TRINITY DEBATE : Andrew Harrison Vs Jacob Hansen (FULL DEBATE)

Foreign. [Music] [Music] All right, thank you for joining me on this episode of The Gospel Truth. I'm your host, Marta Wilson, and we have another debate for you, another fantastic show. I am so happy to be before you to bring you another great debate. I have Jacob Hansen and Andrew Harrison with me, and they're going to be debating Jesus and the Father. Are they the same substance? Is Jesus the same substance as the Father? I'm gonna bring these guys in so we can get this debate going. Once again, we are going to be discussing, is the Father as Jesus and the Father the same substance? And so, let me bring these guys in so they can further introduce themselves to you guys. How you guys doing, fellas?

Doing well, Marlon. Thanks for having us. Glad, glad to have you. Glad to have you. Appreciate you both for joining us. Andrew, you ain't gonna say hi, man? You're gonna just say you're gonna say hi? Yeah, I think you're muted, man. That's why we didn't hear you saying. I'm sorry. I said hello. Hello. You're good, man. You're good. I have to make sure you be you're joining in on the highs, man. Say hi to the audience. But good, good stuff, guys. I'm glad you guys are joined me, man. I was looking forward to this one. This is always a fun topic, very serious topic as well. This is a centerline to many of the in the Christian faith, man. This is a centerline topic, man. And some people can find some real hard, rigid positions on this. So this is going to be a fun discussion. But before we drop into the debate, I'm going to allow you guys to introduce yourselves to the audience. Uh, tell them what you do, blogs, YouTube channels, ministry, whatever it is that you do, let them know so I can come check you out. All right, Jacob, if you don't mind, go ahead and give a quick introduction to yourself.

Yeah, so my name is Jacob Hansen. I run a YouTube channel called Thoughtful Faith. Um, you can just Google or YouTube Thoughtful Faith. I also moderate a Facebook forum called Thoughtful Saints, where we essentially talk about, uh, issues related to Latter-day Saints or Mormonism, but we also talk about more general theological discussions within Christianity. And, uh, that's kind of what I do. And and occasionally, I engage in these theological debates. And so looking forward to this one.

All right, thank you, Jacob, for joining us. All right, Andrew, you're up next, man. Go ahead and give a quick introduction yourself, man.

Hey, my name is Andrew Harrison. And, uh, I just enjoy debating and talking to people. And, you know, it's a good way to learn and stuff. I run the Last Hour Apologetics page. You can find it on YouTube or, uh, Facebook. And then, um, you know, if you don't like apologetics or not just apologize, you can also check out my other channel on YouTube, which I deal with drums. And you can find that at Monkey Jack One.

All right, all right. Thank you, Skye, so much for joining us. Appreciate it. All right, now, what we're going to do, we're going to jump into this debate, man. We're not gonna waste any more time. Once again, the topic of this debate is Jesus and the Father, the same substance, or is Jesus the same substance as the Father? Uh, Jacob, you're arguing the negative. Andrew, you are going to be affirmative. And so we're gonna start that with 10-minute open statements, then we're gonna follow out with five-minute rebuttals. I'm gonna have a 40-minute cross-examination. Uh, not like what we usually do. We're gonna break those 20 minutes into segments, so 10 minutes for Andrew, 10 minutes for Jacob, 10 minutes for Andrew, 10 minutes for Jacob. And that's going to equate to a 40-minute cross-examination. And then after that, we're gonna have five-minute closings. And then we've got some 30 by 30 minute Q&A from the audience. Sounds good? Sounds good. All right, Andrew, you're on the affirmative in this debate, so you're up first to present your opening statement, and you'll have 10 minutes. And once again, remember this time, the time will let you know that you have one minute left in your presentation, so you want to start concluding at that point. Uh, with that said, I will start your 10-minute timer as soon as you begin to speak.

All right, well, thank you again, Marlin, for having me on and for Jacob for agreeing to debate. All right, well, this debate mostly lies on the Son's pre-existence, because it is there that we find the reason he is of the same substance as the Father. We can boil this down for two reasons. One, the reason the Son is of the Father's substance is because the Son is the Father's Word, which is in John's gospel. He is the logos of the Father, that is to mean the Father's reason and logic. Saint John was placing the Divine figure of the person of Jesus and connecting both the Old and New Testament example. The Lord begat me, uh, the beginning of his works, the forerunner of his deeds, uh, of long ago, from of old, I was formed, and at first, before the Earth, uh, the Father begat his logos, the Son, in eternity's past. And because of this, we get the Nicene Creed's defining moment: Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one substance with the Father. And number two, the Bible and the early church distinguished between God and matter. Just like the Father, the Son is uncreated and eternal, without beginning, and creator of all things. They are of a different substance than matter, because matter is not divine and it had a beginning. That said, homoousios means one substance or same substance. This means that the Son, the logos, is fully God, yet distinct in his personas or in the Greek hypostasis. He is not a creature created by God the Father, that the Arians were teaching, neither another God that my opponent believes. We can view this too as same essences. Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian that was present at the Council of Nicaea, not to be confused with Eusebius of Nicomedia, the Arian, wrote this when he defined homoousios: "Quote, that he is of the same substance with the Father, then simply implies that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in every aspect like the Father only who begat him, and that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father." To which doctrine, explained in this way, it appeared right to us, especially since we know that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term homoousios in their theological discourse concerning the nature of the Father and the Son. We can boil this down really to mean that there are two substances: one of creation and one of God's uncreated divine substance. Note that Eusebius tells us that the pre-Nicean church fathers used the concept of the Father and Son's substance. So the following quotes come from church fathers who used this concept of one substance, starting in the middle of the third century to the beginning of the second, nearly 250 years prior to Nicaea. This is paramount because it shows us that the bishops of Nicaea weren't making things up. They weren't simply can they were simply contending for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints, per Jude's epistle. As you will see, Jesus being of the same substance is a long-held belief. Dionysius, A.D. 245: "Quote, the plant that springs from the root is something distinct from that which it grows up, yet it is of one nature with it. The river which flows from the spring is something distinct from the spring, for we cannot call either the river a spring or the spring a river. Nevertheless, we allow that they are both one according to nature, and also one in substance." And we admit that the spring may be conceived of as father, and that the river is what is begotten of the spring. Origen, A.D. 230: "If then it is once rightly understood that the only begotten Son of God is his wisdom existing in substance, I do not know whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this." Tertullian, A.D. 210: "I derived the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father." Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 190: "When first John says that that which was from the beginning, he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is coexistent with the Father, the Word itself, that is the Son of God, who being by equality of substance one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." Irenaeus, A.D. 185: "Carefully then has the Holy Spirit pointed out by that has been said, Jesus's birth from a virgin and his essence, that he is God. For the name Emmanuel indicates this." And my personal favorite from him: "That which is begotten of God is God." Athenagoras, A.D. 150: "We employ language that makes a distinction between God and matter. If we acknowledge a God and a Son, his logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in substance." And last, but certainly not the only one, Justin Martyr, A.D. 120: "This power Christ was begotten from the Father by His power and will, but not by division, I.E., cutting off, as if the essence of the Father was divided." There are many, many more. And I felt this important to note because despite my opponent's belief in the universal Great Apostasy, there is evidence of one of this one substance belief all the way back well into the early second century, which I would not argue that they came up with this, rather it was handed down by the Apostles. If they came up with it, then it's up to my opponent to pinpoint where the correct belief ended and the false began. Appealing to the overused and tired excuse that Greek philosophy distorted Christianity is inadequate at most. This is a guilt by association fallacy, and at least, and at least it's a red herring. This leads to the, the Son being the Father's logos of the Father, which is the belief held in the logos doctrine. The early church unanimously referenced Proverbs 8 as proof: "Quote, the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old." Even Arius used this verse for Jesus as Jesus being the logos, except for him, it was proof that there was a time when the Son was not. Proverbs 8 talks about God, God's Word and wisdom, I.E., you know, that which made the world. Proverbs 3:19 adds, "By wisdom the Lord Yahweh laid the Earth's foundation. By understanding, He set the heavens in place." And in Genesis, then God said. And there's also Colossians 1:15-17: "Quote, He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him." To quote Theophilus of Antioch, of 168 A.D.: "The Word always exists, residing in the heart of God. For before anything came into being, He had Him as a counselor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined, He begat His Word, uttered the firstborn of all creation." The fact that these early Christians reflect the Nicene Creed should lend credence to the truthfulness of it. To dismiss the Creed would be to nearly dismiss the past 300 years prior to Nicaea, because as the Creed is simply a condensed reflection of the church's belief, to add to what the scriptures say. And in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. As for the Bible examples of the Father and Son's uncreated substance and that of all creation, and scripture are clear as day. God alone has immortality, per First Timothy 6:16, and all else had a beginning. Quote, "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17. God alone created all things. See Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:16, John 1:3, and Revelation 4:11, which states, "All things came into existence for You, for for You created all things, and by Your will they existed and were created." It's one thing to say that all things were created, and another, another thing to say that they came into existence. Because nowhere in scripture or the early church fathers do we ever see that anything else is eternal. After all, God alone has immortality. Scriptures give these actions to the Father and the Son, and nothing else. He is independent of His creation because He alone is immortal. Nothing or no one created the Father or Jesus. They never came into being like that of creation. As for God's name, it is "I am" or "I am that I am." This meant that God is the uncreated, self-existent one. Both the Father is Yahweh, and Jesus is Yahweh. One example is in Genesis 19:24: "Quote, Then the Lord Yahweh rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord Yahweh out of heaven." It's also important to note that the earliest Christian authors, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, all universally read this passage as referring to two persons. They all maintain this while also adhering to the belief in one God. The Word was with God, and that is to mean His logos and His reason. The Word was God, and that is to mean He is of the same substance, in the very image of the invisible God. If the Father begat the logos, who is His Word and logos, then that would make Him God, and of the same substance, as He is not divided or cut off from the Father. To close, my opponent has a non-biblical and yet inconsistent view of God's Oneness, which he will probably bring up. For example, in Isaiah 43:10: "Before Me no God was formed, and after Me none will come." Isaiah 45:22: "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the Earth, for I am God, and there is no other." And one of my favorites, which is Psalms 86:10: "For You are great and do wondrous things; You alone are God, Elohim." For these verses highlight God's incomparability, similar to Michael Heiser's, uh, view concerning the Divine Counsel. He says, "Yahweh's Yahweh is species unique and creator of all things, which would include other Elohim, which are gods." However, which are gods. However, if we see, however, we see time and time again that the Word, an angel, messenger, is worshiped and viewed as Yahweh in every respect. This, this second hypostasis of Yahweh, is Yahweh. Yet, if we are to take my opponent's interpretation of the Father and Son's Oneness, we have come to a contradiction. How then can one God say He is God alone and there is no one like Him, yet there is another like Him? Why boast about your incomparability when you literally have another God right beside You that is equal in unity and purpose? This is essentially misleading. That's, that's time right there.

Andrew, thank you so much for your opening statement. And now, Jacob, you're in the seat for your opening statement, and I will start your time as soon as you begin to speak.

Okay. All righty. So to, uh, today's debate is on if Jesus and the Father share the same substance. Now, right off the bat, we have an issue because, uh, according to the New Testament, uh, Jesus had a physical body after the resurrection, a physical substance. So if Jesus was fully God when he appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, he, God, had a body, a physical substance. But my opponent is going to say that God is immaterial. And so I just wanted to start with this as a sample of the kind of incoherence that you will see from my opponent tonight and from anyone who tries to defend the Trinitarian philosophy. So moving on, um, to begin, we must understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is. The idea of the Trinity is not merely the notion that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. After all, Latter-day Saints believe that they are one. Even our Book of Mormon says they are one. Rather, the philosophy of the Trinity is an interpretation of what it means to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. This is critical to remember. No one here is debating if God is one. We are debating what that means. This philosophy of the Bible is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Uh, nowhere in the Bible is the Trinity used to explain God's Oneness. And it's a historical fact that this Trinitarian philosophy came about well after the New Testament was written. It's a Hellenistic philosophy that interprets the Oneness of God in scripture to mean that God is the same being, substance, or essence shared by three individual and separate persons. But how could three persons share the same being, substance, or essence? Well, this is something that intelligent Christians will rightly say is a mystery that we can't comprehend. And thus, they wisely cop out of trying to explain this logically incoherent idea. But what is meant by God's Oneness? Does the Bible answer this? Yes, it does. In fact, Jesus' own words in the Gospel of John answer what is meant by the Oneness of God. Jesus says, when he prays for his disciples, he says the following: "That they may be one, as Thou Father art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that they may be one, even as We are One." I'm going to repeat that for everyone. He says, "That they may be one, even as We are One." Jesus literally addressed and answered what is meant by the Oneness of Himself and the Father. And Jesus was not talking about a superficial unity in preaching, as my opponent may argue. He was talking about a profound Oneness. He said, and I quote, "And the glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given them, that they may be one, even as We are One. I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one." Do you see the depth here? Jesus was not saying, "Hey guys, uh, you know, be a good, united team out there when you go out to preach." Jesus was inviting his disciples to perfection and union with Himself and His Father. He was essentially praying that they would become joint heirs with Him to God's glory and perfection. He was calling them into the divine nature, into the Oneness of the nature that He and the Father shared. So, uh, there are three reasons why any person should reject the Trinitarian philosophy as the explanation for God's Oneness: that is the historical reasons, the scriptural reasons, and the logical reasons. Now, I will only briefly hit on the historical reasons, since anyone can Google the origins of the Trinitarian philosophy and see that neither the word Trinity nor even the concept of the Trinity is found in the Bible as the explanation for God's Oneness. Instead, it came about in the second or third century as Christians mixed Platonic philosophy with Christian teachings to try and reconcile the Oneness of God with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Historically speaking, it is a fact that the Trinitarian God has more in common and to do with Plato and Aristotle's conception of God as an unmoved mover rather than the God of Moses or Jesus, that spoke with people like Moses face to face in scripture. In speaking of the scriptures, let's move on to that problem. In Mark 13:32, Jesus is speaking of the second coming, and He says, "But concerning that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." If Jesus and the Father are one mind or being, how is it that the Father knows things that the Son doesn't know? And how is it that Jesus, who is fully God, doesn't know all things, but that the Father does? In Luke 22:42, Jesus says, "Not My will be done, but Thine be done." If Jesus and the Father are both God, how could they have a conflict of wills? This scripture clearly shows that the Father and the Son have independent wills. Is God divided? How about in John 14:28, where Jesus says, "My Father is greater than I." How could the Father be greater than the Son if the Son and the Father shared the same being, essence, and substance, and were both one eternal, unchanging God? While on the cross, in Matthew 27:46, Jesus says, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" I thought Jesus was that unchanging God. What or who is He talking to? In Matthew 17:18, Jesus says, "Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is God." If God and Jesus were the same being, why would Jesus make a distinction between the goodness of God's nature and the goodness of His own? How about in John 17:3, Jesus prays to the Father for His disciples, and He says, "And this is life eternal, that they know You, the only true God." He does say, "and Jesus whom Thou hast sent," but it would seem that Jesus, who Jesus was praying to, was the only true God, and He makes a clear distinction between Himself and that only true God. Interestingly, Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, clearly distinguishes between the Father and Son in chapter 8, verses 4 through 6, where he says, "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live, and there is but one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." You see again how the Father is the one God, and Jesus is distinguished from that one God. Furthermore, Paul does not say that Jesus and the Father are even equals, let alone in the same, uh, God. He says in First Corinthians 11:3, "Quote, I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God." If Christ was God, why would He say that God is the head of Christ? And how about Stephen, when he dies in Acts 7, in that vision, he said he saw two beings. He said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man, that's Jesus, standing on the right hand of God." And I could go on and on. The Bible not only does not teach the Hellenized Trinitarian version of God created in the second century, it directly refutes it. But my opponent will ignore this and just presuppose that the Oneness of God just must mean Trinity, because that's what the early church fathers in the second and third century said, contrary to what the scriptures teach. Now, last, let's look at the third problem, the problem of logic. And it's pretty simple. It is logically incoherent to posit the idea of three persons that have the same being, because you having your own individual being is what makes you an individual person. How can you be your own person without your own being or essence? In addition, I want you to watch closely for something in this debate. My opponent will conflate the use of the word God. He will use God to describe a person, three persons, a nature, a mind, and an essence or substance. The issue is that these are all different things. So when he says God, we will not even be able to tell what he's talking about, and thus he will use confuses the language to convince us that three persons can share the same essence, when essence by definition is the essential properties that make one person separate from another. Or we can simply avoid all this unnecessary, incoherent Trinitarian philosophy and just face the Oneness of God that Jesus gave us in John 17, and also realize that in John 17, He was calling us to be joint heirs with Christ, as Paul said in Romans 8:17, "We are children and heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, so that if we suffer with Him, we may also be glorified together." And with that, I yield my time.

All right, thank you so much for the openings, guys. And now we're going to drop into our rebuttal rounds. Once again, these are five-minute rebuttals. And so, Andrew, you're back in the seat, and I will start your five-minute timer as soon as you begin to speak.

All right, well, the same thing that he accuses me of presupposing into the text is exactly what he's doing by presupposing a separate unity of gods into the text. For one thing, I, you know, I, John 17. All right, so this is a used and abused text by the LDS because it is about unity. But what kind of unity are we, are we talking about? For instance, when Jesus, you know, you could, you could take it like this. So he's talking about the earthly ministry, and we know this because he says it right in the text where it says, "My prayer is not for them, I pray also for those who believe on Me through their message, that all of them may be one, just as the Father is in Me and I in you." So he's talking, and it's correlating back to, um, when Jesus kept saying, um, you know, "Believe is thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I speak is unto you, I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works." So it's, he's using His ministry to see like, well, this unity that I have in the Father through my works, believe it. And he's saying this unity that we are supposed to have within the church will point to the message that is what is being preached, which is, you know, Christ. And not to mention, um, he says, like, he kind of contradicted himself. I don't know if you, you know, obviously you wrote this beforehand, but he says that, um, it did not come centuries later, as for the Trinity, but then he also says that it starts in the second century. So, as I said in my opening statement, I would really like to understand where the, um, the, the disconnect happened from the first century to the second century, because we have Justin Martyr, who outright says, um, in the first century, you know, "not by cutting off as the substance, the essence of God is divided," because, as I said in my, um, opener, it's the Jesus is the Lord, he is the Word that was begotten of God. This is the, as I pointed out, continuous understanding of it. And for instance, um, where it says, let me see if I can find the Son's pre-existence, like, like who is the Father begetting? It says, "My heart has dictated a good word, and I beget thee out of my bosom before the dawn." So there is the Trinity in the Old Testament. There was, you can actually look it up from, I think, Powers in Heaven. There is a tension, a plating person, which person? Yeah, yeah.

Andrew, you're breaking up pretty bad. I'ma stop the time here. Let's see if we can get that audio under control. Um, you're breaking up pretty bad there. Um, it looks like, uh, yeah. All right, look like it's stable now. I did stop the time, so, uh, you can continue on, uh, with your, which everybody. Yeah, about two minutes, two minutes and 17 seconds left, so, uh, you can continue on.

Okay, so I guess, I guess I'll finally hit on, uh, "the Father is greater than I." See, what he's doing is presupposing that, that the Father being greater means greater in being or greater in status, as if they're, uh, um, they're separate gods. But, you know, the Father is great, but, um, what is happening later, and the Father is also greater in Christ's humanity, as per, uh, you know, Philippians 2:6-8, which says, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no, uh, reputation." To quote this, I, I can't pronounce his name, but he, he and Peroster or something, I butchered that, but he says, "He knew He was the Father's equal, but rather than claim that equality, He submitted Himself." This submission, though, is one of the central beliefs of the Plan of Salvation that centers on Christ becoming human, the hypostatic union, on why He even has a body, and for our sake. This equality is a, um, this equality is true because the Divine Word of God is the one God of Israel, essentially. We need to distinguish what belongs to His nature and what, what belongs to God's Plan of Salvation, which is God in the flesh, who condescended to be a servant, to serve and save as many as will come. It's the reason the gospel is even a thing. So, yeah, so be, be on the lookout. And I want to say as well, that he was, um, quoting like, um, the Greek philosophy, which I'm assuming that I, I guess that he was going to bring up, which is a red herring and a guilt by association. Like, for instance, are we going to accuse G, Jesus of copying Plato because Plato says no one sins knowingly, and then Jesus said, "Forgive them, they know not what they do"? Essentially, Plato's philosophy of the One is like Christianity's view. However, it stops there. The early Christians understood that the philosophy of the Greeks did have some similarities, but they did not adopt that. That is simply a, a red herring and a guilt by association because the church was moving into, uh, different regions of the world.

All right, that's time right there. Thank you, Andrew, for that rebuttal. Jacob, you're back in the seat, once again, and I will start your five-minute timer for your rebuttal when you begin to speak.

Okay, so I just want to go through the, the areas that my opponent was not able to rebut. First of all, I'll start with the logical problem, because there's kind of three problems: the logical, the historical, and the scriptural problems. Um, logically, I'm having a very hard time even understanding what my opponent means when he says God. Is he talking about a nature? Is he talking about an essence? Is he talking about a substance? Is he talking about a person? And these are different things, but he's not reconciling that. He's not defining it. And so there's all this conflation. He'll say the word God, and you don't know what he's saying, because he, he literally uses it and conflates it in different ways. So it's just incoherent. So logically, I'm not even understanding how he even, he tried to address that problem because he hasn't been able to define what he even means by God. Um, the other thing I'll go to is the historical problem. When it comes to Greek philosophy and its influence, the noted historian Robert L. Wilken, who's not a Latter-day Saint, explains the following: He says, "Since the time the apologists first began to offer a reasoned and philosophical presentation of Christianity to pagan intellectuals, Christian thinkers had claimed to worship the same God honored by the Greeks and the Romans. In other words, the deity adored by other reasonable men and women. Indeed, Christians adopted precisely the same language to describe God as did the pagan intellectuals. The Christian apologists, Theophilus of Antioch, described God as ineffable, inexpressible, uncontainable, incomprehensible, inconceivable, incomparable, unteachable, immutable, without beginning, because He was uncreated, immutable, because He was immortal. This view that God was an immaterial, timeless, and impassable divine being who was known through the mind, this became the keystone of Christian apologetics, for it served to establish a decisive link to the Greek spiritual and intellectual tradition." So what you have is, you had Christians, this isn't just like guilt by association, they're literally using the Greek terms to describe God, and these terms that they're using to describe God literally contradict what the Bible says about Him. They say God has no parts or passions and is immutable, and all this stuff. Yet the Old Testament God spoke face to face with Moses, Jesus Christ resurrected, Jesus Christ fully God resurrected with a body, a material substance. How can you be of a material substance and be of the same substance of the Father, but God has no materiality? This makes no sense. Um, and it was clearly the influence of the Greek philosophy that brought about these terminologies that you see rife in Christianity only within the Hellenized world. That's the reason you don't find these terminologies in the Old Testament or even in the New Testament, which still were not Hellenized to the degree that the later Gentile Christians were. Now, uh, let's talk about the scriptural case here. First of all, John 17 is a perfectly sufficient explanation for the Oneness of God. There's no need to create this entire doctrine of the Trinity when John 17 provides a sufficient explanation for what is meant by God's Oneness, and it reconciles all the rest of the other texts. There's nothing in there that can say that God's nature, if you want to talk about God as a nature, that that nature cannot be shared between the Father and the Son as distinct individuals. If my opponent is just arguing that God is a nature, well then I agree. We're on the same page. And multiple beings can have their own nature and share in the divine nature. And in fact, that according to John 17 and according to Romans, where we're talked about as children and joint heirs with Christ, an heir inherits what the Father has. They, they become like the Father, they become the king, the ruler. That is what that scripture is inviting us to. What we're talking about, and what Jesus is talking about in the Oneness of God, the best explanation, if you stick to scripture and not run over to Greek calendars' philosophy, is that Jesus is calling us into a type of relationship with God where we share in His nature and become as He is, where we, as children of God, become like God. And with that, I yield my time.

All right, thank you guys so much for the openings and the rebuttals. And so now we're going to jump into our cross-examination. And, uh, I suspect this would be a fantastic cross-examination. Once again, this will be a total of 40 minutes. Both of you will get 20 minutes total, but that will be broken down into 10-minute segments. Um, that said, uh, the only time I will jump in is if I feel that the conversation veered too far off subject or if I hear ad hominems being thrown at each other. And I do not expect you guys to do such a thing. Um, but that said, um, I will give you guys the floor. And Andrew, you, first for your first 10-minute cross-examination of Jacob. And I'll start your time as soon as you begin to ask your first question.

Okay, so, um, is Jesus a God? Yes. Is the Father a God? Yes. So in what sense can the Father and Son be one God?

Uh, it depends on what you mean by God. I use God as a title and or nature that is being described that a being has obtained. So I, I, for instance, I am a human, and my father are human. We are, you know, we are humans, but we, and we share that nature, that human nature. And so, you know, we are both, um, but we both are our own individual persons.

Would you also say that, uh, Yahweh, the I am that I am, Yahweh, is a title as well?

No, I would say that's a proper name.

Okay, so I guess I want to highlight, um, a verse, you know, that shows Yahweh's incomparability with other gods, such as, uh, Isaiah 37:16 and 20, when it says, "O Lord Yahweh of hosts, God of Israel, that dwelleth between the cherubims. Thou art the God, even Thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. Thou hast made the heavens and earth. Now therefore, O Lord, O Yahweh, our God, save us from the hand, and all of the kings on the earth, may know that Thou art the art Yahweh, even now only." If Yahweh is as incomparable as these verses attest, and it's clear that these texts, and as you said, this is a personal name, how can you then say that there is another God in unity? Because I understand that you say, you know, God has, is, you know, God is a title, but this is a personal name over and over and over again, we see that Yahweh alone is distinct among other gods. But yet you posit that there are two other, and I guess for this debate, you would say one other God alongside Him in unity and purpose. Can you explain how that would make sense?

Uh, you have to recognize that all this is being talked about in a polytheistic world. And in that polytheistic world, uh, the, the ancient Hebrews saw their God as the, the God that was better than all of the other polytheistic gods that were out there. And therefore, um, when they said that our God is basically the top God, they're basically crapping on all the other gods of all the other nation states that, that are around them. And, and real quick, one final point on this, that they, uh, saw their God as incomparable to the other false deities that were out there. And they also were saying that there was a Oneness in God that was different than the polytheistic gods, because the polytheistic gods all had their own agenda. You had Hera and Zeus, or whatever, all the different, the Egyptian gods, and these gods all kind of had their own thing. They were describing that our God is not like that. Our, our God is one. And so they didn't have a concept of a Trinity at all, but they did exist in a henotheistic world.

But what God are you referring to?

Uh, they, Yahweh.

You said that God is a title. You said God is the title. So who, who's Yahweh?

Yahweh is a, is a name, a proper name. God can be used as a title, and that's the way generally when I use it, that's generally what I'm speaking of. But I also can use God either as a title or in reference to a specific being, in which case I would talk about the Father as God. But I will, in for the sake of this debate, if I use the term Father, if I'm talking about a person, I'll say the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. If I'm talking about a title, I will say Divine or Divinity. And then if I'm talking about like a specific deity, then we can do that. Now, Yahweh in our tradition is understood to be Jesus Christ. Although we, we do leave a little caveat that they may not always in the scriptures have, they only had one. They didn't have a conception of Father and Son. So when we believe that they are referring to the Son, they may at times also be referring to the Father or even to the Godhead generally, because they didn't have a conception of a Father-Son Holy Spirit.

But where is this distinction in the Old Testament? I think there's a, there's a very clear distinction between the Word that appears, such as, um, the Angel, which is a messenger of God, you know, it, you know, um, there are certain instances in, in Genesis where the Word of, you know, the Word comes and visits Abraham, which we can see as, you know, would be the pre-incarnate Jesus. But yet we also see in the, New Testament that no one has ever seen God the Father at any time. So who are they actually seeing? So, and could you at least, like, who are they actually seeing? Because you, you keep saying that, um, you know, it could be the Father, and that, but then you're admitting through, you know, are you asking such as Moses, who is Moses saying? I want to get clarification. Like, when Moses saw God and spoke to Him face, they're asking who he was seeing. Yeah, not just Moses, like Abraham, Jacob, you know, all those instances. Who are they seeing?

Uh, I would say the, the Lord Jesus Christ. However, it's, they didn't have a, even a Godhead notion in the Old Testament. They didn't have a Godhead notion, and they did not have a Trinitarian notion. Those were developed later on when Jesus came and actually revealed a more full nature of who God was. So these ancient people didn't have a full conception of that they were dealing with a, a three-person, uh, Godhead from our perspective, or as you would say, a three-person Trinity. So for either of us, we're in the same position looking at the Old Testament, in that the Old Testament does not, it does not give you a three-person, uh, uh, God. It just doesn't. And so the, if you're asking who, who Yahweh was, or who, you know, who, who are they referring to, the Angel of the Lord versus Yahweh, I don't think that those distinctions were made very clearly in the Old Testament, because I don't think the people understood those. And Jesus came to clarify those. So that's, I, I think that's your, I, I don't see how that can be possible, um, because it's obvious that, you know, Second Jewish, Second, Temple literature and stuff distinguish, and they actually had con, like, uh, doctrines of the two powers of Heaven that they were coming to this understanding that there are two powers in Heaven. How can one, how can God say no one can see Him face to face, but yet they saw God face to face? That kind of deal. But what I wanted to say is, you know, in the LDS, you know, understanding is that Yahweh is Jesus. Jesus is Yahweh. And yet He's not the Most High, right?

With a little bit of a, with a little bit of a caveat there, because I don't want you to straw man what we're saying. It's, uh, uh, it is what the, you know, it is. We do generally believe that that was who it's referring to, that Jesus was the active agent interacting with the people of Israel as Yahweh, as God's sort of messenger or interface with the world, the Father's interface with the world. And so, but we don't say that that's necessarily always the case. But if I may add, like, you accuse us of of being so vague about God, but here there is, you, in your own view of God in the Old Testament is incredibly vague. But yet when we try to pinpoint which God is speaking, which God is doing what, you can't tell us, because like in Genesis 14:22, it says, "And Abraham said unto the kingdom of Sodom, I have lift up my head unto Yahweh, the most high God, the possessor of Heaven and Earth." And Psalm 7:17, which says, "I praise Yahweh according to His righteousness, I will sing praise to the name of Yahweh most high." So it seems to me like that's obviously, if we're using your understanding of this stuff, that's Jesus, right? The Most High?

No, I would say that we don't know who they're referring to exactly, because they didn't know who they're referring to exactly. And we would agree on that. They did not have a Father-Son Holy Spirit concept of God. So the question I would, I would ask you, if it's not your time, obviously, is the, the, our asses rhetorically, that that a person has to ask themselves, is the question of, well, which person are they referring to? If that's a proper name, are they referring to the Father? Are they referring to the Son? Or are they referring to the Holy Spirit? And so, or are they referring to Divinity proper? And I could see it either way. Maybe they're referring to directly to Jesus Christ, or maybe they're referring to the Godhead and using the name Yahweh, because that was the understanding that they have. The reason that we're vague, if you want to call it that, is because the Old Testament isn't clear. The Old Testament authors were dealing with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All of us would agree that are Christians. But what we're pointing out here is that they didn't realize that it was Jesus Christ who came to reveal that nature.

Yeah, I feel like that, that just ex, it gives it, gives you like, I feel like that was just an excuse for you to, for you to have vagueness in the Old Testament. But when I pushed, so who, which God is speaking here? Because it's not just one God. You even said they're, they're dealing with a polytheistic worldview. So it's three gods in unity, yet Yahweh is a distinct name for one deity. But yet y'all believe that Yahweh is Jesus. Which, but again, which person then is it? You know, like, and I guess maybe as we get down to the time here, that, that maybe I can ask that question to you. If, well, might as well.

All right, that is time for Andrew's first cross-examination of Jacob. Jacob, you are now up for your first cross-examination of Andrew, 10 minutes.

All right, Andrew, so we agree, do you agree that Yahweh is a proper name?

Yes.

It refers to a person?

Correct.

That's what a, that's a proper name. God is God a person?

If you, I guess you could say in a sense that it is a title, but not necessarily just a title. It does describe, um, you know, God. Elohim is, I guess you would say, a divine being. But so Yahweh is, Yahweh is not, uh,

So is Yahweh a proper name?

Yes.

Does

[End of transcript]

A proper name, refer to like Yahweh does. That refers to the name of a person. It would refer to both because what you're doing is you're conflating person to also mean a being, right? A being? Yes. But the understanding of the theological, you know, terms behind person is persona or hypostasis, which just denotes that there is a sort of, um, I know, hypostasis is an underlining reality. It doesn't. It also being a being. Does the Bible teach hypostasis? It, it shows us that there are two distinctions within God. We see that there is one God, but yet, especially in the Old Testament, how that the Lord Yahweh, we can be viewed as the Father, and then the Word is also worshiped. The angel is worshiped and seen as Yahweh. Those are two hypostases.

Okay, so let's, let's, uh, I'm gonna pull something real quick on the screen here, um, and and just, we can see. So, premise one: Jesus has a body. You'd agree with that, right? That Jesus resurrected with a body? Yes. Would you agree that Jesus is God? Yes. So, doesn't the logical conclusion of that mean that God has a body? Just wouldn't you say that's a straw man, though? Because I think you're avoiding the fact that, um, Jesus, you're avoiding the hypostatic union. So, that in, in the hypostatic union, does the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same substance? What do you mean? Well, do the, do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same substance? Yes. Is physical, is a physical body a substance? It is another, it's another hypostasis of, uh, you know, the hypostatic union. Yeah. But so, you're, you're avoiding the distinctions within the three persons, the three personas, the hypostases. It's okay. The Word that came down. Yeah. So, are you talking about like, I, I guess I'm confused, though. How can you're talking about persons and being as if you can have three persons that share the same being? How can three persons share the same being? I thought having your own being. Because the, the terms that we are using within the Trinitarian formula, like the Latin is persona, the Greek is hypostasis, those do not denote that revolve around their having to be a being. Like, I think that persona comes, you know, don't quote me on this, but it was something about an actor wearing a mask. It's, it's a reality. It's a, a, uh, the personhood, you know, it's not necessarily just, you know, revolving around their being to being that's simply, you know, using English terminology and applying it to the Trinity way later, earlier.

Okay, so, could you provide me with an explanation as to how three persons can share the same essence? So, and, and particular, I think, you know, especially for this debate, at least, because it's, you know, the Jesus and the Father, for instance. Um, like I said in my opener, the, the Father is the Father, the essence, all right. And they use the analogy of the Father being a mind, all right, I guess you could say. And then the Logos is the wisdom, the logic of the Father. And so, at an eternity's past, before creation, before the creation of the world, God begat the Logos. That's the reason why Justin, Justin Martyr said in the early second century, it wasn't by obsession, like cutting off. There's still one essence. So, that's what we're talking about. Is they're fully one God, but it's God the Father and His Word, the begottenness. That's what it's referring to. Are your words a separate person? Well, actually, Tertullian made, made that an astute, you know, that that observation where it was like, he, he was using the analogy where it's like, um, when you're silently conversing with yourself, every word, every thought meets you with a word, and that in of itself could be a second person. And he said, how much more fully is this integrated into God, whose image that image that, you know, we are made after? So, I guess you could technically say yes, but we were talking about God here and stuff.

Um, is it possible for God to not know something? No. Are you referring to? I'm, I'm afraid. Yeah. Does he know everything? Yes. Has Jesus always been God? Yes. So, why in Mark 13:32 does he say that he doesn't know the day or hour, but only the Father does? Well, this was in respect to him condescending to a human alliance. Was Jesus ever not God? He was always God, but it's in that respect of him being a human. And there's also that understanding as well that it's not just that it's the Father who calls to his coming. And I'm trying to find the verse as well where it says, I can't find it. Just a quote, but, um, I think it's in Matthew where it says, after his, um, uh, glorification, he rose on the grave and everything. Peter says, well, you know, all things, you know, all things. So, it's like, during his earthly ministry, where he forsook his, um, you know, and, you know, Philippians. So, he wasn't, so he wasn't fully God during his ministry. He is fully God. Was he fully God during his ministry? Yes. During his ministry, he didn't know the time or hour, but only the Father did. Is that what happened? So, but that's what I'm saying. It's his, he took on human nature. It was that nature where he was reliant on the Father. But I also want to say, like, I, um, it's that sense where it's like the Father is the one who calls into him coming back. He was the one that said he was. So, he was fully human during his ministry. Is that correct? Yes. He was fully human. Okay. Was Jesus created? His nature? His, I guess if you want to say his divinity? No. His, the Word? No. Was never created. Okay. So, how could he be fully human if one of the characteristics of being human is that you are created? Could, isn't it impossible for him ever to be fully human if he was never created? Because he wouldn't have been fully human like us because he wasn't created, but we are. But I, but he took on flesh. So, I think you're con, you're, you're avoiding the, again, you're not taking into consideration the hypostatic union, the, the divinity, the, the divine nature and the human nature took on is one flesh, or, you know, hypostasis is, you know, his two natures. And that, but that the nature of a human being is to be a creature. So, how could he have been fully human? We can say that he looked like a human, he took on human form, but he couldn't have been fully human, right? Because a fully human person is created. Yes. But I'm con, like, I, I completely understand what you're, you know, where you're coming from. It's like, he, in a sense, his human nature did come into existence, but it's this human nature, not his divine nature.

Okay. Did, did God have parts? No. Okay. Did the resurrected Jesus have parts? Did he have a head and hands and a side that was pierced? That's old in his hands. That's not what parts mean. Um, it means it's a unified being where it's like it's all one thing. That's the reason why we would say, like, um, when Jesus, when the, when the Word was begotten from the Father, he wasn't cut off. Like, and so that one being didn't have flesh and bones. Through the hypostatic union, the Word did take on flesh and bones. All right. Andrew, you're up for your final 10-minute cross-section. Jacob and I will start your time as soon as you begin your first question. All righty. So, I just want to simply ask you, especially going back to my, um, opening rebuttal. Yeah. Oh, does the Nicene Creed, you know, specifically when it says, "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son," you know, "one substance"? Does the Nicene Creed reflect the pre-Nicene church? Um, yes and no. I mean, there's a lot of pre-Nicene church in that history. Does it, does it reflect it like the day before? Or literally, does it reflect the church at the time, the beliefs of the church at the time of Jesus and the Twelve in the New Testament? I would say no. Does it reflect the church of, let's say, of 100 AD? I think it gets probably fairly close because these ideas begin to develop during, I would say, the second century is when they started to develop, but they weren't truly formalized until later.

So, can you explain, can you give me an understanding of when in the first century, the, the, I guess you could say the end of the New Testament, from Justin Martyr, from the beginning of the first century, where this corruption started leaking in that would establish that there was, you know, I guess your understanding of the universal great apostasy? Where did this distortion start to come in where they started melding what was obvious that you say in the New Testament is the Son is very distinct from the Father? Where did this start coming into? Well, the Son is actually not distinct and he's in one essence with the Father. Can you, are you able to pinpoint where that happened? Like an absolute exact date? No. But I think it's pretty clear that what is in the Nicene Creed, when compared to the writings of the New Testament, which I've cited multiple times here, that there are contradictions with the things that the New Testament is putting out and with the Nicene Creed. And I would say, in addition, like Justin Martyr, you're talking about, you have to remember Justin Martyr even said things that that contradict Trinitarianism. Like, uh, Justin Martyr, martyr spoke of this second God being of second place to the Father. When, when he spoke, and I have a quote here from First Apology 13, and he's talking about, uh, Christ, that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate, um, and that we, he's talking about us, and this is quoting him, and that we reasonably worship Him, referring to Jesus, having learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, and holding him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third. We will prove. So, even Justin Martyr had a conception that wasn't a fully fledged Trinitarianism. Well, what you need, but then that, like the, but the way you try to say what he was saying kind of contradicts what he's saying before, because there was a form of, I guess you could say, subordinationism within the early thing, but they all still had held to the one substance. My point is, so Justin Martyr, as I said, like when he begat the Word, when the Father begat the Word, there was no cutting off, it's still one essence, it was not divided. So, you have Justin Martyr from here, and then you have that, that same consistent teachings where it says that he's one substance, one substance, all the way up to Nicaea, one substance. So, I'm confused as to how the church could have stayed consistent for 300 years and then not want to stay consistent with what you said the New Testament directly contradicts what they're saying nearly like 70 years later. Like, to me, that doesn't make sense because their whole, their whole thing is Apostolic Authority, you know, being able to stay consistent with what the Apostles taught. So, I'm just, I don't see how, if you can help me understand, like, there's that disconnect, there's that 70-year disconnect. What happened? You know, why, why were they able to stay consistent for 300 years, Tennessee, but couldn't have done that for the New Testament? Well, I think we just have to look to the New Testament and see, um, you know, you look at what Paul said, like, am I going to go with what Justin Martyr is saying or with what Paul says, or with what Peter's saying, or what the, but it's not logical implication of what the New Testament actually says with things like the fact that Jesus, with all the, the verses that I brought up, including like in First Corinthians 1, First Corinthians 11:3, you know, Paul says that the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God. That sort of subordinationism, the idea that the Son could somehow be less than the Father in some way, means that they're not equal in one God. You can't have a God that would suggest a God of parts. But what's your misunderstanding is the essence is what is in, in question. The essence is what in question. There's no dividing of the essence. They're equal in essence of the God, but distinct in their personas. There is a type of economic subordination within the Trinity. But I guess, just so I understand, just so I understand what you're saying, could I ask a clarifying question? You use the term essence. I just want to understand what you mean by essence. Who God is, the entire, like the essence, I guess you could say the substance for, you know, the substance of what God is. Okay. And again, I'm trying to clarify here. I just, I want to understand because you're talking about substance and essence. What do you mean by essence? That's the same thing. You can say substance. Essentially means essence. Substance is the essence of it's what something is made up of. So Jesus is made up of the stuff that you could say substance, I guess you could say stuff of what the Father is made up. This divine substance, this essence. They're interchangeable. Okay. Okay. But what, what I want to ask you as well, I guess from a thing, so, uh, we do have in the New Testament, Jesus is equal to the Father, such as John 18. We read, "For this reason, they tried all the more to kill him, not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." And we read in Philippians 2:5 and 6, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ, who being in form of God, which you can, which if you look at the word in form of, and you can see in nature of God, as being in nature of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God." Now, both of these verses tell us that, uh, Christ is equal with God. And especially when you go into Philippians, when it talks about, um, he was in the form of God, in the nature of God, he was equal in that nature of God. So, I guess I want to ask you, in what way is Christ equal to God if you say the Father is greater? So, you know, what way is he equal? In nature. They're both, they're both perfected divine beings who have, who are in a type of relationship and way of being in the universe that is considered godhood. And so, in that sense, they are equal in that they are both at that level of perfection. But just like I may one day become a father like my father before me, physically, I'm talking about like my dad, I will be equal to him in that I will be a man as well, but my father ultimately will always be my father. He is always, in a sense, one step ahead of me because I am dependent on him. But couldn't you also, my thing is though, it, it just seems contradictory to say that there is a one God, there's one God Yahweh, who is to be worshiped, to be praised, to be this and that, but then this most high Yahweh, Jesus, and then is brought into the New Testament and is no longer the most high. You're, you're not allowed to, you know, you're praying through him to the Father, and it just seems contradictory. It just depends on what you're talking about when you talk about God. Again, we get down to this, this is, I would say, is the heart of this debate and the heart of the issue that we're going to have here. And that is, what do you mean when you say one God? Are you talking about one nature that is ultimate and divine? I agree there is one nature that ultimately is the standard of perfection. It is the highest of all things. It's the highest that any being can attain to. And you could call that, we might call it divinity, we might call it God. And, and so you can reach that status. And so if you want to talk about it in that sense, that's fine. But, but if that's why or nature or in essence, these are all different things. Okay. But before the one minute runs out, is the fact of the matter is, you agree that Jesus is Yahweh? Jesus is, if Jesus is Yahweh in the Old Testament, he is the most high God, and no one is like him. So when he says, when he says to the Jews, you know, "I and the Father are one," and "I'm equal to the Father," and he, like, there, I don't see how then they are implying him to be another deity. They're not saying he's, "You're making yourself a god." He's saying, "You're making yourself the God." So, I just haven't, you know, a tough time thing, because I, I would say that's a contradiction to say that Yahweh is the most high, but then Yahweh, who is Jesus, comes in the New Testament, and he has a Father greater than him. You know, where is that in the Old Testament? Um, I would just say that what they were mad about was the fact that he claimed to be the God of the Old Testament. He claimed to be the one who was interacting with them, and that was why they wanted to stone him, to say that you are the God. In their mind, that, yes. And Jesus is the most high in the sense that he is equal, he is part of the Godhead, he is part of this divine, the divine Godhead that rules all things. All right. But how can I be the most high, and then they have a greater Father than you? That's time right there. That's time.

All right, Jacob, you're up next for your final cross-ex of Andrew. Okay. Um, so we've been using the term God a lot. Um, what do you mean when you say God? I guess you would say, is if you would say, I guess if you're talking in the Trinitarian formula, it would be God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, but they're all one divine nature, I guess you could say, one divine. You'd say God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You could use it that way. Yeah. Okay. So, when you say God, and I say Godhead, what, ultimately, we're talking about three distinct persons. And so, when you say God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and I say Godhead, are we not ultimately referring to the same thing? You divide the substance, there are three Gods. Okay. And your Godhead. So, Jesus, who, after Jesus, let's ask this question. When Jesus resurrected, he had a body, correct? Yes. But I'm confused about how these questions relate to him being. Well, let me, let me, I'll continue to ask. So, where did that body go? To the right hand of the Father in heaven to intercede for us. Okay. And, uh, would you agree that, um, Stephen, when he died, he described two beings, God and Jesus? No, Jesus on the right hand. Are you aware that God, are you aware that at the right hand is an idiom of being equal in power? Because John says, "Nobody has seen God the Father, nor can they. It is the Son that reveals them." So, if no one can see Him or ever see Him, then obviously we can't say that scriptures are contradicting. And Stephen is seeing the Father and them on some, you know. So, you presuppose that scripture can't contradict itself. I would assume that if, uh, God is who He says He is, and He's going to, you know, what He's going to say is he's going to be consistent. Okay. So, Jesus, his body, he's, does he still have it? Yes. And is that body a substance, part of his substance, and the hypostatic union? Yeah. So, God within the hypo, what do you mean by hypostatic union? That he took on flesh. The Word became flesh. The divine nature continues of the Word and continues. And does he continue to have flesh today? He has a glorified body. Yes. So, God has a glorified body. God, the Son has a glorified body. Okay. And the Father is of the same substance as the Son, correct? Yes. Okay. What do you mean, so when you describe God, you're talking about three persons? It depends on the context, but generally, when I say God, it's, I, I would say mostly when you're referring to God, like I said, it's the Father. You're referring to the Father. And but you can refer to all three as God. Okay. So, it could be, you could be, when you talk about God, talking about a person, or you could be talking about three persons. When you talk, it would be up to, when you talk about God, could you be talking about a nature? Define what you mean by nature. Um, the properties of a category of something. For instance, human nature. Um, you and I are both human beings, and so our nature is that of human nature. So, a nature of as God. So, I guess you could, I wouldn't, you, you're, when we say God, we're referring to God, Yahweh, the Lord Almighty, but it's also revolving around the Trinity, but the Trinity is all still one God. Um, so, okay. So, let me, let me pull some on the screen. This is the classic, you know, God is the Father is the Son, but is they are not each other. Um, so that thing in the middle there, that's God, right? Um, so you said that, but when you talk about God, you talk about God, you're usually, you're talking about the Father, or you might be talking about all three, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But what's this thing in the middle that they all share? It would be the one substance. Okay. The essence. And what is that? So, God. So, wait. So, God is not three persons or one person. He's in essence. God is the Father. The Father is. All right. And so that's what we say. But if you're in this, the Father begets the Word, okay, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but you can view it as the Father is. But I'm, but the whole thing is, yeah. Okay. So, so you're saying that, oh, go ahead, go ahead. So, when this happens, the begetting of the Word and the proceeding of the Spirit, but, you know, the Word, there's no dividing of the substance. They're still the same substance. It's the Father, His Word, and the Spirit. And, and you keep saying substance. What do you mean? So, if God is, so first we said God is a person, and we said God is three persons. Now we're saying that really, what God is, he's the thing that links these three persons in the middle here. And so, he is the substance. What is the substance? The substance is the divine. It there. Okay. So, the way they distinguish between this was that there was a substance of creation, all right, of a non-divine creation, because creation came into existence. It's not divine. But God's substance, his essence, is innately divine. It never came into being. It never, uh, was created. That's what we mean. It's there's this divine, ever-existing substance that is, you know, I guess you could say God, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. But then there's creation. What that is of a completely different substance. So, that's what we mean. Is the divinity, the substance? Is that, that's, I, I thought I had defined it in an opener. What is it? And what is, so, so that's what I guess I'm trying to understand is, if God is a substance, ultimately the substance that links these three things, what is that substance? Or I'm sorry, what do you mean by substance? I'm sorry, that was my question. What do you mean by substance? I feel like I just answered that vote. That's what I'm saying. The substance is God. It's the divine substance. It's just what God is. It's the divine substance. Just like all of creation, we are. It's like that's why that I'm trying to put it in very simple terms where it's creation, divine. So, we don't have a divine essence. So, so God is the substance, and the substance is God. Isn't that just kind of a circular? Like, you're not actually describing what a substance is. You're saying, um, the attribute, I guess you could say, the initial thing is the divine substance. The Father has a divine substance, and we see that because the Father is eternal. This substance is eternal. It's not created. But yet everything else is created. That's, uh, the logic behind it. So, it's a material substance? Yes. It's not made of material. Okay. So, isn't immaterial substance a contradiction in terms? Like, if I say, "Hey, I have some substance in my hand," but it's not here. It's like, how can you have an immaterial substance? You're confusing terms. That matter is a different, um, a different substance than God. God is not made of matter. Where, how does an immaterial substance yield material substance without any material existence? I'm confused by that. Yeah. Are you saying God can't do something? I'm, what I'm asking is, is how is it that you can get materiality from immateriality? Like, like you might think immateriality, might think like math, right? Math. How can math just like make, if it's immaterial, isn't there a, a realm of separation between the material and the immaterial? How can somebody immaterial cause something material to happen? Because I, I'm just confused about what you, what you're trying to do. You're implying there. I'm just, I'm just asking how something immaterial can cause something material to happen. What's a minute? We're done. Okay. Andrew says that quite. Jacob, answer that. Asked that question before time expired. You do have a chance to respond if you want to. It's my thing is, okay, so the material and the immaterial. I'm confused as how your, that's an issue. Like, are you saying that all there is is material and therefore material is material? I mean, I understand in your worldview, material, materials, I guess you could say matter is eternal. So, and God just fashioned that. But it's like, that immaterial, like, I'm confused why that isn't a, you know, I, I don't know. All right. All right. Thank you guys so much for the very engaging cross-ex. It's always appreciated to see two individuals engaged in a very promising way. So, thank you so much. And I think the audience also enjoyed you guys' engagement as well. So, now that transitions us to the closing remarks. This will be five-minute closings. And once again, remember the one-minute timer. Uh, the one, one-minute timer that'll let you know that it is time for you to start including your closing statements. So, that said, Andrew, you have first for your five-minute closing, and I will start your time as soon as you begin to speak.

Well, again, I just want to thank Marlin for having us on. Thank you, Jacob, for a good debate. Um, so, I, I don't feel like, um, a lot of my things were really answered. I think, like, he was assuming, like, I'm presupposing the stuff in there, but he's presupposing his stuff in there because where in the Old Testament does it say that there's a pagan? It's like, where I've, I've heard him say it, where it's just like, the gods of these other pantheons are always fighting, and then the Hebrew Pantheon, or whatever the Godhead of that is, in unity. They're not fighting, they're just in unity. But where do you see that in scripture? In reality, he's coming, he's coming to that understanding through secular, uh, scholars, having coded an evolutionary kind of view when he comes into that, when they, when they come into that where they say, like, some of these people think that the Hebrews took Yahweh and he was a Canaanite god from another thing, which I'm assuming my opponent wouldn't even believe. But their view is, how does this evolve and stuff? But you don't see that in the Bible. You just don't see it. And he didn't point that out. Anyways, and like I said, it's, it's inconsistent to think that there are, there is a subset of 300 years worth of history, the, and these, these Church Fathers, it's not just Justin Martyr, it's just Irenaeus and Tertullian and, um, Ignatius and all them are saying that they're getting their doctrines from the Apostles. And so, as I mentioned in my opening statement, there's a consistency that the Son is one substance with the Father because the Father begat the Word. And so, that wasn't even, I, I don't feel like that was even addressed by him. Is how can you have 300 years of continued teachings of this, this at this thing that really, that matches the Nicene Creed point by point, one substance, and that's what all these Church Fathers said? He didn't touch on that. Um, and it's on, it's just completely, I just can't agree with the fact that there would, there would be such a disconnect from from that thing. But, you know, so, I, I guess I just want to end with this. So, you know, in, uh, John 14:20, "At that day you will know that I am in the Father, and you in me, and I in you." So, this debate question is, is Jesus the same substance as the Father? And this really is kind of the Gospel message in that through Jesus, we can have forgiveness of sin, eternal life. It is possible because it was the Word who is in every respect one essence with the Father, that took down, that came down and took on flesh and became obedient unto death. This flesh of Christ connects us with God because, in a sense, he has become homoousios with us. This reconnects us with God again, as we can have communion with Him by putting on Christ, as we have become one with Christ because Christ is one with God, and a much deeper and meaningful way than we could have ever comprehended. God says, "My heart has dictated a good word, and I begat thee out of the bosom, His heart before the dawn." And it says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on Him shall have eternal life." So, you know, in a sense, you know, we can have our disagreements, we can say that they are two essences, um, separate essences, separate substances. We can debate the stuff, but it really comes down to Christ, the Word, being God himself, coming down into the flesh and, uh, becoming a servant for us and to save us. So, with that, I just, uh, I guess we'll yield the rest of my time.

All right, thank you so much, Andrew, for that. All right, Jacob, you are up for your five-minute closing, and I will start your time as soon as you begin to speak.

Okay, all righty. Well, thank you so much, uh, Marlon, for for having us, and Andrew, it's been a great debate. Enjoyed, uh, doing this with you. Um, so, I just have to let the audience know, though, that ultimately, my opponent has failed tonight and, uh, has not been able to deal satisfactorily with any of the problems presented, either the historical problem, the scriptural problem, or the logical problem. And I'll start with the logical one, because I don't know if you guys noticed, but if you watched in this debate, there was a lot of confusion around language, and my opponent was struggling to define even the most basic terms in the debate, terms like substance, terms like God. And if you don't define those terms, we don't really know what you're talking about. I actually want to read something from Parley P. Pratt, one of our early Apostles, writing about these, the Creeds. And he was quoting one of the Creeds, and he said, he quoted the Creed saying, "There is only one living and true God, without body, parts, or passions, consisting of three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." And he goes on to say, quote, "It is painful to the human mind to be compelled to admit that such wonderful inconsistencies of language or ideas have ever found place in any human Creed. Yet, so it is." And I think tonight, what we've witnessed is again, that inconsistency of language that renders these things meaningless, ultimately. Uh, Pratt goes on to say, but it is another way of saying, talking of these Creeds is another way of saying, there is a God who does not exist, a God who is composed of non-entity, who is the negative of all existence, who occupies no space, who exists in no time, who's composed of no substance known or unknown, and who has no parts or properties in common with anything or being known to exist or which can possibly be conceived of as existing either in the heavens or on the earth. Such a God could never be seen, heard, or felt, but by any being in or or by any being in the universe. There is never been a visible idol worshiped among men which was so powerless as this God without body, parts, or passions. The god of Egypt, the crocodile, could destroy the images of different nations, could be felt and seen. The Peruvian God, the sun, could diffuse its genial warmth and light and influence, but not so with the God without body, parts, or passions. That which has no parts has no whole. That which has no passions has no soul." So, I think that he really nails that on the head. And my opponent is making this historical case like, "Oh, you have to show exactly when when astray." No, I don't. I just have to show that what is in the New Testament is overwhelmingly Jesus Christ, arisen with a body, and that body didn't go anywhere, and that he has that body today, and that that body is considered a substance. And then you say, "Well, that Jesus is one in substance with the Father." And then I go, "But Jesus has a body." And so you refer to, well, hypostatic union to try and fix it, but that only creates parts. It creates the part of God that has a body and the part of God that does not have a body. And so you can't do that under the Trinitarian doctrine. Scripturally, it makes no sense. Historically, it makes no sense. And logically, it makes no sense. But, you know, it does make sense. What makes sense is John 17, where Jesus Christ invites all of us into the oneness of God that He and the Father share, a oneness in relationship and in changing our nature to their divine nature. What my opponent has shown tonight in this diagram is that there is something that connects us. I actually can agree with this diagram. What's in the middle is the nature of God. That is what connects the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And that nature is what we are called to be part of. It all makes sense. There's no need for all of this Greek philosophy and things that they added on to try and deal with these problems. Christ taught us the nature of the oneness that He and the Father shares, and He invites all of us to share in that oneness. And we, as Latter-day Saints, invite all of you to come and see and to learn about what the Lord has done to reveal these truths to the world and how they can bless your life and the lives of those closest to you. And with that, I yield my time.

So, do you enjoy the content here on Thoughtful Faith? If so, be sure to hit the notification bell. This ensures that our new videos show up on your feed. Also, be sure to check out our Facebook group called Thoughtful Saints, where myself and others discuss the sorts of topics found on this channel. And lastly, if you think other people would benefit from this video, please be sure to share it.