaean ‘church fathers’ who developed the trinity. And indeed, his eternal generation doctrine is fundamental to the trinitarian theology espoused by both the orthodox and Catholic Churches. They may have anathematised Origen, but they still kept his mystical teachings
Origin was anathematized by the Church. Also, Church Fathers are not perfect or infallible. However, the trinity is found in most of their writings.
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
If anyone is Catholic, they should mention the vision in which Catherine Emmerich saw Holy Trinity in the form of Three Concentric Circles
I did not know that! That's so cool 🤩
I think if you see a vision of three circles it probably means you looked at the sun too long
Something that is important to note is that Christians didn't invent the Trinity -- the Trinity arises directly from the old Testament where there is unseen Yahweh in heaven, visible physical Yahweh, and Holy Spirit Yahweh. Second Temple Judaism recognized the first two in the "Two Powers" doctrine; a few rabbis noticed that the Holy Spirit is Yahweh but distinct from the other two, making three Powers in heaven.
So the Trinity does not come from Greek philosophy, it comes from Judaism. Certainly they didn't go to full-fledged trinitarianism, but they were definitely binitary. In the second century Judaism rejected the "Two Powers" doctrine because it led many to recognize that Jesus is the visible, physical Yahweh.
Been watching the debate on early church beliefs. The lies, misrepresentation, mistranslations and venom have not changed in 2000 years. Standing back, I doubt that any side is actually Christian.
this is why the bible says to let God be true and every man a liar.
read the holy bible for yourself, the thing they dont want you doing.
Looking forward to this. Love IP's playlist on the trinity explained:
ruclips.net/video/1gCv-FAjgps/видео.html
How could normal man take on the sins of all other men? The moral weight of his sacrifice would be meaningless.
@Doc-Holliday
A normal man (Adam) sold us into sin and death. It doesn't take a God-man to redeem
@@eew8060 the mechanism is different.
If God thinks his son's life/death was enough it does not matter if others find it meaningless. It's worth however much God decides it is.
@@israelcowl6764 then at that point there was no need for Jesus to die at all.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 Says who? God didn't say that.
Amen❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊😊
This is a good compilation!
The only thing I wish you would have addressed is Tertullian’s statement about the Son being a portion of the whole substance, while the Father is the whole (Against Praxeus Chapter 9). That kind of language doesn’t work with many trinitarian models. That said, it might harmonize with a Monarchy of the Father trinitarian model, but I would have to ask a monarchal trinitarian about Tertullian’s language here.
Monarchical trinitarian and I think it’s fine, because Tertullian defined his terms properly so he didn’t say Jesus was not partially God.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Thanks for the reply!
@@InspiringPhilosophy Request: Would you dedicate a short clip/video to Tertullian’s portion language in Against Praxeus? (However long you want, of course.)
Providing a direct answer to this question would be most helpful to people who are reading through the pre-Nicene writers.
When we refer to Jesus, we kind of limit him to his bodily presence on earth with the disciples. So, had to be limited, confined to human boundaries, so, yeah, it's ok to say he was just a "portion". But as a risen Anointed, not anymore.
The shady part is when saying "portion of the substance". Hmmm that doesn't sound right.
@@InspiringPhilosophyJust to clarify, you said, “so he didn’t say Jesus was not partially God”…
The inclusion of both “didn’t” and “not” makes it sound like Tertullian accepted that Jesus is partially God, that he didn’t say that Jesus wasn’t partially God.
Did you mean to phrase it as, “so he didn’t say Jesus was partially God”?
If you could elaborate a bit, that would be helpful.
Excellent video! Good work!
An interesting argument to promote a theological theory. I recommend taking your information directly from the source of the biblical text.
Christ be with you
Jesus didn't tell us to do that.
He told us we would know a teaching not by whether it is in the bible or not but by its fruit.
God bless you
@@MrKev1664 And we have plenty of Unitarians producing plenty of good fruit, and we have plenty of instances of trinitarians producing bad.
@@MrKev1664 and where did you get that teaching from Jesus that you say what he told us to do?
@@israelcowl6764 we also have atheists doing good work. Ones actions do not prove the original doctrines or teachings. The essence of Christianity has permeated and influenced all of the Western world - and atheists cannot explain where their morality comes from.
No, Unitarians won't inherent the Kingdom of Heaven
No IP you don't understand, the Quran said that the trinity is wrong. And also that it includes Mary, mother of Jesus and sister of Aaron.
Everyone would know this if the Ezra worshipping Jews hadn't hidden it from everybody when they removed the book of the council of Nicaea.
🗿
Surely, the disbeliever is the one who says Allah is One not Three. On the Day of Judgement, the Father will ask the Son, "Did you say to the people not to worship you and your mother besides me and the Holy Spirit" and he will reply "I would never say what I had no right to say- if I had said such a thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen"
For goodness sake. The council of nicea had NOTHING to do with the books of the canon of the Bible. It was a DEBATE between Arianism and the trinity in which teaching aligned more with scripture. This is not hidden stuff either. Just look at the historical documents of the council we have today. Nothing about books being chosen and removed. So please check your facts before you post this stuff. It’s a myth that books were removed by the council. You’re committing pseudo history.
@@connerdozier6689 He was sarcastic, pal.
The Qur'an is full of crap. The Jews NEVER worshipped Ezra, and the Christians NEVER viewed Mary as part of the Trinity.
Of course the trinity was always taught. The Orthodox church is the evidence of this.
Unitarianism has always been taught
Yeah and Unitarians were always condemned
@@tymon1928 Trinitarians (the new kids on the block) have always been condemned to by the people that were here before them (unitarians and modalists)
@@israelcowl6764 give me evidence that John, Thomas, Mark, Matthew, Luke, Paul, Peter, Timothy etc. were unitarian
Thanks for this. But consider this: John the Baptist had to ‘Prepare the way of the LORD’, which is a quote from Isaiah 40 where the Hebrew for LORD is Yahweh/Jehovah, i.e. he had to prepare the way of God. Jesus began his public ministry at his baptism and guess what … the Trinity showed up. It was the first and greatest self-revelation of the Trinity in human recorded history and a massive statement. The New Testament revelation of God as the Trinity was the very first thing Jesus did.
It is YHWH's Kingdom
His will being done
Jesus is; the way, the truth and the life of our GOD and Father
- Satan deceives you, follow Jesus, not men!
John the Baptizer was raised to prepare the way for the Messiah. Not God. God was going to SEND a Messiah. John's own words show this.
(Matthew 11:2, 3) But John, having heard in jail about the works of the Christ, sent his disciples 3 to ask him: “Are you the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one?”
What different one could be expected if God was to come?
@@jimjuri6490 In my book John the Baptist: A Biography I look at the various ways this passage is interpreted, and what John was saying to Jesus in this coded message was that his time of preparing the way was over and it was time for Jesus to witness to himself. Jesus’ coded reply in verses 4-15 is a fascinating reference to his own commissioning text in Isaiah (see Luke 4:17-21), but leaving out the bit about captives being released. God bless you.
@@charlescroll9870 : What coded message can there be in a straightforward statement.
Were all the historical accounts about Jesus meant to mislead people?
Sorry! That would make no sense. There was no deception by God's prophets.
This was written about Jesus:
(1 Peter 2:22) He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.
Is this a statement about a creature of God or about Almighty God himself?
@ Dear jimjuri, I don’t think you understand me, I am not talking about a deception. In my book John the Baptist: A Biography I spend 6 pages (pp. 160-166) discussing this interaction between Jesus and John. It is an important moment in their respective ministries and the last time they were in touch. It is well worth taking the time to think it through.
great video
Just read the Athenisian Creed. While it was not written by Athenisus himself, it was written by an early church father monk. You must confess it to be considered part of the church catholic.
There are a bunch of Christians that believed a bunch of different things. Some Christians got into bed with the government and began to kill and banish those they deemed unfit, labeled them heretical, and picked out "church fathers." Why would this give me any reason to believe that the Athenisian Creed is correct?
The core belief of Christianity is that God is One, not God is Three. Deut 6:4, 1 Tim 2:5, Col 2:9, John 14:9-11.
There’s no confusion about God being one. The Trinity is more about the omini present nature of God. How he is one and still be different things or at things place same time. Eg moses and the burning bush.
@@jacstvofficial4490 Let’s see… Is God ONE numerically or is God ONE only in Unity?
@@AtheismDefeatedboth
Is a 4D cube one (4D) cube or is it 8 3d cubes? It's both. God's existence is qualitatively infinitely more complex than we humans. It would be like explaining the concept and details of a "person" that exists in 11 spatial dimensions to a sentient 2D cartoon ant.
In Hebrew Union one for word used Ekhad, or literally one for yakhid so Deo 6:4 it is not yakhid but used Ekhad so God is One in three person
The theological theory of Trinity is a human devised term and study. It is a human interpretation of the bible. The source is the bible. Different theological theories have also developed from the same source. All from the bible - unless one considers that the church came to speak with divine inspiration…. The question then arises, is the bible not enough and must be expounded on or added to?
Church presbyters being endowed with divinely commissioned powers and authorities is in the Bible, mate.
@@evangelium5376 are you suggesting the church “leaders” can make new teachings beyond the bible? I would be interested if you could provide me the source. Thanks.
@@antbrown9066 - No. They are not like first order apostles, whom are given revelatory privileges. They can make clarifications and interpretations, however, and have the divine commission to do so.
@@evangelium5376 so they act with divine inspiration to explain things to the people who cannot make the correct assessment of the word and may interpret incorrectly? Show me the text that supports this.
@@antbrown9066 - You can watch Perry Robinson's talks on apostolic succession, where he goes through the scripture on the ecclesial system of the old and new testaments, and furthermore treats with common counterarguments from high church reformed critics, et al.
In short, the point is that there is a system of ordination which conveys a real spiritual gift amongst the new covenant, as it was with the old, and it is the system of ordination which establishes a hierarchy of both normativity and accountability.
Amen. A very helpful compilation to draw from. Great work and emphasis on trinitarian belief before the Counsel of Nicea which non-believers put far too much emphasis on, in terms of how much it modified.
I'm a new Christian who has been exposed to Trinitarianism (which seems to be the prevailing belief of the majority of Christians nowadays) as well as Unitarianism (a much smaller group of people). I've heard highly intelligent arguments from both sides. What I don't understand is when people on one side start saying that the other will "lose their salvation" by not accepting their own side's beliefs.
True Christians have always been oppressed by persecution and accusation since before the Council of Nicea. The Bishops of Alexandria and Rome appealed to the Roman Emperor Aurelian to have the Bishop of the NT city Antioch replaced because he did not consent to their notion that Jesus was a being who consciously preexisted his humanity. Look up Paul of Samosata, The Council of Rimini, The Edict of Thessalonica, The Polish Brethren, The Racovian Catechism Catechism, Michael Servetus, etc
@@jkbugout???
If you deny the trinity you are denying the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, which does make you loose your salvation because you deny Christ God who said that whoever believes in him shall be saved
@@manuelserrano4697I believe in the Biblical Christ. The Trinity doctrine is not biblical. There is only one true God, that’s the Father. John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6. The Apostles repeatedly refer to “the God of Jesus” (Ephesians 1:17, Colossians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3). When you believe the biblical Christ, your manner of speaking will match theirs. They never say Trinity, nor divinity of Christ, etc. Your belief comes from Greco-Roman influences, passed down from Roman society through the Romans Catholic Church, retained through the Protestant split. It is not biblical.
@@manuelserrano4697I hear ya. And I don't speak for all Unitarians, but the few that I know 100% submit themselves to the lordship of Jesus as the Messiah that God sent. And they take the Holy Spirit very seriously as the power of the Father in the world. Not sure why God would reject them based on what can be seen (what I see) as a technicality.
On the other hand, if they are right (and you are incorrect in believing that Jesus is God), not sure why God would reject you, either, as God would have to then "waste" most professing Christians nowadays.
Well…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
If God is greater than his creation in power in knowldge in Goodness . Its not hard to concieve of God as being greater in persons
@DiverRamada
That doesn't make sense
@@eew8060
What doesnt make sense . Gods power Gods knowledge and his goodness are all aspects of God that each individually can be difficult to comprehend yet we all affirm them . Because he has them to the maximal extent . There is nothing that would restrict or limit God to being one person .
So being multiple persons would be better and great makeing property of God
@@DiverRamada Why are you using the term limit as in reference to God?
An Almighty would not NEED 2 others to be Almighty.
Almighty is above All! Supreme!
The Trinitarian doctrine has the Almighty as being of three persons.
So none are considered to be powerful unless together? So that would be a deficiency… in the Trinitarian doctrine Can the Father be Almighty alone? Can the Son? Can the HS?
That shows a reliance.
A TRUE Almighty is ONE ALONE.. all powerful! Requiring no one else!
That is true power/ a true God!
@@hereweare9096
They are all maximally powerfully knowing and good equally .
It is you limiting Gods nature
@@DiverRamada Jesus said he was GIVEN authority. An Almighty would already have it. Someone higher gave Jesus that authority
Trinity is early before NT
At the end of the day, we are talking about The Being myriads of dimenions above our own. Isaiah literally describes Jesus as the "Arm of the Lord"...how much would an amoeba comprehend our arm versus our head or our bodily being!
Awesome video, thanks!!!
Clever men with clever philosophies would blind many to the truth, both then and now. Those clever people tried unsuccessfully to imagine one god in three persons or else three persons in one god. Look at all these pagan ideas that have crept into the church. Trinity. God the Son. Good Friday. Easter Monday. Easter eggs. Easter bunnies. Hot cross buns. Celebrating the birth of the Lord, as we are never asked to do that. Christmas trees. 25 December. Lent. Ash Wednesday. Shrove Tuesday. Saints Days. Carved idols. Rosary. Holy water. A round wafer at the Mass. Monks. Nuns. Monasteries. etc. None of these ideas is scriptural. The Apostles never used the word trinity and there is no real meaning to the concept of trinity. After the AD 325 council of nicaea, the roman catholic church began changing or adding words with a reckless disregard for staying scriptural. When the church agreed to add unscriptural words to the Bible, then Trinity could make its official entrance into the church. It is the first unscriptural word entered the church at the council of nicaea in ad 325. This opened a can of worms and more and more unscriptural words had to be accepted in their attempts to explain the Trinity.
I would disagree with the last sentence. I find that the full knowledge and understand if the Trinity is irrelevant to a Christian. Maybe if he likes to debate but in any other situation it's pretty much useless. Just basic understanding is enough.
Without knowlage there is doubt, with doubt, comes denial, people who dont understand the trinity tend to leave christianity,
Become Eastern Orthodox!
Become a Biblical Unitarian Open Theist!
Lol, why? That's unbiblical and alien to the early Church/Church fathers
@@Cry4Tanelorn The bible clearly teaches open theism throughout. The early Christians are unitarian and open theists. "Church Fathers" that lived hundreds of years after Jesus and loved mixing neoplatonic like thinking with the Bible are not who Christians should follow. Christians should follow Christ. Jesus was a unitarian (John 17:3) and an open theist (Matt 26:53).
@@israelcowl6764Become Eastern Orthodox!
@@israelcowl6764you are a condemn heretic
Mike anyway you would have a conversation with William lane craig? That would be epic
Some of the ideas behind the Trinity date back to the early church, yes, but there were many competing ideas about God's nature in the first few hundred years of the church. It's silly to say that early church leaders taught the Trinity, especially since the Trinity is not in the Bible.
FATHER IS THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
SON OF GOD IS THE FATHER MANIFEST IN HUMAN FLESH AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD AND SIMULTANEOUSLY THE SPIRIT OF GOD THROUGH HIS WORDS AND POWER
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST THAT EVERY BORN AGAIN PERSON HAVE
No He isn't. The New Testament clearly distinguishes the Father from the Son and Spirit. Unless you wanna deny all the "Son of God" language, or that Jesus was praying to somebody else, you have to distinguish the persons.
Explain to me why Jesus says He and The Father are two in John 8:16-18. I dare you.
@@tynytian so where does it do that exactly?
@@tynytian huh! So you are the one distinguishing and dividing God into separate persons can you divide yourself into three persons and see if you live? 😂😂 You are an heretic for dividing a Jewish one person God into three persons by your hypocritical understanding from Greek Hellenistic converts in 3rd and 4th centuries, what you instead must do is you must go back to the 1st and 2nd centuries and you'll find nothing in trinitarian divisions of God but instead you'll find monarchian oneness Godhead
@@tynytian you are a heretic for denying that God termed FATHER came to us and given himself to us termed as SON and who in turn is living among us now termed as the HOLY SPIRIT or SPIRIT OF CHRIST, all three are terms used for one person GOD
DID JESUS ANYTIME TEACH THIS TO HIS FOLLOWERS?......FOLLOW HIS TEACHINGS AND NOT HINTS OR NOTIONS OF EARLY CHURCH FATHERS.
Christ be with you
We see signs of it in Scripture
We see Jesus, the word was is God in John 1:1 and St John was his apostle.
God bless you
Jesus taught the Trinity.
@@mysotiras21lolz no He didn’t!
@@BrotherTris, YES, He did. You just don't know the Bible. That is your problem, not mine.
@@mysotiras21 I’m certain I know the bible better than you, mate.
The trinity is false.
That's right the only living God I find in scripture is Jesus.
@@coxfordGamer God can not be a man and “not other God” and Jesus is God. Lmao! Still the confusing trinity
@@coxfordGamer the trinity is the most confusing, made up doctrine by the gentiles and nothing Jewish. Remember. You’re using a Jewish religion, scriptures, and worshipping a Jewish man as a God. That’s idolatry.
@mooshei8165 Isaiah 35:4-6 says God would come and save me, tells me what God would do, Jesus did all of Isaiah 35:4-6 so Jesus must be the one God of the old testament come.
@mooshei8165 furthermore John 1 teaches the one who came and was in the world made it, the God of Israel said I have made the earth, yet John and Paul tells me Jesus did, and scripture says there is only one God and one creator. Paul said the Lord took upon himself, the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of a man. Jesus is the God of the old testament come as a man, if he isn't then he's a different person which is trinity.
Later, Clement of Alexandria shed off the Platonic ideas for purer Catholic Tradition, as in Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? In it he says that the signet ring placed on the finger of the returning prodigal son is the Seal of the NAME of the TRINITY. Earlier Clement was only a cathechist, but later he became a better informed actual Priest.
To be honest, I don't get why people trust the church fathers on their views on the Holy Trinity and the canon of the New Testament, but not in their view of the Eucharist, infant baptism, regenerative baptism, 3 fold ecclesiology and more
Thanks for this!
I hope the wierd muslims watch this video