In Daniel 7, the 'Son of Man' and the 'Ancient of Days' are two distinct divine beings, where the Ancient of Days (Yahweh) possesses the divine name by identity, while the Son of Man receives dominion, glory, and kingship from the Ancient of Days, indicating they are separate entities rather than the same being.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Metaphysics Mike's Debate Review part 2Added:
[music] [music] Hello everyone. Welcome back for another video of metaphysics might debate review. Uh debate review. Once again, long day of work and I can't talk very well. [laughter] >> Yeah.
>> So, welcome back, Mr. Will Walk. Mr. Will Walker Tools Apologetics is with me. Want to say hi to everyone?
>> Yeah. What's up, everyone? Super excited. Uh, well, I don't know. It's it's um it's it's going to be a long episode.
It's going to be a boring episode. But it's it's going to be a uh you know for for a lawyer to have such a low vocabulary. Um it's just kind of you know sad, but yeah, I'm ready to get into it.
>> Okay. Well, I wouldn't say it's going to be boring, but here it goes. [laughter] >> 15 minutes straight.
>> I'll start the timer as soon as you start your question.
>> Sure. Mike, why do you want to take the position of the rabbis 200 years after the Christians that worked against the church?
So, I'm actually not taking their position. I take the earlier position that there are two powers in a sense. I just clearly acknowledge that in my rebuttal, Alex.
>> Okay. Which two powers?
>> I told you like the son of man and the ancient of days.
>> Is it like the Enoch two powers or like what? Because the the son of man in Daniel 7 is clearly a divine being.
>> Yeah. So listen, I think that the two power >> how how see and that's one of the annoying things too is like how is how is it clearly the one here is a divine being, right? Like I'm I'm just going to pull this up. There we go. Okay. So that's Dan that's Daniel 7. Let me shrink this a bit. Okay. So yeah, cuz we see this cuz specifically in verse 9, right? It's as I watched thrones plural thrones, right, were set in place and an ancient one took his throne, right? Uh his clothing was white as snow and the hair of his head was like pure wool. His throne was fiery flames and its wheels were burning fire. uh a stream of fire um issued flow out from his presence and thousands a thousand thousands served him and tens times ten thousands stood attending him. The court sat in judgment and books were open. Okay. So um and that that court said in judgment that that that's a cool um you you can tie that into like the um the uh divine council that Dr. Michael Heiser really holds to, right? But then you go down starting in verse 13. As I watched in the night uh visions, I saw one like a human being human being. Other translations will say son of man. I am reading from the um if anyone's curious from the nrsvue.
This is kind of like the the new translation that a lot of scholars have really kind of went behind. Right. So I saw one like a human being coming for with the clouds of heaven and he came to the ancient one and he presented himself he and was presented before him to him was given dominion and glory and kingship that all peoples, nations, languages shall serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed. How in any way, shape or form is this a a divine one? like how how is this divine in in in any way, shape or form, right? It talks about a man that is approaching the ancient of days. Okay?
And then the ancient of days is basically bestowing upon him everything that that Jesus received and and we see this within the gospels. So how like you know he's just assuming, right? I I wish Mike kind of checked him on that, you know. Um, but this is hard because Mike can't ask a question during during this cross exam. But I would have um um said straight up to him, I would have just interrupted him and said, "He's not divine in Daniel chapter 7." Because as we see in 13 and 14, like where how he's given something, right? So if he's divine or God in any way, shape, or form, he shouldn't have had to been given something because to be given something, right? So in verse 14, to him was given dominion. He was given glory.
He was given kingship that all nations and peoples and languages should serve him. Okay? So his dominion, glory, kingship, boom, trinity three right there. But he obviously didn't have the a dominion, right? He might have had some sort of dominion, but this dominion that was given to him, he didn't have it at one time. He didn't have this glory at one time. He didn't have this kingship at one time. He was given to him. Okay. But we see this happen all the time. We see this with pagan kings like Cyrus and Isaiah who who were lifted up and raised up. We even see this with Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel, you know, in chapters uh uh two about uh uh excuse me, chapter three of the great tree that was cut down but to put a band around the stump so that the dominion will continue. Right? And we've seen this with David. We've seen this with Solomon. We've seen this with Jesus. So God the Father, he can give a dominion, a power and authority to whoever. Romans 15 even lays that out that those governing bodies that are over us, we should listen to them. Why?
Because God has put them in in that place of power and of authority. So, but we're not going to say Donald Trump. Oh, I know some people might some people might say Donald Trump is like divine or whatever, but I know I know I know there are there are some nut cases out there, but no one's going to say that Solomon was divine. No one's going to say that Cyrus was divine, right? Or even Alexander the Great or any other of the the people that God has raised up and allowed to rule the world.
But whenever it's about Jesus, it's it's these presupposition ideas and it's just so disingenuous. You don't see this in the text. That's just what I wanted to point out.
>> Yeah. I'll be honest. Um, listening to this debate, I was surprised. I didn't know. And maybe I misunderstand Mike. It almost seems as if Mike believes two powers in heaven. But I don't >> no bec I I I don't like how Mike phrased it. I'll be honest with you. I don't like how he phrased it where he said that he believes in like a a type but he but he did explain it. Um see I can't remember if he explains it like in his cross exam or if he explained it earlier but there's the son of man right and then there's the ancient of days. All right. So those are two two separate individuals and the son of the ancient of days as we know is God and he he already has power and authority, right?
So he has power, right? And to him the son of man is given dominion, glory and kingship. I would say that is a power.
So there are two powers and where is this taking place? In heaven, right? So Mike is reading it like I like how I would say I am a trinity. I I I I believe in the trinity because I believe in the tri unity, right? But to to say you believe in two powers, you're you're flirting with binitarianism or Jesus being God in some way, shape, or form. So I get where Mike's saying. I I would have framed it I would have framed it differently.
>> Well, it isn't just here. It's just as it goes on. Now, I know seems like he believes in pre-existence and it kind of mixes in there.
>> Yeah, it threw me off a little bit. But >> regarding him trying to say that this is a divine person, he's trying to conflate the fact that God rides on clouds. Jesus rides on clouds. Jesus must be God. But what they don't realize, and if I'm I'm pretty sure that God rides on the clouds to Egypt, not to the ancient of days.
>> Yeah. So yeah, there you got two different sceneries, not even the same scenery just cuz someone rides a cloud.
You know that that's one thing that he's trying to conflate. And here's another thing. You're absolutely right. God does not need to give an ever be given an everlasting kingdom dominion.
He He's the most high for a reason. He's he's the supreme king of the universe.
But a trinitarian will push back. And I've had them do it to me. 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the son gives the kingdom to the father. And I even hear Unitarians say that. But the text doesn't say the son gives the kingdom to God.
>> You know, it's he delivers it up. And if you continue reading that context, what happens is the father subdues everything to the son. Then the son subjects himself to the father. So all powers and authorities is put under the son. Then he subjects himself to the father so the father would rule through him and the kingdoms on the earth. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> So that's it. Let's uh go ahead and continue here. Um see where how how long we'll make it before our first uh well what do you think about that real quick?
The very first question he asked. So why do you take the side of rabbitical Judaism?
>> That was a complete Yeah. from from and and specifically of the second century.
That was a complete straw man. That was a complete straw man. Mike Mike does not nor do any of us. Um you know there there was a video I did with Pastor Will Barlo um where uh this guy was basically talking crap about biblical unarians.
He's like, "Yeah, they don't want to follow the church followers. They just want to go back to the original teaching." And it's like, well, yeah, you're going to go back to the original teaching. When you read Acts 15, you see that the Gentiles had to follow these laws, which is, I believe, present in Leviticus 17 and chapter 18, which would allow a Gentile to go and fellowship with a Jew in the synagogues, but they're going to the synagogues to hear the law of Moses being read to them.
Okay? So, they're they're they're still following the same exact thing and they're doing the same exact thing as the Jews back then, right? But what what Alex is trying to do right here is he's trying to strategically make Mike look like the bad guy because again he's a lawyer. He's trying to defend his case and he's trying to make Mike look like the evil person who spitting on Jesus and blah blah blah. Um but it it was a it was a complete straw, man. And Mike Mike did a good job kind of like well no I'm I go back actually farther. I go back to the same teaching and the same type of worship that Jesus also participated in. And so did the early apostles.
this whole thing of like orthodoxy I'm sorry to say but this is developed way later you know and then it's it's even funny too because even even from them I believe it's in the 600s there was a schism between them and the them and the Coptics Coptic Orthodox and so so they schism and then between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism known as the great schism took place in the 10th century you know but so they still claim to have all the original you know so they they still don't agree they didn't agree agree back then. They didn't agree at the ecumenical councils. There's no such thing as the true church. There's a bunch of bull. And um for for you to go back, you're going to go back to rabbitic Judaism. You're you're going to go back to this, you know. So um yes, now you know they they don't reject Jesus. But I mean I it's I don't blame Jews for rejecting Jesus. I mean, imagine going to someone saying like, "Hey, this idea that you've been taught your entire life, even from your ancestors, it's actually completely wrong. God's actually a trinity. You don't know the one true God." And it's just like, "The Messiah is also God."
Like, wait, what?
Like, like that's your idea of who Jesus is? Yeah. Oh, you know what? I can't accept that. And you can't you can't blame them. You you you can't blame them. The the Bible does not teach this.
And it has gone for so long because they ruled out of fear. They ruled out of excommunication. They ruled out of, you know, unaliving people. Um, but now that we're, you know, we're in the year 2026, we can have these open discussions and debates without the fear of someone dying or whatever, >> right? So, so we we can just we can we can speak our mind. We we can bring up the verses. We can look at the Greek.
And and that's also another thing, too.
The Bible is accessible to everyone, not just the Bible. the interlinears, the lexicons, scholars are online where you can find one on Facebook and message them. Hey man, I have a question about this.
They'll most likely get back to you.
Right. So, we're living in an a we're very blessed to be living in this age where this knowledge is so abundant, you know. Um Yes.
>> But yeah, so so so their tactics just don't work anymore.
>> Yeah. So, um, what the first thing you said, I forget exactly what you said about how he, uh, opened with a straw man to discredit Mike or whatever.
>> He had to make it look like the bad guy.
>> When I walked away yesterday after our review and I thought about it like that half of his rebuttal that that I said I think he wrote.
>> Mhm.
>> That's poisoning the well. And as a matter of fact, that's what he just did right now. He's automat the first thing he wants to do is poison the well and paint Mike as the bad guy and then he's going to go into his actual straw man questions so on and so on. Yeah. So >> yeah, >> let's let's push forward.
>> Controversy does prove that some ancient Jews had a highly exalted second figure traditions, right?
>> Okay. So So do you believe in two powers in heaven or one power in heaven?
Because I I still don't know what your view is. Okay. So there is one ultimate power that's the father, right? But he can delegate his power and authority to others. He's always done this with prophets, priests, angels. This is not weird that listen, I agree with you.
Please hear me that they ended up rejecting just this even as an ideology later in response to uh Christian Christianity spreading. That's true. The only thing I'm rejecting is that they were co-equal, co-eternal in that paradigm.
>> Okay? So, in Daniel 7, when it says that the son of man is riding on the clouds, and that that terminology is used expressly for Yahweh in earlier verses, for example, in the Psalms, and I believe it's in Deuteronomy. If if you don't believe me, I can pull up the citation, but I think this is like pretty uncontroversial.
>> Yeah.
>> How many How many Yahwees is that?
>> Okay. So well the son of man is not the ancient of days. Okay. The ancient of days is the one who possesses the divine name by identity. So again what you've done is you've taken a metaphor.
>> I'm not my question is not what I've done. I've asked you a question. How many Yahwehs are there? If the son of man is riding on the clouds that's what Yahweh does. Is the son of man Yahweh?
>> Yeah that's what I'm trying to answer right now. Alex your answer is not going to start with what you've done. Alex, your answer is going to be my position is so go ahead.
>> Okay.
>> Your position is >> All right. I Well, I'm going to tell you my position. What I'm doing is pointing out your assuming that just because the son of man can be described with this language, he must be Yahweh.
>> A question is literally the opposite of assuming. I'm asking you a question. The son of man is riding on the clouds.
Yahweh is also riding on the clouds. I see you're getting a little jittery over there. Uh Yahweh is also riding on the clouds. The ancient of days is Yahweh.
Is the son of man also Yahweh? I don't know how many times I have to ask you this question.
>> Okay, so I already answered you, Alex. I said that no.
Yahweh refers to the ancient of days.
Okay. The son of man can be said to come on the clouds because he represents and comes in the authority that Yahweh gives him.
>> He just has Yahweh's name. He's not Yahweh.
>> Correct. Correct. Just like the Let me let me ask. No. No. You don't ask questions. This is my cross.
>> Not in the cross exam.
>> You'll get 15 minutes to go straight.
>> Excuse me. Excuse me. That's That's correct. You'll be able to interrupt his responses, too, just so you know.
>> Yeah. No, I would just He should let me be able to answer in full. That And that's fair. Sorry, Alex.
>> Well, then you have questions. If you're going to answer in a way that is attacking me and not answering the question, I'm going to object and I'm going to interrupt. That's how cross examin Let me just say this. Let me just say this real quick.
I actually disagree with Mike when when when Mike mentioned earlier, I I I didn't want to hit pause just because I just what I want to hear play out, but when Mike says that like they rejected this idea because of Christianity, I I it's not that they rejected I I would disagree with Mike on that that they rejected this two powers in heaven because it lined too closely with with Christianity. I would disagree with that. Um there were a lot of different heresies. there are a lot of different ideas that that were going around like yes you you can you can draw a a similarity there but that's not you know it's not that the Jews are are saying that now Rashi when Rashi wrote his commentary especially for Isaiah 53 Rashi did make his commentary as a response to the Christians we see this with Rashi but it's again it's only with Rashi only with Rash's commentary do we see this this whole idea of two powers in heaven. This is not like a uh the Jews are like, "Oh crap, we have to um deem this idea as heresy because it aligns too much with Christianity." We we really don't see that. So, I would disagree with Mike there, but like we we we can see this going on right here. Alex is what Alex is doing right here. And I wish Mike would just literally call him out. Um, but call him out and say that there is that that's an equivocation fallacy, right? To Yes. If and I look, I get where Alex comes from because I feel like a lot of people would would bring something like this up where I believe it's in the Psalms. Um, Alex also said Psalms and he also said Deuteronomy. I'm I'm not familiar with the one with Deuteronomy, but there's a verse in the Psalms. I forgot which one. It does say that Yahweh rides on the clouds. Like we will see Yahweh coming on the clouds.
But this is just language that Yahweh is is going to do something. But we we know based off of Yahweh, he's most likely going to send an agent to to go off and do it for him, right? That's what Jesus is. Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus an apostle all through I I hold on Jesse. I think it's like 25 times where in in in the gospel of John where Jesus says I have been sent right by the father. Okay. So so agency is clearly there. Um there's other examples too of you know Yahweh says that he will hold the staff in a straight river. It was actually Aaron um in Deuteronomy where Yahweh says I will go before you before your enemies and destroy them. I will cross N river and destroy your enemies. But then it was Joshua who did it. Um the Ezekiel 34 where Yahweh will shepherd his people but then then it's David. Right? So we have many examples of Yahweh himself saying that he specifically will do something but it's a human agent. Even with the whole popular thing of Isaiah 43:11 where besides me there's no savior. Yet I have found over 20 examples of another human being called a savior. Right? So when God says besides me there's no savior, what is he actually saying? He's not saying that nobody else can be called a savior and no one else can be a savior.
He's saying is no salvation can come to you unless I allow it if it comes from me. Okay, that's what he's actually saying here. And it's the same way of if my child's in a burning building and a firefighter runs up, grabs my child, and he gives it to me here, Will, I'm like, "Oh, thank God."
I'm saying thank God to the firefighter.
Am I calling the firefighter God? You know, of everybody would say no. But when they call Jesus God, oh my Lord and my Savior, John 20:28, oh well, he he said it to him, so he's acknowledging that he's Yahweh. No, stop it. It's the exact same way. This is just a giant equivocation fallacy. Um, and Alex is not letting Mike explain his case to him. And as you guys can see already, Alex is already trying to control the narrative. He's trying to piss off Mike.
He's really He's trying his best to get under Mike's skin. And I feel like Alex has done his research on Mike. Mike knows what he's talking about. So, I feel like Alex's strategy with this was literally to I got to get under this guy's skin. I got to piss him off. I got to throw him off. I got to do something, right? Because everyone You can't just talk to Mike. You can't just have a normal conversation with Mike because Mike will bury you, right? So, hey, no one's else tried to no one else I've seen tried to piss Mike off by calling him names, stuff like this. So, by him interrupting him and talking down to him, you know, trying to explain to Mike how a debate works. He's belittling him.
He's trying to get under his skin. Um, and then he's like, "Ah, I I see you're getting you're what did he say? You're getting fidgety over there." These are all just debate tactics that Alex is doing. Alex is not allowing Mike to answer any of the questions.
So yeah, that's and this is going to be a very ongoing thing.
>> So his first question was poisoning the well. His second question was actually loaded. Listen what he did. He said here you got Yahweh riding the clouds, Jesus riding the clouds. So how many Yahwehs are here?
>> Mhm.
>> He snuck the premise that both are Yahweh's. And he's asking you, it's it's loaded. You say there's one Yahweh.
Jesus is Yahweh. He's the same Yahweh.
You say there's two Yahwehs. You can see Jesus is Yahweh. It's a loaded question.
I would have never asked I would have clarified here where when he's going to Egypt or when the son of man is coming cuz Yahweh sitting on the throne. He's the ancient of days.
This son of man isn't him, >> you know. But um yeah, that so far we caught him in two fallacies. Let's see how many more. And I'm sure there are more. Well, real quick too and everyone listening, listen to what Jesse just said, too. And that's that is also a thing that you need to do when you're just being pounded. Ask a clarifying question.
Ask a clarifying question. Ask Alex what verse is he pulling this up from? So we can look at it and read the entire thing in context. All right. You during this part, you're not allowed to ask questions, but you can ask a clarifying question, right? Because like too many things like Alex just said earlier of, "Oh, we can clearly see he's divine." I would have I would have said, "Well, Alex, I have the NRSVU opened right here on my second monitor, and I don't see any instance on here that would indicate to me that this human being would be divine in any way, shape, or form. Could you possibly elaborate on what you mean by that this person is divine?" Right. Push it back to Alex. That that is a great perfect debate strategy. Yep.
>> To get the information that I want. So, you said that the ancient of days is Yahweh. You said the son of man is named Yahweh. How is that not to Yahweh's?
>> I'm literally telling you just like the angel just like the angel of the Lord when Yahweh says my name is in him.
Okay? The him and my are not the same being. They're two different beings. So, you're presupposing they must be.
They're not. Yahweh can put his name.
supposing actually what do you make of the fact that with the mera theology which you tend to not apply because it seems inconvenient to you and the the uh uh examination by Pho of uh the example of Hagar seeing Yahweh and identifying that angel of Yahweh as a power of Yahweh. Why do you ignore those things and just go to this like agent theory?
Okay. So, listen, I'm not ignoring them.
And what you pointed out is actually a misconstring of Pho. He primarily views the logos as a divine attribute, like a cosmic blueprint.
>> He calls it duderos theos and there you go cutting me off again.
You don't want an answer.
>> I'm allowed to do that.
>> Yeah, but you don't. All right. You don't want an answer >> because you said something wrong. Isn't that true? No, I didn't.
>> Isn't it true that Flo calls it dudero?
Yeah, I'm not denying the gods, dude.
[laughter] I hear you. I hear you.
Finally, >> pause right there. Right there. I I would have literally, if I was Mike, I would have said, "Hey, you know what?
Congratulations, everyone. Alex Saurin is not a trinitarian. He's a polytheist." Thanks for burying yourself, Alex. I would have brought that up because because he does this multiple times. He keeps bringing up this the what Pho said about the dudos.
Sure, that doesn't help your case, dude.
You're identifying two gods. Like when people bring up Justin Martyr to Tulian, they believe that there was a big god Yahweh and a little god Jesus or the word the logos, right? That that's two gods. That's polytheism. It's not this idea of like, well, there's one God and there's two persons within it. That's polytheism.
Boom. Right there. If I if I was Mike, I would have said, uh, hey, thanks so much for conceding your point that, Alex, you are a undercover polytheist. Same with every other trinitarian out there. Like when wisdom calls us polytheists, right?
Boom, Alex. And along with every eternitarian that you're representing, you are the true polytheists.
>> Yeah.
All right.
Is great intertestamental Jewish literature to read. I'm just pointing out >> not for you because you put him to the side. It see >> really? Okay. Because he's an example of wisdom, word Christologology that John actually draws from. I agree that John He also, as I showed in my opening, identifies the logos as the angel of the Lord that you see throughout the Old Testament. The one that you're saying Yahweh put his name in. By the way, how many other uh uh instances do you see the term that Yahweh's name is put in the angel in his very being? Like I think >> what's he mean by put in?
>> He he's referring to the name where my like my name is in him. I I believe I believe that that's kind of what he's alluding to where >> what does he mean by put in from outside.
>> Oh yeah.
>> Y's name isn't intrinsic to the angel of the Lord. [snorts] >> Yeah.
>> The Hebrew translates literally like to in his guts like it like in how many other places that term used? At first I thought he said in his nuts and I'm [laughter] just like I I'm like like for one like why are we using childish language like this, right? But and but then but then I was with Sean and Sean's like no Will he said he said guts. I'm like okay okay I mean like cuz like why don't you say groins or something right? But it's still not really. So it's it's it says that that it's in his bosom, right? So like like how he's holding how you would hold a baby like like to your chest to your to your bosom, right? Guts. It's more like in your in your stomach or whatever.
Like it's not I mean that's not what the Hebrew says. The Hebrew doesn't say like in your in your stomach. It's it's in your bosom, in your chest, how your how you would hold a baby. That's really the precise uh the preciseness right there. But yeah.
>> Yeah.
Yeah, not many. But it doesn't take it.
It's not true or false. There you go cutting me off. No host, you got to let him let me answer.
>> You have no he has got to let me on him how he runs his crossexamination. Uh, >> so, so he can ask questions but not let me.
>> I need a moderator like that for my yes or no questions >> because you shouldn't have to expand on yes or no questions when it says, "Does John 5:26 say the father gave the son life?" It's yes or no. You don't have to give me a lecture about Jesus also gives life in John 10:28. That's irrelevant to the question. Yeah, >> but I honestly would like a moderator that lets me drill my opponent with yes or no questions and stop them if they try to go off. But I keep getting these nice moderators. Wink wink.
>> What's the objection?
>> I would not take it too personally. Um, but you >> He's got to let me answer.
>> What's the objection?
>> What? Dude, my objection I keep trying to get it out. What? What do you mean?
I'm telling you to let me out. Alex, maybe let him get this one out and then if it's not on on track.
>> Can you even repeat my question, Mike?
>> Yeah, it's it's pretty hard, Alex, by letting me finish. Please ask it again.
>> What's the term in in the Hebrew? It means for the angel of the Lord, it means like in like a part of his being, like in him, like in his guts, literally. How many other places in the Old Testament do you see that?
>> And I was answering as you cut me off.
Yeah, there's not many. But your view is not true. So the answer is no.
>> And there you go. And there you go. You don't you don't want you don't want answer.
>> I didn't ask for an explanation. I asked you an answer. I asked where and you said not many. I'm telling you you're wrong. It's not not many. It's zero.
There's one place where it's close. All right. One place where it's close and that's in the temple where the presence of God is manifest. Okay? But it's unique. That place where God's name is manifest and the angel of the Lord is unique. You don't see that anywhere else. You don't have any examples to support your dumb agency theory. Nobody believed that in the second temple period.
>> What about um Exodus 5 23 where Moses says since I came to speak to Pharaoh in your name?
>> Yeah, there there there's a lot. I mean um when I first listened to that, that was one of the things I'm like, ah, you know what? I don't know any off the top of my head, you know? Uh but yeah there were there are other people who came in the name of is it Isaiah 43:7 like anyone who's coming in my name I have created so obviously there are other people who have come every prophet right if it's Elijah Isaiah Jeremiah Nathan Gad um Gad the seer like they're all coming in the name of Y VHV so they represent Yate Vave right so it's it's as if Y vave is literally speaking to them right now right they had that power and authority the name is within in them. Okay. Um and even by the names of like Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, right? We see the Yah right there. The Yah for Yahweh Yave. Um so we we see the literal name that's being used, but then the name. And then we also I mean just just having the name in them, right? To to have that power and authority to speak, you know, kind of like how Samuel did. Whatever Samuel said, it's as if Yahweh is doing it.
>> Yeah. I mean, I I don't understand why Micah 5:4 doesn't get enough attention.
>> This ruler that comes out of Bethlehem stands and feeds and the strength of Yode V. Yode Vave empowers him in the majesty of the name of Yod Vave, his God.
How can you be God and have a God at the same time? Now, that's just crazy. We got this in the Old Testament. So, what Jesus stands in the name of Yode Vave as all the prophets and the angels do as the high priest does.
You know, it it's just it's all absurdity honestly.
Oh my gosh, Alex, I stopped your time for a second. I just want to let Mike know, Mike, if uh when during your cross- examination, if you'd like to not have him go into an explanation if he does, which he might not, um you can you can just move on and go to your next question or be like, "Okay." And then stop him. Um that's that's how it works.
You can definitely do that. So, just try to yes or no if that's what he's asking.
And you can save your explanations for your cross- examination and your responses to what you ask him. Yes or no.
>> Yeah, I get it. I get it. But Alex needs to you use wisdom with allowing me to to expound on a point. No, no, no, no. I'm not tone policing. I think you need to use wisdom question. Listen, your time your time has stopped. So stop cutting me off. You can have a reason.
>> Yeah, my time is stopped. So then let me finish.
Let me finish to it here in like two seconds.
>> No, the the point is that not all answers can be said in one second and just like I should respect him and his answer if he wants to to do that. I should use wisdom as well. That's all that I'm saying.
>> Okay. You ready for is is the therapy session over now?
>> We're going to start the time back up.
And >> if if you want answers, you got to let people answer.
>> One. You have seven minutes in right now.
>> Okay. So why don't you apply the memora tradition to your reading of John 1?
>> So I I do I do apply that reading. So that is the same in wisdom word christologology. That's what mera means.
It's the same.
>> What do you mean by wisdom christologology? I read the book by Dustin Smith, but [clears throat] I mean it seems like there are different views of this because each unitarian has his own special view. So like what do you mean by wisdom Christology?
>> Yeah. Okay. Nice try. That's a scholarly position just like OD showed you in my presentation.
>> What do you mean by wisdom?
>> It's the governing view. It's the governing view on the prologue. So don't make this a unitarian thing. This is a scholarship thing. Wisdom christologology is the christoologgical concept of applying the roles, attributes, and functions of God's word and wisdom to Christ. Okay. So the mera is a word for the word.
>> Thank you. Now, now I would like to ask a question because it's my cross- examination, I guess. Do you want to call the shots on my cross- examination?
You want you decide when I ask a question or not? Is that what you want to do?
>> No, but I'm going to do my best to let you answer completely when you want to.
>> Okay. Well, when you're done being a baby, it seems like you're over it now.
So, [laughter] uh, is God's wisdom created?
>> Uh, there's a sense in which you could say it it is, and then a sense of wisdom is created.
>> Yeah. So, that that's going to go to a more fundamental disagreement we have like like why why is that wrong? Why?
Why? Why is that wrong?
Can you have wisdom if there's no foolishness?
>> You know, if there's no foolishness before creation, is God wise?
How can you have be wise without anything to contrast to it? And the Septuagent does say God's wisdom is created in Proverbs 8.
Mhm. This this this this should be a thumbnail.
[laughter] >> What? Oh, him right there.
>> Yeah.
>> You want me to screenshot it real quick?
>> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> All right. Hold on.
>> That That' be the best screenshot right there.
That' be a good thumbnail.
But like I I mean but see again though um just just even like um and yes yes yes wisdom was brought forth generated set up established you know right so if it was any of those words I just brought up um that means it was done at a specific point. Okay. That's why when when when he even brings up and I think he even brings it up again in his cross exam about the um uh what is it the um was he always the father right but Psalms 2:7 today I have become your father today. Okay. So then what happened the day before? Were you not the father? Were you what were you?
Right? But see, you are taught this by your pastors to that like, hey, God God is eternal. He is eternally the father. He is eternally has this wisdom. Like it's very metaphysical when it just kind of shows that they haven't read their Bible. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but they just haven't read their Bible. They're not very um uh like they're just I don't know. They just don't know their Bible, you know, respectfully. They just don't know their Bible, you know. So, oh, show us a screenshot.
[laughter] >> Yeah, I don't hold too many of those classical theist positions. Like, for example, I'm an open theist.
Yeah, that's what the Bible teaches. You can say what you want, but you're part of your solos scripture of view. That's your own unique view. Great. Got it. So is so God's wis >> that's that's poisoning the well right there. That's gaslighting.
That's straw manning. Like like metaphysics Mike is the only unitarian walking the face of the earth that is solar scripture.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean, there's trinitarians that are sold to scripture and they're the Protestants.
I mean, I might be wrong. You can correct me, but don't they reject the Catholic Church and probably the Orthodox also? So, they're going to most likely reject their church fathers and >> wow is created in your view. Let me be clear about this. I I'm giving you an opportunity now. If I'm mischaracterizing you, please clear it up.
>> Yeah. So, I was trying to clarify both meanings, but I already know which one you mean. So, we'll just say no. In the sense that you're meaning it, no.
>> God's wisdom is not created.
>> No.
>> Okay. Is it distinct?
>> I mean, we're we're not we're going to say no.
>> Okay.
>> Distinct from what?
>> So, then why do you have God's >> spoken of distinctly throughout the Bible?
>> Yeah. So, it's number one, it's called personification, right? Like Proverbs chapter 8, right? So it can be spoken as if it has this separate ontology from him when it doesn't. Right? Um that's the first thing. The second thing is that wisdom is associated with God's like wise intentions with his plans with his will. Right? So these are qualities.
These can be applied to Christ qualitatively. That doesn't mean if if Christ is a creature then therefore God's wisdom is created.
Okay. So Buarin says that the proper reading for John 1 and I get this is his view. I'm not saying like he's the authority on this. This is just a view is that the John one should be read as a madrashic text that is overlapping different concepts. Right? So it's like you have the Logos theology, you have the wisdom theology, you have the mera theology, you have Proverbs 8, you have Genesis 1, and all of these concepts are being overlapped in the way that he interprets uh uh John 1.
>> Yeah. So it seems to me that the way you are reading John, >> so so he's right and and let me put this out here real quick. So if if you guys can see I have the entire Midrash Raba right here. Now one of the first things that is actually brought up in the Midrash Rabba is that um [clears throat] it it and and he's right a midrash what it does is it looks at like two possible outcomes, right? So the very first midrash actually looks at the word rashit, right? So we have the root word is rashit. We see birchit or wait what did it say? It's so weird how scared orthos are of unitarianism considering their monarchy view is entirely relying on it as a found. Yes. Yeah. With with monarchal trinitarianism. I mean you're you're flirting with the idea that the father's the one true god. But we're also just going to say that the son is god and the the spirit is god. Fully god. The same nature essence energy blah blah blah whatever. It's weird. But anyways. Okay. So, so the midrash here is it takes with Genesis of Berit and Proverbs 8:22 of Rasheed, the beginning of its way. Okay? And it brings up a comparison and it and it talks about how just as um a king does not create but he like imagines, right? He he draws up the plans for like like for a castle to be built, right? The king will draw up the plans on how he wants the castle to be built, but the king's not actually going to build it. And then you have the master worker, right? Proverbs 30, I was besides him as a master worker. Okay?
That is brought up just as the master worker does not actually design it. He doesn't think about, hey, this should go here, whatever. He just does as it as it is. And the midrash rabba expounds upon that. Says, thus this is how everything was created. Okay. God the father used the Torah as the master craftsman to create through him, right? As a tool to to create. Okay. We we see so we see wisdom again being personified. And Alex is bringing up the tarams here. When you look at tarum neopiti, it says in the beginning with wisdom. Okay. So wisdom was there in the beginning. Then you have the memora or the logos of the word of the lord created and perfected the heavens and the earth. The memor said let there be light. So we see wisdom there as a as as its own personification. We see the memora as a personification that that's being spoken about last episode. I already got went over. I'm not going to repeat myself. Um but the tarams are being used here as a type of commentary for a personification. This is what Mike is trying to bring up right here. Also too in Proverbs, not Proverbs, I'm sorry.
Psalms 85, I want to read this for you guys in Psalms 85. I want to say it's um uh uh verse 10 it says steadfast love and faithfulness will meet. Okay, this is personification. that steadfast love is not going to meet faithfulness. Right?
When Jesse and I went to the same event, we met each other. How how did Jesse and I meet? Because we are two individual persons. We're conscious. We're actual human beings. We can meet and hang out together. All right? But the steadfast love of God and the faithfulness of God are not literally going to meet. The psalmist puts it down as they're going to meet. And then it says, "Righteousness and peace will kiss each other.
How you know I can kiss my wife because my wife is her own person. I'm my own person." The righteousness of God and the peace of God are not going to kiss each other. This is personification.
It's the same thing. Even Proverbs chapter 8. Proverbs 8:22 to30 talks about essentially that wisdom was there as its own separate person. But that's not literal. These are things that are being personified through the Bible.
Now, I would encourage anyone if you guys haven't already, go and get Dr. Dustin Smith's book, Wisdom Christologology in the Gospel of John.
He now with Dustin, he expounds way more. He doesn't just stay in the Gospel of John. He he tackles everything in the Gospel of John, but he he he talks about everything. He brings up church fathers.
He brings up other books that are outside of the 66 book cannon. Uh that is a really really really good book that he has that Alex Saurin um makes reference to. Um but we we have all these examples of characteristics of God that are being personified as a independent person.
It doesn't mean that it actually is though. So >> yeah I agree. I agree on >> one is omitting like mera omitting logos theology and you just have like one wisdom christologology of Dustin Smith.
Is isn't that true or not?
>> Oh man, I cited three scholars. Not No, I didn't even cite Dustin, man. You are like in left field right now. Okay, so I'm agree I agree with you.
>> Is it true or not?
>> No. All right. No like a rant.
>> So listen, let me say it one more time.
So, second temple period Judaism was not monolithic. Got it. I agree. Okay. Some Jews had an exalted intermediary, the principal agent, logos, wisdom, son of man. I'm with you. Okay. The point is that that is not the same as saying the Jews believed in a plurality of persons within God's essence. All right. Daniel Borerin isn't going to say that.
>> That's literally what binitarian means, me, Mike.
>> So, no, not really. No, that's not true.
Oh, dude. Really? You want to defend that?
>> Pho says, "Dudero Theos, we just talked about this." Or you're trying to get a comeback.
>> Two gods, not two person god.
>> You are in order. [laughter] >> You're Listen, I >> SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOU, MIKE.
>> DUDE, ALEX, I genuinely think you're presupposing within within your view there. All right. I I account for that completely.
Uh how the memor is somebody that is is uh boyin says that they saw it as a hypothesis something that acts something that speaks.
>> All right. All right. One more time.
>> Pho calls it a dutos.
>> All right. Maybe maybe slower. Maybe we say it slower. Okay.
>> Yes. Yes. Slower. Here. Let me ask the question slower. Photoos.
Where is that in your view?
>> Listen. That doesn't make them god in the same way or sense. You don't even believe they're saying it.
>> All right.
>> Yes. Well, in the sense that he's saying Dudo Theos, he's talking about two persons, not like two sources. So, basically the trinitarian position.
>> No. All right. They are not co-equal persons. They're not in Pho's view.
>> Okay. So, they just they have the same name. They both ride on the clouds. They have the same indicators. They're both the I am. They're both there before Abraham, but but they're not co-equal.
They're both alpha and omega. They both sit on the throne. They both accept the same worship and revelation, but they're not co-equal. Is that what you're telling me?
>> No. I'm saying that we have examples.
>> You just said that. You just said they're not co-equal.
>> Oh, did maybe I misunderstood you. I'm sorry. Say it again then.
>> You said they are not co-equal.
>> Yes. Yes, that is what I'm saying.
Sorry, I misunderstood you.
>> Okay. So, can you please answer my question that they do the same thing, they receive the same worship. They sit on the same throne. They both have the name Yahweh. They both are riding on the clouds, which is an indicator of Yahweh.
Where are they not co-equal?
>> Okay. So specifically in terms of Pho, I would look at his work on dreams, right?
Pho makes a sharp linguistic distinction. Man, the true God is always referred to with the definite article.
>> You know, most of his um so-called proof points were misrepresented scriptures.
>> You know, there's there's equivocation, there's bare assertion.
You know, how are you going to say that Jesus is I am and I am is God's name, but nobody has ever called God I am, nor have they addressed Jesus as I am.
Which of the disciples called Jesus I am?
Not a single one.
you know, and you're asserting that they get the same kind of worship.
Do they know the difference between praise and worship?
Because the same so what I see in Revelation 5 is the same thing I saw when David came back and everybody's rejoicing saying Saul's slaying his thousands, David his 10,00ands. That's a praise of overcoming just like in Revelation chapter 5.
But note, it says they worship him. Oh, wait, that's a textual variant.
Revelation 5:14. I didn't know that.
Showed someone showed it to me. I respect that.
But they got to build a case, a solid foundation before you try to plead co-equal because Revelation I mean John chapter 5:18 >> he called himself the son of God allegedly make himself equal with God and straight away Jesus says I can't do nothing of myself. No Jesus said I can't do nothing from myself. That's source language and the Greek conveys it can't do anything unless he is instructed. He judges as he hears, does as he sees.
If he has the same mind as the father and they are one essence co-equal, they should be operating at the same time. The father should nothing should come into the father's mind before the son. When the father says guilty and that's the judgment, he doesn't have to tell his son. They have the same mind in their nature. Therefore, the son should already know the judgment, but he denies being the source of the judgment.
>> Where's the co-equal?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Always. But the logos, while it may be referred to God, yeah, dude, God is not a rigid designator, Alex. It's not a personal proper name. Okay. So then so then you cannot be equivocating God for persons and saying that oh well really it means two persons orinitarian >> the father which do you believe by the way thank you for reminding me how much time do I have left by the way okay that's probably a good topic to end do you believe that God is eternally a father >> maybe in some sense but in the way that you're saying it like probably not because I don't think that the son existed eternally in the past so you think at at one point God became a father.
>> Uh yeah, we we could we could say that.
>> Okay.
>> At some point he became a redeemer.
>> God God. So So Alex, God acquires attributes in the Bible all the time.
Like when he says my my name will be Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob forever. Yeah.
They aren't necessary.
>> I'm going to move on to my question now.
I know that there I know there are some names he acquires. My point is that father is a key is it's how he's identified it. Do you know that he can because you know that he can acquire names but then you're going to try >> certain names can be acquired because they're distinct >> like father you just dunked on yourself Alex.
>> No because father refers to identity. I know you're just oh you dunked on yourself. Look father refers to an identity in our view. And uh there are some things that can be acquired. You can say that Donald Trump is the president of the United States. That's something that he acquires. But Donald Trump is a man for his entire life. In the same way that God is eternally a father. He can also covenantally be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
>> What about talking about?
See, yes, Donald Trump eternally has a human nature, right? But Donald Trump was not always a father, right? And it's the exact same I feel it can be applied to the exact same thing that he's trying to bring up that just as look today I have become your father you know Psalms 2:7 you know it's it's crazy but yeah I mean this is something I've important into my um arguments is in with trinitarianism fatherhood is a role roles are proper to persons not natures or essence. If you have three distinct persons, but Israel says in Malachi 2:10, they have one father. Only one of those persons can fulfill that role. Now, you take that fatherhood and apply it to verses like Deuteronomy 32:39 where he says that there is no God with me or Psalm 45 where he says, "I'm y there's none else.
There's no God except me and he's the father of Israel." in verse 11 or how he's talking about gathering his sons and daughters in Isaiah 43:6, but says there's no God form before or after me in verse 10. You know, they they're not even consistent with the same metaphysics they use to try to refute the Bible because if you import their their own rules into the Bible, it shuts them down. Yeah.
>> That you got this clip. Now you're going to cut me off as soon as I give that explanation.
>> Was that a question? Was there a question in there somewhere?
>> The question's coming. I get it. You want to run down the clock. You're desperate to run down the clock, aren't you? You want to get out of here. I can see you're shivering over there. Look, I asked you at the beginning. How many powers are in heaven?
>> Yeah, he can have one more. We'll give him one more. I you know, >> how many powers are in heaven?
>> Uh ultimately, there's one power, but he can share it with others. And so in a in a lesser sense, he can share power with angels, prophets, >> who does he share it with? uh the son of man with angels with prophets.
>> How many prophets have the name Yahweh?
So that's changing the goalpost 437.
>> Exactly. All right. So Isaiah 43:7 says, "I am Yod Vave. That is my name." No, that's 428. No. Those who have created I have created for my glory. Isaiah 49:E3 um Israel the servant in whom I will be glorified that's a bad paraphrase but the point is he glorifies him right in Isaiah uh John chap 17:4 I have glorified you on the earth so Jesus glorifies God Israel glorifies God those who are created was created for God's glorification This here proves Jesus is uh created.
But hold on. What name? Who who who has the name? What about first? No. 2 Chronicles 7:14. My first ever as a teenager I memorized this verse. If my people which are called by my name, Israel is called by God's name.
>> Numbers uh 6:27.
Aaron and his sons will cause the name of God to be on the children of Israel.
It's all over the Bible. He's just ignorant. He doesn't know the scriptures. Yeah. I I just pulled up real quick. It says, "Everyone who was called by my name, who I whom I created for my glory, I have formed and made."
Right. So, we we are called by his glory. So then if it's the we, you know, you brought up Israel, we're going to assume too that everyone else who was a prophet in the Old Testament. Like again, he Alex just hasn't read his Bible.
I mean, that's true cuz I I caught something in his opening statement. I didn't pounce on it, though. He conflated John chapter 5 and John 10.
Said he was making himself equal with God in chapter 10, but that's chapter 5.
So, he doesn't know his Bible.
>> Oh, I mean, he might have misspoke there, but yeah.
>> Well, maybe I'll strong man him like he does everyone else. You know, do unto others as you would have them do to you.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, maybe I should take my own advice.
>> He shares it with Yeah. So, demonstrate that he shares it with prophets.
>> Yeah. So, he shares his p I mean, do you not believe the prophets perform miracles by God's power? Do they share it in the same way that the one who has the name of Yahweh does?
>> Uh, so no, they don't have to share one.
There's not degrees of power.
>> No, I they don't have to. Alex, now ask your last question. I thought you were supposed to name Yahweh in the Bible.
>> We'll wrap it up after that one.
>> So, in a predicative sense, it's it's really going to be the main ones are going to be the angel of the Lord, obviously, Jesus, and you could make an argument probably for David, maybe a few other characters. It depends on what we mean like that the Bible says there are people who come in the name of the Lord.
So there is some nuance but all right. All right. We're going to flip it around now and I'm going to start Mike's time from the beginning. All right. So like I said um during your crossexamination if you don't want an explanation you don't have to hear it. You can if you want.
But, uh, if you're trying to get to the bottom of, you know, a line of thinking, I would just move on.
>> Do I also get to take a timeout if he puts the pressure on me too much to relieve the pressure the same way he did?
>> Um, I >> I didn't time you out, Alex. What was that? You You just took a stab at the mod, dude.
>> No, I'm taking a stab at you. You asked for a therapy session halfway through.
He was kind enough to accommodate you.
>> I asked for a therapy session. Show me the clip, Alex.
>> You have a question?
>> All right. I'm going to start the time right now. You ready?
>> Thank you, Mike. All right. So, Alex, do you admit that you said in your opening presentation that you use the word God differently for the father than you do for the son or spirit?
>> Yeah, that's not controversial. St. Gregory of Nazi says that in his 25th.
>> All right. So, the father is God.
>> I don't think you know our position.
>> So, the father is God as a proper noun, but the son and spirit are God by possessing the same nature. Is that correct?
Uh yes and I guess the father would be in the same sense too because he has that same uh nature. But the way St. Gregory of Nzenus describes it which is the way I understand it is that he says if you're talking about God alone the father you're going to refer to him as God. If you're talking about uh like the trinity and you it's one God, the father, one lord Jesus Christ, that it's improper to use the name God when you're putting them together like that because really properly God refers to the father. If you're referring to the other two persons independently, then it may be appropriate to use the term God.
>> Okay. Awesome. So, hey, do you see how we just >> Yeah, that that was >> that that was just the stupidest thing.
Okay. So, St. Gregory, I don't even know who that guy is. Um, whatever. Okay.
Yeah. So, when we're talking about the father, it's proper to use God, but it's not proper to use God when it's talking about the three. So then why do we why why do they still do that though guys? If you talk to any any trinitarian whenever God is used like uh unfortunately this isn't anything new the church father there. Yeah. Um guys in Genesis one like when God said um when God God said let there be light right God there is plural. Oh that's fathers and holy spirit. Well that will go against St. Gregory, right? Because that's supposed to be only the father or or you know, so it it was it's it's weird. It's weird. It doesn't make any sense. He's like saying that he's a trinitarian, but by him only equivocating God to the father, I mean that that's the unitarian perspective.
That's why we are unarian because we believe that only the father is God. you know, he'll randomly throw in the father and uh father sons and holy spirit together randomly at times. But by him admitting that well St. Gregory said that whenever God is being used it's proper to only be the father or when father is used to talk about god it's proper to only use god not proper when it's referring to the father son and holy spirit all three together.
Okay. So then but you know you guys still do that. It's still it's it's weird. He's picking and choosing on where he where and when he wants his Trinity to be um brought up.
>> Yeah, I'll be real with you. Um I've never Well, Tik Tok got some Looney Tunes, but this is like the first Trinitan that seems kind of sophisticated.
Kind of. Mhm. That literally sounds like a polytheist. like it doesn't have any cloak or mask on it. He just deni he just denies what follows. You got a proper name god and two lowercase G gods that are the same god but they're not proper names either.
I wonder if he would consider God a proper name in Isaiah 455 where God says I'm Yod vave. There's none else. There's no Elohim except me.
I wonder if he would consider that a proper name.
>> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Yeah.
I'll let you finish, man, to clarify.
That's totally fine. Right. That's the point here.
>> Yeah. You want something different than I do. I don't I don't All right. So So Alex, um I'm really wondering here about how like this lines up. So you would think that the father is God by his identity, but the son and holy spirit aren't.
>> What do you mean by identity?
>> Okay. Like and so an identity is so we could say that like Michael is metaphysics Mike, right? That so that we're saying that they're identical.
They have the same. They refer to the same being. That that's the point. The same thing.
>> Look, I'm I'm just saying what the fathers are saying. If it comes to identity, I'm going to say God is the father. That's his identifier.
>> Okay. So, is that like a yes or no?
Right. Is is the father God by his identity only or is the son and holy spirit also god by identity?
>> Again, I don't know what you mean. So, I don't want to commit to an answer that's improper. The father is his identifier.
>> Okay. Okay. So, >> Okay. Let me tell you this. There is one god, the father.
>> Awesome. Thank you. All right. So what's the difference between an is of identity and an is of predication?
>> Well, an example of that would be like you say the sky is blue. You're not saying that it is bless itself. You're just uh describing by predication, right? Uh if you say that um and is of identity would be actually identifying giggling. You're so funny. Uh I mean isn't that isn't that >> No, no, it's not. You don't you don't know what you're talking about. Okay. So yeah, go ahead. You're social. The father is the one God. But you're just asking me. You don't know what I >> question. Is there a question?
>> This is This is narrative. This is appropriate for cross exam.
>> You have to ask a question. My name's I'll give you >> So, I'll give you one more chance.
>> What's the question?
>> What is the difference? The real difference between an is of identity and an is of predication. Do you know?
>> I explain to you how I understand it. If that's wrong, feel free to correct me.
>> All right. So, I told you an is of identity is to say that two things are like the same, right? Like saying metaphysics Mike and Michael temperado they have the same identity but in is a predication is going to be qualitative.
So you could say that Mike is >> dude that's literally what I said when I said this guy is qualitative you dummy you're trying to make me look bad and get a clip. [laughter] >> So it wasn't it wasn't about >> how is that not what I said?
>> Gotcha. Gotcha. Alex. So it wasn't that part about the sky.
>> It was about what you said regarding identity. do clip farming be ashamed of yourself >> clip farm and now you're just commentating I just yeah hold on like see see this is this is when it just honestly it became stupid right he he's Alex is now just accusing Mike and this this is literally his strategy his strategy is you can't have a one-on-one normal conversation with Mike you need we need to just kind of talk over him we need to rattle his cage as you guys can see this is him literally trying to rattle his cage and It's so stupid. Like, it's so immature.
Like, this is a lawyer, too, which is just just insane, you know? But again, this is where the mod needs to come in and just tell him to shut up. Mute him. Mute him. Mute him. He's not doing anything. Alex is just accusing Mike of like all these things that's not even true. He's not letting Mike ask the question. He's just talking over him. I mean, this is just stupid.
Th this is this is a joke. He should be embarrassed. He honestly should be embarrassed. And this is where, guys, go back to the original video. There are people who admit like, "Yeah, I'm a trinitarian." And and Alex completely made a mockery of himself.
This is just this this was just ridiculous. Honestly, like again, like seriously guys, you know, I want to be convinced of the Trinity. I really really really do. I I I'm being serious, guys. I want to be convinced of the Trinity, but all I hear is the same stupid arguments of just as Justin and I were kind of talking about before we started the live stream of John 1:1, John 8:58, John 10:30, Hebrews 1:8, 1 John 5:7, 1 John 5:20.
It's the same stupid argument. You've explained it, they don't combat you.
They just go on to another verse. You know, it's like, I I'll ask Jesse, "Oh, Jesse, what about John 1?" He'll explain, "Well, Jesse, what about John 858?" He'll explain, "What about John 10:30?" I I'll ask Jesse all these questions and I'll circle back around to But Jesse, what about John 111?
Right. That's so I can't take you serious. And now we have him literally wasting time and insulting Mike. Just embarrassing. Embarrassing if you're a Trinarian.
And you know, unfortunately Mike, he's buying into it. He doesn't catch it. He doesn't stop it. And before long, he's what? I got two minutes. That's it.
Yeah. But hey, uh will let's make it our personal um objective that next time someone ask us and I've had people ask me this most of my lives is Jesus is not God and someone says have you ever read John 1:1 >> let's make it our personal objective to ask them is that in the Old Testament?
>> Yeah.
>> I mean if they're going to ask me a stupid question on a live like that let's just feed them back a crazy question. told you I'm not talking about your statement about the sky, Alex. I'm talking about your statement about identity.
>> I object to your attitude.
>> Yeah. Okay, got it. Listen, you don't know the difference between an is of predication.
>> I literally explained it the exact same way that you did, you idiot.
>> No, you didn't. All right, so >> I said it's blue is a quality of the sky. That's an is of predication.
>> All right, that that's good. There's our we got our first name out. Thanks for that. I'm an idiot. No, that's that that shows that you're losing, right? I'm not going to call you an idiot because I'm winning. It shows how this works. Look, you don't even know the basic thing.
You're just trying to find a clip.
>> Okay. I'm really not, Alex. I'm I'm genuinely trying to reach uh your >> Isn't it true earlier that when I said the sky is blue that that's an isn't of predication.
>> Yeah, he he's got to get focused. But there there's people out there they do this. These are this is what I've been calling rage baiters honestly. And honestly, I on TikTok I refuse to engage with rage baiters anymore.
Why would I play in the devil's playground and let him entice me and expect for me not to fall to sin?
You know, I would just get right back on. I would drill him so hard, honestly.
But as we mentioned on our last live together, Mike's a nice guy. He's just not in him to do that. I don't think it's in him, at least.
So, >> yes, I said I disagree with giggling like a little girl.
>> No, your point about identity and I'm a little girl. All right, got it. So, listen. Your point about identity. Your point about identity is >> I didn't make a point about identity.
You got to open your ears, Mike. I was talking about predication.
>> Gotcha. I asked you the difference between them. Just giving me the definition of one is that doesn't answer the question. Yeah, you answered that poorly. Okay.
>> Well, because you started giggling.
>> All right. Listen. Can I get to these questions? A lot of commentary going on.
>> Go ahead.
>> Okay. Awesome.
>> Who's stopping you?
>> Okay. So, now that we know the is of identity verse predication, is the father only God by identity or is also the son and holy spirit.
>> Watch this. Honestly, I don't know.
>> Okay, hold on.
>> That's all right. That's all right.
Thanks. Thanks for your honesty, man. I I really appreciate that, Alex.
>> That right there. That right there.
You're muted.
>> Pause it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. See, and and I wish Mike pressed him on that.
That was Mike's opportunity to press him and to embarrass him and to basically show how Alex the only thing Alex can do is throw ad homonyms. Alex can't actually argue the orthodox um perspective.
>> Yeah. I I just want to give Mike a prop right there, though. you know, he first he doesn't really have to press him at that point, that concession is fatal to his position because if you don't know the difference between God by identity, numerical identity versus predication, you don't know the difference between yod vave and Moses.
You understand? Because Moses is God by predication, but Yode Vave is God ontologically, numerically identical to the only God in existence, the most high, the origin of all that is, the unchanging, you know, that that's fatal.
But he he was so nice right there, though. And this is this is what I was saying in our previous um uh review was Mike turned into a martyr in this in this debate and it was for a good cause because he brought out the wickedness and his opponent and he looked like the innocent sheep and the only one taking this guy's sides are the devils in and in and the background with him. But even you were saying some of those that follow his own doctrine was not pleased with his behavior.
Mike is showing true spiritual fruit and that that says a lot because Jesus said you would know them by their fruits.
>> Yeah. I just want to give Mike props on that though. Like that was that was amazing. That was nice. That was compassionate. That was very Christlike what he did.
Yeah, >> I would have pressed him that.
>> What's that?
>> I would have pressed him.
>> You You probably would have. Other people would have, but you know, there's something >> I mean, because it's irritating because Alex keeps yelling, "Well, you don't understand our position. You don't understand blah blah blah blah blah. You Okay. Well, Mike just asked you a question for you to clarify since you apparently know what it is and yet you don't even know the answer to it." So, I'm sorry, Alex, but you don't even know your own doctrine.
Wait, was that do you know anything at all about gamatria or pattern events?
>> Yeah, I don't really get into mysticism like that because once you open your mind, your imagination goes wild. You know, stick with the concrete evidence.
Isaiah 8:20 to the law and to the testimony. If they don't speak according to this word, there's no light in them.
>> It's a dead channel where you're pretending what?
>> All right, we'll see. To the loan to the testimony. If you don't speak according to that word, there is no light in you.
You're a child. All right, I'll be cool.
I'm not going to go that far. I'm sorry.
So, what we should do is probably go to Isaiah 44:24. So, are you familiar with Isaiah 44:24 where Yahweh says, "I made all things. I stretched out the heavens alone by myself." You familiar with that?
>> Here, let me let me pull it up so that I can look at it. if you need to freeze the time for I'm not trying to run your time or anything but I I just want to have it in front of me.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. And and you know what I'm seeing some comments here. So ju just so you know the context of this last question right is that if all the father son and >> if I'm not mistaken you're about to witness hypocrisy. Watch this.
>> Holy Spirit or God by their identity then that's going to lead to >> this is not a question James. This is not appropriate. This is a cross examination. You're not allowed to do commentary. Did he say this is not appropriate? Let's continue. A >> narrative to the audience, Mike. Come on. We're about to have open dialogue, guys. If you you can do that at the open discussion. Don't try to break the rules.
>> All right, Alex. I thought you did the same thing. I'm sorry you won't let me do that as well.
>> I mean, if you want to object to it, fine. I'm objecting to you doing it. I don't think that's appropriate.
>> All right, listen.
>> So, he says he doesn't think it's appropriate for Mike to do what he did.
He doesn't deny that he did it. That's hypocrisy right there. So where where in Isaiah 44 >> 24 >> 24 >> Isaiah 44:24 >> I'll give you an extra 30 seconds >> because of the look here >> for his own narrative. Yeah. Nice.
>> Thank you, Mike. I appreciate it.
>> He He needs all the help he can get.
>> 44:24.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay.
>> All right. When it says Yahweh made all things alone and by myself, question. Do nature >> That's not what my Bible says. What uh manuscript are you using?
>> Uh that's like standard ESV. What's your translation say? You want to read it?
>> The standard Christian one. That's the Septuagent. The Thus says the Lord who redeems you and forms you from the womb.
I am the Lord who accomplishes all things. Uh oh yes, it does. Who alone? I guess the beginning of it was different.
I am the Lord who accomplishes all things. Who alone stretched out the heavens and established the earth. My mistake.
>> All right.
>> That's fine. All right. Do natures act or speak apart from persons?
>> No.
>> Okay. So then you agree that the nature cannot be creating alone. Yes.
>> Yeah. I don't think God is a nature.
>> Gotcha. So how many persons are there in the trinity?
>> Three.
>> Was the father and son active at creation?
>> Peron one. Yes.
>> Then how can this writer say Yahweh declare he did it alone?
>> I don't think you know the trinitarian view Mike. The father is the sole source. Everything flows from the father through the son in the spirit.
>> Okay. So did the father did the father >> alone? Yes through he's the sole source.
Yes.
>> So the father created the world alone >> as the sole source through the sun.
>> Okay. If he is the son a real conscious person with him.
>> Uh now you're asking me to speculate about the nature and nobody knows that basic philosophy of mind. You don't think Jesus consciously existed with the father at creation?
>> What? Why are you talking about consciousness?
>> Answer the question. Do you think Jesus consciously existed?
>> The question is falsely premised because you don't.
>> How can the sun eternally be a hypothetic person and not have consciousness especially when All right. So the sun is eternal. The sun has the nature of God.
The nature of God has the mind of God.
The mind is what makes you a conscious uh person.
How could he play so dumb right now?
He doesn't know if the son was eternally a conscious person.
>> Yeah.
>> So he was an unconscious person just dormant laying in a casket.
>> Understand even like Nagel's philosophy of mind in the bat.
>> Oh man, great commentary. object to the question. It's a It's a falsely premised question.
>> What did Jesus and the father both Did Jesus and the father >> talking about the consciousness of God?
>> All right, listen. I This is so terrible that the moderators don't do this. I'm actually really disappointed in in you moderating this premise.
>> No, this is crazy. If >> your question is falsely premised, >> I you should tell him to stop and let the questions come out. That's the role of a moderator.
>> That's fine. But your question I think you asked the question >> three times. He just didn't answer it because he is objecting to it. Which maybe you could just ask it in a different way.
>> Okay.
>> I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything by letting him respond how he wants to you. It's just >> in the cross- examination I typically let you guys run it how you want to run it.
>> Yeah. That's terrible idea. Terrible idea.
>> That's just the way the debates work, man. I don't know what to say. The moderator is not supposed to get involved unless you ask him. Mike, >> listen. Listen. No, it's nothing against you, Mike, by the way. I would just rather it. That's my preference. Okay.
Yeah, I need help because obviously I can't I can't ask questions. He won't let me talk. Look at him constantly cutting me off. This is This is why Eastern Orthodoxy is losing.
>> This is why you guys are losing.
>> No, because you can't answer basic questions. Did Jesus and the father create the world or did just the father create it?
>> Sounds like >> Jesus and the father. Yeah.
>> Okay. So then how can the father let me speak this is this is a joke. So then how can the father say he did it alone in Isaiah 44:21 >> because the father is the sole source of all the activities that go on through the trinity okay so then the so then the son didn't create with him it was just the father >> do you have like learning comprehension issues >> no Alex I just think >> from the father through the son in the >> he doesn't know what the word alone or myself mean yeah he's just ignoring that He he he's doubling down on the that the father is the source. The son the father is the source but the son was operating what? From the father. Well myself and alone can't apply to two persons without collapsing the persons into one.
He's essentially arguing the point of a modalist right now.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So that would be three persons, not one.
>> They're not alone.
>> It's dude, the doors are opening.
>> I really don't know why you're being like this right now, Alex. I'm I'm actually questions are dumb.
>> Yeah, such a >> falsely premised. You don't even understand my view.
>> Yeah, man. So dumb.
>> At least I did the reading. I read the dumb dynamic monarchianism book and Dustin Smith's book, which you told me to read. There are other books. I asked you what I should read to know my view.
You didn't ask me.
>> Awesome. Okay, let's let's try and continue. All right. Do you don't know my view questions are nice claim. You're refusing to answer, but we'll try anyways. Okay. Do you agree all your question? Do you agree that the father, son, and holy spirit have one mind?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So then when the father loves the holy spirit, is the mind that gives and receives that love the same?
>> Yes.
>> Then how is that different than just God loving himself? because you're confusing the categories of mind and consciousness there. The news is not the same thing as consciousness and you're speculating about the consciousness of God. Are you familiar with like I I understand it's not my time to ask a question.
>> Yeah. So then don't ask it.
>> Okay. Can I would you like me to expand on this or no? Because you don't know about philosophy of mind.
>> I I do actually. I know.
>> Are you familiar with Nagel's paper on the the being in a bat?
>> Nice question. The answer is yes. You can totally expound if you would like to on that. Alex, >> I mean if you don't want to it's your cross. You don't have to answer the question. There you go.
>> Next question. That's what you got to do.
>> Does it matter his response if it's not where you're going with your questions?
>> Right. Right. So tell me, does the Unitarian God have one mind and will?
>> Uh yeah.
>> Okay. So then how is that distinctly less personal than your three persons who love themselves with one minded love?
>> Because the persons are the distinctions are by relation. Mike, don't you know this?
>> Yes, dude. relational relations do nothing to solve like that would >> giggling is not going to win you a clue.
So, Alex, I think that would entail modalism because if he's just one mind and will, one center of consciousness and agency, right, who relates to himself in three different ways, that would be modalism. Okay. So, do you agree that the Bible tells us we should love our neighbor as we love oursel?
>> Okay. So, that question was compound and it's falsely premised, but I'm going to answer your question anyway and move on out of good faith. But I I have to put it on the record. the these questions are so bad because you don't understand our view. But yes, the Bible says that you should love your neighbor as yourself.
>> Okay. So, does that not presuppose loving yourself as a valid standard for loving others?
>> Yes, in relation to other people.
>> Gotcha. Okay. So, then is it not true that the unitarian God can ground love as one mind will as one person?
>> No. Because even in that loving your neighbor as yourself, you have two persons and you have a distinction of relation.
>> Okay. Yeah. I just told you how the relation solves nothing. We're going to go ahead and move on. No, you didn't.
So, okay. Do you do you agree that the doctrine of the trinity depends upon uh categories like usa hypostasis.
>> Those are the terms that the fathers used at the time in order to exposit this doctrine for us. You look you can use you can use essence. These are like certain categories I guess that they just use to they're just useful.
>> Yeah. Got it. Okay. So then do you agree that the church fathers did borrow this the the language from middle platonism >> in a sense? Yes. And in a sense no.
>> Okay. So I'll just your honor motion to strike everything after yes. [laughter] Okay. So >> well as you said in your own answer that they use the same terms the same words but they change the concepts underneath them. So as you said were identical at first move on clearly.
>> Sorry but thank you.
>> If he's letting me talk I mean then I >> Hey did you uh wait for me to pause.
>> No I just I don't really have anything to add.
>> Yeah. Okay. I just want to be sure. I was looking. I thought I saw you outside of my eye. So, my bad.
>> Yeah, >> that's true. That's true. I just Yeah, I just >> No, thank you. Okay.
>> If he wants me So, so all right, here we go. All right. Got it. So, usa hypostasis necessary for the doctrine.
Did they get it from middle plism in a sense? Yes. Yes, it is what you said.
Okay. Does the Bible use middle plonic categories?
>> Uh, does the Bible use English?
You're asking me a question and my question you're doing really bad right now, Alex. Okay. Does the Bible use middle plonic categories?
>> Please answer.
>> Uh I think uh sometimes Paul uses some arisatilian language, but uh categories I don't that might be an overstatement.
>> Okay. So, all right. So, we'll take that as a no. Would that be fair? Like not >> a nuanced no.
>> A nuance no. Okay. So you would still then agree then that for the most part the doctrine of the trinity depends upon category distinctions the Bible doesn't make.
>> I don't think it depends on it because I think people believed it before the it in the same way using different words prior to the councils.
>> Okay. So then what words in the Bible does it use for God's usa and hypoasis?
I think it just use uses different like uh divine names like you see in St. Dianius the Aropagite.
>> Yeah. In the scriptures. Okay. What words does the Bible use for usa and hypoasis? You just you're basically assume that I'm making a word concept fallacy. So then what are the other words?
>> 45 seconds left. Mike, >> I would I honestly think neesh the Bible would use that. And did you know well that trinitarians don't believe that God has a soul?
>> Well, I I feel like Well, what do you mean?
>> They don't believe that God has a soul, nor do they believe that God is a soul.
Even when he says things about his soul in scripture, they'll chop that up as poetry or something like that.
>> I feel like every Trinitarian will give you a different answer to be honest.
>> Yeah. I'm just going with what Chad GPT told me and I ran it by wisdom herself.
She doesn't believe that God has a soul.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. So, all right. But then we Dang it, man. That's all the time I got.
Okay. In John 5:30, Jesus says, "I can do nothing on my own." Alex, what does nothing mean?
>> I'm sorry. Can you You can add 15 seconds. Can you please repeat the question? In John 5:30, Jesus says, "I can do nothing on my own." Some texts actually put authority in there. What does nothing mean?
>> He receives everything from the father.
>> What What does nothing mean?
>> It means nothing. He receives everything from the father.
>> Awesome. Thank you. I my time.
>> All right, guys. We are going to go into the uh open.
>> Yeah. [snorts] >> Yeah, that was actually a super question.
>> How st How just what does nothing mean?
It means that he gets everything from the father.
[sighs] I don't know. This this whole thing was just annoying and upsetting.
>> Yeah. I mean, monarchial trinitarians are silly to say that the father is the source. They believe that.
>> Yeah.
>> Yet they believe the son always was there. How can the son always be there and have a source of origin which is the father but never truly came from that source? They say it but they deny it because they deny the premise that before the son was begotten from the source he wasn't there.
Where was he? What was he doing?
I mean, and you can't have a say and be self-existent and receive your essential attributes from a source. That's not called self-existence.
Yeah, that was an awesome question. That final question, honestly, it it was great. And I just hope everyone sees Alex not answering his question.
you know, and just mocking him, talking over him, putting on the glasses. It's in the form of the Trinity, blah blah blah blah. Come on, dude. Like, grow up.
It was just this this was just such a stupid stupid debate.
Yeah, but I think honestly it comes down to what you said at the very beginning.
The topic was just not a good topic. So you got unitarianism versus trinitarianism.
And what you have is a unitarian and a trinitarian.
The unitarian is trying to argue his position and prove that his position is true. But the trinitarian isn't worried about his position. He just wants to attack the unitarian >> because it's unitarianism versus trinitarianism.
>> Yeah.
>> This is a theological boxing match. not really boxing the um theology, but rather the person who believes it.
>> It's just it's just irritating, too. I just wish Alex was more Christlike and just willing to engage with Mike because literally I already said it before, but um just seems like he had this idea that, you know what, I can't beat Mike at his own game. As in, I can't just sit down and have a conversation with Mike.
I got to try to throw him off. I got to not answer questions. I have to, you know, so it just it just sucks. I mean, [sighs] good for Mike for, you know, participating, holding his composure, doing this to expose. And, you know, Mike even said it like, you know, you guys are look looking bad. You know, you can't answer questions. You refuse to let me answer questions and this is what's going on. And, you know, so I feel bad for Mike that he had to go through this, but he exposed uh a great deal within the Trinitarian argument that is just not there.
So >> yeah, I agree.
All right. Well, thank you for joining me. We once again um hopefully we can do tomorrow night try to do the open discussion as well as the closings and close out this segment. This weekend I will be picking up with uh my study in Exodus chapters 7, no 8 through 15. I might do a little bit more of that um since I have two days off. We'll see how that goes. you want to throw anything out there, any uh projects you have coming up soon that people might be interested in? [snorts] >> Yeah, I'm going to be going over some of the uh miracles that Jesus has done. I think I have like maybe 25 to 30 laid out. So, um going over I'm still working on the video for the first miracle of turning water into wine. So, but no, I'm excited to go over the uh third and final episode uh just because this is actually up to where I stopped watching the debate. So, everything after this is going to be new to me. So, I'm excited.
>> That's good. That's good. And if you guys haven't subscribed to his channel, make sure you do that cuz like I said in my last review, um I really liked the um shadowings of Joseph and Jesus that he brought out. And honestly, um yeah, there's a there's a lot on Will's channel that I haven't even got into yet. Um but I think that you guys would find it interesting. So, yeah.
All right. Well, thank you Will for joining me. You have a good night.
Shalom everyone. May God be with you.
Lead you all in all truth and all the fullness of the knowledge of him, his son, and his word. Amen.
>> Amen. Thanks, brother.
>> You're welcome.
[music]
Related Videos
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
