A rigorous intellectual duel that transforms ancient dogma into a complex game of metaphysical chess. It is a brilliant display of scholarship that makes dense historical disputes feel both urgent and intellectually demanding.
安装我们的扩展，即时搜索任意视频内容
Trinitarianism vs Unitarianism | HEATED Debate! Metaphysics Mike vs Alex Sorin本站添加:
All right, everybody in the chat.
Welcome back to another theological debate. We got metaphysics Mike and Alex Saurin here. And tonight it's going to be a debate between Unitarian and Trinitarian. And what we're going to do for the format is 15 minutes openings, 7-minute rebuttals, uh 15-minute cross exam each, and the 30 minute open dialogue. And then however long you guys uh keep us going with some super chats and that these guys can hang, we'll do that. Um, but without further ado, we're going to give it over to Alex for the first half here. Whenever you're ready, Alex, I'll start the time.
Sure. I just uh shared my screen here.
Just let me know if we're good to go.
Yep. Okay. So, the topic for tonight's debate is trinitarianism or unitarianism, which is correct. Now, Mike and I both believe in one God, and we both believe uh both claim to believe in the God of the Bible. Nonetheless, we've come to different conclusions about our doctrines of God. So, I'll briefly explain the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, and then I'll show the history of how we got there. The Orthodox doctrine of God is monarchic, just like we say in the creed and in John 17:3, we believe in one God, the Father Almighty, who is the true one, only unchanging God. We pray this during our services. As you can see in the anafra of St. Basil right here, it reads, "Oh master, you are Lord God the Father Almighty. and adorable. It is truly proper and just and befitting the magnificence of your holiness to praise you, to sing to you, to bless you, to worship you, and to thank you, to glorify you, the only true God.
It's very important in the Orthodox view to emphasize that God is a father. This is part of his identity at all times in all possible worlds. In John 17, we see that even before creation, God was a father to Jesus, the son of God, and that the father shared his love and glory with the son even before the foundation of the world. It's probably worth mentioning, too, that the heretic Aras, who is known for rejecting the divinity of the son of God, was actually deposed primarily for denying that God is eternally a father. If God is eternally a father, then it follows he must eternally have a son.
The son or word of God was begotten by God outside of time from everlasting. In a similar way that a human son has the same nature as his father, the eternal son has the divine nature from God, the father. John 1 employs the Aramaic theme of the memora, the word of God to communicate the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus, which is confirmed by John the Baptist, who when he sees Jesus says, "This man is greater than me because he existed before me."
Jesus affirms his pre-existence and divinity in John 8. Jesus says that he saw Abraham and Abraham rejoiced. And the Pharisees said, "What do you mean you're not even 50?" And Jesus says to them, "Before Abraham was, I am." And they tried to stone him for that. Later on in John 10, they make clear that they're upset that Jesus makes himself equal with God. Jesus doesn't take it back uh and he escapes. In Acts 20, St. Paul refers to Jesus's blood as God's own blood, demonstrating that Jesus is a divine person. And Micah 5:2 prophesying about the birth of Jesus says that his goings forth are from everlasting again showing eternal pre-existence. Like John 1, Colossians emphasizes the existence of the son, the image of God before created things, making him uncreated.
Colossians 1 and2 emphasize that the fullness of God and deity was in Jesus.
We believe God's holy spirit eternally proceeds from the father as it says in the creed in John 15 and in Hebrews 9.
An analogy the holy fathers sometimes use is that if the son is the word of God, the holy spirit is the breath. Now in Luke 4, Jesus pulls out an Isaiah scroll to read in the synagogue. He reads from Isaiah 61 and says that it has been fulfilled. Isaiah 61 actually mentions all three persons of the trinity. The speaker has the spirit of Yahweh upon him because Yahweh anointed him and then identifies himself as Yahweh prefiguring the son's incarnation and earthly ministry. So the doctrine of the trinity is simple. We have one God, the father, the uncaused cause, who he eternally begets the son and eternally processes the spirit. The relations distinguish each person. So it's also important to note that we use the word God differently for the father than for the son or the spirit. The father is God in the sense of the proper noun and the son and the spirit can be referred to as God by virtue of possessing the same nature with the father. Now let's evaluate where this doctrine of God comes from because this is important and we'll start with the second temple traditions and theologians. We'll go to the New Testament church after that and then the holy fathers of the church.
Judaism in the second temple period was not monolithic and was composed of a vast diaspora. Jesus's ministry extended far beyond Judea into the greater Middle East and the Grecoman world. Jewish synagogues and communities extended from Babylonia and Persia all the way to Italy and Egypt. Throughout the entirety of this expansive Jewish diaspora, there were numerous Jewish theologians and traditions teaching various doctrines of God. Now, one of the tensions these second temple Jewish theologians sought to reconcile in their doctrine of God was the supposed contradiction between the seen Yahweh and the unseen Yahweh.
Throughout the entire Torah, we see this tension. Just a few examples here, we're told that Yahweh appeared to Abraham.
Jacob saw God face to face. Moses and the elders saw the God of Israel when they went up the mountain. But this tension becomes palpable in Exodus 33, wherein we're told in verse 11 that Moses spoke to Yahweh face to face. And literally nine verses later, we're told that no one can see Yahweh's face. No one can even see Yahweh and live. A particularly bizarre instance, however, is in Genesis 18. Yahweh and two angels visit Abraham, appearing as three men.
Sometimes they speak with one voice.
They eat together. We see Yahweh praying to Yahweh, seeking his own counsel.
Yahweh prays that Yahweh will bring to fruition what Yahweh has spoken about Abraham. Later, we see that Yahweh on earth reigns fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from Yahweh out of heaven. The implication here being that there are two Yahwehs, a Yahweh that can be seen and a Yahweh that cannot be seen. And modern scholarship agrees on this. Alan Seagull in his famous work, Two Powers in Heaven, talks about first century Jewish thought, including a binarian God. Peter Schaefer pushes the date even further back, claiming that a binarian two gods doctrine is present in post- exilic Judaism and in late anti-Judaism and makes it a point to specify that this doctrine is genuinely Jewish.
Daniel Boyarin concludes binitarianism was present in Judaism from before the Christian era and may have even been the majority view within Judaism in the first century. One of the best evidences of this is the book of first Enoch which being compiled and circulating in about the 1st century BC takes Daniel's son of man figure and explains that the son of man was named, chosen, hidden, and preserved from before the creation of the world. You see the most parallels with first Enoch in Joanine literature, especially the apocalypse where John sees Jesus as the pre-existing son of man figure, the alpha and omega, the first and the last, just as God is the alpha and omega, the first and the last.
You see the same thing in John's gospel where we mentioned earlier the Baptist sees Jesus and says this man, this not this idea or this plan, this man has existed before me. But the parallels don't end merely with the pre-existent son of man. Both first Enoch and Revelation show a thousand thousands and 10,000 10,000s before the throne. Four living creatures before the throne. The son of man in the ancient of days sitting interchangeably on the throne.
In the same way that in Revelation Jesus and God sit interchangeably on the throne. Shaol and Hades give up their dead. The son of man is also at the same time recognized as the same person as the Messiah, the Christ, the anointed one. Just as Christ also is the son of man, the Messiah and the anointed one.
The son of man produces life-giving water just as Jesus produces life-giving water. And we have all those citations there on the slide. Another ancient tradition that St. John ch that St. John draws from is the Jewish tradition of the mera. Boyarin explains that the memora is simply the smitic equivalent of logos or a word and functions the same way as logos would. He says in all of the Palestinian Aramaic translations of the Bible, the term mera as a translation of various terms that uh in Hebrew either simply mean God or are names of God is legion and theologically highly significant because these usages parallel nearly exactly the functions of the logos, the duteros theos, which that just means two gods in logos theology.
The belief in an intermediary, a duderos theos and even perhaps binitarian worship was common to early Christians and other Jews.
Pulling from the Palestinian tarums, Boyarin points out that the mera is creating in Genesis 1:3 which corresponds to the usage of the term logos or word in John 1. So in the beginning was the memor and the mera was with God and the memora was God. The mera was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through the memor. And apart from the memora, nothing came into being that has come into being. The memor is speaking to Adam and Eve in the fall of man in Genesis 3:8. The memor is revealed to Abraham at the oaks of Meam in Genesis 18. The memor is raining down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. And the memora, the word is leading the Israelites through the desert in Exodus 17, which corresponds to the New Testament in Jude 5, which says that Jesus, having once saved a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.
So St. John draws from an older binarian Jewish tradition preserved within first Enoch and the Memora tradition and identifies Jesus as the pre-existent Mera, the son of man, the Messiah through whom all created things were created, eternally residing with the father as the alpha and omega and is hidden in the father until he is revealed who talked to Adam and Eve in the garden and led the Israelites out of Egypt. This is not Greek philosophy improperly entering the church centuries after the fact as Mike tends to claim as shown in first Enoch the Mera tradition in Seagull in Schaefer in Boyarin in numerous rabbitical traditions that are preserved in these works. St. John draws from the ancient Jewish interpretation of the two powers doctrine. We also see at about the same time as Christ a Jewish theologian named Philo living in Alexandria Egypt. Now remember earlier in my presentation when I was talking about Abraham's three visitors at the oaks of Mamray here is how Pho understands that p passage and keep in mind that he's speaking like representatively symbolically iconically here he says that the one in the middle is the father of the universe who in the sacred scripture is called by his proper name I am that I am and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God always close to the living God. one of which is called his creative power and the other his royal power. And the creative power is God. For it is by this that he made and arranged the universe and the royal power is the Lord. For it is fitting that the creator should lord it over and govern the uh creature.
Therefore the middle person of the three being attended by each of his powers as by bodyguards presents to the mind which is endowed at the faculty of sight a vision of at one time one being and at another time how many? Three. one and three beings. This is Pho right >> have four minutes left. Mike or Alex, >> thank you. In Genesis 16 where Hagar sees God, Pho says that Hagar saw the angel word as the image of God himself.
So Pho already associates the logos with the angel of Yahweh before any of these councils and any of these church fathers that Mike is always complaining about.
And by the way, does all this talk of like the images remind you of something?
St. Paul pulls from this. Hebrews 1:3 says that the son is the exact representation of the father's hypothesis and likewise Colossians says that the son is the icon of the invisible god along with pho identifying in god both one and three and the revelation of god's word and express image in the memora the eternal logos we see in the bible that the holy spirit of god is distinct from god who himself dwells in unapproachable light the spirit speaks it can be grieved can be lied to and takes part in creation So we end up seeing the New Testament authors carrying the torch of this ancient Jewish tradition that recognizes distinctions in God. It comes from the binitarian tradition that is uncovered through progressive revelation in traditions like first Enoch and Amera and through theologians like Pho. This peaked with the revelation of the Holy Trinity in Christ's church carried on by the apostles. The holy fathers guarded that faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints as Jude says and they exposited the doctrine of the holy trinity in the nyen constantinopolitan creed. The doctrine of the trinity has a direct line of continuity to that genuine second temple religion. While it seems Mike's doctrine of God comes from an innovation centuries after the fact when rabbitical Judaism declared the two powers doctrine or really any power that's more than one as a heresy. So, as I explained at the beginning, it's one God, the father, who is the sole source of all things, the uncaused cause, the word of the father, which is begotten eternally of God. All things that are created were created through him. And we have the Holy Spirit who is proceeding eternally from the father and is of the same nature as the father.
So, moving forward, I'd like for Mike to explain how he can hold of you in direct opposition to the pillar and ground of the truth, the church. His view in fact is not held by Christians in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth centuries, the church. Mike's view is closest to rabbitic Judaism today out of the two of us. And he's standing in direct opposition to Christ and his church, making his view untenable. Thank you.
I seed my time.
>> All right. Yeah, you had about a minute left.
Let me go ahead and start the timer for Mike and I'll start it this soon as you start speaking. Sir, did you want to share your screen as well?
>> You're muted, buddy.
>> Yeah.
Talk.
>> All right. Can you hear me?
>> Yeah. Okay. Let me know when you want to share screen.
>> Yep. I should be shared. I'm going to pull up also my own timer here. And you said it starts when I begin talking, right?
>> Yep.
>> Awesome.
All right. My claim tonight is simple.
In the Bible, the one God is the father alone. The Holy Spirit is the father spirit. And Jesus is his exalted human messiah. And the idea that the one God is actually three persons, which include all of them, is just not an early Christian belief. And I see already that there's a ton of confusion about what it even means to believe in one God. Folks, trinitarianism is ahistorical. It ignores mountains of evidence which expose it developed. It avoids viable better interpretations of God's monarchy, christologology, and itself depends upon extremely dubious metaphysics borrowed from paganism. Now, listen, I know hearing that to some trinitarians is like, you know, nails on a chalkboard. I was a trinitarian for most my life. But friends, the truth is often stranger than fiction. And there's something common to human nature where large established institutions on every level can become corrupted and the church is no exception. Now I have three lines of evidence that I hope you find simple and persuasive. So the first is that the scriptures identify the one God as the father. Now as we already hear, Alex agrees to this. He already agrees to this folks. The central confession of Israel and early Christianity is the shama here. O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. So what does the Lord refer to? What does one mean? Well, this can easily be demonstrated to refer to the father as one person. And that's so key here. For example, in Mark 12, Jesus is asked, "What's the greatest commandment?" He cites the shama. And look at how this man responds. He says, "You are right, teacher. You've truly said that he is one and there's no other besides him. All right. The Greek here is masculine singular for heist. And the following phrase no other besides him is third person singular. So this is not like neutral. It's not like hen estin.
It is one thing. It's he is one. And Jesus praises him for it. The narrator literally says Jesus thought this response was wise. in scholarship agrees. They says that heist means the cardinal number one and where it takes the place of a predicate it means one person. So if Yahweh is three persons then I think that should be reflected in the shama the central confession of faith. All right in the grammar if it refers to a single divine essence then it should say that in the grammar. If it refers to a monarchy of some type right that should be there but it's not. The grammar presents God as one person, not an abstract essence. And why would it exactly? By the way, I mean, look at what this is drawing from.
This is Deuteronomy. The one Yahweh is said to be feared. He's jealous and to have no other gods. The Hebrew also uses the mascul singular forms of these words. So, the grammar presents him as a single person, not as many, let alone specifically three, who are consubstantial. I mean, if Jesus is Yahweh, the Father and Holy Spirit are Yahweh, and they're distinct from each other, you have three Yahwehs. I believe he even said two Yahwehs. Folks, no, there's only one. That's the Father.
Even popular Trinitarian scholars like Richard Bachmann have to admit that like concepts like nature and essence were just not primary categories for Jewish theology. Dr. Sncker said, quoting 19th century scholar George Elliot, that it was certain that the Jews did not perceive God as a plurality of persons because the presumption is they knew their own language and understood the unity of God. I mean, do you know that every time one God occurs in the scripture without fail that refers to the father? Why don't we see the son or holy spirit called the one God? We're going to clear that up a bit later with uh Alex's unique eo view of this, but I'll tell you why. It's because of texts like Isaiah 44:24 where the Lord declares he made everything alone and by myself. They says when with this first person singular suffix it's used to express the idea of oneself. Folks, how's that work in trinitarianism? They must affirm this like goes to the one being. But beings, natures, they don't create apart from persons, right? What?
How can it speak as though he's just one person? I mean, clearly the simplest explanation is that it's because he is.
It refers to the father. The title God itself virtually 95% of the time refers to the father. Paul, Peter, Timothy make this abundantly clear. Alex also gave some great texts for this. And of course, Jesus himself calls the father the only true God, restricting the predicate true God to the father alone.
And the points out that this form of manon alone is declared to apply to one person alone. So I want you to notice here immediately that if Alex is agreeing to this, he's conceding to my main biblical point that the apostolic deposit is not that the one God is some immaterial substance or essence that is father, son, and holy spirit. Right? But no, it's just one person. That's the father. All right. So, my next point is that trinitarianism also requires post-biblical metaphysical categories that the apostles never teach. And I want to be clear that I'm not just saying that if it's outside the Bible, then it's automatically bad. I'm just saying it can't contradict the revelation of God in scripture. You see, philosophy drives your theology and scripture gives its own categories. But trinitarianism when they borrowed these metaphysics they used them as a framework to redefine biblical categories. We can't do that. You you must realize in the least that these statements right goddess one three hypoases you know homoius they don't appear in the text. So I mean they may be later theological conclusions but it's just not the language of Moses Jesus or the apostles. Now, we're going to address these directly, but first, let's test this one God claim. Because in or in Orthodox Trinitarianism, the claim to one God, that's not really merely sharing a nature. It's having one mind, will in operation. They actually think things like mind and will or properties of only nature. Eastern theologians did a ton of work developing this. But the problem is that folks, three persons having one mind is just Disney plus theology with no basis in reality. A mind implies a center of consciousness. A will implies a center of agency. And therefore, these must be properties of persons because natures don't think or will. Right? So the dilemma should be obvious. If there's only one mind and will, then you have one center of consciousness and agency.
like what exactly is distinguishing the persons? This just looks like unitarianism. All right, where God loves himself. You can see that in the diagram there with the love. So I mean trinitarians want to, you know, use this as epistemic grounding for everything, but it's just weird. It's wonky marvel level imaginations. Let's just take that one example of love. How exactly can the Son and Holy Spirit receive love from the father meaningfully if the mind that both gives and receives that love is the same? That makes absolutely no sense.
Okay, this just sounds like God loving himself, which is the unitarian position. The Bible teaches that the grounding for God's love is in his nature. God is love. So he doesn't acquire that hypoatically. Nor does he cease to be love if he does or does not express it. It's just like we're commanded to love our neighbor as we love ourself. God perfectly loving himself as one person is all the necessary grounding needed for him perfectly loving everything else. That's a unitarian position. Okay. So and just consider that this is false. Let's just say so. Well, then why does the father need the son and holy spirit to be love at all if he's fully God? Each person can have a dependency on each other and yet be God by themsel. I mean clearly this is just counterintuitive. It's self-contradictory and it's inferior to the unitarian position. Right? And the problem here is not even just these concepts because it gets much worse.
It's that the words used to drive this theology have no basis in the Bible whatsoever. Take for example usia. It's used twice and it doesn't mean substance. It means property. It was something that you owned. Okay?
Hypostasis is used five times. It doesn't mean person. And it's also translated nature. Just the opposite. I mean this is so well known in scholarship. You'll read from RPC Hansen, from JND Kelly that hypostasis and ducia were originally synonyms. I have a video on my channel where I go through all the significant controversies they had to develop this ch this uh system. Even at the council of Nika, their anathema used these words as synonyms. Folks, the the doctrine developed, the language necessary for it had to evolve. It's over. It's done.
These guys just closed their eyes to these very basic facts. And speaking about the the uh the Nyine creed, let's address Homoius. Yo, where'd that come from? It's well de demonstrable through primary sources that the suggestion of this >> didn't come from the B didn't come from the Bible. I should have five. I've timed myself when I started.
>> Oh, sorry. I was going off the stream.
Yeah, you're right. You're right.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, I got five minutes. All right. So came not from the Bible. It didn't come from the church fathers, but the emperor of Rome, Constantine. Okay.
The homosius comes from the emperor of Rome. And they debate whether he got it from the heretic Tertullian or I think likely his religious adviser, Lactantius, who quotes poress to him 14 times as his religious adviser.
Christopher Steed wrote the book on it.
He cataloged every use of homoius prior to Nya and proved with the work of Beatatrice that it comes from pagan hermeticism. They are the ones who employed this theologically and it was introduced to Christianity first through Gnostic Christians. That's a fact. Take it to the bank. And there's evidence it was already condemned prior to the council at the Senate of Antioch where they condemned Paul of Samosada. I could go on and on. All right. The simple fact is that the very language the doctrine of the trinity depends upon all right evolved. They were constantly responding to disputes prior generations couldn't resolve. Formulating doctrine more precisely than before in condemning views which were once held by respected bishops and theologians. Really consistent doctrine. Unitarianism is wrong. You guys didn't even have this figured out until the end of the 4th century. Thank you very much.
All right. So my last point is that you know everything else comes down to agency. All right. Divine agency explains every other question that you may have about this. Let's start with the crown jewel. John 1:1. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. All right. There's some question as this is translated properly. But let's just acknowledge it doesn't say in the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with the father and Jesus was God. Right. So Jesus and the word are not numerically identical. It refers to God's literal speech in Genesis. They actually have the same Greek form here. NRK in the beginning in the Greek. Okay. The overwhelming majority of scholars agree with this. So wisdom Christology is the concept of applying the roles, the characteristics, the functions, Alex gave you a ton of them of God's word, his wisdom to Christ. Raymond Brown says, "The Old Testament presentation of wisdom, there are good parallels for almost every detail of the prologue's description of the word." Gail O Day says, "Jewish wisdom tradition is the governing view of the providential language of the prologue." And there's so much commentary about how Christians don't know this and it sounds weird to them because they're not familiar with wisdom tradition. I mean, look at this.
Pull out the best Greek English lexicon, the BDAG. It says the logos literally refers to the expression of God's wisdom. That's what the word means.
Okay? So Jesus, he demonstrates this the best himself by saying that he is sent by God repeatedly. And if you really want to believe what Jesus says, well then believe him when he tells you he can do nothing on his own authority.
That his teachings, words, and acts are not his own like they would be if he was God ontologically.
And this explains every high christologology text folks whether it's the karm christi whether it's hebrews 1 colossians 1 form of god image of god imprint of god's nature are all predicative divine agency language and terms okay and it's the same that we see in the old testament with the angel of the lord with prophets including prophecies of the messiah and even with the name as Jesus says he comes in. So listen, the last thing I want to point out is Alex is a lawyer and from what I hear, a phenomenal one. And so the cool thing about lawyers is that they're authorized representatives. A lawyer can speak in court for a client. He can act in the name of the client, right? That at times his acts are treated like the client's acts. Yet a lawyer is not ontologically identical to the climate.
That's that's Alex's whole position that he just gave with all those examples of Jesus sharing in certain roles, titles or divine prerogatives that just does not follow. So based on these three reasons, I think we have great evidence that it's actually trinitarianism that was a departure from the true ancient doctrine on the nature of God in Christ.
And it's Unitarianism that seeks to restore it. Thank you.
All right, you can stop sharing your screen. Perfect. Just get that off. All right, guys. We're going to go into the seven minute rebuttals.
>> Actually, I have one slide for this one.
Okay, >> this one.
>> Ready? And you are all right. Good. Yep.
Okay. Uh I think Mike just lost this debate because he actually had to make an affirmative case for Unitarianism. I didn't really see one anywhere, guys.
All he did was talk about how bad Trinitarianism was. So, I think in if we're scoring this based off of points, Mike didn't even meet his initial burden to make it onto the rebuttal section in this debate. All that he has is reactionary material to how much he hates Trinitarianism. Look, Mike presents a Unitarian God, one that claims to be like purely biblical, stripped of later accretions, as I've already shown in my opening, that's utter nonsense. He's actually adopted the exact same rabbitic tradition that the early church had to contend with.
And beneath it all lies a flawed Protestant methodology. As I've shown already during the second temple period, the Judaism that gave us Jesus and the apostles, it was not the flat unarian monotheism of later rabbis that Mike has appropriated for himself. It was a faith that freely acknowledged distinctions within the one God. Pho of Alexandria, that henistic Jew theologian writing before the destruction of the temple, spoke of the logos as a duderos theos, a second god, distinct from the father yet fully divine, the agent through whom the father creates and reveals himself. He sometimes even acknowledged three distinct powers as I've shown. The tarams, the Aramaic uh paraphrases used in the synagogues of Jesus's day, consistently inserted the memor, the word whenever the Hebrew text risks implying that God himself acted directly in create in creation or judgment. The memora is not a mere literary device.
It's a dis it's distinct and it speaks and it acts and is worshiped as God.
Scholarly work on the two powers in heaven doctrine. So, seagull, boarin, Schaefer and this is confirmed across the Kuman scripts. Apocalyptic literature, early rabbitic pmics, all of them show that faithful Jews of the second temple era could speak of a principal angelic or hypoatic figure who bore the name of Yahweh, sat on Yahweh's throne, and exercised divine prerogatives without compromising their precious monotheism. This was not seen as diatheism. It was binitarian monotheism. It's exactly the conceptual soil in which the that the apostles planted for the full revelation of the father, the son, and the holy spirit.
Mike doesn't have any of these things, not even one. He's an innovator. Around the year 200 AD, as the Mishna was being codified, this is we learned this in Bayarin says that Jewish rabbis began to disavow the two powers doctrine as a heresy. They call it menth. What had been acceptable in the time of the apostles was now not permitted because as Buarin argues the church was proclaiming that the second power had become flesh in Jesus of Nazareth as it says in John 1. And here is the irony that by rejecting the distinctions within God that the second temple period Judaism recognized Mike is not standing with Jesus and the apostles. He's standing with the post temple rabbis that stood against Christ's church who branded that very belief as a heresy which makes sense why Mike is a pronomian a Judaizer. This brings me to a deeper problem with Mike's methodology and how he got to this very flawed doctrine of God. The same church that canonized the Bible and guarded the manuscripts and was burned at the stake for the very Bible that he misrepresents today.
those people uh you accept their manuscripts and their cannons and their books but not their interpretations.
Mike, you're incredibly inconsistent. To pit scripture alone against the church is to saw off the branch that you're sitting on. But this is the problem with Mike's methodology just going off of his own uh thoughts and whims. Uh Mike, your method solos scriptor cannot justify itself without collapsing into the very epistemic problems that it claims to escape. The Orthodox Church stands as the historic continuous witness to the doctrine of God and that one God who is the one essence in three persons. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob fully revealed in Jesus Christ. That is not innovation. Now, uh Mike brought up the Shema that uh the Lord your God, O Israel, the Lord is one. Well, first of all, notice that it the Lord your God, O Israel, the Lord is one. And the the term for one there is ehad in the Hebrew. Notice Mike wants to stay away from the Hebrew. He's talking about the Greek version of this. The Hebrew term eh for one is the exact same term when Adam and Eve became one flesh. So you have two persons that are one. One ehad in the same way that the Lord your God, O Israel, the Lord is one. It's a general term. And in fact, there is a different Hebrew term for uh when you're referring to something that is uniquely or distinctly one. It is yahed, not ahad.
Mike said that I believe God is an essence. I thought I made it clear that the father is God. Mike is too used to debating some like evangelicals that don't really understand the trinity that are calling into his show. But you have to actually engage with my position.
Mike, I made it very clear in my opening statement. The father is God. Who is God? The father and the son and the holy spirit are god in a different sense.
This is like very clear throughout the petristics. I've shown many references.
I showed the anafa of St. Basil. You see it all throughout the Capidosians. You have God and the son and the spirit. And God always refers to the father, not some essence.
Mike complained that we used too much philosophy and then all he did was talk about philosophy the entire time while I talked about the historical context and the Bible and second temple period texts and traditions, the historical millu that would affect the interpretation of the Bible for these people. Well, Mike complains about philosophy. That's all he ended up talking about.
Mike says that the Orthodox model is pretty close. It might as well just be Unitarianism. That's pretty crazy considering that that's literally the historic position of the Trinity that he sees uh as as not correct. Uh so it's if like if if the historic doctrine of the Trinity is not the Trinity or it might as well be Unitarianism, I don't know what is the Trinity then. He I'm not going to go into your social trinitarianism box. I have the holy fathers on my side. Uh also, Mike's God is not eternally a father. His God changes identity to not being a father to becoming a father. None of Mike's words have a basis in the Bible either because we're doing the best we can with English in the same way the holy fathers did the best they could with Greek. I see I'm running short on time here, but Mike is also confusing development of doctrine with development of language.
And one more thing on Homoia. This will be my last thought and then I'll finish up. St. Athanasius the great in one of his letters against um uh a cenotal letter of the bishops of Egypt to the bishops of Africa. He says that bishops of old time about 130 years ago those I mean of great Roman varsity rebuked in writing those who called the son a creature and not co-essential with the father. This fact was known to Ucius sometimes bish bish sometime bishop of cesaria who at first went along with the arryan heresy but afterwards signed the creed in the nyian council and affirmed in a letter to his people. We know that among the ancients certain learned and eminent bishops and writers have used the word co-essential in reference to the godhead of the father and the son and this is 130 years ago he says >> all right >> this is not some innovation thank you can stop the screen share now >> yeah okay now we're going to hand it over to metaphysics mic for his rebuttal and I will start the timer again for For some reason, it was out of sync, so I started going by the time. Um, whenever you're ready, do you want to share screen?
>> Nope, that's okay. Can you give me a a warning at like the one two minute mark, please?
>> We'll do.
>> All right. Awesome. Thank you.
>> Started now.
>> All right. Whoa. Whoa. Folks, Alex just gave so many straw mans. He twisted an insane amount of stuff. He said, "I didn't give any positive evidence for Unitarianism." The first thing I argued was that the one God and its surrounding theology refers to one person, not three. That's what Unitarianism teaches.
I gave direct metaphysic comparisons between trinitarianism and unitarianism.
That's support for Unitarianism. Okay.
He said that Jesus can do things that only God can do as his authorized a agent. Right? That's a unitarian position that I that I argued for. Excuse me. That that's what I said. And I compared that to Jesus as God ontologically. Right. Why would he say that? That's not cool. Of course, I gave positive evidence. All right. I didn't complain about too much philosophy. I said philosophy can't contradict the revelation in scripture.
H. He didn't even bring that up or acknowledge that. He said, I just focused on that the whole time. I gave a ton of scholarship. All right, let's quickly see if we can get through all this. So he talked about being eternally the father, being the same nature as the f as the father and then drew a totally heretical example, folks. That's correct. When humans have children, the children are of the same nature, like father and son, but we count each other as two human beings. The father and the son are not two gods. Nice try. False analogy. He said the same thing about the Hebrew. That's another thing he just That's not true. He said, notice how he didn't focus on the Hebrew. I literally showed the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 6:4 on the screen. What's this guy watching?
Who knows? Okay. He said that's the same that they use for Adam and Eve being one flesh. Yeah. And how many humans are Adam and Eve, Alex? How many humans?
Yeah. Baked. You just baked yourself.
That's a heretical analogy. No, they're not. The persons of the Trinity are not one like Adam and Eve are one. take that to the bank. Okay, he mentioned John 8:58. This is a bit more complex. In summary, Jesus can be associated with the divine name and speak prolleptically drawing from Genesis 17, Genesis 22 and Paul talks about it in Galatians 3 that he is the Christ. What Abraham looked forward to was the coming of the Messiah. That's what he saw, his day.
All right? He just presupposed that must mean he was literally there and if he was then why was he waiting for him?
What day is Abraham looking forward to?
That just makes no sense. He used a bunch of terrible scripture. He said talked about God having blood. Yeah, God doesn't have blood. You don't believe the human flesh of Jesus is God? That's a metaphor. All right. And plus there's textual variance. Um he used the term about how he's coming from everlasting.
Yeah. Have you looked at other translations that can also be properly translated from ancient times? Do you know about Jewish prolleptic language?
That's a nothing burger. Okay. All right. He spent a lot of time about basically two powers theory in Judaism. Now I I want to make it clear that the work of Seigal, the work of Schaefer, Daniel Boyerin, I've read a ton of Berin's work. They make a lot of great points there. There are folks, the son of man is a power in heaven. Absolutely. He brought up Enoch. I thought that was so cool he used the book of Enoch, Alex.
That's pretty sweet. Uh yeah, there are two. The The question is, are they the same ontology? Are they homosius? Right?
Are they all co-equal, co-eternal?
That's the question. Okay. And in all of this multiple powers Jewish material, all right, they are an exalted agent.
It's in he's enthroned.
He's like personified. He has divine attributes. Okay. He brought up about the mera. This supports my view that Jesus is the embodiment of God's word of his wisdom. He that's right. He has the same roles and divine prerogatives as Yahweh. that doesn't make him Yahweh by his identity, by his nature. All right?
So, I mean the the point here just to summarize that, right? So, yes, he made a lot of good points that I totally agree with about two powers, but that does not therefore mean nice style persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial. They weren't. That was a reach. Okay. He brought up the title Alpha and Omega. Yeah. that just because Jesus and the father share a title doesn't make them the same being. Jesus is called the light of the world. We're called the light of the world. Are we one in being with Jesus? Like these are just ridiculous nonsequittors. I I'm actually surprised he brought up Jude 5.
That's a textual variant.
>> Thank you. Thank you. IS THAT WE WANT ALEX? You can't be a textual variant, dude. Yeah. every every one of those passages in the Old Testament says the Lord. So, it's quite reasonable to think that the New Testament quotation, it's quoting the Old Testament would also say Lord. And you could even chop that up uh with the Jewish principle of agency.
Okay. So, let me see. That's I think that's the majority of it. All right.
This this is the biggest thing that he said and why Alex clearly has lost this debate at this point. He said and repeated in his rebuttal that we use the word God differently for the father than the son or spirit. Done. The father is God as a proper noun. But the son and spirit are just God by possessing the same nature. Oh, he just admitted, okay, that God does not mean the same thing when applied to them, right? That means that his view already distinguishes the father's godhood from the son's godhood.
And then he just denies that two gods logically follows. That was huge. I'm actually so surprised that he was willing to say that so freely. Okay, that alone is enough.
>> That alone is enough to discredit the whole position. But I'm definitely looking forward to getting into this cross exam, maybe learning some more if I've misunderstood some things. But at this point, Unitarianism clearly just comes out on top.
>> All right, thank you very much for your rebuttal there. Uh before we get into the 15minute cross exams, I just want to give a big shout out to one of our sponsors for Debatecon 8. It is Yona Gooni Sushi located in Puerto Rico. They have some of the finest dining that you can get in that area of I think it's Aguodia. So, you know, big thanks to them. It's a hidden gem and they serve up insane Japanese Puerto Rican fusion, fresh sushi rolls, artisal dumplings, Korean barbecue beef, and that firefried rice. So, yeah, fivestar reviews all around for them. If you're in Puerto Rico, check them out. They're open Wednesday through Sunday. And uh Sideshow Bob is going to be at Debatecon 8. So you guys can come meet him in person and see the man behind the mission. So yeah, I always recommend getting an omic ac when you go to a sushi place for the first time. Let the chef take care of you. But yeah, I will now let you guys get to the cross exam.
See, set up there.
Yeah, seeing people saying they're booking a trip now. That's great.
All right. Um, I guess we'll we'll uh start with Alex and >> 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 powers 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 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 power how many Yahwehs 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, >> you shouldn't. 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 gonna tell you my position. What I'm doing is pointing out you're 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.
>> Has Yahweh's name, he's not Yahweh.
>> Correct. Correct. Just like the No, let me let me ask. No, >> you you don't ask questions. This is my cross in the cross exam.
>> Oh, yeah. You'll get 15 minutes to go straight.
>> Excuse me. Excuse me. That's correct.
Mike, 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. Uh, well, I can't ask you 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 the cross exam works. I have the right 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 two Yahwehs?
>> I'm literally telling you just like the 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 >> presupposing actually. What do you make of the fact that with the memora 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 the 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 misconring 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 it true? No, I didn't.
>> Isn't it true that Pho calls it dudero Theos? Yeah, I'm not denying God's, dude.
>> I hear you. I hear you. Pho is is great intertestamental Jewish literature to read. I'm just pointing out >> 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 the Hebrew translates literally like to in his guts like it like in How many other places in the Old Testament is that term used?
>> Yeah. Not many. But it doesn't take it.
It's not the answer. It's not true or false. And there you go cutting me off.
NO HOST. YOU got to let him let me answer.
>> You have to know. He has got to let me on him. how he runs his cross examination. Uh, >> so so he can ask questions but not let me answer.
>> What's the objection?
>> I would not take it too personally. Um, but >> 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, >> 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. But you're not letting me finish. Please, 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.
>> 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 closed. There's 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 believe that in the second temple period.
>> Alex, 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. So, >> 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. All right. Listen, your time your time has stopped. So, stop cutting me off. You don't even 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 in 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 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 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 christologology?
>> Yeah. Okay. Nice try. That's a scholarly position just like O day 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.
>> 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, 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.
Um, yeah. I don't hold to many of those classical theist positions. Like, for example, I'm an open theist. Yeah.
>> Yeah. That's what the Bible teaches. You can say what you want, but you're >> in your solos scriptor view. That's your own unique view. Great. Got it. No, that's not true. So is So God's wisdom 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. So then why do you have God's wisdom 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 as if Christ is a creature then therefore God's wisdom is created.
>> Okay. Soarin 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 1 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 1 is omitting like mera, omitting logos theology, and you just have like one wisdom christologology of Dustin Smith. Is is 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, >> I have to go on a 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.
Mic.
>> So, no, not really. No, that's not true.
Oh, dude. Really? You want to defend that?
>> Photo Theos, we just talked about this. Are you trying to get a come back around and try to get a clip or something?
>> No, dude. The law order. you're do I 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 mera is somebody that is is uh says that they saw it as a hypothesis something that acts something that speaks >> all right all right one more time >> calls it a dutos >> all right maybe maybe slower maybe we say it slower okay >> yes yes slower here let me ask the Slower says, "Where is that in your view?"
>> Listen, that doesn't make them god in the same way or sense. You don't even believe there are saying it.
>> All right.
>> Yes. Well, in the sense that he's saying dudos, he's talking about two persons, not 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.
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?
>> Yeah 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.
>> And uh >> 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 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 you know that he 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 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. So, I'm glad 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. All I had to demonstrate 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 but 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. 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 cross- examination, if you don't want an explanation, you don't have to hear it. You can if you want, but uh if you are 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 we'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 you know an is of identity would be actually identifying giggling. You're so funny.
Uh I mean isn't that true? Isn't that >> No, no, it's not. You don't you don't know what you're talking about. Okay. So yeah, go 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 a cross exam. You have to ask a question. My name is 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 an 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 the sky is qualitative, you dummy. You're trying to make me look bad and get a clip.
>> 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.
>> You clip farming ashamed of yourself.
>> Cliff and now you're just commentating.
I just told you I'm not talking about your statement about the sky, Alex. I'm talking about your statement about identity.
>> 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. 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.
>> 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 phone.
>> Isn't it true earlier that when I said the sky is blue that that's an isn't of predication?
>> Yes. I said identity 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. Well, because he 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?
Honestly, I don't know.
Okay, that's all right. That's all right. Thanks. Thanks for your honesty, man. And I I really appreciate that, Alex. All right. So, we'll go ahead and then move on from that. 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 holy spirit are god by their identity then that's going to lead >> this is not a question James this is not appropriate this is a cross- examination you're not allowed to do commentary and narrative to the audience like 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, we're aware where in Isaiah 44 >> 24 >> 24 >> Isaiah 44:24.
>> I'll give you an extra 30 seconds >> because of the love here >> for his own narrative. Yeah. Nice.
>> Thank you, Mike. I appreciate it.
>> He He needs all the help he can get.
>> 4424.
>> 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 in nature.
>> Gotcha. So how many persons are there in the trinity?
>> Three.
>> Was the father and son active at creation >> per John 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 son.
>> 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 understand even like Nagel's philosophy of mind in the bat.
>> Oh man, great commentary.
>> I 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 are >> 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 modern day.
>> No, this is crazy.
>> Your question is falsely premised. What exactly do you want me to do?
>> 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 >> 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. Yeah, 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.
>> 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 That's my preference. Okay. Yeah, I need help because obviously I can't ask questions. You won't let me talk.
Look at him constantly cutting me off.
THIS IS THIS IS WHY EASTERN ORTHODOXY is losing. I stopped the time.
>> This is why you guys are losing.
>> Yeah. Because you can't answer basic questions. Did Jesus and the father create the world or did just the father create it?
>> Sounds like his answer.
>> 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? says 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 spirit.
>> Yeah. So that would be three persons, not one.
>> They're not alone.
>> It's dude. The flowers are opening. I I really don't know why you're being like this right now, Alex. I I'm actually >> Because your questions are dumb.
>> Yeah. Such a >> You're 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 >> You don't know my view. That's why your questions are >> nice claim. You're refusing to answer, but we'll try anyways. Okay. Do you agree? I answered 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 expand? 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. I'm just trying to be productive.
>> Next question. That's all you got to do.
>> I'm just trying to be responsive 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 mind and 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.
>> Okay. 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. 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 the just used to ex they're just useful.
>> Yeah. Got it. Okay. 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. 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 and were identical at first move on clearly. Sorry but >> thank you. If he's letting me talk, I mean, then I should be able to That's true. I just Yeah, I just >> No, thank you. Okay. If he wants me to So So, all right. Here we go. All right.
Got it. So, 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 platonic 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 us 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.
>> 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 yield my time.
>> All right, guys. We are going to go into the uh open dialogue here. Should last about 20 minutes or so. Um and then we'll get into the Q&A super chats. You guys, if you have questions for the debaters, send them in. Um, it's storming outside right now, so I don't know. Every couple of minutes it gets a little frame rate glitchy, but the audio is great. Um, so apologize for that Houston weather. All right, so real quick, I just want to let everyone know if you are not um, subscribed, do that.
Like the video. We have about I think last time I checked it was like six 700 people in here right now. You guys uh, drew them in. 782. That's awesome. Um, and we're going to do Debate Con 8 in July. So, I'd like if I could see some of you guys there, that'd be awesome.
It's going to sell out within the next month. I believe. Um, so we got tickets in the description. So, now we're going to get into the open dialogue. And since u Mike just went, we'll start with Alex here. Um, if he wants to open it up, but if if you want to finish what I was saying, you can you can do that, too.
>> Yeah. I got something I'd love to bring up.
>> Sure.
>> Go for it.
Okay. So, basically, >> 20 minutes open dialogue. Sorry, I got my own timer here, too. Yes, I just started it right now.
>> Sure.
>> All right. So, basically what I want to know is, can you give me one thing that Jesus does that he could only do if he was God ontologically?
>> Create.
Create. like you you like referring back to Genesis >> like in in John 1 how it's Genesis 1, John 1, Proverbs 8, all of them are stacked against each other.
>> Okay, that's uh these are the things that like the Capidosian fathers talk about that uh I think I guess in a show of good faith here. How about that? Your last question that you asked on cross exam uh St. Gregory of Nissa I'm pretty sure and I think St. Basil has a different opinion but I think there is some petristic uh support maybe for your view that the category of nature when it applies to God doesn't necessarily appear in the scripture but it's a deduction from the activities.
Uh St. Basil would say that the terms like uh that uh Jesus uh is the light that shines in the world right that this is something that is like the father's divine light. Now we are the light of the world as well you know if we participate in God's activities right uh but this is like uh it seems like there's two different views on this between St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nissa.
>> Okay. So, can the father empower an agent to create the world with not exo?
>> Okay. But that does that still mean yes in a sense in a possible world?
>> God can use people to suspend the laws of nature and create miracles. I think I know what you're getting at. Like uh Elijah raising the child from the dead or like non dipping in the water. Like isn't that a creation in a sense? Is that what you're getting at?
>> Uh no.
>> That's the point you're trying to make.
>> Yeah. No. So what I'm trying to get at is is there one thing you can give me that Jesus does that he could only do if he's God? You said create, but you but then you now >> Oh, okay. So then >> duh.
>> All right. All right. Right. So then we'll just we'll just take it from that then. Give me one moment. I'm going to >> I mean here's I mean it is an open discussion so let's not try to monopolize the time here. Mike I'm curious to ask like how does the in how does the atonement make sense in your view if Christ is a human person?
>> Yeah great question. So it turns out that he had to be a human just like Adam was in order to redeem us from the curse of the of the law. God's curse. Yeah. So then that's all that is necessary for salvation. That's it. He doesn't have to be God ontologically. Adam wasn't. So why would he? That defeats Adamite Christologology, >> right? Okay. I'm curious though, what what do you mean by the curse of the law? This is something I'm trying to understand because >> death. Death.
>> Okay. Uh so I guess maybe can we use a pneummonic device? Maybe. I don't want to put you in a box or anything, but like what is your atonement theory?
>> Yeah. So here, let me I'll show you right now. Can you see this shared screen? Can you see this?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, I just like to point out I asked you so we started with create, but then we agree God could appoint someone to create. All right. So, not that.
>> I mean, people can go back and watch that I qualified that. Come on. Don't try to put words in my mouth. I'm not trying to be honest. Put words in your mouth, Alex.
>> This is why you have beef with Jim Bob, dude. Why are you doing this?
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> People can go back and see that my answer is more more nuanced. I have beef with Jim Bob. Actually, I love Jim Bob.
does great work on evolution. But yeah, I have beef because he says things theory is and you're trying to do like a share screen and trying to put words in my mouth. Like come on. Who's good faith here, dude?
>> Alex, I'm I'm literally about to give you scriptures that I think demonstrate it. So, >> okay, do it.
>> Okay, so then let me finish. So again, we started with create. God could empower someone to do that. Then we went >> and this is not your cross exam. Why are you trying to like tee something up here, dude?
>> No one's teeing anything. Stop with literally the definition of what you're doing, dude. filled with rhetoric. Alex, tone it down. All right. Acts 17:31 says that God has fixed a day and when he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed. Okay. So, what you just said is also wrong. No.
God could also redeem.
>> You don't know you at all, do you?
>> God could also God could also redeem the world.
>> You realize we believe that the son is fully human and fully >> have to let me finish speak like I'm letting you finish.
>> It's open discussion, dude. There's no rules. Stop trying to like a piety signal. Look, your question is bad because you don't understand our view.
It's falsely premised. What should I do?
Let you go on with a falsely premised question.
>> Piety signaling. Yeah, that that's what's going on here. Yep.
>> So, should I let you go on with a premised question?
>> This is why people don't want to talk to you. This is >> Should I let you go on with a falsely premised question, Mike, or you just going to keep whining about All right, Alex, let's just let him ask this question for the next 30 seconds. We'll give him 30 seconds to ask it, and then I'll allow you full chance to respond to But you do see how it's falsely premised, right? Like he doesn't understand the trinitarian view >> and great rhetoric we're dealing with.
Is there anything Jesus does that he could only man?
>> Okay. So listen, you said he could only do that if he's God. I'm saying that literally the Bible says he does it because God appointed him as a man.
>> Yes. He came man because that's the only way he could ask.
>> And you're not listening to the moderator. You have to let me ask my question. So I ask you again, is there one thing so heated dog? This is open discussion. Like chill. This is not cross examining. Alex, just let him finish his question so we can get through it.
>> Alex, I just need to know.
>> Your cross exam is over. Chill. Like relax.
>> It's it's an you're allowed to ask back and forth, dude.
>> Yeah, absolutely. You just have to let >> Yeah, you're trying to tee up some some moment here. Go ahead. Continue with your cross exam.
>> All right. So, Alex, genuinely, I'm here because I care about this subject. Ask your freaking question, dude. Stop pontificating. Holy cow.
>> You're judging my intentions. You're attacking me.
>> We keep talking to each other. I'm going to go to minute and a half time responses just so we can get through this opened up.
>> No, he tells me I'm angry. He calls me an idiot. Calls me a little girl. This is why nobody wants to speak with you guys. Okay, >> I'm telling you, your question is falsely premised and you're not listening.
>> Okay, so I'm just gonna ask again. Is there >> you don't know what you're talking about? Is there one thing you can give me that Christ does that he could only do if he was God?
>> Yes. This verse right here?
>> Yeah. But it says he does it because he's a man he appointed.
>> Yes. Cuz he's the God man. Okay. Look something. Is that what it says, Alex?
God.
>> All of these things like Christ like Jesus as Jesus as Christ, Jesus as high priest, Jesus as mediator. I agree with all those things with you, Mike. He is a human. He's the only human God man that the only mediator between God and man, right? Is Jesus Christ. But you can't ignore all those other passages that say the logos was God. He was with God. He was God and he became flesh. And he became flesh in Jesus Christ. And when John saw him, John is older than Jesus.
And he said, "You existed before me.
You're greater than me because this man existed before me." So you can't take all of these passages that we agree on that Christ is high priest. Christ has the human nature. Yes, he's fully man. I agree on all those things. I also agree with all these other verses that you're omitting to try and make a point and try to score a clip.
>> Like I was asking you a question like your atonement theory and now you're like trying to tee something up here.
Like what is your atonement theory still?
>> Okay. And so I told you it's Adamite Christology. It's based on Jesus being a man just like Adam was a man, right? So Romans Romans 5 uh verse starting with verse 15 it says for many died through one man's trespass much more of the gift of God by one man Christ Jesus right for one man sin then we have one man through justification one man death reign one man through life right he goes through this over and over again so my uh atonement theory is what the Bible says that Jesus is a man who lives sinlessly Right? Who therefore fulfills the law and then died was resurrected from the dead and exalted to God's right hand in fulfillment of Psalm 110 verse1. The Lord at the Lord's right hand. Can can we talk about that a little bit or >> absolutely >> to talk about that?
>> Alex, I'm totally fine.
>> My problem with this is that repentance is a part of the law. So that's why it can say in certain places that David kept the law perfectly or that Job was blameless. There are many people in the Bible that were seen as blameless or that have kept the law because there's a repentance mechanism. That's true.
>> How does that make Christ special in any way?
>> Well, I think he's the unique son of God and I think he was given the spirit without measure. Right. So he he's a human like we are, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have some semi or half divine properties. So that's that's going to be one of them. So I'm I'm wondering how you actually fleshed that out. So if if Jesus is God, then you believe he has all like the the omni attributes by nature, right?
>> Yes. And we also believe in the kinosis passage.
>> Yes. Right. Okay. So that's uh like kinotic christologology like the emptying of himself, right?
>> Yeah, I'm familiar with that. Okay. So all right. So if he's also truly a man, then you believe that he has the opposite of the omni attributes as a man. He's limited in knowledge, power, and presence.
>> Uh in some ways, yeah. So you see that in Luke, uh I think at the beginning of Luke's gospel, it says that he had to grow in stature and uh I think it's wisdom or knowledge or something.
>> Yeah. Right. Yep. Yep. Uh so yeah he had to go through all the things that a human goes through. Um but at the same time while he condescended to our level in his humanity of course in his divinity he's everywhere. This is like in our liturgies uh you can I'm going to grab the book if you have another question you can go ahead.
>> Yeah. So basically I'm so in my view right for atonement I think all we need is Jesus to be a man just like Adam. But you believe that he also has to be God.
And I think that brings in that entails certain other hoops you like standards you have to meet now. So how is it that if Jesus is one person he could actualize contradicting properties of both a divine and human nature at the same time?
>> Um well we we think that uh sorry can we ask the question? I was looking >> No, that's it's fine. It's fine. So again, in my view of atonement, Jesus just has to be a man like Adam. In your view, he also has to be God. And so I'm saying, well, I think that entails problems.
>> Yeah. We believe in theossis and deification. So I'm like, that's the problem that the incarnation solves for us. What problem does the incarnation solve for you? Because I don't I don't know what that is.
>> What do you mean? Life after death, remission of sins. It solves so many problems. So again, you didn't answer the question. How is it that Jesus can actualize contradicting essential properties of a divine and human nature?
>> Uh what do you mean >> is Jesus one person or two persons?
>> He's one person. Yeah.
>> Is the person is the person who >> is this on the trinity or the hypoatic union now? I know you just had this debate with Bryce and you get into it.
>> The listen the trinity asserts that God is three persons. One of them is Jesus.
This is your model for how Jesus is God and the trinity. This is relevant. So, how is it that if Jesus All right, you you cut me off. All right. Is the person who actualizes the properties of God a different person than the one who actualizes the properties of man?
>> No.
>> Right. Okay. So then the same person actualizes contradicting properties.
>> How are they contradicting?
Because God by nature is all powerful and everywhere.
>> Man by nature is not >> is not. Okay. So then you you see the contradiction then. Okay. So >> where's the contradiction?
>> Is Jesus one person or two persons?
>> He's one person while maintaining his divinity condescends to a human level because he loves you. Michael, >> thank you. I agree. And he he loves Right. Awesome. Appreciate that. So the same person then actualizes contradicting properties at the same time.
>> Where's Okay, you know a contradiction is two things that cannot possibly happen at the same time.
>> Correct.
>> Where is the where are two things that cannot possibly happen uh at the same time >> in the person of Christ? Right? So if >> what are the two things I'm asking >> the two things are the properties of of the two natures. So again, >> why can't why can't why can't he express a divine nature and a human nature at the same time?
>> What where's the contradiction?
>> They because they're opposite essential properties. Let's let's switch to a different example and see if you can catch >> because you're about to get cooked because this is why like news is >> what? Okay. All right. Listen listen topics, dude. No, no, no. Same topic.
Can a single shape actualize the properties of both a triangle and a square?
>> It's not analogous.
Yes, it is a triangle and a square is the same as the divine nature. Michael, are you serious?
>> No. What we're doing is dealing with the problem.
>> Again, just like most of your questions in this debate, they're falsely premised because you don't actually know our view.
>> Yeah.
>> Go ahead, flick your eyebrows at the camera, dude. That doesn't actually put knowledge in your brain like you went and read Bo Branson or something cuz you obviously didn't. You don't know our view.
>> This is just all rhetoric. I'm sticking to the subject matter and I'm cooking you a knowledge. You believe >> how is it rhetoric that I'm pointing out? These questions are falsely premised. Michael, >> listen. You believe that Jesus is one person who actualizes opposite properties.
>> That's a function of nature. Michael, you're confusing person and nature. This is the same mistake you made with Jim Bob. It's the same mistake you made with everybody. You confuse person in nature.
You admitted it in what was your rebuttal? You said I just don't buy that these are properties of nature. Hey, stop interrupting me. This is an open discussion. You said I don't buy that these are properties of nature. These are properties of person. Literally the way the terms are used in Greek refer to this is not like a matter of opinion, Michael. This is the way >> everybody in like the Greek schools uses these terms. Noose mind is proper to nature. Will is proper to nature. This is just how the terms are used. You can't just >> change them because you want to.
>> Yeah. You're unfamiliar with the historical mill.
>> Five, six minutes left in the opening dialogue. They're going to get to the super chat questions. You guys send them in.
>> Like the video.
>> All right. So, anybody can go watch those debates and find out that I believe person and being are co-extensive. So, Alex just misrepresented my position. No, they don't just apply to one, they apply to both. Now, your view is that Jesus is one person.
>> You don't even know the basic categories, Michael.
>> I Yes, I do. a nature.
>> You said mind is a profit to person, Michael. This is the basics, man.
>> Okay, here we go, Alex. Here. Here we go. I'm going to try and steal man. You tell me if this is >> here's all your philosophy. Now you're the one complaining about >> No, you said that I don't understand.
So, let me give you the chance to prove that I do. Okay. A nature is a conceptual category that refers to a list of properties which are essential to what you are. Okay. Hypostatic properties are not. They're as botheus would say a hypostasis is a >> individual subsistence of a rational nature. No, I'm not showing up. I'm proving I know what I'm talking about.
That you are >> just like basics that you don't know that news is proper to nature.
>> Oh my gosh. Really? Okay. Can a nature think apart from a person?
>> The faculty of thinking is proper to nature.
>> Okay. But can be >> the way you employ the way you employ the fact is proper to person.
>> I'm literally explaining it to you because you don't know >> noose is proper to nature. The way you employ your faculty of nature is proper to person. This is called the nomic will.
>> Yeah. Got it. Okay. Yeah. Noose refers.
That's the mind in what? Greek, right? I know what you're talking about. Okay.
So, a mind does not think apart from a person. Therefore, mind is also a property of nature. not or excuse me of person not just nature.
>> Okay.
>> This is like not a matter of opinion or deduction. This is like what the terms mean. So again news is a faculty of nature. The way you employ that >> not just nature not just nature. No it's not.
>> Prove that. Prove it. Alex is why is mind only a property of nature?
>> This is a matter of definitions. Michael it just is. That's not proving it. And I haven't seen your dictionary term means >> really. Where is it? I didn't know I needed to bring one. I assumed you knew the basic terms.
>> No, it doesn't. Mind is >> Have you read any petristics at all, Michael?
>> Yes, Alex.
>> How do you not know that mind is prop that noose is proper to nature?
>> Dude, a mind entails a sinner of consciousness. Okay. So, no, a mind cannot only be a property of nature. I keep telling you this. You don't refute it or address it. Okay. So, you're just asserting. You're also confusing.
Everybody knows this. I just realized >> everybody knows this that it refers and you're just cutting me off. You're just saying everybody knows this. No. Okay.
Mind is also a property of person. Tell me can can a nature think apart from a person?
>> They have the faculty of the mind that's proper to nature. Michael and it is proper to person.
>> So, so is that >> what are you missing here?
>> Is is that a no, Alex?
>> What are you missing? Like I'm explaining it to you.
>> I'm not missing. You just talked about again how it comes from anomic will I'm following you Alex I'm asking you do you believe that mind right is only a property of person right so can >> employing the mind is a property of person >> okay awesome so so then mind is not just a property of nature >> it's a if you're talking about it as a faculty then it's proper to nature if you're talking about the use of it that's unique to each person >> I've been saying the thing this whole time, Michael.
>> That's that's what that's what it means, though, right? So, >> I know that's what I've been saying this whole time, dude.
>> No. So, listen, maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
>> You've kind of been running the questions a lot here. I know we're running down on the time. I do want to ask about you like you what I've noticed is you kind of jump between uh when you're talking about the inter uh intra uh trinitarian life, you're talking about like the mind of God, and you seem to equivocate mind and consciousness.
Don't you see that as a bit of a jump, dude?
>> Okay, that's just assuming. How am I putting >> I'm not asking you. I'm not assuming.
Don't you see it as if it's not a jump, then tell me.
>> Yeah. So, of course, no, that's that's how am I doing that, Alex?
>> Because Okay. Are you familiar with Nagel's paper on the bat? I guess I'll explain real quickly for the audience.
Uh, basically, Nagel, he wrote this paper in like Phil, it's like a famous one in philosophy of mine that says, "Can you imagine what it would be like to be in a bat?" And the answer is no.
Because what you would imagine is your human consciousness inside a bat body, right? You don't know what a bat consciousness is like. You can never be a bat. So my point is when you equivocate between mind and consciousness like this, Michael, that look, we can't we don't even know what it's like to have like a bat consciousness, a lower being, let alone like say an angelic consciousness, which is a higher being. Forget about knowing the consciousness about God. I'm saying that this is like arrogance from your point to presume to know the consciousness of God, right? We know things that are revealed, but to equivocate something like mind and consciousness, that just seems like too far of a jump to me. That's my position.
If you disagree, go ahead. I'm just This is an observation I made. I think you make a jump between mind and consciousness.
>> Wonderful claim, Alex. So, how am I equivocating that? What did I say? What did I say?
>> Why are you so emotional, dude?
>> I'm not emotional. I've told you that I'm not doing that.
>> I asked you a question. And here's your opportunity to clear it up. Like Gez Louise.
>> So I'm And I've told you, Alex, that I'm not equivocating them. I'm not equivocating all that I've >> Okay, show me how >> I'm giving you the opportunity to clear it up. Go ahead.
>> So Alex, like I told you, mind, okay, assumes if if a mind has any ontology whatsoever, it assumes things like a center of consciousness and intellect.
It's a mental phenomena. So the point is that you can't actually have that ontology apart from a person. Therefore mind must also be proper to a person.
>> I understand that Michael but you're just restating your position. So you this is your position. My point is >> you don't even know the consciousness of a lower being. How can you talk about the consciousness of a higher one?
>> Okay. So, how does that prove I'm equivocating? You said I'm equivocating.
What words and consciousness?
>> How what's my claim? And how does it equivocating?
>> Because you can say that something has a mind. But then when you say that like, well, when the father loves the son, he's just loving the same consciousness.
I'm saying that's a jump because you're assuming uh the way the divine consciousness works.
>> Okay. So then question, >> you can't know that. You have to be we both have to be apahatic about that is what I'm saying.
>> Okay. Got it. So then when the father loves the Holy Spirit, is it the same mind that both gives and receives that love?
>> I think so. Yes.
>> All right. So then I'm not equivocating a thing. Okay. If we're going in circles, man.
>> If the father and spirit have the same mind, >> it's not the same thing as self love because there's a distinction of relation. It's not the same thing as loving yourself. Michael, >> we could do one more back and forth and then we'll move into the Q and >> a distinction of relation. We already went through this. That's why loving your neighbor as yourself is meaningful in any way because there's a neighbor.
>> Yep. And and so I already addressed this by telling you if that's true, then what you're saying is that a single mind is just relating to itself in three different ways.
>> That doesn't that doesn't establish the distinction static because he's not a father. Your god is dead.
>> How are they truly not doing anything?
>> And now you're just making assertions.
>> No, I would I would like at least for like the last question if I may. If your god, >> you need to let me finish.
>> If your god, if you're I just remembered this one, so whatever. I mean, there's going to be super chats if you want to make your point later. And there's going to be isn't there a closing five minutes?
>> Yeah, if you guys would like to do that.
Um, >> make your points.
>> Go for it. Um but uh if your god is not eternally a father then and he's like the only being around what is he doing for eternity past? Is he just alone not doing anything? So we could speculate about what god did in eternity past. Uh but whatever he was doing he was perfect and self-sufficient and dependent upon nothing. If if in your view the father is actually incomplete and needs the son and holy spirit to have love or to have other these eternal properties. So the unitarian view is superior to yours because we don't need that. My god is actually independent. He doesn't need anybody else. But your god does. So he's alone and not doing anything. And yet and yet you call all three of them fully god.
>> If he's not doing anything Michael he's dead. You realize that if he's s eternally in the past alone not doing anything he's dead. That's the pro.
That's what St. Demetrius Stanaloy says about the trinitarian view that in eternally in the past there was love and you have love in between the persons of the trinity.
>> What is a though? What is a >> is self-existence.
>> Selfexistence. Thank you. So yeah that's right self. He exists from his own self.
His dependence is an internal dependence. Okay. You're you're literally not even tracking the problem.
>> He's dead and you just realize that he's dead in the past and he's not doing anything. He's dead.
>> He's not doing anything and he's alone.
>> God must be dead. That's >> that seems like a good place to go into the closings there before we get into the super chats, which people are being very gracious right now. They want to know your opinion on a lot of things.
So, u let's do a two to five minute closing each. And um >> I believe Alex started. So, uh, yeah.
So, if I had the first word, then it's only fair Mike would get the last word.
True.
>> Appreciate that.
>> Uh, I do not have any slides, nor do I have a closing prepared, but I think that we saw that, uh, Mike actually didn't demonstrate any historical continuity with his view. His methodology is no different than any other Protestant to go around with a soloscript tour, cherrypick verses through whatever paradigm or lens he has. He has no consistent mode of interpretation. He cherrypicked certain traditions. He cherrypicked the wisdom tradition and totally ignored the memora tradition. Uh he cherrypicked certain agency theories. Uh and he didn't quote any like second temple uh precedent for that. We saw a lot of precedent for a pre-existent son of God pre-existent into eternity past that I quoted in my opening from first Enoch. There are a bunch of things that I quoted in my opening from the memor tradition from numerous scholars. Seagull, Boyarin, uh Schaefer. All of them agree with me.
None of them agree with Michael's view that second temple Judaism was like some monotheistic view. And of course there was variety. I'm sure there were some like pure unarians that believed in some agency theory in the second temple.
Fine, I'll concede that. Who did they end up being though? That's the rabbitical tradition that went against the church. If you look at Daniel 2:44, it's going to say that the kingdom of God is going to be founded in the time of these kings in the time of Rome.
Which church is that? That's the church in 33 AD. The church in Pentecost. It also says that the kingdom of God will supersede take over this kingdom. Which church did that? That's the church of St. Johnum, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nissa. These guys, that's the church that's prophesied about in Daniel. That's not Michael's church.
Michael's not even in a church. Michael made up his own church. The church that is Christ's body where you actually find good theology, this proper methodology about your doctrine of God, you find it in the Orthodox church. So I would encourage everybody that's watching at the very least come and see a divine liturgy. If I put you off my sensibilities like my actions are not good for your sensibilities. Don't judge orthodoxy by me. Judge it by the way to the arguments. Go to the divine liturgy and see how we worship. Moreover, a lot of metaphysics Mike's questions were falsely premised demonstrating that he doesn't understand the fundamentals of uh monarchical the strong monarchical trinitarian view. Uh, and the giggling honestly got uh got a little boring after a while because I'm tired of trying to correct him on all these different questions. Uh, he equivocated between mind and consciousness, presuming to know the consciousness of God when it's a very like basic philosophy 101 that you don't even know the consciousness of a lower being. How on earth are you going to speculate about the consciousness of God? Uh, moreover, we see a bunch of binarian traditions that ended up becoming the church. That's not what Mike has. Mike ended up taking the view that opposed the Christians. So Mike's solos scriptor methodology and his Protestant methodology just has all the same problems that any other Protestant does. That's why his doctrine of God is bad. And as you saw at the very end here, it actually entails that his god is dead. This is something that St. Demetrius Stanaloy who is one of our most prolific uh theologians in the 1900s. Uh he talks about how you need love and you need an intertrinitarian life of love between the father and the son and the holy spirit. Otherwise, your God eternally into the past is not doing anything. He might as well be a rock.
He's static. He's not doing anything.
He's dead. You need to have love in that intertrinarian life. Otherwise, your god is not doing anything. Moreover, it uh needs a change in God because if your god is static, that means he's going to need to start overflowing love at some point to result in creation, right? Uh in uh the trinitarian model, you already have perfect love within the trinity, right? And creation is an act of the will. So, uh, again, Michael clearly doesn't understand. He came into this debate very unprepared. Uh, and you know, that's fine. I like Michael as a person. Uh, but I wish that his questions would not be so falsely premised. Um, and that he would actually study up on the other person's view the next time they come in here. I thought it was very clear and I can't uh state enough the importance of the historical continuity all the way back to the second temple period. Uh, again, Michael's view, these people are the enemies of the church. They're not in Christ Church. Christ Church is the Orthodox Church. come and see the divine liturgy. I'll see you at my time.
>> All right, Mike, I hope you were there for that.
Um, for future reference, we don't turn our cameras off unless it's a major emergency.
>> Okay. Hope everything was okay.
>> Yes.
>> Anyways, um you are free to start whenever you are ready.
>> And this is two and a half minutes.
>> Uh two to five. You don't have to use a full five minutes, but uh two to five.
Yeah. So, just >> awesome.
>> Nice little bow on it.
Okay. All right. So, folks, in tonight's debate, I think a few things have been made quite clear. All right. The first is that Alex verbatim claimed that he uses the word God differently for the father than the son and spirit. All right? The father is God is a proper noun but the son and spirit are God by possessing the same nature.
All right? So if the father is God as this proper identity of the one God and the son is God only by possession of that nature then the son is not god in the same way the father is. That means his own view has already distinguished the father's godhood from the son's godhood. That is such a big blunder, folks, because he believes that they're all equally God, but yet he's calling them God in different senses. And I mean, think about how weird this is because trinitarians stream on this whole idea that Jesus is God, which is clearly a statement of identity. Like that's what that appears to say. They don't say Jesus is divine. Jesus possesses God, right? They say Jesus is God. So this that's the real equivocation. The second thing that I think was made clear is that Alex really didn't know a lot. There was a lot of silence after questions. And I actually respect the fact that he would say that he didn't know some things. Okay. So one of them is the difference between an is of identity and an is of predication. If you don't know that, then you don't really know how the father is the one God that like he's coming to defend the trinity and doesn't know very basic things. And he tells me I don't know.
And then I even try and and like okay so then let me steal man you and then he shuts that down. Like so I don't know but I can't show that I actually do know. Like that's really leads to my third point that Alex depended heavily upon rhetoric tonight. just claiming Michael doesn't understand. Michael doesn't get it. He called me an idiot.
He called me a little girl. All right?
Like when I stuck to the content and questioned him and I think I demonstrated a few things quite clearly.
So the first is going to be that really none of those analogies he gave are are true, right? About the father-son language, about Adam and Eve being of one flesh. Uh again he used a lot of questionable text and he clearly thinks that two powers theory somehow entails just automatically means they're co-equal co-eternal and consubstantial.
He failed on all these counts. And you know there are some other things I wish I had got to. He brought up the you know Genesis 19:24 uh about Yahweh rains down fire from Yahweh.
At the end of the day, the Bible makes it clear there's only one Yahweh. But if Yahweh is raining down fire from Yahweh and there and the one on earth is distinct from the one on heaven, then you have two. You have two Yahwehs.
Okay? So now we're not just not fully understanding really how the father is God and the son is God in a different sense, but now we're just trampling on the shama. And he I I also want to say that I don't think he did a good job refuting the evidence I presented for the development of trinitarianism. You notice how he didn't really touch on those things from the council of Nika from Constantine. I presented over half a dozen scholars. Which one did he address? Which one did he refute? Okay.
I addressed his headon. Seagull Schaefer, Daniel Bererin. Okay. He he did not do that.
And I guess the last thing that I just want to get to is, you know, I I find these this whole idea that Unitarianism is just detached from history and, you know, we have no liturgy and we don't have any, you know, apostolic secession and all this stuff.
He made comments about what I allegedly believe about solos scriptor. Folks, all of this stuff is wrong. The truth is that who we are as Christians doesn't just come down to our faith, our profession. It doesn't come down to which church we go to. That is not the gospel. Right? Anybody who wants to lead you to a church, okay, trust the church is giving you a false gospel. Any true servant of Christ is going to lead you to him.
not thousands of years of traditions, councils, creeds, and commentary by Greek philosophers. They just call the church fathers. They lead you to Christ.
I also think it's worth pointing out that if Christ is God in man, he actualizes contradicting properties.
That's another thing that he just didn't address, okay? Went right over him. Um whereas the Unitarian view, all we need is for Christ to be a human like Adam.
That's actually how uh real sotariology should be understood. Okay. So I I what I just want to leave you with is just you know he said go see divine liturgy.
Yeah. And you want to know what's not in that divine liturgy? The shama. My main point that I came in with. Okay. The earliest Christians were quoting the shama in their liturgy. His doesn't.
Okay. But he wants to tell me our liturgy. We're detached. really you're not keeping the central >> time there. Sorry.
>> The central confession. So, thank you all for hearing this tonight. You know, there were some back and forth, some tough times, but overall, I also think Alex is a standup guy and I I I did enjoy it to a degree. So, that was that was great. Thank you.
>> I thought it was fun. I like you, Michael.
>> I like you, too.
>> Debates debates are going to get heated.
And >> he was he was talking about me, Mike.
>> I like both of you. I like both of you.
>> You guys are great. It was more respectful than it's been on here before. Don't worry. Um, okay. Well, we have >> As long as we're not the worst, right?
Yeah. We'll take
相关推荐
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
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
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
The fourth great humiliation. #jimmycarr #crowdwork #hecklers #standup
jimmycarr
576K views•2026-05-28
