Bill Nye

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 and now with today's topic. Here is James White and welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday got a lot of people who started sending me a few days ago the link to the Bill Nye the science guy video and His assertion that if you want to live in a world that does not correspond to reality.

That's your choice, but don't force your children to do that. Don't teach them that God created the world. Teach them the theory of evolution, which I think you forgot the theory part, but be that as it may.

And everybody's going you need to respond to this. You need to respond to this and I'm like, no, I don't. They're going to be a billion people who do they're going to be people who are specialists in the area.

Who are going to respond to that and they're going to respond to that Better than I can they're going to respond to that with with more Information than I could that I could bring to bear on that subject.

I mean, you know A man's got to know his limitations as people say and Yeah, I I Minored or majored in biology in college long long ago, and I sort of try to keep up with those things and No more than the average bear on that subject, but that's not not my area and I Just recognize obviously That what you've got going on here.

We can't learn something from this other than the people who have provided excellent responses to Bill Nye on a scientific level. But what we can learn here is that you can have a PhD at the end of the name and these days that probably means That that probably means that you are not well taught in Well what used to be called liberal sciences in other words Anymore to be able to Be so specialized to be specialized in the fields of science Means you probably don't know a lot about other areas anymore the the days the Renaissance man have long passed when you had knowledge of a wide variety of things and Instead you end up with with people like a Richard Dawkins who is just so abysmally ignorant of Theology and history and philosophy and all these things but real smart in genetics and so you think that your You know honorary doctors, that's fine anyways you you think that your field your area Trump's everything else and you don't see how your area relates to everything else and so people who embrace a naturalistic materialistic worldview They very rarely are are we are self-reflective on The relationship of their worldview to any other world in fact a lot of Don't even understand any other worldviews, and I and I've run into Christians.

They're the same way that is unfortunately one of the problems with a lot of Christian fundamentalism is That you have just such a narrow view of the world that anything that's different than what I'm accustomed to Is just automatically to be rejected and I'm not even to think about it and and it's actually it might even be evil to know anything about it or to learn anything about it and the result of course is people not being able to talk to other people and communicate and everything else and so You know when I saw Bill Nye's comments.

I'm like well. That's that's what any naturalistic materialist is gonna say. That's that's their whole point that that's that's their worldviews expressing itself. And and do they understand? Do they even take the time to listen to what the other side saying now the other side is is too different from us and and too separated from us and just not worthy of being listened to and that's why people end up having problems talking to each other and so no I I guess in the sense of well You know learning something about Pagans acting like pagans you know I mean people who have a secular materialist worldview are going to Speak and act in light of that and we need to be accustomed that be used to it.

That's the way it is. So nothing nothing much really to respond to there I mean let people point out that you know this is the kind of attitude that has resulted in so many University science faculties being utterly incapable of Even allowing for the discussion of intelligent design and and the many many problems with neo-darwinian micro-mutational evolutionary theory and and the massive growth in our knowledge of of Basically biochemistry the the chemistry of life, and it's massive complexity, and it's clearly ordered and designed Nature.

You can't talk about that. You'll you'll have your tenure revoked or you'll get fired or whatever we you know remember expelled it's What it was talking about was was quite quite true, so That happens there look what's going on with the subject of homosexuality in In For example social studies I Didn't have the name up, but some someone might remember who it is.

But recently a study was done that basically said you know It's probably best to have a mom and a dad. Oh, what a shocking thing oh and Basically, it was it was saying having two dads or two moms might not be the best thing and here's the evidence for it and The outcry of You just might as it might as well be heretic burn him.

That's that's the way it is in in the education in the educational system and in and in all sorts of schools today you just you're not allowed to go against these things and. That's that's just how it is.

Ralph and channeled has said the family has gathered around the iPad listening to dr. Oh, that's me dr. Oakley and channel like FDR during a fireside chat I Think I talk a little bit more different I I don't know I haven't listened to I've only the only FDR fireside chats I've ever heard were ones relating to World War two sort of an area of I'm studying not so much studying, but when I want to stop listening to Hadith or something like that like right now.

Right now I'm reading a book for those who care about such things on the battle for Peleliu and I'll bet you 99 of the people in this audience have never heard of Peleliu. You've heard of Iwo Jima. You've heard of Okinawa.

You've heard of Guadalcanal. Maybe even heard of Tarawa. But Peleliu is the great forgotten battle of World War two. I'd were you familiar at all with Peleliu see. And it's a shame thousands of Marines lost their lives there and thousands of Japanese and to be honest with you Wasn't any reason for it.

No reason at all. We could have easily bypassed it and it was not a it was not a threat, but MacArthur wanted it and MacArthur got it and It was a bloodbath. It was something else and The Marines they took it.

But I think they lost nearly 7 ,000 men in the process. But anyway, how in the world did I get to that? I was that's that's the type of thing I listened to to sort of you know get out of listening to.

You can only listen to Hadith studies and things like that for so many hours before. You want to drive your ride your bike off the off the road and into a face plant into a saguaro? I'd feel better we How to get on to that anyways, I don't know how I got into that but be that as it may okay.

So there's there's Bill Nye the the science guy and we're not gonna worry too much about that. I did want to respond then To some articles. I wasn't gonna do this. I honestly if someone had it's B1 crawly on On Twitter force me to do this.

It's all if you want to blame anyone blame b1 crawly on on Twitter. This morning as soon as turrets and fan came and channel he said so David Waltz has some criticism for you. And I said, oh, there's nothing new David Waltz is one of my stalkers now.

I'm like at a sham gulam who is just simply completely nuts. He is About two three weeks ago, you know, he's my stalker on Twitter who who constantly puts the outrageous tweets about linking to Peter Lumpkins and what was the other one he links to.

I mean, it's just it is face-plantingly Ridiculous every time he does it and it and foul and profane he includes for fan. He's like he's a allegedly a Muslim, but he's more like an atheist and but a couple weeks ago he he tweets, you know, I'm really sorry about having done this and I'm not gonna do it anymore and Then a week later.

It's all started over again. So which one is when he's on meds is the question I'm not sure which one it is. So I've got some really interesting Folks out there That are just just really interesting that David Waltz isn't not is not like at a sham gulam, but he is a stalker he has been for over a decade now and I don't know what he does right now.

My understanding is That he made a bunch of money back in the dot-com days and and he just sort of Lives on that. I I don't know I don't I don't even bother reading his stuff to be very honest with you because when it comes to me all he does is Follow me around and try to find something to to pick on try to find something to to make him look like he's smart and I'm stupid and normally, it is some kind of just Definition of nitpicking and that's what we have today.

Now one of my one of the reasons that I I'll be perfectly honest with you I don't bother reading the man is because he is the Quintessential definition of the person who is blown about by every wind of doctrine.

He's been everything You never really know where he is these days and I like I said, I haven't been keeping track but He's my recollection is he was once Jehovah's Witness he's been he's played around Roman Catholicism and he's been orthodoxy and just you know, all just just all over the place and You know, I have I'll be honest I have a real hard time working up a whole lot of respect for people who are blown about by every wind of doctrine.

They can't can't get their feet down on the on the ground and stay in one place for long enough to actually accomplish anything. And so, you know, it's easy for him to sit around. He's a moving target because you know, you criticize him today and next week you might believe something today.

So it's like that's pretty easy that's the easy way to get around things, but he's very proud of his very large library and So he sits around dragging quotations out and firing his stuff now the whole reason again that I am going to address this is As I said b1crawley on Twitter sent me the link after I had already heard about it from TurrettonFan.

I had told TurrettonFan What's what's he up to now? Oh, he's he's he's talking about some of the things you said in the no compromise ever video, I was like, oh, okay, you mean about Modalism and stuff like yeah, he says you're misrepresenting the one in the skies and stuff like that.

So once it was tweeted to me, I thought okay. All right. Let's take a look. What is it? Well, it was amazingly shallow. I mean just really bad and the only reason I'm responding to this is in the process of looking at what he was saying and then Dragging out my very well-worn copy of Athanasius from the Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers second series I ran across in my reading an excellent citation to use in Future debates not with people like David Waltz or one of those folks anything else but with my Muslim friends there I there are some Muslim friends who like to misrepresent Athanasius and They will pull citations out That make it sound as if the early Christians did believe what the Quran presents the idea of a Physical relationship Not so much between God and Mary.

He doesn't obviously Athanasius isn't gonna say much about that, but in the sense of the the son being a physical offspring of of the father and so as I was looking at the citation that Waltz had provided which is from page 472 It is from Dei Sinodus the councils of a remnant and Seleucia it's Athanasius is discussion of later Arianized councils and how to respond to them and this is actually his section Where he's he's talking About these councils and about the positions taken by people and and the differences between them.

But I found this section. This was the section 42. He's quoting section 41 the section 42 I found to be very very interesting in Providing response to the misuse of Athanasius now remember Unfortunately as we have demonstrated and documented this program many times our Muslim friends tend to shall we say network and so If somebody comes up with a bad argument It's gonna be repeated by a lot of other people.

So we've had the Jesus didn't know who is touching him argument Repeated by a bunch of folks some of whom it was totally unworthy of them. But there's this networking thing and they'll borrow from one another.

So if I've heard Athanasius misuse this way You will probably hear Athanasius misuse this way as well. So you might want to Be aware of this particular section section 42 of Dei Sinodos. But notice what he says accordingly as in saying offspring we have no human thoughts and Though we know God to be a father.

We entertain no material ideas concerning him. But while we listen to these illustrations and terms we think suitably of God for he is not as man. So unlike manner when we hear of co-essential we ought to transcend all sense and according to the proverb Understand by the understanding that is set before us so as to know that not by will but in truth He is genuine from the father as life from fountain and radiance from light.

Else why should we understand offspring and son in no corporeal way? Well, we conceive of co-essential as after the manner of bodies. Especially since these terms are not here used about different subjects.

But of whom offspring is predicated of him is co-essential also then at the end of that section He says but as this would be absurd for the son is the father's word and wisdom and the offspring From the father is one and proper to his essence.

So the sense of offspring and co-essential is one and who so considers the son and offspring rightly considers him also as co-essential. So what Athanasius is arguing there is the only way that offspring can have any real meaning.

In the sense that that we are using it is that it becomes a synonym for homoousius of the same essence. Now that is not in any way shape or form. What is being said by? by the Muslims in trying to say that we as Christians believe that that Allah had a wife named Mary and they had an offspring named Jesus and Hence to quote Athanasius in that way is is a great misrepresentation.

So even in spending the time to look at what David Waltz has said That is a a citation that will probably end up in some Presentations in the future who knows might end up in a book someplace in the very near future.

I'm getting toward the 50 60 page mark Left and a lot of that is already a lot of that the materials already there. It's We're down to the point where it's. It's more it's more right now trying to keep this thing getting too big than anything else, but we're we're getting there.

It's already listed on Amazon. It's listed at 240. It's gonna be more like 275 I would say but Really excited about it gets exciting toward the end of the book when you start seeing what's gonna look like you start seeing the you Know the end notes piling up and please for those of you who have not maybe read some of my books recently Remember something about my books.

Yeah, I got to read the end notes. Yeah, I got to read the end notes. Quit whining that they're end notes. You got to read them anyway. Publishers don't like footnotes because they they especially my footnotes because I'll put entire quotations Into footnotes or into end notes and you make them footnotes and then it's that you know you've got this huge chunk of small text on a page and then They just don't like that.

So Hopefully the end notes will be at the end of the chapter not the end of the book. That's a little bit easier to work with. I don't I really don't like the books that have you know end notes for pages blah blah blah blah blah blah.

You know that but yeah, I I understand I I fully understand how that works. But you know, we got it gotta deal with what we gotta do it. All right, anyway. So that citation might might end up in one of those contexts now.

Looking at if I can find my there it is and find my cursor I've got I've got this really cool setup where I have I have two Macs sitting here and Somebody I think was it Monty and channel. That told me somebody in channel told me about this cool program for Macs that allows you to control two Macs Simultaneously and you can run your your your cursor all the way across them.

Well, but the problem is when you've got four screens in front of you and the cursor ain't that big. Sometimes like where did it go? Where where's this thing going? All right, so the first article was posted Yesterday James R. White you should have stayed out of the deep water part one.

I just love the Waltz's does not make any pretensions to humility and he talks about someone taking a Pot shot at Karl Truman and Well, not everybody at the council and I see it was Turks and and basically these guys want to do is they They sit around going look how smart I am about churches.

I'm smarter than that person I can disagree with I can nitpick anything. That's what these guys are and It's like they never leave their their libraries do anything else. And I don't think David Waltz has ever actually Debated a oneness person or actually gone out on the front lines and done it like that they just sit in the back and toss stones and go how smart I am and and so that's what he's decided to do here and So he starts off taking on this is this is a a Statement that I did not come up with this is a statement that many people Far far more trained in church history than David Waltz could ever pretend to be have likewise stated and he quotes me and Here's what I said.

I really think what we're dealing with here and this this may be more in in the good Dr. Truman's area to comment on. But as I have had the opportunity to teach church history in the past and also joining To that working as an apologist.

It seems to me that a that different periods of church history the clarity that we gain on particular topics is due the struggles the church is facing and then he then it's a dot dot dot and a bit later as at 714 and following in the early church as was mentioned before.

The difference between homoous yes and homoous yes is a huge gap. But it is only one letter now. Some of you will remember last year when we did a what two hour and 45 minute Christology class we talked about these things we defined Heteroous yes homoous yes homoous yes and we talked about the fact that at the Council of Nicaea if you believed in homoous yes, you were affirming that the Sun is of the same essence of the father if you said heteroous yes, it was a different essence and homoous yes was the idea of like essence and.

What I was addressing of course was the fact that when you if you have someone who. And again in elephant room. This wasn't the level of clarity that were that we're talking about the questions that were asked of.

The oneness proponent at the elephant room. We're not clear enough that now notice. It's funny. When when folks picket knits knits are small things. Then I could deal with the overall you know well, we're actually addressing something important.

No, they don't care about stuff like that. That's not why they do what they do. They're not in it about the big issues. They're not there they're just their whole essence is. If I don't like someone I'm going to find Something to disagree with them about them and say they're wrong about something.

And that will puff me up and that will deflate them as this you know and It's it's a sad life to be honest with you. I don't know what it'd be like to to go through life like that, but that's that's where some people are anyway.

Here is the response that. And what I was talking about of course is the fact that There is a huge difference between Saying that Christ is of the same nature the father is saying he is of a similar nature.

Now how are there does that mean that there have not been people? And Again another thing. I just thought I'd mention here. I've talked about this in other contexts. I've talked about this in my books.

I've talked about this in program for I've talked about this in my articles the RE journal. They don't care about that either. They don't they don't they don't care about the fact that you have discussed these things.

They just want to look at one little thing. That's what picking at knits is is all about and when you're a nitpicker. That's that's that's your life. And that's what you do. I've talked about the fact that there is a vast difference between someone who knowing what homoousius means Rejects it and Someone who rejects homoousius for the reasons that there were people who had problems with it in the early church specifically there was a language problem between the east and the west and The east had struggled with the use of homoousius by the modalists and That had been before the Arian controversy.

So in the third century There had been struggles in the Eastern Church especially against those who confused the persons of the Trinity and who presented different forms of Monarchianism and modalism and To be really specific you have to say well, which person are we talking about?

What's their specific view and we'll get to why emphasize that in a moment? But the East has struggled with that and one of the primary objections that some of the Eastern fathers had against the Nicene formulation Was that they didn't want to have to go back to their churches and explain why they gave in to a term that could now be utilized by well heretics at the East may have felt were were more of a problem than the Aryans were or certainly went back to the struggles that they had had in the past and so There could be people Who because they were afraid of blurring the distinction between the father and the son would say well.

They're of like essence that is the one divine essence. But they don't want to say of the same essence because that could destroy the the distinction of the persons that by the way is what Athanasius addresses in the quote.

So here's here's what I say in The early churches was mentioned before the difference between homoousius and homoousius is a huge gap. He put it all capitals, but it is only one letter and then he says is that an accurate statement.

That's stupid James he may have gone out in the deep water where I am the king of the deep water is a Note what it's saying Athanasius the great defender the Nicene Creed and Trinitarianism had to say and then we have the quotation from Dei Sinatis 41 which for those of you who have The Nicene post -19 father's that the Hendrickson set or the old Erdman set Hendrickson now publishes it.

It's available online. See if you want to see. It's just ccel .org slash CCL slash shaft and then you can search for Dei Sinatis under there, but anyway page 472 of the volume that is volume number four of the second.

Of the post -19 father's the blue ones if you're wondering if you have the older set like I do. And as you can see see see Jamie. This one's been rather. Yeah, those are. Those are just the little page markers that I have Edition of Athanasius.

It's it's been around the block three times. Anyhow, here's the here's the quotation. I'm actually switch over to Athanasius here directly. Because I don't want to take the quote directly out of out of his anyways that wouldn't be the way to it.

Section 41 those who deny the council together are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks those however who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea and Only about the co-essential the homoous yes term Must not be treated as enemies.

Now let me just stop right there. That's not what I was talking about and David Waltz knows it. He knows it. He's not a stupid guy. He knows it's not what I was talking about. He knows I'm talking about someone at the elephant room Who has a very different view of things.

He knows that's not what I'm talking about. Athanasius is addressing people who accept what Nicaea said but they have these reservations and his whole argument is going to be there's no reason for your reservations because if you say of like essence Reason with me.

You're actually agreeing with what I am saying. I am NOT trying to destroy the distinction of the persons and what you're saying is the same thing. I'm saying He is not accepting that homoous. Yes is good enough.

It's not what he's saying is if you accept everything else that Nicaea says. There is no reason for you not to accept Coessential read from 41 on and see if that's not the case yourself go online read it for yourself.

Don't listen to what someone, you know giving you a little partial quotes go online read it for yourself. So he goes on to say anyways Must not be treated as enemies nor do we hear attack them as aerial maniacs.

I love it says. I think this was around 359 with additions from 361. So hey If you had been kicked out of your church as many times as Athanasius had been kicked out of his if you had been if this Had been the defining Debate of your entire ministry.

Yeah can understand why you would come up with phrase like aerial maniacs nor do we I Know I'll have to admit there's there's some other people I could attach this to you know. That we might be able to use this.

Oh, no. Now what. Don't get me in trouble. Did he really say aerial me? Yes. Yes, nor do we hear attack them as aerial maniacs? Nor as opponents the fathers when we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers who mean what we mean and Dispute only about the word.

Now what was I talking about. I said there's a huge gap between believing in homoous yes and homo you see us. I'm not arguing the homo usos is the same now. Maybe David waltz is maybe David waltz is actually in their arian.

I don't know. He's been an arian in the past. Maybe he still is. I don't know. But what I was talking about the fact is if you know what homoous yes is not if you agree with all my see it, but if you know what homoous yes is and you reject that and You're saying well, it's it's a similar essence, but different.

Everything else athanasia says that a section is based upon the idea that they're not going to make that next statement. It's a different Essence and of course anyone who honestly anyways who isn't just so grossly prejudiced like Dave waltz is.

About anything that I say about any subject whatsoever. Is going to recognize that's what I'm talking about because that's what I've talked about in my articles and published works and everything else and I Think it's important you take into consideration everything that someone says when you criticize them anyways.

For confessing that the son is from the essence of the father and not from other subsistence and That he is not a creature nor work. But his genuine and natural offspring and that he is eternally with the father as being his word and wisdom.

They are not far from accepting even the phrase co-essential. Well, of course. Now such as Basil who wrote from Ankyra concerning the faith. For only to say like according to essence is very far from signifying of the essence by which rather They as they that say themselves the genuineness of the son to the father is signified.

Thus tin is only like to silver a wolf to a dog in gilt brass to the true metal. But tin is not from silver nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog. But since they say that he is of the essence and like in essence.

What do they signify by this by these but? Co-essential so his argument is You're saying what we are saying. There is no reason for you to be continue to object to the homo usias. You're saying the same thing.

What am I addressing the people who are not saying the same thing but are specifically making a distinction in? Essence and substance. So just going to the text itself and these texts are generally available thankfully these days I mean back when I first started reading this stuff that wasn't generally available like that.

But you can get them online the PDFs are available you can get them for logos. There's there's all sorts of ways in which you can have this material available. I think I have on Either the ministry resource list or maybe my personal resource list.

I think I have that set that I would love to have in Mate was it logos or was it in accordance? I think it's in accordance that would be something would be extremely extremely useful to have because then I could have it on my iPad and That would be great.

But anyways, so I go back to this. So that was the first Whoops whoops allegedly that I that I but actually we call it nitpicking. Then we have The fact that Again, I I'm sure that David waltz will be directed to this particular podcast.

But many of you who especially last year were listening Probably got a little tired over time of the lengthy period of time in which we reviewed the debate that had taken place between my upcoming oneness Pentecostal opponent in Brisbane and Actually if I recall correctly a Church of Christ minister.

We spent literally hours Dealing in-depth With the statements of the oneness Pentecostal proponent and others Hours in-depth and what we kept encountering over and over and over and over again was the fact that the only meaningful way to understand the outcome of the argumentation that was being presented was that In the Jesus of the New Testament you have two persons.

They speak to each other they differentiate from one another they have different origins one's eternal one is not. Now there are different views taken by individuals within the broad camp of oneness today and Especially after the breakup well breakup the I guess they still refer to it this way the great apostasy That took place.

You know the United Pentecostal Church the that Organization was rather monolithic for a long period of time extremely legalistic and extremely strict and Then there was the great apostasy there were people who basically broke out they left they got kicked out however however, you want to view it from whichever perspective and really you know the Phillips Craig and Dean churches are Really a part of the spinoffs from that people that got into more seeker friendly stuff.

And they wanted to be able to you know wear 21st century clothing and things like that and So you get you end up getting a much wider spectrum now. I have written on the subject of oneness theology for a long time and If you're going to criticize me then criticize me on what I wrote.

Go look at my published works instead. What he does is I made the statement? Here's here's here's what I what I said, but before that before those questions Jake's had provided the absolutely necessary redefinition from a non-trinitarian modalistic perspective.

Which was when asked initially about the existence of three divine persons the response was I can go there. But that's not my favorite way of saying it that doesn't do it for me. Well when someone starts talking about the ancient creeds of church and says that doesn't do it for me I want to know why when you go back into his teaching before this he has consistently used the language of manifestations.

He has said that there is one God but different manifestations. Going to a major text of arian first in the 316 where God was manifest in the flesh. Even though the earliest reading the manuscripts he was manifest in the flesh, but leaving that to the side one is Pentecostals Jesus only.

Pentecostals teach that Jesus is literally two persons now. He says James White does not know what he is talking about here. One is Pentecostals do not teach that Jesus was literally two persons now again.

If you're gonna be honest which David Waltz is not he is a dishonest man. He has been documented to be dishonest many many times, and he's gonna write long Responses that I'm not gonna even bother reading because I don't care.

He's been Britain's been proven too many times even bother his credibility is Gone, but if you would bother if you were if you would bother to actually look then he could find an article. It's been posted on our website.

It was one of the first things we ever post in our website. I mean it is ancient with Lengthy citations from David Bernard and the now it's the UPC. I unite Pentecostal International is different back then but they've changed a little bit.

I Tried to get David Bernard to debate. I have done presentations within miles of their headquarters on the subject of one of the Pentecostals and with one this Pentecostal sitting in the audience and Having questions and answers.

I have gone through all this stuff. I have actually made these people he is not so he sits in his easy chair in his ice library and throws out cavils, but Doesn't actually engage these folks. There is absolutely no question That when you listen to what these folks have to do and I'm talking about the Jake's style I'm not I'm not even talking about an even semi scholarly view of it because Jake's isn't coming from a semi scholarly perspective.

The very fact that he never even mentions the text will variant first him in 316. He just quotes it as if it's just the given text. Demonstrates we're not talking here about someone who is making fine distinctions.

Similar to the vast majority of one to spend a costals with whom I've had debates in the past as well and certainly certainly go listen to the debate that I had in Brisbane last year and You tell me that the Jesus that is presented but my opponent is Not two persons he is going to affirm that the one that the deity Makes reference to the humanity the humanity makes reference to the deity.

That's the whole thing that I emphasize. That's the whole thing that the question answer was meant to prove. It's too easy to demonstrate these things. And so he goes and he quotes from You know the oneness of God Jesus true God and true man as one divine human person.

Yeah. Well, what does that mean? We can distinguish these two aspects of Christ's identity. But we cannot separate them. The incarnation joined the fullness of deity to complete humanity. That sounds wonderful.

But given the fact that you deny the eternality of the Sun and yet have the Sun speak in distinction from the Father. What is the result of this? What is the only? Logical result of this. I Mean it's like saying yeah, well the one who's been a cause don't really deny the deity of Christ.