This content is a transcript of a theological debate between a Muslim and two Christians regarding the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and the interpretation of biblical passages. The discussion centers on whether the Bible explicitly supports the concept of one God in three persons and whether Jesus's divinity is clearly established.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
Everything I said I substantiated from
the Bible. I did John 2017.
>> No problem. You can go. It's up to you.
It's up to you. No problem. You can go.
I'm not Look, I never force anyone to
stay in a dialogue. Okay. If you realize
you guys are can't handle this truth
from the Bible, then it's up to you. I
>> So, my name is Hashim
>> Mikey. Mikey and Matthew.
>> Matthew. Very nice meeting you guys. Uh
yeah, I mean because uh you were talking
to my colleague earlier his name is
Mansour I think you were talking to. Yeah.
Yeah.
>> And so I don't know which how did you
guys start? Maybe we can start with that.
that. >> Well
>> Well
>> was there any particular passage that
you guys discuss?
>> Yeah he so he came and asked us to to
show uh from the Bible any verses which
said uh that there is one God and three
persons in the one true God.
>> Right. Okay. Uh,
>> so you mean explicitly?
>> Explicitly. So, so we
>> What did you guys show him?
>> Um, well, first of all, we took him to
Isaiah chapter 6.
>> So, let me get this right. Three persons,
persons,
>> one god.
>> One being. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Is that right? So, more accurate. Okay.
Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Say, say the Yeah. The
one tree god. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh, is one god, three.
>> Make sure we are visible in the >> Oops.
>> Oops.
>> Yeah. Just want to be in the frame.
That's all.
>> Yeah. Don't want you to miss. Yeah. So,
yeah. Sorry. Which uh which one did you
refer him to?
>> So So we took to three three passages.
So Isaiah chapter 6 which is in the Old Testament.
Testament. >> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> The prophet.
>> So we looking for explicit three persons
in one day. Am I right? Something
explicit like there's no there's no
ambiguity about it. Something because
the thing look if if God wants to tell
us who he is, he's not going to be
ambiguous about it. He's going to tell
us. And obviously we as human beings we
aren't going to understand God fully. So
no one can comprehend God fully. And we
as Muslims, we believe the same. Okay.
So we can only go by what he described
himself as to us.
>> We think he he communicates himself
clearly to us. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> And gives us minds that we can understand.
understand. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> And so we can understand. So so the the
argument we took the the line we went
down was was a passage in the Old
Testament which spoke of a prophecy of
the father then that in applied in the
New Testament to the son uh and then
also in the New Testament to the Holy
Spirit. Let's have a look. How can the
same thing be said of three verses?
>> Let's have a look. No problem.
>> If it's true, warn God. So, so this is
Isaiah, the prophet Isaiah,
>> uh, speaking in the year that King
Uzziah died.
>> So, Isaiah what?
>> Chapter 6, verse one.
>> In the year that King Isaiah died, I saw
the Lord sitting upon a throne high and
lifted up, and the train of his robe
filled the temple. Above him stood the
saraphim. Each had six wings. With two
he covered his face and with two he
covered his feet and with two he flew.
And one called to another and said,
"Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.
The whole earth is full of his glory."
Speaking about the Lord.
>> Sorry. Who flew there? Was it the Was it
Was it God who flew or was it the saraphim?
saraphim?
>> The seraphim flew flew. So the
seraraphim covered God with its wings.
>> Glory. Uh
>> is that the wings?
>> Uh yes. Uh no. The seraphim covered its
own face.
>> Oh, its own face.
>> The glory of God too much. Yeah.
>> Just just remind me what is a saraphim?
>> An angel.
>> Okay. Why didn't they just say that,
>> you know? Okay.
>> So, God is so holy. And and here is here
is what he says to Isaiah. The
foundations of the threshold shook.
Sorry, excuse me. Um
>> and the house was filled with smoke. And
Isaiah says, "Worry me, for I'm lost.
I'm a man of unclean lips and I dwell in
the midst of a people of unclean lips.
For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord
of Hosts." So, this is speaking of the
Holy Lord. Then
>> who who saw who saw God? >> Isaiah.
>> Isaiah.
>> Isaiah saw so when you say saw him like
like physically saw God.
>> Yeah. Saw saw a manifestation of his glory.
glory.
>> Um so saw so the invisible God a visible
manifestation of the glory of the
invisible God.
>> Right. And who do you think that is?
>> Who do I think that is? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, I I think it's
>> because obviously God is invisible. He's
a spirit.
>> Spirits spirits don't have forms. No. So
if Isaiah saw a form then it certainly
is not a spirit obviously. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> So that's why I'm asking who who do you
think that is that Isaiah saw physically?
physically?
>> I think that the Lord is able to reveal
his glory in in a sort of physical
visible manifestation and that happens
several times throughout the Bible like
like most
>> burning bush they only heard the voice.
>> There was no physical form
>> but but but there was a manifestation of
his glory. Well, I wouldn't call God a
burning bush.
>> That would be kind of
>> that would be blasphemous. Exactly.
>> I agree. I agree. But but it's it's the
Lord's action in creation to visibly
manifest his his glory
>> because you know this term manifest
again is can be problematic and I see
kind of um anthropomorphism
which I think would be leading to
blasphemy as well.
>> But the crown has anthropomorphism like
the hand of Allah.
>> Yeah. But we don't consider that to be
the hand like your hand. Yeah, but it's
still effective language.
>> Yeah, exactly. So for if I said the hand
of the clock, would you consider hand of
the clock like your like your hand?
>> Exactly. But the point is we have this
is the same.
>> No, no, but you said manifestation.
That's very different. So when you when
you Yeah. When you even display when you
manifest or display, you're talking
about a physical vision here of a form
of an invisible God. To me, if if if
>> Well, Jesus is that.
>> So say Jesus then. Exactly my point.
That's what I'm trying to get because I
don't want to put it in your mouth. I
wanted you guys to say that.
>> Well, the Bible's very clear when John.
>> Okay. So, you think Jesus is the one
that Isaiah is referring to?
>> Because well, that's made explicit New
Testament. It's in John.
>> By the way, Jesus, do you think any of
the Old Testament prophets ever talked
about the son of God?
>> Well, Hebrews says that the pro, you
know, they were looking forward to to
Jesus. No, but Hebrews is New Testament,
>> but it's it's referring to the Old Testament.
Testament.
>> Yeah, it's which part in the Old
Testament is it referring to about the
son of God?
>> So Psalm Psalm 2, for example,
>> cuz as far as I know, all the prophets,
they do not worship a son of God.
>> Psalm two.
>> Yeah. Go on.
>> That's David's dream, isn't it?
>> Psalm 2 is is David speaking.
>> Oh, David speaking.
>> But he has a character here speaking. Yeah.
Yeah.
>> The Lord said to me, "You are my son.
Today I have begotten you. Ask of me and
I will make the nations your head."
>> Which one? Psalm two. What?
>> Psalm two. This is verse seven.
>> Read from first. From the first verse
because that's where David is speaking.
>> Yes. Uh why why do the nations rage and
the peoples plot in vain? The kings of
the earth set themselves and the rulers
take counsel together against the Lord
and against his anointed, his Christ,
his Messiah.
>> This is Psalm two, is it?
>> This is Psalm two. Okay. saying, "Let us
burst their bonds apart and cast away
their cords from us." He who sits in the
heavens laughs. The Lord holds them in
derision. Then he will speak to them in
his wroth and terrify them in his fury,
saying, "As for me, I have set my king
on Zion, my holy hill."
>> Yeah. So where does he say anything
about a son?
>> I will tell of the decree. The Lord said
to me, you are my son. Today I have
begotten you.
>> Yeah, that's David.
>> It is a begotten son.
>> That's not That's Israel. That's not
>> But then but that's
>> You can't interpret it. You can't
interpret Jesus in there because
begotten son, you know, it's it's more
of a metaphoric format. It's not
begotten. The actual word begotten means
to s a child through biological
>> testament that language is used of Christ.
Christ.
>> No, but that's what I'm saying. When
you're saying he sorry, psalm is
referring to
>> Jesus, which is not.
>> Okay. So, you can't you can't just make
an assumption.
>> It's an assumption. We're told that.
>> No, no, we we're told that's David.
>> But who's the son of David? Who's who
who is who is
>> son? You know the term son of god was
used for Adam as well. Do you believe that?
that? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Adam, Adam. Yeah. David, all this all
these people are called sons of God.
This is a metaphoric way.
>> And son of man is used as also of a
divine king who be a divine king. Divine.
Divine.
>> No. Son of man is also used for Ezekiel.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But
>> more than 82 times you know that
>> more than Jesus.
>> Yeah. But Jesus is identified with him.
>> Yeah. But this is called specialing now
because the if the same term is used for
a lot of other people and then you're
saying no. In the case of Jesus is
>> for real. Yeah. In the case of Jesus,
it's like a special case. That's called
the flaw of it's a logical flaw called
special pleading.
>> Unless you agree that all the other sons
of God are also sons.
>> So a a term can be used more than one way.
way.
>> So a term can be used
>> a single term can be used in more than
one way.
>> I agree. But if it's used if the same
term is used for other prophets like
Adam, it's called the son of God with a
definite article. Okay. in uh this is in
Luke 3 uh probably the beginning you
know the the genealogy of Jesus yeah in that
that
>> now would you consider Adam to be the
son of God
>> yeah there's sons and gods so many
different sense so Jesus is the son of
god in a human sense of being the son of
Adam the son of
>> Adam is a human
>> yeah yeah but Jesus is human so you can
you can use the term son of god son of
god in a human sense or a divine sense
>> no no when you say it has no meaning
>> yeah when you say divine sense
>> that's that's the Bible itself uses it
different ways
>> exactly but to the original point of
>> that's why I'm It's called special pleading
pleading
>> which way it's being used.
>> The Bible does but but so Jesus
>> you would agree with me special pleading.
pleading.
>> No I wouldn't because Jesus
>> unless you show me otherwise.
>> So so Jesus claims to be God. I'm the
alpha and the omega the beginning.
>> Make sure you guys are in the camera. >> Um
>> Um
>> so and and and back to the result from
that passage from Isaiah. That passage
is used both to identify Yahweh and the
son and the spirit. So So
>> sorry Mikey. Was it Mike?
>> Mikey Mike and Matthew.
>> Matthew. Mikey and Matthew. Look, let me
ask you something. You know, as a
Muslim, I have a principle when
interpreting the Quran and also the
hadith. When you have something
explicit, yeah, I I don't rely on an
implicit passage or something which is
ambiguous. To me, the explicit takes
precedence all the time. Would you use
the same principle to interpret your Bible?
Bible?
>> What's explicit? Yes. And I think Jesus
being Lord and being God is very explicit.
explicit.
>> Yeah. No, no, before just discussing the
principle first
>> before you apply it. I want to know if
you apply the
>> scripture interprets scripture. Yeah.
>> Yeah. But that's still ambiguous. What
I'm saying is that in the scripture
>> the explicit interprets the
>> So if the No, no, but if something is
explicit, then whatever implicit you
bring that is actually it's subordinate
to this explicit.
>> Well, it's on the same level.
>> The primary is always explicit. The
secondary would be the implicit. Because
if look, if God tells you that he's a
spirit and then you come and tell me, oh
no, he could be an animal or he could be
some uh I don't know some some sort of a
human or something. Then that would be
to me going against the explicit scripture.
scripture.
>> No, because so in the Old Testament it
makes it so God so you can hold two
things simultaneous simultaneously that
God is invisible. God is spirit and that
the invisible God made himself manifest
in flesh.
>> Okay. So that would be a contradiction.
>> It's not a contradiction.
>> Should I tell you why?
>> No, no, no, no, no, no. It's a
contradiction according to Islamic theology.
theology.
>> No, it's contradiction based on the
principle of of non-contradiction.
Because what you're doing is if you're
going to say something is black and then
you're saying no, it is white at the
same time, then that's a contradiction.
If you're saying God is invisible and
then you're saying he's visible as well,
then that's a it's not like God is
invisible and visible at the same time.
Is that the invisible God became
manifest in a moment in time and in history?
history?
>> Yeah. Is that is that exact words in the
Bible or is that your interpretation?
>> That uh what prophecy in isaiah he um Isaiah
Isaiah
>> Well, I mean John one John
um made manifest. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> The word became flesh.
>> Became flesh.
>> I mean among us.
>> Yeah. Yeah. You knew it.
>> Why did you not bring that up? Because
that's a clear one.
>> I'm helping you out here and I'll tell
you why you're still wrong.
>> Open John one. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> And read from the beginning.
>> By the way, these are the words of Pho.
Do you know that? How about one John
>> John 1? Yeah.
>> One John 1. This is a different passage.
This is the day of John. No problem. Yeah.
Yeah.
>> He says, "That which was from the
beginning, who is from the beginning?
That which was from the beginning, which
we have heard, which we have seen with
our eyes, which we looked upon and have
touched with our hands concerning the
word of life."
>> So, so here he's saying there is someone
who is from the beginning uncreated.
>> No, no, you said someone physical, right?
right?
>> This was from the beginning.
>> Yeah. From the physical. That means
physical whom we have touched.
>> The life was made manifest.
>> Exactly. Whom we have touched >> eternal.
>> eternal.
>> Now something can't be eternal if it is
physical because
>> but that's what he's saying. Read it
again. Read it again. Maybe you didn't understand.
understand.
>> From the beginning. >> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Which we have heard. Which we have seen
with our eyes. We have looked on and
have touched with our hands.
>> Exactly. Concerning the
>> Have you realized that? Have you
realized? So heard,
>> seen, and touched.
>> That's the point.
>> Wait a minute. Can you do any of that
with a spirit?
>> No. Exactly. So, so what you're talking about
about
>> this is the point.
>> No, no, hold on, hold on. If someone is
from the beginning, from eternity like that.
that.
>> Okay. So,
>> now the question, the question is if if
he was seen, heard, and touched, then no
one in the Old Testament talks about any
son of God being like that.
>> Because all the sons of God in the Old
Testament and also in the New Testament,
like I said, Adam, they're all
metaphoric sons. Like for example, it
says the peacekeepers are the children
of God. Yeah. You guys can be the
peacekeepers. You can be children of
God, but would you
>> but you're not the pre-existing eternal um
um
>> no one is no one has seen an eternal
being who can be heard and touched and
seen by anyone in the Old Testament or
the New Testament.
>> But what you this is what it's saying in
the New Testament.
>> Yeah, that's what I'm saying because
you're talking about a metaphoric. So
this is metaphorically because here it's
talking about physical which to me is literal.
literal.
>> It says that Jesus was from the
beginning and that he was with the
father. I'll tell you what. If Jesus was
from the beginning, was he a spirit from
the beginning or did he become a man
from the beginning?
>> No, he was a spirit from
>> Thank you. Can you see spirit? >> Pardon?
>> Pardon?
>> Can you see spirit? >> No.
>> No.
>> Good. Can you touch a spirit? >> No.
>> No.
>> Good. Can you hear a spirit?
>> But we touched the body of the spirit we manifest.
manifest.
>> Can you hear a spirit?
>> Uh, no.
>> I will say yes.
>> Yes, you can hear a spirit.
>> Good. I'm helping you out here. You know
why? Because during the baptism, they
heard the father, right?
>> And the spirit.
>> No. Well, God I think God can choose to
to to make No, wait a wait wait wait
wait a minute. Can God change his nature?
nature?
>> How can a non-material thing make sound waves?
waves?
>> Nonmaterial things because God is not
limited to our physical world.
>> It's God's spirit.
>> Yeah. According to the Bible, not for me
as a Muslim. No.
>> Yeah. For us, God is beyond our
understanding. So Allah says in the Quran,
Quran,
that means there's nothing like unto him
in Christian understanding
>> because in the Bible, they actually have
evidence for it. The father speaks that
I am sorry he's my begotten son this day
I begotten thee something like that yeah
I'm not I might be misquing it but
that's what the general gist is so what
I'm saying is that if you agree that
Jesus was not physical from eternity
okay then can we say that when Jesus
took upon the human nature
>> was there a change in the person of Jesus
Jesus
>> so Jesus has two natures
>> I know I'm talking about the person
>> so his divine divine nature remained unchanged.
unchanged.
>> Okay, let me rephrase that. You you you
probably heard this argument uh from
many Christian philosophers. They say
the the two who's sorry the three who's
and sorry in the case of Jesus it's two
whats and one who. So the what is the nature
nature
>> okay the two watts means the the divine
and the human nature of Jesus. So these
are the two watts. the one who is the
person of Jesus because he's only one
person right unless you are a netorian
heretic they consider Jesus to be having
two natures with two persons as two persons
persons
>> so that's hard netorianism >> so
>> so
>> if I were to ask you yeah is they're
called heretics yeah if I were to ask you
you
Jesus the one who yeah did he change his
nature from eternity past until post incarnation.
incarnation.
>> No, the the nature wasn't the divine
nature wasn't changed.
>> I didn't ask you about donation. I I asked
asked
>> did he change his
>> I said did the who change? Did the
person change?
>> The God the son did not cease or change
to be God.
>> That wasn't my question either. He Yes. Say
Say
>> I asked you look once again. We need to
distinguish between Yeah. the what and the
the
>> the person of the son of God took to
himself a human nature when he was born
as a baby.
>> Okay. So that's a change in nature to me
of that person.
>> No, the nature didn't change because
there wasn't an intermixing of the human
nature in the divine.
>> Yeah, but I'm not asking about that.
>> They were united in the one person.
>> My friend, I'm not this has never
happened before. This is this is so far
the idea of God becoming man
>> is so far beyond our understanding that
you can't expect to comprehend it. But
if you did comprehend it,
>> well, the Greeks did.
>> If you comprehended,
>> you know, the Romans and the Greek,
their gods were similar to
>> No, because their their gods were not uh
eternal. Hercules.
>> But they were already came as a human.
>> They they weren't in infinite invisible spirits.
spirits. >> Sorry.
>> Sorry.
>> The Greek the Greek gods were weren't
invisible eternal immortal.
>> According to them, they were they were
all immortal.
>> They weren't. No, because you can only
>> according to the Greeks, they were immortal.
immortal.
>> You can only have one necessary infinite being.
being. >> Sorry.
>> Sorry.
>> Those gods die.
>> No, they're gods. Zeus did not die.
>> No, but no. Take take the point. They
were born.
>> Well, Zeus wasn't born.
>> He was.
>> He wasn't. Who was who was his mother
and father?
>> Uh Gaia and Kronos. >> Sorry.
>> Sorry.
>> Ga and Kronos.
>> The theology of I have to check that.
The theology of God cannot.
>> Okay. Look, the reason I'm saying it's
impossible to like even even in
Hinduism, they have a similar concept.
The Christian God, the God of the Bible,
the the God who is the one true
exclusive eternal infinite being. It is
impossible to comprehend such a God
becoming man.
>> Okay. Okay. So when you say when you say
God whom are you referring to
specifically from the three persons?
>> Uh all three
>> all three father son who are one god.
>> So according to the church
>> was Jesus was was Jesus the second
person of the trinity.
>> Was he generated by the father
>> or did he generate himself?
>> E eternally generated
>> by whom? Thank you. And what about the
father? Was he generated by anyone? >> No.
>> No.
>> No. He's the un unoriginate.
>> Okay. So who possesses a
>> father? Do
>> you know what a say, right?
>> Yes. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Self-sufficient self. >> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Self selfexisting self-sufficient.
>> The whole the whole godhead
>> the whole godhead
>> possesses a according to their nature.
He doesn't according to person according
to personhood.
>> No, it doesn't say.
>> Should I tell you why? No. Because the
the son is generated by the father. The
father was never generated.
>> The divine nature. He the divine nature
is saying
>> I didn't ask for the divine. I'm saying
the person say well this is what I say.
Once again, you know, every time I don't
know if you guys notice this, every time
I talk about the person, the who you go
to the what?
>> So, I'm not talking about the nation.
I'm talking about the who. Okay. Once again,
again,
>> according to his personhoods,
>> whose personhood?
>> The son's personhoods. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> He he receives generation from the father.
father.
>> What do you mean receives generation? He
was generated
>> generated by.
>> Thank you. Was the father generated? >> No.
>> No.
>> Thank you. So, what does that show us?
That the father is the father is the
only one who possesses a Okay.
self-existing self-sufficient unlike the
son and the holy spirit. Okay. So
depending on which church the orthodox
church or the catholic church you will
only according to personhoods.
>> Yeah. My question is about the person
>> according to the nature.
>> Yeah. Again you're going to the what?
Let's stick to one thing please
otherwise you'll get confused with
regards to the who with regards to the
person. Okay. The father is the only one
who is got asset who possesses aseti.
Nobody else. And everyone the Christians
who have studied this they will all
agree. Yes.
>> What does that show us that when you
talk about you know to me God is always
self-existing and self-sufficient but in
the case of Jesus Christ and the Holy
Spirit they have to be generated whether
you say eternally or not.
>> But now but they still have a cause. But
now you're talking about the what?
You're talking about the what? No
question of what.
>> Sorry. Where did I say what? I said generated.
generated.
>> No no the question of what they are of
whether they're self-sufficient or not
is a question of what.
>> No it's not. It's about who is
self-sufficient. That's the question.
>> So who is self-sufficient?
>> God is self-sufficient.
>> No, the father is self-sufficient. Not Jesus.
Jesus.
>> No, God. God is self-sufficient.
>> Okay. Once again, you did you not just
concede that Jesus was generated by the
father? And when I asked you, is the
father generated? You said no.
>> That's a question about the distinction
of persons.
>> By the way, what do you understand by jumping?
jumping?
>> Why do you why do you like why do you
why do you sorry what is the
understanding of >> aseti?
>> aseti?
By the way, none of the just notice none
of the Muslims are interrupting except
these two Christians here. Okay. By the
way, can you tell them
>> to be to be respectful because none of
the Muslims are except you.
>> Nobody Muslims.
>> No Muslims are interrupting except the Christians.
Christians.
>> We thought we're going to have a
friendly discussion and now they are
trying to hackle. This is called hackling.
hackling.
>> This these have been interrupting
throughout. We had a question. Is Jesus
non-binary? Is
>> no no from here by the way. He's not a Muslim.
Muslim. apologies.
apologies.
>> Okay, you're going to apologize to the
Muslims as well. I apologize. Good.
>> Okay. So, look, the the only way we can
have a a productive discussion is if
there's no hackling.
>> Okay. So, I would want you to tell the
Christians not to hackle. If they do,
>> okay, I expect you as a gentleman to at
least, you know, have this as a friendly
discussion. That's all I'm asking.
>> But and if any Muslim does, I will interrupt.
interrupt.
>> Muslims or Christian doesn't diminish
the valility of the argument.
>> I didn't say that. I said we in order
for us to have a productive discussion
that we have to agree that have a
discussion which is productive and
>> can you explain your points about assay?
>> Yeah. So okay what is the understanding
where you're going with it?
>> What's your understanding of the term
explain your points?
>> Yeah I will tell me where
>> first you need to define the term as a gender
gender
independence from himself.
>> Okay. Self-existing.
>> Okay. Do you agree with that?
self-existing, self-sufficient,
independent, all of this. Okay,
>> we already so I'm not going to repeat
this, but just to clarify that I'm not
misunderstanding you. Okay, we agree
that the father is the only one who
possesses self asset. Sorry, possesses a
reason for that is because he I I'll
explain why. Cuz he was never generated,
which is what self-existing is. But the
the son and the holy spirit were
generated which means they had a cause
>> but not they did not have a time and
they did not have a cause in time and
space. So there wasn't a time where the
sper so we're not
>> I didn't mention time and space
>> but but sorry it's existence is a
question of nature not a question of
person. So if you're talking about
self-existence you're talking about the
divine nature. The divine nature is
self-existence. The father the son and
the holy spirit therefore possessing the
divine nature are self-existent. Now we
can make distinctions between their
personhood but that that's a limited
question and that's not a question of
their nature.
>> Yeah. Should I tell you why I disagree
with that? Should I tell you why I
disagree? Okay. Existence is about the
essence, not the nature. The essence
>> essence and nature are the same thing.
I'm using
>> Yeah, they are. But in this context,
it's about the cause. The cause of the
father is non-existent. Hence, he
doesn't have a cause. The son and the
holy spirit have a cause. Okay. Hence,
they they cannot be self-sufficient and
selfexisting. I I just I don't think you
understand the ter which part I don't
understand nature
>> actually I do because the nature is the
essence like you said the nature here is
the essence is the essence but the
nature here the essence of
>> before we even before we predicate the
essence to someone
>> yeah they have to exist right
>> don't have a biology you agree
>> the essence of god is his existence
because he is selfexist no I'm telling
you even before that so even before you
define the nature they have to at least exist
exist
>> doesn't have a no but but look in
Christian theology there there's no
distinction between God's existence and
his essence his existence is his essence
>> no actually the is the distinction
>> and this is by the church by them not me
they use this term as I got it from them
>> yeah because
>> and why they why they use the term aset
for the father because all the churches
agree with this that the father is the
only one who's got the property of assay
the attribute of assay which means he's
selfexistent because
>> you can disagree with the church if you
want this is the property of the divine
nature correct
>> this is not what the Say no the son and
the holy spirit
>> I'm saying even before that so before
you describe the attributes the nature anything
anything
>> you need to understand whether that
entity exists or not
>> oh wow
>> exist back god exists yeah but what I'm
saying is that what I'm saying is that
we're talking about selfexistence
>> okay does the son and the holy spirit
self exist or do they rely on the father
>> you're not listening to the distinction
between person and nature according to
their persons
The son is from the father and the holy
spirit is from the father and the son.
>> Their existence is from the father.
>> But but according to nature no because
existence is a question of nature and essence.
essence.
>> No I'm saying before you
>> exist the divine nature. There is one
divine nature that is selfexist.
>> I've repeated this and I'll say the
third time. In order for you to define
any entity the entity has to exist.
>> Okay. So if I asked you who caused the
son and the holy spirit it is the
father. No doubt. But the father was
never caused by anyone.
>> But you but you're you're lying by
saying that this is the view of the church.
church.
>> This is one of the views of the church.
Very well. >> Which?
>> Which?
>> Yes. And this is this is something that
they have discussed. Even the term
distinction of the church makes you're
just deliberately over.
>> Which one am I ignoring? Which part?
>> But Mikey has made the point. >> What?
>> What?
>> Regarding distinction.
>> Okay. Explain what he said. No. Let's
see if he understands.
>> Let's see if he understood that.
>> Oh, actually wait. Mikey, Mike, before
you do, hash him. Repeat what? By the
way, I don't want anyone else to
interrupt. I want to deal with the two
of you, not with this guy. He's hackling
now. Okay. So, what I'm saying, what I'm
saying, what I'm saying is that we need
to we need to explain what I just said.
>> Yeah. You said this is this is
predicated to the nature about the SAT.
I'm saying even before you understand
the nature, you have to understand
whether the entity exists or not.
>> Can you prove that?
>> No, I don't want him to hackle. Can you
guys tell him not to hack?
>> Prove the case.
>> Can you can you guys
>> Okay, stop hackling David. You heard him.
him.
>> Okay. So the if no one hackles please
two guys are enough. Come on.
>> All right. So now look the reason I
asked is because now this shows there's
a distinction even from the very
beginning of of this so-called trinity.
>> You're making a distinction between
existence and nature. Whereas the the
church especially the church fathers
have said that God's God's existence is
his nature.
>> Okay. Let me ask you this. Can you
define Can you define anything?
>> You need to affirm the church. Mikey,
I'll tell you why you still didn't
understand before you even before you
even speak about the nature all the
attributes. Should the entity exist?
>> But the thing is,
>> wait, wait, let him answer this. Should
the entity exist?
>> Who is when God reveals himself to
Moses, what does he say?
>> Please answer this question and then
I'll answer yours.
>> Before you define anything,
>> God, God exists.
>> No, no. I'm saying even forget God.
Anything anything you talk about in
order to understand its nature or its
attributes it has to exist. Do you agree?
agree?
>> Yes. If we're if we're talking about
things so I can before even talk about
the nature I need to understand whether
it exists. Now we know that the father
exists and if the father
>> did not exist here's a question to you.
If the father did not exist who would
generate the son and the holy spirit if
this is a hypothe hypothetical question
I understand.
>> But but let me and make you understand
the cause.
>> Understand? You'll understand the cause
and effect.
>> But the thing is saying God doesn't
exist which is just impossible.
>> I never said that. I said it's hypothetical.
hypothetical.
>> But saying oh if the father didn't exist
who would generate the sun or vice versa
that I mean it's just an illogical
>> no I tell you why it's logical because
you need to understand the cause and
effect here. Okay. The cause is the
father. the effect is the Holy Spirit
and the sun in your in your
>> doctrine. I think sorry I think that the
the major flaw in what you're saying is
you're drawing this huge distinction
between existence and nature which I
think is true of all created things. So
if if I'm to know you, I must admit
first that you exist >> exactly
>> exactly
>> and then talk about what your nature is. >> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> But I think with God it's different. And
and so when he reveals his name to Moses
in Exodus, what does he say?
>> Um I am who I am.
>> I am who I am. here.
>> Yeah. Exactly. So what does that say of God?
God?
>> How how does he want to give his name?
>> How does how does it say how does God
define his nature? He defines his nature
as existence. He is the one who is.
>> We know God exists. I'm not denying that one.
one.
>> I'm not denying that.
>> But you're you're saying you're saying,
"Oh, first you have to admit that he
exists. Then you talk about his nature."
Of course. His nature is that he is the
existing one.
>> Okay. Once again, who's generated the sun?
sun?
>> So you keep jumping over and over again.
>> Once again, because now you want to you
want to define the nature. So let's
define the nature.
>> You're confusing categories again.
You're confusing.
>> Which category did I confuse?
>> Nature and person. We're I'm talking
about the the nature.
>> Wait, wait. Do you not distinguish
between them?
>> Yeah, you're confusing.
>> No, but do you not distinguish between
the nature and the person?
>> That's not what he's asking.
>> Do you distinguish between them or not?
>> But you're confusing them.
>> No, I'm not.
>> Yes, you are.
>> Do you distinguish between the nature
and the person or you don't?
>> What? Explain your question. Do
>> okay. The person is the who and the
nature is the what. Do you distinguish
between the two?
>> The who and the what?
>> Between the who and the what? Do you
distinguish or not?
>> Uh distinguish in that those two words
are describing different.
>> They're different.
>> Yes. The person is not the nature. The
person here would be the essence and the
essence defines.
>> No. No.
>> Yeah. I I know the term essence is a bit
confusing because it can mean nature.
You're right. But what I'm saying is
that person for example if I asked you
uh in the trinity how many persons are there?
there? >> Three.
>> Three.
>> Good. How many natures are there? >> One.
>> One.
>> Which is good.
>> Which is
>> the divine nature.
>> Okay. Good. divine. What about the human
nature of Jesus? Does it sit outside the
God or is it within God?
>> It's in incarnation by addition.
>> I asked you where does it sit?
>> So imagine imagine a ven diagram.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. If you have if you have a full
circle and you have the father, son, and
the holy spirit as being the divine,
where would the human nature sit?
>> The human nature is distinct from the
divine nature.
>> Would it sit outside the circle or inside?
inside?
>> So it's not the divine nature,
>> my friend. Would it sit outside the
circle or inside? If the circle is
divine nature.
>> Yeah. If the circle is the godhead,
>> then the human nature is distinct from
the god.
>> Okay. So you would separate Jesus's
nature like the netorians as a separate.
>> No, not separate. Distinct separate.
>> We know it's distinct. That's why it's
called human nature.
>> Distinct. Not separate. Distinct. But
united in the person.
>> Now in the in the godhead.
>> In the godhead. Is there any person who
has a human nature?
>> The son.
>> So he has a human nature
>> now. Yeah.
>> Of course. After incarnation. I'm not
saying pre pre-incarnation they were all
divine apparently and one of them after
incarnation the son took on the u the
human nature good but that human nature
is going to remain till eternity right >> sure
>> sure >> yeah yeah
>> yeah yeah
>> yeah now the question is this in the
godhead yes we have the three persons
the father son and the holy spirit
do they are they defined within the
godhead as having only one nature or one
of them has two natures does this nature
sit site this godhead which you consider
to be God.
>> So the godhead refers to the person.
>> We didn't ask you to interrupt.
>> So the godhead reversed the person.
>> Are you guys going to answer?
>> You're asking.
>> Sorry. What is the question?
>> That's a that's a problem. If you if you
tell him to stop interrupting, then
you'll understand.
>> He's the only guy interrupting the
Christian guy.
>> By the way, could could you could you
simplify the question? That wasn't the question.
question.
>> Yeah. I gave you a ven diagram which was
quite simplistic. The vin diagram shows
you clearly that there's one big circle
and inside that big circle you have
three small circles.
>> Well, wait. I haven't finished. The
diagram is not finished yet.
>> The diagram's not finished yet. Okay.
How do you define God at
>> think you can draw him in a diagram?
>> This is just for representation. Nobody
is saying God is a circle. Come on guys.
>> I thought you understood this.
>> So can I represent Allah?
>> Yeah. Just tell him to stop
interrupting. I hope you'll keep your
word guys. Come on. We agreed earlier.
>> I think this was a war vomit.
>> Yeah, it's not a real question.
>> Yeah, you're not complaining. Why are you
you
>> I think we're we're going back and forth.
forth.
>> No problem. We can move on if you want.
>> We disagree by definitions as well.
>> Actually, we agree.
>> If the thing is the reason you guys
disagree is because maybe you don't
understand self-existing doesn't apply
to the son and the holy spirit, but it
does to the father.
>> We have different presuppositions and definitions.
definitions.
>> Okay, good. Let's move on. Let's move
on. No problem. Okay.
>> But can you wait, it's back in the
original discussion. It's regardless
whether you think it's logical or not.
The Bible is very clear from old and new
that it that it >> it
>> it
>> the the the Christian scriptures in Old
New Testaments refer to Jesus as divine.
>> Oh, you can show me Jesus Christ tries
as divine in the Old Testament.
>> But you just say it's corrupted. It's
not it's not original.
>> I know it's corrupted. Why did I say
that? Maybe you got mixed up with
another argument.
>> No, that's what I read.
>> Look, look, I'm taking your your book as
face value.
>> No, no, but like I I know Islam
apologetics love to decry.
>> Yeah, but you can't use their
apologetics with me. Unless I apply the same.
same.
>> Was Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ?
>> Apostle define it.
>> Um, anointed by God who uh spread the
good news of the gospel.
>> Okay. Show me where Paul is anointed by God.
God.
>> Okay. Then >> acts
>> acts
>> because it's his dream. It's his vision.
>> Okay. A vision. His dream, not Jesus's dream.
dream.
>> There's a difference. When you appointed
by God, you appointed like the way in
the case of the baptism of Jesus about
his sonship. Okay? That is a question we
are asking you. But if you're going to
say his own dream appointed him, that's
called self-appointed.
>> It's not self-appointed. So
>> a vision during the day.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But it's but that's not
>> that's his vision by the way.
>> So you're saying God cannot so God
cannot send a message via vision. Is
that what you're saying?
>> I didn't say that.
>> But you're saying that Paul having a
vision means he's self-appointed. That that
that
>> because it's his vision and he's he's
claiming himself to be an apostle being
appointed by God. Peter and all the
other apostles recognized him as a co
coworker in the gospel.
>> They're not God, are they?
>> They're appointed. They're a
>> You said God appoints.
>> I asked you, show me evidence. You
haven't shown
>> Jesus commissioned them.
>> Jesus commissioned the apostles.
>> Did Jesus see Paul in flesh? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> What was
these guys?
But you do you
>> did Jesus see I asked you. Did Jesus see
Paul? I didn't ask you about Paul's vision.
vision.
>> Yes. Jesus appeared
>> based on what? based on Paul's testimony
>> which is true
>> you know Jesus
>> if Jesus himself says I if I give
testimony about myself okay it should
not be accepted did he not say that in
John 5
>> Jesus his own testimony should be
rejected but he says another testifies
on my behalf sorry about me then you
should accept that
>> but he so
>> you see what I mean so Paul cannot
>> a question of apostles
>> no no Paul that's a question about testimony
testimony >> sunship
>> sunship
>> it's a question about testimony
>> no it's not sunship It's about sunship,
>> my friend. It's a testimony about about testimony.
testimony.
>> It's a question about testimony. That's
all I'm saying. If you want, you can
look it up. No problem. Jesus himself
said, "My testimony should not be
accepted. But if another testifies,
by the way,
>> I appreciate that." Thank you very much.
>> Say Isaiah, for example, that we that we
turn to was commissioned by God. He was
commissioned by God by receiving a
vision himself of God. It wasn't that
God spoke from heaven.
>> Sorry. Isaiah what? Isaiah chapter 6
which we read earlier. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> How is Isaiah commissioned?
>> Commissioned for what?
>> Commissioned to be a prophet to speak
God's words.
>> Oh, by the way, before Isaiah 6, he was
already a prophet, was he not?
>> So why you going to six?
>> Formerly commissioned.
>> No, no, he was already a prophet before
that. So God appointed prophets and we
have no issues with that. But when you
when Jesus had never seen him in flesh,
>> you're assuming that um that prophetic
books were going to linear kind of way that
that
>> No, there are prophets. By the way, as
Muslims, we know that God himself
appoints messengers. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. And it can be messengers from
amongst men and from amongst the angels
as well.
>> Take take the example of Jeremiah. If if
you won't take Isaiah Jeremiah
>> Yeah. I didn't say I didn't take Isaiah.
I said if you read from the beginning,
Isaiah was already a prophet. And and
Jeremiah before he's a prophet before he
becomes a prophet, Jeremiah receives a
vision from God. And it's that vision
that makes him that commissions him to
be a prophet.
>> Okay. I tell you what,
>> you you would then say that Jeremiah is
not a prophet because he hasn't had
testimony from from God.
>> Jeremiah as well. Which which chapter
are you referring to?
>> What the beginning?
>> What does this say about Jeremiah?
>> That he was appointed by God.
>> Yes. The word of the Lord came to him.
God spoke to him. God appoints him as a
prophet to the nations. This is all
here. And then the Lord put out his hand
and touched my mouth and said to me,
"Behold, I put my words in your mouth." >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> What is that? That's not an external
testimony. That's not Jesus's baptism.
God speaking from heaven.
>> So that's God's
>> I'm going I'm going based on the
principle of Jesus himself.
>> That's God coming to Jeremiah.
>> My friend, look, I'm going based on the
principle of Jesus. Jesus said if I
testify about myself, it should not be
it's not a valid testimony.
>> Jesus was claiming to be God.
>> Is Paul better than Jesus? >> Sorry.
>> Sorry.
>> Is Paul better than Jesus? Exactly. So
if Jesus's testimony is not accepted,
why would he accept false testimony?
>> Claim is different than Jesus.
>> I'll tell you what, look, let me finish.
If someone claims to be divine, that
there's this different standard of proof
required for I'm an apostle. So Jesus
speaking there about his testimony as
the son of God, not as apostle.
>> No, we talking about prophets, my
friend. That's different. Look, prophets
and apostles are not the same. Do you agree?
agree? >> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So you cannot bring in a prophet's testimony.
testimony.
>> You're bringing in Jesus. I did not
apostle but according
>> So you can't bring in I'm going based on
your Bible. If you want to reject it,
that's up to you.
>> No, no, no.
>> I as I as an outsider what I just said.
>> Yeah, I did. But you mentioned about the prophet.
prophet.
>> We can't mention prophets cuz they're
not apostles. Jesus is not an apostle
and you're using him as the as the test case.
case.
>> Okay. For you, is Jesus a prophet?
>> Uh yes, Jesus is the prophet.
>> So if he is the prophet, is he also God? >> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Even being a prophet and a god,
his testimony is not accepted if he
gives it by himself.
>> And that's my case.
You can you can deny shake your head but
that's in the Bible.
>> The Bible is
>> by the way. Do you know where the
reference is? I think it's a John um
>> is it John 5?
>> What are you talking about
>> about where where he says my testimony
is not accepted by the one who sent me? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. He testifies
>> again. But that's where the trinity
comes in because he's attested by the spirit.
spirit.
>> I think it's John 10, isn't it? John 10.
Yeah. It's in John 10 about 20. Sorry
about maybe 34. It's after 34. Maybe
John 10:34. saying it's not the question.
question.
>> So let me ask you this. If Jesus himself
>> testified that he has a god,
>> did John 10 what?
>> John 10:30 >> 349.
>> 349.
>> Sorry 1249 12.
>> Is it John 12? >> 1239
>> 1239 >> 49
>> 49
>> 41 I mean it's not really relevant to
>> it is actually yeah because if Jesus
being a prophet and a god and his
testimony is not is not valid if he
gives it himself okay then it actually
completely refutes what you guys are
claiming about Paul.
>> So he speaks on beh So he says he speaks
on not my own but the father who's sent
to me commanded me to say all I've
spoken. So no read the one before this
John John John John John John John John
John John says of Jesus
>> Isaiah said he's blinded their eyes and
hardened his prophecy we read before
Isaiah says he's blinded their eyes and
hardened their heart lest they see with
their eyes and understand with their
heart and turn and I would heal them.
Isaiah said these things because he saw
Jesus's glory and spoke of Jesus. Right.
So he's Isaiah saw Jesus physically. Yeah.
Yeah.
>> He spoke to Jesus.
>> I'm asking you because what do you
understand from? Because when you see
somebody's glory, do you see them
physically? What is it?
>> Because at the end of the day, if Isaiah
if Isaiah ever worshiped Jesus, then you
have a point. But you never did.
>> The point is this prophecy is about Jesus,
Jesus, >> right?
>> right?
>> Which prophecy?
>> Isaiah 6.
>> Yeah. By the way, when you say Isaiah 6
is talking about Jesus, did he speak
about Jesus? He never mentioned Jesus as
by name. Never mention refer to him as a
son of God. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm
still speaking. Let me finish. Okay. So,
never mention him by name. Never
mentioned that he's God or son of God.
So, what did Isaiah say? Sorry. What did
he mean when he said the glory of this
uh entity Jesus?
>> Well, Jesus coming into the world. So,
so John the Apostle, a a follower of
Jesus who knew him first. Not Muhammad
who'd never met Jesus, who knew nothing
of Jesus. This is an apostle who knew
Jesus Christ in the flesh and he said
>> Paul never met Jesus in the flesh.
>> I can use the same argument. Listen,
>> we're we're in John's gospel. That's was
John's gospel.
>> Yeah. Go on.
>> John the apostle knew Christ and said
Christ is the eternal word from the
beginning of creation and Isaiah was
speaking of him directly. Now you can
say I just was but you as God son of
God. None of that is mentioned in
>> you can think that is nonsensical. No
problem. But but let me finish. But you
cannot say that's
>> not what it says. That is directly what
it says. And you can
>> but do not say
>> if you want to interpret it that way.
That's up to you. But as far as I know,
I've read Isaiah. In Isaiah, never did
he mention about Jesus as name. Never as
a son of God or God. None of that. Wait
a second. He said that the name of
Christ isn't is
okay. Can we carry on now? Okay. Because
what we doing is we just that we need to
be good faith actors.
>> Yeah. Sure. By the way, it's recorded.
So you can go home and watch it. I'm not
going to edit it out.
>> Whatever you guys say. Okay. So what I'm
saying is that if something explicit
from Jesus himself. Yes.
>> Would would God God Almighty Okay. And
for you all the three persons are God
Almighty. Am I right?
>> Okay. Would God Almighty ever have a God?
God?
>> So in the incarnation, >> Christ,
>> Christ,
>> he's still God, right?
>> But there's a relation there.
>> Doesn't matter. He's still God for you.
But the thing is you're so you're
quivaling about I do not think the
trinitarian understanding of
>> No, all I'm saying is that does God
Almighty have a God? That's all I'm asking.
asking.
>> God the Son in his human nature has God
the Father who he submits to. Now you
may think that's nonsensical, but that's
I didn't say anything. Let me Are you
answering on my behalf?
>> No, no, no. But you your whole
discussion you're trying to prove that
the Trinity doesn't make sense. That
that Right.
>> What do you expect from a Muslim?
>> Exactly. But but MY POINT IS
>> WHY IS THAT SURPRISING TO YOU?
>> My point is my point is >> Yeah,
>> Yeah,
>> that's what the Bible teaches.
>> Yeah, I know. But can I respond to what
you just said?
>> You agree that the Bible teaches the trinity.
trinity.
>> No, I agree with what you said. Wait, I
agree with what you said with regards to
Jesus. Okay, there are people who
worshiped him as God. I'm not denying that,
that,
>> including John the apostle.
>> Wait, let me answer. Let me answer. What
was my question to you?
>> Does God have God?
>> Good. What is the answer to that?
>> In the Christian conception of the
Trinity, God the Son is human form. Has
God the Father?
>> Thank you very much. So the son who is
fully God according to you has a god.
What do you say? Do you agree with me?
>> Yeah. The the the man Christ Jesus who
is himself God the son
>> relates to God the father as God
according to
>> Why did you just say the man Jesus Christ?
Christ?
>> Because he's a man.
>> Okay. Is he not God for you? I asked you
earlier. So good. So the man god once
again I think the question is with
regards to the who from the from the
three persons who has a god?
>> From the three persons who has a god.
God the son in his human nature has
>> I didn't ask about the what I asked who
has a who has a god >> because
>> because
>> you know why this is very important
because you guys always keep doing the
nature thing so I have to bring you down
to the logical conclusion based on
conceive god without incarnation
>> I didn't ask you to conceive him you're
the ones who makes him god
>> you can't define you cannot define god
without the incarnation it's actually impossible
impossible
>> I never said you should
>> but you're asking us why you putting
words in my mouth you're implicitly asking
asking
>> no I'm not I'm saying who from the three
persons whether you want to say it
before incarnation after incarnation
even after the ascension no problem in
any time in Jesus's existence or the
son's existence or the holy spirit's
existence or even the father's existence
from the three persons who has a god
>> the son
>> after the incarnation the son
>> I said anytime I'm very very explicit
you there's no wiggle room for you now
>> yeah after the incarnation or the sun
>> okay the son has a god yeah but When you
say the son has a god, it makes it imply
that he's somehow lesser and not god himself.
himself.
>> My friend,
>> the language is very
>> explicit. Say it. The language here
which I used is very explicit.
>> And the reason you're struggling now and
you're stuttering is because you realize
you're weaponizing language to mean
different things.
>> What language you want me to use? >> No.
>> No.
>> Seriously, English or some other
language? Shall I start Arabic or maybe Udu?
Udu?
>> Yeah. So, don't wait. Don't use this.
Don't use these excuses. We play your
language card now. We have been
conversing in English all this time.
>> Yeah, but just being very you're being
>> So now the difficult question comes you
all the administ No because when we go to
to
>> language Trixie no come on.
>> No no no no because I'm trying to ground
this in what the scripture actually says.
says.
>> Actually you can't. That's the problem.
It goes against you.
>> No. We've proven that the scriptures
that the apostles teach that Christ is Lord.
Lord.
>> Okay. I'll tell you what. Use your
scripture and answer the question now
from the three persons. Okay. Does
anyone have a god? And if they do, who
is it?
Cuz I've now changed the question a bit.
Make it easy for you. >> Who?
>> Who?
>> Charity. I feel charitable today.
>> God the son submits in his human form to
God the father.
>> Thank you. I like the way you said God
the son
>> because you see
>> human form.
>> No, bro. God the son in his human form
was also God, right? Otherwise you
wouldn't call him God the son. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> So don't separate the son. Sorry. The
the divine from the
>> distinctions are helpful.
>> I know. But you cannot unless you're a
netorian. You can't separate them.
>> Distinct but not separate.
>> I agree. I agree. That's what I'm
telling you all all along.
>> You you can also be a Utician and
confuse the name.
>> No, no, my friend. All this time I've
been telling you do not separate them.
And I never said that they're not
distinct. At no point did I say so I'm
keeping within the framework of the
Christian Christianity and your your
belief because it would be it would be
unfair and unjust for me to misrepresent
you guys. That's the reason I'm asking
in front of you rather than uh
>> it's okay brother. We have already dealt
with that. So what I'm saying about tax
>> actually that'll be worse for you if I
bring Philippians in. Trust me how
>> you'll see it in a minute if you bring
it in.
>> If you got the guts bring it forward no
problem. Okay. So here's the thing. If
God the son has a god then we can
clearly say and conclude that he's not
almighty god
>> cuz almighty god doesn't have a god.
>> No. Why not? Because here here is the
great mystery of the incarnation is that
>> ah the am finally I was waiting for that
>> Jesus is fully great because it's God is
it's called an escape cloth >> understand
>> understand
you understand god
>> you fully you fully comprehend God bro
>> actually don't please we told
non-Muslims not to interrupt and I would
say the same thing with the Muslims see
I told them straight away okay
>> did you do you comprehend God
>> no not fully I have already made that
point earlier Then then the category of
mystery makes perfect.
>> No, it doesn't. Because I'll tell you
why it's not a mystery. Shall I tell you
why not a mystery? Because John 17 is
explicit that Jesus not only claimed the
father is his father but also the father
of the believers. Similarly, Jesus said,
I go to my god and your god. His god and
the believer's god is the same as well.
So the the very the term father here,
>> okay, in the case of Jesus Christ, when
he says the father, he's actually saying God.
God.
>> So when he says my god, whose god is that?
that? >> Jesus.
>> Jesus.
>> No, my god is his god. You're not
speaking there. John 17.
>> Here is the mystery of the and uh if you
let me speak without interrupting.
>> Um the mystery is that Jesus Christ is
fully human and fully God at the same
time. Now that is something we can't
comprehend. It's impossible to
comprehend what it means to be fully
human and fully God.
>> Is that from the Bible?
>> At the same Yes.
>> Where is the fully God? Fully man.
>> At the same at the same time.
>> No, you you need to show me explicitly
where it says Jesus is fully man, fully God.
God.
>> Cuz this is a church teaching. It's not
from the Bible. Otherwise, they wouldn't
spend 300 years to to find the sorry to
establish the doctrine of the trinity.
>> So Jesus as a god. Listen,
>> you have no wiggle room. Trust me. Let
let me say I'm going to assume. So, I do
believe that the Bible teaches that
Jesus is fully God and fully man. But I
need to show the reference. I'm gonna
assume that for a moment and try and I'm
going to assume that and show that your
previous argument didn't make sense.
>> No, wait, wait. You can't just assume.
>> If it's if it's in there, show it to me.
If it's not in there, don't assume.
>> So, so something can be
>> But I can't establish every premise that
I'm going to make. Say, "Oh, I I think
you're a human being. I'm not going to
prove that before I
>> Yeah, but Mikey, that is your only premise.
premise.
>> You have to make a Mikey. If that is
your only premise,
>> then you have to establish it.
>> We can't
>> otherwise you're just making a claim.
>> You can't work from false principles. I
>> No, but you from 20th doesn't matter. If
you're going to make a claim
substantially from the Bible, that's
what I'm asking.
>> So, I can we can show from scripture
that God is that Jesus is human. In
fact, he was born of Mary. He had a
body. He slept and woke up. So, we know
that and we know he's also God because
he claims to be God and the alpha and
the omega, the eternal word. So, I don't
need one verse. I disagree. No, no, but
but you push me to scream, but I do not
need one verse to say I'm God. I am at
the same time, perfect, co-equal,
distinction, blah, blah, blah. I can I
can multiple verses that he's divine and human.
human.
>> But Matt Matthew, is it? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, Matthew, by the way, you know,
I didn't put words in your mouth.
>> You're the one who agreed God the Son as
a god. >> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So, stop blaming me for your what
you conceded.
>> You're you're you're trying to use that
to prove that Jesus isn't God. Well, let
let me assume.
>> Does it not prove that he's not God? Let
me assume for the sake of arguments
Jesus is fully man and fully God.
>> No, I won't let you assume. I'm sorry.
>> Unless you substantiate it from the
Bible, these assumptions because that's
the only I'm responding to your argument.
argument.
>> Not based on assumptions.
>> I'm responding to your argument.
>> Yeah, but not based on assumpions.
>> If Jesus, but you're No, you're saying
that he can't be God because he has a
god. Assumption. That's not an
assumption. That is an assumption. John
2017. That is an assumption.
>> John 2017. I gave you explain. Your
assumption is that he can't be God
because he is God. Let me let me
>> No, no, no. I said he can't be God
because he has a God.
>> Because he has a God.
>> Yes. Show Show me Show me.
>> John 2017.
>> Prove that assumption.
>> John 20. It's not an assumption. I gave
you the reference. John 2017. The
assumption that he can't be God.
>> Do you want to open John 2017?
>> John, read it.
>> Read it to me and you tell me what you
understand from it. Okay? I'm not going
to put words in your mouth. What I'm
trying to do.
>> So when he when he goes to Mary
Magdalene, he says, "I've not yet
ascended. I go to tell the brethren. I
go to my father and your father. My God
and your God." Did you ever see
>> the Holy Spirit
>> or even the father saying that they have
a god?
>> Well, here's a problem.
>> Actually, the holy spirit did because
I'll show you the reference for that.
>> Because they didn't become man.
>> They don't need to. They have a god
>> because Jesus did.
>> Okay. Do the angels Did the angels
become man? The ones who did not.
>> Some angels did.
>> The angels which did not become man, do
they have a god?
>> The angels who did not become man,
>> do they have a god? Good. So, you don't
need to become a man to have a god.
>> False argument. I'm a creature. A creature.
creature.
>> What creature? What's a creature?
>> Something created.
>> Angels are created. Thank you. >> Exactly.
>> Exactly.
>> Exactly. So, you're proving my point.
>> Only created beings have God. But but
Jesus Jesus is human.
>> We already agreed Jesus was generated.
>> That's just another way of saying created.
created.
>> Jesus human nature. No, it's not.
>> It is.
>> No, that's that's a lie. That's why he's
not a fat. You're just bringing in a lie
as well. When we use the word generated,
we don't mean created. And you know that
we don't mean.
>> What does generated mean?
>> Generated is the relationship of from this
this
>> in English. What was the term generated mean?
mean?
>> It means to create something.
>> But okay, we're we're applying
>> unless you're speaking another language
>> English words to the mystery of of the faith.
faith.
>> No, but your church use that word. Not
me. Nice try. Mikey, you lose on every ground.
ground.
>> Even though you think you know a lot,
but your Bible your church your church
has put you in such a position that you
have no no other way out because I can
use the church against you now. And your Bible
Bible
keep lying. I'm going to end the
conversation. Wait, which part did I lie?
lie?
>> I asked you what was the meaning of the
term generated.
>> We've we've I'm done. You're not being a good
good
>> Look, if you guys want to be emotional
now, it's up to you.
>> Listen, a real conversation.
>> Which part did I lie ask?
>> Cuz we've agreed that we have different
definitions and assumptions and you
refuse to even concede that.
>> I did not. I used your references and definition.
definition.
>> So, you have an assumption that Christ
being God the Son means he can have a
that if God the son having a god can't
have a god. And then we said, well, for
assume for the sake of argument, but you
>> I use the Bible. I don't
>> You're happy. You're happy to just
assume you'll pre Which part did I assume?
assume?
>> Which part did I assume?
>> Everything I said I substantiated from
the Bible.
>> I did John 2017.
>> No problem. You can go. It's up to you.
It's up to you. No problem. You can go.
I'm not Look, look, I never force anyone
to stay in a dialogue. Okay? If you
realize you guys are can't handle this
truth from the Bible, then it's up to
you. I gave you John 2017. We had to answer
answer
that. That is just
>> It's okay. It's okay. Let him go. Let
him go. But we can't force someone.
>> It's not a respectful or genuine or or
kind conversation.
>> Now you're using adomin. No.
>> Because you lost argument.
>> No call. You're not calling you.
>> This guy literally walked out.
>> No. No. I I think it's very important.
>> Okay. Which part was I genius about?
Which part did I lie about? Because he
called me a liar. Which part did I lie
about? He's on camera. All of this is recorded.
recorded.
>> I think the reason why is because of
this. We both agreed that our So you
work in the assumption that God the son
having a god means well that doesn't
work right
>> Matthew it's not an assumption I gave
you John 2017 for the fifth time I'm
telling you this
>> but we can get to John
>> but do you agree it's not an assumption
it's from your Bible
>> no because John 20 is about a different
issue altogether John 2017 is not an
assumption no stop misrepresenting me
that's all I'm saying
>> no I'm not you are when you say it's an
assumption when I gave you a clear
passage from the Bible why would you
call it an assumption Let's be fair.
>> So, I can show you it's not an
assumption from the text. But
regardless, my point is this.
>> You're going to show what
>> I can show you that's an assumption from your
your
>> Okay, open John 2017. Go on. Let's see
who's assuming.
>> John 2017.
>> Um, I am sending to my father and your
father to my God and your God. Right.
>> No, you're
>> Who's my God?
>> Who is my God there? >> Father.
>> Father.
>> No. No. Who's Who's Who has a God there?
>> God the Son has in his human nature God
the Father.
>> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. When he
said that, was he not God? So, so we So,
here's where now you see who's assuming.
So, here's here the subject comes in.
You're the one assuming, not me.
>> Can I But we both don't.
>> No, I'm not assuming. I'm sorry. I give
a clear passage.
>> Can I Can I Can I please do
>> When we interpret any scripture, when
you execute any passage, whether the
Quran or the Bible, you have
presuppositions in which you interpret
the meaning of the text. So, I come with
a piece of position. We all come from a
piece of position.
>> I don't. In this case, I don't.
>> That's like literally impossible.
>> You remember what I told you earlier,
Matthew? I let you talk. Let me talk.
No, I gave you I said I gave you if I
give you explicit passage
>> I'm having conversations many
>> supersedes every assumption you can
make. My explicit passage in John 2017
and I haven't even started with John 173
is even more explicit.
>> So John 1 is a book one book and John
chapter 1 makes it very clear Jesus is
divine. So if you look at
>> sorry where is where is Jesus divine?
>> In John one
>> where does he say he's divine?
>> In the beginning the word was with God.
The word was God. The word became flesh
among us. Jesus Christ.
>> Why does he say Jesus Christ?
>> You you assumed it's Jesus Christ. Yeah.
Uh the one only son he came the father
full of grace and truth. Um I mean the
whole gospel is by Jesus.
>> You see what I mean? You assume this is
called assumption. >> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> By the way, when he says with
>> no one has when he says in the beginning
was a word, the word was with God. So
which god was the word with? Which god?
>> So you're over talking me. So
>> no I didn't. I'm I'm I'm responding to you.
you.
>> I'm trying to make a point from John and
John one. But every time I try to make a
connection you need to calm down. No.
>> Yeah. Bring the energies down.
>> My energies I'm very calm. I'm very
>> I don't know if you know this. You'll go
home watch how you became animated all
of a sudden.
>> Yeah. But because but I think people get
frust when you're when when you leave.
>> See, but but even that is a challenge
remark. I'm trying to
>> No. If you're confident of your faith,
that shouldn't bother you. Like your
friend, you walked away when he realized
that it wasn't going his way.
>> No, no, no. I I think
>> in fact, he called me a liar without
substantiating it.
>> That's an that's an accusation.
>> For the last 5 minutes, I've been trying
to articulate why he made that point.
And you keep in
>> Tell me why he called me a liar. So he
called you a So he says you're being he
said you're being disingenuous
>> which is a liar
>> because you your assumptions from that
text we you were saying Jesus saying
that he has God the father means he
cannot be God the same
>> how is that an assumption
>> because we have different definitions
>> you're the one who agreed with me by the
way so it's not an assumption I asked
you does god you said it's on camera you
said god the son has a god
>> so it's not an assumption it's based on
your argument
>> sorry the one that you conceded Ready?
>> 10 minutes.
>> Yeah. Go.
>> Jesus, son of God.
>> Can somebody get me a water, please?
>> Jesus being God the son and his human
nature, saying he is a God does not
necessitate that he's not God.
>> You want some water, by the way?
>> H I probably need some water cuz today
I'm getting just
>> we read that same passage.
I want to know because you said that I
assumed and I lied based on your friend.
>> He lied. I I said
>> so you disagree with your friend. I I'm
saying it's a bad argument to draw.
>> No, but did you do you disagree with
your friend? His accusation was that I lied.
lied.
>> I think it's disingenuous to say that
you can read John 20 and I John chapter
>> that God so Jesus Christ the son has a
relationship to God the father. He first
God and our God.
>> Good. So the Wait, Matthew. Look, I let
you I want to clarify this point.
>> I need Let me just say this one line
before I finish and I have I think when
you have to interpret that verse, you
must do it in light of what John says in
John chapter one.
>> That's my point.
>> John chapter one doesn't even mention
Jesus. John John chapter one, it says in
the beginning was the word. The word was
with God and became flesh. Who what
became flesh?
>> You know, let me have a word in between,
man. Come on. So when he says
>> the word, sorry, the word was with God.
Which God was the word with?
>> The word was of God the father. only the father
father
>> in that explicitly in that text it just
refers to the father
>> okay so when you're with someone you're
not one are you
>> any human but no one by 10
>> there was no human nature then this is pre-incarnation
pre-incarnation
>> yeah yeah so so I think
>> that's right you always go to the nature
but the nature here is one they have the
same nature but one was with the other
when you're with someone that means you
become two so you are actually appealing
to polytheism you can argue Paul one is
polytheistic you can make all you want
that's fine No, no. John 1 itself says polytheism.
polytheism.
>> That you could argue
>> if that's how you interpret it, bro.
>> But the point is
>> you you can't execute John 20 in
isolation from chapter 1. So you can
argue that John is a polytheistic book.
You can make an argument, but you cannot
say John 20 uh 17 argues against Trinity
because it does well you can think that
but it doesn't make sense when you in
the whole you you've just said John
chapter 1's polytheistic. So I don't
know how you can't see that the book of
John is tritarian. So
>> you know in fact I can
>> and that's why my assumption and our
assumptions are different because I see
John is teaching the trinity. You
>> I didn't see you mention any trinitarian words.
words.
>> But my point is
>> this is an assumption from the church.
>> The assumption from John from John one
>> John one doesn't have the three. It only
has two. So what trinity of so so one affirms that the incarnation like
affirms that the incarnation like >> if if it affirms even for the sake of
>> if if it affirms even for the sake of argument it's a benitarian text not a
argument it's a benitarian text not a trinitarian. So your argument that he's
trinitarian. So your argument that he's talking about the trinity is
talking about the trinity is categorically false.
categorically false. >> But the spirit is mentioned in John. The
>> But the spirit is mentioned in John. The thing is when you just look at one verse
thing is when you just look at one verse >> just because the spirit is mentioned
>> just because the spirit is mentioned doesn't make him god. You know it says
doesn't make him god. You know it says in John 16 or 14 as well I think it says
in John 16 or 14 as well I think it says the spirit he'll not speak of his own.
the spirit he'll not speak of his own. He will only say what he hears from
He will only say what he hears from whom?
whom? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Wait wait wait. From whom?
>> Wait wait wait. From whom? >> Saying sorry.
>> Saying sorry. >> The spirit will not speak of its own. It
>> The spirit will not speak of its own. It only it will it will only say what it
only it will it will only say what it hears from whom?
hears from whom? >> Tell me. I don't have I don't have the
>> Tell me. I don't have I don't have the verse on hand. John 16 and I believe
verse on hand. John 16 and I believe maybe John 14 I'm mixing but it says
maybe John 14 I'm mixing but it says very clearly about even the permission
very clearly about even the permission to speak it doesn't have unless it gets
to speak it doesn't have unless it gets a permission from higher
a permission from higher >> there's there's one will within the
>> there's there's one will within the godhead I think you know
godhead I think you know >> yeah but if you have a will you can
>> yeah but if you have a will you can speak freely right you don't need
speak freely right you don't need permission but the holy spirit does mean
permission but the holy spirit does mean it's not
it's not >> we're getting bogged down but my point
>> we're getting bogged down but my point is my friend Mock because I think
is my friend Mock because I think >> we are
>> we are >> because he lost he
>> because he lost he >> no no I think I think if you look at the
>> no no I think I think if you look at the video we we have different we have
video we we have different we have different piece of decisions of how we
different piece of decisions of how we actually text and you are assuming
actually text and you are assuming there's one Yeah, where to execute the
there's one Yeah, where to execute the tax.
tax. >> Matthew, with all due respect, the
>> Matthew, with all due respect, the entire Bible, not a single prophet, not
entire Bible, not a single prophet, not a messenger, not even Jesus Christ, not
a messenger, not even Jesus Christ, not his apostles, none of them worshiped a
his apostles, none of them worshiped a triune God.
triune God. >> Jesus was worshiped by the apostles. I
>> Jesus was worshiped by the apostles. I don't
don't >> That's still not a triune God.
>> That's still not a triune God. >> Jesus is Lord regardless.
>> Jesus is Lord regardless. >> That's still not a trinity.
>> That's still not a trinity. >> You can you can put whatever you want.
>> You can you can put whatever you want. >> It's not a trinity. Can you do you not
>> It's not a trinity. Can you do you not realize that the church after after 400
realize that the church after after 400 years comes up with this doctrine of the
years comes up with this doctrine of the trinity and tells you all to worship a
trinity and tells you all to worship a triune god when no one in the entire
triune god when no one in the entire bible old testament in the name of the
bible old testament in the name of the god the son god the god the father god
god the son god the god the father god the son holy spirit that's in the
the son holy spirit that's in the >> and who baptized in that formula in the
>> and who baptized in that formula in the entire bible the apostles
entire bible the apostles >> show me one place where they baptize in
>> show me one place where they baptize in the name of the father son and the holy
the name of the father son and the holy spirit none of them
spirit none of them >> matthew 24 my throat I'm dying I'm very
>> matthew 24 my throat I'm dying I'm very dying but
dying but >> but Matthew you know go home and
>> but Matthew you know go home and research this
research this >> whoever baptized including Paul, they
>> whoever baptized including Paul, they never baptized in the name of the
never baptized in the name of the father, son, and the holy spirit.
father, son, and the holy spirit. >> Matthew 24.
>> Matthew 24. >> No, it doesn't.
>> No, it doesn't. >> It does.
>> It does. >> It doesn't. It does.
>> It doesn't. It does. >> And you're lying. I can tell you on
>> And you're lying. I can tell you on camera that you're lying about that.
camera that you're lying about that. >> That's ad holy.
>> That's ad holy. >> Okay. Because if you had the reference,
>> Okay. Because if you had the reference, you would give it.
you would give it. >> That's That's at You can't You cannot
>> That's That's at You can't You cannot decry my friend for calling you a liar
decry my friend for calling you a liar and then just call me a liar.
and then just call me a liar. >> No, because you didn't give evidence. I
>> No, because you didn't give evidence. I gave you evidence.
gave you evidence. >> 24.
>> 24. >> What? 24? What? Let's Let's Let's deal
>> What? 24? What? Let's Let's Let's deal with this now.
with this now. >> And then you can call me a liar in front
>> And then you can call me a liar in front of the camera and I promise you I will
of the camera and I promise you I will not I will not cut that.
not I will not cut that. >> Listen, I I don't want to call anyone
>> Listen, I I don't want to call anyone liar. And you've you've you've dropped
liar. And you've you've you've dropped the discussion to a very immature and
the discussion to a very immature and childish manner.
childish manner. >> Actually, this is you see why why you're
>> Actually, this is you see why why you're apparing to emotions now.
apparing to emotions now. >> No, no, but no. You called me.
>> No, no, but no. You called me. >> Yeah, I did because you said you said in
>> Yeah, I did because you said you said in Matthew 24, it talks about baptism in
Matthew 24, it talks about baptism in the name of the father, son.
the name of the father, son. >> I've had many kind and compliments early
>> I've had many kind and compliments early on with this fella. People much more
on with this fella. People much more kind and much more honest and not
kind and much more honest and not deliberate.
deliberate. >> You can play your emotional card. No
>> You can play your emotional card. No problem. Your friend called me a liar.
problem. Your friend called me a liar. You didn't say anything to him.
You didn't say anything to him. >> By the way, do you condemn your friend?
>> By the way, do you condemn your friend? He said your your your your your
He said your your your your your argument was deceptive.
argument was deceptive. >> No, no, no, no. You he said liar.
>> No, no, no, no. You he said liar. >> Well, I I think I I don't know if you're
>> Well, I I think I I don't know if you're willfully or not, but the point is I you
willfully or not, but the point is I you >> look, Matthew, if you want to run away
>> look, Matthew, if you want to run away like your friend, no problem. Okay. But
like your friend, no problem. Okay. But if you're going to tell me that Matthew
if you're going to tell me that Matthew 24 says that somebody baptized in the
24 says that somebody baptized in the name of the father, son, and the holy
name of the father, son, and the holy spirit, then right here in front of the
spirit, then right here in front of the camera and in your face, I'm saying
camera and in your face, I'm saying you're a liar.
you're a liar. >> And if I'm a liar, prove me wrong. Now,
>> And if I'm a liar, prove me wrong. Now, in front of the camera,
in front of the camera, >> and then we'll agree. If he's not there,
>> and then we'll agree. If he's not there, you will agree and admit in front of the
you will agree and admit in front of the camera that you lied about me and about
camera that you lied about me and about the Bible.
the Bible. >> Gone.
>> Gone. It's okay. He's got the Bible here.
It's okay. He's got the Bible here. >> I mean, I have I have it already my
>> I mean, I have I have it already my phone to yourself.
>> Yeah, you can ask Google, ask Siri, ask Alexa.
Alexa. >> No problem.
>> No problem. >> Therefore, Matthew 28:19.
>> Therefore, Matthew 28:19. >> Oh, no, no, 24. You said
>> Oh, no, no, 24. You said >> I I misspoke 20 yet.
>> I I misspoke 20 yet. >> No, no. 2018 is a formula. I'm asking
>> No, no. 2018 is a formula. I'm asking who applied that formula in their
who applied that formula in their baptism. Therefore, make disciples.
baptism. Therefore, make disciples. >> I knew all the nations. But I I I
>> I knew all the nations. But I I I misspoke.
misspoke. >> Admit in front of the camera. You You
>> Admit in front of the camera. You You accused me of lying.
accused me of lying. >> I never accused you of lying.
>> I never accused you of lying. >> Yes, you did. You said I was deceptive.
>> Yes, you did. You said I was deceptive. >> I said my friend said you were
>> I said my friend said you were deceptive.
deceptive. >> Okay. So, what did you say? Did you not
>> Okay. So, what did you say? Did you not say that the baptism was in Matthew 24?
say that the baptism was in Matthew 24? I
I >> I messed up Matthew. I was wrong. It was
>> I messed up Matthew. I was wrong. It was Matthew 28. Matthew 28:19.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
