Christian REALIZES Jesus Can't Be The God of Israel

Added: 2026-05-11

[00:00:00]Hi.

[00:00:00]>> Hello.

[00:00:01]>> Um, hello. Um, >> what's going on, brother? Are you a Christian by any chance?

[00:00:07]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I I wanted to ask like what can I use to bring evidence, right? Because I can like quote the New Testament and you might not accept it.

[00:00:16]So, >> well, I I actually >> I think this is important to establish.

[00:00:20]>> Well, I have an argument that I'm running today >> against deity.

[00:00:24]>> Sure.

[00:00:25]>> And let's see if you could deal with it, man. What do you think?

[00:00:29]Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

[00:00:30]>> Okay. Um, is Jesus the God of Israel?

[00:00:35]>> Jesus is the God of Israel. Yeah.

[00:00:38]>> Okay. Uh, does the Bible say the God of Israel will never sleep or slumber?

[00:00:44]>> Okay. Um, so this is where the quad distinction matters.

[00:00:50]>> You could bring quad distinction, pineapple distinction, watermelon distinction, Froot Loop >> distinction. Yes, it's important though.

[00:00:58]It is important though.

[00:00:59]>> It's it's okay. You can bring any distinction. It's not going to work, bro. But go on.

[00:01:03]>> No, no, it is important. It's important cuz like >> go ahead.

[00:01:06]>> Jesus is God who is divine nature and divine nature doesn't sleep. Whereas like each nature each nature sorry I I'm not really good in English. I'm not I don't know why I'm slo.

[00:01:19]>> Natures don't sleep brother.

[00:01:21]>> Do persons sleep or nature sleep?

[00:01:23]>> Persons sleep but according to what? For example. Okay. But you just said the nature I know but you just said the nature doesn't sleep.

[00:01:30]>> Yeah. Yeah. But but I said that he the divine nature like he doesn't sleep according to the divine nature.

[00:01:37]>> No. No. No. You didn't say Jesus doesn't sleep according to the divine nature.

[00:01:40]You said >> nature doesn't sleep.

[00:01:43]>> Okay.

[00:01:44]>> I made a mistake in expressing it.

[00:01:46]>> Okay. Cool.

[00:01:47]>> The problem with the quad distinction here is that it doesn't actually matter.

[00:01:52]Why? Because when you say Jesus qua humanity does X and Jesus quad divinity does Y. Okay.

[00:02:04]Now you have two abstract subjects in mind here. Jesus qua humanity and Jesus quad divinity.

[00:02:10]>> Are these two abstract subjects co-referential?

[00:02:15]>> Uh so sorry none really but like what do you mean by co-reerential? So when you say Jesus qua humanity does X and Jesus quad vanity does Y, I'm asking Jesus qua humanity, does he co-refer Jesus quad divinity?

[00:02:33]Are they the same subject?

[00:02:36]>> They're the same person. So yeah, if that's what you mean.

[00:02:40]>> So there the same subject. So then the quad device doesn't matter here because the predicate is still picked out of the same subject, right? Okay. So, so can can I ask a question? Do you have >> after you after you answer mine? Yeah.

[00:02:56]>> Yeah. No, no, no. It is it is relevant though to the quote. This is important for the quote distinction.

[00:03:01]>> Sure. Go, go for it.

[00:03:03]>> Okay. Um, so do you have a spirit?

[00:03:07]>> I have a spirit. I have a body. I am material and I am immaterial. You see, I know you the back of my hand, brother.

[00:03:13]So, the reason the reason that >> you seen you seen curious video or like >> Yeah. So >> yeah. Yeah. So so you have to you have actually that and even your Quran has the nature >> the nature.

[00:03:24]>> Okay. So we we'll get to that. Okay. But so this doesn't actually solve the issue. The problem with you is you're watching curios philosophy. That little Turkish kid >> that little Turkish kid. And you think that he's making any points. So I'll tell you why that doesn't work.

[00:03:40]>> Okay. Because >> Yeah. Yeah. When we say that I am material qua my body and immaterial qua my soul all I'm saying is that my body and my soul pick out two aspects of me that is my body and my soul are not co-referential they are two aspects or parts of the one substance so >> so you believe in sorry >> so my body my body and my soul are not co-referential they are co-substantial that is they are aspects of the same substance so according to that I am not fully body and I am not fully soul right >> okay so so you would say it's a part whole relationship >> it's a part whole relation exactly >> okay yeah >> so if you say so if you say Jesus if you say Jesus qua humanity and Jesus quad divinity is like that then you're saying Jesus qua humanity is a part of Jesus.

[00:04:47]No, no, I'm not. I'm not saying >> is another part. Okay, then your example doesn't work. So, >> no, because you are you are I didn't know about your position on it as a part whole relationship, right?

[00:05:00]>> It's not my position. It's just what it is. It's a >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:05:03]>> relationship maybe.

[00:05:04]>> Yeah. So, so remember the book of Psalm says the God of Israel will never sleep or slumber. Simplicator.

[00:05:15]>> It doesn't say the God of Israel. Okay.

[00:05:18]>> What's that? That's what you said.

[00:05:20]>> Un it means unqualified, right? So here, let let me let me tell you the difference. Okay.

[00:05:28]>> Is it different to say?

[00:05:30]>> Is it different to say I can't see?

[00:05:36]That's one statement. And I can't see.

[00:05:41]Qua one eye.

[00:05:45]>> Okay. It's not the same thing because again I'm not accepting I'm not saying I'm not saying that in Christ in Jesus uh in Jesus's case it's a part relationship in the case of the eyes >> but yeah just forget that for a second why is that not saying the same thing I cannot >> it's not saying the same it's not saying >> I cannot see quan I >> it's not the same thing cuz well wait it depends on if you mean by I can't See? Uh you mean you can't totally see or that you can't see just on that eye?

[00:06:21]>> So >> but you can see overall >> that's the point.

[00:06:24]>> Overall you can see or overall you can't see.

[00:06:27]>> That's the point. I the statement only says I cannot see. Period.

[00:06:33]Simplicator.

[00:06:35]>> Okay.

[00:06:37]>> Now if I have one eye closed and I say I cannot see period unqualified. Is that a true statement?

[00:06:45]Uh you cannot see qua in one eye because your eyes closed. So yeah >> brother I didn't say I didn't add a qua qualification.

[00:06:53]If I have one eye closed and I one eye open and I said I cannot see. Period.

[00:06:59]Simplicator. Does that >> No, that would be a false statement.

[00:07:02]That would be false.

[00:07:03]>> Okay. Good. Now if I qualify it I cannot see qua my right eye.

[00:07:11]Now it's a true statement, right?

[00:07:13]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Obviously >> good. You see the difference? So the book of Psalms says >> God will never sleep or slumber simplicator. It doesn't say God will never sleep or slumber accordance to his humanity or accordance.

[00:07:29]>> It says God will never the God of Israel will never sleep or slumber. According to you, the God of Israel slept and slumbered. Therefore, Jesus is not the God of Israel.

[00:07:42]>> Okay. So, can I respond?

[00:07:46]>> Yes.

[00:07:46]>> All right. So, um first of all, can I ask a question? Like, can I like read the >> Yeah, sure.

[00:07:52]>> the context of it or like >> Sure. Sure. Uh you want you want to pull up verse four? I'll pull it up. Got >> Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Um what's your name?

[00:08:03]Like >> me or >> him? Like I know that you're you're Liiano. You're >> just an Okay. Okay.

[00:08:14]>> Yeah.

[00:08:15]>> Um so at least from from I didn't obviously >> we we'll pull we'll pull up the passage.

[00:08:21]Don't worry. So you could have it in front of you. And if you could share your screen, that'd be great.

[00:08:29]>> So now I got it up. Yeah. Got it up. Uh let's see. Okay.

[00:08:37]Yeah.

[00:08:40]>> So I lift up my eyes to the mountains.

[00:08:43]Where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth. He will not let your foot sl your your foot sleep. He who watches over you will not slumber. Indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither sleep nor neither slumber nor sleep.

[00:09:03]In contrast, you bring up Mark 4:38 specifically talks about Jesus >> sleeping. So he he sleeping in slums.

[00:09:20]>> Yeah. So, so the issue is >> if Jesus is the God of Israel, then this passage in Psalm applies to him >> because it says it simplicator unqualified. He will never sleep.

[00:09:34]Doesn't say he will never sleep unless his condition is met.

[00:09:37]>> No, I'm saying he didn't know like >> in your opinion did um I'm asking for your opinion from a Christian perspective. Um, did Solomon know about the incarnation?

[00:09:52]>> Okay. So then you're saying this verse is wrong. It's not true.

[00:09:57]>> I'm not No, I'm not I'm not saying that.

[00:09:59]I'm not saying I'm ask I'm asking I'm asking you first because it's very important.

[00:10:04]>> So no whoever whoever the author of Psalms is, >> when the author says the God of Israel will never sleep or slumber, >> was he right or was he wrong?

[00:10:15]>> Yeah. So, I think that um maybe I'm just saying something completely wrong here, but um I think that here it says it's in relationship to the fact that he watches over Israel and he never stops doing so.

[00:10:31]>> It doesn't it doesn't say >> or maybe maybe I'm wrong.

[00:10:35]>> So, it doesn't just say he stops watching or he will never stop watching.

[00:10:39]It says specifically he will never sleep or slumber.

[00:10:43]That's the full passage.

[00:10:44]>> Yeah.

[00:10:46]Okay, cool.

[00:10:47]>> Okay.

[00:10:47]>> Did is that a correct statement or not a correct statement?

[00:10:51]>> It's a correct statement. And um so what happened with the incarnation is >> what happened with the incarnation is >> God took on flesh according to Christian, right?

[00:11:03]>> You could say he took on flesh. He took on >> he took on a dress. He went to his wedding. It doesn't matter, brother.

[00:11:11]>> Oh, you you believe it. You believe he had a veil. So like so he limited himself >> veil or limited >> took on our our body so that he can pay for our sins.

[00:11:23]>> Sure. He took on your body whatever.

[00:11:24]>> So when he when he sleeps it's his body that needs the rest.

[00:11:28]>> Okay. But it's not the body that sleeps.

[00:11:30]It's the divine person who sleeps.

[00:11:32]Right.

[00:11:34]>> It's the it's the person of Jesus who is God that that sleeps according to his to his human nature.

[00:11:39]>> Okay. Good. According to the psalms, will the divine person ever sleep or slumber?

[00:11:45]>> Will divine person in this case the the divine person in the sense of like no but the divine person.

[00:11:54]>> Okay.

[00:11:56]>> So the divine the the son takes on the person of Jesus.

[00:12:00]>> It's okay. You could say it. He took on a person. He took on a body. He took on a dress. He took doesn't matter. So it doesn't sleep according to his >> but it doesn't >> uh but it doesn't say that you see go back to our example >> saying I can't see is different than saying I can't see in one eye that's not a false equivalent is a false yeah it is >> it's not a false >> you want me you want me do you want me to explain why >> sure >> or no >> because you are already you're bigging the you're you're putting on a part whole relation >> I'm putting on a partole relation.

[00:12:37]>> Yeah. So, you're saying that you can't equal one eye.

[00:12:41]>> That that has that has has nothing to do with anything. I'm >> Yeah, it is. Yeah, it does.

[00:12:45]>> No, it it doesn't. It doesn't >> cuz you're saying you're saying you're you're closing one eye >> of the two. You can't see out of one of of the two eyes.

[00:12:58]>> Okay. But Okay. So, to make it so has but SLT, it has nothing to do with that though.

[00:13:06]This is um in both examples I'm giving you qua accounts. A qua account the whole point is a qua account only works when it comes to aspects of a substance.

[00:13:19]A qua account >> doesn't it? Okay. Give me an example of a qua account that that does that is not referring to aspects >> to aspects that doesn't refer to aspects. Okay. Any example in the real world of a qua account without referring to aspects?

[00:13:38]>> So no it doesn't logically it doesn't.

[00:13:41]No what you see in creation you cannot compare God to creation.

[00:13:46]>> Okay. So so that now you're special pleading. Okay brother you see that's the point. You're just special pleading now.

[00:13:51]>> No those are real categories. Special pleading will be to say that these are not categories.

[00:13:56]>> What special pleading to say there's not What are you What are you talking about?

[00:14:00]I'm talking about >> you're saying you're saying you're saying it doesn't apply. You're saying it doesn't apply because it's God and God is not like >> you want you want me to show an example in Islam where that is >> of of a qua account where contradict >> of a count where contradictories are said of the same substance without reference to aspects.

[00:14:27]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, how many Qurans do you have?

[00:14:31]>> Depends on what you mean by It depends on what you mean by Quran. And by the way, this this is this is running away from the question, but I'll let it slide.

[00:14:40]>> Yeah, I I'll get back to the question.

[00:14:42]I'll get back to the question.

[00:14:44]>> Sure. How many Qurans do I have? It depend. It depends on what Quran picks out.

[00:14:49]>> I mean, what I mean by it, how many The Quran is the word of God, right? It's the direct word. How many direct word of God do you have?

[00:14:57]>> It depends on what you mean by Quran.

[00:14:59]What does Quran pick out?

[00:15:02]>> The Quran uh not the Sunnah. I'm sorry. The suras >> like I mean >> the revelations through Muhammad.

[00:15:13]>> You're still you're still not telling me much. What does the Quran pick out?

[00:15:18]>> What do you mean by I'm sorry I'm not really good in English. What do you mean by >> in ev in every account of the meaning of Quran?

[00:15:27]It's revelation of God. So that's picked out in every account.

[00:15:31]>> So what specific account or meaning is picked out by the word Quran?

[00:15:37]>> So don't you you don't believe there there there is only one Quran.

[00:15:43]>> I believe there is one Quran.

[00:15:45]>> Okay. So there's one Quran. How many recitations of that Quran are there?

[00:15:52]>> There are 10. Well, there's more than 10, but there's 10 main recitations.

[00:15:56]Seven different modes.

[00:15:58]Seven modes. I'm sorry. I should have said seven. How many modes? So, you see that you have two categories that are different. So, it's it's one re I can't speak. I'm sorry. Uh, revelation.

[00:16:12]>> It's one qua what? It's one qu the what the full revelation is.

[00:16:20]>> Yeah. So >> and and it's seven the modes.

[00:16:25]>> It's not a part unless you say that >> you you failed you failed to understand.

[00:16:30]Okay. First of all >> there is first of all >> there is a part hole relation when it comes to the Quran depending on what Quran picks out. So if Quran picks out the Arabic revelation given to the prophet in the seventh century >> everything recited right then we would take a part whole relation or a type token distinction >> where the seven modes or would be parts of the Quran.

[00:17:03]>> Okay. If Quran if Quran picks out the 114 chapters starting from here and ending here, okay, then that's going to give you a different account. It's not going to give you a part whole relation when you're counting the Quran. So there's no problem here.

[00:17:22]>> So you have different accounts of the Quran. I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

[00:17:26]>> Yeah. Of Yeah, of course we have different accounts. So remember what I asked you in the beginning is give an example of a qua account where contradictories contra this just pay attention contradictories are predicated of the same substance without having reference to aspects.

[00:17:52]>> Okay. So, do you believe that waves and particles are the same thing?

[00:18:00]>> I contradict. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You meant >> I I don't know. I don't know what you're referring to.

[00:18:06]>> Okay. So, I'm I might give it fully. The light has two natures. The wave the uh wave nature um and the particle nature.

[00:18:18]They are contradictory yet they are on the same critical subject.

[00:18:22]What's contradictory?

[00:18:25]>> Like a particle cannot be a wave.

[00:18:29]>> A particle cannot be a wave.

[00:18:32]>> Yes. If not, you wouldn't need a if not you didn't need a distinction in the matrix.

[00:18:39]>> Sorry. A particle cannot be a wave.

[00:18:43]>> No, that's I have I have no idea what you're talking about.

[00:18:49]>> No idea. particles and waves.

[00:18:52]>> No idea what you're referring to. Are you like reading off of somewhere?

[00:18:57]>> No, no, no.

[00:18:59]>> What's What's a particle? What's a wave?

[00:19:02]So when you what you see with the light is that through the experience the experiment they see that the light has a wave uh like a spectrum of like spectrum in which you can see the v of the various colors but at the same time you see like if I if I put like the flash in here you'll see one color right you'll see one the nature is one direct line towards your eye.

[00:19:36]>> Okay.

[00:19:36]>> Whereas at the same time it has a a wave of motion. It's complicated.

[00:19:43]>> So that's only that's only in perception.

[00:19:47]It doesn't refer to the essence of the liquidity of the thing.

[00:19:51]>> I'm not so sure about I'm not an expert on on >> quantum physics. You're not you're not I know but you're using Okay. So brother listen it's it's very simple okay qua accounts this is the problem with the incarnation and this is the problem with this passage when you want to give a qua account for something and it's uh co-referential the p the subject of predication is co-referential then the qua count will have to be in reference to aspects You're begging the question. Tell me why.

[00:20:31]>> I'm not I I'll tell you why. Okay, I'll tell you why. Here's an example. Okay.

[00:20:36]If you say that is is it a predicate of divinity for God to be immutable?

[00:20:44]>> Okay.

[00:20:45]>> Is is it a predicate of divinity?

[00:20:48]>> A predicate to be immutable. Um >> yeah, in his absence. Yeah.

[00:20:56]>> Okay. What? But wait, what do you mean in his essence?

[00:21:00]>> Well, I mean obviously it's going to change in in obviously it's not going to change. The essence of God is not going to change, but the way in which it interacts with with with us >> is it is it a property of every divine person to be immutable?

[00:21:17]>> Yeah.

[00:21:18]>> Okay. And what is immutability?

[00:21:22]>> Immutability means to not change, to not have potency >> in any sense. Right.

[00:21:29]Um yeah.

[00:21:30]>> Okay. So immutability says that whatever has this property is unchanging. Absolutely. There is no change whatsoever.

[00:21:42]>> Yes.

[00:21:42]>> Yeah. Well on on the divine nature.

[00:21:45]Yeah.

[00:21:46]>> Okay. But so that property is predicated to the person. It's not a property of a nature. The person has that property.

[00:21:57]The person has >> right. The person has that property.

[00:22:03]>> He bears it.

[00:22:05]>> No, the nature has it because the divine nature.

[00:22:08]>> So, so Jesus is not immutable.

[00:22:13]>> Jesus quote again probably we're just looking over each other.

[00:22:17]>> Exactly. But like exactly his human nature changes.

[00:22:22]>> Right. Right. That's the point. So the person has the property, >> right?

[00:22:28]>> Uh the no the I'm saying that >> the person doesn't have the property.

[00:22:33]>> We see obviously we see not only in the in the New >> Test brother now now now you're just wasting time. Does the person have the property?

[00:22:44]>> The person has the property. Yeah.

[00:22:47]>> What is divine nature?

[00:22:49]>> Qua, bananas, watermelons, it doesn't matter. The point is the person has the property of being unchanging in every sense.

[00:22:58]Okay, good.

[00:23:00]>> Now you have the formula Jesus qua divinity is unchanging in every sense.

[00:23:09]Then you have Jesus qua humanity changes in at least one sense. Good.

[00:23:17]>> The question is Jesus qua humanity and Jesus qua divinity are they co-referential?

[00:23:24]>> Do they pick up the same thing in reality?

[00:23:29]>> They are. They refer to the same person.

[00:23:33]>> Perfect. Now let's actually put it up here on my screen so everybody can see.

[00:23:41]>> Yeah. I don't think I said something wrong with this statement. No, you didn't say anything wrong, but I'm going to show you how this would lead you into a fat contradiction.

[00:23:51]>> Okay.

[00:23:52]>> Okay. Yeah, sure. Sure.

[00:23:54]>> Here, let me >> I guess if I'm wrong, I can always like look up and like everything, right? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Like, we are here.

[00:24:06]We're humans. We're follow. So, maybe I'm wrong.

[00:24:10]>> Share window.

[00:24:23]Okay.

[00:24:26]>> Can you see my screen?

[00:24:28]>> Um, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:24:31]>> Okay.

[00:24:36]Jesus qua divinity is immutable.

[00:24:44]Jesus humanity is mutable.

[00:24:52]>> The question is, is Jesus qua humanity correering Jesus qua divinity?

[00:25:10]>> Well, >> is there an equal? It depends. I I would say that they core refer to the person of Jesus, but they're not the same thing.

[00:25:19]>> Be okay. If they're not the same thing, then they're not correcting. So, it's either they're co-referring or not.

[00:25:28]>> They the two natures are distinct. So, they are not the same.

[00:25:31]>> That's that's besides the point. So, Jesus qua humanity is Jesus qua divinity, right?

[00:25:39]Um it's still it's I would say all that I will say is it's still Jesus >> then ask that is Jesus qua humanity Jesus quad divinity >> like they do have like a different properties >> are they identical or distinct >> the two natures are distinct >> didn't ask about the two natures I asked about Jesus qua humanity and Jesus quad divinity >> they are well in a sense they are distinct because they have obviously >> so the so so Jesus quad they are also >> hold on so Jesus qu so Jesus qua humanity is not Jesus squad divinity >> Jesus squad divinity Jesus quad humanity and Jesus squad divinity they are um >> are they the same thing or are they distinct >> they are the same person.

[00:26:38]>> Okay. So, Jesus called humanity, >> they refer the same being.

[00:26:42]>> Okay. So, Jesus >> Cool. So, Jesus called humanity is Jesus called Divinity, right?

[00:26:49]>> Uh, no. Cuz they have they're two.

[00:26:52]>> So, so there's two Jesuses. There's a Jesus called humanity and Jesus divinity.

[00:26:57]>> No, cuz they I'm saying >> so Jesus called humanity.

[00:27:00]>> It's a is it a property of person or >> so? So nature. So then it's you can't have them both brother. It's either Jesus call humanity is Jesus squad divinity or Jesus call humanity is not Jesus squad divinity.

[00:27:16]>> Um it depends on which sense you are intending this.

[00:27:20]>> There's no senses in identity. It's either all the properties of A uh are shared by B or all the properties of A are not shared by B. Well Jesus uh well Jesus called humanity is Jesus in some predication let's say >> okay >> so Jesus call humanity is Jesus quite divinity right >> no I'm not saying this is that no I'm saying that Jesus qua humanity is Jesus but that is is on predication not identity >> lord of so Jesus qua humanity has a nature called Jesus quad divinity >> no Jesus does not have a nature.

[00:28:03]>> Okay. Okay. So that's you just said it's an is of predication. You're so confused.

[00:28:08]>> No in predication I mean the relationship.

[00:28:10]>> So Jesus qua humanity is predicated with a person called Jesus quad divinity.

[00:28:16]>> So now Jesus quad divinity is a predicate.

[00:28:19]>> Okay. Is Jesus quad divinity a predicate?

[00:28:23]>> It's a they have the quality of Jesus has the quality of being.

[00:28:27]>> I didn't ask brother. I didn't ask that.

[00:28:29]Lord have mercy. Is Jesus qua humanity Jesus qua divinity?

[00:28:37]>> They're not >> are they distinct or Okay. So they're distinct subjects. There's two Jesuses.

[00:28:43]>> No, they're not distinct in person. They are distinct in nature. This is exactly why the quad distinction.

[00:28:48]>> Boy have mercy. Sir, both are persons. Jesus qua humanity and Jesus quad divinity. We're not only talking about nature's here, but we're talking about >> Okay. So, if we if we talk in person, >> sir, pay pay attention, bro.

[00:29:05]>> It's been there the whole time. Jesus qua humanity and Jesus quad divinity.

[00:29:12]Is that are we picking out the same thing or are we picking out two different subjects?

[00:29:17]>> We picking the same person. So, if you mean >> beautiful Thank you. You go. So then Jesus qua humanity is Jesus squad divinity >> is referring to the same person. So yeah >> beautiful. So Jesus qua humanity just is Jesus squad divinity right?

[00:29:36]>> Uh again I will say the same thing that I just said before.

[00:29:39]>> Please answer the question. Jesus humanity is Jesus squad divinity. Right.

[00:29:46]uh they are >> in the sense of person then yeah >> there's no in the sense when it comes to identity is Jesus humanity ident is Jesus qua humanity identical to Jesus quad divinity >> uh in persons in person in person because >> there's no there's no person then yeah in nature >> there's no there's no sense when it comes to identity I'm going to ask one more time is Jesus humanity identical to Jesus divinity Then >> I I have to think about this one. Like if I do if I had to give better response that I will give right now is yes.

[00:30:27]>> Okay. So they're identical. Thank you.

[00:30:29]You could have said that and you should have said that like 30 minutes ago because that's what Christians believe.

[00:30:34]Jesus humanity is not a different person from Jesus divinity. Jesus squad person.

[00:30:40]>> All right. All right. Cool.

[00:30:42]So now this is the issue. These are contradictories because it's one thing to say it's one thing to say that you can't change in one sense but you can change in another sense. It's another thing to say that you are not changing in any sense and changing in a sense.

[00:31:04]So then you cannot have these be true unless they are aspects.

[00:31:09]Do you understand?

[00:31:11]Okay. So, you're saying that I'm trying to steal me position. You're saying that unless you unless you think that those are two aspects of Jesus, then it's a contradiction.

[00:31:22]>> Exactly. Because Jesus quity just is Jesus core divinity. So, that one subject is changing in every sense and unchanging in every sense.

[00:31:34]You can't have both.

[00:31:37]It's another it's it's another thing to say >> well Jesus is changing only in this sense >> and I'm changing in a different sense in another sense. That's not these are not contradictories.

[00:31:52]>> Yeah. I'm not saying they're in relation they're in relation to aspect. No you are you're saying remember Jesus quum humanity just is Jesus quad divinity.

[00:32:05]I I I can't hear you.

[00:32:12]>> Your mic on the piano.

[00:32:16]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:32:19]Hey.

[00:32:24]Okay. Can Can you hear me now?

[00:32:26]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I can now.

[00:32:28]>> Okay. So, I'm going to say this one more time, bro, and then I'm going to move on. Okay.

[00:32:33]>> Okay. Remember we established Jesus qua humanity is identical to Jesus quad divinity.

[00:32:40]So whatever you're predicating of one predicating of the other. Okay. We predicated immutability and mutability.

[00:32:51]Immutability is to say that this subject is not changing in any sense.

[00:32:59]Mutability is to say that the subject is changing in at least one sense.

[00:33:06]The same one subject cannot be both.

[00:33:09]It's either he's unchanging in every sense, that's what immutability means, or he's changing in at least one sense.

[00:33:18]Therefore, you have a contradiction.

[00:33:22]>> Okay? So, at least it seems to me like >> I can't hear you anymore, brother.

[00:33:28]You can't. Okay. No. Can you hear me?

[00:33:30]>> Maybe that's me.

[00:33:35]>> Speaker.

[00:33:37]>> Yeah, I can't hear you anymore. Speak.

[00:33:39]>> Yeah, I can I can hear >> I can't hear both of you.

[00:33:42]>> You can hear me.

[00:33:43]>> What's going on?

[00:33:43]>> I can hear. Okay. Okay.

[00:33:46]>> One sec.

[00:33:50]>> So, >> can you hear me now? Can you hear me now?

[00:33:53]>> I I can hear you. Yeah. Yeah. You can Can you hear me?

[00:33:56]>> Okay, cool.

[00:33:57]Yes. Yes. Okay.

[00:33:59]>> So, >> so did you get what I said?

[00:34:02]>> Yeah. Yeah, I got it. I get it. So, I guess for now I would have to say like I'm going to obviously do my research on it, but like from at least this conversation it seems like it's a contradiction.

[00:34:14]>> Okay, cool. And that's why the argument follows that the God of Israel never sleeps. Jesus sleeps. Therefore, >> Jesus is not the God of Israel. But yeah, you could ask a question. Go for it.

[00:34:26]Yeah. So I was interested in the idea of right but I I I didn't want to like learn it from you know Christian sources because they might straw man and everything. So where would you say to go and read about it?

[00:34:43]>> And you want to answer that? Sorry I've been speaking too long man. You can feel free to cut me off whenever.

[00:34:48]>> Yeah.

[00:34:48]>> Yeah. So first you want to understand the oneness of God right? You would read the Quran. You read the simple chapters and the simp from the Quran that properly and explicitly state God who he is, right? And you'd understand it through the Quran. You would understand it through how the prophet Muhammad explained it, right? But if you're looking for uh specific theologians, right, uh that we abide by to properly understand the right, we would say recommend books from right or if you want to keep it more simplistic, right?

[00:35:22]historical based and from scripture right we would say Muhammad Abdah and this is who I mainly read from if you want to understand uh proper monotheism >> al Gazali do you like no >> what do you think about him >> no >> he's he's u so ali is an important uh important scholar um very influential uh his his works have uh advanced um Islamic thought but uh we don't share the same framework about God. So in terms of we wouldn't refer you to Alazi specifically because he's of a different school. So that's the only reason but uh he's he's in a he's a he's a very good scholar.

[00:36:07]>> Yeah.

[00:36:08]>> Yeah.

[00:36:09]>> Yeah. Yeah. So I guess if I if I have the answer to the the question that you posed me before, you know, maybe I'll come back, right?

[00:36:19]>> Yes. If I have it. Yes, of course.

[00:36:21]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:36:22]>> Yes.

[00:36:22]>> So, and then you can tell me what you think about it, right?

[00:36:26]>> Yes, brother. Yes.

[00:36:28]>> No problem. Yeah. So, maybe we'll see each other. Thank you again.

[00:36:32]>> Thank you.

[00:36:34]>> God bless.

[00:36:34]>> All right. Have a good one. Take care.