Unseen warfare is something that all of us are called to, and that is the most difficult war or battle or struggle that we will ever be involved in because the enemy is yourself.

Uh, this is about knowing the one true God and doing many things that the world would consider impractical because we want to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. With man it is impossible. With God all things are possible.

What's up? What's up everybody? Hope everyone had an amazing weekend. Good to see y'all back again, guys. Um, I don't know about you guys, but I got a ton of snow. We got over here in the Midwest, we got snowed in over here. It was haven't left my house in a couple days. It's been bad. I don't know about you guys where y'all are at, if y'all got y'all got any good snow or not, but we uh we definitely did. Uh, let me get these comments here up on the screen for y'all. But let me know, chat. Let me know. Did y'all get some crazy snow? I'm curious. All right. Hopefully that works now. Perfect weather in California. Oh, he's bragging. Oh, he's bragging. Perfect weather in California is crazy, man. There we go. There's the comments. No snow in Utah, which is surprising. That is surprising. That is surprising. Same in New York. Yeah, I figured. Nigerian. Oh, so you definitely not have no snow, huh? Oh, heck no. I second that of California. Yeah, man. Anyone who lives in California lucky during this time of year. Said, "I need to be in Florida right now is where I need to be. I'm in a t-shirt." See, now Martin's showing off, man. Why does it seem like your camera quality keeps on getting better? Because it does. I uh recently got a new lens for the camera a couple weeks ago, so that helped the quality a little bit here from Florida. That's crazy, man. That's crazy. That's crazy, man. Must be nice, guys. Must be nice.

But let's go. Debate debate boy is crazy. Uh, if y'all disagree, make sure y'all hop up in the request. And um, if my guess is right, someone please get me on the Patreon. First guess is going to be a Muslim. And there are going to be that three persons mean three different gods. We'll see. We'll see. Someone gonna have to give them a Patreon subscription if that happens. Or what if what if reverse psychology? What if he said that and then he's going to come up as the first guest and say it so you can get a free Patreon membership? I'm I'm 10 steps ahead of you, buddy. 10 steps ahead of you. How am I doing? I'm doing well. Doing well. Hope y'all had a good weekend, man. Been uh been two or three days since I've seen y'all. So, hope y'all are locked in and ready to go. When's the next video on Patreon? Tomorrow.

Hello. Yo. >> Hey. What's going on? >> Going on. First, I just want to tell you I'm coming here to learn. I do have disagreements. All right. So, um I am a agnostic, right? So, I don't believe that the scriptures is reliable. >> Okay. >> So, I want you to tell me what makes you think that the scriptures are reliable. >> I mean, if you just mean historically reliable, I would say because number one, they all cooperate with each other. All the scriptures, they're uh in continuation with each other, which is good. Um and uh number two, I think that when we look at historical events outside of the Bible, um they line up with those historical events and we know the people who wrote the Bible, which helps the attestation a little bit. I mean, there's multiple reasons. Well, I've been reading u Arman's book and I also been reading um you know >> it's kind of hard to hear you right now. Sound a little bit muffled. >> Hello. >> Yeah. Uh a little bit better. >> I'm sorry. Can you hear me better? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I mean I've been reading a lot of um Bartman books um and also you know uh what what other books I've been reading? I also been read reading I think it was William Lane Craig book I can't remember which one it is but you know Bart makes some pretty good um pretty good arguments that the reliability of the gospels isn't um really good. I mean I would say uh a big chunk of it is reliable but considering that I just don't think they're like fully reliable. Like you can't count on every single every single like like memory memory is memory memory is one one of them. >> Oh, I don't think that memory is going to be a big if we saw that memory was an issue in the gospels. We would expect the people to have contradicting stories but we don't see that. And the reason why memory also isn't an issue is because these people weren't just like thinking about it over time. They were actually teaching it. So these people were like preaching orally the gospel that they that they learned, right? They were preaching that for years and years and they just finally wrote it down. >> Yeah, I see. Okay. So, but my my thing is that we don't have the like we don't really have the originals. Well, just because we don't have the original manuscripts themselves doesn't mean that the manuscripts we currently have uh that they don't actually convey what the originals would convey. Uh we can believe they would convey what the originals would convey because like we knew the disciples of the disciples. We knew all these people and all of them are just fine with what the gospels say and they say that they say the same thing as we have today. >> Yes. So, okay, I understand what you're saying, but I don't I don't doubt I don't doubt that part, but I'm just saying like before, how do I explain this because I'm not I'm at that level. So, they written it. Dang, I can't explain it. Damn. Uh, sorry. Um, what was I? So, they I forgot I forgot exactly I forgot exactly what he said. You want to go find it and come back maybe? >> Yeah. >> Okay, cool. Appreciate having >> All right. Uh, hia. Hello. >> Hey, am I am I sounding clear? >> Am I a little too muffled? >> Uh, it's a little bit muffled. It's kind of hard to hear you. >> Want me to get Is this better now? >> Still sounds kind of muffled for some reason. Do you want to try to leave and come back or something? >> No, no, no. In the name of the Holy Spirit, it'll be real quick again. Just grant me one more prayer for you in the name of father, son, and holy spirit. >> Oh, sure, man. >> Yes. I pray that my brother that is now on live is given all the gifts from the greatest of the love of Christ. I share all my gifts that the Lord has ever given me to your hands so that you can keep doing what you're doing, glorifying God, the Father, glorifying Christ and glorifying the Holy Spirit that runs through you and works through you and is ahead of you 100fold. Amen. >> Amen, brother. Appreciate you, man. God bless you. Thank you for praying, brother. >> Thank you very much, man. Appreciate that. All right, let's see what we got. Oh, that person's not connecting.

>> Hello. >> Yo, Nick. >> Hey, what's going on? >> Nick. Hello. >> Yeah. What's up, man? >> Yeah, bro. I need your help, bro. >> Okay. What's going on? >> I'm in a Minecraft server, right? And basically me and my friends, we we built a church, bro. And these guys came and destroyed it. What should I do, bro? Build another one, brother. I build another one.

>> Hello. >> Hi. How are you doing? >> I'm good. What's going on? >> Uh, good, man. Um, see I'm I'm an atheist. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, I'm just curious on what your thought on Trinity is because see means I'm from a science background. So, I do understand that matter can exist in multiple states simultaneously. Is that what trinity means? That God can exist in multiple states simultaneously. Is that what you're trying to say for Trinity? >> No, no, no. We believe that God is three distinct persons eternally, not that he changes from one to the next. >> Um yeah, I mean so um well um in physics at least in quantum physics so I just don't I don't want to speak very you know jargon stuff from science but what I want to say is that matter which is of different states can exist in different states and similar states simultaneously. Is that what is basically? No. >> No. Okay. Yeah. I was just curious because uh a few of my friends tried to, you know, push me into Christianity and I got into this and I just jumped into TikTok and saw this thing that you're trying to say that Christianity and Trinity are logical. So, I just wanted to clarify that thing. Nothing else. >> Cool. All right, man. Appreciate you. >> Cool. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yes, guys. That would be modalism. No bueno. No bueno.

All right. Hello. >> Yeah. Hello. >> Can I ask you a question? >> Yep. >> How many gods died on the cross? >> One God. >> How many didn't die on the cross? >> The same one God. >> You explain how that is possible. >> Cuz God is an original designator. >> Okay. Can you explain what I originally designated is? >> Doesn't have one subject or meaning specifically. >> I just baked you. >> Yeah. I had a weird feeling. I was just guy was just trolling us. I was like, bro, I don't know what the freak going on. >> Oh, what's up, man? >> What's up Marie? Uh, hello. What's going on, man? >> Not much, bro. So you said that you have the one God that you worship died but also didn't die. Is that what you said? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Uh how does that make sense, bro? Do you not hear yourself? >> Cuz God isn't a rigid designator as I already explained. >> What does that mean? Explain it. >> Is that God the term God doesn't necessarily have uh one sort of reference and so it's not a contradiction unless we're speaking of the same reference. Wait, so what does that even mean, bro? Like, you're just making up words. >> I'm really not. This is basic stuff. Do you not. A reference is me making up words. >> All right, explain it for me real quick. >> A reference is going to be uh what the word is sort of pointing to. So, when we say God, it can be pointing to the son or it can be pointing to the father, etc. >> Yeah, but it's one God though. Yeah. >> Yeah. One God. But the persons are not the same persons. The one guy died and but the same God didn't die. That explains it, bro. That explains Christianity, bro. That's it. I'm done, bro. >> Out of the same God. >> All right, bro. So, how do you explain the verse that says God is not a man? >> Yeah. >> And nor son of man. >> Yeah, that verse is referring to his nature. So, why did you skip half the verse? >> Wait, it talks about God, right? >> Yeah. What does it say? Why'd you skip half the verse, though? >> Because it doesn't matter. It says God is not a man. Is that a statement say right after that >> that he might lie? >> That he should lie. So he's saying he doesn't lie like men do, nor does he repent like men do. That was his whole point. And when he comes on earth as a man, he doesn't do either of those things either. >> Yeah. But like I mean some men, not all men lie, bro. Like he can just say he can just say God does not lie. >> I don't know. I don't know any man that has never lied in their life. I'm >> Yeah, there is Prophet Muhammad. He never lied. He I mean he lied a lot of times but he >> show me where he lied. >> Yeah. When he said that uh Christ didn't die on the cross. That's a lie. >> You think it's a lie, but you can't prove that it's not. >> We can All you got to do is look at the look at the previous scriptures. What does he say to do? >> You tell me. >> I can also show you where he was wrong about something as well. Here, I'll show you. Are you familiar with the story where he went and uh tried to help people with their their land because their trees weren't properly growing fruit? >> No, I'm not. >> Okay, I'll show you. Don't worry. >> But again, we're talking about lion, by the way. >> Well, yeah. This I mean, this would have been a lie, right? Muhammad knows best and he So, if Muhammad goes and tells people, "Stop doing this. It has no value." But then they find out it has value. Is that a lie? >> Yeah. I mean, if that's the case, I mean, u fantastic. Okay, great. >> But I got to read the context. I don't know the story and I don't trust you guys. >> Muslim 2361. I'll go to it. >> Yeah. >> Put on the screen, please. >> So, I just read it first. It says, "I and Allah's messenger happened to pass by people near the date palm trees. He the holy prophet said what are these people doing? They said they are grafting i.e. they combine the male and the female tree and thus yield more fruit. Therefore Allah's messenger said I don't find it to be of any use. The people were informed and they abandoned this practice. Allah's messenger was later informed that the yield had dwindled whereupon he said if there is any use of it then they should do it for it was just a personal opinion of mine. See how he twisted. And do not go after my personal opinion, but what I say to you on behalf of Allah, then do not accept it. For I do not attribute it to Allah, the exalted and glorious. >> So did So he made a mistake. Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. Yeah. He made a mistake in what they what he told them, right? >> And what he told them, right? >> Did he did he not tell them that it was of no use to do? >> I I got to see the hadith, bro. Like he just went through it. I just read it quick, bro. I mean, I gota got to look into it, bro, because there's an explanation for it. I'm sure >> you don't have the explanation. >> Nope, not right now because I don't know the hadith. >> Well, we'll go do some research on that. So, uh what's your what's your next objection? >> Uh not not really. Not much. Uh just that, you know, you guys all interrupted Liiano and that was kind of embarrassing for you guys. It was like a 4v1, but yeah, you guys all jumped in. You didn't let him talk. So, yeah, I just wanted to point that out. >> What are you talking about? jumped in. >> Bro, Libya couldn't say a word that you were jumping in. >> Yeah, because he was yapping the whole time. What do you mean? >> No, he he asked the dude question. What's his name? Apoll AP. He asked him a question. >> AP wasn't even there. What are you talking about? >> No. Okay. Okay. Well, what are you talking about? I'm talking about the >> Yeah. And I mean it's probably philos philosophy IP. Whatever. >> You don't even know what the freak you're talking about. Take care, buster boy. That's crazy. Oh my gosh. These people are confused. I just wanted to come up and glaze another man. That's all they do, bro. That's their king. Yo, they dang near consider that man a prophet nowadays.

Hello. >> Hey. >> Hey. What's going on? >> Can you explain to me how it is that they're three and one and and not separate? Because the language in the Bible really sounds like God the Father and his son are separate. >> Uh so they're distinct per Yeah, they're distinct persons but they're they're one God because they have >> What does that mean though? What does one god mean? >> Means they have one nature, one operation of action, etc. So they they're not separated in terms of space or time. But why couldn't they just be not separated in purpose? >> Uh because they're actually clearly distinct persons and they don't have any separate purpose. So that when there's no in the Bible we see >> but I don't have any other frame of reference for like an actual thing that can be separate things but the same thing. >> Unless it's like the same purpose. They have the same they're on the same team. No, no, no. So, we're saying they have they're under the same category. Call this category godhood. Okay. Godhood has like the nature, the actions, etc. Things like that. All three persons are under this one category, which is why we call them one God. But there have distinctions within their personhood and that's the difference. >> But do you those words don't mean anything? >> What do you mean those words don't mean anything? They all have their own personhood, but they're not the same thing, but they are the same things. >> They h they are not the same person, but they have the same nature. >> So, they're on the same team. What's a nature >> like the human nature that we have? That's an example of a nature. >> So, God but God is a human species, right? >> No. What? God is a human. What? >> God is human, right? He's of our human species. >> Where do you get that from? >> Well, I don't know. Like it doesn't say anywhere that he isn't. >> Where do you get it from that he is? >> Well, it's just like the plain language in the Bible. >> Where? >> Like Jesus Christ. >> So God Jesus is his only begotten sons, >> right? >> Yes. >> Yes. Do you think humans are the only ones that have sons? >> Well, is he an animal? >> No, he's divine. >> But I just don't understand how they're the same thing, but they're different >> because they have the same nature. They're not the same person. Where does that exist in reality though? >> What do you mean where does that exist in reality? >> Like where give me another example of how things can be like that. >> Anything that has the same nature >> like I don't know dogs. >> Dogs would have the same nature. They would have a very similar nature. The only difference would be in their instantiation. But yes, they would have a similar nature. >> Okay. So God is some other thing. >> Yes. Godhood is distinct from animality. >> So it doesn't I just like I just don't understand where it teaches that in the Bible. >> Uh where it says the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily. No, just like where why is he a different nature? Why is God a nature? Because he has a certain set of properties that are unique to himself. It seems really clear in the Bible like when Jesus is being baptized and and God the Father said, "This is my son in whom I'm well pleased." Doesn't it seem more like he's the king and Jesus is the prince and they might actually >> the king of kings. >> But who is talking to Jesus when he's being baptized? >> The father. Cuz as we said, the father is a different person than the son. >> The father, how is he a different person if they're the same things? >> They have the same na do you know? Do you understand the difference between nature and person? Like do you think a rock is a person? >> You're just using words that like aren't part of normal language. >> Brother, you don't think person You don't think person is a part of a normal language? >> Yeah, but if >> Yeah, I think you probably need to go back to third grade and learn again. I I don't I don't I'm If we don't think person and nature are a part of everyday language, I don't know what language we're speaking because it can't it can't be English. It can't be English. I personally use person and nation all the time. Jesus reigns with a $15 super chat. Congrats on 20K, Nick. Appreciate it. God bless you, man. Thanks for the first super chat alive. God bless you, brother. Yeah, we got to 20K quick, man. 100K soon. All right, see who's next?

Hello. >> Hey, how are you, man? >> I'm good. What's going on? Hey, you're right that Christianity and Trinity are logical, right? Let's start with Christians first. >> Can you show me any verse in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian? >> No, I think Christian means to follow Christ. It wouldn't make sense for him to call >> No, I'm sorry. This is the wrong answer you gave it to me, brother. This is It doesn't mean that it means follow Christ. >> Wait, says what does Christian mean? The Christians means after it it first of all it comes after Jesus it never comes and if you see >> oh so Christians the word Christians ain't in the Bible >> brother when it exists to to be a Christian when you guys call yourself a Christian >> what does it mean I'm asking you what no yeah in the Bible people were called Christians in the Bible >> no no I I'm talking not talking about the people I'm talk we we are talking about Jesus Right? Does Jesus call himself a Christian? >> No. Because to be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ. He's not a follower of himself. It doesn't make any sense. >> No, my friend. >> What does it mean to be a Christian? >> Okay. Jesus. First of all, Jesus never called himself. >> Brother, can you answer the question? What does it mean to be a Christian? >> The Christian first after it used in Act 12:26 to describe the follower Jesus. That's what it means. >> No. So, so, so it means to follow Jesus. Hold on. I'm not done. Okay. And what Jesus in the Bible Jesus described as a prophet of the of messenger of God in Matthew 21 11 the Messiah the Christ sent to the people of the Israel in Matthew 15:26 24. So I don't know but he never said >> so Christian means follower of Christ right? >> What does it means then? Follower of Christ means >> you agree right? It means follower of Christ. >> Of course, as a Muslims, we all agree that follower of Christ is not the Christians because the Christian doesn't exist in the time of Christ. >> It doesn't exist in the time of Christ, brother. Did did Peter exist in the time of Christ? >> No, brother. That why you guys say something that Jesus never said? That's the question. >> Peter exists at the time of Christ. >> I don't care when he come back. >> Do you believe in Peter, >> dude? I'm Yes, I believe in Peter. So can you answer the question? >> Why you believe in Peter then? >> Because Peter was affirmed by Christ. >> How? >> What do you mean how? He called him his disciple. >> Explain to me. >> But he he was in the time of uh Jesus. >> Yes. >> What he said about Jesus >> that he was his Lord. >> Jesus Jesus teach them what he say what he's saying. >> Yes. >> Oh no. There's a lot of Bibles. Who's Matthew then? >> Matthew. Matthew was a tax collector. John was someone who was also a disciple. His his we know his disciples were Polycarp and Ignatius. >> But he never even he never teach you guys what you learning right now. In Matthew, you never teach me. You say trity, right? When you see about >> Matthew 28. Yes. Yes. Matthew 2018. Baptiz. I'll show you. Matthew 28:19. Baptized in the singular name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. >> What does it mean? >> It it means that there is three persons that are one God. >> Okay. You call three persons. >> Yeah. >> So three person can be one. >> Three persons can have one essence. >> How? >> It makes sense to you. >> Yeah. What's the issue? >> It makes sense to you. >> Yeah. What's the issue with that? >> So do you believe Jesus is God? Right. >> Yes. Jesus is God. >> Do you believe Jesus create you? >> Yes. >> The word everything, right? >> Yes. >> Do you believe that Jesus create his own mother? Yes. Mary. >> Yes. How it makes sense to you because his mother >> okay >> and he incarnated through that heisted prior to his mother in spirit >> brother some of the Christian believe that Jesus is not God the mother is God >> because he born from mother Mary >> you cannot you cannot be Christian and I believe Jesus is God do >> but how but still I'm not convinced about three in one >> what is your issue with it why can God not be Three persons but one God. >> So it mean God become a human? >> Yes. God became man. >> Who's who's the higher >> the God or human? >> God is higher than humans. >> So it means God make himself lower. >> The lower than the angels. Yes. Amen. >> But but but how when a man call him good, he said don't call me good. >> He didn't say don't call me good. You're misquing the verse. He did not say don't call me good. He said, "Why do you call me good?" So, stop mis call me good. It is It's more better than >> It's more better. No, it's not. Or else he wouldn't have misqued it. >> Then what he answer him? >> It's a rheto Yeah. It's a rhetorical question. >> Okay. He said, "Why you call me good? There is one good which is God." >> Okay. Why? Who was asking him that question? >> Like somebody who was in front of him? >> No. >> Who? Yeah. Who asked him? Who was it? It was a group of people. >> Who was? It doesn't matter. Did the script not supply that that part of the information or did you know how to read it? >> It doesn't apply to him. If he was God, why he didn't call you say that I'm God? >> Oh, so then why did he call himself the good shepherd later on then? If he's not good, >> no, it's not just about good. We talk about God. You don't believe him that he's only God is good, right? >> Yeah. >> So why did he call himself the good shepherd? >> No. No. But still, he doesn't call him a god, right? >> No, no, no. That's not what I asked. That's not what I asked. You said only God. That's not what I asked you. You said only God is good. So why did he call himself the good shepherd? >> Good shepherd. What does it mean? Good shepherd. >> It means he's good. All All the prophets are the good shepherd. >> You just said only God is good. >> But God is good. But the shepherd is not the >> You just said only God. Okay. So ask again. Is only God good? >> Human can be good too. It depends on the situation. >> So not only God is good, right? No, God is different thing. There's two different. You cannot compare God with >> is a simple question. Is only God good or not? >> Only God is good. But it doesn't mean that he's just a good because he does he call him. >> What does only mean? What does only mean >> brother? But he cannot only go is good. But there's some other people that are good too. >> But he cannot explain the good here to make him god. >> What does what does only mean? >> But okay, let's let's talk about God because he's God. You believe >> asking what does only mean? >> Only means one >> means one. So if you say only one is good that means you can't say anything other than one is good. >> Jesus he was the only good. No doubt >> he was because he was a prophet. He come as a follower of the Christ follower follower. He just come to follow show the people the right way. Right. And he was he was not he never call him a god. Did he call him himself god? >> Yes. >> Or worship me. >> Yes. when Revelation chapter 22 when he said, "I am the first and the last. I am the alpha and the omega. I am the beginning and the end." >> Okay, but it doesn't make him go, brother. >> So, who's the first and the last? >> What do you mean the first and last? >> Who is the first and last? >> The first and last. It doesn't matter. Who's the first and last? But it doesn't doesn't matter. Who is the first and the last? >> Why he doesn't call him God? >> Answer the question. Who's the first and the last? >> I don't know. You should know. I'm not Christian. >> Come on. Okay. Let's ask this. In the Quran, who's the first and the last? >> There's no in the Quran. We don't have this verse that you're talking about. >> Oh, you don't have Okay, let me teach you. Let me teach you religion for you. Go >> ahead. Okay. I'm here. >> All right. I'll teach you your religion for you. Let's go to surah alhad >> ayat three. >> Which one? Okay. >> Surah 573. He is the first and the last. The most you say 57. Hold on, brother. Surah 57 verse3. >> Read it out loud for us. Read it out loud for us. Relax. >> You okay? YEAH. >> And he's all knowing everything. >> So why are you attacking my my Bible when you don't even know your own Quran? >> Brother, brother, hold on. Relax. Just relax, brother. Okay. >> I'm confused. Why are you attacking the Bible when I have to teach you about your own religion? >> Now, let's talk about the Bible. Bring the Bible. >> Wait. No. No. No. Wait. >> No. No. Bring Bring the Bible first. >> So, now that we have this established in the Quran who is the first and the last. >> Hold on. Hold on. Can you He said I am He said I am the first and the last. Right. >> So, who is the first and the last? >> Can you tell me? No. Can you tell me the the Bible verse? What you said? >> Yeah. I'll tell you. I'm just asking you first. Can we establish this? Who is the first and the last in Islam? >> If you read the whole verse, it it is not just about the verse. About the first and the last. That's not what I asked you. That's not what I asked you. >> Who is in Islam the first and the last? >> Allah. >> Okay, great. Allah. God is the first and the last. Okay, let's go to Revelation 22:13. >> Great. Let's go to Revelation 22:13. Now, >> who wrote the Revelation? >> John. >> Who's John? John is a disciple of Christ. >> Did he tell John to wrote write this? >> Yes. >> How he dream it? >> But the Bible written after after he passed away after 16 years. >> What does that have to do with anything? >> No. No. It does. I think you don't have you don't have any idea about about your Bible. >> What? I said what does that have to do with anything? >> It It does. It does. It does. It does, right? >> Explain why >> people explain that after six years, how can you write something about someone that he's not there? Anyway, the Bible is not. >> So, you don't trust anything. You don't trust anything written by the companions after Muhammad died about Muhammad. >> No, there's two kind of revelation, brother. >> Oh, so that >> when the companion Hold on, hold on, hold on. You hold on. What do you say? Let me answer this one. You say the companion, right? The companion. >> Yes, the companion. >> They were with him, right? >> So was John. They didn't write. They write it right away. When he talk, when he speak, when the revelation come was written, when the word >> John >> Just relax, brother, you don't know about the Bible. I'm so sorry. >> I don't know. I had to teach you about your own Quran. What are we talking about? >> I have to do my I have to do my prayer, brother. Where's my prayer time? >> Yeah, I come back in 10 minutes. Yeah. I have to go. >> He got to go finish time. Okay. >> Yeah. He's going to go pray to Allah. Ask him to teach him the Quran some more cuz he's sad. He He has to go repent that a Christian knew more about his Bible than him. Oh my gosh. By the way, Lupe with the $50 cash app. Yo, appreciate you, Lupe. I ain't even seen you in a while, man. Hope you're doing well, brother. Oh, let's go there, man. Thank you very much, Lupe. God bless you, brother. God bless you, brother. Uh, Phil with a super chat. Words are hard. Yeah, apparently words are very hard for people, man. Words are very hard for people. Fail to find out super chat. This dude is just reading all his notes he's copied from his dawa scripts and he's mixed them together. I mean, dude, what is he talking about? Bro, it's the Dawa script, guys. Y'all see it firsthand. Y'all see it firsthand. You guys see the Dawa script firsthand. They don't they they don't even read their own Quran, guys. They don't even read their own Quran.

Unique, you hear me? Yeah. What's going on? >> Uh, good. How about you? >> I'm good. What you got, man? >> I just got a one question. If you can answer it, you know, it will be good. Okay. >> So, I have a question about u like when I look at Galatians 5 chapter 5 verse 2-6, it says like it's against circumcision, right? But uh when I think like Jesus was circumcised, so how can you like follow like Jesus? He was circumcised. But you don't follow that same command >> because Christ was born. He was fulfilling the law. But once he fulfilled the law, there was no need to fulfill the law after that cuz it's perfectly fulfilled. So that's why we don't have to follow those things. >> What do you mean by fulfilled? Like >> I mean like uh fulfill means to bring to a completion. >> Complete. So like you don't have to follow it anymore, >> right? If you bring something to a completion, you don't need to continue completing it because it's already been brought to a completion. But when I look like Jesus also like he he did say like I'm I'm here to fulfill. But he also said like I'm not here to abolish, I'm here to fulfill. But you see >> to fulfill means to bring something to a completion. If you bring something to a completion, it doesn't need to be done anymore. >> So it it means like you don't need to follow the law anymore. >> Correct. >> So but why is he like still it was still like uh like circumcised? >> Because he was the one to fulfill it. That's why he did the law perfectly. If he didn't, we would still be under the law because there would be no fulfillment of it. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Yeah, that was my question. Like, I really don't understand that one. >> All right, man. Well, do you have anything else? >> No, that was it, man. >> All right, bro. >> Thank you. >> Y

>> Hello. >> Hey, brother. How many died on the cross? No, I'm trolling. I'm trolling. I'm trolling. How do you where do you find this godly level of patience? Where, brother? Where? Oh my god. >> That beat me. I don't know, brother. Be >> God bless you, bro. God bless you. I just want to tell you God bless you, bro. I'm about to pew pew myself. Be in your shoes, >> bro. Appreciate it, bro. >> Please don't do that, bro. Please don't do that, bro.

Uh, Truth. Hello. Hey, what's going on, man? >> Hey, what's up, man? >> Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yeah, I can hear you. >> Okay. You're not going to run this time, are you? >> I don't suppose. >> All right. Uh, now, as far as that, our last convers, you do remember our last conversation, don't you? >> No, I don't remember you. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Well, let me let me clarify it. We were talking about the will. You're saying Jesus has two wills. Okay. And I was telling you he did one and he didn't do the other. Let me clarify it for you so you'll understand what I'm saying. Okay. Can I go forward and backwards at the same time? >> Can you go forwards and backwards? I mean, I suppose if you're on a treadmill walking forwards, but then you're inside of a car and it's in reverse, you could. >> No, no, no. I said, can I, as far as if I'm walking, can I walk forward and walk backwards at the same time? >> If you actually walking, I don't Maybe there's a way home. Probably not as far as Come on, man. Come on, man. The answer is no. Can I turn right and turn left at the same time? >> The answer is no. if your wheels go opposite directions technically. But >> see that that's the problem. You're trying to, you know, bring all this philosophy into something very >> no philosophy. I've been talking about tires and treadmills, bro. If that's too much philosophy for you, I don't know what to tell you. >> Can you go up and down at the same time? >> Let me think. There might be a good one for that. >> Technically, if you were going up, but you were in a zero gravity contain or you might be able to do both. >> Okay. The reason I was asking you this was simply because of our last conversation. Jesus according to you, he said, "Not my will but thy will be done." His will was not to die. God's will was to die. Okay, you with me? >> Yeah. You're mixing up his ultimate will though. Christ's ultimate will was that God's will be done. >> Okay. One will was to live, one will was to die. Is that correct or not? >> Well, no. The the other will was that the ultimate other will was that the God's will be done. That's what you're mixing up. >> Was there one will that was to die? >> One will that was to die. I mean, the underlying will. Sure. Not the ultimate will. >> One of the wills was to die. Correct, >> bro. His underlying will was to die, but his ultimate will in that nature was still that God's will be done. >> Okay? Now, now don't run, man. Don't hang up on me because let's make this real simple. Okay? Don't you don't have to say underlying and all of that. Okay? We're just we're talking about will number one and will number two. You don't have to use any other word, >> bro. I'm trying to help you understand it. So for example, >> for example, >> if my will, if my will is to have a burger, >> but my ultimate will is to lose weight, >> right? That's not necessarily contradictory, right? >> That's two different things. That's two different things. That's two different things. Now, if you would just listen, see, that's that's why you don't want to listen because when you answer, it's going to kick that trinity out. >> Oh, is it? Okay. Sure. >> Yeah. That's why you won't go with me. >> Oh, I'm with you, man. >> And that's why you That's why you'll hang up on me. >> I know. It sounds like you want me to hang up. I haven't even said I was gonna hang up, but go ahead. >> No, that's what usually happens. You know, Sam, Shimone, and and God Logic, that's what they do. They hang up on me. >> Why? I wonder why. Okay, go ahead. What you are going to do? >> Well, just now listen and follow. Okay. He did not do his will which was not to die because he Holy Spirit got into him. What happened? He lagging now. Y'all all heard him lag. Hello. Hello. Nah, he lit, bro. His internet literally lagged out. He's not even in the room anymore. phone. His John lagging, bro. And let me guess, let me guess. It's going to be he's going to come back and say, "You ran last time, brother." Okay. Uh, your name is Shakman, but this obviously isn't Shake Mod.

Hello. How you been? You've been glorying for me in God logic. Where you been? >> For real. For real. I'm a runner. I'm a track star. Bro kicked me. He ran. There's no way. By the way, W Kristoff for uh joining the Patreon. W mans. Appreciate that. God bless you, brother. Appreciate everyone who's joining the Patreon, man.

Hello. >> Oh, what's up, buddy? >> What's up, man? >> So, yeah. Um I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything. I actually know that Trinity is real. Um, I was just wondering if I can get your perspective on your logic on it. >> Like what about it in particular? >> Um, well, how you see it, how you perceive it. >> I believe the trinity is three distinct persons. They are one God. They have one essence, one operation of action, etc. >> Words with knowledge. Perfect. Yeah. Um I mean down here they're they walk as one but um up there they are three distinct uh beings calling or they are the high council. >> Wait, what are you talking about? >> God, >> God, Christ and the Holy Spirit down here are one. They walk together as one. Now up there there are three distinct entities, beings, divine gods. Um >> Oh, I don't know about that one, Chief. Um, you believe the three gods? >> Jesus inherited everything God did, right? Or has. He inherited everything God has, right? >> I don't even know what you mean by that, brother. You'd have to explain to me, maybe help me out a little bit. >> Okay. Jesus is not the father, >> but he has everything the father has. He shares in his divine nature. He is one with the father. So he has everything the father has. Everything the the holy spirit has, but he is not the father. He is not the god. >> Where do you get three different beings from then? Well, it's like I just said, he's not the father. >> Um, yeah, but he's not the father in personhood, not in being. >> So, he So, so okay. So, do you know do you understand the difference between person and being? And it's okay if you don't tell. >> Uh, please. >> All right. So, a person is like for very short summary versions is who you are and nature is what you are. A being is what you are. So they're the same what? Because as you said, they have the same nature. You're on the right. You're on the right track there. They have the same nature. So they're the same being. So it's one being, but they're not the same in their personhood. Who they are. Father is not the same. Who is the son? So it's three distinct persons that are one being. >> Uh that I have to disagree with. I mean, if the Bible even says that Jesus, he sits on a throne by his by God by his or with his father. You know, God is spirit and you must worship him in spirit and truth. Um, and God's spirit in the body of Christ spoke everything into existence. Hence, everything made through and held together by Christ. So down here, they walked as one. They walk as one. They walked together. You know, God's spirit in the body of Christ. >> So, they're not one in heaven. >> They are one, but they're not the same bodies. Like where do you get that from? The father even has a body. >> He doesn't have a body. He's spirit. >> You just said they don't have the same bodies, >> which would mean the father has a different body than the son. >> He's a different energy, different source. >> Where do you get that from in the Bible? Bro, >> I just know. But >> what do you mean you just know? What do you like? What? >> Like you know. >> You know for how? Cuz I know the father. >> I've seen him. He's talked to me. >> What do you mean you've seen him? >> I died. >> Yes. >> Like with your eyes? >> Yes. >> How you see something that spirit? >> Cuz I was in spirit. >> I died. I I ascended up and he sent me back down. You can think I'm crazy. >> What did he tell

you?

He told me some stuff. He told me essentially it wasn't my time to go back down. And um his voice was like freaking thunder wrapped in silk. His presence was like the weight of the universe with all its light.

He told you he was a different source than the sun.

No. No. You got to understand they are one. He they have everything the other has. But they're different beans.

I'm saying so how do you get their different sources though?

What do you mean sources? They're the same source.

That's a word you used. You said they're different sources.

That came out wrong. It did. That came out wrong. I'll admit that. But they're the same source. They all have what each other has.

So how are they different beings then?

It's hard to explain. It's hard for people to understand because it's like a debate that continues to this day, which is Jesus is not the father, but he has everything the father has and the father is God. So Jesus the son has everything the father has and he has all that power. He has that god.

I just I just don't understand then how they're how they're different beings. That's what I that's where I'm getting kind of confused here. It's it's same source, different spirits or body, different spirits, I guess you could say.

So, they're not the same being or they are now.

We could argue about this all day. It's like the fighting, the debate continues. But like I said, the Bible says he is not the father, but to see him is to see the father, right?

And so so are we are we still saying they're different beings now? I'm confused. Or are we okay? I don't know if you're just trying to be like

I'm so serious, bro. Are are do you think do you think that they are the same being or different beings?

Yes and no, bro. You mean yes or no?

It it it is just like that because you got to understand they have everything the other has. Okay. Jesus, he overcame hell. He got the keys. Okay. He is all intents and purposes the warden of that prison. Hell is a prison. Now go ahead.

So in what way are they different beings? Okay, say you have I'm father I'm not in any way representing you as this. It's only an example.

Oh dear God.

Imagine you have three crayons.

Oh dear God.

Right. Hey, imagine you have three crayons. They're all red, right? So there are three different crayons, but they're all red. You understand? I'm just going to move on for the sake of my sanity. I'm just gonna move on, bro. Listen, my my sanity ain't going to be there after much longer after this conversation. So, I'm just going to be honest. Ignorant Lane with a $20 super chat. My personal Muhammad brand cobblestone just turned 30% darker because of that sentence. Bro, I'm dead. Appreciate the super chat, man. Ty with a $2 super sticker. Appreciate you. God bless you to Sean with F. Whoa, whoa, whoa. My brother had too much dip on his ship. He went off the reservations brother. I I got a little confused there, man. I'm not going to lie. I'm right there with you, Sean. Inverted super chat. Thunder wrapped in silk. Hey, man. Thunder. I I want to hear what thunder wrapped in silk sounds like. I I don't even know how that follows, but that cannot be proper. There's no way. Hello.

Hey, Nick.

I got a couple of questions for you.

Okay.

Um I like your um your title, Christianity and Trinity are logical.

Mhm.

Um if I never listened to you or any of the other philosophers and I just was given a Bible and just read it by myself, would I understand this personhood being I don't even know half of these words. Bible.

Hey, no, I've got a Bible.

If you were never given art, what are you at?

No. If I was given a Bible,

just given a Bible

to read

and I was reading it myself, would I come up with the same uh conclusion that you preach every day?

Uh, number one, I think you would, but number two, I think it would be irrelevant even if you don't because the Bible is meant to be read as a lurggical book in the lens of what the fathers said. So I I would understand this difference between a being and a person and uh and all all the other philosophical stuff.

You could understand the basics of it, I would say. Yeah.

I don't know. Uh my next question is when you go to your next life um and you're in heaven, I'm assuming that's what you believe. Will you see God?

I see God. Well, we know that we'll see Christ because he's still in the human nature. We don't know how we will see the Father and Holy Spirit, though.

That was going to be my question. When you see Jesus or Christ or God, um it's interesting when I said God, you said um you'll see Jesus. So, does that mean Jesus is not God then?

No, he is. He's God. I'm saying he's the only one though that took on a human nature.

Sometimes you forget, don't you?

No.

Sometimes you guys forget.

No, I don't know. What did I say that contradicted my belief that he's God?

Well, I asked you will you see God that you said uh no, you'll see Jesus.

I said when you said we'll see God, I said we know we'll see Jesus. We don't know if we'll see the Father and Holy Spirit. I didn't say no.

Yeah.

So, will you see all three of them?

We don't know how we'll see the Father and Holy Spirit. We don't know. I didn't ask you whether how you'll see. I said, "Will you see?"

We don't know. If we don't know how, then we don't know if we'll be able to see them with our eyes. We don't know.

Okay. So, but you'll see Jesus. Yeah.

Yes. We know that we'll be able to see Jesus because of the fact he's in the human nature. And it reveals that to us in scripture.

Where does it where does it say that in the scripture?

Which part?

Just that you'll see Jesus in the next life.

Uh in Revelation when it talks about how we'll see the lamb. He's the lamb.

Okay. I was just wondering whether you'll see God, Jesus, and because it does say somewhere in the Bible that Jesus will be on the right hand side of God. Am I correct?

Yep. The father. Yep.

Yeah. So, uh I was just trying to get you to tell me a mental picture of um Will you see? Um

I don't have a mental picture of heaven for you, brother. We don't. Nobody has a mental picture of heaven.

Cuz you seem to have it on earth. So I was assuming you'd have a better um

Will you see Allah in heaven?

Hey,

will you see Allah in heaven?

Um whether I see Allah in heaven or not, does that what difference does that make? I like

you cuz you was asking me. So I'm curious about you back. I'm curious. I'm asking how will you see Allah?

We in Yes, we will see Allah inshallah.

How will you see him?

We will see him. um in a physical appearance of his majesty. How whichever whichever form or whichever way he wants to show himself, but we will see God.

Well, it's isn't it however however you thought of him to be.

Well, you could say the same.

However you thought of him to be, right? However you however you imagined Allah is how you'll see him, right?

No. Well, you should know that you've been uh

that that's what the hadith say.

Oh. Oh, I'll show you. Allah whichever way um we think Allah is going to be he will be different to that.

Oh that's not true. You haven't read your hadith then are you do you follow the sunnah?

Yes I follow the sunnah.

Okay well let's show you then. Sahabakari 4581. During the lifetime of the prophet some people said oh Allah's messenger shall we see the Lord on the day of resurrection. Prophet said yes. Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun midday when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky? They replied no. He said, "Do you have any difficulty seeing the moon in the full night when it is bright and there's no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." The prophet said, "Similarly, you have no difficulty in seeing Allah on the day of resurrection as you have no difficulty in seeing either of these." Um and let's see the part where he says how uh they will say the former people have said then uh when there remain in the gathering none but those who used to worship Allah in the real worlds and the and the real lord of the worlds whether they were obedient or disobedient then Allah the Lord of the worlds will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about him. So he's going to be near to whatever picture I have in my mind of how Allah will look is

you did say nearest not quite exactly.

But you said the opposite though. You said it's going to be the opposite of the nearest.

Yes, I did say um the opposite of whatever my my human mind uh conjures up.

That's not what it says. It says the nearest. It says it'll be the nearest to whatever your mind.

No, that doesn't that doesn't that doesn't actually mean the physical appearance. It means his majesty.

Or does it say that? Cuz the context of this is literally asking how we'll be able to see him with our eyes.

That's the explanation.

But wait, the context of this is literally how we'll be able to see him with our eyes. He even gives he even gives an analogy of seeing the sun in the sky.

Yes. I think sometimes you're very you're a very academic person and I can't really argue with on that side but you do come up with the stupidest dumbest um

answers

I I I literally had to I literally had to say sorry let me just finish

this is crazy

when the prophet says we'll see him as we see clearly uh the sun that's what it means clearly there won't be any barriers or hindrance So you'll see him with your eyes, right?

Yes, we'll see with our eyes.

You said in physical form, right?

Yes, in physical form.

What would that physical form be?

Well, we don't know exactly what the physical form is. If we did, we would probably wouldn't have to die and go to heaven. We could just be content here.

So then what's your issue? So anyway, you're talking if you don't know if we don't know how we'll see him. What's your issue then with us saying we don't know how we'll see the father, the holy spirit?

No, you didn't say that. I'll remind you what you said. You said you said you would you don't know whether you see God.

Yeah.

I asked you in the Holy Spirit specifically.

Yes. Okay. Let me ask you again then. Will you see God, the Father, the Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit, whatever you want to say, and Jesus Christ. All three of them.

We know we'll see Jesus. We don't know.

Yes. You've said that before.

So, so then so then, so then you should know then. I did hear you say.

So then why are you asking me again?

Okay, let's take let's cuz cuz you run to God Allah. So I have to ask you again. Will you see God the Father?

Will we see God? Father, Sonoly, stop running.

Will we see God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? I'm going to give you extensive answer.

No. Will you see the Father and the Holy Ghost? Leave Jesus out.

So you didn't know my You didn't hear my answer the first time where I literally said we don't know.

No, it was a little bit deaf. Repeat it to me.

Okay. We don't know if we'll see the father or holy spirit or if we will. We don't know how.

So why are you constantly lying and going back and forth then? One minute say what

you you never said that. Next minute you're all over the place.

What are you dude? Are you Oh my god.

I asked you.

I'm not going to lie. This inbreeding is getting to Muslims, dude. It really is. This is crazy. This inbreeding is truly getting to the Muslims brains.

He can't listen. This dude cannot listen. I've said the same thing 10 times. Andy would have found a super chat. Nick, please keep them to the first point they make. It's so annoying when they keep goal post shifting. It is, but I know typically the the first time they bring up a point. It's a terrible point anyways. We won't get anywhere. Martin with $5 super chat was recently thinking about past and realized I never been baptized. Got to take care of that ASAP. Checking out the nearest EO church. Let's go, Martin. You better go get baptized, man. Heck yeah, dude. You got to let me know, bro. Let me know. Let me know how that process goes, man. I want to I want to be in tune with that. Hello.

Hello.

Hey, Nick. How are you?

I'm good. What's going on?

Uh, not much. Had a quick, well, had a question, but it's not super relevant to your topic. Should I just wait for another time or?

Um, I mean you can ask if it's a quick question you can ask now I guess.

Um, it's basically the about the relationship between Satan and God. Do you want me to ask it or do

Sure. Go ahead.

ask it.

Okay, cool. Um, so if God knew Satan would rebel, like I'm kind of asking like if God is omnisient and omnipotent, why would he create a being he knew would become Satan and introduce evil into creation? Does he use Satan as a as a as a tool or like what is their relationship?

Well, Satan can be used as a tool, but I mean I would say the same reason he created us even though he knew some would rebel, right? Um, I think that when we look at uh, you know, how we how we view Satan, it's kind it can be kind of skewed based on the um, like the movies and TV shows, right? So, we don't think Satan's like some dude that's like the king of hell and women people all that stuff, right? We think Satan is going to be burning more than any person ever will and in hell. Um, Satan doesn't have as much control as as people try to make it seem. Um so again I think Satan would just be another person who rebelled who God created to give the ability to come to him who chose not to and uh he can even use him for good still. So Satan can be used for good that doesn't mean Satan is good and no way is he good but for example there are many Satanists that will see the works that Satan does and say I want God and they choose God. So there's people that can be saved through that. Yeah, great answer. Um, may I give a follow-up or

Sure.

You're basically, from what I'm hearing, you're saying that because God is all knowing, but he still, it sounds like he still wants to give you the benefit of the doubt regardless. So, he'll create you even though he knows what you'll do in the end. It just, that's like the first thing I want to confirm.

Um it it's similar, right? It's similar, but it's not going to be in exactly the same way. Uh so like it's not that he's giving you the chance that he didn't already know. But the thing is for for for God to know that something would happen. It would have to the reason why God knows that we're going to go to hell or heaven is because to him, he's outside of time. So whatever happens on earth has already happened according to him. But that thing has to actually happen for him to know what happened. And so it's because he's outside of time that he knows these things. And so that's why he ultimately creates us.

Okay, that's so deep. Like I gotta look into that more.

Yeah, it definitely gets

the last thing just really quick, you mentioned how Satan is like not like this like he doesn't have all this control.

One of the one of the prayers that I know is like uh the father, hallowed be thy name prayer.

Mhm.

And at the end of it often times it's like um how does it end? Um and lead us not into tempt

deliver us from evil for the eyes of king

from the evil one.

Yeah.

So sometimes it doesn't say from the evil one in the prayer.

Okay. Okay. I might have gotten that from Eio. I'm not

Yo doesn't say that either. No,

I'm I'm personally so I know they don't say that.

Okay. So it's not the evil one.

No, no, no. Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespass as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power of the father, son, holy spirit. So just deliver us from learned as the evil one.

I'm not sure.

Okay. Um All right, that's it, man. I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Yep, man. Take care, bro.

You, too.

All right, let's see. By the way, y'all, y'all should be praying that prayer every day, man. I'm EO. It says the evil one. No, it does not. We say it in liturgy every Sunday.

Hello.

Hey, what's up?

Hey, what's going on?

Oh, I'm good, thanks. So I had a question.

Okay. Sure.

And it's a simple one, not a very complicated one. Right.

Okay.

Based right. So So first of all, do you accept the Old Testament? Right.

Yes.

Fantastic. Fully

fully. Yeah.

Fantastic. Right. Based on the belief system of the Old Testament, what does Christianity get defined as?

You said what? Define Christianity system.

How how is how does it get defined? Yes. Uh it's defined as the um the following of Christ in summary.

No, no, no. It's it's it get defined as idol worshipping.

Wow, brother, you got me there.

Yes or no?

No.

No. So, let's go back one more time, right? What is define idol worshipping?

Um idol worshiing is worshiping something other than God.

Fantastic. Right. Now even within the Bible it says uh Exodus 33:20. You can pull it up.

What about it?

It says, "For no man shall see me and leave." Right. That is God.

Yep. So then why in Genesis 32 did Jacob see him face to face?

Nope. That is within the Bible, right? So that contradicts the Bible.

No, it's not a contradiction.

That is a contradiction to the Bible. It's not a contradiction because when he says no one can see me and live, he's talking about in his divine nature, in his full glory.

Do you accept the Old Testament?

Yes. I just already said

fantastic. The Old Testament says the same thing, the exact same thing that you cannot see the God's glory.

So that's my point. He's saying you can't see him in his full glory. That's like literally the entire point.

Fantastic. Now, the only person that have seen God was Moses. A tiny bit of God's glory from the back and his head turn.

That's true. That's not true. That's not true. Because Jacob saw him face to face.

So which is wrong then?

Neither is wrong. One is talking about seeing him in his full glory.

And so he lived on.

Yeah. Jacob lived on. Yes. Cuz the point is seeing him in his full glory and Jacob did not see him in his full glory.

Does that contradict Exodus 33:20? Yes.

No. Because Exodus 33 is talking about seeing him in his full glory.

And so he didn't saw God's God in full glory.

Correct. Right. Well, now how come right you're saying trinity makes sense, right?

Yeah.

How is it that you see God, which is you're referring to Christ as a god, you're saying he's a god, right? With your eyes, he had disciples and all the other things, right? And then they say that and then keep saying that he's a god. When you know for a fact that if you witness God, you cannot leave on. That that's again I literally already said that's not true unless you're talking about in his full glory.

Right? So Christ was not in full glory. He did not possess the glory.

He possessed the full glory. It doesn't mean he manifested the full glory.

One second. Now define idol worshiing one more time.

Worshiping anything that's not God.

Fantastic. God has glory.

Yes or no?

Yes. God.

And if you witness God's glory.

And if you witness God's glory, then you cannot live on. And you cannot detach God's glory from God. That's common sense. What you want to detach?

You cannot see us. You cannot see his full glory. Can you please give me an argument, bro? So how come you're saying that God walked on earth right with his glory and he had disciples and all the other things when based on the old testament even the Jews the rabbis would come and tell you that you're worshiping a man and that is adultery and the rabbi would tell you equally right? You're saying that Islam is red flag the rabbis are permitted to worship right pray inside of a mosque but they are not permitted to enter a church because they clearly say that your faith right contradicts their belief system. How is it?

The rabbis after the 10th century like Rashi say that not the traditional early rabbis.

Then how come they crucified Christ?

It wasn't just the Jews. It was also the Romans.

But the Jews played a part in it, did they? Or did they not?

Amen. The Jews played a part in it. They were wrong for doing that. And you accept the And you're somehow saying that Old Testament is somehow aligned with the so-called biblical religion.

It is. Yes. Cuz who was who was the who was the one that was prophesied to die in the Old Testament?

Who who was prophesied to die according to the Old Testament?

It wasn't Christ because they've never accepted Christ.

Okay. So according to Isaiah, who is Isaiah 53 about? Pull it up.

Go ahead. You You can read it if you want to, but let me bring my phone.

You can pull it up. Sure.

Bro, you you change the subject so much, right? You jump.

This is not changing the subject. You're literally asking about the why they crucified him if it's in line with the Old Testament. So, I'm bringing you to the Old Testament to show you the crucifixion is in line with it.

Now, does it No. One second. Right. Just Just one simple question, right? How does that make sense? Right. If you say that they they have predicted it and yet they crucified him.

I'll show you. I'll explain. I'll show you. Go to Isaiah 53. I'll show you.

Isaiah 53. What?

Just Isaiah 53. You can start at verse one.

All right.

And I want you to tell me who that's about.

Is is that Bible or Torah?

This is the Tanakh.

Tanakh. So which which is a language? Is it more Bible?

This is the Old Testament, brother.

So it's not the Torah. It's not the Torah is the first five books, right?

So So what is it then?

It's the Old Testament.

Old Testament is Torah. What are you talking about?

No, it's No, the Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament,

right?

This is not within the first five books,

whatever that is. Right. I'll read it.

Isaiah 53. Who has believed in our message and to whom has arms of the Lord have been revealed?

Is that it? Right.

Yeah. Yeah. Keep reading. Yeah.

Right. Uh he grew up before him like a tender chute and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him. Nothing in his presence that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by mankind. He w a man of suffering and familiar with pain. That's that much is it or do you want me to read it more?

Who is that talking about?

Could be anybody. There is no specific name. It doesn't say a name here.

It's the one who came from David who grows out of dry ground

who was crucified for our sins.

Who does that sound like?

Say crucification.

Okay, keep reading. I I'll I'll show Keep reading. If you go to I'll show you

which which 7 8 9 10. Which one?

I'll show you. I'll go to it myself. I'll show you where it says this pe this person's literally going to die for the sins of the people. Okay. Read uh 6 through9.

But how how is there a name there?

No, no, no. My point is that's why I'm asking who it's about. So if you read 6 through9, it's very clear.

6 through 9.

I can read it or you can read it. Whatever you want.

You read it faster, right? I read it slow. All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way. And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter and a sheep before its sheerers is silent. So he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison from judgment. And who would declare his generation? For he was cut off from the land of the living. For the transgressions of my people he was stricken. And they made his grave with the wicked because but with the rich at his death because he had no done no violence nor was there any deceit in his mouth. Who is that?

Fantastic. Right. Right. Assuming that he's Christ, right? How does that make him a god?

No. No. That's not my point. My point My point was talking about how it aligns with the Old Testament.

Right.

I can show you how he's God, too. But first, we have to get to the point that it actually aligns with the Old Testament.

But there is no specific mention of it. This is a specific mention of the death of the Messiah

on on your belief system. You believe that?

No, no, no. I I'm saying who is this if not the Messiah?

I don't know. Unless you can prove that that he's the Christ, right? Then I wouldn't accept it.

The only person this can be is the Messiah. Dude,

is that it then? Is that your point? Okay, go on then. How does that make him a God? That's

okay. So now if we want to see how that makes him god, we go to Zechariah 12:10.

And it continues to talk about the one who would die for the sins. Okay. All right. So I'll read from verse 9. It shall be in that day I shall seek to destroy all the nations that come against the Jerusalem. and I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitant of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplication. So it's Yahweh. This is God speaking, right? Then they will look on me whom they pierced. So why does God Yahweh say they're going to look on me whom they pierced?

Which which which chapter is it?

That's Zechariah 12 verse 10.

Chapter 12 verse 10.

Yep.

12. Let me read it because you made Go ahead.

Lie or something in the middle.

I'm not lying about anything. You can read it yourself.

So yes, we know that much that Yeah. Yeah. I get it. And they will look right again. How does that make him a god? There is no mention of that making him a god.

God is speaking and God saying he's going to be the one to be pierced. Why is God saying that

God is being pierced here?

Yep.

There is no What does it say? God is being pierced.

Who's the one speaking in this verse? It's God, right?

Well, it doesn't say any God about it, but I

Who's speaking? Who's speaking in this verse? and I will pour out. There is no mention of it again. See, it

it is okay. It's literally in verse 9. It shall be in the day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour on the house of David the spirit of grace. Who's the one that pours out the spirit of grace?

God.

Okay. Amen. So, it's God speaking, right?

God has the authority. God has the authority.

Amen. So, it's God speaking.

Right.

So, it's God. Okay. Great. So, it's God speaking. Okay. So God says they will look on me whom they pierced.

Right?

Why does he say that?

But does it say physically?

It piercing is a physical thing.

No, it doesn't. No, it it doesn't necessarily have to be a physical thing for it for it to be a piercing because the Jews have previously pierced God and the reason Christ came to guide them because they were the lordship of

Show me where they recently Show me where they pierced God before this. Show me. Right. Fantastic. I caught you. Now I'm going to cook you.

Okay, great. Just show me the verse where they pierced him previously. I would love to see this.

The Jews were known for going against God. What are you talking about? You're [ __ ] or something.

That just show me the verse where it says they pierced him before this.

It doesn't have to be pierced, right? It's not the exact term.

Going against someone doesn't mean you pierced them.

Well, that is piercement. That that is one definition for piercing guard. Going against piercing guard.

Says who? Where do you get that from?

I'm telling you because on my definition of how I see it, the very reason Christ came to existence was to guide the lost.

So if it's so if it's just that, why does it say they're going to mourn for him?

Morn for whom?

The one who pierced?

Christ.

It just says whoever the verse is talking about here. I'm not even putting anything in here. Is God here. Okay. It says,

"Yeah, but

it says

I I have a different explanation for it. You're not going to accept my definition for it. My explanation because Christ was a prophet of God and you're not going to accept that.

I'm asking, we know it's God speaking here. Why are they going to mourn for him who's pierced if it's just a

because he was a messenger of God? That is my definition.

No, this is God speaking, dude. This isn't talking about a prophet. This is God.

Yeah. So, God is going to mourn because he was a prophet.

No, it's not God mourning, dude. No, it's not God mourning. It's the people mourning for the one who's pierced. Why are they mourning for the one who's pierced if it's not a physical piercing?

Because he he was a divine messenger of God.

Dude, this is God speaking. This isn't about a prophet. Where are you where are you getting prophet from here?

But how are you aligning that with God? Exactly. How are you aligning that with God?

Because it's God speaking.

God God is not saying necessarily that I'm being struck. He says they will look on me whom they pierced.

but not physically. Not physically.

Say it's not physically. If it's not physically then why are they going to mourn for him?

Because because the prophet was struck. Prophet Jesus was struck.

No, there's no way, bro. No, there's no way. But Amen. W Frudian slip. He said the prophet Jesus was struck. Amen. But oh my gosh, this is crazy, guys. This is crazy, guys. This is crazy, guys. I mean, you can't like I don't know. Faith of the 10 super chat, would you say we all have great potential to do bad just as much as we have the potential to do good? I would say so. I mean, I would say we probably have better potential to do good or more potential to do good though, I would say, because goodness is infinite. Uh Ted with the found super chat. Oh, hiccups. I noticed Tai Dawa script doesn't cover Isaiah because it disproves him. That would make sense to me, Ted. That makes sense to me. They don't cover that part. All to tell super chat. Bro said, "I'm going to cook you Muslim Mario." He did kind of sound like Mario, huh? He did kind of sound like that, huh? All right. Who's next? Oh, person didn't connect. I'll take some people up on YouTube here in a sec. Hello. Hello.

Hello.

Hey. What's going on?

How you doing, brother?

I'm good. What you got?

Um, I I guess I have a couple of questions, but for one, as far as I'm concerned, the church kind of says that the Trinity and sort of God in general is kind of uh what's the word they use? He's a It's a mystery, you know? It's

Yeah. And it incomprehensible. Yeah. In its fullness. Yeah.

So, the Trinity is both incomprehensible but logical. uh it's incomprehensible in its fullness. So we can't understand the fullness of God. Uh but it is yeah it is it is logical because it coheres with the the basic laws of logic.

Okay. Um if I may ask then where in the in the Bible can we find that God is homoius?

Um I mean we can find it where we see that the they're one being that one godhead. So, for example, when it says that the father and the son in the Old Testament, it refers to them both as Yahweh. We believe that Yahweh himself has one nature. Since Yahweh has one nature and they're both considered Yahweh, that would make them homoius.

But nature and essence aren't the same thing. So, homosius is one essence. No, they're not.

What's the difference?

Nature is is how essence is uh plays out. It's like the active

look. You want to Google? Do you have a computer in front of you? That's not what where do you get that from?

If All right, here's the thing. If nature and essence were the same thing, then that in that case I do believe in the trinity then because if

they are

God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit share one nature in the way that you and I share the human nature. That's that's perfectly fine. I guess I have no problem with that. The problem is that Nika didn't say that. They said essence. They didn't say nature. And there is a word for nature by the way. Yeah, it's the same word.

I want I I want you to Google it on here.

You want me to look up the definition of nature?

Sure.

Yeah. Look up if nature and essence are the same.

Okay.

And you're going to see that that nature comes from the essence.

Definition. The basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristics. So, the inherent features of something. Now, what's an essence?

Say that again. I said the I looked up nature, the basic or inherent features of something.

No, I I want you to Google essence and nature definition.

I I that's the nature definition. Now, let's look up essence definition.

Why don't you want to look for them the same,

dude? What are you Bro, what are you talking about, bro?

We're looking up nature definition and then we're looking up the definition of essence. You said they're different.

Where are you? How about Where are you getting your definition of nature from? How about that?

Google.

Where? You can just Google

show me cuz I just

I just told you I just asked you Google or Google what's the relationship between essence and nature Google that

I I just Oh my gosh what is the relation between essence and nature? Okay. And what source would you like me to go to?

No, just whatever the AI of Google tells you. That's fine. That'll do.

AI overview. That's what we're doing. This is where we're getting our information from. Are we serious? Well, I mean, you couldn't give me a better one.

I literally just read you off Oxford languages. What What are we talking about right now?

Okay. So, what does it say? What does Google AI say?

Google said, "Essence and nature are closely related and often used interchangeably to define what a thing is."

Uhhuh. Keep going.

Uh, it goes on down into bullet points. Uh I know I just read that before is what is essence is what is or essence is the defining internal and constitutive elements that make a thing what it is separating it from other things. The formal structure nature is the essence considered in capacity for operation. It signifies the innate internal principles. So what are we talking about?

So they're not the same thing

brother. Yes, they're the same thing. Dude, I I can't believe we're seriously doing our research from Google AI, bro. This is crazy. Are you Is this seriously where you get information from? Was Google AI,

my brother? Are you Are you know philosophy, right? Do you think when they use nature and essence, they they just use them as the same thing?

Yes.

You never took a philosophy course?

I guarantee you haven't. If you're using Google AI

Oh, because you want me to go pull out my philosophy books from from

Yes. Show me your philosophy books that say nature and essence are completely different things. Show me that, please.

No. No. I didn't say they were different. I said they're not the same thing.

Different.

I said one same, dude. Different literally means not the same.

One comes from the other. I'm not saying they're they're opposed to each other. I'm saying nature comes from opposed.

They're different.

No, you said the same thing and they're not.

Show me Show me in your philosophy books where you say nature comes from essence. That's what I'd like to see since you have these philosophy books.

You just read it from Google AI. What are you talking about? Dude, Google AI. You said you have philosophy books. Show me in the philosophy books.

Is or or is this where you got it from? Was Google AI. Is that where you got your information from?

No. No. Listen. If if essence if homoius meant nature, why didn't they say nature?

Can you just answer the question? Did you get this information from Google or did you get it from your books?

I just told you that before you got on before I got on here, I went to check just to make sure that that before I said anything that I was correct on what I was going to say

and I read what you said. By the way, I know that you skipped

Did you get it from your book?

I know that you skipped a part of the definition,

dude. Did you get it from your books or not?

I just told you that I looked it up.

So, did you read this definition in your books also?

I just said no, I looked it up.

So, you're getting your information from Google AI, not from actual sources. But you want to talk to me about philosophy.

But you But you literally research via Google AI.

Okay. So, okay. So, God and God the Son and the Spirit, God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one essence or one nature according to you, the same thing.

Yep.

Okay. So, I guess I'm a Trinitarian, by the way. I'm a Latter- Day Saints. I just wanted to make sure. If that's if that's what the Trinity is, then I'm a Trinitarian. Thank goodness. I'm saved.

Not if you don't follow the church.

Excuse me.

If you Latter- Day Saint, you Bro, you can't believe there's another prophet after Christ and be saved. There were prophets after Christ in Acts.

Was the son last of all sent by the father?

Clearly not. If there was prophets in Acts.

Oh, so you disagree with the Bible when it says last of all, he sent a son.

What does that to do with prophets?

He's talking about prophethood. Who was the last one sent? Why does the father say?

Are you Oh my goodness. Are you telling me in Acts there are no prophets?

Not after Christ.

No one born after Christ. No one sent after Christ. So, can you answer the question? Why in the Gospels does he say last of all, he sent his son?

Where does it say that?

I'll show you.

Yeah. Matthew chapter 21 um verse 30 I just saw a comment Thomas Aquinus agree essence and nature are different thank you Bobson it's not true but okay I'd love a source on that but la Matthew 21:37 last of all he sent his son they will respect my son he said so why Does he say last of all he sent his son?

So this is this is what you meant by last of all. I thought you actually trying to reference the whole like in these last days he spoke to us through his son.

No, he quite literally said last of all he sent his son. That's I said what I mean.

So why does he say?

Okay. So there there are no oracles on earth after Jesus Christ.

Can you explain why it says last of all he sent his son?

I don't know why it says that but Paul was

Paul was there. No Peter was there.

Paul wasn't a prophet. Peter wasn't a prophet. What what's a prophet? What's the difference between a prophet and apostle?

Uh a prophet is one who specifically prophesies.

Paul and Peter prophesy about the future.

Okay. Do you want me to go look up where the prophets are in the New Testament? Is that what you want?

I I don't disagree that there are people called prophets in the New Testament. None of them were born after Christ. None of them were

How would you know that?

How would you know they weren't born after Christ? Where does it say their birth dates,

bro? cuz we know when they were sent. We know when they were ordained. None of them were ordained after Christ. You can't find me a single one. So explain how exactly he sent his son.

If after that you think there's a prophet.

No. No. It's not that I think there's a prophet. There are prophets in the New Testament.

Were they sent before after Christ? Who were the prophets? Do you know who the prophets in Acts were?

Yes. Uh I can look it up right now.

You don't know. You have to look it up. It was people like Barnabas.

There was, if I'm not mistaken, there was also a woman.

Show me. I don't know who you're talking.

Why? Okay. Okay. So, I guess you I thought Eastern Orthodox wrote the New Testament. I guess.

You thought Eastern Orthodox wrote the New Testament.

Read read the New Testament.

Show me then.

If I leave the app, we'll Can you hear me or no?

Nope. Just you can go find it and then I I will wait here for you. Oh gosh. This man just saying junk. Oh, I know. Oh, we know. Oh, we know. We shall wait, guys. Inshallah. We shall wait. Trust me, bro. Sources. It's Google AI, man. It's Google AI, you know. It's Google AI.

Acts 21:8-9 talks about the daughters.

All right. Acts 21:8-9. All right. Where does that say they're prophets? You just saying because it says they prophesy.

You You said a prophet is one who prophesies. Did you not say that?

Yeah. They have to obviously be ordained by God. Where's people ordained by God?

So, does somebody have the the authority from God to prophesy without being ordained by God?

Does someone have the authority to prophesy without being ordained by God? No.

Exactly. So if they are prophesying that means they were already I'm saying they don't have the authority doesn't mean they can't do it. Anyone can give bro people can give false prophecy. You understand that you understand like there's literally false prophets right?

And so we're not saying we're not saying these are false prophets. We're saying you have to show me where these people are ordained by God.

Wait, hold up. Hold up.

Are you I thought you guys like plain reading of the text. Now you don't like the plain reading of the text. If you dude, if you like plain reading of the text, take the text that says, "Last of all, he sent the son."

Acts 13:1. What does it say in Acts 13:1?

That's another one.

Okay. I got to Acts 13:1. No.

I think this is the one. But please read it. This is the one about Barnabas.

Please read it though cuz you you're not reading. You're like, where does it say that without reading it for the people to hear that you're wrong?

Yeah. There were certain prophets and teachers.

Amongst who? Where? amongst uh Simeon for instance.

Okay. So, what were we saying again about Joseph not being able to be a prophet because there's no prophets after Jesus.

Yeah. There's no one sent after Christ. That doesn't mean there weren't people that still were there that were teaching. You have to show me someone that was actually sent as a prophet after Christ. You're not showing me that.

Okay. If if those if those don't don't uh convin.

I just want you to show me. Show me that they were actually sent after Christ.

No, no, it's fine. We you write it but you don't you don't like the answer so it's fine we can.

I I just want you to.

I have a.

I just have a followup question then or another question actually.

Sure. Go ahead since we can't say that. Sure.

Uh do you Eastern Orthodox are uh monarchical trinitarians correct?

Yep.

Now I have a question. This is I'm not actually trying to argue with you about this. I really just don't because I don't understand. If you can just explain it. So does Jesus in your view have true as.

Uh within his nature? Yes. Not within his personal hope.

Isn't his nature a begotten nature?

No. The nature isn't begotten.

Isn't he eternally begotten?

Yes. The nature isn't begotten. The person is.

Okay. No, that's all I wanted to know. Cuz I I never understood that. I thought part of Jesus' nature was that he was the begotten son. The father was eternally the father.

That's a personal property. Okay. Okay. No, I just wanted to know that. Uh.

Something else.

No, I wasn't that wasn't an objection. I just wanted to know what what the answer was. I never heard of an answer for that.

Cool. Take care, brother. Man, Mormons cannot deal with Matthew chapter chapter 27. Bro, I've never I've never or Matthew 26, whatever it was. I've never met a Mormon that could give me a coherent answer to Matthew 26:27. Never. [ __ ] with the uh whatever that is. Super chat. Hi, Nick. What's your understanding about Romans 10:9?

Uh Romans 10:9, you confess with your mouth Jesus the Lord and believe in your heart God has raised from the dead, you will be saved. Well, yeah, we agree uh with that, but there's there's obviously other things along with that. Like in Mark uh 18, was it Mark 18:18, I believe, or Mark 16:16? I don't know. It's one of it's like I know it's like one of the two. Uh it says that you also must be born again of water. You can't enter the kingdom of God. There's multiple things he said. There's not, we don't think you should take one verse and say, "Okay, this is how you're saved." You should take all the verses that he says to be saved. Believe them together. That's what we believe. And then Martin with the 20 fearless get the memberships. Appreciate that, man. God bless you, brother Martin. Appreciate that big time, man. God bless you, my man. That's big time, man. Bronco with the 20 whatever super chat. Nick, did you hear Avery calling you out on IP show yesterday? He said with all the running that Uman is doing, he wants to dunk on someone. That's fighting. his name. May the battle of Dunks begin. He thinks he will, man. But hey, we going to see, brother. It's going to be bad out for him, man. It's going to be bad out for him. Um, I don't know what your name is, but you have like a highlighter shirt on. Hello. Uh, highlighter green shirt. Hello.

Hey, what's up, man? How you doing?

Good. What's going on, man?

Chilling, man. I am a unitarian so I want to I saw you were arguing for the you know that the trinity is logical so I want to hear it.

Yeah I believe it's logical because it coheres with the basic structure and classical logic and it doesn't go against any of the laws of logic.

Okay. Can you can you define like can you put forth a proposition that can be affirmed or denied?

Just any proposition or one about the trinity.

I mean of course about the trinity. Uh yes that there are three persons that have one essence.

Three persons that have one essence.

Yep.

All right. And so three persons have one nature. All right. So how many of those persons are God?

Three.

All three of them are God.

Yep.

By identity or predication? Uh

By relative identity.

What do you mean by relative identity? that they're under the same sort.

The same what?

Sortal category.

Okay. So, that's Well, that so that doesn't follow.

How does that not follow?

Because you're saying because only one would be God according to identity. If you're saying the father the father is say the father was unbegotten.

Right?

Do you know what relative identity is?

Well, I'm you can explain it. I I have heard people try to explain it. You're saying they belong to the same sort of category.

No, the same sort.

Okay. Can you can you define sort?

Yes. A sort is going to be a.

Sounds like a Pokemon character.

It's going to be a type of something.

So, it's going to be like a uh a sort of like rez like a type.

Yeah.

Right. But that doesn't equal that doesn't equal identity. You're just saying that they belong.

No, it doesn't. that it's literally in the name relative identity. It's relative to the the identity is relative to the sort,

right? So something can be identified but by what type it is but that's that doesn't cohhere with the law of identity which says a thing is what it is. So A equals A. So for instance, if you say that the father is God and then you say that the son is God, then the son must be the father according to the law of identity.

That only follows dur if you're using absolute identity.

Okay. So explain to me the difference. Yes, absolute identity is going to confer that a and b would have all the same properties. Therefore, if a equals b, b equals c, a equals c it just would follow that's follows an absolute identity theory have all the same properties. We don't believe when we say the father's god, son is god, we don't believe that equals all the same properties. That's why we're using under a sortal category. A

Sort where where are you getting this word sort from? from a relative identity like a basic philosophical view.

Which just says that something belongs to a certain type of something.

It it it involves to a certain type or category under something.

Okay. But you understand okay so let's take this concept that you have here and let's apply it to the scriptures. So for instance, John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world."

Yeah.

Who is that? That's a personal identifier for who?

Yeah. So since God isn't a rigid designator, uh we can infer this would be referring to the father.

Okay. So you're saying God is not a rigid desator.

So then you're saying that the that God is called the father is called God by predication.

No, no, no. Something not being a rigid designator doesn't mean it's predicated. It can still be identity.

Okay. But you're you're referring to identity by what type it is. So it's a different type of identity.

Yeah. It's a it's going to just be again, it's going to be still relative identity.

Okay. But so let's identify the character. For instance, John 3:16 perfect example. For God so loved the world. Who is that a reference to?

That's in reference to the father.

Okay. So it can't be a reference to the son. It can't be a reference to the holy spirit. It's only a designator. It's a personal identifier for the father alone.

Yep.

Okay. So according to the law of identity, if you're to call the son god, then the son must be the father if you mean it in the same sense. Or unless you want to say that the son is called god by predication.

No, because you're presupposing absolute identity. That's the point.

I'm not presupposing. You said according to the basic fundamental laws of logic which are the law of identity, the law of an excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction. So now you're saying this this sort of law uh which which is just a way of saying that something can be identified but what by what type it is that is more in line with predication. You're saying that it's called God because it is Godish. It belongs to this category called God.

Yeah. That's a certain sort. Yeah.

Okay then. So the none of the so you're saying none of the persons of the trinity are god by identity then.

They are by relative identity.

Okay but what about absolute identity? So you don't believe in absolute.

I do believe in absolute identity. I don't think it's used in the trinity.

Okay. So when we're I see how in theory that could work, but when we consider the Bible that doesn't work because never is God used as a personal identifier for the son. It's always only used if the handful of times where the generic title God is applied to Jesus, it is used by predication, not identity. Um but God is used as a personal identifier for the father alone uh abundantly and explicitly overwhelmingly uh throughout the Bible. Yeah, just because it's used for the father, even if it's used for the father more, that wouldn't disprove why you can't use relative identity in this case. No.

I'm saying it's never used as a personal identifier for the son. Not a single place in the whole Bible.

Well, yeah. Now, you're just kind of switching the argument and saying that it can't be used for the sun in the Bible. It's not actually.

I didn't say it can't be. I said I didn't say it can't be possible.

Is it illogical to say that there are three persons that are under the same sort of godhood? Because if if you want to switch and talk about the Bible, we can. But that's a whole different topic now. You're switching topics. You're you're moving the go now.

Okay. So, you want to have you want to create a theory that h that doesn't have to cohhere with the Bible.

No, no, I'm just asking you is the truth.

We're assuming obviously we're assuming.

We're assuming that the Bible is a standard for the authority. So, any any theory that you come up with has to be checked by the scriptures. Correct.

And and I'm fine with that. Again, my point is though, is are you saying the concept of itself, the trinity is illogical?

What god are you talking about then?

Yeah, I'm talking about the concept of the trinity that there are three distinct persons that are under the same sort of godhood. Would that be illogical to believe in based on logic itself?

It would be logical to say that there's one god but three beings who belong to the same category.

Beings. Where do you get three beings from?

Okay, define the word being for me. Being is going to be like the nature of something or it's going to be its existence.

Okay. So which one is it? So you can equivocate on the term. So being can be used as a substitution for nature but being also refers to a real ontological existence. So for instance, you and I are two separate beings but we share the same being. So being cannot be equivocated on.

We don't share absolutely the same being. We have different accidental.

We share the same being.

You think we have an absolutely identical nature. When listen, when we use the word being in that you and I share the same being, we share the same being as in nature. So what happens with the trinity is you guys say well God is one being but three persons. But what you mean there is God is one nature.

Yeah. I'm going to show you how it's not I'm going to show you how that's not equivocal. Do you believe that we have absolutely identical natures?

I believe that we have the same nature as human beings.

You used absolute identity before. Are they absolutely identical?

That's not how absolute identity works.

For instance, as we said.

What's that?

I just asked you if they're absolutely identical. I don't know what you mean. That's not how it works.

Our natures as in Yes. Our natures are identical. Yes. As human beings, we.

Identical.

Yes.

Okay. So, you think we have the same accidental properties then?

The Now you're switching Now you're switching the goalpost. So if we talk about you're you're talking about the difference between uh human nature and then you're talking about accidental properties. Obviously you have a beard on your face. I don't have a beard on my face. But when we're talking about nature in this context of this conversation, we're talking about essential qualities that one is characterized by. So when you talk about God and you say he's supremely powerful, supremely intelligent, he has all of these qualities. That is his nature. And so what you're saying is that three different beings all possess the same nature. They all belong to the same type of uh category of being under the same res. You said yes. Because if you have three persons and they act independently of each other, then you have three beings who all share the same nature. Therefore, the trinity is polytheist.

Is your hair color a property of your nature?

That's an accidental property.

Is it a property of your nature?

No. So what's it a property of?

It just it's a physical property. I don't think you're really understanding how this corresponds with.

Ask what's it a something to be a property has to be a property of something. What's it a property of?

But this is an accidental not an essential property.

Great. What's an accidental property of?

Of my human material existence.

Your body, right?

Yeah. And is your body a property of your nature?

No.

So what's it what's your body a property of?

So you're so again when you're talking about natures, you're talking about human natures, you're talking about in a set of qualities that a human being possesses like to reason.

What the ability to reason?

I mean I could give you a list. Um go ahead.

Let me look at my notes. Um the uh so for instance moral awareness uh the ability to think to plan to love um to have community um to relate to one another th those are uh to to be mortal or not. These are all qualities that all human beings share.

Is is having a a body a property of the human nature?

No. So I can I don't need to have a body to be human.

Well, I mean, okay, but it's not an essential. So when you're talking about a person, I mean, a person exists as a soul. A person has a body. We're experiencing reality through a a human body.

I'm asking to be a human being. Do I need a body?

Yeah, I guess so. Yeah, to be a human being. Yeah.

Great. So the body is an essential property of the human nature. That is an essential property. So if we have absolutely identical natures according to you, we'd have to have absolutely identical bodies as well.

No, because our accidental properties are going to differ. That's why they're accidental properties.

Brother, what are they accidental properties of of our body which you just said is essential? You already said it.

Which you just said is a properties of our nature. So they're accidental properties of our nature. But when you're talking about nature in the context of this conversation, you are not talking about accidental properties. You're talking about essential properties that all of us share. You and I both have a human nature. We both have the same set of qualities that it's what makes a human human. You having a beard on your face is not what makes a human human.

Is everything essential to us identical?

Is everything that's essential to us? Yes.

Okay. Everything that's essential to us is identical. And you said our human body is essential to us. So prim I can like literally write this out in a syllogism.

Yes. In that we both have a human body. Not that both of our human accidental properties are the same.

I can Does that make sense?

No. No. I can literally I can literally write this out in a syllisism. All right. All right. And this is modus ponent. So you have to let me know what you disagree with. Premise one, everything essential to us is identical. Premise two, our body is essential to us. Conclusion, our body is identical to each other. Which premise do you disagree with?

Go ahead one more time.

Premise one, everything essential to us is identical. Premise two, our body is essential to us. Conclusion, our body is identical to each other.

Our body is identical to each other. Yeah, that's a that's because again, we have a body, but we don't have the same body. I've said this.

Well, that that's Yeah, but I'm saying that this this syllogism disproves that. So, which premise do you disagree with? One more time. Read that.

Sure. Premise one, everything essential to us is identical. Premise two, our body is essential to us. Conclusion, our body is identical to each other.

Okay. So, yeah. So, you say us and what do you mean by us?

Us is going to refer to anybody that has this nature.

So, if if we exist outside of our human bodies, are we no longer us? We're us because us refers to persons with the nature.

Okay. There you go. So I what I'm saying is that if we exist, we know that one day we're not going to have these physical bodies. So if we exist, are we no longer us? Or do we ret do we retain our identity?

Us. No, because us and identity is not going to be in reference to the nature but to the person. But we're not talking about the person here. We're talking about the nature specifically. You're talking about the the human part of how we experience reality as human beings. So us, we exist outside of our physical bodies. Yes or no?

Uh I wouldn't say we don't exist currently outside of our physical bodies. No.

Okay. We will exist.

We will exist outside of our physical body.

And so we have to have some sort of existence outside of our physical body.

Yeah. Right now.

Distinct from distinct from our physical body.

I mean right now we don't. I mean, I don't know what you mean. Distinct from our physical body. Sure.

Okay. That's the same exact thing.

But that's I'm not what that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about our soul. I'm not talking about anything distinct. I'm talking about our body in particular. That's what the syllogism is. Our syllogism is simply about our body.

Let's let's bring this back to the trinity. Okay. So, you say that that the three persons share one nature. And so, what do you mean by nature?

Nature is going to be a set of properties that pertain to your substance.

Okay. So are all three persons exactly identical.

In their substance? Yes, they're absolutely identical.

Okay. So Okay. So are they exactly identical? The same way. See, you're trying to hold us to a standard. Are they exactly identical?

Yes. In their substance, they are absolutely identical. Yes.

What's the difference between the father, son, and holy spirit?

It's going to be their personal properties.

Which are what?

Uh being begotten, for instance. What? What else?

Uh that the father has a say in his personhood. The holy spirit is spirated.

Okay. Is that it?

Uh yeah, that's going to be it.

So other than that, they're just completely identical.

Yep. Within their subconscious.

So the difference So So you have one one god, correct? You have one god who begot another god.

It's not another god. No. Because God again is going to be pertaining to the sortal itself. They're not under.

You're saying he he essentially duplicated himself.

No, he didn't duplicate himself.

Okay. He duplicated himself minus the.

The only difference you gave me is that the son lacks a say. So you're saying he duplicated himself minus the one property of having a say.

Well, duplication again is going to be having the same property. So no, it's not duplication.

Duplicated or he he copied himself minus one property which is a say.

Minus the minus the only personal property of the persons that that doesn't make any sense then it wouldn't be duplication.

Okay okay the only difference is one property.

And that's the only property that makes them of their persons distinguished.

And and the only property which it would be impossible to transfer.

Yep. You cannot transfer that.

Okay so if you have two of the exact same beings.

Amen. They're the exact same being. Amen.

No. Two of the exact same beings plural.

No, they're not different beings. No.

Okay.

What do you think the difference between being and personhood is?

Can they act apart from each other?

No. So, what do you think the difference between being and personhood is?

Okay. So, they can't act apart from each other. So, when bro, what do you think the difference between being and personhood is? Personhood is their individual properties and being is as in the way you guys use it. So being can mean real ontological existence. So you have three real ontological existences, correct?

No, they're not different ontological existences. No.

H How how are they not different?

Cuz ontological existence is going to refer to the substance. If they have the same substance, they don't have different ontological existences.

Okay. Because you say they can't act apart from each other.

Correct. They can't act upon.

But yet the but the father sends the son. Correct. So did the trinity become flesh or just the word?

No, we believe the word. But again, there's something in philosophy called passion and action. And passion and action one action can be done by via dis uh different participations.

What's that?

It's called passion and action and philosophy. One action can be done via different participations.

Different participations. So who's participating differently than the other two?

The son is participating in the sending by being sent. The father is participating by being the one sending.

Okay. So how are they how is how are they not acting independently then?

Because it's one action. Sending is one action. The the being sent is one action.

Yeah. But Christ says in the gospel of John that he conformed his will to what his father desired and then came down. Before he came down, he conformed it.

Yes.

Sure. Show me.

All right.

Before he came down, he conformed as well. Right. So, John 6:38. Now, of course, you're not going to see this a verbatim quote, right? Which would be a fallacy, but.

So it's probably not going to say what you what you said it said more than likely.

It's what's in it's what's entailed in what he says here.

For I've come down from heaven not to do my own will, but will the have done the will of him who sent me. Where does that say anything?

Hold on. What did you say? How did you read that?

For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

Right. So the the purpose of him coming down was not to do his own will.

But where does he say he conformed it prior?

Because the father sent him. Being sent implies subordination. There's nowhere in scripture.

What?

Go look up a basic definition. Go look up the word what sent means.

Okay, let's look up what sent means. Sent definition uh past and past part uh participle of send. Uh it is the being uh something is sent is like being delivered.

Um yeah, it's literally all it says. Sent is the past and past participle of send of of send. So what does send mean?

Okay. Now let's look at what send means sin definition. Uh so there's two cause to be in a specific state or a cause to be taken to a particular destination arrange for the delivery of especially by mail. So we would obviously take the first part where it says uh to cause to go.

To cause or order and order or instruct to go.

Yeah, it never says instruct anywhere. It says cause. I don't know where where what definition.

Where are you getting your definition from?

Uh Oxford language.

Okay. Let me know.

Also Marian Webster says the same thing.

All right. So, I'm looking at Oxford Learners dictionaries and the very first definition is to make something go. Yeah, it just says cause to go from Oxford languages.

Yes. Okay. So, let's just imagine here's here's the father and here's the son and they're hanging out in heaven loving each other, right? That's what you guys teach. Okay. And so the father sends the son.

Yep.

Correct. And so, okay. All right. So, that's acting independently.

How does acting independently? It's the same action but done by different participations.

So did the son have a choice to come or not?

Did he have the choice? Yes. They believe they're they're in one in unity.

Okay. So how would you have a choice if you can't act independently?

Because they have the same choice. Cuz they have the same will.

Do do you think the for example like do you think the father has always been the father?

No.

So you think he changed?

No. You don't have to change. It's a relational distinction. We now refer to God as the father because it's a relational distinction.

Yeah, you're applying.

But him as a him as a father, him going from not being a father to being a father, it's a relational change, though. It's still a change.

No, you're taking that literally. It's a relation. We refer to him as a father. He's not a real father. He never became a real father ever.

So, in what way is he a father?

Just metaphorically, he's a father.

Metaphorically for what? What's a metaphor for? Because when you're someone's f well, first of all, he's the progenitor, right? And so he's the one who causes everything to become about in the first place. So metaphorically, he's a father in that he has the characteristics of a father.

Because he caused things to to come about.

Well, because he plays the role of a father. I mean, he's first called father um with Israel, right? And so he's not he didn't give birth to Israel. It's it's a metaphor. So, could you also metaphorically call him a mother?

No.

Why not? Cuz a mother metaphorically.

Uh takes care of people.

I mean, I wouldn't. You can do whatever you want to do.

Could you Could you call God the mother?

The mother?

Yeah. Could you call God a mother?

If you wanted to, you could. It's possible. I wouldn't.

Dear God, why wouldn't you?

Because scripture never does.

Are you just solo scriptor?

No, I can use my brain to reason, but I'm just saying that.

I'm saying how you view God. Are you solos scriptor specifically?

I wouldn't call God a mother because he's not feminine in nature. He's also masculine in nature.

Okay. But he takes care of people though. Mothers take care of people.

Yeah. But so do fathers and that he's And so when you have a father who has masculine properties, you don't call a do you call you do are you would you like it if someone called you a mother?

I mean, you take care of people. Would you like it if someone called you a.

That's why I don't think it's a metaphor. So no.

You don't think it's a metaphor. So So God literally gave birth to Israel. He's called their father. He he calls him their firstborn son.

No, I think I think that he's called a father because he eternally begets the son.

Well, he's called What about David? King David. He says, "Today I have begotten you. You have you will become my son. He's the Messiah. He's called the son.

Yeah.

Does he lit So does he literally give birth to.

It's because of the creation.

It's not because it's not going to be a metaphor for the fact that he's a.

Metaphorical father. He's a He's a father to the He's a father to David and to everyone else because he's eternally the father. Period.

When the king is anointed and ordained, he becomes the father of the Messiah of King David.

No, he doesn't become that, bro. That's a change.

That's not a big change. It's a metaphor.

If you go from not being something to being something, is that a change? Or how about this? How about you can define change for me? Psalm 2:7, God says to David, I will proclaim I will proclaim the decree spoken to me by Yahweh. You are my son today. I have become your father. This is about begotten you.

This.

What's that?

Yes. Today I've begotten you. Yeah.

Yes. This is King David speaking here. I.

I agree. So, what do you think change means?

I'm You're You're switching the goalpost now. I mean, you're kind of changing.

Because I said it's a change.

No, I How is that a So, you're saying the father changes?

No, that's why I'm asking you what you think a change is. A change is going from one state to another.

Okay. Did he go from the state of not being a father to being a father?

What instance are you talking about? Are you assuming the trinity or are we talking about some.

In any instance in the Bible from the state of not being a father to being a father.

In some way? Yeah, for sure.

Okay. So, you agree God changes according to your definition?

No. How we relate to God and how he relates to us changes.

That was your definition of change. Going from one state to another. I just ask you, did he go from the state of not being a father to being a father?

No. That that is nothing changes intrinsically within God when he when we have a different relational position with him.

Oh, so things just change extrinsically to him.

Things change outside of God. Yeah.

But what extrinsic properties does God have? God doesn't I I didn't say God has any extrinsic properties.

So then any change has to be intrinsic.

Creation is outside of God.

So then any change has to be intrinsic then according to you. So him going from not being a father to being a father has to be intrinsic. Therefore, it has to be intrinsic. You're you're begging the question by saying that some sort of internal change has happened. I'm I'm not granting you that.

Okay. So, if it's not an internal change and he doesn't have extrinsic changes, what kind of change is it from him going from not being a father to being a father?

It's our change in our relation to him.

But wait, that our change doesn't make him a father. Him being a father is a change within himself.

It's not a change. It's God acting within his nature that is intrinsic to himself. So God can act according to the properties that are intrinsic within himself. So maybe that's where we got our.

Does he go from not acting to acting?

Yes.

Even according to your trinity. Even according to your trinity, you're saying that that that the son was begotten.

No. Do you do you believe though that you say that his actions he doesn't act and then he acts? Do you think his actions are intrinsic to him? Are his actions intrinsic? Yes, they're intrinsic.

So that's a change intrinsically.

It's not a change. You're you're you're uh begging the question. You're you're asserting that it's a change, but it's not being demonstrated. How? It's not a change. It's not a change. So for instance, nothing changes in with me if I act in according to my nature. Nothing act changes.

What changes is you going from not acting to acting. That's not a change.

If you go from not throwing a football to throwing a football, did you change?

No.

Then what kind of change is it? If it's an intrinsic.

There's no change. You're be You're begging the question.

So there's no So going from not throwing a football to throwing a football, there's no change that occurred.

I didn't say that. You're talking about.

There's no change.

There's no change in intrinsic inherent nature.

Okay. That's not what I'm asking. Changes about my nature. If I throw a football.

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking person to change that qualities.

What qualities do I lose if I throw a football?

No, here's what you're not getting though. You're saying the only change in God is intrinsic. Therefore, if the only change of God is intrinsic and he does goes from doing something to not doing something, then the only the way that there can be a change, you would have to say it's intrinsic because that's the only change you said there is in God.

You're begging the question that if God acts in accordance to his nature, he's changing and he's not. You don't have to change in order to act according to your nature.

That's okay. You can say it's not an intrinsic change. That's fine. But going from not doing something to doing something is a change definitionally. So I'm asking what kind of change is it if it's not intrinsic?

God changes. What is extrinsic to him?

But an action actions are intrinsic though.

No, I didn't.

Okay. What are actions then? Are they not intrinsic? What are they? I'm saying God can act according to what's intrinsic to his nature and and change what is extrinsic to his nature.

Okay. But you said actions aren't intrinsic though. What are they then?

I don't know. You tell me.

Intrinsic is what they are.

But you're just begging the question. I hear you asserting that. But can you can you.

Yes. Because actions come from the power to do something which comes from your nature. Therefore, it's intrinsic.

Yeah, I disagree. But according to the the trinity being logical and you would agree. So if the trinity is logical, you say it also not just has to be logical like we can't just have a logical proposition. Of course it should go without saying that it also has to line up with what we read in scripture.

Yeah. But I'm not solo scriptor either though. No.

Okay. So, how what role does scripture? So, scripture is not your final authority on the nature of God. So, pro let me let me phrase it like this. Executing scripture with sound hermeneutical methodology is not your final authority for your opinions concerning the nature of God. Yes.

I think No, I think the only way to properly execute scripture is by the church. So the church has more authority to um define reality than the Bible.

No, no. They have the authority to define and properly execute the Bible is what I'm saying. Because we don't have a Bible without the church.

That doesn't.

For example, for example, h how do you know how do you know what books are supposed to be canon and which aren't?

That doesn't follow because how do you know which books are supposed to be canon and which aren't? Well, one, we can reason with our own minds. So, I don't need the church to tell me if I had all those books in front of me, I could tell which ones are internally consistent to the to the whole message and which ones do not. Like, the reason that they were chosen or not chosen is because they contradict the core message.

Fantastic. So, how many books do you have in your Bible?

Um, 66.

Okay. So, tell me why the wisdom of Solomon shouldn't be included.

Okay. So, give me a logical proposition, please. How about this? Give me a logical proposition of why people composing 66 books equals them having the ability to the only ones with the final authority on interpreting those books. Give me a logical proposition.

Yes. Because the ones who actually have the authority to decide what are the infallible books would have the authority to decide what is the infallible explanation of those. Which is why I asked you since you have the logical proposition that that is the logical proposition.

Go ahead. Can you state the with premises and conclusion, please?

Oh, dear God. Okay. Do you even I don't think you understand what sism is. Do you know what an inference rule is?

What's that? I can't hear you.

Do you even know what an inference rule is?

An inference rule?

Yes.

No. I know you're doing a lot of inferences though.

Okay, bro. So, we're gas facilities and we don't Okay. Okay. Premise one. The church has authority.

So, uh, an inference.

Is a valid pattern of reasoning that lets you move from premises to conclusions.

No, it's a inference rule. Okay.

Scripture press two. Uh.

Inference rule is a valid logical pattern that connects premises to a conclusion. Yes, that's what it. Good job.

Okay. So, so I'm asking you to give me a valid logical proposition.

I'll give you I'll write it down.

All right. Cool.

Is found besides scripture church is has ability to sign scripture. Okay. So, premise one, the church has the authority to infallibly decide scripture. Do you agree or disagree with that first premise?

The church has the what?

Authority to infallibly decide the scripture.

What do you mean decide the scripture?

Uh, they're they're able to decide what is supposed to be scripture and what is not supposed to be scripture.

Sure.

Okay, great. Let's go to premise two.

Oh, hold on. Hold on. The church has the authority to do that?

Yes.

No.

Okay. So, who has the authority to infallibly decide what scripture is?

If we disagree.

There's there's no there's no that's not an authority that's given to anyone particular.

Entity. So, is it possible that you have the wrong canon of scripture?

Well, so I mean, so is it possible? So, you're talking about as as of right now it is possible, but is it probable? No. So.

So, so it's possible.

Like for instance, I could throw I could I think the better question is, are the 66 books in your Bible the correct books the the authoritative books out of all the books that are in existence?

Yeah, that's I I believe that 66 books I agree. I think there's more than that, but I agree. But I'm asking you, is it possible though that the 66 books you have are wrong and shouldn't be canon? It's possible but it's not true.

Okay. A truth is pertaining to reality. So that's an oxymoron to say it's possible but not true.

Is it if it's possible then it might not be true. So is it possible?

Yeah. As they exist right now it's just th those books are authoritative.

But they but they possibly aren't from God. Well, so again, if you I mean, so there are parts we know that there is orthodox corruption of scripture. We know that for a fact.

Okay. So I'm asking, is it possible that the other books in your Bible There's books in your Bible that aren't truly from God?

It's possible.

Okay. So you're getting your teachings about Jesus being not God from.

A book that you don't even know for sure is from God. No, I I I can conclude beyond with with uh reason that they are the infallible word of God.

But but they might not be though. You said it's possible. That's what I'm saying. So my whole point is that you're trying to talk about objective truth, but you're getting your objective truth from something subjective.

I didn't say it's subjective. I believe it is subjective. You would just agree that it is subjective. I conclude I don't depend on the church to tell me it's objective. I conclude with my own reason. But you are appealing to authority when you can't explain the scripture. So if you get in a pickle about interpretation, you say, "Well, I'm going to go with the church fathers instead of appealing to your own reasons." So how do you know it's true?

Yeah. So why do you believe?

So objective means that something is in accordance with reality and it is 100% true, right?

Yes.

Okay. And you said you're getting it from objectivity.

But you just said the Bible is not You don't know 100% if it's true because some books might not be from God. So then it's not objective. So you're getting your your objective view from something that's not objective.

Because something is possible doesn't mean that's how it is in reality. So I told you how reality

I'm saying I concluded with my reason that the Bible is objective and an infallible word of God.

Okay. But you don't know that objectively.

I do know that objectively.

If you know it objectively, then it's then it's for a fact. Well, but I know I know objectively, but I'm talking about it's possible.

It's what does it mean to know that something is objectively true? What does that mean?

I don't know what you're asking for.

Like what you say, I know it objectively. What does that mean to you? It means that that my reasoning that I have a a sound reasoning uh to to conclude that the Bible is uh internally consistent in its in its core doctrines.

Okay. So, okay. It's being internally consistent based on your reasoning. Could your reasoning be wrong on that?

It could be. Yeah.

Okay. So, then it's not objective because objective means in accordance with reality.

No. be right

but in reality they might not be from God according to you.

My conclusions in my opinion are objective. So this is again I would never say I think it's irresponsible to say that I know 100% for sure about these things. What I conclude is that we have good reason to believe that it's true.

Okay. Having good reason to believe it's true doesn't make something objective, though. That's the point.

It does. It does.

Having good reason to believe something's true is object. That's literally the definition of subjective is having good, oh, I believe this thing to be true because of X, Y, and Z. That's literally what subjective means.

No, it's not. It's No, it's not because it's based on objective reasoning. So it's based on objective laws of logic which you can't do because you have to refer to the the church which is not logical.

The church does not operate on logical propositions.

The church operates on uh authority and the dependence of blind sheep.

Okay. What do you think subjective means then?

Subjective means not based on facts. It's based on just opinion without reason.

It doesn't mean without reason with opinion. Subjectivity doesn't necessarily means there's not reason there at all. I don't know where you got that from. And by the way, you said the church goes against the laws of logic.

Yeah.

Which law of logic do they break?

We haven't even got into that.

Okay, sure. Tell me which law of logic do they break?

So when when it defines the trinity, you guys defy the law of logic when it comes to trinity. You defy the law of logics by saying things like, well, they compiled the books, therefore they have the right to interpret them. That's not

logic. Which law of logic does it break?

When you comes to the trinity, which is what we're talking about here, there's not a single logical proposition which can be put forth about the trinity which coheres with scripture.

Okay, brother, which law of logic does it break?

All the three fundamental laws of logic when it comes to the trinity. all of the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction because you because you already

How does it break the law of non-issoluded middle for instance?

Okay. Because because

matter of fact, what do you think the law of a saluted middle is? So I can make sure you know what it is.

Um so I would just define it as essentially it can't it can't be in the middle. It has to be one way or the other.

Can't be in the middle.

Yeah.

What does that even mean? It can't be in the middle.

An excluded middle. So it has to be it can't be um it can't be both true and not true at the same time.

That's the law of non-contradiction. Something can be true and not true. So what's the difference between law of non-contradiction law of excluded middle?

I'll explain it to you. The law of excluded middle is that if something is truth, its negation must be false.

No, it's either true or false.

Yeah. If something is true, its negation must be false.

It's it's either true or false. That's break the law of excluded middle.

So it so it as a whole doesn't so it would violate the law of non country. It would violate the law of excluded middle.

Okay. How does it violate the law of excluded middle? Please.

The trinity does.

Yeah. Show

because because you will say something both is and isn't God at the same time because it's inferred in what you're saying.

So when you try to give definition wait I say something is and isn't God? Who am I saying it isn't? Of course, you're not going to say it, but when you define your terms, it's what's inferred in what you're saying. That that's what I'm saying. So, when you put forth your uh model or formulation for the trinity, you cannot do so without violating the three laws of logic.

I know that's begging the question though. How

how does it violate the law of excluded middle?

I've already showed you I've already showed you according to the law of identity. I've already

law of excluded middle. I'm just curious about that. Well, put forth your law and we'll see if it if it doesn't if it doesn't violate it.

The law of excluded middle. I believe three persons are one God. How does that violate the law of excluded middle?

I told you that when you because you because when you say something is God, right? But you say it's God in one instance, but then you'll say it's not God in another instance.

In which instance do I say it's not God?

Because you're equivocating on the word God. um by uh because you're because you're switching between identity and predication, but you say it's under this special class of of you know because of what type it belongs to. Um, but you but but again according to the law of identity, you're violating the law of identity.

I'm asking when do I ever say it's not God?

It's inferred. It's implied in what you're saying.

In which point is it inferred? Because what's implied in what you're saying is that they are both are God and are not God.

How how how do I imply that they're not God?

Because like we said according to the law of identity if you look at a verse like John 3:16 you say in the beginning or you say sorry wrong verse for the father so loved the world he gave his only begotten son. It says for God so loved so God there is a personal identifier for the father but in scriptures which is our standard of authority but not you. It's it's interpretation of the scripture even though that doesn't make sense. So the the to you the church fathers don't have to be logical but you need to accept them anyways which is irrational.

I know when I said that but

what's that?

I never said that but okay.

You never said what?

That the church fathers can be illogical.

You said the church fathers are infallible. Right.

I never said the church fathers are infallible. Bro, what?

So why would So why would you follow their interpretation and not your own reasoning? Because I believe

Are you allowed to use your own reasoning?

Yes, you can use your own reasoning, dude.

Okay. So, what if you conclude that the church father's interpretations are wrong?

That you came to a bunk interpretation.

You should rethink your interpretation.

Why? Why is that?

Because we believe the consensus of the fathers is infallible. The consensus, the church fathers themselves are not infallible, but the consensus and the consensus of the fathers of the trinity is true. That that doesn't fall. That's not logical.

Oh, which law of logic does that break?

What's that?

Which law of logic does that break?

Well, well, I didn't talk about the law of logic, but you just

illogical. What does it mean?

If you're appealing to authority, that's a logical fallacy. Appealing to authority.

That's not a Dude, you can you can talk about authority. It's not a

Do you think if you appeal to the Bible, that's an appeal to authority fallacy?

What's that?

Is is a Bible your authority? Wait, wait. Let's see. That is funny. So, is the Bible your authority?

The correct interpretation of the Bible is authority.

Is the Bible your authority is my question.

Truth is authority.

Is the Bible your authority?

Truth is in authority.

Okay. Is the I'm asking if the Bible is your final authority?

Yes.

Okay. Do you ever appeal to the Bible?

Yes.

So, you appeal to authority fallacy.

Okay. So, you're you're putting the church fathers on the same category as the Bible. Nobody put the church fathers in the same category as the Bible. Dude,

you don't even have the Bible without the church fathers.

How do we get the Bible?

How do you know that?

How do we get the Bible? Who compiled the Bible together?

What does Again, that's facious reasoning. Your reasoning there is the church fathers authorized which books should go in the Bible. Therefore, they have the authority to interpret the Bible even if even if they violate logic. And you said they could be wrong.

It was just a question.

Now you're now you're appealing. Go ahead.

It was just a question. Who put the Bible together?

U the some church councils.

Okay. The councils of the church put the Bible together. Why do you not take the for instance the wisdom of Solomon? Why is that book not scripture?

Uh because there are parts which contradict the Thor the core um theological revelation of the New Testament.

Okay. Show me

the wisdom of Solomon.

Yep.

Okay. I mean, jeez, man. We're going out into left field here, but I can try. Let me see.

Sure. I'll let you find. I'll read some chats while you find it. Uh, Amy want to turn on super chat. This is how I view the Trinity equals coaching staff. The father equals head. Oh no, I can already tell it's gonna be bad. Amen. Uh, the son equals offensive coach, spirit, defense, coach, all distinct trinity. Is that fair to say? No. No. No. No. Please don't say that, Aman. Please, brother. Please don't brother. I encourage you not to uh text the file super chat. Here's my Jizia. You have any book recommendations on relative or absolute identity? God bless you in the chat. Not off the top of my head. Do I have any? Oh, wait. No. Ah, what's his name? Um, frick. Hold on. I do have a guy for you. I don't know why. Okay. It's literally the guy who formed. All right, let's see. Uh, it was Oh, Peter Gech. Yeah, look up a guy named Peter Geachch if you want to learn about that. All right. Now, we'll just wait for him to find it. Guys, if you're in here, make sure you guys leave a like, subscribe to the channel if you thought you found it.

So, so I don't know that I I honestly I don't know that I can find anywhere. So, I was thinking about Sarak.

I know. I'm asking about Wisdom asylum specifically though cuz you don't believe it's

I mean it may be. I guess I've never considered it.

So, the Wisdom Asylum might be scripture.

Yeah. Why not? Why would you say it's not?

I believe it is. That's my point. You don't believe it is.

Say you should conform to the truth and have my cannon.

Well, No. So I I was talking about actually I was talking about Sarak. So do you believe Sarak is scripture?

Yep.

Okay. So I'll prove to you Sarak is not scripture.

Okay. Sure.

Because um let me see. Okay. So for instance, so one of the biggest points in contention and actually one of the purposes of John writing the gospel of John is because in Sarak they believe that the that wisdom was equal to the law of Moses. So you wouldn't agree with that, would you?

That wisdom is equal to the law of Moses.

Yes,

brother. I think wisdom is above the law of Moses.

Okay. So thank you. So in the book of Sarak they equate wisdom with the law of Moses which was created which God created the universe refer to

um let me see. So it's SA 24 um and 23. All right. All this is the book of the covenant of the most high God, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob. Is that the verse?

Yeah. Look um actually for some reason in this interpretation it starts at 23 and skips 24. I don't know why. Look at look at 23 and then read the whole and then see the whole context is about wisdom. So verse one says, "Listen to wisdom. She proudly sings her praises in the assembly of the most high and goes on and talks about wisdom just like Proverbs. And then in verse 23, wisdom is the law. The law which Moses doesn't say wisdom is the law. Where does it say that?

It doesn't say wisdom is the law. Where do you see that at? What translation you're reading from?

Let me see.

I need to see this. Please show me which translation you're reading from. What translation do you prefer? Which translation are you reading from that says wisdom is a law? That's what I want to see.

Okay. It says, "All of this is the book of the covenant of the most high, the law that Moses commanded us as inheritance."

I'm asking which which translation were you reading from where it says

I just picked the first one I could find. I'm not sure, but I have different one though. Can you show me which one that was?

Um,

yeah, I need to see that one.

Honestly, I can't find it anymore. But hey,

all you got to do is go to your history. It be right there. Okay. So, that is it's on Bible Hub. There's like five different ones. That is the Good News Translation. Obviously, that would be a poor translation, but

I can use

what was the translation?

I can use

that one particular one is called Good News Translation, but like I told you, I can read it from I can read from What version do you prefer? It says the same thing.

Well, I know. I just want to see this version. Uh Good News Translation. If you type Sarak 2423 Bible Hub, it'll show you five different translations of the same thing.

Yeah. I I don't know the good news. I don't even know what you're referring to, bro. I'm reading RSV. I don't know what you're referring to.

You RSV?

Yes.

So, what about NRSV? Is that different?

Sure, you can read NRSV. Fine. I don't see no

All of this. So, he's talking about wisdom in the passage. And it says all of this, which is wisdom, is the book of the covenant of the most high. the law that Moses commanded us. It's equating the wisdom with the law of Moses. This is directly what John is writing

right?

What?

You're an NRSV, right?

That's what it says.

Okay. Read it again.

All of this is the book of the covenant of the most high God. The law that Moses commanded us.

Where did you get wisdom from?

Context. Read the whole chapter. Where does it say what you said that wisdom is the law though?

I just told you, bro. I just told

you just what you just read it, but then you switched it the second time we read it.

I said if you look at verse one, what is verse one? The whole context leading up to verse 23 is all about wisdom.

Yeah.

Whoever obeys me will not be

You got it, brother. Take care, man. Take care, dude. Take care, brother. I I'm done here, bro. This is crazy. These people lie. Chat GPT, man. These people just lie, bro. That's that's all that's all we can do, man. You know, only so much only so much lying I can handle, you know. There's only so much I can handle, bro. That is crazy, dude. Unk has never read Sira. So, this is what we got so far, guys. This guy's Bible might be false. He might not even be reading the word of God. Okay, wisdom of Solomon might be scripture. He's never read it. S Rock says something it doesn't say brother. Oh my Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Wing would have found out super chat. This guy has his head so far up his blank. It's amazing he can breathe and talk. God bless your faces, brother. I appreciate that. Wing, thank you very much, man. De super chat. His subjective opinions are objective. Checkmate. Real. Real. Brady would have followed on super chat. Begs the question, but I didn't ask a question. this guy probably. It's so funny. I was almost going to ask him what he thought begging the question was the Amelia with the $100 or $100 uh super chat. I appreciate that big time. The biggest clip farm ever. Low key. Hey, man, it kind of was. I'm not going to lie. It kind of was. I'm not going to lie. It kind of was. I'm not going to lie. That guy looks familiar for some reason, bro.

Hello.

Yo, what's up?

What's going on?

Uh, I don't know if you can recall what happened, but um he talked to somebody in

Sorry, one sec. Oh, he debated god logic. Oh, interesting. Well, yeah. Yeah, but he got deep fried. All right. Sorry, brother. Go ahead.

That's fine. So, you talked to somebody about um the Mormon guy. Now, you talked about the prophecy and stuff, right?

Yeah.

You since you are Eastern Orthodox, you are aware of um St. Picius, right?

Yes.

Right. So, um you said he asked you a question if I can remember. Sorry. He asked the question like uh can people prophesy with um without God's permission?

Yeah.

And you said no.

Correct.

Um but St. Picios made um several prophecies. I'm pretty sure

St. Picios literally was said to see the divine light.

Uh that's uh he definitely would have had permission. St. Picios definitely would have had permission. But you he was asking in a general sense like everybody does everybody have permission does you know

I don't think everyone just has permission to prophesy

right so what's what separates him I mean you know what would separate him from a prophet

St. Pios

uh yes I mean St. Pyios um was going to be someone who has achieved this uh by his status, by his life, what he did. Uh prophets are people who are specifically ordained and picked by God to reveal things in the scripture specifically. So in the Bible,

okay, yeah. I just I just wanted, you know, clarification for that. So people like saints can um you know, prophesy and stuff like that, right?

Yes. do do stuff that profits, you know, miracles and Yes. etc., etc.

Yes.

Okay. Okay. That that's all. Just clarification. All right, man. Take care, man.

God bless.

All right. All right. All right. Um, who we got? Who we got? Who we got? Everyone needs to be green. It's a crime not to be. This is true. This is very true. We need a We need an end of live membership dump. Everyone send out memberships. Hello Hi.

Hey. What's going on?

Yeah,

I'm good. I'm good. Um, I was going to say, yeah, I'm new to Orthodox City. Um, so yeah, Eastern Orthodox also the guy on YouTube. Yeah, he looked familiar. I think he debated God logic.

Yeah, that's what people were saying. Yeah.

Yeah. But he Yeah, he embarrassed himself. That was embarrassing. Like literally.

Yeah, it was.

That was so bad.

Yeah,

that that was terrible. Amen.

Like literally.

Amen. Brother, do you have anything you wanted to uh disagree with? Anything like that or you just coming up to?

No, no, no. I don't disagree with anything. Actually, I totally agree with you.

Amen. Well, I appreciate you popping up, brother.

Uh I've got I had a a thing I wanted to talk about. I was reading about Justin Ma in his style of a trifle.

Mhm. And he quoted a there's a there's something he quoted which which um I think it's in a passage in Jeremiah that he said where he said um the Lord God himself remembered his people I mean his unalived people of Israel who lay in the graves and he descended to preach to them his own salvation.

Uhhuh. He's probably talking about the hering of Hades. Sounds like.

Yeah. But so apparently this is a passage in the Bible that the Jews removed from the Bible.

Obviously he was talking to Trifo.

Yeah. I don't know if I don't know if it's true they actually removed it or not. Or it could have just been oral tradition.

Okay. Because to me that that's clear proof that you know it's clear proof of Jesus being God there. But anyway, it's uh it's interesting. I mean

Yeah, man. It's interesting. Definitely look into it. It's very interesting for sure. But I appreciate you coming up and uh bringing that up, dude.

Yeah. Thank you. I mean, if I

Oh, sorry, bro. I clicked disconnect after you said thank you, so I thought you was done. My bad, bro. God bless you, man. All right. All right. All right. Oh, he debated Bryce, too. That's funny. Uh, Auda, I don't know how to say your name. Hello, Auda. Hello. Okay. Don't know where he's at. Uh, let's see. Uh, Tony, hello. Tony the Jew. Tony the Jew. Hello. I know where he's at. KT. Hello.

Yeah. Hello.

Hey, what's going on?

How you doing?

What's up, man? What's going on?

Uh I had a question about um uh Old Testament God's morality. Uh so essentially just difference between objective and um uh objective morality. So, a lot of times when it comes to uh certain things that God commands in the Old Testament, um I'll watch maybe a video from maybe IP and a lot of times we chalk up certain actions based on the time period in the culture. If you're uh if you're connecting different actions to a culture, how is that not the definition of subjective morality?

What do you mean connecting different?

I don't know what you mean by that. For example, when we the the context of the the ancient near east, for example, how um a great example is slavery, like you wouldn't necessarily call people say indentured servitude because based on that time period, you would sell yourself to pay off a debt, but not necessarily for a uh a foreigner. It's not the same thing. But in that in that context it was essentially right. But when we look back at it we wouldn't say a thing or at least I wouldn't say

I don't think indentured servitude is objectively wrong in any case if you're talking about someone that's willingly doing it.

So in the case of for example in uh Leviticus 25 the section that

446

yeah that talks about the foreigner. How is that not slavery? Uh because they're supposed to be released after a certain amount of time. That would literally be talking about some sort of debt they're paying off after the year. If you after you look, it's after the year of Jubilee

for a foreigner.

Yes.

No. Nobody's said to be No, there's nobody in the Old Testament people are said to be slaves for life unless they want to be slaves for life, which is actually recorded in the Bible that someone did want to be a slave for life at some point. So when they're passing off the slaves to their generations, how is that not slavery for life?

Uh because those people are still going to be it's it's only passing it on if they haven't finished out their debt.

So in the in the case of um a foreigner, they're the verse that talks about um you don't kidnap people. So, you can't just kidnap somebody and take them as a slave, but you're allowed to buy slaves. So, if you have a foreigner from uh some distant country, well, what what uh debt does he owe you in Israel to where he's intentionally selling himself off?

Well, because foreigners also came in the country as well. Foreigners that lived in other countries still came in those countries and could borrow from them as well. And so again, this this would go against because we see in Exodus says you cannot kidnap someone. They kidnap someone that's death.

Obviously, if it was against their will, it would be kidnapping. So we know it's not that type of slavery because that would literally be kidnapping against their will, just put to death for that. So clearly it was voluntary.

And also another thing would be that uh it could be that they also didn't have any money. So they would become their indentured um indentured slave for a certain period of time to work for them and make money. So in a a case where we have a foreigner, let's say they're not necessarily coming into Israel, but it's in a state of conquest like Deuteronomy 20 where it says if someone does surrender, you do take them um as forced labor. How is that not something completely different?

Well, yeah, that's something completely different because that's referring to the fact of like like putting some almost like putting someone in jail, right? They're literally coming to you and trying to come in your country and do these things to you. Um, that's obviously referring to uh like like jail pretty much, but obviously they didn't have jail in the same way we have jail today. So, that's not wrong. There's no issue with that. If they're trying to attack you, yeah, you can take them.

Well, you you wouldn't say it's wrong.

No, somebody's trying to attack you. No,

for jail

for for the case of uh Deuteronomy 20, it's it's talking about a case where you're offering surrender. It's not it's the Israelites attacking um I guess a city.

Yeah. You're offering them to surrender, saying, "Okay, I'm done. not surrender. But if they surrender, they're going to have to work for you. That's the that's the agreement of the surrender. So if they agree to the surrender, that's what occurs. But they have to actually agree to that in the first place.

Agree to surrender and then

and then that one of the agreements of that surrender would be to go and to, you know, to work for them or be their slave, etc.

But you wouldn't say that's okay today. Um, I wouldn't have an issue with it if if it was agreed upon by both parties that, hey, I want to I'm gonna I'm fighting you. You won. I'll be your servant. That probably be better than going to jail for a lot of people.

Okay, fair enough. So, in the Are You about to say something?

No, go ahead. I didn't know if you had something else, but

Yeah. So, um, I had to talk with one of my friends when it came down to, especially for a case where it wasn't about slavery or taking captives. Uh, for example, in that um, again, Deuteronomy 20 for the distant lands, that was where that clause came in. But for anybody within the the promised land, they were supposed to slaughter everything. So I know a lot of the cases people bring up these people were were evil sacrificing their children, but I don't see the justification for the children themselves because if the whole idea is to purge all evil, what what kind of evil does a infant bring if they're not even influenced by Baal?

I think that's hyperbolic language when these when they're saying go out and slaughter this, that, and the third. I think they're using hyperbolic language there. I don't think they're actually because we see later on these people still exist. So I don't think they're literally slaughtering the children as well.

Yeah. But if people are still existing, for example, if somebody uh shoots up, hold on. Well, what words should I not be saying?

Uh I know what you mean by shoot up, so it's okay.

Okay. a school and you know maybe their goal was

I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry my bad um but their goal is you know x amount of people but you know they only it's only 20 people but you wouldn't downplay that case based on you know only less than a percent of the school still existing I think

but yeah I'm saying I don't think they even un alive the children That's what I'm saying. I don't think I don't think they did.

So, in the in the case of some, it's

I don't think they did do so. I don't think there's any evidence that

of children actually dying.

No, not from not on purpose from them and doing it. So when you take um okay say you you don't I think they did you you don't but in the case where God is saying the words themselves doesn't the intent matter more than what actually happens like if you said kill these children but okay

not if they know that God is speaking hyperbolic then no

yeah but in cases where you have actual numbers of people dying Why why does hyperbole even play up?

Because you have to prove the numbers include the infants.

I just if if you're attacking a city, I don't know how you couldn't kill babies in the process if it's attacking the city.

I'm saying it's possible some accidentally die, but I'm saying that was never the intent. Okay. All right.

Cool, man. All right. Well, I appreciate you hopping up, man.

Of course. Have a good one.

All right. You, too. All right. Eric with the 20 fearless troop get the memberships. I appreciate you, man. God bless you very much, Eric. God bless you, man. That that is big time. If you guys are on TikTok, by the way, I'm going finish out the live on YouTube. Feel free to come by, man. Link in bio. and I'll see y'all there. Um, also, uh, Lupe, I don't know if you're still here, bro, but you asked me a question earlier in chat. I remembered, but you weren't. You left or you didn't I don't you didn't leave. I didn't couldn't answer that time. But yeah, I appreciate you, Eric. That was big time. Like someone said, is Jew that quotes take Jew to scripture take the church fathers or else for can it? Yeah. Um, yeah. Listen, man. That to say you don't even know now if the B like you dang near are saying you agnostic at that point. To say you don't even know anymore if the Bible is what you have is truly the word of God. What you have might not be the word of God. Guess what? Now you're like, now you're turning agnostic. Now you're turning agnostic. You know what I mean? Um, it's just it's crazy, man. It really is. Guys, make sure y'all join my Patreon. I'm going sit here and chat with y'all for a minute. Make sure y'all join my Patreon, though, man. My goal is to have one new person join my Patreon for every live. That's my goal. Kristoff already did to be fair, but that's my goal. Have one new Patreon member per live. I can tell this guy's a Greek. I go to a Greek church. I'm not a Greek, though. I'm Italian. North I North I. Okay, let me let me get out of this. Matter of fact, I'mma put my Patreon link in there. I'mma put my Patreon link in the chat. Holy, did you change your name, man? What's up, Holy? All right, here we go. I'm put it in the chat. Join the Patreon. Let's go. Jordan Marble joined the Patreon. Appreciate you, Jordan. God bless you, man. God bless you, Jordan. Well, we got him. We got We got our one. I appreciate that. Anyone else who wants to join, that'll be extra love. God bless y'all. How to know my Orthodox Church in communion with the others? Um, well, on our website, if you go to our website, orthodoxworldwide.com, the link is in my the bio of my YouTube channel. Why is my keyboard sound creamy? Because it is. It is. Uh, go to my if you go to my website, Orthodox.com, and you type in there's a page where you can type in your zip code. Look for your church there. If it's there, it's good. If it's not there, submit it. We'll look over it. And if it's not added, it's not good. If it's added, it's good. How would you refute the Indexes argument, bro? I have a whole like I have a whole like 10-minute video on refuting the index. Like, specifically, it's called rebuttal to the indexical argument on my Patreon. I go to a Protestant church, but Orthodox churches I definitely will go to in the future. You should, man, I recommend everyone go to Orthodox church. Listen, I got a love a lot of love for Protestant churches. A lot of love. But I think it's always good to branch out and visit, man. Best friend converted to the mindless Islam. Ah, that sucks. I had a question for Rebuta. I wanted to ask you. What is it, man? Aren't you on Patreon? Anything you can ask there? I'm pretty sure. Yeah, super got to go on there and watch that, man. We got an in-depth rebuttal to that, dude. And we even have rebuttals to counter arguments they might give. So, it's good stuff. Um, yeah. Martin with the five. Feel the memberships. W Martin, man. Always coming in showing love. Appreciate you, God bless you, Martin. God bless you, brother. Always coming in showing love, man. Always showing love, man. I said, "I like your new name, Holy." Yeah, man. Holy, what caused you to change your name, dude? God bless you, too, Martin. You're a blessing in the ministry, man. Whoa, weak. Tell me what I lied about. I'm assuming that's the Unitarian I debated with earlier. I don't know. Let me look it up. It probably is. I don't know. I can't tell. Yeah, that's you. Oh, you lied about the translation. You lied about what you said. You said it said the wisdom. It didn't say that. Said wisdom is the law. I was going to say that I forgot all my passwords locked out of my email. Oh my god, that's crazy. Ruthless, what's a good book to study? Metaphysics. Uh, I got you next year on memberships. I forgot to pause my check today. No worries, brother. Uh, metaphysics. Rutled commentary is a good one to start with. Good one to start with for sure. Good one to start with. Thomas Jefferson Library is holy, I believe. So, yeah. said earlier, a prayer does not include the words evil one. My prayer book does say is that an issue? No, I'm saying what we say in the liturgy in church is not evil one. There might be some prayers that say evil one. That's fine. It might even say in the Orthodox Study Bible. I'm saying just that that's what in church that's what we that's what we say. What's the difference with the YouTube and the Patreon? Uh the Patreon has exclusive content that the YouTube doesn't have. It has exclusive teachings the YouTube doesn't have. And on the Patreon, you can personally DM me a little bit easier and I can help answer qu depending on what tier you're on. You can do that. Also, W Darren joining the Patreon. Appreciate you, Darren. God bless you. Thanks for joining the Patreon. Holy only appear change for real. Listen, the reason I push my Patreon so much, guys, is I want to get my Patreon up to a high enough tier to where like like it supports the ministry enough to the point where like I don't even have to like run ads on my YouTube channel, right? Like stuff like that. Uh YouTube membership is gives you the ability to like have cool emojis and stuff like that. The Patreon gives you ability to have like private teachings for me. I have the one and got to meet Nick. Life changing experience for real. He gets it, man. Hey Nick, in a debate atheist, you're going to make an argument why logic leads to the trinity. Uh I don't remember exactly who that was. I would say though the reason why is just based on divine revelation. Thanks Nick. Found a Paris 9 miles away. W used the thing. Good. I'm glad to hear that, bro. I'm glad to hear that. Where are the Muslims already, brother? We We went to two and a half hours of Muslims today, man. Almost 3 hours. Oh, Colton. And also, uh me and uh Drew about to get on if you want to play. Uh the Unitarian needs to buy your Patreon. W Eric Brooks, man. Eric came in here, sent in memberships, and now he just became a member of the Patreon. W Eric, bro. Eric just became We had like four people become the Patreon stream. God bless you all for sure. Oh my god. Zo just became a member of the Patreon, too. Wo. Wo, man. Wo. How did that combo go to the Unitarian, bro? Ascendants. He ended up saying he didn't know if his Bible was really true. He ended up saying that um the wisdom of Solomon could have been scripture. Bro, this man said, I asked him, I said, I said, "Why is the wisdom of Solomon not scripture?" He said, "Because it contradicts." I said, "Okay, show me." He said, "Oh, well, actually, I haven't really read." Oh my god. I was like, "Bro, if I came earlier, I would have just joined the link to have asked the rebuttal." You talking about the link in the chat, brother. You know, I go live three times a week. Ruthless. You're always welcome. The conversation was pure brain shock. Brain shock. Brain rot. All the above. All the above. Listen guys, by the way, if you haven't read Wisdom of Solomon, go read it. Go read it. It literally shows I listen. I want y'all to read it. This is my challenge, guys. My challenge. Listen, as a community, we learn together. Okay? I want you guys to do this. I want you guys to read Wisdom of Solomon chapter 7 through chapter 10 before my next stream. So, in the next two days. And notice and I want you to have the preconceived I know I'm asking preconceived notion that wisdom is Christ. I can prove that. Don't worry. But I want you guys to read Wisdom of Solomon chapter 7 through chapter 10 and know that every time it says wisdom, it's speaking about Christ. Read chapter 7 through chapter 10. Come back and I promise you I I want to hear what you guys have to say because you guys will see how easily it shows Jesus is God. Easily. It literally calls wisdom, who is Christ, omnipresent, omnisient, omnipotent, crazy stuff. I'm telling you guys, wisdom of Solomon, the book with no wisdom of Solomon isn't the allgether lovely argument. That's the Songs of Solomon. Don't confuse the two. The Yeah, I'm giving y'all homework. Listen, the fearless truth community will be the smartest Christian community. The wisdom of Solomon, do not confuse it with the songs of Solomon. It's different. I want you guys to read the wisdom of Solomon. All right, read that and then we're going to talk about it at the end of my next stream on Thursday together. Yes, y'all have homework, man. Fearless Truth Community will be the smartest community. Will be the best community. Telling y'all, it's all right. If y'all in the Midwest, y'all got a lot of snow anyways. Y'all ain't got that much to do. Yes, chapter 7 through chapter 10. You can go online on Bible Gateway. It's the RSV version. Again, it's the RSV version. This wisdom of Solomon chapter 7 through chapter 10. If you guys forget and you guys do it, you guys come back to the live and look what kind of Christian are Eastern Orthodox. But yes, wisdom is wisdom is Christ, guys. The the wisdom that speaking about a wisdom that is Christ, which is really cool to see. And this is written before Christ, by the way. So, why is wisdom referred to as her and she there? Uh, it just has to do with how like the Greek uses wisdom, like how it's feminine. I'm not I'm not a proper linguistic expert, but I know because I've asked people it has to do with how the Hebrew works. It has nothing to do with actual gender of the individual speaking of itself. Uh, peace. Oh, ruthless. That's because they believe he's going to come back and die. That's why I remember I saw that one the first time was confused too, Ruthless. They believe he'll come back and die. That's what it is. That book ain't in my Bible. It might not be. It might not be. Unless you have the Orthodox Study Bible, but not be. You can look it up online though. You can look it up online. Look up online. The Wisdom of Solomon. Solomon wrote in Greek. Um, I don't know if he wrote in Greek. How many years ago did your apologetics learn start? About five years ago. Four or five years ago. Let me see. Where do I read the Ris Solomon? Guys, just look up on Google Wisdom of Solomon. It's on Bible Gateway. That's a good one to read. All you got to do is look up Wisdom of Solomon chapter 7. It'll come up. Simple, simple, guys. Listen, guys. I appreciate all you guys hopping on, man. Um, again, join my Patreon if y'all want content. I'm going post a new video on Patreon tomorrow. I appreciate every last one of y'all hopping on, man. Uh, we gonna hop off. Make sure y'all do your homework. Do your homework and we'll uh we'll be back and we'll reconvene on um on Thursday. God bless you guys. I'll see you next time, man.

Get Our Mobile App

Unitarian Debator “Andrew Griffin” Comes On And Gets DEEP FRIED! (Live Debates)

Transcription