Examining the Trinity, Part 6: Debunking Proof Texts: John 10:30; 12:41; Isaiah 6:1-3; 43:11, 44:24.

If you would like to help us to continue in this work, click this link:

If you would like to mail a cheque, use this address:
Good News Association
HC61 Box 67,
Loop Road
Ochopee FL 34141
USA

To view all the Beroean Pickets videos, click on this link:

French BP Channel

Romanian BP Channel:

Russian BP Channel

[sakdadarawan]

Thanks, Eric! It's straight to the point and clear. Those studying theology must consider this of your presentation.

[sanzilla]

Thank you Eric for going through each of those scriptures and not glossing over them as I find too many do. You make a lot of sense to my brain which could never quite accept the explanations of the trinity as I’ve heard it so far.
My Christian love to you brother for all your hard work and the love you show for others by doing it. 💞🙏

[ironbar]

Upon examination of the scriptures I have come to believe that the truth is in between the views of trinitarians and non trinitarians. All scripture is satisfied by the understanding that the messiah is of the same body and substance as the Father. In a similar way that Eve was taken from Adam's body, the Word is part of the Father and was with the Father in the beginning. So it is fitting for the Son to refer to himself as the Alpha and the Omega and yet state that Father is greater than He. There is a clear distinction between the nature of Son and the Angels.

[PraiseYaHuWaH]

Eric, as always Spot On! Thank you so much for sound reasoning!

[josephd]

This is something I've been pondering about for many years. It maybe something we as imperfect humans will never know until we are made perfect by Almighty God

[watchtowerexamination]

Sad. Eric is TOTALLY CONFUSED about the points being raised in the texts. TOTAL confusion is what is presented at 33:15. Trinitarians do NOT make a link between John 12 v 41 and Isaiah 44:24, because there is no such link. John's reference to Isaiah was at Isaiah 6 v 1-3. Sorry, my brother, you have your wires crossed here.

[donwhite]

I agree that where a verse is ambiguous we need to look beyond the verse, but before jumping from John 10 to John 17 (which is as you note, a different conversation) we should look at the immediate context.

“I and the Father are one.” Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any good work, ” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.””
‭‭John‬ ‭10:30-33‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Jesus listeners clearly understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. He goes on to exacerbate the situation, not say “that’s not what I meant”. We could then use your approach - is there anywhere else we are told anything about what Jesus listeners understood him to be saying? John himself tells us:

“For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” John‬ ‭5:18‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Here John is telling us that every time Jesus called God his Father, he was claiming equality with God. This is significant because John is reporting this, it’s not an interpretation.

Again we can think about those key words:

“[Jesus] Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;”
‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2:6‬ ‭NIV‬‬

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, ”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭2:9‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Just my thoughts :-)

[Nighthawkinlight]

I appreciate a number of your videos but I think you're seeing this particular issue through some strong mental ruts left by the Watchtower. You use Ps 148:5 as a proof that God using a command implies the usage of another being to create on his behalf, but that is far from a necessary conclusion. When God said "Let there be light" is that not a command? Does it make sense to extrapolate from the usage of that command to prove there was someone waiting to receive it, or is the plain reading that God simply has the power to command light to come into existence out of nothing?

Further, at 13:18 you give an example of a nonsense way for God to talk of Himself, yet that's exactly how He speaks in several passages. See Genesis 18:17-19, Genesis 19:24, Amos 4:11, Zechariah 3:2. Look at these in a variety of translations, an interlinear if you doubt which to accept. The satirical example you've given for how it would not make sense for YHWH to speak is nearly identical to the literal way He does speak in these passages. There are many other things to talk about but these are just two examples where your case is not as conclusive as presented. I don't mean to be condescending, but I do hope to encourage a tone of humility in presenting a contrarian position against the vast majority of Christians through the centuries. Certainly, numbers of followers don't prove a teaching correct, but it does warrant some humble consideration. I will try to follow my own advise as I hear out your future points.

[PraiseYaHuWaH]

Had to watch this again… such a wonderful explanation for why Messiah was referred to as a God. This has never fully been explained as well as it is here. Saving this one because it is so very excellent. One thing I would add however, The JW’s have stated that the Name is “unknowable”. To this I would add, To the Unknowable Name I make known to you, Almighty Loving YaHuWaH. :)

[karenwestberg]

Whew. Now that was a mouthful. Thank you for walking us through all that! I makes so much sense! Thank you for all you do’

[dissidentfairy]

"Hyperliteralism" I like that, but I especially liked your point regarding Love versus Narcissism. It makes perfect sense. The trinity doctrine does tend to fuel a psychosis of sorts that one could describe as narcissism as you have stated, or even a bit of schizophrenia that would include delusions and hallucinations.

[Darrinnewlife]

Great lessons here Eric you hit the nail on the head as all the time.

[alfred]

How amazing that in all those visions by the prophets and in revelation where we got to “see” heaven, not once did we see a trinity. Funny that.

[deebaptista]

Thank you for this video, I found it very helpful.
Bless you brother.

[akatheheretic]

Very, very, very Well Done Eric !! ✅ 👏☺️
All Hail YAHWEH ELOHIM 🙌 🙌 🙌
( and Thank you also, Jesus ! 🤗)

[watchtowerexamination]

If you are going to debunk the doctrine of the Trinity, then you must first KNOW what the doctrine of the Trinity is. The doctrine does NOT teach that the Father and the Son are the same person.

This was a bit sad to watch. I was happy to see that Eric decided to respond to those texts because they have been dodged by others. But his answers were weak, I'm sorry. ESPECIALLY his response to Isaiah 44:241. In fact it was an insane response.

Eric charged God of doing the same thing Nebuchadnezzar did, for which God PUNISHED Nebuchadnezzar, as the answer to the challenge thrown out by Trinitarians. Clearly, Eric does not understand the point that Trinitarians are making about the text. Nebuchadnezzar was WARNED to humble himself and learn that it is GOD who made Him King and GAVE him Babylon. By declaring Babylon as the production of His might, Nebuchadnezzar SINNED and was PUNISHED for his SIN, as God predicted. In other words, Nebuchadnezzar lied. It was not He who built Babylon - it was GIVEN HIM by God. It was BUILT BY GOD! That is the very lesson that he was to learn. It was God who is Creator and God who made him king.

Now, clearly, Eric missed the point that Trinitarians make about the verse. If God created the world THROUGH Jesus, how can He then say that He created the world BY HIMSELF and to suggest that NO ONE WAS THERE? That statement is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. Eric has NOT even touched the question. With Eric's explanation, Jesus WAS there, and was used to create to the world, so the Father would have LIED to make a declaration that He did it by Himself and to suggest that NO ONE was there when He did it. That is the point that Eric totally missed.

How do you absolve the Father if lying if Eric's explanation is the answer?

The doctrine of the Trinity does NOT teach that the Father and the Son are the same person!
I'm sorry, but this was a good ATTEMPT but a poor response.

[jeremydegraaf.nz.]

Good Evening Eric.. This Is A Very Interesting Subject ... What Gets Me Going Is This What Gives US The Right To Put Earthly Limits On Our Creator...I AM WHAT I AM OR WHAT I PROVE TO BE..EXODUS..

[itsDragon_Star]

Jehovah is the saviour, he sendt Jesus, Jehovah is the one who sendt help, and Jesus was willing to help to save us. Jehovah could've use another angel to save us but he chose the best one, the special one and that is Jesus

[d.-alastdaysmessenger]

New to your channel...we must all examine Scripture - going to continue watching, God bless you & guard you, amein

[Puta]

Eric your teaching is only the extension of the watchtower.thank you