Debate Aftershow 4-22-2022, Trinity Slick Otis

So we're live and I have to do something here go talk to my wife briefly and Giving

time for people to come into the room while I walk away from the camera, but I have a portable Bluetooth

headset so I can talk while I'm walking.

So, you know that something's not wrong.

So hold one thing.

Let's see and Let her know we have a guest coming over and he's at another

Location.

He's gonna come over here later.

Let's let my wife know that so that's why I'm talking.

And when I get back up, I'll let you guys into stream yard and those of you on YouTube can You

can text and stuff like that.

He's at a friend's house in Napa believe it or not.

And so he'll come over later when we text and stuff like that doing an after -show.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

I'm gonna walk back to The office where the computer is

and my monitors and chair and everything else.

Oh.

There's a lot going on a lot going on.

All right, am I talking to nobody?

I don't know.

We'll find out what I sit down.

Let's see.

Yep talking to nobody.

So, oh people are watching and listening good you can hear all right you guys want to come in.

You can that's the stream yard link.

That means if you come in here, I'll let you in you can talk Interact or if you don't want to do that all you got to do is

type something in and where you were we can you know, I can react to that if people come in and we talk we stay for a while they

don't come in and talk then I go do something like eat and my wife and I can go watch TV and

Relax a little bit before company comes over we

Nobody I said nobody was here.

Oh, I was talking to nobody.

So hopeful somebody's named nobody there.

So, there you go, what do you guys think would you guys think of the debate?

Alright, there's Oh Brittany you can't get in because their devices are not connected.

You'd be able to have you need a microphone and or a camera.

So if you have either one you can get in.

But to hear you you need a microphone.

So you're trying to get in it says devices not connected So you have to add those in and then you can

you can talk and then we have James dare I dare you to say something good.

But maybe his camera so I.

Caught the tail end of your debate.

I thought you did.

Well, it's the whole thing but.

It's obvious from the Bible the Trinity starts out in Genesis and goes all the way through the end.

Yeah, I don't.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, I can hear you.

Yeah, the Trinity's definitely true.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I enjoy talking about these major Bible doctrines.

I Think that if you have the right Bible, and I know this isn't about Manuscript evidence, but I think if

you have the right Bible, you'll have the right doctrine.

I.

Agree.

Well, it helps.

Yeah, it does help.

Okay.

Hold on one sec.

I gotta put you on mute.

This is the guys coming over.

So I'm gonna mute just give us a.

Okay, sorry about that.

He'll be here in five minutes.

I may have to go say hey, come on up here.

You hear me talking to it comes up.

They'll sit in the chair right over there.

So First Corinthians 214 you must be born again because of first Corinthians

214, right?

All right, Brittany.

You need to add a Microphone or a camera in order to get in

and be able to let you in.

So don't know if you can hear me Matt.

Can you please debate Trenthorne and baptism?

Yes, that's right.

I would like to you must be born again.

That's actually John 3 3 through 8.

Lots of noise from your guests tapping.

Yes.

That's another thing people a lot of times people what they'll do is they'll come in.

They start making noises.

Sometimes I do the radio people on their phones in the kitchen playing.

I go.

Hey, don't do that.

So For example, yeah, I'm gonna mute you there.

So now you have to unmute yourself in order to talk or do I have to unmute you like it

wait.

Yeah, I can't unmute your guests because they chose to mute themselves,

okay, there we go, there we go, that's right.

I think we were tagging back and forth.

I'm new.

Hey, hey, I'm new to this stuff.

So if I make some mistakes like typing with my thing not muted just say stop typing.

Know this already I I'm autistic and I have trouble with too much sound and so when I'm talking to

somebody And there sounds like the sound of background.

It's actually disturbing but for the most part I can control it so I can handle it.

But when it gets too much I say to people I'm done.

You know and my apologies.

It's just just just what I've got, you know, just an issue to deal with.

So great job.

Matt on SF teased and it for the Oh truth.

Good.

Yeah, I Brittany mentioned that no one seemed to mention the Godhead which

Godhead speaks of the Trinity.

I Came in late, so I don't know if it was mentioned.

Closest to not there's a lot that wasn't mentioned.

That's just a nature debate.

You can't get through everything.

There's a lot of stuff.

I would like to have discussed.

But we couldn't get into it.

So there we go Karen.

There Karen says.

That's what I like to hear.

Great job.

There you go.

Love your hair Karen.

Oh my wife to do that with her hair.

All right.

Let's see.

How about.

Like to see you have another discussion with Bishop Jerry Hayes.

I really enjoyed the discussion between you two.

Learned a lot.

Good animal lover.

Are you oneness or Trinitarian?

Good debate.

Laura says he couldn't get past Jesus was not a man.

That was weird.

That was weird that threw me What.

I Wasn't expecting that.

I gotta get into this a little bit more.

Did he say Jesus was not a man?

Yeah.

Yeah Yeah, how.

How does he explain the verse and the word became flesh and dwelt among us?

Oh, that's the father who inhabited the human body.

It's zombie is.

Or it's like possession.

I don't get it.

Yeah, and then when he said he's not really human wait a minute how could Jesus speak, you know.

And and is it is he the flesh speaking?

Is he breathing?

Yeah, but that's not the will right?

But yeah, Jesus says we will come and make our abode with you.

How does that work?

You know.

Well, Jesus.

Jesus said I hunger.

He said I thirst.

He was weary from a journey.

That was the flesh.

The father was in dwelling.

That's why that was like that.

There's some background noise.

It's tough to.

It's like scraping.

I'm not typing.

Not me this time.

Let's see, I'm listening.

I Heard a noise of squeak.

Okay, maybe because sometimes people they'll take their phone.

They rub it on their Beard or their chin or like that and make noises too.

Okay, let's get to Nicholas.

Hey Nicholas, how you doing, buddy?

Hello.

You're good.

No man's good.

Romans 3 10 11 and 12,.

I'm sorry you asked me how I'm doing.

I'm doing well, okay.

All right.

So, did you watch a debate.

I Saw the latter half of it.

Okay, and I've seen Otis debate before the topic.

I've seen you debate the topic before.

Yeah, so nothing new really.

But had you heard him say before that Jesus was not a man.

No, and I don't remember if I've heard him say before that Christ is merely flesh.

But it occurred to me that the flesh profits nothing.

So then he's saying Christ profits nothing.

That's a quote from Christ himself.

We kind of thought of that.

That's a bit great to throw in there.

Good for you.

So answer that I like that that's good.

I guess I made that a question.

Maybe Donnie you would have asked that one if I had asked it.

You should have that.

That's a good question.

As a refutation in side chat.

But I did ask a question that I can ask you now and that was I was gonna ask you on.

Is that the strangest?

Argumentation you've ever had to adapt your arguments to.

Or yes.

Yes.

When he said Jesus was not a man like.

What?

Because then you got to define humanity and then you got to get it.

But then I go to first Timothy 2 5 where it says the man Christ Jesus.

Well, it says says Christ but ignores the word.

Jesus is right there so it was just

He did not have as all his logic and theological pause in the litter box.

Do you know which Bible he uses?

I think he quoted the ESV.

I remember I was checking it.

Looked like an ESV quote.

Yeah, that's Kevin's.

Hey, Kevin.

Hey, Matt, how you doing?

Good.

All right, hanging in there.

Just did a debate.

I may have to walk down and let a guy in and say come on up here and sit, you know, let me talk so

a little bit rather put the speaker I Said of here.

We're on the on the computer.

I hope you'll get any feedback.

Yeah.

Oh is SFT in here.

Oh Yeah, they're there.

Yes, I think for truth.

Good.

So that I actually want to ask you.

Sure.

So I'm a humanitarian as well.

You're a what?

I'm also a Trinitarian.

Okay.

Now when you were you were when you were talking about the will of the Father in the will of the Son.

I don't fully understand that like I.

Always thought they were in unity in their wills.

Like are you saying a different will you explain that?

Yeah, no just so you know when I begin to explain this there is a bit of mystery some people will say

oh the mystery means it's not true, but that's not the truth.

A Mystery means that there are certain aspects of God's nature and essence that we can't comprehend.

When we talk about the incarnation what we're talking about is a Human nature and a

divine nature.

We know that the word became flesh and adult among us John 1 14.

And so we call this the hypostatic union.

What this means is that Jesus has two natures a divine nature a Human nature

right, but if he's human he has to have human will.

Otherwise, you're not human.

That's what designates humanity.

This is why when he said Jesus is not a man then there's no humanity there.

Then we get into the heaven got into it, but the problem of the in car of the crucifixion.

Anyway, we'll get into that.

So so Jesus has a will of the of the human nature and a will the divine nature.

The Greek word for will is phileo to will phileo, so die

means to die philatism.

Phileo will die philatism two wills means that in the one person of Christ There are

two natures and each nature has a will hence die philatism.

There's an error that was developed called monophysitism.

Which says that the divine nature and the human nature became a new third thing the

divine man.

I've never heard of that.

It's called mono mono philatism monophysitism and along with

monophysitism is Monothelitism that since the two natures became a new

nature the God man nature.

Then there's one will so what they're trying to do is try and solve the problem of or that the

paradox we should say it's not a problem of How can you have one person with two natures?

Now the Lutherans go into it with thing called perichoresis with the two natures and dwelling each other.

I don't know, but that's another thing and so with a reformed perspective as I'm reformed We would say that the

diathletism is that each will has a or each nature has a will but yet in the one person of

Christ We only have one will and That's demonstrated

by Jesus saying I am thirsty.

I Will be with you always even to the end of the earth.

The eye is identification of one.

I Not we our wills because he does that with the father.

We will come not my will but your will etc.

So what we see in the hypothetic Union Is the two natures

of Christ and each has a will.

Diathletism.

Manifested as one will.

Hypothetic Union.

When we see Jesus say I am thirsty.

I'll be with you always that's called the communicative idiom atom.

It's called the communication of the properties.

So the properties of the divine nature and the properties of the human nature are ascribed to the single person.

So Jesus says I am thirsty that's claiming the attributes of humanity.

I will be with you always that's claiming the attributes of divinity.

The single person says I Am thirsty I'll be with you always the same person I

Says both of those.

So the person the one person is claiming the attributes of both natures now when he says

I Don't want to do this or I that we see the manifestation of the one will.

And so this is a paradox.

It's a mystery.

How does that work?

I Don't know.

How is it that God can ordain all things from all eternity?

I?

Don't know.

How is it that he can indwells all places at all time, but yet specially indwell certain individuals.

I don't know.

Just because we have mystery the nature of God does not mean that it's not true.

If someone wants to say it's not true They have to be able to demonstrate that it violates coherence or violates the laws of

logic and say this can't be because of this.

So for example a square can also cannot also be not a square at the same time in the same sense in the same way.

That's a violation of law of logic and it cannot be true, but there's nothing in logic that any

laws or any Syllogistic learning thing whatever that says that you can't have

one person with two natures where the Attributes are ascribed to the one person who speaks as one person.

It may be mysterious, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

So when someone says it can't be true I say show me the logic.

You say oh, I'm not gonna do philosophy.

Well, then you can't have any argument.

It's not an issue of philosophy.

It's an issue of logic.

Show me the argument.

Just saying it's not true doesn't work.

So these things have been wrestled with for centuries.

So we have hypothetic Union one person two natures.

Monophysitism one person with one nature.

That's the new god -man who is neither God nor man.

But a god -man we have the storing ism in at the body of Christ are two separate natures two separate

persons.

Where each nature is a person that's called Nestorian ism.

So sinism says there was an emptying and there was only the father manifested and gets mother stuff is what she was kind of going.

At so there's this all kinds of heresies and errors and and and stuff.

So I've never heard about no, that's all.

Yeah, that's what it is.

Okay, and there's a lot of stuff.

Um, do you have any teaching that kind of stuff like on your channel where you go into depth on those things?

Do I have any teachings on that?

Have you ever heard of this website called karma.

Yeah, yeah, okay, so you can go there and so what I'm

going to be doing is is

I'm just thinking out loud here.

I'm gonna be doing some video work.

I'm trying to get to that point where I can start converting a lot of things to To video where I will sit with

my articles and I'll read them But comment and go through them and I'll highlight things because I

can't do I don't have anybody to do post Editing work.

I do everything myself.

So, you know, I'm gonna try and do it that way and go through and explain things so that people can listen to audios.

And as well, I think that'd be really good like appreciate that.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's got the lighting, right?

And because of someone who looks like me you have a face for radio, so I got to make it look good.

Okay, and I have something I want to bring up but also looks like there's someone named James who's being

patient.

Who asked he wants to ask something.

Sure.

Yeah, if you don't mind.

It's it's back a little ways in the discussion about the human nature of Jesus and Otis saying

That Jesus wasn't flesh or something like that.

The doctrine of substitution Hangs in the balance

if he was not flesh.

Because he had to become one of us in order to pay for our sin somebody had to step in.

Our redemption hangs on that.

So you can't remove the man of Christ.

That's right.

It's a whole other issue.

I thought you know how far we get to get into stuff because then you don't have a true incarnation and then you don't have a true divine

sacrifice because.

What he would probably say is that?

The father is the one in Christ and the life is in the blood.

He might go to Leviticus 17 11.

And life is in the blood and therefore the blood is really the sacrifice and therefore therefore it could be divine

but then that is saying then that the divine nature or the human nature itself is

what is The sacrifice and there's no humanity in it at all.

But if there's no humanity in the sacrifice Then how is it atonement for

people?

That's the that's the bridge.

That's the problem.

Yeah, it becomes a huge problem, but even in in

Acts 20 28 It says that God, you know bought the church with his own blood.

You know his blood was not from the Adamic race right.

The whole incarnation.

He came from his father, I mean even chemistry tells us that Your your blood comes

from your daddy.

That's why you have his surname.

It doesn't come from mama comes from daddy.

And that's why.

My surname is just too awesome to give up.

Look at mine.

I dare you to misspell it.

But that's what I was thinking.

Anyways, it's it's very very important that that Bible is so

Divinely woven together.

You can't get rid of any of it without destroying it.

It's got to stay together and the humanity.

Um, you can't get rid of it.

Um, yeah, uh, can you post a link from this debate that just ended.

Just go to here.

Just go to here.

You'll find it, uh, karm .org, uh calendar.

Okay, you'll find it there.

Um Jesus says unless you believe that I am you'll die in your sins.

Now was he who was speaking?

Now he said the father but here's the problem.

It's one of the things I was thinking about how to articulate this because i've never had to think about this.

On the fly like this.

That's why I asked.

Was jesus breathing?

The reason I was asking that.

Was he breathing?

Was he walking?

That's the human nature.

But if jesus says unless you believe that I am who's the eye.

That's the father.

Well, that would mean then.

The father is only indwelling that body.

Well, then there's no unification in there.

And it also would have meant that any human Could have been indwelt by the father any.

Yeah.

Okay, I'm gonna answer the door.

Let's say hi.

Hold on guys.

Um in case anyone slightly missed what matt was saying he was saying that Otis's

model would be that the eye is the father.

Come on in russ.

Come on.

Hey, come on.

I'm on i'm doing after you want to just come up and sit in the room.

Come on up and sit in the room and i'll put a speaker so you can hear it.

Yeah.

Everybody's listening.

Those people listen to the come on up.

Just bring that up too.

You might as well.

Hmm.

Just get you jumping right in here.

This is For those who don't know.

Hey neek, you want to meet meet him?

That's right.

Um, this is russ and just i'm gonna tell the people in the thing.

So russ is the guy who runs the radio stations in salt lake city.

And the whole area of utah and he's here for something so.

Yeah, come on in here when you want.

Sorry folks, I know it's.

Okay, hey life at the slicks, okay.

So, let me change the audio settings here so I can put it on my Let's see.

Okay.

Okay now say something.

Somebody say something.

You're talking about the other people in the room, right?

There we go.

I'm here.

Okay, you're here good see you hear the feedback can you hear the feedback from the speaker.

No, sir, no feedback here.

Good matt an empty chair is talking.

It sounds like matt.

Yeah.

My wife is showing russ around.

So russ is going to be here.

We're having a uh evangelist not wheat but evangelism thing is going to be happening tomorrow.

And greg laurie's thing and here in boise, idaho.

And uh, I love boise, idaho.

Oh, i'm so glad i'm out of california.

And so uh russ is in utah, which is five and a half hour drive five hour drive roughly.

And so he just came up.

He has a friend in the area.

He's staying with him eating dinner.

Now he said come on over because I told him hey, come on up.

You got a place to stay like and.

So unless it was nicholas because I don't know that beard makes him look kind of suspicious.

But you know, I probably let it go and so he's just got here and he's the guy who runs the uh, the

radio stations, uh in utah.

That my show's on in utah.

So he's a great guy.

He's a he's a good guy so.

You're gonna come in here.

So now they can hear you talk you want to say hi here let's i'll introduce you this is russ.

There you go, whoops, there you go.

Yeah, that's russ.

Okay, so.

And i'll do this kind of change it so you guys can watch a little bit of but whatever.

All right.

Now you guys want to ask?

Hey, there you go.

Oh, that's because I was that's a delay.

This is the delay feed.

This is the live feed.

And we just did the debate.

So how did how the debate go?

Go ahead.

Let's go james.

I dare you to say how it went and then we'll go to nicholas.

I I caught the tail end probably last 15 20 minutes, maybe a half hour.

I'm, not sure I didn't pay attention but um I thought you did quite well

um.

Of course i'm kind of biased because I I believe in the trinity and really his arguments didn't didn't hold

water no One one thing that that I think the unitarian people

can't grasp.

Is the fact that as humans we will never never

Uh grasp all there is to know about god.

It's impossible.

And it's beyond us.

He's the creator I mean how I i've asked people to explain the trinity

to me and nobody's ever been Able to explain it and that's why the bible says that we're supposed to walk by faith and not by sight

just trust the bible.

The trinity is is fact.

I mean it's there I mean right at the baptism of jesus.

Where's god the father?

He's in heaven.

Where's jesus?

He's in the water in jordan.

Two separate.

No, no, no, don't you know, it's ventriloquism.

Come on.

It's right out of the book of second moronicles next to the book of deuterectomy.

Yeah, right right.

By the book of second hezekiah.

Yep, that's right.

First opinions.

Yeah, I it's right.

Yeah.

I look at hebrews 1 8 and god the father is talking to god the son.

And calling the son god.

He says thy throne.

Oh god.

Right.

He's not talking to himself.

Yeah, I quoted that to him.

Yeah so, you know.

If you go with unitarian then all of a sudden you've got contradictions in the bible.

You got major problems.

So the only thing that makes sense is a trinity.

But go ahead.

I'm, sorry, no, no.

No, how about when uh, he said there's no place in the bible where god refers to himself in the plural.

Um genesis 1 26.

Let us make men in our image.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, you just you know.

Yeah.

Yeah, it was bad.

Yeah, this guy was debating and uh.

He actually said jesus was not a man.

He's only the flesh and the father was in the flesh and he wasn't really a man and

uh.

I said well, wait a minute.

Well.

Exactly.

He said christ is only flesh but jesus is the father so he is making a distinction between christ and

jesus.

But I did ask him is jesus a man repeatedly remember.

And I went to first timothy 2 5.

Uh, there's one meter between man and god the man christ jesus and he goes see christ.

Well, wait a minute don't just stop with one word it says two.

You know.

So that's remember that.

Yeah.

Yeah, and um my view of it is that um.

Well first I want to mention that otis said that um trinitarian's cherry pick.

But john chapters 14 through 17. That's four chapters.

That's not a cherry pick.

And I think that's a really huge example of trinitarianism right there.

Well said.

And I think you did um.

You are exceptionally well prepared for the topic matt and being thrown all those really weird

um semantical Tricks and stuff um really gave a chance for you to have to show off

how you had to remember.

You know, you couldn't just go by the script you had to go by all the the prep so, um.

Anything.

But the prep you've had over the course of your life years that you that you are prepared

and um yeah, so that really Showed more so than in the past when you go in.

Um knowing what you're gonna do that doesn't show as much of you having to dig around in your mind.

So I think it was quite the showcase of um, what you have learned over the years.

Oh, praise god definitely.

And then there's one more thing I was mentioning on this was that um.

Slipping my mind though, so.

Okay.

Well, i'll just chime in when I remember.

I posted that verse there deuteronomy 6 4.

Um.

Yeah, and Lord in the hebrew

is Jehovah right with all caps.

If I get that right, let me look.

And then god and he.

Is elohim?

Yes.

That's yahweh and god is.

Yeah, okay.

So.

So you've got.

The lord.

Singular if I got this, right.

Our god elohim.

Plural.

Is one lord singular.

Yeah, but you gotta be careful that argument.

Okay.

The word for face F -a -c -e in hebrew is panin panin The

I am ending.

And it's also plural, but it means one thing so you have a composite unity as a singularity.

So it may or may not work that argument, but I understand what you're saying when they when they go to to uh,

uh, they go to their.

You know, it's like lord is one actually one.

What?

That's the question and excuse me Didn't mean to

cough into the mic.

Yeah, yeah, he used the nsv esv, which I I think is Essentially a good version.

He is essentially it's good.

It's not the one paul used.

Definitely wouldn't come from the texas receptus, but anyway.

Yeah, it sounds like you're a texas receptus guy as well.

Dare mr. Dare.

I prefer dare over james.

I hope you don't mind me calling you.

That's fine.

I don't call that slick.

Maybe I should but that can sound kind of like i'm trying to be derogatory.

Hey slick.

Well, it is the way I was going.

He was pretty slick.

He did a good job.

What's that?

I said in the debate tonight.

You were pretty slick.

You did a good job.

Thanks.

Well, he made a lot of mistakes and logic and and stuff, but you see that kind of a discussion.

Uh.

To you know, if I were to say let's just say someone said, you know publisher said matt.

We want to take you to take the transcript of what he said.

We want you to write a book of responses to it.

I said great.

And then but in order to do that, there'll be certain areas.

We'd say these are the laws of logic.

This is what personhood means.

This is why it's used here.

This is his statement.

This is why these do don't work, you know, then you can do it little by little.

But it takes a lot of time to train people coincidentally this

thursday.

Here at the house.

I'll be starting a series on the trinity and my definition of the trinity.

Of the the paragraph i've been working on the trinity is about 450 words.

So i'll be going through that in depth on the doctrine of the trinity.

So if you guys are you ever want to watch it you can.

But anyway, there's a lot to it and you do need to know some watch.

You need to know some stuff.

Oh, definitely that makes a good segue to I wanted to bring up.

I came back to my mind um, I don't know if i've run this by you before when i've come on but um

I have a very simplified way of explaining Why we refer to them

as three persons the one god.

And that is that um, they have personal relationships With one another so there are three

personal relators.

And so that's what the three persons refers to is that there are three personal relators if you don't.

If you want to say they're not having personal relationship, you're defying the scriptures.

If you say they do have personal relationship then um the word persons is a

good representation.

For that because a lot of people object to it on semantic basis, right?

So what do you think of that explanation of the semantics?

Yeah, it works if you're just what you're doing is you're ferreting out an aspect of that truth and

working with it.

Absolutely.

And I just checked it's not 450.

I toned it down 308 words.

Because I saw some repetition and a little bit of stuff out there.

But anyway, yeah, that'll be here on youtube.

So, um.

If we're keeping up with your channel, we'll see it.

Yeah, I think I put it up on karm or matt slick and uh, I forgot which one I normally do stuff.

I'll probably put it up on on the matt slick youtube because I want to get some more followers in there as well.

But yeah, when I searched your name, that was the one I found and I was like i'm not finding the live stream.

So maybe it's karm.

Yeah, but by then the link came up.

So I just followed the link.

Yeah, i'll put it on the calendar.

I'll put the information up there.

I gotta get a better video feed.

I don't know what's going on lately.

It's just been so bad.

Tomorrow I meet with a guy.

Um who.

We're having fiber optics put in the area and I called up the company and they're not ready yet.

But they're having it installed and the guy called me back.

He goes.

I know who you are.

I go what he goes.

Yeah, you're mad slick.

I know who you are.

He's listening to you.

And he goes i'm here in the area.

I go to church.

I go.

Whoa, really?

He's a christian so he's gonna come over tomorrow and we're gonna talk a little bit of theology and fiber optics and hopefully then.

Eventually get this this uh this feed video feed problem going.

Or solve solve it as as a pig panther would say.

Anybody else want to come into the room?

I want to link up one more time.

Can anybody see the last week's debate I had?

I missed that.

I didn't see that.

He that's worth going into for learning the relationship between determinism.

Uh libertarianism and compatibilism in the issue of free will.

Oh nice, we've been dealing with um that topic a lot.

Um.

Myself and a couple close brothers.

One of them was kevin who was in earlier and anthony rogers is here.

Hey.

Hey, this guy knows his stuff.

Anthony is the man.

Yeah, what's happening around here?

I thank you for giving us the opportunity to relax by handling things in side chat for us.

Well, did you see the debate anthony so what happened was I was on Tony costa's channel

and I didn't realize you were debating at the same time or else I might have said to tony hey, can we for stall

this or something, but.

Uh just so happened.

We were already locked in.

So anyways, uh, I was able to come in right towards the end when you guys were talking about john eight

and no surprise there when he answered the way that he did but I and and and that I

think was a window to the rest of the debate.

What I could have expected.

I I suppose I wouldn't have expected What I heard you say about his

description of the flesh as christ and you know so forth, but uh.

For the most part, I think I can probably understand what he would have said elsewhere given how he responded to john eight.

But one thing I was going to say just because that's the one thing I saw is When jesus distinguishes

in john eight.

And when he speaks about two witnesses the requirement of the law that two witnesses are necessary to

judicially establish a matter.

His answer was in effect that the two witnesses are the father

and the flesh of christ so you have Either two natures serving as

two witnesses or you have one person and another nature.

Serving as two witnesses now, obviously, that's not what moses is talking about in the law.

Otherwise a person could say i'm two witnesses my body Testifies to one to this

and my soul or spirit testifies to this as well in which case i'm always going to be two

witnesses, which means suppose matt and I go to court and I say I'm two witnesses.

Matt's just one right?

No, of course matt would be slick enough to say no i've got a body and soul too.

But in any case there's there's even something more if you look at john eight jesus doesn't

draw a distinction between The person of the father and his humanity.

He draws a distinction between two personal subjects.

It's painfully clear throughout the context of john eight but uh, just looking at that one part.

Uh real quickly jesus said in verse 18 I Am

he personal pronouns, right?

I and he.

I am he who testifies about myself?

So now he's used three different personal pronouns, right?

First person personal pronouns in reference to himself and then he says and the father who sent

me testifies about me so the father.

And the speaker are being distinguished as two subjects not simply two natures

two personal subjects.

Right and then verse 19.

So they were saying to him.

Where is your they use a second person?

Pronoun for the son.

So they were saying to him.

Where is your father?

Jesus answered, you know, neither me personal pronoun nor my father.

If you knew me, you would know my father also, but now one other thing is.

Jesus mentioned he was not talking about his you don't know his flesh or his father.

That would be really silly, right?

Right.

So the one one other point that I was going to make is that jesus While making this distinction

between himself and the father using personal pronouns He refers to himself as the

one who was sent right verse 18.

I am he who testifies about myself and the father who sent me Testifies about me.

Anybody who's read the gospel of john knows how that term sent is being used, right?

Obviously, I mean sometimes it can be used to refer to a person who's in the world and is being sent on some particular

mission, but in the case of christ he regularly refers to his being sent as

Ascending from heaven from the father from above and so the one who's

distinguishing himself from the father Distinguishes himself from the father using personal

pronouns And by identifying himself as the one whom the father sent from above

which presupposes that the distinction Is antecedent to jesus taking on a

human nature, but he wasn't sent from heaven with a human nature he took on that nature

in the womb of his mother and so the whole attempt to Make this

text You know dance to the oneness tune just doesn't work at all.

I agree with you.

You don't want to share the screen and show you something.

Um, because you and I've had discussions about this before.

And uh, you can see this is part of my notes.

That's what I do.

So he who receives you receives me well, who's the me anyway.

Get down here.

This is one of the ones i've found to be very useful in discussing stuff with uh oneness people.

And i'll go through this and say okay, please tell me although the father gives me who's the me.

The son the father the spirit the flesh the what whatever it is I'll ask them and i'll write it in here.

That's what those extras are for and i'll do this.

And so I have them telling me what it is.

And then it just doesn't become.

It doesn't get very difficult like this guy denied anthony.

I don't know if he's you uh heard that part where he denied that jesus.

Was a man.

Mm, it's like what that threw me for a loop and there's not many things that'll do that.

It's like What?

How do you know and so uh what he had said here?

Was.

Uh, the father gives me this is jesus will come to me.

That's jesus and the one who comes to me jesus.

I jesus will certainly not cast out for I jesus Have come down from heaven now.

Wait a minute.

How could that be possible?

Because he's jesus, but he's not a man to do the will my will that's the will of the flesh he said.

We ran out of time.

But hold on.

But you can see this is very useful.

And i've been doing this.

I want to do this more and more and then I I just this is what you said.

And then he's you start bringing it against him.

Wait a minute.

So the flesh is now not this but that and it ties him up so, uh.

Actually, I think it was you anthony who uh about a year ago.

You said hey go look at john 639.

I think it was.

Huh, well I don't remember that but uh 38 You you reminded me

of something I used to do with mormons.

I used to live in las vegas and would go to utah a lot to witness to mormons at various events

and I would usually focus on the issue of polytheism and so forth or their

finite godism god's uh Exalted man that sort of thing.

And their expectation to become gods themselves.

So one of the things I used to do is I would say so wait a minute.

What's your name and they tell me their name.

And then I would pick some psalm that's praising the lord.

And I would say okay if that's true that you're going to become a god In in the same sense that god himself

became a god then someday.

You're going to have spirit offspring who eventually get their own bodies and inhabit a planet.

They're going to be saying this sort of thing about you you know, oh oh Dave, you have

searched me and known me, you know me inside.

You know, you've hemmed me in behind and before your thoughts are too wonderful for me and it was it was

always funny to watch the reaction on their faces a lot of these people would blush because As you're

saying that they just know that's not true.

Right that they're they're uncomfortable when you bring that out uh, obviously we're you know different thought world

here, but uh what you're doing I think is great because it it forces them to to

plug their thoughts into the text and I one thing I found with oneness people is.

Every one is person i've debated.

I I there was at some point in the debate where I started thinking Is this person actually oneness?

Uh, you know, maybe I didn't research this person enough because it seems like they switched positions on me mid debate.

And it's just because their thought can't possibly be systematic that they'll Jump ship.

They'll do an about face.

They'll start arguing a different thing like when this guy says things like Jesus and his

father are two witnesses and it refers to the two different natures or what have you that just sounds downright.

Nestorian, right?

Uh, and If you were to listen to somebody like david bernard, he would adamantly deny that they're

nestorians.

So more and more that there's the oneness people are are affirming historianism as it's redefined now,

right?

So, I mean, it's just.

I don't think their position is Apart from being unbiblical.

I mean, it's unbiblical, but I I don't think it's systematic and so these guys will just

You know jump from pillar to post and they don't see it.

That's one of the things that sort of amazes me is is that they can in one breath interpret

something along one trajectory and then suddenly Jump on another

trajectory that's at odds with it and not even realize that they're doing it.

And the point you're making is a really good point because If you take the scriptures and you're

systematic on the topic, you can only end up with the trinity.

That's why they're not systematic.

They would like to be if they could be.

Yeah, absolutely.

Well, one of the things i've also noticed dealing with oneness is they don't generally it's very infrequently.

They have a good understanding of what the trinity really is.

Even this guy tonight said what one god talked to another god.

It's not our position, you know, and and so he misrepresented it.

I don't think his I don't think his ability for understanding logic was very very

fine -tuned.

Let's just say.

But nevertheless, I have noticed that this happens a lot.

Is that the they don't understand the doctrine of the trinity.

They really don't know what it is.

And so, you know, it's just another thing is Obviously, we don't believe in more than one god.

So casting our view as though it were one god talking to another Is illicit,

but even if that were our doctrine Notice there that is at least coherent as a concept one

god talking to another.

What isn't coherent is one nature.

Talking to a person, you know, so the father's a person in the humanity of jesus is something Impersonal

or what have you?

Uh.

Nature's don't communicate.

They don't have fellowship.

They don't relate in that sense so you know worst case

scenario if we were polytheists, we were coherent and whatever he's got is just

incoherent, but.

Yeah, obviously.

And I don't want to just leave it there.

We obviously don't believe in multiple gods right.

If somebody wants to argue against our doctrine, then it should at least be the doctrine we hold and you know one thing I found

is Sometimes i'll find people that will accurately define the trinity.

But then when they start arguing against it, it's like they forgot the definition.

That they provided which was accurate.

I see that in jehovah's witness literature all the time.

Sometimes they'll misdefine it but sometimes they'll accurately define it so for example a a You know,

you could read in in reasoning from the scriptures with jehovah's witnesses.

It'll say that's a wonderful book.

Oh, it's great.

Yeah, yeah, but they'll say things like, you know, the trinity is belief that the one god is Uh or

subsists in three persons.

That's an accurate definition.

But then it'll say but does this make sense?

How can?

Uh, jesus speak to the father.

If this were true and i'm thinking well, wait a minute you just define the trinity as belief in three persons.

Persons talk to each other.

Why do you think there's anything inconsistent about that?

What they've done is they've moved from an accurate definition of the trinity to making an argument against

modalism.

Right, right.

So I sometimes they just misdefine things sometimes they'll define it accurately but then quietly

Shift how they're understanding the trinity when they craft their argument.

That's right.

Anthony I've been.

This occurred to me a few weeks ago.

I was thinking wait a minute if god is one person.

And he knows all things.

And I haven't worked all this out yet, but I was thinking god's all he knows all things.

He's one person then for forever.

There's no condition in which his mind does not know all things which includes

all decisions he would have made Because they're already known.

So there wouldn't be a decision that occurred in time because it's already known nor could there be contemplation about what he knows

because that contemplation would be part of the total set of all not all things known.

The implication is then that god's mind in that condition must be static.

Now doesn't necessitate that but the implication is a static mind.

I was thinking about this because in the trinitarian concept the static condition wouldn't necessarily exist.

Because there's a communion of mind and perichoresis.

But in the issue of oneness or unitarianism, there'll be a static mind condition.

This is something i've been thinking about and working on and just working through uh.

You ever heard anything like that before?

Uh, no, I haven't heard anybody say that.

I mean i'm i'm just thinking of the my thought immediately goes to as you know

usually Error begets error you got that right?

So Sometimes people will adopt an error and they might still have a lot of other

beliefs that are otherwise true.

But over time they'll realize having changed their view on this issue.

They now need to change their view on these other issues, right?

Sometimes that takes a while for people.

That's why you know, a lot of these groups eventually Morph like even jehovah's

witnesses.

I use them as an example.

They Uh early jehovah's witnesses believed it was appropriate to worship the son.

You know later jehovah's witnesses don't teach that.

They they become more consistent in their error um.

So I was just thinking, you know somebody who saw the implications that you just made.

I I would imagine what they might do which is the way of all these cults is

Deny god's omniscience or something like that.

Yeah.

Right, yeah.

Or progress.

I mean, what's it called theology?

Yeah.

Process theology process theology.

Um, and that's where like the sassanians went they recognized that rejecting the trinity.

Entailed that that they needed to reject all sorts of other things.

So they they didn't just reject god's um.

Well, they didn't just reject god's exhaustive plan with respect to the world.

They even rejected god's foreknowledge.

Right, so, uh.

They saw the implication that you know, if we try and do away with predestination But still affirm

foreknowledge.

We still have a problem on our hands.

Right.

We've got to account for how this can be A free action if god has already known it and

it's therefore that's another issue.

Yeah.

How did god.

How does god know what he knows?

That's a interesting discussion.

I'll tell you something interesting that I haven't had time to really sit back and reflect on but

You know, we we often will make.

Reference to genesis 1 26 where god speaks in the plural prior to the creation of man.

God says let us make man in our image according to our likeness.

And at that point we say here we have already in genesis.

A foreshadowing of the fuller revelation of the doctrine of the trinity.

But what's interesting is in some fathers.

They actually see the fact that god spoke long before 126 as

itself indicative of a plurality of persons.

So so and I don't think they're necessarily reflecting on the sort of thing you and I might like,

uh, uh.

You know a solitary being speaking.

Doesn't even make sense.

It doesn't enter into the picture.

Speaking is a means of communication, right?

It uh, and so it presupposes a plurality of subjects.

But if I would push back that he's speaking things into existence and so it's the into existence

is still a purpose to speak.

In fact, are we even talking about quote a voice as in physical vibrations?

Or is it the fact that he is willing things into existence?

There's his speaking.

Which is analogous to the word become flesh Genesis 1 john 1.

Yeah, it's all there because it's those are the words he chose for that reason.

What I was getting to though is the some fathers reflected on.

So you in in genesis what you have is it says god said followed by whatever he

said.

And then it's followed with and it was so or it became.

This is actually the point.

This is what john is picking up on in john 1.

When john says in the beginning was the word the word was with god.

The word was god.

He uses the imperfect tense the word was right meaning He already was he didn't come into being

but then he goes on to say all things.

And literally in the greek became through him and without him not one thing became that has

become.

So there's a pointed contrast between the word that was and everything else that became.

So when you look at genesis god speaks and then it says and it became Right.

So there's this speech Becoming thing taking place all throughout the chapter.

So what some fathers of the church said uh is You know

The way they're understanding it and i'm just saying i'm just throwing this out there it's not something I really sat back and thought a lot

about but Already in this what they're seeing Is

who you know, who's god speaking to and the idea is that god is speaking and somebody's

performing the action.

Uh, so i'm just throwing that out there.

Uh, because I I thought it was an interesting thought.

Certainly at 126 god is speaking to someone right the lord, you know said god

said let us make man our image.

Earlier would you say god is speaking and then someone's doing the action.

Quoting this concept from um, the church Fathers i'm.

Like, what do I usually call them?

I don't remember now.

Well, sometimes I might refer to them as the church children because.

There's a lot of value in the fathers, but they're also limited and in many ways.

I think their understanding is Is quite imperfect.

We have much better tools the other day.

We're building on their shoulders.

So the church matures.

Yeah, so in some sense, they're church children.

But there's there's some value in the father.

But you were saying that He speaks and someone does the action but if the statement

is the lord jesus Then the words themselves the word

himself is doing the action the speaking himself is doing the action then.

Yeah, I don't think so.

It's interesting.

Um Genesis doesn't actually use the I've heard some unitarians.

They'll say uh that jesus is just They they take

word in the sense of an utterance.

And and then sort of further say well, it's like his plan or his thought.

And then they'll say when the word becomes flesh It means that his plan.

Is brought to fruition?

The exact etymology of that is it's like a set forth mint.

So that's why I use the word statement to translate lagos because it means something that's spoken and you're

stating something into place.

So it makes for a perfect translation.

And so it's something is being set forth.

So it's not merely a thought.

I think that's an etymologic fallacy that people do because logic comes from the word lagos, but I don't think

it's appropriate.

Yeah, the point that i'm driving at is that Genesis one doesn't actually use the

phrase word.

Not the hebrew form dabar.

Or anything else.

It's it says god said.

And if you look at the targums, which I think has more to do with where

john's getting the language from You you do have in the hebrew text numerous places where it

ascribes personal action to god's word to his dabar.

Right.

So for example Genesis 15 says the word of the lord appeared to abraham

and said.

I mean, that's that's significant.

It's it's not.

Though it's not saying that abraham heard the word.

The word is singular.

Abraham heard a plurality here many words.

But it's the word that appeared and spoke To abraham.

Right the word of the lord appeared to abram and said.

So the the subject performing the action of the verb is the word.

And then later it says he took him outside.

So the word takes abraham outside.

Well.

In in genesis, it doesn't actually use that phrase but the targums.

Pick up on this language found elsewhere.

I have to ask what that is.

I'm not familiar with the targums.

Oh, oh, sorry.

Um, so the the targums Were aramaic.

Interpretations of The hebrew bible.

So when the jews were taken into babylon, they came to speak aramaic.

And later when they came back to israel.

I just have to ask are you choosing the word carefully interpretation instead of translation deliberately?

Well, yeah, because they were a little loose in their rendering.

So what would happen is in the synagogue.

A reader would stand up and would read a portion of the torah or a portion of the prophets.

And then he would translate it into aramaic.

And usually it went beyond translation.

He he would explain it to some degree.

He wasn't necessarily the uh person giving the the the sermon or whatever.

But in the very act of sort of conveying what he had just read in hebrew.

He would often uh explain things and so it's

sometimes it's it's just a translation, but it It it differs from

verse to verse sometimes it expands on things and interprets them.

Uh, and so it's it's kind of like a translation at points and a paraphrase at points and and that sort of thing.

Well, the targums use the phrase memra which is the aramaic equivalent of debar for word.

And all over the place the the phrase memra appears.

So for example uh, if you Look at genesis 16 where the

angel of the lord appeared to hagar uh at the verse 14 or 13, it says,

uh.

She gave this name to the lord who spoke to her.

You are the god who sees me.

That's how the hebrew text reads.

The targum says she gave this name to the memra of the lord who spoke to her.

To the word of the lord who spoke to her so the targums basically take every theophanic

appearance of god.

And identify that appearance as the word.

So here's the here's the point now with respect to genesis genesis

in the targums ascribes the speech the utterance to the

word.

So the word is not what was spoken.

The word is the one who spoke.

Or alternatively in some cases the word is the one who performed the action expressed by the words.

So sometimes it'll say the lord said and then it'll say the memra did.

So there there's this interesting thing going on there.

Um, and you know, whatever you make of some of that it does show at the very least.

These jews are reflecting a belief in a plurality of persons.

And so when john comes along in in john 1 -1 and he uses this word.

It wasn't he didn't pick it up from the greeks.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah, i've i've been trying to correct people on that, but I haven't known really enough about it.

So this is rather helpful.

Yeah, I mean it it's not like it wouldn't have been.

And uh, you know, it would have caught the the attention of the greek because they used the term logos, but

He didn't derive his understanding of it from the greeks, but from the old testament.

I'll give you one other example real quick, uh that john was familiar with the targums.

John there's actually a great book, uh written by um

gosh, well, it's called Uh the johannine logos or john's logos theology

and it's written by Uh, i'm gonna have to think of the guy's name.

Oh, uh, john ronning.

John ronning is his name.

Um and he shows that.

There are a number of expressions that john uses that are only found in the targums.

So it's something that every jew would have been familiar with from going to synagogue and.

So as an example when john says in revelation 1 4 when he refers to god as him who is

and who was and who is to come.

That's how the targum renders God's I am declaration.

When god says see now that I am.

There's no god besides me in deuteronomy 32 39.

That's interpreted as meaning the one who is and who was and who is to come.

And so john is taking that phraseology right out of the targums.

So it doesn't just doesn't ask you for a detailed point.

Is it is it exactly who is to come or is it more exactly who is going to be?

Well, it would be so in the targums he is and who was uh or

like sometimes it's.

It's cut off.

Like it's just he who is and who was uh, or it's he who is and who was and who will be.

Okay, right.

So there is a bit of a variation.

I'm just I study the greek really closely.

So I just um, Oh, are you exactly wait, you're so you're asking in revelation.

Um, well I could check that for myself so it's more um asking.

About the targum.

Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

So one other thing real quick not to steal matt's show.

I'll make this my last comment um.

When uh giving him a chance to be a good host.

Um.

I'm trying to uh I I kind of forgot my point now, but uh, I guess that's that's

for the better.

Oh, it must not have been very important or very.

No, that's not I think.

I know what it was.

One of my uh, so if you look at targum neophyte, so there are different targums on the torah.

Targum neophyte is One targum, so you had targums that were made by jews in babylon

targums that were made by jews in palestine and so you have the palestinian or jerusalem targum

you have.

Uh the targum of oncolos, which is a babylonian version and you have targum neophyte.

And in targum neophyte when it interprets genesis 1 26 it's

God is speaking to his word And to his shekhanah his his

glory and this is really fascinating because.

So it interprets the us and our there as a reference to the lord to

his word And to his glory his shekhanah.

And then when you go to genesis 2 1 Immediately following that It says when they

completed the heavens and the earth.

Right.

That's how it continues.

So the the the lord his word and his shekhanah Are not only called us an hour

in the hebrew text according to the targums.

But they add they When they completed the heavens and the earth referring back to the lord

his word and his shekhanah.

Yeah, so then um that shows that um the trinity

um Fits well with um, what may be expected.

Yeah then um so

There was one thing that I wanted to mention from quite a bit earlier.

That's with the matter of um one god.

I like to really simplify things.

So I told matt earlier.

Um, I ran it by him.

Um I when people object to the semantics of the word persons I refer to the

personal relationship and then there's Personal relators and i'll usually start with the father

and the son because that personal relationship is so obvious.

So then if you're going to agree that they have personal relationships the personal relators.

Then you should not object to the word persons because that's what it's referring to and signifying.

And um with one god it's not like One of them.

Is you know the god?

You know, there's different gods like the god of the harvest god of war this and that.

They're one god and that they're all the one only true god of truth or the

one only self -existent god so that's a way to explain, um three

persons and one god and Keep it pretty simple.

And I think I can um that those simplicities.

Put people in a place where they can't really dodge it so easily you know like you can

in a You can kind of make it look like you can dodge it when you get into a deep philosophical debate.

Yeah, I mean for me I I don't mind to some extent getting

into philosophical waters but I do think People need to

face hard facts.

Christianity is a religion of divine revelation.

And whatever we might think we can figure out philosophically you can't determine what the bible says

philosophically meaning.

It's not like I can sit here and determine what this book means over here on my shelf simply by philosophizing.

Right the way I know what this book is saying is by looking at the book.

Right reading the book and and applying sound rules to it.

And so if somebody wants to say they're christian.

What they need to do is show that their position comports with scripture.

And so my goal in every debate is usually say what does the bible say?

If you want to talk later about philosophical stuff, i'm happy to do that.

I actually think that all anti -trinitarian thought looks hopelessly foolish and false

philosophically but my ultimate conviction is based on what the bible says and

I don't have any right to determine what christianity is.

Merely by autonomous speculation.

That just doesn't make any sense and You know one way I like to bring this

out to people though to see the necessity of it is um You know plato just to be philosophical

for a moment.

He told us the his allegory of the cave yeah, you remember where the maybe you've heard this where the.

Uh, you have people that are in a cave and they're kind of chained and they're facing this wall.

Yeah fire behind them and they're seeing shadows on the wall.

Well, I like someone came and told them the truth.

They'd kill him.

I can't help but be reminded of the lord.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well the way I like to represent it is like this.

Um, turn it around a little bit just make my own illustration out of it, but.

Imagine these people are chained to this wall.

They're not necessarily facing it, but they're chained to this wall.

And let's just say they're prisoners.

I guess i'm completely reworking his a little allegory, but uh the warden comes

who's responsible for Watching them and and so forth.

And imagine.

One of the prisoners trying to reach out and strike the warden, but he can't because he's chained to the wall.

Now imagine them all standing around saying well, therefore the warden can't reach out and strike us.

Right that that wouldn't make any sense just because we don't have the means to as those chained to the wall.

Make contact with the warden doesn't mean he can't make contact with us anytime.

He pleases.

And and that in effect is how scripture sets things up.

Scripture says that no jesus in matthew 11 says.

Nobody knows the son except the father.

And nobody knows the father except the son and Those to whom the son chooses

to reveal him.

So revelation is a matter of Divine initiative divine prerogative.

If god did not want to make himself known then nobody would know him.

The fact that we know him is all because of his voluntary self -condescension his self -revelation.

And that means we are utterly dependent on his choice to do this.

We don't know him.

We don't have the ability to know him.

It's all a matter of divine initiative.

And so glad you're saying this because i've been dealing with the deep soteriology and god

sovereignty and how people um Struggle with those matters.

And yeah.

If it's all a matter of divine revelation then in order to be persuaded of the gospel and believe it and know the father

It must be on the divine revealer.

And not on Us in that way because we're saved by belief.

Yeah, and none of this is to suggest that.

This is irrational that that's not my point.

Uh.

In fact, I think.

The way this is set up is it makes divine revelation?

The very paradigm of rationality.

Uh, this becomes then the criteria by which we you

know, not only know god, but everything else in light of him and.

But but anyways sticking with this this point really is uh.

We know who god is because the the one who knows who god is has told us about him.

Only he knows himself and knows himself.

Another thing that might bring this out for people is think about it this way.

The more you know about something could fundamentally change what you thought you knew about it.

So if I if I set up a scenario if I say imagine you open a door.

And you you look in this room and you see two men holding down a younger boy.

And you know one man's holding him down and the other man is shoving a sharp object into him.

You might recoil at this and think oh, this is horrible.

Okay.

Now suppose I add detail to it and I tell you.

One man is a doctor the other man is the boy's father.

Okay, the boy has just been bit by a venomous snake needs a serum, but he's definitely afraid of

needles.

Okay, so the father's holding his son down and the doctor's applying the remedy.

Okay.

Now i've introduced details into this that completely changes your assessment of it.

One of the things that this entails is that.

You can't know this thing truly without sufficient detail.

And so more detail could possibly alter what you had previously thought you knew.

Who's the only one in all of existence?

For whom that is not a possibility.

You know for us there's always another detail another fact around the corner that we don't know.

There's only one being in all of existence.

Who's never going to encounter a fact?

He didn't know anything about that.

He now needs to incorporate into his thoughts and and and determine.

You know what these things mean now in light of this it's god.

Right, which means if he reveals something to us.

We can be certain that there are no other factors that could possibly come

along later.

That will render that false because the one to whom nothing is a mystery has told it to us

and so uh.

You know and I hear people making objections to the trinity and this kind of thing i'm thinking number one.

You don't understand the fundamental Basis upon which we claim to know anything about god, which

is his revelation number two.

You don't understand the implications guys.

Yeah I need to get going.

Well, thanks for coming on the show matt, I want to thank you for for being here.

One moment to share with anthony and anyone else who happened to come up later.

Um the quick thing I gave you at the beginning matt that um Otis said that christ is

only Flesh, but christ himself said the flesh profits.

Nothing.

So yeah, I like that saying christ profits.

Nothing.

Yeah, I like that.

I did hear you say that before I came on.

So, oh nice.

Thanks matt for letting me ramble.

All right i'm actually thinking about calling you and and uh.

We do some uh discussions so I can do them on patreon and we just pick some topics and go.

I'm going with some other people right now and.

And uh, just do do some stuff.

Yeah any time you got my number.

I want you to go.

I want to encourage everyone to just trust messiah.

That's right.

Amen, crucified christ.

All right, brothers.

Got company got to go.

We'll see you.

Nice talking to you and uh, thanks for watching the debate.

All right.

God bless.

See you anthony.