Oneness Pentecostalism with Simon Escobedo and Eddie Dalcour Pt. 2

James white and good afternoon everyone. This is not James white again. This is Simon Escobedo filling in for dr White it is always an opportunity for me to be able to sit in the big chair when dr White is away and have the opportunity of Being a guest host for the dividing line.

However Dr. White is not on vacation and he is not outside of Phoenix. But he is indeed a busy this afternoon and so he is graciously given up the chair and giving me an opportunity to sit in once again with you all and again, hopefully provide a Program that will be both instructional and informative.

Background on the Oneness Theology Discussion

Particularly on the area of oneness theology now some time ago. I had With Eddie Dalkor began a series. It was a two-part series on one is theology. I guess this was back January 26th and it was our intention then to do a two-part series that would be finishing the following week and Unfortunately, I took ill and we were not able to do that program.

But Eddie is back with me this afternoon and our desire is to get back to it finish what we have started and Based on what I have heard from Eddie and the things that I have received an email. We certainly have stirred an issue.

Because I have received quite a quite a bit of oneness Correspondence in the last several weeks and I know talking with Eddie he has received as well and so today it's an opportunity for us to once again get into this discussion and be able to get actually into some of the meat of What one is theology believes?

What are some of the passages they most frequently like to use and as well provide for your listening? Some very fascinating excerpts from one of the more high-profile personalities who articulates the oneness position.

For your hearing and so I believe I can hear in the background that mr. Dalkor. You are on the line with me. Yes, I am. How are you doing? Eddie glad to be here Simon. Well, it's good to have you back.

And of course, I was so excited to do that second broadcast with you. And you know that up until the very last minute it was my intention to do that and and Lord Providentially hindered there and I wasn't able to to join with you and then do that program tonsillitis.

Tonsillitis took the best of me and we had to postpone and now it's been over a month. And so I hope that some folks haven't forgotten what we've begun. But what I would like to do before we get into some of the substance of what we have this afternoon Eddie is give you an opportunity to Pull together some of the thoughts that we went over the last time that is some of the Background for the oneness position and so on.

But before you get into that, why don't you tell our listening audience again? We might have some some first-time listeners today who aren't familiar with you. So give us some background about who you are in the ministry that you presently are in and some of the things you are doing.

And why this particular area of study has been a very focused study for you something You're very passionate about.

Well, my name as he mentions Eddie Delcor. I have a ministry called Department of Christian Defense and you can get it on the web at Christian defense org or even calm. My ministry primarily deals with some of the more prolific non-christian cults however.

Oneness theology has been one of my primary and I think one of the reasons why I think is because one is theology. Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons where most pastors and most Christians are familiar with the differences One is theology Actually calls Jesus God, right?

And in fact, they pride themselves on that as if they were the only group Asserting that Jesus is God as Christians. Well, of course. We must test all things and we must be privy to different meanings they pour into different terms.

When they say Jesus is God What they mean is that Jesus is God as the father Son of God. Jesus is the human flesh qualitative different because of that. I had made oneness the lecture much about it and I deal much about it with with it and also I received just as you Many emails many responses many comments many argumentations and as we talked about I always get the wheel from yes.

Oneness folks. Yeah, we'll discuss what that is a little bit later but you had made mentioned the last time that we discussed this and of course since we talk a quite a bit on the phone that one of the things that really Concerns you was that as you would go into bookstores and try to find information on this issue.

There just wasn't anything out there. Nobody wants to address it seemingly.

And that's what. Because one is theology and I don't know if a lot of people know this one is theology makes up proletarian constructs ascertain Exact numbers. Because a lot of oneness churches are not called the United Pentecostal International.

They can have titles like Apostolic Church United Bethany Church, you know all kinds of titles and still maintain one is theology. What I found Simon is that a lot of churches came out of the UPCI Oneness and they started their own churches dropping the legalism However retaining the modalism country and rarely do I find anything on one is theology.

I'll find hundreds of books on Mormonism Joe witnesses Christian science all kinds of stuff, which is great, but nothing.

Antitrinitarian anti-distinction non-christian cult. Hmm as I had indicated to you and I kind of jokingly mentioned this to dr. White oneness theology seemingly is the Christian cult version of Hinduism that is they're constantly seeking for Nirvana.

No distinctions all is one and of course, that's what we want to talk about today. Now. Last time you had mentioned somewhat of a of a Historical background for the position leading up to what contemporary one is now believe you had mentioned things like dynamic Monarchism modalistic monarchism so quickly if you could just so that we can again catch up to speed.

Provide for us a bit of the background for this position and then we'll get into actually The oneness advocates today and what they are presenting.

I think we can go back to AD 190 to find one of the first first proponents of God reveals himself in different modes or offices Or roles, but not person and know what is there am I doing? I'm just glorifying Christ as God.

Yes, but he also taught that Jesus was not only the father, but he was also the site so it does go back 190 however in saying that we do teach in a times He was talking about and after knowing the name for convincing and he gained much follow 1744 with Emmanuel Swinburne.

That modalism reemerged. So the the ancient.

Position was that the father was behind all the masks and today Jesus behind all the masks.

Okay, and that is what modern oneness holds to these days. And then we find around the early 19th century the baptism 19 Revelation that right now as you and I have been discussing, of course.

This isn't anything new and we have dealt with the Jehovah's Witnesses before and and that is that modalism chiefly and exercises or puts into their argumentation the implicit assertion of Unitarianism.

We've seen this before with the witnesses. They begin with that assumption and of course they use that to demonstrate. That very thing and so defined for me because this came up a lot in a correspondence that I have this week.

What Unitarianism is. Because I think there are some folk that perhaps have not heard that term before at least they're not Familiar with it and perhaps are putting into that term. Things that really aren't necessarily a part of that, right?

Well, we can we know Unitarianism because of the prefix, you know. As opposed to Trinitarianism where only father is God David Bernard describes I think the Unitarian one flash oneness position best. He says quote.

There is one God with no essential divisions in himself. He is not a plurality of persons. But he does have a plurality of manifestation roles or titles or attributes. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Not God the Son.

He is the incarnation of fullness of the Father in his deity. Jesus is the Father Holy Spirit. Jesus is the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. So in Unitarianism, not the Son and. So that's why one of theology is branded as Unitarianism because they believe in a unipersonal Unitarian God is God not the Son only the Father.

That's a very important point to bring out because they will say Jesus is God. But we have to again define one as theology for what it is when they say Jesus is God. What they mean is Jesus as the Father is God not as the Son.

There is no God the Son there's only the Son of God the human flesh now.

It's important also, I think at this point to to make it abundantly clear That Unitarianism does not preclude one from believing that Jesus is God. In fact in the correspondence that I recently had the individual that I was speaking with Had no clue that Unitarianism was his position and it was interesting to try to educate him on that.

But he kept telling me over and over again. Well, I always thought that Unitarianism simply meant that a that a person doesn't believe that Jesus is God or Jesus Is God come in the flesh and so on and so forth?

And what I try to point out to him that basically Unitarianism is is a denial of the Trinity because of its commitment to unipersonality and that all Unitarian groups obviously believe their Unitarian deity to be God whether that is Islam and their Unitarian deity of Allah The Watchtower's a deity of the Father alone or the oneness is Jesus.

So it again doesn't really help them. I think they're making a category error there in confusing Unitarianism with Arianism and as I've tried to to point out particularly the individual that I was discussing this is not an issue Between a monotheism and tritheism.

This is an issue between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism. Now, would you agree with some of those things? Yeah, absolutely.

I think Unitarianism is synonymous with a unipersonal God whatever name you want to call him. He's unipersonal, right? He's one. He's one person. He's not three. He's one person and that is a a Qualitative difference.

It is a different God than how God is presented in Scripture. Now Eddie you graciously.

And I we kind of put this out. There's a bit of a tease the last time that we did the program. You graciously sent me some excerpts from one of the more high-profile individuals who is is definitely putting forth this particular Doctrine this teaching and so I am on my maiden voyage today and trying to Do what?

Dr. White does so easily and that is operate these audio things looking at all this Fuzzy stuff on the screen that are called waves. So I will do my best to try not to mess this up and play these things.

So they make some kind of sense. I actually think you'll enjoy them. Because when when we first got the tape and we had an opportunity to sit down and listen to it I know I listened to it with Warren and he asked me the question because we kept hearing all the various clicks.

He says was was Eddie doing his dishes when when he was taping this or you know, we're in all kinds of things so I think I think you're going to actually find this really really a good because Rich did a fantastic job of putting this together.

And so we're going to try to present some of these segments for our listening audience to hear. We've just tried to define what oneness is. But I think who better to define oneness than a one is person himself.

And so let's let mr TD Jake's provide for us a nice definition.

T. D. Jakes on the Trinity and Divine Manifestations

Both of our questions will be doctrine. My first question would be the Trinity would be defined as one God who healed himself in three distinct Persons each called equal and co-eternal. How important very very significantly that we first of all study the Trinity.

Apart from Salvation and the first of all that we embrace Christ and come to him and come to know who he is. Having come to know who he is. Then we begin to deal with the Trinity, which I believe is a very complex issue.

The Trinity. The term Trinity is not a biblical term to begin with. It's a theological description for something That is so beyond human comprehension That I'm not sure that we can totally Hold God to a numerical system.

The Lord said behold Oh Israel the Lord that God is one and beside him there is no other. When God got ready to make a man that looked Like him he didn't make three he made one man. However, that one man had three parts.

He was body soul and spirit. We have one God, but he is father in creation son and redemption and Holy Spirit and regeneration. It's very important that we understand that but I think that the first thing that every believer needs to do is to approach God by Faith and then having approached him by faith.

Then they need to sit up under good teaching so that they can begin to understand who the God is that they have believed upon.

Well, there you have it Eddie. A tremendous Fascinating Definition there by mr. Jakes. Why don't you comment on some of the things that he mentioned the first part. Trinity apart from salvation amazing absolutely incredible.

And Of course, he contradicts himself by saying but we need to embrace Jesus by faith.

Yes embrace Christ as if Christ. Well, of course his views. Christ is not part of any kind of fourth century pagan. Trinitarian, right, right. It's interesting when he quotes. New creation son of redemption.

Holy Spirit recreation that came from David Bernard. David Bernard is a one of the more prolific oneness teachers. He is the oneness standard for us. He and he is counted as an author. The first time we hear that quote was not from David Bernard, but from the bellies himself.

Father in creation. He's son creation now one other different they held to it or regeneration. So this was a successive modalism today. However, most oneness teachers believe and teach a static modalism simultaneously.

Hey, God is omnipresent. He can exist in three manifestations at once. No problem. It's theology it represents himself, right in the other statement.

And who was that group that was or that individual that was interviewing him. No, this was a apologetic group in Los Angeles.

Living waters group interviewing Jake. I'm not sure if it was live or by a phone. I'm not sure.

Um, and of course he provided an accurate a definition of what we as Trinitarians believe. It was just quick. It was just interesting to note how quickly TD Jake's wanted to kind of sweep that under the rug and then put forward what obviously is.

Again, the the oneness or Unitarian position. Absolutely. Jake's has made statements.

Pertaining to his background. He says I come from a oneness and a Baptist background. Well, like me saying I come from Mormon background in a Presbyterian back, right? He main again, he's one of the The teachers that may or I won't call him teacher.

He's one of the preachers that maintain the modalistic concept of God, but PCI proper.

Why Oneness Theology Is a Unitarian Denial of the Trinity

Now Eddie what I'd like to do, of course, we're going to discuss some things we're going to discuss some of the misrepresentations against the train you were going to get into some of the passages that they the one that spoke most like to use but Since we are right now presently dealing with oneness defined I know that their big buzzword is a manifestation or Dimension and all these kinds of things and of course you had indicated in the last program that you'll find these very terms in TD Jake's is doctrinal state.

In fact, I think you indicated you had a link to it on your web page.

Yes, I do. On my intro page on my on my website goes right to his doctoral statement. So people don't believe me.

Yes, in case people don't believe you. Yeah, because in fact didn't you tell me that you received a letter that was rather contentious basically saying TD Jake's doesn't deny the Trinity. I.

Would say letter plural letters. Wow. Defending Jake's position. In fact when I when I teach on modalism and I can buy it to a lot of charismatic churches and When I teach on one of theology, you cannot mention one of the largest most prolific teachers of this Punintended but I mentioned TD Jake's and I direct everybody to his website.

How the first line in capital letters says this. God exists in three dimensions. Three dimensions he says. Then he says he's triune in his manifestations. Then he says the father is God. He gives Genesis 1 and he gives John 1.

1 now, of course. Only if you're unstudied.

Right, right.

Why would he use John 1 1 to say that the father is God? Mm-hmm. Well, if you're a modelist you believe that the word is the father. There's no differentiation there, right? So I do get letters and I get people.

People get very upset because gee they assert Jake's love. He does he's a fine Christian man. Throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a man. It's those kind of things.

Well, let's let mr. Jake's then clearly put to bed this issue by giving him an opportunity of defining for us What he means when God is one and yet as he says manifests himself in a multiplicity of ways.

Most of my questions will be doctrinal. I understand if you basically deal with social issues, but one back to the doctrinal statement. My first question would be.

Well, are you there Eddie? As I told you that this was my maiden voyage I guess I pressed the wrong clip, but we're getting that correct and now I'm pressing the correct clip. Here we go.

John chapter 4. And then we're gonna go back to. Go back and forth like a switch. She said this Samaritan heathen woman said I can see well enough to see that you are a prophet. Take true worshipers. You can tie it up with true riches tied up with true bread.

You can try to all of this is coming into the new covenant. Of which everything all was just the shadow. True worship going. Come at that now is when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth for the father.

Looking for outside things. I don't believe women to wear pants. The Bible says draw salt to the body of this clearness. So I say certainly. He's actually saying how do I define you?

Here it comes Eddie, are you ready for this. Here is TD Jake's definition of multiplicity of manifestations. Well, there you have it. That was painful in fact when you sent that to me the first time I Flew out of my chair.

I was absolutely beside myself. Particularly when we got into the Seemingly Pocahontas view of God. There God became the quail God became the bride and the bride and the bride and the bride and the bride and the bride God became the tree Fascinating Description of God.

And for our listeners who have probably not heard Jake's get into it that deeply. They probably thought that. Well again there maybe it is semantics, but right there Eddie you have it. TD Jake's and self-defining defining what multiplicity of manifestations actually is.

This is not this is beyond normal, I said. Jesus writes much about That God is not limited to three manifestations and we evil Trinitarians have it all wrong. They can't manifest in a just hearing what he does the nature of God.

Knowing in my mind and best and yet have multitudes and other Christian leaders. TD Jake's Time magazine. He was on the cover of Time magazine. He represents Christianity and Larry King.

Wasn't that right after the 9 -1 -1 incident? Yes. Yes. I Painfully watched that. Yes. I remember the email you sent me in response to that. Yes.

It was him and that other great theologian Robert Schuller. Oh my the full gamut of apostasy.

I'm telling you. Well, that was that was an amazing thing. I Again, I didn't know that his views went that far and and I think that if anything that little clip right there. At least should stop some emails from getting to you and that seemingly want to kind of sweep that under the rug.

I Sincerely hope so. Well, Eddie, let's go ahead and go to our first break and then we come back. Let's go ahead and start dealing with some of the common misrepresentations against the Trinity. Okay, and we will be right back.

Well, I just love that music. I never get tired of that. That intro me that's kind of cool music. Don't you think it? Yeah.

Yeah.

In fact when I came in this afternoon James was in here doing some some work and he had the mission impossible theme song on and given the nature of the discussion this afternoon, I thought that should become the The theme song for the oneness position given the arguments that we've been looking at.

They are really pretty weak if you ask me, but one of the issues that do come up quite a bit is the common Misrepresentations against the Trinity. We hear this all the time with well with anyone this group, but with the the Jehovah's Witnesses and with the The one is Pentecostal.

Common Misrepresentations Against the Trinity

So what I'd like to do Borrowing from your own manuscript where you kind of neatly detail all these things out for us I'm going to basically provide the more common Objections or questions that are often raised and then give you an opportunity to respond to some of those.

I think this is gonna be very helpful. Not only for those who are certainly wanting to To get answers to some of these questions. But for some Christian folk perhaps who have been asked these questions and perhaps haven't been able to provide a very good response so the first question is Rather interesting because this was the very question that was asked of me yesterday received an email and person had listened To the dividing line webcast that we did a month ago.

And he says I listened to your your webcast briefly and based upon what I heard you believe in three separate Gods, so the first objection is the Trinity is three separate gods.

Yeah, that's commonly alleged by Most Unitarian groups and even in Tertullian's day and Hippolytus. That is a gross misrepresentation of Trinity. The Trinity state simply that there is one being one God.

However, nowhere in Scripture does the say this one being is one person or unipersonal. Yet this one being has revealed himself in the persons of the Father Son Holy Spirit three distinct Self-aware not three God.

They are not separate and that has to be drummed in the minds of oneness folks. When we're talking about the Trinity it is not three separate anything. It is three distinct self-aware Persons or selves that share the one nature.

That share the one being of God. So all three are Alpha and Omega. All three are Jehovah. All three are Yahweh. All three are said to be creator. All three We do many of the synonymous works of God because they are all God.

In other words wherever God is all of God is he is Unquantifiable. He cannot be quantified into parts or sections. It's indivisible and be sure not three gods.

Right in persons one God and as we have pointed out numbers of time at times if we had said There is one and only one true God and within the one true God there exists three distinct gods. That would be a contradiction.

However, that is not what we're saying and we more than emphasize that in all of the Presentations that we give. In fact, I I really like dr. White's Simple way of putting it and that is number one. We believe in one and only one true God number two.

We believe in three distinct persons and number three. They are co-equal and co-eternal. Number two, and this is the one that we get quite often. The Trinity is from pagan origins. We get that quite a bit Eddie.

What do you got to say trees from pagan origins?

See, uh, the reasons for that assertion are as follows. The Pagans first about the Trinity, but I would I would check in any pagan construct before Christianity is not in the Bible and Oneness make on the Bible.

However, the word Trinity is not in pagan literature either. One God three exclusive to Christianity right. Pagan constructs. Always held to three three persons where he's resurrected. He has loving fellowship of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

They do not hold to three persons. One God is always three separate gods. Mormonism is pagan, right?

Right. Okay. Well, let's let's move on then that that was good. Let's see here the absence of the Holy Spirit in so many passages.

That is 65 times. You can find all three members of the Trinity in the same context 35. Luke 10 21 is an excellent passage where Jesus actually rejoices in the Holy Spirit to the Father. So, you know the question or why are so many why?

Did the authors in that not the absence, right? All right, that's a good that's a good point. Now you just.

Touched on this a bit, but here's another question. In fact. This we hear all the time from Jehovah's Witnesses and TD Jake's himself. In the earlier segment We played I made the same comment you touched on it briefly perhaps a little bit more thoroughly now.

Trinity is an unbiblical term. We hear that all the time. Sure.

If they're being unfamiliar with the rules and principles of soul scourging, however typical words limited to the teachings of Scripture, I know what Jehovah's Witnesses and oneness they get to. The difference between data and God the biblical data is this will send to you from the father.

That is the spirit of truth who receives from the father. He will testify about me. God the Father Sends God the Son. God the Son Becomes. He does not wrap himself in flesh. He becomes flesh God Father.

God the Son sends God the Holy Spirit. That is the biblical data specific word Trinity was formulated by Christian theologians and teachers early on biblical data as with the term incarnation and I would just ask my oneness friends.

Show me the term oneness or mode or Manifestation or ah, that's not a biblical word either. Right? The Bible is not a biblical word the term the English term Bible so that is really a An argument from ignorance and it really doesn't follow because we're just using terms to define the read clearly in Scripture, right?

Well, here's another one the this one we were talking about last night. We kind of humorously tossed this one about and that is that Rome a Catholicism seems to get way too much credit for a lot of things every single group seemingly when we go out to Mesa, which we'll be doing here in a couple of weeks.

We get this question all the time. Well, not this particular question. Well, yeah, actually we do. The Trinity Doctrine did not emerge until the fourth century. And of course, they want to attach it to the Council of Nicaea.

That's where it first began you believe it because the Roman Catholic Church in 325 they put this thing together and I think in some cases they actually provide these nice little Allah Jesus seminar kind of settings where everybody just got together in a big room and maybe threw some marbles together and and decided in the end with Constantine holding the final vote that That the Trinity was going to be accepted as Orthodox Christian belief.

Well.

It's interesting when someone makes a decision they're they're a Historical because the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Trinity had to do with the relationship between Jesus and the Father.

Nothing, it wasn't a Trinitarian Council decided it was Trinity in or was it out? That is ignorance. We can go back for Trinitarian theology. We can we can read the Church Fathers in in the second century like Ignatius Bishop Antioch.

I believe in his letter to Ephesians. He says. Quote. There are there is one physician aid not made. God existing in flesh true life and death both Mary and of God first possible than impossible even Jesus Christ our Lord.

And Ignatius makes many grammatical arguments distinguishing or differentiating the father and son. Bernard tries to say that Ignatius uses Granville number one. Granville sharp Greek rule number one to one examines the writings of Ignatius.

They will find out for once did Ignatius ever use Granville sharp number one to show that Jesus and the father. But Trinitarian Theology goes back to Ignatius, but we have to keep in mind Early Church Fathers lacked articulate language to define the Trinity as we would today but the question is did they envisage a Tripersonal God or a Unitarian God.

Some pages of Church Fathers which demonstrate beyond the purvention of a doubt. They clearly envisage a.

Multipersonal God well that that is fantastic. That's good stuff Eddie I'm getting all pumped up here as I hear you getting. I can see you getting passionate about this. So we have to put your seatbelt on there and keep you down.

But let's move on you. You actually provide some other objections not simply from Those that reject the Trinity the Trinity in general. But from David Bernard specifically. I kind of want you to comment on the first one he from his book.

I guess the What is it the was it one of the loss of God? He writes can there be more than three persons in the Godhead. Certainly the Old Testament does not teach three. But emphasizes oneness. If the New Testament adds to the Old Testament message and teaches three persons Then what is to prevent subsequent revelations of additional persons?

Well, you know that's like the question can God make a rock bigger than he is. More powerful he is. No he cannot nullify himself there. There are things that God cannot do he cannot lie he cannot go against his word and the Bible presents it does not prevent Ruth and That.

I think that that question is not a contradiction. But it shows it's more of a what's known as a non thing and logic. It really doesn't make sense them more than and of course as he stated in the question.

He's assuming something not proven. That is that somehow the New Testament is adding to the nature of God where a new testament is simply a revelation of those things that were Formally concealed and you get into that a bit in your manuscript now.

There was an interesting question that surfaced as a result of the of the Old Testament passages. And I I mentioned this to you a couple of days ago as I was dialoguing with an individual. And we were discussing John 1 particularly John 1 18.

No one has seen God at any time the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the father. He has explained him and I remember as I was Dealing with this individual we got to this passage. It occurred to me that seemingly the use or the way in which one is folk use John 14 9 Seems to provide a contradiction to this passage.

But was but what was more interesting than even that to me was how would a oneness? respond to. Who were who was it that. Abraham? Manoah Isaiah particularly in Isaiah 6. Who was it that they saw since clearly John 1 18 is a reference to the father?

No one has seen the father at any time and of course the oneness would not argue with me on that point since his Presupposition must maintain that anyways. Who who did they see and remember I had mentioned to you that I did not receive a response to that question.

About a week then the individual wrote me back, and he didn't deal with it. He just didn't discuss it at all. So I pressed him again. I got the most fascinating response Eddie to that question and the and the answer was this that the The person or the being that those three individuals saw was Satan Masquerading as Jehovah in the Old Testament.

And I I don't know if you've ever heard that response before but I absolutely could not believe. This was the clearest demonstration of the links that oneness folk will go to to the to defend their unbiblical Heresy, I mean there's no way outside of a trinitarian context the John 1 18 can be answered.

And I knew that. But I I thought I would get something a little better than that. But it just it just was amazing again to see the links that folk will go to. When it is clear that the Bible simply does not support that position.

No, Dave. Bernard usually answers that the angel Lord has being Yahweh himself angel and he makes the New Testament connection. Talk about Alma face. He makes the New Testament connection. He'll say a character claimed he was Yahweh, but it does not follow.

But it was Yahweh. Bernard usually makes the assertion of theophany. He does not say that it was Christ in any way shape or form because that would go against oneist theology. We have a greater problem than explaining that and of course.

Isaiah 6 and John 12 the connection there are very difficult for them to deal with. Yes, I think that's it.

That's extraordinarily powerful verse for trinitarian theology because as you mentioned Outside of trinitarian context. It's it's an it's a no-winner. I mean you cannot Interpret those passages when you connect them because John quotes from Isaiah.

He read that Isaiah said these things because he saw who he saw him who was him. It was Christ. But I would say this acts 28 Acts 28 a spirit said and then he quotes what Yahweh said and Isaiah 6. So really that's a members of the Trinity.

Mm-hmm. Well, that certainly was a question that did not get answered it. Well, it did get answered but absurdly and ridiculously. But the last thing that I would like to to leave with you to deal with and this is I guess pretty much one of the big big objections because of their It seems their their hatred against the Trinitarian position and the distinctions that we maintain is Their rejection of the term person and of course, we've discussed this before they are classic in their equivocation Bringing to the table definitions to the person that basically read human categories into the very nature of God the hallmark If you will of blasphemy, but Bernard does present that as one of his objections against the Trinitarian position.

So deal with that for a moment and if you would.

Well, it's interesting because if you look in some of the oneness tracks on this tracks from their printing house. In fact, Bernard does is something called special pleading. He shows one side of the evidence, but not the other.