Two Jehovah Witnesses visited my home, I spent two hours trying to explain to them the deity of Christ to no avail, I then asked them who is the savior of the world? One of them responded " it might be Jesus" I then responded "He either is or isn't the savior of the world." It's very sad to see them being deceived by the organization. When I was eight years old I remember picking up the bible for the first time and opening it to the book of John chapter 1 and as I read the first chapter I understood right there and then who Jesus Christ is. I had no one trying to explain this chapter to me, I wasn't confused, I kept thinking to myself and saying "wow" Jesus is my creator, I had a full understanding of the bible verse that reads "God was manifested in the flesh!" and that All things were created by Christ! Jw's say that jesus was a god but he can't be one because if he was a god then they're saying he was a false god because there's only one true God!

One of my Favorite Debater Pastor Ritchie.. Very Clear explanation. Trinitarian is a man made doctrine..

Just Keep on Preaching the Word of GOD Pastor Ritchie. I learned a lot from you, and from David Bernard and Roger Perkins. God bless you in Jesus name...

@christian.comedy.channel.2

Жыл бұрын

Will you discuss the Oneness claims with me on zoom? I evangelise cults and I have over 2,600 discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses uploaded to my channel.

@lowedmontebon8676

11 ай бұрын

@@christian.comedy.channel.2 Sure

@bobjames3748

2 ай бұрын

Jerry Hayes is a excellent debater and has books with debates in them.

Why does the trinitarian say we don't understand the triune god theory? We clearly understand the theory! We reject trinity because it's not the God of the Bible! The trinity doctrine is true of the of the mythical triune non-existing god! The God in the Bible is revealed to be One Eternal Spirit manifest in His Son Jesus Christ! Jesus is called The Everlasting Father The Son of God The Spirit in us Can any trinitarian show me we are instructed ANYWHERE in Scripture to call God a PLURAL?

@lefonzopollock4345

3 жыл бұрын

@GuitarZMasterZ So, The Bible says Jesus is God and you say He's not; I'm gonna believe the Bible!

@lefonzopollock4345

3 жыл бұрын

@GuitarZMasterZ You don't accept Scripture.....so there is nothing else to say to you.

@nahj1don706

3 ай бұрын

Just know that denying the Son is liable to hell fire

@lefonzopollock4345

3 ай бұрын

@@nahj1don706 I'm testifying that Jesus is the Son of God(GOD manifest in flesh) and not a mythical second god person of a triune god theory.

At 55:20 Dr Dalcour said, "Show me one scholar that shows dia in the genitive has that meaning to Colossians 1:16-17?" Then Dalcour went on to say that there is no "in the mind of" meaning. Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon says that Colossians 1:16 (dia in genitive) does not have to mean literal agency. Thayer wrote, “in him resides the cause why all things were originally created”. Thayer was a Greek scholar who has a meaning of dia in the genitive used in Col. 1:16 which differs from the Trinitarian scholars who Dr Dalcour says are "all on my side." Dr Dalcour said, "Show me one scholar that shows dia in the genitive has that meaning to Colossians 1:16-17?" I just showed one. If dia in the genitive can refer to the Son being "the cause why all things were originally created" in time then dia in the genitive does not have to mean literal agency. Thayer’s lexicon (archē, 2) defines “beginning” in Col.1:18 as “the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader”. Hence, according to Thayer, the Son of God is "the firstborn from the dead" as "the first person" who was foreordained in a series of those who were foreordained after their predestined leader. It is hard to imagine how the context of Col. 1:15-18 could mean that the Son as the Creator is "the firstborn" of His own Creation (Col. 1:15-16). And it is hard to imagine how a God the Son could be a pre-incarnate God "the firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18) as an alleged God the Firstborn from the dead. How nonsensical is that? Colossians 1:16 in the Complete Jewish Bible says, “because in connection with him were created all things-in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, lordships, rulers or authorities-they have all been created through him and for him.” BDAG: ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα (prob. to be understood as local, not instrumental, since ἐν αὐ. would otherwise be identical w. διʼ αὐ. in the same vs.) everything was created in association with him [Col] 1:16 (cp. M. Ant. 4, 23 ἐν σοὶ πάντα; Herm. Wr. 5, 10; AFeuillet, NTS 12, ’65, 1-9). The two aorists in Colossians 1:19, eudokēsen and katoikēsai (in “pleased to dwell”) refer to a specific point in time (the aorist is sometimes called “the punctiliar”). It is hard to imagine that a timeless God the Son was being indwelt with all of God's fullness at "a specific point in time." But if we go with the Biblical Son of God, it makes perfect sense to state that when the word (logos) of God the Father was made flesh within the virgin, that was when the fullness of God's Divinity was indwelt in Christ. Moulton, The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised , p. 90 explains the uses of dia with genitive: "1. With a genitive, through a. Used of place or medium through b. Used of time, during in the course of; through c. Used of immediate agency, causation, instrumentality, by means of, by; of means or manner, through, by, with d. Used of state or condition, in a state of". Meaning (b) appears relevant to Heb. 1:2 because it is dia Christ that the aions (a time reference) were created. "Through the Son, God framed the ages", i.e. all God's purpose throughout the ages was framed with Christ in mind. Acts 3:18 uses dia + genitive to explain how God had spoken of Christ "by" or throughout the period of all His "holy prophets". Oscar Cullmann, The Christology Of The New Testament (London: SCM, 1971) p. 234.

Lol "I dont want to hear your lip, if you dont give me script." That was great! Great Job brother Ritchie!

@kevinwall2882

2 жыл бұрын

@Richie D Great job??? The whole time that Rev Ritchie spoke was a rabbit chase lol smh.

@RichiePGD

2 жыл бұрын

@@kevinwall2882 lol this was old. I am no longer a oneness pentecostal and I recant my previous comment

@jesseC0806

Жыл бұрын

@@RichiePGD what view do you have now?

The words (God the Son) are not found in the book of the Lord. The person who is the Son of God is eternal, but he did not become the Son until God, who is a Spirit, was manifested in the flesh at his appointed time when he became the Son of God and the Son of man. If there was a (God the Son) this statute would be a lie: For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Hebrews 1:5 God was manifested in the flesh and when he became the Son of God he was required to pray to fulfil 1 Timothy 3:16 and Psalm 65 line 2. However when the Son of God prayed to fulfil the holy scriptures, his prayer returned to his own bosom because the person who is the Son of God is also the everlasting Father. 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. 1 Timothy 3:16 O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come. Psalms 65:2 But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. Psalms 35:13 God is known by many names and we find 3 of his names in 1John 5 line 7 and the interpretation is given to us by Job when he gave witness to God being a person and he gave his friends warning for secretly accepting persons. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him? Job 13:7 Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God? Job 13:8 Is it good that he should search you out? or as one man mocketh another, do ye so mock him? Job 13:9 He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons. Job 13:10 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. John 14:8 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 14:9 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. John 8:25 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. John 8:26 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. John 8:27

Praise God for His beautiful Word, God Himself. Our God is the One True God and His name is Jesus.

God Bless you in Jesus name Pastor Richiel..Aleluya

From 58:00 to 58:28, Dr Dalcour clearly stated that it was the Son who was the one who decided to empty himself to become incarnate in Philippians 2:6. Yet I had cited John 8:42 (with no response from Dalcour) which states that the Son said, "I have not even come of myself, but He sent me." How exactly could the Son have decided to empty himself to become incarnate if the Son did not even decide to come of himself in the first place? The only viable explanation is that the Son is the human life who had no say in the matter because he had been "granted life in himself" (John 5:26 - again no response from Dalcour) via virgin conception. Here we can see that all of Dr Dalcour's alleged evidence from Greek grammar does not line up with the clear words of inspired scripture. I had specifically challenged Dr Dalcour to respond to my exegesis of John 5:26 which proves that the Son's life (zoe) was granted (didomee). Therefore the Son is the human man who was born at Bethlehem who could not have timelessly existed as a living Son before being granted his human life in himself.

Brother Roger Perkins can now read Greek. Perhaps that is why Eddie Dalcour keeps refusing to participate in a debate with him. Brother Perkins proved that Eddie Dalcour gave a false argument to support Trinitarian theology out of John 6:38. Here is brother Perkins response to Dalcour's bogus use of the Greek text in John 6:38: RESPONSE FROM ONENESS APOLOGIST ROGER PERKINS Here's the grammatical facts of John 6.38: ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ⸁ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (NA28). In this debate Dalcour claimed that the participle πέμψαντός was "antecedent in action" to the main verb *καταβέβηκα*. Problem is, this is straight-up wrong (& I caught it shortly thereafter)! The time of action of ποιῶ should be understood in relation to the main verb καταβέβηκα. You could expand the phrase ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με to say ἀλλὰ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, it's the implied ποιῶ that should be understood in relation to καταβέβηκα. What about the participle πέμψαντός? It's part of a nominal construction τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, and does not have a direct relationship to καταβέβηκα, contra Dacour's erroneous claim (as you note Bro. Marvin Sanguinetti , he does this type of thing all the time as documented here: apostolicacademics.com/). It's important to remember that in substantive uses of the participle, the idea of time or even aspect is rather in the background. And this is a substantival participle, functioning as a noun, and that's really all it does. It isn't acting like a verb that derives its time from that of the main verb. If a participle is functioning as a noun or an adjective, it doesn't have the same relationship to the main verb that a participle functioning as a verb would (e.g. circumstantial or supplementary participles). Used as a Noun (Substantive Participle) The Greek Participle can be like a verb turned into a noun: Compare: ὁ ἄνθρωπος ποιεῖ τι. The man does something. ὁ πέμψας με ἀληθής ἐστιν The one sending me is true. Jn. 8:26 In the first example, ὁ ἄνθρωπος is a noun. In the second, ὁ πέμψας με occurs where you would expect to find a noun, and it functions as a noun. Used with a Noun (Adjectival Participle) The Greek Participle can be like an adjective: Compare: ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὁ ἀνήρ ὁ πλούσιος. That one was a rich man. ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὁ λύχνος ὁ φαίνων That one was the shining lamp. Jn 5:35 In the first example, πλούσιος is an adjective. In the second example, φαίνων appears where you would expect to find an adjective. Used to describe the main clause (Circumstantial Participle) The Greek Participle can describe an action that is taking place alongside the main verb. Examples: μὴ ἔχων σπέρμα ἀφῆκεν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ. Not having offspring he left his wife to his brother. Mt 22:25. ἀκούσαντες ἐθαύμασαν When they heard, they marveled. Mt 22:22 κρούσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τὴν θύραν τοῦ πυλῶνος προσῆλθεν παιδίσκη ὑπακοῦσαι. After he knocked on the door, a servant girl went to answer. Ac 12:13 (Genitive Absolute Participle) Used to complete the thought of another verb (Supplementary Participle) The Greek Participle can complete the meaning of some verbs than need help, like “stop, begin, continue” and others. ἐπαύσαντο τύπτοντες τὸν Παῦλον They stopped beating Paul. Ac 21:32 οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν I do not cease giving thanks for you. Eph 1:16 It's usually obvious when a participle is functioning as a noun or an adjective because it's part of a noun phrase, and it occurs where you would expect to find a noun or an adjective. Further, much could be said about the indicative mood as it relates to "time" or "aktionsart" (& then they are dependent on that of the main verb & have to be functioning as action words). Participles are kind of like someone who never wears a watch & is always asking others, "What time is it?" The participle, when not functioning as a substantitve, has to ask the main verb of the sentence "What time do I receive?" Below are some quotes that hopefully elucidate what I'm saying here: Dana and Mantey, page 229-230, The Tense of The Participle, 202. Though the tense of the participle never conveys an independent expression of time, yet its relation to its context usually involves a temporal significance. That is, the time relations of the participle do not belong to its tense, but to the sense of the context. “Time with the participle is purely relative” (R-S. 197). Essentials Of New Testament Greek, Ray Summers, Page 97, Tense in participles has to do with kind of action in the same manner as verbs. The time of action in participles is different from a verb in that it is determined by the time of the main verb. Learn To Read New Testament Greek, David Alan Black, Page 150, It is important to understand that participles do not, properly speaking, have “tense.” That is, they do not refer to past, present, or future time. A Primer Of Biblical Greek, N. Clayton Croy, Page 105, The tense of the participle has nothing to do with the time of the action, but only with the “kind” of action. A present tense participle does not necessarily denote action occurring in present time; it denotes linear or ongoing action. In actual practice, present participles usually denote action simultaneous with that of the main verb, but this tendency derives from context, not the nature of the tense. The participle is fundamentally nontemporal. New Testament Greek, James Allen Hewett, Page 146, The participle itself is timeless; it does not have inherent time value. Nevertheless, one speaks of it as present, aorist, future, or perfect. It takes on temporal value in relation to the main verb of a given context. What is denoted by tense per se in participles is kind of action. A Basic Grammar Of New Testament Greek, George Aristotle Hadjiantiniou, Page 170, The tenses in the participle are devoid of the time element in the sense with which we are familiar in the indicative. The time element in the participle depends strictly on that of the principle verb in the sentence. Robertson (LG) Page 342, “The Term Tense. It is from the French word temps, ‘time,’ and is a misnomer and a hindrance to the understanding of this aspect of the verb form. Time does come finally to enter relatively into the indicative and in a limited way affects the optative, infinitive and participle. But it is not the original nor the general idea of what we call tense. Indeed it cannot be shown of any verb-form that it had originally any reference to time. We must therefore dismiss time from our minds in the study of the forms of the tenses as well as in the matter of syntax. It is too late to get a new name, however.” Robertson (LG) Page 891, “Participle. The present participle, like the present inf., is timeless and durative. (a) The Time Of The Present Participle Relative. The time comes from the principle verb. Thus in Ac. 4:34, 37 the time is past; in Mt. 6:27 the time is present; in Mt. 10:22, 6:18, 24:30 it is future.” END OF BROTHER PERKINS RESPONSE RESPONSE FROM ONENESS APOLOGIST MARVIN SANGUINETTI Oneness apologist Marvin Sanguinetti commented about Dalcour's misuse of Greek in my debate with Dalcour by saying, "Dalcour has made numerous errors in the syntactical application of Greek grammar, including the use of Colwell's rule on John 1:1abc. He has also omitted Daniel Wallace's caution about how to apply Colwell's rule. Not to mention ignoring the application of definite predicate nouns (anarthrous) when applied to John 17:3, with the article present. Nothing in the grammar of the John 1:1abc indicates a preexistent divine Son distinct from the Father. Dalcour chided Ritchie for the lack of mention of any Greek word for 'plan' (although inherent in the word 'logos'), but neither was there any word for 'Son' υἱός or 'Father' patḗr in John 1:1abc either - all these are simply assumed by Dalcour."

@joerod5621

Жыл бұрын

Like Rodger Perkins stated; “some by ignorance & others, right out stubbornness! even in Greek, his errors can be pointed out!”

@joerod5621

Жыл бұрын

If Dalcour didn’t learn from Nathan Dudley who took him to school with plain English he never learn or keep playing ignorant it works 😢for him! He just kept saying scripture doesn’t mean what it’s saying in English!

I am very happy that Dr Dalcour and I had a professional debate in which we have both shown ourselves to be kind, respectful, and friendly to each other even though we have major doctrinal differences. Our audience can see our doctrinal differences regarding the identity of Jesus Christ and come to their own conclusions. My opening presentation clearly exposes the false Trinity doctrine of a timeless God the Son. Dr. Dalcour made no attempt to rebut any of the scriptural evidence I cited in my opening statements which was disappointing. The Trinitarian doctrine could not be true based upon the natural reading of the many texts of scripture I cited. God's word in and of itself is very clear. Just as scientists who believe in general evolution use their scholarship to interpret the scientific data, so do Trinitarians distort the scriptural data with their scholarship which contains their own intellectual bias. Dr. Dalcour ran away from all of my questions when cross examined. He did not even answer my questions. All he did was ramble on about Trinitarian doctrine while ignoring my questions. My answers to Dalcour's questions were more straightforward and on topic. Dr. Dalcour brought up new data in his closing statements that I could not rebut. No verse of scripture says that God sent the son from heaven to earth. John 17:8 "As you sent me INTO THE WORLD, so have I sent them (the disciples) INTO THE WORLD." Romans 8:3 says that the Son of God was "sent in the likeness of sinful flesh." Here we find that the Son was sent 'in the flesh! We originally agreed on two 8 minute rebuttals which turned into one 8 minute rebuttal which made it hard to rebut everything he said in just 8 minutes. If I was not so rushed I would have brought up my response to para in the dative. Many scriptures use "para" in the dative case such as a day with the Lord (para in the dative) is as a thousand years. If a day can be with the Lord (in his presence) then so could Jesus be with God (para in the dative). Revelation 7:9 shows that God's elect were already standing before God's throne (in God's presence) in a vision. 2 Timothy 1:9 states that God's elect were "given" "purpose and grace" "in Christ Jesus before the ages began." Therefore the scriptures prove that God acts and speaks as if the things prophesied were already so (Romans 4:17; Isaiah 41:4). This explains para in the dative in John 17:5. I know that Christ in me exposed the false Trinitarian view of Christ. May the Lord use this debate to persuade many to the original faith that was once delivered to the saints.

I'm glad you were "rambling" scriptures instead of babbling trinity greek gymnastics

Love that window in the back..

He doesn't interact with Richie's argument's at all. Like, he just seems to dismiss them outright.

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

This is what people are telling me about the debate. Dalcour did not even attempt to rebut a single point in my opening statements. Anyone who carefully listens to the cross exam can see that Dalcour failed to give a single answer to any of my questions. All he did was ramble on about Trinity doctrine without giving any exegesis of the texts I cited.

@susiervo1

3 жыл бұрын

He preached. He didn't explain breakdown his supporting verses as written. He inserted his own words into the text he was quoting. Dalcour did rebut ritchie's statements, pretty clearly. Ritchie steam rolls through questions without acknowledging them.

REST IN HEAVEN MY BROTHER THE WORK THE LORD DID THROUGH YOU WILL NOT BE IN VAIN I AM PUSHING IT OUT ALLELUIA THE TRUTH MUST BE TOLD

No professional debater should ever say that it is his opponents burden to refute him while failing to respond to the information presented by his opponent. It is the burden of both debaters to rebut, defend, and refute each others exegetical arguments from scripture. I dealt with each scripture cited by Dalcour in plain English. Yet Dalcour clearly avoided more than 30 scriptures I cited in my opening statements along with the scriptures I cited when I asked him specific questions. Where was Dalcour's so called exegesis of the texts I cited in English or in Hebrew or Greek? He had none! He clearly avoided the scriptural evidence I presented in plain English because it was apparent that he had no exegetical responses to my questions during the cross exam period. Dalcour kept using up his response times by responding with Trinitarian speculative reasoning rather than responding with exegetical responses from the actual texts I cited. Dalcour clearly hid behind speculative Trinitarian reasoning rather than directly addressing the texts of inspired scripture I cited and asked him about. To depend upon quotes from Trinitarian Greek scholars rather than the natural reading of the texts of inspired scriptures would be the same as Jesus or the apostles citing Jewish scholars above the words of God. When did Jesus or the apostles ever cite scholarship above the words of the Most High God?

Great Job Pastor Ritchie. Lord Jesus Bless You.

God bless you Brother Ritchie! Great job defending the true nature of the one true God.

Dalcour, the same as James White, loves to go to the Greek and avoids facing facts presented by the other side. The Greek can be manipulated to present ideas separate from the actual text. A nice theological trick. To the other side, nice job, bro. Ritchie. Especially the moment that you pointed out the 20 verses that Dalcour insisted were pointing to "persons" with God. You actually schooled him on the different meanings of those verses.

It is hard to believe that Dr. Dalcour claimed that he won the debate. Dalcour failed to answer my first question out of Isaiah 64:8 (I asked him who was the Creator solely upon the text of Isaiah 64:8 - "Was it the Father or the Son?"). Dalcour also did not answer my question out of Heb. 2:7 which cites Psalm 8:5:6 to show that the Father appointed the Son to rule over the works of His hands. I asked Dalcour to answer how the Son could have literally created all things as the Father's agent in creation when the Son of God was appointed to rule over the works of the Father's hands. There was NO ANSWER. He just rambled on about Trinity doctrine without answering the question. I also asked him a specific question out of Psalm 110:1 - How could the Son have been timelessly at the Father's anthropomorphic right hand when the Father said "sit at My right hand?" I asked Dalcour, "Why would the Father say sit at my right hand if he was already at the Father's anthropomorphic right hand to begin with?" Did Dr Dalcour answer any of my question? No! He rambled on about Trinity doctrine while evading my questions. Dr Dalcour failed to respond to a single point from my opening statements. I cited many scriptures proving that the Son of God had his beginning by his virgin begetting. Yet Jesus is the Mighty God who became incarnate as a man (as a son) who has always timelessly existed as God before He also became a Son. I have never seen a debater claim that it is not his responsibility to respond to any of the scriptural evidence out of my opening statements. Since Dalcour failed to respond to any of the scriptural evidence I cited and since he did not answer any of my question during the cross exam, Dalcour should not have praised himself for allegedly winning. I would never claim to have won a debate. That is for the audience to decide based upon the evidence presented. All Dr. Dalcour did was cite biased Trinitarian scholars who graduated from 8 years of Trinitarian College. I gave sound scriptural answers to most of Dr. Dalcour's main points and even directly exposed that some of his arguments out of Greek grammar that had to be incorrect because the same points out of Greek grammar could not be truthful in other passages. For example, Jesus could not have always timelessly existed in Egypt. Yet Dalcour used the same grammar to claim that Jesus always existed in John 1:18. Another example was Dalcour''s false assertion that Jesus commanded the Father to glorify him in the aorist imperative mood. Yet the same aiorist imperative mood appears where Jesus told his followers to pray saying, "Your Kingdom COME and your will BE DONE." This also appears in the aorist imperative mood. Could Christians command God in prayer? Since Dalcour claimed that "only God can command God" in his videos where he claims that Jesus commanded God to glorify him in John 17:5, Dalcour's claims from Greek grammar to support a Trinity could not be correct. God's true elect who have noble hearts will see the truth from this debate.

@TWODEEP25

6 жыл бұрын

All I heard dalcour say, asking Bro. Ritchie to prove everything by what scholarship has to say, "scholarship is on my side" is what he said, and something similar to it over 20 times, as if Greek scholarship is all we have to prove the truth of the Word, everytime I watch Mr. Dalcour and Dr James white, I think about them being the persons of colossians 2:8 whom Paul said are deceivers of men

@bornbarber8330

6 жыл бұрын

Global Impact Ministries I understood your version and view of the bible in the debate. Dr Delcour seemed like he knows every and all things and its his way or no way. He has no passion if he's a pastor. It was funny to hear him say he has scholarship on his side. I was waiting for you to say you have God on your side. He reminded me of the Colossians 2:8

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

Carmine, No you have not said anything meaningful. Like I said in this debate, don't give me no lip without script!

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

Mike Taylor - Oneness believers were around after the 5th century. The historical evidence has been documented by Brother Chalfant and others. Your own arguments is a sword that cuts both ways as we know that the vast majority of professing Christians were Roman Catholics from the 5th century to the reformation. Remember the words of Jesus, "Many are called but few are chosen." Brother William Chalfant documented the survival of the Oneness Church through the centuries. Link: www.amazon.com/Ancient-champions-oneness-history-church/dp/B0006Y2ZOY

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

Carmine, You have a very poor understanding of the words of inspired scripture. Jesus said, "the words that I speak are spirit and they are life (John 6:63)." Hebrews 4:12 states that God's words are "living."

A serious Bible student, muchless an apologist should study the Greek language. Steve Ritchie's responses are mostly monologue as if he is preaching.

At 1:06:25 Dr Dalcour said I quoted "ek" from Matthew 1:18 but I never quoted "ek" from Matthew 1:18. I cited it from Matthew 1:20 in which the Son was produced from out of the Holy Spirit. Dalcour appeared to use the "ek" in Matthew 1:18 rather than the "ek" in Matthew 1:20 because the Greek grammar in Matthew 1:20 does not support his position. It seems very strange that Dr Dalcour endeavored to answer the Greek grammar from Matthew 1:18 to say that "ek" does not mean "from out of" while I never cited Matthew 1:18, I cited Matthew 1:20. Dr Dalcour clearly evaded all of my questions and he did not even answer me from the verse I cited. Matthew 1:20 In the Amplified Bible Classic Edition Translation says, "But as he was thinking this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, descendant of David, do not be afraid to take Mary [as] your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of (from, out of) the Holy Spirit." I copied and pasted the Amplified Bible Translation which had the words "from, out of" in parenthesis within the text (Matthew 1:20). The Amplified Bible Classic Edition was written by Trinitarian Greek scholars. Wherefore, Dr Dalcour was in error when he alleged that "ek" does not mean "from out of" in the context of Matthew 1:20. The Amplified Bible Classic Edition (AMPC) was the first Bible project of The Lockman Foundation. It attempts to take both word meaning and context into account to accurately translate the original text from one language into another.

@minister.WayneScott

5 жыл бұрын

The bible is right well done God bless

im at work but cant wait to see this.

See my response to Dr. Dalcour's Lecture in Mechanicsville, VA in which I exposed the errors of Dalcour's arguments out of Greek grammar. Click on this Link: kzread.info/dash/bejne/e2ZlrpZwdbC_qtqv.htmlimberly - Hohlweg recently sent this notification to our church Facebook page. "I've watched a few of your videos and debate with Dalcour and found them extremely persuasive. In fact, I've de-converted from trinitarianism." Don't let anyone tell you that debates do not win souls. My debate with Eddie Dalcour and others were convincing enough to persuade people from Trinitarian theology to Oneness theology. Praise God!

@Mecaliman

5 жыл бұрын

Amen Brother!!!

@markforsythe1916

5 жыл бұрын

Praise the LORD

I meant to say well done brother, as I saw this video a while ago. Indeed, Dalcour was all about the Greek, which he thought gave credence to his Platonic inspired theory of the triad in unity (Trinitas), proposed at first by Tertullian around 200 AD. Surely, we need the word of God in our own language, and in it's proper context, but whether we know it Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew while beneficial is not salvific.

Global Impact Ministries trinitarians are all complaining about how Bro. Ritchie was not professional in his debate, and how he didn't refute the exegesis provided by dalcour, honestly I don't care, don't know how debates work all I care is that the servant of the Lord was speaking truth up on that pulpit, I felt the fire of the Holy Spirit surrounding Bro Ritchie,... Praise God! I hope trinitarians one day can feel that fire, but only when God fully reveals to them the one true Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

I did refute Dalcour's bogus claims in my opening and in my short rebuttal. Dalcour failed to refute my exegesis on every single passage I brought up. During the cross exam period, Dalcour did not provide any exegesis from the verses I cited. I asked him questions out of Isaiah 64:8, Hebrews 2:7, Psalm 8:5-6, and Psalm 110:1. Did Dalcour provide a single answer to any of my questions? Did Dalcour provide an exegesis on Isaiah 64:8, Heb. 2:7, Psalm 8:5-6, and Psalm 110:1? No! All he did was evade my questions while rambling on about Trinity doctrine with no exegesis from the scriptural evidence which clearly refutes a timeless God the Son Person. Wherefore, Dalcour hypocritically accuses me of no exegesis even though I explained the natural reading of each particular passage he cited to show that these passages actually support Oneness.

@TWODEEP25

6 жыл бұрын

Byfaithalone I hope you repent

@TWODEEP25

6 жыл бұрын

Byfaithalone oh wow, with that comment you're opinion has no value, but I'll give you a chance .... please explain mark16:16, john 3: 3-8 , 1Peter 3:21, ... gotta let all of scripture harmonize, I believe faith saves us but so does baptism there is power in the waters of baptism, Romans 6:4

@TWODEEP25

6 жыл бұрын

Byfaithalone OK so what baptism is Jesus speaking of in Matthew 28:19? Spiritual or water? Since you have guessed Jesus is speaking of only spiritual baptism in mark 16:16

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

Byfaithalone You have a distorted view of the gospel. Initial salvation is by grace through faith. True faith leads us to our initial faith response to the gospel which is heart felt repentance and true Christian baptism into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:2-7; Col. 2:11-13). After being saved by grace through faith we are to arise and walk in newness of life as God's workmanship, newly created in Christ Jesus TO DO GOOD WORKS." Ephesians 2:8-10, "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.…" 2 QUESTIONS: 1. Jesus commanded 5 of the 7 churches in Asia to repent after they had already experienced salvation by grace through faith. Do you believe that repentance and good works are not necessary after receiving initial salvation? 2. What happens to professing Christians who do not live overcoming Christian lives?

at 9:48 , what book is he referring to that he says the messiah was preconceived in God's thought???

Whoever you believe won the debate, seems clear to me that the oneness side has to get serious about study of the Greek and demonstrate your point from there.

@olmansalas19

6 жыл бұрын

Wynn Morris 👍🏽

Jesus is God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit is Jesus is the Father is the Son is Jesus is One Lord is Jesus. IN JESUS DWELLS THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD-->HOLY SPIRIT-->SON-->FATHER-->I AM 🕊

HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO EVANGELICAL APOLOGIST MIKE TAYLOR (below): Why are you avoiding my questions? You accuse Oneness believers of not having large numbers from the fifth century until the Protestant Reformation in the fifteenth century but where are all of the Evangelical believers during that 1,000 year period? Historians know that there were small groups of non-Catholic believers scattered throughout Europe and other parts of the world. The word Anabaptist means "re-baptized" because most of these people were re-baptized outside of the Trinity. The non-Catholic groups consisted of Arians, Socinians, and Oneness Modalistic believers as most of the earlier Anabaptist groups rejected the Trinity by being re-baptized in Jesus Name. How does the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD have anything to do with answering my questions? You just condemned Oneness believers for being very few in number during the long oppressive rule of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches while it is very hard to find any Evangelical believers during 1000 years of church history. In fact, as far as I know all of the early Anabaptist groups were re-baptized in Jesus Name for the remission of sins because they believed that water baptism into Christ Jesus was necessary for salvation and NO ONE BELIEVED THAT WATER BAPTISM WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION UNTIL THE LATER PROTESTANT REFORMATION IN THE 1600's. So according to Evangelicals, all who teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation are heretics. Wherefore, the facts of church history prove that there were Oneness believers through the centuries while there were no true Evangelical believers until the later Protestant Reformation. That is about 1600 years of Christian history with no true Evangelicals. Thus your argument that the Trinitarian Evangelical believers were always numerous while Oneness believers did not exist is a fallacy constructed in your own mind rather than from documented historical facts. Here is a link proving that the sinners prayer was not invented until the 1600's. kzread.info/dash/bejne/c42E0tx-hNG4gLg.html I have already sent you a link documenting that there were Oneness believers throughout the centuries but you have not submitted a shred of evidence that there were true Evangelical Trinitarians from AD 500 to AD 1500. Here is the link proving that there were Oneness believers throughout the centuries: www.scribd.com/document/235125451/A-History-of-Oneness-Throughout-the-Centuries Martin Luther also believed that water baptism was necessary for salvation. The rejection of water baptism for salvation did not occur until the 1600's. Therefore your own argument can be used against Evangelical Trinitarians to show that there was no true Evangelical Trinitarian Church through 1600 hundred years of Christian history! This is the third time I am asking you to respond. Can you present a shred of historical evidence to back up your assertion that "the majority of believers" were Evangelical "Trinitarians" from AD 500 to the beginning of the Protestant reformation in AD 1483 (yet even the early protestants did not believe in the sinners prayer for salvation like later Evangelicals)? Here is a link proving that the sinners prayer for salvation began in the 1600's and cannot be found in Christian history before that time. kzread.info/dash/bejne/c42E0tx-hNG4gLg.html Do you really think that the followers of the Trinitarian Roman Catholic Church and the Trinitarian Eastern Orthodox Church were true born again believers? By your own words you are incriminating yourself because you are affirming that the Roman Catholic Church was the true Church while developing and holding onto your Trinitarian doctrine, exalting Mary, praying to the saints, and practicing all kinds of doctrines of demons. Since your Evangelical arguments have been emphatically refuted and you have no response, you are the heretic cultist who needs to repent and turn back to God!

+Mike Taylor The Father name is Father ,,, The Son Called Jesus ,,,,The Holy Spirit name Holy Spirit

Matthew 1:20 In the Amplified Bible Classic Edition Translation says, "But as he was thinking this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, descendant of David, do not be afraid to take Mary [as] your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of (from, out of) the Holy Spirit." I copied and pasted the Amplified Bible Translation which had the words "from, out of" in parenthesis within the text (Matthew 1:20). The Amplified Bible Classic Edition was written by Trinitarian Greek scholars. Wherefore, Dr Dalcour was in error when he alleged that "ek" does not mean "from out of" in the context of Matthew 1:20. The Amplified Bible Classic Edition (AMPC) was the first Bible project of The Lockman Foundation. It attempts to take both word meaning and context into account to accurately translate the original text from one language into another.

SUBSCRIBE for informative WEEKLY VIDEOS. Free books, articles, and videos are cataloged at www.ApostolicChristianFaith.com

“But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” ‭‭John‬ ‭7:39‬ ‭

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

Amen!

@robertrodriguez-fk9qt

6 жыл бұрын

Global Impact Ministries Trinitarians are getting closer and closer to polytheism

@denmart9842

3 жыл бұрын

This is one of the most trinyterian text in the bible and you still denied it

@andreslanderos3841

3 жыл бұрын

Denys Martinez there is no such thing as a “trinyterian text” in the Bible. Trinitarians would love there to be such a thing but sorry it simply does not exist.

The biggest problem with the Trinity is Isaiah 43 where God says he will send his servant and you will know I AM HE.

So is it possible to believe in the Trinity if you're not a Greek scholar?

Dalcour can give a really long list of scholars that agree with him and i bet they are all Trinitarians.

Sad to see that (some people) still believe in the 4 gods of trinity = god the father, god the son, god the spirit, and god the word .... Shame on (some people), for God is ONE, not 4 = Revelation 1:8 KJV... Because no Man can see God and live, God made human body for himself - (Philippians 2:7-10)... That's why He made this World, and the World know him not - John 1:10 KJV... He named himself Jesus - (Matthew 1:21), laid down his life for us - (John 10:18), and rise up that human body - (John 2:19-21)... Even the devils believe, that there is ONE God, and tremble - James 2:19... Shame on (some people), for they have been spoiled through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of (Tertullian's Pagan trinity) - Colossians 2:8 KJV.... S H A M E ... Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man can say that Jesus is (THE LORD), but by the Holy Ghost - 1 Corinthians 12:3... (THE LORD = Deuteronomy 6:4-9 KJV)...

Dalcour kept saying scholars are on his side then he says they are Trinitarian scholars. LOL. Mormon scholars will agree with Mormons, Muslims scholars will agree with Muslims and so on that's not a good argument. Atheist Scholar Bart Ehrman will tell you first century Christians were Modalists and the Doctrine of the Trinity was a later development.

Ritchie has done an excellent job! Keep up the good work, brother! Peace! Thanks!

@christian.comedy.channel.2

Жыл бұрын

Would you be willing to debate me (a trinitarian)?

4:45 in my debate with Mr Ritchie I used this verse John 8:24 against him: "Unless you believe I AM (He) you will die in your sins." The speaker here is the Son of God, who calls himself "the Son of God" at John 8:24, Mr Ritchie and Oneness Pentecostal deny that the Son is God, and misapply John 8:24 to God the Father by twisting the context. I'd be happy to debate any Oneness Pentecostal pastor in zoom or whatsapp.

I have a question brother. Knowing your understanding of the Word (logos) which I agree with,.. would you say that 1 John 5:7 is saying that there are three immutable attributes of the one true God; his attribute as the only father of all, the attribute of the expression of his knowledge and wisdom (logos), and the moving substance of his person (Spirit). And these three attributes are one divine person ?

@Justinbowling1

5 жыл бұрын

Maf Forsyt ...hate to point this out because it sometimes makes people doubt the authenticity of the Bible. But 1 John 5:7 authenticity is actually debated. I've heard that this verse didn't exist in the Greek 1900 years ago. And it suspiciously appeared later when it was convenient. Don't take my word for it though.

@markforsythe1916

5 жыл бұрын

@@Justinbowling1 yes I have heard the same thing. It does not make me doubt the authenticity of the bible though. I do believe all 66 books are canonical and that each book presents truth. I think that we have to make sense of 1 John 5:7 still. We know that not all manuscripts of some books do not match up to a tee but they all present a truth. We know for certain that 1 John 5:7 does not directly represent a trinitarian doctrine. Neither does it discourage oneness theology. I do believe that God had his hand in the canonization of scripture and his nature is overwhelmingly represented.

@Justinbowling1

5 жыл бұрын

I think there's more than 66 books that are legit and good... Just because Jesus quotes from them "is it not written in the ____". But I'm no expert on how to determine if these have been compromised in the last 2000 years or not. So I just read with caution

@pastorrodriguez230

5 жыл бұрын

There is one true God that is the Father. 1 Corinthians 8: 4-6 John 17: 3 no Jesus The Son of God which is the LOGOS was a Person separated from the Father in the beginning. John 1: 1 here is used in the Greek an important word and the word is PROS ( WITH ) this word indicates local proximity, indicates being directed towards, this means that the LOGOS was close to the Father and directed towards the Father’ face COOPERATING in the creation that the father was doing. Strong’ concordance # 4314 advantageous for, at (denotes local proximity), toward (denotes motion toward a place). in John 1 the immediate context indicates that the word beginning refers to the beginning of creation and beginning means; a point in time or space at which something starts. only Mark and Lukas use the word beginning, Matthew does not use it we must understand that each gospel emphasizes one part more than another and John wanted to begin with the history of the logos from the very beginning of the creation which makes perfect sense. he wanted to show that his beginnings come from many centuries before birth on earth and HE IS FROM ABOVE. I'm not assuming anything the word beginnings has to be interpreted by the immediate context this a key interpretation rule. We also need to be noted that in verse 2 the word used in Greek hautos is a Demonstrative Pronoun which means THIS, HE, referring to the logos that was directed towards or beside the God, it does not mean he is the same person of the God; the word logos of ver 1 has to be interpreted by the immediate context which is verse 2 and this refers to a person not to a thing The word logos is one of the many titles that Jesus Christ has, Apocalypse 19:13 ,John 1:1,14,the definition of logos is not the definition of a person as the definition of sheep is not the definition of a person but we are called sheep, what they are losing sight of here is that John is referring to a person by his title no by name, in verse 1 all there are titles no names,God is a titles, and Logos is a titles also.

@markforsythe1916

5 жыл бұрын

@@pastorrodriguez230 - ”The Word” does not mean a person. The Word is just the Express thought of the father. No scripture anywhere says that the Word is a person. The Word is “the expressed thought” of a person. Jesus said in John 6:63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” God is Light, God is Love, God is Life, God is the Word...Its part of who God is…it is the unchangeable attributes of who God is. (Thought) From another video by Steve Ritchie -Daniel 2:22 says “He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.” but then 1 John 1:5 says “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” It would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest that “God is light” in 1 John1:5 proves that “the light of God” is another distinct divine person beside himself. In like manner, no reasonable person should suggest that God's “light dwells with God” in Daniel 2:22 and “God is light” in John 1:5 proves that the light of God is another distinct and divine person beside God himself. -We see the same word use in Psalm 36:9 where David says to Yahweh that “with him is the fountain of life”. This doesn't mean that another God person called “the fountain of life” was with God the father. It is simply an attribute of Gods person. 9. For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light. -Here God says that he is that fountain! Jeremiah 2:13 “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” Jeremiah 17:13 “O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.” -Here God is saying that he is that fountain! -In John 4:14 “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” -Jesus being God the father manifest in flesh says he will give that water and “that water” will be in you. -In like manner no reasonable person can affirm that the “Word was with God” in John 1:1 proves that the Word “with God” is a distinct God the Word (logos= expressed thought)person as a distinct divine person beside himself. 1 John 4:8 “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” -God is light, God is love, God is the fountain of living waters, God is the word!! Here's another great thought from Steve Ritchie.. If the Son where a co-equal divine person, and the “Word” expressed thought person, then the father would not have his own expressed thought. Gods expressed thought (his logos) can also be called God by definition of the word “logos” because the “invisible God's ” expressed thoughts are spiritual! They are divine! Hebrews 4:12“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” -A divine attribute that was in the beginning became flesh ( life was manifested 1 John 1:1-2 “ THAT” WHICH WAS from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) -So God the Father's expressed thought about his foreknown son (1 Peter 1:20 “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,”) was an impersonal “that” before actually becoming a person when “the word” was made flesh (John1:14) It didnt say he which was from the beginning, we have looked upon, but it says that which was from the beginning. That “expressed attribute” of who God was, was made flesh, to make manifest unto us his thoughts and wisdom.

They spend so much time debating about god and Jesus, I want to know where god came from, was he married? Did he ever have a body? Where did the beginning come from? How was sin in heaven? Questions!!

At 54:07 Dr Dalcour said, "Interesting, I just had a discussion with a Jehovah's Witness about firstborn, he makes the same error thinking that prototokos means first in line or first created. Show me a scholar who applies that meaning to a passage with regard to the Son?" Under Colossians 1:15 Matthew Pooles Commentary admits that FIRSTBORN [Prototokos] can have two meanings regarding the Son in Colossians 1:15. 1. Negatively. It is not to be understood properly for the first in order, so as to be one of them, in reference to whom he is said to be the first-born. But: 2. Positively, yet figuratively in a borrowed speech: so primacy and PRIMOGENITURE may be attributed TO HIM [Christ] in regard of the creatures: Merriam Webster's Definition of Primogeniture: 1 : the state of being the firstborn of the children of the same parents. 2 : an exclusive right of inheritance belonging to the eldest son. Dr Dalcour clearly said that I make "the same error thinking that prototokos means FIRST IN LINE or FIRST CREATED. Show me a scholar who applies that meaning to a passage with regard to the Son?" Matthew Poole's Commentary says that "prototokos" can mean "first in line" "with regard to the Son" rather than just preeminent. Under Colossians 1:18, Gill's Commentary says, "the FIRSTBORN [prototokos] from the dead; THE FIRST THAT ROSE from the dead by his own power, and to an immortal life; for, though others were raised before him, and by him, yet not to a state of immortality; the path of life, to an immortal life, was first shown to him as man; and who also is THE FIRSTFRUITS OF THEM THAT SLEEP..." Notice that Gill's Commentary explained "FIRSTBORN" [prototokos] regarding the Son being "the first that rose" and for the Son being "the first fruits of them that sleep." Here again, we see that prototokos can have the meaning of the Son being "FIRST IN LINE" to be resurrected into immortality within God's foreordained plan just as Christ was "the firstborn of all creation" (prototokos) as "the firstborn (prototokos) among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29) in God's predestined plan before the world was created. Dr Dalcour said that I make "the same error thinking that prototokos means FIRST IN LINE or first created." He said, "Show me a scholar who applies that meaning to A PASSAGE with regard to the Son?" I just cited two Commentaries written by Trinitarian scholars. There can be no doubt that "prototokos" can mean "first in line" or "first created" in God's foreordained precreation of all things "with regard to the Son" rather than just preeminent. I backed up the proper interpretation of Colossians 1:15 with Revelation 3:14 because the human son of God was "the beginning of the creation OF God" within the Father's logos (expressed thought) "before the world was" (John 17:5) created later on in time. Hence, God first chose His chosen servant (Isaiah 43:10) and then He "chose us in him (Christ - Ephes. 1:4)" before the foundation of the world. I cited these scriptures and many more to support my opening thesis but Dr Dalcour completely ignored the scriptural evidence. Dalcour claimed that I did not do my job but the grim reality for him was that he did not do his job in rebutting the scriptural evidence I presented which proves his proposition to be false. Anyone who carefully watches the debate will see that Dalcour had no rebuttal nor any exegesis of the passages I challenged him on while he falsely claimed that I failed in my exegesis of the passages he cited.

@Rabbitburnx

4 жыл бұрын

Too long winded for me sir... keep it simple

Were does it say God the son in the Bible..?

Whether Trinity or Oneness, both deny that Jesus was a distinct being, separate from Almighty God his father. Jesus says himself that he has a God, in John 20:17, and Rev 3:12. He calls unto his God in Matt 27:46. And Paul and Peter write about him having a God in 2 Cor 11:31, Eph 1:3&17, and 1 Pet 1:3. This prevents him being just another manifestation of God, as taught with Modalism. It also goes against Trinity teaching, as one person of the Trinity cannot be the God of another of the persons.

One ( Dalcour) a greek scholar and rhe other( Ritchie) is an emotional rambling monologue. Just throwing this out there Jesus goes to a restaurant AND the Father goes WITH him, how many checks would they get, 1or 2? Should the restaurant charge The Father and a plan? Or charge the plan and not the Father? Or the Father and not the plan? Help me out here?

You did well Pastor Ritchie, Dalcour comes off very haughty and disingenuous

@genolosoya5147

6 жыл бұрын

LS Pnuema Lol brother, you must of watched some other debate but definely not this one. Actually, I spoke to your Pastor and someone actually recorded our dialog. He ran away from my question cause false doctrine can't stand up to the truth. It will be posted soon..Praying that God removes the great veil over your mind brother.

@jelayastewart4804

6 жыл бұрын

Geno Losoya what false doctrine how can you prove the trinity biblically?

@jelayastewart4804

6 жыл бұрын

Geno Losoya without proving a trithestic View ?

@robertrodriguez-fk9qt

6 жыл бұрын

Geno Losoya Obviously he did watch another debate .It is you that need to remove that veil of your mind. Commenting trying to proof a point and then running away ?. Typical trinitarian .

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

Go ahead and post a recording of my answers to the Trnitarians who asked me questions after the debate. It will only make the Trinity doctrine look more foolish. I honestly do not understand why the Trinitarian church who hosted the debate did not allow questions from the audience as I spent a considerable amount of time answering questions after the debate while I saw no one using the chapel for prayer as I was originally told. I was told that it was the hosting church that pressured us to cut our rebuttal times in half (Dalcour did not use his time to rebut a single thing I said in my opening), and cut our cross exam time almost in half. I was looking forward to those questions to have them recorded. It would have been wonderful to have those questions recorded as part of the debate. So please let me know when you post my answers to the questions because no question was asked that I did not answer well in refuting Trinitarian dogma.

At 41 minutes dr Dalcour says that the actions of not doing His own will happened before the incarnation. One question: Was Jesus crucified before the incarnation?

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

Andres Landeros Yes, the action of not doing his own will could not have happened before the incarnation just as scripture informs us that the man Christ Jesus continually prayed against his human will as opposed to the divine will of God the Father. Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsamane (just before his crucifixion), "saying, 'Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet NOT MY WILL, but Yours be done.'" Luke 22:42 Since no Trinitarian can cite a single verse to show two and three alleged God Wills before the virgin conception, we know that John 6:38 has to be addressing the post incarnational human will of "the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). For if God as God has more than one Divine Will then God could not be One God while having two and three distinct God wills and God minds.

Ritchie won this one. Dalcour never answered the passage Ritchie gave In Luke.

Dalcour states u can’t interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament? The Old Testament is the foundation of the New Testament!!! “help him Lord!”

This debate was pretty good, However I would like to add some corrective criticism as I believe the too debators were not really on the same page here. As a Oneness myself I watched this with an open mind so that I may not judge biasly. Although I believe this was a good debate (Could’ve been better) Both parties ended up getting impatient with one another. My advice to the Mr.Ritchie, would be to study alittle bit more on Exegetical and Greek pronouns and verbs, I think he did an awesome job proving the Oneness view biblically and I do believe that the scriptures were on his side as far as the Oneness doctrine is concerned. Mr.Delcour did a great job quoting Greek and the Greek verbs etc in my opinion he was more scholarly, the only issue with Mr.Delcour was he did not do a good job proving the trinity biblically he constantly referenced scholars didn’t use that many scriptures. Thus I understood he was tying to get to the meaning core of the scriptures, but it seemed alittle forced as if any a way using unbiblical claims to further prove the trinity, in my opinion I just don’t see how the Bible proves a trinity as well as he didn’t answer biblically Mr.Ritchies question but instead resorted to man made philosophy rather than dealing with the scriptures at hand. But overall they both presented great arguments. It’s hard to tell who won because they weren’t on the same page.

Can’t let this go by Dalcour states Jesus the second divine person possessed glory before the incarnation him being God then he’s praying for it back? HELP (Dalcour)HIM LORD!

The oneness guy quotes John 8:24 making Jesus the Angel of the Lord according to Acts 7:30,35 where it says God sent the Angel and in Exodus 3:6 God / the Angel of YHVH is saying “Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.”

The Disciples didn't have the NT, they had the Holy Spirit.!

The strongest case that Trinitarians have is the Yeshua prays to the Father. He loves the Father and likewise, the Father loves the Son. There is communication between 2. On Earth, for 2 to love and communicate, we observe that they are always distinct individual. Examples, I see a husband loving a wife or a grandson talking to his grandma. What we really do not notice is daily inner communication within one individual. Thus, at first and second glace the trinity appears to be the best model. However, every day people are communicating with themselves moment by moment. A person lost may think in his home language, "where am I", or a child playing a video game all alone, "I hate when I lose"? Who is talking to who? That is obvious. More specifically, what is talking to what? In both these scenarios, the brain actually sends information to the "mind" or conscience which formulates the question. Then then brain sends highly technical encoded language in the form of impulse to the lips, tongue, cheeks and vocal cords which in unison speak "I hate when I lose". All of energy from this communication directed to the persons ear system which sends the message again in electrical impulses and is converted into audio. We see that communication can be within one individual. But what about love? Can my mind love my body? Does not my mind know that my body needs food to survive? In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Eph 5:28 And so we see that a persons mind or heart can choose to nourish the body that houses and care for it. Besides the mind/soul caring for the body, we note in the scriptures that our spiritual self can encourage and thus, strengthen our mind/soul when it is down. Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God. Ps 43:5 And thus, if humans integral faculties, body, soul and spirit, can both communicate and love one another without being 3 separate individual person, but all faculties or different dimension of the 1 same person, how much more could God, in whose image we these tripartite individuals are made, also communicate and love within Himself? Does not God love His neighbor as He loves Himself?

Logos was in the fathers mind? Where is that in scripture?

@tariqhaddad7298

Жыл бұрын

To understand John 1: 1 let the apostles of Christ answer, Paul the Apostle in his epistle to Romans 11: 33-36 gives the answer, God has riches, wisdom and knowledge, but God’s mind does not have a counselor, which means that God’s mind is not distinct, otherwise God was his counselor, so Mind of God is God himself

if all the scholars are on your side that doesn't mean you are right, some times it means that all the fools are on one side

If you deny the son before men the son will deny you before his Father oneness people do not understand why God is Love

@globalimpactministries766

5 жыл бұрын

Oneness believers do not deny the Son. We affirm that the Son of God is God manifest in the flesh as a true human Son via virgin conception and birth. “God said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you (Jeremiah 1:5).” Only the All-Knowing God can know all things about His people before they actually began to exist later on in time. Since God already knew His elect before being formed, then He could also be said to have had love for His elect before they actually came into existence later on in time. For just as God already knew His elect and gave them glory (Ephes. 1:4 /Romans 8:29-30), so also did God already know Christ and give him glory (John 17:5) as a genuine child born and son given. Trinitarians often allege that God needed two other God Persons to love to be a God of love. Yet if God needed two other divine Persons to love to be a God of love, then He also needed two other divine Persons to consume by fire to be called “a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:29 states that our “God is a consuming fire.” So if God always needed an object of love, throughout eternity past, in order to be a God of love (before He created angels and men), then God also must have needed an object of judgment to be a God of judgment. For if one attribute of God must have had an object to demonstrate that attribute throughout eternity past, then so must all of God’s attributes have needed an object to demonstrate each attribute. If God needed someone to love throughout eternity past in order to be a God of love, then so must God have always needed an object to consume by fire to be “a consuming fire.” So if we follow the Trinitarian logic, the God who needed someone to love in order to be a God of love would have also needed someone to consume by fire to be a God who is a consuming fire. Therefore, all three alleged members of the Trinity would have had to have been burning each other and consuming each other by fire throughout eternity past for God to be a God who “is a consuming fire.” Wherefore, Trinitarians cannot allege that God needed two other God Persons with Him throughout eternity past to be a God of love without also saying that God needed two other God Persons to consume by fire in order to be a God who is “a consuming fire.”

@kevinramsey239

5 жыл бұрын

Global Impact Ministries read Hebrews 1 very carefully

@globalimpactministries766

5 жыл бұрын

@@kevinramsey239 Here are my articles on Hebrews chapter one: www.apostolicchristianfaith.com/single-post/2017/03/09/The-Predestined-Lord-of-The-Universe-Hebrews-11-2 www.apostolicchristianfaith.com/single-post/2016/10/23/Whose-Word-is-the-Word-of-God-Hebrews-13 www.apostolicchristianfaith.com/single-post/2016/10/23/Jesus-Is-The-Reproduced-Copy-Of-The-Father-Hebrews-13 www.apostolicchristianfaith.com/single-post/2017/03/10/The-Son-Became-Better-Than-The-Angels-Hebrews-14 www.apostolicchristianfaith.com/single-post/2017/03/10/The-Angels-Commanded-To-Worship-The-Son-Hebrews-16 www.apostolicchristianfaith.com/single-post/2017/03/09/Jesus-Is-God-Who-Became-A-Man-Hebrews-18-12 www.apostolicchristianfaith.com/single-post/2017/03/09/Sit-At-My-Right-Hand-Hebrews-113

@MrChemenger

2 жыл бұрын

Read your articles, disagree with you and I don't know Greek just from the England translation your arguments are not convincing and you ignore a lot of scripture to hold this position

Critique of Dr. Dalcour: 1) At around 25:30 he says Oneness folks teach that there was a time when the Son was not, using word play of some Oneness teachings out of context... Although Oneness teaches that the man Son was begotten at the incarnation, (Luke 1:35), Oneness folks certainly believe, as do economic Trinitarians that the Logos was resident in the mind of YHWH until being begotten. Dr. Dalcour here is either under-educated about the subject matter or is unethical in his application and I'd like him to clarify which. Additionally, his position is that of the Origenian theory of an "eternally begotten Son". That is a 3rd century theory that was rejected upon conception, even by proto-trinitarian leaders, and Origen was excommunicated. "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." -Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy

It's funny how a trinitarian put limitations on our God but our children in the United States are Limitless GOD HAS NO LIMITS TO HIS POWER HE BECOME A HUMAN

Good job, But we do need to set forth a clearer rebuttal in "exegetical" fashion as they are demanding it of this passel of verses. It is simply mandatory that we do it. And it should be meticulously researched and prepared on several notecards for the debater to have on hand to meet the specific challenges of "pretensions to Greek grammar/scholarship," etc. which already have been, and could be, thrown in our faces. It is noteworthy that he essentially dismisses OT verses referring to God the father as being unauthoritative --UNLESS VIEWED AND INTERPRETED THROUGH MUCH LATER TRINITARIAN LENSES. How convenient is this? The Trinity and especially "eternal Sonship" rests on a passel of verses which he avers is supported by "scholarship"--of whom?--Trinitarians themselves. He quoted a lot of Greek text which was unnecessary in my opinion but was probably calculated to catch off guard and awe and cow the lay hearer more than anything else. ..an argumentum ad verecundiam. ..or ostensibly so. ..but they accuse us Oneness Pentecostals of the same gambit by pounding pulpits! :-) Debates such as this are when we can best get an insight into what they think are their own best arguments and prepare to counter them afterwards. As the US flies its bombers and fighter aircraft along the DMZ in Korea we are electronically watching them below to ID their radars and defensive weapons systems. Maybe start with a historical study of the para soi and huparcho terminology going way back. I doubt whether there is anything especially significant to the neuter-nominative issue he mentioned and I have had some Greek...so you know a layman will be immediately offput (clueless) by it. Good idea not to allow him to set you up where he can "lecture" you and the audience on such minutuiae, which may or may not be important.

@futurekillerful

6 жыл бұрын

Jessica Long this was a beautiful read haha idk how else to put it

Your reasoning is spiritually bankrupt Mr Dalcour of {''pros''-with} and {'logos'-expression}.How can you justify defending the trinity... {John14v18} I will not leave you comfortless ,I will come to you {i.e Jesus talks of the promise of the Holy Spirit}.The Dalcour doctrine has us to believe in a ''PROS'' third trinitarian person, defying this oneness scripture above.

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

wayne Thomas Yes, Dalcour's false interpretation of a few texts based upon twisting Greek grammar contradicts the many texts I cited proving that God became a human son at a specific point in time. I proved that Dalcour twisted Greek grammar in John 1:18 because the same Greek grammar also appears in Matthew 2:13 when Jesus remained in Egypt. And again Dalcour was proved wrong when he falsely claimed that Jesus commanded God to glorify him when he prayed in John 17:5, saying, "Father, glorify me". For the aorist imperative mood also occurs when Jesus instructed his disciples to pray in Matthew 6:10, saying, "Your Kingdom COME and your will BE DONE." Since Dalcour said that "only God can command God," his interpretation of John 17:5 has to be incorrect because Christians do not command God when we ask for things in prayer. Dalcour repeatedly stated that I did not provide exegesis upon the texts he cited only because I did not cite Greek grammar to rebut some of the text he cited. However, Dalcour not only did not provide any exegesis upon any of the texts I cited, he also failed to use any Hebrew or Greek grammar on the many texts I cited proving that the Son as the Son of God did not timelessly exist as a Son. The closes he came was trying to use Greek grammar to try to refute the meaning of the preposition "ek", meaning "out of" or "out from" "the Holy Spirit" within the context of Matthew 1:18-20. After the debate, I checked into his claim which appears to be false. I am waiting for more corroboration from Greek scholarship to confirm that Dalcour twisted Greek grammar before I post a video proving that Dalcour repeatedly twisted Greek grammar in this debate.

Must be nice being so smart, scholarly, and full of man's wisdom, as Mr Dalcour obviously is, to be able to make sense of the Trinity. My simple brain says the 1 is mysteriously 3; not 3 is mysteriously 1. 🤷‍♂️

@AstariahFox

2 ай бұрын

Biblical truths are hidden from the wise

And Mary brought forth her FIRSTBORN son. Was she not a Virgin?

I hate people ridiculing others in debates. It shows their foolish heart. I don't understand what all the debate is about anyway. There is only one God, both Sides believe in one God. What's the problem?

@Rabbitburnx

4 жыл бұрын

Also I find the trinity proponents assertion that the oneness position is another gospel and another jesus is going way too far and insulting. Most people get so hung up on knowledge they forget about Love. Another Gospel heresy would be Penal Substitution.

By definition, "a person" must have freewill to choose, have an independent mind, ability to reason within himself and must be an independent life form. Because of this, the Godhead can not possibly be one God made up of three persons. To be so would be to say that three persons hold a joint office. That is polytheism. It is more likely that the three parts of God are actually of one being that manifests himself in three ways. The head being the Father, who took a part of himself from his bosom and implanted that into a woman, bringing forth Jesus. (I and my Father are one) In this, Jesus is a part of the Father, separate while on earth, yet a part of the one God, and then he was again united with the Father. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the holy one, Jesus Christ, also being the spirit of the Father. John 14:16-20 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you... Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and WE will come unto him, and make OUR abode with him." Does this not state that the holy spirit is the spirit of Jesus Christ, and the Father? This should clearly be seen that the holy spirit can not possibly be a separate person.

If you read Revelations to Genesis YOU will find Jesus but I never seen a house build from the top up we always build with the Foundation First and that's the old Testament God always said he is the one and only God from the beginning to the end trinitarians please study to show thyself approved unto God because the opinion of man does not take you to heaven

Limit the idolator who is professing a lying 3 persons god to profess only one book to be his book of authority and have him limit his words to only the words in his one book of authority and he would be silent. He is a liar and he is calling God a liar because his authority is not the book of the Lord. Isaiah 34: 16 Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them. 17 And he hath cast the lot for them, and his hand hath divided it unto them by line: they shall possess it for ever, from generation to generation shall they dwell therein.

Critique of Dr. Dalcour: 2) Around 25:30 he states that Oneness theology has always been condemned in whatever form. Dr. Dalcour here displays his inept knowledge in Patristic studies. If Dr Dalcour is correct, why did ALL sitting bishops reject proto-trinitarian doctrine, refuse to fellowship with proto-trinitarian leaders, and excommunicate every single one of them? (Novatian, Turtullian, Origen, Hippolytus) Fact #1 Ireneaus and Praxeas were welcomed into fellowship by bishop Elutherus... Turtullian was rejected... Fact #2 Bishop Callistus rejected Hippolytus and affirmed that they worshipped different Gods. Fact #3 Novatian and Origen were excommunicated by the seated bishops as were the other 2 examples... Fact #4 The bishops of Rome were successively Monarchian until the middle 3rd Century. Conclusion: These things, among others,...shows that the proto-trinitarians, who all started their own schools and churches, were in fact ANTI-CHURCH and did proceed to lobby against Monarchian bishops for rejecting them. Eventually, in the middle 3rd century, through much proselytizing, they became the influential sect in Rome, which set them on a path to become the bride of the state...instead of the bride of Christ. This is why God calls them the great whore. "The Modalists were the successors to the Apostles, NOT the Trinitarians. The Trinitarians expropriated the term "Catholic" (Universal) from the writings of Ignatius. When they increased in power and numbers they branded the Modalists, who preached one God, as Heretics and styled their group as Catholic." -Dr. Friedrich Loofs, Trinitarian Historian, Professor at the University of Halle Ref: The History of the Primative Church

@kevinwall2882

2 жыл бұрын

@ACTS CHURCH Truth as presented, can be painful. It has been throughout history that Modalism has been condemned as heresy. Even today,Oneness theology does not stand in line with scripture. Obviously,as this is a Oneness KZread channel to begin with, Dr. Dalcour is going to be critiqued by Oneness Pentecostal adherents. However,Dr. Dalcour did an Outstanding job in defense of the biblical Trinity.

@TheSoulWinnersGuide

2 жыл бұрын

@@kevinwall2882 he works against the historical record.

The person who is the Son of God is eternal, but he did not become the son until God the Father was manifested in the flesh at the Lord's appointed time to fulfil the atonement which required blood and burnt offering: Genesis 22: 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. John 1: 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Philippians 2: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Hebrews 1: 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 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. Exodus 3: 14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. John 8: 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Isaiah 45: 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Philippians 2: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 1 Timothy 6: 14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. Isaiah 9: 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 1 John 2: 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Deuteronomy 6: 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: John 20: 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Revelation 21: 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Mark 9: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 2 Peter 3: 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

To say that God is one with 3 separate or distinct person is absolutely stupid, very very very stupid

The only time in scripture Jesus did not say Father was on the cross and notice he said it twice my God my God why has thou forsaken me why did he say God twice

@globalimpactministries766

6 жыл бұрын

Kevin Love, Because God also became a true human being who had to have a God to whom he prayed or he would not have been a true man at all. See this video. kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZoBrr5aihKq-aJM.html

@kevinlove8983

6 жыл бұрын

Global Impact Ministries you are denying the deity of God's only Son i pray you repent before it's to late

@globalimpactministries766

5 жыл бұрын

@@kevinlove8983 We affirm the full deity of Christ because we believe that God Himself came into this world as a human being via virgin conception. It is you who needs to repent for believing in another God Person beside our only true God the Father (John 17:3). The Scriptures only teach One God who is our Heavenly Father and one Christ who is "God manifest in the flesh" in full human existence (Heb. 2:17 "made fully human in every way").

always always draw from the Bible. not from greek philosophy. Dalcour says theres no greek word that linguistically denotes in the mind of lol. Logos. Logos. It didnt say in the beginning The son was with God lol

Question: If Jesus is God the Father, then why did Jesus pray? Answer: When God who is a Spirit, a Holy Spirit, was manifested in the flesh and became a man having the will of a man, God being in the flesh was known as the Son of God and he being in the flesh was required to pray, however when he prayed as a man his prayer returned to his own bosom because the person who is the Son of God is the everlasting Father. Jesus is the Almighty and blessed and only Potentate. Since Jesus is the only Potentate whom no man hath seen nor can see, then there is no other potentate! John 4: 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 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. Psalm 65: 2 O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come. Psalm 35: 13 But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. Zechariah 13: 6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. Revelation 1: 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. 1 John 2: 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Isaiah 9: 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 1 Timothy 6: 14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

The (he) that was manifest in the flesh in 1John 3 line 5 is the (Father) in 1John 3 line 1: 1 John 3: 3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

@robertrodriguez-fk9qt

5 жыл бұрын

So the he is the Father? When it said that we shall see him as he is ,what that means please.by the way im Oneness .

@1516Taylor

5 жыл бұрын

@@robertrodriguez-fk9qt The (he) and (him) in 1John 3 line 2: (when he shall appear, we shall be like him is the (Father in lJohn 3 line 1) and this is Jesus that shall appear in Titus 2 line 13: Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Jesus is the Father): John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Jesus is the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost is the Comforter and it is Jesus who is doing the comforting. Jesus is the Father because the Father is promised to send the Comforter and it is Jesus who is doing the sending. Rightly divide the word of truth and come to understand the LORD thy God is one LORD and his name is Jesus the blessed and only Potentate. (Jesus is the Holy Ghost which is the Comforter because Jesus is doing the comforting): John 14: 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; John 14: 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Acts 20: 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Jesus is the Father because the Father is promised to send the Comforter and it is Jesus doing the sending): John 16: 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 1 John 2: 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

The opposition made a seemingly excuse and presented some odd framework that “kept him” from addressing your verses. Seems like any time you can talk to certain people about the Bible they avoid verses and focus more on what scholars say and such.

Let "Us" make Man in "Our" image... Totally 2nd person pronouns no way around it.

This trinity guy is really full of himself and very condescending

Its very sad that both sides denie the truth about the Son. That he was begotten/born from God.

@andreslanderos3841

6 жыл бұрын

Gottes Wille geschehe I recommend you go back and listen to the debate again. Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Son was begotten/born from God. Trinitarians believe that the Son preexisted his birth. Trinitarians miss the fact that the Son was born when the fullness of time was come. Galatians 4:4. God Bless!

@gotteswillegeschehe1050

6 жыл бұрын

Hi Andres Landeros, The Son pre-existed his birth in Bethlehem as an only begotten Son of God. He was "begotten of the Father" (John 1:14), before creation, that's why he is in nature God: he inherited it from God, the Father. Oneness destroys the personality of the Son, because this doctrine teaches that he is the Father in flesh as a human Son, and not the true Son of the living God: that he was not with God before Bethlehem; which was sent by God and came in the flesh. Jesus is not God, the Father, he is the only begotten Son of God. God bless

@globalimpactministries766

5 жыл бұрын

@@gotteswillegeschehe1050 - Your words contradict John 5:26, Hebrews 1:5, Psalm 2:7 and so many scriptures which clearly teach that the son of God was "granted" a distinct human "life in himself" (John 5:26) and that the Father and Son relationship did not begin until after the virgin conception (Heb. 1:5; 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7). If the Son of God was literally alive with God before the virgin conception then how is it that God the Father said in Psalm 110:1, "sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet?" For the Son would have already been at the Father's anthropomorphic right hand to begin with! If the son was already living in the Father's presence at His anthropomorphic right hand then God the Father could not have said, "I will be to him a Father and he will be to Me a son" before the virgin conception (2 Sam. 7:14). If Trinitarian theology was true then the Father should have said, You are my Son and I am your Father before the incarnation rather than "I WILL BE" in the prophetic future! Dalcour did not address these specific passages I cited in his rebuttal time or in his response to my specific questions. If the title "Son" was meant to be a timeless title for an alleged God the Son then why does Luke 1:35 say that that title was given for the reason of the virgin conception? "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you ... and FOR THAT REASON the child which shall be born of you SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD." Luke 1:35 No verse of Scripture ever informs us that the title "Son of God" was given other than the NT reason for God becoming a human son/man via virgin conception and birth. Therefore the Trinity doctrine of an alleged timeless God the Son is built upon human speculation rather than the foundational teaching of the apostles and prophets.

@andretresvant

Жыл бұрын

@@globalimpactministries766 good share, if a preexisting God The Son is who created the body, The Father would be a Grandfather and God The Son would be The Father” Jesus doesn’t have a Grandpa” wow” But The Holy Spirit is The Father not someone else” or The Son would have 2 Fathers, one on Earth and one in Heaven, not so” The Same Father in him was also The Same Father in Heaven simultaneously

HOW ABOUT A DEBATE WITH NO GREEK AND NO SCHOLARS, LETS STICK WITH THE WORD OF GOD AND THE APOSTLES DOCTRINE... Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto PETER AND TO THE REST OF THE APOSTLES, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Hello trinitarians this is America we speak English not everybody studies Greek and Hebrew you keep quoting Scholars but not the word of God you keep talkin about men the Bible does say all men are liars and the only only person who told the truth was God In the Flesh of Jesus Christ He said that I'm in the father and father is in me I and my father are ONE NOT 3 ONE OR TWO BUT ONE ENGLISH

The "Learned".

I guess we all need to be greek scholars in order to read or understand the Bible ? But i thought it was greek scholars that put it in English for us to understand ? So listening to these 2 men trying to out wit one another, and not being on one side or the other, no way does Oneness make any sense. Here is why. If you take anyone off the street and have them read the verses these men talked about, they would read it saying what the Trinity man says because in the oneness view, you would have to have their special revelations and read into it things that are not there. And by the way, im not Trinity, but just stating the facts. You have ti be taught Oneness by a person because nobody is going to read the Bible for the first time in their life and see oneness view. I didn't say One God, i said Oneness. Big difference.

Dalcour is not my type of teacher. I don't like his teaching! He taught like shooting gun into the air and just wasting times. Peace! Thanks!

I hear that sssss... sound coming out of Trinity's mouth.

Holy Ghost ? Is God a Ghost ?

If you want to know what John 1:1 means read 1 John 1;1-2

@tariqhaddad7298

Жыл бұрын

The Logos isn't a distinct person from God, He is God Himself, according to 1 John: 1:2 Eternal life is with the Father So is eternal life a distinct person as well (life is not masculine) To understand John 1: 1 let the apostles of Christ answer, Paul the Apostle in his epistle to Romans 11: 33-36 gives the answer, God has riches, wisdom and knowledge, but God’s mind doesn't have a counselor, which means that God’s mind isn't distinct, otherwise God was his counselor

@autumnnoels

Жыл бұрын

@@tariqhaddad7298 I don’t believe in the trinity doctrine. God brought his word of eternal life to us.

@autumnnoels

Жыл бұрын

@@tariqhaddad7298 by literally showing up as a man preaching the Gospel

@tariqhaddad7298

Жыл бұрын

@@autumnnoels Even if the Logos refers to the mind and wisdom of God, it's not a distinct hypostasis. The Logos is God Himself, and the interpretation of the Apostle Paul is clear.

There is only one true God and you can’t understand him case close

we are Americans, and we are not Creek. Khaesn yus asndawsxresnd mis? Yus ojr' wejxriis yuajr' rhaijm, Dalcour! Dub yus asndawsxresnd mis, Dalcour? Phijx, theekx!

I’m not here to criticize anyone, nor did anyone win this debate..... I’ve watched many debates and studied both oneness and trinitarian point of views..... they both believe in one GOD, we all believe that JESUS AND GOD ARE ONE..... but with all these debates and denominations we are getting away from the plain and simple gospel, that JESUS died for our transgressions and that the father raised him from the dead and set him at his right hand... and now we are made kings and priest unto GOD the father by The life and death of his son JESUS CHRIST..... the body of Christ is making a mockery of the Gospel.......

@globalimpactministries766

5 жыл бұрын

Jesus said that if you do not believe that "I AM", you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). John 8:27 reveals that he was speaking about the Father when he said, "if you do not believe that I AM you will die in your sins." The historical evidence proves that the RCC developed the false doctrine of the trinity and that the majority of the earliest Christians believed in the Oneness of God just like modern Oneness Pentecostals do today. The Devil is the one who sowed the tares among the wheat and we know from the words of Jesus that that tares are the sons and daughters of the wicked one who are deceived into believing another gospel which differs from the first century Apostolic Faith. Therefore those who have a spirit of error by believing that Jesus is a second Divine God Person rather than the One true God Person who came to save us from our sins as a true human son are yet in their sins.

@1516Taylor

5 жыл бұрын

John 4: 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. Ezekiel 13: 22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: John 4: 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (what is this question and when they asked who art thou, what was it that they did not understand? They did not understand Jesus is the (he) which is the Father): John 8: 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Hello Jesus is the Messiah The Son of God The Son of David The Son of man The man God has chosen to be his anointed king The man God will judge the world through Jesus has a God There is no triune god in scripture Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

to you trinitarians 2peter 2:1-22

Jesus Christ was never a human being at anytime. That is a unscriptural lie. Jesus Christ and his flesh was from heaven John 6:40-51 & 1 Corinthians 15:47

SPIRITUALLY, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS GOD THE FATHER AND CREATOR OF ALL IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AS FOLLOW: PART 1. WHO IS JESUS? 1.Jesus, the Creator. (John 1:10; Colo 1:16). 2.Jesus, the Redeemer & Savior. (Gal 3:13; 1 John 4:14). 3.Jesus, the Shepherd. (John 10:11). 4.Jesus, the King. (Revelation 19:16). 5.Jesus, I AM & I AM HE. (John 8:24; John 8:58). 6.Jesus, the First and the Last. (Revelation 1:17-18). 7.Jesus, the Rock. (1 Corinthians 10:4). 8.Jesus is the Father. (Isaiah 9:6; John 14:9; John 8:24). 9.Jesus is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:14-17; Gal 4:6). 10.Jesus is coming. (Matthew 25:31). PART 2. WHO IS GOD? 1.God, the Creator. (Genesis 1:1). 2.God, the Redeemer and Savior. (Isaiah 49:26). 3.God, the Shepherd. (Psalm 23:1). 4.God, the King. (Psalm 47:7). 5.God, I AM & I AM HE. (Isai 43:10; Exod 3:14). 6.God, the First and Last. (Isaiah 41:4). 7.God, the Rock. (Deuteronomy 32:4). 8.God is the Father. (Isaiah 64:8). 9.God is the Spirit. (John 4:24). ‘ 10.God is coming. (Psalm 50:3; Zech 14:1-2,3). According to Part 1. Who is Jesus? And Part 2. Who is God? They’re the same person because Jesus Christ is God the Father, Himself Spiritually. PART 3. JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY ONE TRUE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AS FOLLOW: John 10:30 Jesus said, “I and My Father are one.” (Meaning My Father and I am the same person) Since Jesus Christ is the Father and the Spirit according to Isaiah 9:6; John 14:9; 2 Corinthians 3:14-17. And since God is the Father and the Spirit according to Isaiah 64:8; and John 4:24. And since there is only one God and one Father according to Ephesians 4:4-6. Then Jesus Christ is God the Father as He has claimed according to Isaiah 9:6; John 14:9; John 12:45; John 10:30; and John 8:24. PART 4. THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY ONE TRUE GOD WHO HAS THREE TITLES SUCH: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and their personal name is Jesus as follow: 1. The personal name of the Father is Jesus according to John 17:11. 2. The personal name of the Son is Jesus according to John 17:11-12 and John 5:43. 3. The personal name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus according to Revelation 3:6,13 and 22. IN REALITY, THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD WHO IS THE FATHER OF ALL WHICH IS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, AMEN! WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, THERE IS NO GOD ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE, AMEN! Glory to Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace and His name is the Lord Jesus Christ. Hallelujah, Amen! Peace and thanks! WHAT A AWESOME GOD WE SERVE! PART 5. OUR FATHER THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS COMING SOON AS FOLLOW BELOW: TO RULE THE EARTH FOREVER AND EVER BELOW MY FRIENDS! THE LORD JESUS CHRIST OUR ONLY FATHER IS COMING TO RULE THE EARH AS KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS VERY SOON AS FOLLOW: Christ on a White Horse: Revelation 19:11-16 11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. The Beast and His Armies Defeated: Revelation 19:17-21 17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, 18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great.” 19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh. REMEMER THAT NO ONE ELSE IS COMING BACK TO RULE THE EARTH EXCEPT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST OUR ONLY FATHER, HIMSELF TO RULE THE EARTH TO CAPTURE THE BEAST AND THE FALSE PROPHET AND THEY WERE CAST ALIVE INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE BURNING WITH BRIMSTONE. HERE IS A QUESTION FOR YOU MY FRIENDS: IF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS NOT YOUR FATHER, THEN WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR FATHER? IS JESUS CHRIST YOUR GOD? The Lord Jesus Christ is the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit(Isaiah 9:6; John 14:9; John 10:30; John 12:45; John 8:24; Revelation 19:11-21. GLORY TO THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!

I debated Mr Ritchie on a simialr topoic about 6-7 years ago, the title was: There was a time when the Son of God did not exist. Mr Ritchioe argued in fvour od this and then realised that his position was that of a created Son who lacks divine attributes (subordinationism).

Ritchie says “I wish I had more time” but I think he meant to say “I wish I had more breath” 😂

Steve, even though Dalcour can be arrogant and it's hard for me to see God's love in him, you have to admit that he destroyed you from a debate standpoint. He exegeted text with skill and you added irrelevant topics and quoted oneness apologists as if that were going to strengthen your agrument. I used to think you'd make a great opponent to James White, but after this you should just hang it up.

@globalimpactministries766

5 жыл бұрын

Andrew Elliot, Dalcour failed to give a rebuttal to any of the verses I cited in my opening statements. He ignored the scriptural evidence I cited in my opening statements and in the specific questions I asked him. If you will carefully listen, you will notice that Dalcour did not answer any of my specific questions during the cross examination period as he kept straying off the topic. Dalcour did not use English to exegete anything. He hid behind Greek without addressing the texts that I brought up in English. Where was the Hebrew and Greek grammar in his responses to the specific questions I asked him? And where was the Hebrew and Greek grammar in rebutting the enormous evidence I presented in my opening statements which clearly destroyed Trinitarian theology? He had none! So it was complete hypocrisy for him to say I had no exegesis of the text because I did not use Greek grammar in all of my responses when he did not use Greek grammar in his responses. It was necessary for me to cite a few Oneness authors because Dalcour was falsely accusing me of Nestorianism and contradicting other Oneness authors. Dalcour cited Trinitarian authors so why am I criticized for citing a few Oneness authors along with Trinitarian authors? What irrelevant topics? Dalcour had previously chided his Oneness opponent in his last debate for not responding to his quotes from Church history. He even sent me an email saying that he was disappointed with his last Oneness opponent because of his lack of knowledge in "patristics". Therefore it was hypocritical of him to say that church history was irrelevant while he brought it up during his last debate. I can honestly say that I was very happy with the overall results of this debate.

@andrewdoesapologetics

5 жыл бұрын

@@globalimpactministries766 Clearly, it wasn't his point to refute. He affirmed trinitarian theology and you eisegeted scripture and added out of context historical quotes. Your job was to refute his stance, and you didn't do that.

@globalimpactministries766

5 жыл бұрын

@@andrewdoesapologetics The Subject Title of the Debate was "Did Jesus Pre-Exist as a God the Son?" I said "no" and Dalcour said "Yes." Since I shared more than 30 scriptures which clearly refute the Trinitarian idea that Jesus preexisted as an alleged "God the Son", it was certainly Dalcour's duty to defend Trinitarian theology as well as uphold it. Since Dr Dalcour claims to be a Trinitarian apologist, he is supposed to defend his belief in the Trinitarian Faith. My duty was to defend the One God Faith of the original apostles and to refute Trinitarianism by the scriptures. Dr Dalcour did a very poor job trying to prove Trinitarian theology by the natural reading of the texts of inspired scripture and a terrible job defending his Trinitarian position because he failed to rebut my opening statements and he failed to answer my questions during the cross exam period.. During the cross exam and rebutal periods Dalcour fled from the passages I cited and made no attempt to exegete any of the passages I cited from Greek or Hebrew. Furthermore, why did Dalcour agree to rebuttal times if we had both agreed that Dalcour would not be responsible to rebut the Oneness theology of Oneness Pentecostals? It seems that Dalcour knew that he could not refute Oneness theology by the scriptures so he chose to ignore all of the scriptural facts I presented during our debate. Dr Dalcour said that he was disappointed with his last debate against Oneness theology because his past opponent had no knowledge in patristics (church history). That is why I used some quotes from the early Christians because Dr. Dalcour had used quotes in church history during his last debate with a Oneness Pastor. Therefore Dr Dalcour played the hypocrite for chiding me for bringing up patrsitics when he had done so in his last debate against Oneness theology.