Debate Aftershow, Is the Trinity implied in the OT

All right, we're live now. Took me a while to set everything up. Can you hear me?

Yes. Can you please check your phone? What?

What about the phone? Can't hear you now.

Hey, Alex. I would just like for you to be aware of what

I said on your phone. Oh, there. Now it comes in. Okay. Yeah, if you want to come in here and talk about the debate here in Streamyard, that's a place to do it right there.

Anyway, if you guys want to come in, you can talk, make comments.

Hey, Bill. Matt, how are you? Hanging in there.

We'll be praying. Good, thanks. Yeah, it's a big family issue.

Big. It just, yeah. Anyway, give me some feedback on what you thought the debate, how it was.

Anybody? See, I'm looking in YouTube.

I think it's YouTube. Yeah. There's some comments coming in. Find it on Rumble.

We got the copy down the

URL for the Rumble. That's it?

No one's commenting about a debate? What do you think,

Joanne? Well, I don't think anybody who is not for the

Trinity is going to make any sense. Well, I do like some feedback.

So if you guys can get in, Alex can't because there's something wrong with his device. He's got to figure that out. So let's give it a few more minutes and some time for people to come in, and we'll see.

What I'm trying to do is get the – there we go. Got the Rumble. Yeah, I got the

Rumble link, so now I can put it in the page and also do a Rumble.

Put that in there for people. Wow, it's a long link. Look at that. That's okay. There, now it's all updated.

Okay, now. Well, hey, Laura. I'll give you my assessment.

He tried to make logical inferences that weren't required and weren't necessary and weren't part of the text in a couple places.

He ignored the issue of the plurality is what I was trying to make, and he's trying to change that to I'm saying

God's a Trinity and that he is a Trinity, and we're supposed to stick with the Old Testament. So I tried to show him it's a plurality that I'm demonstrating, which he admitted is the case.

That's what it says in the plurality, and I got it recorded. He contradicted himself a couple of times.

And I tried to show that it's only, in my opinion, that someone who denies a

Trinity so vehemently would deny that there's a plurality, an aspect of plurality from God.

They would just have to continue to argue away and say, well, over there it says this verse. Well, yeah, it's true. It says he and Genesis 127, but it also says let us make man.

God's referring to himself in the plural. And that's all the point I'm trying to make is that he refers himself in the plural there, as he does in Genesis 322 and 117 and Genesis 1924.

Let us, the Lord reign from the Lord. So I was just trying to demonstrate that this kind of plurality of God is in the

Old Testament, which I thought I did, and then from that, demonstrate further that the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are referenced in the Old Testament and that they established issues of personhood in there.

And not as exhaustively as it does in the New Testament, but there it is. So the implication certainly is that the Trinity is true.

And it's in the Old Testament as well. So that's the point. That's what's going on. I think he failed to make his point.

Yeah, it was good. You destroyed him. Yeah, that was a master class, man.

It was good. You were pretty calm. I mean, yeah, you got a little heated a little bit, but that wasn't even that bad, you know?

You apologized. Yeah, I did. But he was being, people are commenting about this, he was being rude, condescending, and a little insolent.

Oh, yes. Yeah. And so, yeah. I was fact -checking him in real time, too.

He was bringing up the Greek with egoammi, adding a word to the Greek, and then phylo.

You know, he didn't even prove the Trinity, that phylo guy you brought up, you know? He had concepts of it, but no actual, like, he didn't really teach it or anything.

Well, he said that the Father had no fellowship with anyone before the earth was created.

And that's why I brought up that verse, and I was like, it clearly, and he even knew, like, the verse

I was referring to before he even read it. Like, how could you say something like that when Christ, you know, but then he tried to basically make it seem like, oh, well, you know, if Christ, you know, says that he is sharing in God's glory, but then he gives the glory to the disciples, then does that make, you know, the followers?

Like, it's those type of tactics that you have to result to, you know, when you don't want to accept the plain reading of the text.

And he did admit when I asked him, because I commented, is one of the questions, because he gave the example of seeing the president in a motorcade.

And he's like, well, that's how they saw God. And I was like, no, if you didn't see the president, then you didn't see the president.

You just saw an SUV. And he's like, oh, well, you know, you know, that did fail. You know, it didn't really add up or whatever.

But, yeah, it's those, like, he wants to hold you to, like, reading the plain reading of the text.

But then he doesn't want to read the us or the, you know, making man in our image, you know.

Yeah, it was a fantastic debate, Matt. Yep. It's awesome.

Well, good. Good. Yeah, he seemed to be, I mean, him and Sean Griffin had to be friends.

He was pulling the same philosophy. You know, a lot of these guys these days, they throw out slander all the time.

You know, they just they just throw the word out, but they don't know what it means. This is what these anti -Trinitarian guys do with philosophy.

Anytime they get cornered, philosophy. It's philosophy. Yeah. And another thing, too, anytime they get cornered, you hear the same argument.

Oh, I used to be Trinitarian, you know, so I know what I'm talking about. And he clearly didn't know what he was talking about.

Like, when you hear people make that same argument, oh, I used to be a Christian or I used to be

Trinitarian. And then you go to demonstrate by the things that you're saying and the type of questions you're asking that you didn't understand what it meant to be

Trinitarian. Like, like the basics. He was just asking questions that let us know that you didn't understand.

Like, you know. Yeah, I wondered if he understood the ontological and economic

Trinity relationship. I don't think he did. No, definitely did not. He did not.

He did not. And it was funny. I about fell on my chair when he said I had to repent of my

Trinitarian beliefs. I was dying when he said that.

Repent of your Trinitarian beliefs? Logically, if you don't have to affirm the

Trinity to be saved because you don't, well, then if you don't affirm the Trinity, does that mean you're not saved?

You know, the corollary. Yeah. And he basically was saying, well, you know, he was kind of insinuating like, well, like, say, for example, like,

Abraham wouldn't have understood the Trinity the way that we understand the Trinity. So therefore, is

Abraham saved? And it's like, who says something like that? Like, of course, Abraham didn't understand the

Messiah the way that we understand who Christ is. Like, I mean, you can use that same. It's just like, what are you saying?

Well, I think it goes to this. Like when you when I was converted, you know, when you have the Holy Spirit, I knew

Jesus was God and the Holy Spirit was God. I couldn't articulate it. But if someone was to come at me and say, you know, this is how to do.

I wasn't going to deny it or anything like that. But I couldn't couldn't articulate it.

But I knew it. But after time, I learned how to develop like systematically, you know, and and and learn these concepts.

But it's just but that I mean, that's just me. But I think someone who is being corrected and being like, well, no, here's where Jesus is

God here. And then you're just adamantly denying it. And then you're saying you need to repent of it. And then you're saying we're all wrong.

And it's like that's what Christianity is taught, you know, the whole time. And then you're going to just throw out everyone who's ever taught that.

I mean, it's just crazy. And Matt answered it great by saying, you know, that the thing that sets us apart or the thing that's different is the fact that we have the full revelation, you know, of Scripture, of how

God has revealed himself. But he, Jake, was trying to make it seem as though they are held to the same standard of knowledge of what they should accept or reject,

I guess, as we are, given that we have the full revelation. Yeah, that's.

Yeah, a lot of his stuff was just not that well thought out. And he thought they were like gotcha things when they really weren't.

And it demonstrated to me a lack of logic in one area and a lack of doctrinal understanding in another.

And he made logic mistakes. And I caught him on that. Motus Ponens is one of them. He didn't understand that.

But he was he thought he did great. He thinks he really knows his stuff, but he doesn't.

You know, just he doesn't. Yeah. Yeah. And I think when he's going, you know, they always go, they always say that, oh, well, yeah, you call us heretics, you call us false, you know, but you're adamantly denying

Jesus as God. I mean, it's clear in the text. And they think that they're our brothers or something like that.

They're not our brothers. I would never affirm them as brothers and let alone they're teaching that and deceiving people.

I would call them out more than, you know, you know, say they're brothers or anything like that.

It's just crazy stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it was good.

It was interesting and stuff. A lot of stuff.

Yeah, a lot of stuff. When I think they like when all that stuff happened with your family and stuff,

I think they wanted you to throw in the towel. They're like, oh, just just end it. Yeah, it's fine. Like, you know, they really they're really in the comments trying to throw.

Oh, yeah. They were like saying just just stop it. It's fine. But, you know, they're trying to, you know, because they were getting he was getting killed.

You know, he was he was not doing well. I would disagree with that. I thought that they were all being very loving.

Yeah. I mean, many predatorians, I would say. Yeah. But I mean, when

I had an eruption, when that thing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm talking about the guys, the people on the other side,

I think. Oh, yeah. No, they didn't want that to continue. Yeah. Yeah. No.

Didn't want what to continue. They didn't want the debate to continue because slaughter. Yeah.

I mean, you had no ground to stand on. It wasn't it wasn't good.

Really. I came in, I think I came in during your introduction, but I don't remember.

Maybe I just missed it. I don't. Maybe my phone was on mute or was doing something with my son.

But did he ever address or did you bring up Yahweh raining down fire from Yahweh?

Yeah. Genesis 1924. He didn't do a very good job of that. So what was his explanation?

To be honest, I don't know. He went to some other place and it just didn't make any sense to me. Yeah, it just didn't make any sense.

So I'm not sure what he was trying to get at. Seriously. Maybe someone else heard it and they could expound on it.

What he said. I don't really remember that part. I wish I would have. Wow.

Okay. Well, why do you agree to do the debate in the first place? I do it with Marlon, but we're going to do some changes of some stuff.

Beginning of the year. I got another debate next week on Mary's intercession in heaven.

Is it biblical? So, but I think. Yeah, I think.

I don't know. We'll see if I can do debates. There's gonna be a different. Yeah. I think it's gonna be different.

So I've done. I don't know. I don't know. I've got him listed. I was updating my debate page today and add another 10 or 15 that weren't listed there.

So I don't know how many I've been in. But, you know, a few. But yeah, I didn't think he really did well.

What I like to do is have a serious conversation with him on Unitarianism. And there's some questions

I want to ask that Unitarian stumble with because of the Unitarian view. Is just it's hamstrung to begin with.

And the issue of God's love and fulfillment only with the created order coming into existence. Then the nature of God's love is fulfilled by the existence of something outside of himself.

And that's a serious problem. It's a serious challenge. There's also the static mind issue. And that's the

Unitarian God knows all things. Then what was he doing for forever ago? Because remember, he knows everything eternally.

So can he contemplate about what he's going to do? If he already knows everything. He already knows all his contemplations.

So there can be no contemplation and reciprocity in this. At the implication is a static mind.

And so it's the issue of the love. And then it goes into the issue of fellowship, too. He can't experience fellowship until something outside of his creation to order.

But fellowship and love are related together. And you have a static mind issue. And then you have the issue of the one in the many.

Now, this is more of a heady issue of what it means for the one in the many.

Is the universe created of one thing or many things? And it's a very serious question. And logicians, philosophers have been debating it.

Can Unitarianism provide the necessary precondition by which they can understand what the condition is that could answer that question?

And no, it can't. Because the ultimate there is Unitarianism. But in Christian Trinitarianism, the ultimate is both one and many equally.

So we can provide a foundation for the distinction. Because if you only have one as the ultimate unity, then it undermines truth values.

And I can explain why in another thing. But this is something I wanted to get into on a more philosophical aspect.

And then get into the issue of who are they seeing as God Almighty in the Old Testament who's not God the Father. That kills them.

Yeah, I mean, I thought you put them down really good on, you know, how can they see the Father if no one can see the

Father? Or how can they see God if no one can see the Father? I mean, that was the key during the whole thing, you know?

Yeah, and actually the 3320 kept going, I can't see his face. I said, look, you're focusing on that only because the other part doesn't agree with you.

And I said, you know, it's very obvious, you know, I can see his face because no one can see me and live. The reason you can't see his face because no one can see him and live.

That's the focus. Now, who are they seeing? Are they seeing God the Father? Well, wait a minute. Do you have a contradiction from your perspective and not the

Trinitarian one? Of course, he ran away from that as quickly as he could. Do you know if he, does he believe that the

Father has always been the Father, or did the Father become the Father at some point? That would be an interesting question.

I don't know his answer, but that would be an interesting question. At what point is the father -son relationship, when does it occur?

If it's a temporal thing where it occurs in time, he's got some serious problems. But if it's eternal, then he also has some problems.

Because then he only has the begotten issue and aspect in a concept. And that the fulfillment of what he requires about himself is outside of himself again.

So there's serious problems there. Well, Matt, I'm going to have to head out. But man, that was an awesome job.

So I just wanted to come on and say that. And yeah, it's a great job and pray everything.

Goes well with you and your family and the rest of you guys. I pray you guys have a blessed weekend.

Thanks, really appreciate it. Yeah, I really do appreciate it. Desmond, how are you doing, man?

Hey, I'm doing pretty good. And yourself? Well, I've been known to be better. Did you see the debate?

Yeah, I did. First of all, you did a fantastic job. You always do a fantastic job. You already know that.

But yeah, that part where you were hitting on Genesis 1 .26

and 1 .27, it looks like he just wanted to just kind of like isolate 27 to say, well, who's that person?

It's just mind -blowing, especially for someone who says he's a former Trinitarian. You know, when he says, he's talking about the being of God.

He is God, you know? He doesn't necessarily have to necessitate a person as a Trinitarian. The question is, is this verse 26 that you kept bringing up?

I just thought he was out of his league. It's the one in Genesis 1 .26.

He kept ignoring the plurality issue. He kept wanting to go back to only means this. And that's interesting because what he's trying to do is say he is what 26 means.

And I'm saying, no, they're both equally valid. Don't ignore one for the other. That's what you're doing because of your presuppositions.

So yeah, he blew it, in my opinion. What was the thing he brought about the angels in the beginning when he's saying they were the cherubim?

Yeah, he actually said that the cherubim or the seraphim were with him in Exodus, that were with him in the creation.

And he didn't go back to that afterwards. I brought it up a few times. You can't say that because here's that verse.

So who was God making when he says in the plurality, he's making us, may let us make, he's referring to himself in the plural, but it has to be the singular.

That's exactly what we would expect in the Trinity. He speaks of himself in the singular and the plural. We see it right there.

Yeah, and was he making us in the image of the angels? That makes no sense.

I was just going to say, right. Yeah, that was fallacious.

I didn't catch the entire debate, though. Did you also bring up Isaiah 48? Because I saw someone else bring up that question, too.

That came in the after. You know, I thought about it earlier and I didn't do it.

And now I'm trying to figure out why I didn't do that. Because it's a good verse to demonstrate distinction between the

Father and the Son when they're being sent. But I did establish that otherwise. But it's just another good verse for that.

I should have brought it up in hindsight. But I thought about it and I dismissed it. And I forgot what the reason was earlier on when

I was thinking. But at any rate, it did come up later. His answer to that, he said, we need to read the context.

He started at verse 1, but his answer was really discombobulated. And he said it was the Spirit who sent the –

I'm just like, in verse 16 it says, the Lord God and his Spirit sent me. So I asked the question, but Marley didn't see it.

But I asked the question, did the Spirit send the Spirit? It's just kind of weird to me. His answer was not good for that whatsoever, though.

No, it wasn't. And it says the Lord God has sent me and his Spirit. We have God, me, and Spirit. That's three right there.

What's going on there? And I think that's one of the reasons I did want to bring it up. Because to say that it's

Trinitarian is not a very good verse for that. What I should have said in the context of things is it's a good verse to show distinction because God has sent the

Spirit. And I showed that from other verses where he was sent. He can be grieved and stuff like that. That's the

Spirit who can be grieved. So it shows distinction because of the – you know what was interesting was he kept claiming

I never established anything, I never showed anything. And it was like, were you in the same debate? Of course I did.

I did it repeatedly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, he was gaslighting a lot.

He doesn't agree. Right. Yeah.

Yeah. That guy was a goof. Yeah. Yeah, I don't –

I mean, it's weird. I don't know. I find these anti -Trinitarian guys so strange, you know?

They're so dead set on trying to prove something that's true, false.

And they just die hard. They're the spirit of the antichrist. Yeah, exactly.

And it's increasing. I mean, these guys are all over online and they're on the streets, you know, and son of God, son of man.

I mean, the one guy in the chat was redefining – they were adding son of man to certain verses instead of where it said

God. I can't remember the verse. But they're saying it said son of man.

I'm like, it doesn't even say that in the text. Yeah. You know? They just see what they want to see. Yeah, they're blinded, and God gives them over to a reprobate mind.

Yeah. Their minds are blinded. So Desmond, where are you from, man? I'm originally from Chicago, but I'm living here in St.

Louis. I've been here for about 15 years or so. Okay. All right. Well, good.

Yeah, I've been to Chicago, never been to St. Louis. But, yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, I used to – I think I've actually seen you talk about old church.

I used to go to Moody Memorial Church. I think you've been there, or Memorial Institute, Bible Institute.

I don't know. I've been to so many places I can't remember. Where? Oh, okay.

It was in Chicago. Well, I don't know. I don't think

I've been in any church in Chicago. But, you know, I have been known to forget things. So I don't know.

Anyway, no big deal. No big deal. I was a kid then anyway, but you just seem familiar.

Okay. Well, if you've been to a post office lately, I can see why. The line up of the faces up there, the 10 most wanted.

Let me see if I can fix my – I'm not sure if it's me or what. It's lagging a bit.

Yeah, it's lagging a bit. Yeah, I think it is. I don't know why, but just what it is.

Let me do a speed test to see if my router is wigging out a little bit.

It has been doing that. Desmond, you – I grew up in Naperville, so I grew up outside of Chicago.

Did you ever go out – well, you're in St. Louis now, but did you ever street preach out there or do any evangelism?

Not in Chicago, no. I usually just do street preaching around here in St. Louis. I'm starting to venture out a little bit more, but just mostly here in St.

Louis. Gotcha. Yeah, I want to get back to there. You know, your home is – you're kind of – you want to help out where you came from.

So I know some guys that are going out in Chicago and stuff, and I want to get out there at one point. I live in Florida now.

Oh, yeah, I love Florida. That's nice. It's a free state. I was going to ask you guys – oh, yeah, yeah, no,

I love Florida. Last time I was there was last year. I was in Orlando. I was going to ask you guys, have you guys been dealing with Sean Griffin lately a lot more or has it just been a thing of the past now?

Yeah, he's gone, passed. I don't know. But I'm probably going to do a lot less debates and stuff because I just don't think it's worth it anymore.

If people benefit from them, great. You know, we'll see. We'll see. But, yeah.

You know, Sean Griffin, he's promoting – he came in the chat like towards the end of the debate, and he's promoting like he's doing kids' cartoons now of his false theology.

He's got this whole thing to try to indoctrinate the children. Yeah. Yeah.

It's wild. Yeah, it's bad. It's a rapidly growing cult too, so it's getting really bad.

Yeah. Yeah, it is. Hey, look, I'm going to get going.

Use the restroom. Check on a couple things, and then I'm going to go on Clubhouse. I need an apologist in there, some other conversations, and then that way

I can focus on something different for a bit, okay? All right. See you, man. See you.

Hey, man. Desmond, it's nice seeing you too, man. Hey, man. You have a good one, man. I appreciate it. God bless you guys.

Good to see you. I'll be praying for you. Thanks. Thank you very much. All right.