DEBATE: God Logic Vs. Jacob Hansen - Is The Trinity Biblical?

Because guess what happens if you have two minds? You have two people.

Based on what?

We got god logic.

I mean, I have to one second.

That's fine.

I don't I don't have to.

You're right.

I'm here with an honest discussion. Let's have it. Why are we wasting time?

Jacob Hansen.

We have Jacob LDS Mormon and Jacob Hansen.

All Mormons Christian. Uh, if I said, "Oh, my dad over here, he and I are the same being." That would mean that Okay. If God was a singular being, meaning he's only one person, this that is a that is a heretical state.

I'm waiting on real. That's what we believe. We're glad you're part of the family.

You'd have to dump uh the dose of God.

No, you'd have to real.

Hey, thank you so much for checking us out. Hey, two quick things. Number one, this is from our Bless God Summit that just happened here in Oceanside, California. And if you want to come to the next one, sign up for the wait list right now. Uh, you will get access to the early bird tickets before they go live. This past year's uh Bless God Summit sold out. The next year we're likely sold out. So if you want first access to tickets and get them early and get them at the cheapest price, sign up for the waiting list now. We're going to be announcing it in the next couple months.

Also, another thing is uh we want to be send a big shout out to one of our sponsors, partner here on the channel, Logos Bible Software. If you guys aren't familiar with Logos, uh, I use this every day. There's amazing tools in here, like being able to go back into the Greek, uh, to be able to go and see what the original languages said. There's commentary tools. They have a new AI tool. And I want to make sure that every single one of you guys know that you can get a free 60-day trial of Logos. Check out their original Greek and Hebrew tools. You can check out my Bible in two-year reading plan on Logos as well, Monday through Friday. And you can check out their new study AI assistant where this is like AI, but it's based on scripture and amazing literature in uh, the logo software built in. Logos used to cost hundreds of dollars. Now it's like 12 bucks a month is where it starts. And again, all you guys get a free 60-day trial. So sign up for Logos. Big shout out to them for sponsoring the summit, sponsoring this video.

Now for the moment you've been waiting for. Let's get into this video. Here is what's about to happen. We are going to be having a formal debate. What a formal debate is. What that means is this is not going to be a Pierce Morgan dumpster fire. Okay? I know some of you guys like, I just want to hear. Just let him go. Let him go. Ref. It's not what's going to happen. Okay? What we're gonna have is we're gonna have an opening 15-minute round from each speaker that is going to go into a 10-minute rebuttal round from each speaker and then we're going to have 15 minutes each of cross-examination. What that means is in the rebuttal rounds, it's intended to be a rebuttal of what was said in the opening, not a continuation of their opening. Uh, and the cross-examination, one person asks question to the other person. Okay? Okay. So, it's going to be a bit more formal and then uh and then and then that'll be it.

So, um, the prompt today is we are discussing with our LDS guest Jacob Hansen. Okay. Um, the conversation of the triune God is the biblical God a trinity. Okay. It's a very important doctrine for us for us Christians all Christians of all persuasion uh Eastern Orthodox Catholic Oriental Orthodox is the biblical God a trinity and God logic is going to be taking the affirmative. So he has he's going to go first. He's arguing four and then Jacob Hansen is going to be taking the affirmative, the negative. Okay?

But before that I just want to show you guys something cool. God Logic didn't bring a chef hat today, but someone made me who's the gentleman that made me this Chef Rouslon hat after after they saw me debate interracial marriage with Joel Webbin. Uh, and so should I should I put this on for the?

I'm not going to wear that for the whole debate. I'll just wear it for the intro.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, warm round of applause. This looks utterly silly, doesn't it? Warm round of applause for our debaters tonight, Jacob Hansen and God Logic.

All right.

Uh-oh. Uh-oh.

Okay. So, God Logic is going to go first.

All right.

Uh, you have a podium up there, sir?

I do. I do. I see you. And so we got a clock up here for you, sir. So you can keep an eye on the time. He is going to make a 15-minute opening statement arguing for the affirmative.

All right. How you guys doing? You all right?

Praise God. Praise God. It's good to be here, man. Thank you, Rouslan, for having us, man. Uh, Jacob, my friend, thanks for stepping in the pot with us. Um, it's going this going to be a this going to be a good round, y'all. But this going to be a good round. As Rooline said, this is extremely important. Uh, the doctrine of the trinity is one of the most disputed doctrines uh in Christendom. Um, when it comes to the to the Bible, uh, it it it we we hear that it's pagan. We hear that it's polytheistic. We hear that it was made up at the Council of Ni. if you watch uh Sneo or anybody like that uh, you know, so remember, don't get your doctrine from the Dawa guys, okay? You're in the right place, okay?

So what is the trinity? Let's break this down really quick. The trinity is the concept that there is one god. Everybody say one god.

One god.

Who exists as three persons. Say three persons.

Three persons.

So, one divine essence, one divine nature that consists of three distinct persons, inseparable, who are completely united um in their action, in their will, in their mind. They have the same divine essence. Okay? And so what we're going to see here is does the Bible teach this? Because you're not going to see the word trinity in the Bible. You're not going to see that word. You're not going to see the word triune in the Bible. However, that's not how we come to doctrine. If a word doesn't exist in the Bible, it doesn't mean that the concept isn't being taught there. For example, we all believe that God is all powerful. Is that correct? But another word for all powerful is omni omni uh uh what is omnipotent? There it is. See, I almost forgot the word. But uh, so omnipotent, but that word is not found in the Bible. Yet God's omnipotence is found all throughout the scriptures. Right? So we can see that a concept is taught even though a word is not explicitly or verbatim right there in the scriptures.

So this is what we're going to see. What we're going to deal with since we know that God is one. He exists as one divine essence. Uh, that essence is shared between three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We should expect both singular pronouns and adjectives for God as well as plural pronouns and adjectives for God. That's what I would expect if God exists as a plural being. So, for example, I should see things like in Genesis 1:26 where he says, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness." or in Genesis 11 when he's about to go ahead and confuse the people at the uh, the Tower of Babel, he says, "Come, let us go down and confuse them." So God speaks of himself in a plural. And watch this. It then goes on to say, "And he went down singular. He went down and confounded the people." Also in Genesis 1:26 and 27, it says, "And God made man in his image." Back to singular. Notice how he goes from plural to singular. This is exactly what we should type we should expect if God exists as a trinity.

And so what we're going to see here, we got another few examples. Those are the literally the basic ones. Usually people are familiar with Genesis 1:26 and the Tower of Babel example, but I hope today to give you guys a few more examples where God demonstrates himself uh uh using plural pronouns and plural adjectives in places that we probably overlook because it's seeped in the Hebrew. It's not going to be outlied uh uh uh uh clear in the English. So, for example, when we have uh Job 35:10, it says this. It says, "But none says, where is God my maker who gives songs in the night?" Now, that's in everybody's English translation. Doesn't doesn't seem special there, does it? But when you look in the Hebrew, this is what it says. For the word maker, it's in the plural. The word is o, which is the plural particle for assa, which literally means my makers. So, this is how it would read in the Hebrew. But none says, "Where is God, my makers?" If God was a singular being, meaning he's only one person, this wouldn't make sense to me. This wouldn't make sense for God to be uh for the scriptures to be referring to God as makers. Is this polytheism? No. Because the scripture clearly teaches that there's one God. But yet, he's referring to himself as a plural of makers. How is that possible unless he's triune?

Let's give another example. We have Psalm 149:2. It says this in the English. It says, "Let Israel be glad in his maker. Let him rejoice. Let the children of Zion rejoice in their king." Now, king is singular, but here it is. This word again, maker is oay, which is the plural. So again, it reads, "Let Israel be glad in his makers."

Makers. Let the children of Israel rejoice in their king singular. So the makers of Israel is also the singular king in the Bible showing that the God of the Bible exists as one in one way and is a plurality in another way. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. Let's keep going. I got a few more examples, y'all. This Bible I got I got I got a couple for y'all. Man, let's. We got Hey, what's the only thing we do around here, y'all?

Read.

We just read, right? We just read. That's it.

You can't see.

That's it. That's it. This is Ecclesiastes.

This is Ecclesiastes 12:1. Watch what it says, y'all. Remember also your creator in the days of your youth before the evil days come and the years draw near, of which you will say, I have no pleasure in them. Now, here it is. It says, "Remember also your creator." Right? This is in English. It we'll miss it if we don't know the Hebrew. But in the Hebrew, the word is, now bear with me, it's barakia. Y'all try to say that. Barakia.

Barak.

Hey, y'all good, man. Y'all quick learners, man. This word is the plural, which means remember also your creators. Now again, guys, the Bible is not polytheistic. This is one God, one divine essence who is continuously described as multiple makers, multiple husbands, multiple creators, yet is the one king, the one God, the one sovereign, the one entity that is the creator of all things.

Now, here's the thing. This is how we know this. We know that this isn't just some plural of majesty or, you know, just some figurative language because the Bible explicitly demonstrates that there are multiple divine persons that are responsible for creating all things. One of them being the Holy Spirit. Watch this. In Job chapter 26:13, it says this. It says, "By his spirit, he has decorated the heavens. His hand has formed the crooked serpent." This is Job chapter 33:4. It says, "The spirit of God has made me and the breath of the Almighty gives me life." This is the spirit of God, ladies and gentlemen. The spirit of God. Here it is again. Psalm 104:29 and 30. You hide your face, they are dismayed. You take away their spirit, their breath, and they breathe their last and return to dust. You send forth your spirit and they are created and you renew the face of the ground. So we have the Holy Spirit that is explicitly identified as one of the persons who's responsible for creating the heavens and the earth and giving life to all of creation on the earth. Right?

Now, there's another figure we know as the word. You guys who y'all know y'all know about the logos, right? This is all in notice. We ain't we ain't quote the New Testament yet. We're still in the Old Testament. I don't need the New Testament to show you guys the Trinity in the Bible. I I I'm I'm going try to stay away from the New Testament as much as I can. I might sneak in John a little bit later, but for now, for now, let's go ahead and see what the Old Testament has to offer us. Let's go with the word. And so, this is what it says in Psalm 33:6. Watch this. By the word of Yahweh, the heavens were made and their host by the breath, the spirit, the ruach of his mouth. So in one verse we see Yahweh by his word and by his spirit created all things. Does this sound familiar? It should.

Now we going we going to sneak in John now. John chapter 1 verse one.

In the beginning was the what?

Word.

And the word was?

And the word?

Was God.

And he was in the beginning with God. All things were created through him and not one thing was made that has been made without him. Amen.

So this is exactly why we see in the New Testament, we see the apostles, we see the church fathers. This it's it's stuff like this, ladies and gentlemen, why the early Christians came to the conclusion that the one God, the one sovereign was a multiplicity of persons. Because the Old Testament established that it's Yahweh the father, his word, and his spirit that created all things that are distinct from each other yet inseparable. And so we have here in the in the New Testament, we got second Peter 3:5. Watch this. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word to theolog formed out of water and by water. Right? Revelation 19:11. See, this is what gets me about the Bible. The Bible goes so far to even classify the word as someone that they know, someone that they witness, someone that they've seen. Watch what Revelation 19 says. It says, "Then I saw open, and behold, a white horse, and he who sits on it is called faithful and true, and in righteousness he judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire and on his head are many diadems. Having a name written on him which no one knows except himself. And being clothed with a garment dipped in blood. His name is also called the word of God." The word of God is a person, a divine agent of the father, who created all things, who was sovereign over all things, who comes in righteousness, clothed in clothed in a garment of blood, judges all the nation, and is identified as the word of God. This is what we have, ladies and gentlemen, in the Bible. The Bible is clearly depicting that there is the father, the son, the holy spirit, the word, the logos, the ruach, the spirit, all identified as the makers, the creators, the husbands of Israel.

Now, even with all this being said, this is what we get. The scripture is very clear that there is only one God alone who created all things. Watch this. This is Job chapter 9:8. It says, "Who alone stretches out the heavens and tramples down the waves of the sea by himself?" He does this. Job 10:es 8-12. Your hand fashioned and made me altogether. And would you swallow me up? Remember now that you have made me as clay, and would you turn me into dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? Clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinnus. You have made alongside me life and loving kindness and your care has kept my spirit. It's not multiple gods. Job is talking to one entity. He's talking to one God, one sovereign, one almighty that he identifies as his maker. Job 31:15. Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And the same one fashioned us in the womb. The same how many? One that fashioned us in the womb. Here we go. Isaiah 42:5. Thus says the God Yahweh who created the heavens and stretched them out. Who spread out the earth and its offspring, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk. Who is the God who does this? Yahweh. Who helps him do it? Nobody. He does it alone. Isaiah 44:24, let's get it. It's even more clear here. Thus says Yahweh, your redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, Yahweh, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone. Guys, I'm reading it verbatim. If there was any confusion, if there was some council that helped Yahweh create the heavens, if there was some other entities separate from Yahweh that helped him create the heavens and the earth, he makes it absolutely clear verbatim in unambiguous verse in unequivocal statement where Yahweh God himself says, "I created it all alone." Thank you.

This man ended.

Logic ended a minute and a half early.

Where the heck did my phone go?

All right. All right. No, he didn't run. He just went to go get his phone. Relax. Relax. Stop.

It wasn't that good of an opening. It was ran over stage. You found your phone?

No, it's okay. I don't I I can I can find it later. I think I set it down back there when we were ming up.

Um, cool. Give me a minute. I'm not stuff up. Don't need to start time just yet.

Make sure I got my stuff ready to go here.

How y'all doing tonight?

Yeah.

Good. Let me get this stuff there. We good? People see what's on there?

No, not yet. Are we going in the back?

Anything up in the back? I think you can. Is it on the screens?

There we go.

Hey, there we go. Hold on one second. All right. All right. Ready to start the time here? Um, get my timer.

All right. Well, I must say Avery is a heck of a presenter. And it is a little nerve-wracking uh going up against someone with the nickname Chef Logic because of how he cooks his opponents. Now, now that seems quite appropriate considering that trinitarians have a long history of quite literally cooking people who disagree with them.

So, here all right, all right. Hey, those are Catholics. We can blame Trent Horn. But in all seriousness, uh, big thank you to Rouslon and to God Logic. These are good men. No personal animosity in this debate. Um,

can we start his clock? His clock's not going. Uh,

oh, it isn't yet?

Yeah.

He deserve that. I deserve a little extra time. All right, here we go.

All right.

We got the clock going.

We got the clock.

There we go.

All right, here we go. Here we go. All right. So, I actually want to start off tonight's debate with a point of agreement. Uh, we actually agree that there are three persons talked about in the Bible and there is one God. No one no one here actually denies that. But what does that mean? That's what we're actually going to be discussing tonight. Now, a lot of people find the uh trinity confusing because of the incoherent language that's used by trinitarians uh to talk about God. I mean, trinitarians like Avery will talk about God as a genderless threeperson substance. And he will refer to three persons using the pronoun he instead of the pronoun they. But hey, it's 2026 and maybe Avery's a little confused about how pronouns work.

I can't see.

So, let's clear this up. Did you see it?

Hey, last year Alex O' Conor had some good jokes. So, I had some big shoes to fill, guys. All right. Now, this is the word at the center of tonight's debate, the word God. And in a trinity diagram that you're all familiar with, in the middle is this thing with the label God. Well, what is that thing? Well, it can't be a person because the persons are the father, the son, and the holy spirit in the diagram. What that means is that thing in the middle with the label God isn't a who, it's a what. Now, Avery will say that God is three who's and one what. He will use the word father, son, and spirit to describe uh who God is. And then he will use the words go that slide. Uh, then he will use the word essence, being, and nature to describe what God is. Now, at first glance, this actually is not an issue. Who I am is Jacob. What I am is human. I have a human nature. Now, we can have one human nature that's shared by multiple persons. We have three persons up here who all share the human nature. That's not a problem until we start to apply a little logic. So if I have if I have three persons that all have a human nature, I have three persons. If I have three animals with a canine nature, I have three dogs. If I have three shapes with a triangle, I have three triangles. Not complicated, right? Well, until we get here. If we have three persons who share the divine nature, all of a sudden Avery wants to act as if you don't have three things, you only have one thing. And so people like Avery will play word games. For instance, when Avery says Jesus is God, that sentence can actually mean two different things. It can be referring to identity, which is the idea that uh, this Jesus is the same being as God or sorry, yeah, that Jesus is the same being as God, or it can refer to predication. This is like a title where God is being used as a title meaning that Jesus is a fully divine being. Right? These are the two different senses that it can be used. So let me give some examples here. So if we were to say um, if we were to say Jesus is God in this sense of identity, J equals G, and we say the father is God, that would be F equals G. Now, anyone who knows anything about logic is that that would mean F equals G or J equals G, F equals G. Therefore, J equals F, or in other words, Jesus is the father. But as we all know, that's modalism. Patrick, come on Patrick. So obviously, we we all reject that. Okay, that's that's just great. So, um, we have to go to this idea of God being used like a title. Okay, so I could say something like John is CEO, Squanto is chief, Jack is captain, or the word is God. Okay, it's being used like a title, right? Right. To say that the word is fully divine. All right? So, um, it is perfectly logical to say that the father is God. He's fully divine. The son is fully divine and the spirit is fully divine. We can say that they are God in that sense. Okay, totally perfectly fine. So, tonight we're going to actually compare two different models. Okay? One of those models is going to use the New Testament term the Godhead. Okay? That is a term used throughout the New Testament. And in this model, you have three persons who share a single divine nature. And that nature brings them into perfect loving harmony as a single perfectly united divine council that rules in unity over all things. And as you can see, this is totally different from polytheism with its capricious warring gods of limited jurisdiction and power. Now, then we have one other model, which is the trinitarian model, which is to say, and if you think this is a joke drawing, it actually isn't. This is the the image there is actually what trinitarians came up with in the medieval age to to describe the trinity. Uh, in this model, you say that three persons who actually are the same being. But how can you have three persons who are the same being if having your own being is what makes you your own person? If I said, "Oh, my dad over here, he and I are the same." That would mean that we're not individual people. Okay? So, um, let's see here. But here's where it gets really bad. When the trinitarian model starts to contradict scripture, for example, if Jesus has a will, how is it that Jesus says, or I'm sorry, if this one being has a will, how is it that Jesus says, "Thy will be done," if he was the same being whose will was being done in the first place? Also, why does Jesus say he has a God? How can you have a God and be God at the same time? And if Jesus is God, how is it even possible for God to forsake him? And what being was it that Jesus was praying to if he and the father are the same being? Also, Jesus clearly says that he has been given authority by the father. If Jesus was the same being as the father, how could the father give him authority? Also, if I were to ask Jesus who the one true God is, do you know what he would say? Well, we don't have to guess. He said it. He said it was the not so genderless person he called the father and our father. In other words, for Jesus, the only true God was a who. Also, if Jesus was the same being as the father, how could the father be greater than him? Also, if the son is begotten of the father, how can they be the same being? How can the same being be the begget and the begotten? Also, Jesus said he was going to his God and our God, to his father and our father. If he was the same being, would this make any sense?

Now, to solve these problems, don't worry, I already know what Avery's going to say to this. Classic response is that Jesus had two natures, right? He was fully human and fully divine at the same time. Now, here's the thing. I actually think that sounds plausible. After all, I am one person and I have two natures. I am a father. I have children and I am a human. So, I have a human nature and the nature of a father. Cool. Two natures, one person. But could I be a human and a frog? No, I couldn't be. See, here's how it works. You have what are known as mutually exclusive natures. What is the nature of a square? Squares has four sides. The nature of a triangle is to have three sides. That's why you can't have a square triangle. It doesn't work. Okay? So, what about the uh my opponent's theology as it relates to God? In classical theism, to be divine is to have all knowledge. Notice the square. To be human, notice the triangle, is to have limited knowledge. These are mutually exclusive. Uh, to be divine is to be unchangeable. To be human is to change and grow. Anybody see the problem? To be divine is to be uncreated. How could you be uncreated and created at the same time? I think that might those might be mutually exclusive natures. But hey, the hypoatic union, what we'll do is we'll call it the mystery of the hypothatic union and that makes all of this problem go away. We can have square circles if we just call it the hypoatic union, right? Well, I don't think that that works. Um, what happens here is you end up creating two Jesus, one fully human, one divine, and then you talk about them as if they're the same person. Now, here's the thing. This is why this ultimately breaks down. Avery will say, "In his human nature, Jesus suffered on the cross, but in his divine nature, he cannot suffer because to suffer is to lack something, and God lacks nothing." Seriously, the idea here is that the same person both suffered and did not suffer on the cross. Also, how the heck can you make an infinite sacrifice if God can make this infinite sacrifice if only a human is the one on the cross that's being tortured? Okay. Uh, next, how about two minds um or power? Can Jesus have all power and lack power at the same time? Could he have a mind, a single mind that has all knowledge and that lacks knowledge at the same time? Or did Jesus have two minds? Because if he had two minds, we got a problem. That's two people because to be your own person is to have your own mind. If you have two minds, you don't have one person, you have two people. Okay? So, he'll do this tonight. He's going to talk about Jesus in his divinity and Jesus in his humanity. But that just and he says that's the same person. But those are mutually exclusive natures. It doesn't work. But what about all these things in the in the scriptures that talk about the oneness, right? Okay. Well, first of all, as a pointed out, he he believes in uh plurality in the Old Testament. So do I. You have Yahweh in heaven, Yahweh on earth, the spirit of Yahweh. That's three who's. Okay, agreed 100%. You also have that in the New Testament with Father, Son, Holy Spirit. But you have this one what? The heck does that mean? Well, can multiple persons form a single entity? Yeah, we do it all the time. If we had a court that had three judges on it, that'd be the court. And we would say the court singular has found the defendant guilty. This is totally fine. We have entities all the time that are that are have three people that make up the entity. So the three who remember this are the persons. The one what is the entity. I'm going to call that for our purposes tonight the godhead or in the Old Testament was Yahweh. They would use that word to describe God and it could be described as three persons or as one what. And Abra will agree God is three who's and one what. I agree with that. No problem at all. Okay. So, but the trinity model wants to say that those three persons aren't just a single entity. They want to say that they literally are the same being. And the trinity the the consistent trinitarians will say that that one being has no parts at all even though it has three persons. All right. This is why Richard Swinburn, by the way, who may be the greatest living Christian philosopher on earth, recognizes, he actually disagrees, unfortunately, with Avery. He says that even if you regard the New Testament as an infallible source of doctrine, YOU CANNOT DERIVE from it a doctrine of the Trinity. Now, why would he say that? I was just told that the doctrine of the Trinity is in the Bible. Because a good philosopher knows the difference between a who and a what. So to win tonight's debate, Avery must prove to you using the text of the Bible, not just that there are three persons and one God. He has to get more specific and show that the Bible teaches that those three persons are literally the same being. But he has to overcome problems like this. Like how can you be the begget and the begotten and be the same being? But he won't address these contradictions. My prediction is is that he will pound the table again and again and says, but the Bible says that there is one God. There is no God besides Yahweh. God is alone our savior. God is our creator. That one God he created everything alone. All that. But you guys remember this. The word God can refer to three who's or it can refer to one what. So if Avery wants to say that the one God, the one what that was a plurality of persons created all things. Wonderful. That's what we call the Godhead. And it's totally consistent with scripture. What Avery has to do to do tonight, watch this. He can't just say that there's three persons and one God. He has to specify how those three persons all are the same being despite all the scriptures that contradict that notion. But he's not going to be able to do it. And the reason why is for the same reasons that Richard Swinburn looks at the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible and he says, "You cannot derive this doctrine from the New Testament. You just can't do it." And so Avery is stuck. He's stuck because if he wants to say talk about the three who's use the word God to refer to the he three who, that's three, not one. If he wants to use the word God to refer to the one what the Godhead, well then I'm just going to agree with him. But he's stuck trying to teach something from the Bible that isn't in there. And that is why the best philosophers and scholars like Richard Swinburn will just admit you can't derive the doctrine of the trinity from the Bible. And with that, I'll yield my time.

All right. Okay. So now what is going to happen is Avery is going to spend 10 minutes on a rebuttal round. That means he is going to be rebutting everything Jacob just said and then Jacob is going to go up and have 10 minutes to do a rebuttal round against Tim and then we'll do uh 15 minutes each cross examination. All right, let us know when you're ready for the clock, good sir.

Thank you. Um, so first of all, I want to say that Jacob is absolutely right. I'm going to pound my fist.

I'm going to pound my fist. And when it comes to making these distinctions, now he says, "I'm not going to address these contradictions." Uh, I don't think that these are contradictions. And so, let's let's demonstrate how. So, for example, and like Jacob is a very smart person. He knows where this is going. So, when he says, "Well, Jesus has a god." Well, what Avery's going to do is he's going to appeal to the his human nature. Duh. Yeah, you got me. It's pertaining to Look, why would I do that though? Because the Bible says this in Jeremiah 32:27, it says that God is the God of all flesh. So, what happened to the word who is also God, he became flesh. So, it's at this point when the father and that that relationship, the father becomes this God pertaining to his flesh. He's not a separate deity than the son. But in that relationship, the son humbles himself to the father and the father becomes his ruler pertaining to his flesh. In Psalm 22, we all agree it's about the it's about the Messiah where it says that they pierced my hands and my feet and you lay me in the dust of death. In that same psalm in verse 6, guess what it says? It says, "From my mother's womb, you have been my God." Not before, but once I took on flesh, once I entered the womb, that's when that dynamic was in place. Not before. So je this at you're absolutely right Jacob. This is pertaining to the human nature of God and that and and what that entails in his relationship and that in that dynamic with the father.

What about the next one? He says that you know how can Jesus be the same being as the father if the uh if he says that the father is greater than I. Well, this is this is beautiful. This is understanding categories. For example, in the same chapter, because he's quoting John 14:28, and in the earlier verses in John 14:12, Jesus says, "Whoever believes in me will do the same works that I do, and greater works than these will he do." Does Jacob think that people are going to do better works than Jesus? I don't think so. So, what does he mean by greater here then? Greater in quantity, not quality, right? They're going to be doing more works than he does because this is what Jesus says. He caps it off by saying, "Because I'm going to the father." He was only here doing works for three years. But the apostles and the rest of the believers are going to be doing works for the rest of their believing lives. So they're going to be doing a greater quantity of works than Jesus, not a greater quality of works than Jesus. So then greater in what sense is the question? When Jesus says the father is greater than I, is that greater in essence? Absolutely not. But what this is is again Jesus a humble servant of the father takes the lowly position and says, "You should be happy that I'm going back to the father for the father's greater than I." Why? Why? Why should they be happy that Jesus is returning to a place where someone is greater than him in? Because locally the father's greater than where the son is. He's in a humble lowly uh uh uh uh state where he's uh um, you know, uh doing his earthly ministry work where he has to be obedience even to the death of a on the cross uh, experience humiliation and the death of a criminal. The father is in a locally greater place than he is. He's on his throne in heaven. Christ came down. The Philippians chapter 2 says, "For he made himself of no reputation, but humbled himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

So, it's not greater in the sense that he's greater God or greater in essence. No, greater locally because Christ humbled himself. HE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I'M POUNDING MY FIST IN THE HUMAN NATURE. He's absolutely right. He's He might be a prophet. I'm not going to lie to you. He He predicted my next move like crazy. I'm telling you.

What about when Jesus says, "Let your will be done." And that's okay because will is a product of your nature. Again, Jacob is right. JESUS HAS A HUMAN NATURE. So therefore, he'll have a human will that he brings under subjection to the divine will.

That's why he can say, "Let your of uh, but not my will. Let your will be done." Right? Which he in in this position, he's feeling the pressure of the crucifixion. He's feeling the pressure of the despair and the uh and the um, the the grief of carrying the sins of the world. Isaiah 53 already told us he was going to feel this way. Isaiah 53 says he's going to be acquainted with grief, a man full of sorrows. So when Jesus comes and incarnates and is facing the pressure of the crucifixion and it's imminent, IT'S COMING. I EXPECT him to be like, "Hey man, listen. If if there's another way, between me and you, father, let me know." But not my will, let your will be done. He brings that human will, that weak will under subjection to the divine will. And this doesn't entail two persons. It entails two natures that are united in one person.

Okay. Uh, let's see what else he said. He says, "The father is the only true God." Amen. Absolutely. The father is the only true gods. Okay, good. That is not a negation of himself as also being true God. Notice in verse one, this is what Jesus says. That's verse three. In verse one, Jesus says, "Father, glorify your son so that your son may glorify you." Who does he think he is? Who does Jesus think he is telling the father to glorify him?

So that he then can glorify him in return? What? You better glorify him anyway. But no, he talks as if he is in equal essence with the father and there's a mutual glorification.

So when he is glorifying the father as the only true god. Amen. That's not negating himself because he then goes on to say in verse two, he says, "For you have given him all fle authority over all flesh to give them eternal life." What? Wait, hold on a second, Jesus. You ain't God. You you're not the almighty. You can't give eternal life. You have to be eternal to do that. But you're not you're you're you know, you were created or you made or you got your divine hood in some way, right? You can't say you give eternal life. But no, he says, "I give them eternal life to all you have given me." So according to Jesus, it sounds like he's fully God, right? And not in just some title sense or no, he by essence, by very nature, he has the same nature and essence that the father does. Matter of fact, it gets even clearer with this. Hebrews chapter 1 verse 3, it says this guys, it says that Christ is the word of the lord, he's the son by whom uh uh God created the worlds and then it goes on to say that he is the exact imprint of his nature. You mean to tell me that they don't have the the Bible doesn't teach they have the same one one nature if he's the exact imprint of the father's nature, that means whatever the father is of the what, that's what the son is too, while also being a distinct person. Where is the BIBLE TEACHING? THAT'S RIGHT HERE. It's right here, big dog. It's right here, man. It's right here.

All right. Now, he also, like, like I told you guys, I'm going to keep saying this. This man might be a prophet because he's smart. I'm telling you, the man brought up an example of the three judges in the court and says, "See, well, you're going to say the court says, but you know, it's it's three different judges, right?" And so he was so smart that he's gonna say, "But but Avery, he doesn't believe in partialism." And because he knew this was partialism, but how? So this is my thing with Jacob. He knew that this was partialism and that I would attack this, but still use the example anyway. It doesn't match the trinity. So it's a failed example to say, "Hey, see, you can just have three people that are identified as God and just say, 'Yeah, that's God.'" Like a council or like a court. No. In Psalm 86, it says that the council of God worships you. He ain't part of the council.

They bow to him. They worship him. How can Yahweh be part of the council if he's distinct from the council that worships him?

That's how the Bible is clear that Yahweh is distinct from the council of the gods, the council of the angels, of the sons of God. He's distinct. He judges them. He counsels, he controls them, he makes decisions, he judges them in Psalm 82. And so what we have here is God, it says that he is highly exalted above the gods. Highly exalted. It says, "Who among the gods is like you? Who among the gods? Among the sons of God are the angels. Who among them has works or deeds that are like Yahweh's?" Guess what? In Hebrews chapter 1, it says the son. The son's works are exactly like the father's. MATTER OF FACT, Jesus says this in John chapter 5. He says, "The son can do nothing by himself.

Only what he sees the father doing. For whatever the father does, the son does it the same way."

Amen.

Jesus can do whatever the father can do. Why? Because they share the same divine essence.

So what we're gonna have to deal with is this. We're going to have to deal with how the Bible explicitly identifies three persons as creator, as makers, sustainers, establishers, covenant makers, right? Um, um, um, formers. We have to deal with this and then deal with where Yahweh says, "I created all things by myself. I alone stretched out the heavens. Nobody was with me." And this isn't him comparing himself to other false gods. He's saying it as a matter of fact. In Job chapter 9:8, he ain't comparing himself to other gods. This is Job strictly just stating a fact. God, you are the one who alone stretched out the heavens. But the scripture says that the word created all things. The scripture says that by the spirit all things are created while identifying them as distinct in their personhood. How do we deal with this? God is triune, baby. Triuine, baby. All right.

So, Jacob is now going to do a rebuttal round. You got slides for the rebuttal round, too?

Yeah, I got I got something I might might refer to. Let me see. Is this going to?

Do you want to swap so you can see the slides?

Um,

or can you see them from there?

I can just hear them.

You sure?

Yeah. His presentation was just so funny. I wanted to see it.

It was He was killing us.

All right. So, Jacob is going to go 10 minutes and then we are going to go to a 15-minute cross.

What's going on?

Oh, no. We'll get there. We'll get there. We get to this way. Got more pictures of God. All right. Um, hold on. Let's get ready. Um, okay. Let's go ahead.

And start. All right. So, here's the issue. Um, those were actually really good arguments if he was arguing against someone who didn't believe that Jesus shared a fullness of the divine nature. I believe fully that Jesus and the Father are fully divine beings. So acting as if Jesus wasn't fully divine, uh, that isn't what I'm arguing. Um, Jesus has the fullness of the divine nature right now. They are three beings, three persons who share one nature. Okay, the three of us right here, just you guys know, we all share the same nature. We're all humans, but there's three persons here. Remember, the Trinity is trying to argue that the three persons, and Avery has said this explicitly, it's not just that they share the same nature. It's that they are the same being. That is a quote from one of his recent videos. Okay. And I can, I can, I can pull it up. So that's the doctrine of the Trinity.

>> Okay. So he doesn't have to say that Jesus is the Godhead model, just so you guys know. Fully says that Jesus and the Father share the same nature. Okay. That's not a problem. Okay. The problem is is that he wants to say that while Jesus was on Earth as a human, he had a human nature and a divine nature at the same time. He wants to say that Jesus was a square circle. That's the thing. Did he address that? Did he address the mutually exclusive natures? Did he show from the Bible that those two natures actually are compatible? No, he didn't, because it doesn't exist. You can't do that. The Bible doesn't teach you have square circles. Okay? So let's just be very clear on that.

Second of all, he's acting as though I don't believe that the Godhead is the most high. All members of the Godhead, all three of them can rightly be called God. They can rightly be called the most high in their, in the fact that they are all part of this highest entity. Okay, that, that's exactly right. Now, I want to talk real quick about what the scholars say about this. It doesn't mean that there's all these multiple gods and they're all equals. Like, no, that's, that's insane. That isn't what the Bible teaches here. Our good friend Dr. Siguad says it really well. He says, "Historians like biblical scholars, including Peter Haymon and Nathan McDonald, Paul Frederickson, Michael Heiser, Larry Herado, and Richard Bachmann, among many others, argue that ancient Jewish monotheism was not a denial of the o of the denial of other divine beings' existence, but rather an affirmation of Yahweh's unique supremacy. Christians conceived of divinity as a spectrum rather than a binary. The key thing is monotheism was not a numerical oneness. It was a qualitative concept. Monotheism is something which came later in the 17th century." Okay.

So here is the idea of what actually was taught in the Bible in the old world when you actually study it through the best scholarship to actually understand what the ancient Hebrews thought of. They believed that they existed in a world with many gods. But they believed that their God, Yahweh, was the most high, that he was supreme. That is what the Godhead model teaches. I already laid that out. Okay? And Yahweh is a name that can refer to the Angel of Yahweh, to Yahweh in heaven, or to the Spirit of Yahweh, or to all three of them as an entity that operate and create alone as an us. Is this making sense? Like, this all should ring right true. Okay. Um, and I do have some funny quotes. I guess well, you do have God Logic who says the Bible teaches clear explicit monotheism. And then we have Michael Jones, who's in the audience, who says, "I think terms monotheism and polytheism are stupid and should be completely discarded." He's a heretic, is that his thing. He says, "I don't think you can use monotheism or polytheism to describe any religion." Right? So the, the point here is that the way to think of ancient Israel is actually in terms of multiple divine beings, but this divine trio as the most high God. That is the way to properly understand what the Old Testament is teaching. And all three of the members of that council are fully divine. They share, they are ontologically equal, but they are relationally, relationally they are, uh, have a hierarchy. Okay. But they are ontologically of the same kind. They're of the same species or level. They're, they're fully divine beings. Okay.

Here's the thing. If Avery really wants strict monotheism where there's just one being, one God, well, I got some bad news for him because this is what strict monotheism looks like. Islam. Now, it's actually funny. Dr. Siguad argues that the problem with Islam is that it's actually too monotheistic. He says, "Islam explicitly presents itself as a restoration of the original monotheism of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets. But Judaism acknowledged the existence of multiple divine beings. Islam represents a fundamental reversal of Judaism's core ontological claim, moving from multiple divine beings existing under what? Under one supreme God that consisted of three persons." Okay? One divine council. I'm not talking about the divine council of all the rest. Yahweh was the, was the ruler of the, of the council of the gods. So there are lower gods in the council, but the three at the top were the ones who ruled overall. And the Father, relationally within that trio, was the most high. Okay. So he says, "That's the problem with Islam." So, um, again, we have three who's and one what. And right here, this is it, you guys. The one what that can be called Yahweh or it can be called the Godhead is what happens when you have all three. But he has to remember what he has to do tonight. His burden of proof. He has to show that they're the same being. Not just that they're a, a trio of individual persons who rule over all things in total unity, as the Godhead model would, would, would propagate.

Now, I'm going to also ask some questions you guys need to think about. Okay? Because Avery hasn't really addressed these. Okay. One of them is, can you be a man and a woman at the same time? I know it's 2026, but I think we all know the answer. No, you can't. Why? Because those are mutually exclusive natures. Okay. So, um, divinity and humanity, you can't be created and uncreated at the same time in one person. That one person was either created or he has always existed. If he has always existed, then that is a divine person. That is not a human person. Okay? You have to understand this idea of mutually exclusive natures. And if Avery does not do that, well, then he's in trouble. By the way, did Jesus pray to a who or did he pray to a what? Did the ancient Israelites pray to a who? Or did they pray to a what? Do you pray to a who? Which who? There are three who's. Okay. Um, Avery actually said that the Father generates the Son. Avery has also said, and I quote, "To be self-existing is to be ungenerated." Wait, what? The Son is generated, but the Son is also self-existing. You guys, that's a contradiction in terms. You can't be generated and be self-existing. Okay. So, is, is the Son self-existing or is he generated by the Father? And if he's generated by the Father, hold on. I thought God is the, the uncaused cause of all things. Oh, the, the Son is not the uncaused cause of all things. He's generated by the Father. You guys, you have to reconcile these. You can't just say, "Oh, my opponent seems to think that Jesus is a lesser god or something." I don't. Okay. The Godhead model is quite simple. You have three persons. The three who's and the one what. When Avery talks and cross-examines me in a moment, he's going to ask me things about God. And I'm going to ask him, because remember the word "and," and, and Avery said this, and is quite explicitly, the word "God" is not univocal. It can refer either to the three persons or it can refer to the one what. Okay? So the one what is the Godhead. The three persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Here's the thing. When he uses the word "God," I'm going to ask him. I'm going to say, "Avery, by God, do you mean the one who or the three persons? Are you talking about a who or you talking about a what?" And if he doesn't clarify that, that will expose the game that's being played. Okay? You have to clarify your terms. The key to understanding why the Trinity doesn't work is getting clear on the language involved. And the best way to do it is with who's and what's. Remember, you have three who's, you have one what. Any one of the three who's can be called God, or the one what can be called God. When we talk about the oneness of God, what are we talking about? We're talking about the Godhead, the entity. When we're talking about the who's, we're talking about the individuals. And with that, I'll yield my time.

All right. So, this is probably the part that, uh, I think we're, we're most excited to see. This is the cross-examination round, where they will get to ask each other questions. There will be two 15-minute rounds. Avery will be asking Jacob questions. Jacob will be asking Avery questions, and that will conclude our debate. So, how do we, who's going first in this? Is it back on him?

>> Yeah, he first.

>> Sweet. Okay, if we can get a 15-minute clock, and then, uh, we got two more rounds, and then, oh, let's start that over because I'm, I'm yapping.

>> Okay. When he starts, that's when we can.

>> Hey, Jacob.

>> Hey. Hey. Okay. Uh, all right. Cool. So, um, let me ask you this question, man. Um, who do you believe Yahweh is?

>> You talking about a who? You talking about a what?

>> Who? Who is he?

>> Who?

>> Yeah. Out of the persons, is the Father Yahweh?

>> Each one of them can hold the divine name. So, in Exodus, for example, it talks about, uh, "My name is in him."

>> The Angel of the Lord.

>> Yep. To the Angel of the Lord. So any one of the three persons can hold the title or name of Yahweh as they, in, in the, so in the ancient world, there was a concept of the king sending a messenger that would bear his name and who would, who would actually speak as if he were the king. In, uh, the, the, in, uh, Revelation, John sees an angel who comes to him and begins to speak to him literally saying, "Like, I am the Alpha and the Omega." And he falls down and starts worshiping him.

>> That's not an angel.

>> Well, no. Well, well, the thing is is he goes, "No, no, no." He says, "Get." He's like, "What are you doing? Get up. I'm a fellow servant."

>> Yeah, but you said the angel says that I'm the Alpha and Omega. That's, that's Jesus speaking.

>> Well, that I might be misquoting, but he's, my point is is I might be messing that part up, but he is, what he is doing is the angel is speaking as if he is Yahweh.

>> No, he's not. What, what gives you that?

>> Why is, why did John fall down and, well, well, John falls down and worships him and he says, "Get up."

>> Yeah. So, what happens in the context? John is in awe of the vision that he's seeing. And so it just says that at being in awe of this, he then falls down before the angel's feet to worship the angel. And then the angel picks him up and says, "Hey, don't do that."

>> Why was he, why would I mean, I can't ask you those questions, but the reason that he is asking or that he's falling at his feet is because the messenger is coming as if he is God.

>> No.

>> There's nothing in the context that says anything like that. So it, like I said, he's showing him the visions and the heavenly places and the, the events that's going on. John is in such awe of this that he's, he falls down to worship at the end.

>> And begins blaspheming by worshiping an angel.

>> Yeah, he makes a mistake. He makes a mistake. That's why the angel said, "Hey, back, back to your question."

>> All three members can bear the title Yahweh as the messenger of Yahweh. They can bear the divine name.

>> Are, are they Yahweh though? Is the messenger Yahweh?

>> What do you mean by Yahweh? The one what? Or this?

>> Is he? So again, when you're saying that that they can bear the name Yahweh, you're saying they can bear the name like it's a title that they walk into or carry out their, their duties.

>> Yeah.

>> Are they Yahweh though?

>> Well, are you, is Yahweh a who or is Yahweh a what?

>> He's asking me a question, man.

>> Oh, I'm sorry. I need, no, I'm trying to understand the question, cuz when you say Yahweh.

>> No, no, no. He's asking the question.

>> I know, but, but I don't understand what he's asking.

>> Okay. Would you agree that Yahweh, I mean, Yahweh can refer to a who or it can refer to a what?

>> Okay. So when you say, uh, somebody can go out in the name of Yahweh, how are you using Yahweh in that way?

>> In that way.

>> Yeah.

>> When someone can go out in the name of Yahweh.

>> Yes.

>> I would say that they're using it in the sense that they're going out in the name of the Father.

>> Okay. Why?

>> Because the Father is the, within, within the Godhead, relationally, he is the most high.

>> I got you. So to you, the person who is Yahweh by reference and by, like, who Yahweh actually is, is the Father. The Son isn't really Yahweh. He's just an agent that can carry the name of Yahweh.

>> Incorrect. No. Yahweh can refer to a who or it can refer to a what. If it's talking, and, and it does refer to a who, is the Father, and the Father's name can be borne by, by the other two members.

>> Okay. Is, is the Son referred to as Yahweh? Is the Son referred to as Yahweh?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. So, if the Son is referred to as Yahweh, can the Son also send someone in the name of Yahweh?

>> It's a good question. Thank you. Um, I know that's a good question. Um, because he bears the divine authority. Yes, he can. He can send people out in the name of Yahweh. Jesus does that. He sends people out in the name of God because he's Yahweh. That's why.

>> Well, no. No, but you don't. Here's the thing. That's just not to understand the notion of divine agency in the Bible. The idea is is that the Angel of the Lord is the Angel of the Lord Yahweh. No, he's not. I'm asking these rhetorically. The Angel of the Lord is not Yahweh. He's the Angel of Yahweh. He's the messenger of Yahweh, but he's treated as if he's Yahweh. Okay. If you have a king who can, I stop you there.

>> Yeah. Go ahead.

>> Okay. So, the, the Angel of the Lord, you agree that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Jacob in Genesis 31, right?

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> In the dream, remember? And he saw the stairway.

>> Yeah. Who in the scripture does it say he saw at the top of the stairway?

>> Yahweh.

>> Very good. So is, and then in Genesis 35, we get that the angel comes back to Jacob in another dream, right? Remember the, they're doing the cattle thing, the spotted thing or whatever. And he says, "I am the God of Bethel, the one who you made a vow to." Right? In Genesis 31, it was Yahweh that he made a vow to. The angel of the Lord comes to him and says, "That was me." Right? So with this being said, is, is the Angel of the Lord Yahweh?

>> The Angel of the Lord can bear the name Yahweh because, no, no, no. The, you have to remember when a divine messenger would go forth for the king in their context. Remember, you guys are reading this through a modern lens. In the ancient world, the king would send someone out who would bear his name and speak as though they were the king in order to let people know what was going on. And they would bear the royal name. They would speak literally as if the king was there. They were the king.

>> Would they claim to be the king?

>> Would they claim to be the king?

>> Yes.

>> Yes. If they were, if they were, if they were in the way that they would speak, they would speak as though they were the king.

>> No, I, that's different. I know they can speak as though they were the king. They come in the name of the king. They make it clear. Hey, I'm a representative of the king, right? Can they claim to be the king himself?

>> But you're, you're operating with the word Yahweh exclusively as a question. No, no, but the word Yahweh has, you said yourself that the word Yahweh and the word God is not univocal. It can refer to, my question. It can refer, no, but that's the problem is that you're asking a question without defining the term that you're asking. You're conflating the term Yahweh is a who or the term Yahweh is a what?

>> Let me tell you, my, my handsome friend, this is what, this is what just happened. What I did was is I went by your terminology just now.

>> I asked you when you say that Yahweh sends a messenger out and they go in the name of Yahweh, how are you using that? And ever since then, I've been going about how you're operating using the word Yahweh. Okay. So, with this being said, I'm asking, can the messenger or agent of the king claim to be the king?

>> He can. If he's using the name Yahweh, he can claim to be part of that divine council.

>> I don't care about the council. See, we're doing it again.

>> No. No. And I'm not deferring to the divine council. Returning to the Godhead. Any member of the Godhead, he can say, he can say that I am Yahweh because Yahweh is a term that can refer to God.

>> That's what I'm asking. Here it is again.

>> Can the agent of the king who he sends out, "Hey, go to nation Umbria and go talk to the people or whatever." Can that agent that the king sent say, "Hey y'all, I'm the king." And I say, "Boop." Can he claim to be the king?

>> He can claim if, if you're referring, but you're referring to the name Yahweh in this case.

>> No, brother. The king. Can he claim to be the king?

>> I'm talking, but this is all in reference to Yahweh. And Yahweh is a word. The Yahweh. No. Yahweh is a word that can refer. He said he's Yahweh, right?

>> Jacob, the king.

>> No. No. No. He said he's Yahweh.

>> No. Yahweh.

>> I'm using your example. You're, see, this is what happens.

>> The problem is that the king, the king's name in the case of Yahweh can refer, in the case of Yahweh, it can, it's referring to Yahweh. The word Yahweh is a word that you yourself has said can refer to a what. And if he goes and says, "Yes, I am that what," like, "I am the, I'm in the divine council, I, I bear that name," they can do that.

>> Okay, so let's pause here for a second on Yahweh.

>> Okay.

>> The king.

>> For your example, the king.

>> Can the agent of the king claim to be the king?

>> Can the agent of the king claim to be the king?

>> No, he cannot.

>> Thank. But hold on, before we get, before we get too excited here, I just want to make sure we realize that was an example apart from Yahweh. When we're talking about Yahweh.

>> No, we're talking about Yahweh. And Yahweh is a word that can be used in two different.

>> Let me, let me, let me show you. Look, Jacob, let me show you again what the problem is. Just like you did it with the court, with the court example, and you even recognize it doesn't work with the Trinity. Your example here doesn't work for Yahweh because your example showing that people can go as agents of the king. They can't declare to be the king themselves. The same way Yahweh can send agents, but the agents cannot claim to be Yahweh, or else they're going to drop dead.

>> Okay. So, w, with, with Yahweh. So, for example, you say that Yahweh is the Father.

>> You also said that the Son is also identified as Yahweh.

>> Yes. This means that this, either the scripture is committing blasphemy, or Jesus truly is Yahweh the same way the Father is. How do you reconcile that?

>> When you say that y, that, well, no, when, how do you reconcile? Go one more time with the question.

>> So if you say that, just like how we, we just demonstrated an agent of the king cannot claim to be the king. You cannot point to an agent of the king and say, "That's the king right there."

>> Right? In the same way, you can't point to any agent of Yahweh and say, "That's Yahweh," or that agent claimed to be Yahweh themselves. Okay? So, if you're acknowledging, you acknowledge that the Father is Yahweh, you also acknowledge that the Son is also identified as Yahweh.

>> Either the Bible is committing blasphemy, and or Jesus is truly Yahweh in the same way the Father is. How do you reconcile that?

>> It said they both are ontologically Yahweh. They both ontologically are of the same. No, that is not. I believe you're, you're to say no to have the same nature. To have the same nature. I believe that they're all ontologically equal. You have to show that those three persons actually are the same being.

>> Would you agree that?

>> Not just that they're all ontologically equals. I believe they're all ontologically equals. You don't understand what the Trinity is because the Trinity actually is to say, as you said, it's not just that they share the same nature, it's that they are the same being. So you have to establish from the scriptures that they actually are the same being. What, what's the only thing we do, Jacob?

>> Read.

>> That's right.

>> So, um, let's do this really quick. Let's go to, let's, let's get the Bible.

>> We're going to get the verse.

>> We're going to go to Prophet Nehemiah.

>> You got four minutes.

>> I know.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. So, this is Nehemiah chapter 9, verse 6. It says, "You alone are Yahweh. You have made the heavens and the earth and with all their hosts, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give them, uh, life, and the heavenly host bows down to you." Who is that?

>> Who?

>> Yeah.

>> So that's a Yahweh in this case is a who.

>> There's only one who that people bow to.

>> Is it a who?

>> Is it a who?

>> Mhm.

>> No. Yahweh in this case is a what? Cuz it's referring to the one what.

>> Oh, the one what. And what does this one what consist of?

>> Three persons.

>> Okay. So, just so you guys know, apparently, apparently God Logic forgot about that a court is a one what composed of three separate persons. So he hasn't actually dealt with it and he's just putting on a show for you guys. So,

>> It's a great show.

>> Okay, I, I got, I got a few more minutes. He needs to show that the three persons in the one court, the one what, actually are the same being.

>> That's the Trinity, you guys. He's just describing the Godhead model and then being like, "Oh, I won. That's the Trinity." No, it's not.

>> The Trinity is the three persons who are the same being. He hasn't shown that. In fact, he hasn't dealt with all these contradictions in the scriptures that contradict that notion that they're the same being. He just got up and walked away cuz he's like, he thinks that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully divine. That's not the Trinity.

>> If that was the case, by the way, guys, then Mormons would be Trinitarians, cuz that's what we believe. Hey, hey, if we tonight, if we tonight resolve it and now Latter-day Saints are Trinitarians and now for can be considered Christians. Thanks, guys. We're glad to be part of the family. You'd have to dump, uh, Joseph guy.

>> No, you'd have to. No. No. The issue.

>> Wait, wait. I got two minutes. I got two minutes. Okay.

>> Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, you know, it's not often that I just let someone take over my cross like that, but when you're working for me, man, when we on the same team like this, you could talk all you want. Hey, Jo. Hey, by the way, you guys think Catholics are, are, uh, are Christians and they don't have to abandon the Pope, right?

>> You're right.

>> Oh, Joseph ain't no Pope.

>> No, he didn't kill that many people.

>> Oh.

>> Let's get real quick. Real, real quick though. No, but, but in all honesty, that, that is, you have to understand what the Trinity is. Okay, go ahead. Go ahead.

>> Okay, so, um, you said that the Father alone is the most high. Is that right?

>> Uh, the Father bears the title of the most high within the relationship of the Godhead. Amongst the three, Jesus said that they are greater than him. So relationally, the Father is the most high, but ontologically, he is equal with the, they're the same, uh, fully divine beings. They're both fully, all three are fully divine beings.

>> Okay. You, you identified the Father as the most high in between the Father, Son, and Spirit. Correct? Is that correct?

>> Relationally.

>> Relationally. Okay. Um, when it comes to the Son, where does he sit?

>> Relationally?

>> Yeah.

>> He's begotten of the Father.

>> But where does he sit? Where's his throne?

>> On the right hand of the Father.

>> Which is?

>> In heaven.

>> Which is, oh, sure. But, but, but it's unhigh. Hebrews 1 says,

>> And he's there with the body, right? Oh, sorry.

>> Yeah. He says he sits at the right hand of, of the Majesty, unhigh, right? Is there anybody higher than that position?

>> No. That's what that's like the whole Godhead model. It's that, that all three of the beings are the most high. But relationally amongst those three beings, you have,

>> All three of them are the most high. Huh?

>> You just said that the Father.

>> Yeah. If I had the court made up of three people that was the ultimate authority in the land, that court would be the most high.

>> But, okay. So when you call, you, you're calling the Father, Son, and the Spirit a council, the council of God.

>> I wouldn't call them, I'm not, I'm not referring to them as the council of gods talked about in Psalms. That's not what I mean. You,

>> Mentioned that before.

>> I know. But they're not the council of the gods in that sense. I'm not referring to that. They are, they are the council that rules over all things.

>> Okay, my time is up.

>> All right. So now Jacob is going to go into 15 minutes of cross-examination asking Logic. Just so you guys know, we got a hard out of this room at 10:30 for our tech team and our audio video. So, we may not get to, uh, questions. Maybe we'll get to a few. So, just heads up, we got to be out of this room at 10:30 contractually. Okay, go.

>> All right. So, Jesus and the Father are the same being, right? That's what you said.

>> No, no. What? What do you say?

>> We both, we both said that.

>> They're the same being, right?

>> Yes.

>> Does Jesus have a body?

>> Yes, he does.

>> He has a body.

>> Yeah.

>> Oh my. Does, so if he's the same being as the Father, does the Father have a body?

>> Yeah. So, this is referring to his human nature. He possessed a body and he has the same divine nature, the divine essence as the Father. So they're equal or identical in their essence and with their divinity, not his humanity. Oh.

>> Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, is Jesus's body in heaven right now?

>> Yeah, that physical body.

>> Yes.

>> So physical. So heaven, heaven is a physical place.

>> Well, I, I, I don't know about the metaphysics of of heaven necessarily like that.

>> Well, I mean, are, are you going to have a physical body in a, in a non-physical body?

>> It's a glorified body. So, agreed. But it's not physical, right?

>> I, I, I don't know if I would categorize it as that because it's glorified. So, it's, it's made spiritual. So there's, there's a lot of metaphysics that's that.

>> When Jesus eats fish, that's all like a physical thing that he does post resurrection.

>> Sure.

>> Okay. And that body, that body is in heaven though, right?

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. I just want to get clear on how this all works in heaven. So we have Jesus in, but that's just Jesus in his humanity, right?

>> What do you mean?

>> With the body? Jesus in his divinity.

>> The person Jesus possesses a body.

>> I know. But, but, but, but how can God, if he's fully God, have a body?

>> Well, the same way that the scripture says in Zechariah 12:10, it says that Yahweh was pierced. Yahweh, who you identify as the most high God, is pierced. That's a physical action being done. That can only happen if he takes on a body. So the scripture tells us he does this.

>> Okay. I, I know. But what I'm saying is, you're saying that God has a body.

>> Yeah. Yeah. He, the person of the Son.

>> You're going to go, hold on. You're going to go with that. That God has a body.

>> Yeah. The second person of the Son, who is identified as God, took on a body. He literally says, "You have prepared a body for me."

>> Awesome.

>> God has a body, guys.

>> Yeah. The second person of the Son.

>> All right. So, cool. So, so God is an embodied being.

>> The person of the Son. Yeah.

>> Okay. But he's the same being as the Father though, right?

>> But the Father doesn't have a body, does he?

>> I, I said no, he doesn't.

>> Yeah. So, they're, they're not. So, but they're the same being.

>> Yes. So, so again, Jacob, they, they're, look, let me tell you. So, I'll say it again.

>> They are identical in their divine being. That's the being that they are identical.

>> Okay. Okay. So,

>> Jesus takes on a human nature and he's a human being as well. Okay. So that's where the same person, not conflating.

>> Okay. Um, can a person be a man and a woman at the same time?

>> No.

>> Okay, cool. Um, can a person have two mutually exclusive natures?

>> Can a person have two mutually exclusive natures? Sure. God did.

>> All right, guys. That's it. So apparently God is a square circle. That's what he's going with. And he's calling himself God Logic.

>> No. So I'm not saying that God is a square circle. I'm saying that he possesses a square and a circle simultaneously. So with you, with a square circle, you're saying you're trying to say,

>> But then you have two separate things.

>> Let me land. Let me land. Okay. So what you're trying to did, well, try to did, what you tried to did was, what you tried to did was,

>> You tried. All right, just answer the question.

>> You tried, you tried to mix the square and a triangle as if they're one thing. The square is the triangle at the same time. No, we're not saying that the divine, we're not saying that the divine nature and the human nature are mixed. He has two distinct natures who are that are united in his person.

>> Okay, cool. All right, let's, let's go through this then. Um, we're going to show the problems with that right now because, um, does Jesus have one mind or two?

>> He has one, one divine mind.

>> He has one divine mind.

>> So he doesn't have a human mind.

>> I wouldn't say that the, that the divine person has a human mind per se. I would say that, um, that Christ in his humanity, he, when he takes on human nature, he possesses a human soul. He grows as a human, develops as a human.

>> I know that's, I'm asking about the mind. Does he have one mind? That's what I'm saying.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> And is it fully, is it a divine, does it have all knowledge? Does he have all knowledge?

>> Yes. And just, and just really quick, then how is that?

>> Can I answer you in full? Oh my goodness. So, so you do have like certain interpretations that would say that Jesus does have a human mind and a, and a divine mind. I don't really personally hold that view. Um, I, I, I believe that he has one mind, but I, I don't see how this is dealing with is God a Trinity in the Bible. You're trying to attack the.

>> Well, what I'm saying is is that you have a, you have a separate, you have a separate, a separation within God. You have, you're describing two, you're describing two persons and you're saying it's the same person, right? Because that person only has one mind and that mind is either divine, meaning it has all knowledge and is omniscient and isn't limited in any way, or else it's a human mind. He can't have two minds because guess what happens if you have two minds? You have two people.

>> Based on what?

>> Are you saying that you can have two people?

>> What, what is your justification for that?

>> Uh, you, it's not my time to answer this. We can go back to that. Um, so real quick.

>> So I just want to point out here, Avery thinks that Jesus has one mind and that mind is fully divine. So he doesn't have a human mind. So Jesus was not fully human. He can't make that claim because because you can't have one mind that is fully divine and be a human. If I had a fully divine mind, I wouldn't be.

>> What is your justification for that?

>> Because to be fully human, you have to have a human mind.

>> Based on what? When you're talking about Christ on.

>> No, no, don't say that's fine. No, it's, it's my time to answer, ask the question.

>> Oh my gosh.

>> All right. Can we make God suffer?

>> Can we make God suffer?

>> Yeah.

>> Absolutely.

>> We can make God suffer.

>> Absolutely.

>> You can hurt God. So the perfect being who lacks nothing. Hold on. You're really going with that.

>> For God is not God. God is actually hurt.

>> For, for by us, for, for example, in Isaiah chapter 63, it says that the people of Israel rebelled against him and grieved his Holy Spirit. Does grieve equal hurt? Okay. So, you're saying.

>> Does grief equal pain and suffer?

>> Yeah, sure. But this is the problem.

>> Then you just conceded God can be hurt.

>> Then you just refuted classical theism because God cannot change an emotional state. If God changes his emotional state, you have a change of God.

>> This is a description of God's displeasure and he actually has interaction with human beings. Even you believe this.

>> Even you.

>> No, no, no. I, but, but my point is this isn't classical theism.

>> This is the Trinity. This is.

>> No, this, you. Okay, that's fine. If you want to go with that, that is just fine. I just wanted to stand. No, because if God, you're not saying that God is even God because, because God does, does God lack anything?

>> Oh, so no. But for.

>> Hold on. Can you, can you suffer? I'm asking the question.

>> I know, but I'm trying to answer you in full. You just asked me something.

>> What did I ask you?

>> You just asked me, can God lack anything?

>> Yeah. Can God lack anything?

>> So the answer is no. And so when even when you would say that when the scripture says that they grieved his Holy Spirit and rebelled against him, that he's hurt when his people, uh, sin against him, he's hurt when they break his covenant.

>> That's fine. But what I'm saying is that that isn't consistent with, with, with the nature of God.

>> You would not equal that as a loss or God is lacking something because he can be grieved. Okay.

>> Right. Okay. Can God change?

>> No.

>> Okay. So he would change his emotional state from not being sad to being sad.

>> It's an expression of his displeasure. So it's.

>> You're talking about a God that's passable.

>> What, what do you mean by passable?

>> Oh my goodness. The creeds that literally say that God is impassible.

>> What do you mean by that? I.

>> It means that he, he can change his emotional state.

>> So you're, so you're saying that I'm arguing that God changes? That's not what I'm, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that, hold on, let me finish. It would, it would be a change if God didn't grieve. It would be a change if he didn't suffer at, at his, at mankind's rebellion. Then he would be changing. That would be like saying if God stops showing mercy, that's a change.

>> I, I just want for every YouTuber out there who understands classical theism to, to take this and clip it because that is that is a, that is a heretical statement.

>> I'm waiting on.

>> Is God, is God, is God tri-personal?

>> Yes.

>> Is Jesus tri-personal?

>> Uh, no. He's one person who is, uh, with the Trinity. He's the second person of the Trinity.

>> Okay. So, but God is tri-personal.

>> You're conflating nature and personhood again. Properties of the essence, they have properties of the person.

>> Okay. Is the, what makes the Father distinct from Jesus?

>> He begets him.

>> Okay. You said in the past that the Father generates the Son. Do you believe that?

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Um, in a recent video said, "To be self-existing is to be ungenerated." Do you believe the Son is self-existing?

>> Yeah. So, what, this is where you're doing a category error again. So in, what, in the video that I'm explaining, I'm making the distinction between the properties of God in his essence and the properties am and their relations with each other. So you, you cannot be generated by another being and still be self-existent. You can be generated by a person that you share the same essence with. You're not, and, and you're still self-existent because you guys share.

>> So the Son is generated by the Father. Is he dependent on the Father for his?

>> There's an interdependency there. So like for.

>> So the Father is dependent on the Son.

>> Yes. So for example, the Father, let me get.

>> The Father's dependent on the Son.

>> Let me finish. For example, the Father is a, is a Father as long as he has what? A Son. So without the Son, he's not a Father. So in order for the Father to be who he is, he needs the Son. Okay. So you're say, so your God, your God that you're talking about, your God that you're talking about, your God that you're talking about can be changed.

>> He's a dependent being.

>> I never said that. Don't start at me, J.

>> No. No. Because he can change. He can change his emotional states.

>> I didn't say that.

>> You said that sadness. Yeah. Be having God being grieved is not him changing. If he cannot be grieved, if he cannot.

>> If he goes from a state of grieving to a state of grieving.

>> If he doesn't have displeasure in evil, then he changed.

>> Is the person, his nature to grieve? The person Jesus, the uncaused cause of all things?

>> Yes.

>> He is.

>> Yes.

>> Then is the person Jesus generated by the Father?

>> See, notice you're doing it again. I'm about to help you tonight. I'm.

>> No, no, no. Is, is the Son generated or not? I'm.

>> I'm telling you. Okay, this is what you're doing. And this is what usually people, you know, who people I deal with, the Mormon, the Muslims. But Jacob, you're better than them. Okay, this is the category. They do this all the time. They conflate categories of the essence of God, properties that belong to the nature, and then properties that belong to the persons. So when we say Jesus is generated, we're talking about his personal relationship with the Father. The Father begets the Son eternally, as similar to how an infinite sun would eternally generate light. That doesn't mean that light now is created. No, if the sun is infinite in the sky, then light eternally infinitely generates from it. So as long as the Father is infinitely the Father, uh, Psalm 90:2, he's God from everlasting to everlasting and he's unchanging. So he's eternally the Father, which means he eternally had the Son. Right? So this is their relationship personally. Now, when it comes to their essence, Jesus in his essence is not generated by anything outside of his own essence. So that's how he's self-existent. Okay.

>> So in your view, can God be a dependent being?

>> God is a dependent, independent being. Did you ask if he can be a dependent being?

>> Yeah, it has.

>> Oh, sorry.

>> Okay. So, can God have parts?

>> No, not within his essence.

>> Sorry.

>> Can God have parts?

>> He's not made of parts.

>> What does this have to do with the Trinity?

>> Uh, it has a lot to do with the Trinity. You're talking about, you just said that you have three persons. I want to make sure I understand this. You have three persons who are dependent on one another for the same, for that one being. And then you're saying that God has no parts. You literally just described a dependent relationship amongst three different persons and then you're saying that there are no parts in God. But you wouldn't have God if you didn't have all three of the persons you just described. You just described three parts.

>> No.

>> No.

>> I need to do it again. You're having to dance on this one because divine simplicity negates the idea that you have three persons that are ultimately being generated.

>> Jacob, the problem that you're having is you're mixing up the operations and the functions of the persons with each other to the essence. And now that meaning that they, that the essence is broken up into parts. No, they fully possess the divine essence. Fully are God, right? They fully have the divine essence and their operations are distinct. So the Father begets, the Son is begotten, the Spirit is proceeded from, right? This is the operations of them and their relationship. That doesn't mean that they're now, their essence is broken up in parts.

>> The thing is is if you have something with no parts, how can they have relationship between the different things? And when you're talking about parts, you're talking relationships, you're literally talking about relationships. You have to have two things to have a relationship.

>> You're talking, that's partial. That's parts.

>> When you say parts, you're talking about the essence. That's what you're talking about. But unfortunately, you keep conflating the essence.

>> You're saying that within the essence are three persons that are all dependent on one another.

>> Refuse me from the Bible.

>> What I have, dude.

>> The thing is is that the God you're describing can't be God because he's a dependent being.

>> Give me, give me the verse.

>> Get the verse. All right. So, how can you be both begotten and unbegotten at the same time in the same being?

>> Very good question, Jacob. I'mma do it again.

>> I should have gotten a whiteboard.

>> Ladies and gentlemen.

>> You can be unbegotten via your essence because there's not another essence or being that generates you. That way, you're not begotten. Then you can be begotten in relation to the persons that you share the same essence with. So the Father, who has the same exact essence as you, can generate you eternally, and it not be multiple gods or partialism. So Jesus can be begotten in one sense in relation to the Father and unbegotten in the, in the, in the relation to his essence.

>> And he's going to literally say that there are no parts involved in this.

>> That's not, that's just distinct operations of the persons. You can't have operations between things if there's only one thing.

>> You can have operations between persons who share the same essence. You have to demonstrate that just because they have distinct operations or they're the distinct persons, that this means that the essence is now divided.

>> To have anything be distinct is to have two different things.

>> No.

>> No.

>> No.

>> Okay.

>> Yes, it is. You can't have a, you're talking, you're talking about real quick. You're talking about relationships between things. How can you have a relationship between things if you only have one thing? For, for example, your soul is in relation to you as a human. Your human, right?

>> My soul is in relation to me as a human.

>> Yes. Right.

>> Go ahead.

>> Your, is that correct? Your mind, your mind is in relation to you as a human, right?

>> Yeah.

>> Yet you're one human, right?

>> But I'm made of parts.

>> Now, I know I'm not saying, I'm not saying.

>> That's my point. Listen, let me finish. I'm not saying that this is an example of the Trinity. I know that's partialism. I'm addressing what you just said. You just said you cannot have two distinct things in relation to one thing and it still be one thing. But yet you have multiple distinct things and yet I'm made of parts. I'm not God. That's the whole point.

>> No, but you said that if you're saying if, if you're saying you literally are saying that Jesus has a physical body and God doesn't have parts.

>> And so.

>> And the, you're describing parts. My problem is is that if the God of the Bible has the nature that you claim the Bible has, then it can't have the things that you're describing it have. And that's why the Trinity ultimately fails because it ends up in incoherence with the God of classical theism. You can't have three persons and have one thing. And if God is ultimately one thing and divinely simple without parts, you can't have the three.

>> So you're stuck in a bind.

>> That's our time, guys.

>> Okay, we, we're out, out of time.

>> Oh, shoot.

>> Yeah, we're done.

>> No closing.

>> No closing. One final statement to take us out. We got, we got to wrap.

>> Okay. Okay. Um, final statement, ladies and gentlemen. So, uh, Jacob spent his entire cross-examination not quoting a verse.

>> The topic is the Trinity. Is the God of the Bible a Trinity? He didn't refute not one thing that I brought up biblically, right? But tried to take a philosophical route and was conflating a bunch of categories. And so what we saw was is that even under scrutiny, biblically, it's the Trinity is biblically sound. It's undefeated. Even philosophically, they can't stand up to it. You can have three distinct persons, be undivided and inseparable, and yet be one God. Thank you, guys, for coming out.

>> All right, real brief statement.

>> My one final statement. Okay, here's the thing. I showed in the Bible that you have two contradictory natures, and then he needs, well, in his interpretation of the Bible, you have two contradictory natures, and he just owned it. He literally just said that the Father and the Son, or that that Jesus is essentially a square circle. Okay? And the problem is is that that's nonsense. And if you want to say that Jesus was a square and a circle, you have two things. You don't have one thing. Okay? So if God is ultimately the one ultimate cause of all things. If I had a Lego house here, okay? And that house was made of Legos, the house is dependent on the individual Legos. So therefore, the fundamental thing is not the house, it's the Legos. He's talking about God with a body. Oh, and he doesn't have a body, and Jesus is fully divine, and he's a square, and he's a circle. And he's describing all of these different parts within God. He's describing a God that's dependent. He's describing a God that is, uh, subject to human emotions and is, and is a changeable being based on what we do. And then he wants to claim that that is the God of the Bible. And that's the problem. That model of God is not consistent with the classical theistic God of the Bible that you guys want to do. And so the thing is, you can't have the God of classical theism and the God of the Bible at the same time. You can't have that Trinitarian model, and that is why it fails.

>> All right, Jacob Hansen, God Logic. That was great. All right, guys. Hey, we got to get out of here. Doors open tomorrow at 9:30. We'll see you tomorrow. It will not be as late. I promise.

>> My man.

>> Hey, thank you. Good.