After show of debate, Trinity vs Unity with Slick vs Xavier.

Hey Charlie, I'm listening to Marlon sign off.

Oh, there he goes.

You listening tomorrow and sign off there he goes.

What.

Yep. Yep. Very well.

I was listening to Marlon sign off on the gospel truth there.

He's a valuable resource.

I think he's a good guy.

Where am I hearing myself here?

Let's see what's going on.

I'm here.

Oh, there it is right there.

Okay, but I'm only hearing.

I'm only hearing one of you.

Okay, there we go.

Confused myself with the windows open.

Let me just get back to the I just had it so the room

that we're both in there we go.

Got it.

Okay.

That right there.

Yeah, you're gonna give people a link to join us if they did.

And I'll put it in here.

Yeah, I meant the link to stream yard.

Yeah, see me our link right here.

I already put it on the car on Facebook.

Oh, I didn't go there.

Okay.

Yeah, that's all right.

Yeah, so come on in tell us what you guys thought I'll be right back.

Okay, my questions were not asked during the lesson from Matt slick.

Okay, Charles.

You want to come in here?

And if you want you can come in or just ask the question there and I'll try and answer it.

All right so.

Okay, okay good.

All right, uh shame Remy.

Matt did a great did great as usual.

Thank you shame Remy.

Who's.

I missed a debate.

Oh.

Yeah, I thought it was a good debate he really just demonstrated some ignorance in several

areas.

It was it's pretty bad.

But that thing about you know, the Old Testament Meant God being seen.

He has God Almighty's God the father that was seen and I asked him.

Well, who was it?

It wasn't the father a that really that really stumped him

say well you guys gonna come in or.

You know, you know what stumped him is he thought you were saying what you were saying.

Instead of knowing that you were reading the straightforward text.

Yeah, so he couldn't agree with you and then when you pointed out that it was a straightforward

airtight text you're reading.

Then he had to allegorize it or something and and get away from a straight forward reading of the text.

So absolutely he understood what it said, of course, then he messed up.

Yeah.

Okay, we got.

Let's see David and Andrew and Tom you're gonna have.

It says your devices aren't connected.

Here's a trick for those who don't know in your browser where it says a stream yard up there.

You know, there's a little lock you right mouse click on that and just to the left and

It'll a menu will open up.

It'll give you access to doing stuff like that.

Okay.

So that makes sense.

I meant to walk downstairs and turn the air co off.

Matt Hayes.

And because it's not connecting here like it was supposed to I can still talk on this leg.

Go downstairs and turn the air co.

Down or you know, cuz too cold in here.

All right.

So give some feedback folks.

Would you.

You know, one thing I want to say is if he doesn't believe

that Jesus existed before the incarnation.

How would he interpret the book of John chapter 1 verses 1 to 5.

John chapter 1 verse 1.

Yeah, that'd be something to go through and to see what he would say.

There's a lot of different errors.

It could have gone into but the pre -existence of Christ, which I didn't want to get into too much.

But it was really the focus was on the issue of the Trinity and he wasn't able to deal with that

as as I said before.

No one's ever tackled that system that the Bible that uses or that we use to get the Trinity.

No one's ever dealt with it.

They can't deal with it.

It's impossible.

And so the Trinity still stands.

Yep.

Okay, come on back upstairs.

I love my tech.

I'm a tech geek.

Okay, let's get some feedback what you guys thought.

Come on comments.

Yeah, he couldn't separate the difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit.

That's the case.

I didn't say be baptized in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Yeah.

Yeah, there's that's an issue as well to see what he would say.

What I think would be good is just have a just a discussion that let it go for two hours in different directions.

That's what needs to be done.

He did not understand the hypothetic Union.

He did not understand the communicative idiom autumn.

So when he asked the questions God can't die.

Demonstrated his lack of understanding in those areas.

And like I was saying if I'm gonna debate somebody and they say Matt, you don't understand this you're gonna study this.

I take that seriously.

And I'll say okay, where do I go?

What is the topic and I'll study it.

I do that because you have to represent their position.

But if he's been debating the Trinity and he doesn't even know this stuff.

And he says the Trinity hints towards modalism or tritheism he's not representing our position at all.

That's what's frustrating.

Yeah, when when he assails a position that is a Distortion of what we believe, you know, I'll

assail that position too because it's a distortion.

I'll agree with him, but he he's.

He's not taking his time to see What your point of view is in my opinion

and that's always a time -saver if you do right.

Yeah.

And someone asked me if I'm a dispensationalist.

No, I'm a covenantalist.

I see searches YouTube.

Good.

Okay, so let's see read somebody.

It's a great job.

Thank you.

Didn't know not dispensationalist my job.

Thanks.

Jimmy did well.

Thanks Coco.

Hi y 'all Marlene.

How are you doing?

Anam Muket.

That's how it's good.

Cool name.

All they do is explain scripture away and use mint.

May could might.

Michael the covenantal.

Oh, that's me.

Matt asked if he had fellowship with the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit.

And Carlos tap -danced.

That's true.

That's sure.

Well, he said the father the Holy Spirit was the father.

That's a whole just.

Oh, yeah anyway.

Yeah, I Always like the one that's had a distorted view.

The what I always thought the one that's had a distorted view.

Yeah, they do.

Just doesn't come across as anything more than just a absolute

Nonsensical foolish Worldview.

And I've said many times before if a one that's had tried to convert me to oneness I would have run for

Christianity all together.

Yeah, I have to say I wasn't at the debate so I didn't see it but I'm guessing there was no new

arguments.

It was just a case of all the father the son and one and the we discount the Holy

Spirit.

But I don't understand how they can discount any of the Trinity.

Well, they have a preconceived idea of what it is and they make mistakes lots of them.

Someone asked where's the link to the debate?

There it is.

If you want to find it later, you just go here to calm calendar right there.

And it's on for October 1st, and it's a it's the link to it on YouTube and you can see it

Tom Payne if you can need to leave and then come back in.

He's on a he's on a desktop without a mic.

Or a camera.

Oh, I Noticed his note in private chat.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Dang neither one.

Well, you can type type in private chat if you want, I guess.

Yep I've got some desktops that are have a mic or camera connected.

Use your phone.

You can get in your phone and do it.

Just go to a phone get a web browser and just type in.

Stream yards forward slash did it all that and you get in and you have a mic

and a camera if you want to do that.

All right.

Yeah, I thought the issue of God Almighty being seen but not God the Father who was God Almighty.

Who's not God the Father that.

Stumped him.

Well, he has a cognitive roadblock there.

He's he's not catching the nuance of what's being said.

Yep, oh, yeah.

Yep, and it's really not a nuance.

It's a it's a Red brick dropped on your head.

If you look at the text carefully, it wakes you up.

It wakes you up to.

He's got a Bible contradiction there, doesn't he?

Well from his way.

Yeah the way he interprets it, you know.

That's right.

Is it true that most are all oneness folks also hold to other errors as baptismal regeneration?

Yes I'm gonna turn the heat down now.

It's getting too hot.

Yes, it's absolutely correct.

But the oneness Pentecostals hold to baptismal regeneration.

I don't know what this guy holds to.

I still have to Fix it up so that anybody wants to debate me.

Has to answer a set of questions and so I know what their perspective is.

That's what I got to do.

You can get a wealth of information on oneness at that link.

I just dropped in.

And man, it looks like you're trying to Get to a certain point but time right now.

I don't know if you remember it was like one minute left.

He wasn't answering yes or no.

He kept saying Something about the father through the Holy

Spirit the son through the Holy Spirit or something like that.

Fellowship.

Yeah.

Yeah, I was trying to remember I was trying to see what you were what you were trying to get at that point.

Well.

The context was man is hot in here.

Turn the heater off the context was how do you have fellowship with God?

Because people don't think about that if God's gonna have fellowship with us That means that Christians

millions all over the world can simultaneously have fellowship with God only God can do that and

Yet our fellowship was with Christ and Our fellowship with the Holy Spirit.

So this him the idea of fellowship with God implies the deity of Them furthermore if

we get to that if I was in a discussion I'd say do you agree?

I had to force him into it because he wouldn't want to admit it.

But they have fellowship with each one.

Yes, that means his God's deity Omniscience on the presence is how he has fellowship, right?

Yes.

Well, they're each identified as persons.

Now.

What do you do?

You see Gee yeah, I don't know what Jesus was saying what he was saying about Jesus.

He's like a God he could pray to him.

But it didn't make sense and that's another area wanted to explore but we're talking about the Trinity.

There's so many tangents to get into.

You can ask him about Revelation 1912.

That's right.

Yeah, no name except, you know that he has Interpretation of 24th knows Christ not being God because of ignorance.

Yeah, he was ignorant about that.

I addressed that it's a wedding feast.

Idiom no man knows the day but the father alone and I brought up Revelation 1912

To the General Convention the Unitarian Universalist formulated five principles of universal faith.

Ooh.

Oh, I put that in there, huh?

Didn't even know it was there.

Man, Charlie puts up links on car.

I'm gone.

I don't know that was there.

Yeah I'm looking at a Charles Williams Miller.

He needs a question answered.

Wasn't Charles I missed the question.

We're not being answered by Matt here either.

What is the question?

Just type in the whole question.

Don't say look above.

I Did and I couldn't find it Charles I asked you about confessing Jesus as Lord as part of the gospel.

Does he need to believe Jesus is God to be saved?

I answered that immediately Charles.

I said, yes, and the end Jesus says unless you believe that I am you will die

in your sins John 8 24.

Okay, so the answer that is absolutely yes.

No, he didn't address John 17 5.

I brought it up only in passing.

Because it is an interesting thing that bring up and there's another thing you could bring about John 17 3 the only true God.

If you go to Jude 4 it says Jesus is our only Lord and Master if that's the case and he wants to take it literally

like that then.

We have a problem there.

We're checking out American Baptist Church tonight and in their statement of faith mentioned creator Savior and advocate sounds bad.

No Good Jesus is our advocate.

He's a mediator in that sense and a high priest who intercedes for us and that's Hebrews 6 27 25.

He's obviously our Savior.

And he's a creator included to Colossians 1 15 to 17 for that and also John 1 through 3.

Just can you readdress the question made by Carlos about God being one soul or three souls?

It's as in how many souls God has if one or three?

Well, that's a very good question.

It's one of the things I've been worrying wondering about If God is three persons.

And there's nothing we can't say souls.

Wait, I'm hearing

Something in the house here.

Hold on.

What's going on.

Charlie I got a question.

I saw you posted in the in the comments about Sodom and Gomorrah.

I think you were trying to say that there was a.

Maybe God the Father and Jesus Christ both in the same passage or

I'm curious.

Well, that was.

That was a passage that.

Speaks about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis chapter

19 and The the verses.

The verse I quoted was Genesis 19 24 and that's what Matt was quoting.

Let me put the verse in there.

It says that the Lord reigned on.

Looks like he didn't post or maybe it is.

Yeah, the Lord reigned on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord

out of heaven.

Okay in the in the Hebrew.

It's Jehovah reigns on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah in heaven

so it's just an indication that I

Read what Dylan said Of the plurality and you know, he got stuck on the shema of

Israel here.

Oh Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one you know the.

The word for one in the shema is echad.

Okay, it's a composite one a Unified one.

Okay.

It's not the word in Hebrew Yahid or ya kid you almost have to kind of cough with

it if you're speaking Hebrew.

Yahid is a singular one.

Okay, a one and only one but in the shema It's a unified one the same as when they

took up and brought a grape back on a pole.

Okay, one great.

It was what it was.

It was the pole on the shoulders of the servants who was carrying a big old grapevine with a lot of grapes

on it you had to Have two guys to carry it.

It's called a great Echad it's a unified one one of the same

Substance or essence.

Okay.

This is the idea.

The shema is actually friendly.

Doesn't prove but is very friendly to Trinitarian theology.

But he's of the opinion that it disqualifies Trinitarian theology, which is exactly opposite of the Hebrew

language.

So that's that's something he should have studied or.

If he did he missed it.

Good.

I asked Carlos Why did Jesus call himself the Son of Man and what it means?

You got a good article on that too man.

Oh, you know, I just posted it in Twitter some days ago.

I think.

All right.

So we've got people listening.

Now if you guys want to know how to debate this a little bit more and be able to articulate the Trinity and

You have to understand that it's related to the person of Christ as well.

So what you have to do.

I would if you are interested go to CARM and read up articles on the Trinity.

Just you have to read 8 ,000 of them because there's a lot there but just read, you know, the Trinity how it's derived.

And also you to understand what the hypothetic union is and the communicatio idiomato as they relate to Jesus.

Doesn't take a lot of study, but you could read these articles and you know.

If you come on sometime you can discuss them so I can get make sure you understand them and that's how you answer most questions.

Yeah, most difficult questions.

I'll post them as you're talking about and then they can access them later and and.

Take their time and their leisure with their Bible open.

Hopefully like a Berean.

Yeah, act 1711 and see If they cut the mustard, but I've gone through them

with a fine -toothed comb and you do a good job.

Thank you.

You know, it's it's there and I could not help but say to him several times that he is believing a

false God false Christ false gospel and he's on his way to hell and it you know, it's not be

attacking.

It's I'm informing him.

This is a serious thing.

This is not just a debate to win something.

You know the idea is look you understand you're believing a false God and so.

Yeah, I had to I just say it, you know I told him before the debate when we're just kind of three of us before it started.

I Said that too.

So well a passionate communication of the truth is better than the soft communication of

a lie.

And if if he.

If the Lord works on him and cracks him like he cracked me he'll he'll figure that out.

That's right.

That's right.

Mm -hmm.

Anyway, there's those.

There's those articles that if somebody wants to go through them.

That's a real good.

Springboard into the topic.

Good.

Good.

Dahlia's thinks he mocked Christ.

I.

I didn't catch that.

If he did then shame on him.

But I joined it a few minutes late so he might have done it at the beginning.

I don't think you did.

Maybe I just missed it.

Let's see.

Okay, what everybody got any questions or comments.

Just what do you got?

Okay.

Any comments questions?

I'm actually trying to read the article on Irene ism Aryan ism.

Okay that Charlie put up in the link.

It's very in the private chat.

Yeah modern.

Yeah, modern -day Aryan ism is just dressed up in a suit of clothes that comes to your door

as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Right they've.

Arius was a very Intellectual guy

and he made some Arguments that seemed to be strong.

But he was an error, but they've kind of synthesized some of his best stuff down some of his

best errors and promoted them so.

Yeah, what's the Bible and track society there?

They're a good representative of modern -day Aryan ism and.

There you go, I was just reading that path that paragraph in the article and didn't.

It didn't surprise me at all.

It makes a lot of sense.

I mean if you've studied Aryan ism, you go.

Wait a minute.

I know those guys.

Mm -hmm.

Yeah.

Yep as I was reading it.

Yep the few times that they've knocked on my doors and Come back.

Mind you I've only had the comeback once.

Mm -hmm well, if they if they find out, you know what you're talking about you get crossed off their list because there's plenty

of people that don't know their doctrine and those are the people they want to get with

and Plant their seeds of error and get people tangled, you know, they

take advantage of well -meaning people.

They take advantage of people who have a good Constitution Humanly speaking that want to

do right and live ethically or something.

They take advantage of those people.

They reel them in and once they're hooked and committed to it human nature says once you commit yourself to something It's

very hard to get out of it because what I was wrong.

I made a mistake.

No even pride won't let you admit you were wrong.

A lot of people have gotten into it and wished they hadn't and Then and it takes the Holy Spirit

to actually Work on them.

You plant seeds and Me and Matt water them and the Holy Spirit will come along and he'll harvest

at the right time.

But without without the Holy Spirit covering the whole the whole Situation

they don't have a chance.

Adam said Genesis 126 and Isaiah 44 24 that got him

and it did.

He couldn't answer it.

Yeah, yep.

Yeah, there's a lot of little things but yeah.

You know, I say if Isaiah 48 has always been a good one for me because I'd like to ask.

Yeah, I read.

I read in in verse 12 of Isaiah 48.

It's Jehovah talking clearly and as he goes on and on and on.

You get down to verse 16.

And what's he say?

And now the Lord God and his spirit has sent me.

My goodness, there's an Old Testament friendly verse if you wanted to take the Trinity into consideration.

That's a funny way for Jehovah to talk.

I Mean the Trinity reconciles it easily.

Yeah, and to go off topic for a little bit.

I was actually having a couple of months ago I was buying some silver at a shop and I

Bumped into a Taoist and he was trying to tell me that Jesus as a four -year -old Made a journey

to somewhere to find out that he was wrong.

The Bible says in Acts or in Luke 2 that Jesus remained in subjection to his parents.

They didn't go at four years old someplace.

Yeah, what got me laughing was when he said he was four.

I thought four -year -olds don't make journeys.

Yeah.

Probably to India or some exotic place.

Probably to some teacher that told him he was wrong and then he corrected himself somehow I don't know how

stupid that it just sounded stupider from the get -go.

So I was writing it off immediately.

Yeah.

Well, yeah.

You know four years old going out.

No, you know, he'd have been under the laws had to remain to subjection to his mother and father.

He could have broken the law.

That's a powerful verse Matt because it also says that the son is subject to the father.

Mm -hmm.

That doesn't mean he's inferior to the father any more than Jesus was inferior to Mary and Joseph.

It was his rightful rightful place to be in subjection to them, so it's not a a qualitative

term it it's.

It's an appropriate term for him in the incarnation.

Absolutely.

So Chuck Chuck in there says The idea of God having three souls or one soul

that's an interesting discussion because there are certain aspects of the Trinity.

We cannot delve into very deeply because it's there's mysterious aspect to it.

We know that there's three persons because that's how God reveals himself, but God is one being.

So we would say in one sense.

He has one soul one essence.

But it's we we see it manifested to us as three simultaneous persons.

How that relates we don't know and We could talk about in nuances

of logical variations.

Of issues that may relate to it.

So, you know What's the issue of soul and how does it relate to God because if God is a being who's

alive?

He's gonna have to have a soul.

Can we have a soul who then is three persons and.

And a human person has a soul which was consistent with hypothetic union that there's a human nature and a divine

nature.

And then we get into what's called Dithelitism and some other stuff so it's it's a complicated thing and it's worth

It's worth getting into but I don't know if we have any answers.

How they can relate because there's something I've thought about for a long time.

And I want to talk to some really advanced theologians about it our friends that got questions org.

They have a an article on it.

It's a short article and it and it kicks the idea around and and they're generally pretty sound when they kick things around

generally.

Yep, okay.

Let's go.

Oh Hey, Giwa Amu.

You had his fellows.

Tell us how to pronounce your name and put your put your thing.

We can hear you.

Okay.

Okay.

How do you say your name?

It's OJ Giwa Amu.

Oh, that's cool.

So what language is that?

It's.

Well, it's a tribe from Nigeria.

Anyway, OJ Giwa Amu.

Are you from Nigeria?

Yes, where are you right now?

I'm in the UK.

I live in the UK.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, I've got it.

We've got a friend who's in Nigeria and We didn't wasn't there today because they shut the internet off and I

like African languages.

I didn't sound cool and So I think one of them speaks.

We have two guys there.

One of them speaks Swahili, which I like Swahili and then something else I don't know.

We have so many languages in Nigeria.

Just in Nigeria we have about 250 languages I understand.

English is a pretty common language though in Nigeria.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, it is.

That's the lingua franca there in Nigeria.

That's what we speak.

Yeah, and that's why and in fact, that's why I can speak English.

Okay, and plus you have a slightly African but British accent too.

So it's even better.

Little bit a little bit of British in there.

I can I just hear it a little.

Okay.

Wow, that's interesting.

Yeah, I Thanks a lot.

I watched the debate.

It was quite interesting.

I'm a non -trinitarian, but I'm still willing to engage or other

trinitarians just to clarify certain things.

To ensure that time, you know.

Because there's certain questions.

I haven't had either such as satisfactory.

So maybe today you might just very few I wouldn't want to take much of your time, that's okay.

Go ahead.

Ask away.

Okay, so so let me so Matt.

Without the demonization and everything.

I want you to also see where some non -trinitarians may be coming from the problem one of the

problems I have and I asked that question during the debate and Unfortunately, we didn't get to Answer that

now.

I know you've talked about the you know, there are some very you know, magnificent terms used.

Like the incommunicado or something and all that but where the challenges for non -trinitarians and I

would like you to at least appreciate that is that The very explicit texts of scriptures and that's where we have

a problem.

You see that the very explicit texts of scriptures Tend to support you in tyranny's

might give you an example because more with what we wonder Why is it that if Paul knew that there were

three persons in one God, right?

Would he see we have one God the father?

I mean think about let's think about logically.

If he he already had the experience with the Holy Spirit.

He already knew the Jesus Christ he already knew the God of Israel and then why would he say in first

Corinthians chapter 8 verse 6?

But we have only one God the father and then distinctly one Lord Jesus Christ and then if Ephesians chapter 4 verse 6

he says one God and father of all and then Jesus Christ will say things like Eternal life is to know

you the only true God and they distinctly to know Jesus Christ when you've said so the question I'm

asking Matt is The struggle a lot of Unitarians have is not in the fact that we do not

acknowledge some, you know.

The high Christological view the scriptures presented by Christ is the fact that the explicit

texts of scriptures.

You see that that's the key the explicit texts of scriptures tend to support

Unitarian Unitarianism.

So how do you deal with these verses that are very explicit and why don't we see?

Verses such as we have one God the Father Son and Holy Ghost or this is eternal life that we that they might know

you I whom you have sent alongside the Holy Spirit as the only true God, you know.

So we don't see this kind of verses it becomes a challenge.

Yeah, so they work backwards.

Why would God not be so explicit like that.

I believe it's because there are people who are not predestined to be saved and he hides the truth from those

who are going to hell and He does this in in Mark 4

10 through 12.

They say why do you speak in parables and he says he speaks in parables.

So people will not be saved.

They'll not be forgiven.

He actually says that this is what Jesus said so the idea of Truth that

is there is known by the Holy Spirit and Jesus who is the truth who indwells us?

We will bear witness of the truth.

And So this is my theory.

Okay.

That one of the things is that he will hide it from those who don't have the mind of Christ.

Don't have the mind of God and they're gonna go to one verse for example.

And say all the other ones can't be true in this relationship because of this one verse and so we show you

something.

Okay, so for example, he went to John 17 3.

All right, which is the only true God.

All right.

Now I'm not setting the scripture against scripture, but I'm going to show you something if you go to Jude 4.

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed those who are who were long beforehand marked

out for this condemnation ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into a licentiousness and

Deny our only master and Lord Jesus Christ.

So it says there that Jesus is our only master and Lord.

Okay, if we only had that verse for hypothetically that was the only verse.

Then the God the Father and the Holy Spirit could not be our Lord.

Right, but if we only had John 7 3 John 17 3 We can't have Jesus being God in

flesh if we only had that just that verse no context and stuff like that.

And so what we see here is that there are things in the scriptures which I don't want to use word

Exaggeration because that's too broad of a word but the Jews would say things like this the only Lord the

only one and It wasn't always the case because they would speak like that.

You know, they'd say truly truly truly I say to you What do you mean?

Truly truly truly or truly truly?

What do you mean?

You just speak truly you'll need one truly why two why three why is he our only Lord and

master and yet God.

The father is called our own the only true God, but yet Jesus is also called God.

So what's going on?

How do we harmonize these?

The only way I can see to harmonize them is to say what Jesus was doing as he's talking to the Jews

he's talking up in refutation of Doing two things one is refutation of the false gods and

polytheistic ideologies that are around the place in the time.

But he's also as a man Obligated under the law to have someone he would call God.

And so he would say God the father and he would naturally speak to the Jews as disciples say he's

only true God.

But are they going to be thinking?

This way are they going to be then saying?

Well, that means there's only one true being who is the God.

Jesus can't be God because why would Thomas and say to Jesus my Lord and my God.

Why would Paul later say that Jesus is God and he does and why would?

You know the writer of Hebrews quote and reference God saying but of the Son he says I thrown Oh God is forever and

ever so what we do as Trinitarians is we don't just look at one.

We can we say John 17 5 is a little tough first Corinthians 8 8 6 is a little tough.

How do we do that as Trinitarians?

Okay.

Well, wait a minute.

Look at Jude 4 our only Lord Lord and Master.

Okay.

What about that?

Colossians 2 9 in Jesus does all the fullness of deity and bodily form.

Why would God in Hebrews 1 8 called Jesus God?

So all of these are true.

The issue then becomes how do we we find a way to harmonize them so that they all make

sense together?

If I were to say it's let's say you said and you're not going to do this I can tell you're intelligent and polite and everything

almost as humble as me, but that's okay.

You know, you're close.

If you were to say John 17 3 and I said Jude 4 We have a

battle.

Who's the only Lord and Master Jesus and you say no John 17 3 are

only God.

We would go be going and setting the scripture against each other and that can't work.

Obviously.

And we can't say one is above the other we have to go.

Okay, they're equal.

How do we make them equal in logic?

Now one of the things that he made a mistake in a debate tonight I don't if you saw it or not, but he said it's an issue of philosophy

and not really a biblical issue.

That's not correct.

We do use philosophy which is the Bible says don't use vain philosophy.

Colossians 2 8 and Paul in Acts 17 quoted pagan philosophers who he

studied it.

So we want to use logic and that's we have to do so.

If we only had John 17 3 we wouldn't have a case for the Trinity if we only had John

Jude 4 we wouldn't have a case for the Trinity.

We only had Isaiah 43.

You know 43 10.

It was only one God number for none that we wouldn't have a case for the Trinity.

But if we only had let us make man in our image.

Wait a minute.

God's plural.

If we only had that we'd say God's plural and if Jesus, you know, we only had it.

We do one verse at a time, you know before Abraham was I am we have to know the context.

We have two verses Xos 314 we say well He's God and if he only had that then the father

wouldn't be God and the son.

I mean the Holy Spirit wouldn't be God.

So when we take one verse, this is what I'm trying to say.

We'll take one verse and then we not Not elevated.

I don't believe you're doing that.

But you're asking a good and logical and fair and proper question in light of this.

What do we do with these other things?

We can also say in light of this.

What do we do with that?

Because it works both ways.

So what's a Unitarian do.

John 17 3 is the one against which we discuss we decide others.

I could say well Jude 4 is what we go with against others.

Why do we do that?

Because what we do is beg the question you do it and I do it to logical fallacy.

But we have to do it.

We both assume things consistent with our presuppositions.

Otherwise, we're not being consistent with our own views.

So you're Unitarian.

I guess you're Unitarian, right?

Is that right or you're not sure?

Okay, not like Carlos.

I have a high crystal of much more higher.

Logical view I would say let me put it this way and that's why I I'm

quite careful and I was normally I would have asked some shamone when he demonizes us and call some of us

heretics.

I'm gonna ask him.

Would you call Tertullian a heretic?

I know many Tertullian Tertullian Tertullian the church father Tertullian.

Yeah.

Well, I have a little hearing loss too but.

Tertullian.

Tertullian the one who is what Trinitas just a matter origin who had this local stories.

Would you call them heretics because.

You know, that's why I think we should be careful because if you actually.

Look, if you actually consider if we're to honestly consider what Tertullian thought Matt if we have to be honest I wouldn't see

why you wouldn't call him a heretic.

He believed that the son was.

He believed that the the father brought the son into being he believed that his son was Greater in substance and the father was

greater in substance than the son.

So when you put all these things together It's a little worse than what some of us believe but yet I know Trinitarians will not

dare call people like Tertullian heretics you see although that's another another issue.

Yeah, you're gonna have to be careful of Sam.

You have to be careful of Sam.

I've known Sam for years I have a cell number we talked every now and then but Sam is moving more into apostasy.

Yeah.

I wouldn't want to take your time.

No, no, no.

Ask questions.

That's questions.

I wish on one condition.

On one condition though.

Yeah, you have to speak some of your native language.

I just want to hear it.

Sadly enough.

I'm gonna tell you something that it's quite embarrassing.

I don't know.

Yeah, I'm gonna explain that to you because my dad is from a tribe called aura

and my mom is from evil.

Unfortunately, you can't learn your language except your parents speak to you.

Well, my dad and my mom were separated.

Guess what?

I was stuck with my dad.

My dad did not know how to speak his own language.

He knew how to speak his mother's language.

Well, let's speak one of them.

Let's hear what you know, teach me anyone.

Oh, so you only know English?

All right when I'm going.

I just spoke something.

I said, oh, yeah way.

Oh.

Go Kiyoko Kiyoko.

Way.

Oh, yeah way. Oh, yeah way.

Uh -huh.

So I would have loved much really when you have the time.

I would have loved the situation where We have an open discussion where I'll ask you lots of

lots of questions, but I won't want to do that now.

I think I just have two and I would just want okay but I would really want to have a discussion where I

could really Ask questions so that at least maybe Trinitarians could also

understand some of the struggles.

Many sincere non -trinitarians have not just because they want to be obstinate But because

issues they have to deal with.

Okay, so the I have an idea then what if you and I were to set up a time and we can have a.

Just like this just you and I talk you ask questions and we can record it and people can listen.

That would be beautiful.

That would be so wonderful.

I would love that.

I love that but I would like to ask you two brief questions now, but you had to send me a $20 bill and with

No, no, go ahead.

Ask the questions.

Go ahead.

Okay, so another another question I would like to ask Matt and I want you to consider that because you

Talking about the Shema one of the challenges some of us would also have as you as

I don't know I don't I'll just say non -trinitarian because if I say Unitarian people will say oh he believes

Jesus was created and what's up?

I'm being careful now.

I would I would really in general Refer to myself as a Unitarian, but in

context I have a much more high Christological view than most Unitarian so let me first

say that I would lean towards more of the Tertullians just a matter about what he believed about the logos I know that I'm

inclined in that direction not perfectly with them, but inclined in that direction.

Now, the question is this when the scribe Responded to Jesus

with regards to the Shema.

I want us to consider this question.

Because I want to I want to ask you whether you believe that the Jews in the time of Jesus now Let's forget about what

you know, they said that the Babylon and the two -parts theory and all that Let's just concentrate on the Jews and Jesus in this time

when the scribe Responded to Jesus after Jesus has quoted the Shema because I still had this

Controversy about it had been one as a compound unity, but I think what is not also said

it's a it's it also works.

Both ways it could be a compound unity and it could also be a singularity as well.

We determine that now.

The scribe said you have said it.

You're right.

There's one God and no other but him no other but him I would like to ask your opinion.

Do you believe that when the scribe said no order, but whom do you believe that that him?

Referred to a single person or three persons in your opinion.

Well, the question is difficult to answer because it's saying you're asking what did he think?

And I can't do that, but what I could do is say a Jew Typically

would think of God as a single person typically, okay, but When I was

in seminary our Hebrew professor made a very interesting statement and he didn't prove it.

He didn't back it up with all this documentation.

But the guy his idea of reading of fun was reading Hebrew and he was he taught on a seminary level.

He was a godly man, I believe him and He made this statement he said it in ancient Israel

Before the time of Christ, there are records and writings of Jews discussing the nature of God as being

plural.

They didn't come up with a Trinity.

They were said it wouldn't really they were my mentions of two or three, but they weren't really focusing but they were they

were dealing with the issue of the plurality of God in the Old Testament that's revealed and.

And I can quote you some of the reasons and some of the verses that led to that kind of a thing because I've studied that

but.

So what did he think?

I probably thought of God as a single person.

Okay, Abraham probably did but maybe not who knows.

Do you know why I asked you that question?

Do you know actually that question.

Because the implication has massive the the the thought about that has massive

Implications and I would explain because that would mean to me that's to me my thinking.

And I believe you're right that he taught as a single person.

So if he was on the same page with Christ And they were discussing about

the Shema and It means that the Jews understanding of the Shema described.

He was a scribe.

Mind you if he's understanding that God was one person when he said no order about him.

And what supports that to me is the fact that Jesus Christ himself identified the God of the Jews without

controversy.

When he said my father who glorifies me is the one you claim to be your God.

So it would seem to me that there wasn't any kind of controversy at the time of Jesus.

That is what the Jews believed and what Jesus believed about one God at that time.

What do you think about that?

Well.

When we talk about what a scribe would have thought he probably was thinking that God was one person.

But right or wrong.

We don't make a doctrine of what he said.

We think he might have thought.

So you ask you do you believe Jesus Christ is God in flesh?

Okay, yes, I believe that he's God in flesh in context.

I don't believe that he is a second divine eternal person.

All right, he came forth from the being of the father and was manifested as a human being, okay.

That's my understanding.

Yeah, we'll get to that some other time.

But do you think the scribe would have thought that Jesus was that?

Probably not.

So what Jesus often did was he answered people in relationship to the questions that they answered.

Good master.

What good thing must I do to be saved?

Are you keeping the law?

And so, you know, what's the greatest commandment the Shema?

Right here or Israel the Lord our God is one right and Jesus quotes that in Matthew 22 37.

But it doesn't say it does.

That does not in any way refute the Trinity at all.

You mean what the scribe said?

So no what the Shema is.

What the Shema is and and it just doesn't refute the Trinity.

It doesn't prove oneness.

It doesn't prove trinitarianism.

It doesn't refute either one.

It just says God is one.

The question will one what?

That's the question.

He's one God he's one.

And and another thing is why would he say that?

Why would he say God is one.

Now, you know as brought up the word ahead can mean a one group.

Mm -hmm where a key a key means one thing.

So it's like saying God is it's like saying God's one group.

Because if they understood that That that Hebrew word and he says God is one

and then later Jesus is pointing himself as being divine.

It would make perfect sense.

It'd be consistent with what the Shema says.

Would not be consistent with Unitarianism.

Okay.

Okay, but.

But if the Jew if the but you agree that if the Jew thought at least in the Jew thought

that maybe.

Yeah, maybe.

If he thought that No other but him was referring to a single person in his mind.

That then will be consistent with Unitarianism if.

Sure, if right he could have he could have thought Unitarianism and been wrong.

Okay, because the issue is what does the scripture teach and and I'm not saying don't think like that because

you're you're obviously.

You're a good thing I could tell but you know Nothing don't think those things it's just if you do it

doesn't logically necessitate this or that.

You know, it's like the Bible says there's only one God if it just says there's one God.

There's still you can still say well one God wasn't mean here.

Over there in totality.

We can ask these fair questions now when God says for example I don't even know of any other gods and there's none before none

after now.

We understand.

There's just one period.

Anywhere all place at all time.

Because it has to be clarified and I'm not just saying this right now.

This is I don't know if you've listened to me before what this is what I do with people I say ask this question ask that

question ask this question and sometimes I'll ask questions.

I know are semi -ridiculous.

I do it on purpose because I want there's semi -ridiculous to be addressed and we move on and

We're good.

We're not just doing the one thing.

I want to do.

Let's go the thing I don't think are necessarily true, but let's take a look at this.

Anyway, because there's something important here and I do that a lot with people.

So this is why you know say your questions are very good and and

There are answers I can answer most of them.

Not every one of them.

I'm not gonna say hey.

I can answer anything you say.

That's right.

That's right.

That's right of the last question.

The last question I.

Because I've done it.

I've done videos on the Trinity as well and The the I have a YouTube channel back to the

Bible faith, by the way, if just in case well should interview me on it.

All right.

Yeah, I would like to interview you on it.

I would like to have a discussion in details where you know, it's much more friendly.

Atmosphere where I don't you know, we could just discuss regards on what you think about me or what I think about you.

We could still be civil and all that.

But the last question is this now the the the the tritism objection is what I want

to ask right there.

Uh -huh.

The tritism objection is what I want to ask and I did a to our video that maybe you might want to see it

and then.

You might say you might try to come back and say oh, this is where you're wrong.

I understand why you had a problem with this, but this way around now this is where I have a problem and maybe I want you to I

want you to.

Maybe say something that may change my view the problem.

Non -trinitarian see who still believe in some form that regardless of what trinitarian

say.

It still is to try to try teasing me is this and I want you to just patiently listen to me.

Just patiently listen to me.

So the trinitarian is going to come back and say things like.

You see you you're not listening to us.

You don't know what our doctrine teaches and if you start on that footing and strum on us.

Then you're not engaging us.

You have to first believe you have to first understand what we believe and then you can you can assess that.

But what I my response to many trinitarians who say that is this.

I said, that's true.

You you think we are not listening to you, but are you listening to us?

So what some of us say is that we have heard you.

When astronomy you you're not you're not saying you're not saying you're not actively confessing that you

worship three gods.

We understand that we do know that you proclaim one God within we do know that you confess to one

God.

But what we're saying is that when we unmask and unravel all the verbose gymnastics with the wordings.

It tends to still be leading to three gods and I'm going to explain why a lot of people still come to that conclusion.

I'm gonna ask you a question.

Mother, I want you to tell me why it's different.

It's like a person saying you see we have these three colors yellow red and green.

Because they all share one divine color nature.

We say they are one color not three colors.

I'm just telling you how it comes across or you say we have these three dogs cocoa jet and max.

Well, they all have because they all have that one dog nature.

We don't say they are three dogs, but they are one dog and then we say but hey.

Well, but as long as they are distinct this that distinct dogs.

There are still three dogs in some sense, but you say no, no, no, no, they have one nature as dogs.

So they are one dog.

You see you see what it's like saying the numbers three four or five.

They all have one number nature.

So they are three.

They're not three numbers, but one number.

So I'm only just trying to tell you how we are thinking this thing through.

I'm not saying you have to agree with me.

I'm trying to let you see why.

You see what I'm saying, I'm trying to let you know I was to struggle with.

When you keep saying no, no, no, no, we don't say that because look at it.

Look at is this you have you have said that the father is eternal and he's God.

He's an entity.

So regardless of what you define as persons.

What you ask you're still maintaining that you have a second distinct person who is eternal and is also God

and there's a third person.

Who's also eternal and he's God so it doesn't matter if you say they are one being a strength

as we say or they have One nature just like I talked about the yellow red and I thought is that you've already defined that

there's one who is God.

And is the person is distinct from another person who is God and is a person and is this thing from a third who is?

God and is a person and why for all.

Practical purposes, but can we not say in some sense as well that there are three gods.

That's my.

Okay.

This kind of stuff was dealt with and worked on through church history.

And there's some concepts here that I'm going to tell you and I'm going to speak to you.

Not in a condescending way because I don't think you understand some of the concepts.

I don't mean in an insulting way, but they're just some things that I don't think you're aware of and.

So when you say yellow red green.

It's not the best analogy.

But I understand you're looking for a way to kind of relate things and you went to the idea of dogs so

this is this gets more particular and.

So I had to be more precise when I talk when I deal with these kind of topics by definition a dog

is a an entity of itself a dog.

There is a concept of What's called the one in the many are you familiar with the one in the many issue?

One of the many issue the one and the many.

Okay, so you're a man.

I'm a man.

Charlie's a man and Otis is a man.

So we have the essence of man.

Manifested three times.

Okay, a four times.

Excuse me.

I'm sitting in a chair.

You're sitting in a chair.

Otis is in a chair.

Charlie's in a chair.

So we have one thing called chair and four particular manifestations.

How is it that we can say I'm not gonna get in this too deeply.

How can we have one thing with four manifestations four particulars?

We have one dog.

We have 50 dogs.

We have one thing called dog.

We recognize that you and I are in a store.

We're talking about this and I want to go to a new desk and there's five desks there.

They're all a desk.

How is it that we can say they're all a desk but different forms of the same thing we recognize

the differentiation between them and.

Yet what we're saying is there's one thing called desk Ness and there's particular

Manifestations of it one thing called Doug Ness dog Ness and particularly manifestations

now.

There's this issue called equivocation.

So let me illustrate it.

Mm -hmm.

Time is past present and future the nature of the past is time

the nature of the Present is time the nature of the future is time.

So we would say they're all three time if I were to say time is

past present future.

Which is true.

But I said the past is time then am I saying the past is the past

present the future because if the past is time and Time is past present future.

Then the past is the past present future and that makes no sense and a lot of times what the oneness people will do is think

like that and they don't realize they've made a mistake and thinking and logic so we would say is

time.

By definition has this essence comprised of three things.

Past present future.

I'm just using this and when we say time in that sense the time in time.

One means all of what time is but when we say the past is time.

It's time to time to means the essence of what time is by its nature.

So we can say that your essence is a man.

My essence is a man.

You know, we have the same essence human nature, but there's manifestations of it.

So I can't say man is is all people and I'm a man.

Therefore.

I'm all people.

Because yeah man changes meaning in the words in the sentences.

Yes.

This is what happens.

Go ahead.

Okay, but what we would say that is that why would I agree that the man the man?

Even though they're like 7 billion people in the planet having one nature.

Yeah, we asked just to 7 billion men.

That's the argument.

That's what we're saying.

There are still there's still 7 billion men or 7 billion humans.

Myself and Matt myself and Matt we have the same human nature, but I am Matt are still two men, right?

That's what we're also saying, right?

But I'm trying to illustrate is not that there's two beings but that the essence

can have Manifestations in different places.

It's called the one in the many so if we're all out at a lake and We're fishing

and we see, you know a flock of ducks flying it fly in.

Let's say to ten ducks.

We would recognize ten particular instances of one thing called duck.

That's it it's called the one and the many now I'm gonna set this aside for a second and I'm gonna

talk about something and then come back to this a little bit later.

But I'm gonna ask a question.

You may think it's not really related, but it is let's assume God is one person one person

and Personhood like you and I are persons.

We're talking we can agree.

We can disagree.

I can hate you.

You can hate me.

I can love you.

You can love me.

We could become friends.

We can have fellowship.

I say you and yours and me and mine we can exhibit the attributes of personhood, right?

Yes, because there's others.

Part of the manifestation of personhood is hey, how are you doing?

Let's talk man.

I love you.

I don't love you.

I'm pissed off at you.

There's this reciprocity.

There's this otherness.

Now think about this if God is one person from forever ago.

Can he manifest the fullness of personhood when they get to the one in the many a little bit?

Can he manifest a fullness of putting a person?

Because if we're made in God's image Genesis 126 and We

think and we have relationships with others.

Relationship is part of our personhood.

We're made, you know, because God says it's not good to be alone.

He made Eve.

Because that's how his design is but in oneness Unitarian God is one and he's

alone for forever.

And that's a problem because there's no true manifestation of fellowship.

Reciprocity and the full fullness of personhood.

That's a problem.

We get into more issues of that.

So which means then and and think by analogy if we take a man and we put him He's a we put him in a

jail or a cell no light.

No heat.

No cold.

It's just medium temperature.

No, no anything.

He has a bed and he gave him three meals a day.

No fellowship no communication.

Nothing.

He's just in this state.

Constantly, we would call that torture.

If God is one person forever is It torture.

It's just a question.

It's something to think about but let's look at the one in the many now I'd get into the issue of duality why that doesn't work and I'll

skip that for now.

So God's a Trinity of Persons then form forever ago.

He has the full manifestation of personhood the full manifestation.

Also Hebrews 13 20 talks about the blood of the eternal covenant.

What's an eternal covenant?

Because the father sent the son which means a son was pre -existing and it says in John 1

Ephesians 1 4 it says that we that God chose us in him from

before the foundation of the world.

That means the fact he had to choose us in him.

Was it for knowledge or was it that the the one in him the pre -incarnate Christ?

was eternal if that's before the foundation of the universe and The

Universe is when God created then it implies that there's a duality the very least in the Godhead which manifests full

fellowship.

So I'm going this kind of lightly.

But the idea the Trinity can solve the problem of the one in the many God is

one being many persons we'd say three.

He's then what we call the necessary preconditions for all intelligibility.

It's a whole nother series of thoughts on logic universality.

Transcendentals won't get into all that when we get back to this level.

Let me talk about the Trinity and one to see people say as this guy said I have it in his notes.

How many is one God?

It's the wrong question.

It demonstrates he does not understand the logic of what the Trinity is on at least in the deeper levels.

He doesn't understand logic itself.

How many is one Apple?

It's one Apple.

So he actually sent me his notes.

How many is one God?

That's a question.

We got to ask what the Trinity what it's a nonsensical question.

That's it that's the right question because a person.

Here's another thing.

A lot of people don't know.

In Latin, I think it was Latin.

It was the the plays that they would do back in the back of forever ago, whatever.

When they would do a play they would have a prosopon a In Greek a face,

you know, it's prosopon, but it they would have the in Latin.

They had these things called a persona persona.

Person persona a mask they would put in front of their face had a stick and it

was a woman or it was a slave or it was a master or it was an animal or whatever it

was and They would and that that that persona was then the character that the

actor would use and would speak from.

Okay, so the theologians are wrestling with this like you are and they're going okay.

We know there's only one God.

We also know there's plurality in the Old Testament and a new test about God we can go into that.

But what do we do?

Let's call them persons.

Now.

This is important because a Lot of times people do now they'll say you're a person

they mean person as a being.

That's not how it was used when the theologians adopted that word in the

discussion of the Trinity.

It's different and I've said this in debate.

I say the Theologically significant word person related to the Trinity is different than what you

think a person is next -door neighbor.

And people think I'm stupid.

They go.

No, you're just make it.

No, you don't understand.

Because a person you know I could put I could put a mask on it looks like you and I could

imitate you or try to.

And and speak in your accent and things like or try, you know.

And you can do the same thing with me because you know, it's a persona.

So what they did was they said we see that the Father Son the Holy Spirit each have wills.

Each speak and they speak to each other.

We'll call that persona.

They called it the person.

So Theologically, it has a significance as it relates to the doctrine of the Trinity the theologians

adopted that they weren't saying.

There's three gods.

They didn't do that because they would have said there's three gods.

The challenge Matt's the challenge Matt.

I am following so far the challenge Matt.

If they had said and I know that's not what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches and I think the day

Who's this a trinitarian they say is inclined towards partialism William

Craig or something like that.

I don't know what if the argument was that these three personas

Made up one God then that would.

I'm not saying that's what the doctrine of Trinity teaches.

I'm saying that if that was the argument even though that would have been ludicrous.

Then I think it may be that may have been a much more plausible argument.

But the challenge is that the Trinity doesn't just say that these three personas are the

one God it still maintains that each of this person has in in and of himself is the one

God himself and He is distinct from the other one.

No, no, no, no, no.

No, no.

No, it does not teach that each of the persons is the one God.

That's not correct.

Okay, can I ask?

Oh, I need to clarify this part because maybe that's but so but it.

It teaches that each of the persons is the fool the full being of God.

What we would say this is this is why the words become important.

Each person is by nature divine.

See God is divine.

So God the being has a quality of divinity.

The divinity is in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It's only belongs to God.

So what I'll say to people there's only one God and.

There are three persons and each one is divine.

If I say there's only one God and each is God that's confusing.

There's only one Apple and and each of the three apples are Apple.

What.

So what I say is no.

It's correct, but you have to understand the terms as we meet them.

What I.

When you say one God what are you defining by that term.

God that's exactly the.

That's the right question.

Okay, one God.

Oh, I'm glad you did that good.

You're seeing it.

One God means of all the beings Deities out there.

There's none except one One being who is God.

That's it period just one God.

Now when we say that one God and we say the Father Son Holy Spirit is God now the word God

means divine quality.

With the first term use of God means the one single entire being.

Now we say Jesus is God.

We're saying he has that quality of Godness.

That's what we're saying.

So get so that that would mean that there are three.

Divine persons persons who all have the quality of Godness in them a

divine thing in them.

So it's not three gods.

It's not three gods.

If people say to me I've had Muslims say the Trinity I'm gonna be debating a Muslim here in a couple of weeks on the Trinity.

Shabir Ali.

Shabir Ali.

I've debated muscles before and they say the Trinity is three gods.

I'd say why because a person has to be a god.

Who says?

They'll say You can't have three persons to be one God.

I'll say why not.

Show me the logic because that's what they're doing.

They're arguing logically one.

God cannot be three persons.

That's a statement.

I'll say Demonstrate to that to me.

Let's write it on paper premise one one.

God cannot be three persons define the word.

God define the word person.

Okay, we have to define our terms.

This is why you cannot have three persons be one God.

Well, let's see.

No one has ever done it that I'm aware of in all by 41 years of debates and teaching.

There's no logical necessity.

It says it can't be possible.

It doesn't mean it's true.

Okay, it doesn't mean it's true.

It just means it's not not true.

It's not refuted.

Okay, okay

Sir sounds like I'm such a superior person and I am not.

Let me say well, I don't really I don't know.

It's just culture too because maybe I have to explain something to you where we come from.

Those who are older than us.

Basically, we just are called respect.

So when we see and I just guess your culture.

Really good -looking and really smart because sir, I'm gonna go with that.

All right.

All right.

So this is the issue because we say Thomas called Jesus Christ God.

All right, the Holy Spirit is called God and the Father is called God and These three

distinct persons are not one another.

They're not each other.

They're not one another, right?

They speak to each other, correct?

Yeah, they speak to each other.

So we are we see I don't know Have you heard about more Monarchical Trinitarianism?

That's a very interesting one that just I what just what?

Monarchical Trinitarianism is quite an interesting monarchy.

Modal Monarchianism.

Sorry modal Monarchianism or Sabellianism, no, it's a I don't know if you know this

guy Josh Josh Swaley.

He's a Trinitarian who's going to speak us gonna wait.

It's they call it monarchical.

He calls it.

Well, I just.

Monarchial Monarchial.

Yeah, all right, so so.

That may be easier to relate with because they acknowledge one Person as

the one God the Father and then they say the other two are divine.

But the issue with the Trinity is that they acknowledge each but individual persons as

divine and distinct from the other but.

Divinity necessitates self -awareness.

Yes, and it's a maker of God if divinity necessitates that and each In

and of himself is called God and that person is distinct from the others I'm saying in some sense.

Why can't they be in that sense three gods.

Because they're not.

Not because the Bible says there's only one God and I'm critical for non -created after let me ask you Do you believe that Jesus has two natures?

God and man, they're just yes or no.

I won't get on you if you don't.

Okay, let me let me say something strange.

Let me say something strange.

Let me let me say something strange.

Okay, so you may not know if he does if he does Then the

divine nature the God nature will be the father and then the human nature will be the son.

That is how I would see now.

I will not see let me clarify I will not see Jesus as a

distinct person from the father Being God in the Trinity having one God nature then another

person who Rather another part of him the same person that has a human nature.

I would have challenges to that because let me He was made he was made.

Yeah, but.

You'll see where I'm gonna get it.

There's an idea in a concept.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

There's a doctrine called dice elitism.

Die means to and the Greek word.

So leo means will to will wish to desire.

Die sellot ism applies to Jesus.

The reason I asked if you believe it is to two natures and and we can discuss that another time, but here's the concept.

If you do say I'll try and work with what you said if you believe that Jesus is the father in flesh.

That isn't not not exactly like that.

I don't believe.

Let me just get to too close.

But I just want to get an idea across.

Okay, if.

Let's put this way.

Let me do it this way.

Jesus is a human person at the very least we know that right?

There's a human aspect to him, right?

Yes.

Yes.

Let me make it easier.

Basically the father has within him attributes, right?

I cannot explain everything but from within the father he brought fought something from within him to be manifest in

human form.

I think that's easiest.

Okay, here's a question.

Because Jesus said I am thirsty.

I will be with you always.

I'm thirsty as human attribution I will be with you always is a quality of divinity

that he will be with those people always everywhere.

So he's claiming the divine attributes and the human attributes in the one person.

I will be with you always.

I am thirsty you see.

Mm -hmm.

Mm -hmm.

Now the human I.

Not we're not gonna say two persons in one God.

That's in one person.

That's an historian ism.

The thing is that you can see that in Jesus the one person is a divine nature and

a human nature because he says I Will be with you always that's the divine and and I am

thirsty.

That's the human.

If he has a human nature then by necessity He must be Possessing of a

will otherwise, he's not human true.

Maybe if he's divine God by nature has divine will then the divine aspect also

has to have a will.

That's called Dithelitism two wills in the one person of Christ.

That's in and that's correct.

That's the right doctrine.

Monothelitism says they became a new third thing.

Monothelitism one will no, but here's what we see.

This is logically necessary, right?

The human part has to have a will.

Otherwise, it's not human.

The divine part has to have a will otherwise is not divine yet.

These two wills are simultaneously existing as one person and the one person says I am with you

Always and I'm thirsty the one person.

We have one with plurality at the same time.

In the person of Christ who represents God who is one being with three

persons so we can see that there's a Relationship you can understand in a person of Christ

where there are wills that are necessarily part of each nature.

That are in the one person because the one person says I am thirsty I'll be with you always the

same person.

I claim the attributes of both natures.

This is called the communication of the properties inside what's called the hypostatic Union.

That's just what it's called.

So you can see that's possible right there.

Now.

If it's the case, we have two minds.

You believe that this.

It's manifested as one.

Okay, and this will use and They're expressed as one, but we don't know how it works.

No one knows.

Okay.

Okay now Think about this.

This is why this is so important.

This is where we get a little more deep if the divine will is in Christ who he says

I.

That means the I.

I'll be with you always that's if you and I were back then looking at him.

We're looking at this man named Jesus and we see the human and the divine nature.

Well, we don't see the natures, but we see the manifestation of the natures.

We see a manifestation of the divine nature when he walked on water.

We see the manifestation of the human nature when he goes.

Oh, man, I gotta get some rest because you know, he would sleep, right?

And so we perceive the divine through the human.

We see him walk on water.

That's the human being walking exhibiting the divine attribute.

But if he's divine he has to have the quality of personhood.

Right.

Otherwise, he's not divine.

And if he's the person and Jesus is the one person and he's praying to the father.

Then who's the father?

He's must be a person if he's a person he's out there not my will but

your will be done.

The one my will right?

So it's necessitated logically necessitates that there's at least two persons in the Godhead.

Because we have Jesus who has a hypothetic Union the divine

nature and a human nature and it logically is necessary that each nature have a will.

Which this designates identity?

I have a will and you have a will and you and I are not in harmony and everything your decisions and my decisions are Not in

harmony.

We're different.

We have different wills.

Jesus says in Luke 22 42 not my will but your will be done.

So he's not saying my human aspect in the human side saying I don't want to do your will.

It's not what he's saying.

I don't want to do this because he didn't want to go through the crucifixion.

He didn't but he said that not my will but your will be done if he's talking to the father.

Not inside of him in the incarnation.

He's talking to someone out there who has to have that will and quality of personhood while he himself Also

has the quality and nature that the personhood in himself as a divine aspect this Necessitates at

least two persons in the Godhead.

We haven't talked about the Holy Spirit yet.

You see the issues how they're related.

Mm -hmm.

You never heard this before have you?

I haven't thought like this.

I have I have is just.

Expounding more on it and I'm listening.

I'm listening.

That's.

May I take a moment and do the opposite of expounding more and make it like is so much you

were yourself.

Yeah, I'm Nicholas.

I have a channel called Nicholas proclaimer of Messiah.

I am.

I'm Trinitarian.

Yes.

And so.

Okay, I know.

Which point was I going to say though?

Communicati with your motto.

Oh, so the relating of the two Relators, that's how I like to talk about it is we

read in Scripture where Jesus and the father are clearly

one distinct relator personally relating to another Personal

relator and they have a personal relationship so.

As far as the modern use of the language I think that helps to see why that

word would be chosen because you have two personal relators and There's a distinction there

and that's what the word person is referring to and that distinction is in Scripture.

So the word person is referring to something that is in Scripture.

Yep.

We just use the word person to describe it.

Now can I run something else by you?

Oh, hey, oh, J.

Oh J.

Oh J.

Oh J.

Just as long as it's not Simpson.

Okay.

Now I'm gonna give an illustration.

It's just an illustration.

Okay, my wife and I come over to your house over in Britain.

We're having a great time and you have this lamp that came from Nigeria.

I don't know just some lamp and I call it the lamp analogy and I'm excited

and you know whether on purpose or accident really doesn't matter here I break your lamp and you're a

pretty cool guy and you say You know, I'm in real life.

I'd go.

Oh, man.

I'm sorry.

Let me buy another one.

Okay.

But this is an illustration of what forgiveness is so you say Matt

You broke my lamp.

I forgive you pay me $10 for it or 10 pounds where I would be over there.

Is that true forgiveness?

No, I agree with you.

My wife is sitting there and she didn't do anything wrong and I break your lamp and you say Matt I

forgive you for breaking the lamp.

My wife's name is Anik.

You say Anik you pay for the lamp.

Give me 10 pounds for it.

Is that true forgiveness?

You want her to pay for it.

It could be it could be seen as true forgiveness because you you're not making the person who broke your lamp pay for it.

But she didn't do anything.

Why she.

I thought you made true forgiveness for the person who broke the lamp.

Okay, we're gonna.

Okay.

You forgive me you can't make someone else pay for it.

It's not true forgiveness.

Okay, well go ahead with your thoughts, let me say yeah, yeah, yep, possibly so.

Yeah, so if if you insult me or if I insult you let's just say I don't go to

Charlie and go.

Hey Charlie.

You know you pay for this, you know, I forgive me what it's he's not related doesn't doesn't make

make any sense.

So in true forgiveness who's left to pay for the replacement of the lamp.

Now in real life I'll offer to pay for it, but this is an illustration in true forgiveness.

The one who forgives is the one who pays because the one who forgives Doesn't

require a payment from the one forgiven.

Otherwise, it's not true forgiveness and to transfer the debt to somebody else who's not involved.

They have no offense.

That's unrighteous.

They didn't do anything in True forgiveness the one offended is the one who pays in

true forgiveness.

When we sin we sin against God.

That's right who forgives God who pays.

It's got to be God.

The cults say that Jesus is a created being and they transfer the sin debt to him.

And so he's not the one offended.

The Trinity makes it possible for Jesus to be the full

incarnation of the person.

One of the persons of the Godhead the full essence because if God by nature In

the divine essence has to be person and have a will and he's gonna become One of us

then that has to occur.

Otherwise, it's not an incarnation and when he goes to the cross, it's not a divine sacrifice.

But Matt, can I ask you a question along the line of your thinking?

Would this not be I'm just thinking would this not be even much more problematic for the Trinitarians.

But what do your example be much more Appropriate to the modelist and I'm gonna explain

why.

Let me let me explain why.

Then you could then you could clarify.

Now why I say that's because the modelist can perfectly make this argument because they are not clipped saying or

positing that a Distinct person was sent to die.

The model is just believes that you know.

It's just a change of from the father became the son and he died.

But in the case of Trinitarianism the father and the son are two distinct persons.

They could both be offended differently because Jesus could say not my will but your will the father sent the son.

So if the man and the woman the husband and wife are one and with that

analogy you say You you gave if the man sends his wife to pay it's not gonna be true forgiveness.

How is that not the same thing?

Because even though you say they are both they put have the same divine nature.

It was one person who came down to die.

The other one who was offended the father sent his son.

He sent someone else to die for the sins.

Nope.

Theism that's tritheism.

We don't teach tritheism.

We teach the one God and.

So I don't like to use the word parts because it's just it has part problems with it.

But I'm gonna use just for now a part of God became one of us.

I don't like using that word because it's not the right thing to say.

It leads towards an heresy a heresy called partialism.

We're trying to get a concept understood.

Each it is and he brought it up tonight.

There's something called perichoresis.

Each person mutually indwells the other and they're fully completely under indwelling

and know everything about each other and.

Yet in this is the only way we can have the father chose us in the Sun before the foundation of the world.

It's the only way we can have eternal fellowship the eternal covenant.

Because the eternal covenant can only be in between two or more parties a Covenant isn't made with yourself is

two or more the eternal covenant.

Hebrews 1320 to redeem mankind.

There has to be two or more members for the party of the covenant and so

The one who forgives is the one who truly pays.

You and I are incapable of making a payment to appease God because you and I are sinners.

We can't do it.

And so the only one left to do it is God himself.

He's got to become one of us.

Now if part of God if God's one person and part of them becomes us.

Becomes Jesus.

How is that possible?

Because the personhood of God is still up there.

Not in the person of Christ who can then say I'll be with you always.

It's not a true incarnation.

This is why Unitarianism risks the true incarnation of Christ

and risks the true nature of the atoning work and risk salvation.

What if this what that could be explained from a modernistic perspective?

I know it can't because I know I know it but it can't.

Because okay.

Let's assume if God is spirit.

He's not confined to Personhood in terms of one person space and time.

We don't know that God is spirit what I'm saying that he's not confined to space

and time like we are like you are just here.

Well, you cannot.

Are you saying.

Are you saying God is a Trinity or no?

No, no word became flesh.

No, I'm saying that God is spirit.

So he's omniscient.

He's okay present.

And he's not confined to right space and time like you're here.

Yes, okay transcendent and you cannot be where I am at the same time, but that's not how God is.

This way the one God who is the father who is spirit can take from his

attributes from within himself and Manifest a human being Distinct from

that source where it came.

I don't think that's anything too.

I don't think that's any really.

Is the person that was manifested eternal.

In it when you look at it in the context of the origin from where that person is coming.

Now is the nature of that person that's now created.

Eternal if it's eternal can't be created and if it's

not eternal, it's not divine.

Can I ask you a question.

A very interesting question?

I like this conversation Matt.

Do you agree that the baby Jesus was a creation of God the the fetus the person who grew in the womb of

Mary was?

God's creation.

Would you agree with that?

I would say this.

Jesus was created 2 ,000 years ago Jesus being defined as the

union of the divine and the human natures in the one person that occurred 2 ,000 years ago.

But the divine aspect is always existed.

Exactly.

So that's what I'm saying.

That's what I'm saying that that's what I'm saying in my honest opinion.

So I'm saying that dilemma that you you you think there is there is not really a dilemma there.

Is God who is spirit.

Like you said sometimes I have to be honest to like you also say we may not explain the whole spiritual technology behind that.

But if God from himself who is spirit can bring forth from his own substance to

manifest a human being to create His own life form as a human being in the presence of Jesus.

Talk about it.

So let's say let's say God is one person.

Yeah, right.

And he manifests a divine quality in Jesus.

Yes.

Okay, well the human part is human.

The divine part is not human.

It's separate from the human.

Okay, death logical necessity definition.

Okay.

Now, let's look at what the divine part is.

Is the divine part self -aware?

Yeah, divine part is self -aware because it goes back to the father.

Yeah, okay.

Well, wait a minute.

So if it's self -aware, yes, it's if it's what is in Jesus is self -aware.

Then it's a person.

Yes, and that's the father.

That's why Jesus said the father who dwells in me he does the work yes.

But there's more than that.

But so he says so is the person also in heaven.

The you mean the human press the human being know the divine the divine person.

He said.

Because that's the father from the father, okay.

Self okay.

And manifested the human form of himself.

All right.

Then there's some ramifications of this.

Then anybody could have been Jesus.

How.

So.

Because all it needs is a kind of indwelling of a human form because it's not really an

Incarnation it's a manifestation.

No, there is there is there is.

Let me explain.

So we're not just talking about when I just talking about.

Oh, okay.

Well, my mom gave birth to me and God enters me and it was no no, no.

He was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

So what we're saying here Matt is think about a situation where God from his own divine substance.

I know that what to is controversial.

God doesn't really have substance in the sense, but you understand what I mean.

For whatever makes him what he is from that he takes from that his spirit and he

manifests as okay Person so that's good.

That's the divine.

That's in a divine person.

Yeah, the person is now incarnate.

In some sense, yes, it's not like all of God became a man but ah.

God because.

Now we see we're getting down to the issue here where it's really important.

Yes, because if God by logical necessity has personhood and it

becomes part of Christ Then that which is in him has personhood.

The question then is there's two questions.

Is it the same person as the father out there?

And if it is the question then becomes how is it a true incarnation.

Because think about this.

The person of Christ was obligated to follow the law.

Yes, so it's not the same person.

Not so it can't be the same person.

So now you have two divine persons that refute Unitarianism.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, you don't have Yes.

Yes.

No, no, because you have okay look after this way.

Let's let's look at it.

If in fact the Adam I've been thinking about this Adam stuff.

Helping now if look at it from the point of view of Adam, right?

So when Adam was created you like root me that he was only potentially in him.

But there was still one man at that time that you could see one person, right?

Yeah now when Eve comes forth from him God created Eve from Adam they become two

now now the Don't look at the perfection.

They're separate persons, aren't they?

Yes.

Don't look at the perfection of the analogy, but look at the essence now with God now imagine the same thing I'm trying to describe

with God the father who starts out with one like Adam.

He is the one true God from his own being and substance.

He brings for another person his son because that was better.

So there's a divine person was it was the divine person then created?

The divine person couldn't have been created because the sauce is the father.

Maybe I maybe I'm not getting your question.

If the divine person is created then it can't be divine.

That's what I'm saying.

The divine person wasn't created.

So it can't be it can't be created.

So what is a divine person in Christ?

It's eternal so it can't.

It's not the same as a father because the person of Christ speaks to the father.

They're separate.

Yeah, because that's man because that that person.

Don't don't go Nestorian on me and say there's two persons two persons in the body of Christ.

Jesus says I'm thirsty all of you with you.

Always the same one spoke because the attributes of both natures were his.

So he says father I Don't want to do this, but not my will but your will.

So he as that same person is speaking to another person the father.

Yes, if you don't agree with that that you don't have a true incarnation.

You don't have the true attribution of personhood the nature of God, but if you do agree with it Unitarianism can't be true.

The reason why Unitarianism can be true is still with my what I've explained is

because.

If it starts out being one God the father one person the father who has.

Okay, let's put it this way the best way Matt I've been able to describe this is this.

This is the best analogy I found to describe this relationship.

And you may not agree.

But I've always used that and just came to me the son.

The son the son is the best analogy I have found now.

There's only one son in the sky.

That's son is not three persons.

In my understanding is God the father.

So I'm just trying to explain my thought process.

You don't have to agree.

But there's only one son in the sky the entire being of that son is God the father.

I see Jesus as the light in stretch inseparable.

I see Jesus as the light that jet that is generated from that son.

Inseparable.

And I see the Holy Spirit as a heat from that same one son.

Okay, so but the the Sun is still one now if that light from that ray if the Sun

was God and that light Could manifest which is from the Sun as something

completely distinct.

I don't see why that would be a problem with that distinct manifestation relating to the Sun.

So the nature of God is is personhood also if he's going to manifest.

Person is gonna be manifested there and not in a transcendent sense.

But in incarnational sense, which is why Jesus says I'll be with you always.

He's the I who's also speaking to God the father another one who would say I they're different persons.

Yeah, so what if the I like you say in the in the duality?

Have you ever thought about.

Okay, Matt?

Why would you why would you not consider a duality in this sense?

God is if God is a duality.

There's a problem inside of the duality.

There would be fellowship within God and love -exchanged.

And let me explain what I mean by the duality that you the duality you consider from the incarnation of the dual

nature of Christ.

Right.

Okay.

I'm saying I'm yeah, that's what I'm saying.

I'm saying there is a duality.

There's a person the second person of the Trinity and the human nature in the one person of Christ.

Yeah, so that's a dual nature of Christ the door.

That's called a hypostatic union hypostatic.

Yeah, so I'm saying this.

So have you ever thought about?

The mystery or the fact that there could be a mystery in duality that may not necessarily be in oh, no.

No, there's no mystery.

I understand all of it.

Okay.

Okay, just hold on.

I mean, there's mystery in there.

We don't get how it works.

What if what if that duality is Jesus the Son as the

man and The divinity as the father have you ever can't be the father because he speaks to

the father.

Yeah, because he's a man because that's a man the same way you say that.

Okay.

Let me let me say ask a question.

Do you know the same dilemma is what we you you I believe you might have if you say, okay.

How is it that Jesus did not know something?

He said he said, okay.

Let me okay not Matt I want to ask you a question Jesus the day of the hour.

I'll explain.

Okay.

That's easy.

It's a culture.

Okay.

Okay.

Just one moment the day of the hour.

No one knows and if you see this hand up, you know, it's like I've had to enter and say well He did

not know in his humanity, but he knew in his divinity but you know that will be.

It will come across as some kind of deception because if he was if he had one nature and he was divine.

And he was human at the same time.

Are you gonna say that he's divine?

Aspect of him did not communicate information to him secondly I want to also say something that that doesn't it's not just that

verse because I hear a lot of Trinitarians just refer to that verse and it's not just that but Jesus said this he

said the father loves me and shows me what?

He does so it means that Christ did not know what the father was showing him and he went on to say

Necessary.

Well, let me say that.

Let me say that why so because he said and we'll show him greater things.

So it means that at the time Christ was saying and we'll show him greater things.

Christ could not have known those greater things.

The father was to show him.

So my question to you will be if Christ was human and divine.

Why did he have to rely on the father a second person in the Trinity to show him these things?

Why could we not just relate to his divine side that was God to get that information from from him?

Right, right.

Easy.

Okay.

Okay.

First a wedding feast.

And why did Jesus rely on the father?

Okay, I'm not his divine his divine aspect.

That was.

I'll answer both.

Okay.

So when he says no one knows a day nor the hour but the father alone.

This is the culture of back then.

You know what for example of something when the Good Samaritan helped the guy who was

unconscious, you know.

Mm -hmm.

He's unconscious because you can't tell where he's from by dress or accent.

So that's why he's on he's naked.

You can't be you can't tell.

It's important part of the story and Culture has a huge bearing

on how to understand things and.

So when the prodigal son when the father ran to the son at the end men of stature did not do that.

They would not run it was it's a gasp.

It can't believe it when a woman let her hair down in public in Simon's house to let her hair down was a sign of

prostitution.

Okay, and so there's all kind of people don't know this stuff now the wedding feast a

two couples a mom and a dad and mom and a dad father a father and of us of a daughter.

They would arrange that the marriage would take place.

The father would arrange with that other father and they would have a date set and in that culture

you had to know when the date was because.

People from all over would come in they had to kill the fatted calf.

They don't get the wine ready.

You know, it took a while.

You couldn't just hop in a freeway go by McDonald's wrap something on the way to a wedding.

All right.

So they the father's requirement for the son was that when he would go get the bride.

Blowing the trumpets to go get the bride, which I actually saw this in Jerusalem.

They blow the trumpets to go get the bride.

In order to do that the son had to have permission from the father.

Because the father had said to the son in the culture everyone did it.

You must build a room onto the house or your own house on a property and when I say it's

done.

Then I'll give you permission to go get the bride.

Okay, so his friends understood what they would say to his buddy.

Well, when's your father gonna allow he goes no man knows a day nor the hour but the father alone.

It did not mean that they didn't know when it was.

The day is going to happen or the hour ish maybe a little bit back and forth it was an idiomatic

expression taken from the culture of the time showing the the

The majesty of the father and the importance of the father that he had to give permission

and it became an expression.

Hey beat him to his black and blue.

No man knows a day nor the hour it was that's what it was.

Not many people know this and in their ignorance.

They they say well, he didn't know something.

That's not what was going on because he's talking with a wedding feast and you'll know that Jesus says he'll go get the

bride and His trumpets blown in, you know before the rapture.

The trumpets the wedding feast we're gonna have this in heaven.

It's all the same language and I've spoken about this before in different people a different context

and they've never heard this.

Once I was talking to a bunch of guys.

They asked me this question were at a hotel lobby and this other guy was there and he was everything Jewish, but he's a

Christian.

I told the story I said, this is how it works in that culture at this time.

It didn't mean they didn't really know the day nor the hour it was an expression of respect to the father when the

father said go then they would go and go get them and everybody knew and

He said he was blown away.

He said you're the only one I've ever heard who knows that.

It's a common Jewish thing and that Gentiles don't know this stuff.

And that's it's that's what it means in the scriptures.

Okay, how do you explain the other aspects of it that we do.

When I also brought up I said Yeah.

Shows him and will show him things.

I'll explain it easy.

But but also in John 21 17 Peter says to Jesus Lord, you know all things.

Jesus didn't say no.

I don't know what they.

I didn't know a day.

Their hour is coming back.

He didn't say that it is attributed to him in knowing all things.

And In Revelation 19 12, it actually says that the Sun has

a name.

That he himself knows and no one else knows.

Now that's an interesting phrase.

Because it has to be that the God the Father knows.

So what's the phraseology going on?

It's Judaism the Jewish culture.

No one knows only Lord and Master the only true God.

No one knows the day they spoke like that.

Now why did Jesus will have to rely on the Father because

Hebrews 2 9 he was made for a little while lower than the angels.

Philippians 2 5 through 8 have this attitude in yourselves.

Which also is in Christ Jesus who although he was existing in the form of God did not regard equality with God.

He came to be robbed.

But he emptied himself taking the form of a bondservant made like us of many Himself at the point of death

even death on a cross.

So he's in a form of God and he emptied himself to become one of us.

Now.

Wait a minute.

If he's not God in flesh, how can he be in the form of God and then become one of us?

The person became one of us and he was also Galatians 4 4 made under the

law.

Made under the law so you and I if we were Jews back then.

To to Jewish families, we would have to be circumcised.

We would have to go to the festivals.

We couldn't eat kosher or non kosher this and that because we're under the law.

So does it mean at that point in time?

Sorry, I just.

Doesn't mean at that point in time when he was made Lord an angel the angels.

Then he ceased to be co -equal with with God and no.

Nope I like to say that he was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and I don't know how to explain what that

really means.

It's a phrase.

I've adopted to say who's cooperating with it because think about this.

The Bible says, you know, Paul the apostle says through Jesus all things are created and he

created by him.

Okay, I have a little lung problem sometimes and I had pneumonia as a kid it's just now hitting me.

He's I don't want anybody to think anything bad.

Okay, good it's a little pleurisy it happens like once a year or when I'm talking to heretics and it comes up I don't

know and so.

So, uh, where was I?

Uh, oh, so he's under the law if he's under the law.

He has to go to synagogue.

He's got to pray to God.

He's got to follow the ten commandments.

So he would say the father's greater than him because he really was a man under the law.

And so he would only do what he saw the father do.

Now.

Wait a minute.

If you say he could only do what the father showed him.

It doesn't mean he doesn't know.

How would you explain that?

Because it's like saying the father's telling him what to do because Jesus says he could do nothing of his own initiative.

Jesus said that in John 5 19 and John 5 30 I can do nothing of my own initiative.

Now, wait a minute.

Even if you affirm, there's some quality of divinity in Christ.

How could he not do anything of his own initiative?

But this is what he says.

So there's this place of Christ the God man under that law and

this is where.

When we get to this level, we start talking more and more questions are asked.

I'm going I don't know.

I don't know.

How are you saying though?

Sorry, Matt.

Are you saying that when Christ said the father loves him and will show him greater things?

And we'll show you things.

Are you saying that Christ already knew the greater things the father was to show him.

Is that what you'll be suggesting then?

Because Christ did not just say the father shows him things.

He said.

And we'll show him greater things.

So that means that at a time Christ was speaking Christ did not know the greater things the father was going to show him because if he

did know it don't make any sense for Christ to say and we'll show him greater things.

Let me try to work a greater walks.

Yeah, John 5 20 for the father loves the son and shows him all things that he himself is

doing now.

Look at One thing at a time.

Okay, he shows him all things.

Wait a minute.

God the father knows all things.

How can Jesus be shown all things?

He has to be God in order for this to occur.

If I if God showed you all things your brains gonna explode you wouldn't get it.

You can't comprehend it.

I couldn't either but it knows what he says.

The father loves a son and shows him all things now.

We have to understand do all things mean Everything that exists all knowledge or does it mean

all the things that Jesus does are shown to him by the father?

There's a fair question.

All things that he himself is doing till the father loves the son and shows him all things that he himself is doing.

So the father is doing something and shows it to Christ.

That would be logically Proper if Christ has made for a little while lower than the angels

Under the law.

I remember a little while lower than the angels is Hebrews 2 9.

Hebrews 1 8 says.

But of the son he says I thrown Oh God is forever and ever.

He's calling Jesus God.

This is why we trinitarians you go these early theologians.

They didn't just go one verse.

Hey, that's it.

Go.