Refuting Nephilimfree on the Trinity, featuring a SPECIAL GUEST

[ukchristian28]

Nephlimfree really one clueless individual.

[aaronk1994]

LOL bald calvinist.

[SERVANTofYHVH]

Translating Godhead as Divinity actually makes the Oness position stronger by the way Col 2:9

For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of divinity bodily.

One would then reason that if the Father is Divine, then He dwells fully in Jesus.

I'm not sure, I have seen much stronger texts. But can not deny that the Bible does seem to present a Trinity. I just wonder how much of that comes from being raised a Trinitarian and how much of it is sound doctrine.

[StutteringDave]

Both Jesus and the Father are the same divine being. All that makes the Father divine also makes the son divine, because trinitarians do not separate the divinity of the two. All the passage is saying is that Jesus is 100% God. The Father is also 100% God. The divinity of the Father does dwell in Jesus. The things that distinguish the Father from the Son, however, does not involve divinity, so the passage doesn't support the oneness position.

[SERVANTofYHVH]

By the way, me and NephFree don't see eye to eye, so don't think this is me siding with him in any way.

[SERVANTofYHVH]

I'm fairly neutral on the Oneness/Trinity debate, I was raised Trinitarian and am trying to work it out for myself through Scripture & the guidance of the Holy Ghost. One thing I certainly would not be doing however is rely on the explanations of a man (James White) that said God more or less rape children.

[NephilimFree]

John.10

[30] I and my Father are one.

Oooops. It's time to rethink what you're telling others.

[StutteringDave]

And they are one- in being. This is the same father that the son had glory with before the world began (John 17:5), indicating an eternal distinctness between the two. This is the same Father that Jesus prays to. Is God just playing a ventriloquist act?

[NephilimFree]

Then because they are one, there is no trinity. There is one God who manifexts/expresses Himself in 3 ways. Because God can pray to Himself does not mean there is any kind of 3 persons to God. God is capable of being 3 at once. The Bible tells us not to marvel over that:

1Tim.3

[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[StutteringDave]

Do you even understand the doctrine that you are criticizing? The point isn't whether or not you call the father, son, and holy spirit "persons" or "manifestations", the important thing is that you understand that they are distinct and coeternal.

[NephilimFree]

What doctrine? There's no trinity doctrine in the Bible. My problem isn't with God manifesting Himself in 3 ways, it's with people calling Him 3 persons and giving that a name to call it trinity, which is not mentioned in the Bible in any terminology.

Why sepouse something that doesn't exist? That's the point. It would be as if I said God is Creator, Judge, and Savior, and this is called The Threesome - the 3 "Bosses". But what threesome or bosses are there in the Bible? None!

[StutteringDave]

I don't care if you call them "persons" or not. This is much more fundamental than semantics. Do you think that the three who bear witness in heaven are coeternal and distinctive? If so, than you believe in the Trinity.

[NephilimFree]

I do believe there are three. There is no trinity. Show me where the Bible refers to the Holy Ghost as a person.

[StutteringDave]

Ephesians 4: 30

"Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."

Impersonal forces can't grieve, can they?

[NephilimFree]

You haven't told me a thing. How is the Holy Ghost a person? What is a person? Why does the Bible not refer to the Holy Ghost as a person? A person is an entity. God is not 3 entities. he is one entity. The trinitarian concept sayts God is 3 people, then they contradict themselves and say hes one.

it's nonsence. If you take away the trinity claim, all is well. God is 3 and one and all are the same. When you add this trinity junk, you get 3 persons in agreement, not one God manifest in 3 ways.

[StutteringDave]

The Holy Ghost can grieve. Only something personal can grieve. Therefore...you figure the rest out.

Prove that there cannot be more than one person in one entity. If you cannot, than be quiet.

God is three persons in one being. There's no problem with it unless you assume unitarianism.

[NephilimFree]

I asked you to show me where the Bible refersto the Holy Ghost as a person, not to describe it as one.

Gosd is not 3 persons. A person is an entity. If he sis 3 persons, how can he be one entity? If the Holy Ghost is a person, why is it not said in the Bible?

You have questions to answer that you are avoiding.

[StutteringDave]

The bible refers to the holy ghost as a person by giving him traits that only a person could have.

You say that "a person is an entity". Prove that an entity cannot consist of more than one person. Merely stating the same thing over and over is not an argument.He can be three persons and one entity because what makes a person a person and what makes an entity and entity are two different things.

[NephilimFree]

That's not a reference to the Holy Ghost as a person. You are applying a personal interpretation, not citing scripture that uses the word person.

You see, it's not there. I'll tell you onvce more, then I'm no longer interested in your personal gospel:

There is not trinity in scripture. It was fabricated by the Roman church. A person implies an entity.God is one entitity manifest 3 ways. Look into the origin of trinitarianism. i challenge you to do so.

[StutteringDave]

Just because the bible doesn't use the word "person" does not mean that the holy spirit is not a person. Show me where in the bible says that God is "omnipotent". You are ignoring the hard facts.

The trinity can be and has been derived from scripture. Both myself and Kabane have done so. You just insist on not seeing it.

[NephilimFree]

Just because the Bible doesn't means you should not. Otherwise, you're adding your own gospel to the bible.

[NephilimFree]

"show me where in the bible says that God is "omnipotent"

It does so quite a few times.

Col.2

[10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

[StutteringDave]

NO, you are missing my point! By the logic that you are using, just because the bible does not use the exact word "omnipotent", you therefore cannot call God omnipotent! The bible does not use the exact word "person" in scripture, but it gives the holy spirit the traits of a person.

[NephilimFree]

1Cor.15

[24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

[NephilimFree]

Luke.1

[37] For with God nothing shall be impossible.

I could certainly find quite a few more.

[NephilimFree]

Did you look into the history of trinitarianism? Will you even do it? Is that somehow off limits to you? Are you unwilling to investigate and see if what you think is the truth? I strongly suggest that you do my friend. You will be surprised at what you learn. This trinitarian concept was put into people's minds by the Roman church. It's not found in scripture. The reason it's in the world is so satan can make God seem like just another pantheon of gods, and not the one true living God.

[StutteringDave]

It is in scripture. You just insist on ignoring the evidence being put forward. Just because the Roman Catholic church teaches it doesn't mean it isn't true.

[NephilimFree]

It's in scripture? Show me. Jesus was Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Scripture states the godhead resided in him fully and bodily. Jesus is 3 persons? Hardly.

[StutteringDave]

That's it, if you insist on keep using the Godhead argument THAT IS REFUTED IN THIS VERY VIDEO than I am going to block you. The way you refuse to address my arguments is trolling. You have refused time and time again to back up your assertion that three persons therefore means three beings. You have refused to address the passage I put forward regarding the personality of the holy spirit. When you've shown that you are willing to engage what I put forward, then I will give you more.

[NephilimFree]

Refuted? The Word of God is refuted?

Col.2

[8] 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.

[9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Please, let's see you refute this. Tell us how the Word of God is in error.

[StutteringDave]

WATCH THE VIDEO!!!!

[NephilimFree]

Answer my question. Tell us how Colossians 2:8-9 is refuted. Jesus is Father, SOn, and Holy Ghost all in one, and yet, He is the Son. And yet, He said he was the Father, Hmmm. That means he is all three. How then are they different persons?

Do explain.

[StutteringDave]

The passage, when properly translated in modern vernacular, says that all of the fullness of deity dwells in Jesus in bodily form. In other words, Jesus is fully God. That's all the passage says. It does not say that the eternal person of the son is equivalent to the father or the holy spirit.

[NephilimFree]

Nonsence. The KJV is considered by Hebrew Bible scholars to be a nearly perfect translation of the texts into English. I don't know where you got your bogus info from, but your interpretation is not a literal translation of the text. You have now resorted to twisting the Word of God to try to support your trinity. That is a grand mistake, and i no longer have interest in what you say. Anyone who would do that is a heretic in my book. CYA

[StutteringDave]

Considering that the new testament is in greek, I don't particularly care about what Hebrew scholars say. However, the things I am saying are objectively shown when one looks at the greek text. You can't contest that, which is why you are running away.

[NephilimFree]

I asked you a question that you have been avcoiding. Please answer it so I know you are not just a denialist.

Jesus Christ was the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all in one. How then can He be 3 persons if all 3 are one person?

[StutteringDave]

"Jesus Christ was the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all in one. How then can He be 3 persons if all 3 are one person?"

There are so many misrepresentations in that sentence I'm just not sure where to begin. Jesus was not the father, son, and holy ghost all in one. You haven't proven that he is. Your second question is therefore foundationally invalid.

[NephilimFree]

Now you deny scripture, which clearly tells us that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost resided in Jesus fully and bodily.

You are a heretic. I have no time for your kind. May God correct and enlighten you. Goodbye.

[StutteringDave]

Show me how it teaches it. Exegetically demonstrate that "Theotetos" doesn't simply just mean deity. You can't and that is why you are running away.

[NephilimFree]

Jesus is the diety. The diety is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The word used is theiotes, not theiot.

If Christ is diety (fullness thereof as scripture states) he is one (I and my Father are one) with God - he is all thre:FULLY, BODILY, He is God. There are no 3 persons in scripture. There is one God who manifsts Himself in 3 ways. Again, and for the last time, the idea that God is 3 persons imnplies 3 entities, which is herecy. It may be semantics, but scripture tells us Christ was fully God.

[StutteringDave]

Jesus is fully God. So are the father, son, and the holy spirit. They are distinct, however, because being God is not necessarily a statement of "who" one is, but "what" one is. The three members of the trinity are all distinct who's, but part of the same what. Jesus is part of the same "what" of the father, but is not that same "who". To say the son is God and the father is God is not to say that the son is the father.

[StutteringDave]

"...the idea that God is 3 persons imnplies 3 entities"

And I can only ask this again: prove it. You are assuming Unitarianism to prove Unitarianism.

"It may be semantics, but scripture tells us Christ was fully God."

Just give me a straight up answer: are the three manifestations of God co-eternal and co-distinct? If so, than you believe in the trinity, even if you don't use the word "persons".

[KabaneTheChristian]

Nephilim, you are incredibly confused. Do you recall earlier this year you flirted with the idea that The Lord Jesus was not even God? A person is a center of consciousness. There are three persons, one in essence. The person of the Spirit and of the Son partake of the essence of the Father and are thus equally God. Educate yourself in orthodox Nicene Christology.

[NephilimFree]

I have given you the facts. You will belive what man says not what scripture says it seems. I will not return. i have provided more than enough for you to see that Christ is God fully, and God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, thus Christ is also these three.

Goodbye.

[StutteringDave]

Apples are red. Cherries are red. Therefore, Apples are Cherries.

That is the same kind of logic that you use when you make this kind of statement.

All three members of the trinity are fully God. However, they are distinct. The father is not the son, or vice versa. This is because their oneness is in a different category than in their personhood.

[NephilimFree]

You're spouting falacy. The text is clear: Jesus Christ was all three at once. You are attempting to apply a falacious, personal interpretation to scirpture. That is what heretics do. So I ask you, are you claiming that Jesus Christ was not all three as scripture states? Do you deny the scripture which states so?

[StutteringDave]

Scripture states that all the fullness of deity lies in Jesus. Deity, as an adjective, means to be God. I believe Jesus was fully God, so I am not denying scripture.

My interpretation relies on the bible as it was originally inspired in greek. Yours relies on a fallible 1611 Anglican translation. Which one do you think is more credible?

[NephilimFree]

[8] 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.

[9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

[10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

It even provides a warning about people who try to distort this matter in the preceding line. Your trinity hewrecy was prophezised of, and we have been told it is false.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Are we still using this old Colossians 2:9 argument? In the day the KJV was translated, "Godhead" simply meant "deity", but English has changed, so the better rendering today is the fullness of deity, which is what theotes is. Nicene Christology affirms that Christ is fully God, yet distinct from the Father and Spirit. Your Christology is Sabellianism, which was condemned as heretical by the early Church.

[NephilimFree]

The term trinity implies 3 people or beings. God is one.

[StutteringDave]

Prove it.

[bandaidmafia]

Q: Did Jesus have infinite knowledge?

[StutteringDave]

Depends on what you mean by Jesus. If you mean the incarnation, no, because in the incarnation he willingly put his knowledge aside.

[bandaidmafia]

A) No I am not talking about an "incarnation" I am talking about a person.

Q: What I am asking is, did the person named Jesus have infinite knowledge?

[StutteringDave]

He has infinite knowledge when he does not willingly give it up.

[bandaidmafia]

Q: Just to clarify, you're saying that there are times when the person Jesus does not have infinite knowledge?

[StutteringDave]

I suppose that depends on your definition of have. When Jesus gives up his knowledge, it isn't as though he lacks the ability to know all, just that he chooses not to. If I close my eyes, that doesn't necessarily mean that I lack the ability to see.

[bandaidmafia]

A) I don't think it is even remotely a question of slippery definitions.

B) If you have infinite knowledge than you know everything and there is nothing you don't know.

C) If there is something you don't know than obviously you don't know everything and don't have infinite knowledge.

D) Whether or not you have the ability to know something does not change the issue of you not possessing knowledge of it in the first place.

Q: So are you saying that he did not always have infinite knowledge?

[StutteringDave]

With your parameters, no. He did not have infinite knowledge when he chose not to.

[bandaidmafia]

A) Since Jesus was not all knowing at some point he cannot be the one true God.

B) The bible explicitly declares that God is all knowing:

Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite. - Psalm 147:5 (NASB)

C) If Jesus ever lacked this quality for even a second he could not meet the criterion for the God of the bible.

[StutteringDave]

1. Those words were written in the times of the old testament, before the incarnation, and thus before the son willingly set aside his knowledge. It only states that he is all-knowing, not that every aspect of his being will always be unknowing.

2. The psalm could just as easily been speaking specifically about the father.

3. It is a psalm and a work of poetry, and shouldn't necessarily be taken as systematically as you are taking it.

[bandaidmafia]

A) The words were written in the Old Testament but God's nature does not change: he is not all knowing one dead and ignorant the next.

B) There is only one God so either he is all knowing or he isn't: there isn't one god who is all knowing and a second god who is oblivious.

C) Not everything in the psalms is necessarily representative of God. However the same statements are made elsewhere (1 John 3:20).

Q: Are you really suggesting that God is only all knowing once in a while?

[StutteringDave]

A)Certain things about God changes, i.e. he is capable of having different emotions You must demonstrate that his omnipotence cannot be changed.

B) You misunderstand what I am saying. If I wanted to say that the Father is x, than I can say that God is x, because the Father is God. This does not necessarily mean that the Son is x. This is because x would be part of the distinction that makes the father distinctive from the son.

3) That takes place after the ascension, so it doesn't really apply.

[bandaidmafia]

A) A change of one's emotions has no corresponding change in their nature. We are told that God is all knowing. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the statement only applies to the second when it was said.

B) Unless you want to argue that there are 2 gods than whatever is true of the one true God must be true of someone who claims to be God.

C) Verses in the OT and NT repeatedly state that the almighty God is all knowing so there is no basis for denying that simple fact.

[StutteringDave]

A) And why is that? What makes emotions any different than knowledge?

B)You simply misunderstand the doctrine of the trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all fully God and can be referred to as such. They all have certain distinctions. Thus, you can refer to God as having one of these distinctions if you are referring specifically to the son a having one of those distinctions.

[StutteringDave]

C) Unless they refer specifically to the incarnated Jesus, or state that God is incapable of putting aside his knowledge, your point is moot.

[StutteringDave]

"Q: Are you really suggesting that God is only all knowing once in a while?"

I am suggesting that an all-powerful being is capable of limiting his knowledge if he so desires to. The son did so on only one occasion, and in order to demonstrate his humility. You misrepresent me when you say I think that God is only all-knowing "once in a while". Don't do that.

[bandaidmafia]

[You misrepresent me when...]

A) The point of asking questions is to ascertain one's position not represent it in any particular fashion.

B) I didn't state that you believed that God was only sporadically all knowing but I did ask if you believed it.

Q: It seems like you think that God was not all knowing at a point in time. Is that a correct representation of your position?

[StutteringDave]

"B) I didn't state that you believed that God was only sporadically all knowing but I did ask if you believed it."

When you start a question with the words "Are you really suggesting..." this implies that I am actually suggesting what you are about to say. This is obvious to anyone with a grasp of the English language.

[StutteringDave]

"Q: It seems like you think that God was not all knowing at a point in time. Is that a correct representation of your position? "

The Son was, at one point, not all knowing, yes.

[bandaidmafia]

[The Son was, at one point, not all knowing, yes]

A) I agree with you. I think it is also possible that he is omniscient now but the scriptures aren't very clear on that point.

B) It seems like you think that the declaration that God is all knowing is one of the following:

- Not necessarily true because it is said by a psalmist.

- Pertaining to the Father and not applicable to the Son.

- Only true of the moment when the statement was made.

Q: Which of those, if any, are you advocating?

[StutteringDave]

I think that the last two are both very realistic solutions. To clarify the third point: God, as he interacted with the writer, was all-knowing. If you saw me when I was wearing a black shirt and you were asked to describe me, you could do so by saying "he is wearing a black shirt". Just because I change my shirt later on does not mean that your description was inaccurate. It doesn't necessarily mean that your testimony means that I was wearing it only at that exact moment,either.

[StutteringDave]

To clarify the third even further: It would be more accurate to say that the Declaration of God as being all knowing in that passage does not preclude the possibility that he can later and temporarily give up that knowledge.

[bandaidmafia]

^one dead should read "one day" lol^

[KabaneTheChristian]

Philippians 2 explains that at the incarnation, Christ laid aside the willing use of certain divine attributes, so that He would be in subordination to the Father. Where Christ is ignorant, that is his human nature, not his divine nature.

[StutteringDave]

That sounds dangerously close to nestorianism, Kabane. If Jesus' divine nature was still all-knowing, than was he simply unable to access this nature during the incarnation when he said that he did not know the time of the end, or was he only referring to his human nature when he said this?

[KabaneTheChristian]

Nah, His natures were in hypostatic union, but He gave up the willing use of certain divine attributes according to the kenotic passage in Philippians 2. This is distinct from the kenotic heresy which teaches that He actually gave up some divine attributes on Earth.

[WayOfTheBastard]

I want to give you major props, because you are the only person I have seen make a video on this subject, being nephil's rebuke of the trinity, that has not resorted to midevil style name calling or ad hominem attacks or threats of hell fire *cough* SirtheistDRF. Right now kabane is acting like a crazed cult practitioner and Sirtheist is just making himself look like a child. So again props on making video with substance, I may be interested in discussing some of these issues with you.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Crazy cult practictioner....lol. Heretic is not that harsh of a word. It simply means that one advocates a false doctrine. In protestant circles it means that one advocates a seriously false doctrine.

[djosephallen]

Dave...why is the KJ a crappy translation? We can't all read and study ancient Greek you know....It seems this would make god an elitist, dishing out his truth only to those who have the time for Masters and Phd's in ancient languages.

[StutteringDave]

Because it translates two different words that mean two different things as "Godhead", creating a passage that seems to promote modalism when it does not.

[djosephallen]

Ok...can you please tell me which translation is acceptable?

[StutteringDave]

From what I know, the English Standard Version is the best translation.

[KnownNoMore]

hahah the ending was an epic win :D

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

^-^;

[LittleTruckingBozo]

Great video...

I suspect Nephilimfree does not do research on the bible himself and instead is told what it says.

[JJTecumseh87]

hes laughing stock of youtube

[LittleTruckingBozo]

That's a understatement if I ever heard one.

[philateliceun]

uuuh huhuhuh God head uuh huhuhuhu

[Pumbaelo]

greek grammar ftw

[StutteringDave]

That's why I'm studying it next semester in college :)

[Pumbaelo]

Have fun. I'm torn between philosophy and mathematics.

[hydroids]

bald calvanist w/ an affinity for bowties

[adamrassatt]

Which G.I. Joe is Mr. White? Or what is his unique G.I. character? ; )

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

I laughed so hard at 2:40