Trinitarian debate - tiktok
(A) I would go to "Gregory of Nyssa, to his book Not Free Gods. First of all, he would argue that it is because of the energy and the one will which is proper to the essence.
But if we also go to John of Damascus, he would also argue that it is the interpenetration Mutual indwelling. Between the father, son and spirit. And because there is no place. There is no space. Where the father, son and spirit isn't.
We cannot count. The father, son and spirit. As we count human beings. Because human beings.
<How about this? It can't go past an hour. Because I can't upload videos. (On my page longer than an hour. So I want to upload this. That's cool. Yeah, that's fine. So, okay, you want to do, like, I guess, 45 minutes? I mean, as long as it's under an hour, I just want to be able to upload it on the page, you know? How long y'all take this? 15 minutes, man. Come on. I mean, I'm not getting paid for this.>
<I'll just mess with you. I'll just mess with you. I'll just mess with you. You are getting paid for this, Gina. You already got 100 coins. He got 194 coins. That's long. Let's inform him. We can do something that long. I'll just play. I'll just play. Come on, y'all, man. So let him finish. I'll come to you. I'll come to you.>
(A)Okay, so what I was saying is we cannot... So human beings are separate within time and space. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not separate. There is no space where they are not and where they are separate. They are distinct, but they are interpenetrating each other. And that we see through the energies. And also, we can't really count them as... as human hypostasis because the father is the archie and is the is he's the source of the union uh between the father son and spirit and and therefore we we just can't uh count the photos in the spirit as we count human beings because they're not separate and we are
<okay okay i got a question i got a question so when you count How do you count and come to one conclusion pertaining to it being one God? If all three, if all three are God who are distinct. So basically I understand you gave up yourself. Y'all count by the essence and not the persons, right?>
(B) Starts - "No, it depends because those are two different categories. We make a distinction between essence and person. If we're going to be counting the persons, we would count them by their (mode of origin) or their (mode of subsistence.) *So meaning that a son is not the father because he's being caught, and the father is not the son because he's being caught. Different origins, (modes of origin.) So we can count those two and count by that and the Holy Spirit proceeds. So that would be the third. And if we're -counting by inseparability, there's different methods of counting. So if since they are inseparable, we would count only one God, one act, one operation. And so that's how we get to the whole one God.
But if you're... In three persons. But that'll be a (metaphysical contradiction) and really a logical one too, because if you're just talking about the modes of like their relational oppositions, relations metaphysically don't subsist on their own. No, we don't believe in relational oppositions. We don't believe in that at all. But you believe in Moses. We count by (mode of origin,) not by relation of opposition. <Yeah, that would still be counting. That's the same. Yeah, but you cut me off though, Justice. I wasn't even finished.> We're not Thomas. Justice, Justice, Justice. No, no, no. You cut her off. You got her left finished in a group battle.>
Yeah, so the mold of subsistence is a distinct mold. It's still going to be the relational oppositions, how they relate to one another. They relate by the Father being the begetter, the Son being the begotten, and the Holy Spirit being the one that proceeds.
So it's still, yeah, it will be because it's mold of subsistence. How do the three subsistence matter?
<No, she's absolutely correct. She's absolutely correct. We're not, we're not so mystic. You're not getting better than us, right? This is not how we view it. Are you getting the answer or are you done or not? I'm not even talking. You cutting out. You got like one bar. I'm not talking. Justice, you have one bar.> You're breaking up. We cannot hear you. You only have one bar. You're breaking up, we cannot hear you. Max, you can talk. No, you're breaking up. You can talk, bro. Just as far as service, bro, we here, bro. We here, we here, we here. >
(B)I didn't want to have this debate. I wanted to come up and talk. You guys were inviting me up, so we can talk. Can you guys hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. I mean, Max, you can talk, man. You're good now. Your service is good now. So if you can't steal man, then there's no debate. You're just trying to defeat a straw man, which we don't believe in. We don't believe the persons are relations. We believe persons have personal properties, which is what distinguishes the persons. Is their mode of origin not their relation? Sure, they're relational, but that's not going to be the ultimate factor because we don't believe persons are identical to the essence in the Thomistic sense. There's a real distinction that we hold to. And since there's a real distinction, you're going to have to take an account for our categories, which would be person and essence. We don't collapse the two. Jenna, can I respond to that? I would ask in your paradigm, if the father is the one incarnated, does he become a man? Does the father become a man? Yeah, he absolutely does. Yeah. So if the son is able, if they are equal in essence, now we're talking about them being equal, whether it be equal, regardless of the point we're talking about equal, we're talking about the son being able to take on a human nature. So if the Son is able to, the Father and the Holy Spirit will absolutely be able to. That shouldn't be no problem. And when we're talking about counting, even by Gina making an argument pertaining to being in relation, you say you don't hold to that view. You hold to a monarchical point of view. Let's go to that. Let's go to that. if you're holding to a monarchical point of view it's still a type of distinction that is worthy of counting why because the father begets the father is not begotting the son is the one that is begotten the holy absolutely is that still counting or is it not how many sources are you counting in that view in the monarchy view how many sources are there of the trinity there's only one No, it's not. No, it's not. According to your paradigm. No, no, no, no, no, no. Okay. Okay. You're talking about sources, but we're talking about God is the source. Is he not? Bro, we're talking about, we don't know who God is. We don't know who God is. No, no, because all three persons are God. That's the problem. Then you do know who God is. Okay. So is that still counting? we're counting by the source, which would be one person, the father. That's why we hold to the RK, the monarch. Okay, so if the father, the source, in what sense is the son of the source? In no sense, the son is the source in the Trinity. He is caused in the Trinity. So are you telling me that they are not, is that equal? Is that equality? In the sense of causation. In nature, no, but in the sense of the father causing the son, no. We don't believe that. We don't believe in the filioquies. That's irrelevant. So what you're doing right now... It's not irrelevant. Hold on. So this is not irrelevant. So even though you all may hold to the right... So there's only one, so there's only one God. There's only one source. There's only one God. It doesn't, yeah, even though it's, you say it's one source, the sun is not that source. And this is subordinationism, so this is also, okay. It is not. Can I, can I, I don't trust you, I keep getting cut off. I don't understand that. Okay, okay, here's what we'll do. Go ahead, go ahead. Justice, justice. Go ahead. Listen, you do that, you do that one more time, you're gonna have to get dropped. Let's not, let's not cut nobody off. Yeah, because I'm not cutting you all off. So what he's trying to say, he's trying to run from Thomas Aquinas when he talks about the modes of subsistence. You all do hold to that. This was at the Second Council of Constantinople where in the Anathema it says, whoever does not say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three hypostases or subsistences. So even Gregory of Nyssa and So talk about how you distinguish the three based off their hypostatic properties. So you still have a relational opposition. I'm not sure why you're trying to negate that, even though the father is the monarch. Go ahead. What does Thomas Aquinas have to do with the second ecumenical council when he wasn't even born yet? No, I'm saying, but that follows with the subsistence. The only thing he just gets. Yes, because he it does. No. Does this ecumenical count? If she had read... Guys, guys, guys. I have to finish that statement and then you guys can report it. Yes, so in the case you know, yes. I'm talking about the modes of subsistence. You're cutting me off. You won't even let me. The subsistence, if you look at the translation, it don't matter. I'm not talking about him getting the total philosophical part. Thomas Aquinas picks up from where they left off. If you read against eunomias and in letter 38, it talks about how they relate, how you distinguish the three based off their hypostatic properties. So they subsist, they're called subsistence. Hold on. And can you explain, right? Because Thomas Aquinas says Moses subsistence and the second, the second council of Constantinople says hypostasis or subsistency. I'm not saying it's a one-to-one. There's a huge flaw in this debate. Okay. So what's the difference? Okay. So, What's the difference between three subsistencies and (modes of subsistence) in the Ecumenical Council? I'm just trying to get my question out so you'll know so we can get somewhere because we just kind of over-talking. So if I'm incorrect, show me the difference between the Cappadocians when they call the three subsistence. And when Thomas Aquinas says Moses subsistence. Okay. So again, Thomas Aquinas has no bearing on this debate because as Orthodox, he's not even a saint in our church. We don't follow to the Thomas Aquinas dogma. We follow the ecumenical councils. And how did they define you Sina in the ecumenical council? They define it as being. So when they say that Jesus and the father are of the same who Sia or hypostasis, that's just referring to being the, Because words, this is how the English language works and any language works, is there's multiple definitions to words, right? We have to use those definitions in the correct context, in the correct lens that the church used them. So in the ecumenical councils of the first two, they used the word hypostatic definition. as being so if when we use the definition of the word in a different sense it's not going to be a contradiction because if we count as hypostasis as person now using that definition we can count three and that's why we have one usia and three hypostasis in the modern definition now it's not a contradiction because it's not in the same sense if you want to say there's only one word in one definition that's called a dictionary fallacy so you're going to have to not strawman our position we don't believe what thomas believes because persons are not relations i already answered this okay so you didn't you didn't answer my question i said what is the the difference between moses subsistence for thomas aquinas and the reason i'm pulling this up even though you don't hold to him so even though you don't can i try to answer this Hold on, hold on. I don't know what y'all got going on. So anyway, he's trying to say he does not hold a Thomas Aquinas. But Thomas Aquinas and the Saint and the Cappadocians hold to call into three subsistencies. This was in the Ecumenical Council. So I'm saying, even though you may be a Thomas Aquinas... Brother, I can pull it up. What does it say? Whoever does not say the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases or subsistence. How are they defining it right there? Do you know? Yeah. Based off their modes of subsistence. No, they're not. You're wrong. Okay, so how do they define it? They're defining it off of being. I just told you. Okay, so it's three beings? The three-person, three beings? They share one being. Do you not understand what the same... Ladies, I'm not talking about the Osea. Listen to the anathema. That's what you define hypostasis as in that anathema. I'm letting you know that you're using the incorrect definition. Okay, so you attract this. Because it defeats your whole point of the argument. No, it doesn't. Actually, it helps me because I'm talking about the three hypostases, which is also translated as three subsistencies. Now, if you want to say that the three subsistencies are not what Gregor, Nisa, and Basil are saying, which is based off how they subsist in relation to one another, then you're going to call them being. Hold on. Let me get this out because what he just said was… the three at the council constantinople when it says three hypostases they're defining that hypostasis as being then you believe that the three persons are three beings and you attract this so thank you you can go ahead and just and just just today i don't know thomas aquinas was um but continue yeah uh we don't believe in thomas aquinas uh anyway So Basil the Great in 38, he says, let me see here, the Holy Ghost from whom also it proceeds." It has this note of its particular hypostatic nature that it is known after the sun and together with the sun and that it has its subsistence of the father. So are you saying that the Son, the Holy Spirit, both existence is within the Father? The Father is the source of this existence. That's the whole point. Okay, okay. So is the essence the source? No, no. The father is the source, like we just said. Absolutely. Let me get through my question. Let me get through my question, please. Okay. So if the essence is not the source, is the son begotten from the essence or is he begotten from the father? Begotten from the father. So let me ask you, is the son begotten for the essence or the father in your view? No, no, no, no, no, no. Justice, y'all been lit all day. You've been asking us questions the whole time. No, I have not. I just got up here. You are playing scare tactic and I'm not going to let you, I'm not going to let you, I'm not going to let you, I'm not going to let you talk. I'm not, no, I'm not going to answer it. That's the difference. Absolutely. So how is the person of the sun God? Please stop requesting up, y'all. Please stop requesting up. I'm not letting nobody up until the debate over. I'm not letting nobody up to the debate over. Please stop requesting us. That's not, that's not, no, that's not, you're running, you're running, you're running, you're running. Answer, answer, yeah, answer it like a man. Is the son, is the son God? Why is the, how is the son God? I just told you because he has the same essence as the father because he's eternal to be God and that's the direct answer. So can you answer ours? How is the son God in your view if he's just a man? You're so scared. I just answered you, what are you talking about? Dude, you're playing scary, bro. Everybody just heard me answer you. You're the one who won't answer the question. Bro, you are playing scared. You are playing scared. Absolutely. Directly to you. Directly to you. Absolutely. Because you're scared. You're scared. No, you are. This dude is scared. You are scared, Justice. I'm not going to lie, bro. I'm not going to lie. I didn't know you was this scared. I've never seen you like this. I've never seen you like this. So, is the son... Yeah, absolutely I am. Is the son God? Is the son God based off... Okay, hold on, y'all. Wait, wait, wait. Okay, hold on, hold on. Scary, bro. You're scared. Okay, okay, guys, guys. Hold on, all right? We're going to do this. We're going to do this in descending order, all right? I'll let you guys kind of... Like I said, this is an informal debate, just so everybody know. This is an informal debate. This is why I didn't jump in like that. This is an informal debate. If it was a formal debate, it would be differently. But guys, both sides, let's just relax for a second. All right, continue. No yelling in the screen. So he gets to ask questions, but we don't. Yeah, that's what I was just about to say. So ask your question. That's why I'm asking a question, just because it's a question. Okay, how is the son God if he's begotten? How is he God? Being begotten doesn't change who the person is. That's why we don't believe in modalism. We go by Hebrews 1, chapter 3. Yeah, begottenness doesn't change him. He's God before he's begotten. It says in Hebrews chapter 1, it says, this day have I begotten thee. I want to say it's maybe Hebrews 1, 6. We know if we correlate that to Acts chapter 13, verse 33, the day that the son was begotten in that psalm, which is quoted in Hebrews 1, is when he was resurrected from the grave. We know when Jesus came forth from the Father, that's when he came into the world. He's not eternally begotten per scripture. This is something that your church fathers made up. So the Father was begotten? Absolutely, the whole Godhead. Yeah, that's why it says the fullness of the Godhead. Leave a response. So is there a time when the father wasn't father? Yeah, so who is the father we got invited? Justice, justice, justice, justice, justice. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Bro, can I follow through? Can I follow through? Can I follow through with my question? Hold on, hold on, hold on. He kept cutting me off, bro. Okay, let Jenna finish and then you can go over here. Yeah, so we know that being eternally begotten, that would be subordinationism. Matter of fact, if you call the father cause and the son the result of the cause, as St. Greg of Nyssa does, that's an ontological distinction. Really, really bad. So no, we don't believe that being begotten, if you want to go with the definition of being brought forth or being unique, that has nothing to do with the essence of God. He is that he is. So he's not dependent upon being a guardian. And the reason this is not problematic is because the father and son are not literal father and son like you would be a father to your child. That's totally ridiculous. Obviously, but is there a time when the father is awesome? I said big Al gets to go next. Hold on, hold on. Thank you. Because I got to make an example. Now, he said he's begun from the father. It's not the essence. Lie. You're going against the Nasir creed. So according to the Nasir creed, Hold on, let him respond. Don't cut him off. Let him respond. This is a scare tactic. So it say that Jesus Christ, the son is begotten from the essence of the father. It says sharing the same divine nature. The Nazi creed affirmed this stating that the son is God from God. God from God. Let me stop cutting me off. Stop. Max, Max, Max. Stop. This is a scare tactic. I got you, I got you, I got you. God from God. Okay. God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created of one substance with the father. This means the son is not created being, but eternally co-equal and coexistence with the father in essence. So can you answer when is God one person according to the word of God? Never. He's never one person. He's always three. If he's never one person, why does Amassiah Creed disagree with you? Amassiah Creed states all three persons are God. That's why it says the Holy Spirit and the Son are worshipped and glorified with the Father. Yeah, they didn't ask his question. Hold on, you gotta let me finish. If you're with someone being worshipped, like Jesus says in John 17, 5, that he's with the Father before the world was sharing glory, that's showing that there are his personages, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, who's a person, the Father, who's a person, eternally existing as the one true God, who's Yahweh in the Old Testament. Okay, can I ask my question again? Okay, can I ask my question? So he simply just said that God is never referring to one person. Now we got a question. You never said that. No. Gina, Gina, stop. Gina, I'm not tripping. Gina, I've never said anything about ontological. I never said it. I never said it. I never. Nope. I said, I said, according to the Nicaea Creed, I said, is God one person? The Nicaea Creed is talking about the ontology of God. Do you not know that? Yeah, that does negate his question, though, because if it says God from God. He just backtracked. He said he wasn't talking about it, but now he is. This is crazy. Yeah, you're not following this. I'm going to be honest. I'm listening to you. The first time you didn't ask this question, you went on into talking about something different and saying the Father, Son, and Spirit, they're all worshiped. together. That was not his God was only one person. And I said, no, God is three persons. I answered. He said, God was proving. Yeah. Cause I asked your question again. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. He just simply answered my question again. He said, no, he said he answered and said, no, God, it's not one person. So now we have, once again, we have to question the Nazi and creed because obviously God would be considered one person in this passage. Why? Because they say God from God. So who is this talking about? I love your passion, but I don't want to raise my voice. Can I just try to answer this? So what we believe is that the Father is God in identity, so to speak. As it says, I believe in one God, the Father Almighty. Exactly. But we believe that the Son of God, he's only begotten, begotten. begotten of the father before all ages and therefore he's true god of true god because he gets his essence from the father who is archaic so let me respond to that can i ask one question one question i promise i'll mute up i promise so if the father is god by identity is the son god by predication I wouldn't say that is... I know a lot of Muslims use that argument, but the thing is, that's not really a language, I would say, that... I see the Father's use, if I'm honest. I don't know if Justice has a better answer to that, but I don't see... We would say that when we say that the Son is God, that he is there, is not going to be by identity, it would be by predication, yeah. Because he's begotten from the Father's essence. So he became God. So he's God ontologically, but he's not the person of the Father. So did the Son become God? So we would ask you, can we ask you... No, he didn't. He's always existed as God. So you've asked us three questions in a row. Can we ask you one? Yeah, sure. Let me just respond. OK, go ahead. No, no, no. You go ahead. Go ahead. Ask the question. Go ahead. Back to the father being begotten. Who is the father's father then if the father is begotten? Yeah, he yeah, he doesn't literally have a father. God is spirit. John 424. And we know that spirits do not procreate. They're not up there doing, you know, the act that we do to bring forth children. So we know these are spiritual things. When it says that God is his father, we know by John 5, 18, that was making himself God. It says, oh, you make God your own father, making yourself equal with God. Somebody that's equal is not begotten. If you're a literal son, you're not always there. You're not as old as your father. So this is not literal rendering of father and son in the scripture. So you all are taking a natural carnal understanding of father and son versus a spiritual understanding of father and son. And make sure y'all drop a follow if you haven't yet. Spam that screen, man. Shut is live out, y'all. Shut is live out. Okay. I couldn't hear you. It's not a real beginning. It's just a kind of like a show. It's like a fake thing. Well, no, it's being unique. I mean, we're going with the definition for the Greek is for monogamies. It's being unique. If you want to use bringing coming forth. So God coming forth out of heaven, you can look at that as being begotten. Right. But that's God coming from himself. I mean, even even Athena Gore says that he's in the father. And Tertullian says he's the word in him. So even he doesn't have to be the God to exist. He's in the father, even per your some of your church fathers. So, yeah, I mean, he's not a literal father. That's the problem. So you believe that the father has a son? He's not a literal father. Okay. Yeah, like what I mean by that. Let me tell you what I mean by that. So you see if you agree or disagree. Yes, like Jesus said, my father, which is in heaven. Justice, justice, justice, justice. She asked me the question. Justice, you got to stop cutting off. Let her finish. So what I mean by literal is he doesn't literally have a beginning. A son has a beginning. a father exists before his son does so if you want to take a literal renting of that then you'll be like aries because aries took you all is taking it literally and he said well the son oh lord okay so what does it mean that the son has a father So she says the son doesn't have a literal begetting, but she quoted a verse five minutes ago saying the father says, today I have begotten you. I guess the father was lying in that verse, and he never really did beget the son. So I guess you're calling the father a liar, even in your own view. So I'm going to ask you again, who begets the father? Is that just pretend? Absolutely not. So I told you that earlier when he says today I have begotten me. That's today. That is a point in time. Not eternal life or doctrine. Let me respond. Hold on. Stop cutting me off. You got to stop doing that. It's getting annoying. I would have been trapped. It's annoying. Never finish and then you can rebuttal. Let's see if the scriptures agree with me of justice. Now it says, today I have begotten thee. Somebody Google today and see if it's eternal. So we know that the day that he was begotten is specifically laid out in Acts chapter 13, verse 37. And I'm pretty sure that the apostles are smarter than your church fathers. Let me read Acts chapter 13, verse 33. Give me just one second. I'm going to bring it up and read it slow for the Trinitarians in the chat and for justice because he seemed to be confused. So it says here, just one second, let me run the KJV. This is Acts chapter 13, verse 33. Can I just ask you a question? No, no, no, you can't. Let me read this. No, no, no, no, no. You guys got to stop cutting off. You guys got to stop doing that. It says, God hath fulfilled the same unto us, their children, in that he raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. So the day that Christ was begotten, based on the verse you brought up, is when he was resurrected, not his eternal aspiration from the father. Acts chapter 13, verse 33, destroys your eternal generation argument. All right, so the son is being worshipped. Can you worship something that's not eternal? No. Okay, so then the son's eternal. Therefore, he's eternally begotten. Let me ask you that. Absolutely. No, no, no, no, no. Hold on. You just ran from this. No, the son does not. I told you earlier that the son does not have to be begotten to be the son. He's not based on activities like you all need the most of subsistence. No, he's in him. Can you be a son without a father? No. Yeah, because you're not literally a father of two. So track my argument. It's not literal, just like we call him a father. The son says he was in the father. That's not being begotten. If he's in him, begotten is coming out, coming forth. So we know per Jesus, hold on. We know per Jesus that he wasn't eternally begotten. He always existed. His existence is not based on his begottenness. We call him a son because the father has an image in heaven. The Bible says he's the image of the invisible God, and he looks like a man, like unto a son. That's why we call him son, not because the father's up there getting jiggy with a woman to procreate a son. I'll respond real quick, and then I'll let Max go because I know I've been responding a lot. Jesus said he comes forth from the father, so can you come forth from a metaphor? You cannot. uh it's a real father that he's talking to he's not talking to a metaphor he's not talking to a pretend father he's not a pretend son either he's a real he says truly truly that he is the son of god and that is the revelation given to peter from the father himself that jesus christ is the son of god who came to save the world So, Max, you can go ahead and respond to that. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. of the Father that looks like a man. We know that. We know every time we see God in the Bible, most of the time it's like unto a man, unless it's like the visions in Revelation, like a lamb or something. But we know he's the eternal image of the Father. In Matthew 18, verse 19, Jesus even says that they always behold, the angels of these little ones always do behold the face of my Father. We shall see him as he is. The logos, definition of logos in John 1, verse 1, is not just speech, it's the divine expression. This is what God looks like. So I'm saying that he is a son. I'm just saying he's not procreated. The divine nature is not procreated from another divine being that make him ontologically subordinate to the Father. He's eternal because he is. He is the Spirit of God. He's the image, not because he's contingent upon another divine greater being. That's Toto Harrison. Well, actually, if we're going to go to John 1, 1, it says logos, pros and theos. That means that's pros and theos. Pros is a Greek preposition. It's speaking about moving towards, like being face to face with each other. For Logos to be able to be face to face with the father, with Theos, it needs to be two persons. I don't know. It's just a really weird breeding if it would be one hypostasis. Yeah, exactly. If you're saying that, go ahead. Thank you. So what Gina was bringing up pertains to Hebrew chapter one, when she said this day have I begotten you was concerning time. It's another scripture that you brought up pertaining to the angels worshiping. Can I read that verbatim? This is Hebrew chapter one, verse six through nine. And it said, and again, when he bring it. and the first begotten into the world he said and let all the angels worship him so is this this would be including time and he said in all of the angels i mean in uh in of the angels he said who maketh his uh angels spirits and his ministers flame of fire But unto the son, he said, thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. So can you explain to me pertaining to this? Is this the son being God by predication? This is what I need to know. So in Colossians 1.15, when it says he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, wouldn't that mean that he's eternally begotten? Isn't time like in the category of creation? Exactly, Max. You cannot worship something that is created. So the son must be eternal in order to be an eternal spirit. Y'all have not answered my question. Justice, justice, justice. We don't believe in this. Yes, we don't deny that. from interrupting you, but you guys can interrupt me all day. No, I need my question answered. You're demanding your questions to be answered. I just answered you. You did not. I said, yes, the Son is God. I said, yes, the Son is God. Okay, my question, I believe that the Son is God. That is not an argument. Okay, is the Son eternal? Justice, can you answer my question? I said, To be fair, Big App did ask a question. Can you answer his question? I answered it. Okay, no. Thank you, because I believe the Son of God is God, not by predication. I'm asking you, is the Son God by predication? How do you know it's predication? Hey, I keep doing all caps. I'm blocking you. Do all caps again. I'm blocking. Don't answer this question with a question. No, no, no. Answer this question. I'm not doing that. I'm not doing that. Just answer this question, please. He asked you. Bro, bro, bro. No, not always. Okay, I'm going to show y'all why he did this. So since you're being unfair, I'm going to hit you. No, because you asked him a question with a question. So yeah, is can be a, is a predication or is of identity. But he's asking, that's why he's asking you. I know exactly what predication means. I said yes. Okay, so he became God. No, he didn't become God. You're not listening because if he's worshipped, he must have already been God. You cannot be worshipping someone, especially if the father is saying to worship him. He must be eternal. The son has to exist eternally. You know, you know, you're the one who actually believes in a creed. Let me make this argument. Let me make this argument. You know, I know my question. Hold on. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Yeah, I'm running. Yeah, I'm running. Yeah, I'm running. Do we do we become kings and priests? Yes or no? Yes. No, no, no, no, no. Oh, come here. No, no, no, no. Is that by predication? Yes or no? Yeah, we're not going to be kings by the king of kings. OK, so do we become kings by predication? Yes or no? Yeah. So it's not analogous to the son of God. Why are we sitting here defining the same words and including God? Because definitions matter when we're talking about the Almighty God. Absolutely. I agree. That's why. So I answer you again. Can you answer mine? Can you worship something that's created? What's the question? Obviously, in the scriptures, the angels did. Do you disagree? So they worship something that's created? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Do you disagree? Wow, that's called idolatry. You understand that? Okay, so let me read this scripture again, because obviously you disagree with it. Worshiping a creature is idolatry. You can't worship a creature. I hear you, I hear you. Do you admit to that, that your worldview believes in that? Okay, obviously, no, you got to answer the scripture. Don't try to kill me, y'all. Do you believe that you can worship a creature in your view? Can I read? Hey, he answered his question. He's trying to give you a scripture for it. What was the answer? Is Christ a creature? Yes or no? No, he's not. He's not? He's not the firstborn of all creation? He's not the firstborn of all creatures? That doesn't mean he's a creature now. He's not the firstborn of all creatures? Wait, so you can worship creatures? Is he the firstborn of all creatures? Yes. He's not a creature, no. That just means pre-evidence. Go to the Greek. If you go to the Greek, you can read that it just means pre-evidence. Answer the question and stop running. You are literally running. I just answered it. Jesus is not a creature. He's an eternal, divine person. Okay, answer Hebrew. Answer the scripture. Wait, wait, wait. Big up, big up, big up. If you believe Jesus is a creature, you're saying the Father is a creature. Is the Father a creature? What? Is the Father a creature? Big up, big up, big up. What is the question? I've asked my question. He don't want to answer it. He acted like a crash dummy. Is Jesus Christ worship? I answered you. I said he's not a creature. Let him ask the question. What's not? Is Jesus Christ worship at his birth? Yes or no? According to the word of God. Yes, because he's a divine eternal person. Yes, because he's the eternal God. So if they worship him. So answer my question, is the father a creature? Because you believe Jesus is a creature and you believe Jesus is the father, therefore the father must be a creature in your view. Justice, justice, justice. I'm not going to lie, bro. You're not being specific. You're saying the father is a creature. It's pretty specific. Was the baby worshiped? Yes or no? Yes, because he's a divine person. Is the baby? Nope, nope, nope. I just answered you. Yes, because he's a divine, eternal person. So do you agree that the baby is a creature? The baby is the Logos. Do you understand that? The baby is not a creature. The baby is the divine Logos, the second person of the Trinity, which you deny. So the baby not a human? He's a human because he took on a human nature, not because he's a human person. Yeah, you cook. Yeah, you cook. No, you're the one who worships the greatest. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You cook. Guys, he is a human because the divine hypostasis individ... How should I explain this? Max, I said it. He's a divine person. I could cook well for... The Logos is a divine person. Okay. And he individualizes the human essence. And he's in the mode of being human. You're lucky I came farther than that. No, no, no. What question? Do you agree with big off that the father's a creature and that you can worship creatures? No, you missed his argument. You missed his argument. He was arguing that the son was a creature. He was arguing for that position. Yeah, that's a fallacy. Yeah, yeah. He was arguing for them. Okay, so let me, hold on, let's slow down. Hold on, so you'll know what we believe. Hold on, because we didn't, because you and Max went back and forth, right? So I just want to say this real quick and we'll continue. It's not that serious. This is informal and whatever. Big Op and I believe that the son is eternal. We don't believe the son is just flesh. We don't believe he's eternal the way you all believe. We believe the father, the son is eternal because he's the same hypostasis as the father. Based off Hebrews chapter one, verse three, nowhere in scripture does it ever say that God has three hypostasis, but that the hypostasis has an image, making the father, son, and Holy Spirit the same hypostasis, making him the same person. So the son is an icon of the father? What does that mean? No, he is an image. Wait, she just said the son is... Hold on. Justice, justice, justice, justice. Justice, justice, you have to let her finish a point. And even in letter 38. Even in letter 38, Basil struggles with this. So he says, when he talks about the three hypostases and the one who see him, he says, well, why is it that when you read in Hebrews 1 verse 3, the apostle, it does not sound like he is explaining what we're explaining. He says, if we take it literal, that the son is the image of the father's hypostases, that means he is the same being as the father. And there's no distinction between their proper notes. That means that the father is would be begotten as well and the son would also be the unbegotten so he says in his opinion Yeah. And I can read it in his opinion. He does not believe this is what the apostle is talking about. So I argue St. Basil and I say, hey, St. Basil, I take the right, correct rendition of Hebrews 1.3. If he's the image of the hypostasis, that's the hypostasis visible. That's the existence of the father son. He's the same person. You see him. He's visible. We're going to behold him as he is, but it's not a hologram. It's the hypostasis that we can behold. It's just one God, visible and invisible, one person. Does it make sense? It's the image of his person, therefore the father is RK. Yeah, it's not a hologram like you said, so it's an actual person that the image is. Yeah, and it's the same person as the son. Hold on. Yeah, but don't misrepresent. Hold on. Correct me if I'm wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong. Is the son eternal? Eternally the same person as the father. Is he eternal, the son? Yes or no? Yes, he is. Okay. Is the son not eternal? No. Of course he's not eternal. Okay, so there's an eternal son. Who's his eternal father then? Yeah. No, he's an eternal son because he is an image. He has an image like a man. He's not the eternal son because he's begotten. How can you be a son without a father? Listen to it. Because it's not literal. Just like Jesus is a rock, but he's not the rock on the side of the street. It is a metaphor to relate to. Yes, he is, but he's not a literal son. I've told you this a hundred times. So follow my argument. Don't interrupt me. This is why he's the son. He is the son because he has an image that looks like a man before he comes down. Okay. He is visible. That is the divine expression. That's the definition of logos in John 1.1. It's not the speech when it says the word was with God and it is God. What is with God? That is also not another person because it is him. So the word is not a person? No, it's not another person. It's not another person. The word is the image. It's the person visible. Is the image a person? Is the image a person? Is the image a person? not a separate person i believe this stop actually no no i didn't ask the same person as the father because he is the same stacy's yes you are because you act like you don't understand what i'm saying is the word of god jesus listen is the word of god jesus I just got home. So let's wrap it up. I'm saying the word is a person. Stop interrupting me. Go ahead, Matt. Is it okay if I ask a question? Go ahead, Max. I don't even hear what I'm saying. Let me answer his question. Guys, I haven't been able to speak for the whole debate. Is it okay if I ask a question? Y'all don't know how to have a conversation. Y'all guys got to stop doing this. I'll be quiet the whole conversation. Max, Max, Max, Max. Get a mic to Max. Get a mic to Max. That's all you got to say. Thank you. So how do you guys interpret 2 Corinthians 13, verse 14, where it says, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Because here it speaks about three distinct persons. Like the only way you can explain this away would be basically mixing categories. And like... A person doesn't speak to himself. We see throughout the whole scriptures where the son is speaking to the father, for example. And the father speaks to the son. So to respond to that, the verse you quoted is just a different name for the same hypostasis, the same person. But names don't have fellowship with each other. Relax, relax. What's going on with y'all? Just let her finish. You're not mature. I don't care that you disagree. Let me respond if you ask me three questions. Okay. Respond. Relax. Respond. Be quiet. Go for it. Y'all keep doing R caps. I will block you. Don't act like you don't hear me. Keep doing R caps. You're getting blocked. Friend or not. Yeah, so just because it says the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ does not mean that the grace is just of the Lord and not of the Holy Ghost and not of the Father. It's just different ways to address God. Just like he said in Exodus, I was known by the name of God Almighty. By the name of Jehovah, I was not known to them. But if I put in a sentence, the grace of God Almighty and the fellowship of Jehovah, Be with you all. That's not two different persons. There's two different addresses for the same hypostasis. It's very simple. And reference to natures. Metaphysically, you're incorrect. Nature's primary natures do things. In metaphysics book seven, Aristotle says that the essence of a thing and the self-subsisting thing is one and the same. So primary natures, primary essence do do things. Those are called primary substances. So you are incorrect. Secondary substance, if you want to talk about humanity, the way that St. Basil outlines it in letter 38, then yeah, humanity doesn't do things. But yes, primary natures do do things. So you're wrong about that. I'm speaking about the names. Names doesn't have fellowship with each other. Persons have fellowship with each other. No, but I said a person has those names and God counsels himself. God directs himself. He swore by himself. So to say that you can't commune with yourself or counsel within yourself, that's totally nonscript. God says I did that. I counseled myself. I had no one else to swear by. So I swore by myself and myself is not a united one. That's not a plural word. And that is a category fail. No, but that is a fallacy. Okay, well, tell me why. Basically, you interrupted me when I was going to say it. It's okay if you say it again, what you said, please. Sorry. I'm not very used to debating. This is my first debate. That's fine because I don't really do the debates either because of these types of things. But it's okay. We're just talking. It's not the big deal. So what I was trying, I gave the analogy with God Almighty, right? In Exodus, he says, they knew me by the name of God Almighty, by the name Jehovah. I was not known to them. So if I say the grace of God Almighty and the communion of Jehovah be with you all. That's not an incorrect sentence. But I know that Jehovah and God Almighty is the same person. I can just say it differently because this God in the Bible, whether you want to say it's Jesus or the Father, has many names. So it's not a categorical error because this person has all the same name. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in Titus says the grace of God. So we would not say the grace of Lord Jesus Christ is only applicable to one hypostasis. Even in your trinity, that would be flawed. So you don't need three persons to say it differently in a sentence with a comma. No, but what I mean is that you say he swore by himself. Yes, one hypostasis can swore by himself, but when the father speaks to the son, that is two distinct hypostasis, right? No. Why not? So you mean that this one hypostasis is speaking to himself. He's like schizophrenic. no he's not schizophrenic we see uh david speak to himself in psalms i want to say psalm 78 i mean maybe uh okay i don't understand how i can't respond because we're doing good justice hold it i know it's hard for you because you all have failed terribly you failed metaphysically you said natures don't speak primary natures do per metaphysics aristotle book seven uh in hebrews one verse three i told you in letter 38 uh section five and six specifically St. Basil is struggling with saying what he's saying. He said, if it's three hypostases, why is it that the apostle gives the hypostases to the father and says that the son is the image of his hypostases, rendering the son and the father has sharing the same proper notes. And then he starts off in chapter six with saying, in my opinion, this is not what the apostle means, but we don't want St. Basil's opinion. We want what the scriptures say. So the scripture says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same hypostasis. I'm going to believe scripture over basal. So you can't show me anywhere in scripture that there's three hypostasis, but I can give you chapter and verse. Hebrews 1.3, one hypostasis in essence, one person. Get it? Yeah, let me ask, let me ask just as a question. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. All right, cool. So according to Genesis chapter three, we can start at verse 14. It's saying, the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle and every beast of the field. Upon thy belly thou shalt go, and thus thou shalt eat all the days of thy life. If you don't mind, let me know who was speaking here. I don't have the scriptures on me, but I'm just going to assume that's the logo speaking Jesus. The logo. So, yeah, I would rather for you grab the scripture before I ask this question. Yeah, like I said, I'm on a road trip, so it's going to be like a no can do from that. But I do have good connection now. Okay, so if the logos is saying, and I will put enmity between thee and the woman in between thy seed and her seed, who is this woman's seed that is being prophesied of right here? Is this the same logos that's speaking? um i don't know i'm not sure if i'm not getting your question you're asking what is the woman seed like what is it yeah when when the logos you said the logo so who is the logos that's speaking about this c that he is i said i didn't know if it was the logos or not okay all right let me let me talk to max then because yeah yeah yeah this is not going to be a question i can answer right now i'd love to absolutely yeah yeah all right this is uh genesis chapter 3 verse 14. Let me show y'all how God can speak in third person. Yeah, we don't disagree that God can't speak in third person. Jesus talks about himself as the son in third person all the time. He never talked about himself as the father. He absolutely did, but you don't want to talk about that. You already know what scripture I'm referring to, so it don't even matter. He absolutely did. After you're done with this, can I ask one last question before I got to go? Yeah, it don't matter. Yeah. I wish you can interpret this scripture, but you're familiar with it. Unfortunately, I don't have the scripture on me, and I'm sorry. No, you're familiar with this. The way it works is we don't even personally interpret scripture because we believe scripture is not up for private interpretation. Yeah, I hear you. Yeah, I hear you. So the logos will be talking about a distinct person. Cool. Cool. Yeah. I mean, that could be the father talking. I don't have it on me. Yeah, I bet. I bet. You just throw whoever you want right there when you see them. No, I didn't know. That's what y'all do. No, that's what y'all do. I literally was very honest. Y'all sit here and say they're not separable, and then y'all make them separable. They're not. They're distinct. Yeah, it don't matter. Beings can be distinct but not separate. Okay, but yeah, it's absolutely separate when we see God separate. God, who's supposed to be a Trinity, and it's not all of them. They're separate. They're separate. Yeah, we both understand that. So let me get Max to answer this question, since you know the scripture, but you don't want to directly attack it. Of course you don't. So Max, are you there with me, bro? Yes. Okay. So it say, and the Lord God said... unto the serpent because they have done this thou art curse above all cattle and above every beast of the field upon the belly thou shalt go and thus shall thou eat all the days of thy life could we admit that this is the father speaking uh what what verse is this this is genesis chapter 3 verse 14. 14, thank you. Once again. I'm just going to read from the Septuaginta. Does the Lord God said to your serpent, because you have done this, you are cursed more than all? Okay. Does it say the same thing the KJV say? Does it disagree with the KJV? Can you read it again? I can look. And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field, upon thy belly thou shalt go, and thus shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. My question is, which person is speaking here? Uh... It's probably the son actually. So if I go to verse 15, if the son is speaking of himself. It's a, and I will put enmity between B and the woman. Now watch our Trinitarians tomorrow. Tomorrow is going to be the father and you still going to be, you still going to be cooked. You still going to be cooked. So I'm letting this be known. Trinitarians, if you say this is the father, you are still cooked. So. According to verse 15, because Trinitarians, according to Trinitarians, according to verse 14, the father cannot enter into creation, which is already a contradiction according to their theology. We can get to that later on as well. So you don't know our theology. I absolutely heard you say that, Burbank. So, yeah, yeah, yeah. Can I finish? Can I finish? Can I finish? I didn't say this. I don't know. Max, Max, me and justice agree with you. Me and Justice, this is the son line. Me and Justice agree. So the son has a son? Uh-uh. So the son has a son? So the son has a son in your theology. It's not a little son. Come on, let me talk to Justice. Justice is cooked. He just changed his theology. Did the father come to earth, Justice? Yes or no? Come here, brother. Talk to me. Did the Father come to earth? Yes or no, Justice? Come here. Come here. Talk to me. Did the Father come to earth? In what sense? It don't matter what sense. No, it does. Okay, okay. In this passage, his divine sense. What? What do you mean his divine sense? Are you talking about his essence? His essence, his essence, his essence. No, we don't believe that. Hold on, hold on. Nope, nope. The Father's energies can enter into creation, which is God himself. So I'm giving you the answer and you don't want it because you don't understand our theology. I don't want it. I don't want it. Yeah, because you don't understand it. Okay, I don't want it. Is the Lord God in verse 14 a person? Yes or no? Not an energy, not an activity. Is the Lord God, according to Genesis 14, a person? Yes or no? Sure, yeah. That's a person speaking. So why are we talking about energies and activities? Because that's what enters into creation is the divine energies. It's not the essence. You said in a divine aspect, and I'm letting you know how that mechanism of the divine aspect works in our theology. You know you just cooked yourself up. And you won't accept it. Yeah, I'm not going to accept it. Because you just said, hold up, hold up. Justin, stop. You just said that the Lord God is a person. Now you're saying it is activities and energies. Why do you disagree with us when we say manifestations? Why do you disagree? Okay. Is energies and activities a person? A person acts and does his energies, yes. That's not what he acts. No, no, no. No, no, no. I'm interrupting right there. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. One if the one is winning. Go ahead, drop that, y'all. Make sure you drop a follow. Share this live and spam the screen, y'all. Drop a follow. Share this live and spam the screen. Oh, my God. So, here's what we're going to do. So, Queen G, make this stay off. Ask Justice a question, and Justice, answer the question directly. Go ahead, Quincy. Can I ask you a question before I go, or what is this? No, no, no, no, no, no. Big out, big out, big out, big out. Ask him a question. What was your question? I answered it. I said, God enters in through his energies.