Is the Hypostatic Union Coherent? w/ Eli Ayala & Jeremiah Short #theology #apologetics #jesus

Opening Remarks and Upcoming Shows

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and we're back with another show now. I've had a short little break. I've been there have been some gaps between Shows and so I think it's been a little while so this week.

We have three shows one tonight with Jeremiah the black doctor and tomorrow I have dr. James white coming on to talk about Mormonism. His schedule is a little busy. So if any last-minute changes happen, I'll let you guys know and that'll have to be rescheduled.

But as of now, we're good to go for tomorrow. And then on Thursday, I'm gonna have the other Paul on Paul Facey to talk about the presuppositions of history. What are the things that are presupposed when we're doing historical study?

And how does that relate to? Presuppositional ism and things like that. So I'm really excited about These upcoming shows and super excited about this show tonight. So I want to open up with some statements here that kind of inspired my desire to do this with Jeremy and If you haven't seen it Jeremy has Jeremy.

Jeremy or Jeremiah, how do you like to be called?

I mean either either one's fine. I prefer Jeremiah, but either one's. Just like being acknowledged.

Okay.

Well, I'm not sure if folks know but Jeremiah had a debate a while back with a Muslim and These issues came up the deity of Christ and whether the idea that you know Jesus Christ being the God man makes sense and I think Jeremiah did an excellent job.

So maybe he can share a little bit about that in a few moments, but I want to open up with Some a post that was put out by Tyler Vela who is a friend of mine and many who are gonna be watching will be aware that he renounced the faith and Is still out and about talking about theology and things like that and philosophy.

And so he sometimes posts things, you know about Christian theology. I think are interesting and of course coming from his perspective He's got a strong background and a lot of this stuff. And so I thought this would be a great opportunity to address some of the comments he made in a poster so I'm gonna read the post and That'll be kind of our introduction and then we'll veer off into talking about the hypostatic Union.

Which is the main topic and then kind of backpedal into answering the question as we get into some objections To the hypostatic Union. All right, so I'm gonna start the post here. Here's from from Tyler Vela.

He says could the Sun have sinned prior to the Incarnation the church has historically said no that the Sun has absolute Impeccability that's a big fancy word. Which means that he's unable to sin. The Sun cannot sin because God cannot sin.

Could Jesus have sinned in the flesh the church has historically said contingently. Yes that Jesus had the faculty to sin. But would not sin in the flesh if both that answer if both those answers are true.

The hypostatic Union becomes incoherent because it means that the Sun both could and could not attain Unrighteous guilt to avoid that you'd have to say that if Jesus sinned in the flesh the guilt wouldn't be the Sun's.

But then you'd have two persons in the second person of the Godhead. So that's the post there and we'll try to address that as we talk about the hypostatic Union in general, which is a very very Important topic.

I was just sharing with Jeremiah before we went live that I have been having some conversations with Jehovah's Witness and this really was a Huge sticking point as we were discussing the deity of Christ and whether that makes sense.

And so I had to do my best to defend that with respect to my knowledge of the topic. There's definitely room for improvement, but the conversation very very well, but it reminded me the importance of this topic so before we jump in to the hypostatic Union and then kind of back into that this this kind of Post by Tyler Why don't you tell folks a little bit about yourself and kind of tell us a little bit about some debates you've done Maybe people might want to watch that you can point them in the direction as to where they can find those.

Sure. Sure for those who know me and those who don't my name is Jeremiah short also known as the black doctor. I am a seminarian. I attend Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham. I'm also a an aspiring churchman.

I am the pastoral intern and interim youth director at a Presbyterian Church in my town. And I'm also a budding apologist. I do Apologetics work on tik-tok YouTube clubhouse. And so I I do things towards Christian apologetics.

Talking with you know, those within the fold like Roman Catholics and he's an orthodoxy advocating for the Protestant faith. But I also do debates against heretics debating oneness Pentecostals Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims.

The most recent debate that I did was on the gospel truth. With a Muslim named Mansour Farzan and the question was is Jesus the Almighty God or does the Bible portray Jesus as the Almighty God? And there we actually really unintentionally in my In my estimation we went towards the relationship between the hypostatic union and the relationship between the two natures of Christ which of course Mansour has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, which was Pretty entertaining for all the other Christians.

It was very evident. Please please check out that one. That one was fun.

Hmm and Marlon Wilson has a great channel over there where there's some pretty solid debates. Good. Good resource for people to kind of see how these ideas kind of flesh out within the context of conflict.

And they're typically done really well. So I think Marlon's got a good thing going over there. So. But thank you for that. Thank you for sharing that. Let's kind of jump right into our topic here we're gonna return to that Tyler Vela post and give you an opportunity to Respond to that, but let's define our terms here.

So so what is the hypostatic union? Historically, I mean how important has this doctrine been to Christianity? Once you flesh that out for us and then we'll kind of talk a little bit about the historical context as to how it was Developed and codified in the various creeds.

The Meaning of the Hypostatic Union

Right. So the the hypostatic union is really something that is crucial to the Christian faith. It symbolizes the person and work of Jesus Christ the hypostatic union. Quickly stated is that in Christ there are two natures two distinct natures one divine one human.

United in the one person of Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean that two natures are two persons or that one nature is one person. But the two distinct natures are united within one person the Logos or Jesus Christ.

Hmm.

So we would say that that Jesus so he said so we say like the Trinity is one being who exists as three persons and. The hypostatic union is in reference to Jesus being one person with two natures human and divine, right?

Yes.

Simply simply stated or I guess in lower terms God the Trinity is one what with three who's. And the hypostatic union is that one of those who's? Takes on another what. So Jesus and the incarnation is one who with two what's.

I like that. Okay, very good.

So now so how is this defined historically is this? Explained to us in detail and fleshed out in like creedal formulations. What what creed captures the essence of this doctrine?

And.

What was the context for? Developing this kind of creed to express these truths concerning the two natures of Christ.

Yeah, this is this is this really spans about a hundred years of debate. And it's codified and what we call the Chalcedonian definition found that the Council of costs and a Chalcedon. But before we get to the Chalcedonian definition, I want to take us pretty much back to the Council of Constantinople.

Okay, which is after after the the doctrine of the Trinity has been, you know stamped out for everyone to see. And everybody's arguing against Arianism. Arianism is pretty much dealt with in relation to inside the church.

And so we're trying to figure out how to you know, fully portray fully portray Christ. You get Apollinarius who tries to argue that in the incarnation? The Logos God Christ merely takes on you know. Some parts of Christ's human nature and it wasn't really his he he the Logos was simply taken up by the by the divine mind, you know Christ is is Sort of a sort of human.

The Jesus doesn't really have a human soul really doesn't have a human mind. That was refuted. But as you go on and trying to refute Apollinarianism. You really get one person or particularly two people who become pretty much the fear spearheads of this new controversy.

The first one is a man called Theodore of Mopsa Westia. He proposes to define the incarnation as God in a man. Because he's trying to figure out how to properly articulate the Nicene Creed all of us all the those who believe in I see I believe that Christ is God come down.

But they don't really have the right words to say how sure so so Theodore basically proposes the idea of God in a man. And he's not necessarily Condemned in his life in his lifetime but his followers are condemned and one of his most prominent followers is a man that we all know as Nestorius.

Now.

Nestorius really does come to the forefront in relation to this controversy because he gets really upset. What this one phrase. And I mean people still get upset with it today. It's the the it's the phrase or the word that Mary is Theotokos which means that Mary is the God-bearer.

And You know Nestorius said well, you know God is everywhere. How can God be in the womb of the Virgin Mary? That doesn't. That doesn't make any sense to him. So he says that that Mary is Christotokos that she is the Christ-bearer.

But unfortunately that statement that line of work that line of words Presupposes that the incarnation did not happen within the womb the womb of Mary. But afterwards after the human nature of Jesus was born.

What you're doing is that you're actually separating Christ and the human nature into two persons. You're actually going back to an ancient heresy called adoptionism where the adoptionists like the.

Um.

Not that not the Eutychians we'll get to them. The Ebionites specifically the Ebionites believe that Jesus in his human nature was like a regular human a Person actually born from the union between Joseph and Mary.

So Jesus was a virgin born but at his baptism The Holy Spirit came upon him and he was elevated to the status of godhood. Okay, so Nestorius would say that Jesus is two persons Who have distinct and different wills different persons who are different from one another but they are united in.

Their.

Worship, they're united in their will in order to do what God wants to do. So basically instead of having a Union between the union between the human and the divine you have sort of a working together that the the that the divine nature of Jesus has just simply come alongside Another human.

And then the question was well, if that's the case What's the difference between the incarnation of Jesus and anybody else who is filled with the Holy Spirit after the incarnation? Hmm. There really is none.

Now that's interesting because in my discussion with the Jehovah's Witness that I was speaking to he mentioned This idea now not adoptionism, but it's definitely an argument that adoptionist would make when the scripture says that Authority was given to Christ.

If Christ is God, how can authority be given to God? How do we understand that given the hypostatic Union there Jesus is one person two natures both human and divine. If he's divine Then it seems that he has he has all authority.

How can authority be given to someone who already has authority? How would we interact with that idea?

Well, it's it's the simple reality of the incarnation that as we'll we'll get to when we go through the biblical basis God who Christ who is in the very nature God takes on the form of a servant He veils his glory takes on a human flesh and that that human flesh Submits itself to the will of the Father and therefore God grants it a grants of authority Because of the work that he's done.

So and and and secondly in the flesh.

Yes, the flow as as somebody worked it with so so and in his divine nature He already has authority but in the incarnation Galatians 4 for He's born born of a virgin born under the law and so that requires him to obey God's law and as a man He is given a third the man Christ is given an authority.

So that people know that the father has his stamp of approval upon the son who's living amongst us. Living a perfect life dying a perfect death and being raised to life. So it's not correct the case that God is giving authority to God the son but he's giving authority to the incarnated son who was functioning within a Submissive status for a little while.

He's made lower than the angels. Have I got it? Yes. Yes, okay.

And I also want to point out here in relation to like the divinity of Christ. One thing that Christians always believe is that is that the the son is God but he is God because he is the son of the.

Father.

Everything that God does is from the father through the son by the Holy Spirit. Hmm, and so Jesus says in John chapter 16 all that the father has is mine. It's already mine. But it is it's from the father.

Sure.

As we as we say in the Nicene Creed Christ is God from God light from light very God of very God of one substance with the father that. Receiving that is constant between the father and son actually demonstrates their union in their equality because Jesus in John chapter 5 says.

Just as the father has life in it of himself life in himself He also gives authority to the son to have life in himself. There is always an eternal Relationship of a saiety between the father and the son it it begins in the father flows through the son also in the Holy Spirit.

Yeah, I was so beautiful about this is is not only is the hypostatic union such a profound concept. But it's almost impossible to talk about it independent of the interrelations of the Trinitarian the Trinity.

Everything links back to the triune nature of God and what the second person of the Trinity has has done in In his humiliation so to speak kind of a taking on human flesh and living amongst us amazing.

It's a there's actually a beautiful consistency to it more I see the consistency in it and when people say this it doesn't make sense. I'm like actually I can't explain it perfectly but as God has revealed it makes perfect sense.

Great and especially when you deal with The purposes of the father and how the son accomplishes those purposes and the role that the spirit plays and theology. We call this the economic Trinity, you know, how they function within Within their their interrelations.

I think it's a very profound and Practical thing to know as a Christian. So thank you for that so now would you say Jeremiah that the hypostatic union was formulated within a context of responding to error and that required us to speak more sharply and Sustainedly and distinctly of how we are to understand this because because we think of hypostatic union and hypostasis.

And all these kinds of like words that we throw around. Someone could point out very easily. Wait a minute. This is not in the Bible. These words aren't in the Bible. How would you kind of address that someone says these words aren't in the Bible you guys are doing philosophy.

You're adding kind of Greek concepts on to scripture. How do we how are we to understand? Theological and philosophical. Terminology that is used to kind of describe these things that we think are in scripture.

The Historical Creeds and Heresy

Yeah. Yeah.

I mean first and foremost most of these controversies happened in the Greek language. So you can't you can't really avoid using Greek when everybody else spoke Greek the Bible was written in Greek. So you're gonna have to define it by Greek terms.

So so the question would be why are we using extra biblical language? We're using extra biblical language in order to formulate the biblical text in such a way that it is understood in the way the church always has.

But in such a way that a heretic cannot use it. Like for example some like Arius could believe that Jesus was God. That's what he said, but he did not believe that he was of the same essence as the father.

He was a created God. So the Nicene Creed used the term homoousios in order to demonstrate that The son is the same God the exact same God as the father. He wasn't created. He was begotten not made as the Creed says so here when when when the Council of Chalcedon Convenes.

It's actually arguing against two heresies. One is Nestorianism, which we already covered and the other is Eutychianism. Which basically is is trying to argue that when Christ when when the Logos came down when God came down He tried to you know, take on human flesh.

But the the human the divine nature is so powerful it it absorbed the divine the human nature. His statement was like a drop of water into the sea the divine nature. It it subsumes the human nature. So basically Christ becomes a a sort of tertium quid in Latin a third thing.

So the what the church did and especially I want to turn to one of the most one of the most beautiful texts that is actually read at the at the Council of Constantinople or At the Council of Chalcedon is something called Leo's Tome.

Okay, now now Leo's Tome is a it's a small letter, but it's a really beautiful letter and theologically powerful letter. Because this was given to address. Well, this was written by Pope Leo to the patriarch of Constantinople Flavian in order to argue against Eutychius and get it and give advice and this is what he says Here in in chapter 3 without detriment therefore the properties of either nature of The human end of the line which then came together in one person Majesty took on humility strength took on weakness eternity mortality and for the paying off of the debt belonging to our condition and Viable nature was united with possible nature.

So that as suited the needs of our case one and the same mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus could both die with one nature and Not die with the other thus in the whole a perfect nature of true man was true God born complete in what was his own complete and what was ours and by ours.

We mean what the Creator formed in us from the beginning and what he undertook to repair so here he's specifically saying that He's arguing against Eutychius. And what he's saying is that these two natures are distinct.

But in the incarnation they are united in one person. Hmm. So what we can say about the one nature Can be attributed to the other by reason that they are united in the one person who has both of them.

But they are mysteriously united such that they do not intermix. Exactly. So there's these unique natures that in some mysterious metaphysical fashion Coexists within the one person but are not tainted by one another so that you have both the infinite and the finite cohabitating without intermingling and Infringing upon the divine nature such that the divine nature changes.

Which we don't believe actually happens because we don't think that the hypostatic Union that the reality of the hypostatic Union Causes mutability within the divine nature. So God is still immutable unchangeable.

So it's important that we understand those natures being not intermingled.

Although they cohabitate within the one person. Have I got it? Yep. You're exactly right. Okay.

Interesting stuff. So so these kinds of Formulations the words that we use are meant to combat heresy and that is their historical context. The creeds are Formulated in such a way as to respond to you know, false teachings and things like that.

I think would be a mistake to not read the the Chalcedonian Creed. I have it here. I'd like to read it real quick if that's okay, please. Do you know getting all church history. Ish. Now, by the way before we do That let's address this.

Wait, Jesus was not God. I have no idea how someone Concluded that from anything that was that was said.

Right, I think it might have been he he popped in made mid conversation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think honestly it's because of what one thing that we do need to point out is that the reason why these controversies started and was because We already knew that Jesus was God and we wanted to protect the divinity as we explained how God came down.

So everybody already knows everybody already understands That Jesus is God come down. But the question is how like even like even the story is and you take and eutychies they constantly said when they were examined I affirmed the Nicene Creed and It was exactly true.

It was true. But the question is how did they explain how the God proclaimed the Nicene Creed comes down to save us?

That was the problem. Hmm. Okay. All right good. So so the deity of Christ wasn't invented at the Council of Nicaea. I thought that's.

There.

Every time when I was talking that to Jehovah's Witness he goes well when they formulated the doctrine at the Council of and I was Like, okay timeout. Timeout, let's talk about this. It's interesting how people use that still it's still a still a thing in common.

Repeat a lie long enough. It'll stick. Yeah, that's right. So I'm gonna read the Chalcedonian Creed here. This is from Monarchism, it's got the Creed here summarized here. So we then following the Holy Fathers all with one consent teach men to confess one and the same son Our Lord Jesus Christ the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood truly God and truly man of a reasonable rational soul and body co-substantial with the Father according to the Godhead and constant Consubstantial with us according to the manhood in all things like unto us without sin begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead and In these latter days for us and for our salvation born of the Virgin Mary the mother of God According to the manhood one and the same Christ's son Lord only begotten to be acknowledged in two natures inconfusably unchangeably Indivisibly inseparably the distinction of nature's being by no means taken away by the Union.

But rather the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person and in one subsistence Not parted or divided into two persons. But one and the same son and only begotten God the Word the Lord Jesus Christ as the prophets from the beginning have declared Concerning him and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us and the creed of the Holy Fathers has handed down to us and of course that reference to The Virgin Mary being the mother of God it says here and I think this is relevant the mother of God According to the manhood.

So it's attributing Mary being. Is the human nature the human aspect obviously? She's not literally the mother of God and in in the sense that would be impossible as a creative being. All right, um, here's a question though, so Unless you are part of a church that is in contact and in touch in its daily workings with church history.

What are the dangers of Christians not being aware and familiar with some of these historical creeds? We would readily grant Jeremiah that it's not they're not the scriptures, right, but they're vitally important.

What is the danger you think in our modern context for Christians a large portion of the evangelical world that has the concert worship? Services and the pragmatic messages. Yeah, they're not reading the Chalcedonian Creed and the Nicene Creed.

What's the danger of not being familiar with these things in your opinion?

Why the Creeds Matter for Christians Today

The the danger primarily is Being out of touch being out of touch with Christendom. We all know the statement that those who fail to learn their history are doomed to repeat it and.

Many.

Many of our evangelical brothers and sisters Unfortunately our closet historians. They really are in their confession, even though they might. Even though they might deny it like like for example when when many hear the term Theotokos Mary the mother of God They automatically recoil because they don't know what it means.

Hmm. In fact many of them presuppose Oh, well, that's just papist writing or just papist language and it's not it's not it's it's Catholic writing Universal writing universal words because we all confess that in the Incarnation Christ who is very nature God took on flesh from Mary and was born of her.

What we're saying is that the person within Mary's womb who came out to us through the human process called birth was truly God. What we do when we use the Catholic creeds is that we root ourselves into the language of the church.

We aren't Reinventors of the wheel we aren't we come with a heritage. We belong to a family of brothers and sisters who have walked this way before us and who have done these things in order to protect us from heresies.

What they do is that they point us to the scriptures and say these are what the scriptures have taught us For the past 2 ,000 years and if we ignore them We will so we will leave ourselves susceptible to every heresy imaginable and we will twist ourselves Into into you know.

Trying to walk in their footsteps and failing because we did not have the same foundation that they did.

Now when we talk about the Trinity One God there's one being who has gotten three persons who share the same being father son and Holy Spirit. They are co-eternal. Co-substantial all these sorts of things.

And when someone says well, can you explain the Trinity to us and we we always get the famous. Well, it's like water ice and gas. Okay, it's that. Gasps on the water and it's a difference. Then of course many people will put forth the ancient heresy known as modal is.

That's more than is a pathway. Where's Donald?

Molinism which.

Molinism is another thing entire the heresy of another sort. Now, I'm just.

I.

Have some. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. All right, I think William Lane Craig just heard.

Just kidding, but.

We can have often inappropriate analogies to explain the Trinity and of course there are common ones right like the three-leaf clover and. You know different different things that people say what are some common, you know bad analogies that are often used to explain the hypostatic union.

And and and why should we avoid analogies? And what are the good uses of analogies in your opinion? Yeah.

Analogies, Temptation, and the Reality of Christ's Humanity

Sort of sort of them sort of the same thing in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. It's best not to use analogies because most of them really fail. It's only if you're describing a specific aspect or a specific point in relation to like the hypostatic union or the doctrine of the Trinity.

But if you're trying to bring the entire concept down to an analogy it's always going to fail because God is completely unique and what God has done in this mystery of the Incarnation is going to be completely unique.

It's weird because some people some people use analogies some don't so you don't hear many analogies for the hypostatic union. But the one that I often like to use and make fun of is like playing John Malkovich Where where Jesus basically comes and puts on a meat suit or stands inside like another another Completely human being and just walks and moves within it and that shows that Christ isn't really true.

Humanity like the divinity is taking up something that rightly belongs to the human nature. And if that if that's the case Then Christ is no longer truly human and therefore he cannot truly redeem us.

It's just as Gregory of Nazianzus Said when he was when he was arguing against something similar to this and Cyril of Jerusalem Said this when he was arguing against Nestorius that which he has not assumed He has not healed.

But that which is taken on by God is saved and that's why.

That's why there is no gospel for the angels no atonement for the angels because he did not take the form of an angel. He took the form of a man and as being a representative of man representing man. Those are the ones he redeems.

Right. The book of Hebrews says he does not help angels. But he helps the children of Abraham because he takes on the flesh of the children of Abraham. And if he takes on their flesh, he is able to be an appropriate high priest.

He is able to stand up in heaven before the father and intercede for them on their behalf because he is offered up their self same blood So that they might be saved. Only a man can substitute for human lives, but only God can give an eternal life and survive.

Yeah.

My friend Matt slick of karm. Often calm org. Most people know who he is here. He often gave an analogy of someone inviting you into Their house and they have kind of this room filled with like these priceless items and you're invited to look but but don't touch.

And so the person walks out of the room and you touch it and you break it and he comes back. He's like What have you done? Don't worry. I forgive you, but you're gonna have to be my slave and pay back every penny.

Is that true forgiveness? Well, no same scenario rewound rewound rewound again. That the items broke he says don't worry I forgive you, but your mother is gonna be my slave until you pay it all off. That's not true forgiveness.

So the scenario is that rewound again you break the item the owner the master forgives you and says don't worry I will pay for it now. If you put that analogy in terms of God, the problem is that the wages of sin is death.

How will God who offers to pay the debt actually pay the debt since God cannot die? The answer is in the incarnation, right? The divine God takes on human flesh so that he can pay for the broken. The broken vase or vase, however you say it I mean, I think that's a great analogy to show like what God has done to to genuinely extend forgiveness towards us in Christ.

So these are really profound and beautiful truths that can often be mistaken for abstract theology. But in fact, there are huge practical implications of everything that we're that we're saying here. So Right.

I'm super important. Yeah.

Add to that because like we Leo speaks about this a lot. As well, I mean, this is this is the entirety of why he wrote his tone. Hmm. Um, he says he says this concerning the twofold nate divinity and nature of Christ.

He says in order to you know, why did he do this? Why did God become man and it's order to destroy the power of death. That is the devil he says. And this nativity which he took which took place in time took nothing from and adding nothing to That divine and eternal birth but expended itself wholly on the restoration of man who had been deceived.

So the entire point of the incarnation is to restore man In order that he might both vanquish death and overthrow by his strength the devil who possessed the power of death. So it's to restore man. Grace restores nature number two.

Christ defeats the devil Christus Victor. We should not now we should for we should not now be able to overcome the author of sin and death. Unless he took our nature on him and made it his own whom neither sin could pollute or death remain.

Doubtless then he was conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of his virgin Virgin mother who brought him forth without the loss of her virginity even as she conceived him without its loss. So here He has come in order to restore man.

Defeat the power of sin and death in the devil and bring us to our proper state. Hmm. That's awesome. That's beautiful.

Thank you for that. I'm speaking with Jeremiah the black doctor about the hypostatic Union. We've been talking about the definition of it and of course We just got into so the purpose of why God took on human flesh and the implications of all of that.

If you are enjoying or being benefited or edified by this discussion I'd really appreciate if you like the video and share it and I'm head over to tick-tock or are you on Instagram as well?

Jeremiah, yeah. Yeah, I run a run a profile on Instagram and that's where you guys can most likely find me.

You know talking with other people answering questions things like that. Do you have a YouTube channel? Yes, I do.

It's it's youtube .com At black at the black doctor 21. I'm pretty much revamping my entire pretty much my entire brand this week. So it's you're gonna you're gonna expect a lot of changes in this in these coming weeks.

So it's gonna be awesome because I love I love to hear you talk you talk with such passion and it obviously you Love the Lord and you are very passionate about this. And so I really appreciate how you kind of unpack things and and go into the detail.

So I do appreciate that but um. Let's move on to some of the biblical data. So, I mean we can use philosophical and theological terminology, but the real issue is is it biblical? And so maybe you could on you can kind of unpack for us the biblical foundation for the hypothetic Union and then we'll jump into Some objections beginning with Tyler Vela's comments that I read at the beginning of this live stream.

Biblical Foundations for the Hypostatic Union

Yeah, sure.

The first one the first passage that I think we should easily go to easily go to. It's just at the beginning of the Bible Genesis chapter 3 beginning at verse beginning at verse 15. Let me let me let me see if I can.

Yeah, cuz cuz I always I always like to do this. I hope I like to help people see this.

Did you want me to share it on the screen? Yes, I got it. We have technology Greek and fancy with it makes us look more scholarly. It's like I can't read that but I mean Let me see if I let me see. It's been a while.

So it's in first Peter. Is it that first word? There is that I see us. Hi Bethune Bethune us. Yes, kata pro kata pro. No scene. Yeah, I'm not seeing they you Patras and Aghias.

Mo.