Early Church and Trinity: Father and Son

Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Twitter: / ryanmreeves Instagram: / ryreeves4
Website: www.gordonconwell.edu/academic...
For the entire course on 'Church History: Reformation to Modern', see the playlist: • Renaissance & Modern H...

[@rev.j.rogerallen9328]

Just another great lecture by Dr. Reeves. I do love getting this free Seminary education. I had to pay for the last one I got. Thanks again. Fr. Allen+

[@taylorw]

So well stated at about 8:30 that the time between St. Paul and Luther are shared roots for all Christians, not to be dismissed as a kind of 1500-year aberration, or worse. A testimony to Dr. Reeves generous spirit and objectivity.

[@RyanReevesM]

Thanks! I try always to remain objective and do think I also let people know when I'm just giving my won position. But glad when that comes through to the viewer!

[@longhaulconvert]

I'm sure you know how picky Orthodox Christians can be about Church History, and you do a pretty fine job (as one former Protestant to a current one).For Orthodox Christians, it's the Baptism of Christ that we hold to as the central statement of the revelation of the Trinity.

[@fransellenfrans8473]

Thank you Dr. Reeves🤗

[@Monkofmagnesia]

Second video of your I have seen and now I am a subscriber.

[@jenna2431]

Proofreading catch: at 2:49 it should be Matthew 28:19.

[@RyanReevesM]

You're quickly becoming my hero, Jenna, with these proof catches. They'll make doing a polish on them at a later date SO much easier.

[@jenna2431]

Glad to be of help. I have to make nice for being on a rant sometimes. :)

[@reneoslizlok6031]

Hi Ryan, I think your biblical reference re: "Therefore go & make ... baptizing ... in the name of the Father & the Son & the Holy Spirit" is Mathew 28:19 not Mathew 16:15 which is also relevant but when Christ asks "Who therefore do you say I am?"

[@andthensome512]

I'm really enjoying learning from your lectures. Thank you for posting these.

[@laurenholladay]

Dear Dr. Reeves. I am really enjoying your teachings, but I have a question. I study church history with other historians and as a Reformed believer in Christ, I've never heard anyone refer to a "Pope" in the 200's. I don't see a Pope in the Scriptures and I've never heard of the office of the Pope being "official" until 606 AD (or right around that). I know men were called Popes earlier than 600 AD, but I've been learning that the Church doesn't actually "acknowledge" -- universally-- a Pope until about 600 AD. So, when you mention that there is a Pope in the 200's, that seems strange to me because some of these men are only 100 years post the Apostle John.... did a false doctrine of a Papacy develop within 100 years? I'd love to hear your explanation on this as I'm very confused. I didn't think the Church lost it within 100 years. And I don't believe they did, as you mention. I'm just concerned that giving too much credit to Romanism is dangerous. They are a false church, teach a different Gospel and this teaching here is the first time in years that I've heard a Church Historian teach that there was actually a Pope in the 200's ADThank you sir. I appreciate it. God bless you.

[@jeffgjere6398]

I enjoyed watching this video and found it to be quite good. Yet I wanted to comment on a matter of language that I think is very important in discussing the Trinity. I find that the word "separate" is inappropriate in discussing the persons of the Godhead. In preference to this I use the word "distinct." Now, surely in some contexts these words can be used pretty much interchangeably; I don't think this is one of them. I have in mind the time when Jesus said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." The word "separate" just doesn't fit with this, while the word "distinct" works just fine. I hope I don't come across as being harsh or anything of the sort. My intent is to give a suggestion which I hope can be received.

[@RyanReevesM]

+Jeff Gjere // Not harsh at all, and it's a fair point to raise. What I am trying to do in the lecture is give a sense as to how those before Nicaea are trying to wrestle with language of 'unity' and 'separation', though obviously the language Nicaea helps give the church is a way of making the distinction without separation. So you're care with language is absolutely valid, I think, especially in the light of later reflections on the positive contribution Nicaea makes to theological grammar.

[@rev.j.rogerallen9328]

+Ryan Reeves Amen!

[@priscillajervey6134]

Jeff Gjere The holy spirit is God's operational presence in the world - it is not a person. It doesnt have a name - it can be quantified - poured out, wind or fire. Jesus is not he son of the holy spirit, but God the father. There isn't mentioned of a throne in heaven even at the left hand of God fot the third member of the trinity. hmmm!. When Jesus says "when you see me, you see the Father, why not when you see me you see the father and the holy spirit?? Since God is really three in one...God. Jesus never claimed to be God, and God tells us clearly (John 3:16 ) Jesus is his Son. I don't believe we needed a council of men to decide for us who Jesus is. All we have to do is go to the bibe and and permit Jesus tell us who he is himself! And doesn't anyone think it rather odd that after three hundred years of arguments etc, that the Trinity ( the councils decision ) is a mystery? It is man who complicated the issue! It's when Christianity tried to make Jesus God, and God a human being that muddied the water!

[@priscillajervey6134]

Jeff Gjere The trinity was not accepted from the beginning.

[@priscillajervey6134]

Early Christians were NOT baptised in the name of a Trinity. Read the book of Acts, Christians were baptised in the name of Jesus. Matt. 16:15 is a trinitatian "proof text." Mr Reeves your bias is showing! Also Matt 16: 15 has been debated among scholars concerning it's date.

[@paul1der]

Matthew 16:15 say this! He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Whats going on here

[@AlexKomnenos]

I love your description of the councils, especially the part where you discussed faith and reflection, I couldn't agree more. Also I appreciate your statement that "the lights didn't go out" after the apostles. It bothers me that in many Protestant and evangelical circles there is an ignorance of anything post apostles and pre Luther.

[@lizicadumitru9683]

Hello Dr Reeves I was wondering if you would answer my question here. You mention John 1:1 and it brought up something someone said which struck me as odd. This person mentioned that the Logos (word) was not Jesus before the incarnation but just the spoken speech of the Father. He spoke it into flesh as in "the word became flesh." Have you ever encountered this argument? Thank you again for your time and your series here.

[@peanut71968]

Brilliant cross section! Thank you, Dr. Reeves

[@MrFuzzyssquirrel]

4th scripture reference is Matthew 28:19, not 16:15

[@MrFuzzyssquirrel]

Never mind, someone already caught it.

[@thapack45]

Isn't it true that the Holy Spirit is not worshiped from the beginning though? Like now we say things very explicit such as "Praise Father, Son & Holy Ghost." But they don't really say things like that about the Holy Spirit early on in the New Testament or shortly thereafter do they?

[@bobpolo2964]

Not to my knowledge

[@certaindisciple1981]

I'm enjoying all of your videos. I'm a man who wished he payed attention in my history class. This is so simple Jesus Christ is not God. He is the Son of God and alive in heaven. The fullness of God in him is very easy, meaning that Jesus Christ did the father's will he put that 'word' that came from God in his mind by study and revelation and the only man that did and could apply that perfectly being born with perfect soul. God is the father. You know like we are son because we had a father that fathered us. The only other man that was perfect for a little while was Adam who did eventually mess up thus Christ is called the second Adam. It is amazing that this is been going on for so many years. Holy Spirit is simple God's being or sometimes called The light. So Yes God is A father because he has a begotten Son (now born again sons), Look by God's foreknowledge and God supplying seed for JC THEN god has sent Jesus Christ or you can say sent his (the) word in the flesh. People just don't understand God know's he can beat the Devil, the contest is that God wants mankind to beat the Devil by obeying him. God provided us his instructions on how to do that in two ways in book form and in Person. written word or in the Flesh. JC the teacher the man in person who could show us practically.

[@SatCollinz]

11th minute. you are searching for te word "entity"//// a separate entity.

[@felixwalne3494]

i really enjoy your lectures, can you recommend any other links to lectures etc for additional church history material please?

[@daledheyalef]

"...the LORD our God, the LORD is one"any particular reason some people translate it this way? The Hebrew could just as well translate to "...the LORD is our God, the LORD is one".

[@andrzejgieralt9872]

Professor, I really enjoy these lectures, going far more into affirming the truth than my extremely irritating leftist modernist relativist classes that don't understand that people thought differently in the past. I highly appreciate your consistent debunking of such ideologies and, as you politely put it, cynics. Thank you again.

[@mikenoor3931]

Nice

[@fredjones6601]

How is the ice, liquid, and vapor analogy Modalism...?

[@roxykattx]

I love this stuff. Have you ever done anything on universalism?

[@dabish2888]

I love these lectures, although Ryan mis-cited (I don't believe that's a word😀) Mt 28:19 to Mt 16:15. What I have an issue with is that I'm viewing an instructional video on a Christian creed, but the ad that came on at the beginning, as well as half way through was from a counterfeit Christian organization. How does a Mormon ad get placed on such a video unless there are sinister works in the background? I am a Christian and loathe counterfeits!!!

[@RyanReevesM]

Ads are automatic by Google/KZbin and they advertise based on what they think the viewer wants. Channels have to monetize in order to get the videos seen, but they have zero input. For example, I did research on mattresses. Now KZbin shows me nothing but mattress ads.

[@dabish2888]

@@RyanReevesM, thank you for taking the time to respond. I suppose a search about comparisons between the Bible and the BOM triggered that ad. The fact that I saw it on one of your videos got me a little miffed. This is not because they don't have the right to advertise; it's because they try to look Christian, misleading people in the process. I really enjoy your lectures. Keep up the great work!

[@YvesKalala]

Hello Ryan, thanks a lot for sharing this not-so-easy account in a very clear way... My questions are: 1) If we want to maintain the full divinity of Christ, His equalness with God, how do we deal with the following verses: John 14:28 where Christ says "the Father is greater than I...?" Philippians 2:6: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to cling to John 6:38: where Christ said to have come to do His Father's will... The above verses to me suggest some kind of subordination of the Son to the Father. I don't want to declare Christ a created Being as the Bible has enough verses against that, but why couldn't we say that "in the divine nature there is a subordination of the Son to the Father?" 2) Why are we so opposed to the idea that Christianity is neither a monotheistic nor a theistic religion, but rather a trinitarian one as I feel this will deal with various issues we have got from those 'logic ones' who refute Christianity isn't monotheistic? There is a case to accuse Christianity for not qualifying to be monotheistic. So would you reject my suggestion that, Christianity is monotheistic in the sense it worships Three Persons who are in ONE SUBSTANCE, but also Theistic in the fact that the members of the One Godhead are THREE PERSONS... If I may ask my question in another way, I am simply wondering why we insist to be monotheistic while at the same time condemning modalism? Thanks for taking the time to answer. Yves

[@nikostheater]

The word πρόσωπο (prosopo) in Greek means face, the face of a person, not a mask. Prosopo though implies a person and a personality behind it.

[@RyanReevesM]

It actually was used for both. When referring to live people it would mean face, yes. But for actors or dramatists a 'prosopon' was the face mask they would wear to take on a different role. Hence the reason why it was a slippery word when discussing God.

[@nikostheater]

Well, yes, but a small correction. The mask that the actors would wear in a a play was called Προσωπείον Prosopeio.

[@jonathandoe1367]

I think the only problem with Modalism is that people suddenly stop applying logic to its criticisms. It makes complete sense that Jesus would talk to God, because he was still a human man, despite being the complete embodiment of God himself. Really, I think the problem originates from confusion of the purpose of breaking God down into the Trinity. I mean, really, you could break God down into whatever categories would serve as a helpful figure, the same as you could for the anatomy of anything else, just as the Sun could broken down into solar radiation, the outer shell, and the core. If you wanted to use a differently structured figure, it wouldn't change what you describe the Sun as, and it doesn't mean the Sun isn't still only one star. Personally, though, I do really think the Trinity is a great model to explain God as being the creator of all things, while all things he created contain a part of Himself (or, the case of Jesus Christ, the entirety Himself), and the manifestation of the underlying nature of the divine. Then again, I'm a Pantheist and a Compatibilist, so it's not like anyone ever agrees with me on anything else.

[@stevencarrier5899]

I think TRI-UNITY would be best described as Unity The distinctions have more to do with our perceptions of GOD.

[@bob1988222]

I really enjoy your videos, and recently i have had discussions about these topics with some of my friends. The point I am making is when joshua(jos5) and abraham(gen18) are visited by God, it says in our translation. I claim that this is jesus himself. because the Father couldn't possibly come to earth. comments?

[@danm7527]

such an important channel. the maker of the video sounds like an atheist/agnostic, but he knows what he's talking about. best channel

[@WendellBreretonbbmg]

Dr Ryan I love your videos but I have to disagree with you on this video. The apostolic church in the lifetime of the Apostles clearly never baptized in any trinitarian formula. Matthew 28:19 says Baptise in the name, not the names. Also the Apostles as mentioned baptized specifically in Jesus name. You clearly mention in other videos that the original 325 Nicean creed never puts Jesus as a second person of a Trinity or a 3rd holy person as the Spirit. You know Athanasian would never have permitted this philosophical concept. The bible clearly refers to The Oneness of God. You know that immutibilty is one of the immovable natures of the God of the bible. So then who is the Son. Sonship is only relevant in the Humanity of Jesus. It has nothing to do with His divinity. In Divinity He is the Word. John 1:1. 1 John 5:7 says There are 3 that bear record in heaven. The Son is not mentioned. Why? Because Sonship is to clearify paternity not divinity. Homoousis is a concrete doctrine that Nicea 1 got 100% right. Western Latin and I dare say European mentalities have morphed the Shema to a trinitarian mentality. The trinity as you know doctor was an evolution of thought not the original language of the church. It has become an orthodox of thinking but in many cases has arianist leanings or polytheistic modern explanations. You start this video being an apologist for the trinity unlike most of your videos you state the historic process and allow the history to tell the story. Bless you and again I am very thankful for your ministry. You are doing and excellent job.

[@taylorw]

It seems to me there is another person, or three, to consider here, appearing in Genesis 1:27. I am hopelessly out of my depth here, but what is an "image" and a "likeness"? What does it mean to be, as we are affirmed by our creator to be, his likeness? Superficial qualities? Skin and bones, and cells and DNA? I often wonder about our fundamental all-permeating imperfections that create the incompatibilities with which we live. How deep this likeness? Deep enough to require the presence of a Holy Spirit perhaps. Do we also belong in this conversation of the who and what and how of these distinctive attributes (if that is even a fair term) of God? If there is a clearer sign of what that "likeness" means than the birth of that child, I don't know what it could be. "Hey people! He's just like you! And he's just like me. We're related! We're really alike! ... Get it? 'Alike...likeness?' "

[@nomikosmikel6413]

I honestly love reading or watching Christians argue with one another about doctrine and dogma. It's extraordinary how well Christianity has performed as a faith considering the lack of coherence amongst members. I'm not a Christian, though an avid enthusiast of the minutiae of history and NOTHING is as focussed on minutiae like Christian history.

[@AJHurley]

Thats the beauty of it. The church was never intended to be a monarchical force, coercing its followers by brute strength. Nor is it governed by a reining body editing thought, like Islam. Its rather men, filled by the spirit of God, doing careful exegesis and wrestling for correct interpretation of His revealed Word. The minutiae is where the disagreement comes, but its relatively uniform upon essentials of the faith.

[@nomikosmikel6413]

The Greek Orthodox do not assert original sin or depraved nature of man and are questionable on unity of the trinity, the Catholics assert the status of Mary as co-redeemer and the impossibility of salvation outside the church of Rome, the Anglicans have put a big question mark next to the virgin birth and the exclusivity of Jesus' sacrifice as the sole means of redemption, many Pentecostals have elevated the "saved" as being essentially gods, Fundamentalist Baptists regard Catholics as being servants of the Antichrist, Russian Orthodoxy argues that human perfectability is possible and thus man can become God, strict Calvinist Presbyterians believe that human will is irrelevant to God's gift of salvation through grace whereas Methodists believe that only by making an act of will to choose salvation can one be saved, Old Believers reject any innovation to the Tridentine Mass as heresy, and I haven't even started on the Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons...but you'd probably say they're not "real" Christians. Yeah.. looks relatively uniform to me.

[@AJHurley]

Thanks for the reply Mikel. I began adressing each one of your points then I realized I was getting away from the crux of the issue. The main thrust of this issue addressed in my OP was this, "The church was never intended to be a monarchical force, coercing its followers by brute strength. Nor is it governed by a reining body editing thought, like Islam. Its rather men, filled by the spirit of God, doing careful exegesis and wrestling for correct interpretation of His revealed Word." Therefore, If differences come about its because of there two categorical errors: 1. Errors have been made in interpreting the word of God. 2. People have done away with the word of God and added their own opinion. The fact that people differ about the ideas of Abraham Lincoln and that some hold to crazy untenable view about him, does not negate the truthfulness of his life or his work; nor does it mean we cant attain accurate truth about his life. Truth comes through careful study and wisdom to work through bias of all forms, both intrinsic and extrinsic.

[@nomikosmikel6413]

Ok, well going back to your main thrust: 1. There is no single reigning body editing thought in Islam. Much like in Christianity, there are numerous ones, each with varying perspective. Unlike Christianity, they all can agree on one thing - that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is the seal of the prophets. Irrespective of tribe or sect - they can all give unqualified agreement on that. There is no parallel in Christianity - no Creed has been uniformly agreed to by Christians. I challenge you to present one that has not resulted in schism. No, I'm not Muslim. 2. There are bodies within Christianity which present themselves as a "reigning body" - the Holy See in particular. Bishops are called "Princes of the Church" and are more akin to a monarchy than the institutions of other religions. Also, the reigning monarch of England is also the head of the Anglican church, so... yeah... monarchical. 3. Before you start on "intention", yes I know that Jesus' said his kingdom is not of this world, however that too closely associates "church" with "kingdom", and doesn't properly account for the doctrine of Jesus being both Christ and Lord, and as far as I can tell, "ecclesia" doesn't really translate into church anyway - it basically means a group of people. It does not translate properly into any institutional form, and thus one cannot deduce any particular intent associated with the foundation of the church, notwithstanding Peter's statement regarding Jesus as the Messiah - what exactly Jesus meant in his reply to Peter, and what he was referring to is not defined. 4. So, does one take an originalist or a dispensationalist approach when determining error from falsehood? Is the "true" church or understanding of scripture more akin to the church of Constantine's time, where Neoplatonic philosophies were used to understand the nature of God, or now as God's Spirit as being poured out in the "latter days". I guess the jury's still out. 5. There is NO archaeological evidence or contemporaneous record that provides support for the existence of a historical Jesus. Don't mention Josephus. Please don't. Just Google before you write Josephus. Please don't, I'm begging you. I'd like you to TRY and argue against the existence of Judas Maccabees and sound like you haven't lost your mind. As for your line of thought about Abraham Lincoln... um... what?

[@AJHurley]

Hey Mikel, My first question, if I can be so bold as to ask you, is have you broached this topic with a true desire for truth or is it simply to find ways to solidify yourself in a position at enmity with God? I don't know you and I would never immediately judge that. Only you can answer that honestly. However, the reason I ask is because we were having a conversation regarding the uniformity of faith under the revealed word of God and you immediately took the conversation into left field. You started in immediately talking about the historicity of Christ; a topic that has nothing to do with Nicea, the adherence of Christendom to the cannon of scripture, or even remotely on the topic of the conversation at hand. You must be able to see that such tactics are antithetical to objectivity and is evidence of potential closed mindedness. We all are to a certain degree, but I ask that you consider where you're at. I will answer your points in the numerical order you provided. 1. The caliph is the reining body of Islam. Contrary to what you have presented, the differences between islam and Christianity is enormous in the wholesale editing of information. This is evidenced by the way we even have received our scriptures. Islam has a controlled transmission of its texts of scripture by a governing body. Christianity does not, it has a free transmission of its texts. Uthman, the third Caleph, got together all the individuals who had memorized the Quran and those who had it written on palm stalks and parchments and produced an official copy of the Quran, during the battle of Yamama. What happened to all the texts that were used and differed? They were burned. The only reason why we know there is not only one version of the quran ever and that there were differences in readings of it is because some differed strongly with Uthman and we have aspects of variant readings today (such as fogs palimpsest manuscript, from one of Mohammahs contemporaries) that survived the purge. Futhermore its very convenient for you to say Christianity has no uniformity of adherence when the definition of Christian you use is mere profession and not a body of truth. Upon the authority of Scripture, the uniform creed is faith in the person and work of Christ. Jesus said that is believers would be sanctified by the word he would give his apostles (high priestly prayer john 17), scripture. By the way-side note- the apostles creed was uniformly adhered to with no schisms. But again, how do you define schisms? If i am a first century christian at the time of the apostles and I reject christ as the only savior, do you then say the Church has never been uniform? Based on who's standard? 2. I can demonstrate through church history that the papacy was an invention of Rome and any time of Religious monarchy is antithetical to the message of the scriptures and the gospel. Thus my point is, if your looking for unity, and your definition of Christendom is anyone that claims a mere belief in Jesus, then you must consider muslims also Christians too. After all, what is the quran if not a 6th century gnostic gospel? They believe in Jesus. They attest to his miracles. They even believe he never died. Are they christian? If i claim I'm a muslim who's to say I'm not? By whose standard is my profession measured against? 3. Jesus said in Luke 17:21-22 that the kingdom of God is not a visible or physical one but "the kingdom of God is within you". Membership into his kingdom takes place through union into his body of redemption of sins. Colossians 1:14-15 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. To be a member of His body is to be part of his church (Ekklesia is a Greek word defined as “a called-out assembly.”) The church is the body of Christ Ephesians 1:22-23 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. Therefore, the scripture teaches that to be transferred out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God, one needs to be united to the atoning work of Christ through his body for sin by faith. Its through personal redemption. 4. The New testament was written to greeks, by individuals who's culture was pervaded by a greeco-roman milieu. why would you expect the realities they sought to communicate to be phrased in any other terms than in the cultural philosophical environmental context in which they lived? Just because cultural platonic language is used does not mean that the ideas were anything other than Gods through the mouths their own. 5. The roman historian Tacitus wrote of Jesus. To doubt his existence is the most foolish thing anyone has ever asserted. He is the most prolifically written and talked about figure in all of human history. The writings of his followers are the most historical prevalent pervasive and perserved works of all of antiquity. Any historian will tell you that.

[@joshuabader8560]

John 1 never actually says Jesus is the word it just says the word was made flesh. If you plan to build a house and you end up building it then your word is made flesh.

[@phillip9036]

Love these videos.thanx.the Trinity is an intentional mystery that well probly never understand perhaps even in Eternity.?

[@StephenWebb1980]

Logos as "God" is problematic. A word can not describe its speaker in full. There is a pretty clear distinction between the Speaker and that which was spoken. Before the word could be spoken it must have existed in the Mind of the Speaker, but once again, a thought can not fully describe the Mind in which it exists. If Yeshua is the word, then he is not the Speaker of the word.

[@seraphimdunn]

Yeshua is not the Word. Yeshua is an old testament prophet. Jesus Christ is the Word. The Word was with God, the Word was God. The WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US. Get off that perversion of the very Name of Jesus Christ.

[@StephenWebb1980]

No, you are incorrect. You are talking about Yahoshua or Yashua its sometimes pronounced, that is the equivalent to Joshua, an OT prophet. I'm talking about Yeshua the one who's name was mangled into Jesus Christ. Yeshua Ha Meshiach is the same person as Jesus the Messiah.

[@seraphimdunn]

Stephen Webb​​ no, you are talking about a hypothetical pronunciation which actually happens to be a modern Jewish mangling of the Name above all names, Jesus, who is called the Christ. The theory that "Greek male names can't end in a vowel" is absolutely destroyed by the first page of the Gospel of St. Matthew in the Greek New Testament. The Gospel of St. Matthew begins with a genealogy. That geology includes several Hebrew names of men which end in vowels, and they are transliterated into Greek with the vowel endings. The first mention of the name of Jesus Christ ends in a vowel and it is not the "alpha" which would be necessary for that theory to hold any water. Out of the first 3 mentions of the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, 2 of those mentions end in the vowel "upsilon". Given the inherent lack of apostolic connection in protestant faiths, there has been a history of attempting to fill that void with Judaism. Unfortunately, too many have mixed Christianity with Judaism, which is complete heresy in all regards. This is the very same heresy addressed in Scripture in St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, Chapter 3. I am not telling you this to win some petty internet argument. I am only giving you truth. May we both continue to grow in the faith and Grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

[@StephenWebb1980]

I am suspicious of your response because you first mistook my use of Yeshua for Yehoshua, too distinct names. Second, I make no mention of Greek transliterations. "Jesus" in spelling and in pronunciation is not the original, we know this to be a fact. Christ is also not "an original" word as it is derived from the Greek meaning anointed one. Jesus is a mangled version of Yeshua, even if Yeshua is not the original it was used before "Jesus", so I do my best to get back as close as possible to the name given by his parents, or that was somewhat close to his native tongue. His name is not Jesus Christ, that is something several times removed from his birth name.

[@priscillajervey6134]

Stephen Webb Bravo brother! Why on earth do clergy and scholars want to personify the logos. The word that was with God was his own word.

[@turbopro10]

@ 3:55 --> ... but rather the Church is Trinitarian in its worship from the very beginning ... Firstly, when you assert the very beginning, do you mean by this the early church in the time of Paul? If so, is it that we should consider the early church members, most likely made up mostly of 1st century jews, to be Trinitarian?

[@RyanReevesM]

+turbopro10 // Yes that's exactly what we're saying. Paul is a Jewish scholar and Pharisee, and he includes for worship, lordship, etc. the language of Christ and the Spirit. He would have known what the implication was to say tha the fullness of God dwelt in Christ (his words), which would not imply pantheism. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is a riff on the Shema ('Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one') and he includes Christ and makes it functionally two references to the one God. I would hesitate to say this is fully Trinitarian; rather the development of triniarian grammar was used to help the church articulate what they saw in the witness of the NT.

[@richunixunix3313]

Dr. Reeves, Paul would never have agree to see Jesus as the same as God (The Father) and reading 1 Corinthians 8:6 you get(feel) the impression that he is talking about 2 people.

[@priscillajervey6134]

Ryan Reeves It appears the bible isn' t sufficient for us to understand Jesus' words when telling us who he was; hence we needed extra biblical language to make it clear for us and our little finite minds. In doing so the councils complicated the issue so badly, if one could explain the trinity they would be swinging on a vine in a zoo with primates. The issue is SO bad, one cant even question it in a church classroom. One can question any doctrine BUT NOT the holy Trinity!! Why... because teachers just cant handle it...and more times than often your classmates will turn on you like a rattle snake. The trinity is the biggest joke Satan has convinced Christians of. Dr reeves sounds very impressive and I am sure he is very knowledgable, as well as convincing however, I detect his bias when it comes to the trinity. I am so glad that so many on this sight is not so blind but see through the crafty and artful wordings!!

[@priscillajervey6134]

turbopro10 How many know why the holy ones or saints always seem to have the halo around their heads especially in old painting s (art)? It is suppose to represent the sun. That's pagan folks!.

[@priscillajervey6134]

turbopro10 How many know why the holy ones or saints always seem to have the halo around their heads especially in old painting s (art)? It is suppose to represent the sun. That's pagan folks!.

[@certaindisciple1981]

This is very simple. Jesus Christ always obeyed the father thus he can be called the Word in person. Meaning because he always obeyed God then he who knows Jesus Christ would know the heart of God. Because Jesus read, studied and heard by revelation the Word from God. So then God's Word was in the heart or mind of Jesus Christ thus God's word in the flesh. Jesus Christ who is now in heaven on the right hand of God. Jesus Christ is not God.God's authorship of himself makes he God The Word. Then we have Jesus Christ who always did the father will making him the Word in person. The word in practical USE. Then men of God who wrote by revelation from God then we have God's Word in writing. All agreeing as one Word.

[@juniorxeastny8169]

I would like to thank the Comments section for clearing up more things for me then this actual video.

[@sherifel-hadi3439]

I find it slightly amusing you trying to explain the trinity that is by definition an incomprehensible concept, "a mystery". If you think you understand it you misunderstand it.

[@jethro035181]

....it makes as much sense as most of the koran....religion is the irrational belief in the implausible

[@rayb2390]

The odd thing is you don't realize you refute yourself when you say this "If you think you understand it you misunderstand "

[@mitzvahgolem8366]

Tertullian came up with this pagan concept but rejected it himself later as idolatry. It mirrored the Egyptian triune idolatry of Egypt and Osiris. Irenaeus ,Dematrius of Alexandrian church used this notion to convert locals who embraced tri god concepts in North Africa. The original koine Greek pre Nicene NT papyrus is devoid of 1john 5:7-8. This pagan idolatry was in fact admittedly added into scripture after Nicea . Martin Luther and Erasmus attempted to remove this addition but it was added back in later. What's funny is it does not appear in the Catholic bibles today. The early original Church did not consider JC a "trinity" nor even a "god-man"for that matter. Kindly research "comma debate,Trintity,Tertullian". Countless people were burned alive as heretics for rejecting this roman creed. Arian's and Jews etc.

[@aglayamajorem9546]

mitzvah golem No ancient texts to back up your claims. So disingenuous.

[@Flergenbergen]

I have loved this series and I am an atheist. There is a christian bias and that's fine, still very informative. I have to say that this history merely confirms my non-belief and this video in particular highlights why. Here we have an intelligent man trying to reason himself into profoundly absurd beliefs, and the OT basis of his argument is an incredibly vague handful of words from a holy book of a religion that never believed their god was split into three parts but not really split into three parts but sorta yeah. Great series, I could not resist snarking on this particular point, which among others in this series reveals the absolutely ridiculous nature of christian belief systems.

[@priscillajervey6134]

Hanky Dubs I am not an atheist, but I agree with you when it comes to the Trinity. Jesus was never a Trinitarian. This unsound doctrine is totally man's big blunder!

[@bobpolo2964]

I would think that denying Jesus Christ as your only hope for salvation is ridiculous

[@priscillajervey6134]

Hanky Dubs Yes, you are certainly right, he is trying to reason what CANNOT be reasoned, regardless how intelligent or unbiased he sounds.

[@allmightlionthunder5515]

demi God demi Gods !

[@rockanderson1823]

I don't believe the bible should be taken too literally. Mark, first of the Gospels was written around 70ad by most bible scholars estimations. And the other Gospels written after that. We know that people's memories begin to twist over time; facts become exaggerated, facts forgotten, words change, etc. Using Occam's Razor, it would seem that Modalist seems pretty good. God comes in three forms: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It might have been too complex and perhaps too much to ask for people to accept that God was Jesus and Jesus was God. Because everybody "knows" God is infinite. Thus, God is infinite, Jesus was God in a human body, and the Holy Spirit is a belief that is in you or not in you. (To be honest, I follow the path of science and do not feel that religion is a science. But I like knowing "stuff" and was unclear on "trinity" of God concept.) I appreciate your videos and the time you take to educate people.

[@carlallanjames]

ice - water - steam - all three are in agreement with each other

[@priscillajervey6134]

CARL A Oh please. What a foolish statement to make> Put an ice cube in a cup of water then put into the microwave on high for a minute and check how well the ice cube gets along with the hot water and steam!!!

[@aglayamajorem9546]

CARL A That's modalism. That's not Trinity.

[@KevinPaul444]

He said they were Jewish men writing the gospels, we do not kno that, we do know that not all the gospels were written by Jewish men, and I am telling you that no, none of the gospels were written by Jewish men, one of the reasons why they were all written in Greek, but there as only one original gospel written in Aramaic, and that by John, was edited many times to get what we have today, which is nothing likev the original.

[@KevinPaul444]

Why are you posting this on google+? I don't even know where to find your comment, or mine for that matter. Why can't you be simple and just post on youtube? Your prideful and full of ego and you can't just do things that are easy, but you have to do them your own way just to make it hard for everyone. How come you don't understand that we do not know who wrote the gospels? They are forgeries, if you believe they were realyl written by John or Matthew - they were just written In Their Names. That is well known. but after rigorous investigation, I know they were written by Gentiles, not Jews. All of the early church fathers and gospel writers were antisemitic followers of Paul who was a well known enemy of the apostles in his day, it is our stupid generation who has no idea of this. That is why when some early church fathers quote from the Hebrew gospels, the scripture is completely different. When will you get it? That the Jewish source of Christianity was entirely different than the Pauline Roman source? In that is was based on the truth and not pagan lies of hypocrisy and jealousy, antisemitic Pauline followers of pure blasphemy. One example is Polycarp, everybody thinks he is a disciple of John, well did you read his epistles? He is a fucking hypocritical faggot follower of Paul with an evil absurd doctrine, just as Paul's. They are all Gentiles, not Jews. If we had scripture from the Jewish sources the religion would be entirely different. But because they are your forefathers telling you lies, you believe every bit of it. You are just gullible man.

[@KevinPaul444]

+Daniel Malone JR. I am agreeing. I may be gullible, but not as much as the masses. Paul is still a mystery to scholars. If you want to play this game of who is gullible - that admittance by Paul saying he is a Pharisee - is an obviously sarcasm or even outright lie if you read the text in full. Some scholars (may be fringe) suggest he is Josephus. Well Josephus was a traitor who wanted to make a mark in history, sounds like Paul to me. But there is evidence to back that up. In that case most likely he would have been a Greek speaking Herodian. However if you put all of the puzzle together he is also Simon Magus and Joseph of Arimathea. Yes he hunted the Essenes, or Nazarenes. And converted based on a vision. But was rebuked by Peter! Did any of the Nazarenes accept him or his vision? No! The brothers, James, Peter, and John were royal and literate! John the Essene (yes that was his name before history lied to us) was the cousin of the Messiah, we know that, it is the same royal family. Want to talk gullible? The gospel of the Nazarenes claim John did not eat locusts, so why do you people keep saying over and over that he did? Why do you refuse to listen to the words of James, that he was literate? Why do you keep believing other people, who were antisemitic, over the Jews??? They were fucking liars man and you are so gullible that you believe them over the fucking people you pray to!!! You will not accept what they say over what their enemies said! John eating locusts and James being literate are my examples, out of many! The doctrine of John the Essene and the Messiah were one and the same, listen to the words of John and see that they are the same which Joshua taught and spoke! his meat was the fruit of the locust tree and wild honey. - most liars and wicked hypocrites love to say he ate locusts - I fucking hate them assholes, because they never love truth, they always reject the truth and He will ask them why. "He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath food let him do likewise." - the same doctrine as the Messiah "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with sufficient wages." - the same doctrine as the Messiah "Keep yourselves from blood and things strangled and from dead bodies of birds and beasts, and from all deeds of cruelty, and from all that is gotten of wrong; Think ye the blood of beasts and birds will wash away sin! I tell you Nay, Speak the Truth. Be just, Be merciful to one another and to all creatures that live, and walk humbly with your God."- the same lost doctrine as the Messiah "For the law was in part given by Moses, but grace and truth cometh in fulness by Jesus Christ." - Greek translation, John would have never said "Jesus Christ" I may be gullible, but I stand up for what the Aramaic words say, and you reject what they say and believe the Greek words! You believe the people who hated the Messiah over the Messiah himself!!!!!!

[@KevinPaul444]

+Daniel Malone JR. See man, this is the awful approach of modern educated scholars which gets under my skin and makes me shout like this: "Since what we do have is the Greek Manuscripts, it is from them that we need to find out what the Apostles wrote about Jesus" Idiots! You cannot find out what the Apostles wrote from Greek Manuscripts, because the Apostles were Hebrew (or Aramaic) speaking Jews!!! And when we finally come across a person who is not so gullible to understand that generations of Gentiles have purposefully lied to him out of the selfish arrogance of the their pathetic horrible hearts, they find the narrative from Clement of Rome who was a follower of Simon Peter, who recorded the preaching of Simon Peter and wrote it down to us. NOT ONCE DOES SIMON PETER USE THE NAME JESUS CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SIMON PETER DID CALL HIM A NAME BESIDES MASTER OR RIGHTEOUS TEACHER, AND THAT WAS "THE TRUE PROPHET." But the early church fathers testify that his name was Joshua. The word Christ is a Pagan Greek term, as we find with Krishna. Scholars are still rigorously debating over this, but it is common sense, the word Jesus is a cursed pathetic word, a horrible destructive language denoting the Master. If you read, you will find that scholars are still rigorously debating over if his name was Yahoshua, or Yehoshua. We still do not even know the exact name of Joshua the Messiah. But if you read closely, it is the arrgogance assholes saying that it is Yehoshua, and their argument is full of arrogance and pride, and anywhere you find arrogance and pride, you find rotten horrible deceit - AND I FUCKING HATE DECEIT, BECAUSE DECEIT IS ANOTHER AFFIRMATION THAT PROVES HOW MUCH THEY FUCKING HATE THEIR OWN SPECIES, LET ALONE OTHER CULTURES! THEY FUCKING HATE THEIR OWN KIND, HUMAN BEINGS, AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE SPEAKING THIS TODAY, BECAUSE 1,000S OF PEOPLE FOR 1,000S OF YEARS HAVE BEEN LYING BASED ON PURE PATHETIC HATRED!

[@KevinPaul444]

+Daniel Malone JR. It is surely hard to stay calm when you accuse me of being gullible and I can list 100 examples of how you are not only gullible, but how you reject the truth from those who you claim to believe in.

[@KevinPaul444]

+Daniel Malone JR. You are sounding like my romantic life. I would much rather be "gullible" to the apostles than "gullible" to the Romans and Gentiles, Herodians, Greeks, and any other follower of Paul. If you believe Paul was a Pharisee that means you are gullible.

[@approvedofGod]

Catholics were the only ones baptizing in the Trinity formula long before Nicaea 325 A.D. They were also baptizing "men, women, and children" in the nude. How about hearing something along these historical lines, Dr. Reeves?

[@WendellBreretonbbmg]

Also to call Modality heresy is unfair. Trinitarian doctrine also is considered heresy by many. Praxius and Sabellius never taught Trinity. God manifest is modalism. Theophany of the Burning bush is modalism. Word became flesh is modalism. To describe a God who continually tells you He is One as three is heresy. Jesus is not another God. He is God. God is Omnipresent While He spoke to Abram in Mamre didn't mean He wasn't in Heaven or in the past or in the future. The economic Trinity is a made up logic. Sabellius at least was staying within the Shema. God is a revealer. Modalism is not logic its biblical. 3-Ness is not biblical. In fact 3 is not enough, God the Father, Lamb, Lion, The Burning Bush, Son, The Holy Spirit. Deos Anthropos God man, Jesus speaks in Deity as well as humanity. So His dichotomy is what the trinitarians miss. The Father is greater than I is humanity. Before Abraham was I Am..is deity. As we describe Jesus His dichotomy is essential to establish His nature or to bring to clearity his statements. Origen also fails with subordination theology. Because The Father says I lifted my Word higher than my name. This demolishes subordination of the Word that became flesh. Bless you. I feel like Athanasius arguing the creed.

[@daveed3085]

שמע ישראל יהיה אלהינו יהיה אחך hear Israel Yahweh our God Yahweh is one

[@approvedofGod]

To say that the baptismal formula was Trinitarian from the beginning is hogwash! This particular formula came in the second century and defended by the Ante-Nicene Fathers, but not by the majority of Christians. The third century reveals that Rome had a school that stood against Trinitarian ideas. The bishops of Rome at this time ( Zephyrinus, Calixtus, etc.) were against the teachings of Hippolytus and other Trinitarians. A later pope (bishop of Rome, 257) by the name of Stephen argued in favor of baptism in the name of Jesus as being legitimate. This is church history that is overlooked by the majority of doctors in theology.

[@seraphimdunn]

that's because it is not true.

[@priscillajervey6134]

approvedofGod You are so right. In the book of Acts no one was baptised in he name of the Father Son and holy spirit no! they were baptised only in the name of Jesus!

[@approvedofGod]

Priscilla Jervey That is right! Those who want to protect their errors constantly give out misinformation. Someone has to tell the truth! Thank you.

[@priscillajervey6134]

approvedofGod You wre sooo right! Check out the book of Acts....no one was baptised in any other NAME THAN JESUS.

[@priscillajervey6134]

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MR REEVES IS BEING A BIT BIAS HERE IN USING MATT 16:15 AS A TRINIARIAN PROOF TEXT. THIS FORMULA WAS ESTABLISHED AT A MUCH LATER DATE AS ALL OR MOST SCHOLARS WILL ATTEST.

[@jethro035181]

....i've been a mild christian for almost 6 decades, and it still doesn't make any sense

[@priscillajervey6134]

jethro035181 And it never will because it is a construct of men - not God. God is not a God of confusion. Even the most ardent and defenders of the trinity cant explain it! .......it's a mystery!

[@nomikosmikel6413]

Nah, it's probably got more to do with IQ. I understood it perfectly. But then again, I've got a high IQ. Which also means I don't believe it.

[@topazblahblah]

God is 3 separate personages. It's that simple.

[@TheMonaghanClan]

There are two powers in heaven... not three and not one... The book of Revelation ends with two on the throne... God and the Lamb. Trinitarian language complicated the simple truth of a Father (Yahweh) releasing his kingdom to His Son Jesus!

[@priscillajervey6134]

Chris Monaghan Right on. Why don't trinitatian christians recognize there is no seat at the left hand of God for the holy spirit - third member of the trinity?

[@2010sjay]

Priscilla Jervey Even though 2John, 9 says; He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. I wonder why John made it a point to use the word "both" and "doctrine" . I only counted two persons mentioned, did you? Yet i'm made to feel damned for hellfire, for even expressing concerns about the trinitarian doctrine!

[@priscillajervey6134]

Chris Monaghan You are absolutely correct. Too bad so many Christians bow their knees to doctrines and creeds and not the words of God the Father and our lord and savior the Messiah. Too bad that they don't pay more heed to what Jesus said about "if you deny me befor men I will DENY YOU before my Father in heaven." Jesus is NOW in heaven with the father making intersession on our behalf. If Jesus IS God himself....does't this present a bit of a problem? The Bible say it folks....so don't blame me!! Don't post that is the second God (the son) ...or the second manefectation of himself the son (second person) of the trinity, OR the human mode of the God-man dual nature duo!!! Nope the Bible just calls jesus the lamb of God! Just the language of the church!! God have mercy!

[@vitaliiukraine4662]

Priscilla Jervey you should read church fathers more on this ,and you see that they all teach or trinuty or concept of that ,period . All claims of unitarians or binitarians are false .

[@ingarix]

so Jesus was talking to himself before and during crucifixion? this trinity stuff is simply ridiculous.