Deity of Christ Debate | Dr. Al Garza vs. Metaphysics Mike - Is Jesus YHVH?

Heat up here. Welcome to Standing for Truth. My name is Donnie Viddinsky, and I'll be your host and moderator for tonight's formal debate. A debate on one of the most important theological questions in all of scripture. Dr. Algars, I think you're there. We go. Good to see you. Just wanted to make sure you weren't raptured and were left behind, brother.

And so the topic, the question for tonight, and I am pumped and thrilled for this, is Jesus Yahweh. Representing the affirmative, we have Dr. Al Garza defending the Trinitarian position. Representing the negative, we have Metaphysics Mike arguing from a Unitarian perspective. This is a foundational issue that goes right to the identity of Jesus Christ and the core of the Christian faith. Expect a rigorous scripture-driven and deeply meaningful exchange. This debate is hosted by Standing for Truth Ministries. And let's get started.

Gentlemen, I really appreciate your willingness to enter the debate coliseum here and engage a topic that really is so important. I'm familiar with uh both of your material and content, and so I can guarantee to the audience, I can promise you that this will be a thoughtful and an edifying exchange. And so, why don't we break the ice, get acquainted a little bit? Dr. Garza, it's always great to have fresh faces and new debaters here on the Standing for Truth debate platform. And so, why don't we start with you since it is your first time here. And so, Al, tell us how are you tonight? And also, tell us a little bit about your uh yourself and your channel.

>> Oh, yeah. Um, sure. I've been been doing good. Um, been doing this for about, not debating, but I've been involved in the area of ministry and apologetics for just over 30 years. 30, about 35 years. Uh, early in the '90s, uh, early 2000s, uh, during my schooling and all that, I was engaged with basic apologetics with Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, different groups and different aspects, uh, going to community colleges, speaking. Put my channel out, uh, Bible Answers Unfiltered, as well as Black Belt Theology, uh, given my background in both, uh, academics and in other areas of martial arts. So I decided to create a channel, uh, geared to just giving basic Bible answers, of course, um, and just challenging others as well into reading and knowing their Bible better, um, from both a practical and academical standpoint.

>> Al, I appreciate that all of your uh experience in martial arts. Now you get to take that into the debate ring and use some spiritual martial arts. So this is going to be good. I've got your YouTube channel linked in the description box, but also here in the live chat for those that want to see more from you. So, I appreciate the introduction. Metaphysics Mike, certainly not your first time here on the Standing for Truth debate platform. I appreciate you being willing to participate in these debates. So, Mike, tell us how have you been since the last time you were here, and also tell us a little bit about yourself and your channel, Metaphysics Mike.

Well, hey, thanks for having me back, Donnie, and thank you, Al, uh, for, you know, bringing together this debate. Uh, yeah. So, I have been a Christian, uh, seriously for over 10 years now. I made a clear and conscious decision to want to serve Christ, and I started diving into the scriptures, uh, into a lot of academic, scholarly level works. I do a lot of reading. And I'm so excited to debate here tonight because my channel actually focuses, uh, right now on Trinitarianism. And I'm really just on a mission with my channel, Metaphysics Mike, to help Christians break free from traditional errors, uh, of the forefathers of the Christian faith that I don't think practically benefit our lives and, in some cases, even send us backwards. So I'm a, I'm a husband. I'm a father. I have immense respect, uh, by the way, for Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants for different reasons. I myself am a Protestant, and, uh, I'm ready to do this tonight. Happy to be here.

>> Mike, thank you very much. I am ready for this as well. I've been really excited for this ever since we scheduled it. Uh, I love these Nature of God debates. It really is a privilege to be able to host and moderate them as I get to learn so much from so many different viewpoints. And again, as I said, I know you both have studied this topic extensively. And so, uh, Metaphysics Mike, for those in the audience that want to see more from you, I've got your channel linked in the description box and also the YouTube channel, uh, that goes, uh, for the both of you. And so, okay, gentlemen, appreciate you helping me to break the ice and get acquainted to the audience. This is a formal debate. Let's go over the format for this exchange.

So, again, the question that we are debating is this: Is Jesus Yahweh? Dr. Al Garza is taking the affirmative. Metaphysics Mike is taking the negative. Therefore, Al will be starting with his opening statement. Opening statements, we've got, uh, roughly 22 minutes. It's going to be a comprehensive debate. That's what we want for you guys. We want to give you just a lot of material, information, uh, to absorb, to digest, and think about here tonight. So, 22-minute opening statements, and then 15-minute rebuttals. That'll be our opportunity to respond to each other's points, arguments, and scriptural references brought up in statements. We jump into everybody's favorite parts, uh, of these formal debates, the cross-examination, 50 minutes in total, broken up into two 25-minute sections. Then we'll wrap up with five-minute concluding, uh, statements. Good opportunity to wrap up our thoughts, wrap up our points, land the plane, our respective positions here tonight. And then this is where we get you guys in the audience involved. We'll have a roughly 30-minute audience Q&A. So please, if you have a question, firstly, let's be respectful. Let's be professional to our guests here tonight who have been generous with with the time that they've given to us, not only for the debate but the prep time it takes to prepare for these debates, as I know it, it takes a lot of work. And so, be respectful in your question asking. Stay on topic, of course, the nature of God, deity of Christ. Tag me either at Donnie or at Standing for Truth, that way I won't miss your question. And we typically get dozens and dozens of questions for these debates that can keep us busy till same time tomorrow. Therefore, what we'll do is bump super chats right to the top for those that want to guarantee that their question or challenge is engaged by tonight's debaters.

Gentlemen, with formalities out of the way, I think we're all on the same page now here tonight. Let's get into our first opening statement. I'm pumped for this. So, uh, Al, let me know when you're ready. I can get your screen shared and we can get your slides up and also begin your timer. Reminder, gentlemen, roughly 22 minutes. I can give you guys a, a warning, let's say at the 20-minute mark. Al, whenever you feel like you're good to go. It looks like it's, it's, is it dark around? So there's like a box of light and then kind of dark all around it. Maybe if you click it, >> like a shadow. >> Hold on. Let me see here. Uh, let me try it this way here. And, uh, as you're, as you're get figuring that out, uh, take your time. We are simocasting. So, if you got a question from a mic stream or a question here, I'll be able to see them, uh, in, in the side chat. I might not be able to directly respond to the other channel, but I'll have them saved. And again, we'll have some fun interacting with them for anyone just joining. >> I already, I already see chat being ruthless. >> We got a ruthless chat before the opening statements even begin. So guys in the chat, I appreciate and love the energy and the passion, but again, if we're attacking anything, we're attacking arguments and positions and not persons. So, okay, gentlemen, I think we're ready to go. Your slides look great now, Al. Appreciate it. So, 22 minutes starts right now.

>> All right. So, the topic of the debate that we're having today is, is Jesus Yodave? So I'm going to be using just the Tetragrammaton, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. Some use Yahweh or Jehovah. I'm just going to be emphasizing Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. So the purpose of this debate, this debate is not about the Trinity or whether Jesus is God. It is not about the early church, what the other church fathers thought, but rather about whether Jesus is identified in scripture as Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, the God of Israel. So for clarification, we're not debating how God exists, Trinity versus Unitarianism, but who Jesus is in relation to Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh's identity.

Now, for the Greek versus Jewish mindset, I want to cover something. Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek wisdom. This is Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:22. The Greek mindset demands logic before belief. Truth makes sense to human reasoning. Unitarians mirror this by rejecting Jesus being Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh because it defies full human comprehension. So they reason that if they can't explain it completely, he cannot exist as Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. Like the Greeks, they place intellect over revelation, exalting reason above divine revelation. So for a Jewish mindset, the Jewish mindset seeks confirmation through signs and revelation, trusting what God has made known. Faith begins with "God said" and not with "I understand." So true faith accepts what God, uh, transcends. True faith accepts that God transcends reason. He reveals what finite minds cannot fully grasp. And Jesus being Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is not a human theory to be solved but a divine revelation to be received. So in summary, the Unitarian view is philosophically rooted in Greek thought. Belief follows understanding rather than revelation. The Jewish belief is the believer's approach is faithful and Hebraic. Revelation leads to belief even when the mind cannot fully contain the revelation.

So for Unitarians, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh equals one person, the Father. Jesus, the human Messiah only. Core difference: Unitarians, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is the Father alone. For Trinitarians, it's Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh equals one divine spirit nature in three persons. Jesus equals Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, God and man. Core difference: Trinitarians, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is the shared divine spirit nature among three persons, including Jesus.

So framing the debate, we are discussing whether scripture identifies Jesus as Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. Whether Jesus is Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh refers to Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh's identity and whether context, language, and grammar reveal identity or predication, not personal interpretation, which is important. Either identity or predication. So what is identity? Identity means A is B, with both terms referring to the same entity. So if both sides of the sentence are definite nouns, the sentence is saying that the two are the same by identity. For predication means A has the quality or property of B. So when one side is an indefinite noun, an adjective, or verb, it shows predication. A is like B, or A does B. Now, example is "Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is God." First Kings 18:39. This is identity. Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is a noun. God's a definite noun. Both refer to persons, beings, and identity. They are called nominal sentences. Statements of equivalence between two definite nouns. Example of predication is "God is holy." God is noun. Holy is the adjective, describes what God is like. "Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is righteous." Noun and righteousness. Adjective and noun gives a quality, not an identity. And of course, linguistic criteria for both identity. Both nouns are definite. Context reveals sameness. Language helps the context and grammar shows the meaning with predication, attribute or quality. Context describes nature or action, and language helps the context as well as grammar shows the meaning. The last two are the same. The distinction is the first two, which nouns are definite and reveal sameness versus attribute or quality. And of course, context describes nature or action.

Now, the name Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, this is needs to be understood how here are the three verbs from which the name is derived. We need to clarify this to get into if Jesus is Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. The first verb is *haya*, "he was." This is the perfect form of the verb meaning to be in the past tense. It represents God who was the eternal one, existing before creation. Then we have *hove*, "he is." This is the participle form, expressing present ongoing existence. It represents God who is continually existing and sustaining all things. And then we have *yehye*, "he will be." This is the imperfect form, expressing future being or becoming. It represents God who will be the one who will continue to exist eternally. These are the three verbs which derive from Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh: He was, he is, and he will be.

Now, the name Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is not a personal name in the human sense, as it does not identify one individual among others. Rather, it is a self-revealed divine designation that expresses the very nature and essence of God's existence. So in Hebrew thought, names reveal character and essence, not merely a label of an individual. So while Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh functions grammatically like a name, it describes who God is rather than identify him as one person among others. It declares his self-existence, eternity, and unchanging nature. Now, from Brown, Driver, Briggs' Complete Edition, number 8034, for name in Hebrew, the number three section of that says, "name as the designation of God. Designation of God as embodying the revealed character of." And then of course, the Hebrew translation, "Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is his name, and this is my name forever." This is showing the character and nature of God, of who he is by the name. So the name is derived from the Hebrew verb "to be," showing that God is always existing, self-sufficient, depending on nothing else for being. Thus, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh conveys "He who is, who was, and who will be." It's ontological, describing God's mode of existence rather than his identity among peers. Supported by Exodus 3:14, when God says to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM," He reveals His nature as self-existent and eternal. The following verse in Exodus 3:15 uses Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh as the third-person form of the same verb, "He is." So Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh expresses the same reality in a way that humans can speak of Him. God calls Himself "I AM," and we refer to Him as "He is." So these are descriptive and divine. The Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is descriptive of a divine nature. Therefore, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh isn't a mere label but a theological statement. God is self-existent, uncreated. God is eternal, past, present, future. God is immutable, unchanging in His presence. It's less a name to identify and more a name to describe a revelation of what God is by nature.

So, just, just like other names in the Bible in Hebrew, Adam, or *adam* means "from the ground," human origin is what it reveals by the meaning of the name. Abraham, "father of many," covenant and destiny. Isaac, "laughter," joy of the promise. Israel, "strives with God," spiritual transformation. The name Yeshua, "Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh saves," reveals divine mission and revelation. These are Hebrew names work. These are words, Hebrew words that are connected to being a name in the sense of what they represent as a person's character. Now, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, the very nature and character of God's single eternal existence. We have a couple of the common titles for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh: Adonai, a plural noun with a first-person singular possessive suffix. Literally, "my Lord, they." Elohim, a third-person plural suffix attached to a singular noun, literally "God, they." And a note, there is no 's' in Hebrew. So when we see these names, these are reflective of how a first-century Jewish or even in pre, the ancient Israelite mind of Adonai, they attached third-person plural pronouns to their nouns. They, they, they understood when they said, "they, my Lord, they go." These are common titles for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, plural forms.

Now, a most uncommon title for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is Father. In the Hebrew Bible, God is directly called Father only a small number of times, 14 occurrences in total, depending slightly on how strictly one defines "directly called Father." That is not metaphorically or by implication. In the ancient Israelite understanding, Father is a relational metaphor that emphasizes origin, care, and covenantal relationship. The concept of God as Father is rare in the Hebrew Bible, highlighting His role as the Creator and Redeemer of Israel rather than as the Father of individuals in a personal or ontological sense. Direct address to God as Father and Creator appears about seven times. You see this in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Malachi. Seven times total there. Descriptive titles: "He will be a father," "everlasting Father" in 2 Samuel, 1st Chronicles, and even Isaiah 9:6 where the Messiah is referred to as "Father, Everlasting Father, Father of Eternity." Metaphorical or communal statements are found in Psalms and Malachi. These are the only places typically in the whole Hebrew Bible where Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is referred to as Father in these, in the context we just laid out.

So, is Jesus Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh by identity? Now, we got to establish this. Understanding the name reveals nature and character, as well as who he is. First Corinthians, you know, "When you were pagans, you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. Therefore, I want you to understand that that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says Jesus is accursed, and no one can say Jesus is..." It's a question mark, "...except by the Holy Spirit." Paul here, this is a direct revelation by the Holy Spirit. Within the earliest Greek manuscripts, we have the sacred name abbreviation for *kurios*, which is equivalent to Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh in the Old Testament. In the Hebrew Old Testament, when we get to the Septuagint, they translated the Tetragrammaton as a sacred name abbreviation with a dash above it. This represented Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh and is found in the earliest Greek manuscripts for this passage. We also have the Aramaic Peshitta, *mari* for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. *Mari* is only used, oops, sorry about that. *Mari* is only used for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, never used for anyone else other than the divine name in the Hebrew in the Old Testament Peshitta, as well as in the New Testament Hebrew New Testament manuscripts. We currently have manuscript 0.31, does have the Tetragrammaton in there, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. So Jesus is Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, *mari*, and *kurios* according to the Greek Peshitta and Hebrew, as well as five other Hebrew New Testament manuscripts that use *Adonai* for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. So according to these manuscripts, Jesus is Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh by identity. The identity rule: both nouns are definite. A is B. Jesus is Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. This is reflective of the character and nature of, of who Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is. So again, these manuscripts reflect that, and according to Paul, yes, he is.

Moving to the next one. Again, according to, is Jesus the Jesus of "I AM" by identity? Yes. Jesus says in Matthew 22:41, "Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked him a question." Matthew 22:42, saying, "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." Verse 43, "He said to them, 'How is it then that David in the Spirit...'" Another direct revelation by the Holy Spirit. "...calls him Lord?" Jesus, Jesus here is speaking about David in the spirit, just like Paul said earlier, by the Holy Spirit. And we have the earliest Greek manuscripts in the accusative form for *kurion* for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh in the book of Psalms here. So this earliest Greek manuscript will be looked back to the Psalms. And in the Peshitta, the *mari* for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh in the book of Psalms, again highlighting the Tetragrammaton here for both, as well as the identity rule: both nouns are definite, A is B. Jesus, according to himself, the Messiah, is called Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh by David, according to the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and of course, how we see it in the passage here of the New Testament in both of them here. The Lord here is understood as being the Tetragrammaton in the, in the earliest manuscripts we have.

Now, also a passage here in Jude, as well. According to Jude, "Yes, we have for certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Verse five. "And I want to remind you that although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe." You can cross-reference with Joshua 24:17 as well as Amos 2:10. Again, we have the Greek, no sacred name for *kurios* here for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, and for Jesus is also abbreviated here. So both here are used for, again, used as the sacred name for the Tetragrammaton and for Jesus as the one speaking. Now, Hebrew New Testament manuscripts that we currently have also have Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh and "Jesus who saved the people out of Egypt," showing that the context, either Lord or Jesus, either way for the, uh, for the, either for, if you want to look at the Greek, uh, differences here, Lord and Jesus are used here as "only Master and Lord," referring to the Tetragrammaton, as well as Jesus going back to the Old Testament. So again, the identity rule: both nouns are definite, A is B, and Jesus is Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh according to our earliest manuscripts.

Now, again, in Jude and Jeremiah, we have the same thing. Is Jesus Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh by identity? Jeremiah, yes, we have a prophecy. "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he..." which is referred to as Messiah here, "...will reign as king and deal wisely, and he will execute justice and righteousness in the land." Jeremiah 23:6. "In those days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely, and this is the name by which he, the Messiah, will be called: Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, Our Righteousness." Jeremiah, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh equals "He was, He is, and He will be." This is the eternal name of the three verbs. Now, in Greek here, we still have the *nomacre* with the, the line above it for *kurios* for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. We have this is representing *kurios* for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, as you saw in the New Testament. And of course, the Peshitta here identifies it as *mari* for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh as well. Now, I need to make a note here. The identity rule here is Jesus is Yahweh based on the name of him being called, which again reflects the nature and character of who Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is. He was, he is, and he will be, eternally existing. But here's a note: In Jeremiah 33:16, Israel is called, not by name, but called "Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is our righteousness." There is no name in Hebrew like you see in Jeremiah 23:6. So people who cross-reference 33 and 23 find that in Hebrew, the name doesn't, does not appear in chapter 33. So you only have the name applying to the Messiah here. Here is Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. In the, in the other passages in 33, it is Israel is called "Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is our righteousness," not by name. And that's important because it's a clear distinction from the Hebrew.

Now, why is Jesus not just a man? Because men cannot redeem or atone for another man. We have a couple of passages in Psalm, Exodus, Ezekiel, Micah. No man can ransom another, pay for his life. Even Moses cannot atone for Israel. No person can bear another's sins, and human sacrifice cannot atone. Only Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh saves and redeems. You have passages all over the Isaiah and Psalms, even Jonah. "Besides me, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, there is no savior." "Yav, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, God alone is savior." "Salvation comes only from God." "God alone redeems from iniquity." "Salvation belongs to Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh." These are clear distinctions where one, a simple man cannot do what only God can do or Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh can do, reflected back to why Jesus is Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh by identity. The only way one can be saved and be redeemed.

Now, Jesus is from heaven above. We have here, "Jesus came down from..." These are just basic passages talking about in John. "I have come down from heaven." "He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." "I came from the Father and I'm going back." "I am from above and not of this world." We have pre-existence. "He shared glory with the Father before the world existed." "The Word existed in the beginning and became flesh." "He," John the Baptist says, "was before me." Uh, pre-existence in divine form before taking human servant form. In Philippians, again, this speaks of Jesus from heaven above, as well as Jesus is from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47, "The second man is the Lord God from heaven." Now, textual variants here. "The second man is from heaven." Manuscripts have "the Lord from heaven." And even a Hebrew New Testament manuscript of this passage has *Elohim*, "God from heaven," affirming what we already know from Jewish scribes that Jesus is from heaven above. Colossians 1:14, "before all things through him the world was made." Of course, Jesus was with God from the beginning in John 1:2.

So, my conclusion, I think I got plenty of time here. I ran through this pretty quick. The name Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is not a name of a single person but reflects the character and nature of the name. He was, he is, and he will be, according to the Hebrew. Jesus is Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh according to the New Testament by the rule of identity. We just established A is B, identity. Jesus cannot be just a man because a man cannot save or redeem another person's sins. Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is the only savior according to the Hebrew scriptures. And for Jesus existed as the Word in heaven and came down from heaven, according to the New Testament. That's it.

>> Al, thank you very much for that roughly 20-minute opening statement. So you had even some time to spare. So I appreciate it. That flew by. Gentlemen, we're moving into our second opening statement. And to the audience, I'll let you know that I am all caught up on your questions and challenges. So, reminder, if you hear anything tonight from our debaters, Al and Mike, that you want to challenge or object to, feel free to send those in in the form of, uh, questions. Do your best to tag me, and we'll have some fun engaging your, uh, questions in the Q&A period. Mike, I see your slides down here. And therefore, allow me to reset my timer. And you have equal time, up to 22 minutes. I'll start the timer on your first word. Go ahead.

All right. Is Jesus Yahweh? Tonight, I will be defending the idea that he's not. And, you know, there's this narrative that most Christians believe he is. But the truth is that someone's idea of Jesus being Yahweh truly only goes as far as their knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity. And folks, having both been a Trinitarian most my Christian life and having personally spoken with hundreds and hundreds of Christians on this very subject, the reality is that the average Christian does not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Most will almost certainly commit a heresy if they try and explain it. And such is the same with Jesus being Yahweh. People may have a few scriptures they think justifies this idea, but when pressed, they really can't explain it because they don't understand it. And how could you blame them? Because the doctrine is confusing. It is complex and hard to understand. However, the view I will present tonight, I believe everyone who has a Bible and reads it can understand. You don't need a PhD. You don't have to speak the original languages. I actually believe that what I will present, anyone who reads their Bible intuitively already knows but may not have fully understood or realized yet. What I'm going to tell you is simple. It brings clarity and it will not depend on any post-biblical terminology, philosophy, or language. Because the crazy thing is, Jesus is really not Yahweh.

Folks, scripture itself warns us that the first explanation we hear can feel right until it's cross-examined. I think most of us have inherited a certain story about who Jesus is, but have never seriously tested it. You know, the Bereans were called noble, not because they just swallowed whatever they were taught, even from an apostle. What they heard, they tested and searched the scriptures to see if it were true. Paul himself actually says to test everything and even predicted that fierce wolves would rise up from among the church and draw people away to them. And just as the devil's cunningness deceived Eve, he was afraid that they would be led astray into a different Christ. And he couldn't be more clear that we should reject this.

Now, I think the first thing we should do is define what Yahweh is. Man, it's so tough doing these debates, too, because you hear their presentation and like, there's so much that, that you want to say, you know. Uh, but right off the jump, Yahweh, no matter which online source you want to look at, guys, I also have scholarly volumes and works, but I like to give what's accessible to most people. Okay? Go online. No matter what you find, you're going to find that it is a proper name. Al Garza said that it's not a personal name in the sense of humans. What folks, it's a name. Full stop. Okay? It's not a title for a class of being. It's not a species term like dog or angel. It's not an essential term, which presupposes later Neoplatonic philosophy back into Hebrew theology. It's a name. Full stop.

So what does it really mean to call Jesus Yahweh? I actually really appreciated this and, and what Al Garza just told you. It's so important to distinguish between whether we mean this in terms of identity or predication. So most Trinitarians mean this in terms of identity, right? So if we said that Batman is Bruce Wayne, we're saying those are identical to each other. So if you saw Bruce Wayne, you know that's Batman and vice versa, right? Where, uh, contrarily, if we just mean through predication, this would mean that Batman's just like Bruce Wayne, or he has some type of quality, some role, some title that may be shared between them. And folks, the scriptures are the authority on this, and they are clear that Jesus is not Yahweh by his identity. He's only Yahweh through predication. And, you know, interesting, again, man, I, I don't mean to try and put a rebuttal in this opening statement, but like, folks, there are Trinitarians who agree with this, that Jesus is only Yahweh by predication. But tonight, in terms of Al Garza, I'm just going to be defeating the idea that he is Yahweh by his identity. Okay?

So here are five reasons why Jesus is not Yahweh by his identity. Okay? This first one may come as a shock based on what you've heard, but the scriptures never directly call Jesus Yahweh by name. All the examples you heard tonight are all him sharing some type of role or a title or some divine prerogative with Yahweh. But this is possible because the Messiah is Yahweh's chosen agent. Okay? He's never called Yahweh by name, but he's clearly called other things. Like, for example, the Son of God, over 45 times in the New Testament. He's called the Son of Man, over 80 times. This is actually Jesus's favorite title to call himself. And he's called the Messiah, over 500 times. You know, Christ isn't Jesus's last name, right? That's a title. It's telling us something about him. Okay? So, just consider how unlikely it is that Jesus would literally be Yahweh. Your salvation depends upon it. But he isn't routinely, repeatedly, and even annoyingly called Yahweh like he's called these other things. Every example that you think you might have is like a dozen potential places that Jesus might be called Yahweh, and they're all based on textual variants. They're based on eisegesis. And in my rebuttal, I will refute many that you've actually heard. Okay?

So, let's look at this one passage here in John because this is the gist of what you're actually going to find in the scriptures. Okay. First John says, "Who is he that is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Messiah?" This is the Antichrist who denies the Father and Son. Okay? Okay. And look how he says, "Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you have heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and the Father." Okay? So the focus here is on Jesus being the Messiah, not being Yahweh, not being God, not being *homoousios* with the Father, not being one person with two natures which exist inseparably but not mixed. Like, okay, these are literally not what we have been told from the beginning. It's simply a fact that the idea that Jesus is Yahweh by name is not something the New Testament teaches, but rather comes from a development within the doctrine of the Trinity as it was debated and established through creeds, councils, and commentary by Greek philosophers they called the Church Fathers. And over a span of roughly 500 years, and technically to this day, Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants disagree on the Trinity amongst each other, amongst themselves. And I had to throw this in here because, you know, I typed them into Google's AI, and they tell you right from the jump, it can only get you to sharing some titles, some divine prerogatives of Yahweh. But the text, the text itself doesn't explicitly quote Jesus being called Yahweh. So we can put this into a simple argument. Okay? If Jesus was Yahweh, I think the scriptures would directly call him Yahweh just as much as it does these other titles. Folks, does your salvation depend on believing Jesus is the Son of Man? Or does it depend on believing he's actually Yahweh? Right? This is just not what the text focuses on or teaches. The scripture doesn't say this, therefore Jesus is not Yahweh.

All right. Now, my second point, which proves that Jesus is not Yahweh, is that Yahweh is actually the personal name of the Father, and not Jesus. And wow, what we just heard. It's, it's just amazing that this is even, we're even here having this conversation. Okay? Let's go back to where Yahweh actually reveals his name in Exodus. "Yahweh, this is my name forever." Who is Yahweh? Exodus, the next chapter, uses language which identifies that that Yahweh is the Father. Okay? It's the same thing with Isaiah. He says, "I am Yahweh. That is my name." Who is that? Well, look all throughout Isaiah. Yahweh is identified as the Father. "For you are our Father, O Lord, our Father." And notice how it says "my name," not "our name," "my name." This is first-person singular. Okay? Look at, uh, the commandment. "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. For the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain." Who does "his" refer to? That's the Father. And that's what you see virtually everywhere. Okay?

So, let's look at some passages which absolutely demonstrably prove this. Okay. John 5:43, Jesus is speaking and says, "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. But if another comes in his own name, you will receive him." Folks, this explicitly tells us that the Father's name is not his own name. I mean, honestly, folks, like, you have to consider what you're really believing, okay? Like, this is clear. This is not debatable. This is not abstract. There are no textual variants, okay? All the different other more complex passages you want to point out do not trump where scripture is clear. Okay? Jesus's name is not Yahweh. That's the name of the Father. That's what he teaches. Look at John 17. He says, "I have manifested your name. I have made known to them your name." Whose name is this? That name is Yahweh. And that refers to the Father. Look at Revelation 14. "Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." Folks, these are not the same name. This is not the narrative set forth by the scriptures. Jesus even says in chapter 3 of Revelation that he will write "the name of my God." So Yahweh is the name of the Father, and that's actually Jesus's God. That's what the Bible teaches. Okay? I mean, these verses literally prove that the Father's name is not the same name as the Son. And anyone who reads these passages and chooses not to believe it is in outright rebellion. Again, any other passage with references which are complex cannot be used to obscure what is clear. All right? I mean, I like to even say this, I fear people may reject it because I think many are just so used to having the wool pulled over their eyes with fancy concepts and peer pressure. But the simple fact is that the human person Jesus was named Jesus. I mean, think about it. Why don't they just call him Yahweh? That's who he's been since eternity past, right? The fact they name him something else undermines who they say his real identity is. You know, it's actually seldom discussed in Trinitarianism that technically Jesus has two names which are not identical to each other. And the problem is that "Jesus" can only refer to the Son, but the name "Yahweh" can refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So, in other words, Jesus and Yahweh do not function as co-extensive names for the same individual. And by the way, in virtue of Jesus not being the Father, and the Father is Yahweh, Jesus also is not Yahweh. I mean, to even call Jesus Yahweh when he's clearly identified by the name Jesus and not Yahweh is to conflate them as the same name despite being two separate, different names for different individuals. So we can go ahead, make a simple argument again. If to be Yahweh, your name must be Yahweh, and Jesus's name is not Yahweh, then Jesus is not Yahweh.

All right, my third point, and this is so important, is that Yahweh can delegate power and authority to Jesus. I mean, like, 80% of what you heard Al Garza say was that he did things that only God could do. Wrong. Okay? Like, I think many people actually, when they feel the pull on them that, you know, Jesus might not be capital G God like the Father, they tend to get scared by those very things, right? Well, Jesus did miracles, he forgave sins, he will judge the world, right, when he returns. Like, these are only things Yahweh could do. But the truth is that this idea actually only comes from ignorance of this, that Yahweh can actually just delegate power and authority to others to perform these actions. And that's exactly what Jesus and the apostles told us. Let's start with the book of John. Jesus says, "This is your savior speaking." Okay? "I can do nothing on my own authority." Jesus says, "My teachings are not mine. It is from him who sent me." It says, "The works of him who sent me." So quite plainly, Jesus's authority, teaching, and works are not his own. In Matthew 28, he says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." If he were Yahweh, he has all authority by virtue of his nature. How can you be given something that you already have? The fact that he is given anything by God, by the way, is what this is saying, proves that he is not Yahweh. In Philippians 2, it says that "God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every other name, that every knee would bow and profess to who? To the glory of God the Father." Hebrews 1:4, "Having inherited a more excellent name." John actually records a passage where Jesus commissions and gives that authority even to the apostles. He says, "Jesus said to them, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.'" He said, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. And if you..." speaking to the apostles, the disciples, "...withhold forgiveness, they are withheld." And I mean, the whole Trinitarian idea here is that, well, they got that authority from Jesus, but Jesus did this in virtue of, you know, his own nature. Where does the Bible say that? It doesn't. Acts 2:22 says, "Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst." And I love this passage as well. John chapter 14. I mean, the book of John alone is just so good. He says, "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I will come to you.' If you love me, you would rejoice because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." He doesn't qualify that statement at all. He doesn't say he's greater in his role. Best said out there. They just read that into this text. And I hate to break the narrative, but it is exactly precisely these facts for why all the early writers were heretics. Like, for example, Justin Martyr, who says things that later theologians could not say, that Jesus was another god. Origen said, "Do we confess two gods?" Yes. You also have Tertullian commenting based on this very thing. "The Father is greater than I." He thought that the Son was just a derivation or portion of the divine substance. Okay? "There is no theologian in the Eastern or Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian controversy who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father." Okay? So the key point here is that it was so clear to all the earliest writers that Jesus and the Father didn't have the same authority. Okay? That Jesus was exalted by God, not that he was God. Okay? All these ideas had to develop later. They had to be debated because, I mean, the truth is that they were trying to synthesize Greek philosophy with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That's what was going on. Syncretism. Okay? So, we can actually, Oh, and you can check out a full video on this called "The Problem of Trinitarian Language" on my YouTube channel. We break down the history using the best scholarly work. Okay. Simple argument. If Yahweh can delegate power and authority to forgive sins, judge the world, and a person cannot be delegated power and authority they already have, and Jesus was, then he's not Yahweh.

All right, number four, Jesus actually has attributes which are inconsistent with Yahweh. And this is unique and sort of unrelated to even these other points. Like, there are things that are said of Jesus which just cannot be true of Yahweh. And really, what we're going to do is just go through some of the attributes that he must have if he were God, right? And I mean, you run straight into the problem of how you can hold such a thing without undermining his humanity, without falling into direct contradiction. Okay? For example, we know that God by nature, he's omniscient, he's omnipresent, he's omnipotent. Okay? But humans are not. And this causes blatant contradictions. For example, God knows everything, but Jesus didn't know the day or the hour. God can't die, but Jesus did die. Here's one for you. God cannot be tempted by evil. Explicitly says that. But Jesus can and was tempted. And I mean, folks, just this one alone is devastating theologically because if Jesus cannot be tempted, then he cannot obey. Obedience is only meaningful where disobedience is possible. If Jesus's fully divine nature makes sin impossible, then his obedience is not a free act. That is an automatic inevitability. I mean, any obedience without the possibility of disobedience is just not obedience. It's like programming. You can call it what you want. But what does the Bible say? The Bible says he learned obedience through what he suffered. Right? The New Testament presents Jesus as the second Adam. And just like Adam, sin was possible. But instead of choosing sin, he chose righteousness. This is why he was exalted. I mean, think about it. Look at Matthew 4. Look at chapter 3 where it clearly states that Jesus was tempted. I mean, if Jesus's divine nature makes sin impossible for him, then the temptation narrative isn't a real battle. It's like a stage drama with no risk, no struggle, and no choice. This doesn't make Jesus like Adam. >> Two minutes left. >> Okay, this, this really makes him different than Adam, right? So there are many more examples of this that I just, but I'm going to have to fly through this, uh, to our last point, right? I think that is so important. Jesus has contradicting attributes as a man. Okay? So my last point, and I guess I'll just summarize this here. So I also think there's a big problem that Al Garza has, and those of his position, which is that if Jesus is Yahweh and not the Father, and the Father is also Yahweh, then you actually have two Yahwehs. And the Bible explicitly teaches that there's only one Yahweh. Uh, even in Mark 12, Jesus says, "The most important command is, 'The Lord our God, the Lord is one.'" This wasn't a mystery to be pondered. It was to be understood. And of course, the teacher responds saying that he is one. There's no other besides him. Those singular pronouns, and Jesus praises him for it, right? The one God is the Father. That's what the Bible explicitly says. Here are three awesome passages. You should check those out. And, uh, yeah, I'm just going to go ahead and, and, and end this here. So, folks, I think for Al Garza to win, he really must disprove all of these things. And if he can't, then I really think Jesus is not Yahweh, and this doesn't diminish him. It actually exalts him through revelation of his true identity. Thank you.

>> Mike, thank you very much for that opening statement of roughly 22 minutes. Gentlemen, comprehensive opening statements. Thank you for the time and work you both put into the constructing of those presentations. We clearly have a lot on the table, a lot of points and scriptural references to address in a rebuttal. I'm glad that we have lots of time for the rebuttal, 15 minutes each. So, this should be good, gentlemen. I will reset the timer and Dr. Al Garza will throw it back to you, and I'll start.

the timer whenever you're ready. Go ahead. 15.

>> I'm going to share my screen because I want to go back to my PowerPoint and address issues that we talked about if we can.

>> Do you want me to put that up now? Your screen?

>> Yes, please. Yes. There you go.

>> Let me pull it up. All right. Okay. Okay. I'm ready.

>> Go ahead.

>> Okay. So, again, let's let's discuss this again. As I mentioned before, this debate is not about the Trinity or whether Jesus whether Jesus is God in what sense. Is not about what the early church father thought that you know what Mike brings early church fathers which is you know debated among scholars all the time. But the question is, is Jesus identified as Yodave by identity, not Trinity versus Unitarian. This is not about how God exists, but who Jesus is in relation to the identity, and this needs to be understood. If it is shown that Jesus is Yodhave, then we need to understand. Now, I mentioned this before again, Mike is looking at this as a Greek mindset. It demands logic before belief. So truth makes sense to human reasoning in the sense that Unitarians mirror this by saying because they can't fully comprehend it or in their mind it doesn't make sense, they reject it. This is why they can't explain it completely as you just heard Mike talk about. He focuses on what is logic and reasoning. The Greek mindsets. Jews don't think that way. First-century Jews, Israel, ancient Israelites, these these were confirmations by signs and revelation what God has made known. So if we see it in scripture, if God says it, I understand. It's it's not in the sense of the Greek of saying, "I have to know. I have to figure this out. This has to make sense." No. If it's revealed, that's it. True faith accepts that God transcends reason. He reveals what finite minds cannot fully grasp. Again, Jesus being Yodab is not human theory to be solved, but divine revelations. I mentioned this before. This is what the scriptures teach. This is philosophical root in Greek thought. Belief follows understanding. Mike has to, in order to accept this, you have to rationalize. Does it say even when I showed clear verses? Now I'm going to look at this again real quickly and go through this because we have to look at this for a couple of things. Whether grammar, uh, context, language, and grammar reveal identity or predication, not personal interpretation. So when I present this, Mike said very clearly, nowhere is Jesus called Yodi Vavi or identified. And that that isn't true. We ident we just showed how ASB in identity versus predication. So if I can show Jesus is Yodhave from the language, the context, the grammar, the debate is done. I've shown it. It shows now whether Mike wants to believe it and say, "Well, this is by predication." I have to re-explain it. That's that's on him. The text is clear, and I showed this by example. Now let's look at my slides where we get to the name. Oh, by the way, again, he didn't he has to address the fact that we have three verbs that represent God not as a proper name as a person in the human sense, but as identifying the name as part of his nature and character. These are the three verbs. Every Hebrew scholar knows this. This is what is understood by Jews of that time. The name is derived as as eternally existing in the nature. And this is again, I said this, it's amazing that Mike wants to quote a certain scholar or certain text, but he ignores the fact that I put Brown Driver Briggs here for the word name in Hebrew and where it's designated for God's name, it is talking about his character. His name is forever. This is my name, the character, the nature of who he is, eternal one. This is what the Hebrew says. This is what the lexicon says when regards to name as to God. This is not talking about generalized name as for everyone, but particularly as here when it designates God's name. So again, "I am who I am" referring to the eternal one. Now, again, this is what is expressed. Now I want to go through this, but let me get to this part right here. Again, Father in the Old Testament, very rare, 14 occurrences, not very many. So again, I showed this to prove a point. We have Jesus is Yodave according to the earliest Greek manuscripts. The Pashita itself, Mara, which is only for the divine name. Hebrew New Testament manuscripts for Yodave and Adonai. That is that is identity rule. Both nouns are definite. Jesus is Yode Vave. Now, Mike doesn't have to accept it. He can reject what the text says. We as Trinitarians don't deny the humanity of Jesus. We look at Philippians and other passages of John where it is he was existing in the form of God and took the form of a servant. Now, that form of God and form of servant in the Greek and is the same syntax of how it's understood. If he was in the form of God, he's in the form of of a servant, found in the fashion of man. We don't deny the humanity of Jesus. This is part of Trinitarian theology. We call it the incarnation. So Jesus is Yodave as he existed as the Word eternally. He took on the form of a servant. The servant becomes obedient to the Father in the sense that he is now to the Father obedient as a servant, but he was found in the fashion of a man. This is why you find all these obedient passages that Mike talks about of him praying to the Father, doing this in the Father's name because as the Messiah, that is the the human aspect of who Jesus is as the Messiah, given the human name Yeshua, but he existed as Yode Vave. I would argue, and this again, Trinitarian concepts of who that is, but the text says Jesus is Yode Vave right here. The identity rule applies. Both nouns are definite. The Greek, the Aramaic, and the Hebrew New Testament manuscripts we have, they all affirm this. This is what the text says. We can bounce around to other passages where Jesus is a man. Jesus is this. Nobody denies that. Unitarians don't deny that. It's a straw man in a sense because we don't reject that. We're talking about his divine eternal nature. I showed this in in uh according to Jesus's own mouth that David in the spirit again, this is direct revelation to call Jesus a mere master or Lord is not a revelation from the Spirit. And David in the spirit again in the rule of identity here, it is in the earliest Greek manuscripts of Psalms that this is the this is the sacred name for Yavia, which Mike has to address. And this is Mara in the Aramaic that Mike has to address that they are affirming in these translations that Jesus is Yave by Jesus's own mouth that David calls him Lord as in Yave, according to the earliest manuscripts we have. So again, as Mike said, there's no place where Jesus is called Yod Vave. I these are two of many. We have titles for for for Jesus. Ha Adon, the Lord, which is a direct uh uh title for Yodavi in the Hebrew Bible only. No one else is called Haadon anywhere else in the Hebrew scriptures but Yodavi himself. The Lord, the Lord is Haadon is Yhavi. That is another title and another name that Jesus takes on as after the resurrection. So again, no one denies the humanity of Jesus. That is a kind of a red herring sense that off topic. These passages I'm showing here, Jesus is directly called Yode Yahweh. Contrary to what Mike just said, he says nowhere is Jesus called Yod. I just gave you two here. I gave you three. Jude, there's no textual variance in the first two that I showed you right here. These are no textual variants. These are all consistent with the manuscripts that we have. Uh, Jude can argue a textual variant. But again, the Lord that's presented above is the same Jesus who led them out of Egypt, who was Yave. There's no text. This is the earliest understanding of this. In fact, any any textual variant commentary will tell you this. Bruce Metzger and others that this is consistent with the earliest understanding that Jesus here is the Lord Yode V. And it's Jesus who's referring back in the Old Testament. Again, Denny rule Jeremiah. Jeremiah says the Messiah will be called He, and this is the name of the Messiah. He will be called Yodehave. The very name He was, He is, and He will be. Anybody who takes the name Yodhi Vah is not by predication. That name literally refers to the eternal nature and character of who God is as as the in the Hebrew scriptures. This is why you cannot call someone Yodavi. You are you. You cannot take that name and apply it to yourself and say, "Well, it's just by predication. I'm I'm just sharing." No. If you have that name and you are called by that name, this is why you see these titles given to Jesus in the sense because if they're identifying who he was before he became a man, before he took the form of a servant and was found as a man. That's important because he existed in the form of God. And again, that's by uh eternally existing. This is the Greek word huparxōn for present participle of existing, pre-existing as that form. So again, why Jesus cannot be just a man as Mike wants to stress on. He can't. Man cannot redeem or atone for another man. This is clear in scripture. We know this because many places men cannot redeem or atone for another man's sins. Chosen by God. Anybody. Moses could have been chosen to do that. Abraham could have been chosen to do that. Many men could have been chosen to atone. Now, Jesus, I know Mike said, "Well, why doesn't they just call him Yahweh there?" Jesus did not come as Yahweh. He came as a servant of God. He came as a man who will fulfill the messianic promise, the prophecies promised by God by the word to come and to redeem man. This is why only Yahweh can save or Yohave saves and redeems. He is the only savior. So if you want to call Jesus savior, well then if he's if only means anything, then then it's only only from Yodavi himself who's a savior. No other savior besides him. No other one can redeem for iniquities. If you say he's just a man, you have to then you literally are contradicting what the Hebrew scriptures say about who who this man is. So again, I want to focus on he's not just a man. He cannot be just a man because nobody can do these things. And God could have easily chosen anyone else. But there's a messianic prophecy. This is why the New Testament clearly identifies him as Yoh Vave, the Lord, as as Theos, God, all throughout. But this is important because we need to understand. I've shown you the verses where he is Yave identified from Paul, from other scriptures, from Jesus's own mouth himself that David in the spirit calls him that. Jesus again talks about where he came from. This is part of who he is. Now, Mike can reject this, but Mike is only going to focus on the humanity of who he is. And that's not what we're talking about here. This is, is Jesus Yode Vave? And by identity, by the rule of identity, which I've shown, A is B. Jesus is Yode Vave. According to Paul and the other passages I've shown you by that rule. It is not predication because that is something totally which I've shown you has to be by predication, adjective, uh, you know, verb, or even using it as an indefinite noun where Jesus is. So again, the name is not a single a name reflecting a single person, but reflects the character and nature of the name. That's what the name means when it says name. He was, he is, and he will be according to the Hebrew. This is something that everybody should be understand because this is not trying to uh play games here with the name itself. Yode Vave reflects the eternal nature and character of who God is. Brown Driver Briggs. He is Yode Vave according to Testament by the rule of identity. I showed you where Jesus is Yode Vave. And so he cannot be just a man because men cannot save or redeem anybody according to the Hebrew scriptures. It is Yodavi is the only savior. Now, Jesus existed as the Word in heaven and came down from heaven according to the New Testament. That's what I brought out where Jesus is identified. Now, again, the verses that I've shown you have to reflect who Yode Vave is by name, and Jesus is Yode Vave. That is what I said. So contrary to what Mike said. Mike said, "Nowhere does the New Testament teach this." I just gave you a few verses that they clearly do. By identity, by the rule of identity that Mike wants to utilize by Bruce Wayne and Batman. Okay. So, Batman, Bruce Wayne is Batman. Jesus is Yod Vavi according to the New Testament. So, I showed you these verses and I'll even go back here. I reflect on this again that uh Donnie, how much time do I have?

>> Good question. You just hit the 13-minute mark, so you got two minutes left, Al.

>> Okay, perfect. So again, Jesus said Jesus is nowhere to say. Here it is. Their first PowerPoint right here. Paul from the earliest Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew manuscripts. We have Jesus is according to the rule of identity. There's no predication here. This is clear-cut and dry. Jesus is the ovave as we identify. Now again, Mike is going to go through a bunch of other passages where he's humanity this and human. That is not the argument here. The argument is, is Jesus a human only or is Jesus only a man? That is not the debate. The debate is, is Jesus Yave? And this is by identity here by Paul and both uh Jesus himself referring back to David in Psalms, which is important because Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted verse in the New Testament that reflects the divine nature of the Messiah that Jesus is saying he's not just a son of David because the in the spirit again, a divine revelation, Jesus, he calls the Messiah Yode Vave, he calls him Adonai. This is reflective in the Pashita. This is reflected in the earliest Greek with the sacred name. This is reflected even in the Hebrew without the vow points that this is what's reflected in the entire book of Psalms referring to Adonai and Yohiv. So again, Jesus is rejecting that the Messiah is just the son of David from that lineage from that line as Mike would argue, it's just a man because David calls him Yodave or Adonai if you want to argue from the text. Now, this, like I said, the word Lord here, kurion in the accusative direct object of the text in the book of Psalms is Y V, and it could also be used as Adonai. Mara is only used for the Tetragrammaton. So Jesus in the Aramaic would be saying he is Maria. David calls him Maria. Yave. So again, these are the identities. These are the passages. No textual variance needed here in context, grammar. Sure. Context, grammar, and of course, we look at what the text says. So again, this is what we're looking at when we when we talk about the debate. Jesus is Yodoravi. Is he according to these passages and by a rule of identity? He is.

>> Thank you very much, Al. We're now going to reset the timer and hand it to metaphysics Mike. Mike, you also have 15 minutes for a rebuttal. I'll start the timer on your first word. Go ahead.

>> Can you share my screen, please?

>> Yes.

>> All right, let me refresh this real quick. Don't start it yet.

>> No problem. You just let me know and then I'll start it.

>> Yeah, I just I just updated it. Give it a second to load. And then to the audience, I will remind everybody that I appreciate the energy and engagement in our live chat. I'm all caught up on your questions. Super chats have been bumped to the top. Those are guaranteed, as long as they're respectful, of course, to be read and answered by our debaters here tonight. And so, super chats bumped to the top, but I'm also caught up on your other questions as well. Keep those coming in and we'll have some fun interacting with them in the Q&A. Pike timer is ready to go on your first word. Go ahead. Oh, Mike, did you freeze up? I don't hear your. Are you back? Let's Let's do it. Okay.

>> Hello. Hello.

>> Yeah, it looked like you were frozen there for about five seconds, but you're back. So, you just let me know when you're good to go.

>> Awesome. Thanks. Yeah, I'll start right now.

>> No problem. All right. So, man, Al, you said I, you know, he didn't address a lot of different things. Yeah, wait till the rebuttal. All right. Yeah, you don't do that in the intro statement. I was trying not to. Okay. So, few things to start off with. Okay. Al Garza did not present an argument. This is what you should do when you have a formal debate. I need to see premises that I can affirm or deny, and we can talk about whether your conclusion follows, whether it's sound. Okay, he did not present an argument. I am basically forced to try and piece together his argument based on a bunch of observations that he presented. Okay. Number two, did anyone else notice that he presupposed Trinitarianism by defining Yahweh as three persons? Okay, let's make something clear. Like he literally said one divine person is three, one divine, excuse me, one divine nature in three persons. That is not the definition of Yahweh. That's what his slide said. Go back, look at that. Okay. Uh, also, nobody disagrees that names can have meaning, that who disagrees with that? Who is who is to come? None of that is a problem. Okay? Because it still refers to a unique individual. Did you Did people catch some of the things he said? I I got some of this down. He said it's quote, "not a personal name in a human sense." What is that supposed to mean? Not a personal name in a human sense. Folks, every name refers to a person. Every name is personal. That was a very obscure assertion. Okay. Uh, I would also agree that names reveal character. They could reveal someone's quote essence, even though that's not referring to later Platonic Greek philosophy, right? He said it doesn't merely refer to an individual. That's such weird language to me. Like either it does refer or it doesn't refer, right? There is no "not merely." I can I can agree with all those things. So that just did not make any sense. Okay. He claimed that Unitarianism places intellect over revelation. But folks, he followed that up in his introduction with a whole lot of logic and reason. Okay, that stuff you cannot let that slide. Algarza, if logic and reason is not a valid way of understanding God, then you actually refuted yourself by using it. Okay, unbelievable. Uh, also he's talking about God not being fully explainable. Totally agree with that. However, the Bible does reveal God, right? There are at least some things we can know about God. Like, for example, God being one. Can we just maybe put that at the top of the list? These things can be understood, right? All all of that is uh really just obscuring the reality that yes, you can know things about God, and that includes properly understanding who and what God is. Uh oh, he said this repeatedly. "This debate is not about the Trinity." What? Dude, that's so crazy. If you believe Jesus is Yahweh, that belief only has context and virtue of Trinitarianism because how exactly is he Yahweh? In what way is he Yahweh? Can he be a mode of God? Can he be uh a part of God? Right? No, those are heresies. Please, of course, this is debate about the Trinity. What a crazy thing to say, honestly. Uh, okay. His main argument for Jesus being Yahweh definitely comes from this Psalm 110 idea where this he's right. This is quoted the most throughout the New Testament. So let's go ahead and test some of his claims that he kept saying I didn't respond. Yeah, because here's the rebuttal. Okay, so Psalm 110:1 says, "The Lord says to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." Folks, that word Lord is referring to the personal proper name of God. This second one is a title that means ruler, owner, or master. If you look in the Hebrew text, there it is. That's Yahweh, the personal proper name. Here, it's a title, Adonai. Adonai. And I don't I don't feel like he really explained to you guys some of the wonky things in his belief, folks. He actually denies this reading. Did you know that? He thinks that what this should actually say is Adoni, not Adonai. But here's the thing. Adoni, the word that does appear there, is used 195 times in the Old Testament. And 185 refer to high-ranking human beings. 10 of them refer to angels. Not one of them refers to Yahweh. So let's just get that clear. The text says Adoni. He denies that. He says it says something else. He is wrong. Okay? Not a single one of these Adoni refers to Yahweh. So you got to understand he is literally at odds with virtually every single translation of the Bible in English. Okay? And looking at the Hebrew text, look at this. There is not a single translation which translates this in reference to Yahweh. It just says to my Lord Adonai, not Adoni. I mean, there are literally none of them, folks. He's just coming out here claiming he's wrong. He's not letting you know that he actually disagrees with what the original manuscripts say. And please folks, this is tongue-in-cheek. Show Dr. Garza respect. But he does get a little bit conspiratorial, okay? Because he believes that the Jews changed it. And there is some argument to things the Jews did change in regards to Christianity growing, but it's example dependent. Which one are we talking about? How do you know? Okay. Al Garza has not produced a single Hebrew text of the New Testament which would actually prove that what they're quoting said Adonai or excuse me Adoni instead of Adonai. He just has not done this. Okay. What has he presented? A big one of his is referring to this 9th-century bishop Ishodad of Merv. He's like, trust this guy, right? Well, wait a second. The Greek Septuagint, which predates it by over a thousand years. What's it say? He said, "My view is proven by the Septuagint." Dude, what? It says, "Kyrios mou," which is "my Lord," not "ho Kyrios" like he wishes it said. Okay. Like he makes a bunch of weird reasons for how allegedly this isn't the right one. One of the things he says is, "Oh, well, Adonai appears nowhere else in the Psalms, right? It must be some late anti-messianic alteration." But folks, just because it's nowhere else does not mean it's not original. That's just a non-sequitur. He has to prove that, right? And the uniqueness actually is the point. He brought up the nomina sacra. That was another one of his big things. And there's so much we could say about this, but I'm just going to blow through it by a quote by one of the authorities, okay? On the nomina sacra in codex Vaticanus. Okay. He says, "The origin and subsequent use of the nomina sacra is connected with reverential notions." That's what he's appealing to. These things must be referring to Yahweh. But in the use of the nomina sacra in Vaticanus, it is not determined solely by reverence. Because often, guys, it's employed with many other things, like being used for both evil spirits and the Holy Spirit. Wow. He didn't tell you that about the nomina sacra, did he? Look up that book by Durk. It's dope. Okay, here's an example. You only need one to prove this. Luke 11:24. Vaticanus and Alexandrinus do not have the nomina sacra. However, these other versions do. And guess what they're using it for? Have you ever realized that it's used for both unclean spirits and the Holy Spirit? So there are enough exceptions to this rule just to make the rule questionable, if not completely untenable. Okay. The reality here is that Al Garza is appealing really to him as an authority on this. I speak the original languages. Like it's like many of these guys on YouTube, dude. They set themselves up as teachers and that you got to trust their powers of exegesis, okay? Instead of just looking at what all the texts say, which is not Adonai, it's Adoni. Okay? So his view is fringe. It's borderline conspiratorial. And it's based on a reverse exegesis to Hebrew New Testament texts that don't exist, folks. Unbelievable. Now, let's go ahead and say he's right, though. Let's say that, you know what, this does refer to the Lord like he's claiming it does. Tell me, is the first Lord and the second Lord the same Yahweh? If the answer is no, then you have two Yahwehs. And if the answer is yes, then Jesus is the Father because as I demonstrated, the name Yahweh is the name of only the Father. I presented like half a dozen texts on this which prove it. It is not the name of the Son. It is the name of the Father. Also, have you ever considered this whole sit at my right hand language? What does this even mean? It actually means that Jesus isn't equal with the Father. I mean, if Jesus is equally God with the Father, why doesn't the Father sit at Jesus's right hand? What do you mean, come sit at my right hand? You sit at my right hand. Right? They're both equal. And if you look at all the times that this is p uh is quoted, look at this. Sitting at the right hand of power. The right hand of God. God. God. Clearly, God is Yahweh and he's the one who says for Jesus to sit at his right hand. Okay. So, you also have this being quoted right here uh in Acts 2. This is uh awesome because as you see it says he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit. So, when it says right hand of God, that's talking about the Father. Um, and he basically made the claim that here in like Matthew 22 where he says, uh, you know, how how is it that David says in the spirit calls him Lord, right? Well, he's saying this to proclaim that he is Yahweh. Whoa. No, he's talking about sonship. Look at the question. Whose son is he? How is it that he's the son of David if he calls this Lord Lord? This is about this is about sonship and exaltation, right? He's saying the Messiah isn't just the son of David, he's also the son of God. That's clearly the best understanding of this. And I mean, just think about how crazy it is, too, right? So believing Jesus is Yahweh is essential for salvation and faith. So Jesus drops two lines about it. As Algarza said, this is the most explicit passage where Jesus is called Yahweh. Except every every translation does not agree with Al Garza. No, it doesn't say Adonai. It says Adoni. Okay? I mean, just like he says, this would be the closest thing. His best proof text is based on it. Like the worst type of reverse exegesis, folks. It's just not what the original says. And uh, we'll we'll skip over that. Uh, I'm not He made some comments about me. Well, this isn't about whether Jesus is God or not. Okay. Is Yahweh God? So then clearly this is about saying Jesus is God as well, right? If Jesus is Yahweh, he's also God. He he just makes like a bunch of weird assertions. I I don't really know what I'm supposed to do with that. But the word God in Hebrew and Greek can be used for exalted humans. Look at number four. This is Blue Letter Bible, right? They also say whatever can in any respect be likened unto God. Okay, all these things prove predication. He quoted these passages. Let's quickly refer to them. Colossians 1, he's the image of the invisible God. Hebrews 1 says he's the representation of he was in the form of I like to use these examples. Is the image of the basketball the basketball? No. Okay. Is the flag that represents the USA literally the USA? No. Is clay in the form of an apple? The apple? No. Okay. Every single one of these passages is actually proving that predication is accurate. Not that he's by identity. If he's God, he's not in the form of God. He's just God. If he's God, he's not the representation of God. He's just God. Okay. All of those proof texts not good for his position. He brought up Jude 15. He actually mentioned at the very end that there are variants to this. I don't know why he would bring this up. This is highly debatable. Every single passage in the Old Testament which quotes this verse in Jude 15 says Lord. It doesn't say Jesus. All right. So why would the New Testament authors who are reading mainly from the Greek Septuagint, which also reads this way. Why would they why would they quote it that way? Textual variance. Terrible example. He brought up Jeremiah 23:5-6. This was his second best example right here, folks. Yahweh our righteousness is a theophoric 32. Yahweh our righteousness is a theophoric name. Folks, it doesn't just say Yahweh. It says Yahweh our righteousness. And Jeremiah said the same thing about Jerusalem in chapter 33:16. Right? So does that mean Jerusalem is is also Yahweh? Right? So, man, there's so many other things I wanted to get into. We don't have enough time, but every single one of his verses can be refuted. And uh, man, I wish there was more I could say, but that's it. Thank you guys.

>> Gentlemen, we are moving along smoothly. Wow, that is a lot of information and material as we've now completed our opening statements of roughly 20-ish minutes and rebuttals 15 minutes and so lots of points on the table to now go back and forth on in the cross-examination. So before we hand it to you guys though for that to the audience again I appreciate all of the interaction get those questions get those challenges in there as I enjoy the audience Q&A periods because it gives us more opportunity to expand on the topic and give you guys more material to uh digest and think on and okay so for the cross exam gentlemen let's do our best to keep the questions uh direct the answers direct and focused. Of course, giving each other uh as much time as as is needed to build up to the question, to respond. Healthy interruptions and uh questions of clarification are okay as well. Uh Mike just ended with his rebuttal. Therefore, Al, let's give you the first 25 minutes to lead the way in cross-examination. I've got the timer set and I'll start it on your first point. Go ahead.

>> All right. You're right. There is a lot to go through even with Mike. Um, there's a lot I know we a lot we can get into, but here's here's here's my point with this and I know Mike brought it up. Uh, he brought up Psalm 110:1. Um, so I'm going to I'm going to comment on that and ask this question to Mike if Mike understands. You said that there's no proof of this. Uh, I you are familiar with the fact that the Masoretic text added those vow points a thousand years after Jesus, right?

>> Yeah. But virtually every scholar accepts the reading presented through the Masoretes. And again, the Greek Septuagint predates it by over a thousand years. So it would have been translated from an older copy of the Hebrew. And it says Kyrios mou, which is my Lord.

>> Right? So, so again, do you understand the reason why they put Adonai there? Do you understand why the Jews decided to put Adonai in that even though they're spelled the same as Adonai, spelled exactly the same? Do you understand the commentaries that they've given why they believe that Adonai?

>> Oh, because that's how it typically is used for a ruler, owner, or master. Yeah.

>> Who who is it that they affirm it to be? What where what were their options? The earliest understanding of who was that passage talking about?

>> I mean, it's it would likely refer So again, I showed that it occurs like 195 times. Most of them refer to high status human individuals and 10 of them refer to

>> I'm sorry. Right. My question. No, that was my question. In the book of Psalms, obviously, it doesn't live there. You already acknowledged that that only that one time. My question was, what do the Jews' commentary say that that Adonai is? Who do they say it is?

>> Uh, you would have to tell me what Jewish commentary you're talking about.

>> So, so any of them actually mo the earliest we have, they they ascribe it to Abraham, David, or even Hezekiah.

>> Exalted humans. Yeah.

>> Right. Well, no, that's what they believe the text is saying, not exalted humans. They say that this is speaking about either Abraham or David. Some say the Jews and Abraham. So it's not a messianic context for them in the earliest. So they put Adonai there in order to attribute that to who they believe it was speaking about, Abraham or David. Now, most scholars uh and you should know even Semitic scholars can challenge that because they're both spelled the same. I have manuscripts that have Adonai in it, which you didn't know about and said there's no proof. I have a manuscript that says Adonai. Matthew in Hebrew or

>> No, no, no. In in Psalms 110:1, I have a manuscript that says Yahweh said to Adonai, not Adoni. I have a manuscript. I also have older manuscripts that reflect the title Adonai without the vow points that can be read that way. My point was is that it's a commentary. It's not part of scripture. And when you see the capital L there, even in the translations, that's only used for Adonai. The capital the smaller L's is used for Adoni. So all your translations showed capital L's, capital L's. That's typically used for Adonai, never for Adoni. If you look at all the other translations for that in the Old Testament is lowercase L. So you're you're showing you showed me these translations that all had capital L's. That's why some Unitarians write to these people saying to change it. But my point was Jesus said in Matthew, which is you haven't addressed, is when he says, you you addressed part of it, that Jesus says that David in the spirit calls him Kyrios, the Lord. The Aramaic has Marah. Maria is one of the earliest translations. The Peshitta is the earliest one of the earliest complete translations we have that is only for the Tetragrammaton, correct?

>> I don't know enough to say on that.

>> Okay, so but it is if you look at the Hebrew book of Psalms, Maria is only used for Yod Vave.

>> No.

>> So So I wish I could ask you a question like a clarifying question. Am I allowed to do that?

>> If you want clarification, ask me. I mean, if you want to be clarified.

>> So So then let's go ahead and say that's the case. So then why is it that when I go to any online interlinear, that it doesn't say Adonai, it says Adoni?

>> Yeah, that is because we're using the the most scholars are recognizing the Leningrad Codex as is. But here's the thing. They all say it's a commentary. Every next scholar will tell you that's not the original, but it's commentary with the Jews. My point was why does it say Adoni? Why did the Jews say that? Because they said it was Abraham or even David or even some cases even Hezekiah in their earliest commentaries, not Messiah. So they reject the Messiah. They reject Jesus as Messiah in that context. And I point to Ishodad because he was around during that translation, 9th century, of the writing of those of the of the text, and he disputes it. Jerome in the 4th century said that the Jews say that it was referring to a servant of Abraham that that's who the Adonai was. So we have commentary that says that the Jews put that there. So if you have if you accept Adonai, then you technically do have to accept the reason behind it is that it's non-messianic. is speaking about. And Jesus will say Jesus said Kyrios, Kyrios in the Aramaic is Maria. Yahweh, Yhovah. That's what it says.

>> That's presupposing your view. The text that we that the text that the majority of people use says Adoni, not Adonai. You are presupposing that if it says Adonai, then I must concede to um your other points. That's just not true.

>> So that's why I said Jesus did not say in the passage of Matthew, Mark, or Luke that David said Adonai or David said my Lord. He didn't say that, right?

>> No. What do you mean? He he does say that the Lord.

>> No. No. In that in that passage, no. No. He No. Before he quotes the passage, he said David calls him Lord. He didn't say my Lord or Kyrios or even Adonai. There he didn't say that. And he said Lord. That Lord in the Tetragrammaton as far as in the Hebrew scriptures is speaking directly in the Aramaic Maria as Yave. That's why the Aramaic says Maria. It doesn't say Mari or Marah. It says Maria, the Tetragrammaton in Aramaic. So I mean, how do you deal with the fact that the Aramaic and the Greek with with the titles there in the book of Psalms reflect only Yodhi Vave?

>> Yeah. Yeah. Very simple. I go to all the different translations and I look for uh to verify if what you just said is true, and it's not because none of them translate it that way. Nobody looks at that and thinks that that's referring to the Tetragrammaton. That's only you.

>> No, that's not only me. Like I said, I have a manuscript. I have other scholars.

>> What does that manuscript date to? By the way, you said you have a Hebrew manuscript.

>> I I have a few. I have a few actually. And they same time. They date to the same Middle Ages with the Hebrew.

>> The Middle Ages. Thank you very much. Okay. I have the Greek predates it.

>> Yeah. With Yeah. And it's with the nomina sacra in the book of Psalms for the divine title in that passage. Here's my point. What what what's the uh what's the date of the Elipho Codex for the Hebrew that you or the Leningrad that you state is what every translation what when is that dated?

>> Yeah, it's like is that the Middle Ages?

>> It's like the end of the 9th century. But I refer to I refer to the Greek Septuagint. Now that predates it by over a thousand years and Kyrios mou. It okay. In the book of Psalms, we have Adonai translated as Kyrios mou. So that doesn't help your case because you can look at Adonai in there and it's roughly used there a number of times. Now, in the Hebrew, la'Adonai is used over 50 times to my Lord. La'Adonai in Hebrew is used over 50 times. Never Adoni. In fact, verse five of Psalm 110 says Adonai is at your right hand, Adoni. So if you put Jesus and God together, right hand, it's either going to be Jesus on his left side of the right hand of the Father, which is not the text says, or you have God who's on the right side of Jesus, which is his left side. You can't have it that way. Adonai in verse 5 is reflective of what the text should read according to a number of sources as well as the reading. No.

>> Yeah, but those are sources that nobody accepts but you.

>> Again. And there are other variations of the word Adonai which do refer to beings who aren't Yahweh, such as in Genesis 19:2.

>> It uses a form of Adonai for the angels. Listen. Okay.

>> The point is that what you're stating is not a rule. That is not a rule that I made for us.

>> Okay. What I said is not a rule. What I said was this is what the text says. Let me give you your your my other question to you because this is this this is not to me from the language Jesus uses Kyrios there or if you want to translate that way it's only Marah in Aramaic, which is the Tetragrammaton, which you can't really refute because it's not saying Mari there. But Corinthians, you I brought this up in 12:3 where Jesus is where it says by the Spirit Jesus is YHWH. You can't say it. I brought in all the manuscripts for that, the Greek, the Peshitta, the Hebrew sources, and all that. Jesus is Yod Vave. How are you translating that when it says Jesus is Lord?

>> Okay. So the word Lord can also just mean ruler, owner, or master. These words were fluid and used in many different contexts. I agree that Jesus is Lord, but that is not Lord as in the Tetragrammaton. You see, that's what you keep asserting based on Hebrew texts which don't exist or are from or for or from way later, like the Middle Ages. Okay. Aramaic Aramaic Peshitta, Middle Ages.

>> Listen, you are actually disagreeing with the Leningrad Codex from comes from the same Middle Ages, man. And I agree that the vow points were added. I I understand all that. Okay.

>> I just Okay. I just gave you the Aramaic though in First in First Corinthian Corinthians 12, it's Maria. You you don't accept that. Listen, I accept what the majority of scholars accept. Okay. And that happens to be the Leningrad Codex. Okay.

>> I'm talking about First Corinthians.

>> Yeah. In what? In what? Okay. So, that's referring to the New Yeah, that's referring to the New Testament. Okay. So, still, that's what I've been trying to say.

>> It's still the same. Listen, the point is the same. Okay. If what you're saying is true about how the term Lord is being used here in the Greek, then we must assume

>> I understand. And the Peshitta, you're still forcing us to basically assert that your view is the only way we can make sense of this. And I just don't believe that is the case.

>> Mike, you're Mike, you're you keep cutting me off. I can't finish because I have my question. I know. Okay, let me get my question because I I know you're going to bring in you're asserting the same thing that I'm asserting. Your view is the only view. Your view, it's those that's not the discussion here. The discussion is, is Jesus Yodavi? Question was in 1 Corinthians 12:3 in the Greek, which you I again, you sacred name. Okay, fine. You want you want to toss that out. The Peshitta recognized it. And that's the earliest translations, the earliest even before you get to the more of the Greek translation has it Maria, which is the Septuagint. I mean, I would which is the the sacred name Y V. The the Peshitta says that. Do you disagree with the Peshitta that it's Martyia?

>> So I wouldn't necessarily say that I disagree with the uh with the Peshitta, but we do have to keep in mind this is like fourth, fifth century, right? Many also argue that it's technically not original. I mean, we could also go there. Um, it's not written by Paul, not written in the first century. This is not like authoritative over the entire Greek New Testament either, by the way, which is something that you're kind of presupposing. Like if the Peshitta does it this way, then we must interpret these other manuscripts that scholars actually use this way. But that's that's not how it works. It's a later translation. Okay, we're we're talking 400 years after Paul. Okay.

>> In the Greek.

>> So, what I'm saying is in the Greek,

>> It's still post-nine Christology. Even if it does use Maria, that would only show that the Syriac translators believed centuries later, not what Paul wrote.

>> Uh, they understood the letters that they were reading to understand what they're saying. What I'm saying is you're telling me your opinion, your interpretation, how you understand. That's fine. I'm looking what the text says contextually. You cannot say by this is revelation by the Spirit. This is not a revelation by man. Revelation by the Spirit to say Jesus is Lord. This is why in the Spirit David says it. This is why the the Peshitta has Maria for the Tetragrammaton. This is why the Greek has this abbreviation. Even the Hebrew manuscripts I pointed out that are dated the same time between Middle Ages, just like everything else. All those Jewish scribes understood this was a divine title of Yave or Adonai. That is evidence. What you're telling me, correct me if I'm wrong, is that that evidence really doesn't mean anything other than how you look at it in interpretation or how you see it versus a Unitarian point of view. Is that kind of I mean, all that evidence is

>> So listen, like we're we're sort of at a disadvantage because as we both know, in the Greek, the term Kyrios and its variations can refer to both Yahweh, um, the Tetragrammaton, right? Or to humans. Okay. And I mean, and honestly, the Greek Peshitta that you're excuse me, not Greek, but the Peshitta

that you're pointing out is actually a great example, right? Because they also have different types of lore lords. They have honorific lords. They have messianic lords. They have high status.

Yes. Okay. So, the point again is that you're still appealing to something that is late. That is not what is accepted in most translations of the English. Like, really, this is my take. Okay.

Al, I really feel like we're dependent upon you. I can't really just go and look that up and reach that same conclusion. I have to depend upon your understanding, your powers of speaking the original language.

Do you want the Aramaic sources?

I can give you a dozen of Aramaic sources of lexicons, some of the most profound Aramaic speakers. And I can give you all the sources. This is not me. They've written books by Oxford. They they say Maria is only used for the tetragrammaton in the New Test, the Hebrew Old Testament.

So this isn't me. This is what the sources which I can cite you. Yes, I I do study the languages. I look at these sources. This isn't me. I go to sources. I go to what the lexicons. I go to other pastors say and I draw my own conclusions. I do think for myself in the end. That's why I said with Psalm and other passages, we don't dispute the humanity of Jesus.

What I'm asking you is these passages I brought up where Jesus calls and even the Lord is only applied to Yode. Jesus is continually called the Lord. Haon and with a definite article. I've showed this. This is not this not something that I'm making up. My point is or my question to you is again these are evidence of sources that I'm using to show that this is what the earliest translations and texts were saying Mara or Adonai or Yodave to Jews translating and copying these manuscripts. And so what I'm saying is are you you are simply just saying hey, this is my I understand your point of view. This is your thought presenting it that way, but it it's not addressing how these passages are used. If you kind of get my point, I mean,

I think I I I think I understand it, but I I also think there's two things I'll point out. The first is that again, I in any way that we look at this, you're looking at something that is late that most do not accept or use. Okay, that's number one. Number two, I also think your view is kind of dependent upon things which are debatable anyway. So you said that like in the pashida it's Maria is only used for for Yahweh. That was essentially your claim. But there are examples

that look at John 4:11 in the pashida. Maria, how is that used? Do you have it in front of you?

Marie or Mara? It's it's used not it's not Maria. It's it's it's Mari which is my lord which is which is a is equivalent to adoni

which is that's it. Still a variation.

I'm just giving it to you. You're asking

I still I still feel like what you're doing is acknowledging my point that these words have a range and how Yes.

Maria, you got to stop using Okay. Well, because you're making statements that aren't true cutting me out. What did I say that's not true? Al, what did I say? I didn't even get to finish saying it.

That there is a large range and you're trying to equate Martya as one of those large range usages and it's not. You just said that in John 4:11 that it's Mara which means like Lord. That's what you just said.

No, no, no. Listen to me. You

gentlemen, before we continue, maybe let's do this. If if we stop right there, let's throw it back to Al if you wanted to rebut that.

Al, could you do it in the form of a question just so we both get back on track kind of question answer question answer,

right? So other So the other parts and I think you miss didn't hear me correctly because there's this they kind of sound the same. Maria Mari or Mara with M R A.

So Maria which m a r y ah like yah at the end like ya like Yahweh. That's that's Mara. When you see Maria with ya like we equivalent y ah y that's the tetragrammaton. When we say marie, that's m a r i. That's adoni, lord like human. Or mara, m a r a without the y ah. That's used throughout the New Testament for non deity or non non- divine title. My question was mara with the y ah for Yahweh is only used for Yahweh throughout the new testament and in the old testament as well in the pashita. So my question is I think that's why you got confused because how I was saying it might have kind of sounded the same but they are distinct in how they're used in the text. Um, that's why I say if you see the Y ah in there as a transliteration it's always a tetragrammaton. I mean, did you understand that? I mean, that's that's what I was trying to say.

Yeah, I'm following you.

Okay, that's that was a confusion.

Yeah. So the way that I answering this again is is number one, we're talking about something that is late, right? We're talking 400 years roughly after the writings of Paul. Okay. In all the other Greek ways, it doesn't use it in the same way. Again, you're still like reverse exegesis. I mean, 1 Corinthians, what you say? 12, right? 12. Um, what was it? Verse two or three? Something like that.

Verse three. Yeah.

Yeah. So, if you're going to look in the Greek, I'm positive that's just going to say curiosus, man.

It's it's a sacred name with the bar on top. That's that's designated for the title.

Okay.

So, that's what it is.

All right. Right. So, do you do you want to shape this into the form of a question or something, man? I'm just going to keep making statements back. I No, that doesn't follow again. You're you have a dependence on something that most scholars aren't using.

Okay. That's not dependence. Okay. Here's here's what I'm saying. And and you keep missing the point. You have the

Al, if you could could you make the argument with a question mark at the end?

Yeah. Well, I'm going to get that because I'm I'm going to present that. In my PowerPoint, I showed all the languages that designate even with the Greek, the pashita, and the Hebrew text all reflect the divine name. Yodi just is y vave from the Greek pashita and the Hebrew text. That was my point. I'm not sure if you can answer what is your rebuttal to those translations, those texts that reflect that those scribes understood that to mean the tetragrammaton. Okay. So, Pashida is fifth century al. Okay. That's not Paul's text. It uses the word Maria. Okay. For any Lord. All right. Even for human masters and parables. So, when it says Jesus is Lord, it's just translating the Greek curiosus. That's not calling Jesus Lord.

Mike, that's are that's not true. Mike Maria ya with the yah at the end is only do you have any other evidence where marya with the y ah transliteration is used for anybody other than tettogram do you have that way in the pashita because it's not there I can give you I can give you about three or four uh uh pashita scholars who quote that as saying it's only used for the tetetrogrammaton Sebastian Brock Michael Sakalof John Joseen on the pashita where mar ya yah for Yahweh is only designated ated for the tetrogrammaton. I gave you also the Hebrew manuscripts that are translated from different Jewish scribes as well as the the sacred name. That was my question. What other than late because even the Greek is late. I mean we talk about lateness here fourth fifth century as far as the complete translations we have of the New Testament come later. the pashita second third century for the Old Testament third to fourth in the New Testament which consider it's considered one of the oldest translations completely of the New Testament even predating the the Greek complete New Testament the pashida

not talking about yes I'm not talking about fragments here we're talking about the complete text now that's is different than others than the New Testament but my point is still the same when scholars come to this how do you reconcile that we look at the languages the context by the Holy Spirit a revelation sacred name put Maria not Marie or Marah Maria and of course these Hebrew texts this is what I'm saying these addresses to Jesus as Yahweh or I would say yave ha adon these are designated titles for him by identity not predication because it's not giving a predication rule that I brought in my PowerPoint where usually like I said quality or attribute you agreed that which I think you agree I mean I'll I'll ask you this question in agreement you agreed that A is if A is B that's by identity correct

so I'm honestly Al I'm not sure I quite understand the original language as good as you do um so I I don't think I'm really per se qualified to answer that but again what I'm doing is I is I think I'm just having a dependence on what I know are the main text people use right for of the New Testament. And again, I I think what you're doing is reverse exegesis back, okay? Versus taking what the Greek manuscripts that we can find and look at that the majority all accept, including the linen codeex, even though that's obviously in Hebrew, right? These are saying curios, right? They're they're calling him

Adonai as well. Adonai. Yeah, Adonai is is used that way too for kudus mu by the way which I I you can look at that in the book of psalms that's why I mentioned to you adoni is never used other than that one place anywhere in books but you have kurus mu for adonai used about four or five times laonai over 50 times to my lord translated literally and even to yode vave la with y vave over hundred times Never do you have adoni. That's my point is in the book of psalms adoni and even in verse 5 adonai. You never have adoni used anywhere outside of that one passage which the Jews tell you why they put it there. So do you agree that the Jews agree that it is Abraham, David or Hezekiah? Do you agree with them?

So yeah, but that's common for all prophecies. You see like there's this misunderstanding that things can't have a dual fulfillment or can't have an application in their day and time and then also being brought to completion in the Messiah. So uh absolutely things can be attributed to um in their context and day in this case in regards to being a lord like did Jesus say that

did Jesus say that? Did Jesus say that David called the Messiah?

Yeah. Yeah. But he's answering

not Abraham, not David by himself.

Listen, just like I pointed out, okay, the question was whose son is he? Okay, so what is Jesus trying to teach by saying how is he David's son if David in the spirit calls him Lord? That's not a denial that he's not the son of David. You agree with that? I know you do. Right. So what he's talking about is sonship of God. He's saying I'm more than just the son of David. I agree with that. He was also the Messiah. He was also the son of God.

I agree with you on that point, Mike. Yeah, that's good point. I agree with you. The the question though is Jesus did not identify David calling him my Lord in Greek or even in in the Aramaic or even in Hebrew. It's used for divine title in book of psalms. That's my point. So if you look up kurion or curios all these words kiosmu, it's used for y vave or adonai. That's it. That's it in 150 psalms. That's it. So for you to ignore that Jesus in the translation says curios or kirion which is obviously back character curios or uh the the pashita mara or for you to ignore the fact that these are titles in the book of psalms only for yahweh himself or adonai is my point you're holding on to adoni the one place to be fair let's give Mike the last word so Mike because we are a bit over time Mike take as much time as you need to respond then we'll shift to the next 25 minutes go ahead

Yeah. So, Al Al, based on my understanding, you're just making that as an assertion. Okay. Even in the pishita, there are debates about certain passages. I gave you one from John 4. There's another in John chapter 14 about Maria. But also in the Greek curios, okay, curios moo. These can in fact refer to human lords. So, you're like you just asserted there. You assert asserted that when it's used in like the Septuagint that that's always referring to Yahweh. But again, these words because we're in the New Testament, we're talking in Greek, can in fact refer to a human Lord. And again, the best text on this is the ones in the New Testament. It's Paul's letters. It is not the Pashida.

Gentlemen, excellent, fast-paced, engaging, and stimulating. Time flew by. Hard to believe that was 26 minutes. Gentlemen, you're giving us an excellent debate to remember on the deity of Christ or the question is Jesus Yahweh. To the audience, I'm all caught up on your questions. If you hear something during the cross-exam/discussion that you disagree with from either Al or Mike and you were thinking to yourselves, I wish I was in there debating them myself. Well, send in your questions and challenges. I'll save them and we'll be interacting with those in the Q&A period. Gentlemen, we have another roughly 25 to 26 minutes. Mike, I want to be fair and give you equal time to lead the way. So, let's say between 25 and 26 minutes, and we'll start the timer again on your first point. Go ahead.

Okay. So, Al, is Jesus Yahweh?

Yes.

Is the father Yahweh?

Yes.

Is Jesus the father?

No. So then Jesus also isn't Yahweh.

No, that's begging the question.

Be okay. Is the father Yahweh?

Yes.

Okay. Is Jesus the father?

No. That's begging the question.

So So then Jesus also isn't Yahweh.

No, he is Yahweh. But it's begging the question. If you want me to explain, I can't. But it's begging the question.

Okay. How is it begging the question, Al?

Okay. Here's how I would frame it. And this is the supposition that you're identifying Yahweh as the father only. If I if I made an assertion that all men have exactly one and only biological father. Jesus is a man. Therefore, Jesus has exactly one and only biological father. That denies the virgin birth. That's begging the question because we affirm the virgin birth just like you did. So, we're not giving as begging the question. begging the question is assuming your position is right first on the fact that Yahweh is the only father.

Al, I'm not presupposing anything. I'm asking you questions. You said you agree you agree that Jesus is not the father. You agree with that. You also agree that Jesus or excuse me that the father is also Yahweh. You agree with that. Okay. So then Jesus also isn't Yahweh in virtue of not being the father. Isn't that correct? He's He is Yahweh by nature and character as I brought in my presentation.

But is but is he the father?

No, because they're distinct from each other. That's why I said that's begging the question.

There's no begging the question here, Al.

That's Go ahead.

Okay, listen. If Jesus is Yahweh and the father is Yahweh and Jesus is not the father, then there is a sense in which Jesus is not Yahweh. Isn't that correct?

No.

Okay. I just think you're in plain denial that if Jesus is not the father and the father is Yahweh, then the father technically is not like the same person as Jesus, which we agree upon, but that's not making him the same. So like you must agree that he's not Yahweh in some sense. That's

Can I get a clarification?

Yeah, please.

You believe in the virgin birth, right?

Yes.

Okay. So my clarific my my my comment that I gave the illustration is if we what I meant was by begging the question is going back to what you're saying is equating God the father as a single person Yahweh therefore no one else could be what I tried to say to you directly is answering the question by begging is saying if Jesus is only a man then he and I said all men have one biological father only then Jesus has a biological father one that's begging the question This is a false equivalence.

No, no, it's not equivalence. We'd have that's a logical that's a logical listen. No, you're the one who you agree to the first two premises, Al. You agree that Jesus is Yahweh and the father is Yahweh and that they are not each other. So that means that there is a sense in which Jesus is not Yahweh because the father is Yahweh and he's not the father.

Right? If we agree on the definition of Yahweh or Yave, we have to agree. You you agree that he is a father alone. I agree that it is referring to his eternal nature, a name shared by the individuals including Jesus as the eternal pre-existing. That's the difference. That's why I said we define our terms differently. My presentation I gave out how we define our terms. So when you ask me a question like that, I'm going to give you a different answer from a trinitarian view. It's still a valid argument. As I said, begging the question is trying to tell me Jesus is the only father. I have to agree on your No one no one is assuming that only the father is Yahweh. This is your narrative that I'm critiquing. You agree that Jesus isn't the father. You agree that the father is also Yahweh. Okay. So if the father is Yahweh and Jesus is not the father then there is a sense in which Jesus is not Yahweh. You need to say I want to hear the word.

That's begging the question.

That's not okay. This is ridiculous the question.

I just gave you a clear example of begging question. There is nothing within that question that presupposes that only the father can be Yahweh. There's nothing.

It is. It is because if you believe that Yahweh is the only true God as a single person individual, then that is your question to me. I am not in that position. I I in my presentation I showed you two different definitions. You if you saw that trinitarians as myself believe that Yahweh is a divine essence nature of who is shared by three individuals including Jesus. So when you start telling me your definition, you expect me to agree with you as if your definition is true. That's begging the question because I don't agree.

It's an internal. It's an internal It's an internal critique out. I'm not presupposing unitarianism. I'm merely challenging the idea that if you believe that Jesus is Yahweh and the father is Yahweh, but they're not each other, then there is a Listen, even if you believe that Yahweh refers to his essential set of characteristics, that's not going to change that you still believe Jesus isn't the father. Okay? It's you who assert that Jesus is not the father. So if the father is a

distinct person from Yahweh himself, yes, I just told you that. This begs the question to your point is point of view. I don't agree that Yahweh is just a father. That's it. I know trinitarians have a distinction between Yahweh himself.

Yeah. And that's all in the philosophy that you think Unitarians have. Okay.

Actually, it's not. But Okay. All right. Yeah. So 100% Jesus is also not Yahweh because he's not the father and the father is Yahweh. That's that's basic logic. You're just in denial. All right.

I just gave him a presentation.

All right. All right. Question. Is Jesus's name Yahweh?

It's in the name.

It's Yeshua. Yeshua is is Yahweh saves.

Yes. Correct. That's awesome. Okay. So then you're you are agreeing that the name of Jesus is not the name Yahweh.

No, it's embedded in the name.

Okay. So listen, I I'm going to press you on this. Does Jesus have the name Yahweh? Does Yeshua have the name embedded in it? Yes.

As as the abbreviation Yeah. Yes. into Yeshua. Just like a lot of names did.

What?

Wait a second. So Jesus can be Yahweh, but that's not his name. Is that

No, no, that's different. Now tetragram identity and character nature of God as being yode vave like I point out in first Corinthians where he's identified. Yes. In the name Yeshua, it's reflective of who Yeshua is. Y V who saves delivers. That's why he has the name.

Okay, Al, is is Yudhe Vape a name? Is it a name in any capacity?

In connection to his character in nature as I showed from Brown Driver Brig. Yes.

Oh my gosh, dude.

Brown Driver Brig. I just told you the character of his name.

Is Yudhe Ve a name? Yes or no?

As the character is Brown Driver Brig defined.

No, we're not talking about the meaning of it. We're saying is it a name? Yes or no? You have to define what a name is in Hebrew. It's a name of his character. Yes. It's the character and nature of God. That's the name.

The name of his character. That's a category error. Character doesn't have a name. Persons have names. Okay. So, right off the jump, you are obscuring a simple fact that Yahweh is a name. Donnie, can you please share my screen?

Yes, it's shared now.

All right. Thank you. Okay. All right. Here we have it. You ready? I have come. You know what? I should probably just zoom in this way. It's better, isn't it? Yeah. Okay. Here we go. John 5:43 says, "I have come in my father's name." Okay. What is the father's name Al?

And this context is not reflected of a name name. It's actually have authority if you read the context. If another one comes in his own name, by his authority, you will receive him. It's an authoritative application used in ancient Israel at that time where when you're sent out by someone and in their name is by the authority of in other words, the Messiah, as I answered before, in the incarnation became obedient to the father, became a servant to the father. Therefore, he bears the father's authoritative name to come as the Messiah.

Totally agree. We're not talking. Totally agree. That's not

We're talking about Can I finish or Okay. All right.

No, stop. Stop obscuring. What is the father?

What is the name of the father, Al?

I already told you what the name of the father was.

What is it?

The father's shared divine title names yab is shared by three individuals.

Okay. So, he's come in his father's name. That does refer to the father's authority. That is correct.

The Messiah. The Messiah.

Okay. If another comes in his own name, him you will receive. All right. What does this mean, Al?

I just told you what it meant in context. What are we looking at here?

What verse do you want? John 5.

John 5:43.

You want the context?

If another comes in his own name, him you will receive. What does this mean?

543. Okay. Okay, we go to if you want me I could talk about that if you want to about the context of the witness of scripture.

Um, I don't know if you want to go there. Um,

Al, I want these are very simple questions.

I have to go by context. I I said text grammar and language show you what the meaning is by isolating a verse like that and not going to the context. I you can't just answer. I have to give you context. If you want to look at the context about them about this witness of scripture by the authority of the son from the father, I can do that. The name you even mentioned the name itself can be used in different ways. Root fallacy in some cases that you apply. But the name can mean authority. It can mean the nature character. The context determines the meaning. That's my point.

All right. So listen, I I of course agree that context matters. But I think that you are over complicating something very simple. I have come in my father's name. What is that? You agreed that's the yud vah. He says if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. So what does that mean?

I just told you by the authority of the one who sent him. The Messiah, the human messiah who sent him. We're not talking about his divine name.

What are you talking about, Al? If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. What does that mean? What does it mean to come in in if another comes in his own name? What's that mean? If another pro again if you reflect back to what they he was saying in the text a prophet who comes in someone else's name other than the one that sent him they would receive him if he he's coming in his father's name by the authority of the one who sent him as the Messiah Yeshua that is what there's no trinitarian that disagrees with that

okay still has the human side of the Messiah does come as obedient to the father. That's what the obedience of being a servant to the father meant. All right. Taking the human form.

Okay. Al, very simple. Is the father's name Jesus's own name?

I I don't understand what you're saying. It's Is

you don't understand what I'm saying?

No. I don't understand what you're Is Jesus's own name?

Is the father's name Jesus's own name? by divine nature and attributes. Yes, it is. Okay. Corinthians. Okay. Okay. So then even though Jesus says I come in my father's name and says that's not his own name, you deny that. You believe he does come in his in the father's name in virtue of all the essential characteristics of who God is. Right. As I as I again as I stated which I get I don't think you're getting my point is that there is an attribute to the son that deals with his who he is as the Messiah the human side won't deny the humanity of the obedience that he gave to the father. This is why when you made the point earlier about saying why didn't they just call him Yahweh? Right. There is a there is a whole messianic prophecy that we have that you dealt with that says that he would do these things by the when give me an example Mike you made this point you said of course he could do I can do nothing of my own will if only what the father says and does. This is all the humanity that we said that he gave himself obedient to the father as a servant in Philippians 2. That's how we understand it. It doesn't mean he didn't exist as yave in the form of god prior to being a form of

you're wasting my time dude. You're wasting my time asking a question for one.

No, because you're not addressing something very simple that if he came in the father's name and that is not his own name,

then that means that Jesus does not have the name that the father has. You agreed that this is the yu vah. Therefore, Jesus is not y. That's not what I said. I not what I said.

That's wonderful. That's a concession. Yep. I'll take that. Thank you very much.

Okay. W for

Yeah, you you couldn't even answer it if something I didn't even say.

Okay. So, all right. All right. You know what? Line take the win, Mike. I didn't say that, but take the win. Go ahead.

Okay, Al. Let's try Let's try it one more time, then.

Go to your next question cuz I'm going to answer the same way. It's not going to change.

No, let's do it one more time. All right. I have come in my father's name.

Wait, it's your time, not mine. I don't mind. Go ahead.

Okay. So, what is the father's name? The name there represents the authority by which the Messiah, the human messiah side is obedient to the father coming in yor vave the authority of his name as the humanity of the Messiah who he is. Philippians 2:6 obedient to the father.

Why won't you just say it Yahweh? Why won't you No, you didn't.

Because the name there Yeah, the name there represents the authority of

I agree. But it's still a name, Al. I agree but it's still a name. Okay.

Name as a human.

Algartha. Does does the father have a name? Al

the father has many names.

Believe how hard it is to ade.

The father's name he

before the son became he had those same names and titles. Mike, that's the point.

All right, we're we're going to move on. But let's make it clear. The Bible explicitly states that the father has a name that's Yahweh. He wants to proclaim his name. He wants to exalt his name. Jesus said he came in the father's name. That is not his own name. All right. Thank you very much. Now, let's move on. Okay. Al question. What does it mean to have a god?

What sense exactly?

In a basic generic sense, what does it mean to have a god?

That you have a god as as uh for our perspective as a creator, redeemer, savior. Um, as a god. Yeah.

Okay. As a god. Yeah. What what does it mean to have a god?

Redeemer, savior, our lord and savior, our god. Uh, again, this debate is on the name. Is Jesus Yahweh? I don't again get into god context. I mean, I would have been more prepared for god, but this is y'all. This is Yahweh. Is Jesus Yahweh is the topic of the debate.

Okay. All right. Let's just like gosh, Al,

we're going off a different direction. Can can we agree that to have a god means to believe in a supreme being over you through worship, faith, and obedience?

Yeah, you can you can use that. Sure.

Okay, perfect. So, is Yahweh the highest and most supreme being in existence?

Yes.

Okay. In John 20:1 17, Jesus says, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father, but go to my brothers and say to them, I'm ascending to my father and your father, to my God and to your God." Okay. So, Al,

can Yahweh have a God?

If he took the form of a servant, yes.

Okay. So, then if he takes the form of a servant, does he cease to be God? No, that's what that's what taking the form. Hold on. That's what the text says. Taking the form of a servant. He never gave up his first attribute. He became the servant of a man obedient to the father. Therefore, that humanity of the servant has a god because he had to become a man. That's why earlier in this John passage, Thomas calls him Adoni and Elohim. He refers to him in that way as a direct reference in the Hebrew Psalms of Adonai.

You're changing the subject. I'm just giving you time.

Okay. Okay. So, does the human Jesus is is he not uh supreme like Yahweh is? Is he not God like Yahweh

before or after he became a servant?

Okay. So, all right then. Let's go with after.

Let's go after.

Yeah. Of course. That's why it says he became obedient to the father, a servant to the father. That's who he was obedient to God. Therefore, that humanity side has a God. He can say those things because that is the human that of of Philip and other passages that talk about his humanity

but he existed as God prior to that.

Okay. So then so then what? So then technically after he is resurrected he's he he's no longer a servant now he's back to being fully Yahweh. So

when he ascended he ascended okay at the resurrection you know he ascended says that Paul states in acts that at that point with the resurrection he ascension he ascended back

al your audio starting to break up I wonder if your earpieces and I I just clicked reduce mic background noise maybe let's give it a test right now

okay

uh is that better kind of hurt kind of still sounds like it's Uh, muffling a bit. Let me try this.

Okay, give us another test. Al,

did that work?

No, still sounds muffled.

Hold on. Is it muffled or just uh Let me see.

Please pause.

Yeah, I've I've got your Don't worry, Mike.

How did you have it before? Because it's been perfect right up to this point. And perhaps your earpiece may have

I actually haven't changed anything. It's always been the same.

Hm. Interesting.

So, I'm not sure what um what would have changed. It's been the same.

It sounds It sounds a little bit better now, but I just want to make sure that the audience is here.

You're crackling. I I could hear your crackling.

Oh, I'm crack I'm crackling. Am I crackling on your end, Mike?

Nope. Nope, you're not crackling on me.

Okay. But it might be hearing you on my Yeah, I don't know. I hear you. I hear you, but it's it's kind of like crackling a little bit on my end. Okay. Well, I mean, if there's not much we can do about it, we'll we'll deal with it. So, I've got your timer paused, uh, Mike, so we'll start it again. You're at about 18 and a half minutes. And so, go ahead, gentlemen.

All right. Awesome. Okay. So, Al, you agreed that to have a God means to believe in a supreme being over you through worship, faith, and obedience. So if Jesus prior to the ascension has a god then that means that God has a god which is a supreme being over him. Yes.

Uh no can can you hear me? Okay Mike you can hear me?

I can hear you. You're a bit splotchy but

okay. Um I I mentioned before that before the incarnation yes he was God. He was yave at the incarnation he took a servant form a human form. Therefore, those all those applications that we have upon ourselves for God and all that up are for him and that form in that image he took. It's the same way like I said prior to when he did didn't when he take that form he exist.

Okay. So, so, so then so then it's just in virtue of his human flesh, the human nature.

Yes. Yes.

Okay. So, so then would you agree then that post the ascension, post his glorification, he can no longer have a god at that point? because he no longer has a human.

Because he still exists. No, he still exists. No, he's still in bodily form at the resurrection. He says, "Handle me in seed for spirits of flesh and bone as you me you see I have in the resurrection after." Okay. So listen, this seems like a contradiction to me, Al, because if to have a God means to have a supreme being over you, but you are God, then by nature, you can't have a God because you are there's no one above you, right? So that would be a contradiction. And I would like to take you as well to Revelation and then I'm going to move on. Okay? So Revelation chapter 3. So this is post the ascension. Okay. Okay, if we look here in verse 11, this is the revelation he gave to John, right? He says, "I am coming soon. Hold fast to what you have so that no man may seize your crown. I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from heaven, which comes down from my God out of heaven. Okay. So, how is it that if to have a God means to have a supreme being over you, but Jesus is the highest supreme being, how can he have a God?

Okay. So again, this is where terminology disconnects. As trinitarians, you know our answers. We believe clearly that if the persons of God whom he came, one of them took the form of a servant obedient to the father did all those things, death, all those things resurrected, he still has the human nature form after the resurrection, which means he still has those same attributes as we would have to say my God, all those things. But it doesn't take away the fact that Paul said he existed as God to take the form of a servant. That form is the same as the form of God. So the equator is the same. That's my point is is just a difference in terminology.

Okay. So so listen is the human nature all powerful all knowing and everywhere

is the human nature. No. And neither was as I said he emptied himself.

I just need a yes or no form. Yeah. I just said

so it's a no. Okay. 100% human.

Okay. So, is God by nature all powerful, all knowing and everywhere

in his 100% form?

Yes. The answer is yes.

100% in his nature. Yes.

Okay. So then does Jesus have both natures, human and divine and fully divine?

He has both. He took Yeah. He that nature.

Okay. Okay. So then let's make it. So then let's Oh, actually I should ask also is Jesus one person or two persons? Is he one person or two persons? Um, wait. Clarify that for me. Exactly.

Is Jesus one person or two persons? Have you never heard of notorianism?

Yeah, I have. But I'm saying by definition terms, yes, he is one person.

One person. Okay.

Spirit and physical.

Okay. So, here we go. If Jesus is one person and he has the attributes of not just the divine nature or excuse me not just the human nature but he also has all the attributes of the divine nature then you are in fact saying that Jesus as God has a god you can't just segregate that out to just the human nature unless you divide them

right

there's no division that's why Paul made the point that's why Paul said clearly

there is no division exactly why Paul said clear that he existed in the form of God and took the form of a servant. He came in the fashion of a man. That way he was obedient. Obedient to who? The father.

God. That's why. Because of that.

Al, you got you got to you've got to unplug those things. Your audio is too bad. This is ridiculous.

Yeah, perhaps we can try and use your laptop audio. And are you using Bluetooth? Cuz if so, it could be a Bluetooth connection cuz it seemed to come back there for 30 seconds and then we lost it again.

Yeah, we can just hardly get anywhere though with with it's like hard to understand him. I'm trying to get somewhere.

Al, I've got your timer paused. Don't worry, Mike. We're going to give you at least uh three more minutes.

Thank you,

Al. When you get a chance perhaps we can do another audio test to the audience. I am all caught up in your questions. I appreciate the support and the super chats which I've bumped to the top as we are guaranteeing uh tonight that those are answered and interacted with. I hope you guys are having as much fun as I am. Gentlemen, very stimulating debate so far.

Al, how are we doing?

Much better. Oh, now we lost your camera though. your camera. Yeah, your camera went black. Al, did we lose you completely or or do we still have your sound? Okay, let's give Al a bit of an opportunity to get his system up and running.

So, can can I say something while we wait?

Yeah, we can do that or I can just go over some announcements and reminders. But Mike, yeah, as long as it's not pertaining to the debate, we want to make sure Al can hear it, I guess. Yeah. No, that's all right. Go through the announcements then. That's fine. That's okay while we wait.

Okay. Hey, consider this a little bit of a rest break for you for the last three minutes. So, we're expecting big things in in these final three minutes.

So, let's give uh Al an opportunity here to

get himself situated, get his audio and everything going. Okay. So, uh, we are wrapping up this year with a bang. has been an excellent year of debates, interviews, open mics, lectures, so on and so forth. And the year flew by. So, we want to make sure we end the year with a bang. We got a good mix of debates, interviews, and open mics for December. So, we'll be back here on Wednesday with Bruce Malone, creation apologist, for a presentation titled Awe of God. We'll also be here on the 4th with Dr. John Hartnett for a program dedicated to biblical longevity, how man in the pre flood world lived hundreds of years. Then we're going to kick off the year with a bang with some highly anticipated eschatology and soteriology related debates. We've got this one coming up two versus two discourse showdown. Lots of hype for this one. I can't wait. We've got Mike Sullivan and Don Preston versus Jeremiah Nortier and Sam Frost. Long time in the making. So, make sure to hit that notification bell. You definitely don't want to miss this one. Now, if you haven't yet seen the two-part series that I've done uh that I did with Gavin Cox from Answers in Genesis UK, fascinating information in this series. We did it over the span of a month. And so we kicked it off with Adam and Eve in ancient Egypt. And the second program focused on Noah and the flood in ancient Egypt. We also went over secular Egyptian chronology and how they get it wrong but the Bible gets it right. So if you're interested in those topics, then make sure to uh check that out as well. I've been putting out uh several videos uh critiquing points of evolution and focusing on addressing the hominin fossil record specifically focusing on the australopithecines. And so you can find that up on the channel to make sure that you're staying up to date on everything coming out from the ministry. Now in in January we got uh in the new year we got several more debates coming up on the nature of God. One of them will be between Caleb Percher and Dr. Al Garza. Al will be back for a debate on the question is monarchianism biblical? So, I really enjoy the nature of God related debates. And so, the more the better. For those interested in jumping into the debate coliseum and engaging on the nature of God, reach out to me ster ministries@gmail.com and I'll do my best to fit you into the schedule. Al, I do see you at the bottom backstage, but it says devices not connected. And so, uh, that could be referring to your webcam or your audio. So, just make sure those are plugged in. Mike, according to evolution, things are supposed to get better on on their own. So, if we sit here and wait for a couple million years and allow enough beneficial mutations to accumulate, then things might improve without us having to do anything.

Yeah. Right. We we might see intelligence come from non-intelligent organic matter.

You give it enough time. That's what they say, right? Time is their lowercase G. God.

You have been crushing it in your debates. By the way, Donnie, I'm also YEC. Really though, you do a great job.

I appreciate that. And you're an experienced seasoned debater, so I appreciate that kind of feedback coming from coming from you. We definitely agree on that topic. Thanks,

Mike. So, you're telling me you don't believe you're related to banana plants and puppy dogs then, eh?

No. No.

Isn't that what the science says?

Yeah. I Theistic evolution I just, man, I really don't think it's what's best supported. Not at all. Right. I mean the question is evolution compatible with the Bible? Many theistic evolutionists like to debate that question. A Mike and it's like well first let's debate the question is evolution compatible with science and then we're going to see that no it's not. And so why would we ruin

A perfectly good Bible with a scientific theory? It's not even a good, it's not a theory. It's not even a good hypothesis. So why would we insert that into the Bible where, uh, it doesn't belong?

Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, there's so many like fundamental problems with it. You know, one thing that I always think about is like the first and second law of thermodynamics, right? Like, totally violates them, right? How, how can you actually get, uh, design, order, intelligence if all things tend towards decay and disorder, right? Random chance. It's just, it's, Yeah, I'm with you. I'm not as skilled as you are in the subject, but yeah, I love it. Well, no, you made a good point because, yeah, you can apply that the second law of I changed our template until Al gets back because I guess we just transitioned into a creation show, creation versus evolution with metaphysics, Mike and Donnie Beninsky. So, well, yeah, you made a great point on the second law of thermodynamics, the law of increasing entropy, that everything is winding down.

Well, we see that same thing applied to genetics, right? Evolutionists say, "Oh, the engines of evolution are mutations." And then selection can act upon those mutations. But the problem is, Mike, the majority of mutations are moving things downward. They're deleterious. They're harmful. They're disease-causing. And we're supposed to believe that mutations can help take a fish to fisherman, from goo to you. Ponds come to people.

I don't think so, Mike.

Yeah. Yeah. No, it, it definitely does not make sense. Al is back.

Our creation intervention is now complete. Al, we, uh, you know, we, we're good at filling that, that dead air. So, uh, consider that a, a refreshment break. Uh, so, perhaps we can get an audio test from you and see if we're good to go, Al.

Yeah. Can you be okay?

Oh, yeah. That's really good.

Yeah.

It looks like device, too. Perhaps.

Well, I had to change different device. changed back to my Yeti, Blue Yeti. The Mac device did not go very well and didn't end up going well.

You sound good. So, I mean, this, this setup is really, really nice. So, why don't we stick with that.

And gentlemen, you guys were kind of on a roll in terms of what you're discussing there. And so, what I want to do, Al, because, uh, for the last few minutes there, your audio was was crackly and it was kind of hard to make out everything you were saying. So, let's kind of rewind and give you guys an extra two minutes and therefore we'll give you Mike a full five minutes, let's say, of cross-examination. So, I'm going to put the timer back. Uh, just give me one second. Five minutes starting now. Go ahead, John.

Okay. So, Al, we agreed that what it means to have a God is to believe in a supreme being over you. So if Jesus has a God, that means that he has a supreme being over him. Now, isn't this contradictory? Because if Jesus is Yahweh, then he is the most supreme being himself and cannot have one over him.

Yeah, that's, that's what I mentioned before. That is assuming that God is just one person, which Trinitarians do not. Because we do hold to the, the persons of God. Therefore, as I mentioned, we already can answer that, which is one of them, the Word became the Messiah. Therefore, that humanity reflects back to having a God, all those things, because we don't look at it as one person. That's what I was, that's the point I was trying to make. Is that if I have to concede to that, if I accept your, uh, interpretation of God, Father only, Yahweh, that's it. That's why my presentation I showed our differences in terminology. So, because I don't accept that, um, I can't concede to your question to answer unless you look at a Trinitarian answer.

Listen, I don't think Trinitarianism offers something suitable to the question. Okay? Because Yahweh, in virtue of being the most supreme being, cannot have a being over him. Can you let me share my screen again? Just like the passages that I showed you here, Jesus has a God, and he increasingly says this, right? In this passage here in Revelation 3, right? "I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God."

"I will write on him the name of my God, right? From the city of my God, which comes down from my God out of heaven." Okay. So, if Jesus is God, how can he have a supreme being over him if he is the supreme being?

Okay. And, and I, I don't have any other way to answer the way I did. I understand that the debate is, is Jesus Yahweh, which I know we're deferring to now going to God scenarios. We're God. I understand that. Yes, because that's the question. But I'll answer it this way.

Is Yahweh capital G God?

Is Elohim one of the names and titles of him? Yes, of course.

In the Hebrew scriptures?

Is Yahweh capital G God? Is, yeah. Okay, we're looking at English now and, okay, so.

So, capital G God, if I apply that to Jesus in the New Testament, it's the same principle.

Time stop.

Mike, you're asking a question, but you don't want an explanation. I, I can't give you a simple answer if you don't want the explanation.

No, you're obscuring it. It's a very. I'm giving you an answer. Question.

No, that's not answering it. Al, it's this is so simple. Okay. Does, if you're Yahweh, are you also capital G God?

If yes, if you are looking at it.

Okay. So then what you just said is totally person. No, not in your, not in your definition of Yahweh.

That's just, that's just not how it works.

My definition of Yahweh. Okay. So, listen, I just want everybody who's watching to understand, if Jesus is Yahweh, he cannot have a God. Because as Al agrees, to have a God is to have a supreme being over you. If Jesus was Yahweh, he is the supreme being and can therefore not have a being over him.

And that's to ignore the all of scripture.

Yeah. To ignore all of scripture. Yeah. Tell, okay. Where does,

Al, where does the Bible say that God has three persons?

Is this a Trinitarian debate now?

Is this a Trinitarian debate?

Yeah. Okay. So, you're going to have,

I mean, listen, these are red herrings. Are we going to debate the Trinity, which I, I'd be happy to do? Are we debating Jesus as the title God, which we can do? Or are we saying Jesus is Yodavi again? We are taking out of the cont. That's why, that's my representation. Mike stayed on the topic, is Jesus Yahweh? I kept it that way all the way through. I didn't deviate to Trinitarian passages or is Jesus called God all throughout the New Testament. I didn't. You are diverting from the topic of the debate.

Obviously, right? If Jesus is Yahweh, that's got nothing to do with Trinitarianism. Why? If you want to debate, we can.

Okay. Okay. So, Al, let's get fine then. Let's get back to it. Okay. So, is Jesus Yahweh?

Yes. I said over and over again.

Okay. Is the Father Yahweh?

Yes. If you want to beg the question again, you can.

Is, is Jesus the Father?

No, he's not the Father.

So, then there's two Yahwehs then.

You're begging the question, Mike.

Not two Yahwehs.

I'll answer the question.

I just did. It's not two Yahweh. That Yahweh is not a person, an individual.

Okay. So Jesus is Yahweh, the Father is Yahweh, they're not each other, and that's just one Yahweh. Is that your position?

Say it again. I can repeat it again. I'm sorry because you faded out on me.

Okay.

All right. Repeat it again.

If Jesus is Yahweh and the Father is Yahweh and they are not each other, that's only one Yahweh. That's your position.

By divine nature and character, yes. I already mentioned that to you. This is so. All right. So clearly, Al, if Jesus is not the Father and they both are Yahweh, then you don't have one Yahweh and therefore contradict Deuteronomy 6:4 and Jesus' own quotation in Mark 12.

That's not true, Mike. That's not true at all.

Definitely true.

I've already shown in that presentation, Yahweh is a divine natured spirit shared by three persons.

Right. Okay. So, Al, do you stand by the statement that God cannot save the world through a man? Do you stand by that?

That God cannot save the world. You just a human being? Yes. That's, that's what. Well, hold on. That's what the Hebrew Bible says. Yes.

Okay. All right. So, here we go. I have three texts for you. Okay. Acts 17:31 says, "God has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man." Romans 5:15 says, "If many died through one man's trespass, many will receive the gift of grace through one man, Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:21 says, "For as by a man came death, by man also has come resurrection of the dead." So, Al, why is it that you believe that a human being is not able to for God to save us if that's exactly what these three passages say?

And that would be a contradiction for you because if I follow your reasoning, the Old Testament says,

No, no, no. This is not about a contradiction. Answer. Did you want me? I can't answer.

There's a little bit of cross-talk and, and I got to say, we only got about a minute left. So, can I ask, why don't we,

That was not an answer.

I was going to, but you don't let me.

Okay, gentlemen, let's do this. Mike, C, can you reiterate your final question and then Al, I want to give you as much time as you need uninterrupted to respond because that was the last five minutes and the audience has really been enjoying this. I kind of just let you guys go at it, but I do want this final minute here to largely be uninterrupted just so we both can hear where you guys are fully coming from. So, Mike, reiterate your question and then Al, you get a, a full uninterrupted response. Go ahead.

Yeah. So, so he started with, "Well, that's a problem for you." And then started to go on to that. No, you have to answer for your position. You claimed that God could not save the world by quote, "just a man." But here we have in these three passages, like I've showed you, Acts 17, Romans 5, and 1 Corinthians 15. It, that's exactly what it says that he would do this by a man. So, how do you reconcile your view versus what the Bible says here?

So let me reconcile it this way and pose it this way. In the Hebrew Bible, it is only Yahweh who saves. The savior, only one. He makes it clear that no man can save, no man can atone for sins, redeem, or anything. It is only Yahweh himself, God, who only can be salvation. This is why I said when you come into passages of the New Testament where now Yahweh becomes a man. Philippians makes it clear. He existed, took the form of a man, of a servant, obedient unto death to bring redemption to humanity. He was God, not a man. Took the form of a man, became a man, humbled himself unto death, obedient to the Father. This is why I said he could have chosen anybody, Moses, Abraham, to redeem the world. He didn't choose a man. He himself became a man. That's what the text says all throughout the New Testament, that he became a man and as the man Messiah, the, the person who we said persons of, of who the nature of God is. He became obedient to death and reconciled humanity to himself as the Messiah. But he existed as God, the one who in the Old Testament redeems and saves everyone. No man can do that as a man, according to the Hebrew Bible. That's why it's a contradiction, I said, in your position, because it flat out rejects what the Hebrew Bible says about no man can redeem, no man can save, no man can be a sacrifice. But God himself, who took the form of man, can be. That was my point.

Gentlemen, excellent comprehensive cross-examination. We got about 60 minutes of good, fast-paced cross-examination on many points, a lot of the many points at least that were brought up and discussed in the openings and also rebuttals. So, gentlemen, we do have our five-minute closing statements. Good opportunity in light of how thorough the debate was to wrap up our thoughts, wrap up our points, perhaps address anything we feel has been left hanging up to this point. To the audience, I appreciate the energy and the engagement. I'm all caught up on your questions and I've bumped super chats to the top. Those questions should help us to elaborate and expand on the topic even more. Al, we'll give you your five-minute closing statement whenever you're ready.

All right, let me see if I could share my screen again real quick here.

No problem.

That way I could pull up my PowerPoint. Okay. Kind of weird. It's not letting me do it. Share screen. It's bringing up an option to choose, but it doesn't want to let me share.

When you click the, the, the. Are you on Google Chrome, Al?

Yeah, I am.

Okay. So you click share screen,

right?

Once that pops up, it should say Chrome tab, window, and entire screen.

Right.

When you, when you click the entire screen, there should be a little box underneath it that you'll have to click first to get the share option.

Oh, gotcha. Okay, here it is. I found it. Yeah, it didn't. Okay, perfect. Okay, got it.

All right, you're good to go.

All right, so the topic of the debate obviously is, is Jesus Yodavi? Is he Yahweh? My point was to show that there are different understandings between how the scriptures defines Jesus as Yahweh from the language, context, and grammar. It's not about how, you know, uh, certain logical philosophies have to understand of how if we don't understand this, it cannot be. The Jewish mindset was not about, you know, having wisdom and understanding and trying to make sense of everything that God has done or says. If the scripture says it, then it's true. If Jesus is Yodavi, Yahweh by identity, which I only was able to show a few verses, there are a number of verses that that prove this point that I showed from the languages, from the context, and the grammar. Trinitarians do not deny the humanity of Jesus. This is why we have passages in John that says that the Word who existed was with God and was God. This is the Elohim, the persons of God. He was, he became flesh. This is why Paul says he was existing in the form of God and took the form of a servant and became in the fashion be and was found in the fashion of man. This is the humanity. So therefore, he can have a God as the man. He can do all these things as a man. He cannot know certain things because he took the form of a man. That was the whole point. For believers like us, we, we hold to this, that Yahweh is one divine spirit nature and three persons. This is why I said I identify one of them as Jesus, who holds the divine title Yodavi. That name represents the eternal character. He was, he is, and he will be. The person who holds that divine title name reflects what that name means and represents that he is Yahweh from eternity, God, and also man because he took the form of a man. This is why I don't concede to certain passages that Mike said. Mike asked a question regarding the nature and character of the Messiah. And I said there's a begging fallacy. And I'll have to repeat this again because this is why I said there's a logical valid explanation. If all men have exactly one and only biological father, and Jesus is a man, therefore Jesus has exactly one and only biological father. Mike would say, "No, he doesn't have a biological father because of the virgin birth." There was no intimate conception there. Well, then the logic, it's a valid point unless you accept the miracle of the virgin birth. The same way that I mentioned before that I don't concede to certain, uh, assumptions that Mike makes, that if he believes that Yahweh is just a Father and the Father alone, I don't concede to that definition of who Yahweh is. So my point is, is that we're going to have terminological differences here. The terminology is different. They believe one person, the Father, and again, the Hebrew Bible is rare on the occasions of Father. As I said, even the Messiah is called Father of Eternity, the one everlasting Father. It's only a few occasions where you have Father mentioned as the creator in general. It's either Elohim, Adonai, and basically if you singular L, but Adonai and Elohim for Yodavi is the consistent name and titles for God. So even the Messiah can be referred to as Father of Eternity. So again, these are titles and names. This is why I mentioned framing the debate. Identity means A is B. If Jesus is Lord from the Greek, the Peshitta is Yodavi, and the Hebrew, then that is identity. It's not predication. Again, these are also his rules that he applies when he looks at this. But he doesn't follow the rules as it should be, as this is how it is. Again, if the text says it, it's so. I don't have to try and, uh, figure out how God exists, in what way, or question God in any way. That's what the Greeks do. The Jews just listen to what God says and says, if God says it and shows it, it's true. And I gave these examples before. Both nouns are definite. The context reveals it. This is identity. I showed these passages where where Jesus is Yodavi by identity from the languages, the context, all these things, the verb for the name. I even gave Brown-Driver-Briggs, the Hebrew for name, when designations of God as embodying the revealed character of who he is. That was reflective of the three verbs. He was, he is, and he will be. So when Jesus is directed as the Yodavi, the nature of that eternal existence is applied to him. This is why we say he existed or pre-existed before the incarnation. We have a difference of terminology. Again, we look at this as self-existent, eternal, middle. Mike will want to stay on the humanity of Jesus, but ignore the fact that we can't because there is a pre-existence. So again, I'm going to go down here where I said man cannot redeem or atone for another man. That is from the scriptures. That's not me saying it. This is what the scriptures teach. So only Yodavi can save and redeem unless it's him. It's why he came into creation and took the form of a servant to redeem humanity to himself as himself. The person we call the Word. And again, Jesus affirms this a number of places again in Colossians and other places. We got to understand that we are talking. Unitarians have a position of who Jesus is, and Trinitarians have a position of Jesus, who Jesus is.

20 seconds.

20 seconds. We have a combination of saying Jesus is Yodavi in his divine spirit nature and took the form of a servant and a man and became Yeshua to reconcile the world as the Old Testament promises.

Al, thank you very much for that closing statement. To be fair, Mike, we'll give you equal time, so closer to somewhere between five and six minutes. Uh, since there was a lot discussed, I don't want you guys to feel extra rushed in these closing statements. To the audience, that means you have exactly five minutes before we engage your questions and I see a super chat here which I've bumped to the top. Appreciate the support and the, uh, energy from tonight's live chat. So I've reset the timer. Mike, did you want me to get your slides up?

No, that's all right.

Okay. Uh, five to six minutes starting now. Go ahead.

All right. So the topic of today's debate was, is Jesus Yahweh? Now, in order for Al to prove this, he had to demonstrate that number one, that Yahweh is the name of the Son. He has failed to prove this. He said things about the name of Yahweh that really reduce it to something less than a name. He said things like it describes his mode of existence rather than an identity. Folks, the Bible says everywhere God wants to proclaim his name, he wants people to know him by his name. Jesus, as I showed, said he came in the Father's name, that he magnified his name. Clearly, Yahweh is a name. Okay, so he failed to demonstrate that Jesus has the name Yahweh. The closest he got was Psalm 110, which calls him Adonai, like he claims, even though we'll, we'll talk more about that in a moment. But the second thing he had to prove was that all the things he believes make Jesus fully divine can't be done through delegation, right? Like forgiving sins, uh, like performing miracles, etc. He failed to refute this. Everywhere Jesus says that his authority is not his own, his teachings are not his own, that his acts were not his own. Okay, so this shows us that what Jesus did, his power, his authority was by delegation. Okay, so that doesn't just entail being Yahweh. He had to prove that and he failed. He also had to prove that if Jesus is Yahweh and he is truly a man, that his Yahweh attributes can't contradict his humanity. He failed to demonstrate this. He concedes that to have a God means to have a supreme being over you. But if Jesus is God, he is the supreme being. So then he can't have someone over him. He chopped that up to just being a mystery of the hypostatic union, which was of course refuted because Jesus is one person. Okay? He doesn't, he's not two persons. One has the divine nature and one has a human nature. He's one person that has the attributes of both. Okay? That's a contradiction. And as I pointed out, that undermines Jesus's true humanity because, for example, God cannot be tempted by evil. But Jesus can. That's why he was exalted. Okay? If he was God, the possibility of sin is not even there. And that just reduces the temptation passages in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 to a false drama where there's no risk and Jesus actually doesn't have a choice. It is necessary for Jesus to have a choice in rejecting sin in order for his ex, exultation to be justified. Okay. I, I also want to comment that he made these statements like, "Oh, God transcends reason. Oh, it's the Greeks who try and understand God." Uh, but then he followed that up with a conceptual framework of identity versus predication. Folks, that is using logic, that is using reason, and therefore contradicts his initial statement. What he, everything he's told you has a strong dependence on human philosophy and logic. But even greater than that, folks, the Bible says that we are to love God with our mind. In in Romans 1, he actually says that even God's divine nature can be understood by the things God has made. Okay? So, he's just making statements that contradict himself and contradict the Bible. Okay? His main proof text was Psalm 110:1, which is quoted all throughout the New Testament. I demonstrated that number one, all the manuscripts that you can find that is accepted by the majority of PhDs, okay, and scholars says Adonai, not Adonai. Okay? He holds a fringe view. He brought up the Peshitta, which is way late and basically denies the testimony of the Septuagint, which says Kyrios, okay? I know I didn't pronounce that right. All right, but the point is that it is not using Adonai. He just is reverse exegesis that based on Hebrew New Testament manuscripts which do not exist. Okay? Um, all right. The last thing I want to bring up, you know what? Can you actually let me share my screen, Donnie? That would be great. There's a verse here.

And you have exactly one minute, Mike.

Awesome. Okay. So, check, check this out. Can I drag this over? Oh, come on. Come on. Okay. Very nice. Load. Come on. Does that look white to you?

Yes, it is all white.

Oh, come on. Reload. Just taking my time. I'm sorry. Please give me a few more seconds.

Oh my gosh. Do I need to exit out of these?

It froze up on you at the worst time.

Oh, come on. Give it to me. Oh my gosh. Oh man, this is terrible. This is killing the vibe. This needs to hurry up and load. I don't know what's going on, guys. Okay, so all right, listen. Go ahead and take it away. I'll just quote it. I like to show you so you can see it. All right, let me, let me get my last statement. Okay. John chapter 14, Jesus says, "If you believe in me, you do not believe in me, but the one who sent me." Jesus has a unique relationship with Yahweh. This is why the text can say things like where John the Baptist, you know, talking about prepare ye the way of the Lord. To prepare the way for Jesus is to prepare the way for the Lord. Not because Jesus is the Lord, but because the Lord sent him. It is on his authority. It is on his decree. The Father sent the Son. And that refutes basically every other text he presented where we agree that Jesus can share titles, roles, and divine prerogatives with Yahweh. That doesn't make him Yahweh. And truly, we need to believe what the New Testament says, and that is that Jesus really is not Yahweh by his identity.

Mike, thank you very much for that closing statement. Gentlemen, that concludes our opening statements, rebuttals, a comprehensive cross-examination, and now closing statements. Excellent debate, a lot of information for us to examine and absorb. And I appreciate the obvious work and time and effort that went into the preparation for this debate. So, Al, Mike, appreciate that. We got some audience questions. So, let's do roughly 30 minutes of audience questions. How we will format the audience Q&A, gentlemen, is whoever the question is for, let's say it's for you, Mike, of course, you get to respond first, then we'll hand it to Al. Al will be free to rebut or give his own thoughts, but then it'll go back to you, Mike, for the final word. So basically, whoever the question's for gets the last word. And I think that'll help us to move along smoothly. And so, okay, why don't we just start at the beginning here. Testing Prophecy $20 super chat. I appreciate the support and the question. It comes in for Mike. Jude 11 warns Kora to heed Psalm 45, written to the sons of Kora. Hebrews 1:8-9, "The king is God, yet anointed by God. Two subjects, one throne. To reject the Son is Kora's fatal treason against Yahweh, who is Jesus." Mike, what are your thoughts on that?

So, I, I actually wouldn't even grant this connection that he's making. And I'm not sure there actually is even a link to Psalm 45. Um, I think Jude uses Kora as a stock example of rebellion against God's appointed leader, who at the time was Moses, by the way. And there's really nothing in Jude 11 that points to Psalm 45 or the sons of Kora in this way, uh, that I think he's sort of suggesting. However, let's just go ahead and point out that even if that, uh, were true, it still wouldn't entail what I think you think it does. So, for example, if, you know, to reject Jesus is to reject Yahweh, that isn't only possible if Jesus is Yahweh. That's also possible because Yahweh sent Jesus, right? So Jesus is the Father of salvation. He is the one that Yahweh sent, right? And so to reject Jesus is to, to reject the Father. And by the way, the text explicitly says that rejection is him being the Son of God and the Messiah, right? It doesn't say rejecting him being Yahweh.

Thank you, Mike. Al, over to you.

Not sure I understand the second part. Hebrews 1:8, "The king is God, yet anointed by God. Two subjects, one throne. Reject the Son." Of course, fatal. Um, I mean, I, I think Mike has talked about that that he believed it's referring to the king in the book of Psalms. Um, but if, if you look at the Psalms interpretation, even within the Targums, it's actually a, a passage to Yahweh himself, and they actually translate as such, uh, that is speaking of Yahweh. So, and it's a Messianic text, back as Messiah King, who is Yahweh in that passage in the Targum.

Thank you, Al. Mike, you get the last word if you'd like it.

Yeah. So, to me, the key point here was regarding Kora. That's what I, I addressed. But because of what, uh, Al just brought up. So, I do in fact believe that Hebrews 1:8, quoting Psalm 45 there, is a connection there for a human king. That's correct, because that's what it says. It's verse one. Psalm 45:1 says that they were addressed to a human king. Uh, so when he says, "Your throne, O God," that's another reason why clearly, if Jesus is Yahweh, that is also calling him God, by the way. Um, that's, this is also a discussion about God, the Word God, which the word God in Greek and Hebrew has a semantic range which can be used for exalted humans. Psalm 45 is actually a textbook example of that. Right? So, again, Jesus represents the Father. He represents Shekhinah. He is the one whom God sent. To reject him is to reject Yahweh, not because he is Yahweh, but because Yahweh sent him.

Thank you, Mike. Okay, let's move on to the next question. Comes in from Common Sense Christianity. $20 super chat. Thank you for the support and the question to Mike. Acts 5:42 says, "After Jesus left, the apostles taught daily in the temple and homes and never stop teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ." Why no door-to-door teaching Jesus is God like Al Garza teaches?

Yeah, you know, I think the reason why is because they didn't actually have a formal language in which to talk about it that maintains Judeo-Christian monotheism in a way that also affirms the Platonic philosophy that they believed in. Right? So, you heard this tonight from Al when he talks about God being one being in three persons. Folks, the Bible does not use the words hypostasis or ousia like that. It uses us one time, it means property. It uses the word hypostasis like five times, and in two of them, it's translated nature, right? Which is just totally opposite of what came later. These things had to be debated. They had to, um, be ruled upon. They, they, they really didn't come down to what the Bible says because, as you pointed out, Common Sense, right? What's it say? It says he's the Messiah, right? It doesn't say that he's God, that he's Homoousios. All that comes later.

Thank you, Mike. Al, floor is yours.

So, there's, there's no, uh, text. I mean, you look at the book of Acts, you have titles. Again, going back to the name, we have Ha'Adon. We have the Tetragrammaton. We have Psalm 110, which again is used in Psalms for Yodavi and Adonai. That is all you have in the book of Acts where he's referred to as the Lord, which again, scholars will tell you, it's even tried to translate back as Ha'Adon and even Adonai, because you can't have the Lord without having an address to who he is. So, God and man, or Yahweh and man, is clearly in the book of Acts in understanding who Adonai is in the language that it was been spoken in, as well as the text. And Mike made a comment that no Hebrew New Testament manuscripts exist. We have over 4,000 Hebrew New Testament manuscripts in our possession. They do exist. They're at the National Library of Israel. So, they are existing and we can refer to them and see how they preserved certain texts and how they understood it from a Jewish perspective. So, they understood that when you see the Lord, it's either Adonai or Ha'Adon, which is only attributed to Yodavi. And no one talked about persons and all like, who, we're not talking about early church fathers and their discussions. We're talking about what the text says. What does the scripture say? Jews don't question God. Mike questions God as far as saying, what, how can he do that? In what way can he be this way? We have to reject it. Jews just obeyed and said, "The Lord said," that's it. This is why when they did that, they got chastised when they questioned God. Even Job, when he questioned God, said, "Who are you to, were you there when I created everything?" If the text says it from the languages I point out, the Aramaic, the Greek, the Hebrew text that we have, it is affirmed in understanding from what the New Testament says, not from my perspective, but what the context and language says.

Okay, listen. He, he can go on and on about how, oh, what the text actually says. It calls him the Son of God 50 times, the Son of Man 80, the Messiah over 500. The man presented no more than a dozen options that potentially call him Yahweh. And of those two, the best ones were Psalm 110:1, which again are not based in what most the scholars hold. He holds a minority position. This is just a fact. Okay? That is just a fact. And I think it's really a great question because certainly the apostles would have been emphasizing this there. There wouldn't be this weird requiring, you know, different steps, specific interpretations, presupposing Greek metaphysics. No, it would have been point blank and clear. But the only thing that they actually are clear on that is that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Son of Man. Thank you, Mike. Okay, next question comes in from Thomas and I appreciate the support. Currency, whatever that is. Cop $11,900. So, uh, Al, look like it's for you. More of a Trinity related question, but feel free to engage it if you'd like to. Why don't the Old Testament Jews, well, how come they don't conclude the Holy Spirit is a person? So, I'm not sure what they, well, I'm not sure the detail of that question. But I mean, if, if for Trinitarians, we have the Holy Spirit being mentioned in the New Testament, speaking, uh, talking, uh, being attributed as a person, using the personal pronouns in the text. The New Testament is written by Jews. So, them, the writers understanding who the Holy Spirit is, that's again, Trinitarian debate on him speaking as a person, acknowledged as a person, can be lied to, all the things that, that make a person a person, um, is, is attributed to the Holy Spirit. The distinction, what, what I say is Unitarians sometimes will try to, uh, bring it all into one and say, well, the Holy Spirit is God, he's the Father, he appears this way. Okay? But again, they did, they could have said the Father in that case. They have to say Holy Spirit, or set apart spirit of God. They could have said the Father said this, the Father said that. They didn't say that. When they made a distinction between who the Holy Spirit is, they acknowledged the Holy Spirit, just they acknowledge who Jesus is. So they didn't say the Father said, or, or Acts 5, that you have lied to the Holy Spirit. They just said, "You lied to the Father of God." They didn't say that. They made a distinction. And these distinctions in the New Testament have to be looked at as distinctions of who they are and they speak and how they act, not just, uh, you know, titles of who the Father is, the Holy Spirit. He's being sent or the spirit of God and so forth. Because again, the writers didn't make that distinction of saying the Father. They could have, but they didn't. They actually made a clear distinction of who the Holy Spirit is in numerous texts of the New Testament. So, I'm not sure if that's what he's looking at.

Thank you, Al. Mike, anything you'd like to add?

Yeah, absolutely. Can I share my screen? Let's, let's give this another shot. See if I can get this to work.

Yes, there we go.

Awesome. Okay. So, the answer to this question is very simple. It's because they weren't polluted by Greek metaphysics, which tried to teach things like God's spirit is a separate person within God. Uh, we have a spirit as well. Uh, but our spirit is not a separate person within us. The Holy Spirit is an extension of the Father's being. Okay. So, for example, in Matthew 10:20, he says, uh, speaking to the apostles about them going out spreading the gospel. It says, "For it is not you who speak, but it is the spirit of your Father speaking through you." Okay, the spirit here, notice how it's capitalized. This is a reference to the Holy Spirit. They didn't have all those Greek metaphysics, right? They weren't presupposing later ideas. The spirit was the spirit of the Father. And this is a solid text that demonstrates that.

Al, you get the last word. This one was for you.

So, yeah, no one denies the, the Father spirit nature, but it says Holy Spirit, not spirit of the Father. This is why when Paul says at the ends of 2 Corinthians 13, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit with you all." The fellowship of the Holy Spirit, this, and it mentions God and Jesus. It mentions them. That doesn't mean what Mike says. No one says God is spirit. But it doesn't distinct between Holy Spirit versus the spirit. The writers made a distinction when it speaks about the Holy Spirit. It says the Holy Spirit, not the spirit of the Father. They could have easily said that in numerous places here. They could have said it here. Paul could have said that. But he says, "To the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit." So you have God being mentioned there. You have Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. The fellowship that comes with them. This is, this is not what Mike said because it doesn't say in this passage, Holy Spirit, Father. No one denies that the God is spirit or the Father spirit or any of that. That's, that's the nature of who they are and that's in relation to it.

Al, can I ask you a question and I won't respond.

Sure.

So you're saying in Matthew 10:20, when it says the spirit will be working, speaking through you, that is not the Holy Spirit. That's your view.

The spirit in context, again, I have to look at the context. Is the spirit, um, is making a distinction. I have to look at the context. Context will determine. And, and granted, the context will determine what is being said. What my point only was that when there's a clear distinction with the Holy Spirit versus Father spirit or spirit of the Father, those distinctions aren't made when it says the spirit or the Holy Spirit.

A Trinity debate in the future between you two would be a lot of fun. That's for Tolkenomics $5 super chat and I'm assuming this one is for you, metaphysics Mike. Would early Christians have understood Jesus's phrasing, example, saying "I am" as a direct reference to Yahweh per 2T, second temple, I guess, and, uh, that word understanding?

Haka haka understanding or the or?

Yeah. So, this is a great question. This is actually something that I didn't get a chance to respond to in Al's presentation. So, he did mention the "I am" statements. So, the first thing that you have to understand, uh, well, actually, let me, I directly answer, no. No, they would not have understood that as referring to the like Exodus 3, Exodus, what is it? It's three or four, right? Where he says, right?

Yeah. So, and the reason why is because number one, if you look in the Greek Septuagint, it says ego eimi, okay? It does not just say ego. So, if they really wanted, if Jesus was really saying that, and we can prove that Jesus was reading the Greek Septuagint, by the way. So, if that were true, then certainly he would have said ego eimi. He doesn't. So, that's number one. Number two is that the context of this statement. In fact, can can you let me share my screen so I can show it?

Yes, I appreciate that. So, let me, the wrong screen. Um, okay. So, this, this is what John chapter 8, right?

I believe it's John chapter 8. The "I am" statement. 8:50 something.

Uh, Al, it kind of looked like your mouth was moving, but I think you're on mute.

Yeah, I didn't want to rub that. I had something sitting in the side.

Oh, no worries.

Okay. So, all right. So, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." All right. So, the second thing to point out here is the question is, what is he answering by this? And the context of the whole situation is he's saying, "Who do you make yourself out to be? Who do you make yourself out to be?" So, the context of the "I am" ego eimi, ego eimi without the own, is really just saying "I." The emphasis is on the "I." "I am the one who Abraham saw and was glad." Okay. So, the qu, the real question here is, who is that? And that, my friends, is the Messiah. And to prove that, let's just come to Galatians chapter 3, where Paul talks about this very thing with Abraham. Okay? So, he says, scroll down. Oh, did I scroll past it? Let me just find it. Offspring. There it is. Okay. Verse 15. Okay. So, Paul says right here, Galatians 3:16, "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. And it does not say to his offsprings, referring to many, but referring to one, to your offspring, who is Christ." So, this is really, he's drawing from, I believe it's what Genesis chapter 20 or maybe it's 22, where the promise of the Messiah is made through Abraham when he tells him, "Through your offspring singular, all people, all nations of the earth will be blessed." Paul says right here, that is the Messiah, who is the Christ. Christ means Messiah. So, in John 8:58, John 8:58, when he says, "Before Abraham was, I am," he's saying that he is the Messiah. "Who do you make yourself out to be? I am the one whom Abraham looked forward and would see." That's the promise of the Messiah, folks. That's what that means. That's also the stated purpose of John's letter. If you come to chapter 20, this will be the last thing I say. Thank you. I know I'm going on here, trying to make this short. If we go to John chapter 20, look at what he says here. So, the purpose of this book, okay, why did John write that? Of all the things he could have recorded Jesus say, why did he say that? "Jesus did many signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God." Not that he's Yahweh, not that he's Homoousios, not that he's one person with two natures, right? He wrote this. That's the stated intention of his book. And that's the proper interpretation of John 8:58.

Mike, thank you very much. If I remember correctly, that was your first response. So, we'll throw. Okay, Al, let's throw it to you. Uh, floor is yours.

Okay, great. Um, I have to definitely disagree with the context. Uh, the context is clear. Um, that the questions of of being in John, uh, 8:58, um, the text is clear where he says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day and you saw it and was glad." So the Jews said to him, "You're not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham." Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, that's that's for the context of the Greek, I am." In the Hebrew is Ani Hu. Um, it's referenced in Isaiah. The covenantal promise was made to Abraham in Genesis 15 by the word Yodavi, which talks about his nations Nova. This is where the word appears to him in the vision. Abraham addresses that word as Adonai Yodavi. He makes the covenant with them in, in Genesis 15. The covenantal promise is given to him there at from the word. This is why you have Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was born, who I am." Now, we have a disagreement. I, you know, Jesus would not, was not a Greek Hellenistic Jew. He was a Hebrew speaking Jew. Hebrew, Hebrew scholars in Israel know that the these were Rabbinic, uh, uh, spoke Hebrew. They were Hebrew speaking Jews, not Greek. The synagogues had the Hebrew scrolls. They would have understood the Ani Hu from the from the text of the Hebrew Old Testament of Isaiah, where that's how Yahweh.

speaks as Ani who the one who is was in all different creation. This is going back to Genesis 15. The covenant promise was made by the word to Abraham by the word to Abraham of the nations and the covenant that would be made. And then who made the covenant when Abraham was sleeping? It was the word who walked through and completed the covenant without Abraham. He finalized that covenantal promise with him. This is the same word you find in John's gospel in the very beginning. The word that became flesh. He was with God and was God. And that's how it reads. That's why he says that's why they picked up stones to stone him. They understood what he said before Abraham was born existed came into being as the Greek in the text says I am anih who this is what they would have under this is why they wanted to stone him because he claimed to be before Abraham that he claimed to exist before Abraham and Abraham saw him those other passages about the Messiah has nothing to do with that text here those are just connecting different passages have nothing to do with what actually the text says Genesis 15 is where the word makes the covenantal promise with Abraham and does it with him in that passage.

>> Okay. So, there's there's something I'm going to give Al here. So, he would technically be right only if when it's referring to the word, that's referring to a conscious person. So, he brought up Genesis 15. I think it's repeated in in Genesis 20, like I said, or it's 22, one of those. But the word, if you look up in the Hebrew, it literally means a word. That's that's like what it means. It means a word. Okay? So, it's Yahweh's speech coming to Abraham. He just presupposed that that has to be a conscious person. However, I I'll I'll give him another thing. You you know, like even if it did mean what he's saying it means, that would still only get him to pre-existence. that would not get him to Jesus being Yahweh. All right. Um but as I as I pointed out, Abraham looked to the promise and was glad that Messiah wasn't already there with them. Okay? He had to look forward to that. So he's actually drawing a conclusion from that that I don't think is entailed by their folks. No, this doesn't mean Jesus has to pre-exist at least any any other type of existence other than notional, right, which is in God's plan, his purpose. And the last thing I want to point out is that guys, technically I am is not even a name. I hope you realize that, right? If you go back to Exodus chapter 3, Moses asked him two questions. Who should I say sent me? What shall I say your name is? I am answers the first. Tell them I am sent you. But then he says, "Yahweh, that is my name and his name forever." So that that's that's not a declaration of the divine name. Uh, right. That's that's also wrong. Thank you, Mike, for the last word.

Okay, we got one from Cool Kid. $10 super chat. Thank you very much for the question and support. Not directed towards anyone as I can see here. Let's work through it and we'll figure it out. Older isn't automatically better. The Texas receptus reads, "The Lord in Jude 15," matching the KJV. "So why do Alexandrian manuscripts say Jesus saved Israel out of Egypt when the New Testament always says the Lord did?" Is that more directed at you, Mike?

>> No, I think that's to Al because Al's the one who used that as a statement that Jesus is Lord or the tetetrogrammatin.

>> Al, any thoughts on that?

>> Yeah. Uh, give me one second here.

>> No problems. uh for Jude 5 and I'm going to I mean I can either give you the scarly answer that the that the weight of attestation for Jesus there is attribute to many manuscripts AB 3381 322 322 as Bruce Mezer points out um it's the majority of the committee was the opinion that the reading was difficult to point out so they changed it but the original reading according to Bruce Mezer and others like him that it was Jesus and the context is only master and lord Jesus Christ even if you want to put lord there which is a tetetrogrammaton it is saying the same context as it being Jesus now that's what uh the text as far as in the context of lord Jesus Christ the lord who brought them out of Egypt or Jesus as the a lot of the old earliest manuscripts read and as Bruce Masker points out that's was the original reading but found difficult so later scribes later changed it but it's still in the context of Lord Jesus Christ. Now with that um I will make one brief comment on his on the word that's a root fallacy when you take a word like dar and try to blanket it as as meaning just a word or whatever with ignoring how it's constructed in the in a certain frame. So when he says oh the word is just a word from the lord it just means look up any dictionary that's called the root fallacy and that fallacy is pointed out by seemetic scholars like James Bar who points out that's a common mistake that everybody makes. They take a definition and they blanket it across as saying this is what it means. That is not how Hebrew works. That is not how you look at Hebrew words. You have to look at the context, the grammar, the mach that's used in a construct chain to identify that word Yhovah is Yhovah in a single unit frame of the word. This is why when somearians try to say look at the dictionary of a word, it's called the root fallacy. But for Jude most scholars manuscripts it's Jesus and then changed later that reflected Jesus back as Yode Vavi in my presentation and Amos and so forth. So that's is why I said they understood that Jesus was Yodavi in the Old Testament who led him out of Egypt. That's what the text says.

>> Okay. So number one, he just said a rebuttal to my last statement. You're not really supposed to do that, but whatever. Um, no, it's not a root fallacy because the same language appears in other places and you get to pick and choose whether that's a person or not. For example, when it says the word came to the king of Nineveh, is the word a conscious person? No. Okay. So, it's the same exact language, but you want to say it's a person in one and then not a person in another. Also, I totally reject the idea that because the word of Yahweh comes to Abraham in a vision that that means that Yahweh was multi-personal. That is completely unfounded. To this day, the Jews do not read the word of Yahweh that way. He's just making statements, assertions with no explanation. That's terrible. All right. Lastly, in regards to actually answering this guy's question, uh I think the reason why is because during this period in Alexandria, they there was a debate over high christologology. They they they were debating how it is that Jesus could be God. And it was it was a big competition over who could synchronize Greek philosophy with again Judeo-Christian monotheism. And guys, it's not like today where if you disagree with somebody, you just have to deal with them making YouTube videos about you. You could be kicked out of your church. You could be even unal alived. Okay, so there definitely would have been a pressure to find proof texts and maybe even invent them. I have more information on this on my channel in a video that's entitled, Seven Times Trinitarians Change the Bible. Al, you get the last word this time. Go ahead.

>> Yeah, I think we're be flexible. If I wanted to comment on on our last discussion, I mean, even be more flexible. Yeah, I mentioned the word uh yod and I, you know, I I did bring it up because I I wanted to make that point that grammatically you cannot what he just did right now is try to say, well, the word over here means that you have to look at the grammar, the Hebrew, the mach and the construct. Construct state signifies how it's understood and read as word yodhiv. That's why in first kings 19 it Elijah makes a distinction there. But I want to bring something up. Can you share my screen?

>> Yes. Al it's shared.

>> Okay. So here if can you see it? Okay.

>> Uh are you able to zoom in just maybe slightly?

>> Uh

>> if not that's okay. I mean, if

>> >> well I just want to show that this is Bruce Mezer despite the witty attestation supporting these are the manuscripts that support it from the earliest on. uh the Vulgate, the Coptic, all these different manuscripts orient the origin of serial Jerome um a majority of the committee was the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility explain the origins terms transcription of the abbreviation observed therefore the author employs Yasus alone but always Yasus crystals unique application so it deals with the the text of what's supported and what's not supported my only point was saying and I'll take it off is that the context still reads Um you can take off the screen. It's they got the Yeah. So the context is the master Lord Jesus Christ. Even if you want to grant Lord, it's still the tetetrogrammatan, the pashita, the Greek, it's in the Hebrew manuscripts we do have of Jude, it's still present there as the one who redeemed them out of Egypt. That's exactly how it's read back into that text by the earliest manuscripts we have as well as the attestations of what we have within the manuscripts themselves. So again, this is clear that you even if you want to pick Lord there, it's still in the context of the Lord Jesus, the Messiah. That's what the context is in verses four and five, not anyone different.

>> Thank you, Al. Okay, next question comes in from Daily Gripe. $20 super chat. Thank you for the support and question. In John 20:17, the phrase ascended to the father is language echoed nine times in the farewell discourse 13 verse1 to 16:28 leading up to John 17:5. Why disassociate this language from John 1:1? Is that for money?

>> Yeah. I'm not I'm not I'm not sure who this is for. So I I agree that there's a good argument to be made that the whole Gospel of John should be read in light of the prologue. So I I mean I actually agree with that. So I I mean I guess I would just say you shouldn't really disassociate them as long as things are in their context, right?

>> Yeah. I agree 100%. Yeah. No, I agree. I mean, the the like I said the discourse sent it to the father like I said it's again it goes back to tranion the word who was with God was with God from the beginning verse 28 word became flesh did all the things as a messiah and then became ascended back to the father as I go back to where I came he went back to the father I'm not sure what else is there to add

>> you guys you guys gave your thoughts on I appreciate it okay here's a more obvious question as to who it's for cool kids. Got another question. $5 super chat. If Jesus is not God, why does the father call him God in Hebrews 1 verse8? Mike,

>> great question. Can I share my screen, please?

>> Yes. There you go.

>> Okay. So, this is a great question, a very common one. So, if we come to Hebrews chapter 1 and we come down to verse eight, this is the one in question. Okay. Okay. But of the sun, he says, "Your throne, oh God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your the scepter of a brightness." Oh, what just happened? The scepter of uprightness is a scepter of your kingdom. You've loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore, God your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness. Okay, so many people don't know this, but Hebrews 1 is quoting Psalm 45. Okay. So, let's go ahead and pull that up because since that's what he's quoting from, that's where the context is uh is going to come from, right? So, bring up Psalm 45. Okay, it's literally verse one. Okay, verse one says that he addresses these verses to the king. All right. So the word God in Hebrew and Greek has a semantic range which can be used for humans and angels. God is not a rigid designator. It's not like a like a name for example like Yahweh. And further proof of this is in fact where I I love how he includes this in here. Right? So therefore God your God is forever and ever. Look at this. Therefore God your God. So God is the highest and most supreme being. Therefore God cannot have a God over him. So this is actually proof that this first use is functioning like an honorary term an an exaltation term for God's Messiah. Okay? Uh if it was Yahweh, if that refers to Yahweh, then you believe something absurd, which is that Yahweh can have a God. Right? That's not how this works. And one last thing I'll show you. I love to provide receipts. If you come to Exodus 7, look at this. Exodus 7:1, you actually have Yahweh calling Moses Elohim. That's the Hebrew word for God, right? Which is the same one when it says your throne, oh God. That's the word Elohim, right? Uh so even Yahweh says that he has made Moses as God, like God. Some just say made you God. These words have the semantic range. It's certainly weird for us uh in English. Uh but that's definitely the case. Also, it's worth pointing out that Psalm 45 lacks the definite article, but thank you.

>> Thank you, Mike.

>> Al.

>> Yeah. Well, I I will point to this the Psalm 45 passage as being if you look at the u uh explanation from the Aramaic Tarum. It is not referring back to the king, this declaration because it actually changes it to the text yave in the sense that speaking about him and then concludes with you are Messiah the king. So this was a messianic text. It was applied to yave as the tarams read. This was something Paul would have understood. Paul references the oral tarum into Timothy. Uh this was had some authoritative understanding with explaining the Hebrew. So the the tarans do not agree with with the mic's interpretation because it actually puts it as oh yave you are the messiah the king. So it's actually to them this was a messianic text referring to him as yodave as well as being utilized as god. Now Mike went to uh exodus uh 7 vers1. If you want to share my screen, I can show you something a little different.

>> Yes, you're good to go.

>> Can you see the first one? And the Lord said unto Moses, see, I have made I have made you, but it's actually the Hebrew here. I give you Elohim to Pharaoh and Aaron. In other words, I'm giving you Elohim. It's not I'm I made you or I'm calling you Elohim. It is I made you Elohim or I'm sorry, I give you Elohim in the sense that he's giving the same powers. That's what the Hebrew word means. It says, "I give you um" and that's how it's I just showed you a simple online. You can look it up yourself. That's what the word means. You can Google it. You can put it in there, copy and paste it. I give you the power. He's giving through Moses his power to demonstrate who he is. He's not calling him God, but he's giving it to him. And this again, this is why I said you can the fallacy of the root, taking the word and then utilizing it any way you want. This is why I say Moses was given that authority, that power of God to show the miracles. Psalm one, the Targums, which shows that this is Messenic prophecy and addresses him as Yave from the Targum itself, which I have my back shelf, which I can read to you if you'd like.

>> Thank you, Al. Mike, final word.

>> All right. I got one verse I want to show you. Let me share my screen again. I really appreciate it.

>> There you go.

>> All right. So, listen. I what Al just said is it's it's a little comical to me because like he's still being predicated the title theos and in Hebrew that's Elohim which it's quoting from. Okay. So that's that's not that's a nothing burger. Okay. So if you go to first Chronicles we're going to come it's chapter 29 and we're going to we're going to pick the KJV. Okay. So, 1 Chronicles 29:20, check this out. See, this is just it's weird to us, but it was not weird to them. And I'm going to show you a wonderful example. So, 1 Chronicles 29:20 says, "And David said to all the congregation, now bless the Lord your God, and all the congregation blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and worshiped the Lord. and the king. Here you go. This is another example of where the king of Israel actually represents God's throne. That's why he could be worshiped alongside Yahweh because he's Yahweh's chosen representative. And if you remember the narrative too, God actually didn't want them to have a king because who's the who's the real only king of Israel? It's Yahweh. But God let this happen. He granted this to them. Uh, and this is why again the role of the king and Yahweh are so closely associated. It's the same thing with Jesus as king. Jesus is king, right? And his glory is to the glory of God the father.

Thank you, Mike. And okay, that's the last word on that one. And let's move on to a question for Al coming in here from O. $5 super chat. Appreciate the support. Al, you stated that only God can be savior. Then is he the savior in Judges 3:9 or Oadiah 121? How is Jesus different from these verses? You have to go to those verses here. 3:9.

>> Yes. Judges 3:9.

>> Not sure. It's uh 39, right? Then the sons of Israel cried to the Lord. Lord ra the sons of Israel delivered them both to him. This is talking about obviously the uh the judges of Israel in the battle and so forth. But the sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and forgot the Lord their God and served Baal and so forth. The context kindled against Israel. So he sold them into the hands of Kushin, king Mesaman, sons of Israel. When the sons of Israel cried to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the sons of Israel to deliver them. Uh the spirit of the Lord came upon them and he judged Israel and he went out and war and the Lord gave cushions. I'm not sure we're talking about same things here. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem. Mike, any thoughts?

>> Yeah. So, um I think this is a great verse, right? So, listen. It says, "When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel who saved him, the son of Canaz, Caleb's younger brother." Right? Beautiful passage, right? because it's pointing out that so this is there's an argument I actually love to make of this just using like logical letters right so if X does Y and Z does Y then both X and Z did Y they both do it you see and so actually it's still true to say that the Lord's the one who saves them why because the Lord raised up the one who would deliver the people of Israel. Right? This is perfectly showing the same type of understanding they would have had about the Messiah where he is so closely associated with Yahweh as his designated Messiah that he can in fact be a savior and Yahweh's salvation. Even as Al pointed out, that's it's like what his name means, right? It's Yahweh's salvation. So, beautiful, beautiful verse. What a great question. Al, you get the last word.

>> Yeah. And again, I would have to say the context doesn't support being a deliver redempture of sins of humanity. It's a different context of Israel being wicked, turning from God, and then God setting and also for deliver them. Um, that's not unusual. We're talking about salvation, deliverance of humanity, not sending a deliverer out to do the things. So, it's it's the context is not the same. Again, context is everything. Grammar is everything. The context here has nothing to do with salvation or delivering or redeeming someone as an individual, atoning for sins as the Old Testament references that only God can do. Um, so again if you want to ignore the fact that the Old Testament says that you know men cannot redeem another person for their sins cannot do any of those things this is not the context where it's speaking of as a redeemer savior of of a person's sins as only God can do as deliver. So I'm not sure I mean these cont I have to look at the other one I want to take too much time here but um the first part has nothing to do with the second part as far as salvation or deliverance of a person in with regards to sins and redemption. Um that's what I would have to say in that one. I'll give Mike say the rest while I look up the second one.

>> No problem