This is when I was about to leave, bro. [sighs]

>> Hi, how are you?

>> I was good. Are you a tritarian now?

>> No. May the triune God never find me. [laughter]

>> That's a girl.

>> So, I want to ask you a question. Right. According to the Bible, both the New and the Old Testament, can we empirically see God with our eyes?

>> The divine nature? No. God. Yes.

>> Well, natures can't be seen. I can't see the nature of a human or the nature of a frog any more than I can see. You see the the the person.

>> What?

>> That concretizes the nature. Wait, you actually think we see natures? Natures are abstract. You do know that, right? You actually think we see natures.

>> So, you think we can't see natures?

>> Wait, can we see natures? Yes or no?

>> Yes.

>> Okay, that's wild. All right. Well, have a good

>> What is wild about that?

>> Yeah, because natures are abstract.

>> Who said Who said that?

>> Natures. Oh my goodness. We only see quote unquote someone's nature because a person concretizes the nature.

>> What does it mean to concretize the nature?

>> How is something concretized if you can't like it's not there? What are you talking about?

>> Yeah. Concretized means to make it real.

>> So it makes the nature real. Correct.

>> Yeah. Natures are abstract. They don't.

>> So if it makes it real, what you're actually seeing

>> is what?

>> Right. Can you have a who without a what?

>> That's not what I'm asking you.

>> That's what I'm asking you.

>> That's not what I'm asking you.

>> Can you have a who?

>> Can you answer my question and then I'll

>> Well, you'll see. Cuz if it's concretized

>> and what you see is the concretization of that nature

>> then what you're seeing is the nature

>> which is the person right

>> if you mean hypostasis.

>> So exactly. So I was right. So you can't see anyone's nature. You see me person. I see you.

>> And what's what's the definition of person? What's what's your definition? What's your definition of person?

>> A person.

>> Yeah. An individual substance of a rational nature.

>> So it's concretized, right? This nature is concretized. Meaning it's made real in a person.

>> Yeah. The person concretizing.

>> And when you see the person, you're seeing this what? This substance. This nature.

>> Nature.

>> If not, what are you seeing?

>> Yeah, you're seeing the instantiation of the nature.

>> So you are seeing the nature.

>> No, you you misunderstand. No, stop strawmaning me. When you see the person, you see the person instantiating the nature.

>> So, you cannot see natures.

>> Can I see your nature? No, I see you. You just conceded your argument, dude. This is so poor. Seriously. And I'm not even that good at metaphysics.

>> I know you're not good at metaphysics cuz this is this is horrendous.

>> And that says something.

>> No, this is horrendous. Like, I don't know. Like, this is bad. But what was your point? What was your point? Can you can you steal mind what I said?

>> You said that a person is a concretization of a nature [laughter] which means that you can laugh. That's what you said.

>> Okay, well,

>> which means it makes the nature real and what we see is a person. So therefore, we see the real nature.

>> Know what I said? Can you Can you actually still man what I said and what that meant?

>> That's literally what you said. Which part was wrong? Yeah. So, what I said was that you made the claim that we can see natures and then you conceded your argument and I said, "Can we have a who without a what?" You said, "No."

>> Your brain is scrambled.

>> No, your brain is scrambled, sweetheart.

>> No, it's cool. It's recorded. Everybody's going to see your brain is scrambled.

>> You said that we can't have a who without a what. You said that you see someone's nature by seeing you.

>> And then I said, "We see the hypacases of God." Lord, heal her, please. Good gracious healing.

>> What was your What is your argument, though? Can we get to

>> rhetoric associate? So, can we see Can we see the person of God?

>> What you mean by the person of God?

>> Can we see the person of God?

>> I don't know what you mean by person, bro. Cuz you you have a completely a concretization of the divine nature.

>> Said person means that's not what I said a person means.

>> You had two different definitions.

>> What did I define as a person? You had an individual substance of a rational nature, but before that you said the concretization of a nature.

>> Yeah. And so does a person concretize the nature?

>> That's not my definition of a person. That

>> that's not what I define person to be. All I said was can we empirically see God with our eyes? And you went we can't see the nature. And so did I. And then I asked you I said can natures be seen? And you went, "Yeah." But then you conceded your argument when you said that we can't a who. You can't have a who without a what. I.e. they're co-extensive. Can you have a who without a what?

>> So if the who is there, the what is correct?

>> No. The who instantiates the what.

>> So then the what is there? The what is instantiated. Correct.

>> Yeah.

>> So when you're seeing the who, you're seeing the what that's instantiated, correct?

>> Yes. And the what that is instanti And the what? Hold on. And the what that is instantiated is the nature. Correct.

>> The what that is in. Yeah. Yeah.

>> So you can see the nature. Therefore,

>> no, we see the person because you can't have a nature without a who. You're trying to separate them.

>> Lord, heal her, please. [laughter]

>> Good.

>> Bro, I can't lie. You're

>> What did she do to blind? What did she do to make you blind her? You actually got fried. You got actually fried.

>> All right, just just go ahead with your argument.

>> The fact that you can actually think that we can actually see a nature irrespective of the person is actually crazy to me.

>> Just I I never even said that, but just go ahead.

>> Okay, so I'm going to ask you one more time. Can we empirically see the person of God?

>> I don't even know what the freak that means, but yes, you can see God in [clears throat] a way. Yes. Um, except Exodus 33 and 1 Timothy 6:16 say otherwise.

>> Oh, okay. Cool. So, let me show you don't know what the Bible says.

>> Okay. You pages where it says like quote unquote we saw God.

>> Well, what you do there is you're going to say that you know we uh you know the Bible cont say

>> then I said woe is me for I am undone. I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in a midst of people of unclean lips. For my eyes have seen the king, the Lord of hosts. Who would they see? [laughter]

>> Who did he see?

>> So, was that a vision in Isaiah chapter 6?

>> Did they see Did he see God? Did he see God? You want me to show you one that's not a vision?

>> Okay. So, we saw the father then, right?

>> Do you Do you want me to show you a vision?

>> The one that's not a vision.

>> Yeah, that was a vision.

>> You want me to show you one that's not a vision?

>> Go for it.

>> All right. Cool. We're going to go to Genesis.

>> I mean, all you're going to do is you're going to say there's a contradiction in the text. That's fine. Dude, dude, I grant you whatever I grant you whatever passage you want. You're going to have to refute mine because 1 Timothy 6:16 verbatim says that the who of what the who of God has empirically not been seen with our eyes.

>> I don't know what type of effed up metaphysics that you're using. So, I'm just

>> I'm not using metaphysics. 1 Timothy 6:16, whom no one has seen.

>> Not using your brain either. I don't know. Well, can you refute 1 Timothy 6:16?

>> Yes, I can explain it all. So, can you read this real quick because you said you want me to show you this?

>> Right.

>> What does it say?

>> Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No problem. I grant you what?

>> So, Jacob called the name Hold on. I'll explain 1 Timothy 6:16.

>> Yeah.

>> So, Jacob called the name of the place Pineel. Do you know what Pineel means?

>> No, I'm guessing the next sentence uh

>> it's face. It means face of God. All right. For I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.

>> Right. So 1 Timothy 6

>> was this a was this a vision?

>> Yeah. So 1 Timothy was this a vision.

>> Go read it. Go read 1 Timothy.

>> I know what first Timothy 6 is called the angel of his face or the angel of his presence.

>> Did he see God?

>> Did he see God? Was this a vision?

>> The way that you're saying no.

>> What what way am I saying if seen the person of God? No.

>> It just says he seen God. So you want me to go to 1 Timothy 16. 1 Timothy 6:16 says, "Whom no one has seen or conceived."

>> Okay.

>> And last time I checked, Jacob is not disqualified from that verse. Neither is Moses, neither is any other of the prophets.

>> You are correct, but you just don't understand what any of these verses means because God is clearly blinded.

>> In the chat, whom no one has seen or can see. So, can we see the person of God with our eyes?

>> Who alone has immortality dwelling in unapproachable light whom no man has seen or can see. And this is also talking about Jesus's by the way. So I don't know. Anyway,

>> okay. So we didn't see Jesus.

>> Let me explain what the verse means because you don't know anything about the Bible clearly. God has blinded you for whatever reason, one reason or another.

>> So when it says no one has seen or no one can see, we're talking about the divine nature of God,

>> right? Except Except

>> we cannot see.

>> My nature is who?

>> Can I just explain? Cuz nobody knows what the freak you're saying.

>> No one has seen or can see. Natures are not whose persons are. So who's the who?

>> Didn't you just say if you're a who, then that entails a what?

>> Yeah, they're coextensive.

>> So you can be talking about a what when mentioning a who?

>> My argument remains intact.

>> Okay.

>> The question I first off chat, bear with her. Please pray for her as well.

>> You see,

>> I'm trying to explain something. Can I explain something? Can I explain? Can I explain? Can I explain? Can I explain?

>> Right. So, have we imp

>> I'm going to get a proper explanation with our eyes.

>> So, I'm going to get a proper explanation because nobody can get any sort of good good information.

>> You can't get around this.

>> So, anyway,

>> the nature of God is empirically unseen.

>> Who alone? Okay, whatever. Anyway, talking about the divine nature. You cannot see the divine nature of God.

>> Excuse me.

>> You cannot see the divine nature of God.

>> You're just hoping right now. Our nature's whose

>> I'm explaining our nature is who? cannot see the divine nature of God.

>> Nature's whose

>> coat

>> certain types of natures are

>> so.

>> So natur

>> you don't even know the difference between

>> natures are whose

>> you can have a first substance and a second substance.

>> So you just don't know like I I can't explain anything to you because you don't understand basic metaphysics. So like I was saying you cannot see the divine nature of

>> God.

>> Okay. So the essential properties of being a human are animality and rationality. So can we see a person's rationality with our eyes?