Never miss a new article or prayer. Stay connected by email →

Trinity Deity of Christ

Answering Kenisha on the Trinity: A Claim-by-Claim Response

42 min read Updated 16 October 2026 By The Christian King

Kenisha and Derrick held a live debate online. Kenisha is a biblical unitarian. That means Kenisha believes God is one person, the Father, and that Jesus is a man and not God. Derrick is a trinitarian. That means Derrick believes in the Trinity. They debated three questions. Is Jesus God? Is the Holy Spirit a person? Does the Bible teach the Trinity?

This article answers Kenisha's claims one at a time. They are in the same order as in the debate, and each one has its time in the video. Each time opens the debate at that moment. Sometimes Derrick made a weak point and Kenisha was right to push back. When that happens, this article says so. Bible verses are quoted from the King James Version (KJV), because that is the Bible that was read on the stream. The KJV uses old English, so some hard words are explained along the way.

Part 1 — The Name of the Lord

Acts 4:12 says 'under heaven,' so Jesus' name is not the divine name

Response: In the Bible, "under heaven" is a common way of saying "everywhere in the world." It is not about rank. Here are three examples:

So in Acts 4:12, "under heaven given among men" means this: anywhere among all people, no other name can save. It does not put Jesus' name lower than God's.

In fact, the verse points the other way. Peter says, "Neither is there salvation in any other." In the Old Testament, God says that only he can save:

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour

Isaiah 43:11KJV

Also, Jesus is not "under heaven" anymore. At 20:07 Kenisha agreed that Jesus is in heaven now. Paul says his name is "Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come" (Eph 1:21).

The Greek just says 'Lord,' so nothing changes

Response: At 15:56 Kenisha agreed that "the name of the Lord" in Romans 10:13 stands for the name Yahweh in Joel 2:32. So the real question is not which Greek word Paul used. The real question is who Paul says this Lord is. The passage makes that clear:

The line runs straight from "the Lord Jesus" to the Lord of Joel 2:32. The words "for" and "the same Lord" tie it together. Paul takes a sentence about calling on Yahweh and makes Jesus the one people call on. In another letter he says Christians are those who "in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor 1:2). Peter does the same thing at Pentecost. He quotes Joel, "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21). Then he says:

be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ

Acts 2:38KJV

What about "Jesus is 100% man"? Trinitarians agree with that. The question is whether he is only a man. Romans 10 is one of the places that says he is more.

If God's name is Jesus, the Father and the Spirit must be named Jesus too

Response: This point comes from a loose phrase Derrick used, that "Jesus" became the name of God. That is not what the Trinity teaches. Trinitarians do not say the name "Jesus" replaced the name Yahweh. They do not say the Father is called Jesus. They say the New Testament takes Bible passages about Yahweh and uses them for Jesus. That is what happens in Romans 10. Nobody has to be renamed.

Kenisha's idea is that persons who share one being must share one personal name. The Bible does not work that way. Even the Old Testament uses God's one name for two different figures:

Jesus himself said, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43). This verse was read on the stream from Shield's Super Chat. Kenisha's view has no problem with Jesus carrying the Father's name in some way. Trinitarians just take it further than a borrowed title.

Last, Jesus commanded people to baptize "in the name" (one name) "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 28:19). One name, three persons. That is the Trinity, and it comes from Jesus' own words (see the answer at 2:04:42).

'Lord' only means master; the Father alone is Yahweh

Response: Kenisha is right that the Greek word for "Lord" (kyrios) can mean many things. It can mean "sir," and it can mean God. The context decides. But in Romans 10, the context points to Yahweh. Kenisha agrees that verse 13 is about Yahweh. And verses 9 to 14 talk about one Lord all the way through (see the answer at 19:17). The same thing happens with other passages about Yahweh:

What about Jesus being under the Father? Trinitarians fully agree that the Son obeys the Father. But obeying someone does not mean you are a lesser kind of being. When Jesus was a boy, he "was subject unto" Joseph and Mary (Luke 2:51). That means he obeyed them. He was not less human than they were. Paul says "the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). A wife is not less human than her husband. In the same way, the Son is not less God than the Father.

Part 2 — The Worthy Lamb

Revelation 5 uses only human titles

Response: Trinitarians agree that the Lamb is truly a man and a son of David. Human titles show that he is human. They cannot show that he is only human. And one of these titles is more than human. Later Jesus says:

I am the root and the offspring of David

Revelation 22:16KJV

He is not only David's descendant. He is also David's root, the one David came from. Jesus asked the Pharisees the same puzzle:

If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Matthew 22:45KJV

The Lamb takes the scroll from the one on the throne. That shows the Son and the Father are two different persons. The Trinity teaches exactly that. So this point argues against modalism (the idea that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one person in three modes). It does not argue against the Trinity. And the same chapter puts the Lamb "in the midst of the throne" (Rev 5:6). Then every creature worships him together with God (Rev 5:13; see the answer at 39:06).

The Lamb receives power and glory, so he does not have them by nature

Response: The word "receive" cannot prove that. One chapter earlier, the elders use the same words about God the Father:

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things

Revelation 4:11KJV

Nobody thinks the Father had no glory until creatures gave it to him. In a song of praise in heaven, to "receive" glory means to be rightly praised.

And look at what the Lamb receives in 5:13. It is not a lower kind of honor. It is one song of praise, given equally to two: "Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." But God said:

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another

Isaiah 42:8KJV

So there are only two options. Either the Lamb is not "another" in that sense, or heaven is doing what God forbids.

Jesus really was exalted (raised to the highest place). But the Bible says he was exalted after he first made himself low:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation... Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him

Philippians 2:6–9KJV

And the glory Jesus asked for was glory he already had before:

glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was

John 17:5KJV

No man was worthy until one was found, and Jesus is a creature

Response: Revelation 5 sets up two groups. In verse 3, "no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth" could open the book. That is all of creation, in three levels. In verse 13, "every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth" worships. The Lamb is worthy when all of creation is not. Then all of creation, in the same three levels, worships him together with God. The chapter does not put the Lamb with the creatures. It puts him with the one on the throne, receiving the creatures' worship.

No verse calls Jesus a creature. Instead the Bible says:

by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible... And he is before all things, and by him all things consist

Colossians 1:16–17KJV

If he made "all things" that were created, then he is not one of them.

He is worshipped because God exalted him for his obedience

Response: Here is what Hebrews 5:8 says: "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." The word "though" (Greek kaiper) marks something surprising. If the Son were only a man, it would not be surprising that he learned to obey. Every man has to. The writer finds it amazing because of who the Son is. He already told us in chapter 1. The Son is the one "by whom also he made the worlds," and he is "upholding all things by the word of his power" (Heb 1:2–3).

Jesus' prayers and tears are exactly what we expect if God became a man. A real man prays to God, trusts God, and obeys God. Trinitarians believe all of that. What they deny is that this is all he is. The same letter describes him in ways no creature could fit.

God commands that Jesus be worshipped, so he need not be God

Response: The Bible never allows anyone to worship a creature, even when the creature invites it:

A God who forbids worshipping creatures would not tell angels to worship one. So if he tells angels to worship the Son, the Son is not a creature.

Where Hebrews 1:6 comes from makes this even clearer. The line comes from Deuteronomy 32:43 as it reads in the Septuagint, the old Greek translation of the Old Testament. (A Hebrew copy found among the Dead Sea Scrolls reads in a similar way.) The same idea shows up in Psalm 97:7: "worship him, all ye gods." In both places, the one being worshipped is God himself. Yes, the angels already worship God. That is the point. The writer takes a verse about worshipping God and uses it for the Son.

Philippians 2:10–11 quotes Isaiah 45:23. There God promises that every knee shall bow "unto me," because "I am God, and there is none else" (see the answer at 26:44). And the honor given to Jesus is not a smaller honor. Jesus said "all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father" (John 5:23). Paul says this is done "to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11). Trinitarians believe that too. When you honor the Son, you honor the Father who sent him.

Part 3 — The Son in Hebrews 1

Hebrews 1:8 doesn't say 'unto the Son'; the author is just quoting Psalm 45

Response: Hebrews 1:8 does say it. The Greek is pros de ton huion, which means "but unto the Son." The KJV reads: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." No old copy of Hebrews leaves those words out. They are written to match verse 7 on purpose: "And of the angels he saith." The "he" who speaks is the same one as in verses 5 and 6: "unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son" and "he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." At 50:14 Kenisha said that the writer says God is the one speaking. So the writer presents these Old Testament lines as God's own words, spoken to the Son.

Later, at 1:07:18, Kenisha offered another way to read it: "your throne is divine." Some translations do read Psalm 45:6 that way. But that reading does not fit Hebrews. The writer is trying to show that the Son is greater than the angels. Saying "Thy throne is God" would prove nothing, because angels also serve before God's throne. And in verse 10 the writer speaks straight to the Son again: "Thou, Lord" (see the answer at 1:06:51). That shows the writer reads these lines as words spoken to the Son. Also, the Messiah is called "The mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6. Isaiah uses that same title for Yahweh in Isaiah 10:21.

Hebrews 1:2 doesn't mean Jesus created; it's the new creation

Response: The Greek word for "worlds" in Hebrews 1:2 is aiōnas. The same letter uses it again in a place where it cannot mean the new creation:

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear

Hebrews 11:3KJV

That is God making the world out of nothing, at the very beginning. The writer uses the word the same way both times.

The next verse says the Son is "upholding all things by the word of his power" (1:3). That means holding the whole universe together. It is not a picture of the church. And when the writer does mean the age to come, he says so with different words: "the world to come, whereof we speak" (Heb 2:5).

God made the worlds "by" the Son. That does not make the Son a mere tool. John says the same thing: "All things were made by him" (John 1:3). And God says about creation, "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Isa 44:24). God made all things alone, and he also made them by the Son. So the Son is not someone outside of God.

'In these last days' shows the whole passage is New Testament

Response: Here Kenisha makes a fair point against Derrick. Hebrews does not say the Son was made heir in Genesis. Being made heir may well mean the time when he was raised up to God's right hand. But the verse keeps going. "In these last days" tells us when God spoke by his Son. Then the verse adds a second, separate statement about the past: "by whom also he made the worlds." The word "also" adds something new, and "made" points to an act in the past. Being heir means inheriting things. Making the worlds means creating them. The writer's point is that the one who inherits all things is the one who made all things. That is why it is fitting that he inherits them.

All of Hebrews 1 is about when Jesus came; 'begotten' means the resurrection

Response: Derrick agreed, and he was right, that "begotten" in Hebrews 1:5 points to the resurrection. Paul uses Psalm 2 that way in Acts 13:33. But the writer of Hebrews is careful. He separates what the Son is from what the Son became.

So the Son always is the shining of God's glory and the one who holds all things together. He became greater than the angels when he sat down after cleansing sins. The second line is about how he was raised up as God and man together. The first line is about who he is.

This is not philosophy. It is how Jesus talked about himself: "the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (John 17:5), and "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). At 2:10:01 Kenisha complained that these verses never came up in the stream. That is true. But anyone who says the Son's glory started at his birth still has to deal with them.

Everything made through the Son is the new creation in Ephesians, Colossians and 1 Corinthians

Response: Those letters keep the first creation and the new creation apart. They do not mix them. Colossians 1:16 says "by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers." Thrones and powers of angels in heaven are not part of the church's new creation. Verse 17 adds "he is before all things." Only in verse 18 does Paul turn to the new creation: "he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead." Paul gives Christ first place in both creations, and he lists them as two.

1 Corinthians 8:6 does the same: "one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." "All things" and "we" are two separate parts. And John 1:10 settles it: "the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." The world that did not know him was the old world that rejected him. It was not the new creation.

Jesus can't create like God; aiōnas means ages

Response: "Jesus can't create" is the very thing being debated. So it cannot be used as the starting point for reading the text. The text tells us what the Son did. On aiōnas, see the answer at 49:55. Hebrews 11:3 uses the same word for the world we can see, made from things we cannot see. And even if "ages" were the right translation, the one who made the ages stands outside of time, because he made it.

What about "All power is given unto me" (Matt 28:18)? Trinitarians agree that the risen Son received all authority as the go-between for God and people, being both God and man. But the Bible also says the Son has "life in himself" (John 5:26). It says he gives life to "whom he will" (John 5:21). No created being has those powers.

Hebrews 1:10 is about the Father, not Jesus

Response: The way the chapter is built rules this out. Verses 5 to 13 are a chain of quotes that compare the Son with the angels:

Verse 10 starts with "And." It carries on the words spoken "unto the Son" in verse 8. If Psalm 102 were about the Father here, it would add nothing to the writer's argument. His argument is that the Son is greater than the angels. But if the psalm is about the Son, it makes the point perfectly. The angels are made "spirits" and servants (1:7). The Son made the earth and the heavens, and he stays the same when they wear out (1:11–12).

Verse 13 supports this. It does not disprove it. "Sit on my right hand" is God speaking to the Son (Ps 110:1). The Father is the speaker all through the chain, and the Son is the one being spoken to. That is exactly what Derrick said.

Does Jesus set himself over the works of his own hands?

Response: Hebrews 2:6–8 quotes Psalm 8. That psalm is about man: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" God put mankind over the works of God's hands. Then the writer says this has not yet come true for people in general:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour

Hebrews 2:9KJV

Jesus makes Psalm 8 come true as the true man, the one who stands for all people.

That is just what the Trinity would expect. The Son, who made all things (Heb 1:2, 10), became a man. For a while he was made lower than the angels. As a man, he won back the rule over creation that Adam lost. So the same Son made the works, and as a man he is crowned over them. Hebrews 1:2 puts both ideas in one verse: "heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."

Jesus is 100% human and not Yahweh; 'Son of man' is not a divine title

Response: Verses that call Jesus a man (Acts 2:22; 1 Tim 2:5) show what trinitarians believe. Derrick asked for a verse that says Jesus is only a man. None was given. And "the Word was God" and "the Word was made flesh" (John 1:1, 14) are in the same chapter.

When Jesus calls himself "the Son of man," it is not just the everyday phrase "a son of man," meaning a human. It comes from Daniel 7:13–14: "one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days... And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion." Three things stand out:

So the title shows that he is human. It also shows that he came from heaven and has heaven's authority.

Part 4 — The Spirit and the Resurrection

God raised Jesus, so Jesus is not God

Response: This assumes the answer before proving it. "God raised Jesus" only shuts Jesus out from being God if "God" means "the Father and nobody else." But that is the very question being debated. The Bible says all three raised Jesus:

A unitarian has to explain away the second group of verses. A trinitarian can believe all three.

The Holy Spirit is the breath of God, not a person

Response: This mixes up two different things. Genesis 2:7 and Ecclesiastes 12:7 talk about the breath of life that every human being has. The Bible never calls Adam's breath "the Holy Spirit." If the Holy Spirit were the breath in every human, then every living person would have the Holy Spirit, believer or not. The Bible says the opposite. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Rom 8:9). Some people are "sensual, having not the Spirit" (Jude 19). The Bible also keeps the Holy Spirit separate from our own spirit:

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit

Romans 8:16KJV

The Holy Spirit does things only a person can do:

At 1:42:31 Kenisha argued from the Greek word pneuma: "where we get the word pneumonia." That mistake is called the etymology fallacy. It means judging a word by where it came from instead of by how it is used. The same word pneuma is used for angels, "ministering spirits" (Heb 1:14), and for demons, an "unclean spirit" (Mark 1:23). Angels and demons are persons.

At 1:24:31 Kenisha applied this to Jesus' death. Luke gives Jesus' last words:

Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost

Luke 23:46KJV

The "spirit" Jesus handed to the Father was his own human spirit. It was not the Holy Spirit. And a spirit placed in the Father's hands keeps on existing. Jesus had just told the thief, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Kenisha's view says a person does not keep on existing like that after death. But Jesus taught that they do:

fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul

Matthew 10:28KJV

At 1:42:10 Kenisha said the Spirit raised Jesus only in the sense that God's breath went back into him. Romans 8:11 was read on the stream, and it does not fit that idea. "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." The Spirit lives in believers who are alive right now. That is what makes them different from unbelievers (Rom 8:9). If the Spirit were the breath of life, the unbelievers breathing next to them would have the Spirit too.

'I will raise it up' does not mean Jesus raised himself

Response: Jesus did not say "I will get it back." He said, "I will raise it up." In Greek that is egerō, an active verb with "I" as the one doing it. He said the same thing again in John 10:17–18: "I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." The Father's command and the Son's own power are in the same sentence. One does not cancel the other.

The idea that only the Father gives life goes against Jesus' own words:

At 1:28:27 Kenisha argued from the context of John 2:18–22. Reading the whole passage does not change what verse 19 says. John himself tells us how to understand it: "But he spake of the temple of his body" (2:21). John does not say "he spoke of the Father raising his body." He says "I will raise it up" was about Jesus' body. In verse 22, "when therefore he was risen" does not cancel "I will raise it up" in verse 19. "God raised him" does not cancel it either. In the Trinity view, both are true. And the Jews asked Jesus for a sign. His answer makes the most sense as a claim to do something only God can do.

At 1:37:05 Kenisha said believers can say the same thing about their own bodies. Nobody in the whole Bible says "I will raise my body up." Believers are always raised by someone else:

God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power

1 Corinthians 6:14KJV

And Jesus says who will do it. He does not say he will be raised like the rest of us. He says he will raise us: "every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40; also 6:39, 44, 54). The one who raises every believer on the last day is not just one more believer hoping to be raised. Kenisha made this point again at 1:52:51, and the same answer applies.

Hebrews 5:7: Jesus cried to the one able to save him

Response: The verse says "unto him that was able to save him from death" (Heb 5:7). It does not say "only." Derrick pointed this out at 1:34:47. As a real man, Jesus prayed to his Father. Trinitarians agree that the Son, as a man, prays, trusts, and obeys. A man praying to God does not prove he is only a man. Jesus was hungry, but that does not prove he is not the bread of life.

Trinitarians don't really believe Jesus died; he was only halfway dead

Response: The Bible says death is when the spirit leaves the body: "the body without the spirit is dead" (Jas 2:26). By that meaning, Jesus fully died. His body lay dead in the tomb for three days. His spirit was handed to the Father (Luke 23:46) and was in paradise (Luke 23:43). Peter says he was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (1 Pet 3:18).

That is not "halfway dead." It is how every human dies. If Kenisha's point were right, then every Christian who has died would be "halfway dead" too, because Jesus said the soul lives on after the body dies (Matt 10:28). What trinitarians deny is that God's own nature died, because God "only hath immortality" (1 Tim 6:16). The Son really died in his human nature. He took on that human nature for exactly that reason (Heb 2:14).

Who is the Holy One that God would not let see corruption? The Trinity?

Response: Derrick answered "the Trinity," and that was not the best answer. In Psalm 16, as Peter reads it in Acts 2:25–31, the Messiah is speaking to God. The speaker is the Son as a man, and the "thou" he speaks to is God the Father. Trinitarians have no problem with the Son, as a man, praying to the Father and trusting him. That is what it means for God to become a man (see the answer at 1:31:28). The psalm shows the Father and the Son are different. That counts against modalism, which says they are one person. It does not count against the Trinity, which says they are two different persons.

Galatians 1:1 doesn't mean Jesus isn't a man

Response: Kenisha is partly right. "Not of men" is about where Paul's message came from. The verse does not say Jesus is not human. But the verse still makes a point. Paul draws a line. On one side is "man." On the other side are "Jesus Christ, and God the Father." He puts the risen Jesus on God's side. He says it again in 1:11–12: "the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." If Jesus were only a man raised to a high place, then Paul's gospel would have come "by man." Paul says it did not. The verse does not deny that Jesus is a man. It shows that Paul does not see him as only a man.

Part 5 — Baptism and the One Name

Matthew 28:18–19 is after the resurrection; authority was given

Response: On the authority Jesus received after he rose, see the answer at 1:05:27. Derrick's point was about verse 19: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Three stand side by side as equals, joined by "and... and," and they share one "name." Paul was shocked at the thought of baptizing in the name of a mere man: "were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Cor 1:13). But Jesus puts himself in the baptism name, right beside the Father.

Kenisha's view makes the verse harder to explain, not easier. If the Spirit is the Father's breath, then the command means "baptize in the name of the Father, and of a man, and of the Father's breath." Kenisha calls it a "process": the Father sends, people believe in the Son, people receive the Spirit. That is a good summary of the gospel, and trinitarians agree with it. But it does not explain why Jesus put three into one name. And verse 20 ends with a promise no mere man can keep: "lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (see the answer at 2:08:32).

In Acts they baptized in Jesus' name; God's name never changed from Yahweh

Response: As at 24:23, the Trinity does not need God's name to "change." Derrick gave up too much here. In Acts, baptism "in the name of Jesus" means baptism by Jesus' authority, so that the person now belongs to him. It was not a new set of words to replace Matthew 28:19. The Didache is an early church handbook, written around the end of the first century. When it gives the words for baptism, it uses the words of Matthew 28:19: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Revelation 3:12 speaks of the Father ("my God") and of the Son ("my new name") as two. Trinitarians agree. Jesus says "my God" as the man who became God's Son in the flesh and was raised to heaven. Hebrews 1:8–9 does the same thing. It calls the Son "O God," then says "God, even thy God, hath anointed thee." Both are true of the one Son. And the last chapter of Revelation shows where the name ends up:

the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads

Revelation 22:3–4KJV

God and the Lamb share one throne. And the servants serve him, see his face, and carry his name. Every one of those words is singular.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are titles, not names

Response: In the Bible, someone's "name" often means who they are, what they are like, and their authority. It does not just mean what they are called. For example: "The name of the LORD is a strong tower" (Prov 18:10). At 2:06:53 Kenisha agrees that "in the name of Jesus" in Acts means "by his authority." By that same rule, Matthew 28:19 puts the Father, the Son, and the Spirit under one name: one authority and one identity. That is what trinitarians take from it. Asking "what is the actual name?" does not make the problem go away. In Kenisha's view, one "name" is shared equally by the Father, a creature, and a force that is not a person. That is the problem Kenisha's view still has to answer.

Jesus is with us through the 'spirit of Christ,' which is his mindset

Response: Jesus promised that he himself would be there, not just a memory or an attitude:

where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

Matthew 18:20KJV

He also acts right now as a living person:

Hearing the prayers of millions of people at the same time, and knowing their hearts, is not something a man raised to heaven can do.

On "the spirit of Christ" as a way of thinking, see the answer at 2:17:45.

Jesus never taught three persons; he taught only one, the Father

Response: Derrick called this an "exact words" fallacy, and he was right. Jesus does not have to say the words "three persons, one being" for the idea to be in what he taught. Look at what Jesus did teach:

Jesus also accepted worship (Matt 14:33; John 9:38). Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), and Jesus did not correct him.

Someone may point to John 17:3: "that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." But "only" there sets the true God against the false gods of the nations. It does not set him against the Son. Paul uses the same kind of words in 1 Corinthians 8:6. There "one Lord Jesus Christ" stands next to "one God, the Father". If "only true God" means the Son is not God, then "one Lord" would mean the Father is not Lord. Nobody believes that.

Where is the Holy Spirit? Trinitarians only talk about two persons

Response: Derrick called this a red herring, meaning a point that pulls attention away from the real question. He was right. Jesus explained why the Spirit is talked about less:

He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you

John 16:14KJV

The Spirit's work points to the Son. But the New Testament puts all three together many times:

Derrick named several of these at 2:15:32, along with Acts 5:3–4 and Acts 13:2.

The Spirit is called 'it'; the spirit of Christ is a mindset; in Acts, God is always the Father

Response: In places like Romans 8:16 the KJV says "it" because of Greek grammar. The Greek word pneuma ("spirit") is a neuter word, neither "he" nor "she." But grammar does not decide whether something is a person. The Greek word for "child" (paidion) is also neuter, and a child is a person. And where the grammar allows it, John chooses to call the Spirit "he":

when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth

John 16:13KJV

Kenisha said the word "it" used to make Kenisha angry. It should not have. It proves nothing either way.

"The Spirit of Christ" cannot be Jesus' way of thinking. Peter says the Old Testament prophets were "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ" (1 Pet 1:10–11). The Spirit of Christ was in the prophets hundreds of years before Jesus was born. It told ahead of time about his sufferings. A man's way of thinking cannot exist before the man does. Paul also says "God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal 4:6). A way of thinking is not "sent," and it does not cry out. And in Romans 8:9 the same Spirit is called both "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ" in one sentence. That puts Christ where only God can be.

Now about Acts:

"Jewish thinking" from outside the Bible cannot overrule what the apostles wrote. Kenisha accepts the apostles' authority in other places (1:52:29). The Spirit "proceedeth from the Father" (John 15:26). That describes how the persons relate to each other. The same verse says the Son sends the Spirit, and that "he shall testify of me."

1 × 1 × 1 is a trick; three persons is 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

Response: Kenisha is right that Derrick's math proves nothing. But this objection proves nothing either. The Trinity does not say "one God and three Gods." That would contradict itself. It says one being and three persons. There is one "what" and three "who." Counting works when you count the same kind of thing. Three persons are three persons. One being is one being. No math adds up persons to get beings. The real question is not about math. It is whether the Bible shows one God, and also shows the Father, the Son, and the Spirit each as fully God. That is what the verses above show.

A triune God of Abraham is blasphemy and pagan

Response: Even in Abraham's time, God showed himself in ways that do not fit a picture of just one person:

Derrick mentioned these at 2:23:12. Jesus himself said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it" and "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:56, 58).

Calling it "pagan" is the genetic fallacy. That means judging an idea by where someone says it came from, instead of by whether it is true. Where an idea came from does not decide whether the Bible teaches it. Also, pagan "trinities" are three separate gods, and that is exactly what the Trinity denies. Christians came to believe in the Trinity because they would not give up either of two things. They would not give up the one God of Deuteronomy 6:4. And they would not give up worshipping Jesus and the personal work of the Spirit.