I know time is limited, but increasing to 2 hour discussions would be most helpful to allow deeper dialogue about these and any other issues. Your interactions are most stimulating and helpful for addressing similar allegations on a local level. Thanks!
Honestly, seeing as how Unitarianism appears to basically be Arianism, there are plenty of debates where they argue the divinity to Jesus and the Spirit on youtube.
I thought the lack of moderation diminished the conversation at hand, allowing all the interruptions from Dr. Tuggy and disallowing Dr. Craig from finishing a lot of his thoughts.
@@qodesmith520 Perhaps Dale Tuggy wouldn't have felt the need to interrupt if Dr Craig wasn"t utilizing such nonsensical verbiage. It frustrated me just listening to him.
@@qodesmith520 @4:53 the host/moderator DIRECTLY INVITED Tuggy to comment on what he had heard, and introduced him as an author of critiques to Craig's public statements. As for "finishing a lot of his thoughts" I really would expect Craig to have done those in his published works. Apparently he is in the habit of making vague claims and not really providing a cogent set of associated evidence to support them. Instead he quotes "scripture" which non-christians DO NOT regard as authority about anything. Just in case any of the above, somehow evaded your sense of fairness. It did not offend mine.
I think that Dr. Tuggy, no offense meant, tried dominating the discussion far too much, interrupting and not letting Dr. Craig finish his points, something which Dr. Craig largely refrained from doing. After all, in the first part, Dr. Craig had to wait for Dr. Tuggy to finish all of his points before responding. In the second part, however, Tuggy didn't follow the same format thereby accruing an ill-gotten advantage.
@Thoska Brah I'm watching the Rogers/Tuggy debate right now. It's very interesting, and I agree that Rogers is doing much better. I think that the only decent point that Tuggey has is that, it seems to me, it is a possible--though much less plausible--to interpret certain of the passages as indicating that Jesus could be some empowered messenger (i.e., an angel in the more broad sense of the term, as when priests and prophets are called angels, 'malak' in the Hebrew and 'aggelos'--pronounced anghelos--in the Greek). I think that Anthony does a good job at showing why this is a much less plausible interpretation, however. For example, I think that the quotation of the Old Testament in Mark 1:3 alone is absolutely fatal to Tuggey's position.
Concerning identity, Dale states: “They’re showing that they do have a grasp of the concept, even if they don’t have the words and the formal logic to talk about it.” Interesting that he recognizes this about the authors of Scripture, but when it comes to the Trinity, one of his critiques is that the NT authors didn’t bother to create a word to denote the Trinity. So, in the case of identity, its okay to affirm the concept informally, while not formally define it due to a lack of formal logic or words to define it. But, in the case of the Trinity, its not enough for the NT authors to affirm the concept, rather in order for it to be true they should have used words or formal logic to define it clearly. Seems very inconsistent, there.
There's a big difference in simplicity between the concept of identity and the concept of the Trinity. Numerical identity (the kind of identity Tuggy is concerned with) is so simple that almost everyone picks it up naturally as children. The concept of the Trinity however is not easily understood even by many trained pastors.
For me, Dr. Craig was surprised and confused by three things: Dale ACTING surprised about the things Craig stated, his aggressive(bordering on ad hominem) and disrespectful posture, and his interrupting which did not allow Craig to complete a thought. I think the guy was offended when the host said, "Dr. Craig needs no introduction". In a word, he came off as a jerk and ruined what could have been a very good discussion in my opinion.
He was obviously well prepared to argue against views that Dr. Craig himself doesn't hold. Dr. Craig nipped that immediately in opening and was agitating; not for me but for his "opponent." His demeanor was off-putting for sure but I imagine debating Dr. Craig can be frustrating. edit - ..I forgot to mention that I felt that moment too. We all did, no doubt. The introduction for Dr. Craig bothered him. I'm not sure why though because Dr. Craig is obviously *much* more well known than he is. Pride, which we all struggle with, can be self defeating and ugly to look at.
I felt dr tuggi’s arguments were presented pretty good and I thought he did a pretty good job of controlling his emotions, but he did control the talking and was fairly rude in regards to that. What can you expect when you try to have this discussion in an hour. Lol.
When you actually believe the absolute nonsence you are trying to present comprehensible but sounds SO absurd, is it any wonder those who debate him get so agiateted.
@@priscillajervey8345 The triune nature of God is nonsense... unreal. We flat out have all three members of the trinity shown present in passages together. What is nonsense is arguing against your lying eyes.
My lying eyes you say? Triune and Trinity mean the same thing. The trinity simply means God revealed in three persons! So determined the council of Nicea in 325 AD. The holy spirit is God"s operational presence and life force - NOT a third prson! It can be quantified, poured out, measured wind, or fire. Please note Jesus is seated at the right hand of God now, but were is the throne for the third person of the trinity? Yes they may be mentioned together in some passages, but that does not make them the same, equal and identical entities. @@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep
Exactly! Unitarianism is simply absurd given the context of what the New Testament teaches. They keep saying God can’t die, well yes Jesus died AS a mortal man (it’s the very reason He came as a man), He didn’t simply cease to exist and then reappear 3 days later, His BODY died, Jesus even says on the Cross just before drawing His last breath “…Father into Your hands I commit My Spirit” (Luke 23:46). Just like the Son had always existed since the beginning with the Father, He didn’t cease existing when He gave up His physical/material body and shed His blood (the very holy thing necessary for the Atonement) on the Cross, but in doing so He paid the cost of mankind’s sin, and was raised for our justification onto life eternal as Paul summarises in Romans 4:25, showing His triumph over death itself (Colossians 2:15), resurrection from the dead is something only ever attributed to God, so Jesus IS in fact God seeing that He passed through death and yet death did not claim Him. As Dr Craig said, there are so many NT passages that are just fatal to the Unitarian world view. I pray they repent of these teachings as they consult the Scriptures earnestly by the leading of the Spirit.
@@Tobi_237 Why would the death of a piece of meat (a man's physical body, i.e. atoms) be sufficient to cleanse mankind of sin? It sounds like if Jesus didn't actually die, and just his body did, it's not that much of a sacrifice after all.
@@Jockito So first off I’ll have to lay the foundation of the Judeo-Christian worldview on humanity as derived from the Bible. According to the Bible, a human is more than just flesh and blood which are material, he/she is also composed of an immaterial soul and a spirit. So essentially we humans are immaterial souls housed in a material body. Now when we speak of Jesus of Nazareth, He was no mere human, He is the Son of God HOUSED in the Son of Man (a human), He is God incarnate. So His death at the Cross is Son of God paying the sin debt that mankind owed to the justice of God. Now I’ll stop here for now as I can’t ascertain how much you understand of the concept of atonement, I hope you follow. I await your response
@@Tobi_237 The material housing of Jesus is what died right? But not the Son of God. Again, why is the death of the housing enough to pay for sin? Who cares about the housing? It's just flesh.
@@Jockito But it’s HIS flesh, and He laid His life down wilfully, an innocent lamb led to the slaughter, enduring pains unimaginable, suffering condemnation He didn’t deserve, atoning for sins He did not commit. Jesus’s flesh was and is no mere flesh as Jesus while on earth was no mere human. His flesh and blood were untainted with Adam’s sin, that’s part of the mystery revealed in His virgin birth. But to continue to answer your prior question, the Bible teaches that the shedding of blood is required for the forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22), this practice dates back to the very beginning right after Adam sinned in the garden. God Himself clothed Adam in animal skin to symbolise the covering of his sin. And the concept of atonement through animal sacrifices carried on for thousands of years and is central to ancient Jewish customs as found in the Old Testament. But also in the Old Testament a divine lamb is painted, one of such passages that illustrates this is found in Isaiah 53. That’s where Jesus’s death comes into fulness, when John the Baptist saw Jesus he announced to all around him saying “…behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:36). So according to the gospels Jesus IS this divine lamb whose blood will be shed and whose flesh will be broken and crushed and pierced as prophesied. So I hope now you can begin to grasp the significance of Jesus’s flesh and blood.
It really seems to me that the debate between trinitarianism and unitarianism should ultimately be a debate of biblical interpretation and not one of metaphysics. Because in order to defend a model like that of Craig's you need a lot of assumptions about language, about what does it mean to be a person, or a part or a group; you need a peculiar set of definitions which most people wouldn't conceive a priori, and which won't convince anyone who doesn't already believe in the trinity to begin with. It's better if, instead of pushing the boundaries of semantics and metaphysics, you try to show that the conceptual distance between Jesus and the Father isn't that big (as is discussed in the second part of the debate), because that's where people do really have a difficulty. Or to put it another way, purely from a philosophical point of view, clearly is easier for anyone, even to people of other religions, to conceive God as a simple unity than as a triad, and therefore the burden of proof falls completely on revelation.
There are lots of debate about that. This debate is also an aditional that helps the listeners:).. I have watched much debate about trinity discussing verses.. :)
I agree, it really comes down to whether the Bible says Jesus is divine (having intrinsic properties of omnipotence, omniscience, uncreatedness) or not. The trinity argument is downstream from that and is a collection of metaphysical models for handling the proposition that Jesus is divine.
@@foxbat252 It is my belief that if Jesus had the [inate] properties that you mentioned, Jesus would not have stated that God the father gave him the authority...meaning to heal the sick and raise the dead etc. Did Jesus have to have faith? Did he pray to the Father?
That is simply true. Unless Dr. Craig informed us of his very selective vocabulary definition for his view of the trinity, it would make no sense if we read the biblical text.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:” Colossians 2:8-10 KJV
@@Justadudeman22 God's body was in Christ. That is why it reads "bodily" and "fullness". God is a person. He has a spirit body. He was in Christ's body of flesh with His spirit body. Two persons in one body of flesh. He entered Christ after Christ was baptized in the river and left Him in the Garden of Gethsemane. Sometimes God was speaking in the body, sometimes Christ. That is why Jesus said: "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.". The Father said to Philip: "Have I been so long with you, yet you have not known Me?".
@@geoffreyvanwyk4588So that means God’s body is in every Christian according to Ephesians 3:11-12 then, right? So are we all God now? Paul prays that we may all be filled with the “fullness of God”, so clearly we are all going to become one with the Father and be consubstantial with Him too, right?
The whole part of being a Person or personal, Dale seems to be missing the point. Craig’s trinitarian view is that God is tri-personal because He has 3 centers of rational faculties that are sufficient for personhood. So, of course he isn’t going to say that God is a Person because that would imply that He is not tri-personal. Dale seems to be trying to maintain his unitarian definition of God, and show how this contradicts Craig’s view. Of course it does! If they were not at odds, there would be no debate. So, for example, when he says that, if God is not a Person, He cannot be good. But, Craig is not actually denying that God is a Person in the sense that He has personhood. Rather, he is denying that He is ONE Person. God is tri-personal, and as such has all of the attributes for personhood, and as such can be good. Its not a difference between being a Person and not being a Person. Its merely a difference between being one Person and being 3.
@@Jockito Personally, I don’t like this whole “soul” language. I don’t think we fully understand the meaning of these terms. We just use them to describe general aspects of our being. But, going back to Craig’s point, its not that God HAS a soul; its that He IS a soul. In the case of human beings, one soul corresponds to one person. In the case of God, one soul corresponds to 3 Persons. So, whatever you define as a Person, God is 3 of them, but He continues to be one Being (one soul). If we define “soul” as synonymous with Person, that may be confusing for the reason you say. I explained it that way in my initial response to you, just to try to keep it simple. But, any talk of soul, spirit, being, personhood, inevitably becomes overly complicated. I prefer to say that God is one, tri-personal Being. We are one, uni-personal beings, so we assume thats the only way it can be, but its not. As for your initial question, I agree that this implies that God is 3 souls, which I don’t think is a problem if we understand that a soul is simply a Person.
Dale really should be careful in citing John 17, because the prayer of Christ is better served for the Trinitarian than the Unitarian. In verse five, Christ asks the Father to glorify him (Christ) with the glory that he had with the Father before the world existed. Jesus is alluding to Isaiah 42:8 and 44:11, where the Lord is saying how he won’t yield his praise or glory to another. But Jesus is saying that he had this glory with the Father and he accepts praise from others. On a trinitarian model, this makes sense; on a Unitarian model, this becomes difficult to explain.
Jesus says he shares the glory he was given by God with his disciples. John 17:22: “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:” Are they God too??
@@erykpatrykchudy5675 Thanks. Yet I do believe Jesus did have a prehuman existence. But that doesn’t make him the Most High God. Jehovah is his Name. (Psalm 83:18) Jesus is the Son of the highest. (Luke 1:32). Not the same being.
Dr. Dale's intensity of making faces and body movements showing discomfort increased to the end as he clearly was losing the argument. I love Dr. Craig.
@@elorebenyame2016 I have seen that conversation. It wasn't a debate, and WLC can't lose a debate without debating. Mr. Singer was using a debate tone in the middle of a conversation. That's it.
Dr. Tuggy seemed more interested in being condescending towards Dr. Craig, rather than admitting to understanding the concepts that Lane Craig was putting forward.
God doesn't bless people who purposely misquote Scripture... Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1 both have the word AND. Then he quotes 1st John wrongly too, saying "God" instead of "he/him". I'm sure there are other examples too (I stopped listening out of disgust). Shame on him.
That's true, but without having John here to tell is what he meant it's opens to interpretation. As a unitarian I think he said and meant something different to what you think he said and meant. It's not straightforward. I take 'the word' to literally be a word/thought and Theos without the O to be a predicate which is what I think John said and meant.
@@foxbat252 We have the Holy Spirit in us to interpret what the Holy Spirit inspired through John. So we don’t need John here to tell us what he meant.
@@st.christopher1155 Considering that there are 40k Christian denominations, all assuming that the "Holy Spirit" is telling them the correct interpretation- yeah, you certainly do need John to have any certainty in your personal interpretation. If only god would come down and set the record straight, but alas all we have is our mere faith that our interpretation is the singular correct one out of 40k others. How arrogant of us to assume that we're wise enough out of 99% of the planet to have it all figured out.
@@DatHombre That is one of the most straightforward scriptures in the gospel of John. So if you or any of the 40k denominations can’t grasp the meaning of it, maybe it is because you or they want to twist the plain meaning to fit your own presuppositions about the doctrine, which could mean that you are resisting the Holy Spirit with regards to the scriptural interpretation. Also, I have no idea why you put the Holy Spirit in parentheses, since the scripture never does that.
A crucial error in interpreting John 20:28 is confusion regarding the difference between " Thomas answered" and "Thomas called". The verse says Thomas answered. What did Thomas answer? The question being addressed in this context is: Did God raise Jesus from the dead. We KNOW that Christ's God, (and Thomas' God), DID raise Jesus from the dead: Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) Eph 1:17-20 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him ... 20 Which He wrought in Christ, when He raised him from the dead, and set him at His own right hand in the heavenly places Once Jesus proved to Thomas that Thomas' God HAD raised Thomas' Lord from the dead, Thomas praised BOTH.
How does Dr. Dale write a critique of the Trinity when he admits that he doesn't understand the concept. He mentions that his friend has a theory of a fourth person in the Trinity. I don't think his friend understand the prefix, tri-.
@@Jockito He didn't say "has a fourth person in the Trinity", so you shouldn't put quotations marks around that a pretend that he said that; rather, what he said is, "his friend has a theory of a fourth person in the Trinity." This is true. Tuggy says it during the discussion. It made me think just how poorly Tuggy understands the doctrine of the Trinity, even though Trinitarians themselves, which are either poorly informed or haven't though long enough/well enough about the issue, have said similar things. It's clear that Tuggy has a hard time understanding one God in three persons. He then tries to say that the Trinitarian's concept doesn't make sense because he doesn't understand it. It's much like the failure of some people to grasp calculus. Just because others don't understand calculus, that doesn't mean that those who do understand it are spouting nonsense. Are we really to believe that a philosopher of such a caliber that even atheist philosophers (such as Graham Oppy, Quentin Smith, etc.) take him very seriously, and who has been rated the 10th most influential philosopher and 3rd most influential theologian (having doctorates in both philosophy and theology from prestigious, European universities--and who is obviously a clear and incisive thinker, doesn't understand that he is spouting nonsense?
@@Real_LiamOBryan my point is, if you look at Chad Macintosh's view, he clearly understands the prefix 'tri' unlike what K Seeker suggested. He distinguishes between the 3 'intrinsic' persons within the trinity and a 'functional' 4th person as the superset of these. He still incorporates a triune aspect of God. Besides, no where in scripture does it categorically and unequivocally state the doctrine of the Trinity and give clear teaching on this, so it opens the door to various theories and interpretations. At best you can construct a theory of the Trinity by tying various scriptures together. But even still, Chad Macintosh's view acknowledges those same scriptures. I just find it interesting that you use understanding calculus as an example that something can be true even though people don't understand it, when this could just as well be said of competing theories about the personhood of God. If not being able to understand something isn't a barrier to the truthhood of a theory, then using that exact reason to attack Chad Macintosh's theory isn't going to work. People have to do better than saying Tuggy's friend just doesn't understand the pre fix 'tri', as if it is some sort of gotcha.
During the full course of this discussion Tuggy continued to interrupted Dr. William Lane Craig and on top of that the moderator for the most part let Tuggy speak more than Dr. William Lane Craig Craig even thou he did called him out once or twice. Dr. William Lane Craig did a fine job of defending the trinity doctrine in this discussion. I also think that Tuggy misrepresented Dr Craig's view a number of times in this discussion.
@@MrGdad1998 'It is too bad though that God is going to send Craig to hell for likening the trinity to Cerberus the three-headed mythical god" - To begin with Cerberus according to Greek mythology was not a god in any sense of the word. it was a creature with three heads who is a dog that guards the underworld. preventing mortals to cross over and the prevent the dead for escaping. Also based on your comment it seems that you possess some level of infinite knowledge to proceed to make the claim who is going to hell and who is not. I assume you got this from a personal revelation in a dream or something of the sort correct?..
@@Thanos-kp5jr That was a typo (god/dog). Your allegiance to Craig, rather than God has caused you to miss my point; _Repentance is required for misrepresenting God.) Craig God to a three-headed animal. You don't see anything wrong with this? Moreover, have you never read about Yahweh's indignation He expresses when someone misrepresents Him? “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has" (Job 42:7c,d). Yahweh instructed Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar to take seven bulls and seven rams and offer them as burnt sacrifices for misrepresenting Him, and Job would pray for them (Job 42:8,9). This passage makes it very clear that God requires repentance for misrepresenting Him. You make it obvious that you honor man, rather than God. Then, you cast ad-hominem attacks at men. That a pity.
What kind of argument is this from Dr Tuggy? "Those 3 things compose a 4th, so it can't be a trinity" I guess each family of 3 members must be 4 people then, since those 3 compose a family. smh at this abysmal understanding of basic logic.
You misunderstood the argument. Craig's claim is that the Father has the divine attributes (omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, etc.), the Son has the divine attributes, the Spirit has the divine attributes, and also the trinity has the divine attributes. Tuggy's claim is that having those attributes imply being a person, so if the trinity has those attributes, the trinity must be a person. So then you'd have four persons, the Father, Son, Spirit, and Trinity.
It's quite clear that God is tripersonal. God the Father, Son, and holy spirit, otherwise why would Jesus say " Baptise all men in the name of the father, son, and Holy Spirit" Dale by taking this position is denying the son's Divinity, which is a mistake otherwise how could he have done all the MIRACLES and his divine Birth and Death and resurrection, that no other in Holy person in scripture has been given. Dale goes against proper and acceptable Christian teaching given by the Church fathers in the Catholic and Orthodox theology.
I really appreciate Dr. Craig's charity and patience, and love his smile during these discussions. Remember the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation inserted "a god" in John 1:1 because they realized there was a serious problem with their similar view of Jesus, which unbelievably Unitarians don't seem to see. The problem is exegesis. But the preconceived notion that God is mono-personal as the Father (not Jesus, not Holy Spirit) forces them to deny what is most clear to the vast majority of biblical scholarship. John's view of Jesus is clearly diety throughout - before Abraham was, I AM! 8:58
The "a god" rendering was in use before the JW New World Translation. And on translations, you will find different renderings of John 8:58 . Many Christian scholars and reference works admit that there is no understanding of a Trinity in the OT .
@@gerryquinn5578 I’ll refer you to the info that answers you question but first, something being used elsewhere doesn’t prove it’s accuracy. Second, before there was Christianity the Jews contended with language that described at least “two powers in heaven” or “two Yahwehs”. It was declared heresy after Jesus for obvious reasons. It’s also why devout Jews were able to ultimately accept Jesus for who he was. See Michael Heiser “Trinity in the Old Testament” for in depth study on the subject. Also a scholarly book by a non Christian on the two powers “heresy” title “two powers in heaven” .. I forget the author at the moment. Here’s a talk on the Trinity using the NWT. There’s a second part too: ruclips.net/video/SdbBvA082GU/видео.html Wherever you stand now, If you’re a true seeker or not, I pray the preexistent, reality sustaining, all loving, perfectly just, eternal GOD blesses you on your journey and makes himself known to you, and I, more fully.
I really expected more of Tuggy. I'm paused at 8:41 because it's immediately apparent that (and this is the charitable view) Tuggy doesn't understand the difference between using a term as a convenient reference and using a term univocally. To say "The Trinity has X" because the members of the Trinity have X is not ascribing attributes to the Trinity as though the term is a 4th person. It's merely using the term to say that the Father has the same attributes as the Son, Spirit, etc.
While the Trinity is definitely in the OT, I can see how maybe Abraham or Moses didn't fully grasp the tri personal nature of God. The NT removes all doubt and you have to completely contort and twist scripture while flat out rejecting other scripture to reach a unipersonal God.
Combining Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, theos has the following possible meanings: 1. The gods in general 2. The true God; 3. A person granted authority by God to represent Him (e.g., John 10:34-35; Exo 7:1); 4. An immortal being with supernatural powers, such as the ancient Greek gods; 5. An idol or image that symbolizes a god (e.g., Acts 7:43); 6. A thing that opposes God, for example, “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4); and 7. Qualitatively, a being who is ‘godlike’. In the Bible, Paul confirms, “Indeed there are many gods (theoi)” (1 Cor 8:5). The Bible uses the term theos and its Hebrew equivalents mostly for the Ultimate Reality but also for, for example: • Moses (Exodus 7:1), • Angels (Psalm 8:5; cf. Hebrews 2:7), • The divine council (Psalm 82:1, 6), • Israel’s judges (Exo 21:6, 22:8), • The Davidic king (Psalm 45:6), • Appetite (Phil 3:19), • Those who receive the word of God (John 10:34-35), and • Satan (2 Cor 4.4). The Bible and the ancient Greek writers did not have a Greek word specifically for the one true God. They did not differentiate between upper- and lower-case letters as we do in modern languages. Therefore, the writers of the New Testament and the pre-Nicene fathers used other techniques to identify the Father as the one true theos: • The main identification is simply the context. • Very frequently, they added the definite article (the) to indicate that the only true theos is intended. • Or they described the Father as the: • “Only true theos” (John 17:3); • “One and only theos” (John 5:44); • “One theos” (1 Cor 8:6).
It’s not “twisting scripture” to simply understand what the Bible means by “god” or “God” based on the context. It just takes a little digging and prayer
I have never heard a debate where Dr Tuggy is not arrogant, dismissive and downright rude. He really needs to control himself because his behaviour has not changed for the years I have been observed him
@@Psa22-6 look up some of his debates online and he has a podcast called "Trinities" I think and you will hear for yourself and make an honest judgement
Dr. Craig did a great debate. But I think with this people one have to go text by text exegeting them. But i dont know if it is worthy to debate with people who has already a fixed mind. Dr. Craig show dr. Tuggy evidence but he decide to discard them. So sad. There is not more worst blind than who has eyes and choose not to see.
Christ said in Mt. 28:19, "Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Why did Christ mention 3 names ❓️Would Dr. Tuggy like to respond ❓️
This was interesting and informative but a bit frustrating at the back and forth and numerous interruptions on the part of Dr. Dale Tuggy. I think it would have done better justice to the topic at hand had there been a bit more moderation.
@@seeqr9 Are you kidding me? Do you realize what you are saying? The words Cerberus...three-headed mythical god...and...the trinity should _never_ be uttered in the same breath, especially with all of the confusion that exists amongst professing Christians. The ignorance of what the word of God teaches is widespread throughout the visible professing church. Our loyalty should be to God, rather than man. This involves God's reputation, not to mention His glorious character. Can you do yourself and I a favor and read what has been written in the last chapter of Job? (42:7-9). Just three verses..speaking about God _what is right._
Trinity is not remotely logical, rational, or scriptural. Theos is used as a title of authority. The true theos has no authority above him. Jesus had a theos above him.
Because all we have to work with the information that we have, with the one and only tool we have(our brains). We have to be logical and coherent in what we believe. That includes beliefs about God. Reason is the authority when it comes to discovering who God is, but isn't the authority with respect to who God is. When we appeal to someone else's understanding of something about God, we do so under the assumption that the reasoning behind that understanding is valid. But since we understand reason as a tool for discovering God, we are within our rights to make such appellations
Lets be real here, its a debate, a more informal debate. I think I'll allow people to interject or be less formal in this case. I am a trinitarian btw.
@@elcangridelanime I understand clearly what both are saying, only that Dr Craig has more positive evidence and Dr Dale is more of a critic here. I think the scripture is on Dr Craig's side.
@@Mr_mechEngineer Both of then bring up the scripture to support their side. the only different is they both interpreted the other side's scripture from their own point of view.
xGoodness, I certainly missed something extremely crucial here....according to Jn. 3:16 when the verses clearly states God so loved the world he SENT his Son. And ture to form Dr. Craig goes to the oled worn-out, dogged-earned misunderstood John 1:1. Why do Christiams just ASSUME the "Word" means JESUS, is there a reason it couldn't have been God's word?? Isn't it rather strange and confusing if John believed Jesus was God that he addressed his letter to the chruches: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Just saying !
One question that came to my mind while watching, is if and how does the Lord's Prayer fit in the debate? It was taught by Jesus to the disciples when they asked to be taught how to pray, but it's clearly addressed only to the Father.
Read 1 Corinthians 12 and note the division of labor. The Father is the Architect of the church. He designs the church, selects the materials (us), and assigns us our roles. Elsewhere, scriptures say the Holy Spirit intercedes for us and the Son ever lives to make intercession for us. Within the Trinity, the Father performs the Executive role. If we make requests, we should go directly “before the throne of grace,” meaning, the Father, who makes the executive decisions. That the three Persons of God accept distinct roles demonstrates order. It in no way undermines the claim that God is one God in substance or in eternal (before/outside of time) Being.
@@bobbyadkins6983 No No NO!!!!! You missed showing the full trinity in prayer. Not just praying in the name of Jesus to the Father or our prayers going through Jesus to the Father, but the bible says all prayer must be in the Spirit! All three members of the trinity are involved!
@@jasonbourne5142 Are you familiar with the promise of Ex 19:6? How about what Rev 20:4-15 says? The plan is that all men are to be judged by created beings, a nation of Kings and Priests, those that understand us (Heb 4:15). In fact, God is not eligible to be a priest, because a priest is a mediator BETWEEN God and Man (1 Tim 2:5). __ Jesus was the firstborn from the dead to everlasting life (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5, 17). He was the last resurrected by Yahweh, God directly, because all future resurrections will be performed by Jesus (Rev 1:18; John 11:25). This power he will share with his co-rulers (Rev 20:4-15), it being authority that WAS GIVEN TO HIM (Mat 28:18). (Mat 25:31-46 is an example of Jesus judging during the Great Tribulation). As both a King and a Priest, he will teach and judge sin, naturally having the power to forgive sin.
@@jasonbourne5142 Are you familiar with the promise of Ex 19:6? How about what Rev 20:4-15 says? The plan is that all men are to be judged by created beings, a nation of Kings and Priests, those that understand us (Heb 4:15). In fact, God is not eligible to be a priest, because a priest is a mediator BETWEEN God and Man (1 Tim 2:5).
@@jameshayes211 : Indeed. But if you look at the start of his letters, he always sends gretings from TWO : From the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 :3; Eph 1 :3). Never a greeting from a third.
@@gerryquinn5578 So, what? Paul makes several references to the Third Person throughout his epistles. And, Paul references all three Persons of the Godhead in his valediction to the Corinthians: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all" (II Cor 13:14).
@@jameshayes211 : So what ? Are you kidding me ? Paul's greetings show that he believed in the one God of Israel, the LORD God, the YHWH of the BIble and he now believed that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah (Christ ), contrary to his previous views in which he persecuted those who held to this view.. Thus, when he sends his greetings from God and his Christ, it is always from TWO . Paul had no concept of three 'persons' in a godhead and that is why he never sends greetings from three. It would be unthinkable to omit greetings from the Spirit if he believed in such. There is no idea of a third person in his words at 2 Cor 13 :14. In chapter 1, he had already talked about the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians enjoyed fellowship as the spirit of God dwelled in them. There is no third person here.
@@gerryquinn5578 The Holy Spirit is clearly distinguished from the Father and the Son throughout the New Testament. Jesus promises that the Father will send the Spirit in His name (see John 14:26). And, Jesus explicitly commands His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (see Matt 28:19). If the Spirit is not a Person, then how can He be grieved, as Paul cautions the Ephesians against grieving the Spirit (see Eph 4:30)? And, again, if the Spirit is not a Person, how did Ananias lie to Him (see Acts 5:3-4)?
Had the Divine Council Worldview been better preserved in the Western Church (as opposed to the Eastern branches, where it persevered) the I don’t suspect the Unitarian position would have even as many adherents as it currently does, few though they are already. Dr. Heiser would have shredded some of Dale's presumptions, such as that Binitarian, and even proto-Trinitarian schools of thought DID exist prior to Christianity by a couple centuries. They weren't made anathema by Rabbinic Judaism until Christianity had become much more widespread. If he wanted a term then the co-regency of Yahweh would have been sufficient.
"God can't die" - What do you think death is and what are you using for God? Physical death isn't treated as forever non-existence. "Jesus can receive worship." - Why would any worship be proportioned to a non-necessary non-maximally great being?
Here I must admit, even though I'm staunchly Trinitarian, that worship can properly be given to humans in a sense. Worship just means giving someone their due honor or worth (worth-ship). Genesis 37:7-9 indicates that Joseph's family worshipped (Hebrew 'shakhah') him. Genesis 49:8 says that Jacob prophesied that Jacob's brothers would worship him (same Hebrew word, 'shakhah'). Exodus 18:7 has Moses worshipping ('shakhah') his father-in-law. This same honor is commanded all throughout the bible (e.g., Exodus 20:1, 28:2; Leviticus 19:3, 32; Deuteronomy 5:16; Matthew 10:41, 15:4; Luke 18:20; Romans 13:7; Ephesians 6:2-5; 1 Timothy 5:17, 6:1; 1 Peter 2:17; etc.). I'm a Protestant, but this is one point that I agree with Catholics on. We should give dulia to those whom deserve it, hyper-dulia to Mary (being theotokos), and latria only to God. Worship in the sense of giving due honor, and even falling down and bowing before someone, is given to humans in the Bible, it seems to me (I'm more than willing and open to being wrong and corrected, however).
@@Real_LiamOBryan I appreciate that. Many don’t recognize how PROSKUNEO is used in scripture. They have a western view or worship rather than a biblical one.
So if the 'trinity' is the 'central doctrine of the Christian church' should we not find a simple & clear definition of it in the new testament? 1. The word 'trinity' ZERO TIMES. 2. 'God the Father, God the son & God the Holy Spirit' ZERO TIMES. 'There are three persons on one God' ZERO TIMES! However the NT does say "God the Father" THIRTY TIMES! The NT also says "One God the/and Father' SIX TIMES. Trinitarians can only offer 'implications' 'assumptions' 'conclusions' to prove the trinity! Jude tells us "The faith was delivered ONCE FOR ALL TIMES to the Holy ones" ( Jude 3 written around 55AD, centuries BEFORE any mention of the 'trinity!.) Thus from pentecost until at least the death of John, ie for SEVENTY YEARS! God's Holy Spirit was poured out anointing Christians who spread 'the Faith' All WITHOUT any reference to the 'trinity'! Thus we need to heed the apostles dire warnings that "Men would speak twisted things" Acts 20:28-30. Paul said this would occur "After my going away". It did so exactly as he fortold! The 'trinity' is FALSE!
And also we could add how the Trinity, if it had been taught, would have been a big sticking point with the Jews. So in Acts, there was controversy over whether the gentiles should keep the Law of Moses. But, where's the chapter that mentions how the Jews struggled to accept the doctrine of the Trinity? And how did the disciples all quietly become Trinitarians without so much as a whisper about it. I know they argued about who would be the greatest, but surely God changing to a triune God should have got a look in. But no, we're supposed to believe the transition went so smoothly, that nobody thought it important to even mention. Apparently, they were so confident in their new doctrine, that they just carried on talking as if it didn't exist!
To cite John 17:3 as a proof-text for unitarianism necessitates a formal fallacy, i.e., "denying the antecedent". Christ confesses rightly that the Father is the only true God; however, it would be invalid to infer the inverse of Christ's confession, namely, that if a person is not the Father then that person is not the only true God. To illustrate: one might rightly assert that if it is snowing then it is a cold day; but, it would not follow that if it is not snowing then it is not a cold day.
This is absolutely correct. If you negate the antecedent and consequent, then you must also invert the order of them, in order to form the contrapositive, so that the proposition will remain logically valid. For example, in order for it to remain logically valid, this is how it ought to be: If it is snowing, then it is cold. and If it is not cold, then it is not snowing. This is because the antecedent is a sufficient condition of the consequent, but the consequent is merely a necessary condition of the antecedent, not sufficient. *Edit:* All that would follow from John 17:3 is that, if Jesus is not the only true God, then He is not the Father.
@@legron121 Only one what? Only cat? Of course not! Only God. The Father can rightly be said to be the only true God, since there is only one God, but so can the Son and the Holy Spirit, since they are also members of the Godhead/Trinity. Therefore, in order to show what you are trying to show, then you would need to show that the scriptures say not merely that He is the only God, since that applies to all three persons, but that He is the only...person that is God. Persons are different from Gods.
@@legron121 You've added words to the Scripture. The Bible doesn't say that the Father is "the only one who is" the only true God; the Bible says that the Father is the only true God. The Bible identifies three distinct Persons as God: the Father (e.g., 1 Pet 1:2), the Son (e.g., John 20:28; Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit (e.g., Acts 5:3-4). Ergo, the only true God is triune.
Why does Lane Craig keep misquoting Scripture??? Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1 both have the word AND. Then he quotes 1st John wrongly too, saying "God" instead of "he/him". I would not debate disingenuous people
I’m afraid the Unitarian guy’s demeanor was very annoying. I’d think others would refuse this type of discussion with him. Very strong demeanor by Dr Craig
@@MrGdad1998 highly doubt it. Christ called us to immitate his love. God will not ask you whether you believed in a trinity, when the judgement comes. In fact, those that make it a big deal are the ones that will have to give an answer for their very unjustifiable insistence on the doctrine of men.
Dale Tuggy had a very intelligent and calm presentation - seems like he’s getting a lot of flack here, and I think this debate just needed to be a lot longer so he could flesh out his position better. Since I’ve seen some of his other content I find his exegesis to be logical and well supported
I do not doubt that Jesus was divine, in the beginning when he was with God in the beginning, but when he became flesh and lived with us on earth, he was human.
This discussion is of limited value because we have to wait until the 45 minute mark before the Bible is brought in, but by then they only had 15 minutes left.
Dr Tuggy claims that there was no discussion or argument regarding the divinity of Jesus during His lifetime or during the early stages of the "Church". Is he outright lying or blind? Did not the Jews seek to kill Jesus because they CLEARLY understood what He implies when He said He is the Son of God?! (Jn 10:33, Jn 8:58
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God Jn1:1 ( 14) and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us His name is JESUS IN THE BEGINNING WAS JESUS AND JESUS WAS WITH THE FATHER AND JESUS WAS FATHER THE scripture is very very clear Whosoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God (2Jn1:9) Jesus said I am the Son of God ( Not God the Son) Jesus said the holy ghost is comforter ( Not God the Holy Ghost) Jesus said the Father is the only TRUE GOD Jn17 God was manifest in the flesh (1tim 3:16) His name is JESUS Jesus said God is Spirit Jn 4:24 Jesus said it is the SPIRIT gives life the flesh profit nothing the Words that I speak Unto you are Spirit and are life ( jn6: 63) JESUS FLESH profit nothing he is a Man, Son of man and Son of God, hung and died on the Cross JESUS SPIRIT= is the Father gives life his Words are Spirit and are life Jesus said I am one bear witness of myself and the Father who sent me bear witness of me Jn 8:18 QUESTION Who is the Father that bear witness of Jesus...? ANSWER This is he who came by Water and Blood Jesus Christ not by Water Only but by Water and Blood and it is the SPIRIT bear witness because the SPIRIT IS TRUTH (1jn5:6) JESUS SPIRIT= IS TRUTH JESUS SPIRIT =IS THE FATHER JESUS SPIRIT =IS THE WORD JESUS SPIRIT =IS THE LIFE JESUS SPIRIT= IS THE HOLY GHOST 1JN5:7 THREE RECORD IN HEAVEN The Father, The Word and the Holy Ghost these three are One= JESUS SPIRIT 1jn5:8 THREE WITNESS ON EARTH Spirit, Water, and Blood and these three are One=JESUS FLESH Paul said Jesus is the great God and savour Titus 2: 13 John said Jesus is the TRUE GOD and eternal life (1jn5:20) John said only one sat on the throne Rev 4:2 Paul said Jesus throne is forever and ever heb1:8 QUESTION Where is the throne of Others...? Paul said but even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you let him be Accursed Gal 1; 8 John said for many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ come in the flesh, this is DECEIVER AND ANTICHRIST ( 2Jn1:7)
@@dreameruy9510 That is nonsensical. Jesus said to baptize to the triune nature of God. The Father directly calls the Son God who has his throne in heaven, meaning they are also equal. The scripture calls Jesus Father only in relation as to Father of all creation, not God the Father. Beyond that we can see both the Son and Father present together in the same passages shown distinct from each other lots of times. What you are saying is nonsensical.
You are trul y one misguided soul. Why didn't John say: Jesus Christ came and is God the father? You have the trinitarian proof text down pat pat don"t you? Text taken out of context is a pretex . @@dreameruy9510
Why does the word trinity have to be in the New Testament? It's a description of what is found in the New Testament. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are described as triune. It also describes what is found in the Old Testament concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
@@Rightlydividing-wx1xbIf the authors of the Bible believed in a trinity, they would've come up with some word or phrase to refer to the three persons together. That's the first thing trinitarians did, but nobody in the Bible does that. Why not? Probably because they had no concept of a tripersonal god.
I entered here as a trinitarian and left as an unitarian... Not immediately, I had to do lots of research over the next weeks, but I'm so glad with the results. It's so good to know that God is understandable.
If Jesus is not the logos referred to in John 1, what do Unitarians make of Psalm 56 where David writes "In God, whose word I praise" three separate times? In these verses λόγους is used
The logos are just the logos. Why do we change them!? Why do we add to the scripture!? The word of God is the word of God, which was projected in flesh in our universe by Jesus, who is flesh, not God!
There is a mystery embedded within the following statement that is difficult to articulate in words: Jesus is the Son of God, begotten of the Father and conceived of the Holy Spirit. However, the verse of Mark 3:29 is echoed in Matthew 12:31. The suggestion is that any blasphemy may be forgiven--i.e., explicitly against the Son of Man, and, inductively, potentially even against the Father--but, by no means, will blasphemy against the Holy Spirit be forgiven. What I mean is that, perhaps, in this verse the Holy Spirit is given a higher honour than even the Father, especially as a unique personage of the Trinitarian God. One may come to contemplate the gendered implications to these aspects of our Creator.
GOD the Son GOD the Holy Spirit one in three Tripersonal god Co-equality fully GOD and fully man The list goes on and on... This is what the trinity is propped-up on Case and point; there is not one single instance, in all of Bible history in-where anyone is worshipping, teaching or preaching a triune god. And though it even needs to be said, Jesus Himself, of whom we know, worshipped in truth, would not worship a triune god... What a terrible tragedy in this day and age, to see so many would-be Christians worshipping, teaching and preaching a god unlike the GOD of Jesus Christ - there truly are no words
Honest question: Is appealing to authority still a fallacy when you have other support for your argument? Or can you not list experts as additional support for your argument?
A rare video of a biblical unitarian being the one to get slightly more emotional. However, I have to say it's because of what he would perceive to be nonsense, it's really hard to not get frustrated at what we consider to be nonsense and a purposeful lack of even the tiniest bit of recognition of counter logic and facts. At no points in any debate I've seen does a trinitarian ever say wow that's interesting, or wow yes that does seem to go against what I believe, or wow I never knew that I should look into it and fact check. It's like speaking to brick walls not fellow human being truth seekers. It's very frustrating when a lot of us I would say are very open to being wrong and very open to letting evidence guide our thoughts, because we're not married to Traditions or our own ideas, we're married to evidence facts and truth and we try to let them guide us into any direction even if it goes against what we thought was our fundamental beliefs. Also we seem to be focusing on facial expressions and the emotional control that people have over the actual words, facts, and information they're speaking. That's too ad hominem for me, facts are still facts right? Also I saw a comment on here that talked about how Tuggy said that the concept and idea of "identity" is probably clearly to be assumed and understood by these ancient peoples despite it not being written in the way we would like. And someone said how can he admit that about identity but not the trinity. I think the difference here is that identity is not specifically spoken against in the Bible, there's no clear sentences anywhere that talk about how identity is not a thing or that show the opposite of it. But when it comes to the Trinity or Jesus being God there are what seem to be overwhelmingly clear versus that don't support it at all or work against it. So it's not just a matter of "oh we can find the concept back there it doesn't have to be clearly stated", the issue here is that the clearly stated concepts seem to contradict the idea of Jesus being God/Yhwh and contradict the trinity at all levels. At every single level.
I think trinitarians are a pint low on common sense and logic. God-man....really? Sounds like a comic book character. They seem to love their Greek theology and YES trying to be rational with trinitarians is like running into a brick wall. They can"t defend their doctrine because it"s a MYSTERY, but they would like to knock your lights out if you try to use rational logic and clear scriptural verses. Better not mess with their faith in the three-in-one God OR God-man!!!!
Maybe it’s because the Trinity is explicitly made clear numerous times in the Bible and Dale was making childish faces and interrupting WLC every ten seconds.
It's easy to know that people would pay attention to it, our body speaks more than our words, when you address a message, the tone and your movement will explain better what you're saying. I'm a trinitarian, for me Dr Dale position does not make sense because he believes in Jesus, if he preaches Judaism, I would understand his point. That's been said, this debate was easy to Dr Craig, because it's almost impossible to believe in Jesus but denied His divinity at the same time. Simple.
If all we had were the OT, I think it's much easier to defend a unitarian view(although I am a firm believe there is clear evidence of the trinity in the OT). The NT leaves no room for doubt that 3 independent yet linked person are all called God, yet God is one...so the Trinity. IMO you have to go into reading the NT with Unitarian theology to find it. Any natural reading leads to the trinity.@@hubertagamasu6283
@@hubertagamasu6283 ok i just watched it and you gotta be absolutely death anthony Rogers lost that debate by a mile, now i can see why he wont debate jake the muslim on the trinity
Especially throughout the beginning of the debate, Tuggy is given free rein to interrupt as often as he’d like. I would like to know the time allotted to each person. Within reason, the moderator should have asked Dr. Tuggie to let Dr. Craig continue his thought to its conclusion. @ 50:25 thank you👍🏻 The never ending argument that Jesus submitted to God proves only Christ’s perfect submission, not that he’s any less God than the father.
@@gerryquinn5578 There's no heresy there only because it didn't deny that Jesus is God. One can be both God and the Son of God so long as one understands the difference between identity and predication. *Edit:* You can see around the 45:00 mark, just before that really, that this is a critical issue here. Dr. Craig brings it up, and it touches on the point you and Julio were discussing.
@@Real_LiamOBryan of course one can be God and the son of. Better way to say is the Son of God is God. John 1:1. But not like unitarian proposed. The father is the only one. He is the father, the son and the holy E. That's not what the Bible teach.
In this debate Dr. Craig is clearly struggling and scouring for words to properly describe the idea he puts forward. He even uttered that there is "single intellectual substance." The word properly translated as "substance" in the book of Hebrews is the same word translated as "person."
Spot on, as good as Dr Craig is and he is a force for good, but it matters not how bright or smart a person is, the trinity is simply indefensible in scripture and requires mental gymnastics to explain it’s so complex.
@@Cafez27if scientists believe light is a ray and a particle, but a particle is not a ray and a ray is not a particle, then by all means this is more logical than what unitarianists place forward.
Yes the nonsense coming out of his own mouth. The amount of gymnastics unitarians have to do to explain away the clear testimony of Scripture would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
@@michaelmannucci8585 Unitarians are very clear, God is one. He had a human son Jesus the Christ, an Messiah. It is the Trinitatians who have to chicken scratch for vage verses to justify a three-headed God OR God-man, isn't that why the Trinity is considered a Mystery in the first place.
Wonder why it too centiries after the death of Jesus for the councils to figure out who Jesus was? The council of Nicea formulated the thee-in-one doctrine, in 381 they added the holy spirit to complete their pagan Godhead. At the council of Chalcdon in 451 it was decided Jesus was a God-man, a mystery not to be fully comprehended by anyone!! The great mystery that countless pastor attemp to explain and elicidate but to no avail!!
Dale doesn't understand that when Jesus died, his body went in a tomb but He went to Paradise. He told the thief on the cross that today he would be with Him in Paradise. "Jehovah's witnesses" are Unitarians and are a cult. Dale sounds like he's in a cult as well. He talks so much about what others believed or didn't believe as if that's good support for what he believes.
I like to think that god is tri-personal because he is all loving within himself being: love gived, love received, and love shared. Thus making himself an maximally great in love
"love shared" doesn't require personhood. Love can be shared between two people, you don't need to insert an imaginary third "love shared" person. The sharing of love is what happens when two persons give and receive love to each other.
Dale Tuggy hides his heresy behind a very limited and small philosophical system. It’s the definition of man made. Philosophical categories of the is of predication or the is of identity doesn’t limit the God of scripture.
A brother in the Lord is one that does not deny Jesus Christ (his essence/who Christ is in terms of entity , not his agency) "who denies the Son denies the Father"!
@@ipaporod "22Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. 23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well." 1 John 2:22-23 Unless I'm mistaken, neither one of these gentlemen deny that Jesus is "The Anointed One" of God
@@jesusvdelgado5401 John 10:22-41 seems to help demonstrate that a man or heavenly can be called "god" or "son of God" and be distinguished from Yahweh, the only true God as Jesus states in John 17:3. John 1 is a wonderful passage but often misunderstood because of our cultural gap from the time it was written.
Would love to hear Dr Craig debate this with Dr Steven Nemes. Dr Nemes is a recent PhD and been quite vocal in his questioning/ rejection of the trinity. Would be interesting.
@@lesliewilliam3777 Why misread the Bible? Bible says there is no (Zero) God but God (1) which means either 0+1=1 or 0x1=0. If you are just playing word games then you risk your immortal soul. If you are serious then think again by using all the variable in given in the Bible - which includes the zero. Your calculation1x1x1=1 ignores that the formula also refers to there BEING no other BEING that is God (becoming none + God or none x God). The Bible is filled with such a formulations. Isaiah rings it out like a bell: “… there is no (Zero) other, no (Zero) god besides him.’” (Isaiah 45:14). “... I am the first and I am the last, and there is NO (Zero) God but Me” (Isaiah 44:6). “... And there is no (Zero) God apart from me ... there is none (Zero) but me” (Isaiah 45:21). And, “"... acknowledge no (Zero) God but me, no [Zero] (lo in Hebrew) Savior except me” (Hosea, 13:4). And, “... apart from me there is no (Zero) savior” (Isaiah 43:11). “... there is no (Zero) other besides Him.” (Deuteronomy 4:35). "... God is One and there is no (Zero) other but Him” (Mark 12:32). “…there is no (Zero) God but one.” (1 Corinthians 8:4).
@@eatingeatingeating OK, so who was walking in the garden here: "And Adam and Eve heard the sound of YHWH God walking in the garden in the cool of the day"?
@Leslie William The word of God is perfect so never use a vague verse to understand Scripture when there are clear verses." No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten son, which is in the Boston of the Father, he has made him known." (John 1:18). In Genesis 3:8 we are told that "The man and his wife heard the sound of God walking ..." Do you really think God walks with two feet? Tell me how God walks and call you a liar. Scripture tells us that "In the beginning God said ..." Does this mean God has a voice? If so, is it masculine or feminine? Can you tell me what God's voice sounds like in a vacuum - where there is no space or matter? If you can tell me how God speaks l'll call you a liar. God does not walk like a man.
And JESUS said (Luke 11:2) " Whenever you pray, say: 'FATHER let YOUR name be sanctified.'" --------- Which name is he referring to, JESUS or YWHW? seems pretty clear to me, JESUS taugh us to sanctify his FATHER'S name not his own. Y JESUS dijó ((Lucas 11:2) " Cuando oren, digan: ' PADRE, santificado sea tu nombre." --------- A cuál nombre se refería, al de JESÚS o al de YWHW? Me parece bastante claro que JESÚS nos enseño a santificar el nombre de su PADRE, no el de él.
I think Dr Dale behaved quite professionally as opposed to what most people say in the comments. Both parties made a lot of sense. The questions that Dr Dale asked were valid and allowed Dr Craig to expand on the shallow propositions of the trinity postulate. If it is true that one party "won" the argument, I think it will be a 51-49% score. Both parties are ready to dig into and understand each other's POV. The fact that Dr Dale was standing throughout the debate makes me respect him. I also however think it could be a way to fight off debate nerves. I respect both of them so much. I am a trinitarian because I believe in the sacred sense of interpretation of the whole bible. On an intellectual basis, I'm not sure that the trinity will beat unitarianism by far, but I think the context if the message of the bible will be best explained by the trinity hypothesis as is in the Johannine and Pauline epistles. Love to Dr Craig and Dr Dale
Sorry for necroing, but could you elaborate on your own understanding of Trinity? I haven't watched the video yet, so maybe there are some explanations there, but i really doubt that. In your own view, when Jesus was praying to his father, did he do it just to show off? I mean, if it is the same person, why would you pray to yourself? If those are three different distinct persons, then why is it one God? When Jesus died, did he really die? If he did not, then he was not ressurected either. If he did die, then who ressurected him? He did not arise by his own power, that is clear. Also, if he did not die, then Adam's sins are still unpaid for, and so are our sins.
Have you ever wondered WHY the Trinity concept has never been laid to rest? Why the debated over who Jesus is remains to be a point of contension in Christinity?
@@priscillajervey8345 I think it's because there is false doctrine going around due to the fact that there are wolves among the sheep. No one wants to meditate on scripture any longer. God is removing the blemishes from the church, perfecting it in expectation for his return.
On an intellectual basis I would say trinitariansim obliterates unitarianism because we have multiple verses where all three members of the trinity are present together so the whole conversation is one from ignorant cult belief for the unitarianist view. Jesus is God and appeared in bodily form before becoming flesh. We clearly see the three persons of the trinity present as individuals here too. Isaiah 48:12-16 Jesus speaker: "Isaiah 48:12 I am the first and I am the last." Father and Holy Spirit then mentioned, one two three trinity "Isaiah 48:16 And now the Sovereign Lord has sent me, endowed with his Spirit." Matthew 3:16-17 Father speaking and verifying Jesus as God incarnate the Son, and Holy Spirit decending on Jesus as a dove. God displaying his triune nature with all 3 members of the trinity present together. Jesus told the disciples to baptize to the triune nature of God. Jesus clearly acknowledging himself as God. The trinity was part of the the Church from the start. Matthew 28:19 "Let US make man in OUR IMAGE." Plural persons, singular image. Multiple as one, a singular God as a fellowship of persons revealing the triune nature of God. Only God is speaking for only God has creation power. Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image." Romans 8, Ephesians 1 the eternal covenant, last mentioned, first made. Where the trinity made a covenant with themselves before the creation of the universe for the redemption of man. That is why the text states "by myself" it was not made with man but the fellowship of the trinity with themselves so it could not be broken the redemption of man could not be stopped. A covenant is between more than one person. Then we could go on to verses like the Father calling the Son God who has the throne in heaven meaning they are equal. Jesus calling upon the Father for destruction from Sodom/Gomorrah, God in two locations talking to himself and so on. Unitarianism is basically a cult denying the nature of God inherently denying the personhood of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The Father never died on the cross. If Jesus wasn't God AND Man there is no salvation for the payment had to be on behalf of humanity and the blood has to be of God to which it cannot die so the sacrifice can be eternal active like the text states the blood shed was taken up to a fountain in heaven. It's the only reason it is possible we can have our sins cleansed today. So I would say unitarianism is a flat out cult.
@@mugsofmirth8101 What argument was mischaracterized to "demonstrate" that it failed (since that is what the straw-man fallacy is), or are you one of those that just calls everything they dislike a straw-man?
Did the apostle Thomas understand that Jesus is God in Jn. 20:28, when he said, "My Lord and my God"❓️ Dr. Tuggy's response ❓️What was the reply of Jesus❓️Did He accept the worship of Thomas ❓️
Dr. Craig offered a masterful explanation of the Trinity. Only thing that is missing from this conversation is humility. How do we expect limited beings to fully comprehend the nature of the almighty infinite God.
@@bobbyadkins6983 I have no idea what that even means. I fully comprehend what God has revealed about Himself to us in His word. I believe the Shema. It's not a cryptic cipher that needs to be decoded. It's a simple unequivocal statement about the Unitarian nature of God.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 I asked you that in reference to your question. None of us fully comprehends the nature of God. But you want to know why even bother reading the Bible. So we can learn more and more about God and so we can grow spiritually.
@@priscillajervey8345 Hebrews 1:8 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Psalm 110:1 The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” Mark 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Revelations 3:21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Plain simple reading of the scriptures clearly demonstrates that there are 3 different persons in the OT & NT being called God. This was an incredible mystery being revealed to the world at that time and the fact Dr. Tuggy simply withholds & refuses to acknowledge that the text could actually be saying what it simply says that Jesus was God John 1:1 but yet he adds his “interpretation” and the view of “well it doesn’t say Fully God sooo it’s obvious it’s a lessor God” just to fit his view is sad to see. His faith is therefore in a “Creature” not God.
This is kinda weak. Feels like the Trinitarian is trying to over philosophize the Trinity. The Trinity comes from the grammar of the bible. The unitarian seems to be strawmaning.
I felt that Tuggy fled into “these verses are difficult to interpret” whenever the plain sense didn’t go his way. When he tried to add One in eternity and in temporal essence to three Persons within time, he lost all credibility with me.
@@dunk_law Jesus does NOT have the same will as the Father (Matthew 26:39) and he fell face first to pray to God. How could they be the same co-equal being if they don't have the same will? Preposterous! You are also condemned by worshipping graven images (Exodus 20:4, Leviticus 26:1) and Jesus would be considered one and since he is NOT God, you have successfully made a graven image before Almighty God in Heaven. This is why Abrahamic faiths like Judaism and Islam do not have pictures of their prophets and proclaim them to be Gods because it is blasphemy.. God is also NOT a man (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) and would not be a man. Also the verses don't prove anything of what you said either. Jeremiah states that he is the God of ALL FLESH.. In John, a verse before it has Jesus stating that the Father has sent him and will give his disciples the Holy Spirit.
Peter told annanias and saphira that by lieing against the holy ghost, they have lied unto God. Meaning God the Holy ghost. I'm surprised that Mr tuggy is not listening as much as he is being listened to. Just trying to dominate the discussion.
@@carlospadron488 nah to people who haven't been trained to be trinitarians Dale makes perfect sense. The only problem I have seen with people seeing Trinity is wrong... Is the people who have been taught the trinity their whole lives. I have presented both views to unbelievers and every one of them came to the correct conclusion.... The trinity doesn't make any sense... Trinitarians just choose to accept that their trinity doesn't make any sense... Which doesn' make any sense... lol
A lot of this went straight over my head 😂 what does it mean that God is one soul? Isn't soul = person? If God is tri-personal, does he not have 3 souls?
No. A soul is not a person. It has the properties of personhood, or is personal, but it isn't a person. The idea here is that a soul can be differently endowed with rational faculties (one set as in human persons, potentially two sets for which we have no examples, or three sets as in the Trinity); however, where there is three there is at least one. A soul with three persons doesn't cease to be personal because it is more richly endowed with faculties. Take Dr. Tuggy's example of walking properties, for example. Does it make sense to say that, because he has three ways of walking, therefore, he's a non-walking being? Clearly not! Why then would we say that a being with three sets of rational faculties is non-personal? It isn't a person because the indefinite article "a" implies singularity, but that doesn't make it impersonal. A soul is a spiritual substance that bears the properties of personhood, but it isn't "a" person. A soul is essentially personal but it isn't "a" person.
@@Real_LiamOBryan oh, so if I understood you correctly, a person is simply one attribute of a soul. A soul is simply a substance with at least one person?
@@platospaghetti Yes. I would say, though, that a person is not "an" attribute in the singular sense but a set of attributes. A substance is that which stands below (sub-stantia or hypo-stasis) or bears properties (even though I'm a non-realist about properties). A person is a set of rational faculties, which can be though of as properties, such as will (volition), self-consciousness (reflexivity), intentionality (aboutness), etc. Every spiritual substance, or soul (unless one thinks that animals have souls, then it is every non-animal soul), has at least one set of these faculties, including angels (if you believe in them), but is not identical with them, at least on Trinitarian Christian-Theism. *Edit:* A really good, but very short video that describes this very well is Dr. Craig's video on Monothelitism vs. Dyothelitism here. ruclips.net/video/4-Zw5TreZLc/видео.html However, one must be careful about the substance/nature distinction. Sometimes these are used synonymously and sometimes not. In the video Dr. Craig isn't speaking about the substance or essence of Christ when he is speaking of the nature. Christ has two natures. One of his articles clears this up a bit when it says: "In saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in substance, Tertullian employs the word “substance” in both the senses explained by Aristotle. First, there is, as Tertullian affirms, just “one God,” one thing which is God. But Tertullian also means that the three distinct persons share the same essential nature. ..." www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/christian-doctrines/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
@@platospaghetti No problem. If you have any other questions about this or any other part of Christian-Theism, feel free to shoot them my way. I'm not the most knowledgeable about theology or philosophy, but I study them just about every day as a hobby.
Dr. Dale as with all unitarians, will never be able to win against the Trinity. Great Job in defending it(not that the Trinity needs defending) Dr. Craig! 👍
@@calson814 the thumbs down counter no longer works and doesn't show when people hit it. So I left one in the comments as I do not agree with the opinion of the post writer. Nothing against that person personally of course. I just don't agree.
Agree. Concepts like the 2 powers in heaven, while affirming that "The Lord is One" are never discussed by unitarians (that I've seen). This is a 2nd temple Jewish belief that they declared a heresy around 100 years after Jesus, as Christians where using it to prove the diety of Christ (Daniel ch 7, the Son of Man). The Angel of YHWH is a perfect example of this (the pre-incarnate Son/Word of YHWH. See Jude 1:5, Exodus 3, Exodus 23:20, Genesis 31:10-13 and ch 48:15, etc). Confusing or not, Father, Son and Spirit is how the God of Israel has revealed Himself to us, based on scripture. 1 God (essence) in 3 (distinct) Persons.
@@johnscott7937 you are talking about modalism. That gets a 👎 also. The Father is God Almighty alone. Period. Jesus can be called god as we know Moses was god to Pharoah, Christ is god to us. But there is only 1 YHWH and one Lord. The mediator and man Jesus Christ is not YHWH. As for the Holy Spirit... ruclips.net/video/4mZZhkljsTM/видео.html
I notice even trinitarian say that the Trinity is confusing. However, to me, the trinity actually makes more sense, I've always had a hard time comprehending a Unitarian God, even when reading the old testament. I know, I'm weird, don't judge me. Dr Bill Craig did an excellent job defending Christianity
You say you have a hard time believing God is a single entity? Apparently a three-headed God or a God-man is so much clearer to you. Do you compare the God-man with superman and perhaps spiterman. Just saying. Oh well, I am not judging you as you obviously watch a lot of science fiction movies. The Trinity is a disgrace to christianity. We are certainly in no position to poke fun at other religions.
@@priscillajervey8345the Trinity is evident throughout the OT and NT. God exists as one being, yet is Triune in nature. The scripture is very clear. Matthew 3: Jesus' baptism, shows the Father speaking from heaven, the Son being baptized, and the Spirit descending like a dove upon Jesus. Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The word for God here is Elohim, which is plural. Denoting the plurality of God's nature. Genesis 1: God says let US make man in our image. Who is the us? It is the plural, Triune nature of God. Father, son ,spirit Genesis 11: God says let US go down and confuse their language Genesis 19: The Lord (in human form appearing as an angel of the Lord) called fire from the Lord out of heaven Exodus 13/14: the angel of the Lord is identified as God, yet in chapter 14 God looks down from heaven through the angel of the Lord through the pillar of fire. How can God look through God? John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the word was God. Yet verse 14 states the word became flesh and dwelt among us. So, Jesus was the word. And according to the beginning of the chapter the word WAS God. Isaiah 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me" Once again, we see a plural word used to describe God. Here is the best OT example Isaiah 48:16-17 Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. "And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go Here, the Son is speaking in verse 16 about the Father and the Spirit. Then, in verse 17, the son is identified as God. John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” All 3 members of the Trinity are present. John 15:26 But I will send you the Counselor-the Spirit of truth. He will come to you from the Father and will tell you all about me 1 Peter 1:2 This letter is from Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. I am writing to God’s chosen people who are living as foreigners in the lands of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia. God the Father chose you long ago, and the Spirit has made you holy. As a result, you have obeyed Jesus Christ and are cleansed by his blood. May you have more and more of God’s special favor and wonderful peace 2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all
Let me be unambiguously clear, no one woke up one day and said, “Hey let’s make up the Trinity!” Indeed I would assert that it’s wholly *unlikely* such a “creation” would never *once* occur as a man-made idea. Rather, it’s far more likely, as a *revealed* truth from an *infinite* and inherently not *fully* comprehensible being to *finite* beings with only a limited ability to even *understand* the very nature of a being such as asserted by Christian theology. In short, such a difficult-but true-revelation smacks much more of exactly *that* scenario vs. some exotic human idea. And indeed Trinitarian theology has its basis in *attempting* to explicate various-clear-yet honestly “difficult” statements of Scripture-into a generally accurate and *mostly* understandable explanation. More germane to the debate, is that there is a confusion *inherent* in using human/finite terminology to describe God. That is, “being” and “person”. I think the best way is to understand God as *one living *being* that has *eternally* and *inherently* always been composed of *three separate minds, wills, and emotions* or “personalities”. Thus God is *one* as to living nature as a being, but three as to operation of of his self-aware personhood; *completely* unified due to a *shared life*, but distinct as to functions a relationships within then *one* living being. Simple; no. A descent attempt to understand what the NT teaches in its various utterances, I think yes. Another thing, I would say at times Dr. Tuggy lacks a firm grasp of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. Finally, he seems to miss the point that the reason the doctrine got *codified* only in the 4th Century for the very *reason* that *unclarity* had led to beliefs that it was feared *threatened* what the NT clearly *did* reveal either in explicit language or seemingly inescapable implications, about the person and work of Christ in creation, redemption, and eternity.
Regarding your first point, the doctrine of the Trinity was actually first invented by the Babylonians and Egyptians long before the NT. I would be careful to assert that it's wholly unlikely someone came up with the idea of the Trinity
@@kylemcclain2107 I don’t see a response. Can you point me to a Babylonian trinity? Also: - A trinity of three gods is irrelevant, so you must cite a single god that was three Persons. - You must also show that the Babylonian trinity shared heritage with Abraham or the captives from Israel or Judea.
I think it’s easy to understand how this doctrine could have developed. As pagans flooded the church, it’s only natural that some of their pagan ideas would color their reading of the NT. In most pagan circles, you’re totally used to calling a man “God.” The idea of an incarnation is totally commonplace. So you see passages in the NT that appear, to you, to be teaching Christ’s divinity. Okay, but Christ clearly is not the Father-who is described as the one true God-so now you have a contradiction you need to resolve. The Trinity is the attempt to solve this contradiction. That’s a wholly plausible theory that accords well with the historical record. We see no debate about the Trinity among the Jewish writers of the New Testament even as they were passionately debating issues about circumcision, Gentile inclusion, and the like. Skip a few decades later, when the church is predominantly made up of Gentiles, and suddenly there is a passionate debate about the Trinity.
I know time is limited, but increasing to 2 hour discussions would be most helpful to allow deeper dialogue about these and any other issues. Your interactions are most stimulating and helpful for addressing similar allegations on a local level. Thanks!
Honestly, seeing as how Unitarianism appears to basically be Arianism, there are plenty of debates where they argue the divinity to Jesus and the Spirit on youtube.
@@mattm7798 ?
@@mattm7798 Most people who use the label unitarian are not arians.
I mean theirs multiple verses that absolutely destroy unitarians
John 17 1-5
@@TheSkiddum There, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and the only true God who is someone else.
Love the graciousness and humility of this moderator. Really cool guy. Good job!
I thought the lack of moderation diminished the conversation at hand, allowing all the interruptions from Dr. Tuggy and disallowing Dr. Craig from finishing a lot of his thoughts.
@@qodesmith520 Perhaps Dale Tuggy wouldn't have felt the need to interrupt if Dr Craig wasn"t utilizing such nonsensical verbiage. It frustrated me just listening to him.
Unitarians tend to be frustrated when presented with clear biblical refutation of their position, so I get it.
@@qodesmith520
@4:53 the host/moderator DIRECTLY INVITED Tuggy to comment on what he had heard, and introduced him as an author of critiques to Craig's public statements.
As for "finishing a lot of his thoughts" I really would expect Craig to have done those in his
published works. Apparently he is in the habit of making vague claims and not really providing a cogent set of associated evidence to support them. Instead he quotes "scripture" which non-christians DO NOT regard as authority about anything.
Just in case any of the above, somehow evaded your sense of fairness. It did not offend mine.
Biblical doctrine of the Trinity does not exist. The Trinity is idolatry.
I think that Dr. Tuggy, no offense meant, tried dominating the discussion far too much, interrupting and not letting Dr. Craig finish his points, something which Dr. Craig largely refrained from doing. After all, in the first part, Dr. Craig had to wait for Dr. Tuggy to finish all of his points before responding. In the second part, however, Tuggy didn't follow the same format thereby accruing an ill-gotten advantage.
Tuggy did the same with Anthony Rogers in their debate except Rogers does not tolerate being talked over and interrupted as much.
@@Deck610 Yikes! I haven't seen that one, since I don't really follow Rogers, even though I've seen a lot of him with David Wood and Vocab Malone.
@Thoska Brah Will do, but who do you think made the better case?
@Thoska Brah Wow! Okay.
@Thoska Brah I'm watching the Rogers/Tuggy debate right now. It's very interesting, and I agree that Rogers is doing much better. I think that the only decent point that Tuggey has is that, it seems to me, it is a possible--though much less plausible--to interpret certain of the passages as indicating that Jesus could be some empowered messenger (i.e., an angel in the more broad sense of the term, as when priests and prophets are called angels, 'malak' in the Hebrew and 'aggelos'--pronounced anghelos--in the Greek). I think that Anthony does a good job at showing why this is a much less plausible interpretation, however. For example, I think that the quotation of the Old Testament in Mark 1:3 alone is absolutely fatal to Tuggey's position.
Concerning identity, Dale states: “They’re showing that they do have a grasp of the concept, even if they don’t have the words and the formal logic to talk about it.” Interesting that he recognizes this about the authors of Scripture, but when it comes to the Trinity, one of his critiques is that the NT authors didn’t bother to create a word to denote the Trinity. So, in the case of identity, its okay to affirm the concept informally, while not formally define it due to a lack of formal logic or words to define it. But, in the case of the Trinity, its not enough for the NT authors to affirm the concept, rather in order for it to be true they should have used words or formal logic to define it clearly. Seems very inconsistent, there.
It was great and love WLC dialogue
🎯
I was literally about to transcribe that *exact* part of the debate, to point out Dr. Tuggy's flagrant double standard.
Yeaaaah buddy! I noticed that too
There's a big difference in simplicity between the concept of identity and the concept of the Trinity. Numerical identity (the kind of identity Tuggy is concerned with) is so simple that almost everyone picks it up naturally as children. The concept of the Trinity however is not easily understood even by many trained pastors.
For me, Dr. Craig was surprised and confused by three things: Dale ACTING surprised about the things Craig stated, his aggressive(bordering on ad hominem) and disrespectful posture, and his interrupting which did not allow Craig to complete a thought. I think the guy was offended when the host said, "Dr. Craig needs no introduction". In a word, he came off as a jerk and ruined what could have been a very good discussion in my opinion.
He was obviously well prepared to argue against views that Dr. Craig himself doesn't hold. Dr. Craig nipped that immediately in opening and was agitating; not for me but for his "opponent."
His demeanor was off-putting for sure but I imagine debating Dr. Craig can be frustrating.
edit - ..I forgot to mention that I felt that moment too. We all did, no doubt. The introduction for Dr. Craig bothered him. I'm not sure why though because Dr. Craig is obviously *much* more well known than he is. Pride, which we all struggle with, can be self defeating and ugly to look at.
I felt dr tuggi’s arguments were presented pretty good and I thought he did a pretty good job of controlling his emotions, but he did control the talking and was fairly rude in regards to that.
What can you expect when you try to have this discussion in an hour. Lol.
Tuggy almost always seems to act surprised in these discussions and debates. It's odd.
I totally agree with your opinion.
Pride pride pride pride smh :( it was unfortunate 😢
Its great how at times people debating Dr. Craig sound condescending, yet Dr. Craig stays respectful throughout.
When you actually believe the absolute nonsence you are trying to present comprehensible but sounds SO absurd, is it any wonder those who debate him get so agiateted.
@@priscillajervey8345 The triune nature of God is nonsense... unreal. We flat out have all three members of the trinity shown present in passages together. What is nonsense is arguing against your lying eyes.
My lying eyes you say? Triune and Trinity mean the same thing. The trinity simply means God revealed in three persons! So determined the council of Nicea in 325 AD. The holy spirit is God"s operational presence and life force - NOT a third prson! It can be quantified, poured out, measured wind, or fire. Please note Jesus is seated at the right hand of God now, but were is the throne for the third person of the
trinity? Yes they may be mentioned together in some passages, but that does not make them the same, equal and identical entities. @@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep
You couldn't be MORE correct. Every try reasoning with a fool???
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeepJust because they are Arian heretics it doesn't excuse your own heresy - Modalism.
Jesus is a lesser "god" that we can worship? Wouldn't that be idolatry?
Exactly! Unitarianism is simply absurd given the context of what the New Testament teaches. They keep saying God can’t die, well yes Jesus died AS a mortal man (it’s the very reason He came as a man), He didn’t simply cease to exist and then reappear 3 days later, His BODY died, Jesus even says on the Cross just before drawing His last breath “…Father into Your hands I commit My Spirit” (Luke 23:46). Just like the Son had always existed since the beginning with the Father, He didn’t cease existing when He gave up His physical/material body and shed His blood (the very holy thing necessary for the Atonement) on the Cross, but in doing so He paid the cost of mankind’s sin, and was raised for our justification onto life eternal as Paul summarises in Romans 4:25, showing His triumph over death itself (Colossians 2:15), resurrection from the dead is something only ever attributed to God, so Jesus IS in fact God seeing that He passed through death and yet death did not claim Him. As Dr Craig said, there are so many NT passages that are just fatal to the Unitarian world view. I pray they repent of these teachings as they consult the Scriptures earnestly by the leading of the Spirit.
@@Tobi_237 Why would the death of a piece of meat (a man's physical body, i.e. atoms) be sufficient to cleanse mankind of sin? It sounds like if Jesus didn't actually die, and just his body did, it's not that much of a sacrifice after all.
@@Jockito So first off I’ll have to lay the foundation of the Judeo-Christian worldview on humanity as derived from the Bible. According to the Bible, a human is more than just flesh and blood which are material, he/she is also composed of an immaterial soul and a spirit. So essentially we humans are immaterial souls housed in a material body. Now when we speak of Jesus of Nazareth, He was no mere human, He is the Son of God HOUSED in the Son of Man (a human), He is God incarnate. So His death at the Cross is Son of God paying the sin debt that mankind owed to the justice of God. Now I’ll stop here for now as I can’t ascertain how much you understand of the concept of atonement, I hope you follow. I await your response
@@Tobi_237 The material housing of Jesus is what died right? But not the Son of God. Again, why is the death of the housing enough to pay for sin? Who cares about the housing? It's just flesh.
@@Jockito But it’s HIS flesh, and He laid His life down wilfully, an innocent lamb led to the slaughter, enduring pains unimaginable, suffering condemnation He didn’t deserve, atoning for sins He did not commit. Jesus’s flesh was and is no mere flesh as Jesus while on earth was no mere human. His flesh and blood were untainted with Adam’s sin, that’s part of the mystery revealed in His virgin birth. But to continue to answer your prior question, the Bible teaches that the shedding of blood is required for the forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22), this practice dates back to the very beginning right after Adam sinned in the garden. God Himself clothed Adam in animal skin to symbolise the covering of his sin. And the concept of atonement through animal sacrifices carried on for thousands of years and is central to ancient Jewish customs as found in the Old Testament. But also in the Old Testament a divine lamb is painted, one of such passages that illustrates this is found in Isaiah 53. That’s where Jesus’s death comes into fulness, when John the Baptist saw Jesus he announced to all around him saying “…behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:36). So according to the gospels Jesus IS this divine lamb whose blood will be shed and whose flesh will be broken and crushed and pierced as prophesied. So I hope now you can begin to grasp the significance of Jesus’s flesh and blood.
It really seems to me that the debate between trinitarianism and unitarianism should ultimately be a debate of biblical interpretation and not one of metaphysics. Because in order to defend a model like that of Craig's you need a lot of assumptions about language, about what does it mean to be a person, or a part or a group; you need a peculiar set of definitions which most people wouldn't conceive a priori, and which won't convince anyone who doesn't already believe in the trinity to begin with. It's better if, instead of pushing the boundaries of semantics and metaphysics, you try to show that the conceptual distance between Jesus and the Father isn't that big (as is discussed in the second part of the debate), because that's where people do really have a difficulty.
Or to put it another way, purely from a philosophical point of view, clearly is easier for anyone, even to people of other religions, to conceive God as a simple unity than as a triad, and therefore the burden of proof falls completely on revelation.
There are lots of debate about that. This debate is also an aditional that helps the listeners:)..
I have watched much debate about trinity discussing verses.. :)
I agree, it really comes down to whether the Bible says Jesus is divine (having intrinsic properties of omnipotence, omniscience, uncreatedness) or not. The trinity argument is downstream from that and is a collection of metaphysical models for handling the proposition that Jesus is divine.
@@foxbat252 It is my belief that if Jesus had the [inate] properties that you mentioned, Jesus would not have stated that God the father gave him the authority...meaning to heal the sick and raise the dead etc. Did Jesus have to have faith? Did he pray to the Father?
I agree
That is simply true.
Unless Dr. Craig informed us of his very selective vocabulary definition for his view of the trinity, it would make no sense if we read the biblical text.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:”
Colossians 2:8-10 KJV
Yes the mind of God is in Christ. The Godhead. The mind of God the head of God.
Test Paul as a true apostle.
@@Justadudeman22
God's body was in Christ. That is why it reads "bodily" and "fullness". God is a person. He has a spirit body. He was in Christ's body of flesh with His spirit body. Two persons in one body of flesh.
He entered Christ after Christ was baptized in the river and left Him in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Sometimes God was speaking in the body, sometimes Christ. That is why Jesus said: "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.". The Father said to Philip: "Have I been so long with you, yet you have not known Me?".
@@Justadudeman22Do you know what Godhead means?
@@geoffreyvanwyk4588So that means God’s body is in every Christian according to Ephesians 3:11-12 then, right? So are we all God now? Paul prays that we may all be filled with the “fullness of God”, so clearly we are all going to become one with the Father and be consubstantial with Him too, right?
The whole part of being a Person or personal, Dale seems to be missing the point. Craig’s trinitarian view is that God is tri-personal because He has 3 centers of rational faculties that are sufficient for personhood. So, of course he isn’t going to say that God is a Person because that would imply that He is not tri-personal. Dale seems to be trying to maintain his unitarian definition of God, and show how this contradicts Craig’s view. Of course it does! If they were not at odds, there would be no debate. So, for example, when he says that, if God is not a Person, He cannot be good. But, Craig is not actually denying that God is a Person in the sense that He has personhood. Rather, he is denying that He is ONE Person. God is tri-personal, and as such has all of the attributes for personhood, and as such can be good. Its not a difference between being a Person and not being a Person. Its merely a difference between being one Person and being 3.
You hit the nail on the head so hard I think you sent shrapnel flying off into the horizon.
What do you mean by "centre of rational faculties"? And what distinguishes that from a soul?
@@Jockito A soul is a center of rational faculty. At least thats how Craig understands it, which is why He calls God a soul.
@@bendecidospr if that's true, then God would have 3 souls, as you said God has 3 centres of rational faculties. But Craig said God only has one soul.
@@Jockito Personally, I don’t like this whole “soul” language. I don’t think we fully understand the meaning of these terms. We just use them to describe general aspects of our being. But, going back to Craig’s point, its not that God HAS a soul; its that He IS a soul. In the case of human beings, one soul corresponds to one person. In the case of God, one soul corresponds to 3 Persons. So, whatever you define as a Person, God is 3 of them, but He continues to be one Being (one soul). If we define “soul” as synonymous with Person, that may be confusing for the reason you say. I explained it that way in my initial response to you, just to try to keep it simple. But, any talk of soul, spirit, being, personhood, inevitably becomes overly complicated. I prefer to say that God is one, tri-personal Being. We are one, uni-personal beings, so we assume thats the only way it can be, but its not. As for your initial question, I agree that this implies that God is 3 souls, which I don’t think is a problem if we understand that a soul is simply a Person.
Dale really should be careful in citing John 17, because the prayer of Christ is better served for the Trinitarian than the Unitarian. In verse five, Christ asks the Father to glorify him (Christ) with the glory that he had with the Father before the world existed. Jesus is alluding to Isaiah 42:8 and 44:11, where the Lord is saying how he won’t yield his praise or glory to another. But Jesus is saying that he had this glory with the Father and he accepts praise from others. On a trinitarian model, this makes sense; on a Unitarian model, this becomes difficult to explain.
There can be a divine Son who is not himself God.
@@gerryquinn5578 That exists necessarily or contingently? Existed without time?
Jesus says he shares the glory he was given by God with his disciples.
John 17:22: “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:”
Are they God too??
@@NickHawaiiThat's a great point! thanks for sharing! 🙏🏻
@@erykpatrykchudy5675 Thanks. Yet I do believe Jesus did have a prehuman existence. But that doesn’t make him the Most High God. Jehovah is his Name. (Psalm 83:18) Jesus is the Son of the highest. (Luke 1:32). Not the same being.
These debates are really helpful and educative. Thanks
Dr. Dale's intensity of making faces and body movements showing discomfort increased to the end as he clearly was losing the argument. I love Dr. Craig.
@@elorebenyame2016 Tovia who?
@@elorebenyame2016 We don't care what they think.
@@elorebenyame2016 Never heard of him...
@@elorebenyame2016 Tell him to debate Dr. Michael Brown.
@@elorebenyame2016 I have seen that conversation. It wasn't a debate, and WLC can't lose a debate without debating. Mr. Singer was using a debate tone in the middle of a conversation. That's it.
This looks like a debate between emotion (making faces) and logic (rational arguments)
if you watch from 26 minutes, Craig keep making faces that is insulting,its disgusting of him
rational (tuggy) vs faces and gish gallop (craig)
@@ManlyServantread your Bible heretic. Embrace Revelation 22:13
@@ManlyServantif you seriously think Craig is the irrational one you’re ridiculous. You’re idol got destroyed
@@rushinjayYes, your idol (false view of Jesus) got destroyed, child.
Dr. Tuggy seemed more interested in being condescending towards Dr. Craig, rather than admitting to understanding the concepts that Lane Craig was putting forward.
God bless William Lane Craig for his patience
God doesn't bless people who purposely misquote Scripture...
Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1 both have the word AND.
Then he quotes 1st John wrongly too, saying "God" instead of "he/him".
I'm sure there are other examples too (I stopped listening out of disgust).
Shame on him.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing for Tuggy.
Yah bless
Really? He comes across as flustered and upset. The other guy is much more cool and collected, and convincing
Sorry, God will only send Craig to hell for likening the Trinity to Cerberus the three-headed mythical god.
@@MrGdad1998 Good one phill 👊
John (the apostle) does not need a long video to explain what he meant in John 1. He meant what he said and said what he meant.
Thank you! Amen!
That's true, but without having John here to tell is what he meant it's opens to interpretation. As a unitarian I think he said and meant something different to what you think he said and meant. It's not straightforward. I take 'the word' to literally be a word/thought and Theos without the O to be a predicate which is what I think John said and meant.
@@foxbat252
We have the Holy Spirit in us to interpret what the Holy Spirit inspired through John. So we don’t need John here to tell us what he meant.
@@st.christopher1155 Considering that there are 40k Christian denominations, all assuming that the "Holy Spirit" is telling them the correct interpretation- yeah, you certainly do need John to have any certainty in your personal interpretation. If only god would come down and set the record straight, but alas all we have is our mere faith that our interpretation is the singular correct one out of 40k others. How arrogant of us to assume that we're wise enough out of 99% of the planet to have it all figured out.
@@DatHombre
That is one of the most straightforward scriptures in the gospel of John. So if you or any of the 40k denominations can’t grasp the meaning of it, maybe it is because you or they want to twist the plain meaning to fit your own presuppositions about the doctrine, which could mean that you are resisting the Holy Spirit with regards to the scriptural interpretation. Also, I have no idea why you put the Holy Spirit in parentheses, since the scripture never does that.
A crucial error in interpreting John 20:28 is confusion regarding the difference between " Thomas answered" and "Thomas called". The verse says Thomas answered. What did Thomas answer? The question being addressed in this context is: Did God raise Jesus from the dead.
We KNOW that Christ's God, (and Thomas' God), DID raise Jesus from the dead:
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Eph 1:17-20 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him ... 20 Which He wrought in Christ, when He raised him from the dead, and set him at His own right hand in the heavenly places
Once Jesus proved to Thomas that Thomas' God HAD raised Thomas' Lord from the dead, Thomas praised BOTH.
a most excellent point
Why is Dale Tuggy constantly interrupting and making smug faces into the camera? Very rude and unprofessional
You don't have anything substantial to say about the actual issues being raised then?
Because he isn’t in truth to live with the patience of the spirit
Instead of focussing on that? Why not focussing on the actual topic? This comment is really disingenuine of you
@@FlockOfYahweh😂😂😂 most televangelist are trinitarian.
@@Plisken65 what a fallacy, yet even they know somehow that it’s true, and most people believe in it to claim more victims haha.
Thank you for this! And Thank you Dr. Craig! Excellent!
Good debate. A lot to think about and explore!
How does Dr. Dale write a critique of the Trinity when he admits that he doesn't understand the concept. He mentions that his friend has a theory of a fourth person in the Trinity. I don't think his friend understand the prefix, tri-.
He didn't say his friend "has a fourth person in the Trinity", that's just your disingenuous wording
@@Jockito He didn't say "has a fourth person in the Trinity", so you shouldn't put quotations marks around that a pretend that he said that; rather, what he said is, "his friend has a theory of a fourth person in the Trinity." This is true. Tuggy says it during the discussion. It made me think just how poorly Tuggy understands the doctrine of the Trinity, even though Trinitarians themselves, which are either poorly informed or haven't though long enough/well enough about the issue, have said similar things. It's clear that Tuggy has a hard time understanding one God in three persons. He then tries to say that the Trinitarian's concept doesn't make sense because he doesn't understand it.
It's much like the failure of some people to grasp calculus. Just because others don't understand calculus, that doesn't mean that those who do understand it are spouting nonsense. Are we really to believe that a philosopher of such a caliber that even atheist philosophers (such as Graham Oppy, Quentin Smith, etc.) take him very seriously, and who has been rated the 10th most influential philosopher and 3rd most influential theologian (having doctorates in both philosophy and theology from prestigious, European universities--and who is obviously a clear and incisive thinker, doesn't understand that he is spouting nonsense?
To be fair, nobody really understands the Trinity. The mystery of it is sort of baked into its meaning.
@@Real_LiamOBryan my point is, if you look at Chad Macintosh's view, he clearly understands the prefix 'tri' unlike what K Seeker suggested. He distinguishes between the 3 'intrinsic' persons within the trinity and a 'functional' 4th person as the superset of these. He still incorporates a triune aspect of God. Besides, no where in scripture does it categorically and unequivocally state the doctrine of the Trinity and give clear teaching on this, so it opens the door to various theories and interpretations. At best you can construct a theory of the Trinity by tying various scriptures together. But even still, Chad Macintosh's view acknowledges those same scriptures.
I just find it interesting that you use understanding calculus as an example that something can be true even though people don't understand it, when this could just as well be said of competing theories about the personhood of God. If not being able to understand something isn't a barrier to the truthhood of a theory, then using that exact reason to attack Chad Macintosh's theory isn't going to work. People have to do better than saying Tuggy's friend just doesn't understand the pre fix 'tri', as if it is some sort of gotcha.
@@Bbos2383 I believe that I do, though.
During the full course of this discussion Tuggy continued to interrupted Dr. William Lane Craig and on top of that the moderator for the most part let Tuggy speak more than Dr. William Lane Craig Craig even thou he did called him out once or twice. Dr. William Lane Craig did a fine job of defending the trinity doctrine in this discussion. I also think that Tuggy misrepresented Dr Craig's view a number of times in this discussion.
It's too bad though that God is going to send Craig to hell for likening the Trinity to Cerberus the three-headed mythical dog.
@@MrGdad1998 'It is too bad though that God is going to send Craig to hell for likening the trinity to Cerberus the three-headed mythical god" - To begin with Cerberus according to Greek mythology was not a god in any sense of the word. it was a creature with three heads who is a dog that guards the underworld. preventing mortals to cross over and the prevent the dead for escaping.
Also based on your comment it seems that you possess some level of infinite knowledge to proceed to make the claim who is going to hell and who is not. I assume you got this from a personal revelation in a dream or something of the sort correct?..
@@Thanos-kp5jr That was a typo (god/dog). Your allegiance to Craig, rather than God has caused you to miss my point; _Repentance is required for misrepresenting God.) Craig God to a three-headed animal. You don't see anything wrong with this? Moreover, have you never read about Yahweh's indignation He expresses when someone misrepresents Him?
“My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has" (Job 42:7c,d).
Yahweh instructed Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar to take seven bulls and seven rams and offer them as burnt sacrifices for misrepresenting Him, and Job would pray for them (Job 42:8,9).
This passage makes it very clear that God requires repentance for misrepresenting Him. You make it obvious that you honor man, rather than God. Then, you cast ad-hominem attacks at men. That a pity.
What kind of argument is this from Dr Tuggy? "Those 3 things compose a 4th, so it can't be a trinity"
I guess each family of 3 members must be 4 people then, since those 3 compose a family. smh at this abysmal understanding of basic logic.
You misunderstood the argument. Craig's claim is that the Father has the divine attributes (omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, etc.), the Son has the divine attributes, the Spirit has the divine attributes, and also the trinity has the divine attributes. Tuggy's claim is that having those attributes imply being a person, so if the trinity has those attributes, the trinity must be a person. So then you'd have four persons, the Father, Son, Spirit, and Trinity.
It's quite clear that God is tripersonal. God the Father, Son, and holy spirit, otherwise why would Jesus say " Baptise all men in the name of the father, son, and Holy Spirit" Dale by taking this position is denying the son's Divinity, which is a mistake otherwise how could he have done all the MIRACLES and his divine Birth and Death and resurrection, that no other in Holy person in scripture has been given. Dale goes against proper and acceptable Christian teaching given by the Church fathers in the Catholic and Orthodox theology.
I really appreciate Dr. Craig's charity and patience, and love his smile during these discussions. Remember the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation inserted "a god" in John 1:1 because they realized there was a serious problem with their similar view of Jesus, which unbelievably Unitarians don't seem to see. The problem is exegesis. But the preconceived notion that God is mono-personal as the Father (not Jesus, not Holy Spirit) forces them to deny what is most clear to the vast majority of biblical scholarship. John's view of Jesus is clearly diety throughout - before Abraham was, I AM! 8:58
The "a god" rendering was in use before the JW New World Translation. And on translations, you will find different renderings of John 8:58 . Many Christian scholars and reference works admit that there is no understanding of a Trinity in the OT .
Before Abraham was, I Am. Is a very bad translation. Why do you use it?
Yet even in their own version the Trinity can be seen.
@@seeqr9 : Where ?
@@gerryquinn5578 I’ll refer you to the info that answers you question but first, something being used elsewhere doesn’t prove it’s accuracy.
Second, before there was Christianity the Jews contended with language that described at least “two powers in heaven” or “two Yahwehs”. It was declared heresy after Jesus for obvious reasons. It’s also why devout Jews were able to ultimately accept Jesus for who he was. See Michael Heiser “Trinity in the Old Testament” for in depth study on the subject. Also a scholarly book by a non Christian on the two powers “heresy” title “two powers in heaven” .. I forget the author at the moment.
Here’s a talk on the Trinity using the NWT. There’s a second part too: ruclips.net/video/SdbBvA082GU/видео.html
Wherever you stand now, If you’re a true seeker or not, I pray the preexistent, reality sustaining, all loving, perfectly just, eternal GOD blesses you on your journey and makes himself known to you, and I, more fully.
I really expected more of Tuggy. I'm paused at 8:41 because it's immediately apparent that (and this is the charitable view) Tuggy doesn't understand the difference between using a term as a convenient reference and using a term univocally. To say "The Trinity has X" because the members of the Trinity have X is not ascribing attributes to the Trinity as though the term is a 4th person. It's merely using the term to say that the Father has the same attributes as the Son, Spirit, etc.
While the Trinity is definitely in the OT, I can see how maybe Abraham or Moses didn't fully grasp the tri personal nature of God. The NT removes all doubt and you have to completely contort and twist scripture while flat out rejecting other scripture to reach a unipersonal God.
The Son ( Yeshua) is subject to the Father. Correct.
Combining Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, theos has the following possible meanings:
1. The gods in general
2. The true God;
3. A person granted authority by God to represent Him (e.g., John 10:34-35; Exo 7:1);
4. An immortal being with supernatural powers, such as the ancient Greek gods;
5. An idol or image that symbolizes a god (e.g., Acts 7:43);
6. A thing that opposes God, for example, “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4); and
7. Qualitatively, a being who is ‘godlike’.
In the Bible, Paul confirms, “Indeed there are many gods (theoi)” (1 Cor 8:5). The Bible uses the term theos and its Hebrew equivalents mostly for the Ultimate Reality but also for, for example:
• Moses (Exodus 7:1),
• Angels (Psalm 8:5; cf. Hebrews 2:7),
• The divine council (Psalm 82:1, 6),
• Israel’s judges (Exo 21:6, 22:8),
• The Davidic king (Psalm 45:6),
• Appetite (Phil 3:19),
• Those who receive the word of God (John 10:34-35), and
• Satan (2 Cor 4.4).
The Bible and the ancient Greek writers did not have a Greek word specifically for the one true God. They did not differentiate between upper- and lower-case letters as we do in modern languages. Therefore, the writers of the New Testament and the pre-Nicene fathers used other techniques to identify the Father as the one true theos:
• The main identification is simply the context.
• Very frequently, they added the definite article (the) to indicate that the only true theos is intended.
• Or they described the Father as the:
• “Only true theos” (John 17:3);
• “One and only theos” (John 5:44);
• “One theos” (1 Cor 8:6).
It’s not “twisting scripture” to simply understand what the Bible means by “god” or “God” based on the context. It just takes a little digging and prayer
I have never heard a debate where Dr Tuggy is not arrogant, dismissive and downright rude. He really needs to control himself because his behaviour has not changed for the years I have been observed him
When you have not the Son, you have not the Father. This man is ungodly and arrogant because he doesn't know God.
How many years? Just curious this is the first time ive seen him
@@Psa22-6 look up some of his debates online and he has a podcast called "Trinities" I think and you will hear for yourself and make an honest judgement
Dr. Craig did a great debate. But I think with this people one have to go text by text exegeting them. But i dont know if it is worthy to debate with people who has already a fixed mind. Dr. Craig show dr. Tuggy evidence but he decide to discard them. So sad. There is not more worst blind than who has eyes and choose not to see.
Please give examples where Tuggy is arrogant, dismissive, and rude. He stayed calm and collected throughout the entire debate.
Christ said in Mt. 28:19, "Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Why did Christ mention 3 names ❓️Would Dr. Tuggy like to respond ❓️
This was interesting and informative but a bit frustrating at the back and forth and numerous interruptions on the part of Dr. Dale Tuggy. I think it would have done better justice to the topic at hand had there been a bit more moderation.
Yeah, that was an issue for me too.
Dr Craig's attitude and how he presents himself is sp calm and peacefully. I imagine it can be very disarming for hos opponents
hos?
the part where he has basic arguments that also make sense helps too.
It's too bad though that God is going to send Craig to hell for likening the Trinity to Cerberus the three-headed mythical god.
@@MrGdad1998that’s dumb. He’s made it perfectly clear what he was saying as a starting point for the concept not a one for one analogy …
@@seeqr9 Are you kidding me? Do you realize what you are saying? The words Cerberus...three-headed mythical god...and...the trinity should _never_ be uttered in the same breath, especially with all of the confusion that exists amongst professing Christians. The ignorance of what the word of God teaches is widespread throughout the visible professing church. Our loyalty should be to God, rather than man. This involves God's reputation, not to mention His glorious character. Can you do yourself and I a favor and read what has been written in the last chapter of Job? (42:7-9). Just three verses..speaking about God _what is right._
Trinity is not remotely logical, rational, or scriptural. Theos is used as a title of authority. The true theos has no authority above him. Jesus had a theos above him.
John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14
How are we reducing God to “well you can’t have this… because humans understand it this way”.
The Trinity is a human invention. Clear.
Because all we have to work with the information that we have, with the one and only tool we have(our brains). We have to be logical and coherent in what we believe. That includes beliefs about God. Reason is the authority when it comes to discovering who God is, but isn't the authority with respect to who God is. When we appeal to someone else's understanding of something about God, we do so under the assumption that the reasoning behind that understanding is valid. But since we understand reason as a tool for discovering God, we are within our rights to make such appellations
because logic sir,and you don't have one
What a complete strawman from what was actually said.
Dr. Dale never let Dr. Craig finish his statement, meanwhile Dr Dale gets to make a whole case.
Lets be real here, its a debate, a more informal debate. I think I'll allow people to interject or be less formal in this case.
I am a trinitarian btw.
That's why Dale is making sense. Craig is talking nonsense.
Dr Dale has the stronger argument that doesn't require the semantic gymnastics Dr Craig needs.
@@elcangridelanime I understand clearly what both are saying, only that Dr Craig has more positive evidence and Dr Dale is more of a critic here. I think the scripture is on Dr Craig's side.
@@Mr_mechEngineer Both of then bring up the scripture to support their side. the only different is they both interpreted the other side's scripture from their own point of view.
xGoodness, I certainly missed something extremely crucial here....according to Jn. 3:16 when the verses clearly states God so loved the world he SENT his Son. And ture to form Dr. Craig goes to the oled worn-out, dogged-earned misunderstood John 1:1. Why do Christiams just ASSUME the "Word" means JESUS, is there a reason it couldn't have been God's word?? Isn't it rather strange and confusing if John believed Jesus was God that he addressed his letter to the chruches: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Just saying !
Imagine being a one-dimensional being trying to comprehend a three-dimensional world...
Or a temporal being trying to comprehend an extra temporal Being who has entered the temporal world.
God is not made of dimensions he is beyond dimensions or space and time
@@Convexhull210the concept of the idea still holds
@@Fassnight ?
There's no such thing as a one dimensional being
One question that came to my mind while watching, is if and how does the Lord's Prayer fit in the debate? It was taught by Jesus to the disciples when they asked to be taught how to pray, but it's clearly addressed only to the Father.
Read 1 Corinthians 12 and note the division of labor. The Father is the Architect of the church. He designs the church, selects the materials (us), and assigns us our roles.
Elsewhere, scriptures say the Holy Spirit intercedes for us and the Son ever lives to make intercession for us.
Within the Trinity, the Father performs the Executive role. If we make requests, we should go directly “before the throne of grace,” meaning, the Father, who makes the executive decisions.
That the three Persons of God accept distinct roles demonstrates order. It in no way undermines the claim that God is one God in substance or in eternal (before/outside of time) Being.
You are to pray in the name of the Jesus to the Father. I see no problem here.
@@bobbyadkins6983 No No NO!!!!! You missed showing the full trinity in prayer. Not just praying in the name of Jesus to the Father or our prayers going through Jesus to the Father, but the bible says all prayer must be in the Spirit! All three members of the trinity are involved!
Fascinating discussion. Thanks.
Jesus being God means we have forgiveness & grace from God directly , anyplace anytime !
Or we can go to the Father directly.
Jesus not being God would do the same thing
Than why does Jesus himself forgive people where the jews thought it was blasphemous because only God can forgive sins?
@@jasonbourne5142 Are you familiar with the promise of Ex 19:6? How about what Rev 20:4-15 says? The plan is that all men are to be judged by created beings, a nation of Kings and Priests, those that understand us (Heb 4:15). In fact, God is not eligible to be a priest, because a priest is a mediator BETWEEN God and Man (1 Tim 2:5).
__
Jesus was the firstborn from the dead to everlasting life (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5, 17). He was the last resurrected by Yahweh, God directly, because all future resurrections will be performed by Jesus (Rev 1:18; John 11:25). This power he will share with his co-rulers (Rev 20:4-15), it being authority that WAS GIVEN TO HIM (Mat 28:18). (Mat 25:31-46 is an example of Jesus judging during the Great Tribulation). As both a King and a Priest, he will teach and judge sin, naturally having the power to forgive sin.
@@jasonbourne5142 Are you familiar with the promise of Ex 19:6? How about what Rev 20:4-15 says? The plan is that all men are to be judged by created beings, a nation of Kings and Priests, those that understand us (Heb 4:15). In fact, God is not eligible to be a priest, because a priest is a mediator BETWEEN God and Man (1 Tim 2:5).
Dale just seems excited at the chance of showing Craig is wrong, but Craig doesn't even budge, ha!
They both exhibit that tendency
Dude don’t even TRY to equivocate like they were BOTH equally rude, are you insane?
When we read the greetings in Paul's letters, do we find greetings from three ?
We read greetings from lots of folks in Paul's letters.
@@jameshayes211 : Indeed. But if you look at the start of his letters, he always sends gretings from TWO : From the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 :3; Eph 1 :3). Never a greeting from a third.
@@gerryquinn5578 So, what? Paul makes several references to the Third Person throughout his epistles. And, Paul references all three Persons of the Godhead in his valediction to the Corinthians: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all" (II Cor 13:14).
@@jameshayes211 : So what ? Are you kidding me ? Paul's greetings show that he believed in the one God of Israel, the LORD God, the YHWH of the BIble and he now believed that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah (Christ ), contrary to his previous views in which he persecuted those who held to this view.. Thus, when he sends his greetings from God and his Christ, it is always from TWO . Paul had no concept of three 'persons' in a godhead and that is why he never sends greetings from three. It would be unthinkable to omit greetings from the Spirit if he believed in such.
There is no idea of a third person in his words at 2 Cor 13 :14. In chapter 1, he had already talked about the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians enjoyed fellowship as the spirit of God dwelled in them. There is no third person here.
@@gerryquinn5578 The Holy Spirit is clearly distinguished from the Father and the Son throughout the New Testament. Jesus promises that the Father will send the Spirit in His name (see John 14:26). And, Jesus explicitly commands His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (see Matt 28:19). If the Spirit is not a Person, then how can He be grieved, as Paul cautions the Ephesians against grieving the Spirit (see Eph 4:30)? And, again, if the Spirit is not a Person, how did Ananias lie to Him (see Acts 5:3-4)?
Had the Divine Council Worldview been better preserved in the Western Church (as opposed to the Eastern branches, where it persevered) the I don’t suspect the Unitarian position would have even as many adherents as it currently does, few though they are already.
Dr. Heiser would have shredded some of Dale's presumptions, such as that Binitarian, and even proto-Trinitarian schools of thought DID exist prior to Christianity by a couple centuries.
They weren't made anathema by Rabbinic Judaism until Christianity had become much more widespread.
If he wanted a term then the co-regency of Yahweh would have been sufficient.
Isn't the logos the co-regent of Yahweh?
"God can't die" - What do you think death is and what are you using for God? Physical death isn't treated as forever non-existence.
"Jesus can receive worship." - Why would any worship be proportioned to a non-necessary non-maximally great being?
What's so wrong with proportional worship?
Here I must admit, even though I'm staunchly Trinitarian, that worship can properly be given to humans in a sense. Worship just means giving someone their due honor or worth (worth-ship). Genesis 37:7-9 indicates that Joseph's family worshipped (Hebrew 'shakhah') him. Genesis 49:8 says that Jacob prophesied that Jacob's brothers would worship him (same Hebrew word, 'shakhah'). Exodus 18:7 has Moses worshipping ('shakhah') his father-in-law. This same honor is commanded all throughout the bible (e.g., Exodus 20:1, 28:2; Leviticus 19:3, 32; Deuteronomy 5:16; Matthew 10:41, 15:4; Luke 18:20; Romans 13:7; Ephesians 6:2-5; 1 Timothy 5:17, 6:1; 1 Peter 2:17; etc.). I'm a Protestant, but this is one point that I agree with Catholics on. We should give dulia to those whom deserve it, hyper-dulia to Mary (being theotokos), and latria only to God.
Worship in the sense of giving due honor, and even falling down and bowing before someone, is given to humans in the Bible, it seems to me (I'm more than willing and open to being wrong and corrected, however).
@@Real_LiamOBryan I appreciate that. Many don’t recognize how PROSKUNEO is used in scripture. They have a western view or worship rather than a biblical one.
One must be granted life to receive it. It’s not automatic rather a gift. Must people believe in continuation but the Bible teaches resurrection.
So if the 'trinity' is the 'central doctrine of the Christian church' should we not find a simple & clear definition of it in the new testament? 1. The word 'trinity' ZERO TIMES. 2. 'God the Father, God the son & God the Holy Spirit' ZERO TIMES. 'There are three persons on one God' ZERO TIMES! However the NT does say "God the Father" THIRTY TIMES! The NT also says "One God the/and Father' SIX TIMES. Trinitarians can only offer 'implications' 'assumptions' 'conclusions' to prove the trinity! Jude tells us "The faith was delivered ONCE FOR ALL TIMES to the Holy ones" ( Jude 3 written around 55AD, centuries BEFORE any mention of the 'trinity!.) Thus from pentecost until at least the death of John, ie for SEVENTY YEARS! God's Holy Spirit was poured out anointing Christians who spread 'the Faith' All WITHOUT any reference to the 'trinity'! Thus we need to heed the apostles dire warnings that "Men would speak twisted things" Acts 20:28-30. Paul said this would occur "After my going away". It did so exactly as he fortold! The 'trinity' is FALSE!
And also we could add how the Trinity, if it had been taught, would have been a big sticking point with the Jews. So in Acts, there was controversy over whether the gentiles should keep the Law of Moses. But, where's the chapter that mentions how the Jews struggled to accept the doctrine of the Trinity?
And how did the disciples all quietly become Trinitarians without so much as a whisper about it. I know they argued about who would be the greatest, but surely God changing to a triune God should have got a look in. But no, we're supposed to believe the transition went so smoothly, that nobody thought it important to even mention. Apparently, they were so confident in their new doctrine, that they just carried on talking as if it didn't exist!
Nice diskussion and very nice moderating! Great!
To cite John 17:3 as a proof-text for unitarianism necessitates a formal fallacy, i.e., "denying the antecedent". Christ confesses rightly that the Father is the only true God; however, it would be invalid to infer the inverse of Christ's confession, namely, that if a person is not the Father then that person is not the only true God.
To illustrate: one might rightly assert that if it is snowing then it is a cold day; but, it would not follow that if it is not snowing then it is not a cold day.
This is absolutely correct. If you negate the antecedent and consequent, then you must also invert the order of them, in order to form the contrapositive, so that the proposition will remain logically valid. For example, in order for it to remain logically valid, this is how it ought to be:
If it is snowing, then it is cold.
and
If it is not cold, then it is not snowing.
This is because the antecedent is a sufficient condition of the consequent, but the consequent is merely a necessary condition of the antecedent, not sufficient.
*Edit:* All that would follow from John 17:3 is that, if Jesus is not the only true God, then He is not the Father.
@@Real_LiamOBryan Exactly! Very well stated!
@@legron121 Only one what? Only cat? Of course not! Only God. The Father can rightly be said to be the only true God, since there is only one God, but so can the Son and the Holy Spirit, since they are also members of the Godhead/Trinity. Therefore, in order to show what you are trying to show, then you would need to show that the scriptures say not merely that He is the only God, since that applies to all three persons, but that He is the only...person that is God. Persons are different from Gods.
@@legron121 Is Mark 1:3 about Jesus?
@@legron121 You've added words to the Scripture. The Bible doesn't say that the Father is "the only one who is" the only true God; the Bible says that the Father is the only true God. The Bible identifies three distinct Persons as God: the Father (e.g., 1 Pet 1:2), the Son (e.g., John 20:28; Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit (e.g., Acts 5:3-4). Ergo, the only true God is triune.
Why does Lane Craig keep misquoting Scripture???
Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1 both have the word AND.
Then he quotes 1st John wrongly too, saying "God" instead of "he/him".
I would not debate disingenuous people
good catch
I’m afraid the Unitarian guy’s demeanor was very annoying. I’d think others would refuse this type of discussion with him. Very strong demeanor by Dr Craig
His demeanor doesn't take away from his argument being sound.
@@Shilly-Mcshillface True. His arguments were unsound all by themselves.
Craig made faces as well lets not lie here. I agree that Dale interrupted too often. Very atypical for him.
It's too bad though that God is going to send Craig to hell for likening the Trinity to Cerberus the three-headed mythical god.
@@MrGdad1998 highly doubt it. Christ called us to immitate his love. God will not ask you whether you believed in a trinity, when the judgement comes. In fact, those that make it a big deal are the ones that will have to give an answer for their very unjustifiable insistence on the doctrine of men.
Dale Tuggy had a very intelligent and calm presentation - seems like he’s getting a lot of flack here, and I think this debate just needed to be a lot longer so he could flesh out his position better. Since I’ve seen some of his other content I find his exegesis to be logical and well supported
People are just disappointed with the rudeness and not letting WLC finish a thought.
I do not doubt that Jesus was divine, in the beginning when he was with God in the beginning, but when he became flesh and lived with us on earth, he was human.
Our Lord is fully God and fully human. 100% God and 100% human.
I love Dr. Tuggy! His explanation is on point!
If anything he’s a rude guy. Instead of proving how his view is right he continued on bashing how dr. Craig has a serious error and mistakes.
I agree. I think he made the stronger case and I didn't find him to be rude. I'm not sure what debate everyone else watched!
Tuggy is a heretic and very condescending.
You are so right!
I agree. Quite interesting that this conversation has been happening since 400 AD.
This discussion is of limited value because we have to wait until the 45 minute mark before the Bible is brought in, but by then they only had 15 minutes left.
Dr Tuggy claims that there was no discussion or argument regarding the divinity of Jesus during His lifetime or during the early stages of the "Church". Is he outright lying or blind? Did not the Jews seek to kill Jesus because they CLEARLY understood what He implies when He said He is the Son of God?! (Jn 10:33, Jn 8:58
Our God is one
Yea one god. Not three
Amen God is One Malachi 2:10
Explain Genesis 19:24 and Isaiah 54:5. Who's the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit? All 3 are Devine and therefore the God head.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God Jn1:1
( 14) and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us
His name is JESUS
IN THE BEGINNING WAS JESUS
AND JESUS WAS WITH THE FATHER
AND JESUS WAS FATHER
THE scripture is very very clear
Whosoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God (2Jn1:9)
Jesus said I am the Son of God
( Not God the Son)
Jesus said the holy ghost is comforter
( Not God the Holy Ghost)
Jesus said the Father is the only TRUE GOD Jn17
God was manifest in the flesh (1tim 3:16)
His name is JESUS
Jesus said God is Spirit Jn 4:24
Jesus said it is the SPIRIT gives life the flesh profit nothing the Words that I speak Unto you are Spirit and are life ( jn6: 63)
JESUS FLESH profit nothing he is a Man, Son of man and Son of God, hung and died on the Cross
JESUS SPIRIT= is the Father gives life his Words are Spirit and are life
Jesus said I am one bear witness of myself and the Father who sent me bear witness of me Jn 8:18
QUESTION
Who is the Father that bear witness of Jesus...?
ANSWER
This is he who came by Water and Blood Jesus Christ not by Water Only but by Water and Blood and it is the SPIRIT bear witness because the SPIRIT IS TRUTH (1jn5:6)
JESUS SPIRIT= IS TRUTH
JESUS SPIRIT =IS THE FATHER
JESUS SPIRIT =IS THE WORD
JESUS SPIRIT =IS THE LIFE
JESUS SPIRIT= IS THE HOLY GHOST
1JN5:7
THREE RECORD IN HEAVEN The Father, The Word and the Holy Ghost these three are One= JESUS SPIRIT
1jn5:8
THREE WITNESS ON EARTH Spirit, Water, and Blood and these three are One=JESUS FLESH
Paul said Jesus is the great God and savour Titus 2: 13
John said Jesus is the TRUE GOD and eternal life (1jn5:20)
John said only one sat on the throne Rev 4:2
Paul said Jesus throne is forever and ever heb1:8
QUESTION
Where is the throne of Others...?
Paul said but even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you let him be Accursed Gal 1; 8
John said for many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ come in the flesh, this is DECEIVER AND ANTICHRIST ( 2Jn1:7)
This has been thrown out of the newest bibles because it is a fabrication
@@specialagentorange4329what bibles?
@@dreameruy9510 That is nonsensical. Jesus said to baptize to the triune nature of God. The Father directly calls the Son God who has his throne in heaven, meaning they are also equal. The scripture calls Jesus Father only in relation as to Father of all creation, not God the Father. Beyond that we can see both the Son and Father present together in the same passages shown distinct from each other lots of times. What you are saying is nonsensical.
You are trul y one misguided soul. Why didn't John say: Jesus Christ came and is God the father? You have the trinitarian proof text down pat pat don"t you? Text taken out of context is a pretex . @@dreameruy9510
Can anyone show me where TRINITY is written in the Bible?
Why does the word trinity have to be in the New Testament?
It's a description of what is found in the New Testament. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are described as triune.
It also describes what is found in the Old Testament concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
@@Rightlydividing-wx1xbIf the authors of the Bible believed in a trinity, they would've come up with some word or phrase to refer to the three persons together. That's the first thing trinitarians did, but nobody in the Bible does that. Why not? Probably because they had no concept of a tripersonal god.
Lol this guy keep objecting even before Dr.Craig finish his sentences. Hes annoying as hell....
Yeah and I'm on his side... mostly.
I entered here as a trinitarian and left as an unitarian... Not immediately, I had to do lots of research over the next weeks, but I'm so glad with the results. It's so good to know that God is understandable.
Don't fool yourself.
Well done, it can be a very difficult journey…
Really? To me a Multi-Personal god makes more sense.
@@merlinmbuso8448 tritheism
To me it makes more sense that a God that we can fully comprehend isn’t the God of the Bible.
If Jesus is not the logos referred to in John 1, what do Unitarians make of Psalm 56 where David writes "In God, whose word I praise" three separate times? In these verses λόγους is used
The logos are just the logos. Why do we change them!? Why do we add to the scripture!? The word of God is the word of God, which was projected in flesh in our universe by Jesus, who is flesh, not God!
“but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin:”
Mark 3:29 ASV
Mark 3:29 shows Jesus is not equal to God (The Holy Spirit/Father). Is that what you mean?
There is a mystery embedded within the following statement that is difficult to articulate in words: Jesus is the Son of God, begotten of the Father and conceived of the Holy Spirit.
However, the verse of Mark 3:29 is echoed in Matthew 12:31. The suggestion is that any blasphemy may be forgiven--i.e., explicitly against the Son of Man, and, inductively, potentially even against the Father--but, by no means, will blasphemy against the Holy Spirit be forgiven.
What I mean is that, perhaps, in this verse the Holy Spirit is given a higher honour than even the Father, especially as a unique personage of the Trinitarian God.
One may come to contemplate the gendered implications to these aspects of our Creator.
If a dog begets offspring, he begets a dog. If God begets a Son, He begets....
By WHOM?
Context being pharisees calling Jesus a satanist.
Words never found in the Bible: "one substance", "tri personal", "God the Son", "fully divine", "trinity", "only begotten god".
GOD the Son
GOD the Holy Spirit
one in three
Tripersonal god
Co-equality
fully GOD and fully man
The list goes on and on...
This is what the trinity is propped-up on
Case and point; there is not one single instance, in all of Bible history in-where anyone is worshipping, teaching or preaching a triune god.
And though it even needs to be said, Jesus Himself, of whom we know, worshipped in truth, would not worship a triune god...
What a terrible tragedy in this day and age, to see so many would-be Christians worshipping, teaching and preaching a god unlike the GOD of Jesus Christ - there truly are no words
Why did the Jews want to execute Jesus?
@@seeqr9 Because they were not the true people of God. They rejected the Messiah, the Son of God, whom Jesus claimed to be.
@ Smh, no, not why in the grand scheme of things. What was their stated reason?
@@seeqr9 John 11:45-54
Go read it
Honest question: Is appealing to authority still a fallacy when you have other support for your argument? Or can you not list experts as additional support for your argument?
It’s a fallacy if that is the only evidence to which you draw a conclusion, I believe. I’m actually not certain, that’s a great question
A rare video of a biblical unitarian being the one to get slightly more emotional. However, I have to say it's because of what he would perceive to be nonsense, it's really hard to not get frustrated at what we consider to be nonsense and a purposeful lack of even the tiniest bit of recognition of counter logic and facts. At no points in any debate I've seen does a trinitarian ever say wow that's interesting, or wow yes that does seem to go against what I believe, or wow I never knew that I should look into it and fact check. It's like speaking to brick walls not fellow human being truth seekers. It's very frustrating when a lot of us I would say are very open to being wrong and very open to letting evidence guide our thoughts, because we're not married to Traditions or our own ideas, we're married to evidence facts and truth and we try to let them guide us into any direction even if it goes against what we thought was our fundamental beliefs.
Also we seem to be focusing on facial expressions and the emotional control that people have over the actual words, facts, and information they're speaking. That's too ad hominem for me, facts are still facts right?
Also I saw a comment on here that talked about how Tuggy said that the concept and idea of "identity" is probably clearly to be assumed and understood by these ancient peoples despite it not being written in the way we would like. And someone said how can he admit that about identity but not the trinity. I think the difference here is that identity is not specifically spoken against in the Bible, there's no clear sentences anywhere that talk about how identity is not a thing or that show the opposite of it. But when it comes to the Trinity or Jesus being God there are what seem to be overwhelmingly clear versus that don't support it at all or work against it. So it's not just a matter of "oh we can find the concept back there it doesn't have to be clearly stated", the issue here is that the clearly stated concepts seem to contradict the idea of Jesus being God/Yhwh and contradict the trinity at all levels. At every single level.
I think trinitarians are a pint low on common sense and logic. God-man....really? Sounds like a comic book character. They seem to love their Greek theology and YES trying to be rational with trinitarians is like running into a brick wall. They can"t defend their doctrine because it"s a MYSTERY, but they would like to knock your lights out if you try to use rational logic and clear scriptural verses. Better not mess with their faith in the three-in-one God OR God-man!!!!
Maybe it’s because the Trinity is explicitly made clear numerous times in the Bible and Dale was making childish faces and interrupting WLC every ten seconds.
It's easy to know that people would pay attention to it, our body speaks more than our words, when you address a message, the tone and your movement will explain better what you're saying. I'm a trinitarian, for me Dr Dale position does not make sense because he believes in Jesus, if he preaches Judaism, I would understand his point. That's been said, this debate was easy to Dr Craig, because it's almost impossible to believe in Jesus but denied His divinity at the same time. Simple.
@@skmcee7863 How can someone even claim this with a straight face? Where is it even mentioned in the Bible?
Rare? Unitarians are mostly pentecostal!
After his debate with Anthony Rogers I am shocked that Dale Tuggy is still debating the Trinity.
Did Rogers humiliate him or something?
@@zeekyle1200 It was a massacre! Search Anthony Rogers and Dale Tuggy.
If all we had were the OT, I think it's much easier to defend a unitarian view(although I am a firm believe there is clear evidence of the trinity in the OT). The NT leaves no room for doubt that 3 independent yet linked person are all called God, yet God is one...so the Trinity. IMO you have to go into reading the NT with Unitarian theology to find it. Any natural reading leads to the trinity.@@hubertagamasu6283
@@hubertagamasu6283 ok i just watched it and you gotta be absolutely death anthony Rogers lost that debate by a mile, now i can see why he wont debate jake the muslim on the trinity
give me link bro@@bubblegumgun3292
Especially throughout the beginning of the debate, Tuggy is given free rein to interrupt as often as he’d like. I would like to know the time allotted to each person.
Within reason, the moderator should have asked Dr. Tuggie to let Dr. Craig continue his thought to its conclusion.
@ 50:25 thank you👍🏻
The never ending argument that Jesus submitted to God proves only Christ’s perfect submission, not that he’s any less God than the father.
So the unitarian guy is denied the Jesus is God? Wow. That's a heresy.
The earliest confession was that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. No heresy here.
@@gerryquinn5578 the confession of John and the other apostles was the Jesus was God. Not just the Mashiaj.
@@gerryquinn5578 There's no heresy there only because it didn't deny that Jesus is God. One can be both God and the Son of God so long as one understands the difference between identity and predication.
*Edit:* You can see around the 45:00 mark, just before that really, that this is a critical issue here. Dr. Craig brings it up, and it touches on the point you and Julio were discussing.
@@Real_LiamOBryan of course one can be God and the son of. Better way to say is the Son of God is God. John 1:1. But not like unitarian proposed. The father is the only one. He is the father, the son and the holy E. That's not what the Bible teach.
I did make videos that Antioch was more correct with the double subject rather than the alexandrian idea of a single subject being both God and Man
In this debate Dr. Craig is clearly struggling and scouring for words to properly describe the idea he puts forward. He even uttered that there is "single intellectual substance." The word properly translated as "substance" in the book of Hebrews is the same word translated as "person."
Spot on, as good as Dr Craig is and he is a force for good, but it matters not how bright or smart a person is, the trinity is simply indefensible in scripture and requires mental gymnastics to explain it’s so complex.
@@Cafez27if scientists believe light is a ray and a particle, but a particle is not a ray and a ray is not a particle, then by all means this is more logical than what unitarianists place forward.
It's too bad though that God is going to send Craig to hell for likening the Trinity to Cerberus the three-headed mythical god.
@@MrGdad1998 if you’re going to say something at least understand what you’re talking about.
Cerberus isn’t a god, he’s a dog… google it.
@@Koki-qe7vz that makes know sense friend, try again…..my proposition is the Trinity is not a scriptural or biblical teaching….
Go……
What book of Dr. Craig was Dr. Tuggy referencing? I would like to buy a copy.
Every time Dr. Craig explaining and refuting Tuggy heretical arguments, Tuggy's eyes blinking so fast and almost look he want to cry 😂
I think I would want to cry also, if I had to Listen to such nonsense!
Yes the nonsense coming out of his own mouth. The amount of gymnastics unitarians have to do to explain away the clear testimony of Scripture would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
@@michaelmannucci8585 Unitarians are very clear, God is one. He had a human son Jesus the Christ, an Messiah. It is the Trinitatians who have to chicken scratch for vage verses to justify a three-headed God OR God-man, isn't that why the Trinity is considered a Mystery in the first place.
Wonder why it too centiries after the death of Jesus for the councils to figure out who Jesus was? The council of Nicea formulated the thee-in-one doctrine, in 381 they added the holy spirit to complete their pagan Godhead. At the council of Chalcdon in 451 it was decided Jesus was a God-man, a mystery not to be fully comprehended by anyone!! The great mystery that countless pastor attemp to explain and elicidate but to no avail!!
@@priscillajervey8345 The Trinity pre dates Nicea. Read Hebrews. 📚
50:10 the best part of the Video hahahahaah. Look at the WLC reaction.
He thought "OMG" hahahaha what he's saying hahahaha
thats nothing, check out 56:20 🤣
he made a good point. no idea what you are emoting about.
Dale doesn't understand that when Jesus died, his body went in a tomb but He went to Paradise. He told the thief on the cross that today he would be with Him in Paradise. "Jehovah's witnesses" are Unitarians and are a cult. Dale sounds like he's in a cult as well. He talks so much about what others believed or didn't believe as if that's good support for what he believes.
I like to think that god is tri-personal because he is all loving within himself being: love gived, love received, and love shared. Thus making himself an maximally great in love
"love shared" doesn't require personhood. Love can be shared between two people, you don't need to insert an imaginary third "love shared" person. The sharing of love is what happens when two persons give and receive love to each other.
@@Jockito How do you even have love without another person?
@@mystery6411 The salient question I was raising was why you need specifically 3 people to share love.
It makes more sense to me that a loving God sent his Son which is the ultimate love for us.
@@NickHawaii more sense as opposed to what?
For a Trinitarian to be correct, everyone else would have to be wrong and GOD a liar.
LOL
Dale Tuggy hides his heresy behind a very limited and small philosophical system. It’s the definition of man made. Philosophical categories of the is of predication or the is of identity doesn’t limit the God of scripture.
Much love and respect to both of these brothers in the Lord!
A brother in the Lord is one that does not deny Jesus Christ (his essence/who Christ is in terms of entity , not his agency) "who denies the Son denies the Father"!
@@ipaporod "22Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. 23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well." 1 John 2:22-23
Unless I'm mistaken, neither one of these gentlemen deny that Jesus is "The Anointed One" of God
@DJack116
The unitarian denied Christ deity as show in Jhon 1:1, so he is denying the Son as he is.
@@jesusvdelgado5401 Can you clarify? How does John 1:1 show Christ's deity?
@@jesusvdelgado5401 John 10:22-41 seems to help demonstrate that a man or heavenly can be called "god" or "son of God" and be distinguished from Yahweh, the only true God as Jesus states in John 17:3. John 1 is a wonderful passage but often misunderstood because of our cultural gap from the time it was written.
God call us his childrens, Jesus call us brothers and sisters. God never call anyone his brother.
Because He doesn’t have a brother He has a Son 🤗
Can the moderator stop Tuggy from continually interrupting Craig?
Would love to hear Dr Craig debate this with Dr Steven Nemes. Dr Nemes is a recent PhD and been quite vocal in his questioning/ rejection of the trinity. Would be interesting.
Sad to see dr Steven nemes apoatasize
I had some exchanges with Nemes on Facebook. His arguments are bad. If you refuted unitarian arguments before he is easy
Indeed, you can't demolish the rock-solid doctrine of one God in three persons.🙏
God is One ... Trinitarians should not add or subtract. Very bad.
@@eatingeatingeating You mean to say that 1 x 1 x 1 does NOT equal 1?
@@lesliewilliam3777 Why misread the Bible? Bible says there is no (Zero) God but God (1) which means either 0+1=1 or 0x1=0.
If you are just playing word games then you risk your immortal soul. If you are serious then think again by using all the variable in given in the Bible - which includes the zero.
Your calculation1x1x1=1 ignores that the formula also refers to there BEING no other BEING that is God (becoming none + God or none x God).
The Bible is filled with such a formulations. Isaiah rings it out like a bell: “… there is no (Zero) other, no (Zero) god besides him.’” (Isaiah 45:14). “... I am the first and I am the last, and there is NO (Zero) God but Me” (Isaiah 44:6). “... And there is no (Zero) God apart from me ... there is none (Zero) but me” (Isaiah 45:21). And, “"... acknowledge no (Zero) God but me, no [Zero] (lo in Hebrew) Savior except me” (Hosea, 13:4). And, “... apart from me there is no (Zero) savior” (Isaiah 43:11). “... there is no (Zero) other besides Him.” (Deuteronomy 4:35). "... God is One and there is no (Zero) other but Him” (Mark 12:32). “…there is no (Zero) God but one.” (1 Corinthians 8:4).
@@eatingeatingeating OK, so who was walking in the garden here: "And Adam and Eve heard the sound of YHWH God walking in the garden in the cool of the day"?
@Leslie William The word of God is perfect so never use a vague verse to understand Scripture when there are clear verses." No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten son, which is in the Boston of the Father, he has made him known." (John 1:18).
In Genesis 3:8 we are told that "The man and his wife heard the sound of God walking ..." Do you really think God walks with two feet? Tell me how God walks and call you a liar. Scripture tells us that "In the beginning God said ..." Does this mean God has a voice? If so, is it masculine or feminine? Can you tell me what God's voice sounds like in a vacuum - where there is no space or matter? If you can tell me how God speaks l'll call you a liar.
God does not walk like a man.
And JESUS said (Luke 11:2) " Whenever you pray, say: 'FATHER let YOUR name be sanctified.'" --------- Which name is he referring to, JESUS or YWHW? seems pretty clear to me, JESUS taugh us to sanctify his FATHER'S name not his own.
Y JESUS dijó ((Lucas 11:2) " Cuando oren, digan: ' PADRE, santificado sea tu nombre." --------- A cuál nombre se refería, al de JESÚS o al de YWHW? Me parece bastante claro que JESÚS nos enseño a santificar el nombre de su PADRE, no el de él.
I think Dr Dale behaved quite professionally as opposed to what most people say in the comments.
Both parties made a lot of sense. The questions that Dr Dale asked were valid and allowed Dr Craig to expand on the shallow propositions of the trinity postulate.
If it is true that one party "won" the argument, I think it will be a 51-49% score. Both parties are ready to dig into and understand each other's POV.
The fact that Dr Dale was standing throughout the debate makes me respect him. I also however think it could be a way to fight off debate nerves. I respect both of them so much.
I am a trinitarian because I believe in the sacred sense of interpretation of the whole bible. On an intellectual basis, I'm not sure that the trinity will beat unitarianism by far, but I think the context if the message of the bible will be best explained by the trinity hypothesis as is in the Johannine and Pauline epistles.
Love to Dr Craig and Dr Dale
Sorry for necroing, but could you elaborate on your own understanding of Trinity? I haven't watched the video yet, so maybe there are some explanations there, but i really doubt that.
In your own view, when Jesus was praying to his father, did he do it just to show off? I mean, if it is the same person, why would you pray to yourself? If those are three different distinct persons, then why is it one God?
When Jesus died, did he really die? If he did not, then he was not ressurected either. If he did die, then who ressurected him? He did not arise by his own power, that is clear. Also, if he did not die, then Adam's sins are still unpaid for, and so are our sins.
Have you ever wondered WHY the Trinity concept has never been laid to rest? Why the debated over who Jesus is remains to be a point of contension in Christinity?
@@priscillajervey8345 sorry, but is this question for me or OP?
@@priscillajervey8345 I think it's because there is false doctrine going around due to the fact that there are wolves among the sheep. No one wants to meditate on scripture any longer. God is removing the blemishes from the church, perfecting it in expectation for his return.
On an intellectual basis I would say trinitariansim obliterates unitarianism because we have multiple verses where all three members of the trinity are present together so the whole conversation is one from ignorant cult belief for the unitarianist view.
Jesus is God and appeared in bodily form before becoming flesh. We clearly see the three persons of the trinity present as individuals here too. Isaiah 48:12-16 Jesus speaker: "Isaiah 48:12 I am the first and I am the last." Father and Holy Spirit then mentioned, one two three trinity "Isaiah 48:16 And now the Sovereign Lord has sent me, endowed with his Spirit."
Matthew 3:16-17 Father speaking and verifying Jesus as God incarnate the Son, and Holy Spirit decending on Jesus as a dove. God displaying his triune nature with all 3 members of the trinity present together.
Jesus told the disciples to baptize to the triune nature of God. Jesus clearly acknowledging himself as God. The trinity was part of the the Church from the start. Matthew 28:19
"Let US make man in OUR IMAGE." Plural persons, singular image. Multiple as one, a singular God as a fellowship of persons revealing the triune nature of God. Only God is speaking for only God has creation power. Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image."
Romans 8, Ephesians 1 the eternal covenant, last mentioned, first made. Where the trinity made a covenant with themselves before the creation of the universe for the redemption of man. That is why the text states "by myself" it was not made with man but the fellowship of the trinity with themselves so it could not be broken the redemption of man could not be stopped. A covenant is between more than one person.
Then we could go on to verses like the Father calling the Son God who has the throne in heaven meaning they are equal. Jesus calling upon the Father for destruction from Sodom/Gomorrah, God in two locations talking to himself and so on. Unitarianism is basically a cult denying the nature of God inherently denying the personhood of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The Father never died on the cross. If Jesus wasn't God AND Man there is no salvation for the payment had to be on behalf of humanity and the blood has to be of God to which it cannot die so the sacrifice can be eternal active like the text states the blood shed was taken up to a fountain in heaven. It's the only reason it is possible we can have our sins cleansed today. So I would say unitarianism is a flat out cult.
Craig = clarity , Dale = waffling until we lose the will to live
LOL! So true.
@@Real_LiamOBryan Craig = thick liar
That's quite a strawman!
@@mugsofmirth8101 What argument was mischaracterized to "demonstrate" that it failed (since that is what the straw-man fallacy is), or are you one of those that just calls everything they dislike a straw-man?
Very specific statement and not at all intentionally vague so that nobody knows what you're talking about about
Did the apostle Thomas understand that Jesus is God in Jn. 20:28, when he said, "My Lord and my God"❓️ Dr. Tuggy's response ❓️What was the reply of Jesus❓️Did He accept the worship of Thomas ❓️
"Let us make man in our own image..after our likeness"
Gen. 1.26....
@ What does this mean❓God has two legs, eyes, nose etc❓
Dr. Craig offered a masterful explanation of the Trinity. Only thing that is missing from this conversation is humility. How do we expect limited beings to fully comprehend the nature of the almighty infinite God.
So why bother reading the Bible if that's your view?
@@bobbyfischersays1262 Do you think you have FULLY comprehended the nature of God?
@@bobbyadkins6983 I have no idea what that even means. I fully comprehend what God has revealed about Himself to us in His word. I believe the Shema. It's not a cryptic cipher that needs to be decoded. It's a simple unequivocal statement about the Unitarian nature of God.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 I asked you that in reference to your question. None of us fully comprehends the nature of God. But you want to know why even bother reading the Bible. So we can learn more and more about God and so we can grow spiritually.
@@bobbyadkins6983 Is God's nature Unitarian or Trinitarian? Is He one or more than one? Can we comprehend that from the Bible?
Dr Craig never disappoints! 🙏
He certainly doesn't if you like double talk!
@@priscillajervey8345 Hebrews 1:8
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Psalm 110:1
The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
Mark 16:19
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.
Revelations 3:21
To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Awesome explanation by Dr Craig. You’re the best 👍👍👍🙏🙏🙏💪
You think????
don't follow his trinitarian heresy
It's too bad though that God is going to send Craig to hell for likening the Trinity to Cerberus the three-headed mythical god.
Plain simple reading of the scriptures clearly demonstrates that there are 3 different persons in the OT & NT being called God. This was an incredible mystery being revealed to the world at that time and the fact Dr. Tuggy simply withholds & refuses to acknowledge that the text could actually be saying what it simply says that Jesus was God John 1:1 but yet he adds his “interpretation” and the view of “well it doesn’t say Fully God sooo it’s obvious it’s a lessor God” just to fit his view is sad to see. His faith is therefore in a “Creature” not God.
This is kinda weak. Feels like the Trinitarian is trying to over philosophize the Trinity. The Trinity comes from the grammar of the bible. The unitarian seems to be strawmaning.
Fascinating debate. At least neither view is required to be born again!
Actually it does.
@@samuelmutuiri596no
facts. people who make this a salvation issue are committing sin.
Well. It does… cos if Dr.Tuggy is Arian.. that’s been dealt with a long time ago..Jesus is not God.
@@roshankurien203 Belief in the divinity of Isho is not required to be born of God, it’s nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Great debate... I felt that Tuggy's arguments were more convincing.
Loooool
I felt that Tuggy fled into “these verses are difficult to interpret” whenever the plain sense didn’t go his way. When he tried to add One in eternity and in temporal essence to three Persons within time, he lost all credibility with me.
Absolutely!! NO question about it.
The word became FLESH (Jeremiah 32:27) and dwelt among US (John 20:22).
@@dunk_law Jesus does NOT have the same will as the Father (Matthew 26:39) and he fell face first to pray to God. How could they be the same co-equal being if they don't have the same will? Preposterous! You are also condemned by worshipping graven images (Exodus 20:4, Leviticus 26:1) and Jesus would be considered one and since he is NOT God, you have successfully made a graven image before Almighty God in Heaven. This is why Abrahamic faiths like Judaism and Islam do not have pictures of their prophets and proclaim them to be Gods because it is blasphemy.. God is also NOT a man (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) and would not be a man. Also the verses don't prove anything of what you said either. Jeremiah states that he is the God of ALL FLESH.. In John, a verse before it has Jesus stating that the Father has sent him and will give his disciples the Holy Spirit.
Peter told annanias and saphira that by lieing against the holy ghost, they have lied unto God. Meaning God the Holy ghost. I'm surprised that Mr tuggy is not listening as much as he is being listened to. Just trying to dominate the discussion.
I think Dale Tuggy is pretty convincing.
Of course..to Unitarians 🤔
@@carlospadron488 nah to people who haven't been trained to be trinitarians Dale makes perfect sense. The only problem I have seen with people seeing Trinity is wrong... Is the people who have been taught the trinity their whole lives. I have presented both views to unbelievers and every one of them came to the correct conclusion.... The trinity doesn't make any sense...
Trinitarians just choose to accept that their trinity doesn't make any sense... Which doesn' make any sense... lol
A lot of this went straight over my head 😂 what does it mean that God is one soul? Isn't soul = person? If God is tri-personal, does he not have 3 souls?
No. A soul is not a person. It has the properties of personhood, or is personal, but it isn't a person. The idea here is that a soul can be differently endowed with rational faculties (one set as in human persons, potentially two sets for which we have no examples, or three sets as in the Trinity); however, where there is three there is at least one. A soul with three persons doesn't cease to be personal because it is more richly endowed with faculties. Take Dr. Tuggy's example of walking properties, for example. Does it make sense to say that, because he has three ways of walking, therefore, he's a non-walking being? Clearly not! Why then would we say that a being with three sets of rational faculties is non-personal? It isn't a person because the indefinite article "a" implies singularity, but that doesn't make it impersonal. A soul is a spiritual substance that bears the properties of personhood, but it isn't "a" person. A soul is essentially personal but it isn't "a" person.
@@Real_LiamOBryan oh, so if I understood you correctly, a person is simply one attribute of a soul. A soul is simply a substance with at least one person?
@@platospaghetti Yes. I would say, though, that a person is not "an" attribute in the singular sense but a set of attributes. A substance is that which stands below (sub-stantia or hypo-stasis) or bears properties (even though I'm a non-realist about properties). A person is a set of rational faculties, which can be though of as properties, such as will (volition), self-consciousness (reflexivity), intentionality (aboutness), etc. Every spiritual substance, or soul (unless one thinks that animals have souls, then it is every non-animal soul), has at least one set of these faculties, including angels (if you believe in them), but is not identical with them, at least on Trinitarian Christian-Theism.
*Edit:* A really good, but very short video that describes this very well is Dr. Craig's video on Monothelitism vs. Dyothelitism here.
ruclips.net/video/4-Zw5TreZLc/видео.html
However, one must be careful about the substance/nature distinction. Sometimes these are used synonymously and sometimes not. In the video Dr. Craig isn't speaking about the substance or essence of Christ when he is speaking of the nature. Christ has two natures. One of his articles clears this up a bit when it says:
"In saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in substance, Tertullian employs the word “substance” in both the senses explained by Aristotle. First, there is, as Tertullian affirms, just “one God,” one thing which is God. But Tertullian also means that the three distinct persons share the same essential nature. ..."
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/christian-doctrines/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
@@Real_LiamOBryan oh great resources, thank you 😃🙏
@@platospaghetti No problem. If you have any other questions about this or any other part of Christian-Theism, feel free to shoot them my way. I'm not the most knowledgeable about theology or philosophy, but I study them just about every day as a hobby.
Did Dr. Craig make an analysis of this debate? I'd like to see how he would describe Tuggy's position and what he is really opposing
Tuggy’s position is referred to in the Bible as the spirit of Antichrist.
Dr. Dale as with all unitarians, will never be able to win against the Trinity. Great Job in defending it(not that the Trinity needs defending) Dr. Craig! 👍
👎
@@sonshipidentity ?
@@calson814 the thumbs down counter no longer works and doesn't show when people hit it. So I left one in the comments as I do not agree with the opinion of the post writer. Nothing against that person personally of course. I just don't agree.
Agree. Concepts like the 2 powers in heaven, while affirming that "The Lord is One" are never discussed by unitarians (that I've seen). This is a 2nd temple Jewish belief that they declared a heresy around 100 years after Jesus, as Christians where using it to prove the diety of Christ
(Daniel ch 7, the Son of Man). The Angel of YHWH is a perfect example of this (the pre-incarnate Son/Word of YHWH. See Jude 1:5, Exodus 3, Exodus 23:20, Genesis 31:10-13 and ch 48:15, etc). Confusing or not, Father, Son and Spirit is how the God of Israel has revealed Himself to us, based on scripture. 1 God (essence) in 3 (distinct) Persons.
@@johnscott7937 you are talking about modalism. That gets a 👎 also. The Father is God Almighty alone. Period. Jesus can be called god as we know Moses was god to Pharoah, Christ is god to us. But there is only 1 YHWH and one Lord. The mediator and man Jesus Christ is not YHWH.
As for the Holy Spirit...
ruclips.net/video/4mZZhkljsTM/видео.html
Si pueden, súbanlo contraducción al castellano (español), por favor.
I notice even trinitarian say that the Trinity is confusing. However, to me, the trinity actually makes more sense, I've always had a hard time comprehending a Unitarian God, even when reading the old testament.
I know, I'm weird, don't judge me. Dr Bill Craig did an excellent job defending Christianity
You say you have a hard time believing God is a single entity? Apparently a three-headed God or a God-man is so much clearer to you. Do you compare the God-man with superman and perhaps spiterman. Just saying. Oh well, I am not judging you as you obviously watch a lot of science fiction movies. The Trinity is a disgrace to christianity. We are certainly in no position to poke fun at other religions.
@@priscillajervey8345the Trinity is evident throughout the OT and NT. God exists as one being, yet is Triune in nature. The scripture is very clear.
Matthew 3: Jesus' baptism, shows the Father speaking from heaven, the Son being baptized, and the Spirit descending like a dove upon Jesus.
Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The word for God here is Elohim, which is plural. Denoting the plurality of God's nature.
Genesis 1: God says let US make man in our image. Who is the us? It is the plural, Triune nature of God. Father, son ,spirit
Genesis 11: God says let US go down and confuse their language
Genesis 19: The Lord (in human form appearing as an angel of the Lord) called fire from the Lord out of heaven
Exodus 13/14: the angel of the Lord is identified as God, yet in chapter 14 God looks down from heaven through the angel of the Lord through the pillar of fire. How can God look through God?
John 1:1-14
In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the word was God. Yet verse 14 states the word became flesh and dwelt among us. So, Jesus was the word. And according to the beginning of the chapter the word WAS God.
Isaiah 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me"
Once again, we see a plural word used to describe God.
Here is the best OT example
Isaiah 48:16-17
Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. "And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go
Here, the Son is speaking in verse 16 about the Father and the Spirit. Then, in verse 17, the son is identified as God.
John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
All 3 members of the Trinity are present.
John 15:26
But I will send you the Counselor-the Spirit of truth. He will come to you from the Father and will tell you all about me
1 Peter 1:2
This letter is from Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. I am writing to God’s chosen people who are living as foreigners in the lands of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia. God the Father chose you long ago, and the Spirit has made you holy. As a result, you have obeyed Jesus Christ and are cleansed by his blood. May you have more and more of God’s special favor and wonderful peace
2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all
Let me be unambiguously clear, no one woke up one day and said, “Hey let’s make up the Trinity!” Indeed I would assert that it’s wholly *unlikely* such a “creation” would never *once* occur as a man-made idea. Rather, it’s far more likely, as a *revealed* truth from an *infinite* and inherently not *fully* comprehensible being to *finite* beings with only a limited ability to even *understand* the very nature of a being such as asserted by Christian theology. In short, such a difficult-but true-revelation smacks much more of exactly *that* scenario vs. some exotic human idea. And indeed Trinitarian theology has its basis in *attempting* to explicate various-clear-yet honestly “difficult” statements of Scripture-into a generally accurate and *mostly* understandable explanation.
More germane to the debate, is that there is a confusion *inherent* in using human/finite terminology to describe God. That is, “being” and “person”. I think the best way is to understand God as *one living *being* that has *eternally* and *inherently* always been composed of *three separate minds, wills, and emotions* or “personalities”. Thus God is *one* as to living nature as a being, but three as to operation of of his self-aware personhood; *completely* unified due to a *shared life*, but distinct as to functions a relationships within then *one* living being. Simple; no. A descent attempt to understand what the NT teaches in its various utterances, I think yes.
Another thing, I would say at times Dr. Tuggy lacks a firm grasp of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation.
Finally, he seems to miss the point that the reason the doctrine got *codified* only in the 4th Century for the very *reason* that *unclarity* had led to beliefs that it was feared *threatened* what the NT clearly *did* reveal either in explicit language or seemingly inescapable implications, about the person and work of Christ in creation, redemption, and eternity.
Regarding your first point, the doctrine of the Trinity was actually first invented by the Babylonians and Egyptians long before the NT. I would be careful to assert that it's wholly unlikely someone came up with the idea of the Trinity
@@kylemcclain2107 you’ll need to give me a citation for that.
@@kylemcclain2107 thanks for replying. I will review them and at some point get back to you.
@@kylemcclain2107 I don’t see a response. Can you point me to a Babylonian trinity? Also:
- A trinity of three gods is irrelevant, so you must cite a single god that was three Persons.
- You must also show that the Babylonian trinity shared heritage with Abraham or the captives from Israel or Judea.
I think it’s easy to understand how this doctrine could have developed. As pagans flooded the church, it’s only natural that some of their pagan ideas would color their reading of the NT. In most pagan circles, you’re totally used to calling a man “God.” The idea of an incarnation is totally commonplace. So you see passages in the NT that appear, to you, to be teaching Christ’s divinity. Okay, but Christ clearly is not the Father-who is described as the one true God-so now you have a contradiction you need to resolve. The Trinity is the attempt to solve this contradiction. That’s a wholly plausible theory that accords well with the historical record. We see no debate about the Trinity among the Jewish writers of the New Testament even as they were passionately debating issues about circumcision, Gentile inclusion, and the like. Skip a few decades later, when the church is predominantly made up of Gentiles, and suddenly there is a passionate debate about the Trinity.