Refuting Nephilimfree on the Trinity, featuring a SPECIAL GUEST

This video was made with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I had thought about doing a full video response, but there was very little substance in his 3 videos. Essentially, he focused on three things.

1. Claiming that the references to God inn the old testament were not plural. Even if his arguments are true, the references in the old testament are hardly the strongest arguments for the trinity anyways, so this is a fairly moot point.
2. Putting forward the verse dealt with in this video and another which states that "I (Jesus) and the Father are one." This verse doesn't actually contradict the doctrine of the trinity, as the Father and Son are one in being. Learn the doctrine before you criticize it.
3. A pagan parallels argument that even most atheists now realize is bullshit.

We aren't impressed, Nephilim. Not at all.

KabanetheChristian is also going to make a response, so expect something much more detailed and comprehensive from him.

For those of you on the fence, think about this: If he made a mistake as careless as the one that he made in this video, than how well do you think that the rest of it is researched?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Re:
• Is
• there
• Trinity?
• part
• two
• NephilimFree
• Modalism
• heresy
• father
• son
• holy
• spirit
• oneness
• pentecostal
• triune
• persons

[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.

[ukchristian28]

Nephlimfree really one clueless individual.

[aaronk1994]

LOL bald calvinist.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.