3 Christians Vs 3 Muslims: Did Jesus Teach The Trinity?

These statements of Jesus would be divine claims which nobody can say because it would be sherk, right? Is that Let me finish, bro. Cuz if we can show you haven't spoken about a trinity whatsoever. All you did was try to prove Jesus is God. You didn't do that either. Yeah. Let's Yeah. Let's not play this game, right? The Messiah is a they them. All right. And Allah is a he and a he might be a he. All right. Cool. Constantly, we're going back to this circle. If it agrees with Islam, therefore, we can accept it. If it doesn't, we reject it. We find some adult reason to do it. The servant is the Messiah. Thank you. What are we doing? I already the entire time. Okay. Prove it. No. Okay. Prove it. I had to go to the back with my pliers and force that tooth out of your mouth for you to finally say, "Did the historical Jesus teach the trinity?"

So, as Muslims, we would be looking at the historical accounts of Jesus, which arguably could be the synoptics and John. And from that we would say that nowhere in the synoptics and John is there anything where Jesus is teaching any kind of triune do uh doctrine that you guys believe in.

So just to be clear we agree historic Jesus. We're going to go to the gospels to understand who that was. Yeah. Just just the Jesus quotation material. We're not granting that necessarily. The disciples actually wrote the gospels. Red letters. Red letters. So we can agree that's where we're going to go to. Sound good to you? That sounds excellent. That sounds excellent. That's what we were hoping. Yeah. those. Yeah, specifically if it could be corroderated to him. So there are certain aspects like that we're not going to grant as it pertains to the red letters though, but we'll get to that when you guys get to those ordinance.

So which would you agree that Jesus does teach there is one God? Of course it says the shamal. Yeah. Okay. So then you would also agree that he teaches the father as God, right? Okay. Good. So so far fine. So then the question then becomes is teaches there's one God says the father is God. Is there a place he teaches that he is God and that the Holy Spirit is God is really what we need to talk about.

Uh real no not necessarily because you would also have to show that he's saying that they're co-equal co-eternal. This is the the doctrine of the trinity, right? You're not subordinationists. You're not aryens. You're not this. You're not that. You guys hold to co-equal, co-eternal. So that would be what would be expected within the scripture, right? Which that's what we're arguing is not found.

Okay. So let's let's start with the first thing. Does Jesus teach that he is God? You can give your argument, right? We can I mean there are several several places where Jesus demonstrates that he is God. So for example uh for in Mark chapter 2 he says that he is the lord of the sabbath. Okay we know from Exodus that Yahweh was the lord of the sabbath. So whoever is lord of the sabbath is Yahweh. That is the earliest gospel. In the synoptic material we have them claiming a divine title called lord lord kitty kitty. And as scholars like Robert Bowman Jr. have pointed out that is a title only attributed to Yahweh in Greek texts from that time or prior. It's throughout the septuagen some apocryphal texts. Jesus claims that title for himself. And then of course in John it opens by saying that he is God and then he affirms that he is places like John five where he's or uh John five where he uh has the same abilities that go the father has or John 8. Uh anything you want to add you two want to add?

Should we break my point? Yeah. Okay. I think some just general responses one would be when in Mark 2 when Jesus says that he's lord over uh Sabbath, the son of man is lord over Sabbath, we just would say that historically speaking in the Palestinian first century context he's referring to son of man just generally refers to humanity because then we see in Mark 23-27 he starts quoting tradition like in Mark 2:27 when he says that the that even man is made over or the Sabbath is made for man not man made for Sabbath. He's quoting y 85b and other like uh texts that can be found like desi scrolls have the same uh implied meaning. Next we see you referenced um the double voc or you know kiosk kios in Matthew 7 kittius. Yeah. Um we just would say it's a double vocative. It's not actually saying it's Adonai Yahweh. You have to assert that Jesus actually elsewhere claims that he's first divine for the interpretation of that to actually be Adonai Yahweh. Otherwise we would just say that he's just saying Lord referring to himself as a human lord twice.

Okay. So let's start with the Mark thing. So Mark 2, how does it how does that open? It opens with the story of Jesus healing a paralyzed man. Does he identify himself as the son of man in Mark 2? Yeah, in Mark 2, he can identify himself as the son of man um in places, but as a general reference to himself or humanity as a whole.

Okay. So, where does Jesus ever specifically say son of man refers to humanity as a whole? So, I'm aware that the gospel authors use the son of man and reinterpret it to explicitly be about Jesus. However, we're arguing from a historical context and in that historical context in a first century Palestinian uh or Aramaic language as we see multiple scholars like Abel Dakonic.

So, we have to still go to the gospels to understand how we're arguing from a historical aspect not how the gospel authors have now uh reinterpreted these things. How do you know they reinterpret Jesus? Uh if we're going to be in reference if we're going to be looking at that then we'll be looking at like you know the gospel source material and and how No, how do you know they reinterpret it? Because everywhere when Jesus talks about the son of man, he's referring to himself. There's no explicit indication where he refers to the son of man as someone distinct from himself. There I'll grant you there are places where it's vague, but there are explicit places where Jesus talks about the son of man where it's clearly himself. Like in Mark 2, right?

I I don't I don't deny that in some times that the son of man can be in reference to himself. However, we see that in Mark 2. The most plausible contextual reading would just be that it's in reference to humans because he then literally starts quoting Jewish midrashic statements talking about how men are made over the Sabbath. So there's no reason for for him to think that it's specifically Jesus alone when he already tells us in Mark 23 to 27 that it's in reference to all humanity.

So you said in Mark 2 Jesus does identify himself as a son of man. Where in the chapter does he show that that context switches? Just listen. I literally just explained it. Mark 23 27 he explains that the the ruling on on men being over Sabbath is general to all of humanity. He doesn't say so he just did I get into arguments for why that is. I already gave an argument. Yeah. So he doesn't say that man is over the Sabbath. He just says that the Sabbath was created for man to to accommodate them. Not that man is over the Sabbath because they man is subject to the Sabbath. They have to obey. They have to follow it. But he does say distinguishing the son of man. He says, "Consequently, the son of man is lord even of the Sabbath." Which, as he pointed out earlier in the context, we see that Jesus explicitly refers to himself as the son of man. Where contextually do you get this idea that Jesus is now changing when he refers to the son of man, it's it's not himself now, but it's everybody.

Yeah. So, like I said, when when he's when he's quoting in Mark 27 that even men or or I don't know the exact verb I'm quote, he's quoting um read it. Yeah. If you Yeah. Yeah. It's right here. It says um h and Jesus was saying to them the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Right? Consequently, the son of man is lord even of the This quotation can also be found verbatim found in Jewish midrashic statements and texts that predate Jesus like the Dead Sea Scrolls would that have the same quotation and the same theology and the theology entails that men are over Sabbath as in they they can do certain things like picking grain for emergency if they have to eat. Um, and so that's why and like I said in the historical context of the first century Palestinian Aramaic speaker, son of man, Baosh, can also just mean humanity. So we have no reason to explicitly be taking this as only Jesus.

And that's the problem that we're having here because remember we talked about the historical Jesus and you guys appealed to the synoptic gospels and John But we didn't appeal to it authors though. So we were very specific. You say the synoptic gospels. No, no, no. Yeah. Inoras the red letters. It was red letter. That's my point. But from a historical aspect from a historical read letters in the synoptic gospels, you have Mark 2 where Jesus in context refers to himself as the son of man and continues the conversation. So you you said that you have no reason to think or to conclude that Jesus is referring to himself alone as the son of man being lord over the Sabbath, which you do contextually that's what he's talking about.

So I want to be very clear here when we're saying that we're granting the gospel material. We're talking about the Jesus material from a historical aspect. That's why I made it very clear. We're not saying that the disciples actually wrote the gospels because we're viewing the gospels from a historical standpoint. And if we're viewing it from a historical standpoint, then the argument would show that the son of man here is not in reference to Jesus alone. Especially because historically speaking, the earliest gospel material never had son of man.

Do you do you agree that the gospel of Mark identifies Jesus as the son of man? I we already we never we never are arguing anything about what the authors of the text view. I don't I don't even care what author views Jesus has because that's not anything to do with the discussion agreed upon. You agree the author of Mark 2 has Jesus. It has nothing to do with it has nothing listen. Do you agree that Mark 2 in the whole chapter Jesus explicitly identifies himself in the son of man when he's healing the paralyzed man? I'm saying topic. That's very No, it's not because the whole point is that we're talking about the historic Jesus, not the interpretation of the historic Jesus as it pertains to particip. And then he clarified there's going to be in in reference the historical uh uh uh things that can be predated back to Christ, right? So when you reference back the synoptics in general and you say here what do we need to know about Christ? He's sort of like pedalling back onto that standard.

No, I'm going on what Jesus explicitly said about himself which you agree. If you don't think he actually identified himself as a son of man, why are you appealing to Mark where Jesus identifies himself as a son of man in there? We don't appeal to that. You guys pulled the bus. I'm okay. So I'm I'm lost. So we go back to the back back to the question. Yeah. Where do we get the historical Jesus from? Yeah. Right. Yeah. we can get uh relevant data from the Bible over the historical Jesus, but there's also other gospel material that that's going to happen as well. Like I know I know IP is familiar with the current gospel of Thomas also having cute quotes and the consensus of scholarship in the second century at best.

Well, the consensus of scholarship holds that it has presoptic independent material from the synoptics. So, it's not dependent on the synoptics. So, even if it even if we said that the gospel of Thomas every part of it was made in the second century, boohoo because it's still independent of the synoptics. This is irrelevant to the main has absolutely that no he's asking us where do we get our historical information of Jesus I just told you the gospel of Thomas has historical information of Jesus and it's independent of the gospels goonical gospels I don't even need to go to the four canonical gospels to look at is gospel of Thomas correct doesn't it's not is a thing reliable no yeah exactly where we're not a thing is reliable isn't it's qualified is the gospel of Thomas where we can get our true relevant historical. I got you. So it does have I don't know why you keep going this. I'm not getting a clear answer. You're asking if it's true. I got you. Yeah.

Hold on, guys. Did you know that over 80% of people that watch these videos are not subscribed and that's the best way to support this channel. So let's give the audience a second to subscribe and if they want to financially support us, they could become a member. All right. Now let's get back to the discussion. Does the gospel of Thomas give us correct historical information Jesus?

So it's not going to be a yes or no. That will be a false dichotomy. It will be qualified. Meaning for example, Gospel of John. Gospel of John has something that can be corroorated. Doesn't mean the entire gospel is not true. No. Right? So what that means is that if it's if it is corroorated, we can refers back to it. Right? If it's not qualified, if it can't be correlated, then we can reject it. Good. For example, for example, if I could just add on to his point, when the Quran says that Jesus was born of a of a virgin and that's true, it doesn't now according to you mean that everything in the Quran is now true because that's true.

I want to use a ter phrase you guys love to use. Now we need a symmetry breaker here. So how do we know what is the good historical information in the Gospel of Thomas and what is it? Uh the material that that parallels with Q. Okay. So now Q is the authority on who this is. though is Q the author the hypothetical Q that we have no documents for that some scholars have sort of put together what they think it is that is now the authority on who these even if we granted your understanding of it being a hypothetical document that we can't just actually uh obtain and and get a holistic view of it that you would still be appealing that Matthew uses source material outside of Mark that's as old as Mark I'm I'm I'm fine let's just move so so we're appealing we're appealing to the historical source materials that the gospel authors are using so if we go through Mark and we go okay well Jesus clearly cames to be a son of How do we know he actually said that? What is what is the actual foundation, the authority we can use to determine who the historical Jesus was so we can know what he taught?

Yeah. If you're asking specifically from our perspective and not just the argument at hand, because the argument at hand isn't from our actual perspective. We were just giving an argument. But from our actual perspective, you're asking us what is the historical Jesus material we would get. It's that the source material that the gospel authors use the synoptics which we can get based upon the fact that we know that they're anonymous independent works and they you they independently both use the same source material. They use Mark as a medial and they have a secondary source material that they have a literary dependence on which we know based upon their literary details the way that they they're quoting weird I got I got so I think no I'm I'm building up what he's saying is is correct but to render it um to down to the simplest point is going to be the historical critical method aka that which can be corroborated early attested to right that which has we can apply the criteria of the similarity which IP us should be familiar with if all these criterias can be implemented upon a text right then we can determine that text to be reliable.

Okay. So, what is the source that we can go to to get the accurate historical information about Jesus so we can know what he said and actually start this conversation? Is your is your question more of like one specific book that we're all going? Well, no. Cuz we use four. We use Matthew, Mark, John. You saying no, no, no. And they're using Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Where are you guys using? Yeah. Where we're using the relevant historical data. Yeah. Literally any source that could be corrected as it pertains to just name one. Let let me let me explain. So you guys are working off a Q. Yeah. We can go on to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. No issue, but it's not going to be unqualified.

Okay. So we can get Q is going to where we get the the the Q teachings of Jesus. Can we do that? Can we start there? No. No. But real quick before we move on to that and I have no just Mark 2. There's no issue with that, right? We can address that. What? Um specifically regarding Mark, Matthew, they can contain historical information, right? And you would agree for example um I don't know if you would but there would be some aspect of John for example that wouldn't be reliable right I wouldn't agree with that that's it okay that's fine but that's reliable go that's that's that's what the scholarship says right but the point is we can go ahead and just mark to um no no issue with that right so someone bearing the name Yahweh right does that make them Yahweh yes okay so no no one no one has the name Yahweh except Yahweh alah that's not Nehemiah 96 okay so when it comes to Exodus when it comes to uh uh other prophets when it says that uh Yahweh would do something and then prophets do that thing right does that make him Yahweh that's agency okay what is the distinction in in Christ being an an agent of because very good cuz Christ isn't just an agent of the father but he claims himself to be Yahweh himself that's a very claimed question finish I know I know but you asked me right there so we we can discuss that but I'm giving you the difference between an agent and Jesus right so an agent cannot claim to be Yahweh himself cannot claim the prerogatives of Yahweh But Jesus does. That's in a symmetry breaker. So you'll never see like for example Aaron when you know the example where Aaron takes the staff and when Yahweh says I'll do it, Aaron does it. You'll never see Aaron say I'm Yahweh or claim to be Yahweh or you know whatever Jesus does.

Well, yeah. I mean they're they're familiar with it clearly. Obviously they know that whenever the verse is being quoted, it says that Yahweh is literally the one who's holding the rod in his hand. But obviously it's Aaron, the one who's holding the rod in his hand. So we would just say that's divine agency. Agency. Yeah. Okay. But but back to what team was saying, you would have to obviously show first that that Jesus actually does claim any kind of divinity for then for them to be a different Of course. So you guys you do agree that that is a symmetry breaker though, right? No, because for example, we like when you say divine prerogatives, you mean divine properties. Yes. Of God. So like um the you know being all powerful, all knowing, um judge of heaven and earth. So resurrecting the dead, first and last. So when it comes to knowing all things, would you give that's a divine prerogative, right? Yes. And so that's what I'm asking like if if Jesus is claiming to have the divine attributes or prerogatives of God, like the the things only God does. Um the claims that only God can make, would you agree that that would be a symmetry breaker between an agent of Yahweh and Yahweh? No. Because we see other in we see other instances where others other than Yahweh, other than Jesus, right, would quote unquote be predicated with these prerogatives. For example, 1 John 2:20 says that disciples know all things. No, it says that. No, that's qualified.

Okay, let's break out. It's qualified. Yeah. So, what we're trying to say is that if Jesus claims to be Yahweh, okay, that could only mean he is either lying, ignorant, or he is actually Yahweh. So, there's a fourth option agent. Can I can I give you in in Jewish monotheism in the first century, uh the legal status, the status of a sender is the same as a as an agent. But the sender the agent agent the the can never claim to be the king as he knows never claim to be Yahweh he has the same exact status of it for example who does well I'm quoting you actual reference this is found in like Nadarum 72b this is these are I don't care about the thing is we're I'm saying there's a fourth option you could say from Jewish monotheism that's agency still because Jewish monotheism allows this which I would if I can just finish you And we we can find this example in 1st Samuel 25 when David uh wants to go marry Abigail and so he sends his servants and then the servants go to Abigail and Abigail prostrates and speaks in the singular in the Hebrew as if you're speaking to David but you're speaking to the servants because the servants have been sent by David so they have the exact same status as David while not actually being him.

Do the servants claim to be David? It it doesn't hold up. Do the servants claim to be David? David, please. Please. Do the servants claim Not in this instant, but if they did, what would happen to them? Nothing. Why are we skipping over this? If the servants claim Wait, sorry. Go ahead. If the servants claim to be the king, you said nothing would happen to them. No, that that that's called uh what was it called? Um treason. Treason. There you go. That's treason, dude. You can't a servant cannot claim to be a king. He'll be put to death. Only in the sense of of his status. So we see there there's you don't you're bringing up examples where people represent the king but they are not the king themselves. They cannot claim to be the king themselves. So this is we're not we're not when it comes to Jesus. Jesus is not claiming to just be a servant of the father. He claims to be God. He claims to have the divine prerogatives that only God has. The titles that only God has actions that only God has. So would you agree that this is a symmetry breaker between a mere agent? So so an agent can claim to be God. Yeah. And I'm giving the example that he she gave in first Samuel, right? Where she calls uh the the people the servants. He says my servant. So she identifies them as David. She says that they're David although David isn't actually present. Okay. So that's number one.

Can you bring up the reference? 1st Samuel 25:39 and 41. Let's read that and what's your point on this? Uh and then the point is that she calls them David although David isn't present. So they they better name David. They identify as David although David isn't there. Yeah. Can you Okay. So there there's two different things here. Number one. Can I read it? Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead and read it. Okay. So then David sent word to uh Abigail. Sorry. Sorry. Just quick. Let me let me go along with you. Yeah. Hey, quick break from the conversation. I want to give a big shout out to Logos. So Logos is an app that helps people study the Bible. They also have courses, books, all types of materials that can help you learn and get deeper in your faith. So, Logos is offering everyone that subscribes to this channel a free 60-day subscription. So, all you need to do, whether you're Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, go to the link in the description of this video, sign up for Logos for 60 days. It's 100% free. You could learn the Bible way better than watching YouTube videos. It could even help you break down the words that you see in your Bible all the way back to the original Greek. So again, if you want to support this page or you just want to learn and get deeper with your faith, go sign up for Logos. And now let's get back to the episode. Then David sent to Abigail asking her to become his wife. His servants went to Caro and said to Abigail, "David has sent us to take you to become his wife. She bowed down with her face to the ground and said, "I am your servant and I'm ready to serve you and wash the feet of my lord's servants." Right? So, she identifies the people as the servant. Wait, wait. I'm I'm confused. Hold on. Let me see. So, the servants the the servants of David came to Abigail at Carmel and spoke to her, saying, "David has sent us to you to take you as his wife." And she arose and bowed with her face to the ground and said, "Behold, your maid servant is a servant woman to wash the feet of my lord's servants." Then Abigail hurried and arose, and she rode on a donkey with her five young women who went about with her, and she sent and she went after the messengers of David and became his wife.

Where where does it say that she called them David? is she said she bowed down with her face to the ground and said, "I am your servant." So she addressed the people as a singer, which is David. Well, no. What does it say? No, see, this is why we got to read, bro. You just you you said that she called them David. No, I said who's a servant in this case? The the servants are the messengers that David sent and she's the and she's their servant. Wait, servant with a with a singular. Who's a servant? It says this. What it represent? Look, this is what it says. She says uh it says um David sent us yada yada yada. Let's go to what she said. Behold, she says behold your maid servant. Servant is singular. She's the servant. Yeah. To who? To the servants of of David. But you is a singular. It's not a plural. So the U. So the U is in reference to only David. No, it's not. Let me let me go ahead and respond to this because in Exodus 20 in Exodus 20 when it says you shall have no other gods before you, that U is in the singular, but it's referring to the nation of Israel. Correct. Yeah, that's just because Israel can be referred to as a one. Yeah.

So, so you can have you can have the servants be referred to as one even though it's referring to a plurality of persons. But the thing is you see a difference. You see because after the thing is when they're speaking on the behalf of David, Abigail refers to them as one. But then after that then refers to them as plural servants. So while accepting they're multiple people whenever they're speaking on the behalf of David, she only calls them one person. Now, whenever she's speaking or when she's shearming, yes, that's why the U is why the U is a singular in the Hebrew. I just gave you. Okay. So, then but but then all of a sudden then it goes to plural. Once she's once they're not acting on the behalf of David, if we're going to use this argument, then you're going to have to say then when Yahweh's told Israel, you should have no other gods before me that you there in the Hebrew is in the masculine singular. So, this doesn't that's my point. So is so is Exodus 20 is that the the U is singular when God is talking to the nation of that has a plurality of individuals. So just because the U will be singular and we have to check this but even if the U is in the singular form huh wait the servant the word for servants the word for no so even if the U is in the singular there it can refer to a a community or a plural a corporate entity. So the servants on David's behalf will be a corporate entity. They she can use the U there singularly that she and nowhere here does it say that she's calling. It's not about the U. Is the fact that Yeah, it's about that and it says servant. She No, she's look brother. It's a servant, brother. But she look hold on. She's a singular servant. I am your servant. Yes. To who? To the servants of of David. But you represent David, right? So, so they're rep, right? They represent David. They represent David. David. So, notice So, can we agree here that she does not refer to the servants as David? It does. He said he is. She referred No, I didn't. Look, you said yes. I'll explain. He just said, "Yes, we went to David." No, he doesn't. When the servants are speaking on the behalf of David, she refers to them as a singular because she's referring to David. Because in Jewish monotheism which we have first century Jewish addestation the legal status of a sender is the or of the of the sender is the same as an agent. So the reason why it's it's in the reference this is like yeah but I'm saying we have first statistation. So I'm saying in in comparison with the historical argument on how we would compare this with Jesus, we would look at it in a first century Jewish lens that Jesus is just a an agent because he has the same legal authority as Yahweh while not actually being Yahweh.

Can we get back a point though? Does that servant claim to be the king or David? That's simple. No, they don't. But they don't need to. This is irrelevant. Yeah. Oh my. They don't need to. But here's the symmetry breaker. The symmetry breaker is Jesus does. And so if Let me ask you, but now what you're doing is you're just Hold on. Hold on. If an agent claimed to be like, let's say for these servants, if they claimed to be the king, would they be wrong? Yeah, they would not be wrong. Because the same way where Moses claims to be Elohim, doesn't mean he's literally Elohim. Where does Moses claim to be Elohim? when when he's made uh Elohim. Does Moses claim that? He's not the author of Exodus, brother. Is Moses the one saying, "I am Elohim." Exodus. Who's speaking? Who's he quoting? Who's he speaking? Who's he? Why question? I'm the one who asked the question. I know cuz you asked the question with a question. Don't tell me. I'm not asking a question. Okay. So, I asked is Mo I asked did Moses claim to be Elohim? Did he claim that himself? And the answer is right. He's the author of the penetuk. And who's he quoting in the in the penetuk? Sure. He's quoting God. What? So he himself is not claiming to be Elohim. He's saying this is what God saying. If you're going to use those kind of arguments, it's going to be the exact same sense. Anytime Jesus is speaking, it's actually a revelation from God that he's only speaking because God told him to because he has no will of bad. So if you're trying to use that kind of argument, Aaron, this is bad because I'm not talking. No, this is what this is what I'm saying. Okay? Cuz you have where Moses talks and you have where Moses quotes Yahweh. Right. Right. Yes. Moses speaks in Exodus. You have Jesus where Jesus speaks. You have Jesus where he quotes the father. And we actually see when the father speaks back to the son. Right? So I'm we know when the person is speaking context will tell us yada yada yada. My point is is that never ever do you see an agent of Yahweh claim to be Yahweh. You'll never see that. So with Jesus with Jesus he's not just merely an agent which is why this conversation we're having. He's not just an agent. He claims to be Yahweh. and he claims to be God and that's where we need to get to.

So, and we would just be saying that that's okay because as an agent, he has the same status as the sender and his sender is Yahweh. But he makes it very clear throughout the gospels that he doesn't do anything on his own accord. He has things given to him. He seeks someone else's will. These are all things that you would suspect and expect in uh Jewish agency, but you wouldn't see that's what you would expect in truth. Absolutely. Because we're proving historicity and we're making an point from a historical standpoint, first century Jewish monotheism is completely compatible with these texts. I disagree because according to first century Judaism, they first of all, when you even talk to they they don't even know who the angel of the Lord is. They don't they depending on which Jews you're asking about. The angel of the Lord is a problem. He's a problem because the angel of the Lord doesn't claim to be an agent of Yahweh. He claims to be Yahweh himself. He says, "I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." He says, "I'm the one I'm the one who makes the covenant with you." He says, "You to Abraham, you did not withhold your son from me." Right? So Yahweh, so Yahweh continues, the angel of the Lord continues to claim to be Yahweh. While with agents, you'll see Gabriel says, "This is what Yahweh said. I'm a messenger from Yahweh." You'll see uh Abra uh uh Moses and Aaron and uh all the other prophets. Thus says Yahweh. You don't see that with the angel of the Lord.

Okay. So I want to pick you up that because said both the the title and the divine prerogatives, he said that one uh 1 John 2:20 was qualified. Where is that qualified exactly? Because it says here, let's go to it. It says uh and have you an anointed from the Holy One and know all things. You said uh 1 John what? 2:20. 220. Yeah. Two. Okay. All right. Watch this. Verse 18. Children, it is the last it is the last hour. And just as you heard that Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared. From this we know that it is the last hour. So what is the knowledge of the signs of the last hour again? So let me finish up. Yep. They went out from us but they were not really of us. For if they were of us they would have remained with us but they went out so that it would be manifested that they all are not of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One and you all know well in your version it says you know all things right. So what is the qualification? Because even if I'm going with your rendition of the verse, the qualification is the knowledge of the signs of the last hour and the antichrist and the false believers. It's qualified. I understand that it mentions that prior. Okay. But just because it mentions that prior doesn't mean that it must now disqualify that entire. So you would say that disciples now know all things in a sense. Can you say that? Sure. In in the context of them knowing all things regard regarding the last hour regarding the last hour, the signs of the hour, the antichrist, the disbelievers that's going out from him. That's that's in the sense in which they know when when of course Christ knowing all things uh uh for example John 16 and it's a context of revelation about what's to come given uh and the Holy Spirit would you say that and this means that now Christ doesn't actually know everything and it doesn't mean that can you show me where it qualifies it yeah in John 16 uh let me 16:14 I believe says all that belongs to the father's mind that that is why I said the spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you okay you hear that all that the father has real And and it says and it says that that which I received that will be the Holy Spirit will now tell you and what is the what is the Holy Spirit teaching them.

So notice so the Holy Spirit gives them revelation gives them guidance. Beautiful right it's qualified. Well this is what he this what we're saying here with Jesus he says all things that the father has mine. Does the son be that would that huh does the son beget? No. Okay. Last time we were talking about the His point, his point is that if it's restricted all, okay, if it's an unrestricted, then it's the case that you're saying everything that the father possesses, the son also possesses. Is that the case? Yeah. Everything that the father has are, but they belong to Jesus. What is this talking about? This is talking about this. This is talking about every This is talking about everything, right? in regards to creation, in regards to sustaining the earth. This is everything that the father has is is his. This is I'm getting that qualification though because now now you're saying no because the verse the verse is qualified by revelation as he just read for you regarding the Holy Spirit. Okay? So as it pertains and by the way if you say that the Holy Spirit is only receiving revelation in this case and it's not all things that also belong to the Holy Spirit and you're going to still have the same issue of Jesus preaching this trinity which is the top by the Wait, what? What about the Holy Spirit part? Because the Holy Spirit, you're saying that in this context, he's only receiving the revelation aspect. Yes. No, not not receiving the revelation, but he's giving. Yes. Getting Yeah. He's receiving it from Jesus and giving it to the others. That's what the verse says. No, it's it's talking about how he was he's going to take what is mine and declare it to you. Make it known and giving it to others. You're saying that that's the only thing that he's getting in so far as from Jesus. Correct. What I'm what I'm saying is is that if you're talking about the Holy Spirit right now? Yes. Yeah. The the Holy Spirit is taking the message and and and of Jesus, making it known to the disciples. Right? Okay. So, the context regarding the Holy Spirit is revelation. Correct. Okay. So, why is it all of a sudden that the context is not in regards to revelation as it pertains to Jesus and the father in that same one verse? Well, you don't see where it says that Jesus is the one that's receiving revelation. You see that he's the one giving it. And so especially when it talks about if he says all things that the father has in mind that would if you're saying that would include revelation. So all revelation belongs to Jesus. That means he knows all things. All things to be revealed is is in his knowledge. Okay. Him being granted knowledge. That's not an issue. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. I'll get I'll get to that. Amos 3:7. It says that God or the Lord I think it says uh the Lord does nothing without revealing his prior plans to his servants, the prophets. Right? So there's no issue in him telling him all of these things that are going to occur whether it be past, present, future anyway. So that that what would that be what will that be consisting of? Consisting of when he says when he says that he doesn't do something without his plans. So prophecy etc etc. All right. You said uh 37. Okay. So let's read this really quick. Um I'm going just read a little bit in context here. Hear this. Hear this word which Yahweh has. Now this is in context. Yahweh speaks against Israel. Hear this word which Yahweh has spoken against you sons of Israel against the entire family which he brought up out of the land of Egypt, saying, "You only have I known all among the uh among all the families of the earth. Therefore, I will punish you for all your iniquities." Do two men walk together unless they are made an appointment? Does a lion roar in the forest when it has no prey? Does a young lion give forth its voice from its den unless it has captured something? Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground when there is no bait in it? Does the trap spring up from the earth when it ha when it captures nothing at all? If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people tremble? If a calamity happens in a city, has not Yahweh done it? Surely the Lord Yahweh does nothing unless he reveals his secret counsel to his slaves, the prophets. A lion has roared who will not fear. The Lord Yahweh has spoken. Who who can but prophesy? Make it heard in the citadels in Ashid and and on the citadels in the land of Egypt and say, "Gather yourselves on the mountains of Samaria, and see the great confusions within her and the oppressions in her midst, but they do not know how to do what is right," declares Yahweh. These who hoard up violence and de and devastation in their citadels. Therefore, this is what the Lord says. An adversary, even one surrounding the land, will pull down your strength from you, and your citadels will be plundered. So notice what this is in context of in context. This is talking about when God before God destroys Israel, he lets them know. Y that's what it's talking about. Through who? For for Israel. Through who? Through his prophets. Okay. Good. So the verse says God does nothing without revealing his plans to the servants regarding the destruction of Israel. Good. Good. Okay. In regards to many different context. First of all, Jesus is hold I'm getting Okay. What you believe is that Jesus is coming calling to the kingdom of God is the entirety of his message. Correct. That's part of it. Or part of it. Yeah. Sure. Fine. Part of that message that he's giving regarding the kingdom, he preaches to the people that there is going to be a destruction that's going to approach them. Correct. Which discretion, sorry, destruction is that? 70 AD. Right. Exactly. So part of that message is that he's preaching to them regarding the things that are coming to the future. So back to John 16:15. What the context is specifically, it doesn't have to be negated, regarding revelation is what is being given to Jesus by God. Okay? Because the context of the verse is literally the Holy Spirit receiving in so far as revelation. Why would Hold on. Hold on. Why would I qualify for Jesus more than just revelation? Because if we're going to go with any other interpretation that you're giving, if we're going to go with any other interpretation you're giving, if we're going to say all is unqualified here, then the question is just simply going to be, okay, the father possesses particular divine making properties and all these things that the son and the spirit

don't possess. Does the son now possess them?

>> Yeah. Sure. So uh um two things I think uh are the issue here. One is as a conflation of context. We see in Amos 3, it's in context of destruction of Israel. So God never does he never destroys Israel without letting him know through his prophets. You're now linking this with John 16 which has nothing to do with the destruction of Israel.

>> It's specifically but specifically revelation to his apostles and guiding them in all truth in building the church and spreading the message of Jesus. Right?

>> It's about their ministry work. So this has nothing to do with the destruction of Israel. And but notice what it says there. It says when Jesus is talking, they say, "Now you are speaking plainly. Now we know that you know all things and that you came from God." And what does he say? You you now now you believe

>> because he gives them revelation, right?

>> Huh?

>> Because he gave them revelation.

>> Yes. Because he gave them revelation. So it's qualified.

>> So well, hold on. Well, so they're they're reb their awareness now that wow he knows all things and we know he came from God and not come from God meaning that he's just sent meaning that he's came because he could continues

>> I came down from heaven I came from the father and entered the world now I'm leaving the world and going back to the father so this isn't just some oh I'm sent but he was in heaven with the father pre-existing human birth and has come into the world from the father showing that he had that he's divine and knows all things. They're getting this revelation now.

>> Beautiful. Let me respond to that. So, you see how what you're saying is you're saying that hey, in the context of uh John 16, John 16:25 and John 16:15 is that he tells them these things are about to happen. Gives them this revelation and then they say they were back and say back, "Wow, you know all things." Right? They say that he knows all things due to the fact that he gave them revelation. Right? Now, the answer you give about uh uh um the example that we brought um I believe it was what was Amos 37.

>> Amos 37, right? You said that, hey,

>> uh um God tells what's about to happen, right? And then he he then tells that he reveals these plans to the prophets. Yeah. And then you say, "No, no, no, no. When he reveals these plans to the prophets is only in English, the destruction of the second temple 70 AD." Well, you see how you're narrowing down this say that they're saying in destruction in general.

>> Yeah. Right.

>> In the context of John 16 something extra.

>> So, let me finish. You can take take it back. Right. So what we see is is that he still gives an example of how God knows all things and then he

>> Jesus and he qualifies that right so when when Christ said there are all things why don't you take the same approach and say this in reference to revelation and therefore doesn't actually mean all things right symmetry breaker and I gave you John 1 John 2:20 where the disciples know all things how do you qualify it you read the context was about revelation the context is about revelation it said that they know all things oh therefore it's only about revelation why can't we do the same thing with Jesus so here's why notice what he says what it says in verse 20. Now the disciples said ah now we know you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech. So what they not exaggerating it's not hyperbole plainly we now you know we now we know you know which was

>> what was that

>> which was 30

>> verse 29 is what I read and then 30 and then so 29 and 30 together yeah

>> and then Jesus doesn't he just he says oh so now you believe confirming yeah

>> but in verse 25 he said he was speaking in figuratively earlier when he said that in verse 15

>> verse 25 let me read that then okay so I have said these things to you in figure of speech the hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the father,

>> right? But but right now John 10:15 was figurative.

>> Prior to that, he says, "Yeah, I spoke in figurative speech. Now I'm not going to talk about the father." And then the disciples say, "Oh yeah, now you're speaking plainly. You know, you know all things." And then he says, "Oh, so you now believe." Basically,

>> you're in agreement with us now. In John 16:15, when he says that he says all things, it's figurative. It's not literal.

>> It's after. We're talking about verse 29. 29 and 30.

>> Read 29. See, so there you go. Now you absolutely agree with us. That's awesome. Excellent.

>> No, no, I didn't say I agree. I just said that I I was misquing the right. Here's another layer to this because like I said, there's another example where this is brought up in in uh chapter 20 of John where uh Jesus is asking Peter after the resurrection. He's asking Peter, "Do you love me?" All right? And Peter gets sad because he asked him three times. He's like, "You you know that I love you." He he asked Elect. Finally, he says, "Do you love me? And feed my sheep." Peter gets sad and says, "Lord, you know all things. you know that I love you. Now, why is this relevant? And I would say even is probably even more powerful than this one because uh Peter's love for Jesus is in his heart, right? This is a this is appealing to his heart. When the Bible says that it's Yahweh who searches the hearts of man, man doesn't know the hearts of man, nor the mind of men, but it's Yahweh who knows the mind and the hearts of man. And yet Peter is acknowledging that Jesus knows his heart and his mind. Right? So this would just be like an logical predication. The same way that you say for example that um Yahweh alone creates or that Yahweh alone forgives. Right? These are things I would do due to God alone. Right? Or we can see instances where the disciples forgive sins. Christ himself forgives sins. Right? So him knowing the heart of a specific person through revelation that God has informed him doesn't mean that he now knows all the hearts of all men universally which should be an omnipropy. Right? So you have to substantiate that. You have to prove that. How do you make that jump? One second. How do you mean that jump that him knowing the heart of this specific disciple? This means that he now knows uh something that only belongs to God alone which is knowing the hearts of all men.

>> So can you show us somewhere in scripture where someone other than Yahweh or Jesus can read hearts?

>> No, I think that's not how it works. So what we see so the burden proof will be upon you. Why? Because you're saying that hey, he has this omnip property because he knows the heart of one man that doesn't follow.

>> No. No. Right. That's just one example.

>> Yeah. And okay. Do you have an example where you said that he knows the hearts of all men?

>> Well, so would you have that or not? I I'll give you an example. I'll show you a couple. Uh there's Mark 2 where he brought up

>> where it says that they were saying in their hearts that uh only God can forgive sins and this man who does he think he is and Jesus knowing their hearts

>> responds to them and says is it easy for me to say that his sins is forgiven.

>> Who told Mark that that they're saying that in their heart that Jesus is enough?

>> Jesus. Jesus. The author of Mark wrote that they said that in their heart. So, we can't trust Mark, but we can trust the words that Mark.

>> I'm just wondering like who told Mark that in their hearts they're saying this?

>> Jesus. Jesus. Jesus. He's getting this from Peter. Peter is a disciple of Jesus. So, this is why this all

>> So, so then Peter Jesus told Peter, "Hey, by the way, they were saying this in their hearts. That's why I gave that response. Jesus."

>> Or that could be just revelation straight from the Holy Spirit.

>> Peter. Yes. Cuz those Yep. Absolutely. So, so we have so we have examples where there's a multitude of men that have a heart issue and Jesus knows exactly what they're thinking in their hearts and responds to it. That's one example. Another example would be um um where there were people that was following Jesus, right? There's people following Jesus. Jesus was giving miracles. I think it's in Luke. I forget the exact ver verse. I can pull it up

>> before you give the Luke example just because it is a little bit of a difference. Right. Um this example that you gave in John 20 is going to be postresurrection. Correct.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. So we're we're talking about the historical Jesus. This is this story. Historians don't speak those at the beginning. We literally clarified in the beginning saying post resurrection. We're not accepting those narratives.

>> Why?

>> Because that's not historical because it can't be qualified. You have been saying that this individual is no longer a

>> Sounds like you're saying we're going to reject the parts of the Gospels we don't like because they disagree with Islam and we're only getting sets of parts.

>> We're arguing historicity.

>> We're arguing historicity. be very very give us some give us some specific regarding the post resurrection events right

>> we can give us like simple argument why the postresurrection saints wouldn't be historical to Christ right we see that for example you have the passion uh uh uh narrative of Christ of him predicting his resurrection is unaligning right and we see this in Luke 24 we see it in Matthew as well

>> now we can easily argue against why this wouldn't be historical why because we see that in the synoptics that the disciples upon them witnessing the crucifixion what to say right they they they proclaim that they don't believe that this would be that Christ wouldn't be he failed in restoring Israel right so we see is is that although the expectations for him to be crucified what we see is is that they're surprised right they're surprised they see a failed messiah right so an easy explanation to posit the unriving of Christ is that they simply saw that there was a dead messiah and they want to reconcile this this why we have the uh quote unquote passion narrative quotations references about the prophecies of to be un alive and resurrected. It simply requires less assumption and is the easy explanation.

>> Did Jesus predict his death and resurrection throughout synoptics?

>> No. No.

>> No.

>> No. I know it says that, right? But I don't believe it's historical, right?

>> Okay. You know, so he didn't actually predict that. Well, so let's mark that. So let's go to Mark 8. So

>> can you respond to the argument?

>> I'm good. Yeah. Yeah. Using his using your method historical criteria. So let's go. Let's go. Let's read this. Okay. So um at the end of Mark Mark 8. Okay. So uh he says the son of man um is going to be put to death basically

>> right?

>> So we know so he began to teach that the son of man must suffer many things be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly

>> and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples he rebuked Peter and said get behind me Satan for you are not setting your mind on the things but on the things of men. So that answers your that answers your argument right then and there. They didn't believe him because they didn't expect that in their background culture, but he said it plainly. They're going to question that.

>> Wait, two questions. Is the Old Testament adamant on a unliving of the Messiah?

>> Yeah. Okay.

>> Real quick.

>> Yeah. Beautiful. It's clear, right?

>> Beautiful. Is the New Testament clear about the Messiah is going to be unive? Is that clear?

>> Yeah. Beautiful. So, when it comes to the disciples, if it is clear to them, and again, you bringing us this example of of explaining a way how they would they wouldn't be surprised or they would be surprised. sorry is relevant because that's the very thing in question. The expectation is that they wouldn't be surprised. Why? Because according to you the Old Testament, New Testament teaches that it's going to happen, right? Infallible man. So if it is the case that he was crucified, would that increase their belief in Christ or increase it?

>> Oh well, the answer to that is it would increase it. Now, let me tell you why.

>> So, so why did they reject it?

>> Let me tell you why.

>> Let me tell you why. And here's the proof of it. Um, what age are we in? We're in the age of the church, are we not?

>> Yeah, it's true. We are. Yeah.

>> Why Why are we in the age of the church?

>> Because Jesus was crucified and then they saw him alive again later on. So, it increased their faith. They went from cowards running away uh uh when Jesus was was was in prison and and then all of a sudden they're boldly preaching that they saw the risen Lord. So, what did it do? It increased their faith coupled with the resurrection. Right. Beautiful. And so, now now I want to I'm going to let you continue, but I wanted to touch on this because you guys are talking about post and after. Now it's it's it seems arbitrary talking about a you know after resurrection like you guys just don't take that. I'm telling you why it's very convenient but this is postresurrection before the resurrection. This is John chapter 2 where it says address his point.

>> Just real quick I I promise I'll let I'll get rid of it. This is this is ain't even long.

>> It says uh John chapter 23. Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them because he knew he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man for he himself knew what was in man. So in another translation says what was in the heart of man. So here we have the example before the resurrection.

>> What was that about specifically?

>> It's about Jesus.

>> So this is this is about Jesus.

>> Who's he addressing?

>> Huh?

>> Who's he address who is about knows the man?

>> It's about Jesus. No, but the point the problem is that this isn't Jesus speaking. This is somebody else neither about him.

>> Who's a man that he knows the heart of who's the audience?

>> Men, mankind, human beings.

>> Okay. So,

>> it says human beings.

>> Okay. Okay. So, let me finish. Go ahead. So, number one, even in the the the example I gave you, it was Peter who said that you know all things in regards to his heart

>> conversation he's having. Exactly. So, Jesus say that conversation with Jesus.

>> But notice none of this is about what I'm saying. The whole point

>> I told you, can I finish one?

>> Yeah, he can finish. But the whole point of the discussion you said from the beginning it was red le. So is this red le?

>> It is kind of weird. They keep jumping around. So So notice this. You guys were, you know, arguing post resurrection. Oh yeah, we don't take that. You know, conveniently enough, notice now, now it's oh well, you know, Jesus isn't saying this in in John 2. We've been talking about him. But it was the apostles in John cuz you went to John 16 and appealed to the apostles talking about Jesus saying he knows all things. So it wasn't us, it was him. So when he did this, we went along with his criteria with his consistency and we're showing where the apostles and others are saying Jesus knows all things, even knowing the hearts of man. So if this is not is if you guys can't take this, then don't even quote John 16.

>> I'm going to get to that, but we need to address IP's argument. Sure. and and your argument because you did jump in right regarding the historical attitation fully postresurrection sayings right and he said oh how do we determine and it's arbitrary that we don't know how it is I give you the argument very clearly he said that if they see the crucifixion it should increase them in belief then he switched I said coupled with the resurrection I'm clarifying and then you said a couple with the resurrection it would increase in faith

>> the issue that you have is is that if the crucifixion was very clear and clear in the old testament clear in the new testament The event of the crucifixion by itself should increase them in faith. That's what they expected. Let me let me

>> the fact that it's after the resurrection there can be a better hypothesis. Explain this away that the Jews had a failed messiah and they had to reconcile a failed messiah with uh uh what they had to work with. And the best way to do this is to simply include these quote unquote passion predictions. That is the best way to explain it and include this ad hoc belief that oh no they knew all along right but somehow they were uh uh um decrease in belief at the crucifixion but increase them at the resurrection. It doesn't make sense. Why? Because you guys believe that the crucifixion and the resurrection were both clear, right? If it is clear, we expect it to increase them in belief once they see the crucifixion and even more with the resurrection. But it can't be decreasing from the crucifixion then increasing the resurrection. Doesn't make sense.

>> Okay. So the problem is what you're doing. You keep equivocating on two things. what the scriptures taught, what the disciples believed in that instance. As we said earlier, they're fallible men. They're getting things wrong. That's what we're seeing in this. This is criteria of the embarrassment. What I just read about him taking Peter aside and rebuking him and saying, "Get behind me, Satan." Historians want this is one of the most reliable places in Mark because it meets criteria of embarrassment, criteria of dissimilarity, criteria of historical congruence. It meets all of these various things here. So what we have here is we have Jesus knowing the scriptures and saying, "Yes, I'm going to die. They're going to kill me and then I'm going to resurrect." And the disciples just being fallible, not getting it. So that's why they did not they did not increase until they saw the resurrection after. So that's what's going on. So stop equivocating on what the scriptures taught and what the disciples believe. I'm giving argument. Now, you would agree that the reason why it increased them in belief in the resurrection is because that was prophesied. Right.

>> Right. And they expected that.

>> I I wouldn't necessarily say that. I would I would say that seeing who you you saw this man die

>> right

>> and then you see him alive again that that right there but part of the reason because that's that's what was expected to be according to

>> I I would say that I would say that as they got understanding more so later on that that continued to solidify their beliefing because that's what you see you see them begin to quote Old Testament like oh yes this is what he meant and this is what he said after they give revelation

>> amazing so according to you guys the the disciples are saying hey this is what he meant So according to you guys, for the disciples, it was unclear

>> prior to the resurrection, right?

>> No. Was it clear?

>> For for them, they're mis so look we can look at the scripture and we can see what Jesus is saying is pretty clear. But for the disciples, it said they did not understand it. It wasn't they was missing the mark.

>> Yeah. Beautiful.

>> But he's asking how if if the Old Testament

>> that's a really really poor argument. So I I'm aware that the the sky is blue and the grass is green and I'm very well studied on this but I think that the grass is actually blue and the sky is actually red. That's just very very absurd. So if it's very very well understood do agree there's flat earthers.

>> Yeah, there's flat earth.

>> Okay. Yeah. See there there it's very clear the earth is round and yet there are still people that believe the earth is flat. Some

>> So the disciples are lowkey stupid.

>> Just low key. Yeah.

>> Wow. Wow man.

>> That's crazy. The disciples were lowkey stupid. Israel was lowkey stupid. Israel was

>> Israel was tripping when when God when God came to Egypt and showed his power and his magnificence and they still went to Yo, you can say there's a clip all you all you want. This is this is starting to pop, bro. You talking about Israel. Israel was freaking dumb. When God would reveal themselves in in Egypt, showed his power, brought them out of slavery, um gave them food from heaven, and they still griped against him. They still spoke against God. They were dumb.

>> That's what the text is trying to show.

>> It's just really weird. Your earliest Christians all just completely rejected that notion and all understood they he he understands the disciples are very very educated. They're not ignorant.

>> I says that the Jesus chose the disciples because you wouldn't go to a sick man for medication. You go to a doctor for medication. He chose the right people that know what they're talking about to spread his

>> Where does where does say that they were not? I don't have the I don't know the exact Google just like just like you you reference a man for a book man you referenced a man for a book up did I know

>> uh I feel like 30 minutes in Google you want me did I bring the book up

>> after 30 minutes

>> it took me a while but I brought it up in 30 seconds

>> just give me 5 minutes I'll

>> do it

>> okay it doesn't really change the fact about we we're acknowledging the disciples are ignorant they're saying historically speaking that just passes When the Holy Spirit comes down, they get filled with the Holy Spirit. Then things change. Now they're being led by the Holy Spirit teaching.

>> So you would agree that the son of Jonah was uh before the the argument from the son of Jonah that the same way that the um Jonah was in the bed of the world for three days and three nights. So were the son of man. That's before the uh resurrection. Correct.

>> That when he when Jesus gave the sign, is that what you're asking? Right.

>> Yeah. He gave that sign.

>> Okay. Is that clear?

>> Yeah. I mean, if you're saying that Yes. If you're saying just like Jonah was in the belly of the whale,

>> just like he was in the belly of Leviathan.

>> So if it is clear, we would expect the disciples to understand that, right?

>> What's that?

>> If it is clear, we would expect the disciples to understand.

>> Not necessarily. Okay. For example, let me let me hold on. Let me let me ask you this.

>> Um, is it clear from the Quran that you need the sunnah?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Do are there Muslims out there, maybe you might not consider a Muslim, are there Muslims that will read that Quran and read the clear Quran and say, "Ah, you don't need the sunnah."

>> I got you. So yeah, there is a minority group. However, we're talking about the disciples in their entirety. So that's the sample size. We have all the disciples in this case. You don't have all the Muslims who read the Quran come to you, you don't need the sunnah. So it will be this analogous. The principle was about clearness and understanding of people.

>> Yeah. But if you had everyone missing it, that kind of raised a question. Wow.

>> I'll tell you because you don't have every Muslim who reads the Quran come to the conclusion that hey, you only read the Quran. But with this example, you have every single disciple missing the mark when it says that the the same way that Jonah was in the belly of the world for three days and three nights, so were the son of man. Right? So that's one point. Secondly, regarding the historicity of that, we're making an argument of historicity, aka it's inductive. We're saying that there's an easier explanation for the data and an explanation that requires less presupposition.

>> There's no presupposition. text says they didn't understand.

>> No, I'm I'm saying that the easy explanation that can dismiss your your narrative is that it's simply going to be the case that there was a failed messiah and they had to reconcile there being a file with the text. Simple. So that therefore therefore we'd expect that for that to be passion predictions. So again them all of them missing the mark that's upset.

>> Okay. Can I respond to this?

>> Yeah. I I think that that I think that that's your presupposition. just because uh 12 people who follow Jesus misunderstand what he's saying when all through this we see that they're misunderstanding what he's saying and really quick

>> and we even see in Acts where it identifies John and Peter as being unlearned. These aren't scholars and unlearned means that you don't understand it like

>> they're not knowledgeable. They're not they're not educated. Hold on. I'm I'm I'm building the case here that these aren't scholars that Jesus picked out. They were fishermen. Okay. And so for you to say that, oh, it it just it's it's unfathomable. It doesn't make any real sense that the 12 disciples who are not scholarly who are not scholarly who even acknowledge that Jesus is speaking in figurative language and even when he speaks plainly, they still don't understand him that oh these fallible men don't understand Jesus until he resurrects

>> and then

>> he resurrects and then it clicks for them and they were like, oh, this is what he meant by that. This is what he's saying. That makes sense. And that's exactly what it says. It says they didn't understand. They didn't understand. They didn't understand over and over again.

>> It requires more day. It requires more presuppositions. Did any Jew prior to the disciples believe that the mass was supposed to be on 11 and raised back on the third day?

>> I I'm not Yeah. Yes. But hold on.

>> Anyone?

>> So are are you asking for a group,

>> an individual or a group?

>> I I wouldn't be able to reference a particular

>> Okay. So all the Jews and prophets,

>> all the Jews missed it.

>> That's not what I'm saying. Okay. So I asked you, are you talking about a specific now? have a bigger sample size. We don't only have the 12 disciples. We have every single Jew that read the Torah and the and the Tanakh not come to the conclusion that only the postresurrection data points to

>> that's what you want to say.

>> I'm I'm making the argument. I'm the one saying

>> but that's not what I'm saying.

>> That's fine. I'm I'm the one making the argument.

>> Okay. So, for example, if the prophets are saying that Jesus that the Messiah is going to be crucified and rise again on the third day, this is in there. I I would agree. I I would say that yes, Jews did understand that the Messiah like Tarum Jonathan for example, Tarum Jonathan uh says that that uh the suffering servant is the Messiah. And so the Messiah

>> said the suffering servant.

>> Yes, he does.

>> The suffering servant in the suffer servant passages in Isaiah 52 and 53. Tarum Jonathan says that that's about the Messiah.

>> You're you're misquing him. Yes. Says that there's a Messiah in Isaiah 53, but he doesn't say the suffering servant is the Messiah. Can you show me anywhere where Tarum Jonathan attributes any kind of suffering towards the Messiah?

>> Okay. So, because he never he never attributes suffering to the Messiah.

>> Yes, he does. In in in Tarum Jonathan in in the at the end towards the end of of Isaiah 52:es 13 to 15, that same servant who is highly exalted after being marred beyond human uh uh resemblance and all that kind of stuff. He applies that to the Messiah. He says this is about the Messiah.

>> I need to double check that.

>> Wait, can can we get a reference to that? Tarum shap on Isaiah and you said 52 and 52.

>> So like the last verse or or what's

>> this verses 13 and 15?

>> Okay.

>> Isn't that second century?

>> No, it's century. He has me max juice.

>> Yeah, but that's afterwards though. So

>> it's sixth century. But

>> what he what Amir was asking you is essentially when it comes to this particular thing, right? Is there anybody prior that actually held to this belief to begin with that they thought that the Christ or Messiah or whatever is going to die and on the third day resurrect? Okay. Yeah.

>> Or after three days.

>> Yeah. See, that's that's that's like an argument from Silas, right? It's a good argument. I don't I don't think so because like for example, we we could point to individuals like Zechariah, for example, um Elizabeth and Mary who who identify Jesus as their savior from their sins. And so where are they getting this from? Revelation and the scriptures about the Messiah in Isaiah 53 obviously and other passages where the Messiah saves them from their sins through sacrifice. So bring it out.

>> Nothing nothing here says that in Tarum Jonathan. I don't know. Yes, it does. I don't I have it right here in front of readers.

>> It's it's referring to the house of Israel. It's not referring to a single person.

>> No, no, no, no. Please go to Tarum Jonathan specifically

>> a habit. I'm reading verse 13, verse 14, verse.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Starting from what? Verse 13.

>> Are you Is it in Isaiah 52?

>> Yeah. Is Isaiah 52, right?

>> Yeah. Yep. Isaiah 52.

>> Do you have a specific verse?

>> Verses 13 and 15.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So when it says just as many were appalled at him and so marred was his appearance. Let's see what he has to say. As the house of Israel

>> it's in reference to a group of people.

>> No. Who does he refer to as the Messiah the servant?

>> But that doesn't mean that this verse when the when it's referring to who is marred.

>> He said as the house of Israel

>> but no he's saying the house of Israel is being

>> marred. The house of Israel.

>> But read verses 13 and

>> comparing it too.

>> Yeah.

>> As the house of Israel anxiously hope for him many days which are not the more their appearance and their brightness their appearance and their brightness. He reads verses 13 to 15.

>> What What is their appearance and their

>> Who does he who does he say the servant is?

>> He says their appearance and their So it's referring to a plural group of people, not one. So it's their appearance being marked, not their appearance being marked.

>> In are you understand what I'm saying?

>> In verse 13, you're not understand what I'm saying. When it says that their appearance was marked,

>> down in verse 13, who does he say it's about?

>> Yeah, he says that the he says the the servant is the Messiah. But

>> thank you. What are we doing? the entire time. Hey, from the very beginning I said that Tarum Jonathan does take Isaiah 53 to be about a Messiah, but he never once attributes any suffering towards the Messiah. But if you me who is the servant suffering is always attributed to the house of Israel in which Tarum Jonathan either has the Messiah praying for them or advocating and intercessing for them. But he's never he's never once partaking in the suffering and scholarship also is there an Israel as the house of Israel.

>> That's why it says their faces not his face. identify. Why did I say their face? He identified because one there's

>> I didn't I didn't know the Messiah is a

>> them. Well, I'm sorry you didn't know that but

>> Oh, so the Messiah is so so according to the scripture actually you have the Messiah being identified as Israel. Did you know that?

>> So they did you know that?

>> No, I'm just asking.

>> So did you did you know that the Messiah is Thank you. So with the Messiah being identified as Israel itself. Hold on. Let me finish with is Well, Allah is a they them. Allah is a he.

>> Nice two. What are you talking about? He right. You don't believe in our life.

>> Good. Good jump. He

>> they

>> Good jump.

>> Can you say is is he a we he?

>> Good jump.

>> Yeah. Let's Yeah. Let's not play this game, bro.

>> The Messiah is a them.

>> Yeah.

>> All right. And Allah is a he. We'll draw.

>> Yeah. I wanted to bring you back to the other point.

>> And a lot of he might be a he.

>> All right. Cool. Can we can we talk about the other point now?

>> So when it comes to what he was saying, as we were saying before you guys were trying to read the verse, what he's saying is is that you guys just claimed that this is something which was clear in the scripture, Old Testament, New Testament. Correct. Okay. If it was clear, we would expect that there's going to be at least an individual, a group of people, even if it's small. Okay, that was that's based off of your understanding or your presupposition regarding what the text is saying.

>> Zechariah Zach,

>> yeah, thank you for proving my pointing.

>> I'm supposeding you give you an example in the video. Zechariah say the answer. No, I'm saying Zechariah in so far as a Messiah dying and resurrecting after three days for the sake of your sins. So, so, so this is what I I understand now. What you guys are asking for is where does an individual in our text verbatim say, "Hey, the Messiah is going to suffer and in three days rise again."

>> That's saying in the text

>> who read the text and came to that conclusion.

>> Zechariah.

>> Oh my god,

>> dude. The Zechariah is the text. So, no, Zachariah is not the text, bro.

>> He's a character from the New Testament. Two Zechariah.

>> I I understand. But we're talking about historical presidents of the interpretation.

>> Zechariah. Oh my days before the disciples, bro.

>> Zachariah,

>> this is Zachariah was there when Jesus was a baby. Do you know who Zechariah is?

>> It's an Baptist. Yes.

>> Which gospel which gospel is it in?

>> Luke. Luke.

>> Right. So historical account

>> again. Luke's writing is still post the resurrection.

>> Then we need you guys using these gospels. We can't use it.

>> Let me finish. If it's pos resurrection, then the argument still fails. Then he could have just went to the disciples. Wait, wait. So, because because the writing is post resurrection, that means arguing. It doesn't work cuz it's after resurrection.

>> So, because it's too because because it's to postresurrection.

>> Bye-bye history.

>> Let me finish history.

>> No, it's it's qualified.

>> Bye-bye Islam. Post resurrection.

>> It's it's qualified history.

>> The Quran is post resurrection.

>> Thank you for that, Holmes. I'm going to respond now. So, let me finish again. You went to a point that's about someone after the resurrection account, which the critique already grants. The critique that I'm given already allows for things after the resurrection of claims of the Messiah being unlive. It already accounts for that. You could have just went to the disciples.

>> No, no, clear. Let me finish. You could have just went to the disciples. That that would have been the same critique, right? But that's the very thing in question. Who before the uh supposed resurrection interpreted as you did?

>> Nobody.

>> Notice what you did. You just went nuclear. Now, we can know nothing about the historical Jesus because all our texts are post-resurrection. So, throw out Mark. Throw out hypothesize Q. Throw out John the text you've been using here. Throw out everything now. So you've just destroyed your whole argument. You can't know anything about the historical Jesus.

>> Beautiful. So I don't think you want to attack my critique specifically. My critique that's what I've been doing the whole time.

>> My critique is that the hypothesis that the Christ predicted his uh uh resurrection and crucifixion and hypothesis that this would have been explained away and reconciled uh by the Jews in order to better explain away the data. I'm saying that my explanation requires less presupposition. It's a very simple critique. Now when you go and say well Zechariah believed this or Luke, Mark, Matthew, Luke believed this. This is still post-resurrection and the critique still fails. That doesn't mean that now I become an epistemic analysis regarding history. It means that it's qualified. So again, if it is the case that it is clear in the old New Testament, right? That this supposed to happen, the crucifixion is supposed to happen, the resurrection is supposed to happen according to Luke 24:46. It said that the scriptures say that Messiah is supposed to be unlived and raised back on the third day. How come we don't have any historical precedence of this? It's expected. So, so we can't use any sources post at the resurrection because they could just get it from the disciples after the fact, right? Great. Can't know anything about historical Jesus now.

>> They got that from the disciples.

>> So, everything you use to argue for the historical Jesus is coming from the disciples postresurrection. So, you're just cherrypicking argument is the Quran says so.

>> Yeah. It aligns with Islam. If it doesn't,

>> where else do you get any claims about Jesus? We're not talking about

>> that's different because we have we have um not only historical justification, we have metaphysical justification because we can prove the Quran to be true. It's independent from God.

>> So thank you from God because

>> So again, this is this is like a whole shift around the Quran. If if you want to know why I bring the Quran to be true, we can have a discussion about that.

>> It's post resurrection real quick real quick.

>> It's post resurrection. If you if you can show that the Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are metaphysically true,

>> sure, you can try to do that, I'm I'm pretty sure you're going to fail. But if you can't demonstrate that there's going to be a symmetry break between how we believe the Quran to be true and why we believe the Bible to be false.

>> So So your argument is the Quran is true. Therefore, anything we see in the Gospels that agrees with the Quran is therefore true. If it doesn't, we reject. So this is circular. This is circular.

>> Can can I respond? You should be able to get these terms I'm going to use now. So there's difference between for example historical certainty and metaphysical certainty. You would agree that metaphysical certainty grants us and yields higher probability higher levels of certainty than merely historical certainty. You would agree with that? Do you have Thank you so much. So if we can uh uh what we're going the data we're going off is the historical certainty regarding the let me finish regarding the crucifixion and the resurrection right is that let me finish bro if we can show that this can be historically undermined it has not with the Quran because when it comes to the Quran we can have metaphysical certainty we can prove Muhammad to be a true prophet of God and therefore the claims are going to be true they're going to correspond to reality there's a clear symmetry break if you can show me that Mark Matthew are metaphysically true and certain then fine then this argument is So now that So now wake up, man. I know you went to sleep.

>> I I I know. Now it's about metaphysical reality. Metaphysical. Go ahead, bro.

>> Well, okay. We're talking about historical. The is the Quran to give you historical certainty on the on the life of Jesus.

>> The Quran isn't historical document about Jesus.

>> Okay. So So you can't use the Quran. So you can't use the Quran to get historical information from Jesus. True historical information as a ground. You get you get the details about Jesus because we attain metaphysical certainty.

>> From but from what is your historical source that you use for it? Because you just you just said it's not correct.

>> Let me clarify my position. You said it's not the correct.

>> We don't believe this very clear. We do not believe that the Quran is a historically document about Jesus. That's insane.

>> Does it make historical claims about Jesus?

>> Wait. It makes claims and the way that we verify these claims is because we can ascertain metaphysical certainty.

>> But okay, I got you. Because you believe it's from God. But that's not my

>> You don't do historically.

>> Yes, he does. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Did we ever say real quick? Did we ever say let me show the difference now. Did we ever say that the Quran is historical to Jesus? Do we ever say that?

>> But can the are the gospels historical to Jesus?

>> Wait, wait. Can it be?

>> If No. Does the Quran make historical claims? Wait, wait. Does the Quran make does it make historical claims on Jesus? Yes or no?

>> I got you. The Quran makes claims about Jesus. Let me let me finish up. And the reason that we can attain sanity was simple. I just asked if it makes historical claims on Jesus. I'm

>> about to ask you, bro. So, it's very simple. The Quran makes claims about Jesus. Just let me finish. Let me finish, bro. Same thing with Abraham, Noah, Moses, Noah, Jacob. If you mean by historical where the Quran claims that it's uh uh contemporary to Jesus, then no, let me finish. Let me finish contemporary to the person.

>> Just let me finish. But if you mean by historical it makes claims about a person who called Jesus, then yes, it does do that. Okay. How do you corroborate those those claims historic? Let me finish up again. I I'm never claimed that the Quran gives us historical certainty regarding these texts. What I said was is that it gives us metaphysical certainty. Let

>> So hold on, bro. You got me. No, no, you got you keep going. No, no, no. You got to let us engage and interact with what you're saying.

>> I'm going to I'm answering. I can finish the object. You can respond.

>> Please like in 30 seconds now.

>> Let let me show you the difference between what I'm saying and what they're saying. You guys are claiming that the resurrection, the crucifixion, they are historical to Christ. The passion predictions, they're historical to Christ. Not merely that they're going to be something that can be proven metaphysically to be true. Right? The difference is I am not claiming that I as a Muslim. I'm not that the Quran is historical to Jesus. What I'm saying is is that its claims regarding things that we don't have epistemic access to can be verified metaphysically because we have independent to believe Islam is true. It's very simple. All right, pause there. Thank you. So, can the claims that the Quran makes about Jesus, the historical Jesus, can they be historically verified? Yes or no?

>> Uh, no. No.

>> Thank you. Okay. All right. So, very good. So, so what we got on Go ahead. Finish up. Finish up. So, so got it. That's my position. Relax, guys. Relax. We're just talking.

>> Did we forget the topic? We forgot the topic now.

>> We just had to build a little bit of Tachi. That's all. So where so where we are now because I just I just went wanted to make sure we all

>> Hey man, what's the

>> isma isma?

>> Watch yourself. Your habit is over there.

>> Is that right?

>> Go ahead, bro.

>> Okay, look. So where we're at, what we established is that you as Muslims using your paradigm with the Quran have no historical basis on the life of Jesus. The historical claims that the Quran makes cannot be historically verified. And so therefore, the Quran is out of the out of the equation.

>> Hold on. Go ahead. Hold on. Is that I don't I didn't mean that disrespectfully. No, you're good.

>> Okay. So, it's it's just out of the equation. I put it aside cuz it cannot be historically verified. Yet, it makes historical claims on

Jesus. So now where we're at is is that you're using our book that gives you historical claims and historical corroboration on the life of Jesus. And so when your Quran makes claims that's opposite to the historical source, guess who's wrong?

>> Beautiful. Your Quran. Beautiful. So we see from the historical sources, Jesus was crucified. From the historical sources, Jesus was resurrected. From the historical sources, Jesus teaches that the that that the father, son, and holy spirit are one in essence and none.

>> That's the argument. Exactly. But the historical sources teach that.

>> Let me let me address that. So real quick, notice for example with Christians, Avery, IP, what they believe is that they that Adam and Eve existed, right?

>> But how do Christians verify that Adam and Eve existed? You do it through metaphysical certainty by proving that Moses and his prophets are true prophets. Right, Bel?

>> Sure.

>> Good. So although uh uh the Bible makes historical claims about Adam and Eve, they're unverifiable. But guess what? Guess why Muslim don't don't jump in and say hey that's bad you can't actually verify Adam existed I'm about to land we say that this can still be true because you can have metaphysical certainty when it comes to epistemology there's different ways of ascertaining knowledge it can be through historicity or it can be verifying the means all the sources of the past speaking if he's a true prophet we can believe his claims about Adam and Eve if he's not a true prophet we don't believe him would be different if as a Muslim came and said hey the Quran is historical talking about Jesus and it's historically verifiable guess what Avery that's not a claim The claim is, let me finish. The claim is is that we're saying that the Quran can be can give us certainty metaphysically by verifying the source. Now, the reason why it's different is because you are on the fence. You believe that the resurrection and the quotequote passion predictions are historical

>> and metaphysically certain. Yes. Okay. Prove it.

>> Oh, no. Okay. Because what you said was really important. You're bringing up uh you're comparing the fact that we can't verify Adam and Eve and Moses existence except through metaphysics. Fine. The difference is that the Quran is not is not just not being able to verify historical Jesus. It's completely contradicting historical Jesus.

>> Exactly. The Bible the Bible is not contradicting historical Adam, Eve, and Moses. It's just ambiguous and you cannot verify it. That's the difference. So you can't bring that example. This is where we are. Adam and Eve, there's no issue about the stories. Why? Because we can't we don't have epistemic access. Right.

>> Sure.

>> Beautiful.

>> That was your argument.

>> Beautiful. Now, I'm saying the same thing about Jesus. We do not have epistemic access. And actually, we can give arguments to why the quote unquote the son of man sayings and the predictions and the uh quotequote crucifixion, resurrection. They're also ahistorical. So, guess what? Adam,

>> we use this conversation about let me finish. Let me just said you don't have this. Let me respect. So the same way we have the same have don't have epistemic access to Adam and Eve to verify whether or not the Bible contradicts them is the same exact way where the passion predictions don't have historical attitation and therefore they're on the same level.

>> Passionact is he trying to say that it doesn't have historical.

>> That's what he's saying. So so notice we just let we just let you do this.

>> Wait. So the prediction wait I just want to clarify something sorry what the passion doesn't have attestation or what does

>> the passion predictions predictions predictions

>> right it's that the authors insert that into the mouth of Jesus it's not that they when you have Christ saying that hey guys I'm going to be un alive and resurrected this is ahistorical

>> right

>> what he doesn't say topic you the historical Jesus

>> because you quoted I no I turn to talk you said we can know the historical Jesus didn't teach the trinity. But now you're saying we can't know anything about the historical Jesus. All these sources are postresurrection. We can't use any of them. So again, you just go back to well, we we don't think Jesus did because we're metaphysically certain about the Quran. Therefore, he didn't secular.

>> Go ahead. No, it's how they didn't address the argument from mysterity. What real quick?

>> How are we hurry? It's okay, Brian. We're going to keep this.

>> And what we have is what we have is is you guys saying, well, hold on now. You went to the argument of the sayings of Christ post resurrection. Guess what? If we argue about the historical Christ and we can give a case to what the historic saying of Christ after the resurrection are historical, then the argument would follow. It's very simple. So therefore, this is why we went down the whole trail of proving that these statements and sayings of Christ postresurrection are a historical. Guess what? Based on what?

>> Based on the argument that I gave that the expectation if if they if they saw a crucifixion and a resurrection, it would increase them in belief. So sorry because they didn't believe it therefore, it's not historical. That's not how that works.

>> Because we would expect for them to be increased in belief and because we know that uh uh um all all the Jews prior to Christ they didn't believe in this expectation when supposed to be raised again on the third day. Therefore, we can make a good argument from science. Therefore, if it did teach that, we expect evidence. So, we don't have evidence. Therefore, it didn't teach that.

>> So, let's go back then to the the very beginning.

>> Right?

>> What sources do we use to find the historical Jesus?

>> Right? So, when it comes to something that is before the resurrection, it will be more reliable, right? What sources can we both be? What sources for history?

>> We mentioned Q and let me just let me finish resurrection.

>> Can you let me finish? No use. I don't even know. No. Can can I finish? Thank you. So, we can still we can still use Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, right? So, for example, when you have the statements of Christ doing something that can be corroborated, right? Then there's no issue with that. But I'm saying that these statements post resurrection have to be a historical due to this argument which you still can't address. So, can we use Q to find the historical Jesus then according to you?

>> Yeah.

>> Finally. Thank you. All right. Let's go all of this.

>> All right. So in so you would you would say that Jesus uh you would say that Allah sent Jesus as a prophet. Right.

>> Right.

>> Okay.

>> Who says prophets? Allah

>> uh according to Isla Is Islamic theology and Islamic understanding? Yes.

>> Okay. Great. Why in Q according to all the reconstructions like John Clenberg? Does Jesus in Q say I send you prophets and sages and you will kill some of them. So you've just acknowledged that according to Q Jesus would be a law.

>> Tell you want to split it up.

>> Sorry. What verse are you referencing?

>> That's in Q. I can pull up John. I'm sorry. I What did you say? You said that uh

>> that in Q Jesus Jesus uh says that he's the one who sends you.

>> Yeah. Uh so this is in Jordan. John Clenberg Q 11:49-51. Therefore also uh I will send them prophets and sages and some of them they will kill and persecute. So saying

>> so Jesus is the one who sends prophets according to your Islamic theology. Obviously it's God who sends prophets. So would you agree that Jesus is claiming to be God as he's the one who sends the prophets?

>> it wouldn't follow because what you're saying is is that what you're saying is that we have Islamic theology and because it's not compatible with Islamic theology, this what's happening. Therefore, must be compatible with trinitarian theology. What you what we have to take into account is is that there's a bunch more theology within that that it can still be compatible with. And guess what? It doesn't increase the probability. Let me finish. Let me finish. And it doesn't increase object theology.

>> Let me finish. Let me land.

>> I already answered that already. I don't want to ask him again.

>> You said God, right?

>> I already asked. Why asking again?

>> So if Jesus says I send prophets. So again, just because let me finish. Just because you believe that's incompatible with Islamic theology,

>> it then doesn't follow that it must be compatible with trinitarian theology only.

>> Let's do this. Let's do this now.

>> You got you got one. Who sends the prophets?

>> You got to let me finish.

>> He's got to He's got to explain it to you,

>> right? So you can explain and then I can speak off. Go ahead.

>> Who sends the prophets?

>> Go ahead. Make the argument.

>> Who sends them?

>> God. Okay. So he has God sends the prophets. God sends the prophets. Who said that he sends the prophets?

>> Jesus says.

>> Jesus says he sends the prophets. Therefore, Jesus is God.

>> Therefore, there is that natural ideology.

>> What's that?

>> The quote,

>> John, it's in John.

>> So, according to Jesus, I'm I'm going to respond now. So, again,

>> hold on. Let's let clear up here.

>> Yeah. Q Q141.

>> So, Jesus teaches his divinity even in the Q source that you guys say is the historical information we can

>> and now you guys reject it.

>> You guys I'm accepting. I say I reject it. No, I I accept this argument that you're giving me and I'm about to respond to it.

>> You accept Q,

>> right? I don't know.

>> Okay, just go ahead. So again, the argument being made is that Christ does something that said that God does. Okay. Now, just because you show that this is incompatible with Islamic theology.

>> I'm talking about Islam.

>> We're not talking about Islam.

>> Wait, you ask me who says prophet?

>> I didn't say in Islam and what I just asked when I broke down the passes. I'll do it again. Who sends the prophets?

>> And who? Are you asking a Muslim?

>> I'm asking you.

>> As a Muslim?

>> No. No. Just period.

>> Wait, wait. Just period. Who? Who sends the prophet?

>> I will ask you as a Muslim, right? Who sends the prophet? He spoke. I'm going to make an argument. You spoke already. You made the argument. So again obviously he's asking me as a Muslim. So obviously as a Muslim I'm going to say that God ultimates sends prophets but we can understand.

>> So by understanding this will be a division. So yeah and to finish off the I'm about to land the point. So when we have other theologies such as Aryans and other non-trinitarians that they would argue that this is fine within their model of their belief and it would entail quote unquote

>> but it wouldn't be.

>> Let me let me finish. Right. And because it's compatible with their belief through agency or or for example, for example, God says that God forgives sins and you have other people forgiving sins.

>> It doesn't work.

>> That that doesn't mean that they're now gods.

>> It doesn't work.

>> So, let me finish, bro. So, because you show that it's incompatible with Islamic theology, it doesn't mean that it raised the probability of it being compatible with trinitarian theology.

>> No worries. Can can we can we agree here that that Jesus the historical Jesus is teaching opposite of of Islamic theology?

>> Yeah. It doesn't mean that he's Yahweh.

>> Okay. No worries. So, just be clear. So the historical Jesus teaches something. Hold on. Hold on. So the historical Jesus teaches something against Islamic theology. Correct.

>> No, I don't believe he can still be reconciled with Islamic theology that he simply

>> Oh, so it does go with Islamic theology,

>> right? Because he can be an agent of an agent of God that sends prophets.

>> So in Islamic theology, an agent of Allah can send prophets.

>> No. No. Again, it's very simple.

>> No. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. No. Also forth man this rel

>> bro yeah you giving me multiple agent someone can be an agent right and Allah is the one that's the ultimate cause behind this specific thing that sending the prophets right but he can ask it he can ask God to do that it's very simple

>> so can in your in Islamic theology can anyone other just one second can an agent of Allah send prophets

>> if the agent says requests god to send the prophet as an agent

>> request god do an agent say that it says the wisdom I'll do it again.

>> He's quoting one specific scholar on their specific understanding of it's not the actual

>> this is this is

>> no it's not cuz to be in Q it has to be both found in Matthew and in Luke it's only in Matthew not even sorry according to the Q source he says

>> he's quoting John Copenber John Cloenber's unreliable

>> no no he's unreliable because when John Copenberg reconstructs Q he doesn't just reconstruct it strictly from the doulets of Matthew and Luke but he also assumes sometimes from the same like if it has a theology that can be found in Q. Then he'll be like, "Yeah, just even so that Luke omitted this or Matthew omitted it, it could possibly still be found in Q."

>> But you don't agree this is in Q.

>> No, I don't agree.

>> Okay. So now we don't know what's in Q now.

>> We don't know what's in

>> because there's so many different recstructions.

>> My understanding, okay, I'll give you my understanding that it's what's double referenced in Matthew and Luke independently. But this isn't double referenced in Matthew and Luke. Got to be double

>> referenced. The way it's referenced in Luke is that it's the wisdom of God. It's not Jesus who sends us.

>> Okay. Wait. So, so who's wisdom? Uh it depends on depending on what like

>> okay uh therefore also wisdom said I so wisdom is a person speaking saying that they're the ones who

>> Jesus a wisdom teacher in his Jesus is a wisdom teacher in

>> so is wisdom Jesus

>> he teaches himself

>> okay I'll ask it again who's wisdom

>> wis wisd uh it depends on like if you're if you're speaking on it from like the old testament lang it could be like a like a like a power of god

>> so who is it because it's not just a a power an influence Well, Jesus is a wisdom teacher in the

>> So then who's the who's wisdom speaking?

>> So he's a he's a teacher himself.

>> So who's wisdom? Who's wisdom?

>> What else a pass argument? Yeah. I don't wisdom. The person is that is that wisdom is claiming to be the one who sends the prophets and and is interacting with Israel in real time in history. No, it's not just like in Proverbs. In Proverbs is no like when David's spirit speaks as well. It doesn't mean that David's spirit is a whole separate spirit with

>> Psalmist language. That's poetry language. You don't have this and it's wisdom poetry language. Watch this wisdom.

>> You don't have this. You don't have this poetry language. How do you know that? How do you

>> Can I Can I finish? It's called context. So in the context, who's the one who's the one speaking saying that they're going to send the prophets?

>> I'm not that doesn't undermine it being

>> Well, answer the question.

>> Yeah, I'm saying it doesn't undermine it being poetic.

>> Who's the one speaking?

>> Which of us? We can't even reference you because it's not double reference.

>> Give me a double reference. My friend Aaron, I'll give you that.

>> We don't know what Q is. We don't know what we don't know what wisdom is.

>> We know nothing anymore.

>> Okay. Double reference. All things have been handed over to me by my father and no one knows.

>> That's completely acceptable. We that's that's totally all if he's handed over things that doesn't mean he's on. Come on. Uh, all things have been handed over to me by my father and no one knows the son except the father and no one knows the father except the son and anyone to whom

>> and whom the son chooses to reveal. Right?

>> That does not sound trinitarian at all.

>> So whoever the son chooses to reveal to now, do they now know the father?

>> Yep.

>> Right. So what do you mean it's not trinitarian at all? Random humans have the exact same knowledge that that the son has.

>> Okay. But can

>> I'm saying it's not trinitarian at all.

>> How why is how is it not? Because whatever whatever the son gives whatever the son if I chose to reveal to Brian Davilla right now now Brian Davilla now knows the father.

>> Yeah. But but hold on.

>> How is that one?

>> Does he is he does he have some special divine relationship to Yahweh now?

>> Can I answer you?

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Would you So according to the verse

>> you don't answer you're asking I I am I'm not even asking the question. Just listen and pay attention. Maybe you'll catch up. According to the verse Jesus says all things that the father has are mine. Right? No one knows. No one knows the son except the father and no one knows the father except the son and whom the son chooses to reveal him. So the one who makes the father known to individuals is the son. He's the only one who can bring this knowledge of the father.

>> But he has no will of his own. It's not that he's just doing it on his own accord. The father directly told it to do it. And Jesus being a good agent follows it.

>> I got you. I got you. And how do people come to knowledge of the sun?

>> Because the son chose to reveal it.

>> Nope. Jesus says that no one comes to the son unless it's the father who draws him. So we see there's a mutual revelation. It's the son who reveals the father and it's the father who reveals the son. Why? Because there's unique divine relationship between father and son that nobody has.

>> Oh that's a big stretch right there.

>> Oh really? Okay. So can you give me an example where somebody else can go? Matter of fact let me just let me just uh connect with you guys. Can someone say no one knows me except Allah? No, no, this ain't no cuz you guys are denying everything. So, let's go with your let's let's see if let's see if you're consistent. No, you No, you're not you're not going to be an atheist where you can just deny deny deny. You're going to have to stand for something. So, hold on a second. So, can can anybody say can anybody say um can anybody say

>> no one knows Allah except me and no and no one know sorry, no one knows me except Allah.

>> Beautiful. And no one knows Allah except me and whoever I choose to reveal him. Can somebody make that claim?

>> I'm going to answer the question. So this is what Ara is doing.

>> Answer the question, please. And then explain what I'm doing.

>> No. No.

>> So no, you're not going to answer.

>> Yeah. And I'm going to answer, but not how you want me to answer.

>> Just answer yes. No.

>> I'm going to answer I'm going to answer, but not how you want me to answer. Right.

>> So you're not going to answer.

>> So what Avery has is that he has the Trinity on one hand. He hased on the other hand. And he says, "Well, hold on. If if there's if there's a verse that can't be applied to, now all of a sudden it can be applied to the Trinity. that doesn't follow right I don't I don't know why this can't get through you but just because uh Christ has some sort of ontological status or he's given virtues it doesn't mean that he's not ontologically equal to Yahweh co-equal co-eternal costantial aka of the same substance just because you saw some qualities that he has it doesn't that he's going to be Yahweh so you showing that it's incompatible with Avery doesn't mean that it must be compatible with the trinity I don't know why you keep doing that

>> I got you so notice you didn't answer my question no let me I can choose not to answer. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. He said I can choose not to answer. So he said he was going to answer but then just admitted he chose not to answer. Thank you so much. I appreciate appreciate it. So now let me break down to you what you're doing. Okay. So what you're doing is acting like an atheist and saying no no no no. Deny, deny, deny, deny, deny. As if you do not have a theology that you hold to. Let me finish. Let me finish. It's almost like saying, it's almost like arguing with an atheist on the morality of God when an atheist is acknowledging morality while denying a substance for morality. That's what you're doing. You're you have a theology but are saying, "No, no, no, no, no. This doesn't work."

>> Let me finish.

>> Is the point about Let me finish. Allow me to finish. What I'm What I'm showing you is I'm showing you that even by your own Islamic standards, these statements in in Q these statements in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would be divine statements. even by your standards. But what you're saying, what you're saying is, hold on a second. Hold on a second. Cuz these Well, it does mean he's Yahweh because only Yahweh can make these claims. It's only Yahweh that sends the prophets. It's only Yahweh that knows the hearts. That's in Psalms. That's in Isaiah.

>> Well, you're asking me, you're

>> Yeah. So, what I'm showing here, let me land, please. Go ahead, bro.

>> Thank you. So what I'm demonstrating to you is that even according to your own theology, according to your Quran and Islamic standards, these statements of Jesus would be divine claims which nobody can say cuz it would be sherk. So even you acknowledge that these are divine claims that are that's not compatible withhed. Why is it not compatible with because Allah and is only one person. The reason why this is not compatible because Jesus is claiming divinity for himself.

>> No, there's a photo. So again now I'm going to get to respond to you now. Again we have other models within Christianity that can account for Christ having these attri attributes.

>> Give it

>> give what?

>> Give the model.

>> Yes. Example the example to give regarding him for example knowing the father right. Can you give me the argument why knowing the father in that is going to be ontologically equal? What was the argument for?

>> Sure. It it show it shows that the knowledge of God matter of fact it's talking about knowledge and fully uh understanding God that intimate relationship with God. And so Christ is saying the same way that no one knows me except the father.

>> Right.

>> Right. Meaning that the father knows all things about the son has intimate rel relationship knowledge of the son and vice versa. Right. Then he goes and says that no one can know the father unless I reveal him. Right? So so notice this. Notice this. So there's a divine unique union relationship and relationship with the father and the son was revealed to Jesus.

>> No one has. No this isn't revealed to Jesus. This is what he has already. So he says he says no one can know it. Correct.

>> He says that no he says that no one knows the father except the son. No one knows the son.

>> And the only way the father can know it is if is if is if Jesus makes him known to you.

>> Holy spirit doesn't have the same.

>> This isn't talking about the holy spirit. If you if you want me to talk about the holy spirit I can talk about him. It just says no one. Right.

>> No one.

>> Yeah. Talking about man.

>> Okay. Where do you get that from?

>> The context.

>> The context. The context doesn't tell us that. All it says

>> yes it does because he's literally okay. He's talking to human. So, so, so let let's let

>> beautiful. So, when it's talking to human, we we we can take the context of these divine making claims to be applied to that context, right?

>> That's what we just said. It's a divine making claim in the context.

>> Amazing. So, if it is the case that Do you agree?

>> One second. If it is the case that a creature can have can have knowledge of the father, then according to you, they will be ontologically equal to the father.

>> Wow. That's not what we argue. Oh my goodness.

>> What we saying that the reason makes him y because he knows the father, right?

>> In the same way that the father knows him. And and that can can that knowledge be given to creatures?

>> Not not the same way. But there's there is

>> Why does it say not the same way? Why does it say that?

>> Because Okay. So when he says no one knows the son except the father. Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Right.