Who is God?

Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we will begin our debate in five minutes, in five minutes.

We want you to know that there are water stations to your right and to your left up front here.

Please take advantage of those before we begin. We also want you to know that there has been a lost cell phone.

It's got a rose case on it and so if you find a cell phone, it's got a rose colored case on it, you can take it to our sound booth right over here to my left, your right.

All right. About five minutes, we begin. Please find your seats.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to our religious public debate.

My name is Dale Barcher and I have agreed with the approval of both parties to moderate tonight's debate.

I currently serve as Executive Director of the Family Heritage Alliance. We are a

Christian conservative public policy ministry here in the great state of South Dakota. The vision of our ministry is very, very clear.

We would that South Dakota would be a state where God is honored, religious freedom flourishes, families thrive and life is cherished.

You may check us out more thoroughly online at familyheritagealliance .org. That's familyheritagealliance .org.

Please take a moment right now if you would and silence your phones. Please take a moment and silence your phones.

We would also ask tonight that if you take photos that you do so without flash as well as your video tonight, we would appreciate that.

Restroom facilities, ladies and gentlemen, are out the doors to my right. Take another right, head down the hallway, take another right, and you're right there.

For your information this evening, we will be taking two 15 -minute breaks during the debate.

Friends, it has been said and rightly so, prayer isn't all that you should do, but you should do nothing until you have prayed.

Would you please bow with me in prayer? Father, we thank you for the very gift of life.

You have gathered those of us in this room tonight from near and far for the purpose of contemplating who you are.

Lord, we will only but begin to scratch the surface of that discussion here this evening.

May we speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, and always pursue the truth.

For we know as we know that it is the truth that sets us free. We pray in the name of Jesus the

Christ. Amen. Ladies and gentlemen, the rules for tonight's debate have been agreed upon by both sides.

What you need to know are three simple rules, and please note, these are rules and not suggestions.

Number one, my role is that of a neutral moderator. My decisions will be final and non -debatable this evening.

As you would expect, both speakers are committed to conducting themselves in a manner befitting a

Christian as they treat one another with total respect. And lastly, we are not only expecting, but we are demanding a total respect from you, the audience.

There shall be no heckling or shouting at the speakers. We are simply asking that you will refrain from applauding until a speaker's presentation has been completed.

Once again, we ask that you respectfully refrain from applauding until the speaker's presentation has been completed.

And please note, if a speaker is interrupted, his time clock will be stopped and not started until I have settled the disruption.

This agreed upon protocol shall be strictly followed here this evening. Friends, we can do this.

We can have a respectful and civil debate. After all, we are

South Dakota nice. Tonight, we will be discussing life's most important topic, that of who is

God. We are honored to have in the house two respected debaters. May I introduce them to you, and would you please hold your applause until both have been introduced.

Brother Joe Ventilacion is a principled apologist in the

Iglesia Ni Cristo. He has been an ordained minister of the gospel since 1980.

He obtained his Bachelor of Evangelical Ministry in 1980 after five years of study at the

Iglesia Ni Cristo School for Ministers. His first ministerial assignment after ordination was in Stockton, California, where he spent his ministry in several

California congregations, including San Francisco, San Diego, Baldwin Park, Corona, and Burlingame.

From there, he served other congregations in the United States, such as Omaha, Boston, and Guam.

He then returned to the Philippines and taught Bible doctrine at the Iglesia Ni Cristo School for Ministers prior to his assignment in Scenic, South Dakota on April 15, 2015.

Dr. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a professor and theologian.

He is a graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary and Columbia Evangelical Seminary and is currently in the

PhD program at Northwest University in South Africa under well -known textual critic scholar,

Dr. Jory Jordan. His PhD in apologetics focused on the biblical doctrine of the

Trinity and the resultant book, The Forgotten Trinity, which has been used as a textbook in English -speaking schools across the

US and England. He has authored more than 20 books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Roman Catholic Controversy, Scripture Alone, and What Every Christian Needs to Know About the

Quran. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Greek exegesis, Hebrew, systematic theology, church history, and many topics in apologetics at schools in the

United States, Germany, Switzerland, Ukraine, and South Africa. He has engaged in more than 150 moderated public debates with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism, and Oneness Pentecostalism.

He has debated leading critics of Christianity. He has been married for 35 years to his wife

Kelly, has two children, and two wonderful grandchildren. He is an elder of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. And now, ladies and gentlemen, would you join me in giving our guest debaters a warm South Dakota welcome.

That was South Dakota nice. Thank you. Herein is tonight's proposition to be debated.

Resolved. The Bible teaches that within the one being that is

God, there exists eternally three co -equal and co -eternal persons, namely the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Dr. James White will be arguing the affirmative, representing

South Dakota apologetics, and Brother Joe Ventilacion will argue the negative, representing

Inglesia Necristo. Gentlemen, are you both ready? Then let us begin.

First affirmative presentation for 20 minutes, Dr. White. Well, good evening.

It is an honor to be with you this evening. We have a lot to talk about, however, so we're going to dive right in, skip over some of the niceties, and get to the issue this evening on the doctrine of the

Trinity. Let's go to the heart of the issue. Now, let's be honest with ourselves. All Orthodox Christians are monotheists.

We all believe there is only one true God. I stand before you as a person who has debated

Mormons in Salt Lake City many times, defending the fact that there is only one true

God. Trinitarians are not polytheists. We do not believe in many gods.

I do not believe in many gods as a Trinitarian. So, proving that there is only one true

God in this debate is to demonstrate that you have no idea what the real issues are, because that's not the subject this evening.

We're not debating whether we are monotheists. We're all monotheists. Tonight, we have two kinds of monotheism being presented this evening.

You have Unitarian monotheism, where the one being of God is shared by only one person.

So, Unitarianism is the idea that you have one God, one being of God, and only one person sharing that being.

Trinitarian monotheism, where the one being of God is shared by three persons.

We clearly differentiate between being and person. Being is what makes someone what they are.

Person is what makes someone who they are. These are two distinct concepts.

Now, if, therefore, the Bible reveals that there are three persons who are described as sharing the one divine being, the debate must be concluded in favor of Trinitarianism.

Trinitarians believe the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have taken different roles in creation and redemption.

Therefore, proving that there are differences between the persons is irrelevant to this debate.

We recognize the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father. Therefore, differentiating between them means nothing if you're actually arguing against the doctrine of the

Trinity. So, let's not waste our time with straw man argumentation. You cannot simply assume

Unitarianism and then read it into the text of the Bible. You must prove

Unitarianism in the same way I must prove Trinitarianism. You can't just assume it and say, well, it says

God, therefore, that must be the end of the debate. For example, John chapter 17 verse 3,

Jesus addresses the Father as the only true God. This is irrelevant to our debate unless you assume

Unitarianism. What was Jesus supposed to say? You're one of many gods? We're all monotheists.

Jesus isn't going to talk to the Father as if he's one of many gods. And so, in the same way, what is more, in John 17 3,

Jesus makes eternal life dependent upon joint knowledge of the Father and the

Son and then goes on within one sentence to say, and now Father, glorify me together with yourself with the glory which

I had in your presence before the world came to be. That's not a plan speaking, my friends.

Plans do not use personal pronouns. This is a divine person speaking to another divine person about a time in eternity past when the two shared eternal glory.

That's within one sentence of John 17 3. So let's not invest time on proving things that are not in dispute.

The issue is Trinitarianism versus Unitarianism. Now, starting point, two absolutely necessary foundational starting points this evening that will determine how you listen to this debate.

I believe in sola scriptura. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.

I do not accept any other quote -unquote revelations from God. But I also believe in tota scriptura.

We must believe all that the scripture teaches. We cannot pick and choose.

We must harmonize our beliefs with all of God's revelation because all of it has been given to us by the

Spirit of God. Sola scriptura, tota scriptura hold both of us to those standards this evening.

Now, for Christians down through the ages, there really hasn't been any question about this.

There is no question New Testament describes Jesus as the os, as God. In Titus 2 13 and 2

Peter 1 1, Jesus is called our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, using what's known as the

Granville Sharp construction in those texts. In Romans 9 5, we have referring to Christ who is overall the eternally blessed

God. In John 20 28, Thomas specifically says to the Lord Jesus, according to my heart, my

Lord and my God, both words being applied to Jesus. And Jesus accepts these words and in fact, blesses them as a statement of faith.

If Jesus was merely a man, he should have immediately rebuked Thomas said, Never say something like that to me.

I am not your Lord and your God. He accepts Thomas's statement. In John 1 1, we're told that the

Logos, the word eternally existed in 1 1 a, that he eternally existed in personal relationship with the

Father in 1 1 b, and that as to his nature, he is deity.

Likewise, John tells us that Jesus is the ego I me the I am in John 8 24 8 58 13 19 and 18 5 through 6.

Jesus is worshiped in a religious context and is described as the creator of all things in John 1 3

Colossians 1 16 through 17 in Hebrews chapter one verses two through three.

We even possess a fragment of an early hymn of the church used by the Apostle Paul as a sermon illustration in his letter to the church at Philippi.

There we read these words. You must have the same mindset among yourselves. It was in Christ Jesus who, although he eternally existed in the very form of God, did not consider that equality had with God the

Father something to be held on to at all costs, but instead he made himself nothing.

Notice this is the divine person acting in eternity past. He made himself nothing at the incarnation by taking on the very form of the slave by being made in human likeness and having entered into human existence.

He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death. Even the death one dies on a cross because of this,

God, the Father exalted him the highest place and bestowed on him the name, which is above every name.

So at the mention of the exalted name of Jesus, everyone who is in heaven on earth and under the earth bows the knee.

By the way, that's a quotation from Isaiah 45 about Jehovah God. And every tongue confesses

Jesus Christ is courteous, is Lord all to the glory of God, the Father. This is the faith of the

Christian people and has been from the beginning. So if all of this is true, why are we here tonight?

Well, because Unitarians assume that all these texts must mean something other than that.

The Trinity is true because they assume Unitarianism. So how can we get past this problem?

The answer, I believe, is found in recognizing one startling and yet in arguable fact.

The writers of the New Testament identify Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Yahweh, the one true

God. What this means is that if we find that the New Testament writers in fact differentiate between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and they do, and yet identify each as Yahweh, then they are teaching the

Trinity. One being of God, Yahweh, shared by three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So is this what we find in the New Testament revelation? It most assuredly is.

In Psalm 102, verses 25 to 27, we read these words. If old you founded the earth and the heavens are the work of your hands, even they will perish, but you endure, and all of them will wear out like a garment.

Like clothing, you will change them, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will not come to an end.

Now, who is this about? Go back to verse 22. It is about Yahweh. Only Yahweh is unchanging and immutable.

Any mere creature or creation cannot be described in the way that Yahweh is described in Psalm 102, 25 through 27.

These are words of the only one true God. Then we turn to the book of Hebrews, chapter 1.

In verse 8, we have a series begins with of Old Testament quotations with the phrase, but of the

Son, he says, followed by a citation of Psalm 45. So here the writer is telling us, these are texts about the

Son, Jesus. Verse 10 begins with the basic, and indicating a second citation about the

Son. And what does the writer to the Hebrews, quote, about the

Son of God? Well, you can look at it. Hebrews, chapter 1, verses 10 through 12. In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens, the work of your hands.

They will pass away, but you remain. They all will become old as a garment. As a cloak, you will roll them up. As a garment, they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years will never come to an end, quoting directly from the

Greek Septuagint version of Psalm 102. Words that can only be applied to Yahweh, plainly applied to the

Son in inspired scripture. Why would the writer to the Hebrews do such a thing?

Because he believed in the deity of Christ. At the close of Jesus' public ministry, the

Gospel of John reports in verses, John chapter 12, verses 39 to 41. For this reason, they were unable to believe, because again,

Isaiah said, he has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that their eyes would be unseen, their hearts without understanding, so they would not turn, and I would heal them.

These things Isaiah said, because he saw his glory and spoke concerning him.

This is a citation from Isaiah chapter 6, when Isaiah is commissioned as a prophet.

And notice what he says, these things Isaiah said, because he saw his glory and he spoke concerning him.

So when we go back, John's citing from Isaiah's temple vision, where the prophet saw Yahweh upon his throne.

So in verse 41 says, these things Isaiah said, because he saw his glory, the only his in the context of John chapter 12 is

Jesus. And verse 42 goes on to prove that that's who is in view here. So if we ask

Isaiah, Isaiah, who did you see? His answer would be Yahweh. But if we ask

John, who did Isaiah see? John's answer is who? Jesus. He saw

Jesus. So consider what this means in John's gospel alone. Jesus identified as Theos in John 1 .1,

1 .18, in 2028. Jesus identified as the Ego -I -Me, the I -Am in 8 .24,

8 .58, 13 .19, and 18 .5 -6. And he's identified as Yahweh in John 12 .41.

You think John's trying to communicate something to us here? Yes, he is, and he is doing so with great clarity.

One other example, 1 Peter chapter 3, verses 14 -15, you're probably familiar with the text.

But even if you suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed, do not fear their intimidation, neither be troubled, but treat as holy

Christ as Lord in your hearts. Now I've used italics to show you where Peter is quoting from the

Greek Septuagint. And he is quoting a text about Yahweh God.

And so when he says, treat as holy the Messiah as Kurios in your hearts, that Greek term

Kurios is the Hebrew term Yahweh in Isaiah 8, 12 -13.

So here you have Peter along with John. And we see Paul also does this in Philippians chapter 2 when he quotes from Isaiah 45.

All the New Testament writers, the writer of the Hebrews, what are they all doing? They're identifying

Jesus as Yahweh. That is what the scriptures are teaching us.

So why have the Christian people from the days of the apostles confessed Jesus as deity? And that long before there was anything even remotely resembling today's

Roman Catholic church? Because you cannot believe in Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura and not believe in the deity of Christ.

For the words of scripture taken as a whole, taken together in context, teach this truth.

Consider the words of Ignatius of Antioch, written only a matter of years after the apostles. Listen to these words.

The very generation after the apostles, long before there was anybody who claimed to be a Pope in Rome, there is one physician of flesh and of spirit, generate and generate,

God existing in flesh, true life and death, both from Mary and from God, first passable and then impassable,

Jesus Christ our Lord. The first generation of Christians. This is what they believe. This doesn't come from Rome.

This comes from the apostles of Jesus Christ himself. Now, my friends, yes, the

Bible says there is one and only one God. That is not the question this evening.

Yes, the Bible differentiates between the father and the son. It is the son who took on flesh, not the father.

It is the son who made himself of no reputation. It is the son who did that out of his great love and out of the father's great love and the spirit's great love for us.

These are not disputed facts. There is no question of these things. But the

Bible likewise identifies Jesus as Yahweh, showing us the divine truth that the being of God is shared by three divine persons, the father, the son, and the spirit.

This is what you must believe if you believe the entirety of scripture.

That is the trinity, and the trinity is a biblical teaching.

Let me remind you again, is the father Yahweh who lays our sins upon the

Messiah? According to Isaiah 53, it's Yahweh that lays our sins upon the Messiah. So there the fathers identify as Yahweh.

We've seen the son identify as Yahweh. Who is the spirit of Yahweh in the New Testament? The spirit of God.

These are undoubted questions. These are undoubted statements. There's a question about it. So what do we do with it?

Well, Christians have always believed that it teaches us the doctrine of the trinity. So please consider well.

I want us to finish my brief period of time with you, considering well the words of the

Lord Jesus Christ. May these echo in all of our ears. Jesus was speaking to people no farther away from him than you are from me.

And he says, therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that echo,

I mean, I am, you will die in your sins.

Now, my friends, does it make sense to you that you do not want to die in your sins?

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? You don't want to die in your sins. You want your sins dealt with before you face a thrice holy judge.

These men would have accepted Jesus as a prophet. Sort of hard to disagree.

The man had supernatural power when he raises people from the dead, heals blind eyes.

But that wasn't enough. Jesus said, unless you believe that I am.

The very same words that when he said those words to the soldiers and they came to arrest him, what happened? They fell back on the ground.

Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins. My friends, we're here this evening to talk about who

God is. But as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I must emphasize that the gospel itself is based upon who

Jesus Christ is. A false Jesus cannot save you.

A Jesus who is any less than the one described for us in the page of the scripture cannot save you.

I have debated this subject in mosques all around the world. I've stood in the

Aguabaca Cynic Mosque in Erasmus, South Africa, where the imam leads the prayers and defended these very beliefs.

And I say to you what I said to them, you cannot have a Jesus who's a mere prophet. You cannot have a

Jesus who's a mere teacher. That Jesus never existed. Jesus says, unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.

We need a divine Savior. We need one who can truly give his life as the ransom sacrifice for sin.

And that's the Jesus of the New Testament. Can you, with Thomas, can you repeat the words of Thomas when he saw the evidence of the resurrected

Lord? And he says to him, my Lord and my

God. And Jesus's answer is because you've seen me, have you believed

Thomas? Blessed are those who having not seen, have believed. If Jesus was anything other than the eternal

Son of God entered into flesh, he would have had to have rebuked Thomas at that very point.

But the reality is, the truth is, that just as Paul wrote to Titus, just as Peter wrote to his audience, 2

Peter 1 .1, the early Christians believed our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

That is the consistent faith of the Christian people down through the centuries.

And the reason is, it is the consistent teaching of God's inspired

Word. I call you to confess with me, Jesus Christ, our great

God and Savior. Thank you for your attention this evening. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, we now begin our first cross -examination of the affirmative side by the negative side for 10 minutes.

Brother Vindolation. How would

I address you, Dr. White? That's fine. Okay. Dr. White, the first verse you used was

John 17 .3, am I right? Yes. Okay. In John 17 .3,

who's the one speaking it at first? Jesus addressing the Father. Okay, he was addressing the Father. Yes. Now, when he addressed the

Father, okay, what did he say to the Father concerning God? He addressed him as the only true

God. The what? The only true God. Okay. So, if the one that is talking to the

Father is saying, you are the only true God, would, how would you understand the word only?

Could there be another God? No, I'm a monotheist, sir. I don't assume Unitarianism. I will repeat the question.

He said, you are the only. When he said, you are the only, is he referring to himself or to the

Father? No, he's referring to the Father, obviously. He was referring to the Father. Yeah. So, you believe what Christ said that the

Father is the only true God? You believe that? I certainly do because I'm a monotheist.

I've said that from the start. I just don't assume Unitarianism, sir. So, did Jesus say that they will believe you and me as the only true

God? Did he say that? No, they said to have eternal life. They have eternal life in only knowing the Father and the

Son. So, to Jesus, the only true God is the Father, right? There's only one

God, sir, yes. To Jesus, in John 17. Yeah, you're arguing a point that is not in dispute. You do not tell me what

I have to do, Dr. Wright, please. I am repeating my question.

Jesus said the Father is the only true God. You believe that?

Yes, I do. So, to Jesus, the Father is the only true God. Yes. How do you understand the word only?

Could there be another one? No, I understand it in light of what Jesus goes on to say when he talks about the time in eternity when he was glorious in the presence of the

Father. And since there's only one glory of Yahweh, then Jesus was identifying himself as Yahweh. That's not my question. I will repeat again,

Dr. Wright. I can't answer a question by looking at the verse after this? You can do that, but that will be it.

There's only one sentence in between, sir. There's only one sentence in between. Don't you think you should allow at least three sentences in the context?

That's not the point. The point is... No, I think it is the point. Okay. You already used that, okay?

You used John 17 5, but I'm using John 17 3. Jesus said...

I believe both of them. I believe 3 and 5. You have to put them together. And I thank you that you started with John 17 3.

Now, here's the next question based on your book. You said that the

Greek word pion... Can you please put it on the screen, please? The word pion is the accusative form or singular form of theos.

Am I right? Yes. Okay. I don't see anything on the screen, but... All right. But I could probably put that later on.

Okay. Now, in your book, page 52, you said that the word pion...

The word pion describes... In what text are you talking about, sir? Your book. I know.

What text in the Bible? I'm asking about your book. I know, but I'm quoting from the

Bible. What text in the Bible are we talking about? John 17 3. That's why we are here in John 17 3.

You forgot what you have written? No. All right. Okay. Here's the next question.

All right. You said... Okay. So the word pion. Pion. Okay. All right.

You said in page 52 that the word pion describes the Almighty God. Is that right?

Yes. Describes the Almighty God. It describes the Yahweh also, correct? It describes what?

The Yahweh. The Yahweh? You mean Yahweh? Yahweh. Yahweh. Yes. Yes. Okay. You also say that the word pion is a description of the creator of all things.

Is that right? Right. That's why it's used of Jesus, who's the creator of all things, too. Okay. Now, in John chapter 1, verse 1, do you see the word pion?

Yes. Introduced by the article pion. Yes. Yes. Where is that in John 1 1?

Is it the second clause? Yes. Yes. So you have the pion in John 1 1, and you said that the pion describes the

Almighty God. Specifically, I said that this is referring to the Father. Correct.

Okay. So the Almighty God, the pion in John 1 1, is referring to the

Father. In that context. In that context. Okay. It's not because it's an accusative, though. Accusative is irrelevant.

Well, the point here is that you said it is an accusative. Yeah. Yes. On page 110,

I believe, you said it is an accusative. The pion is referring to the

Almighty God. In that context. But as I said, in John 1 1. Sir, let me just make sure

I answer your question. The accusative is irrelevant. That's just how it's functioning in this particular case. I did not ask about the accusative.

You were the one who said that the pion is an accusative. My question there is on the pion.

You said the pion is referring to the Almighty God in John 1 1. To the

Father. Yes. Okay. That's not my question. My question is, you said that the pion refers to the

Almighty God. I said the Father, sir. Okay. Now, so in John 1 1, in John 1 1, on the second clause, where you have the pion, is the pion there the

Almighty God? It's the Father. Yes. Okay. So in John 1 1, the Almighty God is the

Father. I said, once again, you can keep repeating yourself all you want. Everybody here knows that what

I said, am I consistent? Excuse me. Excuse me. You do need to allow me to answer your questions. I know you're on a roll here, but you need to let me answer your questions.

Definitely. If anyone reads my book, they will know that what I said is the first clause says that the logos is eternal.

The second clause says that the logos is in eternal relationship with the Father. And the third clause says that the logos is as to his nature deity.

That's why I'm asking, I'm questioning you on the position of John 1 1 b. You said that the logos is not the pion.

And the pion, you said, is the Almighty God. Prostant pion. In relationship with. Yes. Correct. Just as you have in John 17 5.

That's what I said. In John 17, in John 1 1, you said that the pion is the

Almighty God. I said it was the Father. Correct. So please, please stop misrepresenting me. No, I'm not representing you.

That is what you wrote in page 52. That the pion is the Almighty God. And you're, and you're very confused about my presentation because you're trying to read it.

Yes. Because you're trying to read it as if I'm a Unitarian and I'm not, as I've tried to tell everybody from the beginning.

Very nice answer, Mr. White, but you do not answer. I said in John 1 1 b, you said that the pion is the

Almighty God. Says the Father. Yes. The Father. So the Father is the Almighty God. Correct.

Except that the very next clause identifies Jesus as theos. So I allow everything to speak, not just little words.

So the logos is not the pion. I'm sorry? Is the logos also the pion? Not the individual.

No. The logos is theos. Thank you. Thank you. So the logos is not the pion.

Not inverse. Yes or no? No, not in, not in second clause. So the logos is not the Almighty God.

So you are, you're asking me to prove exactly what I said in my book.

I'm asking you to prove. And I'm asking you so you could answer the question. No, no, sir. You don't want me to answer the question.

You have a point that you're trying to force onto the text and you are wrong about the text. And here's why you're wrong.

Because the people in this audience recognize, sir, that you cannot take the

Bible and cut it up into little phrases and forget what the next phrase is. The next phrase after kai halagos ein prostan theon is what, sir?

It is kai theos ein halagos. I'm satisfied with your answer already. You're satisfied with my answer.

Okay. I'm going back. I'm going back to John 1, 1b. You said that the pion is

Yahweh. Correct? The Father. There's only one God. So the Father is Yahweh, the

Son is Yahweh, the Spirit is Yahweh. So the logos is not the pion. Am I right? The logos is not the Father. That's correct.

No, no, no. The logos is theos. The logos is not the pion. But the logos is theos. I'm not asking that question.

The logos is not the Father. Is the logos also the pion? He's not the Father, sir. They are differentiated. You're not answering my question.

No, sir, I am. I am answering it as any person who can read the original language text knows. Is the logos also the pion?

Yes or no? The logos is just, it says prostan theon. He's in the presence of tan theon.

So that's why it's the Father, not the Spirit or anyone else. All right. Okay. Now we go to John 17, 3.

I thought we were just there. No, we were in John 1, 1. You're confused. Okay. We were there before.

Let's go back. Let's go back to John 1, John 17, 3. Do you see the word theon in John 17, 3?

Uh -huh. You see the ton monon alatenon theon? Okay. How do you translate the ton monon alatenon theon?

It's the only true God, sir, as I said in my opening. Do you still believe that the theon is referring to the

Almighty God? To the Father, yes. Yes. So in John 17, 3. So John's very consistent. Yes, he is very consistent.

Differentiate between the Father and the Son. So in John 17, 3, Dr. White, the theon is the

Almighty God, right? The Father. The Father. So the Father is the Almighty God. See, you keep assuming

Unitarianism by saying Almighty God. Don't tell me that. And John, sir. I'm asking you a question, sir. No, you're not answering.

You're not asking me a question. You don't want to know what I believe. What I believe is the Almighty God is shared.

His being is shared by three persons. I read your book several times. Which is which. No time, please. Okay.

Let's thank them for this cross -examination. All right. And now, ladies and gentlemen, we have our first negative presentation for 20 minutes.

Brother? Brother Joe? That's a very wonderful presentation.

And so before I would continue with trying to negate what he had presented, since that's my duty in this debate.

I can't hear him. Cut the time, please. I didn't think

I could hear him. I mean, I can hear him, but I don't think the microphone. Yes, you can hear me.

Mic test. It worked before. Got it.

Well, I'm buying some time, so that's okay. Joe, will you try your mic now, please?

Mic test. Testing one, two.

This one works. Hello, mic test. Excuse me.

We're going to start your time over. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Dave Barcher, and the rest of the people who are here.

Good evening to everybody. Thank you for coming, and I'm so thankful to especially to my brethren who came from different parts of the

United States and Canada to support this activity. I hope that you have enjoyed your stay here in South Dakota, and you were able to see

Mount Rushmore. We South Dakotans are proud of our Mount Rushmore. There were four good -looking presidents there, but I don't know if you know that one of them, his name is

Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, and the author of the

Declaration of Independence, is a president who rejected the Trinity doctrine. All right, so he has his own reasons why he would reject that, and we have also our reasons why we refuse to believe this unbiblical doctrine presented by Dr.

James Wine, because what he was doing really is just to assemble some of the verses, okay, trying to assemble a few isolated verses to prove his point.

However, he was unable to show a text from the Bible, word for word, that the meaning of God means a triune

God. He even used John 17 3, and can you believe that of all of the verses that he would use, he would use one that put him in a very tight spot?

Okay, John 17 3. John 17 3 is so clear.

Jesus was the one speaking, and if you would look at that verse, okay,

John 17 3. Jesus was the one speaking, okay. I know that he's trying to get away from these verses.

Actually, he wrote very few things concerning John 17 3 in his book.

It's good that we have a copy, but if you will look at John 17 3, and this is eternal life, that they may know thee, or you, the only through God.

Now, if Jesus is speaking to the only through God, obviously, he is not the only through God, because if he said, well, that they might know you, and the two of us, including the

Holy Spirit, the three of us would make up that trinity, or that only one true

God, then I would believe that. However, my friends, okay,

John 17 3 tells us that the only true

God is the God of the Lord Jesus Christ.

He said a father is the only, so I asked him, if you still recall, how do you understand the word only?

Could there be another God, or another through God, aside from the father?

He was attacking Unitarian today, but if you will ask me who is the greatest

Unitarian in his concept, then Jesus Christ could be considered in the

New Testament as the first Unitarian, if he would like to use the word Unitarian, but we do not call ourselves

Unitarian. We never appropriate the term Unitarian to ourselves.

What do we call ourselves? We are Christians, and we believe in the teaching of Christ, that Christ said the father is the only through God.

Never a hint, never a hint that Jesus was talking about three persons in one

God. That's why I'm going to challenge him. Show me a verse in the

Bible that Christ said there are three persons in one God. What he will do probably would show you

Matthew 28 19, but it does not say there that the three persons are one God. It is a doctrine or a teaching concerning baptism.

Did I go ahead and use your verse? All right, let me continue. So the

Trinity doctrine is not a biblical teaching. In fact, if we will go back to history, the first church father who used it was

Tertullian. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD confirmed the doctrine that Jesus Christ is truly

God, and the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD proclaimed that the

Holy Spirit is God. Since Dr. James White is not a Catholic, but he is a Reformed Baptist, he inherited the doctrine that was started by the

Roman Catholics, and so they just followed up what was taught by the Roman Catholics.

But according to the book entitled Dictionary of the Bible by a priest by the name of General McKenzie, the

Trinity of God is defined by the church as the belief that in one God there are three persons who subsist in one nature.

The belief as defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries

AD. That's what according to the Catholic priest. And hence, it's not explicitly and formally a biblical belief.

So it was only reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries

AD. All right, so we cornered him on the

Theon because he could not deny that he had a book written about the

Theon. And he said at Theon that the Theon is describing the

Almighty God, the Yahweh, Decreator of all things. Did you show

John 1 1b there? Let's go to John 1 1b. Well, it's in the

American pronunciation Caelogos in Prostantion, or in the modern

Greek pronunciation Caelogos in Prostantion. This is the 2nd clause of John 1 1.

You see that in the 2nd clause there is the ton -theon. The ton is the article the, or the, and the theon is the accusative or the direct object in that sentence.

So instead of otios, it becomes ton -theon. What did

Dr. James White say about the ton -theon? He said the ton -theon is the

Almighty God, the Yahweh, Decreator of all things. So if in John 1 1 the ton -theon is the

Almighty God, where do you place the logos? Where would you put the logos?

The logos is not the Almighty God. Now ask him, how many Almighty Gods do you have?

Do you have the logos which they believe is Jesus? Do you have, do you believe that Jesus is also the

Almighty God? Because the word Almighty is a description of the only one

God. You cannot put two Almighties or three Almighties.

There are no such thing as three Almighties. When you have one Almighty God, so the rest are not

Almighty God. And he said the ton -theon, the theon in John 1 b is who?

The Almighty God. And who is the Almighty God? The Father. That's what he said.

Now, was it confirmed by Jesus that the ton -theon is the Father?

Yes. That's why the first verse he used was what? John 17 3. Did you see

John 17 3 in Greek? Okay. I like it because he pronounced it ton -monon -alatenon -theon.

Okay. That's, those of you who have studied Greek, you could probably read it ton -monon -alatenon -theon.

Ton means the, monon means only, alatenon means true, and theon means

God. So translate in English the only true God.

Was that phrase ton -monon -alatenon -theon used of Jesus?

Was it used of Jesus? Unfortunately. Was it used of the

Holy Spirit? No. He's speaking in a verse. He said you are the ton -monon -alatenon -theon.

He is speaking to the Father. So in John 1 1 b, when it says the word was with God or with a ton -theon, that God is the

Father. Then another ton -theon you have here in John 17 3 is referring to the

Father. Where in the Bible, Mr. White, James, Dr.

White, did you find that the ton -theon is referring to the

Son or to the Holy Spirit? So you know what it's doing? It's just trying to assemble some other verses.

Trying to connect like a jigsaw puzzle. Trying to connect something but it is not there.

I would not ask him where could he find the word trinity in the Bible. I will not ask him that because I already know his answer.

But of course you know that if I would ask him if there was such a thing or a term in the

Bible that says trinity or from the Latin trinitas or from the

Greek trios, unfortunately you could not find one.

So my presentation would start with who is God? We already have that.

Jesus said the Father. Now many of you probably know by heart

John 3 16. Am I right? What does it say in John 3 16?

For God so loved the world that he gave his what? See?

Everybody knows that. You could see that God is different from the

Son. There is one God who gave the only begotten

Son. Who is the giver? The giver is God. Who was given?

The Son. Those are two different beings. We the giver and the one that was given.

They could not be the same thing. Now in John 1 18,

Jesus or the Bible says that no one has ever seen

God at any time. Could you show that verse please? No one has ever seen

God, the only Son. So if nobody has seen

God at any time, then it's conclusion in John 12 41 that he said, well

I tell you so Jesus. Well if Jesus is your God, how could he see

Jesus when it says here that no one has seen God at any time?

Why is it that nobody has seen God at any time? What is God's nature according to the

Bible? Well we know that already. John 4 24, God is a what?

God is a spirit. See? That's why Jesus said God, nobody or the

Bible says God is a spirit because he has no flesh and bones.

That's why you could not see God because he doesn't have flesh and bones.

First Timothy 1 17, could you please show that? Now to the

King Eternal, Immortal, the what?

You get to read it. The word God, God I mean is not only eternal, this means he has no beginning, he has no end.

He's immortal, which means that he'll never or will not die.

So I would just run out of questions. Probably he could answer later on. When Christ died, did

God die? No, let him answer that later on. When Christ died, did

God die? And if he would say that the second person only died but not the first and the third persons, so for three days your trinity is incomplete because two are alive and one is dead.

So how would you call that? How would you call that? Is it a trinity or a tunity?

It's up to you to make the decision. But he had an incomplete, he has an incomplete

God for the three days that Jesus died. So why did he die? Because Jesus is not the

God of the Bible that says he's not only immortal, he's not only invisible.

What else? Eternal. So when the

Bible says the one God is invisible, then you do not see God.

Was Jesus seen on earth? They say, oh the God -man came down onto the earth.

Okay, that's Jesus Christ. So as a God -man on earth, he mentioned things that made you to think if he is really

God or what. I know Dr. White had a hard time answering this question in one of his debates when he was asked about the son in Matthew 24 36.

He does not know the day and the hour of his coming.

If you will look at 1 John 3 20, if you will look at 1

John 3 20, the Bible says that God knows all things. And if you would ask

Dr. White, who is that God who knows all things, he would not say that is

Jesus. Because he knows in Matthew 24 36 that the son, the

God -man on earth, does not know the day and the hour of his coming. So he does not fit the description of 1

John 3 20. 1 John 3 20 says God knows all things.

If Christ was a God on earth, he should know all things. You know what did Dr. White say?

Well, Jesus was veiled during the time of the incarnation. He was veiled, which means he could not see.

Probably he was blindfolded or whatever. Okay, that he was veiled for the rest of the time that he was here on earth.

A very good, a very good reasoning. But it is not what

Christ said. Christ's statement is very clear. Out of that day and hour, no one knows.

If he is God and he knows all things, why would he declare such statement that he does not know the day and the hour of his coming?

Unless he's trying to hide something from us that he would say, well,

I know that, but I'm not going to tell you now. Okay. He said,

I do not know the day and the hour. And his only answer in his video, in his debate was, well, the son of God was veiled.

There was a blindfold. That's why he could not see. But you're making Christ as a liar.

Because if you would say that Christ is God and he knows all things, then why would he declare an emphatic statement that he does not know the day and the hour of his coming?

The obvious reason, because the son is not the 21. The son is not the almighty

God. The son is not the Yahweh. The son is not the creator of all things.

Now I mentioned about Kiryus. I still recall that Kiryus. Or in English, we call it

Lord. Of course, he knows that in the Hebrew, when you have the

Tantra grammatron, the four letter name of God, the Yod -Heh -Vav -Heh, when it was translated into the

Septuagint, it was translated as Kiryus. Or Lord. And in New Testament, you shall find the word

Kiryus. The word Kiryus, or in English, Lord, is referring to God.

Well, why does it say that Christ is Lord? Does it mean that he is on the same level with God being

Lord? Can you, probably this is the first time, but they're not, they're not giving attention to this verse.

They will be going to verses that are controversial. And they don't probably tell you this verse.

Acts 2 .36. It's somewhere in verse 34. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself, the

Lord said to my Lord. So you have here one Lord that says, the

Lord said to my Lord. What's the difference? Therefore, verse 36 says, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this

Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.

You see the difference between God who is Lord, inherently Lord, eternally

Lord, and Christ being Lord. The Bible says that God has made.

And you can remove that from the Bible. God has made.

Made who? Made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

So he was made Lord by whom? By God. So why is

Christ Lord? Not because he was inherently Lord. God has to make him

Lord. Because of course. Oh, thank you. And now ladies and gentlemen, we'll go into our first cross -examination of the negative side by the affirmative side for 10 minutes.

Dr. White. Mr. Ventilacion, in Hebrews chapter 1, verse 8.

Okay. It says, Prostaton huion, to the son. Who is the son in this text? The son, of course, is the

Lord Jesus Christ, made Lord by God. And then when verse 10 is introduced with the simple term chi, that continues citation regards the son, does it not?

To me, verse 10 is referring to the God in verse 5 and in verse 1.

Because in verse 1, it says there is a God who at hundred times and in diverse manners spoke to us in time past through the fathers, through the prophets.

And in these last days spoken to his son. So there's the word God there in Hebrews 1 and 1.

And in Hebrews chapter 1, verse 6, that when God brought the firstborn into the earth, he said, little the angels of God worship him.

So you're saying that verses 10 through 12 are not about the son. It's not about the son. The verse 10, it's not about the son.

It is about the God who gave his son and his spokesperson.

Can you demonstrate that the term chi there is disjunctive and not conjunctive from the text, sir? I'm not,

I'm not particular of the disjunctive or the, what did you say, conjunctive? Conjunctive or disjunctive.

You are saying that it is disjunctive. That is disconnecting the person of address. Can you prove that from the text, sir?

I did not say, sir, that it's either a conjunctive or subjunctive. What I'm saying is the

Lord here in verse 10 is referring to verse one and to verse six.

Okay. But can you prove that from the text, sir? The text actually has an introduction to one citation followed by an introduction to a second.

They're both about the same person. You need to show us from the text, why you're disjuncting them.

That is why you said in the text, in the text of Hebrews. Yes. Okay. Not only in, in verses eight down to nine.

Okay. But you have to study the context from verse one down to verse 10. So you would see that there were two beings that are being talked about.

Okay. So God and his son. Okay. So then verse 13 then goes back to the son then to which of the angels they ever said, sit in my right hand.

Cause that's Psalm 110, which you just quoted. So you have Psalm 110 in verse 13 of the son and you have the son before that, but you're distinctly going to say, oh, verses 10 through 12 about somebody else, right?

Here is my answer. You said about the verse 13, but to which of the angels has he ever said, sit at my right hand.

The one that is sitting at the right hand of God is Jesus. Right. So you have the son in verse 13, you have the son in verse nine, but you're saying verses 10, 11, 12, which were about Jehovah are not about the son, even though you can't give us anything.

I have a problem with Jehovah. I'm not against the Jehovah's witnesses per se. Okay. Yahweh. What did he say?

Lord? No, the Yahweh is the proper term. Even though the text very clearly is consistent all the way through, you're just simply going to dismiss verses 10, 11, 12 as being about the father.

And here's my answer. Hebrews one and eight is connected with Hebrews one nine.

Am I right? Yep. Okay. So in verse nine, it says here, you have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.

Therefore, God, your God, the God of the son, your God has anointed you.

And then in verse 13, that God who anointed his son allowed him to sit at his right hand.

So you're talking of two beings here, but you didn't prove that from the text or the word. We'll move on.

John chapter 12, John chapter 12. When Jesus, when John says these things,

Isaiah said, because he saw his glory, whose glory did Isaiah see? That's not saying a verse.

I'm sorry. That's what say there? John chapter 12, verse 41. These things

Isaiah said because he saw his glory. Who is the him? That's what I said. I did not see in that verse his glory, if it is referring to God or to Jesus.

I did not see that because I don't see the word God. I don't see the word father. I don't see the word son. So when it says, who is he talking about?

It says he spoke concerning him. Who's the him? The him that is Jesus Christ. And the second part. Only in the second part?

And spoke concerning him. Oh, wait a minute. So you're telling me that Isaiah saw his glory.

You don't know who that his is. Well, that's what I didn't say. But wait a minute, but wait a minute. Three words later, the very same out two appears and now it's somebody else.

See, here's my answer. Okay. I said, we are not sure of the his there is either referring to God or to the son.

What I know is that it says his glory. Now, if it is your position that it is referring to Jesus.

All right. So if Jesus was the one that was seen, then it contradicts

John one, verse 18, that no one has seen God at any time. Except in John chapter one, verse 18, you, you, you, you put it up on the screen, but you didn't mention anything about it.

What does, what does John one, 18 say about the son? Okay. Let's go ahead and we'll go back to John 12, but John chapter one, verse 18, the best reading is no one has seen

God in a time. The one is to ask a question.

I am asking you a question, sir. If you want, if you want to interrupt me, I'll be able to finish. Okay. Jesus is described as monogamous.

They ask in John one, 18. Okay. That is in a bargain that you were saying in your book. Okay. Did you, do you agree that it is a variant?

Okay. So could you explain to them what is a variant later on? What is a variant text compared to reading?

It is the reading, the two earliest papyri, P sixty five and the two earliest unsealed Sinaiticus and Vatican.

But if that's the reading, sir, if you want to dispute the reading that we can do the text. So you, so you do not believe that it's monogamous.

You do not believe it. So the earliest manuscripts in new Testament you reject. Yes. Regularly, consistently in all of your reading.

I really doubt you do. Okay. When you were a textual scholar, what do you do? Do you just based on one or two or two textual witnesses or you consider all the two, the two, when you have the two earliest manuscripts of John, it doesn't mean because it is earlier.

Okay. So you're going to, that's fine. Let me ask you, let me ask you another question. Okay. You said that I began with John 17 three.

I actually didn't. I said, I said, if you use John 17 three, it proves you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. But since we went there, okay.

I'd like to ask you about the sentence after what you've been looking at.

Could you please explain to me now glorify me father, who is the me? That's Jesus.

Okay. Uh, does God glorify anyone but himself? That's what Jesus said.

Glorify me. He's asking and he's praying. He says, para say out toe by your side.

So Jesus is glorified at the same level as the father. No, it doesn't say that. Oh, so para say out toe.

Okay. Okay. What was the glory, which I had by your side before the world was, how was the sun in possession of the glory of God before the world came?

It would entail a long explanation. Dr. Wyatt. Well, I hope you would. You've got, you've got a little time to get to it.

Yeah, I do. Okay. Because, because you said, what was the glory?

Yeah. Well, there's a lot of things that apostle Paul mentioned about, excuse me, that's not possible.

Paul, we're in John 17 five. No, that's why he said it's not there. You can't answer this from John 17 five.

You're asking me about the glory that is being mentioned in John 17 five. So I said, you're asking me about the glory.

Fine. I have the answers, but not in John 17 five, because that's that Seder. What kind of glory is that?

It doesn't. So what, then what does, what does pra to tan cosmonine mean to you?

What, what does it mean to you? No, I'm asking you the questions. What does pra to tan cosmonine mean?

Christ had a glory before. Okay. As an individual? As an individual.

Did Christ, if Christ existed before his birth in eternity within the presence of the father? No, no, no, no, no, no. Okay. Oh, he didn't.

Okay. I said, if you would allow me, I could read to you the explanation.

If you won't, because it would kill a lot of your times. Then Colossians one 15 down to 17, which of course you already know.

Oh, I know very well. Okay. That swings. That means if you know them very well, well, it says there that Christ, God created all things for Christ.

He and through him. And, and yeah, it's exactly right. Exact same terminology he uses of the father in first Corinthians one, but the point is

Jesus says, which I had icon. Okay. I had with you correct. I don't have to dispute that, that he had a glory before, but it doesn't mean that because he had a glory, he is already existing to tell you that if you had a glory, that you are not yet existing.

Probably this is the first time you will encounter this verse. If I said, if I said that I really enjoyed the quesadilla we had for lunch, wouldn't that mean

I was there to eat the quesadilla? I don't know if that is your, I mean, we didn't get to do that, but that would seem to be the case.

The question here is, is the glory. And I told you that if you had a glory, it doesn't mean that you are existing.

Would you like me to read the verse please? Okay. Let's sit down. This is Romans eight 29.

Ladies and gentlemen, that brings us to the end of round one. And so we're going to take, if the lights could be brought, brought up, please over here.

We're going to take a 15 minute break. Please avail yourself of this time, 15 minutes, and we begin again.

Thank you very much. May I have your attention, please?

May I have your attention, please? It was

Billy Corgan who once said, calm, open debate and logical thought drive strength to its maximum effectiveness.

Well, we're seeing some strong discussion here this evening. And so let us begin again.

Beginning tonight at this point, a rebuttal of the affirmative side for 20 minutes, the rebuttal of the affirmative side for 20 minutes,

Dr. White. All right.

Well, unfortunately I sort of predicted what was going to happen. What you just heard, assume

Unitarianism, demonstrate that Jesus is not the father, and argue that there's only one true

God. All things that are absolutely irrelevant if you're actually going to present a meaningful argument against the doctrines of Trinity.

Now, as long as all you want to do is get your people all excited by hearing the same things over and over again, well, rah, rah, go to it.

But there has not been a single meaningful argument placed against the doctrines of Trinity so far.

It's amazing to me. I predicted it. You said, well, you started with John 17, 3. Yes, to say that if you start with this, you don't understand the doctrines of the

Trinity. You're assuming Unitarianism rather than proving Unitarianism.

And so, well, we have Jesus differentiated from the father. We believe that. Jesus doesn't have the same role as the father.

We believe that. There's only one true God. We believe that. So far, we haven't yet engaged the debate, and I'm sorry that that's the case.

What has happened is we've had some very interesting inconsistent handling of the text of Scripture.

I would like to see if they could put on the screen for me Hebrews chapter 1. Look at what –

I'd like to point something out here and hold each of us consistent this evening. If I do this with the text of Scripture, then call me out on it.

But notice what it says. But of the son, he says, your throne, O God, is forever and ever.

Notice that. Who is that? The son. Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom.

You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. Therefore, God, your God, is anointing you with the oil of gladness above your companions.

I can believe all of that. If you deny the deity of Christ, you can only believe half of it. Then verse 10 says,

Chi, and – and then the next citation begins. Every major translation, every

Unitarian that I've ever debated, including Anthony Buzzard, have all recognized that verses 10 through 12 are about the son.

There is no question about it. And if you try to say, oh, no, this isn't – this is about somebody else.

This isn't about the son. You're disrupting the entire flow of the text. And nothing from the text was provided as to why that and right here, that word right there,

Chi, why that all of a sudden has to change meaning all of a sudden and what comes afterwards. And then, as I pointed out, who is it about in verse 13?

About the son again. So when you read it the appropriate way, it's the son, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, we have to change it because we don't believe what the

Bible actually teaches about Jesus in verses 10, 11, and 12. That's what was presented to you.

Don't mishandle the scriptures in that fashion. Since I've got it up here,

I'm going to go ahead and use it and bring – bring about John chapter 17, verse 5, if I can,

John 17, 5. And I want you to point something out.

And now, glorify me together with yourself, Father, with the glory which I had in your presence.

You can't tell me what glory that is? You can't tell who's speaking here? This is the son.

This is the one called Theos in John 1, 1, and in the two earliest manuscripts and Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus called

God in John 1, 18. Who's identified as God by Thomas in John 20, 28.

Same book, same author. Here is the son as a divine person speaking of a time before the world was when he was in the presence of the

Father and was glorious. That's what John chapter 17, verse 5 is all about.

Yes, the son existed. That's why Philippians chapter 2 says he made himself of no reputation.

That's something the son did. The son existed as a divine person prior to his birth in Bethlehem.

John chapter 12, we were told, well, we don't know whose glory this is. Well, let's see if we can figure it out.

Let's see if – let's see if the text is as ambiguous as we've been told. These things Isaiah said because he saw his glory and he spoke concerning him.

The same him and both. There is not a shred of foundation in the original Greek language.

I challenge Mr. Ventillation to show us anything in the Greek language that differentiates between this autu right here and this autu right there.

It is an absolute twisting of scripture to say they're different. Absolute twisting of scripture.

And when it says these things he said because he saw his glory, Mr. Ventillation said he read my book.

Then he should be aware of the fact that in the Greek Septuagint, in the Greek translation of Isaiah chapter 6, there's a textual variant.

You're used to hearing it saying that in the year the king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord lofty lifted up sitting on his – and the train of his robe was filling the temple.

You know what it says in the Greek Septuagint? His glory is filling the temple. So in the

Greek Septuagint, the very translation that the readers of the Gospel of John would first have access to, Isaiah says,

I saw the glory of God in the temple in Isaiah 6 .1.

Everyone reading John 12 .41 knew exactly what he was talking about. And it means that Jesus is identified as Yahweh.

That is why he can be the one who reveals. He's the monogamist theos. He reveals the

Father perfectly in John 1 .18. You see what he keeps forgetting is no one has seen God except the monogamist theos, the eternal logos who was as to his nature deity entered into flesh.

The one who's not been seen is the Father, not the Son. The reason that we can know the

Father and that we can know his love and that we can know his perfection is because there is one who perfectly represented him who's described in Hebrews chapter 1 as the exact representation of his being.

That's what the Son is. That's the teaching of the New Testament when we allow it to speak for itself.

Now what we heard were repeated references given to us concerning Unitarianism.

You can go ahead and take the computer down. It makes it a little bit easier for folks. We heard repeated references.

Well this is the one true God. This is the one true God. And why would that be relevant this evening unless you're simply assuming

Unitarianism? I believe there's one true God. Well there's a difference between the

Father and the Son. I believe that too. You see I just believe Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura, all of scripture.

And so when Jesus is identified as God in 2nd Peter 1 .1, then

I believe 2nd Peter 1 .1. And when the Apostle Paul writes to Titus and says we're looking for the appearing of our great

God and Savior Jesus Christ, I believe that. And when the Apostle Paul writes to Church of Philippi and quotes

Isaiah 45 .23 which is where Yahweh himself says that every knee will bow to him, every tongue will confess to him, and applies it to Jesus, I believe that too.

What did I say at the beginning? You are the judges in this. There's no judges sitting up there. You all here are not going to be rendering any type of verdict at the end or anything like that.

You are the judges in this debate and therefore you have to hold each one of us to a consistent standard of how we handle the text and how we represent the other side.

You have to be the judges of that. And what we've heard so far this evening has been no interaction whatsoever with the simple reality that the

New Testament writers speak of Jesus in a way that is absolutely, positively impossible of a mere creature.

Even when Paul describes the Son as the prototokos, the firstborn in Colossians 1 .15,

I hope you don't think that means first created. That would destroy Paul's entire argument in that text.

He's arguing against the proto -gnostics. The proto -gnostics made Jesus a lower one of the eons.

If you interpret Colossians chapter 1 that Jesus is not the one who creates all things, then you are agreeing with the people

Paul is arguing against and don't even know it, aren't even aware of it. It's amazing. When we look at the entirety of what the text of Scripture is saying, it is absolutely crystal clear.

And I have not heard any meaningful rebuttal of, for example, 1 Peter 3 .15.

Why would the Apostle Peter identify Jesus as Yahweh in just simply talking to Christian people and saying, set

Christ as Kurios, Yahweh, in the Old Testament. He said it as a translation, not a translation, it's transliteration.

Actually, it's a transmission. They didn't want to use the divine name in that fashion, and so they used Kurios. And so we are to treat the

Messiah as Kurios, Yahweh in our hearts. How in the world can any true follower of God treat anyone but God in that way in their hearts?

We had a quote from a liberal Roman Catholic scholar, great, that the Trinity didn't develop until the third or fourth century.

I gave you Ignatius from 108 AD describing Jesus Christ as God and man.

Which one's more important to you? I can give you a genuine epistles in very strong, strong language.

And by the way, I didn't expect this this evening because this is what

I get from my Muslim friends all the time. But while Jesus was dead, was your

Trinity incomplete? I don't know what you all believe about death.

Maybe you believe death is a cessation of existence. Christians don't believe that. So the

Son, who has eternally existed as God, takes on a perfect human nature. And as the

God -man gives that perfect life as the substitute for sin, he does not cease to exist.

He said to the thief on the cross, what? I'm going to disappear today? No. He said, what? You will be with me in paradise.

Today, you will be with me in paradise. Doesn't sound like he's playing on ceasing to exist, does it? Was the incomplete?

No, the Trinity was not incomplete. And then I'll try to avoid using the term misrepresentation here.

Hadn't brought it up. But I've been asked by Muslims many, many, many times, well, why would the

Son say that the knowledge of the day and the hour is only in the Father's possession? The Son does not know.

Notice how the Son is differentiated from men and angels and placed above them in Jesus's words.

No Muslims believe that. But secondly, what I said was, in the incarnation,

Jesus made himself of no reputation. Jesus didn't glow when he walked down the streets of Jerusalem at night.

He and the disciples still had to use torches. And yet on the Mount of Transfiguration, what happened? What happened on the

Mount of Transfiguration? Jesus shined with the brightest light possible.

Well, do you think that was unusual for him? Or do you think that that was the one point in time when the veiling and the idea of that veiling was mocked?

Seems like his glory was veiled until that moment on the Mount of Transfiguration and then was veiled again as they came down off the mountain, wasn't it?

So there were things about Jesus's preexistent glory and power that he laid aside and veiled for the purpose of being the

Messiah and being the one who gives his life as a ransom for sinners. And you and I had better be thankful for that, because that's the only hope we have.

That's the only hope we have. When we allow the scriptures to speak for themselves, we hear, for example,

Psalm 110, the most often cited passage from the Old Testament in the New Testament. Do you know that?

The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemy's foot for your feet. Yahweh said to my what?

Lord. Now, that is the

Father speaking to the Son. Oh, so the Father is Yahweh. Yes. Remember, I said that in my opening. The vast majority of what we heard were arguments against positions

I don't even hold. I don't even hold them. And my book says it clearly and plainly, so there's no reason to misrepresent me.

But see, I can believe Psalm 110. I stood up here in front of you before anything else was said and said the

Bible identifies the Father as Yahweh. Psalm 110 does so. Isaiah 53 does so.

There's no question. But what happened? He did exactly what I told you he'd do.

He assumed Unitarianism. So if the Father is Yahweh, that means only the

Father is Yahweh, because we're Unitarians. But what happens, my friends, what happens when the

Bible says more than that, when the Bible identifies the Son as Yahweh, when

John can easily say, these things Isaiah said because he saw his glory, he spoke about him, doesn't have to stop and explain himself.

It's very clear, very easy, because it fits with everything else. He's identified Jesus as the I Am. That's who

Yahweh is. He said that the Logos is as to his nature deity in John 1, 1c.

He's described him as Theos. So he doesn't have to stop and explain it.

Because, folks, the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed between the Old and New Testaments. Did you know that? It's revealed between them.

You say, how can that be? Because, remember, when's the New Testament written? It's written after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, right?

And what's the evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity? The incarnation of the Son, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Peter was an experiential Trinitarian. He had walked with the Son. He had heard the

Father speak in the Mount of Transfiguration. He was now indwelt by the Holy Spirit. He was an experiential Trinitarian. All Christians are, in that sense.

Because what did Jesus say about the coming of the Spirit? That he and the Father would make their abode within us, how?

By the Holy Spirit of God. The point is that the evidence of the revelation of the

Trinity is the incarnation of Jesus Christ, his death, burial, resurrection, and then the outpouring of the

Holy Spirit. The New Testament simply becomes the record of the result of that. And that's why that record can so easily...

In 1 Corinthians chapter 8, for example, Paul can take the Shema. Remember, Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh our

God, Hero Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one. It was what united all the

Jewish people together. What does Paul do in 1 Corinthians chapter 8? Ever notice, verses 4 and following?

He takes the Shema and he expands it. How can you do that,

Paul? Because God has done something, and he's done something amazing. The incarnation, the logos has become flesh.

And so he talks about God the Father, and he talks about one Lord Jesus Christ using the exact words from the

Greek Septuagint translation of the Shema in Deuteronomy 6 .4. And that's what Christians believe.

You'd have to have something pretty amazing to be able to change the very prayer that defined the people of God.

And it wasn't something Paul did. It was something Paul's reflecting on. It's called the fact that God had prophesied it back in Isaiah chapter 9.

Yeah, there was that one who was going to become, who was El Gabor, a mighty God, which by the way, is used in Isaiah 10 .21

of Yahweh. That mighty God was going to come. He's going to be

Prince of Peace. And that takes me to my final conclusions here in this section.

Prince of Peace. I have peace with God this evening. Not because of who

I am. I am absolutely unworthy of any of God's grace. Why do

I have peace with God? Why can I wake up tomorrow morning not fearing the wrath of God? Because I know the

Prince of Peace, the one described there in Isaiah 9, the Prince of Peace.

Sar Shalom, Shalom, true peace with God, not a ceasefire, true peace with God.

When you know who Jesus really is, then you can understand why his sacrifice is so perfect in your place.

A non -divine Jesus cannot be the one who brings about the full satisfaction of the wrath of God against our sins.

And I can have true peace with God because I have a divine Savior. And that's why the

Apostle Paul can say in Romans 5 .1, therefore, having been justified by faith, not by church membership, not by signing cards, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ. True peace because he's the Prince of Peace.

Why is this topic so important this evening? Why should we be passionate about it?

There's some scary stuff going on in the world tonight. Do you know that? I don't know about you, but North Korea gives me the creeps.

And here we are, hundreds of us in this room talking about theology and Greek manuscripts.

Yeah, you know why? Because the only message that's going to change this world, the only message that can change the hearts of stone of ISIS fighters, the only message that can change the hearts of stone of the

North Koreans who are torturing Christian believers even right now, the only message that can give hope for the next generations is not a message of a non -divine

Savior. It's of a Savior who truly was divine and truly accomplished perfect peace in his self -giving.

Because Paul warned us. He said to the Corinthians, I'm afraid that someone may come to you and preach a

Jesus, a different Jesus that you've never... I think you might put up with them. He warned us, don't accept a false

Jesus. Sola Scriptura, Scripture only. Tota Scriptura, all of Scripture.

Believe it all, not just parts, not just a few things. When you believe them both, you'll understand why

Christians from the very beginning have joined with Thomas, my Lord and my

God. Thank you very much for your attention. And now we have the second cross -examination of the affirmative side by the negative side for 10 minutes.

Dr. White, if I'm not mistaken, you said that Jesus did not cease to exist even though he's dead.

Am I right? Yes, of course. Okay, all right. So even though he's dead, he did not cease to exist.

My question is, where was he when he was dead? Well, what did he say to the thief on the cross?

He said, today you will be with me in paradise. So he was in paradise? Can I finish my answer, please?

Because the Bible says more than just that, all right? Okay. He says, today you will be with me in paradise.

So there's a place called paradise. We are also told elsewhere, and we're not sure exactly when during this time period, but Jesus went and made proclamation to the spirits who were in prison, who were rebellious in the days of Noah.

So there was some declaration of his victory over death that took place during that time period as well.

Okay, so you're not sure, where was he when he was dead for the three days? I just gave you a very clear answer.

I don't know why you came up with not sure. So when you're dead, you're not really dead, in other words. No, death is not non -existent, sir.

Okay, so when Christ said, you will be with me in paradise, was Christ already in paradise at that time?

Of course not, it's in the future. I can't say it's in the future. Yes, it is. Did he say that after my death, I will be there in paradise? He says, today you will be with me in paradise.

My question is, when he said, I will be with you in paradise, did he say, when

I'm dead, I will be in paradise with you? Did he say that? When you're hanging on a cross, you generally are very brief in your statements, sir.

I'll change my questions. That's a good idea. Here's my question again. We go back to Matthew 24, 36, and I believe since that's one of the verses you have a hard time answering.

So when Jesus said that he does not know the day and the hour of his coming, is that right or wrong?

Oh, obviously, obviously, I believe everything that the Word of God says. Now, you probably should go to Mark for this, rather than Matthew, to be perfectly honest with you.

You should go to Mark 13, 32. There is a textual variant in Matthew 24, but yes, when he said he does not know the day and the hour of his coming, is it telling us the truth?

Obviously, yes, sir. I don't even know why you would ask me that question. Well, because the

Bible says 1 John 3, 20, that God knows all things. Yes. It also says he's not a man.

If God knows all things, how would you classify Jesus as God when the

Bible says God knows all things? Because I believe the rest of what the Bible says. Now, stop. You asked me a question,

I'm now going to answer it. That's the only one. I'm going to answer your question. Go ahead and answer.

I don't accept just a part of the Bible. I accept the fact that the very same

Bible and the very same author of 1 John 3 says that the

Word became flesh. I accept all of it. You only accept part of it.

That's how I answer your question. Okay. Now, so when he said that he does not know the day and hour of his coming, would that make him omniscient or knows all things?

No more than his glory was in full display or anything else. There was a limiting of the second person in the incarnation.

He made himself nothing, sir. So when he was limited, I will follow what you're arguing is, when he was limited, he was not really telling the truth.

Correct? What? Was he telling the truth that he does not know the day and hour of his coming? Yes, because he used the present tense.

Okay. He does not know that. Does not now or did not then? I'm asking you in Mark 13, 32, he said, oh, that day and that hour, no one knows.

Okay. Is he just pretending that he knows, but he does not know? No. Oh, okay.

The incarnation was real, sir. Yes, I know. I know what you're talking about. Unfortunately, that answer does not answer my question.

Does he know or he does not know? I've already answered this question. You're begging the question. I've told you the answer.

Everybody in this room knows what the answer is. As the incarnate one, certain aspects of Jesus' knowledge were veiled.

You reject the incarnation and therefore you say, I'm not answering your question. I just believe all the Bible. I'm sorry. I cannot reject the abortion scripture.

Okay. All right. Let's go back to John 1 .1. You said that the oaths, that the oaths in the third clause.

John 1 .1. Of course. You know that John 1 .1. I would like to turn there, sir. That's all. Okay.

Say, you have the word the oaths there in John 1 .1. C. Okay. You said that Jesus is that God in John 1 .1.

C, correct? If you read my book, sir, I have a rather extensive discussion of the fact that the oaths.

I am asking you a simple question. No, you're not, sir. No, you're not, sir.

Answer my question, sir. I am a scholar of this language. I will answer it truthfully, and I will not allow you to force me to answer it falsely.

I know that you're a scholar. Okay. Okay. So what I said in my book, sir, if you will be truthful with me for just a moment, please be fair here.

You want these people to understand John 1 .1. C or you just want to make fun of me. I'm the one asking you. Okay. Okay. John, what

I said in my book was that the position of the word theos describes the nature of the

Logos as deity. That's where I'm going, sir. That's what I said in the book. Mr. Greek scholar, I'm going there on the theos, which you said is a nature.

Okay. The Jesus nature in John 1 .1. C is God. Am I right? The nature of the

Logos. The nature of the Logos. Because the Logos hadn't become flesh yet, sir. Now, in John 1 .1.

B, you have another word that means God. All right. After a preposition.

Okay. After a preposition. Right. Okay. All right. Now, is that one

God in John 1 .1. B the same as the

God in John 1 .1. C or different? How could you even ask the question if you can read the language?

No, answer my question. I will. Prostantheon. Prost means in the presence of, so you have a distinction in the language, whereas the position of theos, there is no preposition here, and therefore it's describing the nature of the

Logos. I will repeat my question, sir. Okay. I'm sorry if you can't understand the answer, sir. Oh, thank you.

It seems that your question, your answer is very vague.

Let's go back. Okay. Slowly. Slowly. Slowly. Okay. You said

John 1 .1. C, there is a God. The nature of Jesus is as being

God. I said his nature is deity. Okay. Deity or God. Okay. Now, in John 1 .1.

B, you have another God. No, I do not. There's only one God, sir. I'm a monotheist.

In John 1 .1. B. You mean you have Tantheon. Tantheon. There's God. Okay. The God or the

Prostantheon. Prostantheon. The Logos was in the presence of the Father for eternity. All right. Prostantheon. Is the

Prostantheon the same as the theos and the third gloss? Of course not. Not.

Okay. Good. That's what I'm looking for. Thank you very much. Okay.

Thank you. Can I change my question now? Now. Okay. That's what

I've been looking for. You've been looking for this. Well, I'll go ahead.

Hey, to you. Yes. Tear. Tear. I have some more good questions for you,

Dr. Weiss. Brief pause, Mr. Weiss. All right. Because you were trying to accuse us that we consider

Christ as a mere creature. Now, in Philippians 2 .9, which of course you use in your book.

Okay. My question there is based on verse nine. Okay. For God has highly exalted him.

Yes. Can you tell us the meaning of the word exalted? Wait a minute.

It's used in the Greek Septuagint of exaltation of someone to a high place of honor. Very nice. Very nice question.

So, Jesus was exalted. Am I right? Yes, by the Father. By the

Father. Does it say there in Philippians 2 .9, the Father, or says God? Well, given the entire context, yes, it's very obvious.

So, there's a God. Did you want an answer to that or are you just moving along? Okay. Go ahead.

Go ahead. Okay. Okay. So, here in Philippians 2 .9,

there is a God who exalted Jesus Christ. Am I correct? Yes.

Okay. So, here you have one God who exalts another. Am I right? No. Oh, okay.

I thought there's one God exalting another God. No, because you're starting in the middle. We can all see why you're starting in the middle.

If you would start at the beginning of the hymn, you would be able to answer all your own questions. I know. I know Philippians 2 .6,

7. That's why my question is based on Philippians 2 .9. All right. I can understand why. You understand it.

Yeah, sure. I mean, it says he was equal with the Father. You're a Greek scholar. You know what you're talking about. So, okay.

Let's go back to that verse 9. It says here, God exalted Jesus Christ.

Okay. If Jesus Christ is God, okay, or the eternal

Son of God, is there a need for exaltation? Yes or no? Yes, because of Diyah.

Because of what? Diyah. Since you don't want to read the whole thing, I'll just mention it. Because of Diyah.

It's my time to answer the question. Actually, the time's up, but Diyah. Thank you very much. Now, when you...

Again. Thank you very much.

And now, we move into the rebuttal of the negative side for 20 minutes. Brother Joe. Okay. I'm enjoying my cross -examination with Dr.

White. Okay. I think this is the first time that he was cross -examined something like that. And I think he enjoys it too.

Okay. So, if we would just go back to John 1 .1, which, of course, when

I normally ask the people that are debating against us, what is your strongest verse in proving that Christ is

God? Or what is your strongest verse in proving that there is a Trinity? One, of course, is

John 1 .1. Friends, do you see three things there? Three persons in John 1 .1?

Do you see? Okay. Does that speak about three persons?

I don't know. Okay. If you see that three... Okay. We have another debate after this. Okay. If you could see three there instead of just two, which, of course, there's no mention of the

Holy Spirit there. And John 1 .1 could not even be used as a proof text to prove that there are three persons and one

God. You know what he's doing? What he's doing is he's trying to prove that Jesus Christ is

God. Okay. That is his main agenda in this debate. So what

I'm doing is I'm trying to prove to him that Jesus Christ is different from the one

God. So the first verse that he read exactly told us that Jesus said the

Father is what? The only, true God, ton, monon, alatenon, theon.

Did he discuss that about ton, monon, alatenon, theon? He's a Greek scholar. He should have discussed that, that when you have the ton, the article, and the monon, then you have the only, then alatenus, you have the true, and then you have the theon, ton, monon, alatenon, theon.

You're talking about the one, the only, true God, the only, true God. How many times would

I repeat that it is not Jesus who is referred by the word ton, monon, alatenon, theon.

He is always referring to the Father. And when you go to John 1 .1b, when

I asked him who is the God referred by the theon, he said it's the Father.

How come he's always answering the Father? Because he agrees with Christ that the

Father is the what? The only, the only, true God.

Did you recall what I asked him? And Jesus died. Where was he?

Okay. How could you say, oh, he was there and the spirits in the prison, or he was there in paradise?

How could you say that when the person is dead? So when he was raised by God, when he was raised by God, Ephesians 1 .20,

when he was raised by God, where did he come from? From the paradise?

Or from the spirits in the prison? Or he came from the grave? Oh, thank you very much.

You know already the answer. He was dead. He ceased to exist.

Because when you, when you say when somebody is dead, all right, when somebody's dead, it's really what?

Dead. To him? No. He's still existing somewhere else.

Where could you find that in the Bible? I'm sorry, Dr. Wright. Okay.

But that's, that's what it's showing. Okay. Let's go to, going back to, he said, well, he lectured on, you have to accept

Jesus as Lord. Well, friends, if you see, although you see a lot of brown faces here, they are, they are

Filipinos like me by birth. But you could also see a lot of whites and browns who are here.

Okay. Like, like you, we came from that situation too. Some of us were

Baptists like you. Some of us were Methodists. Some were Catholics, Presbyterians.

We came from different churches. And we heard the same thing over and over again.

That when you speak about faith, all you need to, when you speak about salvation, you need Jesus Christ as the

Savior, and you should have faith. We heard that so many times already.

But why did we change our mind? There is something that we could present to you. If you will just give us a chance, if you would just like to sit down and listen, and with an open mind, we could probably, we could probably, even

Dr. White could probably come and join us in the Church of Christ. Probably.

Okay. If, if he would only be interested to listen. Okay. So I know that the, the topic is about the

Trinity, but even until, for you to be saved, you just need to have a Savior. Okay.

That's Jesus Christ. What do we say in the Church of Christ concerning salvation? We need, you need

Jesus Christ as the Savior, and you need his church. Is that simply our own idea?

Let me go to Ephesians 5, verse 23 and 25. For the husband is the head of the wife.

There's also Christ is the head of the church, and he is the Savior of the body.

Husbands love their wives. Jesus Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her.

This is in the Bible. Christ is the Savior of the body or of the church.

That's the reason why in Acts 2 47, God is putting into the church those that should be saved.

Acts 2 47. Not because the church is the Savior. No. Jesus Christ is the

Savior. But if you would ask Apostle Paul, which one will be saved? A Savior. He will save the body or the church.

Why? Because he loved the church. Verse 25. How did he prove it? He gave himself for her.

The pronoun her is referring to the church. So you need Christ as a Savior, and you need the church as his body in order for you to be saved.

And that is why these people who are fed up with just saying, oh, just believe in Jesus as your

Savior, came into the church of Christ because they believe Ephesians 5 23 and 25.

We could have another debate concerning the true church or the necessity of the true church.

I will be amenable to that if he wants to have another one. But let's go back to Jesus Christ being the

Savior. Okay. I have 13 minutes. I have ample time. Now I could see that.

All right. Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Yeshua. All right. Why is

Jesus Christ a Savior? Okay. We have to ask the

Bible. That's why a lot of these people who joined the church, they were convinced because when we ask a question, we go to the

Bible for the answer. Here it is. Acts 5 31.

Let's start with verse 30. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.

Him God exalted to his right hand to be

Prince and Savior for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

All right. So why is Christ a Savior? The Bible says God, the one who raised him from the dead, and he did not come from paradise nor from a prison.

He came from the grave. All right. Just like everybody else who will be raised by Christ. John 5 28 down to 29.

All the dead will be raised from the grave. All right. Christ was raised from the dead.

But when he was raised from the dead, the Bible says God exalted him.

What's the definition of the word exalted again? He said someone that was raised up. All right.

More elevated. He was raised by God to where?

To the position of being equal with God. What?

It says here exalted to his right hand. All right.

So where is Jesus now in heaven? He is on the right hand of God.

Okay. If they are equal, why is it that the son is on the right?

Well, how do you understand right hand? Well, since he is using human analogy, I'll probably could also make an analogy.

When I say you're the right hand, okay, granting I'm the boss and Dr.

Wright is my right hand between the two of us. Who do you think is the most handsome?

Okay. That's just to make you happy. All right. All right.

Okay. He is on the right hand, the right hand man of God.

That's why he could save you because he was given that tremendous power. He said in Matthew 28, 19, all powers.

I mean, 28, 18, all powers in heaven and on earth was given to me. And in Matthew 11, 27, he said the father has given me all things.

The one God, the one God has given Christ the authority in heaven and on earth.

So stop telling these people that we think of Jesus as a simple person or simply a created being or simply an ordinary person.

That's a wrong mistake. If I could say that, all right, that is the wrong concept about the church of Christ.

Because if you notice what I'm reading, Jesus Christ has the authority in heaven and earth given by God.

He was placed at the right hand of God in heaven. All right. He was exalted as savior.

He was exalted as Lord. Okay. Our next question is, do we worship

Jesus Christ? Well, the familiar verse to Dr. Wright and to many, let's go back to the

Philippians 29, 211. He said, Paul said, therefore

God also has highly exalted him. So high and given him the name, which is above every name that are the name of Jesus.

Every knee should bow of those in heaven and of those on earth and of those under the earth.

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God.

All right. So do we worship Jesus Christ? We do because who exalted him to be worshiped?

God. There's a difference being someone who is doing the exaltation and the one that is being exalted.

If Christ has been God since the, since eternity is what Dr. White was saying, then there is a need for him to be exalted, but he was exalted.

You know, why was he exalted? That he was elevated to that position that he's higher and above over all the other beings of God.

He said, I don't know Philippians two. Yeah. I will read verse eight and being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the dead of the cross.

So why was he exalted by God? Because he is the example, the sterling example of obedience to God.

That's why when he was on the cross, they said, nevertheless, father, not my will, but your one, but your will, he doesn't want to die.

Okay. Let this cup of suffering pass for me. He said, but again, not my will, but your will.

He has to die because he has to redeem us of our sins. And the

Bible says in Ephesians five 25, that he gave us life for the church. He's dead on the cross is the payment of the sins of the people within his church.

This Ephesians five 25. And so because of his obedience, what did God do?

He's an example of obedience. So God has to raise him to the highest place above.

That's why we worship Christ. We worship the

Lord Jesus Christ, because that is what God wants us to do. We are just following what

God would like us to do right now. Some probably would say, well, God said,

I will not give my glory to another. So why would I let Jesus to be worshiped? If he is a different, if he's a different God, here's the point.

When you worship Jesus Christ, you're not taking away the glory from God. No.

Okay. Because he said, when you worship Jesus, it is for the glory of who?

For the glory of God. Nothing is being taken away from God. My friends, that's the same son of God that he glorified that he raised him from the dead and said it was right hand.

Well, we go to, uh, we, we passed forward. Okay. Granting that today is judgment day.

Okay. Granting that today is judgment day.

Well, he was mentioning about his previous debates. I had also previous debates in San Bruno, uh,

California, in which I used this verse. It says here, or the scripture says,

God, but all things on the wrist feet. It is clear, of course, that the words, all things do not include

God himself, who puts all things under Christ. All right.

So here will be the scenario on the day of judgment. All things will be put under his feet or under his authority.

When it says here, all things doesn't include God. The answer you look at a verse.

It is, it, it is clear that the words, all things do not include

God. Okay. So what happens when all things have been placed under Christ's rule?

This son that is Jesus Christ will place himself under God.

See what will he do? He will place himself under God.

When you say under, does it mean equal? Okay.

You think so? When you say under, it is not equal. Okay. All right.

Christ will be under who? Under God. You see, that's why

I asked Chuck McElhenney, talk. Is this there? The son will place himself under.

So why does it say under if they're equal? You know what he said?

Oh, that's a very nice question. Oh yeah. I said, but it needs also a very nice answer.

I bet he was unable to answer because Mr. Dave Butcher was not there. Okay. He rang the bell.

I said, you're saved by the bell. All right. But probably, okay. Since we have, he has still 15 minutes of presentation today.

Okay. Probably he could explain to you 1 Corinthians 15, 27.

Okay. How are they equal in the sense that the son is under?

I don't know if he was able to read a verse in the Bible that the son is equal with the father or equal with God.

Okay. What I could read in 1 Corinthians 15, 27 is what?

Under. Okay. So there's one more thing that I would like to show to you in the verse.

1 Corinthians 11, 3. Okay. So could you show them 1

Corinthians 11, 3. This one is not under now. Okay. All right.

So you could see there. Okay. 1 Corinthians 11, 3. This time it is what?

Over. All right. So we started from the under. We go now to the over.

Okay. What did apostle Paul say? But I want you to understand, probably speaking to Dr.

White or to all of us, but I want you, he said, to understand that God is what?

Over Christ. Okay. Okay. So Christ is under.

The one over him is who? God. I don't know how they could circumvent that verse.

How could you go outside of that verse or how could you say, well, when it says

God is over Christ, that means they are equal. Okay.

Okay. So in John 14, 28, if you still recall, when

Jesus was here on earth, what did he say to the father? Huh? What did he say to the father?

He said, for my father, this is the last part of the verse, for my father is greater than I.

Okay. If they are equal, why would Christ say my father is what?

Greater. How do you understand greater? Equal. We have great, greater, greatest.

So when it comes to comparison between the father and the son, the son said the father is what?

Greater. That is why in Mark 13, 32, the proof that the father is greater,

Jesus Christ said, only my father knows the day and the hour of my coming. And I'm coming for the members of my church.

Thank you very much. And we have 10 minute cross examination.

Dr. White. Could we put the text up before we start?

Thank you. Ready?

Yes, I'm ready. Okay. Mr. Ventilacion, in Philippians chapter two, beginning of verse five, it says, have this attitude in yourselves, which is also in Christ Jesus.

What attitude was in reference there? Humbleness. Humility, right? Humility and obedience.

What is, what is humility? Well, he has to follow God until he's dead. That's why he is humble. So humility is just obedience?

Or does verse four, I'll explain this. That is

Philippians 2, 5. So to answer what kind of humility, he proves humility by verse eight, it says that he was humble and obedient to God until his death.

So verses six and seven are not part of his being humble? It is a part of Philippians chapter two.

But ask me a question about Philippians 2, 7 down to 8. No, I actually read it in context.

So you have to go with verse six first. Okay. When it says who existing in the form of God, could you explain how

Jesus was existing in the form of God? Okay. Give me the Christology. It's on the screen.

No, no, I'm not. I'm asking them my book, because I have to answer you by the book. When I say when

Christ is in the form of God, Christ done, who read the book, Christology in the making said that the word morphe or form in the

Greek is a near synonym to the word eikon or image.

So Christ is the image or the form of God, the image of the invisible

God, Hebrews chapter one. Can you tell us what huparkon means? Who existing in the form of God, sir?

Huparkon? Yeah. Okay. What does it mean? Who was existing? When? Oh, okay.

You said there was a pre incarnation there in Philippians 2, 6. I don't see something that is talking about pre incarnation in Philippians 2, 6.

It is simply say that Christ being in a form of God or when the inmates of God did not try to be equal with God.

So that's why that's my rendition of Philippians 2, 6. Okay. So what you're saying is if a creature does not try to blasphemously try to be equal with God, that's humility.

Of course, he did not try to become equal with God. And that's because that is how he proved that he is different from God.

He has to prove to God that he is humble by obeying God. That is humility.

So it is humility for me not to claim to be God tonight. No, the point here is this.

Okay. Never did he claim to be God. He did not say, he did not even say

I am God. He did not say that. Sir, that's not the question. Oh, this is supposed to be an illustration of humility.

That's what it is. Humility is having certain rights and laying them aside to serve others.

You're saying he didn't have a right and did not grasp that. That's a different thing. What I'm saying is that his humility,

Dr. White, is proven through his obedience to God. That even though he is in the form of God, all right, he did not hold on to that quality of being in a form of God, but instead preferred, all right, preferred.

How did he make himself of no reputation, verse seven? Well, it's so easy. Christ, Christ, I had to remember, was given that tremendous power of an authority by God.

He was given that power. He said, all things were given to me by my Father, Matthew 11, 27.

But why did he have to make himself? If he would hold on, if he would hold on to that authority or that power,

Mr. White, or Dr. White, you could not, you could not crucify him on the cross.

So when it says he took the form of a servant, when did he take the form of a servant?

Galatians 4 .4 says, Gary, that's a very good question.

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth a son born of a woman born under the law.

But it says he made himself, that's to mean he pre -existed his birth. I did not say that, did

I say he pre -existed? Paul did. That, did you, did you read a word pre -existed?

Yes, yes, yes, because it says he. It is only your opinion, Mr. White. Sir, what is, what is, what is, what is haotan? What is haotan?

Explain. What is haotan? Allah haotan ekenosen, he emptied himself. Correct.

It's a reflexive pronoun, isn't it? Okay. How did Jesus do that if he didn't exist? He has to empty himself with that being in the form of God that he has the power and the authority.

But you disconnected it with his coming in the flesh, sir. That's why I'm. That's the incarnation, that means he has pre -existed.

He had to empty himself, devote himself of the power that he has in order that he could fulfill his mission to die because if he will not empty himself with the power that was given to him by God, you cannot crucify him on the cross.

Okay, let's, let's, let's go to another question here. It's 2nd Peter chapter one. Okay. 2nd

Peter chapter one. Uh, the phrase, could you, could you give us your understanding of the last phrase of 2nd

Peter chapter one, verse 11, specifically to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Okay. Are you, are we going to discuss the Granville Sharp rule here? Well, I'm asking you for your understanding.

Uh, is Jesus both Lord and Savior? Okay. I already presented during my presentation.

If you still remember Acts 2 36, God made Jesus as Lord.

Acts 5 31, Apostle Peter said, God exalted

Jesus to be a Savior. That's the meaning of these verse that you are asking. So Lord and Savior Jesus Christ go to Acts 2 36.

God made Jesus Lord. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's not the point. So in 2nd

Peter 1 11, when you have Lord and Savior, they're both referring to one person, right?

No. No. And this one? Yes. It is referring to one person. Okay. All right.

So that's verse 11. So up in verse one, you have the exact same form, the exact same syntax.

Okay. And yet what it's, who is it referring to? To the you,

Heimon, Kaisoteros, Jesu Christu. Here it's the exact same order, exact same words, except it's our

God and Savior. Oh, okay. That's why I said to you, it's just one. To me, it's two. Our God.

Grammatically, sir. Grammatically. If, if Peter. We do not base, we do not base our doctrine or our teaching in the church of Christ simply by means of grammar.

So the revelation of God in scripture, you have something more than that. See, the point is you're trying to impress everybody here that you're a

Greek grammar and you're trying to show to them. I'm not a Greek grammar. I assure you that. I mean, Greek, a Greek grammarian.

Let's just say Greek grammarian. Let's, let's not get into this. Let's answer the question. Oh, okay. All right. The form of the language in 2nd

Peter 1 11 is identical to 1 11. You just admitted that 1 11, both

Lord and Savior refer to Jesus Christ. Okay. Here now it's God and Savior. That's why I said. Grammatically from the text, not, not from the teachings that you've been told by your hierarchy, but from the inspired word of God, why is it not proper to say our

God and Savior Jesus? It is because if you look at verse 11, okay. The God here made

Jesus Christ as Lord and made Jesus Christ as Savior. This is apostle

Peter's writing. He came from X 2 36. Peter was the one speaking.

So we can't. So it just can't mean it. Even though, even though, even though that's what the text actually says, you can't, it just can't mean that.

That's why I'm saying the 11 is different from one. This is one.

How is it different? Grammatically. Grammatically. Our God, this one. Okay.

And okay. And Jesus, our Savior. So for you to understand this as 1

Corinthians 2 13 says, you have to compare spiritual things with spiritual. You do not make a theology of one single verse.

Sir, sir. You admitted that in 1 11 to courier, you came on Kaisa.

So history is our Lord and Savior. The same author 10 verses earlier uses the exact same words in the exact same forms with one difference.

Instead of courier, you have say you, and now you're telling us, well, it means it there.

And yeah, there's three other times in the same letter. He does the same thing. You can reserve your comment later on.

Okay. Here's my answer. Peter was the one who wrote this book, correct? So here he said in X two 36, he said in X two 36,

God made Jesus as Lord. So he made a mistake here. Then he did not make a mistake here.

It is your understanding that is mistaken. If I believe both. So, so if I believe, so if I actually believe what he says here and translate it correctly, and except what he says in X two,

I'm doing solo scriptura and how are you doing the same thing? What I'm doing is I'm following first Corinthians two 13.

You compare spiritual things with spiritual. So you compare the verse, a verse in Peter with another verse in X in which

Peter, Peter said, God made Jesus as a savior that God, our

God. Ladies and gentlemen, we have one last segment.

It's the shortest of the segments in 15 minutes. So enjoy your break 15 minutes.

Thank you. A minute, 15 seconds.

So people are texting me, telling me that they're watching it being streamed live.

When we started, we had almost 2000. Yeah. And I don't know what that number grew to.

We'll get the stats on how the YouTube thing. And they've got their own side.

I'd be curious for how many they had tuned in on their side, but there's, they said it a hundred thousand.

It won't be a hundred thousand across the world. It is out across the world, but I would say that, uh, we had probably better than 10 ,000 people watching.

Yes. I hope that's a sign and not someone just sitting up against the wall.

May I have your attention, please? May I have your attention, please? Five minutes, five minutes.

So find your seat, please. Thank you. And they're, they're like, well,

I did, I did look back. But you know what the people out there in video land,

I mean, may

I have your attention, please? We are ready to begin our final segment.

You all are doing a great job. What do you say? We finish strong, respectful, in every way, shape, and form.

Beginning our final segment here tonight, we will be hearing from Dr. White closing arguments of the affirmative side.

I'd like to begin by turning to right here in the presentation was just made.

John chapter 14, verse 28. The last few words were quoted to you. And a lot of people right in this area, because I know there's a lot of INC folks right here.

You're really excited about John 14, 28. It broke my heart because if you look at John 14, 28, it teaches the deity of Christ, but you don't seem to see it.

I'd like to try explain it to you, if you'd be willing to see it, because you need to read the whole verse.

I wonder how many of you actually know what the whole verse says. We have to be very careful on both sides, that just because you hear something you agree with, that you get all excited, and you stop thinking about what's being really said, and you stop testing for consistency.

Because what we just heard, this was a Ventilation's complete meltdown on 2 Peter 1 .1.

Well, you just compare spiritual to spiritual. I've heard that so many times. Every time you point out where someone is mishandling the word of God, they're being inconsistent, they're not following the rules, they've got an overriding authority that means they can't accept what the

Bible says. Well, we're just comparing spiritual with spiritual. You weren't doing that with John 14, 28.

What was it said? You heard that I said to you, I am going away and coming to you.

If you loved me, you would have rejoiced that I am going what? Proston patera, to the

Father, because the Father is greater than I am. And you went, oh, yeah, that means

Jesus can't be Yahweh. In the very same book, it starts off describing him as God, the incarnation, it ends with Thomas' confession.

John 12, 41, we've seen identifies him as Yahweh. He's called the I am. The soldiers fall back when he uses the

I am. In the midst of all that, John 14, 28. Why should the disciples have rejoiced?

Because the Father is in heaven and Jesus is surrounded by his enemies. He's constantly being followed around by people trying to catch him in his every single word.

And Jesus says, I'm going back to where I was before. I'm going back to what in John chapter 17, verse five, that place of glory that was mine in eternity past.

And if you'd loved me, you would have rejoiced me because the position of the Father is in, is greater than the position

I'm in. That's what the verse is about. And all you heard was what you wanted to hear. And in the process, you were being denied the divine savior who can actually give you eternal life.

That's why this is such an important evening. And that's why it broke my heart to hear that. Because if you'll listen to John 14, 28, it's not teaching what you think it's teaching.

We heard stuff about, well, God is over Christ. Jesus made himself of no reputation.

He took the position of entering into human flesh. He humbled himself. That's the role he took.

Even in first Corinthians chapter 15, notice what it says at the end of the verse. Notice what you assume because you assume

Unitarianism rather than proving it. That God may be all in all, that means only the

Father. No. You see, if we could, if we have attention up here, please, thank you.

What you need to see is in first Corinthians chapter 15. What's actually going on is that someday our worship in that final day, in that final, when all of salvation is completed, all of God's people are drawn in.

It's that the eternal state has been has been entered into. Who will we be worshiping?

You see, before that, in the book of Revelation, John looks forward and he sees what?

He sees the lamb. He sees one sitting upon the throne. He sees the lamb standing at a sling. There's all these distinctions being made because salvation is still being worked out.

Once it's done, God is all in all, just God. It's not that the Father, Son, and Spirit disappear, but now they are seen in their perfect unity with one another and are worshiped perfectly at that time.

So if you just simply allow all the Scripture to speak, you will see that the Son takes these certain roles.

He voluntarily puts himself in the position of being Savior. The Spirit, the

Spirit doesn't get nearly as much the attention of the Father or the Son. Why? Because of the role that he has voluntarily taken as being the one who indwells

God's people and directs them to whom? He says he takes from the things of Christ. He will witness of Christ, is what

Jesus says in John 14 and 16. He will witness of me. That's his role. He doesn't point to himself.

He points to the Savior. But there will be some day when all those functions are complete, the eternal state is ushered in, and God will be all in all, and we will worship him in perfection.

And so what have we seen? Well, we saw in Philippians chapter 2, we saw that the one who eternally existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something that he would hold on to, not something to grasp, not something to grasp.

This text, to say that for a creature to not try to do the blasphemous thing of being come equal to God is humility, is to absolutely destroy the meaning of the word humility.

That's not what Taipanao there means at all. That's not humility.

Would it be humility in the NBA playoffs right now for the water boy to not go running out in the last 10 seconds of the game and shove

LeBron James out of the way and take that final shot? No, that's just not doing something really stupid.

And so for Jesus—and by the way, excuse me, could we have a little quiet over there? I appreciate it.

I know you all have got things to do, but we're all trying to talk here. What's going on in the relationship between God the

Father and Jesus Christ is that there is no—we keep being told, well, one's different than the other.

Yes, we believe that, but what's going on in Philippians chapter 2 is that the Son has equality with the

Father, but that's not something he held onto. Instead, he laid it aside. Why?

For you and me. For you and me. You see, that's what Paul was exhorting the

Philippians to. He was saying, don't just look out for your own things, look out for the things of others. That's what humility of mind is.

And that's what Jesus did. Isn't that amazing? It was objected.

You're misrepresenting us. You're saying Jesus is a mere creature. Folks, think about it. There is a chasm bigger than the

Grand Canyon, bigger than Mount Rushmore. How's that? I've got the

Grand Canyon in Arizona, so that's a big hole in the ground, okay? It's a big chasm between being created and being uncreated.

Where is Jesus, according to INC? On the created side. Don't care how exalted you are over here, you're still a creature.

You're still something that was made. The Bible teaches in John 1, 1, in the beginning was the word.

It uses the imperfect form of I, me, ain there. It's not the verb that John elsewhere uses of something that comes into creation.

It is continuous existence in the past. He avoided any indication that the

Logos was created, because the Logos wasn't created. Logos has eternally existed. And that's the Logos that became flesh.

So I'm not misrepresenting anybody to say, I don't care how exalted you say somebody is. If they're a creature, they are simply a creature.

And by the way, the Bible says you don't worship creatures. Don't give me this relative worship stuff.

Remember John in the book of Revelation? The angel shows him amazing things.

This is an exalted creature, this angel. And so John bows down to give proskuneo, worship to the angel.

And what does the angel say to John? Don't do that. Worship God alone. Worship God alone.

And yet we see Jesus being worshiped over and over again and accepting that worship.

What does that tell you? Well, it all depends. Will you accept sola scriptura?

Or will a religious group that controls your every thought theologically tell you what to find in the

Bible? Will you believe in tota scriptura, or will you simply be told, no, you emphasize this verse over against that verse?

That's how you compare spiritual to spiritual. The heart of the presentation that I gave has not even been touched this evening.

Have you noticed that? If you're doing the right thing, if you're doing what you're supposed to do in looking at a debate, you should be writing down the main points.

And you will see the main point that I made was that all this other stuff is irrelevant.

If the New Testament identifies Father, Son, and Spirit as Yahweh, the debate's over.

And if you think that trying to tear Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 through 12 out of its obvious place, if you think skipping over John chapter 12 verse 41, if you skip, if not even addressing 1

Peter, well, Peter couldn't have said that because of this over here. If you think those are solid answers, then you're not handling the

Bible with any kind of truthfulness at all. We were told that Jesus, when you die, you cease to exist.

Wow. I'm sure that the thief on the cross would have found that to be a really helpful and encouraging thing.

And Paul, to be absent of the body is to be, he ceases to exist. No, to be present with the

Lord. And when Jesus spoke of Lazarus, Lazarus didn't cease to exist, neither did the rich man.

They both were still in existence. And Peter himself said, God knows how to keep under punishment the wicked for the day of judgment.

So if they cease to exist, they can't be under punishment. So actually, the Bible does not teach any of that. The Bible does teach that we have a spiritual existence.

And the son indicated that in what he said to the thief on the cross.

It was Peter himself that talked about making proclamation to the spirits in prison during that time after the crucifixion, before the resurrection.

So again, who believes in all the scripture and who believes in only parts? It's pretty clear.

It's very clear. But that broke my heart too. I've never understood. What kind of hope does any of these religious groups have that teaches their people that when you die, you simply cease to exist?

What kind of hope is that? I want to be with my Lord. I want to be in his presence.

And what's the resurrection then? I mean, I know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about that. I'll be honest.

I have no clue what y 'all believe about that. But I know very clearly what the

Bible says about the resurrection. It's not a recreation. It's not someone all of a sudden waking up and going, oh, what's happened?

You see, when you understand what God has done in Jesus Christ and the fact that his people are indwelt by his spirit, then we have this incredible hope.

Because we know that not only have we been made a part of the body of Christ by that indwelling spirit, we have hope in a perfect Savior who has given himself voluntarily so that his death becomes my death, his burial my burial, his resurrection my resurrection.

Therefore, I know that when I die, I will be with my Lord. People say, where do you think heaven is?

You know what my answer is? Wherever Jesus is. I don't care about the spatial location as long as Jesus is there.

That's heaven for me. And that's our hope. That's the hope you take into the death room.

That's the hope you take into the hospital. That's the hope you take to the funeral home. But if you think man just ceases to exist, my heart breaks for you.

Let me reiterate the argument this evening. We have seen

Jesus called God over and over again. We have seen him called the

I Am. He's been described as eternal, eternally existing, John Lemon. The answers that have been given to the, especially the presentation that the

New Testament writers frequently and freely identified Jesus as Yahweh, have been utterly unsatisfactory and refuted in cross -examination.

So what are you going to do? I remind you of the words of John 8 24.

Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.

Do you believe that Jesus is the I Am? Do you believe, do you understand in John 8 58,

Jesus says, Prin abra amgenasi, ego I me, before Abraham was, I am. The Jews pick up stones to stone him.

They knew what he was saying. John 18 5 through 6, seeing

Jesus of Nazareth, I am, fall back upon the ground. And then John 13 19, which is really interesting, in the context of prophecy,

Jesus says, I'm telling you before it comes to pass, so when it does pass, you may know that I am. You know what he was quoting from?

The Greek Septuagint Isaiah 43 10, where Yahweh says, before me there was no God formed, there will be none after me.

Jesus applied it to himself. That's either blasphemy or Jesus was who he claimed to be. And so my friends, unless you believe that Jesus is the

I Am, don't leave this room until you know him, the true

Jesus, not a substitute. Thank you for your attention this evening.

And now our cross -examination by Brother Joe, five minutes. Dr. Weintz, since you're a

Greek scholar, could you tell me the Greek term for I Am? Ego I me.

Ego I me. Do you find it in John 8 24? Yep. And in John 8 58?

I think I've been saying that all night. Yes. Yes. Okay. Now, do you also find it in John 9 9?

Yep. Who said I am or ego I me in John 9 9? Blind man that was healed. Who?

Blind man that was healed. The blind man said I am? Yep. Okay. Completely different context, so it's irrelevant, but that's okay.

I'm just, I'm just trying to ask you that question because you said Jesus Christ is the ego

I me or the I am. Yep. And so therefore he is God. So do you believe that?

Yeah, nobody fell over when the blind man said I am. No, that's what my point is. Did they speak the same

Greek words ego I me? In a completely different context, yes, and that's where the meaning is found.

Thank you very much. So that's pretty obvious. Did God say

I am in Exodus 3 14? Well, specifically there he said ego

I me ha own. I am the one being. How do you say that in Hebrew? Uh, uh, yeah, hey,

I share. I, hey, can you repeat it again? I just gave it to you. Let's say, okay, yeah, sure.

Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. All right. What will be the best translation for?

Yeah, sure. Yeah. There's a lot of argumentation about that, but the

Greek septuagint identifies it as ego I me own, which is the background of the New Testament. Okay.

All right. So when, when God said in Exodus 3 15, Exodus 3 14,

I am okay. In verse 15, it says that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Do you accept that? Oh, I certainly do. Okay. So Jesus, if he's that God in Exodus 3 14 is the same

God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Is that right? I think my opening statement was there's one God Yahweh who manifests himself as father, son, and Holy spirit.

I'm just asking us what I've been saying from the start. Yep. Yep. So you said that because Christ said

I am, and God said in Exodus 3 14, I am in verse 15. No, sir. That's not true. No, wait a minute.

You're misrepresenting me. Now, if you've read my book, you know, that the connection, I will repeat. Well, you can ask a question.

I have the right to ask you a question. Not if it misrepresents my position. I'm not asking you about your position.

I'm asking you about Exodus 3 14 and 15. Except my argument is that I don't care what is your position.

I'm asking you a question. Please. You're self -destructing there, sir. The background to the use of utilization.

May I answer the question you've asked? Okay. I'll repeat the question. Now we'll start the table. Okay. Is Exodus 3 14 in the

Bible? Yes or no? Wow. Yes. 3 15. Is it in the

Bible? What? 3 15 Exodus 3 15. Yep. Is Jesus the

God who spoke in 3 14? Yep. Is Jesus the same God who said in 15 that I am the

God of your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Yahweh is the God. Yes. He is that same

God. That's Jesus. Yep. Okay. And Yahweh's Okay. Now if God, if Jesus is the

God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I would like you to go to Acts 3 13. Cool. Shoot it on the verse.

Acts 3 13. And I will ask him Acts 3 13.

Uh, better read it since it's not yet there. It says here, the

God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers glorified his servant

Jesus. Yep. You said a while ago that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

He's the Yahweh. Who is this servant Jesus whom the God had glorified?

Every single person in this room that's actually been listening to me this evening knows the answer to your question. Yahweh is tripersonal.

So you have the father, the son, and the spirit. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. So if you're going on, it means you haven't listened to the word

I've said this evening. Okay. Let me repeat. That's a shame. So, so the God of Abraham, the God of Abraham had a servant by the name of Jesus that he glorified.

Oh yes. The son became flesh. Exactly. That was his purpose. Yep. So now who you said a while ago that Jesus is the

God of Abraham. He's the Yahweh. No, he has. You're assuming Unitarianism. I don't. Oh, okay.

Well, everybody knows you are already cornered there. Okay. But I'll change my question. Oh, I have 19 seconds.

Is God a man? Is God a man? No. God can become a man. He is not a man.

Is God a man? No, he's not a man. He can become a man. Is Christ a man?

Yes. Okay. So what is this? God is not a man. All right. And Christ is a man.

So would you follow that God is not, Christ is not God? No, because that ignores John 1, 14. Thank you.

So now we move into closing arguments. The negative side for 15 minutes. Brother Joe.

All right. You know why I asked Mr. White or Dr. White about a go a me or a go me in the modern

Greek pronunciation? Because what he was trying to show, and he said, you had to believe that Christ is the

I am. Well, if that's the case, then you have also to believe in the blind man, the former blind man, and the

Greek New Testament says a go a me or I am.

You know what did he say? Oh, it's in a different context, in a different context.

But they used the same words. Why did you not point it out in your book?

Okay. Why did you hide that? That he says, well, the former blind man said a go a me.

Oh, so he must be that God too, who spoke in Exodus chapter three, verse 14. That's why

I asked him, did God speak in Exodus 3, 14? Yes, God said, I am who

I am. But is that the only possible translation?

You know, that was a very nice way. Is that the only possible translation? I will be helped by a

Jewish scholar. Okay.

Jewish literacy. Okay. This is a book by the rabbi

Joseph Telushkin. Okay. He said, at one point, Moses says to God, when

I come to the Israelites and say to them, the God of your fathers has sent me to you, and he asked me, what is his name?

What shall I say to them? God answers, yes. Shall you say to the

Israelites, he is sent to you. The three word name God gives himself is not easy to translate.

The most precise rendering, according to a Hebrew scholar, and what kind of a scholar is he?

A Greek scholar. The most precise rendering is,

I shall be what I shall be. Although it sometimes is translated as,

I am that I am. The 1962 Jewish Publication Society translation of the

Torah, despaired of coming up with an accurate rendition and just left the words in their

Hebrew original. So, if the I am, who

I am, is not the only possible translation of then, why would you use that as a proof text that Jesus is the same

God who spoke in Exodus chapter three, verse 14? You were very selective.

You would only choose, I am what I am. But what about the Jewish scholars who would say,

I shall be what I shall be. And could it also be the exact translation?

That's why the scholars said, possible translation. Because even the Jews, the

Jews or the Jewish people, Jewish scholars, could not even come up with the best possible translation.

So when you said, well, God said, I am in the Old Testament and Jesus repeated it, I am in the

New Testament. He must be that same God. That is a very wrong conclusion.

You do not tie up what you have in the New Testament with what is there in the Old Testament.

They are both different things. God said, I am who I am. And Christ said, that's the same words spoken by the former blind man.

So your argument of using ego me is a very weak argument.

Very weak. You know what? If you have probably read in John 8, 58, that Christ said,

I am God. Oh, that would settle the problem. Am I right?

Because he himself would say, I am God. But he did not say that. In fact, in your website,

South Dakota Apologetics, one article there, he said, well, Christ said, I am God.

And he said, wow, what words must he be using? And he said, John 8, 58.

John 8, 58, where does it say that Jesus said, I am God? He said, before Abraham was,

I am. See? The same words spoken by the blind man, or the former blind man.

Okay? So he was insisting on 1 Peter 1, verse 1 and 11.

There it said, God and Savior, they are just referring to one being. Is that all that you could use?

Why could you not present a verse that says the one

God has three persons? Or God said, when God said in Isaiah 44, 8,

I am God, I know not any. Okay? Probably he would object and say, no, there's one more.

Oh, there's two more. God said, I know not any. Any what?

Any other God. That is why, when it comes to, who must be the

God? Who must be the God? Because the discussion today, my dear friends, the debate today is trying to identify who is

God. Who do you think will be the best person to tell us who is

God? Okay? I will again read from the

Bible. Okay? From the Bible. John chapter 20, verse 17.

Christ said, do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to my

Father. Where was Jesus here? He was still here on earth. I have not yet ascended to whom?

To my Father. But go to my brethren and say to them,

I am ascending to my Father and your

Father and to my God and your God. Do you have any other verse that will be much clearer than this?

Jesus is the one speaking. I don't know how he would manipulate this verse, but it is so clear.

Jesus said, my God is who? Your God.

Christ did not say, you know, my God is the Father, but for you,

I am your God. Okay? He did not say that. You have to tell that to my brethren.

That is an overwhelming message that should be known by everyone, all of the brethren of Christ.

What is that? His God is your

God, our God. And who is this God? He said, my Father is your

Father. He didn't say, my God is the Father, the Son, and the

Holy Spirit. I don't know if there is a verse like that in the Bible. Do you?

Did you find it? Did you find that Christ said, my God is my Father and also includes me and includes the

Holy Spirit? So, well, let's go back to the first verse.

Why are we emphasizing in this verse? And I hope that he would also accept it from the

New Living Translation of the Bible. Okay.

Well, it seems that you're happy that I'm going to code New Living Translation. Okay. That's okay.

The NLT is somewhere there, but it starts. I just, I just said, oh, well, okay.

Thank you brother Ed. Why are we emphasizing that the

Father is the only true God? Okay. Not the

Son, not the Holy Spirit. A very strong verse, which

Mr. James did not see. But I'm going to read it, how it was translated in a

New Living Translation. Jesus said, and this is the way to have eternal life, to know you the only true

God. Why are we emphasizing that the

Father in the prayer of Jesus is the only true

God? Because Christ said, this is the way to have eternal life.

I believe that all of us who are here are interested to have that eternal life.

And the way to have it, my friends, is to accept with faith.

Not saying, well, well, Jesus of course has to teach about the monotheism. He got a lot of explanations in John 17, three, but he could not refute what

Jesus said, that the Father in heaven is the only true

God. That's the belief or the knowledge that will bring you to eternal life.

Now, what should you believe about Jesus Christ in order that you will have an eternal life?

In verse three, we will repeat again. And this is the way to have eternal life, to know you, to know you, this is the

Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.

Who is Jesus Christ? The one that was sent. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten

Son. The Son was given that you may have that eternal life.

What did the Son say? For you also to have eternal life, that you should know, that you should know, that is the purpose why we accepted their challenge, their challenge to a debate like this.

We will have the opportunity to tell the people here in South Dakota that they made a mistake in believing in what the likes of Dr.

White spoke or taught the people. Why would you not listen to them?

Because they should listen to what Jesus said. The greatest messenger of God.

And he's not just an ordinary being. In fact, before I would end that, let me go, because he's always questioning why we are worshiping a created being.

I hope that he will take note of these verses that I'm going to read. Hebrews chapter 5, and the verses are eight down to nine.

Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered, and once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.

What did our Lord Jesus Christ do? Because he learned obedience, that he obeyed

God until death, that even though he suffered, he has to obey

God. The Bible says God made him perfect.

That's the reason why when he was saying Revelation chapter 4, chapter 5 talks about Christ being worshiped, or proskuneia is the

Greek word. It is because God made Jesus as what?

Perfect. He became a perfect being after he learned obedience from what he suffered.

If he was really God before, there is no need for him to be made perfect.

He has to be made perfect because as a created being, probably you will not serve and worship him.

But God made him to be a perfect. God made him as a Lord. God made him a savior.

God made him our mediator. That's why I don't know if Mr. White, when he would pray to God, he would pray in the name of Jesus Christ.

Why? Because in 1 Timothy chapter 2, verse 5, it says, for there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man

Christ Jesus. What did Apostle Paul say? The one mediator is a what?

It's a man. Is he an ordinary created being? No. He was made the mediator.

Is the mediator that same God? No. It says the one God and one mediator between.

The one mediator is not God. The one mediator is a man.

See, the one God there is not the mediator. Christ is the mediator.

Therefore, he is not the one God. Tomorrow, if there are some questions from our audience here, we will give you the opportunity to ask your questions.

Go to the Washington room at five o 'clock in the evening. We will give you all the time in the world to ask your questions and we will do our very best to answer them.

Thank you. And now our final cross -examination.

Dr. White, five minutes. Can we put the text on the screen, please?

Thank you. Sir, I'd like to start.

I'm actually free tomorrow evening if you want to continue this at five o 'clock. You could come and join us.

You can ask your question if you would like. Oh, but how about they ask both of us questions? They could ask both of us questions.

We could just go back and forth, even time. I'll make myself available at five o 'clock. You think about that. You already have your own at ten o 'clock, okay?

That's fine. You have already your own at ten o 'clock. That's why we prepared. I'm just offering it for you, sir.

On the screen. What I would suggest is that if you would like, we could sit down again with Aaron.

We could sit down again and sit another time. So we will continue part two, okay? Okay. Okay.

God. But like I said, I'm available tomorrow evening. Godfather part two. If you want to keep asking questions, we can keep doing it.

Let's take a look. Let's take a look at Isaiah 4310 on the screen, please. All right. I've outlined in order that you may know and believe and understand.

And then could you look at the last three words there and tell me what those are? Yes. Is that what you're asking for?

Yes. Yes. Huh? Who's speaking in Isaiah 4310? Well, it's obvious it's

God who is speaking in Isaiah 4310. So Yahweh is speaking.

I'm looking over. There is a Tetragrammaton in it. This is Greek, sir. It's not. I know. That's why

I said, oh, I don't see a Kiryus there. Do you have the

Kiryus? No, there's not. Oh, yeah, there is. Like I could ask how they ask. It says the

Lord God. It's Yahweh. It's Yahweh in Hebrew. My point is, sir, why does Yahweh use the phrase

Ego Aimee of himself? Well, isn't that a title? Isn't that a name?

Ego Aimee is not the name. So it's not being used here as a name that you may know and understand that Ego Aimee.

I am. I am. See, but he didn't say, well, my name is Ego Aimee. That's different in Exodus 314 when

Moses was asked, what is his name? But he said, yeah, it is just your conclusion based on what you're saying.

All right. Except that's what Jesus quotes himself in John 13, 19. Oh, that's what that's what he quoted?

Yeah. Are you sure? Yes, I am. You want me to want me to show it to everybody so they can see it and say it too?

That'd be really, really be nice for everybody to see here. John 13, 19.

Look at it right here. No, I already told you. Okay.

There's. Oh, I'm sorry. That's. Oh, yeah. Your pardon. We'll get to it. Hold on.

You're forgiven. Oh, you typed the wrong thing in. Oh, that's okay. The air is human to forgive is divine.

Okay. I forgive you here. Here is the N .A. 27. And boy, you're going to all these going, oh, when you see it,

I wonder if you're going to go, oh, again, well, John chapter 13, verse 19, that when it comes about where, oh, what's those?

What's the what's the last phrase there? Hati what? Well, let us see. In order that you might believe, isn't that the same verbal form that's used in Greek Septuagint right here?

Is this John 13, 19? Oh, I thought we're talking about John 8, 58 here.

No, John 13, 19. Oh, okay. So we have a different context now. Yeah. The context is

Jesus is prophesying about what's going to happen in the future, just like Isaiah 43, 10. So you have the same verb and then you have

Hati ego. I mean, why would Jesus take the words of the Greek Septuagint that were about Jehovah Yahweh and that's not the way

I see it there. I am there. The question there in John chapter 8.

That's not John chapter 8, John chapter 13. Yeah, that's what I said. No, you said John chapter 8. Oh, John chapter 13. Okay. I'm still at John 8, 58.

Okay. Most of the time, Christ is being questioned if he is the

Messiah or not. No, that's not what he's talking about. Okay. So John 13. John 13 is the betrayal of Judas.

Okay. Now I tell her before it comes, now when it does come past, many believe that I am he.

In the King James version, I am he with an italicized he. Yeah.

Hati ego I mean. Okay. Using the exact same verbal form that's found in the Greek Septuagint. So my question for you is, why would

Jesus, if everything you've said about him is true, apply Isaiah 43, 10 to himself?

It's just you're thinking that he was applying Isaiah 43, 10. See, in this version, which is

NLT, I tell you this now so that it happens you will believe that I am the

Messiah. I am there. Can you show me the word Messiah in the Greek, sir? We're not talking about bad

English translations. Oh, okay. Let's stick with the Greek. Okay. It's barely a paraphrase folks.

If you have to use that, you're not dealing with the New Testament. Oh, okay.

You're not. Oh. Saved by the bell.

So ladies and gentlemen, we have come to the end of our time for our debate. I am a

South Dakotan. I am born, fed, corn fed, raised right here in South Dakota.

I was raised on a small family farm. My mother, my father, and my nine brothers and sisters.

Dinner time for the Barcher family was a sacred time. We were all to show up. We were to be on time and we were to be there at the dinner table.

And folks, I'll tell you what, when there's 12 of us around the dinner table, there was often lively, lively debate.

And there was oftentimes 12 different opinions at the Barcher table.

I miss that time. That time together, matured us as young people to become maturing adults.

What we have experienced here tonight, we hope is a maturing experience because we have heard some lively debate.

We hope that it continues. The Bible says, come, let us reason together.

I believe we have attempted to do just that this evening. We thank you for coming to tonight's debate.

Watch for further debates in the future. But for right now, ladies and gentlemen, will you come to your feet and let's thank

Dr. White and Brother Joe. Have a wonderful evening, everyone.