Transcription
Avery, Nick, thanks for having me on. How's my audio sound?
Sound good. Can you hear us? Yes, I can. Awesome. Welcome to the panel. Hey, thanks for having me on. I appreciate it. Awesome.
So, uh, you're a Unitarian. You reject the Trinity. Um, tell us why. Why do you reject the Trinity? Well, I think for one, the Trinity is a doctrine that has developed over time through the councils, creeds, and commentary. Okay. So, it's not explicit in the scriptures. Number two, I think it violates many laws of logic and it puts your mind under the ancient edictal authority of the Catholic and Orthodox Church.
Them darn Catholics. That's crazy, man. Not everything they do is wrong. That's tough. That's deep. So, I I got a few questions if you're ready for them. Yo. Yep. All right. All right. All right.
So do you agree that a being that is God by nature possesses omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence? Yes. Okay. Do you agree that humans by nature do not possess omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence? You asking essentially because I think it's possible they could. I don't think essentially they don't. I think it's possible that God could grant someone um omniscience. He could he could give them knowledge if he wanted to.
Okay. So, you don't think that there's anything about human nature then that would limit those things. So, for example, the human brain can't know all things. Yeah. I mean, I think that when we when we die, right, we go through a process called theosis that we will be in one and will with God and we will know all things that he wants us to do. So if you're just talking about the brain specifically, yeah, but we don't think that knowledge merely comes from the brain.
So Okay. So to be clear then, you're saying that human beings are not by nature limited in their ability to know everything, to have power, or to be everywhere all at once. I don't think it's essential for the human nature to be ignorant. Okay. So then how could you like remedy that against the fact that the human brain is limited in the amount of knowledge it can possess? Because I don't think that knowledge only comes from the brain. I think our soul can possess knowledge.
Okay. Can you explain that more? What do you mean? Yeah. I think that the soul is the driving life force of our body. So when we die, do we stop having knowledge? Of course not. Do we stop having knowledge because we have a brain? No. So where does that knowledge come from when we die and we don't have a body anymore? Well, it comes from our soul, of course. So I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying. So is there any example you could give of someone who passed who still possesses knowledge? How could you prove that or substantiate it? Yeah, if you want to use from in like an empirical sense, uh we could use um there's studies done on uh people who die have have near-death experiences and they die and they rise up and they they say when I was dead I saw on the roof there was a a left brown shoe, right? And when they come back they articulate, I saw a left brown shoe. Well, how do they see a left brown shoe on the roof if there uh their knowledge was merely possessed within their brain? Well, there would have to be some sort of exterior knowledge there that is intrinsic soul.
Okay. So, if there's also people who died and came back and said that they experienced nothing, which one is how do you know? They can they can both be true. They can both be true. Like there's no contradiction with one person not experiencing anything. Um and and one person God allowing to experience something. There's no contradiction. So, I I guess the reason why I asked that is because I think a lot of that is just appealing to anecdotal like examples, right? To me, that's something anecdotal. uh just citing oh well somebody said that you know when they passed that they had some type of experience that would necessitate having ex external knowledge from the mind and I mean I could maybe even accept that but I think we should probably get back to the example of human beings right so yeah so if you think you think when we die that we we lose all our knowledge before we resurrect I'm not sure I'd say we lose all our knowledge uh I'm not entirely convinced one way or another if we are conscious or not conscious. It appears to the to me like the scriptures seem to suggest that we go into a state of sleep and we await the resurrection, right? The first resurrection for believers. So, I'm not sure that we are conscious.
Well, uh there's passages that say he descended to Shaol for three days. How did he how did he do that and have any knowledge though if he didn't have his body and brain? Uh well I mean that would lean towards what you're talking about that there is still some type of um consciousness or knowledge you know that as you say as attached to the soul. I'm not totally opposed to that. But back to my question, when it comes to human nature, like generally speaking, would you say that humans are in fact limited in their ability to know all things, to be everywhere at once, like without being granted uh this by God or without passing? I think generally they are, but not essentially. Okay. Generally.
So, I'm going to go ahead and and claim that I think that human beings are in fact by nature limited in their knowledge, power, and presence. And I'll support that with the the idea that uh in our experience now, our human brains are limited in all the things that we could know. You're actually physically limited by being in a physical body. We are limited in uh the places we can be at once. We we inhabit a physical space. uh so I I would say uh human beings are in fact limited in their knowledge in their omni omnipresence right they can't be everywhere as well as in their power human beings can't do everything yeah you you would have to justify then why exactly or or how exactly right Christ had any knowledge after he died so I don't think that's relevant to what you say knowledge is simply in the brain then you have to justify how Christ had knowledge when he didn't have a brain. So if I'm talking about the general rule of thumb which is prior to death right human beings now living okay if so if you're just talking about generally I agree I agree generally we are limited but I'm saying not essentially so if you agree with that then we're on the same page okay so then if Jesus is a human being and generally speaking right prior to death they are by nature limited in their knowledge power and presence then it would still follow that Jesus cannot be God because he is a human. No, it doesn't because again that would only follow if that's essential that we cannot have this other knowledge. That would only f if if it's even possible then you couldn't say then oh well then now we know it's a fact that he's not it's not possible.
Okay. So what would you say how should I word this? All right. Do you believe that God can grow in virtues? Yeah. Through his human nature. Yeah. Wait, wait, wait. Through his human nature. What do you mean through his human nature? Yeah. If God takes on a human nature, he can grow in virtue in virtue of his human nature. Okay. Growing in virtue of a human nature is not the same as growing in virtues of the divine nature. If you're asking, can he can he grow in virtue of the divine nature? Nope. Okay. So dude, that's playing on words. That's a that's a total play on words. Yes, it is because Jesus is one person. It's qualifying your categories. So you got to qualify your categories. Yes. But you're still making a division where there is none. Okay. There is one person. Yeah. Two person. I said there was two natures, not not two persons. Yeah. So if there is one person who you're saying possesses both natures, okay, one of those natures uh entails that he would not be limited in the things that he knows. So to go ahead and claim that, oh well, God can be limited like pursuing his human nature is confusing the natures. How is it confusing the natures? We're specifically saying in regards to the human nature like we're not we're literally saying specifically in regards to the human nature. Yeah. Well, I I mean listen a nature is a metaphysical thing. It's an abstract. A nature cannot take action. A nature cannot know something uh arguable. Metaphysics is the is literally the uh the study of being. So very existence. So anything that exists is has to do with metaphysics. That That's wrong. Ontology. Yeah. Ontology is about nature of being. Okay. Metaphysics relates to far more than just being. Yeah. Look it up. Yeah. I'm not saying far more than being, but you also agree that anything that has to do with metaphysics has to do with being. Correct. Uh, no, not always. So, what that's changing what you said. Well, first off, it's a branch of philosophy. Okay. Um, which can include abstract concepts, right? Such as bean, but it's related to other things as well. You think being is an abstract concept? Uh well, I mean, you can't put take a cup, fill it with being, and paint it green. So, yeah, in a sense, it's it's abstract. Yes. So, being so substance is abstract because you're a being. Uh well, I am more than just uh a spiritual being. I also do possess a physical body. Are you abstract, though? Portions of my existence can be abstract. Sure. Such as my soul or my spirit, right? Those are not necessarily your soul. Your spirit only exists in idea or thought doesn't exist in reality. So it it sort of depends on how we describe it. I tend to lean towards the side that even spiritual concepts we don't understand probably operate under certain scientific terms we just don't understand yet. Okay. Well, use your soul or spirit. Does it merely exist in thought or idea or does it exist concretely? U I think it exists concretely but well listen listen though again if we're getting back to the point that I'm trying to make. Okay. If you're going to say that Jesus can grow in virtues like pursuing his human nature. Okay. But you're also saying that Jesus is fully God. Okay. There is one subject and that is the one person of Christ. Okay. So I mean in reality that's just you're setting forth I'm trying to get what do you think historians? Yeah. I'm trying to get what do you think the definition of abstract is? Well have to be exact. What does abstract mean? Well here let me just go ahead and look it up and give you a a real It means to exist in thought or idea. Okay. So, which part of you exists? Which part of you exists merely in thought or idea and not in reality? Well, listen. I don't think the human spirit only exists in thought or idea. That's not abstract. So, I'm asking which part of you is abstract. You said part of me is abstract. Which part? Okay. Listen, you keep asking a dozen questions and I and I could just keep trying to answer them. I I would really like to stick to the point. Yes. How is this relevant to my original question? I can ask you the same point, bro. He's he's on the point. He's on the point that you're bringing metaphysics, Mike. Yeah. Because you started talking about abstract things. So I asked you the question, what about you is abstract? What ex you said that being can be abstract? So you said part of my being is abstract. That's how we got here. So I'm asking you which part of your being is abstract meaning it only exists in thought or idea. So in the sense I'm using the term abstract, I'm not just saying that it it only can be abstract if it's not existing in just thought or being. I'm also saying that things that are metaphysical, they don't have a physical uh manifestation per se, uh also can be real and exist. Okay. That's not what abstract means, though. Right. And I I get what you're saying. So here I'm pulling up the definition now. Yeah, it's existing in thought or as an idea, but not having a physical or concrete existence. Concrete meaning. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Not having a physical. Do you think for something to be concrete it needs to be physical in philosophy? No. Okay. So it's saying it's saying it doesn't understanding you not you given a definition that don't exist. Okay. So according to you uh the a human nature for example that is not an abstract thing. That's that's your claim. Of course not. It's not an abstract thing. No. Okay. So then when you say that it exists physically or concretely, what do you mean that it can't exist physically or concretely? No. When you're saying that it does exist concretely, right, or physical means it has ontology. Actual existence in reality. Okay. It's not merely it's actualized. So, can you measure that with a ruler? Can you No, you don't have to measure things for them to have ontology. I don't know where you got that from. Listen, we're talking about whether it exists concretely. What do you mean by concretely means that they simply have existence? They exist. It It doesn't have to be physical, Mike. Yeah. At all. Concrete don't mean like literally concrete you pour in the sand. Like if in philosophy, concrete just means the being. Okay. So I I'm actually not disagreeing with what you're saying. I'm sort of lost at where the confusion is here. Let me let me restate my point and let's see if we can clear this up. Okay. So if the natures cannot act independently of each other, right? And that's what I meant when I'm saying there these abstract things like like a nature can't it doesn't have legs. It can't walk. It can't take action. Okay. Independently of the person. That's that's what I'm trying to say. So if that is true, oh how how do you not agree with that? So a I agree. No, I said I agree. Okay, good, good, good. Awesome. All right. So if that's true being that you agree, well then how can you say that in terms of Jesus growing in virtue that that's only to his human nature because that's the same person you say possesses a divine nature which cannot grow in virtue. Yes. Because we have something called theandric acts of operation in Christianity. So we believe that the persons can act either through the human or through the divine nature. Okay. So that's just functional Monophysitism. That's not Monophysitism would mean that we have two different persons that are acting. We say there is a one person acting through either the human or divine nature. But it is still one person acting. Okay. So here's here's the problem. All right. We agree that a nature cannot act independently. But when you want to say that one of the natures did something independently like grew in virtues. No, no, let me finish. Like you you said that only the human nature grows in virtue, not the divine nature. We're not saying it acts independent person. What you scared of? Don't cut me off. Mike, why Mike? Where did this energy come from? He turned it off. Because he's cutting me off. Why you cutting me off? This is what you guys do when you begin to become refuted. Okay. Again, refuted. I had to teach you what abstract meant. Who's getting refuted? No, it dude. It's all dependent on what we mean by abstract. Okay. You canite the definition. Dude, you can you can make a face like this, but words also have meaning. I had to teach what metaphysics was. Okay, here we go. Changing the subject again. Mike, you don't know what metaphysics is. Dude, you said you said metaphysics only had to do with being. It has to. You're telling me I don't know what metaphysics is? Yeah. It's not the only thing metaphysics has to do with scholarly definition where they where they give that metaphysics means something regarding anything. Oh my gosh. It's also related to identity time. It can be related to different concepts in science. Identity has ontology. Oh my gosh. Okay. Does identity not have ontology? You don't get it, Nick. Does identity not have ontology? All right. Listen, let's get back to the point. No, no, no. Here we're on another red herring. No, that's it's all you. He's been following you, man. No. Okay, here we go. Let's try this again. Okay, here we go. I asked you if Mike, I'm going let you I'm going give it to you. Just hold on a second, man. Look, we've been following your leads so far. We've been going with your topic. It's obviously it's about the hypostatic union. You believe that that's contradictory and you've been trying to break that down and lead up to that. We've been following you every step of the way, you know. So, nothing that we've said or asked has been off the subject or whatever. We have just been, you know, making sure that you define your terms and explain what you mean and so that we could talk correctly and establish these things on the correct sense. Okay. So, that's where we're at. No one's interrupting you or red herrings or nothing like that, man. We we we on the same page. Okay. Okay. All right. So, then let me finish this. You ready? Okay. I said that what he professed was a a form of functional Monophysitism. He denied it. Okay. I'm proving it right now. He claimed that when Jesus grows in virtues that that is only in the human nature that is therefore saying the human nature can act independently. Thank you very much. So if so that's functional Monophysitism because you are dividing the human nature from the divine nature and so you also think the divine nature can do things that are only pertaining to God such as forgiving sins or performing miracles or whatever. So that is to ascribe the traits of personhood to both natures which would qualify two persons but you deny it. Great. Is virtues a property of person or nature? Say that again. Are virtues a property of person or nature? How is that relevant to I'm going to show you how it's relevant. Are they definitions? Are they are they um properties of person or nature? How is that relevant? I'm going to show you how, bro. Are they properties of person and nature? Who who is they? Are they Oh my god. Come on. This property of virtues they in meaning the virtues are these properties of virtues properties of nature or person. Let me think about it. It's okay. In the meantime, guys, make sure you guys hit the like button, subscribe to Fearless Truth if you haven't done that already, and uh let's go ahead and um play our waiting music. [Music] Tell me when you're ready, Mike. All right, he's ready. That's good. That's good. All right. So, listen. The reason why I'm hesitant and why I don't immediately understand how it's relevant is because technically a nature is something possessed by a person. So, when you're saying, "Is it the person or the nature?" Well, they they are very interrelated, right? So to say it's related to the nature wouldn't even mean anything unless a person possessed that nature, right? The virtues. So in one sense it's like I want to say yes and another I want to say no, they're not. All right. So I'll just ask again. Maybe you can answer this time. So do you think virtues are a property of nature or person? So uh again those are very interrelated. If I had to pick one, if I had to pick one, I would I would probably go with the person. Why would it be person and not nature? Because the person is the one who possesses the nature. A nature doesn't possess a person. A person possesses a nature. Yeah. But persons possess properties, right? As they possess natures. Sure. Okay. So, do you agree that there is a difference between properties that are in your nature and properties that are of your personhood? Do I agree? Yes. Do I agree that there are properties in your nature that are not in your person? Is that what you're saying? That there that there are properties of nature that are not the same that are properties of your personhood. I want to say no. So you think that so what's the difference between a nature and a person? Well again the person is the subject who possesses a nature and really all the actions a person takes are in accordance with their nature. What's the difference? If there's no difference in properties, what's the difference between a person and a nature? If there's no difference in properties, what's the difference between a person and a nature? I mean, I I guess it would have to be the subject. Who's possessing who's possessing the nature that what is he possessing? What is different about the nature than the person? What is he possess? Why isn't he possessing a person? Well, again because a person is how we understand the subject of possessing the nature. That's what I meant earlier when I'm talking about nature's being an abstract thing. Okay. Not saying they don't exist. Okay. Okay. So, he's possessing this thing. Okay. So, there's a difference. So, my question is then what is the distinction in property that distinguishes the nature from the person? Listen, I I'll say I don't know. What is it? Okay. So one of those would be like virtues. Okay, we have things like power, virtues, etc. Those things would be of the nature. Now the reason I'm bringing this up because if virtue is a property of nature, then by definition, if the person of Christ has two natures, then when he's acting in terms of virtues, one of those would be according to one nature and one of those would be according to another nature since they are a property of nature. This is exactly why I pointed out at the beginning, I don't even see how this is relevant, dude. Even if you want to attribute the virtues only to the nature, the nature is still ultimately possessed by the person. You already agreed that a nature cannot act independently. Already agreed to that act independently of a person. So I'll say it again. The reason why it doesn't fall into Monophysitism as you said is because if virtue is a property of nature, then that means he's acting in regards to multiple natures, not multiple persons. Now a virtue was a property of persons then you could say it's falling into Monophysitism because one person has one virtue and another person has another virtue but it's not the case. Okay. Okay. So then natures can act independently then. Oh my god. They can't act independently of the person. Ju dude Avery you can say oh my gosh. But he's here trying to attribute virtues to only the nature and just like as though a person is the only one who can take action with the nature. Okay. Because the problem remains because you say you can have virtues without being a person human and God. That's the problem. Because you can have virtues without being a person. You can have power without being a person. They're not personal properties. Okay. So if that's true, I think you are saying natures can in fact act independently. And the moment you Okay. So then listen the moment that you the moment you deny that you are then affirming that the person is the one who acts in accordance with the nature. So just because you want to ascribe virtues to one of them doesn't change that you still believe the same person is acting with both. The person is acting through the nature. The nature is not acting independently of the person. Natures don't act. Persons do. Okay. So the virtues can act independently. No the person virtues don't act. Persons with virtues act. Thank you. Exactly. And that's why he says virtues are property in nature. Listen, he's acting accordance to nature, not different persons. Okay. So listen, I think what you're presenting is a nothing burger. Just saying that well virtues are attributed only to the nature and not to the person does not solve the problem because that nature is still inactive by the person. Okay? He's the one who takes action, the person. All right? You are in fact saying that Jesus, the same single person grew in wisdom, in stature, in virtues. And then you're saying the same person, Jesus, well, didn't grow at all because he's also God. Yes. And the reason we're able to say this and not fall into Monophysitism is saying the nature. Go ahead. Nick, before you respond, I just want to say you're going to have this last point here on this and we're going to move on. I have a question for Mike and we're going to move your final response. So the reason why it's not falling into Monophysitism is again is because when you are actually saying that he grows in virtue, you're talking about how he grows in virtue of a nature specifically. You're not saying the person grew in one personhood and grew in a different personhood. We're saying he grew in virtue of one nature and in a different nature. That's why it's different. But go ahead. I hear you. Totally hear you. I just don't I think growing