Refuting the BEST Muslim Objections to the Trinity

[@CapturingChristianity]

To read Sijuwade's articles: philarchive.org/archive/SIJBTM

[@SuperCrazymehdi]

you are a coward deleting my comments, you have no integrity.

[@SpotterVideo]

New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period? The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. These scriptures confirm the concept of the "Trinity". Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the KZbin videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.

[@economician]

@CapturingChristianity Cameron the two verses you listed are not an objection to the Trinity. The first verse does not say ”God is one of a trinity” but rather it says ”God is one of three ” and condemns those who DISBELIEVE in the trinity, namely the Tritheists of John Philiponos. The second verse does not speak against the Trinity but speaks against the INCARNATION and of Mary being Theotokos. The quran confirms the nestorian Trinity.

[@SuperCrazymehdi]

@@economicianhe already knows that probably, yet choose to go with a dumb interpretation, youtube makes good money.

[@James-g3w7w]

Although, for the reasons I expressed in the chat comments I reject Trinitarianism and advocate Divine Traducionism, Joshua is at least addressing the issue of what the Qaran is saying AND TO WHOM IT'S SAYING IT TOO. Remember it's a corner stone of Islam that Muhammad was illiterate.

[@fuuzug777]

Dr Joshua should really start a KZbin channel. Really good stuff!

[@pamphilus3652]

I concur

[@tpw7250]

As long as he gets a good mic!

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

Agreed!

[@KalamEL]

Josh this was brilliant! Excellent breakdown on the Nicene Creed

[@MichaelSmith-mr5dh]

I feel like Muhammad heard a lot about Christianity but never read the Scriptures himself.

[@chepelatino]

because he cant

[@swolenj]

He was literally illiterate

[@Johnatube]

One of reason for heresies is they don't have access to scripture or/and follow verbal teachings and interpretations. It's natural the cult leader not having any knowledge of the scripture but through hearing of various sects to come up with tall claims.

[@fivenightsatfreddys9369]

Jesus himself didn't demand to be worshipped. God the provider of everything will provide such verse. Is there???

[@Johnatube]

@fivenightsatfreddys9369 The earliest record of adults who worshipped Jesus were the Magi. They took 2 years to find Him. They must have done some serious searching to come to the expression of their understanding enough to worship Him at His infant form. A cult POV that sees arguments through various sects isn't going to have any more understanding as cult members are dictated what to do when they wake up up to when they sleep. Fear of jinn over so many things. That's some creepy mental state to live in thinking others are in a bad state. Jesus said seek and you will find. Or be stuck in just another experience of the blind leading the blind. Anyone who ever asked God do you know how it feels to be like us then God expression is in the person of Jesus.

[@AfariSharon]

This was such a great video, I genuinely don't think I can listen to any another person except him talk about the Trinity for more than an hour

[@JamesYankah2]

Are u a Ghanaian? If I may ask

[@AfariSharon]

@@JamesYankah2 yes, what gave it up?

[@JamesYankah2]

@@AfariSharon Your surname, obviously

[@AfariSharon]

@@JamesYankah2 oh yeah. :)

[@JasonJohnSwartz]

Saw your community post and gonna watch the video. Thanks Cameron

[@dalejohnson2682]

I like the temple replacement theology. However, I would say that the New Testament is quite clear on the divinity of Jesus. John 1:1-3, 14 being the clearest references. Jesus is directly called God. Other references include.... John 8:58 John 10:30 Colossians 1:15-20 Colossians 2:9 Hebrews 1:3 Philippians 2:5-7 Revelation 1:17-18 Titus 2:13 Matthew 28:18-20 There is no basis for Muslims to claim the bible doesn't teach the divinity of Jesus.

[@judah.miguel]

Romans 9:5 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are their ancestors, and Christ himself was an Israelite as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, the one who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 2 Peter 1:1 This letter is from Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ. I am writing to you who share the same precious faith we have. This faith was given to you because of the justice and fairness of Jesus Christ, our God and Savior. 1 Timothy 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJV) 1 John 5 20 - nd we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life

[@Friedrichsen]

I'm glad you asked him the question about Zeus and Chronos because I was wondering the exact same thing. And I liked his answer.

[@Miatpi]

Started out as a refutation of muslim objections and ended in an an hour long masterclass by Dr. Joshua on the trinity.

[@ericquek673]

@capturingChristianity!!! Hope you plan to bring on a scholar that counter his view. This would be fair as most of us who are not scholars and will have a difficult time to counter adequately.

[@Testify37]

@1:27:05 he says Ho Theos “The God” is used only for the Father ? But the definite article is used for the son as well in the Greek.. The Father even calls the Son Ho Theos which uses the Definite article in Hebrew’s 1:8. And other times scripture used “The God to refer to Jesus. John 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2nd Peter 1:1.

[@Thomas.apologia]

Cameron i’d love to see you interview a thomist on the trinity!

[@thinkitthrough3]

Yes! Such as Ed Feser or Rob Koons.

[@Triniforchrist]

Christian Wagner

[@Thomas.apologia]

@@Triniforchrist him or Astro!

[@LevDavidovichCampos]

​@@TriniforchristChristian Wagner is a little pagan arrogant brat. Thomism is pagan Greek Modalism.

[@RedRoosterRoman]

@@Triniforchrist second Christian Wagner!!!

[@truthmatters7573]

This was very instructive. I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. Brother Sijuwade is definitely onto something. I have learned a lot form him. I'll read more of his work. As a protestant, I think the question he is wrestling with with regards to Lateran 4 is a moot point. Don't waste time reconciling the irreconcilable. You have already concluded that Augustine and the council of Toledo and Lateran 4 are a new development that contradicts the prior view. The only way to overcome the conclusion that one of the councils erred, would be to argue that their conclusions are equivalent, i.e. that the orthodox and Augustinian views are different descriptions of the exact same metaphysical configuration and therefore interchangeable the same way 2=1+1 and 1+1=2 are interchangeable. I will subscribe to your KZbin channel.

[@nicholasrandazzo3510]

Dr. Sijuwade's papers are solid, especially his extension of Swinburne and Zagzebski on the Papacy.

[@Triniforchrist]

I hope you invite Scholatic Answers on the channel to talk about the Trinity or Dwong on the filioque, both are Catholic and are top G went it come the trinity

[@dacoolfruit]

FINALLY! Sijuwade brings so much to the discussion.

[@AleInBywater]

Great stuff! Btw. So happy you dont have that annoying minute countdown that for instance IP has😅

[@mcfarvo]

Praise the one true God, a perfect unity of three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit! ❤ ✝️

[@JudeOne3Four]

What? Can you show me in Scripture where the word God, refers to Father, Son and HS?

[@aderonkekehinde7115]

​@@JudeOne3FourYes The whole of Genesis is the expression of father, son and the holy Spirit.. in the old testament it was called the Spirit or presence of God. He was a father to his creation, by creating Man in his OWN image, a son of God is a man who God works through, like the prophets😊

[@aderonkekehinde7115]

You can't follow Abrahamic covenant without believing in the Trinity

[@JudeOne3Four]

@@aderonkekehinde7115 I didn't ask for your Catholicism but to provide a verse where the word God, refers to Father, Son and HS. Malachi 2:10 Have we not all *one Father* has not *one God* created us? Yes, indeed.

[@aderonkekehinde7115]

@@JudeOne3Four It's just common sense to see that God identified with humans as a father, This is a father-son relationship... When God works on earth he is simply doing that through his Spirit.... All this are just logical reasoning, Good luck finding where the word God means Father son and holy Spirit.... Cos that just the main intent of why God created human being... Genesis 1, this was where we were first introduced to the Holy Spirit

[@KhalilAndani]

The Catholic catechism doesn’t define the one God as the Father but as the Trinity itself “253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".

[@JonathynTalks]

thank you Dr. Andani, at least someone cares about philosophical models being in conformity with our Church's teaching.

[@Brainboxreview]

Not explicitly in the catechism but if you look at writings of saints and theologians it is stated that the term God in the New Testament can be used to refer to the Father specifically. Hence why Saint Paul writes “to God and our Lord Jesus Christ”

[@zdravzivot3016]

Good notice.This statement from that you putted is also not 100% unclear,and MAYBE allows different opinions but I would like to hear from Joshua.Why you don't join Chrostian familly dear,smart brother😊😊

[@lucienlagarde8093]

Thank Dr andani i was thinking that Dr Joshua model is quite more eastern orthodox view than current Roman catholic view

[@munachemeka5634]

Dr Joshua agrees with what you just said, watch from 1:10:00 - 1:14:41. He even explains why the Catholic defines that way.

[@Phill3v7]

Loved this video. It’s crazy that Manfradonia came up. My dad’s a missionary there.

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

14:20 God eats food with Abraham, in person, by the Oak of Mamre, even before the Incarnation, and in fact that is the Logos that Abraham saw. So it's not even a human-nature argument on food-eating, Christ ate food in some pure divine way, before He had a human body. The righteous sacrifices to God in the Old Testament even from Abel's time, were always food that was offered in burnings, food is sacramental. Adam and Eve ate food in Eden before the Fall, they rightly ate of the many trees in the Garden before the forbidden Tree. Our human nature based food consumption is theomorphic, it's an imitation of God's sacred consumption of food. Muslims literally don't read the Torah despite it being in their reading list, they should know this.

[@seeqr9]

If Dr. Sinuwade is Catholic, can he even hold to such a fundamental doctrine that’s different than what the church holds?

[@violentartist560]

Is he Catholic though? And I still think he can because what a lot of Eastern Catholic Churches believe in is similar to monarchical trinitarianism, while they are also under the communion of the Roman Catholic Church.

[@seeqr9]

@@violentartist560 pretty sure he said he was still Catholic but his stance on the Trinity is leaning towards EO…

[@violentartist560]

@@seeqr9 The Roman Catholic Church encompasses a wide range of theological opinions and discussions, including various interpretations of Trinitarian theology. The Church allows for theological development and dialogue as long as the core tenets of faith are maintained. Roman Catholicism teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons of one God, and that the Father is the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. This aligns with the Monarchical Trinitarian view that emphasizes the Father as the "monarch" of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed, which is central to Catholic faith, states that the Son is "begotten" of the Father and that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father" (and the Son, in the Western tradition). This language reflects a monarchical understanding of the relationships within the Trinity. So I believe there is not a problem with holding a MT view of the Trinity, while still being RC.

[@CatchCraftInc]

At 1:13:42 doc distinguishes between the Catholic Church and the “universal church” no way this dude is a catholic

[@IbrahimIsmail4889]

Sijuwade has admitted in the past that there are 3 gods in the Trinity. It’s laughable that Cameron would even bring him on to explain the Trinity. He also doesn’t believe in the orthodox view of the incarnation either. This video is not a defence of the orthodox view of the Trinity

[@blessingpereye1258]

Excellent conversation

[@michaelenyart5789]

I’m here from your community post. Haven’t watched the video, so this is a joke, but reminds me of the meme of the guy who *accidentally revives a 1,500 year old heresy* trying to understand the Trinity 😂

[@ElectricBluJay]

1:06:00 seems to present a problem… If all 3 are divine, but only the Father is fundamental, and the Father ‘caused’ the Son and Holy Spirit to exist, then wouldn’t there have to have been a time when only the Father existed (that is, before he caused the Son and Spirit to exist)? If so, wouldn’t this mean the Son and Holy Spirit could not truly be eternal in the same way that the Father is eternal?

[@economician]

@ElectricBluJay Well not necesseraly. God the Father takes on the role as the Son and takes on the role as the Holy Ghost. God the Father is the original actor but the roles he plays are very real. If you watch an Eddie Murphy movie the original actor is always Eddie Murphy but he takes on different character roles that are equally him Eddie Murphy just with other generated personalities.

[@KalamEL]

Great question! God exists before time as time is only brought about by creation. So the question should be did the father exist when the son didn't exist, but even saying WHEN implies time. All three existed eternally The father begot the son in eternity, and the spirit proceeded from the father in eternity. The three in its unified form brought about creation, therefore there was no time when the Son didn't exist. (For without the spirit there would be no life, and without the Word (son) there would be no order.)

[@21-._.-Wisdom]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kKWynJeYhcp8gZosi=Trjl2kyBC1hwIJQ8

[@lucienlagarde8093]

Well what Dr joshua said appears almost in many church fathers writing when they talk about God in a nominal sense they use it for the father but in the predicated sense then they use it for the three persons . same view that you heard in eastern orthodoxy and i am eastern orthodox myself

[@mitch0990]

There is also a difference between counting by identity vs counting by division

[@OLskewL]

Low key I think this is how many of us (similarly or same) believed when we first put our faith in Jesus 👀, before we were taught about the Trinity (in detail). Was it the Lord?

[@Daniel-vc1oc]

This is the same logic that the muslim used, except with food: The appetizer is dinner the entre is dinner the desert is dinner the appetizer is not the entre appetizer is not desert the entre is not desert This means there's 3 dinners?!?!?!? lol He needs to find a new dawa script.

[@Vanpotheosis]

That's also partialism... Maybe modalism. Anyway, it's an incorrect way for him to be thinking about this.

[@Daniel-vc1oc]

@@Vanpotheosis I guess they would say that the desert, entre, and appetizer are all attributes of "dinner". Taking any of them away doesn't make it not "dinner", and you only need any 1 of them to have "dinner". And I can prove this by eating desert for dinner tonight :) It is still a whole dinner! I will make it my whole dinner!

[@CMVBrielman]

Come on Patrick!

[@AlonzoHarris235]

@@Daniel-vc1oc Your analogy is a strawman. We both have a human nature. How many human beings are we? One or two?

[@ToursPoitiers732]

​​​@@AlonzoHarris235his analogy is perfect for showing how dumb you black stone kissers are. He is not strawmaning your actual argument. He just shows your primitive way of thinking. In your view god must be simple because your little des(s)ert brains would be overwhelmed otherwise

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Hey there, Dr. Sijuwade doesnt address the fact that the Athanasian creed had wide acceptance in the Latin Church, and quite clearly says: "And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. 13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; 18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. 19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords." Aseity, Ive argued, is best thought of as a property of the divine nature as such--like "triunity". For a defense that sticks closer to classical trinitarianism (without the trappings of actus purus), I myself have published a model here: ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/82023

[@MarkPatmos]

I think for God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be three separate gods, they would need to have three separate unshared awarenesses, different wills, natures and be fully independent of each other. Even when Jesus had limited awareness in human form, He still shared the same nature as God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

[@Ex-Atheist_Sonya]

2000 year old religion, still developing models of the Trinity. The foundational belief of a religion and they still fail to explain it.

[@indigatorveritatis7343]

So you're a theist or a deist or agnostic now? Who's your god?

[@collybever]

God is not a huge version of us, so there would be things hard to fathom about Him. One does not see humans having 3 persons yet one being. We do have spirit, soul and body, from a biblical perspective (and at least a mind/body duality according to secular studies), so that is analogical, but not fully matching. One can point to many issues in Science and Mathematics that are true yet complex and highly non-intuitive, and their outworking has caused many great inventions, so we have to accept them, even if it is not pleasingly simple to understand.

[@Shayan.junior]

​@@indigatorveritatis7343 she's probably a muslim, but where is her hijab, I wonder?😂

[@tionarry]

And what dictates that we should have by now have comprehensive knowledge and should be able to sufficiently explain the nature of GOD? Philosophers have been debating whether the universe can be eternal longer than Christianity 🤦🤦

[@thyikmnnnn]

The trinity is not THE foundational belief of Christianity. That is the incarnation.

[@thenkdshorts9485]

How does Dr. Sijuwade interpret John 1:18 (monogenes theos), 2 Pet 1:1 (our theos and Savior), or John 20:28 (ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou), all of which use "theos" for the Son?

[@RLG6728]

He did talk about verses where the Son and the Spirit being called God. What He was saying is that monotheism in Christianity comes from the belief in the Father as the uncaused first cause and the source of Godness and divinity. While His Word and Spirit, since they eternally proceed from Him, they receive their divinity from Him alone and are not uncaused but caused eternally by the Father. He also showed verses where the Son and the Spirit are called God like in John 1 when it speaks about the logos called God. He said that God is used in a nominal sense for the Father while in a descriptive sense to the Son and the Spirit. So when the Father is called God, “God” is used in a nominal sense to mean that He alone is the uncaused first cause and the SOURCE OF GODNESS. And when the Son and the Spirit called God, this would indicate their nature of divinity (coequal to the Father) from which they eternally receive from the source of divinity, from which they eternal proceed, that is “the Father”.

[@fbastmar]

The problem with Dr. Joshua's view is that, he is indeed talking about 3 gods. If only The Father is God in the nominal sense, then only he is to be worshiped and we are committing idolatry by worshiping Jesus and The Holy Spirit. What we mean when we say The Father is God, The Son is God and The Holy Spirit is God, is The Father is YHWH, The Son is YHWH, The Holy Spirit is YHWH, and worshiping anyone other than YHWH is idolatry. And yes, it is basically impossible to completely describe or understand the trinity

[@collin501]

To your point, it requires further explanation on the relationship between Father and Son and Spirit. Biblically, the Son is the image of the Father. The Father is glorified in and through the Son. The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son. If you worship the Son you are worshipping the Father. Verse: 1 Peter‬ ‭1‬:‭21‬ ‭ “who through Him(the Son) are believers in God(The Father), who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God(that is, everything the Son is/has is from the Father, which directs our ultimate worship and faith and hope to the Father, yet through the Son as his true expression).” ‭‭ Commentary in parentheses. In monarchical trinitarianism, I get a sense there is unity and oneness even though the Father is the one God. The way I take it, the Son and Spirit are extensions of the Father, yet have His fullness. You could say the Father is the source of the Trinity(including Son and Spirit) rather than the Trinity is the source of the Father Son and Spirit. I do believe we as Christians are supposed to see a high level of oneness in God. I have often been confused at the separation that comes in my mind as a result of certain vocabulary: three persons, one essence, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, etc… I prefer “of” language, which seems to match biblical language and the creeds. Son of God, Word of God, image of God, Spirit of God. When I think of three persons with modern definitions, I think of three centers of consciousness and three distinct wills. This causes a great deal of separation in my mind, which leads me towards tri theism mentally even when I’m confessing one God with my mouth. Maybe the Son and Spirit could be described as agents who are essential to God’s person. They are “of” him. Or possibly they could be described as extensions of God who are personal. Not sure on the best wording.

[@fbastmar]

@@collin501 I see what you mean. That's why i said it's impossible for us to completely describe the trinity as we are bound by language that is also bound by time, space and matter. There is nothing in existence that compares or even serves as an analogy. I kinda see the trinity as you described before: The Son being an extension of The Father, and The Spirit being an extension of both. The existence of The Father inherently brings forth The Son, and the two of them inevitably bring forth The Spirit. I like what you said about the "of" language. That's another way of seeing it. But in this case what would The Father be the "of" of God, if the other two are The Son/Word of God and The Spirit of God? Would he be The Father of God?

[@collin501]

@ that’s why I tend to prefer the monarchy view, with the Father being God, and the other two being “of” / extensions of God. Not saying I have a complete understanding, or ever will. But this kind of thinking seems to match the biblical language. Of course, it’s subject to correction. Tentatively something like this: The Father is God, the Son and Spirit are of God. This doesn’t violate “one” God because they are extensions and parts of his nature. They are truly divine(rather than lesser beings) because they have the fullness of God. They are essential to God because they are essential to his nature. In the full complete sense of the word person, there is one being, God the Father. The Son and Spirit are only persons in the sense of being agents who can act. They have their action and will from the one being God the Father, so they don’t add extra persons that become separate gods. This matches the biblical language that it is God who creates, but he does so through the Son.

[@Seal-restrain]

Mark 13:32 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows. Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good-except God alone. Matthew 19:16-17 16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

[@georgecrosthwaite]

Wow that was a super interesting conversation! As someone who is leaving Protestantism after 30+ years, this makes me wonder if the Eastern Orthodox were actually correct on the issue of the "Filioque" thus maintaining a more patristic view of the Trinity??

[@CapturingChristianity]

The Filioque actually seems irrelevant here. I talked to Dr. Sijuwade about this after the show ended.

[@georgecrosthwaite]

@@CapturingChristianity Oh ok sorry, it just seemed like Filioque kind of complicated it a little bit. I did like how he explained that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "through" the Son... that makes more sense how he clarified it. Still trying to learn and understand the differences.

[@JordanBrown-km5kf]

I just look at the historical argument. Was the filioque clause in the original creeds? No, it was added in the West to combat Arianism. And it was added in after the councils codified the creed and forbaid any changes, and there is strong evidence of the Germanic kings pressuring the Pope to add it. Even there are papal documents recently that clearly state that the Eastern Church's stance on the procession of the Holy Spirit is correct.

[@YeshuaIsTruth33]

1:16 straight away this brother doesn't have a clue. 1) the trinity has 3 persons the father the son and holy spirit. 2) this one God is identified as the father 🤦‍♂️

[@AlonzoHarris235]

These two Christians don’t even agree on the trinity.😂 Siguwade believes that the Father is God. Cameron believes the trinity is God. They both identify God as something else. He invites him to talk about ‘the trinity’. These Christians are so confused.

[@AlonzoHarris235]

Siguwade made an admission. He admits that there are three gods. There is one god the Father and two other divinities. There are three identities. That’s three gods.

[@AlonzoHarris235]

Cameron is trying so hard. Verse 5:116 doesn’t say that Christians claim that Mary is God. He just made that up. The verse is saying that they TAKE Mary as God based on the criteria of Tawheed. Just like verse 9:31 claims that Rabbis and Monks are taken as God. Taking someone as God is simply judging them based on their actions measured by Islamic principles. This verse is showing the implications of actions based on tawheed. Don’t try to shoehorn your Christianity in the Quran. Even verse 45:23 accuses people of taking their selves as God. Nobody claims they are God or worship themselves. These Christian polemics are so poor because they can’t defend their three gods doctrine.

[@RedRoosterRoman]

Sijuwade believes the father is God. Cameron also believes the father is God. They are expressing the same view with different terms to Kay a systematic foundation... Both subscribe to the ecumenical councils to some degree

[@RedRoosterRoman]

​@@AlonzoHarris235where did he say that?

[@RedRoosterRoman]

​@@AlonzoHarris235"they are not godS" The fact the plural is used of Jesus and His mother clearly shows that here Mohammed is refuting the notion that THEY are god"S"

[@freeyourmind7538]

24:36, can you provide the verse reference? Also, sin confessions/forgiveness authority has been given to Christians too, does that make them divine just as Christians are also told that their bodies are temple? The followers of Jesus Christ have been given the authority to receive the confession of sin and to forgive it in his name. ​“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:23).

[@Miatpi]

40:50 Yes, it would be very cool! I got quite intrigued by this argument and would love a proper presentation of it.

[@TheAnalyticChristian]

This was really good! You should isolate the section where Josh lays out the monarchical view up through the part where he shows how his view best accounts for those three passages of scripture he mentioned, and turn this section into its own video.

[@rogerhelou9164]

I love the end of the stream

[@nathankimball1545]

I was meeting a Muslim friend and a fellow Christian friend to discuss the Trinity in a study room at school. Our Muslim friend was walking up with some friends and asked how many more could fit in the room, saying he didn’t want it “to be too Christian, guys.” I said , “Well, sorry, but you’re going to to have to just deal with it being two Christian guys. Only 3-in-1 is possible.” He replied, “Only 3-in-1 is possible? C’mon, you’re too Christian, guys!” I said, “yes, we are two Christian guys; and you should join us, but only you! Remember it’s 3-in-1! He said, ”That’s impossible! How about just 1-in-1?” I said, “So you don’t want to discuss the Trinity?” He shrugged, “Exactly! I’d prefer if you both agreed with me instead!” I said, “okay, then have the room to yourself, then.”

[@judah.miguel]

11:42 a source for this???

[@MichaelSmith-mr5dh]

22:22 That's a really good point that I've never heard or thought of before, that Jesus is the Temple, where God dwells, thank God!

[@AlonzoHarris235]

It’s a weak argument. He is assuming that the author in the NT has the same theology as the author in the OT. He is presupposing that.

[@josiaseverett5677]

But if Jesus was just the temple (place of dwelling) for god, doesn't that make Jesus a meat robot controlled by god?

[@MichaelSmith-mr5dh]

@@josiaseverett5677 I think that's what the Son of Man is, a human body that's planned to exist from before creation to be inhabited by the Spirit of God. I have my own spirit & my own body, but Jesus' Spirit is of the Father, I'm assuming, and so his body has no unique human Spirit apart from the divine one. It's the A: Holy Spirit of B: God the Father living in a C: human body that is its own person but the same as God.

[@MichaelSmith-mr5dh]

@@AlonzoHarris235 What makes you say the Old Testament authors have a different veiw? Talking about the tabernacle, Temple, sacrifices, all that or otherwise.

[@AlonzoHarris235]

@@MichaelSmith-mr5dh The books in the bible are written by different authors. You presuppose that they teach the same theology. You will cherry pick verses from different books in the bible for proof texting purposes. The reality is that the different authors have different theologies.

[@michaelbasileos]

Dr. Sijuwade didn’t come up with the Monarchical Trinity as you claim. The Monarchical Trinity is what the Orthodox Church teaches, because that’s the Trinitarian theology of the early Church, particularly the Cappadocian Fathers, which the Ecumenical Councils were based on. The West later adopts St. Augustine’s personal (and extremely flawed) theory as the standard model.

[@JudeOne3Four]

Wow so Dr Joshua Sijuwade has *recently developed a new view/model* of the 3-nity? Which means the Dr. is out of 2000 years of Orthodoxy, period!

[@YeshuaIsTruth33]

23:00 So if Jesus being the temple of God means he is devine, does that mean Chrisitans are now also divine? 1 Corinthians 3-16: Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

[@manueljoaquim7485]

yes , all humans have the spark of divinity

[@YeshuaIsTruth33]

@@manueljoaquim7485 Does Jesus have a spark of divinity or is he inherited divine?

[@tionarry]

This is pretty easy The temple was the point of God's presence and where worship and forgiveness is to be sought. JESUS is saying that his body now represents that temple and taking on the role of the temple. Worship and the forgiveness of sin is to be sought for in him and not the temple. Us being the temple is referring to cleanliness. We should be pure and undefiled because the spirit of GOD is in us. That's the sense Apostle Paul is trying to make One thing can be used to express multiple points without the problem of conflating the two

[@YeshuaIsTruth33]

@@tionarry Cheers for the reply, same word different meaning - understood. Is it the same when Jesus prays to the father for us to be one *just* as he and the father are one. John 17 I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one-as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. “I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one. I am in them and you are in me. Are his followers also part of the trinity?

[@tionarry]

@@YeshuaIsTruth33 No. Trinitarians understand just like everyone else that "one" can be used in different senses. The same sense GOD is one with his LOGOS is not the same sense we are one with GOD (not fully). We can be one with GOD as JESUS is one with GOD in love, reverence and adoration. A husband is one with his wife. But if he's also in a soccer team, he's one with the team. He is one with his wife in friendship, companionship and every other "ways". But with his team, he's one with them in relationship as team mates and not the other ways. Just as he has a close(one) relationship with his wife, he can also desire a close relationship with the team. But not in the *full* sense as that of himself and his wife. I believe that should help

[@bluewhistleschannel6058]

He’s great.

[@CMVBrielman]

1:17:34 What forms of polytheism believe in multiple fundamental divine persons? That definition seems to exclude pretty much every historical polytheistic belief system. In the Greek pantheons, none of the Titans or Olympians would be considered fundamental, having been born of prior gods. Even Uranus is supposed to be the child of Gaia, and Gaia is generally considered to have arisen in some fashion from Chaos - the closest the Greek pantheon seems to come to a fundamental deity.

[@David-kz2im]

He later goes onto explain in what sense they were still considered fundamental.

[@CMVBrielman]

@@David-kz2im It doesn’t really seem to be a particularly useful sense of the word fundamental.

[@KalamEL]

The Quran is a christian text and should be read as such! any "anti christian verses" should be read as 'Against Heresies' or be understood in its 6th Century historical context.

[@lostyly]

Quran first evidence is from 7th century earliest to be kind.. Kalam you started believing in the trinity fam?

[@KalamEL]

@@lostyly Sana’a manuscript dates 578-669. I’m choosing the earlier range which would place it in 6th century. Plus there are leaves dating 388-535 which would also place it in the 6th century. Unfortunately I’m not a believer, but I’ve demonstrated the coherency and consistency of the trinity over the past 8 years or so on my channel.

[@majormohitsharma7701]

A Christian text saying what Qur'an said in surah 55:56,72-74 and surah 78:31-34 ? Difficult to digest that fact for Christians.

[@lostyly]

@@majormohitsharma7701 Dr Jay smith literally confirms Islam is false just an FYI

[@AndyReichert0]

"not my will, but your will, be done." - Jesus did Jesus believe that Jesus had a will?

[@jeeezzyyyy]

He has 2 wills

[@BrokenOnTheRock]

Here from @Jai & DoC stream.

[@Jontasjun]

I am confused. So the father is the only God. Jesus is divine and eternal, but since not fundamental, He and the Spirits, besides being the same essence as the father, are not God? 😅

[@adamkoenig8319]

They are divine, so predicatively, "god" but not numerically the "One God". Both Son/Spirit possess the divine nature through the Father's acts of begetting and procession. Thus, there are three divine hypostases, but the Father is the monarche (one source) of the other two hypostases. For further discussion on the EO position check our Jay Dyer. BTW I'm not endorsing either view, I'm just stating the very basics of the EO position.

[@VincentTorleyYKH]

Hi Cameron. Thanks for hosting this interview. In Dr. Joshua Sijuwade's defense, I will acknowledge that his model of the Trinity seems to be the one which is the most faithful to the Scriptures and to the Church Fathers of the first four centuries. It's also the least objectionable philosophically. Nevertheless, I think his view is profoundly problematic. Here's why. First, as Christians, we believe that God has one mind, not three minds. As Scripture itself declares, "Who could ever know the mind of God?" (Romans 11:34). This rules out social Trinitarianism, which imputes three rational faculties (i.e. three minds) to God. Three minds means three gods. At the same time, Dr. Sijuwade, while denying that there are three divine self-consciousnesses (or three minds), affirms that each person of the Trinity can say to itself, "I am the _____" (Father or Son, or Holy Spirit, as the case may be). I respectfully put it to you that the notion of one and the same mind thinking "I am the Father," "I am the Son" and "I am the Holy Spirit," is borderline incoherent, if not downright contradictory. How can there be three "I's" in the one mind, thinking mutually incompatible thoughts? At the very least, they have different beliefs about who they are: Father, Son or Holy Spirit. One and the same mind has three different identity-beliefs? That's perplexing. As a Catholic, I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because I have been taught it from childhood and because I have grown used to praying to God that way, but I also think that it's impossible to convincingly show that belief in the Trinity isn't contradictory. If I were a non-Christian, there's no way I'd credit the doctrine. One way of avoiding the incoherence I described above is to simply deny that God thinks thoughts such as "I am the Father." On an apophatic view of God, this way of talking is anthropomorphic. According to this view, God is Pure Being. Everything else participates in God's being, just as every body in the solar system participates in the sun's light by reflecting it from the sun. We can call God intelligent and even omniscient, in the sense that He contains the forms of everything else. Thus all knowledge is inside God. The problem with this view is that it provides us with no reason to think of God as personal, and it fails to do justice to the concept of knowing. Knowing is more than merely containing forms, or information. Knowledge requires the knower to have true beliefs and to be able to justify those beliefs. You can't do that without thinking thoughts. And if an entity cannot think thoughts, then why call it personal? Finally, I agree with Dr. Sijuwade that the Augustinian model of the Trinity (which identifies God with the Trinity and which declares that each Divine Person is identical with the Divine Essence) won't work. As one commenter on Ed Feser's blog named Bill put it, "if each 'person' is identical with the essence, then each relation is as well. Via transitive identity, the 'personal' distinctions would be logical at best, not real." And again: "If it [the doctrine of the Trinity] is merely a description of relationships God has with Himself, then that is indistinct from Modalism. A relation entails relata (which entails a real distinction between the relata as well as a distinction in the relation). If that is the case, one is affirming composition. And if there's only one relatum, then we're back to Modalism." See edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2024/09/the-latest-on-immortal-souls.html#more . However, I'm not at all sure that Lateran IV is wedded to this model. See Canon 1 at origin-rh.web.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp, which declares: "We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essence, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end..." The text seems to identify God with "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," but I think that's reading it too literally; rather, I think its intention is to affirm that Father, Son and Holy Ghost can each be truly called "God" - something which Dr. Sijuwade would happily acknowledge as well. Cheers.

[@RamadaDiver-w9o]

Josh would juat reply that Romans is referring to the mind of the father

[@sensei77-f1]

The relations are indeed absolutely identical to the essence. However, there still exists a distinction of reason reasoned, which negates formal identity but retains material identity; thus transitivity doesn’t follow by virtue of the negation of formal identity. Furthermore, a real distinction does not necessarily entail composition; this pertains to immanent action whereby the action consists wholly in its being a perfection of the agent (such as intellection and volition), hence it is internal to the agent; as opposed to transitive/transient action which has its terminus external to the agent such as the act of punching.

[@ronaldngure]

This is really good. Where can we find his work?

[@CapturingChristianity]

philarchive.org/archive/SIJBTM

[@CatchCraftInc]

This idea of the father as the “fundamental” God and the son and spirit sharing in his divine attributes sounds a lot like Arianism- the son being the first of God’s creation

[@verses4745]

Yeh. But it also sounds a lot like the creeds: God FROM God, light FROM light, BEGOTTEN not made. The issue of Arianism was the claim that there was a time when the Son was not. This articulation of the Trinity doesn’t affirm this heresy, but agrees that the Son is ETERNALLY begotten.

[@CatchCraftInc]

@@verses4745 ya after sleeping on this one I think I may have spoken too quickly

[@verses4745]

I empathise mate. Did exactly the same thing a few years ago. Joshua was very patient in a private FB message and helped me see the robustness of his position. Very challenging! Especially as a huge fan Torrance.

[@gregm55mullen62]

@@verses4745 What exactly does Eternally Begotten mean?

[@gregm55mullen62]

😮😮😮 1 hour and 8 mins in AND NOT A MENTION OR REFERENCE to ACTUAL scripture?! Just a load of undecipheral words to the common man, such as fishermen and farmers such as ONTOLOGICAL. For starters… the father generates the Holy Spirit… what on earth is that supposed to mean? But let me tell you what I see in the scriptures. The hilt spirit IS the spirit of THE FATHER! MY Spirit… will not contend with man for ever. I have filled them with my spirit… do not worry about what you will say because it will be the spirit OF YOUR FATHER speaking through you. The HOLY SPIRIT is the spirit of the Father and the spirit of Jesus his son. They are both in heaven but speak to us and through us BY THEIR SPIRIT!!! You know where these s ruptures are so how about addressing the issue of the trinity through that and not some philosophical creed penned by some guy called Athanasius with the help of Plato. USE SCRIPTURE!!!!!!!! And maybe look also at talking about God as if he isn’t in the room! And maybe open with some prayer…

[@andyramirez6016]

Wow that Aseity point! Resonates. Interesting reasoning, assuming great-making properties (I’d assume based from Anselm) are divine. I wonder if you can make a similar argument about immutability. Also the eastern approach with Divine energies (non-anselmian) surely approaches these questions differently.

[@ryanb4780]

I'd love to see Joshua and Jimmy Akin together

[@KidCavi]

He is misunderstanding 1 Corinthians 8:6.. and His view is similar to Jehovah Witness view but still keeps under the trinity label.. but this is still a heresy nevertheless

[@pamphilus3652]

Shout out to dr Beau Branson

[@grills5]

Interesting that a lot of these surahs are basically defenses of orthodox Christianity. Lends some credence to the idea that the “proto-Quran” was actually a Syriac Christian lectionary.

[@economician]

@grills5 True that. But more specifically a nestorian Trinity, an anti incarnationist Trinity. According to the Quran God is triune, Allahu Samad, but Jesus is not the Triune God. The human Jesus is weilding the power of the triune God.

[@amalbabu552]

Another analogy is from Chemistry regarding the definition of triple point. For eg, at triple point temperature for water - water, ice and water vapor coexists in a stable form.

[@horridhenry9920]

Don’t forget you also need pressure. The smallest change in temperature or pressure causes water to change forms between ice , liquid water and water vapour.

[@AlonzoHarris235]

One molecule of H2O can’t be in three states at the same time. Your analogy fails. Different molecules are in different states in a triple point.

[@AlrightDave]

You haven't understood the analogy ​@@AlonzoHarris235

[@seeqr9]

@@AlonzoHarris235ALL analogies fall short eventually… but they’re useful as a jumping off point to, in a very limited and elementary way as finite beings, begin to grasp the concept of the Trinity. When you tell your lady she’s your moon and stars it would be silly for her to say “uhh actually your analogy fails because I don’t effect the ocean tide and I’m not made of burning gas.”

[@amalbabu552]

@@AlonzoHarris235 it simply means there is only one God!!!! But 3 persons..

[@MrGustavier]

48:25 _"Should we think that Cerberus is logically incoherent ?"_ Well yeah, for it to be coherent, you have to equivocate on the word "dog". Since if "dog" means Cerberus, then propositions 1) through 3) are false, since Sparky would NOT be "dog"...

[@MrGustavier]

51:15 _"So then you have no logical problem there at all once you equivocate in the word God and you understand them in those two different senses as a name for a being the father who's the the one God and then as a predicate for then you don't seem to have any logical problem"_ Right... So you just need to _"equivocate"_ in order not to have a logical problem... Does he have any idea to what sort of parody argument he opens himself by saying that ? Anyone can "equivocate" on a word used in an argument (or in a theory), in order to render any incoherent theory coherent...

[@MrGustavier]

Didn't he mean "disambiguate" instead of "equivocate" ?

[@jazzmodern]

It doesn't show up on the channel!! It's being suppressed.

[@nathankimball1545]

I think any critiques should take heed to recognize that if they use language or modes to describe no true realities, then of course they can say that what they are describing doesn’t exist. It would be like someone describing qualities about Doug’s existence incorrectly and saying, “see, Doug doesn’t exist.” And it’s true, no one like the incorrectly described Doug, who is also Doug, exists, because Doug does not exist like that. Simply put, Doug does not exist as how he doesn’t exist. But that’s obvious, and we know why, because we know how Doug actually does exist or the mode of His existence or how we would communicate or observe Doug’s existence represented in modes of observation and conversation, and also know that Doug indeed does exist, and therefore can disprove it, showing that Doug exists in a way different than how the bozo wrongly described him to be. So when someone offers no real description of the Trinity and says that description doesn’t exist, then “no duh.” How can one hope to have a discussion when they use language how it cannot be used? Discussion relies upon the proper use of language. Language properly functions as a mode to describe true realities. So if one comes to a discussion about the Trinity and does not represent a true reality of the Trinity, then there is no discussion of the Trinity, and now language is null and void. Great discussion? I don’t think so. What I ultimately allude to is the fact that the first error is to refer to or speak about/of the Father as if He exists alone or is definable by a number with no reference to the Son or Spirit. But this is to describe no true reality! You have therefore made language void and discussion impossible! How can one use language by not using it correctly? You cannot. So to use language, use language correctly. To say an aberrant understanding of the Trinity does not exist is correct, for a Trinitarian conception that accounts all persons as separate entities to the fullest sense does not exist! 3 God’s do not exist! Therefore to say a 3 God description of a Trinity does not exist is to be so totally correct. But then to use that language to discount the true reality of the real One God that is a Trinity, is a huge misuse of language. Perichoresis is just one way to describe the always reflexive nature of the three persons and that to speak of one is to reference a relationship and the reality of the other persons, for the One Being of God is tri-personal. So, stop nonsensical language. Let’s delve further into language here for one moment. Say there is a blue chair. Someone points to it and says “that red chair does not exist.” Logically, someone follows, “yes that red chair does not exist, because that chair that does exist does not exist as a red chair, for it is blue.” It would be false, now, for the initial someone to conclude that the blue chair does not exist. Last thing: the poor use of language will always cause one in a discussion, especially in the defensive position, to sweat and worry -if they wrongly accept that the poor language is actually good. But accepting the use of a broken tool is counter productive to work, and will of course make someone worry’s But no one has to accept poor semantics.

[@hggfhh4449]

Please review micheal knowles speech about the crusades. Its what i have been waiting for

[@andrevisser7542]

The first error is thinking I s l a m 's a l l a h is the same God of the Bible, our true Creator who gave His eternal name to Moses, Yehovah.

[@thenkdshorts9485]

Also, what is the difference between being "suboridinate" and "lacking fundamentality"? Seems like the same thing. Is not fundamentality a great-making attribute?

[@freeyourmind7538]

23:00 So this dude concluded that Jesus is divine because Jesus(pbuh) said that his body is a temple? If that's the case then we or all christians are divine because it states that all our bodies are temples Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

[@mathewpt4478]

@@freeyourmind7538 genius that means The holy spirit dwells among us

[@RedRoosterRoman]

I really enjoy Dr Joshua's fresh take and use of language. Very interesting. Contemplating the Holy Trinity is so fascinating and edifying. However I feel the difference in naming is a distinction without a difference. The Trinity is on God in nature. The father alone is God in a nominal sense I don't see how this conflicts with Catholicism in essence??? Only in linguistics? The son and spirit are fundamental in that the fundamental person (God the Father) INTRINSICALLY eternally causes them. Thus in a way they are "fundamental" also. As the Father didn't one day say "I'm going to beget" The fundamental person fundamentally begets....

[@rosiegirl2485]

Clearly, I am amongst some good Christian thinkers. Maybe someone could answer my off-topic questions. My brother has become a devout anti-Catholic, to put it nicely! He refuses to call God "God" or Jesus "Jesus!" I agree with him that there is power in a name. He carries on, saying that the Catholics took His name out of His book. He refuses to believe the fact that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible at the Council of Rome in the late 4th century. He keeps bringing up "Alexandrian Bibles" and another that I can't remember. He really believes that the "Catholic Bible" has been corrupted and can't be trusted like the King James translation. Can anyone help me answer his rants? Even though, sadly, I don't think that he will listen to me. He is all in on conspiracy theories, and I am catching on that he doesn't trust anything! Thank you and God bless you! 🙏

[@Akhgy]

Once you dive into conspiracy it’s hard to come out.. you can only pray for him. - he will trust cave men over actual history

[@zacdredge3859]

I think the argument that Jesus needed to ease them into the Trinity in a developmental sense is flawed. When Jesus said 'before Abraham was I Am' they understood what he meant just fine, then took up stones to kill him. There's also the language of the Psalms and Prophets, the idea of the Messiah being both a Son of God and Son of Man and so on. Some awareness of this can be found in writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Whether or not expecting him to be fully divine the idea of an exalted view of the Messiah wasn't a mere novelty. It's the personhood of the Spirit that would have been more controversial, but given the Church experiences Pentecost and the movement of the Spirit directly I just don't think it's reasonable to suggest anyone within the Church really doubted the Spirit had personal status until later on. There is a sense that Jesus doesn't say much about the Spirit but I'd say this is because he must go away before sending the Spirit at which time they will learn of the Spirit through the direct experience I'm describing. Assuming they needed Greek categories to believe in the Trinity seems like a baseless claim.

[@JC_0007]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fIuok4WnnLdkmNkfeature=shared

[@kingnoahytsub1038]

No hate but I think this is the antichrist spirit offering us a way that the Trinity makes logical sense but we are to believe that Jesus is not God. Isaiah 9:6 said that the son born to us will be called wonderful counselor and Mighty God and according to Isaiah 7:14 the Son is God with us together with John 1:1 the word [Jesus (Son)] is God and lived among us in the verse 14. Let us pay attention to what scripture says please.

[@P0werFromAbove]

He’s not denying that Jesus is God. What made you think so?

[@andrewreed4216]

4 beings, one in purpose. Heavenly father, Heavenly mother, jesus, Holy Ghost. Instead of debating corruptible things, like words and opinions, why not ask God directly? This doesn't mean everything on earth is bad, just that a true spiritual experience/confirmation from god can remove doubts (just dont stop at one prayer). I cleared up some of my lack of understanding by doing this. But it is an ongoing process

[@andrevisser7542]

That comes from the thumb, definitely not Yehovah.

[@collybever]

One can, but then, how would one no for sure one was hearing from God, most religions, not just christianity, admit there are some forces of a deceitful source, as disembodied spirits of some sort (this is even strong on Bhuddism)? One thing with the Biblical revelation, is that God vindicated His reliability in these accounts, by taking actions of various sorts. For instance, consider the miraculous testimony, say, of Jesus. Then of course one has promises, that are fulfilled across time. These things only being possible for a supreme being to do.

[@MarkPatmos]

I thought your guest was extremely knowledgeable and a good choice.

[@art_of_history23]

Sijuwade states that God is not used in a referential sense, historically, to refer to Jesus. He says that Jesus is Divine as is the Holy Spirit but that it would not be right to associate them with the term God. Their Divinity proceeds from the Father and is not, therefore, not Fundamental. This view seems to be an excellent pathway to rapprochement between the Bible and the Qur'an.

[@tionarry]

At 36:19-40 my response would be; If JESUS is the LOGOS of the being of GOD, then the LOGOS existence is necessary. It would take GOD to exist for omniscient attribute to be a thing that exist, and it would take omniscient attribute to exist for GOD to exist. Omniscient is not contingent in GOD. It's just an attribute that wouldn't exist if GOD doesn't exist. Dependent doesn't mean unnecessary. The rest of the human body depends on the brain to function properly to stay alive and active but the brain cannot be functional independent of the rest of the body. They're dependent on each other and are also necessary for survival. 37:20 "the existence of two or 3 necessarily impossible". I kind of agree. But no Trinitarian believes GOD is more than one being. As explained, distinct doesn't equal separate. 56:29- I believe no one can understand the Trinity. Not in the sense of what it is or means, but *HOW* GOD is Triune. To me it's just like asking; "how is GOD eternal", "how is GOD all-powerful". Defending an Omnipotent being as something that must exist necessarily by using argument like the Modal ontological argument just argues for what the necessary being *IS* and not *HOW* this being is the being At 1 HR and 32min+ "how can JESUS be dependent on the father and be eternal i.e coexist with GOD" If JESUS is the LOGOS of GOD as the Bible says, and GOD cannot be without his LOGOS, then it's understandable. The heat of a fire produces exists simultaneously with the fire at ignition but the fire is still the source of the heat.

[@rickydc5604]

This video is not showing up on your channel’s video tab for me. I have it set to latest and it’s not on there. I can only view it through the link on your most recent post…

[@MrGustavier]

33:33 _"Just because like a Divine being lacks something that doesn't mean that they're imperfect"_ Wouldn't Rasmussen disagree with that ?

[@MarkPatmos]

I think something that is perfect lacks imperfection

[@nor7435]

In the “Christophany” view of the OT “Angel of the Lord” is Jesus and is directly called God. Genesis 16:7-13; 22:11-18 or Exodus 3:2-4. Prophets and humanity called the “Angel of the Lord”, God. Not as in the adjective form of ‘Divine’ nor as the ‘Father’ but directly to the ‘Son’. This rebuttals Dr.Sijuwade claim of John 1:1.

[@SuperCrazymehdi]

When you try to milk math and logic to prove something that makes no sense, you get podcasts like this, if your trinity made any kind of sense it would have been proved 2 thousand years ago, as we say in Algeria: “keep convincing yourself…”

[@nathankimball1545]

Do people in Algeria know how to say things? How do people say things in Algeria? If you said things as they were, or how they truly have been explained or how they truly exist and must exist by necessity of logic, then I think you’d probably agree that the Trinity is sound; but if you describe it wrongly, then of course you’ll say “as we say in Algeria: ‘keep convincing yourself.’” A man who thinks a logical idea is illogical will of course think that those who think it logical have to “keep convincing themselves.” But now you’re just describing your own misunderstanding.

[@SuperCrazymehdi]

@@nathankimball1545 because logic is self evident and universal, not object to feelings or assumptions or fancy words, regardless of which country we are from. All possible models of the trinity are very easily refutable by simple logic, let me give you an example: in his three headed dog, why does he pick the “head” to make his example? Why not the foot or the ear or any other part? It is no coincidence, because the head has the brain inside of it and the brain is the main thinking organ, where input and output are managed. Actually we do not need that example, siamese twins can be used and they do exist. There is a problem however, they can and do decide independently of one another, if one want to walk left and the other one right they will block each other, their will is independent, which means, in your trinity, they are two gods, two independent wills. Trying to prove the trinity is like those funny scenes where a cartoon character sticks its finger in the wall in the dam wall to block the water flow, as soon as he does that, another hole shows up. And by the way, you are of course entitled to your opinion and I respect that, however, it would be great to be fully honest with ourselves.

[@SuperCrazymehdi]

@@nathankimball1545 i answered you extensively however my comment i see now was deleted, i guess by the channel owner which does not surprise me as he is just an idiot with glasses and a nice camera, or youtube, no idea.

[@David-kz2im]

What is the average IQ level in Algeria? Oh, it was ranked 139th with an average IQ of 76. That makes sense!

[@SuperCrazymehdi]

@@nathankimball1545 @capturingchristianity is deleting my answers to you, because he is a coward.

[@AustGM]

Cameron is supposed to be a Catholic yet he always brings non Catholic view of the Trinity to defend it.

[@whatsinaname691]

Sijuwade is RC

[@schwerk7456]

So, according to Josh, the Trinity is neither God (a divine person) or the one God (the "cause"). Trinity, in his model, is just the group name for all of the divine persons.

[@GodHeadTrinity]

@DrJoshua - the Quran clearly tries to attack the Trinity but ends up clearly getting the Trinity wrong... I feel the significance is great because to deny the divinty of the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth is to denounce one's salvation - it actually is a salvation issue according to John 8 verse 24... The Quran definitely can never never be divine - too many errors.

[@economician]

The Quran confirms the Nestorian Trinity. God is Triune (Samad) but the human Jesus is not the Triune God rather the human Jesus weilds the power of the Triune God. Trinity confirmed incarnatiion rejected.

[@MohamedShou]

As a Muslim I like Dr Sijuwade he’s a very respectable guy but if the greatest of the church fathers couldn’t fully understand it how the hell am I gonna do it and not think “the Trinity is basically three Gods” 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@martinjackman2943]

1z1am does not tolerate investigation or critical thinking It jumps to "3 gods" because the dogma tells it to.. anything else results in the risk of apostasy with all the peril that entails. Anyone who knows a kindergarten teacher knows a "three person " individual.. The person e.g. "Sara Smith" who sits in the staff room "Miss Smith" who alters her voice and language to present the lesson. And the materials, displays and course work, imbued with her personality, around the classroom. It's not that hard. You have to say it is because the 1z1amic framing forces you. 1z1am is fake

[@majormohitsharma7701]

​@@martinjackman2943 If you don't understand something doesn't mean it is not from God. And muslims create a simple definition of their own theology which doesn't exist in the theological studies of islam. According to your theology allah and Qur'an both are eternal, yet Qur'an is not allah. So now how can you make sense out of an attribute who is eternal and it still talks with your god ? Something muslims would easily ignore because they don't care about the theology. And they would not comment anything against that assuming it to be true and since they are ignorant about it , they choose to remain silent. But they don't apply the same logic with christianity. 🤡

[@tionarry]

The quran not critiquing the Trinity but other heretical sects either means the quran doesn't have a problem with the orthodox Christian belief of the Trinity or ut doesn't understand it.

[@economician]

@tionarry The Quran confirms the nestorian Trinity. God is Triune (Samad) but the human Jesus is not the Triune God but he weilds the powers of the Triune God.

[@michaelrome3527]

You cant say 1 God plus 1 God plus 1 God, the sum is 3 Gods. That’s a relation between 3 separate Gods like there would be 3 infinites and three omnipresences to add up. They are the same God who take up the same infinite and omnipresent existence.Therefore, it’s multiplication not addition. 1 God TIMES 1 God TIMES 1 God= 1 God.

[@KillmanPit]

I still can't shake the politheist vibes from this view. If God (as in the name) is only the father, and son and spirit are not God, but simply Divine and fulfilling his will, then they are subservient. They are just minor deities. That's just politheism with a weird quirk of minor gods being all powerful just mind controlled by the capital G God. And if that is monotheism after all because there is one Will of the God despite multiple persons, then would Greek gods all become one if Zeus gained power to remove will from other Gods and just used their persons to do his own? I also don't quite understand what does it mean to have a first person perspective but no own will.

[@john832-w1e]

this last model it seems just the orthodox nicene position with different language

[@badonlikoy5571]

We Christians believed in One God The Father that exist in three Divine Essence, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, but they are one in essence. Because both Holy Spirit and Word (Son Jesus) came from God the Father Himself and belongs to Him. This is why Jesus said, I Am from Him and He sent Me (John 7:29). And the Holy Spirit is also "from the Father Himself" and that comes out "from the Father Himself" (read John 15:26, Psalms 51:11, Luke 11:13, Matthew 1:20 & Luke 1:35). And this is why Jesus said to His disciples, go therefore to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28 :19). And Jesus said, For My Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life and I will raise them up at the last day (John 6:40). So whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life. For God's wrath remains on them (John 3:36).

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

No true Christian believes in the trinity doctrine. The fact that millions of ppl mindlessly accept it as tradition does not make it true.

[@badonlikoy5571]

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 I am a Protestant Christian. The word Trinity is not the basis of my beliefs in Christianity. Because the word Trinity was not written in the Bible. It was the early Christians who called it Trinity the Bible speaks about three and mentioned about three, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. (Read Psalms 2:7, Isaiah 9:6, Proverbs 30:4, Isaiah 63:11, Psalms 51:11, Luke 11:13, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 11:27, John 5:17, John 3:36, John 10:29, John 6:40 & Matthew 28 :19). And God in the Bible "considered" His people as His Children or sons (read Proverbs 8:32, Exodus 4 :22, Deuteronomy 14 :1 & Hosea 1 :10). So We Christians believed in One God The Father that exist in three Divine Essence, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, but they are one in essence. Because both Holy Spirit and Word (Son Jesus) came from God the Father Himself and belongs to Him. This is why Jesus said, I Am from Him and He sent Me (John 7:29). And the Holy Spirit is also "from the Father Himself" and that comes out "from the Father Himself" (read John 15:26, Psalms 51:11, Luke 11:13, Matthew 1:20 & Luke 1:35). So there are no associating partners in the Bible.

[@JudeOne3Four]

No you Catholics believe that. There is no such thing as trinity in Scripture *at all.* It is a philosophical concept (not a teaching) pushed on the Scriptures by mainly *abusing* the Gospel of John. The Israelites were no trinitarians and neither were Jesus Christ and the Apostles. They worshipped one God >>> The Father! Malachi 2:10 Have we not all *one Father* has not *one God* created us? Yes indeed. And in case you didn't know, Father is one person!! Can you prove me wrong from the Scriptures?

[@badonlikoy5571]

@@JudeOne3Four you're wrong, because according to Jesus, the Father is Spirit (John 4:24 & Genesis 1:1) that was revealed Himself in the Flesh in the presence of our LORD Jesus Christ. And those to whom the Son chooses to REVEAL HIM (read Matthew 11:27). This is why Jesus said, The one who looks at Me is seeing the one who sent Me (John 12 :45). Because Jesus is the exact representation of His being (read Hebrew 1:3). That is why Jesus said to His disciples. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him (John 14 :7). So Jesus said, anyone who has seen Me, has seen the Father (John 14:9). For I (Jesus's flesh) and the Father (Spirit) are one (John 10:30). Just like you. You have a flesh (body) and you have also a spirit = 1 human being. But can anyone see your spirit? Of course none. So in John 17:11-23, Jesus is talking about the Complete Unity "So that the world may believe that the Father has sent Me. But Jesus never talk about Unity in Spirit.

[@badonlikoy5571]

@@JudeOne3Four are you a Muslim?

[@Cloudssword4U]

So Jesus isn't "the one God" ? That seems like a controversial statement

[@andys3035]

When used in a nominal sense, the Father is the one true God. The point they were making is we cannot equivicate that God means one thing, it doesn't.

[@seeqr9]

Just a matter of defining terms. He explicitly said Jesus and the Holy Spirit are equal ontologically as divinity. “The Father is the one true God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are equal to Him” sounds like the Trinity to me.

[@Zebhammer]

I agree. I was driving whilst listening to this which is not always the best way, but to describe Jesus and the Holy Spirit as "not uncaused" made me feel very uncomfortable. Did I mishear or misunderstand this point??

[@Zebhammer]

​@@seeqr9So, if the Father is the one true God, what are Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

[@seeqr9]

@@Zebhammer I must’ve missed the part about “not being uncaused”… that sounds problematic. I thought was just talking more about terminology and the term “God” as a term for the father which the other persons being God in fact but if he’s saying something like “one divine person is the creator, sustainer etc.” then I couldn’t get behind that very easily. I mean, while I respect the early fathers, I’d need a compelling argument from scripture to get behind such a thing because according to my studies scripture shows that all three persons are YAHWEH. So if we can say “God/Father is Yahweh, Son is Yahweh, Holy Spirit is Yahweh” that seems to be fine but if he says “the father is the only true Yahweh” … yeah idk about that…

[@JacksonLGarner]

This is the monarchical model used in Eastern Orthodoxy. Catholics cannot accept this model. Is Cameron becoming Orthodox? ☦️☦️

[@CapturingChristianity]

Catholics can accept it.

[@gianlucagatto6074]

what is is the best obection of Muslims? that 3 is not the same than 1?

[@AlonzoHarris235]

Siguwade confirmed that Muslims are right. He confirms that there are three gods in the trinity. There is one God in identity. There are two other gods in predication.

[@ToursPoitiers732]

​@@AlonzoHarris235your stupid desert brain doesn't understand the difference between nominal and predicative

[@manueljoaquim7485]

@@AlonzoHarris235 that not what he said, he said there is only one god, which is God the Father, and the trinity. is just the manifestation of this God as 3 separate persons, Just like if I was to time travel, I would be 3 persons , past, present, future, but still one humans being .

[@JudeOne3Four]

Is 3 the same as 1?

[@eskimo227]

Monarchical Trinity seems like the best explanation, one that fits scripture exactly and avoids seemingly logical contradictions. Resolving the “only true God” issue is huge also.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

I was just thinking "Man I would love for Dr. Sijuwade to come come back on CC" Thanks for this!

[@Sdplaya01]

It seems to me that only Christian’s view God as primarily a what rather than a who, solely to avoid tritheism. The what being the esssense of God and who being the persons of God. My question is why isn’t personhood part of the essence of God, and if so why isn’t it simple as well?

[@essboarder23]

This only is the case for more Western modes of explaining the Trinity, i.e. the Divine essence is the source of unity within the Godhead. In Eastern triadology (think Orthodox and St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzus) the person of the Father is the source of the unity within the Godhead, in virtue of the Monarchy of the Father. Hence the "One God" can be predicated to the Father specifically and not just the Trinity as a whole.

[@patricksee10]

It is a matter of emphasis, The essential feature of the three persons of the Holy Trinity is bonds of love. The father has eternally begotten the son because of the love between a father and the son. That love is expressed by the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the father and the son

[@lucienlagarde8093]

​@@essboarder23 well dr Joshua sound very eastern orthodox

[@ziaulislam87]

The most common issue here is math problem. Concept of triune god is not unique or new whats unique is trying to insist that its monotheisum which makes jews and Muslims pretty confused

[@andrevisser7542]

U are a triune being also, certainly not three of u....

[@collybever]

But the Torah, and full Tanakh, show God appearing in human form, whilst also concurrently in heaven above. So the more studied ones would need to admit that the Islamic idea of indivisible unity is incorrect. They would also see references to the Spirit of God in the Tanakh, given separate definition from God. The Quran author was not very Biblically knowledgeable, appears to have relied on secondary sources, probably because the Bible was not in Arabic. There also would be communities around that were not so advanced intellectually. The Quran author must have come from the Iraq/Syria/Jordan/North Arabia area - that's the Quran's Arabic, it's descriptions fit that environment somewhere, the odd Arabic prophets mentioned in short scripts like Saleh came from there. (Mecca in the Hijaz was impossibly dry for major settlement, the first reference to Mecca in texts is 741 AD and placed it in Syria.)

[@ziaulislam87]

@@collybever no it doesn't.. anyone who reads Hebrew will know that. Dont go to old testament ask the Jews! Any place God is used is metaphorical hence why jews are children of god..not that they literally are children

[@tionarry]

​@@ziaulislam87Jews like Dr Michael Brown, Moishe Rosen, David Stern, or almost the 100k+ Messianic Jews? Many people have studied the Hebrew language and understands it as much. If you have anyone that can debate Anthony Rogers or Sam Shamoun, I would love to see the Debate

[@ziaulislam87]

@@tionarry many people isnt expert opinion. No atheist or jewish wcholar or even neutral reader will believe that god has millions of children...or judges are god or god wrestled with someone or jacob to was son of god.. If you are going to take god in literal meaning you will need to be consistent Mean while there are 1000s of verses stating god is one. New testament is for the chistians ro interpret as they wish but thats not true for old testament.. Jewish have been studying it for milenias

[@A.Joshua_]

Turn the captions on!

[@orpheemulemo8053]

I dont agree with joshua defenition as Jesus is also called yahweh meaning they cant just antalogicaly be the same be God they must all be God and three persons at the same time

[@Hbmd3E]

1:26:00 This all seems good in the sense. At this point there has not been emphasis /addressed at all the unity "Echad" considering all this , 3 Divine beings one fundamental,.. Also considering Jesus shining forth from the Father from eternity,.. there is something in oneness / Unity that we as created / sinful fallen beings cant grasp,. So they would be perfectly as one and this is the reason they would show ( rightly ) as ONE. There is not Jesus in separate room waiting what the father is up to and so .. I guess :)

[@richy11ify]

Just Remember Cameron, if you are Catholic, refer to the Priest in your Parish and if needed move up to the Bishop. I could be Mistaken but what he is saying sounds Heretical.