Debate | Is Jesus God? [ Elijah Johnson vs Metaphysics Mike ]

You going to keep it 10 times 10 if you want. It ain't my bad if you don't. You ain't my man if you are. You ain't my friend if you soft. I'mma be somebody in life cuz I want to. You want me cuz you want be somebody for the dollar. That's your problem. That's your life. That's your survival. That's your rival. I made it to the top as my enemy. That's five. That's what I know. That's what I'm You going to keep it 10 times 10. If you want, it ain't my bad if you don't. You ain't my best if you are. You ain't my friend for sure. You can keep it 10 times. If you pay for nothing, I'm solid as they come. I know you hate us. I know you hate us.

You going to keep it 10 times 10 if you want. It ain't my bad. You don't. You ain't my man if you are. You ain't my friend if you soft. I'mma be somebody in life cuz I want to. You want me cuz you want to be somebody for the That's your problem. That's your That's your V. You want to be survival. That's your rival. I didn't make it to the top. That's my enemy. That's what I know. That's what I know.

You going to keep it 10 times if you want. It ain't my bad if you don't. You ain't my man. If you are, you ain't my friend for sure. You can keep it 10 times if you pay for it. That ain't what I'm made of. I'm tired of stay. I know you hate us. I know you hate us.

Yeah, that's right. We got a debate going on today, man. Metaphysics Mike versus Eliza Johnson. Man, these two brothers popped up on the scene just so recently and they are already making a wave. All right. So, it's only right that we had to put these brothers into the battle arena. So, let's go ahead and introduce the two brothers, man. We got Mike in the building. Go ahead, introduce yourself, my man.

>> Hey, my name's Metaphysics Mike. And yeah, thanks for having me on. I'm pumped to be here. Thank you, Elijah, for willing to do the debate. And yeah, I have a YouTube channel that's focused on helping Christians break free from some traditional errors in Christianity. And I'm excited to argue for the Unitarian View tonight. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Now, we got Elijah Johnson in the building, man. I I mean, he's even more new on the scene than Mike, but he's making a wave, man. This dude is taking the apologetics wave by storm. I mean, like, come on, man. I mean, this dude had what, 5,000 subscribers just two days ago? You know what I mean? What's up, Eli? Let us know what's up.

>> What's the deal, man? My name is Elijah Johnson. Um uh very excited to be here and to represent the Trinitarian uh and Christian position on Jesus's divinity. So um just excited for the debate, man. God bless you guys. Life, I appreciate you. Mike, I appreciate you being here. God bless both of you guys.

Okay. And uh without further ado, we have already within four minutes 800 people in here. So they've been waiting to see y'all get it in. So this is what we going to do. We going to get it in. So Elijah, you going first? Go ahead. You got your slides, brother. I'm gonna drop me a mic down and I'm gonna go ahead and give you the solo. Okay. All right. Soon as you start, I'm gonna start I'mma start your 15.

>> Okay.

>> Uh, cool. Now, I want to thank everybody for being here, for showing up uh for a conversation that's around one of the most important questions that anybody is ever able to ask, and that is who is Jesus? Now, before I want to go any further, I want to make sure that we all understand what we're actually debating tonight. Because Mike has already told you in his videos that Jesus is God. He grants that Jesus is called God. He grants that Jesus has divine titles. He grants that Jesus has all authority on heaven and earth. He grants that Jesus will even judge the world. Now, I know that somebody is probably at home thinking, "What in the world is this debate even about? Elijah, you already won." Right? He says that Jesus is God, right? Here's what we are debating. Mike says that Jesus is God in a lower sense. He calls it God by predication. And he says that Jesus or the father is God in a higher sense. He calls it God by identity. So that's the claim. The resolution tonight is not whether Jesus is called God. We both grant the title. The resolution is whether Jesus is the same divine being as the father or whether Jesus at the end of the day is just a creature. That's the question. And tonight I'm going to prove that Jesus is God. first from reason and then I will pro I will prove that if Jesus saves us then he must be God and then I will prove it as well from scripture. But one more thing before I begin is that Mike is going to spend a lot of time opening in his opening showing you that the father is called God in scripture. He'll bring you to Shama. He'll bring you Mark 12 or he'll bring you 1 Corinthians 8. He'll show you a list of verses that says that the father is God. And I want you all to know in advance I agree with every single one of those verses. the father is God. I will never deny it. But that's not what we're debating tonight. We are debating whether the son is the same divine being. Showing me a hundred verses where the father is called God does not answer that question. So when you watch Mike's case, ask yourself the question, is he actually answering the question or is he just trying to prove a point that I already grant? Mike's job tonight is to prove that a our stance is irreconcilable with what the scriptures teach. His job is to prove that trinitarian theology is irreconcilable, that it cannot be understood under Christ having two natures. Showing scriptures like the father is God does not prove his point, nor does it prove me wrong. Showing scriptures that say that God is one does not prove his point nor does it disprove mine. Showing a bunch of scriptures saying that Jesus is a man does not prove his point nor does it disprove mine. We believe that the word became flesh and dwelt among us as the scriptures state. Christ having two natures does not mean that he is not God. Even showing scriptures that says that Jesus has a God or he receives something from the father is not irreconcilable with trinitarian theology. So Mike's job is not to get up here and say a bunch of things that Christians already agree with and have answered for thousands of years. It is to prove without a reasonable doubt that Christian doctrine contradicts the scriptures and they cannot be reconciled.

Now, somebody might be thinking, "Well, why does this debate even matter?" Well, it matters because if Jesus is not God, then you are not saved. Period. Don't let anyone lie to you or twist the scriptures to make you think that a creature saved you. That's impossible. No. If Jesus is not God, then you are dead in your sin. There is no prophet, no angel, no exalted man, no second in command. There is no creature that can pay what you owe. And that's what I'm going to prove tonight. I'm going to prove it from reason and then from scripture. So, let's get started. And one of the first things that we need to make sure that we understand is what sin actually is. You see, most people think that sin is just a bad action that you do. But sin is a lot deeper than that. Sin is when we fail to render to God what is owed to him. So, you could think about it like this, right? If you have a job and you're supposed to work for 40 hours a week, but you only show up 30, you just did something wrong, right? But it's not because you like punched your manager in the face. You didn't do anything extra that was bad. You didn't give your job what you owe. When your job made the decision to employ you, you owe them attendance in the allotted time assigned to you. When you don't show up, you're withholding your job what's owed to them. And that's essentially what sin is. God made you. Every breath, every choice, every minute of your life is on his time and his sustaining power. He has the right to be the end goal of all of your actions. So the moment that you hold any of it back from him, that is sin. Not because you had to do something extra that was wrong, but because you failed to give to God what was already his. So that's what sin is.

Now we have to ask, what does sin do, right? Why does it matter? What happens when a creature withholds from God what belongs to him? See, most people think that sin just makes God angry. like he gets upset and just needs to calm down before he could forgive you. But that's not what scripture says. Sin disrupts the order of justice. And the order of justice is not a rule that God made up that he could change his mind about. That order flows from who God is. Because God does not merely have justice like a judge has a rule book. No, God is just. Justice is not something that God possesses. It is something that God is. Deuteronomy chapter 32:4 says, "The rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice, a God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he." Now, the definition of justice is the act of making a rightful judgment, deciding whether something is right or wrong, and giving the proper reward or punishment based on that judgment. And if God's justice is his very nature and it's not a rule that he made up, but it's who he is, that means that when sin disturbs the order of justice, God can't simply ignore it. Not because something outside of him is forcing his hand, but because for God to ignore sin without satisfaction, it would be for God to go against his own nature. And when we go to 2 Timothy 2:13, it says, "If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. He cannot deny himself." God cannot act in a way that contradicts who he is. He cannot stop being just any more than he can stop being God. So when somebody says, "Well, God made the rules, he could just break them." Like, he made the laws of nature and he breaks the laws of nature all the time. This is not a rule that God made. This is who God is. Asking why God can't just ignore justice is like asking why God can't just lie whenever he feels like. It's not a limit on his power. It's literally a contradiction. Not just a contradiction of scripture, but a contradiction of his nature. It's what it means for God to be God.

Now, I could hear some people asking a question, well, h how bad is sin, right? When we withhold the honor that is due to God, how bad is it? Well, let me tell you, when we sin, we don't just incur a small debt. We don't even incur a a moderate debt or a big debt. No, we incur an infinite debt. And here's why. The weight of an offense is measured by the dignity or the value of the one who is offended. Right? If you insult a stranger on the street, that's one thing. If you insult your father, that's a little worse. But if you insult the president of the United States, that's a lot worse. Right? The higher the dignity of the person offended, the greater the offense. Not because the offense itself is different, but because of who received it. Now, when we apply that principle to God, right? God's not a creature. God's not a finite being with a limited dignity. God is infinite. His value, his honor has no ceiling, no limit. So when a creature sins against God, when a creature withholds from the infinite God what belongs to him, the weight of that offense is not finite. It's infinite. Because the dignity of the one who is offended is infinite. Now this is what scripture means when it says in Romans 6:23 that the wages of sin is death. Not a fine, not a timeout, not a temporary consequence, death. And not just any death. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 calls it eternal destruction. The punishment is eternal because the offense is infinite. The wage matches the dignity of the one against whom the offense was committed. So that's what sin does. It withholds from God what is owed. It disturbs the order of justice that's identical to God's own nature and it incurs a debt so heavy that no finite creature can ever pay it back. And this is why God can't just simply forgive. Because if he forgives a debt of infinite weight without satisfaction, he he's not being merciful. He is denying himself. But scripture says he cannot deny himself. So we've established that sin incurs an infinite debt against an infinitely just God who cannot deny himself. Which means that this debt has to be paid.

So now reason ask who has to pay it and who's able? first and who has to pay? Well, humanity incurred the debt. So, the payment has to come from humanity's side. That's not arbitrary, right? Uh that's how justice work. The one who owes must be the one who satisfies. But the key is the same individual who sin does not necessarily have to be the same individual who paid. It just has to be someone who genuinely stands in the place of the one who owes. This is why Hebrews chapter 2:16 says, "For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of a Abraham." Therefore, he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God to make propreciation for the sins of the people. So the satisfier must be genuinely human. Not human in appearance. Not human by appointment. Truly human. So that when he pays, humanity pays. Right? But here's the problem. Humanity has nothing to offer. They have nothing to give God that's not already owed. Right? You could think of it like imagine you owe your mortgage company $1,000 a month in in your rent and then you miss two months of your payment and someone says, "Well, just take this month's paycheck of $1,000 and give it to the landlord." That doesn't do anything to the debt of the two months that you owe. You paying your landlord what you already owe doesn't remove the 2,000 debt and you have nothing else to give. All you have is the $1,000. That's human humanity's situation in front of God. Every act of obedience, every prayer, every faithful day, all of it was already owed to God before we even offered it. God is the proper end of every action that we take. Every good thing that we do is already his by right. So when humanity tries to use obedience to pay back the debt of sin, it's like handing God a paycheck that was already his. The bad debt is still sitting there and humanity has nothing else to give. Luke 17:10 puts it very plainly. It says, "So you also when you have done all that you were commanded, say we are unworthy servants. We have only done what was our duty, not extra our duty. It was already owed." So we're stuck, right? Humanity has to pay, but humanity can't pay. Which means if we are to be saved, we need somebody who can pay. So look at where reason bought us, right? The one who has to pay needs to be human because humanity owes the debt. But the one who pays has to have something to offer beyond what humanity already owes. So the question becomes, is there anybody anywhere in all of existence whose actions are not already owed to someone else? Who actually has something to give that is proportional to the debt that is owed? The angels owe everything to God. They were created. Every act of an angel is already owed. Adam owed everything to God before he fell. The most exalted prophet who ever lived owed everything. Right? There is no creature in all of existence whose obedience is not already owed to its creator except God. Right? Only God himself owes nothing to anyone. God is uncreated. He is not a debtor. Everything God does, he does freely. And he is the only being in existence who has anything to offer that is not already owed to someone else. So the one who pays must be both. Fully human to stand in for humanity, fully God to have something to offer beyond what is already owed. One person, two natures. And if Mike tries to tell you that it's a contradiction, he's just trying to convince you that your salvation is impossible.

>> Two minutes.

>> Two minutes. If we are to be saved, then we need God to become man without ceasing to be God. And that's what reason demands. This is before we've ever even opened the Bible. So, I have two minutes. So, let me lay it out clearly, right? If humanity has sinned, then satisfaction must be offered because God demands satisfaction for sin because he's just. Humanity has sinned. Therefore, satisfaction must be offered. If satisfaction must be offered, it must come from one who is both God and man. Uh, therefore, satisfaction must come from one who is both God and man. And then when we look at scripture, it just confirms it. When we open up our Bibles to Psalm 49, it starts in verse 7 and reads, "Truly, no man can ransom another or give God the price of his life. For the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice." Let's stop right there. The psalmist is being real precise. He's saying that no man can do this. This is a category. Not bad men, not weak men, not sinful men, no man. The category is closed. Verse 8 tells us why, right? It says that the ransom is costly and can never suffice. This is exactly what reason just showed us. No finite creature has anything extra to give. And the psalmist knew it before we even went through it tonight. Now, when we jump to verse 15, it says, "But God will ransom my soul from the power of shield." Do you see what just happened? The psalmist sets up this impossibility. No man can do this. And resolves it with two words. But God. Not God's prophet, not God's angel, not God's appointed servant. God. Now, when we hold that and we turn to Isaiah 53:10, the suffering servant offers his soul, his nephesh as a guilt offering, as payment. And then when we go to Mark 10:45, Jesus says, "The son of man came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." So, we can see that Psalm 49 says that no man can give a soul as ransom. Isaiah 53 says, "The suffering servant offers his soul as payment." And Mark chapter 10 says, "Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many." Jesus,

>> take 30 seconds to close it out. You got it.

>> Jesus is doing what Psalm 49 said that no man can do. And Psalm 49 says that when the ransom comes, it comes from God. So if Jesus is not God, then his death does not actually pay for you and his death doesn't actually pay for your sins. Then anyone who tells you that Jesus is not God is telling you that you are not saved. God bless you.

>> All right. Thank you for that. Eli, I will drop you remove your slide. Um Mike, go ahead and uh present your slide. Bring Mike up. Present his slide. All right. As soon as you start talking, your 15 will start.

All right. Tonight I'm going to argue for the Unitarian answer to the question, is Jesus God? And honestly, I think many people misunderstand what it actually is. That intro was a perfect example. There is so much confusion and misinformation around this subject. All I ask of you tonight is to thoughtfully consider the evidence I will present objectively. Now, to answer this question, is Jesus God? We first have to define God. Okay. So God in the Greek the word is theos. According to the bog, theos can refer to a transcendent being, a deity, a god, a goddess, god's plural, or the most high god. It can also refer to a nontrcendent being who's considered worthy of special reverence or respect. In Hebrew, the word is Elohim and it functions the same. It can refer to the true God to lower gods, divine beings, rulers, judges, or those who represent a divine authority. Notice what they says on the last part. It says God can refer to whatever can in any respect be likened unto God or resemble him in any way. Oh, this is extremely important because the first thing we have to understand is that God is not a rigid designator. It's a title. It doesn't function like a personal proper name. The word God is actually shaped by the linguistic, cultural, and theological context in which it's used. Now, I know on God Logic's channel, we just read, right? Let's do some reading. Behold the word of God. Exodus 7:1, Yahweh says to Moses, "See, I have made you God to Pharaoh." God literally calls Moses God. Does that mean that Moses is God by nature? Does it mean he's ontologically Yahweh? Of course not. God is a title. It's functioning as a representation for him in authority. Psalm 45 says, "Your throne, oh God, is forever and ever." Guess who he's talking to? The king of Israel. The king in his throne is literally called God. He's given this divine language. And does that mean the king of Israel is God by nature? No. Even Jesus says in John chapter 10 that humans can be called gods. Did you know that? Let's read it. In John 10, Jesus gives an incredible teaching on the Jewish principle of agency. The Jews say they want to stone him for making himself equal with God. And Jesus is like why? For what good work? They say because you being a man make yourself God. Now look at what Jesus says. Does he say you know I am God or I have two natures? We heard that tonight. or I'm homoius with the father. No, he quotes Psalms 82 where human beings are called gods. And I quote, "Is it not written in your law, I said you are gods?" If he, meaning Yahweh, called them gods, to whom the word of God came and the scriptures cannot be broken, how do you say of him whom the father sanctified and sent into the world that you're blaspheing because I said I'm the son of God? This is amazing. Jesus does not respond by saying, "Yes, I am God." He responds by explaining the semantic range of the word God. It's the same point I'm making right now. And he actually is called the son of God here. That's his explicit claim anyways. But the point here is that Jesus can be called God because he's God's supreme representative, exalted above others, just like the judges were in Psalms 82 that he's quoting from. So unitarians believe Jesus is God. The question is in what way?

Now there's another title here. Jesus is also called Lord. In the Greek it's the word curios. This refers to a ruler, a master, owner, a person in authority. It can also be used as a substitute for the divine name. Okay. In Hebrew, it's Adoni and it functions just the same. It's a title. It can refer to God, but it can also refer to just human masters, rulers, kings, or superiors. All right? So, unitarians believe Jesus is Lord. That's what the Bible teaches. Why wouldn't we? Again, the question is, in what sense? Did you know Psalm 110 is the most quoted psalm in the New Testament and one of the most important texts to prove Jesus is the Messiah? In Hebrew, Psalm 110 says, "And Yahweh said to my Lord," or yours might say, "The Lord," all caps, "Said to my Lord, sit at my right hand." There are two figures here. That's Yahweh and David's Lord. So, when you see Jesus called Lord, like in 1 Corinthians 8:6, one God and one Lord, and you Philippians chapter 2, you know, proclaim Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the Father. This is what they're talking about. Psalm 110. Okay, so this is what it means to call Jesus Lord. It's the most frequently quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament. Can I get an amen for facts? All right, in the chat. So Jesus can be called God and bear the divine name by predication. That's about the only thing my opponent got right in his opening. Okay, this is what the Bible actually teaches when we understand the language, the context and the Jewish categories behind these titles. But what Jesus cannot be is God or Yahweh by identity. All right, that would make God or Jesus ontologically one as the one God himself. This idea depends upon postbiblical philosophy like homosius, the hypoatic union to nature's theory. The this language doesn't come from Jesus and the apostles. Now, we're going to get to this, but I want to boister this more because you realize that what I'm telling you has a name in scholarship. It's called the Jewish principle of agency. Every major title applied to Jesus, Messiah, son of God, son of man, the word of God, God or Lord, even the divine name language is all understood in this lens. Okay? Not God himself, but God's Messiah, God's son, God's representative in God's name. Behold the word of God. In Deuteronomy chapter 18, God says, "I will raise up a prophet from among their brothers like you." It doesn't say, "I'm going to send another person from within my essence. I will incarnate the second person of the triune God." He says, "I singular will raise up a prophet like you." That means a human being, not someone who's God ontologically or has two natures. God says, "I will put my words in his mouth. He shall speak all that I command him. Whoever will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name. But this is abundantly clear that Jesus is not the same being as the one who's speaking. That's what my opponent is arguing. This is just not what the scriptures reveal. And this of course is reveal fulfilled by Christ. Look at just John. He says that he can do nothing on his own. His teachings, the commandments he gives, they're not on his own authority. Look at the bottom one, 12:49. The father who sent me has given me command what to say and what to speak. He's proclaiming to be the Messiah from Deuteronomy 18. He also says that he comes in the father's name just like Deuteronomy 18 said. This is the same like the angel of the Lord. Okay? So Jesus does not claim to be Yahweh by identity. He says to come in the father's name and that's not his own name. And virtually every other fully divine Christologology text that we didn't get tonight by the way uh can be explained by the Jewish principle of agency. Look at Colossians 1. Oh well, he's the image of the invisible God. Yeah. Here's an image of a basketball. Is the image of the basketball the basketball? No. It represents it, right? Okay. Philippians 2 says Jesus is in the form of God. Here's clay in the form of an apple. Is it literally ontologically the apple? No. Right. It just has the appearance of it. That's what the Greek word form morphe means in Philippians 2. Hebrews 1 says he's the representation of God's nature. There's the flag. Does the flag that represents the USA literally the USA? No. It just represents it. All of this is Jewish agency language. These descriptions distinguish Jesus from God by identity, by nature. They cannot be one being. This is not what these verses would say. Not even the alleged crown jewel of Jesus being God. John 1:1 proves them. It actually demonstrates my point. Notice it doesn't say in the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with the father and Jesus was God. It says in the beginning was the word. Okay? That means the word is not automatically identical to Jesus in verse one. John is drawing a Jewish wisdom motif. All right? Where God's word and wisdom is his selfexpression. It's a mode of God's expression. How do I know this? Because the Greek word for word logos literally refers to an independent personified expression of God's wisdom. Look at that. per Jewish wisdom literature. Okay? So, people can just read that as being Jesus. That's not what it says and you'll misunderstand the whole prologue. Raymond Brown says in the Old Testament, there's a good parallels for every detail of the prologue's description of the word. Gail OD says in Jewish wisdom tradition, both biblical and extra biblical, has emerged the governing view on the providential language of the prologue. And I mean, the reason this sounds strange to many Christians is that they're just unfamiliar with Jewish wisdom literature. There is a gap between popular church teaching and biblical scholarship. This has been known for well over a hundred years. Okay? This is historically viable. This is the likely lens of the apostles and their earliest audience, not the council of Chaledon in 451 to nature's theory. Okay? Jesus is sent by God, empowered by God, exalted by God, not God himself ontologically, not the same being as the father. Now, this alternative view, okay, where Jesus is God by his identity, this is postbiblical, it's late. It cannot be the option that's on the table. Let's just start with the person being distinction, folks. Usia, hypostasis. Yeah, the Bible uses us twice and it doesn't mean substance. It means property. That's how they translate it. It's something you own. Hypostasis is used five times and it doesn't mean person. It's even translated nature. It's closer to substance. All right. As RPC Hansen states and JND Kelly states, two of some of the most famous petristic scholars in the world, hypostasis and were originally synonyms. Okay. Even at the council of Nika, the anathema uses the terms as synonyms. This proves the concepts had not yet reached their later settled meaning. It was not until the end of the 4th century these terms even became fixed that you could plug them into a hypoatic union. Speaking of the nyine council, the word homosius, where'd they get this from? His view that Jesus is the same being depends upon it. This does not come from the Bible, doesn't come from the church fathers. It's well attested through primary sources. It comes from Constantine. That's not some conspiracy theory. That's a bonafide fact based on mainly letter to his church. Okay? So, where did he get it from? I they it's either like the heretic Tertullian or I believe it's actually Lactantius his religious advisor who quotes a pagan hermetic manuscript that invokes the concept of consubstantiality. It uses the word homoius. Christopher Steed wrote the book on it. He pre he cataloged every use of the word homoicius prior to Nya and him with other scholars. I mean it's well proven this comes from pagan hermetic Egyptian theology. Is that how we understand God in the Bible? Is that how we should understand the relationship between Jesus and the father? No. And there's evidence that even before Nika, it was already condemned at the Senate of Antioch for that very reason. I have a video on my channel breaking down the entire history in more detail. Right? The point is that >> the doctrine of the trinity had to develop. Okay, that's the point. They were constantly solving all these disputes that could not be res uh resolved by prior generations. That's like how you even get now the two natures theory, right? They they were just arguing that God is one usia and three hypostasis. But in their view now Jesus is two usas and one hypostasis. And it asserts pointblank contradictions that the properties of both natures are preserved in one person. Outright contradiction folks. The Bible says Jesus was tempted but God cannot be tempted by evil. The word in Greek means moral temptation. And God is untemptable. The Bible says Jesus died and God cannot die. That's what the words mean in the Greek. And he said that my view entails some type of mortal collapse. No, it's just the opposite. The Bible says Jesus had to die to redeem us for salvation. It says he had to be tempted like we are in every way. Okay? If Jesus is God, he can't die or be tempted as we are. That disqualifies him from being the one for our salvation. Okay? So, he cannot be bold. And what you have to do tonight is ask yourself, are we going to look at Jesus and understand him in light of postbiblical pagan Greek philosophy? Or are we going to go back to what the scriptures say, the apostles teach, okay, towards historically viable options like agency, like wisdom motifs. All right. or or excuse me rather yeah like we shouldn't that's my point guys we shouldn't do that come on we don't do that with any other doctrine that they would condemn the gnostics for this all the time all right so we should believe instead that actually Jesus just had one nature he was a human just like you and I he can be predicated divine titles share in divine roles

>> take 30 seconds to close out

>> thank you he can share in the divine roles as God that's how We ought to understand this. That's biblical. That's scriptural. Jesus is not God ontologically. He's God's Messiah, God's son, and our mediator. Thank you.

>> Okay. So, thank you for that, Mike. I'm going to drop you down and then we're going to bring Eli back up for his 7 minute rebuttal. Soon as you start talking, I'll go ahead and give you the floor.

>> Wait one second. I got I have slides for this. They're uh processing right now. Is that okay?

>> Uh, how long will it take? Oh. Oh. Oh, they're coming up now. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Yep. I got

>> Okay. All right. Perfect. So, he didn't really disprove that Jesus is God. Um, he didn't really prove anything really there, but I knew exactly where he was going to be going and what he was going to do. So, we could just refute some of the claims that he had. Hopefully, we could do this within 7 minutes. So, uh, one of the things that he brung up was that singular person pronouns mean one person. That's not true. He's lying to you guys in your face. As a matter of fact, let's not just say things. Let's actually prove them. Uh, he tried to use God logic's line. We just read. So, let's actually let's actually read. So, Jeremiah 31:20, uh, the Lord is speaking and he says, "Is Ephraim, which is talking about a nation, my dear son, is he singular, my darling child? For as often, not children, child. For as often as I speak against him, singular, I do remember him, singular. Therefore, my heart yearns for him. I will surely have mercy on him. That is God speaking about an entire nation, multiple persons, but is using singular person pronouns. I guess to to Mike over here, he's just talking about one person. Jeremiah 50:1 17, Israel's hunted uh driven away by lions. First the king of Assyria devoured him and now at last Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, has gnawed his bones. Singular personal pronouns that are used to speak about multiple persons because they can use singular personal pronouns when that they are one in one sense and multiple persons in another sense. That is no problem. The Bible uses that kind of language all the time. So like I said, showing that God is one or singular personal pronouns does not disprove my position. Mike is failing to do the things that he needs to do. He makes a second claim. Mike claims that Yahweh is the personal name of the father only. He didn't even prove that. He didn't even prove it. He he just said it. Oh, Yahweh is a a personal name. Okay, cool. If that's the case, Mike, let's go with what you're saying. Zechariah 2 10 says, "Sing and rejoice, oh daughter of Zion, for behold, I come. I will dwell in your midst, declares Yahweh." Verse 11. And many nations shall join themselves to Yahweh in that day and shall be my people. Very clearly Yahweh is speaking. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that Yahweh of hosts has sent me to you. If that's just a personal name of the father, I guess the father sending a father now. You got how many fathers you got, Mike? How many fathers? Because this is getting ridiculous when we just disregard the scriptures. Zechariah 7:es 12-13 it reads they have made their hearts diamond hard lest they should hear the law and the words that Yahweh of hosts has sent by his spirit through the former prophets. Therefore a great anger came from Yahweh of hosts. As he Yahweh the near antecedan called and they would not hear so they called and I would not hear says Yahweh of host. So Yahweh is talking about Yahweh. Okay. I I guess Mike got a whole bunch of fathers because Yahweh is only the personal name of the father. No, Yahweh is the name of the one God. This one God exists as three distinct persons. Father, son, and spirit. The father is Yahweh. The son is Yahweh. The holy spirit is Yahweh. That's why these scriptures make sense. Uh oh, Jesus, he makes a claim Jesus had to be delegated authority. Therefore, he can't be Yahweh. He didn't even prove that. He just once again just another claim. Oh, it doesn't sound like what I would expect. So what? Uh John 5:30 says, "I could do nothing of my own. As I hear, I judge and my judgment is just because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me." The son does not and cannot act apart from the father. They are the same God. They are the same divine being. And this is what the son is revealing when he's speaking these things. They do not do things apart from one another. Uh just like the father can't do anything apart from his power and his wisdom. Uh same with John 17 uh means John 7:16. My doctrine is not mine but he is who sent me because Christ does not teach a doctrine that is alien to the father but instead everything that he teaches is in perfect line with the father because they have the same divine mind same will and the human mind and human will cannot deviate from the teachings that are imparted to the div uh from the divinity. It's very easy. Then he ended it off with God being incarnate is a logical contradiction. No it's not. And I figured that he would bring this up. So a contradiction is when you have a statement and then negate that very same statement. So it has to be in the same way in the same sense. He's going to bring up, oh, they're predicated to the same person, which is why I'm giving you this example. Elijah's hand is raised and Elijah's hand is not raised. On the surface, that seems like a contradiction. But when I give you an image of Elijah's hand raised and Elijah's hand not raised, you can see the way in which this makes sense. If you're referring to something in a different sense,

>> this is why this is why it's not a contradiction because Christians always say that Christ has two natures. So when you're speaking about Christ pertaining to a specific nature like pertaining to his humanity or pertaining to his divinity, you can say different things. The same way that you can say different things even contradictory things when you're speaking about different hands in this sense Elijah has his hand raised and Elijah's hand is not raised is true only in so far you're talking about different hands. If you were speaking about the same hand then yes that's a contradiction. So what Mike would need to prove is that Christ is either knowing and not all knowing pertaining to his divine nature. Christ is mutable and immutable pertaining to his divine nature. Right? It has to be in the same sense. You have to negate the very same statement. It has to be the same way in the same sense. This is this is very very simple. I don't want people to get drawn away from the fact that God himself needed to die for you. And he did. And he's stripping that away. He's stripping the gospel away from the beauty of the love that God has shown for you. So, we'll get into the rest through cross. I'll um relinquish the rest of my time. God bless you guys.

>> All right. Thank you for that. I'm going to drop you down and I'm going to bring Mike up. Mike, will you have any slides or no?

>> Nope.

>> All right. Oops. Sorry about that. Your seven starts when you start speaking.

Wow. Okay. Let's start with the fact that this man tried to predict my arguments and got three out of five of them wrong. Let's just start right there. He just This guy tried to predict my opening, got it wrong. You go watch my opening statement. Okay, here's things that I did not say. Okay, the first is that I did not use a singular pronouns argument. Show me in my presentation where I used that argument. This man just did not refute what I actually brought. He where was why didn't he talk about homoius where it comes from paganism, right? Why didn't he talk about the semantic range of the word god? Right? He he did not address what I actually said. He's bringing in red herrings and straw mans. I just because I make them in some other video. Elijah, you're debating me tonight. Right now, you're not addressing what I said. Okay. He said that I said that Jesus had to be predicated authority. He got that one right. That is correct, folks. Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." If Jesus is God, he already has all authority and virtue of nature. You can't be given something you already have. Done. Absolutely done. Okay. He said, well, what was the other one? I tried to take all the notes that I could from this. He said, Mike argued that Yahweh is the personal name of the father only. No, I didn't. That's nowhere in my opening statement. Elijah's attacking ghost tonight. Rookie mistake. Rookie. Okay, so there's a few other things we could talk about, but let's just get to the main thing that he argued. All right, I don't want to waste time. He argued essentially if if I'm like going to straw man his argument or steel man, excuse me. He's basically saying that sin against an like there's sin against an infinite God. Therefore, sin creates an infinite debt. You know, a finite creature cannot pay an infinite debt. Therefore, only God can pay it. You know, so Jesus must be God in order for us to have salvation. I I think that's essentially the the gist of his argument. Now, let's just debunk this really quickly. Ready? Are some sins worse than others? Does the Bible teach that some sins are worse than others? Are there sins that lead to death? Are there sins that don't? Are there unforgivable sins? The fact the answer is yes. If you don't know, okay, the fact that some sin is worse than others proves his claim that sin in general is infinite is wrong. Done. That was easy. Like I he like everything he said was only like half right. You know, scripture says sin deserves death, judgment, and wrath. Totally agree. Right. But it does not say every sin creates an infinite death. Right. Requiring an ontologically infinite payment. Awesome. Yeah. Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death. It doesn't say the wages of sin is an infinite metaphysical debt only satisfiable by God becoming a man. Right? This is quite wild. Right? A finite creature acts with finite knowledge, finite power, finite intention, finite capacity, finite moral agency. I mean, I can just pretty much grant all these things. And sure, God as in like people who sin against God, God is infinite, right? But the sinner is not. So the offense is like grave. It's bad, right? Sin is bad. I told not saying it's not but that does not logically prove an infinite quantitative debt which we've already just proved again cuz not all sin is equal all right and therefore doesn't deserve equal punishment that that's totally wild let me see there is one other point I wrote down that I think really puts this well okay so I I want to say this right I think that we could also say his position is wrong just based on the sacrificial system. So under God's law, he accepted animal sacrifices. Those animals were not divine. Those animals were not infinite. Those animals are not like necessary beings. But yet God's going to say in places like Leviticus 17 that I have given

It to you on the altar to make atonement for your sins. So the blood did not have atoning value because the animal was metaphysically infinite, right? It had atoning value because God appointed it, right? So if God can appoint finite animal blood as a typological atonement under the old covenant, then God can appoint the obedient human messiah as a greater atonement.

All right. Now, quickly with my last two minutes, I just want to read. Let's just read real quick, can we? Let's do it. I love that line, by the way. I I love and respect God logic straight up. Okay, so check this out. If I share this real quick, get this up. So, what does Paul teach? The Bible teaches totally the opposite. He didn't give scriptures that says that Jesus has to be God in order to for us to be forgiven of sins. In fact, it says just the opposite. Let's start here. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more of the grace and free gift of God by one man, Jesus Christ. Okay? For if by one man's trespass death reigned through that one man, much more will receive the abundance of grace of the free gift and reign of life through the one man, Christ Jesus. Notice it's not like one man like mankind. No, it's one man. Look at this. For as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 1 Corinthians 15:21. For as by a man came death, by a man also has come resurrection of the dead.

All right, I could go on. Let's just summarize this with again that he straw manned me is didn't address most of what I brought in my presentation and said that he refuted things I did not claim in this debate. Rookie mistake. and his claims, his main thing, the whole thing about Christ has to be God for forgiveness is just wrong because there's levels to sin. And because we have a standard for non-infinite animals being used for atonement and just like I showed you with the scriptures, they teach it's possible because Christ was a man. He actually had to be. He had he had to be just like Adam is the point. Just like Adam. For where Adam failed, Jesus would succeed. And that's what makes him worthy. Not because he's infinite, but because he was sinless. He achieve what Adam failed. That's that's the key here. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Now, it is time for the moment everybody has been waiting for, the crossexamination. Let me go ahead and swap this over because Eli will be going first. Eli, you have 20 minutes to cross-examine metaphysics. Mike, are you ready? Yes. All right. As soon as you start talking, your 20 will start. If we do get jumbled up at any moment, I will stop the time. Um, until you guys get yourselves together. Um, if there is any clarification, I will pause time. I want to announce that I paused the time. So, if you feel like it's gone a little over, that's because I decided to pause it because I want you guys to clear up what you're doing. So other than that, um, keep it respectful. Try to keep me out of it as much as uh as much as you can. Um, and yeah, let's get it going soon as you start. First question, timer starts.

Hey, Mike, do you uh commonly say that trinitarians use words like usa and hypostasis that is not used the same in scripture? Correct. Yep. Okay. So you believe that if uh doctrine that's very important like the trinitarian doctrine and it's not found in scripture then we shouldn't use those words. So not quite. It's not merely that you're using certain words, right? Words aren't like evil or bad by themsel. It's not merely that it's just Greek philosophy. The problem is that these words, this philosophy drives a specific theology, right? Homo Lucius didn't fall out the sky. It was used in a particular way. So the problem is that not just they adopted words, but they adopted pagan theology in the process.

In a very spec Okay. Um and you made the claim that the trinitarian doctrinal language wasn't really solidified until the 4th century, right? Yes. Okay. Uh do you believe that Jesus is God by predication and the father is God by identity? Yes. Uh is the phrase God by predication found anywhere in scripture? No. Is the that language God by predication or God by identity used anywhere within the first five centuries of Christianity? So no, but that's just a word that's just a that's just a that's just a that's just a word concept fallacy. No, no, I can clarify. Is it is that language is that language found anywhere in the first thousand years of Christian? Listen, listen. Is that language? Hold on, guys. Real quick, hold on real quick. do do allow him to um give his rebuttal to that really quick to your question, Eli. Go ahead.

Okay. So, listen, Elijah, the problem is not merely just the words I told you. It's the theology that it drives. Okay? And so, what you're take what you're talking about, it's not the Bible doesn't specifically say Jesus is God by predication. Those words, that's just a word concept fallacy. If that's to be equivalent, then you would actually have to demonstrate what words in the Bible are equivalent to us hypostasis. I can do that with predication. Can I go like life? Oh, yeah. No, no, yeah. Yeah, I'm just I can I can prove predication without the words predication. Cool. Is that language found anywhere in Christianity for the first thousand years? Not the specific word predication? No.

Okay. Uh, would you would you agree with Jesus when he calls the Pharisees hypocrites for placing a standard on others that they themselves do not keep? Yeah. Mark chapter 7. Dope verse. So you then would have to agree that by your own standard you're a hypocrite for condemning trinitarians for using language that's not necessarily found in scripture, but you are defining theological definitions like God by identity and God by predication that's not used within the first thousand years of Christianity. Right. So that sounded like a statement, not a question. But yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So listen. No. No. Okay. I've I've just explained to you how that wouldn't be analogous because in one case we're we're talking about the specific words, right? That's what you're saying. And in the other that I'm saying is that we can still have the concept Jesus's predicated divinity in the Bible. It you don't have to have the word predication.

Okay. Cool. So that whole point that you have was just was just moot. Is there anything that only God can do? Yeah. Okay. Um is there anything that the father does that Jesus cannot do? Mhm. There's there's things that the father does that Jesus cannot do? Yeah. Correct. Okay. So Jesus was just mistaken in John 5:19 when he says, "Whatever the father does, the son does likewise."

Okay. So do the father and son have a different mode of existence? I was I'm asking you a question. You got Yeah, you got it. Yeah. No, no question. Still is your turn, but that's that's it's more of a clarifier though, right? Can they have Okay. Sorry. All right. Fine. I'll be sorry. Yeah. Answering it away. Yeah. I'll just make into an assertion. So, even in even in trinitarianism, there are things that the father can't do in his hypoasis that the son can't. Right. So, the father's hypoasis has things like a say where that is communicated to the son. The son has a say, bro. Uh yeah, but that's a communicated that's a communicated attribute. They have different modes of existence.

My question is, was Jesus mistaken in John 5:19 when he says, "Whatever the father does, the son does likewise." That's a yes or no. No. Because contextually that's not talking about um like his for example self-existing. Jesus is generated. The father is not. There's just one thing even you agree. So Jesus wasn't mistaken when he says that he could do everything that the father does. He does likewise. No. Listen, you're isolating a passage and taking it out of context.

Perfect. So Jesus can do things that only God can do. So he can do things that only God can do in virtue of authority. Right? So like forgiving sins. Jesus can't forgive sins on basis of his own nature. That must come from God. But that doesn't mean that quote only God in that sense can forgive sins. Now he predicates that to Jesus. Jesus predicates it to the apostles. He also gave them the the authority to forgive sins. Yeah, that's not my question, bro. I'm asking you. Uh Jesus can do things that only God can do. Jesus says whatever the father does, the son does likewise. You said that there's things that only the father can do. Jesus is saying whatever the father does, the son does likewise. And Jesus is not mistaken when he says that. So Jesus can do the things that only God can do. Right? That so I'm following you. What I'm doing is translating trinites. What you mean by only father or only God can do. Yes. Yes. when when you're asking the question only things only God can do that must be understood in terms of authority not in terms of nature that's the point if we're talking about nature well then no but if we're talking about authority then yes does Jesus say in terms of authority I can only do I could do everything that the father does but not in terms of nature yes that is correct in that verse all throughout that this is the book of John correct in that I'm asking in this verse does Jesus say not in terms of authority I mean Not in terms of nature, only by authority. Yes, of course he does.

Okay. So, we could read John 5:19. It says, "Jesus said truth, uh, truly, truly I say to you, the son does nothing of his own, but what he sees the father doing. For whatever the father does, the son does likewise. For the father loves the son and shows him all that he himself is doing." So Jesus says, "Not by nature, only by authority there." Yes or no? No, he's No, he doesn't use those. He doesn't use those exact words, but this entire this entire language is predicative of him. So he gets it from the father.

Okay. Cool. You just said that he did. Perfect. So does the father do anything that requires omnipotence? Does the father do anything that requires omnipotence? I mean I want to say yes. Yeah. Okay. Does the father give his omnipotence to the son? his omnipotence. No. Does the son have omnipotence? He was given all power. Yes. So the son the son is is Jesus a separate being from the father that has omnipotence. Of course. That's why it was had to be given to him. He didn't just already have it. So you believe in two omnipotent beings. So one is omnipotent in virtue of being the Lord at the Lord's right hand. This is Psalm 110. You need to learn this. Okay. So this is that is a right powers motif. That's what that is. Elijah, yes or no? Do you believe or do you believe in two omnipotent beings? Yes or no? I told you yes in the sense of Jesus being the Lord at the Lord's right hand. That doesn't make him omnipotent like the father. He literally gets it from the father.

Is only God omnipotent? No. He also predicates that authority dynamically to the son. So, so you believe two omnipotent beings. Perfect. Would you say that slapping the president deserves a higher punishment than slapping? No. No. Listen, there are things that Jesus can't do as a human that we're going to another question. Yeah. Yeah. You're trying to go to another question. You skipped over the other one too from chapter from chapter 12. Yeah. But you're also not trying to let me expound in full though, right? I clarification. You said yes. I got the clarification. We're moving on. I get that. I get that. You should let me be able to clarify that slapping the president deserves a higher punishment than slapping a random stranger. Yes. Okay. So, the weight of offense rises with the dignity of the person offended. Yeah, I think so. Would you agree that God's uh dignity is infinite? Yeah. Okay. Would you say that a perfectly just judge punishes every crime accordingly? No. A perfectly just judge does not punish every crime accordingly. So, no. Some crimes he pardons, he has mercy, grace. What is justice? Justice is going to be a punishment for some type of, you know, wrongdoing. So, a perfectly just judge doesn't punish every crime accordingly. Yeah. Just like some judges in our court systems can look at other details and give people grace. A just God gives grace as well.

All right. That's that's perfectly fine. I'm asking you in regards to justice. You just defined it as the the punishment of the crime, right? So that means if you are perfectly just, which means that you perfectly punish the crime, dude. You're presupposing that every crime must be punished. I'm telling you that God can still be just. Yeah, Elijah, you constantly are cutting me off, dude. You're constantly cutting me off. I don't I don't know what the problem is. Yes, I am answering you. You have to let me finish.

Hold on one second, guys. Um, let's let Mike um give his response to that last question and then if if you Well, let Mike Yeah. So, let's do this. Uh, time is paused. Eli, ask the question again. Make your last statement that you just made and then we're going to give Mike a little time to uh respond to that. Then I'm going to play the timer and I'm I'm continue the timer and then we're going to get back on track. All right. If justice is the punishment of crimes, would you say a perfectly just judge punishes every crime? No. Some crimes he has mercy on people. That doesn't make him not just. Okay. Not at all. Okay. Stop right there. All right. Timer is about to start. Go.

Okay. So in Matthew chapter 16 27 it reads, "For the son of man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his father and he will repay each person according to what he has done." That the son is the judge, right? Mhm. Okay. And in judgment, he's going to repay each person according to what he's done, right? Yeah. Restitution. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. Would you agree that God is perfectly just? I mean, yes, kid. I wish you could define that more cuz again it seems like you're presupposing that that means every evil thing must be punished but he actually bestows grace on on some. Okay. If there's some if there's some grace that can be bestowed, right? God is still going to punish that accordingly. If it doesn't, you know, mean one thing, he would still punish that thing accordingly. Okay. So then you're still so then you're still you're like you're baking in mercy in there as well. Mercy and grace. That would still be just. Yes. It's Yes. Okay. Well, then yeah, then I'll say yes. Thank you for that. That's a good clarification.

Okay. So, God perfectly punishes every offense against him, right? Sure. As long as that's including the idea that not every single thing he he shows mercy to. Okay. So, in Matthew 25, Jesus says, "Whatever you did not do to the least of these, you did not do to me." So, when I fail to give, am I sinning against God? Well, I think in this verse, uh, it's saying Jesus, right? So, you're presupposing Jesus is God. It would it would be like an offense towards him is what what he said. When you do something against your neighbor, are you also sinning against God? I I think so. Yeah. Yeah. That's what the scriptures say. So, when you fail to render to God what is due to him, right? Is that what sin is? No. Sin is the transgression of law. Yeah, that's right. That's one thing I didn't address in your thing. No, I think that's you made that up. Sin like where are you? Where's the definition that says sin is is that is laziness a sin? It can be. Yeah. Oh, it can be. In laziness, do you have to do anything extra? In laziness, do you have to do anything extra? Can you explain that more? Okay, we we could just skip that. when the when the two uh people the couple sinned against um the Holy Spirit, right? When they withhold the payment that was due, is that a sin? Yeah. Did they do anything extra or did they withhold to God what was due to him? I don't know what you mean did anything extra. What's that mean, Elijah? Did they just withhold what was due to God? Yes or no? I think that they withheld. Yeah, that's they were punished for a sin and that was sin, right? Yeah, I said yes already. Okay. So sin is not always an action. Sometimes it's simply failing to render to God what is due. Yeah. Okay. So you're saying you're saying that like if you don't give God what's owed, that just is sin. Like that is a sin. Yeah. Okay. So you're not saying that sin is equal to just not giving what God is owed. That's sin, right? Yes. Yeah. You need to understand, think of the equal sign. You're not saying sin equals not giving God what is owed. You're saying that that's just a sin. When you take your gaze off of God, is that sin? That's pretty abstract, man. Like theoretically, yeah, sure.

Okay. Cool. All right. So, sin is failing to render to God what he's owed. It get failing to render what God is owed can be a sin. I wouldn't call that sin generally. No, that first John says that sin is a transgression of God's law. Perfect. So if the weight of an offense rises with dignity and God's dignity is infinite and sinning against God produces a offense of infinite weight. Yeah. No, not necessarily. The sin is not infinite. God may be infinite. This is what I brought up in why even animals were used for atonement, but they're not infinite. Right. That So you're saying you're saying okay, you're saying that animals were used to take away sin. So and they're not infinite. So something finite could use be used to take away sin. Yeah. You're you're literally saying that because God is infinite and you sin against God, therefore the sin must be this infinite it deserves an infinite punishment. That's that's not biblical. There's levels to sin. Some sin are not as worse as others. I'm not I'm not negating that. But you're saying that Hebrews was incorrect when it said that for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. It was wrong here. No, I I don't I don't think that is wrong. However, it is it is true that once a year, specifically on the day of atonement, God did allow a sacrifice to cleanse the sins of the nation. That's a fact.

So, you don't think that is wrong? So, the blood of bulls and goats is it is impossible for that to take away sin, right? It in like in virtue of itself, Hebrews can say that, but as I pointed out, God appointed that. For example, at the day of atonement, God God can appoint a finite animal's blood as a typological atonement under the old covenant. That's what it was. That's fine. And does the new covenant How is that fine in your view? Because the new covenant does the new covenant say that all of those things point forward to the greater reality that's in Christ Jesus? Yes, I agree. So those things when it's talked about even in Isaiah the sacrifices that were offered did not actually satisfy the debt that was paid. It all pointed forward to the sacrifice that they needed. Can a finite hold on can a finite being a creature fully satisfy an infinite debt if they if so in terms of Jesus? Yes. Because he's sinless. He's without sin. Five minutes left. So absolutely nothing to do with being infinite. Wait. So that that's a transcendental category that you're employed over this. You're saying that a finite being can fully satisfy an infinite debt because he's Jesus. Yeah. That's what the Bible says in Romans 5 1 Corinthians. Yes. That all that salvation is possible because Christ was a man like Adam. If for your for your statement for no for your statement to be true, Adam would have to be God. That Adamite Christologology is what Paul sets forth. Adam would have to be God, too. Listen, you can laugh at that, but there's not one place that says Jesus must be God for this to happen. But there's a dozen that say he must be a man. How? Okay. So, you're just inferring that based on this weird infinite idea drawn from God's infinite. That doesn't make sin infinite. Okay. So, you're saying that a finite being can satisfy an infinite debt because it's Jesus. That's that's your stance. No, I'm rejecting the idea that it's an infinite debt. Anyway, I'm rejecting that. Elijah, you you've just you've just asserted that. You've just asserted that. No, then you then you misunderstood me. You misunderstood me. No, you said it. I asked you yes or no questions. All right. Psalm here. Um No, no, no, no. Don't move on. Stay right here. You You made a claim. You made a claim. You got You got to support that. I reject the I reject the idea that it has to be infinite because God is infinite. That's a nonsequator. That's not true. Psalm 49:7 says, "No man can ransom another or give God the price of his life." Do you agree with this scripture? Yes. Within the proper context, Elijah, you can't take that and make a univocal statement across the entire Bible like that. Okay. Psalm 49:15 says, "But God will ransom my soul from the power." Do you agree with the scripture? Of course. Okay. Markap 10:45 says that Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many. Is Jesus the one that is paying the ransom in this verse? I yeah, I think so. But that that's metaphorical based on the sacrificial system. Jesus isn't a literal human sacrifice. Jesus didn't literally die. No, he literally died, but he's not a literal human sacrifice. He died on a cross, Elijah, put to death by the Romans. He wasn't sacrificed on the altar in the temple. Nor does God demand human sacrifice. You think that would say that no greater love than this to lay down his life for his friends? Yeah. which which the father doesn't do, right? So, he can't be, you know, the greatest form of love. You're so wait. So, which is Jesus in Psalm 49? Is he is the no man of verse 7 or is he the but God will in verse 15. All right, let me pull that up. Give me both of those. Psalm 49. Psalm 49. Time paused until you pull it up. Psalm 49 verse what? Verse 7. Mhm. I want to know is Jesus the no man and what's the other one and Psalm 49:15 and 15 so 7-15 just Psalm 49 verse 7 and then verse 15 is Jesus the no man in verse 7 or is he the but God will in verse 15 no man can is he the no man in verse heaven. Mhm. Or the but God in 15. Okay. So that's that looks like a trick question actually. So if if one second guys, are we um do you are are you understanding the two verses you have in front of you, Mike? Yeah, I I got them. Yeah. Okay. Cool. Timer starts now. We have two minutes and well, yeah, two minutes and 30 seconds left. All right, go ahead.

Okay. Yeah. So th this is going to be a trick question because under my view Elijah God sending the son is actually God providing that ransom. So Jesus can fulfill this statement not because he's God ontologically which is just a post-biblical concept but because God sent him. Okay this is more Jesus is Jesus just a man. What do you mean by just a man? Does he only have one human nature? Yes. And no divine nature. Well, by divine nature, if you mean divine in a trinitarian sense, then yeah, he just has a human nature. Okay. So, he is the no man in verse 7, right? No. So, then he's the but God will in verse 15. No, I'm saying that God sends the son to be the ransom. This is metaphorical. So he's not God in verse 15 or the no man in verse 7. That's a trick. That's a trick question. I try. So is Jesus ransoming your life with his soul a metaphor? So it's metaphorical in terms of a literal human sacrifice. So Elijah, you must realize that God never demands human sacrifice on his on his altar. You believe God wants human sacrifice, Elijah? Sounds like a question to me. Is Isaiah 53 metaphorical? That that that that was a question. No, listen. It's literal in the sense that it speaks of Jesus is actually going to die. Absolutely. That's that's what Jesus is metaphorically your savior, not really your savior. No. So, wow, that was a beautiful conflation, Elijah. No. No. Yeah. He is he is our sacrifice in a metaphorical sense. That's correct. So, it's really his sinlessness, his death, and just like Hebrews says, his exaltation to the right hand of God, Psalm 110 motif, so that he can be a new high priest. He is a new high priest in the temple of God. That's what Hebrews teaches.

So, what does Jesus's death do for you? Well, the death is what allows him to number one, be resurrected, the first fruits of the resurrection. It's also what qualifies him to be exalted to new high priest. That's what Hebrews literally says. Let me let me let me give you this. Ready? So, wait. So, so Jesus is Wait. Jesus is wait no no no wait. You can't you can't take it somewhere else. Okay. Let me give you the verse. Tell you guys, Mike does not believe that Jesus gives you salvation. It's a metaphorical sacrifice. That's not true at all. Death Jesus's death does more for Jesus than it does for you. Okay. He's just making an assertion. We disagree on the method, not the end result. You're You're literally confusing. You're literally Dude. All right. So, listen. You told me host host, you told me you were going to be fair and you were going to make this fair. He will not stop cutting me off. You're got to call this I get the chance to to bring up how it says in Hebrews. Yeah. Yeah. One second. So, the last part I let that go because we are at the 20 minutes. So, I thought you guys were going to get that together. Um, but it it did started to spiral out of control. So, now here's what we're going to do. We're gonna allow one minute to clear up this last point. We'll let Mike give his response. Elijah, if you want to ask your question again to clarify what's happening because it did get jumbled up. We can finish that out and then we'll switch over to Mike's cross. No, he's going to take it somewhere else. Okay. This is He's got to let me finish and that's where this should end. Well, no, he's going to he's going to clarify what he asked you and then you can respond. He's not going to add nothing new. He just tried to move the goalpost two times. What are you talking about? I could He wouldn't He wouldn't even let me bring up Hebrews. All right, so let's hear it. So So make it quick. Don't I'm I'm paying attention. Don't add anything else. Just clarify. Just say what you asked him towards the end and he's going to respond directly to that. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. But listen, you can ask a question, but you can't just take it somewhere else. All right. So No, no, no. He's not life. if I'm you good. Okay. So, all right. Cool. So, Mike, go ahead. Take this take take this time out. You got I'm going to put 60 seconds on the clock. Uh finish your statement and then we'll switch over to your cross. Okay. Therefore, he had to be made like his brothers in every respect. This is the verse you brought up. So that he might become merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For he himself has suffered when tempted. He is able to help those who are tempted. Okay. So, what this is saying is that Jesus had to suffer and die in order to be exalted to a new high priest, his priesthood after the order of Melchzdc. Okay. So, that is how salvation takes place. We have the same end. We only disagree on the means. That was a conflation. All right. Cool. So, that was Elijah versus Mike's. That's the cross. Okay. Elijah versus Mike. Cross-examination. Now, we're going to swap this out. Put Mike right here. It is Mike's time to crossexamine Elijah. Soon as you start speaking, Mike, the 20 minutes will start.

Awesome. Thank you. So, I'm going to go ahead and share some verses here. Uh, can you let me share the screen? Awesome. Okay. Elijah in John chapter 8 verse12 Jesus says I am the light of the world. Who's the light of the world here? Jesus. Okay. In Matthew 5:14 he says you are the light of the world. A city set on a hill. Who's the light of the world in Matthew 5:14? He's talking to the the believers here. Okay. So just because two persons share a title doesn't make them the same being, right? I mean, so in this verse in Matthew 5:14, he's speaking about like letting their light shine and proclaiming the gospel to all of the ends of the earth. When Jesus is saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of the life," he's making a claim about his like divinity. So these are two completely different like phrases. Oh, I totally agree. But the point is that we have that you did the same thing jumping between books to prove that they're the same being. So Jesus is called the light of the world. We're called the light of the world, but we're not one in being with Jesus. Right. Yeah. All right. Awesome. So two people can share a title. That doesn't make them the same being. Okay. In John 5:43, Jesus says, "I have come in my father's name." What's the father's name? That name means power, authority, teaching, reputation. I agree. But what is that name? Well, when he says that if I when he says I have come in my father's name, he's not talking about name nominally. He's talking about power, authority, reputation. Okay. So then when it says baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. Is that is that a name? Is that a real name or is that also not nominally? It's talking about one power. That's how we know that the three persons have the same nature because name there is talking about one power, authority, reputation. Awesome. Okay. Thank you. So you still agree though that it is the father's name. It's the name that represents that power. The name that represent You're using name there. Like when it says I have come in my father's name, you're using name twice because your name there also means power there. According does does the father's name refer to his power and authority? I mean, sure. There you Okay. So, what is the father's name that refers to power and authority? What is that? Are you asking like the nominal name? That's what Yes. That's what this refers to. The name can represent power and authority. Yahweh. Okay. So, the father's name is Yahweh and that represents his power and authority. So, here it says if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. So, do you agree that the father's name is not his own name? That what do I do that? What? That's what this says. He says, "I've come in my father's name and you don't receive me. If another comes in his own name, him you will receive." Do you agree that Jesus is saying that the father's name is not his own name? That the father's name is not his own name? Yes. Yeah. Because he says if another comes in his own name, analogous with in the father's name. So, what do you think his own name like is referring to there? I'm confused as to what you're trying to pick up. The same thing. His name that represents his power and authority. Okay. So, do so do you agree that Jesus is saying that the father's name which represents his power and authority is not his own name? That he gets these things from the father. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. So, we've established that you can share a title. It doesn't make you the same being. Jesus can bear a name. That doesn't make them the same being. All right, we'll take this off. You didn't prove that at all. Yeah. Yes, I did. You Well, you agree. You at least concede to that as a possibility in your Yes. All right. So, now let's go ahead and bring up make sure. Come on. So many different verses. Okay, you know what? I'm sorry. I'm going to have to share my screen again. Thought I had to find it. It's right here. All right. So, is some sin worse than others, Elijah? Mhm. So, then how can all sin be infinite if some sin is worse than others? So in regards to this we make a distinction between uh infinite in regards to the object of the one who is offended and infinite in regards to the malice of the act itself. So in regards to the object all sins has a sense of infinite because the dignity of the one who is offended is infinite. But in regards to the malice there are different degrees in regards to the sins that are are done. So like the malice of the um blasphemy of the Holy Spirit obviously has a a higher malice in the heart of you know a lie or to steal.

Okay. So can God be just if he's punishing unequal sin equally? What can God be just if he punishes unequal sins equally? I don't think that God does that. Right. So it so answer the question then. Would God be just if he punishes sins which are unequal as though they're equal? Uh I mean there would be equal in regards to the dignity of the one that is offended. Uh but in regards to the gravity of like their sin and their punishment, I don't think that everybody has the same punishment. Thank you very much. So you just totally dunked on yourself that because God is infinite that every sin must be infinite. All right. Awesome. that you heard what I said. Yes, that that's exactly what you just conceive. I told you that things are infinite in regards to the object of the one that is offended. So all I heard you but you said all things would be infinite in regards to that but in regards to the malice of the act those things are different. No, now you're changing it. You said the punishment you said the punishment the punishment would not be equal when the sins are not equal. That proves that it is not infinite because God is infinite alone. Yeah. So, okay, here you can you can respond to that and then I'm going to move on. But yeah, that's what just happened. What scripture states is that in regards to the punishment, everybody who sins, right, is going to have this eternal damnation, right? But the pains of hell can vary depending on the malice of the sins that were committed. But in regards to the sin and the punishment that should be offered for said sin, it's still going to be eternal damnation.

Okay. So Hebrews 4:15 says, "We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize when our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." Question: Can God sin? No. Okay. Could Jesus sin? No. Okay. So then, how can Jesus be tempted as we are in every respect if he literally cannot sin? Because temptation is brought to fulfillment in three stages. By suggestion, delight and consent. So in so far as we are suggested the things that bring us to sin, Jesus is able to be tempted like that in every respect. But Jesus is never able to take delight in sin, nor is he able to consent. Okay. So what I want to do here is pull up. Okay. So it's going to be what's it? Matthew 4 and what's it? James 1, I think verse 16. Matthew 4:1. Hope you pause my time looking for this. Maybe it's 17. Okay. Share my screen again. Okay. Jesus was led into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. If we look up this word in the dictionary, okay, you're gonna find out that this refers to entice to improper behavior, to tempt. But in James 1:17, did I get that wrong? No. Is it is it 15? Oh my gosh, it's Give me a moment. Let me look this up. Um, cannot be tempted by evil. Isn't it right here? 13 and 14. Okay, excuse me. 13 and 14. I was close. I was close. Okay, so in James 1:13, when it says, "For God cannot be tempted by evil," it literally means that you're untemptable, without temptation entirely. Can you show me one lexicon that will say the same thing you just said about the three stages of temptation? Yeah, this one when it's when it's bought up uh like in regards to the lexicon I don't have on on hand. I'm not going to share my screen right now. I'm not going to waste your time like that. But um in regards to temptation, when he's bought into the wilderness to be tempted, that is still external temptation. Like when the Old Testament says that the Israelites tempt God, right? That's not that's just to entice or to suggest something, but that doesn't mean that they're internally moved or anything like that.

Okay. So, listen, I I'm just going to take that as a concession. You don't have a lexicon. You talk about three stages of temptation, but that's just your assertion. I find it very weird and not based in scholarship. All right. So do you do you think you can understand how the trinity is monotheistic without understanding the person being distinction? I thought this was about Jesus's divinity. Yeah. Jesus is divine in order in virtue of having two natures. Okay. That where nature is you see it. This is relevant. Do you think you can understand how the trinity is monotheistic without understanding the person being distinction? Do I think I can understand the trinity being monotheistic without understanding the person being distinction? You don't have to have it fully fleshed out to understand it. Okay. So, you don't need these words. Is that what you're saying? You could just say that there is one God who exists as three distinct persons or one what that exists as three who. I didn't use or being or anything. Right. Yeah. But the Bible doesn't say what you just said though, right? That's something you The Bible never says God is one what and three who's. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus is God by predication either. Yes, it does. Actually, it does. It says that Jesus when you just said that it doesn't say that. It does. No. No. Not those very words. But it does in fact teach that. And that again I have words that mean predication. You don't actually have words. So for example, Usia was never used as theologically at all in the Bible anywhere. All right. So do you agree then that for Jesus to have two natures you need to understand the person being distinction? No. My understanding has nothing to do with Jesus having two natures. Okay. So Jesus can be God but not have two natures. No. My understanding of him having two natures has nothing to do with him actually having two natures. What do what do you mean what do you mean by that Elijah? The question that you asked me is does your understanding depend on or whatever Jesus having two natures. My understanding of that doesn't it doesn't waver or change Jesus actually having two natures. Okay. So I'm asking about the language. The hypoatic union from the council of Chalidon asserts that Jesus is truly man, truly God. The properties of both natures preserved in one person. Okay. So that is using this language. I'm asking you, do you need that in order to understand how Jesus is God? Do I do I don't have to fully understand that in order to know that Jesus is God? No. So then So then you don't need the doctrine of the hypoatic union. No, the doctrine of the hypoatic union is obviously shown within scripture. Somebody understands. Dude, you're not answering. You're not answer. I'm going to have to start pressing you now. I need you to give you a yes or no just like I did. You can qualify but you have to answer it. You would just cut me off after I said yes or no. I won't do that. You can clarify but answer it. Yeah. So someone understanding all of the language in Calinon is not necessary for them to know that about the hypoatic union that's outlined in scripture. Okay. So you don't need the hypoatic union to know how Jesus is God. Then you don't need the hypoatic. I don't know. I don't understand that question. All right. So listen, if you don't understand that, then I think you're you're kind of feigning ignorance here. Of course, you need you appealed to two natures theory that comes from the council of Chaledon, but yet here you are saying you don't really need that. Okay. To know Jesus is God. So that's that. Yeah, that that's an evasion. You're you're welcome to respond to that. I'm going to move on. Oh, well, I mean, in John chapter one, it says that in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. Then it says that the word became flesh. So like somebody could read John chapter one and understand that there is this person who was with the father that took on flesh without ever reading calcedon. So okay. So let's just go ahead and debunk that real quick before we move on. So can I share my screen please? Okay. Right here. In the beginning was the word. Uhhuh. Okay. Let's look this up in the dictionary. Okay, come on. It's down here. We're waiting. It's coming. Here we go. Okay. John 1:1 definition number three. Does this refer to a person or a personified expression, Elijah? Well, Jesus is the e expressed representation and image of God. Okay. Does it refer to a person like you just said or does the word logos refer to a personification? Well, it refers to a person in this verse. Yeah. Okay. So, you just disagree with the best Greek English lexicon used by scholars. Yeah. Because you're calling it a person, brother. It says right there, it is the distinctive teaching of the fourth gospel that this divine word took on human form and a historical person that is Jesus. That's Yeah, that's dude. That's after that's after verse 14. We're in verse one where

It uses the word logos. I know in your in your source, I know I know you're you're not you're not paying attention. You said the wording, you said, I agree with that part right there. It is the distinctive teaching of the fourth gospel that this divine word took on a human form in a historical person that was Jesus.

Okay. And that word is that word a personification or is it a real person, a literal person?

It's a that's what your source says.

Okay. So you're not you're listen, you're not tracking, probably on purpose. That word is a personification. It does become embodied in Christ like an attribute because this is a wisdom motif. Wisdom is associated with God's attributes, his roles, his divine prerogatives. When the word becomes flesh, that's saying a personified expression of God is embodied in Christ. Okay. So yeah, you called it a person. That's literally not the definition. I was just I was just using the words that was on your source that you pulled.

Okay. Yeah. No, listen. Yeah. When it says the divine word become takes on flesh, that divine word is a personified expression. That's what the definition says.

Yes, it is. Yes, it is. You don't you don't even know how to read that. Yeah.

No, you don't. It said the word. It defined word, Elijah. The word is a personified expression. Okay. So, yeah, but you keep calling it a person despite the fact it says it's a

The source that you broke up.

It's a No, it didn't. It said it's a personified expression. Dude, you're hella ignorant right now. Personified expression, not a real person.

We read it.

Okay. So, do you agree that in order for mankind to be redeemed from the curse of the law, Jesus had to die?

I mean, that's the way in which it was fulfilled. Yeah.

Okay. Can God die?

Yeah, if he takes on human nature.

God can die if he takes on human nature. All right, so let's go ahead and share my screen again. You need to buy a lexicon, Elijah. Here we go. Ready? So, I delivered to you as of first importance what I received that Christ died. Okay. The definition of die refers to a cease of functions, whether earthly or transcendent. But when it calls God immortal, okay, the only God is immortal, it means impervious to death.

Okay. So, so, so tell me, how can you be impervious to death if you're able to die by taking on a human nature?

Yeah. So when it's saying then this is once again is talking about Jesus in 1 Timothy 1:17. It's literally talking about Christ. This is talking about his divine nature.

Not answering the question. Answer the question Elijah. How is it that Jesus can be God? And you agree he has to die for salvation, but yet God is impervious to death?

Okay. So how is that possible? By taking on a human nature.

Okay. So in regards to the divine nature, God cannot die. In regards to the human nature, God can separate that soul from that body, which is death. So that's the way in which God could die. Like for example, God is impassible. He can't be touched. He can't be seen as this verse is saying. But in Zechariah 12:10, it says that God is pierced.

Right? How would that be possible?

In Acts 20:28, it says that God purchased the church with his own blood. How would that be possible?

Yeah. Metaphors. They're metaphors. You don't Is Jesus's human flesh God?

Is Jesus's human flesh God?

No, the person is.

Okay. Right. So, it's the flesh that has blood. It's the flesh that was pierced. That's a metaphor. And those are textual variants. Okay. Okay. That's

Okay. So, here we go. I asked you, how is it that when the definition of immortal means you are impervious to death, that Christ can still die in denial the definition? You said well he dies according to his human nature. So I have a question. Do human natures can they die apart from persons?

Can human natures die apart from persons? Um, so I mean, I don't I would say no.

That's the correct answer Elijah. Yes. No. Natures cannot die apart from persons. Okay. So then when you can say Jesus died, the person died

In virtue of the human nature. Yeah.

Okay. But there we go again. If natures can't die, then you agree that Jesus still died? Yes. The person died?

Human nature? Yeah.

Okay. Listen. Do natures die apart from persons?

So the person who has the nature, that soul of that person separates from that body? So it's proper to say that Jesus died.

Okay. Okay. So

Way he dies is in virtue.

All right, I'm going to ask it again. You didn't you didn't answer.

Can do natures die apart from persons?

Do I mean like animals? Not a person. Their nature dies. So if that's your question, then obviously you would have natures that die apart from persons. I'm assume.

Oh my gosh, dude. Okay. Can the nature die apart from a person? Why are you avoiding the question? Do you know what a Do you know what a nature is? Define define nature, Elijah. What's nature?

Principle of action.

Okay. Can a principle of action die apart from a person?

No. The the person is is going to have that rational nature that

All right. Notice how he will not answer the question, right? You just did a second ago, but now you're trying to backtrack. Natures don't die apart from persons. You know it. You know that. Okay. So then Jesus the person died. Yes.

Yeah.

Okay. So is Jesus a divine person or human person or both?

He's a divine person.

Okay. Did the divine person died?

In virtue of the human nature? Yeah.

Okay. So Jesus died and didn't die.

No. So when you're talking

Okay. Okay. Is it is it the person who died a different person than the one who can't die?

No. So when you're

So then So then the person died. All right, Elijah, this is this is fairly basic, man. Come on. All right. It's basic Christian theology and no listen theology.

I'll answer your question. So yes, Jesus died. The divine person died in virtue of his humanity. The body and soul that he created for himself, that soul separated from that body. It belongs to a divine person. So the divine person dies in virtue of the humanity. He does not die in virtue of the divinity. That can never die. That is immortal. That can never be

Okay, gotcha. Now give me this. Just give this to me. Okay. Can a nature the principle? All right. Can it die apart from the person?

This is like the sixth time you asked me that question.

So give me a direct answer, Elijah. Yes or no?

Can the nature die apart from the person?

Sure. No.

No. Okay. So then when you're saying, "Yeah, he dies in virtue of the human nature." That's a nothing burger. You're trying to index the predicate dying to a nature. That's a fallacy of refocation. Natures don't die. Persons die. So you believe that Jesus the same person both died and didn't die. Correct?

I do. No. So the thing that you need to

You need to answer the question. I have 30 seconds. Elijah. So you agree that the same person who died is not a different person than the one who didn't die.

Yeah. Obviously.

Okay. So then that's a contradiction. P and not P. Jesus died and didn't die. How much time do I have?

That was time. I'll give you guys a minute to close out.

That's No, that's good. We'll stop right there.

Can I add live?

No, that's that's it. We just went through it. Well, then I I get a response as well.

Okay.

Yeah, sure. We can do that.

No one is saying I'll put it I'll put it on uh depending on how long it goes, but I'll try to keep it down to a minute.

I just Yeah, I just he just makes a statement at the end, but

Yeah.

No one is saying that Jesus died and did not die um in the same sense. And that would be what was required for a contradiction, which is what I was showing in the rebuttal. So Jesus dies in the sense that he dies is in virtue of his humanity. He does not die in virtue of his divinity. We do not believe that the divine nature got hung on a cross. We do not believe that the divine nature got pierced in his hands and his feet. Now all that happens in virtue of his divinity. The one divine person has both of these natures. So he's trying to say that Jesus died and did not die. Those are in different senses. Therefore, it would be impossible to be a contradiction.

Yeah. Okay. So folks, the moment he acknowledged that it's not a different person who dies than didn't die, he acknowledged the same respect. Okay? So his statement that he can die and not die in virtue of nature again is a fallacy of replication. He's basically creating a phantom subject out of a nature. Natures aren't the predicate or subjects of predicates like dying. So yes, you affirm the same respect in one person.

Okay. So that is it. That is the end of our crossexamination period. Um, now we will go into the closings and then we'll do the Q&A. Okay. So we'll let Eli go first. As soon as you start talking your five minutes we'll start.

Um, glory be to the one triune God, the second person of the Trinity who took on flesh and died for our sins. Uh, I'm appreciative of life for hosting the debate and Mike for you know, for trying. But I think as we're very clearly able to see Jesus is God. Uh, Mike didn't provide any refutation to any of my arguments whatsoever. He asked one question and acted like it was a refutation of, oh, are all sins the same? Uh, in which I replied that we make a distinction in regards to infinite in regards to the one who is offended. Um, that is always going to be a grave offense, an infinitely grave offense because the dignity of the one who is offended in regards to the amount of malice in one's heart. Those are the things that vary, which is why you have sin of varying degrees because the malice in one's heart is different. But the one who is being sinned against is still infinite. That doesn't change um, regardless of your sin. So, uh, when Mike didn't make a response to that in regards to everything that he brought up, even the own lexicon that he brought, our cross-examination, it went against him when it shows that the divine word is an actual person who took on flesh, who is Jesus. It said it right there. Um, and that made him upset. But in regards to, um, he believes that just finite creatures are able. He believes in two omnipotent beings. Let's not forget that he believes in two omnipotent beings. He believes that oh, Trinitarians use language that is outside of the Bible and it's not solidified until the fourth century. And then he admits himself that he uses language that is outside of the Bible and is not used for over a thousand years of Christianity. Mike is literally sitting here telling you to believe in multiple omnipotent beings, multiple gods. And at the same time believing that Jesus Christ's sacrifice is just metaphorical. No, no, he didn't actually really do anything for you guys. He didn't actually save you. It's all a metaphor. God was spitting for real when he was writing this down. Got in the booth and just start jotting stuff. Didn't mean a word that he said. Not literally. When Jesus died according to Mike, that is so that he could become something that he wasn't before. It doesn't do anything for you. As though the scriptures don't say time and time again that Jesus' sacrifice provides propitiation for our sins. Even in a verse that he was bringing up in Hebrews chapter 2, it says that he is made like us so that he could provide propitiation for our sins. The reason as to why Christ is able to pay for our sins is because he is the head of humanity. He is the one who created all of us. We are made in his image after his likeness. So what St. Athanasius says in his book on the incarnation when it had to uphold the word of God when God said if you disobey then surely you will die. And for man to be restored, who else but the word would be able to save us? Who else but the word to recreate the image of God? Who else but the word can offer something that humanity does not have to offer in and of themselves? That is why Psalm 49 says very clearly that no man can offer the price of his life for God because it's too grave of a price. It's too big of a price. Right? But Psalm, Isaiah 53 says that his offering, Jesus's offering, God who became man, born of the virgin, as Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14 says, who is the mighty God, as Isaiah chapter 9:6 says, his soul makes an offering for guilt. Jesus does what no man is able to do. And Mike wants you to believe that Jesus is just a man. He is robbing you of your salvation. So, I'm asking all of you, forget the rhetoric, forget the laughing, forget all of the things. Let's focus on the substance of the debate. The Bible very clearly says that God did something very precious for you. He took on flesh and he showed his omnipotence through dying and rising again. He did something that no man was able to do. He defeated death for you. And if you deny that, you would be participating in the party of the devil. And if you accept it, you will be accepting the grace and the gift of everlasting life because he paid for your sins and you are conforming yourself to Christ. So I'm asking you if you have been if you have been deceived by the Unitarian propaganda to throwing your salvation away, I ask that you please come back to the Lord. Um, dedicate your life to him. Become a Christian because God took on flesh and died for you and rose again that all that are in him will not perish but have everlasting life. God bless you. I appreciate all of you guys. Amen. Amen. And amen.

Thank you. Right on the dot. All right, Mike, it's on you. Five minutes starts when you start talking.

All right. Well, first I also want to thank um host. Thanks for having me on to get to do this debate. Elijah, thank you as well. I'm not going to say you tried to be rude. Uh, but yeah, I appreciate you agreeing to this. Uh, first up, he did blunder the introduction and the rebuttal. We got to bring that up again. He took time to attack arguments I didn't make when he should have been taking that time to actually address the arguments I was making. Right? So, I think that was clearly pointed out. That's a rookie mistake. All right. The second thing I want to point out are all these distinctions that he brought in. Right? So sin is infinite because it's committed against an infinite God. How does he know this? Well, because on the distinctions that he makes on what sin is and how it must be. That is unsubstantiated from scripture. He did not support that. That's based on really the tail wagging the dog. He wants to believe in the trinity. He wants to assert the hypostatic union. So he's coming up a way to make the scriptures say that by forcing a post-biblical distinction which in that sense I'm not sure we could call it pagan. Certainly homoousios was that's something he did not address again. So that was refuted by pointing out that not all sins have the same punishment. All right, which he acknowledged that was a self-dunk. All right, if how can sin be infinite if sin isn't infinite? Right? The punishments for sin aren't infinite. And I I also think he threw the comparison to the sacrificial system. Folks, I understand that like penal substitutionary atonement is a popular view. I I get that. But it's wrong. All right. God never allowed or asked for human sacrifice on his altar. What happened with Abraham was a test. It was a test. He didn't actually sacrifice a human being. That's what pagans do. He's, you know, he's telling you, "I'm so sorry if you're deceived by Unitarianism." He thinks the God of the Hebrew Bible demanded human sacrifice. And you know, like I don't judge Trinitarians or PSA advocates. Like there, it's not like I'm going to not going to sit here and say they're not saved. They don't genuinely love God or want to serve Christ. But I think the reality is he took that and went somewhere left field, which is that well, if this isn't the case, right, if God doesn't accept a human sacrifice, then you just don't have salvation. Folks, that is not what the scripture says. I brought up a dozen passages which said that it was Adamite Christology comparing the man Adam to the man Jesus and that Jesus redeems us as a man. That's verbatim what it says. Since by man came death, by man came resurrection of the dead. Now, that's a work of God. Okay? But that's founded in the Jewish principle of agency. Okay? Which he did not refute, by the way. No. Where was that in his rebuttal? Did he refute that as a valid historically based position? He he painted it briefly like it was a Unitarian thing. But I gave you non-Unitarian scholars, okay? And I think the best example of this is his blunder on the word. He pointed out where it says in the definition that the divine word takes on flesh, but then ignored that the divine word had just been defined as a personification. Okay. Yeah, it does take on flesh. That's a personification based on wisdom tradition. Read Proverbs chapter 8. It's literally titled right like w the wisdom's personification. Wisdom is personified. Okay. So next thing he his point about well, there's two omnipotent beings, guys. He believes that two persons who are not each other are both omnipotent. He believes that's like me saying he believes in two omnipotent persons. That doesn't mean anything. The question is how Jesus said he was given all authority and power in 1 Corinthians 15. He says he gives it back. Did you know that? Check that out. Wonderful passage. Um, uh, the the point about natures, right? Another let's add a distinction. Natures are not the subjects of predicate like dying or being tempted. He tell he like I I really hate when people skew it that what I'm presenting is somehow weird or like off or not based in the scriptures. But he's literally using middle Platonic philosophy distinctions the Bible doesn't make and which are just logically unsound, which he agreed natures aren't the subject of these things. So the person is he agreed verbatim Jesus as one person, the same person died, but yet can't die. That's just a contradiction. That's not even it doesn't even exist in their ethos. All right. God is God is immortal.

So in the end, you know, I really wish there was less of that skewing. I don't think Elijah is like not saved. I don't think he's not a real Christian. I don't think you have to say any of that. Uh, but the point here is that Jesus is not God ontologically. He's God by predication. I think that's what all of these things said and uh, I look forward to get more into our our open talk and Q&A. Thank you.

Okay. All right. So, this is what we're going to do. We're going to get into the Q&A and move me here. All right. So for those of you who have provided uh your questions, please um, I know for for Mike this is an away game. So you know, if there are anybody who has a question for Eli um, you know, the way that I will be able to see it because there's so many people in the chat um will be uh via super chat. And if it is just one-sided, um, we'll we'll we'll limit some of the questions so it just doesn't seem like a dog pile. But we are going to try to get through some of these questions uh because they did spend their hard-earned money. But forgive me if we do not get through them all. So we did set aside uh a time for the Q&A. So um, as a matter of fact, fellas, we didn't. What What How long you guys want to do on the Q&A?

I thought we said like 20, 30, didn't we, Elijah?

No, we didn't set a time. We didn't.

No, but I mean, we could just we could take I mean, a couple questions. I'm not I'm not tripping.

Okay, we'll do uh we'll do we'll do 20. If it gets a little tricky, we might add another 10 minutes on there. We'll put 20 minutes on right here. I'll start the timer. Give me one second. Okay, 20 minutes starts now. I'll start from the bottom up. Question for Mike. Honestly, you Okay, we get a little little aggression in there, but it is a real. So, it's a real question. Question for Mike. Honestly, you are making blasphemous points here. You take scriptures way out of context. Even Jesus says he came to die for us. How not?

Go ahead.

Uh, I'm I'm I'm not entirely sure uh what the point is there, but my basic premise is that the in order for us to obtain salvation, Jesus had to die and be tempted as we are. But as we pointed out that God is untemptable and God is impervious to death. And so this actually rules out Jesus being God ontologically. And I mean, even greater than that, I mean, he relates to us because he's tempted as we are. That's what it says. That's the true beauty here. It says that because he has suffered, he can relate to those who have suffered like him. Right? So that that's my general premise. If Jesus is God ontologically, that undermines his true humanity, right? That that steals his real temptation away from him. He couldn't even be tempted. He can't even die.

All right, Elijah.

If I mean, yeah, Jesus says very clearly that he came to die for us. Like his death is what grants us salvation. As he said, if Jesus is just a a regular human and doesn't have the divine nature, what is his suffering? Why is that so beautiful? Every human suffers. Like that's there's nothing. The the beauty in it is the fact that God took on flesh and he didn't have to undergo this. Death had no hold of him because he is God. A regular human suffering. Oh my god, he's just like one of us. Well, he is because he doesn't have another divine nature, right? Like it doesn't even make any sense.

Do I do Do I get a last statement or or is it just one and one?

Uh, no, we Yeah. Here we're not going to do the um, uh, three responses.

I thought it was a good question by him there. That very simple answer, but I mean to give I don't asked you a question.

No, I didn't.

I'm sorry. I'm over here trying to find a question.

He didn't ask me a question, but he did ask a question.

Yeah, he he did.

Okay. I mean, maybe somebody

He said he said, "How would that be beautiful, right?" Well, it's because he was sinless. He he succeeded where Adam failed.

Yeah. Maybe somebody will bring that up, bro.

Yeah. Yeah. If And also too, if there's anything you want to address slightly in your next uh uh answer for the next question, and that's fine. We just don't want to get in the habit of uh

I got you.

You know, too much back and forth.

Okay. So, all right, guys. So, some of you guys I I see some of the super chats were early and they were just responses to what was going on. Uh, now is the time to get in your super chats uh uh for your questions. Okay, so we do have one here. Question for Mike. Uh says, "Why use Kyrios in 1 Corinthians 8:6 instead of Christos if he isn't referencing the shama dune's view? Why choose the title that identifies Jesus as Lord within Israel's monotheistic creed?"

That's a great question. So, he is referencing the Shama. That's one thing that Elijah tried to debunk even though it wasn't an argument I didn't make. That was hilarious. Yeah. So, it does talk to about the Shama, but it also refers to Psalm 10:1 where the Lord is exalted to the Lord's right hand. That's what 1 Corinthians 8:6 says. That was actually in my presentation. That is that's a right-hand motif. That's it's the most quoted New Testament or Old Testament passage in the New. The one Lord is the Lord at the Lord's right hand. That's why not Christos, right? It's referring to Psalm 110. That's the evidence he's the Messiah.

Okay, Elijah.

Yeah, I don't think that that answers his question. I I think that the reason he doesn't use Christos is because he's showing that Jesus Christ is God. Even in Psalm 110 when he says, "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." Uh, the Lord of the king is God. Um, and Mike goes back and forth as to whether or not he believes in the pre-existence of Jesus. Um, but either way, it would be David saying that his Lord, which and the Lord of the King of Israel is obviously God, which is

And the king is not and the king is not. The Lord that sits next to the Lord's right hand is not.

I didn't I didn't know that this was open discussion. My fault. Um, while I look while I look while I while I look for the next while I look for the next chat, feel free to discuss because like we don't really have any a lot of people are just poking fun at Mike if I'm being on.

So, so, so, so yeah, very very interesting very way. The fruits of the people in chat were worth something to think about. But

I think a lot of people don't like when people like blaspheme God. I think people take offense. What was blaspheming God?

When you're removing the work in which God has done to save you and then crediting it to just

What work have I removed? What work? What work is that?

The salv like the incarnation itself. One of the greatest mysteries of the faith.

You don't think I believe that Jesus came and fulfilled all the things that were prophesied of the Messiah to do.

The incarnation is referring to God taking on flesh.

Yeah. That's that's not blasphemous. That that's not blasphemous. You you haven't even tracked yet that the word that becomes flesh is a personification. You don't even track that yet. You you you got showed a dictionary that schooled you on the spot. You want to sit here and

Yeah. You want to accuse people of blasphemy when you don't even understand the historical basis for the word.

Ask me what you believe. It's

It's just rude.

Got it.

That's just rude.

All right. I found the next one. I found the next one.

Question for Mike. Who is speaking in Isaiah 55:22 by name, please? Go ahead and pull that up. Man, I asked y'all if y'all wanted to open dialogue, man. That would have been cool, too.

Yeah, I'm I'm down. But dudes got to tell you that you're blaspheming because you just believe that Jesus was a man who died and was tempted like we are. They don't even believe that he can be tempted and yet he didn't die either as the divine person. Yeah, I'm being blasphemous. That's like in my in my like sincere opinion that that type of

I think that type of angle is based on malice. Yeah, I'm bringing it up right now.

Isaiah Isaiah 55:22.

Yeah, I know. Say 22. Yeah, I was about to say like there is no Isaiah 55:22.

Yeah, it did. It didn't it didn't come read kind of read right to me either.

Does he does he mean does he mean 4522 maybe turn to me and be saved all ends of the earth?

I don't know.

Oh,

Okay. Well, if anybody sees Anver Smith clarifying exactly what he or she wanted, feel free to uh try to help help the brother get his uh super chat right. Okay. Okay. Looks like this might be a good one. Question for uh question by Mike's Logic. James 11:13-14 is wrong because Numbers 14:22 says, "The Israelites tempted Yahweh." How does he explain this?

So, I would have to pull this passage up. So, Numbers 14:22, "None of the men have seen the glory. My signs I did in Egypt, in the wilderness, yet they have put me to the test." Okay, I see it says test. Let me see. Let's look this up. To venture, to put someone to test. Men tempt God. Numbers 14:22. God tempts men.

Okay. So, the definition of this word in Hebrew is to put someone to the test. And Numbers 14:22 follows on that. So, so by tempt it means to test. Yeah. You you shouldn't test God. That's not the same as tempting God with sin, right? Like James 1, what's it? Verses 13-4, right? Where it says that um God cannot be tempted by evil. Like test trying to test God, that's not equivalent to tempting him with evil. Okay. So, he's he's coming up with with explanations on the fly. Um, so obviously you're 100% correct. Um, Elo TJ, um, under Mike's logic, these things would obviously be contradictory, but it's not contradictory because when you're talking about temptation, um, it's referring to the internal movement uh towards sin in regards to Yahweh. And that's what the church fathers say. The interpretation that I gave was given by St. Gregory, the great uh, great church theologian. So when you kind of divorce yourself from Christian history, you just start, you know, you just start saying stuff.

Oh my gosh, dude. You have like a hundred distinctions that don't come from the Bible. Bro,

Mike, we got to

No, he can make comments, too. I don't care. I'm not going to sit here all static. Let's talk. Let's talk about these things.

No. Well, you guys Well, that's why I said if you guys wanted an open dialogue, we didn't agree on that. So, right now, we got to just do Q&A. It's just

All right. All right. All right. I thought I thought there was in there. I I could be mistaken, but

It's okay.

I mean, I'm not opposed to it. If y'all want one, if y'all want to go.

So, he just said So, I get to

See like y'all want to It seems like y'all want to go at it. If it's either you do or you don't, but if if we if not, if we can't agree on that, we got to get we got to stick to the Q&A.

Let's get to I mean, like these are questions for me and then he just gets the last word. I don't think that's healthy. He said, "I'm making up descriptions on the fly. I looked it up in the hallet, the Hebrew Aramaic dictionary, and it means to put someone to the test."

No, but Mike, you've given your response to it, though. That's fine. I mean, like I said, it that's just how Q&A's go. It would have happened for him as well, too. We don't have any super chats for Elijah. So, that's why I was saying if we had people from your end, let's say you went live and you were pulling questions from your end, I would do the same thing.

All right, all right. If that's what you want, then I I won't I'll stop making comments. I will respect it. I think it's lame. I What the heck? Why Why make us just sit here static? Let's talk.

That's what the Q&A is, though. Uh

Dude, I've been in debates where you do get back and forth. I was just was in one of them for truth does that. Yeah. So, I mean I mean that's you said that's how debates go. That's how maybe on this channel, right?

Yeah, some of them some of them have a a back and forth. Some of them have a you say something, he responds. But respectfully, you're not going to get the word on every last super chat because all of the super chats are questions for you.

I got you.

You're going to get the last word every time. That's why I'm not doing it like that.

Okay.

It's it's one-sided.

I get that.

Fair. You see what I'm saying?

I do. I follow your point.

Yeah. Okay. So, it says, "If all the Father has is proper to him, and Christ says all that the Father has are mine, why is it not proper to say Christ has the Father's?" I'm guessing he says what? Divinity.

Like divinity. Yeah. So if by divine you mean the post-biblical concept which had to develop through the writings of many Greek philosophers they call the church fathers. He made the comment that I'm detached from it. No, I'm actually not. I probably have read more than he has. Uh, that's not what the scripture talks about in terms of divine. Uh, and if that's true, then all of us are fully divine because the scripture teaches that we too share in the divine nature. The answer is that uh, those don't mean the same thing in the Bible. So, there is a way where you can say that Christ has a divinity that the father has. And this is also the same spirit which is to live in all of us that we should uh, be partakers of the divine nature, grow in righteousness and truth conviction of sin. Right? So, it does it does depend on what you you mean by divine.

Does the f Okay. Well, I mean, it seems like his question is saying that the father has a divine nature proper to him and Jesus has everything that the father has. So whatever sense the father has a divine nature, it would seem as though Jesus would have to have the divine nature in that sense.

Okay, cool. We actually have one for Eli. Question for Eli. Was Jesus the person tempted in Numbers 21:5-9 according to 1 Corinthians 10:7-9?

Yeah, I mean this this is in 1 Corinthians 10:7-9. It actually gives the um evidence that Jesus Christ actually is the God of the Old Testament because the one that was tempted in in Numbers 21 was God. Right? So you go to 1 Corinthians 7-9. and says, 'Do not be idolatrous as some of them were as it were written. The people sat down and eat and drink and rose up at play. We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did and 23,000 fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test in the ESV. Some say the Lord uh Christ to the test as some of them did and they were destroyed by serpents. And the text that is being spoken about is what you're saying in Numbers 21 specifically in verse 6. It says the Lord, you know, sent the fiery serpents among the people, but they were putting the Lord to the test. Um, so yeah, they would be talking about Christ.

All right, Mike.

Yeah, I agree that it's that it's talking about Christ. That's this is typological. And this is also the same uh parallel that they draw for um like the the serpents like everybody who would look on the staff would be healed, right? So it's the same thing with Christ, right? We look on Christ for our salvation. We look to him as a justifier, the finisher of our faith. So I I agree with a lot that he just said.

All right, we have another one for Eli. So Eli, is the distinction between greater and lesser sins detrimental?

Detrimental.

Oh, detrimental to your argument. Since Jesus atones for all sins, even the ones that incur an infinite internal punishment?

Yeah, it it's not detrimental to my argument at all. Uh, the distinction between greater and lesser sin doesn't change anything about the argument whatsoever. It's still the gravity of the offense is still going to be infinite and therefore require satisfaction because God is just. Um, and this satisfaction cannot be given by any creature. Therefore, if there is any satisfaction and we have salvation through that satisfaction, then uh, it would have to be God becoming man and offering that on behalf of us.

Mike.

Yeah. So I I mean, I think clearly it is detrimental because he's asserting that there that sin uh, you have this infinite debt because it's a sin against an infinite God. Right? The scripture just never says that, right? There there's nothing that like teaches that. He drew that as an inference, right? So again, even in the cross exam, I think he conceded that you would not punish the same sin or different levels of sin equally. And so that proves that there are sin which are not deserving of infinite punishment. Um, and I I think just like overall he's depending upon like this infinite metaphysical debt theory thing that he's come up with. That's just not biblical. I think that's the tail wagging the dog. He does that based on other other reasons to make Jesus God. Really?

Question for Mike. Is the logos the only begotten in John 1:14?

So yes, but as we've defined the meaning of the word logos, right, logos refers to the personification, right, of God's expression. It's a mode of God's expression. That's the meaning of the word. Elijah can laugh at it, you know, make faces, but he did not present any other lexicon showing anything different. He actually tried to skew the one that was on screen, right? The word is a personification. And there's also some question too, I think, about um, how some of this is translated. You also have other passages like the only begotten God, right? Textual variant. So that it's I think a longer question to get into. That might not be what you're asking though.

Elijah.

Hey man, Mike, I'm glad that Mike is believing that Jesus is God, man. Shout out to Shout out to you. I'm glad that we could

Word.

You to to come over to Trinitarianism a little bit, man. God bless. Jesus is the log ghost there is the only begotten. Jesus is called the only begotten and you have to believe in the only begotten. Uh, and anyone who doesn't will not see everlasting life. So shout out shout out to that. That's a great question, man.

All right. So this is for Elijah. How do Trinitarians explain 1 Corinthians 15:20-28?

Um, I think I know what you're talking about. Let me see. Uh, but in uh, but in fact eight verses. Okay. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by man came death, by a man has also come the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall be made alive. But each in his own order, Christ the first fruits. Then at his coming, those who belong to Christ, then comes to the end when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule, every authority, every power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For God has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when it says all things are put in subjection, it is plain that he is expected who put all things under subjected him uh under subjection in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjected uh subjection under him that God may be all in all. So, um, in Christian theology uh, cuz not just I mean, you have to if you're a Trinitarian, you're a Christian, but um, in Christian theology obviously Christ takes on a second nature. Jeremiah 32:27 says that Yahweh is the God of all flesh and Psalm 22:10 says that from my mother's womb you have been my God and talking about the Messiah. So in regards to Christ having a God in regards to this um, it's in reference to him taking on humanity and when he takes on humanity he uses this um obviously to show his power and things like that and then in regards to the subjection of everything to the father, all that is created, even the human nature of Christ um, is presented um to the father very obviously. So everything that Jesus has, even the human nature, um, is presented to the father and under subjection. But in regards to Jesus's divine nature, there's no subjection there. Yeah.

So did you hear all of those post-biblical middle Platonic philosophical concepts he just inserted into this passage? Can you let me share my screen, please? I have the verse up here. This says absolutely nothing about two natures theory. This says absolutely nothing about homoousios. Unfortunately, with respect, Elijah is ignorant of again two of the right hand motif. Look at this. For he must reign until he has put all things under subjection, the enemies under his feet. What's that referring to? Psalm 110 verse1. Okay. Where the Lord is exalted to the Lord's right hand. So this is proof of the authority Jesus has by predication, not by ontology. And this is demonstrated uh, I think perfectly by this last statement. I this is really all that you needed. You gave the whole passage. That's good. This is it though, right? So God gives him all things under his subjection. But when it says all things, it's plain that he meaning the father is accepted who put all things under him. So clearly Jesus is ontologically subordinate to the father. If Jesus was the same being as the father, and notice it doesn't say that. It says God, right? It's not calling Jesus God. It's calling the father God. Then you would expect that. I mean, why can't the father be put under the subjection of the son? Why not? Aren't they equal in essence? Aren't they equal in being? This text makes no sense under his paradigm but is perfectly explained under wisdom tradition under the right hand motif under the Jewish principle of agency.

All right, question for Mike and Eli. Besides the unforgivable sin, is there sin that is more or less uh impervious to God's forgiveness in comparison to another? This is in regard to the question of whether all sin is the same.

You want me to answer first?

I can go first. You can have the last word if you want.

Uh, so it's it's my understanding that Jesus said that you know all sin will be forgiven of of man, right? Except sin like blaspheming the Holy Spirit. So in terms of like a mortal sin like that, I would say no. I'm not aware of like any other quote sin that is on that level. Uh, however, there are different levels of sin within that own like that one category, right? So, you know, someone who, you know, tells a lie, that's a lesser sin than someone who, you know, murders someone. Uh, but I think the point at least I was trying to make is that just that comparison alone between an unforgivable sin and ones that are forgiven, that's all you need to prove that there are levels to this and therefore refuting that the sin must be infinite in regards to the one whom is sinned against, right, the father. Um, besides the unforgivable sin, is there a sin that is more or less impervious to God's forgiveness in comparison to another? Um, more or less impervious? I would say uh, no. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is in regards to you know, going against the divinity and the attributing certain works of the Holy Spirit to either creation or to demons. That's in regards to that context. But God is able and desires to forgive all in regards to whether all sin is the same. That's not the stance. But it doesn't matter in regards to the argument. Uh, the stance is that the one who is being sinned against is of infinite dignity. So the weight of that sin is going to be of you know, the

Okay. So, this is for Elijah. How do Trinitarians explain 1 Corinthians 15:20-28?

Um, I think I know what you're talking about. Let me see. Uh, but in uh, but in fact eight verses. Okay. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by man came death, by a man has also come the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall be made alive. But each in his own order, Christ the first fruits. Then at his coming, those who belong to Christ, then comes to the end when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule, every authority, every power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For God has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when it says all things are put in subjection, it is plain that he is expected who put all things under subjected him uh under subjection in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjected uh subjection under him that God may be all in all. So, um, in Christian theology uh, cuz not just I mean, you have to if you're a Trinitarian, you're a Christian, but um, in Christian theology obviously Christ takes on a second nature. Jeremiah 32:27 says that Yahweh is the God of all flesh and Psalm 22:10 says that from my mother's womb you have been my God and talking about the Messiah. So in regards to Christ having a God in regards to this um, it's in reference to him taking on humanity and when he takes on humanity he uses this um obviously to show his power and things like that and then in regards to the subjection of everything to the father, all that is created, even the human nature of Christ um, is presented um to the father very obviously. So everything that Jesus has, even the human nature, um, is presented to the father and under subjection. But in regards to Jesus's divine nature, there's no subjection there. Yeah.

So did you hear all of those post-biblical middle Platonic philosophical concepts he just inserted into this passage? Can you let me share my screen, please? I have the verse up here. This says absolutely nothing about two natures theory. This says absolutely nothing about homoousios. Unfortunately, with respect, Elijah is ignorant of again two of the right hand motif. Look at this. For he must reign until he has put all things under subjection, the enemies under his feet. What's that referring to? Psalm 110 verse1. Okay. Where the Lord is exalted to the Lord's right hand. So this is proof of the authority Jesus has by predication, not by ontology. And this is demonstrated uh, I think perfectly by this last statement. I this is really all that you needed. You gave the whole passage. That's good. This is it though, right? So God gives him all things under his subjection. But when it says all things, it's plain that he meaning the father is accepted who put all things under him. So clearly Jesus is ontologically subordinate to the father. If Jesus was the same being as the father, and notice it doesn't say that. It says God, right? It's not calling Jesus God. It's calling the father God. Then you would expect that. I mean, why can't the father be put under the subjection of the son? Why not? Aren't they equal in essence? Aren't they equal in being? This text makes no sense under his paradigm but is perfectly explained under wisdom tradition under the right hand motif under the Jewish principle of agency.

All right, question for Mike and Eli. Besides the unforgivable sin, is there sin that is more or less uh impervious to God's forgiveness in comparison to another? This is in regard to the question of whether all sin is the same.

You want me to answer first?

I can go first. You can have the last word if you want.

Uh, so it's it's my understanding that Jesus said that you know all sin will be forgiven of of man, right? Except sin like blaspheming the Holy Spirit. So in terms of like a mortal sin like that, I would say no. I'm not aware of like any other quote sin that is on that level. Uh, however, there are different levels of sin within that own like that one category, right? So, you know, someone who, you know, tells a lie, that's a lesser sin than someone who, you know, murders someone. Uh, but I think the point at least I was trying to make is that just that comparison alone between an unforgivable sin and ones that are forgiven, that's all you need to prove that there are levels to this and therefore refuting that the sin must be infinite in regards to the one whom is sinned against, right, the father. Um, besides the unforgivable sin, is there a sin that is more or less impervious to God's forgiveness in comparison to another? Um, more or less impervious? I would say uh, no. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is in regards to you know, going against the divinity and the attributing certain works of the Holy Spirit to either creation or to demons. That's in regards to that context. But God is able and desires to forgive all in regards to whether all sin is the same. That's not the stance. But it doesn't matter in regards to the argument. Uh, the stance is that the one who is being sinned against is of infinite dignity. So the weight of that sin is going to be of you know, the

Okay. So, this is for Elijah. How do Trinitarians explain 1 Corinthians 15:20-28?

Um, I think I know what you're talking about. Let me see. Uh, but in uh, but in fact eight verses. Okay. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by man came death, by a man has also come the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall be made alive. But each in his own order, Christ the first fruits. Then at his coming, those who belong to Christ, then comes to the end when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule, every authority, every power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For God has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when it says all things are put in subjection, it is plain that he is expected who put all things under subjected him uh under subjection in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjected uh subjection under him that God may be all in all. So, um, in Christian theology uh, cuz not just I mean, you have to if you're a Trinitarian, you're a Christian, but um, in Christian theology obviously Christ takes on a second nature. Jeremiah 32:27 says that Yahweh is the God of all flesh and Psalm 22:10 says that from my mother's womb you have been my God and talking about the Messiah. So in regards to Christ having a God in regards to this um, it's in reference to him taking on humanity and when he takes on humanity he uses this um obviously to show his power and things like that and then in regards to the subjection of everything to the father, all that is created, even the human nature of Christ um, is presented um to the father very obviously. So everything that Jesus has, even the human nature, um, is presented to the father and under subjection. But in regards to Jesus's divine nature, there's no subjection there. Yeah.

So did you hear all of those post-biblical middle Platonic philosophical concepts he just inserted into this passage? Can you let me share my screen, please? I have the verse up here. This says absolutely nothing about two natures theory. This says absolutely nothing about homoousios. Unfortunately, with respect, Elijah is ignorant of again two of the right hand motif. Look at this. For he must reign until he has put all things under subjection, the enemies under his feet. What's that referring to? Psalm 110 verse1. Okay. Where the Lord is exalted to the Lord's right hand. So this is proof of the authority Jesus has by predication, not by ontology. And this is demonstrated uh, I think perfectly by this last statement. I this is really all that you needed. You gave the whole passage. That's good. This is it though, right? So God gives him all things under his subjection. But when it says all things, it's plain that he meaning the father is accepted who put all things under him. So clearly Jesus is ontologically subordinate to the father. If Jesus was the same being as the father, and notice it doesn't say that. It says God, right? It's not calling Jesus God. It's calling the father God. Then you would expect that. I mean, why can't the father be put under the subjection of the son? Why not? Aren't they equal in essence? Aren't they equal in being? This text makes no sense under his paradigm but is perfectly explained under wisdom tradition under the right hand motif under the Jewish principle of agency.

All right, question for Mike and Eli. Besides the unforgivable sin, is there sin that is more or less uh impervious to God's forgiveness in comparison to another? This is in regard to the question of whether all sin is the same.

You want me to answer first?

I can go first. You can have the last word if you want.

Uh, so it's it's my understanding that Jesus said that you know all sin will be forgiven of of man, right? Except sin like blaspheming the Holy Spirit. So in terms of like a mortal sin like that, I would say no. I'm not aware of like any other quote sin that is on that level. Uh, however, there are different levels of sin within that own like that one category, right? So, you know, someone who, you know, tells a lie, that's a lesser sin than someone who, you know, murders someone. Uh, but I think the point at least I was trying to make is that just that comparison alone between an unforgivable sin and ones that are forgiven, that's all you need to prove that there are levels to this and therefore refuting that the sin must be infinite in regards to the one whom is sinned against, right, the father. Um, besides the unforgivable sin, is there a sin that is more or less impervious to God's forgiveness in comparison to another? Um, more or less impervious? I would say uh, no. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is in regards to you know, going against the divinity and the attributing certain works of the Holy Spirit to either creation or to demons. That's in regards to that context. But God is able and desires to forgive all in regards to whether all sin is the same. That's not the stance. But it doesn't matter in regards to the argument. Uh, the stance is that the one who is being sinned against is of infinite dignity. So the weight of that sin is going to be of you know, the

The gravity of that is going to be infinite. That's it. It doesn't mean that the malice you had in your heart is also, you know, infinite.

All right. Question for Mike. Can you explain the incarnation, please?

Yeah. So the word logos means the ex, the personified expression of God. Okay. And it says per wisdom literature and a few other things like Pho. So when it says that the word becomes flesh, like the incarnation of wisdom, you could, you could say that that is referring to wisdom tradition of all the different divine roles, the prerogatives that God has being embodied in Christ. This is also what Jesus means when he talks about being one with the Father, right? He, he was sinless. He was per, perfectly righteous like the Father is. So you need to know wisdom tradition to understand the prologue of John, right? You don't go to postbiblical things hundreds of years later like the Council of Nica, like, you know, late church fathers like the Council of Chalcedon to understand John 1. You go to texts which exist within their time period, second temple period Judaism, intertestamental Jewish literature. Okay, that's wisdom. So that's a wisdom tradition of God's, his personified expression, his righteousness, all those roles and attributes being embodied in Christ.

Um, so I mean, I guess I can answer the question. Uh, the incarnation is that God promises in the Old Testament that he's going to be the one to save you. It's going to be from the seed of the woman. And he gives you a sign that the virgin is going to conceive and give birth to a son. And this son will be known as God being with us. The son will be known as Mighty God. Jeremiah says that Mighty God is only Yahweh. Jeremiah also says in chapter 23, verse 5 and 6, that the Messiah, the branch of David, which means that he's of the offspring of David, will be known as Yahweh. His name is Yahweh. Um, and then this person, this divine person, this son that is given, he takes on flesh as John chapter 1 so clearly states that in the beginning was the word. This word created everything. Nothing came into existence without the word. And then his word took on flesh and dwelt among us. And we have seen his glory, glories of the only son from the Father, full of grace and truth. Um, and this son has made the Father known. Jesus proclaims to be that son. Now, through the incarnation, everything that God touches, he restores. So when he touches your nature, uh, your mind, your soul, he truly took all of that on to restore it. He lives the life that obviously you were never able to live and dies to death to pay the debt that you could never pay. And then in showing his omnipotence, because death could not hold him, as the scriptures state, he rises from the dead with all power in his hands so that all that are in him will participate in his life and not, uh, undergo death. So that's the incarnation. Um, that's the, you know, the glory of God.

Okay. So, we have, we got a super chat here. I, hey, I ain't going, if if y'all want to bite on it, I ain't going to stop you. It just, hey, I'm just throwing that out there. I kind of, I like how that, I like how that read, man. You know, he kind of, he kind of blaming me for it. I, hey, it ain't my fault. But, uh, it's all good. Y'all ain't got to say nothing. Y'all ain't got to say.

For sure. For sure.

We got a question for Mike. You said Christ is omnipotent in this debate. How is it consistent to argue against the Trinity when you have two different gods?

Okay, so that's a non-sequitur. Just because two beings could have omnipotence doesn't mean that there would be two gods, right? Two persons could have omnipotence. And I, there he goes making making that face again. But guys, in the Bible, the Father's monarchy is dynamic. He is always chosen to work through agents. Whether that's the prophets, whether that's the priesthood, whether that's angels, or it's the Messiah. And as I pointed out, that's actually only consistent with my view because Jesus said it was given to him. He says all authority in heaven and on earth was given to me. If Jesus is God, he already possesses that on that all-powerfulness and virtue of nature. How can he be given something that he already has? And you know, there's another comment I want to make in regards to something that Elijah had said about, you know, God having a god. God is the God of all flesh. Folks, he doesn't actually believe that Jesus's flesh is God. That he doesn't think that. Okay? So his flesh can't be the God that has a god and the God of all flesh. Okay? So again, his omnipotence is given to him. It's fulfilled as a right-hand motif. He's the Lord at the Lord's right hand. And as we just saw in 1 Corinthians 15, he literally gives it back.

Um, yeah, bro. He got two gods. Like, I don't really, I don't got much to say. Like, God, uh, God alone obviously would be omnipotent. Uh, which is why like what's impossible with man is possible with God. It's because God is the one who's able to bring these things to fruition. You need omnipotence to do some of the things. And he also said that Jesus is omnipotent, but there's things that Jesus can't do. It doesn't make any sense. He's literally contradicted himself. Um, but yeah, man. Shout out to Mike.

Okay. Uh, from nobody. Does metaphysics Mike realize subordinate divine beings is pagan rooted? As he ironically said about homoiousios. I don't even know. I don't even know what that is when y'all be saying it. But anyway.

Of the same.

Okay. Which is a genetic fallacy as well, by the way.

Okay. So, are angels divine beings who are subordinate to the Father? If the answer is yes, then nobody just baked himself. Nice try, Dom. Okay. Yeah, there are subordinate divine beings. Okay, that's not a pagan thing rooted in paganism. That's just weird. Also, he doesn't understand the argument because I didn't say that it's wrong just because homoiousios came from Constantine. It's not my argument. My argument is that we know it's wrong because where he got it from includes pagan theology, right? It's not just the philosophy. It's not just the word. You're actually adopting pagan theology. And the early church knew this when they condemned the use of homoiousios at the Synod of Antioch when Paul of Samosata was condemned. That was all in my intro. Maybe you didn't see that though, Dom. Hope all is well with you, man.

Um, this is just another equivocation on the word divine in this answer by Mike. He did the same with Elohim. Elohim does refer to multiple different beings. Um, but in reference to God, obviously Elohim can be used because it talks about spirit beings. You could read Michael Heiser's work on that as well. But in regards to what Dom is asking of subordinate divine beings when he's using the word divine there, it's going to be in the same sense in which the Father is divine, which is going to be in reference to the divine nature, which obviously only God is divine in that sense, not just talking about spiritual beings. Um, so he's just equivocating all over the place. Um, and yeah, he's he's just trying to defend paganism right now for some reason. Uh, and yeah, but I, I do agree with, uh, the genetic fallacy part as well. Like just because, you know, an idea could come from somewhere, it doesn't mean that it's automatically false. Um, so when we're seeing what the scripture lays down and then we need to articulate this in, you know, in philosophical terms, we could use the language that is, you know, is there for us and that doesn't make it false. All right, Elijah, there's a question for you. Uh, maybe you understand what he's saying, Mike. So, if it's not clear, go ahead and clarify. Uh, doesn't the Trinitarian doctrine require a second doctrine to make sense? True man, true God, dot dot dot, a fourth person.

No. Um, the Trinitarian doctrine is just that there is one God that exists as three distinct persons. The Trinity is true before Jesus Christ incarnates and the incarnation does not create a fourth person. There is one person that has two natures. That person, the second person of the Trinity, but the Trinity is, is still true, still God before Jesus Christ incarnates. So, uh, it doesn't require a second doctrine to make sense.

Yeah. So that was such a weird answer to me, um, by Elijah there, bec, I mean, maybe I'm, I don't fully understand the statement. It appears like when he says second doctrine and then true man, true God, like he's appealing to the Council of Chalcedon as I showed in my cross-exam. They absolutely have a dependency on postbiblical literature. They treat the church fathers as a second inspired canon and use it to overassert what the scriptures teach. Okay. So, I mean, if that's what you mean, of course, it's a second doctrine. I, I mean, that's like the function of the, uh, of the church fathers' writing. It's very similar to how Muslims treat the Hadith and how Jews treat the Talmud. Very, very, very similar. Yeah, it's like a second doctrine. He appealed to two natures. None of that stuff is in the Bible. That comes hundreds of years later.

All right. So the chat is a little confused about the dot dot dot fourth person. Does any of you understand what that is?

I think he's trying to say that the incarnation entails Nestorianism, that Christ is two persons, one human person, one divine person. Yeah. Uh, but that's not.

That's probably the most likely explanation, too. I wasn't sure, so I wasn't even gonna.

All right. Question for Mike. Where does the Bible say the logos is the personification and mode of God verbatim since we are not allowed to go outside of the Bible?

Okay, so that's a straw man. I'm not saying you're not allowed to go outside the Bible. What you're not allowed to do is use outside things to contradict the Bible. All right, that's number one. Number two, words are defined not just based on like their etymology, okay, but how they're used. And the word logos has heavy use in certain intertestamental Jewish literature. You see it in Pho. Okay? And as a concept expressing God's wisdom. That's what it means. So you got to think like wisdom exists in God's, in God like his mind, and when he speaks, that's the expression of his wisdom. That's what like the word logos means, word. That's what it is. So wisdom tradition as the definition showed you is that it's the expression of God's wisdom. That's what it's mean. That's how it's defined in the dictionary. So you're not going to find, you know, first John 5:3, the personification and mode of God. And and it's not a mode of God. It's a mode of God's expression. Okay? So that, that is in fact the definition of the word. That's defined by how it's used. And what we certainly shouldn't do is define logos by postbiblical ideas like the Council of Nica, like even Justin Martyr, let alone Chalcedon in 451.

Um, so yeah, so in regards to, you know, what he's saying since we're not allowed to go outside the Bible and the words have definitions. Yeah. In the context John is using the logos, right? Which you're saying is the, the wisdom motif, which is fine, but he's saying that this wisdom is an actual person. Um, and this person took on flesh as the lexicon that you brought up said. As you could go to Bible hub as well, when you go to John 1:1, it says that this expression is Christ. And in 1 Corinthians 1:4, it says that Christ is the wisdom of God. Um, so very clearly, if God obviously always has wisdom, then obviously Christ would be eternal because Christ is the wisdom and the power of God. Um, but very clearly John is saying that the word of God is an actual person.

Can we please dive into some of these? I would love to probe this. It would be such a good discussion. Elijah, can, can I ask you something about that, man?

No. We're just going to go to the next question.

Oh, man. So lame.

I'm, I mean, I'm for it. He doesn't, he doesn't want to do it. So.

I, I just want to understand what he means by that, you know? I'm not here to just have like bickering back and forth or just he says she like I would, I want to get somewhere. I wish we could talk about that. Explore that idea.

You could have brought it up in cross.

Well, Mike, tell you what. I mean, do, do you want to specifically talk to him about that?

Yeah.

Oh, okay. We are.

Do you have a specific.

I was going to say we can open up an afterparty. You definitely for sure can come in. I don't, I don't, I mean.

Do you have a specific.

You've already asked. We've tried it.

Yeah. So I, I just like agree with you like when you're saying that, you know, obviously God was never without his wisdom. Totally agree. But like you went from there to then Jesus must be, you know, this literal conscious person who's eternal. I'm just not understanding that jump because wisdom is abstracta. Wisdom is abstracta. Like in Proverbs 8, wisdom wasn't a literal person. So I'd just like to explore that more with you. What, what do you mean by that? Like, is Jesus like literally his wisdom and his wisdom as a separate person in God? Like, is that how you view that?

Their wisdom, his, yeah. His reason, his, his logos is a distinct person. When God, like, I don't know if you know this, but Jesus proceeds by way of the intellect. That's what beginning is.

Yeah.

So when God perfectly knows himself, the better you know yourself or know something, like if I know this water bottle, for example, I can create or produce an image of it in my mind. Right? God always and necessarily perfectly knows himself. The better that you know yourself, the better the image that it is. And since God perfectly knows himself, you have a distinction between the intellect and that you know, the what is known. That procession is what beginning is, which is why Jesus is called the logos, the reason, the wisdom. So because God obviously perfectly knows his subsistence, his person, the image of that person also has its own subsistence, but it has the same mind, um, obviously, and it's not different the same way that like when you know something, that thing that you know is not different from like your mind isn't created.

Yeah, I, I hear you. So then what do you think about like Proverbs 8 then, man? Because wisdom is not like a literal person. It's just a personification. Or or do you think it's a real person in Proverbs 8?

The, the in Proverbs 8, it could be referencing to it could like allow the Israelites to know the work of wisdom that is done at creation, which is the thing that's being talked about and that he's always there, right?

Um, and that's what you see when you read like the Targums of Onkelos, for example, in Genesis chapter 1. It puts the wisdom of God there with the member of the Lord. Everything was created.

Yeah. Yeah.

So the way in which that these people understood was that there was this other person that was there with God at creation, but it's not different from God, which is why you get the verses in Isaiah, uh, where Yahweh creates alone because he's not different from Yahweh.

I hear you. You know, in my reading, um, it appears to me that like the idea that that like a being's wisdom or his word is like a separate person in him or his spirit, you get that a lot. That just seems totally post-biblical to me, man. Um, I, I think in scripture, like your, like God's word is not a separate person than him. Like that's just not even a biblical concept. So I, I would be interested to hear more what you would use for scripture to support that. And and I won't say anything else um after you respond. Thank you for exploring that a bit with me.

I appreciate.

Well, I mean, it's not true that it's not, it's not biblical. Now, the philosophical explanations and like the way in which they're looking at scripture to help us better understand it. Um, you know, obviously that's going to be from the church fathers, but all of these things are rooted and grounded in scripture. Yahweh obviously always has his word and his word has its own subsistence, which is why when you see these examples in 1st Samuel 3 or in Jeremiah chapter 1, where the word of the Lord has this personal subsistence and which can be sinned against and which can be pointed, all of these things point to the fact that the even the ancient Jews understood this distinction in person within the Godhead but the unity in essence because there is only one Yahweh, which the prophets always proclaim. But when they show these distinctions, as I showed in like Zechariah chapter 2 or Zechariah chapter 7, they never thought that that, uh, corrupted monotheism. All right.

Cool. Eli, do you believe Mike is unsaved and going to hell because he doesn't believe in the Trinity specifically?

I can't make um declarations in regards to, uh, judgment, but I do believe that if you reject Jesus as the I AM He of the Old Testament, as Jesus says in John 8:4, then you will die in your sins, as Jesus Christ says.

Yeah. So, I totally agree that um he, he is I AM, right? The, the one that Abraham saw his day and would believe, uh, completely. I just don't see that in a model where that, you know, is entailing the second person of the Trinity, even if there was literal pre-existence. Could I share my screen real quick? I just want to give you a few scriptures that I would use. So, right, the most famous one. For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him would not perish, right? Whoever believes in the son has eternal life. Whoever does not obey the son shall not see life. Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. Um, but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the son of God. That's the ending of the book of John. That's a powerful one. The purpose of his book, he says he wrote John, not so we believe Jesus is God, got two natures, homoiousios, he's the Messiah, the son of God. Um, let me just give you one more real quick. Uh, the one, this is a good one with Peter. It says, like, what or no, is it lower? The man says, 'What must I do to be saved?' Believe on the name Lord Jesus Christ. You will be saved and your whole household. Did I, I might have passed it, but anyways. So, to me, that's, that's what the Bible teaches, right? It's about our belief. It's about our faith. It's about our obedience. Um, I also think it's based in proclaiming his death and resurrection. You have to believe those things. Believing he's God ontologically, I really see as a late idea that developed later in history. Um, but that said, I hope you know that I definitely do not judge Trinitarians. I think that would totally stomp on Christ to judge another man's servant. Just from what I've seen of like Eli and many of my great friends who are Trinitarians, solid Christians. And, you know, the world's going in a place right now where I think at times we may need each other. We may need each other, but how crazy things are getting. So, I hope that we can lean more into our commonalities and and truly put our faith in Christ, not in our ability to, you know, fully understand God's nature, the nature of Christ, or, you know, very complex philosophies.

All right, cool. Do you guys, uh, have any quick 45-second closings?

Not necessarily. Uh, any last words?

Well, hey, uh, Elijah, thank you so much for agreeing. You know, it was really life who put us, put us, um, against each other on here. I really appreciate it, man. And, uh, you know, I thought you did a great job in your discussion with the Orthodox Muslim. I think you deserve a lot of the attention that you're getting and, um, totally, uh, wish the best for you, your whole team. Thank you for having me on. Love you guys. Uh, you know, we get a little bit pinpointed in debate, but it's genuinely my privilege to be here to speak with you guys tonight and, uh, yeah, God bless. Jesus is Lord and Jesus is God, think by predication, but no, God bless you. I appreciate you, life, and Mike for for coming. This is my first, um, formal debate. It's going to be my last for a cool little minute, cuz doing it with work. I know Mike, you said that you have two jobs in the livestream a while ago that I seen. So, I don't know how you do it. Um, but it's, it takes a lot of time. I appreciate, you know, everybody who showed up, um, and, you know, putting our best foot forward. So, I appreciate this. God bless you guys in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. And Jesus is God, as as Mike said, just not only not by.

That's right. That's right.

All right, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for, uh, Mike for coming out. Thank you for Elijah for coming out. Definitely appreciate that. Honestly, uh, this is one of the easiest moderated debates that I've ever had to do in my life. So, thank you for making it easy on me. I appreciate that. I literally was just able to sit here with my feet kicked up. So, I appreciate, I appreciate that. And so, I'm going to go ahead and put you brothers down and I'm going to address the audience. And, um, yeah, you guys feel free to clip, take whatever you want, cut it, clip, do whatever you want with it, man. This is, this is your guys' uh, show. Okay.

Thank you, man. God bless you.

All right. God bless you, brothers. I enjoyed the conversation. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that was it. I hope you guys enjoyed that. So, what we're going to do now, we're going to J, we're going to raid my boy JP Uncut. Now, look, when we go in there, I want you guys to tell JP, tell him life said you're not equipped. He's, he's going to know what you, you're saying. Just just raid him and say that. All right. Life said you're not equipped. Everybody just spam that. All right. God bless you guys. Hope you guys enjoyed. Come back too, I think on the 23rd. We got another debate too with Coley and some Muslims. All right. God bless you guys. I'll see you guys on the next one. Peace.