Who Should Christians Worship? Part 1

Who Should Christians Worship? Part 1

who should Christians worship interestingly thoughtful Christians have been somewhat divided about this and have reasoned in some different ways about it but in this talk I want to claim that the scripture and careful reasoning can actually sort these issues out so some Christians and in particular a lot of current day American evangelical Christians reason like this Christians should only worship God that is Jesus they're assuming Jesus and God to be numerically one here and they reason that only God should be worshiped and Jesus should be worshiped so therefore Jesus is God as in Jesus as God himself that they're numerically one in contrast some Unitarian Christians have argued like this that Jesus isn't God that they're numerically two but only God should be worshiped therefore Jesus should not be worshiped so historically even if a few famous Unitarians like Joseph Priestley in Theophilus Lindsey have denounced the worship of Jesus as quote Christian idolatry but are they right other Unitarian Christians disagree and interestingly enough some Trinitarian Christians would also reason like this they would say the answer is both God and Jesus so Jesus isn't God there is a distinction between the two and yet Jesus should be worshipped so it is false that only God should be worshipped so who's right well I think we need to make a few logical distinctions here and then we'll go back and evaluate those arguments carefully so here's a distinction which is foundational to any introduction to logic class it's the concept of a valid arguments a valid argument is one such that if each premise is true then the conclusion must also be true now that if is really important you can tell an argument is valid just by seeing that it has the correct sort of connection between the premises and the conclusion you don't have to agree with on our with the conclusion of an argument to say that it's valid to illustrate this point let me give you a valid argument all things made of chocolate are delicious the moon is made of chocolate therefore the moon is delicious this argument is obviously valid if one were true and if two were true then three would have to be true that's just what it means to say that an argument is valid so this argument is just as valid as any argument ever was but what this example shows is that we want more than validity from our arguments we want arguments which are valid but we also want ones that have true premises because that will guarantee that the conclusion is true as well so what's wrong with this argument it is valid there is a logical connection between the premises and the conclusion it's not true that the moon is made of chocolates and it's not true that all things made of chocolate are delicious so this argument is what logicians call valid but unsound so let's look at the definition of the sound argument sound argument is one which is valid but is more than just valid it also has this feature that each premise is true now of course if it's valid and each premise is true then by definition the conclusion will have to be true as well right so we want arguments that are not just valid we want arguments that are sound too here's a classic example of a sound argument that goes back to ancient times Socrates is a man second premise all men are mortal and the conclusion is that Socrates is mortal poor Socrates has kicked the bucket so that's an argument that has true premises and also a true conclusion but the point is that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of a conclusion the argument is valid and sound so we need to go back to our and ask which if any of these are sounds now we know that they're all valid which means that if these premises were true that would guarantee that conclusion if both these premises are true that guarantees that conclusion is also true and if these two premises are true then that guarantees that that conclusion is true so they're all valid there's no mistake in reasoning like I said many thoughtful Christians have held to each one right but we know that they cannot possibly all be sound because they have conflicting claims if you want you can pause the video for a second right here and convince yourself of this if you accept any one argument as sound then you have to reject the other two arguments as unsound and the reason for that is they have contradictory claims right so if you're convinced that this statement is true then you would have to say this statement is false and vice versa okay we need to add one more elements we need to consider a self-evident truth something that every adult human knows in fact probably every kid knows it as well logicians and philosophers call this principle the indiscernible 'ti of identicals and it just says for any X and any Y X equals y that is x and y are numerically one we're not saying that they're similar we're not saying that they're that there's a the sameness of quantity here or something like that we're saying the individual referred to by the term X is the same individual referred to by the term Y that x and y are one in the same numerically the same entity so for any X any why they are numerically the same only if X and y1 never have differed to don't differ three will not ever differ and four could not differ so there are four necessary conditions on the truth of this of a statement like this if this is going to be true then it has to meet all four of these conditions and if one of those conditions is not met then that statement will be false the basic idea is that no one single thing can be different than itself at one time now you can differ from yourself at different times perhaps now you have a headache and you didn't have a headache ten minutes ago but you can't right now have a headache and also not have a headache that's absolutely impossible that's the underlying intuition here everything is what it is a thing can't differ from itself at one time and again everybody knows this one way that you can see this is to consider the case of a criminal trial so suppose you are accused of some really terrible crime suppose there's a serial killer in your town they call him the tennis racket killer because he kills people by being them with tennis rackets and they don't know who this is but you get accused of this and they they decide they think this is you and they haul you into court much to your dismay and they say AHA we've got the tennis racket killer here how are you going to exonerate yourself how are you and your lawyer going to get you off from this charge prove prove your innocence what you're gonna do is you're gonna show that you and the killer have differed in at least one way that's it if you can show that that absolutely proves that you are not the tennis racket killer we all know that if you and the killer have ever differed in any way or even just could differ in any way we all know then that you and the killer are not one in the same on the other hand maybe you're similar to the killer this is why they brought you into court you you were in a certain place where a killing happened maybe you have a really killer forehand or backhand serve and so does the tennis racket killer maybe you were where a certain brand of tennis shoes and so does the tennis racquets serial killer but it doesn't matter how many things you have in common with him so long as you have ever differed from him in one way that proves that you and he are not the same so you could be similar in a billion ways and that would not prove that you are him but if you differ just one way no matter how small that absolutely proves that you and he are two so let's apply this to some examples from the Bible how about this sentence is this true that Saul just is Paul that's all and Paul are numerically one well sure it is Saul was born in Tarsus Paul was born in Tarsus Saul received an excellent education as a Pharisee so did Paul Paul wrote first Corinthians so did Saul or we can't find any difference between the two they haven't differed in any way and we just realized by the usage of the terms that these are two names for one thing so this statement is true what about this statement what if someone came along some interpreter of the Bible some teacher or some comment or and they said you know really James just is Peter Peter just as James they're really one in the same these are these are two names for the same disciple here well this is not hard to refute on the basis of the text check out this episode here this is where Peter is nun to successfully walking on the water and Jesus is saving in here playing out of the water so this is Peter and let's suppose this is James over here in the boat so at this particular time James was in the boat and Peter was in the water so the two of them have differed so that really shows that they are two and not one that proves that this is false now how about this Jesus refers to John the Baptist as Elijah he says Elijah has already come but he wasn't recognized and they chose to abuse him the disciples realized that Jesus was talking about John the Baptist but we know that these are not the same individual they're not the same man they have differed so at this particular time on the right when John is baptizing Jesus we don't think that Elijah was baptizing Jesus so that shows that John and Elijah are two they're not one and if you consider the panel on the left hundreds of years before Alijah being taken up to heaven and a golden chariot and we don't think that John the Baptist even existed then so at that time they differed John the Baptist was non-existence and Elijah was being taken up to heaven at the end of his prophetic ministry so yeah we know the statement at the top here is false and the reason we know it's false is because there's at least one way in which those two have differed all right let's get more theological now what if someone says that Jesus just is God and God just is Jesus Jesus and God are numerically one well have have the two ever differed let me give two different arguments maybe you believe in a Trinity theory maybe your social turnit Aryan or Latin Trinitarian etc well then what you think about God is that God is try personal so this this whole group here or this whole complex entity as the case may be this is God and Jesus is just one of those three so in your view God is try personal or in some sense contains three person and in your view Jesus is not tri-personal there is a time at which Jesus and God have differed or if you like Jesus and God have differed and timeless eternity but look a thing can't differ from itself everybody knows that this can't be so in your view Jesus is not God if you're a Trinitarian again God is try personal you don't think that Jesus is try personal and it's self-evident that things that have differed are not numerically one here's another example on the right some Trinitarians will accept this probably all Unitarians will accept this there's a particular time portrayed here it's in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus is about to be arrested and he knows that there's this terrible fate that awaits him of being crucified and he prays to the Father he prays to God that God would if it's your will let this cup pass so at that particular time Jesus does not want Jesus to be crucified but God does want Jesus to be crucified so then Jesus and God have differed there was a time at which Jesus wanted something and Jesus didn't want something and God did want that very same thing so whether you're a Trinitarian or a Unitarian you should think that Jesus and the One God have differed and so you should agree that they are not numerically one now you might think that Jesus is a part of God or a member of the group which is God or that Jesus shares in nature with God and things like that okay that's fine that's consistent with saying that Jesus and God are not numerically identical so still you should agree with that so let's revisit our first argument what we've just seen is that if the new testament is to be trusted and or if Trinitarian speculations are to be trusted then this claim is false that's right we know what the argument is unsound yet we know it's valid and because it's valid then we know that there has to be a problem up here if both of these were true and it's valid then this would have to be true too but this is false we have to believe that one or both of those are false but which one let's move on to the second argument we know that this one's unsound so here's the second argument that some Unitarian Christians have given and as we've just seen this premise is true it's true that Jesus isn't God that they are numerically two and so we need to wonder is this also true because if if two is true as well then that would guarantee that the conclusion is true I suggest that the Bible will settle this for us so let's look at a couple of really interesting chapters in the New Testament book of Revelation revelation for the person having the vision john has a vision of god in heaven and in his heavenly throne room as it were he says at once i was in the spirit and behold the throne stood in heaven with one seated on the throne and then he sees some heavenly beings and some some human elders there attending his court and he says they cast their crowns before the throne saying worthy are you our Lord and God to receive glory and honor and power for you created all things and by your will they existed and were created so who is this one seated on the throne well it's obvious from the whole this is the same one that was seen by Isaiah and Ezekiel in Old Testament times but of course it tells us that it's our Lord and God it's Yahweh it's the God of Israel it's the one true God that we see in the jewish scriptures and also in the Christian New Testaments God is being worshipped here in Revelation chapter 4 now the really interesting part is chapter 5 something really surprising happens there the one on the throne has a scroll and then the following happens and between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a lamb standing and he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne and when he had taken the scroll the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the lamb each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense which are the prayers of the saints and they sang a new song saying worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals for you were slain and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God and they shall reign on the earth then I looked and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels numbering Myriad's of Myriad's and thousands of thousands saying with a loud voice worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing they're worshiping the lamb here and the basis for their worship is the amazing service that he's just accomplished for god of giving himself willingly as a sacrifice to to ransom people for God it says and to make them into a kingdom of priests but this isn't quite the climax of the chapter here's a beautiful medieval manuscript painting of this whole scene you have John down at the bottom having this vision you have the twenty-four elders in heaven in white seated in a couple of kind of long pews and there is the one who sits on the throne that's supposed to be God and then the Lamb who was slain who was worthy to come and take the scroll he's kind of sitting on God's lap like a pet in this portrayal anyway here is the climax of chapter 5 all the worshipers say to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever and the four living creatures said amen and the elders fell down and worshiped notice that there are two recipients of worship here there is the lamb and that's obviously Jesus and then there is the one who sits on the throne and as we saw from the previous chapter that is God the Lord God Almighty the one true God Yahweh the God of Israel so the two of them are being worshiped sort of side by side it's like almost like they're sharing a throne and this is obviously religious worship if anything counts as religious worship then this counts singing a hymn of praise and bowing down and it's in a group worship setting it's in what scholars would call a cultic contexts in a worship contexts wow you have the man the Messiah Christ Jesus being worshipped alongside God here I think this settles the matter with regard to that second argument again we realize that this first argument is unsound because this conclusion is false a sound argument has to have a true conclusion and since Jesus and God have differed according to everybody we can agree that that premise is true but as we've just seen according to Revelation chapter 5 premise 2 is false it's false that only God should be worshipped God is worshipped there and he's worshipped alongside the Lord Jesus Christ that's somebody else so the second argument is unsound because the second premise is false that leaves us with a winner we've just seen that Jesus isn't God that they're not numerically the same whatever else may be true about them however else they may be related we've seen that Jesus should be worshiped according to the book of Revelation and of course it logically follows from 1 & 2 that is false that only God should be worshipped this argument according to the New Testament is a sound arguments and I think that should settle the matter for Christians who accept the authority of the New Testament ok I want to move on and consider some objections to what I've been urging the first objection says that the text itself in a couple of chapters we haven't looked at asserts that we should only worship God and yes revelation plainly implies that Jesus should be worshiped thus revelation plainly implies that Jesus is God my response to this is that the first statement is false the text doesn't say that people only read that into the text so if you look at both of those chapters what's going on is the angel who's revealing these visions to John rejects worship himself the one gain the vision wants to bow down and worship the angel and the angel says no don't worship me I'm a fellow servant worship God doesn't say worship only God and it's a good thing because they've just portrayed earlier in this very book the worship of God and also Jesus alongside him writer would be inconsistent if he a couple chapters later said only worship God saying don't worship Me the angel worship God instead that's consistent with then also a person worshiping Jesus text doesn't say what this first sentence says and what's missing is the only look it up some of our best commenters people like Craig keener note that there's a concern with angel worship here that some people in the early church were worshipping various angelic beings that's really what the author is concerned with another objection would say look you're missing the point no Orthodox Christian thinks that only God that is the father should be worshipped rather any being with the divine nature should be worshipped well I'm not missing the point I'm well aware of diff Trinity theories and theories about different ways in which father and son may be said to share a nature I've written a good bit about this in print but the main thing I want to say about this right now is that you won't find this claim in the Bible anywhere you will find the claim that God should be worshipped that is Yahweh only should be worships and we'll come to that in a second but you won't find a claim in the Bible that any being with the divine nature should be worshipped the harder difficulty here I think is that in the Ten Commandments Yahweh says to only worship Him and we know that Yahweh is the father that's the same one who Jesus calls our Heavenly Father he also calls him his God and our God the Old Testament says that only God should be worshipped it doesn't say that any being with the divine nature should be worshipped so that brings me to the next objection it goes like this but Jesus one worshiped the father two never demanded worship and three taught like all Jews that only Yahweh should be worshiped so for instance when Jesus is tempted by Satan at the start of his ministry Satan shows in the kingdoms of the world and says all these I will give you if you will fall down and worship Me then jesus said to him begone Satan for it is written you shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve so Jesus doesn't say you should only worship someone with the divine nature and you know he's tricking Satan Satan doesn't realize that he has the divine nature no no he's saying you shall only worship one being one God that is Yahweh the Lord now in response to this objection I agree with these three statements I agree that Jesus worship the father I agree that at least during his earthly ministry he never demanded worship I mean he accepted worship and honor from people both before and after his resurrection and I agree that he taught like the Jews like all Jews of his day that only Yahweh should be worshiped and the main thing I think to say to this objection is that Jesus here is talking to Satan before his resurrection and exaltation he quotes the 10 commandments and that was enforced that you should only worship Yahweh now once God has exalted his son to his right hand he's changed the policy we'll say more about that in a minute let's talk about the term worship one confusion that a lot of people have nowadays is they think that by definition worship is something that can only properly be given to God this is a big mistake and this will mess up your understanding of the Bible in many ways here's one place that can lead you wrong so when the three wise men come to visits the baby Jesus in Matthew chapter 2 it says that they fell down and worshiped him the term worship there is Pross kanae oh that's the term in Greek that's normally translated as worship and scholarly circles are most used translation the New Revised Standard Version translates that they knelt down and paid him homage the term proskuneo can mean religious worship and it can also mean just the sort of honor or homage or obeisance that one gives to a king or a ruler it can mean both of those both of these translations are strictly correct but the first one might mislead you it might mislead you into thinking that the wise men thought that Jesus was God that they're worshiping him and they think he's God they think that God is now a baby that's not the right way to look at the story at the start of chapter 2 in Matthew it says that these three guys believed that the one who had been born was the King of the Jews so they come to pay him homage they believe that he's predestined be the Messiah so they honor him on that basis now even the English term worship formerly was used just like the the older Greek and Hebrew terms to express both religious worship and other kinds of honoring so in the traditional marriage ceremony you say with this ring I thee Wed with my body IV were ship this is not talking about some kind of idolatry you're not giving religious worship to your spouse it's just you're honoring them with your body in a unique way they get special access right so even in English sometimes worship can mean something that's not really religious worship but some other kind of honoring

25 thoughts on “Who Should Christians Worship? Part 1

  1. Lol i don t get it, a god who conceives a son with a creature he made, same as me having lust for a doll i made with branches, euh, after that it offers me a son x)

  2. What was omitted is the truth that although, Jesus is not God; God is in Jesus and Jesus is in God, so worship is led by the holy Spirit in each individual, but we are all One in the Worship Of God. In Revelation we see worship to both God and Christ in Unity.

  3. Bible tells us that Jesus must reign "until" he has put all his enemies under his feet…When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:25,28). There are many examples, but it is crystal clear here that Jesus will reign "until", he has put all his enemies under his feet. This type of language doesn't make sense if Jesus is Almighty God. Jesus is Son of God, and one should "worship" him as Son of God, Lamb of God, King and Messiah. Jesus is being 'worshiped" as "Lord Messiah" and Not as "Lord God" in the Bible [including book of Revelation]. Although Lord Jesus receives worship alongside the "Lord God" in Book of Revelation, but it is all for the Glory of God the Father [Lord God], who made him to sit at His right hand. Its sad that Trinitarians do not see many things and say unbiblical things about 1 Cor 15:24-28 that the human part or humanity of Jesus will rule "until" he has put all enemies under his feet, but as Almighty God, second person of the Trinity he will rule for eternity……But where is that in the Bible?

  4. Your arguments are a little flawed and it seems to be from some misunderstanding. So the Trinity is One Being ie GOD, and Three Persons ie FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT. Now examples from the world around us usually present a form of modalism and that is not what I believe so I won't use any examples to try and explain the nature of GOD, but I digress.

    Now humans are one <being> with one <person>, rocks are one being with no persons, but GOD is One Being with Three Persons. We are 100% human and we are our own persons. I cannot say "I am not human, I am a person" because that makes no sense, each person has to have a being or it is not a thing. We as humans are one "what" (that is the being of something) and one "who" (the person of a being).

    But with GOD, it is One "What"/One Being and Three "Whos"/ Three Persons. So YAHWEH the FATHER is 100% GOD and 100% HIS own Person, YAHUSHUA (Jesus) the SON is 100% GOD and 100% HIS own Person, and THE HOLY SPIRIT is 100% GOD and 100% HER own Person.

    The Trinity consists of Three Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Persons in the One Eternal Being of GOD.

    Hopefully this is not too confusing and this will help you understand the doctrine of the Trinity better.

  5. great channel exclamation mark surprise but man, its gotta be a double p [worshipped].also, the fact that J shld be wsppd [example one] doesnt make him numerically 1 as God…they cld be num. 2 cos J is a man and JC is God [and HS = 3] …true trinitarianism.  Of course hyostasis means divine being and not just literary personification. I AGREE WITH MR STICKY. You seem to have loaded dice.I wonder what othx [R C ] theologians wld make …do make…of such presentations…
    Edit: If JC is nothing but an exceptionally [Christian] man, ha-ha: no [a la Ebionites.] A/thing else; yes.

  6. You can find philosophers who think that moral statements like that can't be T or F – they'll analyze it as meaning: puppy kicking… boo! Of course, that isn't what it means – the analysis is wrong.

  7. I'm just telling you what almost any philosopher or logician will. Find your local prof and test me on this. Perhaps you're assuming that "what is the case" must be something physical – in other words, that all facts are physical facts. But if so, there will be no facts about what (in any sense) ought to be. Yet, everyone knows that there are. e.g. You ought not kick your puppy just for the fun of it.

  8. "You ought to worship Jesus" is a prescription. Prescriptive statements do not have a truth value because they express absolutely nothing about what is the case. Only descriptive statements such as the proposition "Jesus was born in Bethlehem" have a truth value. "You should wash your hands after using the bathroom" has no truth value, but "routine hand washing reduces the spread of harmful bacteria" does.

  9. "Worship Jesus!" is a command. Yes, a command can't be either true or false. But "You ought to worship Jesus" is true or false. Just because a sentence uses a normative concept (about what ought or ought not be done – in an epistemic, practical, or moral sense) it doesn't follow that it doesn't express a proposition. "You should wash your hands after using the bathroom." True (given that you don't want to get sick.)

  10. Why are you treating imperatives like they're propositions? Statements containing "should" are commands not propositions. Commands have no truth value and thus have nothing to do with the validity of an argument.

  11. Maybe it's not an orthodox view but that is besides the point. I'm not arguing that the trinity is true. I'm arguing that your argument against the trinity is invalid.

  12. This is thinking of the members of the Trinity as parts of God. Many Christians, I find, think this way. Oddly enough, this was never considered an orthodox view; the church fathers never imagined the persons to be parts of God – almost to a man they insisted on "divine simplicity" (that God is without any parts or composition of any kind). Anyway, on this idea, it would be false that Father = Yahweh, because proper part of a thing can be identical with the whole thing.

  13. Hi mrsticky005 – that is modalism, each of the "persons" being aspects of a single self. Search for "modalism" at the blog linked above and you'll see a lot of posts about modalism, and why it is incompatible with the New Testament.

  14. I do think a trinity believer would believe that the Father is the one true God
    but also that the Son is the one true God and that the Holy Spirit is the one true God. They are all the same one true God..yet they are different "sides" if you will of that same one true God. They are NOT different Gods. Again a triangle
    with 3 sides is just one triangle, is it not? It is not 3 triangles. Now how exactly
    does this work in terms of God. I don't know. But I know that is the belief.

  15. Disagree. A Trinitarian sees 3 persons being the same 1 God. And again it's not polytheism (though it's easy to confuse it for it.) Another way of looking at it.
    A triangle. A triangle is made up of 3 sides, yes? But that does not make it 3 triangles. 3 triangles would be polytheism. 3 sides to a triangle would be trinitarianism. And a single line would be uniatarianism. Nevermind which is
    actually right. That's not the issue. The issue is what is the trinity belief

  16. I disagree here. A Trinitarian looks at one "entity" (person) alone and sees that He alone is God. Ever heard that creedal statement that goes along the lines of: The Father is the one true God, the Son is the one true God, the Holy Spirit is the one true God. And they will certainly agree with Yeshua's statement in John 17:3, where he states that the Father is the only true God.
    Sorry, but I disagree: It's polytheism.

  17. You mean the Trinitarian's definitions (plural) of God. Their definition isn't fixed – they readily and frequently change it throughout their arguments. Hence why I say they have multiple definitions, which basically means they resort to the fallacy of equivocation. Sure, the author could have used the Trinitarian definition, but then he would no longer be presenting a logical argument.

  18. Stop right there at logic. Unitarians uses logic, and the Trinitarian uses it too, but I believe the Unitarian uses it much more correctly – to come out with a logical conclusion. Meanwhile, the Trinitarian uses logic to make an illogical conclusion – so he defeats the whole point of using logic in the first place. With the Trinity, it starts out with logic, and ends with mystery. And then when you apply that mysterious conclusion back to the methodology used, it doesn't add up.

  19. So yes in a way you could say Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit individually are not
    God but this would be missing the point. It would be like taking a single puzzle
    piece and declaring "This isn't a puzzle". You have to put the pieces together
    in order to get the picture.

  20. I disagree. The problem isn't the theory but your view point and that of the author. You're seeing the forest for the trees. You look at Jesus and you think well if
    he's only 1/3rd of God then he's not God. But a Trinitarian looks at all 3 entities
    at the same time and sees that TOGETHER they are God. The reason this
    isn't polytheism is because they are not 3 wholes but 3 parts of the same whole.
    Now the Trinity theory may be wrong but not for the reasons anyone suggested.

  21. If the Father is 1/3 of the one God, then no, the Father could not be = to the one God. This is a serious problem for those holding Trinity theories. But it is not a problem for unitarian Christians like me.

  22. mrsticky, Think first. then comment! 🙂

    "His logic DOES deny the Father as being the one true God "

    No, I affirm this, because the NT teaches it. Nor is anything I say inconsistent with the Father being the one God.

  23. The Trinitarian's definition of the word "God" is obviously different from the Unitarian's
    definition of the word "God". But the author uses the same Unitarian definition across
    the board EVEN AFTER demonstrating what the Trinitarian view is.

  24. But it becomes necessary when your logic to disprove one can just as well be used
    to disprove the other. You see there is the 4th view of NONE of them being God and
    while I personally don't hold to this view we must take it into consideration if we honestly want to find the truth. Otherwise it's just cherry picking really.

    And actually believe it or not this has less to do with logic and more
    to do with semantics. The question here is what does "God" mean?

  25. I know what the point of the video was. I'm saying there are consequences to the logic he used to disprove Jesus as God based off of the trinity model it also
    can be argued to disprove the Father as God. I just want him to be more honest
    in his reasoning. If we are going to use logic we should not use it halfway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *