The Trinity: A Philosophical Inquiry | Episode 1910

The Trinity: A Philosophical Inquiry | Episode 1910 | Closer To Truth

Рет қаралды 61,282

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 853

@CloserToTruthTV 4 жыл бұрын

If you enjoyed this episode, give our excellent contributors a thumbs up! If you'd like to further explore the cosmos, consciousness, and meaning, please consider becoming a subscriber. For more episodes from Season 19, see our Season 19 playlist: @t

@gr33nDestiny 4 жыл бұрын

Your videos will live longer than you, that’s the best you can hope for lol , I know why you did this series lol

@dougpowell8318 4 жыл бұрын

Never talk to that last guy again. You cant place God in a human perspective, and trying to do so wouldn't make God a God.

@xaviervelascosuarez 4 жыл бұрын

I think the Trinity is a lot more simple than theologians make it seem. The key is in the understanding of an essence as a single reality. God creates all the essences and the human essence he creates "in his image and likeness." That image of God that humanity reflects is not only found in the single human person's free will and rational faculty but more fundamentally in the fact that the human essence consists in a duality of persons meant to be united by a fruitful bond of love. This can be seen more clearly if we read Genesis as a creation of an essence, rather than as a creation of individual persons. It would be a lot clearer if the translators did a better job at it and, instead of writing "God created man" they wrote "God created humanity." It makes a lot more sense with what comes next: "man and woman he created them." Shall we try? "God created humanity, man and woman he created it." As the essence of the divinity is shared by three persons (the third being the Love between the first two), it makes perfect sense that the essence created in God's image is shared between persons. I would further argue that the love between man and woman brings in the third person. Indeed , man, woman and the procreative power meant to be shared in a bond of love (namely, the possibility or potential for the third person), all three are necessary for the human species to go on. Take away one of three elements and the species is done for-it's just a matter of time. Humanity is a pluripersonal reality; the divinity is a pluripersonal reality (a tri-personal reality, to be precise). Humanity is one: one in essence, plural in persons. The divinity is one: one in essence, three in persons. There's only one humanity; there's only one divinity. The Trinity is as incompatible with the monotheistic belief in one divinity as many billions of persons are incompatible with one humanity.

@colingeorgejenkins2885 4 жыл бұрын

Dear me for science to be the depth of intellectual vigor. One God the past present and future. Father son and holy spirit. Energy of the father creates the world of matter in the present and the device feminine the holy spirit the inner mystery the utopian dream unattainable the future

@servant5795 4 жыл бұрын

You really need to ask Catholic Thomistic Philosophers and Theologians. Priests of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) in particular.

@MultiAmmar2000 Жыл бұрын

I am muslim and I had absolutely no idea where he (the first scholar who was interviewed) got the idea that "muslims and jews" agree that, and that "muslims more so" believe that, the answer for the question of why did God create us is that part of the answers involves us believing he created us as group(s) and that somehow supports his notion of trinity as sort of needing a relationship between the three. What is he talking about? Where does islam say that this is the reason why he created us? First of that makes no sense how can a God somehow need multiple to have divine attributes of "love" for example, so is God not all knowing? Can he not even have attributes which us humans require other people in order to have without having another "God" or another divine thing (which is also part of and is itself the same God). Also about his assertion about Islam I had absolutely no idea what the hell this guy is talking about becase it is laid out very clearly based on Surah Al Thariyat (some in english think Dh is closer to ذ than Th so some may know it as Dhariyat) verse 56 where it says: "{ وَمَا خَلَقۡتُ ٱلۡجِنَّ وَٱلۡإِنسَ إِلَّا لِیَعۡبُدُونِ }" Or in english translation: "I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me" So I was so confused on what this guy was talking about? Where did he get this? And then I had an epiphany. Maybe this guy was talking about Surah Al Hujurat verse 13 and somehow conflating that with the muslim answer for "why did god create us?" "يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَـٰكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍۢ وَأُنثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَـٰكُمْ شُعُوبًۭا وَقَبَآئِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ أَتْقَىٰكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌۭ" "O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples [nations] and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you (in the sight) of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware" And this verse is the answer for why did God create us as different peoples and different tribes (and countries and nations and groups and all that stuff). But somehow he thought this was the answer for "why did god create us" when it is very clearly stated that god created us to worship him lmao

@gr33nDestiny 4 жыл бұрын

That guy at the end is like a master of arguments

@gr33nDestiny 4 жыл бұрын

Lol you were too

@mitchellc4 3 жыл бұрын

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

Exactly how many "masters of arguments" have you encountered or of which you have had experience that you can make the comparison? You can't compare one thing to another if you have no experience of either.

@IronFreee Жыл бұрын

@@mitchellc4 "Jesus said the Father is the only true God!" Are you Jew? Why should anyone listen to Jesus? And What is the Holly Spirit?

@darkknightsds Жыл бұрын

Swinburne is a legend

@vladimir0700 4 жыл бұрын

I knew this was a deep philosophical discussion when Batman and Bruce Wayne came into it

@cliffdee2 4 жыл бұрын

They should have a sub-discipline within Analytic Theology called DC and Marvel Metaphysics and Gumby Epistemology

@dogsdomain8458 4 жыл бұрын

@@cliffdee2 honestly there should be

@mitchellc4 4 жыл бұрын

Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has ab God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead! The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21

@adamfrye246 4 жыл бұрын

What they are talking about here is a matter of perception, not actuality. Superman (Jesus) is Clarke Kent to the New York Times not just as a disguise but as a clerical custodian.

@davidcrane6593 3 жыл бұрын

@@mitchellc4 but God The Father calls Jesus "O God" here--> Hebrews 1:8 KJV - 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.

@allenrussell1947 3 жыл бұрын

I've been chasing this all my 60 years and the more Christian thinkers talk the more I feel like they're just making it up as they go.

@1Skeptik1 3 жыл бұрын

I'm 70. Conclusion: Religion is big business, the details are not important.

@nightoftheworld 3 жыл бұрын

Y’all know of Hegel and His dialectic?

@allenrussell1947 3 жыл бұрын

@@nightoftheworld nope

@allenrussell1947 3 жыл бұрын

@@nightoftheworld that sounds like just more of the same. Thanks for the input though.

@nightoftheworld 3 жыл бұрын

@@allenrussell1947 Here’s something different. G.K. Chesterton, _Orthodoxy:_ “That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already, but that God could have His back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents forever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point -- and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologize in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in the terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.” www.lacan.com/zizshadowplay.html

@sub7se7en Жыл бұрын

Each one of these guys is essentially providing different ways to debunk the trinity. It's mindboggling how they can accept it as truth when they have to play such mental gymnastics just to pretend they understand it.

@bigdog4574 Жыл бұрын

We are ultimately trying to understand something that is beyond our human understanding. Reality is this... we have consciousness, we have intelligent design, we have birth, and we have death. We will all find out if there is something or nothing after death. The consequence of denying God is potential eternal suffering during the time of judgment. For some of us believing in God provides a better chance of avoiding eternal suffering. Many of us, we've experienced a personal touch of God in our lives through spiritual, physical, or mental healing.

@sub7se7en Жыл бұрын

@@bigdog4574 I'm not saying I disbelieve in God. I do believe there is a god. But I don't believe that the trinity is that god. I believe in one god, with no partners. It's not something that is hard to comprehend. What you're describing isn't belief. Rather, it is a sort of false belief. Will saying "I believe" without true belief in your heart lead to salvation? It may be a form of hypocrisy to say you believe one thing but internally you don't actually believe it. You're just trying to play it safe. And there are many religions to boot. Which religion should one pretend to believe in? I don't think that's a good reason.

@bigdog4574 Жыл бұрын

@@sub7se7en I agree with you on all points.

@darkknightsds Жыл бұрын

Please look into the basics of epistemology before posting such an ignorant comment. There is more than one way of knowing things.

@sub7se7en Жыл бұрын

@@darkknightsds Each one demonstrates in a different way how the trinity is not plausible. You can see the mental gymnastics each one has to play to justify his beliefs. Their versions of the trinity simply do not make sense. I haven't come across a version that does.

@Petre66CA 4 жыл бұрын

I like Mr Richard Swinburne argument the most

@mitchellc4 3 жыл бұрын

@joop6463 2 жыл бұрын

now only replace "create" by eternally generate

@heyalun 2 жыл бұрын

@@joop6463 which makes no sense. If something is generated, it has a beginning by definition

@joop6463 2 жыл бұрын

@@heyalun no it does not

@heyalun 2 жыл бұрын

@@joop6463 example?

@gianfrancoporcaro5406 Жыл бұрын

Richard Swinburne crushed it 19:55

@breambo3835 4 жыл бұрын

Swinburne nailed it. Prefect description of the Trinity.

@RobAgrees 3 жыл бұрын

That man is a swinger.

@saintmoine7354 2 жыл бұрын

@@RobAgrees how do you know this?

@RH-vr7cs Жыл бұрын

I don't see that Swinburne nailed it. The trinity does not make any sense. God id one and He cannot have children as humans or animals. He is beyond our brain. Our brain is not made to think this far. Many pagans used the trinity in their religions. Christianity adopted the trinity to attract more people to the religion. However, I left Christianity because it does not make any sense.

@breambo3835 Жыл бұрын

@@RH-vr7cs So what worldview makes sense to you now and what makes it true.

@warrenmodoono905 4 жыл бұрын

The Trinity not only speaks to the ethereal nature of consciousness and human spirituality but also to the mechanics of physics and a defined outline within information based systems.

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

Consciousness or knowledge or direct immediate experience of what? - It is as futile as it is meaningless to speak of consciousness without specifying consciousness of what, just as it is futile and pointless and meaningless to speak of knowledge without specifying knowledge of something in particular or of what?

@dubbelkastrull 2 жыл бұрын

Interesting. Please elaborate

@dubbelkastrull 2 жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl Who is the one who is perceiving?

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

@@dubbelkastrull "Who" meaning which of a number of candidates, yes? What are the candidates?

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

@@dubbelkastrull Are you addressing the writer- me? I warn you not to ask that creature, he bores for the western arm of the galaxy and in the time it takes to read his wiseacreing, people get married and have children and *their* children have children, but if you couch a question in terms that can be answered briefly(a concept unknown to the writer)he will give it his best shot, but you have been warned.

@stinkertoy4310 4 жыл бұрын

Very informative. Still seems very convoluted. I suspect “the truth” will be both simpler and stranger.

@oldehippie3038 4 жыл бұрын

You are absolutely right, my friend. It is much simpler, yet not strange at all.

@mitchellc4 4 жыл бұрын

@-justnoah-5330 4 жыл бұрын

@@mitchellc4 geesh dude you have dropped that cut and past of your invented mess in the comments 18 times! Do you long for attention so much that you have to act like a bird with diarrhea and leave a dropping in everyone's comment box? Why don't you parent yourself and have your first lesson to your annoying, untrained inner child be one of self-control?

@xaviervelascosuarez 3 жыл бұрын

It is simpler. Infinitely simpler... If you could only see it from God's perspective... Only one with delusions of divinity would dare to explain reality in a simple way. Alas, there's no dearth of them, particularly among the most intelligent, which is no surprise: nobody with the inflated ego required to pose as God would risk becoming the laughing stock of the universe. You must first be recognized among the cleverest, at least in one area of knowledge, in order to put on a convincing act when coming up with a simplistic "theory of everything." Otherwise, the world would dismiss you as a poor demented individual that somehow escaped the mental institution.

@mitchellc4 3 жыл бұрын

@mikiydun6980 Жыл бұрын

one God only Allah, one way Islam, one book Quran. Allah is one(unique, no gender, no son or daughter, no parents, no partners, does not get tiered or sleep, does not get hungry or eat, does not become man(creation) or die, etc...) Allah is the creator of everything not created. nothing in the creation looks like Allah. even the word Allah is by itself unique, impossible to exactly translate to another language, think about it....thank you peace :)

@arhumtajammal Ай бұрын

Trinity is rational mystery

@Smitty65721 Жыл бұрын

When I did my first study of the Trinity, I found an author, who escapes me now, who said something like, " No Christian Theologian like the Trinity. It is just the best way we have of explaining all the things the Bible says about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That kind of sums it up for me. It should be no surprise that men might be able to apprehend God, but not to fully comprehend Him.

@stephenhowe4107 10 ай бұрын

I don't agree, I like it. The Trinity is the best explanation (in fact the only explanation) which explains the early philosophical inquiry on universals and particulars started by Thales of Miletus. With Allah, there is unity, but no variation. _It should be no surprise that men might be able to apprehend God, but not to fully comprehend Him_ Yes but the Trinity is not the reason here. Instead it is because we are finite and God is infinite. That is the reason we cannot comprehend. How can the finite comprehend the infinite?

@jjcm3135 3 жыл бұрын

Swinburne was utterly brilliant.

@gestrandetdes5172 Жыл бұрын

Brilliant? I stopped listening when he started anthropomorphizing god to be a guy needing some kind of side kick- what?

@jjcm3135 Жыл бұрын

@@gestrandetdes5172 God is a person unless you believe what muslims believe. The philosopher JL Mackie agreed with Swinburne's def. of a theistic deity.

@gestrandetdes5172 Жыл бұрын

@@jjcm3135 I'm agnostic, so I think it's pretty silly to think that god is a person (What gender? What ethnicity? What age? Eye color? Do ants have then an ant god? If not, why is our god person the god of the ants? ) Maybe two thousand years ago it was more "plausible" to think this way because of the limited knowledge but nowadays it's silly even ignorant to stick to this same idea that was written by some humans on a piece of paper.

@jjcm3135 Жыл бұрын

You not well read enough or not educated enough to be an agnostic. You clearly have not considered even basic philosophical arguments. You are of course a person. So you personally are of great intrinsic worth and value. Its important to say that too. You need to live up to it though. Read more.

@gestrandetdes5172 Жыл бұрын

@@jjcm3135 I'm not educated enough to be agnostic? What kind of nonsense is this. But it doesn't matter because at the end of the day you're still the one with the naive and silly claims who feels threatened by very basic questions.

@elmoomle4565 4 жыл бұрын

Any 'Christian' that believes in the Trinity, is simply ignorant of GOD's Word as contained in the pages of The HOLY Scriptures.

@eddycatflap5368 4 жыл бұрын

what a mess....

@mitchellc4 3 жыл бұрын

@GBabuu 3 жыл бұрын

If it's only 1 channel that I had to subscribe to; This would be it!

@stephensmith5982 4 жыл бұрын

These men are all learned people and I'm not, but this seems to me as philosophical gymnastics on a monumental scale.

@jeffmckinnon5842 3 жыл бұрын

Back peddling is the Christian way these days - well because that is after all how they put food on the table. I am surprised these people agreed to come on the show.

@JackPetersonEnergy 3 жыл бұрын

cope

@joh8912 3 жыл бұрын

in that is the problam

@ppthomas100 7 ай бұрын

COLOSSIANS 2.8 :New Living Translation Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers[a] of this world, rather than from Christ.

@WisdomFromAshes 2 жыл бұрын

That is one of the best explorations on the subject I've ever seen. Been studying it for 40 some years and never seen some of these points. Bottom line early Christians didn't believe in a trinity and later Christians are still trying to hold it together.

@stevenaiello7551 2 жыл бұрын

It's the writing of the early Christians that drive the doctrine.

@alphaone2834 2 жыл бұрын

Blessed are those who have not seen but belive

@keithrelyea7997 2 жыл бұрын

40 years, what a waste, get over it there is no god.

@trinitymatrix9719 Жыл бұрын

Bottom line is exactly the opposite, the early christians and the churchfathers DID believe in the trinity. Trinity is very simple- 3 persons 1 essence which we like to call God. Just like the universe which has 3 dimensions but we all experience it as 1 universe. Trinity is all around us, from math, materials, from physics to metaphysics.

@hiempsal5392 Жыл бұрын

@@trinitymatrix9719You are committing a heresy without even realizing, it’s called partialism. Each dimension of a universe is not a universe by itself. Trinity states that each person is fully God, fully divine. Your example is fallacious and heretical, I think it’s better for you trinitarians to stick with the “it’s a mystery” cop out. Allah (God Almighty) is absolutely one and indivisible.

@magnusbrzenk447 4 жыл бұрын

One of your best episodes! Really enjoyed that. Thanks

@tbarrelier 4 жыл бұрын

The confusion is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word "ὑπόστασις", hypostasis, which would be better rendered as "aspect" rather than "person". Of course, any descriptions of what is called "God" implies limitations and represents the "reifying" of what is undefinable and unlimited. The All is One, there is only the All. The Oneness of the All is Its only attribute.

@mitchellc4 3 жыл бұрын

@hasan8084 Жыл бұрын

Swinburne said "God cannot create the best of all possible worlds." If that is the case, then he is not God. For God is all powerful, he does what he wills. Nothing is impossible for him. And who made up this rule that unselfish love only be with minimum of 3 different persons? He is projecting his own understanding of love. God almighty transcends our definition of love. Nothing is like God. We should stop trying to project our understanding of deity on him

@jimbo33 2 жыл бұрын

"One need not be a Christian or even a theist to appreciate in humanity's search for deep reality. " This sums up my feelings and suspicions perfectly. But why is it necessary to use the devices of logic and linguistics to explain what is supposedly true? Thank you Robert Lawrence Kuhn for your continuing enlightening explorations of our reality!

@heyalun 2 жыл бұрын

In this case, it’s because the Christian scriptures are explicit and clear that God is one, or unity. Trinities come from pagan theologies. The so-called “Christian” trinity was developed centuries after the Bible was completed by mixing the two. But because the Bible is so fiercely adamant about unity being God’s nature, you need to do all sorts of logical and linguistic acrobatics to make it fit and to obscure the source of the teaching.

@jimbo33 2 жыл бұрын

@@heyalun Exactly!

@trinitymatrix9719 Жыл бұрын

@@heyalun These mythical theories has been debunked a million times. Trinity was agreed upon since dawn of time and the earliest documents from the church fathers debunks all these stupid and laughable claims from idiots who just dont know any better....

@heyalun Жыл бұрын

@@trinitymatrix9719 if the trinity is from the dawn of time, why isn’t the word or the formula in the scriptures? What we see repeatedly is that God is one. Not 3 or 3 in 1. Why don’t the Jews know about it? What I believe about God’s nature is concisely and explicitly written in the holy scriptures over and over again. What you believe is written by some council centuries after Christ. How am I the idiot? You have to cherry pick and isolate scriptures from their context to piece your doctrine together. But Jesus say’s plainly that God is one and that his father is “the only true God.” The apostles say the same. “We have one God, the Father.”

@ken440 2 жыл бұрын

the big guy near the beginning said a lot of stuff which indeed sounded like it was all made up, but he hit the nail on the head eventually when he said "in our traditions...." and in that we hear the spirit of the pharisees.

@hiempsal5392 Жыл бұрын

Just so we are clear, we muslims believe that Allah (God Almighty) created us for the only purpose of worshiping him. The concept of worship in islam is a big umbrella that includes praying, fasting, giving to charity, being generous and loving to your neighbour, abstaining from sin, repenting otherwise, and in general obeying Allah’s commandments to the best of your abilities. There is no mention in the Quran (word of God Almighty) or the prophetic sayings that Allah creating us only to love or cooperate. We also extremely insist that God is One, absolute One and indivisible, without any partner. All worships should go to him alone as he is the greatest, the most high.

@MultiAmmar2000 Жыл бұрын

@@hiempsal5392 i am muslim as well and I had absolutely no idea where he got that "muslims and jews" agree that, and that "muslims more so" believe that the answer for the question of why did God create us is that part of the answers involves us believing he created us as group(s) and that somehow supports his notion of trinity as sort of needing a relationship between the three. First of that makes no sense how can a God somehow need multiple to have divine attributes of "love" for example, so is God not all knowing? Can he not even have attributes which us humans require other people in order to have without having another "God" or another divine thing (which is also part of and is itself the same God). Also about his assertion about Islam I had absolutely no idea what the hell this guy is talking about becase it is laid out very clearly to us based on Surah Al Thariyat (some in english think Dh is closer to ذ than Th so some may know it as Dhariyat) verse 56 where it says: "{ وَمَا خَلَقۡتُ ٱلۡجِنَّ وَٱلۡإِنسَ إِلَّا لِیَعۡبُدُونِ }" Or in english translation: "I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me" So I was so confused on what this guy was talking about? Where did he get this? And then I had an epiphany. Maybe this guy was talking about Surah Al Hujurat verse 13 and somehow conflating that with the muslim answer for "why did god create us?" "يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَـٰكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍۢ وَأُنثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَـٰكُمْ شُعُوبًۭا وَقَبَآئِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ أَتْقَىٰكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌۭ" "O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware" And this verse is the answer for why did God create us as different peoples and different tribes (and countries and nations and groups and all that stuff). But somehow he thought this was the answer for "why did god create us" when it is very clearly stated that god created us to worship him lmao

@hiempsal5392 Жыл бұрын

@@MultiAmmar2000 Good analysis brother/sister. I can see how he got confused with Surah Al Hujurat, I really assumed he tried to spin our theology for his own benefit. If only he sought knowledge from any student of knowledge, he would've known for sure.

@melmill1164 4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for another inspiring episode.

@mitchellc4 3 жыл бұрын

@rumidude 3 жыл бұрын

Must circle the wagons! @11:52 Robert Lawrence Kuhn says: " I relish the linguistic gymnastics because they portray the mighty manuevers we humans under take to support our theological beliefs." This episode is like a Monty Python sketch.

@andrewferg8737 2 жыл бұрын

"linguistic gymnastics" --- Complexity alone does not invalidate truth but rather indicates the limitations of our understanding.

@andrewferg8737 2 жыл бұрын

"Electric charge, weak isospin, and weak hypercharge are three quantities locked together and only taking on certain values relative to each other” (Matt O'Dowd - PBS Spacetime)

@amirkhalid5449 4 жыл бұрын

The convoluted rationalisations presented by these Christian thinkers have me convinced that the fundamental idea of the Trinity just doesn't make sense.

@mitchellc4 4 жыл бұрын

@xaviervelascosuarez 3 жыл бұрын

If you look at it from the right angle, the Trinity is the only explanation that makes sense.

@amirkhalid5449 3 жыл бұрын

@@mitchellc4 Thisisatest.

@amirkhalid5449 3 жыл бұрын

@@mitchellc4 Your incoherent rant does not seem to come to any point. It only makes me doubt your sanity.

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

That is probably because you adopt a rather peculiar anthropomorphic formulation that talks about people or persons which is simply nonsense, because it refers to 3 forces or perhaps the word influences is more suitable. It may be that you cognise whatever you imagine yourself as being the product of more than one function, for example it may also be that you experience a moving function or a body, and an intellectual or associative function and also an emotional or liking and disliking wanting and not wanting function which because they are discrete or distinguishable from one another, you nonetheless refer to yourself as or in, the a singular or imagine yourself to be some sort of unity of those discrete functions - or maybe you don't I have no way of discovering how you experience whatever you imagine to be yourself. Is it not the case that in whatever you imagine to be yourself, the mind or associative function proposes while the body and all the emotional function dispose, or it may be that your headset is one thing and what is sometimes called your heart says another and there may flatly contradict or cancel out one another, or do you tell me that nothing of that sort ever manifests itself to you by way of what you call or in fact experience. In that form of what may be some sort of electricity is there not positive and negative or some sort of polarity, and do they not cancel out one another? Put the case that everything that can be experienced is the product of at least two contradictory forces that tend to cancel out one another and yet nevertheless there is that which you are capable of experiencing from which Whatfollows? If everything, or X (which I will grant you is no more than a vague generalisation) is a product of forces A and B which are mutually opposite(or tend to cancel out one another) and yet you experience X,; now what follows as the night the day from that? Is there not in that form of religion some call "science some recognition of there being mutually exclusive or contradictory forces which produce particular phenomena? Do you perhaps dismiss Newton's third law of motion that every action creates an equal and opposite reaction, or are perhaps jets and jet engines, purely imaginary or incapable of being experienced? There you have two completely disparate and mutually exclusive forces bringing about a third phenomenon, do you not? Moreover in the dream world what is called quantum mechanics that world is positively littered with mutually exclusive and completely contradictory phenomena is it not?- Thus you can see the manifestation what is called the law of three or threefoldness in almost everything(which I will happily grant you no more than a vague generalisation) that you experience or encounter, and undoubtedly the rather peculiar the religious formulation of what is called "the Trinity merely reflects that fundamental law, Which is sometimes formulated as a positive force combines with a negative force which in turn becomes either positive or negative (or perhaps neutral) for the purposes of some other phenomenon that arises out of the interaction between positive and negative forces which has been formulated as "the higher(r positive or active) combines with the lower(or passive or negative to form the new which then becomes either higher or lower for the succeeding new, Which in its turn is relatively either positive or negative or positively charged or negatively charged, or for example a being of the active sex or man combines(mates)or blends with a being of the passive sex or woman to give rise to what is a new human being that in its turn will be active or passive or positive or negative in relation to another active or passive or positive or negative or man and woman. Both of them are useless by themselves, but the blending of the two gives rise to a new man or woman which in their turn can give rise to a new human being which will be either positively or negatively charged and perform the function of the positively or negatively charged in that merry little dance that is called organic life ororganic life as manifested as men and women in the case of three-brained beings of the planet earth or men (human beings). There you have a concrete example of the positively charged combining with the negatively charged to give rise to what in turn will be either positively or negatively charged in relation to another similar creature, and the suggestion is that everything that is capable of being experienced (or that rather vague term exists)Is the product of a combination or blending of the positively and negatively charged, or the active and passive or male and female respectively.Moreover in that form of religion that is known as "science" the high priests of that particular religion speak of protons and neutrons and electrons and refer to them as being positively or negatively charged (or you could say active and passive {or male and female}respectively)- It is almost as if it is a theme that runs through the music of that which can be experienced in one or another form. There is nothing more or less incongruous about the law of three then there is anything incongruous about imaginary photons being able to tell whether or not a particular slit is open or closed or light being composed of two completely different(And mutually exclusive things such as particles and waves, to say nothing whatsoever about imaginary particles being either up or down, or spinning to the left or spinning to the right - it's all equally mumbo-jumbo and would you believe it? - Those that have never seen a proton or electron or a photon or them spinning and going up or down, swallow all this mumbo-jumbo whole and completely without question- Yet they reject the Trinity or the fundamental law of three or threefoldness, and don't even raise an eyebrow at Feynman's idea of there being only one electron, and similarly accept without question the utterly bizarre proposition that there can be more than one everything or more than one universe, but there seems to be no limit to the psychological gymnastics and contortions through which human beings will go in order to accommodate various forms of - what can only be described as, mumbo-jumbo.

@mcosu1 3 жыл бұрын

I keep waiting for him to say "and now I ask Joe Rogan"

@retepelyod Жыл бұрын

Thanks for clearing that up.

@gestrandetdes5172 Жыл бұрын

Wow, the mental gymnastics are strong in this one.

@jessecanada14 4 жыл бұрын

Great episode

@TheBereangirl 2 жыл бұрын

Almighty God is THE CREATOR, therefore it is in his nature to create. I'm an artist, I MUST make art. I don't sit around and wonder WHY I MUST make art, I just DO it! God is also love, he doesn't just have love, he IS love! His love is like no other, it is humble and his love gives -- ALWAYS. That is why God the Father, the one and only God, became a man, Jesus, to die on the cross to redeem all his creation back to him. Ponder that! Almighty God. Omnipresent. Omniscient. Omnipotent. Omnific. He planned on becoming a mere mortal man to save his creation from the power of sin and death that separated it all from him! What a story to be told! But few love this story. They think it impossible, even blasphemous, but that only proves that they don't know God like they think they do. The idolatry born in the heart of man prefers to believe the lie Satan told Eve: "surely you will not die if you eat of the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil." Satan lied to Eve saying that God was withholding wisdom and godhood from her, if she just ate the fruit then she would become like God! That was his "philosophy," and here we are! You want to know why so called "Christians" believe the mind numbing nonsense of the Trinity?-- it's all thanks to Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who heard his own soul lie to him that God wasn't alone in the beginning. He had two powers with him, his Word, and Wisdom. This polytheistic philosophy was adopted by other Greek philosophers who thought themselves to be saved, not by accepting the true Gospel, that God the Father became his own Son to die for their sins, but rather by a gospel of esoteric philosophy, or knowledge of the "mysteries" of Babylon! No. God is not a Trinity of three SEPARATE PEOPLE, anymore than I am. Philosophy is human wisdom that pales in comparison to God's wisdom, so the two don't mix well. You want the truth? Then accept the fact that God is one, and he has many royal titles that tell us who he is, by what he does, through understanding his royal titles. It's that simple. But the wicked heart of man loves the lie: forbidden and secret (occult) knowledge will gain you eternal life. That LIE is pure soulful garbage that seeks to deceive the gullible (like Eve), destroy the rebellious (like Adam), and corrupt the prideful (like Satan).

@Anju28959 Жыл бұрын

🌿 and GOD said : let there be "Light" and there was "God , HolySpirit , Jesus" 🌿

@pauls2613 2 жыл бұрын

It’s like they don’t know that the trinity was invented by men during the council of Nicaea.

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

Who told you that and why do you believe them?

@pauls2613 2 жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl its in the churches records. You can read them.

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

@@pauls2613 Hearsay is still hearsay regardless of the form it takes

@pauls2613 2 жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl its the Vatican’s own records. No priest or pope denies this..

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

@@pauls2613 Just because a particular event or anything of that sort is recorded in does not necessarily follow as the night the day that the recording is accurate, but on any view hearsay or evidence from a source that cannot be cross-examined is hearsay if the source cannot be cross-examined because that is the definition of hearsay, and the wise do not entertain hearsay - or rather intelligent grown-up do not entertain hearsay or evidence from a source that they cannot test by cross-examination that something being left to credulous imbecile children, and if the cap fits, wear it

@andrewferg8737 2 жыл бұрын

“As a consequence of relativity and quantum mechanics all the interactions in the universe ultimately arise from elementary interactions between three particles" (Nima Arkani-Hamed--- Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, and director of The Center for Future High Energy Physics)

@strange1094 Жыл бұрын

I have no experience or prior knowledge to speak about it probably, but it sort of appears to me that as we increase our collective knowledge in the world of quantum mechanics and that area of study, the Trinity may begin to make more sense.

@trinitymatrix9719 Жыл бұрын

Bottom line is that, just like the universe, God is also shrouded in some ways of mystery. So it will be for the rest of the time of our place in this universe.

@cvsree 4 жыл бұрын

Everything we can perceive and beyond is God. It's our mind that creates the dichotomy that "I have independent existence". It's an illusion of our own creating. Once we drop this wrong idea we are one with God, like all the prophets and Saints.

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

What can you directly immediately personally experience (as directly immediately and personally as pain) of the minds of any but yourself that you can refer to "our" mind? All you can possibly say is"My mind creates a dichotomy… From where do you creatures get this fantasy "we" - which can only possibly be imaginary?

@benpopham8500 3 жыл бұрын

When it comes down to it, though no person can fathom God in our mind. How arrogant is it of us not to believe in something just because it is not fully understood. So to try to fit God's nature in our minds results in mere speculation, John 3:8 -"The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can't tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can't explain how people are born of the Spirit " -Jesus of Nazareth If I myself could fit God in my 3 pound brian he wouldn't be worth worshipping. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the scriptures said. he was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, He was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. We can't make a grain of sand from nothing so how is it that we say something is impossible just cause we don't understand. the Gospel of Christ is indescribable but undeniable either you don't want it to be true or you haven't done the research. I personally am going with what the guy who came back to life said even if I can't completely understand how. May God grace and peace be with all who read this message and consider what it says, Amen

@keithrelyea7997 2 жыл бұрын

There is no god, get over it!!!

@Stimmevon70 3 жыл бұрын

Closer To Truth, I have subscribed to your channel, and am grateful for the entire production thus far. While, out of respect for my Christian cousins, I'd like to plead the 5th about my thoughts about the Trinity, which, as far as I know, isn't even mentioned in the Bible, I would appreciate it if some Christian theologians would stop providing insights about Islam. Clearly, the Quran does not even seek to offer us a reason for the creation of the universe. Furthermore, we don't ascribe any "wants" or "limits" to God. And even if He "wanted" to be loved, He could have found it within Himself (gender neutral). He is not restricted by numbers either, as was explained with the "unselfish love" clause, because as long as the "self" isn't the object of love, it is, de facto, unselfish. Also, it amazed me to see how no one talked about how an eternal God, "begat" and "spirated" other eternal God-persona(?), when obviously the latter two were created later, and, as such, can not share His eternal essence.

@mitchellc4 3 жыл бұрын

@Stimmevon70 3 жыл бұрын

@@mitchellc4 Aby citation for that?

@mitchellc4 3 жыл бұрын

@@Stimmevon70 Sure Which part?

@Stimmevon70 3 жыл бұрын

@@mitchellc4 , to your entire comment.

@mitchellc4 3 жыл бұрын

@@Stimmevon70 Well there’s multiple topics The gospel of the kingdom - Matt 24 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. The new earth- Rev 21 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; 3 and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; The Father is the only true God John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. If you give me a topic I could be more helpful maybe

@clorofilaazul 4 жыл бұрын

This is one of the most stupid episodes of the series. The reason is obvious. Self evident. But... ok... I will try to explain. It's like listening people trying to explain how Santa Claus manages to deliver gifts to children. Try as they might, they are wrong right from the beggining. This should be obvious. The Bible can't be the word of the creator. We can see the acrobatics they do to explain something which is plain silly. They try to use intelectualized arguments to explain things like "In the Bible, it is said that". They presupose that the Bible isn't fiction. Isn't that amazing?

@Monkofmagnesia Жыл бұрын

The Trinity was never one God in Three Persons. The early Church Fathers never used the word "persons" when describing the Trinity. "Persons" implies an indpendant ego. Three Persons would mean three indpendant ego. The Trinity is one ego in three manifestations. The Trinity is not 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. It is 1 x 1 x1 =1

@giftlekgothoane8921 Жыл бұрын

Interesting that all the prophets in the Bible especially Jesus Christ(pbuh) never preached trinity so you'll ask your self where do these professors get their information because it's not the Bible.

@Ace0555 Жыл бұрын

No disrespect to the Christians. I’m not taking a dig at y’all. But Islam is the only religion that makes sense at this point.

@danialassyrian4867 Жыл бұрын

It made sense in afghanistan and iran you people are just pathetic 🤣🤣🤣

@Ace0555 Жыл бұрын

I'm talking about the theology. Why is it always the low IQ's

@danialassyrian4867 Жыл бұрын

@@Ace0555 killing people for apostasy and blasphemy the flying donkey the weird looking black stone mmmm low IQ lol

@danialassyrian4867 Жыл бұрын

@@Ace0555 talking about theology dude you can’t even say your shahada without mentioning your prophet in it 🤣🤣🤣

@Ace0555 Жыл бұрын

Why you laughing like an idiot? Is it a way to cope that everyone in the comment section is roasting your trinity?

@gforcecache 4 жыл бұрын

I enjoyed the episode. Unfortunately, none of the esteemed intellectuals was able to make me understand their view. Someone once told me that if a person cannot make a concept understandable using the complete resource of the English language, they probably do not understand it themselves. I would think that as God chose this truth, it would not take a Phd. to understand it, it would be explainable by anyone that comes to Christ. I recommend just asking people that simply attend church. If they don't understand, then what's the point. No Phd needed.

@recellenc4690 4 жыл бұрын

Well we don't understand ourselves either, we don't understand all the mystery of the universe... Should we then don't believe that we & the universe exist?

@MountainFisher 4 жыл бұрын

Understandable? Easy. When you are thinking, who is talking, who is listening? Same for where is your will at and where do feelings come from? Like the one guy said, what's going on when you're talking to yourself? God talks to His other Parts, Like; Darkness was over the face of the deep and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. Then God said let there be light, and there was light. The primeval cloud surrounding Earth became translucent, the etc.

@nightoftheworld 3 жыл бұрын

@@MountainFisher you know Lacan/Zizek?

@nightoftheworld 3 жыл бұрын

@@recellenc4690 not substance but process/becoming something new

@MountainFisher 3 жыл бұрын

@@nightoftheworld No, I have just studied the Eternity of God because of the sophomoric question put to me by those who do not know that we ARE in eternity now, asking about who made an Infinite Self Existent Being they cannot nor will not even try to understand. But I do not know who you're asking about, being preoccupied with making up analogies of Some One beyond our comprehension.

@NickManeck 3 жыл бұрын

For a moment I want to look at Love in the context of Trinity. For the sake of convenience I am setting aside God and divinity. Question: How is it that a solitary person be not capable of love? Does love have to have an object, else it is not love?

@mitchellc4 3 жыл бұрын

@jessabalingit3288 3 жыл бұрын

A single person could be capable of love, yes but that doesn’t imply he is loving. We all have the capability to kill but that doesn’t mean we are all murderers. To be loving requires the existence of another party for love to be actualize and this is why when we say God is all loving, he has been loving eternally even before creation and so this nature of him remains the same after the creation. If god is only a oneness inside one being then his eternal attributes of loving,forgiving,merciful etc. only came into action after the creation hence negating their eternal existence

@thebiblerefutesheretics2054 3 жыл бұрын

@@jessabalingit3288 I love myself. I am one person

@GeoffNelson Жыл бұрын

Great question. It does make sense that you can’t have love without an object. It also seems impossible to have no object. Couldn’t one love solitude? Or silence?

@leonardobrien 4 жыл бұрын

Xenu also is one but also three. You find out at level 9. Before this knowledge, I thought Xenu was bonkers. Makes perfect sense now though...

@mitchellc4 4 жыл бұрын

@leonardobrien 4 жыл бұрын

@@mitchellc4 One version was invented by Ron Hubbard, the other pieced together from BS scripts written by various people who lived in the Middle East between 2-4k ago. Both bonkers. But, hey, if you're brainwashed from a young age (or have a low IQ) it makes perfect sense. I get it.

@betford2 4 жыл бұрын

Robert, Robert, Robert...how do you keep from laughing outloud? :-)

@mitchellc4 4 жыл бұрын

@piotr.ziolo. 3 жыл бұрын

The triune God contradicts classical logic. If you only say there are three god persons and there is one god nature, there is no logical contradiction. And if left at that, the theology is fine. The problem starts when you introduce the term God. Is God the god nature or the god person? Is every god person God? Is there only one God? Christians claim that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, while there is only one God. From the law of identity Father=Son=Spirit. But on the other hand Christians claim that Father!=Son!=Spirit ("!=" means not equal). This contradicts the law of excluded middle. Hence the triune God contradicts classical logic.

@davylondon 2 жыл бұрын

Thank G-d (no pun intended) that we Jews don't have this issue. The Shema (one of the oldest and most important Hebrew prayers) requires us three times a day to declare that "the Lord God is One"

@Monkofmagnesia 3 жыл бұрын

You a problwm right at the start. When discussing the Trinity, the early Church Fathers never used the word, "persons." The Trinity is not Thee Persons in One God. That would mean three separate egos. The Trinity is not 1+1+1=1. It is more 1x1x1=1. Long before the Christian Trinity, there was and is the Hindu Trinity (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva).

@TheStobb50 3 жыл бұрын

As the hymn goes God in three persons, better call a shrink

@CrowMagnum 2 жыл бұрын

How do these guys analyze poetry? Metaphor and allegory are such a big part of religious teaching, why is it so difficult to extend those concepts to interpreting the godhead itself?

@blackbearbear9313 2 жыл бұрын

It's God's business in creating not yours and I know for a fact there is three In one I know this is to much for you to comprehend but that's where faith come in just figure it out remember don't limit God on his ways he's the creator and your limited to understand your only second guessing God's ways for perfection remember God rules you don't Love God this is all that matters ask Jesus for forgiveness God Bless

@larrylutsky181 2 жыл бұрын

If there is a God did he give us our brains to turn them off and just obey? Don't question just follow like a mindless robot. I don't care to live my life that way.

@lb5769 Жыл бұрын

lets take a crazy idea and see how much bull**** we can spin to make it sound true..

@hbolano100 4 жыл бұрын

You only have to go to Neo-Plato Plotinus where he has 3 Hypostases. Think of a sphere where all three are.

@RobAgrees 3 жыл бұрын

Came here to say this. Trinity and much of Christian Metaphysics is watered down Plato.

@dankuchar6821 4 жыл бұрын

Personally, I don't believe in the Trinity. So I don't have to try and figure out a way to make it work. Perhaps, the Trinity is just a false man-made idea. That's what I think. Other people may not believe as I do. It's good that we can believe different things and still treat each other with respect and dignity.

@myJohnLinzeeTube 4 жыл бұрын

God and Jesus want to be an intimate threesome with you... The holy spirit is just the bath house skeet....

@myJohnLinzeeTube 4 жыл бұрын

@Tgon Mwort yo I'm not Muslim.... I was just trying to be funny bro. If you can't handle a gay joke about God then you should probably get off the internet before you get hurt sugarplum 😘

@myJohnLinzeeTube 4 жыл бұрын

@Tgon Mwort the screen name is a video game reference.... Daddy chill...

@dankuchar6821 4 жыл бұрын

@Tgon Mwort I completely understand the Trinity philosophy. I just don't personally believe it. I believe my Heavenly Father is a person. A real physical and spiritual being. But His power and influence is everywhere. His power and his glory are in and through and of all things. They are the power by which all things are made and by which all things are alive. Without the power and light of God, nothing would live and chaos would result. Our beliefs are actually similar. I believe that God has power and a nature that permeates all of creation. But I believe he is a singular physical being. But the power that emanates from him, his light and his glory, fill the universe. I believe that God chose to be called Father because that is the closest thing in our existence that relates to him. For example, as children we have the capacity to become like our parents and share with them all that they have done for us. I believe God is the same. He has chosen to be called Father because he wants us to be like Him. That is why he asked us through Jesus Christ to be perfect even as the Father in Heaven is perfect. We can debate these kinds of things forever, but I don't really see the point. What matters the most to me is that we accept Jesus Christ as the way back to God. And the most important singular thing we can do is treat each other as God treats us, with honor and with respect; being willing to sacrifice everything we have for those we love and care about. That is how we will be judged. Thank you for your insights. It is always enlightening for me to hear other points of view. And I consider them all. I don't expect other people to follow my beliefs. I just state them. If someone cares to know why I believe those things, then I would discuss that further. Thanks again for sharing what you believe in God. All of us could use a little more divine nature right now in the world.

@dankuchar6821 4 жыл бұрын

@Tgon Mwort Yes I know that very well. I never said God was alone. If you want to read Genesis in Hebrew then you need to read it all. The best translation for that is "The Gods". If you will dedicate your life to Hebrew I think you will find Hebrews translation of Genesis very enlightening. I believe The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are God. They form the Godhead. But they are three individuals not one person. Together they rule as the Godhead and they are one in purpose and in meaning and in all that they do together. John 17 explains it very well. The great intercessory prayer given by our savior Jesus Christ explains Exactly how God and Christ are one. Depending on what translation of your Bible you read it goes something like this, This is not an exact quotation... "neither pray I for these alone but for them also which I believe on me through their words. That they may be one as thou father art in me and I in thee that they may be one in us." Christ is praying to the father and he's asking that the father allow his apostles to be one with Him just as he is one with the Father. So is Christ saying that he wants the apostles to form some ethereal cosmic entity without body parts or passions? No he's not. He wants the apostles to be one with Christ in purpose and in meaning and in actions and in love, not in form. This is why I believe that the father and the son and the holy ghost are three individual beings and not one Trinity. They're one in purpose and in goals and how they act and what they do. But each has a specific role. Together, they act as one. Just as Christ was asking the father to allow the apostles to act as one with him and be one with him as he is with the father. I find that extremely clear and I will not argue. I will state what I believe and why I believe that way. But I will not get into an endless online argument. There is no point. You're entitled to believe what you want, and you will be judged according to how you act based on what you know. The final judgment will be very fair, and only Christ can be our judge because he is the only one that knows exactly what we are going through because he has gone through it all himself. You can believe in the Trinity if you want. Personally I don't. and I have good reason for not believing in the Trinity, but I won't get into that because it's very personal and sacred to me. May God bless you and all you do. We need more people who are willing to stand up for their beliefs. Thank you for doing so. I appreciate your honesty and your integrity.

@davidwilder7542 3 жыл бұрын

Psalm 82 in original or most original version. Read and then ask the question you want answered. Your quest remains to close to the mainstream Newtonian notions.

@BaronReed-rj9rz 7 ай бұрын

The best answer is the one that creates more questions as it forces our minds to "engage." Consider how Jesus often answers a question with another question or parable. The religious leaders would walk away baffled scratching their heads saying, "wait, what?"

@michelcadieux6301 4 жыл бұрын

In John chapter 20 verse 17 Is Jesus telling us that he has a God and Father?

@ergia4822 4 жыл бұрын

He was speaking as the 'Son of Man.' The reason why he came down from heaven. (Isa 9:6).

@gregoryhead382 2 жыл бұрын

God has His only begotten Son with Him, for His Holy Spirit to be satisfied with them, and in all of us, in theory, for a trinity to be with.

@Yesunimwokozi1 Жыл бұрын

So if God come down do you think we can fully comprehend him?? Trinity is exactly what you will find once you find true God

@seekertruth3577 3 жыл бұрын

The trinity is intellectual philosophical speculation. Personal identity is the unique identity of persons through time. That is to say, the necessary and sufficient conditions under which a person at one time and a person at another time can be said to be the same person, persisting through time. In the modern philosophy of mind, this concept of personal identity is sometimes referred to as the diachronic problem of personal identity. The synchronic problem is grounded in the question of what features or traits characterize a given person at one time…. The word, “person” has had different meanings over the course of time. The New World Encyclopedia notes, “Tertullian started to use the expression of ‘three persons’ (tres personae in Latin). The Latin word persona in the days of Tertullian never meant a self-conscious individual person, which is what is usually meant by the modern English word ‘person.’ In those days, it only meant legal ownership or a mask used at the theater. Thus three distinct persons are still of one substance (una substantia in Latin). It was in this context that Tertullian also used the word trinitas” (key word “Trinity”). In the Trinity doctrine, a “person” is like a personality or “mask.” This concept was applied later to the Holy Ghost, the angels and to all human beings. Since then, a number of important changes to the word's meaning and use have taken place, and attempts have been made to redefine the word with varying degrees of adoption and influence. Confronted with such scriptures, even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The OT [Old Testament] clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person . . . God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly . . . The majority of NT [New Testament] texts reveal God’s spirit as some thing , not some one ; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God” (1965, Vol. 13, “Spirit of God,” pp. 574-576). The reference work A Catholic Dictionary similarly acknowledges, “On the whole the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power” (William Addis and Thomas Arnold, 2004, “Trinity, Holy,” p. 827). While both the Father and Christ are worshipped as the two Beings of the Godhead (John 4:23-24; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:6), there is no instance in the Bible of the Holy Spirit being worshipped. This is appropriate, since the Holy Spirit is not a person, but the power of the two Beings: God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son of God. They share a common Spirit and nature (Ephesians 4:4; John 10:30). Here’s a conundrum for someone who believes the Spirit is a person. Jesus prayed to the Father (John 17:1), but His mother Mary was pregnant with Him as a result of the Holy Spirit: “She was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18). That would make the Holy Spirit the “father” of Jesus, if the Holy Spirit were a person. This potential confusion of understanding is quite easily avoided by realizing that the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is not a person but the power by which the Father gave human life to Jesus in the womb of Mary. There are instances in English translations of the Bible where the pronouns “He” and “His” are used to refer to the Holy Spirit, but this is a matter of grammar and translation, not of biblical teaching. In many languages, such as Spanish and Greek, nouns have gender. They are grammatically either feminine or masculine or neuter, whether or not they refer to living things that are female or male. For example, in Spanish, a door is la puerta. In the Spanish language, this is a “feminine” noun, and it is appropriate to refer to a door by the use of a feminine pronoun (ella, which is equivalent to the English pronoun she). But in English translation, door is grammatically referred to as “it,” since a door is not a female or male person, but a thing. A similar situation exists in the Greek language-the language in which the New Testament was originally written. Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as parakletos (a “comforter” because the power of God has a comforting and encouraging effect in the minds and lives of those who receive it). In the Greek language parakletos is a masculine noun. Therefore, in Greek, a masculine pronoun is appropriate in referring to parakletos. The translators of the King James Bible carried this grammatical arrangement over into the English in a number of places, such as John 14:16. Thus, in the English translation, the Holy Spirit is referred to as “He.” However, this is no more evidence that the Holy Spirit is a person than the use, in Spanish, of the feminine pronoun ella (she) to refer to a door is evidence that a door is a female person. Again, these are matters of grammar and translation, not of biblical theology. The trinity, immortality of the soul, Indulgences, purgatory are all spiritualism, doctrines invented by the early so called church fathers. Various sorts of fees charged for services by parish priests. The bede-roll was the list of donors to the church, read out every Sunday so that the people could pray for the donors. A trental was a set of thirty masses, frequently paid for by relatives of a deceased person in the hope of reducing the soul's time in purgatory. Dirige money was payment for a funeral. It was a frequent Protestant view that such customs only existed to raise money for the clergy. See Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars, 134, 294. Over the centuries billions of dollars have been paid to church to obtain relief from imaginary sufferings in Purgatory's fire. The clergy has always taught that the period of suffering in Purgatory can be shortened by purchasing indulgences and novenas, buying Mass cards and providing gifts of money. When a person dies, money is extracted from mourning loved ones to shorten the deceased's punishment in Purgatory. "When God's Word is by the Fathers expounded, construed, and glossed, then, in my judgment, it is even as when one strains milk through a coal-sack, which must needs spoil and make the milk black; God's Word of itself is pure, clean, bright and clear; but, through the doctrines, books, and writings of the Fathers, it is darkened, falsified, and spoiled." (Martin Luther, Table Talk, p.228) “The church of Rome having been conscious of their errors and corruptions, both in faith and manners, have sundry times pretended reformation; yet their great pride and infinite profit, arising from purgatory, pardons, and such like, hath hindered all such reformations. Therefore, to maintain their greatness, errors, and new articles of faith, 1. They have corrupted many of the ancient fathers and reprinting them, make them speak as they would have them… . 2. They have written many books in the names of these ancient writers, and forged many decrees, canons, and councils, to bear false witness to them.” Christianography, part ii. P.59, London, 1636. "If we turn to the fathers with the hope that now at last we shall enter the region of unimpeachable methods and certain applications, we shall be disappointed. I would earnestly ask not to be misunderstood ... There are but few of them whose pages are not rife with errors - errors of method, errors of fact, errors of history, of grammer, and even of doctrine ... The earliest fathers and apologists add little or nothing to our understanding of scripture ... We turn to them in vain for the justification of any claim to the possession of an infallible tradition." (Farrar, History of Interpretation, p.162-165) "We can trace it [Pagan Philosophy] in Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and even in Augustine, who confessed that it kindled in him an incredible fire." (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 2d Period, vol. 2, par. 173) To get an example of the kind of spirit that was driving these so-called church fathers, you only need look at Augustine. Once, while addressing some non-Catholic monks from North Wales who would not bow to his and the Roman Church's requests, he shouted ... "if you will not join with us in unity, you shall from enemies suffer the vengeance of death." (Killen, The Old Catholic Church, p.276-7)

@MrSolonolo 2 жыл бұрын

This is often frustrating. Has anyONE out there ever been a brother, a son and a father ? What are hese questions and all the semantic acrobatics.? Today is someone's yesterday and someone else's tomorrow. Come on, guys ....!

@lilithsr 2 жыл бұрын

Hay alguna traducción al español?

@jamesbentonticer4706 3 жыл бұрын

Anyone else getting pathetic religious ads while watching these?

@michelem140 2 жыл бұрын

Honestly I am not complicating it anymore. Sometimes I think I can explain or feel God then start overthinking, how to prove His existence. I'm alive for a short time on this earth 🌎 so I'm deciding to believe because I want to. God and religion makes me happy. And that's my final answer.

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

Believing what you want to believe is a perfect description and perfectly adequate description of religion

@UniquenessInIslam Жыл бұрын

Come to Islam go research about Islam.. you will be shocked

@robinmjoy Жыл бұрын

@@UniquenessInIslam Tell me what's so convincing about Islam?

@strange1094 Жыл бұрын

@@robinmjoy hes gonna tell you about the miracles in it and perfect preservation, both of which are very questionable when you look into them.

@robinmjoy Жыл бұрын

@@strange1094 I swear bro, I have looked into all of them, it's just cringe af!

@getayalewe1009 2 жыл бұрын

The main reason we don't know God intuitively. God is NOW and NEW. God is a revealed God, not an inscrutable God. The main problem with people not understanding God's supreme nature is that people want to understand God's in their way, not God's way. That's what I love about God. He is a mysterious God who cannot be found outside the time zones, in the corners of the heavens or the armies of heaven and in the time zone on planet earth by any intellectual or mindless mind unless he wants to reveal himself without compulsion. It would not good for God to reveal himself through people or angles, people would be confused about God, the good thing is that God revealed himself equally in his Son (Spiritual Sun) because people live in dark places. Only the sun can shine equally for all the planets. If God had been fully revealed to man or angle, he would have been something other than God. For if God does revealed himself in light, ( Sun) Son no one can understand him. The reason we don't know God intuitively. God is NOW and NEW. Not only on planet earth or in the universe, but in the army of heaven, no one can fully understand God. Neither the imperfect angels nor human beings can understand the perfect God. I think the main reason after we pass to the next world we live forever in heaven or outside the realm of time is because we don't fully understand God. For He is the All-Knowing God.

@khaderlander2429 3 жыл бұрын

Men will convince themselves anything if they put their mind to it

@mitchellc4 3 жыл бұрын

@denver606 2 жыл бұрын

If you are really interested in this topic, then the best explanation will be found in the Urantia Book free online paper 10.

@peterockbx 3 жыл бұрын

Mr Kuhn should look into opposing arguements, not every Christian believes in the Trinity.

@antoinepham4505 7 күн бұрын

Thank you for great insight. Is it like the repeating number 111 where there are 3 ones, each digit is identical but has a different position, order or value?

@musaabadi7648 4 жыл бұрын

Why not to also interview the expert opponent on this view, such as Dale Tuggy? lol

@alextz2336 4 жыл бұрын

Trinitarian cancel culture has been highly successful in exterminating opposing views. Robert may not even be aware of Unitarianism.

@musaabadi7648 4 жыл бұрын

@@alextz2336 He is surely aware of it, but just that Unitarianism is seemingly not gaining publicity interested on the subject of Christian theology.

@dougg1075 4 жыл бұрын

I am that I am

@my1creation 4 жыл бұрын

This was excellent 😇 ✝️ 🙏🏽

@mitchellc4 4 жыл бұрын

@bjorningewesterheim5094 Жыл бұрын

Very interesting and well told. No ambushes. Just approaching the topic with an open mind, trying to assess it logically. Me like. The one part that really breaks Trinity for me , didn't really come up though. According to the Bible, there appears to be a hierarchical relationship between the God-persons in the Trinity. The God-persons do not appear to be equal. One God-person has knowledge that another God-person does not. One God-person prays to the other God-person etc. In Christian tradition this is addressed by attributing 100% humanity and 100% divinity to the same God-person at the same time. Now, while you can play with time-travel scenarios to justify the concept of "One God - Three persons", assuming an entity to hold two mutually exclusive attributes at the same time, simply breaks logic. Surprised it didn't come up.

@blackbearbear9313 2 жыл бұрын

You are limiting God in your mind when he's is almighty over everything

@vakudibeardefender3953 3 жыл бұрын

He should have asked that last question to Mr. Swinburne himself........he would have got his answer... Maybe he doesn't want to find the truth, he wants to forever get closer and closer but never reach the truth.

@njeyasreedharan 2 жыл бұрын

Trinity is Closer To Truth than you can imagine. But it is not the Trinity you know.

@lesliegann2737 4 жыл бұрын

Trinity makes no sense to me either. Something I read once suggested that since they were hell bent to remove the feminine principle in God/religion, and that God could only be male, that afterwards they realized they needed to put back in the feminine - hence the Holy Spirit. The Catholic church also had to give Mary a role because they were in danger of losing their congregation due to the imbalance compared to pagan times when they worshiped both the male and female Gods. As to Jesus, if one views his teachings in a different light, he was not saying that he was the one son of God but that we are all children of God and that God is within us. He was trying to empower us. He was also not in favour of religion. There was also a reference to reincarnation in the earliest Christian texts. So the New Testament was modified along the way to conform to the new religion of Christianity.

@GordonGartrell27 Жыл бұрын

God created because love gives.

@tatulem 3 жыл бұрын

We don't know and don't understand so many things related to the Universe we live in and we are amazed daily by what Nature and the Universe have to offer and we're doubting that a God might be a three-person entity... What the hack is is unbelievable about that?

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

I think you will find that the anthropomorphic Trinity is just another example of the human weakness of tending to anthropomorphism and that the Trinity is merely a reflection of a widely understood fundamental law- There is absolutely no need to introduce human analogues or analogies into it - or speak of three people/persons when it is in fact referring to three fundamental forces or perhaps the word influences is more suitable. Although the word God is a silly word and carries with it a vast amount of anthropomorphic and moralistic baggage, it is conveniently short and easily written and enunciated, if one wishes to arrive at a label or indicator to attach for that which is greater than the sum of its parts It strikes me as infantile to suppose what is and can only possibly be an object or thing to be some sort of human analogue or person.

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

You can only possibly speak about what you yourself understand given that you cannot possibly experience or have any idea of any idea of what others understand. From where do you creatures get this fantasy "we"? What is your problem with substituting for the imaginary "we" with the perpendicular pronoun or first person singular or I?

@paulomi123 Жыл бұрын

Please talk to eastern orthodox theologians as well

@rickwyant 4 жыл бұрын

Don't these people have better things to think about?

@claudiozanella256 2 жыл бұрын

What is missing is an overview of all that matter and a logical boost. It is not appropriate for the almighty God to do his work now, in real time. The almighty God has already COMPLETED his work (only from his point of view !). "Completed" indeed means "completed in all respects", He could have been gone away! He didn't go away, He became like a man instead: "the Son of God" (with no power at all). This means that the Son is in reality now ALONE and is the only OWNER of everything. This all means that the almighty God cannot be here because He belongs to the past "The world has not known you". From that past God can be here only in the form of a spirit (NOBODY is here in reality). He is the Spirit of God.

@mrtransmogrify Жыл бұрын

20:26 "The Coherence of Theism" ... Read his book in my teens... that was in the 90s

@sudipadhikari491 4 жыл бұрын

Holy Mother, Holy Father, Holy Son of a Gaad

@MountainFisher 4 жыл бұрын

Islam's classic understanding of the Trinity because of Romanist practice.

@mr_hadar8626 Жыл бұрын

@@MountainFisher bro what ?

@MountainFisher Жыл бұрын

@@mr_hadar8626 I've spoken to Muslims who think the Trinity is the Father, Son and Mary because that's what the Romanist church makes it look like to someone who doesn't know much about Rome.

@think-islam-channel 4 жыл бұрын

Time is temporal. If God lives in time then he ends up needing a start and a cause.

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

Given that "temporal" means having to do with time, all you are saying is that time is time when you say that "time is temporal". I'm sure that is jolly interesting, but so, or therefore, what? What is time?

@think-islam-channel 2 жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl You found the semantics interesting but didn't comment on the second sentence. What's your thoughts on that.

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

@@think-islam-channel My thoughts are that you have to define time and God, and my left pocket bets my back pocket that you are wholly incapable of doing that moreover about to demonstrate that you are wholly incapable of defining either time or God and you will do that by signally failing to do so

@think-islam-channel 2 жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl Time is the 4th dimension through which we experience the other 3 dimensions God is the intelligent creator of the universe. My left brain bets my right brain that you love using semantics to avoid any though that would lead to God.

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

@@think-islam-channel Really, and who exactly is "we"? How do you actually experience your famous and almost certainly imaginary "fourth dimension as being something other than up down and/or sideways? Just because there are three dimensions that can be experienced it does not follow from that that you can arbitrarily add some imaginary fourth one. If you and your imaginary whoever you mean to include in "we" can experience four dimensions, I have to tell you that I cannot and have no experience of any fourth dimension, and not being acquainted with your imaginary "we", I cannot speculate on whatever that might be might experience. Do please let me know when "we" has a headache or hits its thumb with a hammer. From where do you creatures get your famous and obviously wholly imaginary "we"?

@robward8247 Жыл бұрын

"i bet there be more kinds of trinities out there" - that was some A+ sass

@CrystalTwinStar Жыл бұрын

@22:56 of the transcript, he says " à priorial" . I think the transcript didn't include the "a" because it thought he was saying "uh"

@app6196 2 жыл бұрын

Please review Adwait philosophy.

@Patrick77487 2 жыл бұрын

Create a live forever metaphysical complexity, stand back and allow seekers to line up like ducks.

@Metalicksimoo 4 жыл бұрын

sounds like object oriented programming

@GroovismOrg 4 жыл бұрын

The truth is we're all human with One purpose... to evolve consciousness to a higher level. Our intelligence has evolved communications to enlighten all to the fact we're on One planet & One species. With our born gifts, we can unite humanity's mind & do miraculous evolutionary things... That's the truth!!!

@vhawk1951kl 2 жыл бұрын

I take it that you understand that 'evolve' means no more and no less than unroll, and if not what do you seek to convey when you employ the word "evolve"? My left pocket bets my right pocket that you have not the faintest idea what you seek to convey by the word "evolve" or what that word conveys or means to you, and you are about to demonstrate that by signally failing to set out what you mean by evolve - if you don't mean unroll (which is what the word actually means.)

@edge8881 2 жыл бұрын

Jesus Christ prayed to GOD . GOD called Jesus Christ his son . Jesus Christ sacrifice his life , died . GOD cannot die .

@fintan254 4 жыл бұрын

This guy has no real interest in seeking the transcendent. He's been given a number of sound approaches and has rejected all of them. To me it appears that his main goal is to get to the end of a tv series.

@durosempre4470 4 жыл бұрын

I respectfully disagree. I think (though I can't read his mind, so I have no certainty) he's a sincere seeker of truth. He's a scientist by training, and probably adheres to Carl Sagan's aphorism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All the men he interviewed are brilliant in their own regard and gave interesting perspectives on the Trinity, but Kuhn is under no obligation to accept any of their perspectives as "absolute truth." Having said that, I think you make a good point about him wanting "to get to the end" of the show. His job as host/producer constricts the amount of time he can dedicate to each discussion. At some point, he has to wrap it up. Many episodes of CTT end on a similar note, leaving the impression that Kuhn didn't get the comprehensive answers he was seeking. Of course, many of the existential questions he's asking can't be definitively answered by science. The religious thinkers he talks with are, like the ones in this episode, frequently brilliant. But Kuhn is a skeptic at heart. I think he very much wants to believe in a Creator and the supernatural, but without scientific confirmation, it's no mean feat.

@covidmonster4195 4 жыл бұрын

This sounded like multiple interviews with people who each talked themselves into positions by ignoring the obvious flaws. They now hold positions they are too stubborn to re-examine because of the glaring issues of modalism, the absurdness of singularity of three distinct persons, and the impossible eternity claim was pointed out regarding a father coming before a son. You can’t have a begotten that has existed eternally. If you count backwards, that would mean that the father existed for eternity going backwards before the son was begotten. One begotten, by definition cannot be eternal.

@joop6463 2 жыл бұрын

the father is causally prior to the son without being temporally prior to the son, this causal relation exists in all possible worlds.

@darkknightsds Жыл бұрын

Richard Swinburne with the mic drop

@moorishwarrior341 Жыл бұрын

Damn, if it takes philosophers to make you understand with such complex explanations what god really is then maybe you are in a wrong religion because god is simple, god is one, he all knowing all wise self sufficient and he is unlike his creation. Some of those philosophers were literally talking rubbish and none of them would convince even one logical person on this earth

@xaviervelascosuarez 6 ай бұрын

God is one, God is simple, God is infinite. No philosopher with a complex, broken, and limited mind should be able to satisfactorily explain what's one, simple and infinite. The more acrobatic gymnastics philosophers and theologians engage in, the more convinced I am that they are after-yet still infinitely away from-the true God.