Oneness vs. Trinity: Gino Jennings v. Reginald Young 1/5

Debate between Pastor Gino Jennings and Minister Reginald Young in June, 1994.

The first part of the debate was on the trinity: how many persons make up God? Pastor Jennings is a modalist and claims that Jesus IS the Father, was the Son and is the Holy Ghost. Young is a Trinitarian and thinks that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons who make up One God.

The second part of the debate is about water Baptism. While Baptizing, should it be done, verbatim, "in the name of Jesus", as Acts 2:38 says, or is it okay to do it "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Mat. 28:19)?

I am an atheist, so I think both Jennings and Young are both equally irrational and crazy for even taking this stuff serious, so my opinion is totally objective and fair. I think that Young "won" on the trinity part, but Jennings "won" on the Baptism part.

This was one of the most unprofessional "Debates" I have ever seen. When I was 15, some friends and I would debate the Bible, and have different opinions, and were ten times more professional than these two clowns. I'd love to debate each of them on the very existence of the imaginary friend (god) they talk about.

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• Pastor
• Gino
• Jennings
• Minister
• Reginald
• Young
• trinity
• oneness
• modalism
• modalist
• jehovah's
• witness
• Trinitarian
• jesus
• god
• bible
• debate
• Yahweh

[mikezap1800]

To settle this.... God created man in his image and likeness. So we reflect Gods image and his likeness.... Now take a look at yourself in the mirror and tell me how many do you see...... Debate over

[SolaScriptura21]

lol, wow.

[October31st1517]

Disgustng. This is not a civil organized debate.

[MrHellowwww1]

Read Matthew 27:46

Matthew 27:46 Jesus said the Father forsaken

Jesus felt like Father forsaken him Trinity:True Oneness: True

The Father forsaken Jesus in action Trinity:True Oneness:False.

Oneness is simple and common, but the Trinity is a unique one.

Logic and sound reason.

[neutrodyne]

Thanks for your interesting respond but wouldn't Chirst be the last name and the name that should be taken in marriage. That is to say you take the last name not first name is the name marriage. That’s what I always heard. Or am I missing something? Thanks.

[Jaysen1976]

bless you! HalleluJAH!

[Jaysen1976]

@neutrodyne I'm glad you liked the sound of it, if indeed you did. The statement " the bride takes the name of the husband" was not a scriptural reference. But a poetic thought based on GEN 5:2 / 2 Cor 11:2 see also Eph 5:22-33/ REV 21:2

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name ADAM, in the day when they were created.

Eve took on the name of her husband adam, the bride takes on the name of her husband in covenant baptism, JESUS. 

[neutrodyne]

@Jaysen1976 The statment you made sounds good "The bride takes the name of the husband" Would you mind giving the scripture reference where you found that ? Thank you.

[musicmusing]

yelling doesn't make it more real

[neutrodyne]

I am not here to debate only to point out a fact. While I identify myself with the name of Jesus and am in no way opposed to using his name properly you must understand that saying the name Jesus does not necessary mean it is done in his name. Read Act 19:13-16 also read Mat 24:5 then read Mat 7:21-23. As for the trinity I no of no Trinitarian that believes in 3 Gods All that know believe in one God just that he is manifest to fallen man in 3 persons. you cannot honestly lump it al together.