Transcript
Use with ChatGPT / Claude Auto-scroll A
The speakers introduce their disagreement over the Trinity and quickly establish some shared ground about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being divine. They begin defining terms like person, center of consciousness, and Yahweh.
The Trinity, I think, is false doctrine.I think it was invented in the centuries after the Bible ended.
If the Bible didn't teach this, I'm not going to be here debating you on the Trinity.Why waste my time?
If any of these things are debunked, the entire Trinity crumbles.
In your mind, does Yahweh only have one center of consciousness?
Well, you're asking me another excellent question.
We're trying to find out what is the difference between our position and yours that's so big that we cannot receive Christ's grace.
I am affirming that all three of them are the one and same uncreated Yahweh God.
I watched all of your videos about the Trinity.
Yes.
And every Bible verse you use actually proves the Latter-day Saint view of the Godhead.
You really want me to get deplatformed and get my channel deleted here.I'm just letting people know I'm going to get a lot of backlash because does the Bible teach the Trinity?Answer, no.For the Mormons, that's it.It's over.Let's go home.
Well, I guess
from our position, we see in scripture
Yes.
we have these three persons,
Yes.
the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and they're all considered divine.They share in the nature of divinity in some regard.And some people call that the Trinity.Some people call that the Godhead.What would you qualify as the Trinity in scripture?
we agree on that.
There are three persons who are divine.
Amen.
Breath of fresh air.Yeah, because, you know, because when you're dealing with Unitarians, they'll they come in various stripes.Some say he's just a man, but divine.Now, as I tried to articulate in another segment that I did, because I'm trying to keep it biblical, realizing some of the traditions that arose after the scriptures, there are Christians or Trinitarians committed scripture that reject those.The most famous of which, now I'm not trying to belabor the point cuz I want you to have as much time as you can have.Most famous Trinitarian apologist is William Lane Craig, and he is totally against the creeds in the sense he doesn't believe any of it is scriptural.So, I got to be fair to those Christians and say, well, you know, I can't say they're not really trinitarians.So, I have to be very cautious when I speak.
Mhm.
I'm not the voice of the whole church.So, with that said, I see in the Bible the Father's the true God.The Son is the true God.The Spirit is the true God.And we also see like you even would agree with me.Father's not the Son.Son's not the Spirit.Spirit's not the Father.
Mhm.
But if they're all the true God and Yahweh is the true God, then they're all Yahweh.And Yahweh is one.That's how I see it.
Okay.
Yahweh is one.So, that's very simple definition.You want to get deeper, we can.But that's just it.
So, I think my follow-up question would be those those views maybe like William Lane Craig or or Richard Swinburne if you're aware of him.They have certain conceptions of the Trinity.Do you think those are in in the bounds of what we're working with?Do you think they're wrong, but it's acceptable?It's like a a non-essential detail that they're maybe maybe messing up.What's your What's your take on those?Maybe a social trinitarian view or a conciliar trinitarian view.Which are For those of you who may not be aware, those are different formulations that, you know, theologians come up with to describe the threeness and the oneness.
If you're noticing why I'm saying yeah, yeah, actually cuz everything anything I want to say I want to get a backlash online from people.I want to get attacked.So, that's why I'm yeah, actually.To be very fair, if I'm very at the scripture, all of these constructs are attempts to try to make the Trinity sound coherent, sensible.But I cannot say that any one model is the scriptural model.These are all models attempting to harmonize scripture.Now, obviously cuz I go with the early church, the early church's position was monarchical trinitarianism, monarchy of the Father.
Monarchia.
But to convince someone who believes sola scriptura tota scriptura of that is very hard.So, I have to be fair with the data.So, when you ask me that, I cannot write off anyone out of trinitarianism if we're just going by sola scriptura tota scriptura, right?
Mhm.
But if I look in light of church history and the creeds, well, they would be formally heretics.But, they don't subscribe to the authority of the creeds.Mhm.Craig even says it, right?He says, you know, we subject everything to the bar of scripture.When in reality it means to his interpretation of scripture.Cuz we're all interpreting scripture, right?
You bet.
So, good.I don't want to keep talking.
No, I I well, I don't we we I think we find a lot more common ground than we disagree on.I guess with the more of the social view.It's like I don't know if you're familiar, but in the Book of Mormon it says, "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God.Amen."Um and so I we you know, we agree these these beings can associate under the umbrella of Yahweh.Um but, then the the social the the Craig, the Swinburne view, they have three separate centers of consciousness.And I suppose that might be where we start to disagree.If you you know, in your mind does Yahweh only have one center of consciousness?
Well, you're asking me another excellent question.For Yahweh to have one center of consciousness as defined by them, they define center of consciousness to mean person.Because Craig will say, and I'm not trying to speak for Craig.So, you guys, I'm not Craig's apologist.So, I'm not and I'm not getting money from him.I'm just saying he believes that God is a soul so richly endowed with three centers of consciousness that give rise to personhood.So, by his use of center of consciousness, he means three persons.
They clarify what Trinitarians mean by person, mind, and consciousness, and how those terms relate to scripture. The discussion turns to whether three minds or three persons can fit within biblical language.
In the way the classical Christian tradition would articulate it, it's hypostasis.The Greek that I can never put them you guys know this.You study that.So, hypostasis roughly corresponds to person, right?And you guys know the meaning, so but I don't know if the audience knows that we don't mean
Hey guys, quick break from the show.If you're someone that actually enjoys these videos and you watch them regularly, or you want to make sure that you don't miss the big videos that we have coming up, make sure to subscribe to this channel.It's actually surprising.A lot of people think that they're subscribed to this channel already and they're not.Also, rather you're Catholic, Muslim, Orthodox, any denomination, if you want to appear in the videos that we have coming up, there's a link in the description of this video that you could fill out.My team will reach out to you and see if you're going to be a good fit to be on the show.We want to get more and more videos out, so we need more people to appear in the videos.Now, let's get back to the show.
When we say in Trinitarian person, we're not saying flesh and blood the spirit has flesh and blood body.Person meaning that they are personal agents who have self-awareness.So, in that definition, three centers of consciousness, if it equates to persons, then yes, three persons that are the one God.So, if that's how he's defining it as equivalent to person three persons then.
Yeah, okay.So, yeah, like Michael said, you know, we as Latter-day Saints have a strong we're compelled by our tradition and our scripture to explain how the three, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one.Like he said, we are sort of bound by a lot of texts in our tradition.
Doctrine and Covenants 20 is one that comes to mind.Um, the Book of Mormon scriptures that he's mentioning, they say that these three are one.So, we're trying to explain how the three are one.
Yeah.
Trinitarians are also trying to explain how the three are one.And with the question of of persons, that's just not something that Latter-day Saints really have in our vocabulary.It's not a word that we like inherited through tradition like a lot of the apostolic churches did, like the the Catholics or Orthodox.And then, you know, Protestants also use that language.So, when we're talking about the minds, the Father, Son, and Spirit, do you think it's proper to say that they have three different minds?Do you think that's that's within the bounds of what the text admits in scripture?
You really want me to get the and if you be platformed and get my channel deleted here, you really want me stoned.Yeah, another excellent question.
Let me uh if you want me to hedge a little bit.
no.I answer no.I'm just letting people know I'm going to get a lot of backlash because when you say three minds in the tradition, let's say Eastern Orthodox tradition.To say three minds means to them there would be three beings.And therefore it's inappropriate to use that language.But see what I like to do, even the Catholic tradition, is let the person define what he means before I ipso facto say wrong.
Yeah.
So when Craig says three minds, he doesn't believe you can be a true person, a personal agent distinct from another if you don't have your own mind.
Yeah.
So that's his belief.Now, we're dealing with metaphysics.And since God hasn't revealed his metaphysics,
Certainly.
all metaphysics are not inspired.They're just based on the understanding of men.The only authority that such systems have is the authority that you give to them, the weight you give to them, right?So if Craig means by mind, mind means a distinct person, then allowing him the right to define his terms, three minds, because they have to be three minds if they're three persons, yet still one soul of God, whichyou'd call being, again scripturally, I don't know how I can say he's wrong.
Mhm.
See this is the the problem if I just isolate scripture from tradition, cuz the Bible doesn't use that category, right?I mean
Yeah.
Even I'll give you an example of what I mean why it's difficult.Cuz I'm aware of this.I used to be a Protestant for years.In Romans 8:26-27, 27 says God knows the mind of the spirit.Now you have God who knows the mind of the spirit.Well, that means the spirit has a mind.So when it says God knows the mind of the spirit, well, isn't that the mind of God?So is God knowing his own mind?See the difficulty there.
Yeah, for sure.
So if I'm forced to stick with scriptural language, a lot of these metaphysical ideas are not anchored in scripture.Now, the real question is, does it contradict scripture?And that's the debate.
Yeah, I mean
That's the debate.
If we ended the debate right now, I would say man, Sam Shamoun, the Mormons we agree on this Sam
hey don't get me blocked.
Don't get my channel deleted.
saying Craig's in bounds?
Uh
The Mormons are in bounds but but Brian he's trying to spread the good news he's trying to get some clicks so we got to disagree on something.
to disagree.
And I'm somebody that in the in the prompt is is the Trinity in scripture and I'm somebody I grew up Anglican my father's an Anglican priest and then I couldn't find that Trinitarian language in scripture and so Ibecame a Latter-Day Saint I became a Mormon.So I guess where is that Old Testament start with Old Testament we get to the New Testament where do we find if we define this project as like mono-threeism how do we reconcile?
that.Yeah well it comes down to how many Yahwehs are there?So I'm I'm going to let you guys explain your own beliefs because I'm not here to pretend I'm an ex-Mormonism.I only know enough about Mormonism when I was asked to debate someone years ago uh you told me these guys told me what his name was it's on Quigley.So I went and to my surprise yeah you guys know I
Yeah I know you're talking to
and he and he he didn't like the way I was dressed so he left the debate.No I'm not lying.No I'm not lying.Go watch it.
he's got good style.
Yeah.A friend of mine.
Yeah but he did leave because he said hey man He goes he goes hey man your shirt man you need that So what's wrong with my shirt?No no but anyway he didn't like the way I was dressed.Anyway so
my reading of the Book of Mormon and then I read other stuff and I'm not an expert was little confusing cuz as you said when I read the Book of Mormon man it it really sounds Trinitarian if noteven modalism.
You bet.
Right?It was later sources that the other phone writer that then went beyond that but again I want to talk about my belief cuz the problem is about me Trinity in the Bible it's not about Mormonism.They can come and do one versus 12 some other time.It depends on how many Yahwehs are there.If there's only one Yahweh even if you posit the existence of other gods like even Michael Heiser, I'm sure you guys know of him.He believed there was a divine council where there were gods, but Yahweh was species unique.He was in a category all on his own.So, there's only one Yahweh.So, then if there's only one Yahweh and the Father's identified as Yahweh, Son is identified as Yahweh, Spirit is identified as Yahweh, but there's only one.But, they're not the same person.You got to come up with language to make sense out of that if the Bible doesn't contradict.
So, the only way I can explain that is that this one Yahweh, his mode of existence is so infinitely complex that this one Yahweh can simultaneously exist in Father, Son, and Spirit.However language you want to use, if you're just going with scripture, as long as the language does not contradict scripture.So, I don't I cannot bind someone to a particular metaphysics using scripture alone.I can't do it.
I think I mean I Okay, do you think there's one Yahweh?
So, I I am by no means like an Old Testament scholar, but I I see this trope in scripture and it seems to be backed up by a lot of the the experts in scripture that, you know, thereis a There's a Father, a Son, and a Spirit and this name Yahweh is capable of being given or designated to the other the other two.
Exactly.
I I mean the difference maybe, and then I'll let you finish, might be something like I don't see a necessity in the text to say that identifying the Son, Father, Son, and Spirit as, you know, Yahweh.I don't think it's a I don't think it's an identity statement.It seems to be that they're all sort of sharing the same predicate rather than the same subject.Does that make sense?
I know what you're saying, because if it's an identity statement, then it's a modal collapse, all right?They become the same person.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, so it is
Yeah, that if we're kind of assuming the mind's model, it might be kind of strange to say that they're all there they all have the same identity.
So, this is the struggle with analytic Trinitarian philosophers trying to make sense of the statements of scripture like what you just said.If it's an identity statement, if you say the Father is Yahweh, and yet Jesus is Yahweh, then doesn't that mean the Father is Jesus?If you're going by identity instead of by way of predication.Like Superman is Clark Kent.
Yeah, sure.
Yeah, and he's Kal-El.
Modalism.
Well, whoever is Kal-El is Superman
Yeah.
Kent.Well, if you say that, then you end up being a modalist, and I don't see the Bible teaching modalism.So, what you have is the fact that the Father is said to be Yahweh, and yet Jesus is also Yahweh, and I don't think we disagree on that.
Yeah.
Well, we might say that that Jesus inherited that or Jesus was endowed with that name.Second Philippians 2:9.
we'd have to discuss that.I mean, from my perspective, cuz remember, a Mormon is not on trial, I'm on trial, so keep an eye on me.
Yeah, I do want to hear like from scripture where they're getting their Yeah.your their interpretation of God.
5,000 Mormons lined up, they'll get there.You got You guys You should see how many
Cuz we're already getting through half of the time, and you guys are asking a lot of questions, so
is, is the Trinity in the Bible?
Yeah.Yeah, and so what what did I just answer this real quickly?Jesus is Yahweh, we go into the text, and Spirit is Yahweh, and I said only one Yahweh because Nehemiah 9:6 doesn't simply say Yahweh is the only God.It says, "You alone are Yahweh.Yahweh alone."It even says, "Yahweh alone."And Isaiah 37:20 says that you alone are Yahweh.So, it doesn't even say "only God."It says, "You alone are Yahweh."
Yeah.
So, there's no other Yahweh.
Well, wait, it's like it's the You know the Shema?
Yeah, well, that one don't say Yahweh is one, they'll say it means in that context that Yahweh is the only God that Israel must look to and worship.
Do you know the the song about it?
There's a song about it?
You know the Steve Lacy?
The name song right now that goes like Shema Shema Shema
The conversation shifts to whether the Father, Son, and Spirit can all be called Yahweh without collapsing into modalism. They debate whether scripture supports identity claims or only predication, and whether the Book of Mormon language changes the issue.
Bro, do you have a day job?No, I just want to know if you have a day job.
No, I'm a student.
Yeah.No matter what you do I'm going crazy.I'm the singer, bro.
Yeah.
Uh well, with the like the Shema for example, we would look to the Old Testament.And you're you're saying there's there's one Yahweh, but we see the Old Testament maybe if we're looking at critical historical scholarship of the Old Testament as relatively inconsistent in terms of
I know, that's what they say.
Yeah, yeah.You know, El El and Yahweh are distinctifiable.
the Yahweh.
And then the Shema saying the Lord our God the Lord your God is not a statement of of strict monotheism, but a straight a statement of covenantal loyalty.Do you Do you think that the Shema is a
my argument wasn't that.I I conceded that if there are other gods, but there's only one who's Yahweh.Yahweh alone.That was my argument.
But Yahweh and El are distinctifiable.
Well, here we go.
Okay.Let me Let me ask this question.Given if we Cuz these these are good questions.
Yeah.
If I go with critical scholarship, and by the way, one of my favorites.I didn't like him before.I don't know what you think of him.Giving you a shout out, Dan.Dan McClellan.I like him.
Interesting.Cool.
year ago because they vilified him, but I'm listening to him.I'm liking this guy.
A Mormon guy?
Yeah, but I heard he's a little too liberal even for your tastes.Is that true?
I don't know.
But I like him.I like
I'll get your wallet.
Okay.So, I love Dan.Yeah.Yeah, no, I I I'm a big fan of his now.I love the guy.Phenomenal.Yeah, but coming back to answer.Deuteronomy 32:8-9, I know the text, and Psalm 82.These are the texts that they say show an evolution in Israel's belief that these are the oldest texts, some of the oldest texts, that reflect an early view of monotheism where Yahweh is a son of El.Now, can I agree with that as a Trinitarian?So, I have to qualify it.
Mhm.
Yes, I can agree El is the father of Yahweh because we find similar language used in Luke 1:32.Jesus is the son of the most high.
Mhm.
Right?So, Jesus is Yahweh, his father is the most high.So, in Deuteronomy 32:8, it talks about when the most high divided the nations.Well, and then he allotted the nations according to if we go with the Greek version, we go with the Dead Sea Scrolls, number of the sons of God.So, people will take that as the heavenly council.
Yep.
But, Yahweh's portion is Israel.
Yes.
So, that you can read it.Now, Heiser has given some pushback saying it can also be read that Yahweh assigned to himself Israel.But, let's go with the reading.
Okay.
So, here clearly the most high is the father of Yahweh.But, at the same time, the most high, the father, is also Yahweh.So, though we have an El figure, let's say, cuz in the text it doesn't say El actually.Deuteronomy 32:8 says the most high.
Yeah.But, we know what that means.
Well, there's there's pushback that according to the Ugaritic text, the most high was an epithet for Baal, not El.
Sure.
Yeah.
So, that's another of the pushbacks.So, but coming back to this, even if I grant it's El Elyon, the father of our Lord, well, there are texts where the father of our Lord is Yahweh.The most famous of which which the Unitarians were using against me earlier, Psalm 110:1.The word of Yahweh to my Lord is, "Sit at my right hand."So, David's Lord is the Messiah, so who's Yahweh?His father.So, we have that tension that not only is Yahweh the son of the most high, but the most high himself is Yahweh.So, this is the tension I'm talking about.
Yeah.And maybe to kind of drill this down, so you know, the Unitarians that you just talked to, they they start with the one.They start with the oneness of God and they start with the monotheistic
that's it.
And they they go to those monotheistic texts and they maybe are unwilling to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus and the spirit because of that.I think Latter-Day Saints, when we're accused of heresy or being incorrect on this, it's because we go too far the other direction.We're willing to deify the spirit and the son to such a degree that we maybe are not clear sometimes on the fact that on how they're one.So I guess when we're talking about this Yahweh thing and, you know, identifying the Father, Son, and Spirit as Yahweh, it seems strange to want to favor the identity claim because it seems safer to me to deify thethe spirit and the son.
Even with clarify what you mean by deify.So when we think that you're saying they're not God just by their nature.They were made gods.
No, sorry.That I'm not I'm saying our conception of them is is that they are deity, that they are God.
deify means to make someone God.Yes, sorry.Yes, so that people don't misunderstand.
sense, like the Latter-Day Saints accept them as God.That's what I was trying to to hint at.So, when you're saying Father, Son, and Spirit, they're all Yahweh, it seems like the safer model here instead of saying that Yahweh is a single identity and that all three of those are Father, Son, and Spirit, they're allit's an identity claim.Seems safer to say that it's a predicative claim, meaning that they all share some sort of divine nature or essence and they can have three minds.That I think keeps us safe within the bounds of accepting the deity of the Son and the Spirit rather than going the Unitarian route if you go too monotheistic.Do you have a take on how to
Yeah.
Like I think we're on the safer side of this this coin here treading towards tritheism is safer than denying the divinity of Christ.
Towards tritheism is safer.I like that.Uh well, coming back to the issue, as someone who has to make sure what I believe if my understanding scripture is correct, cuz I don't want to be that arrogant and assume my interpretation is correct.Everyone thinks they're right and the other person's a heretic, right?So, like, "Hey, I'm right, you're a heretic."But
so I got to be careful because I know I'm going to answer to the Lord.At the end of the day, it's not about a discussion with you, it's me facing Jesus.
Absolutely, yeah.
And I know I'm going to answer to him.And I got a lot So, I have to be very careful.It's not so much for people watching us, it's for the Lord that when he asked me why I said what I said, I can at least go to him and say, "Here's why, Lord.Have mercy on me."That's why I pray have mercy on all of us.But coming back to the issue, because I want to be faithful to the scriptures that I take to be preserved and consistent.That's not the view of liberal critical scholarship.Like Dan would say, "It's not unifocal.No unifocality."I don't share that assumption.I work with that these books were brought together by community who believed that they're consistent, otherwise they wouldn't canonize them.Only someone dumb would take a book that he thinks contradicts another book and make it part of the canon.
I mean, if they have common sense.Nonetheless, so I believe that I have to work with the paradigm these scriptures must be consistent.So, then I have to find a way to make them consistent.So, we have the problem with you said.If Yahweh's an identity statement, then how do you avoid modal collapse?
Mhm.
Father being the Son and the Spirit.Either deny the divinity of Son and Spirit, can't do that because they're truly God.
Certainly.
Or you say they're one person, can't do that because they're not.But then to go the route of three gods, that's an option I cannot accept.Not because I'm saying other gods don't exist.I'm saying that Yahweh is in a category all by himself.
Yeah.
So, if Jesus and the Spirit are Yahweh, they're in that category that distinguishes them from any so-called god.
But when we see when I cuz I what I hear you saying is that Yahweh is in a category of his own in in in this union, this divine community.But when I read the scripture and I look at, you know, Philippians 2:9.
Yes.
Right, Jesus is inheriting the the name of Yahweh.And I don't mean that to say that Jesus has not eternally been divine, but I mean that to say that it looks like
Yeah.
the Father is the source of divinity.And if we go to the the, you know, the first
Monarchy, huh?You sound like an Eastern Orthodox, buddy.
Well, I I I think that's a live option for us.But if we look at the at the anti-Nicene anti-Nicene Fathers, we see that and and I know your take on the the church fathers isn't necessarily consistent, but we see someone that was there at the early
Yeah.
reading of scripture as a community, like Justin Martyr
One of my favorites.
who thinks that the Son is the derivative of the whole substance, is the derivative
think the Father's Yahweh.He says the Father's beyond naming.See, that's the problem with Justin.He was too into Platonic thinking.Mhm.He believed the Father was nameless because if he had a name, someone had to name him and there's no one higher than the Father.So, for him the name Yahweh was only the name of the Son.Now, I don't think now he's a saint in my tradition, so I'm not casting any on him.I don't think we would accept that.Even as a Mormon, I don't think you would accept his reasoning that because the Father, because he comes from this Platonic world where you have this supreme God who's beyond naming cuz if he's named, then someone named him,there'd be a greater authority and that's not possible and he's so majestic, he can't come into direct contact with the earth.That's why he begets the word to be his presence extension into To him, Jesus is Yahweh of hosts.
Yeah.
He's the one Yahweh.He's the one who's called God.He's the So, Justin Martyr is a Trinitarian in the sense he believes Father, Son, and Spirit.They are not Son and Spirit are part of the creation out of nothing.They are from the Father, so they always had existence in the Father.So, in that sense, he's a Trinitarian.
But that by that sense, it seems to suggest to me that Christ and the Spirit being called Yahweh, they are not the ontological source of Yahweh.
Yeah, he
They are They are contingent upon the ontological
Justin would argue the Father is the source, but since the Son and the Spirit are of the Father, it is the same substance because just like he uses analogy, when you speak a word, you don't lessen the wordin you, and there's still a continuity.The word is inseparable.So, he still believes the word that comes out cuz it comes out of him like Eve came out of Adam, and she's still his flesh.And it's the one flesh.So, it's the same substance, same ontos, but the Father is the source of it.That's why Mhm.Most Christian traditions go with the monarchy.
Mhm.
But to come back to the script- I can talk about the Father as one, but you from the scriptures
one last minute.
You're getting very anxious, man.I'm enjoying the conversation, bro.Shoot.You said 30 minutes Middle Eastern time.That's an hour, man.
Okay, but coming back to the scriptures, to go back to the point of Yahweh being in a category all all on its own.If we look at Jesus being Yahweh, and he is and you have there's no debate here, but you're saying Philippians 2.Even if I look at that text, if I look at contextually, this is what I was telling Unitarians earlier.The reason why he's given the name above all names because he plunged the lowest depths possible for him to stoop to.He became a servant.
Is it kenosis chapter?
Yeah, so Yeah, Philippians 2.So, he already begins by being in the form of God.But then the kenosis and we're going to I don't know if we're going to go into the kenotic thing, but then My under- My understanding of it is that when he emptied himself means of his status and privilegesand position cuz it's not about position.He took on the form of a slave.So, now he takes on the form of slave.Then God responds by exalting to the highest place, giving the name above all names.Now, the word name even in any lexicon means the authority or can mean status.So, it's not so much he's not Yahweh by nature.He didn't exercise or function in the status that goes with being Yahweh cuz he came on Earth as a slave.So, he's now given that status that would have been his intrinsically that he set aside, but now he exercised it in a new way.
So, what go ahead and
If your view of this closing
Yeah, okay.Is your view of this scripture that the name that's given to him isn't necessarily the name of Yahweh?It's just a status associated with that name?
status
That he had already had before the incarnation.
it it would have been a status he can relinquish but not a nature.In other words, if he's God by his very nature, it's not that he goes from God not being God.It's losing that status of being God to take the status of a slave.So, that's the flow of the argument.The one who had the form of God plunges to the lowest position imaginable, form of a slave.And in response, God exalts him.That's actually Jesus practicing what he preaches in Matthew 23:12.Humble yourselves, God will exalt you.So, he was the supreme example of that.
Yeah.And I think we actually agree mostly on that.Maybe some differences on like how the divine name is administered and stuff.And we also should be clear I'm not like saying we're tritheists.I I hope I didn't make that My our our view earlier
I wasn't saying that, man.Take it easy.
When we I think it comes down to the minds problem and the centers of consciousness problem for us as Latter-day Saints.
Cuz we don't see that in scripture.
Yes, that's that's kind of what we're we're getting at.So,
What I say to you earlier, remember I said if I read Romans 8:27, God knows the mind of the spirit.
Mhm.
So, Go ahead and finish your point.I don't want
No, this is just that we're we're happy.I think we we have agreement on that.At very least that seems like a a that's compatible with the text.And so, I I feel comfortable as a Latter-Day Saint saying that you have three divine minds that are one God, that they share in the divine nature together.
Craig would say, "Amen, brother."
Well, Craig hates Mormons, so he wouldn't say that.
There we go.He doesn't I didn't know that.I He's been very that vocal.
a fan.He's not a fan.
Oh, okay.
All right.Well, that was great.
Just to Just so you know, we believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all one God, one divinity, that they all are Yahweh.The Trinity, I think, is false doctrine.I think it was invented in the centuries after the Bible ended as a result of the great apostasy of the New Testament church.Whenever I talk to Trinitarians, they debate while quietly hiding what the Trinity actually is.So, I want to give a copy of this to each of you.This is what the Trinity is.I made the font big so you can see it, cuz you told me last time that your body parts don't work.So Okay.This is what the Trinity is.
The speakers discuss fourth-century Trinitarian definitions, divine simplicity, and whether those doctrines are essential. One side argues that many Trinitarians reject some of these formulations, so they cannot all be treated as required doctrine.
Consubstantial, divine simplicity, all these things, okay?If any of these things are debunked, the entire Trinity crumbles.It's like a Jenga puzzle.You remove that one piece, the whole thing falls apart.When I debate Trinitarians, they like to hide this list of qualities that the Trinity that the Trinity needs to have.They like to hide and say, "The Trinity is just three persons.They're all one divine essence."And they leave it at that.They run away from what the Trinity needs to be.This is the Trinity as defined by the 4th century church.So, I mean, that you are required to hold
So, you went to the 4th century.Just want to make sure because you're aware even among Orthodox, they don't accept divine simplicity as hammered by Thomas Aquinas.That's one of their criticism against Catholics.So, when you say a Trinitarian has to accept this, a lot of Trinitarians don't.
A lot of Trinitarians don't.You're right.Yeah.Okay.So, do you think that divine simplicity is false doctrine?
You know, I'm not an expert on how To- Thomas would explain divine simplicity, but if they're saying because again, this is another thing.If Thomistic metaphysics are necessary to remain a Catholic, then I think the Catholic Church will end up throwing me out.In the sense that if you're saying that there are no real distinctions in God's attributes, then as critics would say, how do you escape modal collapse that they're basically one in the same attribute?And so, I don't subscribe to that concept at all, but I've also found that there are Catholics who don't either and they're good standing in the Catholic Church.Robert Sungenis, even with divine impassibility, as a Catholic, he denies that God doesn't have true emotions.And his criticism is, and we're getting into philosophy, we're getting into scripture, his criticism is that Thomas Aquinas inherited Aristotle's mistaken notion that passions are the result of blood flow in the body.
And therefore, God has no blood and therefore has no emotions.So, that is based on a mistaken assumption.According to Sungenis, now I'm I'm not saying he's an authority, but I'm saying he's a Catholic apologist in good standing.So, if they want to condemn me, amen, I'm just the messenger.So, you guys go to him and say I got it from him.He's got even a book on it.God has real passions, genuine emotions, and so this notion of divine impassibility is not really essential to affirm to be a Catholic.So, that's what I'm saying.So, some of these things are Catholics who believe it.
So, then which of these things specifically are you saying are false doctrine according to your beliefs?
I got to be careful saying false.
So, you're you I got to be careful my language.I'm not trying to be politically right.I just got to be sensitive to other Trinitarians that I would consider the household of faith, right?I don't accept the way someone defines divine simplicity.
Can you define that?
Uh that in God, God is not a composite being of parts, right?God's essence is undivided.But when you speak of distinct attributes in God, then you are
positing parts within God.And if these are parts of God, then that means God had to unify himself in some way.And that if that's the case, then these attributes would be created.There's nothing created in God.It's very complex.That's why I'm not a philosopher.
And that's something that we don't see in the Bible.
I that God is has emotions?
No, I'm saying that divine simplicity.
Yeah, I You're saying me debating you on that?I said
Right.So
I'm sorry, man.
All right.So
Well, what you There's other Christians believe that too, brother.So that's what I'm saying.Eastern Orthodox also would reject this and Robertson Jenice is another guy.So I mean Hey, I don't want to and I'm not trying because I'm You guys know I'm I I get attacked by everyone.So it's not I'm afraid of attack.I want to be sensitive to others that are Trinitarians who are of the household of faith.So I don't want to just say, "Oh, you're a false.You're going to hell."
It sounds like you're trying not to offend a lot of different groups.
That are Trinitarians.
Okay, but if you believe something to be true and you believe it's biblical, then you shouldn't be worried about what other people are thinking.
Well, that's that's the that's the question.I think the Bible says this, but humbleness would require me of not making myself my own pope and assuming that I've got it right.And if someone disagrees with me, ipso facto, they're wrong.So that's something I'm learning with age.I may believe I'm right and I will do everything I can to show it, but I have to leave room for humbleness.Maybe because I'm too blind to see the other side.
You know what's interesting?I watched all of your videos about the Trinity.
Yes.
And every Bible verse you use actually proves the Latter-Day Saint view of the Godhead.
Sure, you believe that too.
Wait, you you quote it and I say, "Amen.I love that.We agree."But there's nothing in the Bible that teaches Trinitarian doctrines that are exclusively Trinitarian that aren't also affirmed by Latter-day Saint doctrine.
We can talk about that.We'll see.I mean, but keep me on the hot seat cuz I'm not really here to criticize Mormon doctrine cuz it's for me Trinity in the Bible.Put me on the hot seat.
Sure.So, here's what I say.He I see this.Nehemiah 9:6, like and Isaiah, all these all these verses about God is one, you alone Yahweh, okay?In the context of when these passages were written culturally with polytheism taking place, this was such a paradigm shift.Yahweh alone.This is like you sign a lease for a new apartment and you meet your landlord and you ask him, "Okay, who do I sign up for my utilities?"And he says, "That's through me.""Okay, what about garbage?""Yeah, that's me, too."I'm also the internet provider and the police department and the fire department.It's such a paradigm shift where you're like, I expected this is what polytheism was like back in the day, different gods for different purposes, and they would take turns depending on eclipses and solstices and and and seasons.So, when God says, "No other god before me, no god after me, I'm not taking turns."
Such a paradigm shift.This landlord, he's doing all of all the utilities.So, that's how we understand God alone.He is one, he is our only God.I Amen, that's what we believe in.Now, the pendulum has shifted a little bit too far to the other side in a a way to avoid polytheism.After the apostasy of the New Testament church,
Uh you keep saying
They said They said, "Oh, crap.We believe that Jesus is God.We believe that Jesus has a god.That's two gods right there."And then you got the spirit.How do we avoid polytheism?They thought they were like the polytheism the polytheists from centuries before.But so, in order to try to avoid that heresy, they they invented a new doctrine called the Trinity.They say, "All right, if they are of one mind, if they are one being, that way we're not heretical, we're not polytheists.But you don't have to be You're not a I'm not a polytheist, even though I acknowledge that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three separate and distinct beings.And here's why, because they're one, because they're perfectly united.Other gods in the polytheist cultures, they were fighting each other.They were not united at all.So we see the the unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit.
They're together and they are one.We also see with the baptism of Christ the the the voice of the Father in heaven, Christ in the river, the Spirit descending.Three different people doing three different things to say that they're one being is anti-biblical.
So I'm letting you share your position, but I want you to ask me what you want me to show you.Cuz you know, you know I like you, so I like you just, you know,
I appreciate it.I like you, too.
So So that's what I'm saying.So what do you want me to address?Because you brought up several points.
Okay.
Because you know, because you want to put me on the hot seat.
Yes.
Put me on the hot seat.
Okay.Do you acknowledge
Try my love handles, bro.
Go ahead.Put me on the hot seat.
Do you acknowledge that uh
at me?
They return to the uniqueness of Yahweh and how the Father, Son, and Spirit can all share that name without being the same person. The discussion includes the role of tradition, scripture, and the problem of modal collapse.
So I mean, was there anything you disagreed with?You can you can choose.
They they were laughing cuz they could see.Uh yeah.
my coat tails
Yeah.
or see my love handles fly.
Yeah.The The The thing is I don't want to turn it into whether the church became apostate.We can do a future session on that cuz you kept saying it became apostate.That's one of the reasons why I left Protestantism because of the problem scripture, but we're going to I want to keep it on the Trinity.You said a slew of things about Yahweh.Now, when I am aware that people believe that there other gods that the Bible acknowledge exist, but that Yahweh singles himself out, not so much because there's no other gods, but that he is the god that we haveto deal with.But, my point has been, even if I grant that, whoever is Yahweh is unique and distinct from all other gods.So, I want to hammer that so you can see where I'm coming from, and then we can go to scripture and ask me, "Well, what about this?
And what about that?"If you are Yahweh, that is a given, you're not Baal.Whether we believe Baal exists or not.Yahweh is unique.So, if you're Yahweh, you are uniquely different from everyone else.Now, if we believe Yahweh is the highest of the gods, I he's the god of gods.
Mhm.
To be Yahweh means you are in a category that none of the gods can reach.So, then we come to scripture, and I see that Jesus is not Yahweh, but he's not the father.The spirit is Yahweh, but he's not the son.And the father's Yahweh.That means these three have to be in that same category that makes them the supreme god of gods, and no other gods are in their category.So, this is what I'm arguing for about the uniqueness of Yahweh's ontasis being.That's my argument.So, now we have to see if scripture I'm right or wrong.But, that's where you come in and say, "Well, what about this?And what about that?"
I mean, you know, sure.
Tell me what you want to tell
Well, here's what I'll do is I'll I'll close with this, and then we can bring on someone else.But, um
Didn't you have 30 minutes?
Yeah, you have time, yeah.
Well, then do what you got to do.
Okay.Well, I have another 10 minutes, yeah.
Okay.Well, I I see in the Bible that God the Father has a body.Okay.That's something the Trinity has to reject.And the way Trinitarians justify this, I'm sorry to categorize you.
You can do what you have, all right.
So, when they refer to John where it says God is spirit,
Yeah.
I read that verse and I say, "Of course, so are we.Otherwise, we can't worship God in spirit."It doesn't mean he doesn't have a body, especially because 1 Corinthians 15:45 it calls Jesus a spirit, even though he's at that time a resurrected being with a body.
Mhm.
So, that can't mean, objectively, that God the Father doesn't have a body.We see in the Bible that Jesus is the image of the Father.We see also in the Bible Adam is in the image of God.Adam and Jesus, what do they have in common?Head, shoulders, knees, and toes, eyes, ears, mouth, and nose.If they have that in common, and they're both in the image of God, if I were to show you an image of Paris Hilton, you've never seen her before.I use her as an example because she follows me on Instagram.But
This guy is bars today.
Paris Hilton.
I show you an image of Paris Hilton.
This guy needs to move it or start having confessions, bro.
I don't follow her Well, actually I do.All right, but
All right.If If you see this image of Paris Hilton,
Yes.
now you recognize her in in real life because you've seen her image.So, Jesus Christ is in the image of the Father.He looks like the Father.Adam looks like the Father.In fact, I Here's Here's evidence I'm not making this up.
Okay.
In Genesis 5:2, we see it a Hebraism a Hebrew writing style called inverted parallelism.It talks about the son of Adam, Seth.It says that Seth is created in the likeness and image of Adam.
Yep.
What a coincidence that it uses those same words to describe the similarity between Adam and God.But here's where we know it's specifically referring to the same topic because they didn't use quotation marks in ancient Hebrew.How do you know if a ancient Hebrew author is quoting a previous passage?Is by using inverted parallelism.What's that?That's when you're using the exact same words in opposite order.Adam is in the image and likeness of God.Seth is in the likeness and image of God.Did I say that right?
Yeah.
Yeah, you got it.
Okay.So, now we know it's a direct quote that just as much as Adam is in the image of God, just as much as he looks like God, Seth looks like Adam.
You want You want you want me to go first?
Okay.Uh let's take it step by step.First of all, even when you say Adam is an image of God, and if you read that text, Genesis 5:1-2, it says the male and female, not just the male.
Well, God is married.
Yeah, but it didn't say his wife.It said they're an image of God.
implied.
We're going with the text, right?I didn't see Paris Hilton's image in that little
So, if I just go with the text and not read
my tradition from the church into it or your tradition.It says that they are made in the image of God.Male and female, so
Yes.
right there the male and the female are in the image of God.So, if I say that means it's a visible semblance then that means the woman also resembles God.So, then we end up with God being transgendered or gender confused.So, if I'm going with the text
Say again?
Or he's married.
Not in the text cuz I'm just going with the text you're going with.
Mhm.
So, if I just do exegesis, not import something else from elsewhere the text is clear.The one God, because even in Genesis 2:47 Yahweh God came down.Yahweh God, not him and his wife in Genesis 2 fashioned the man from dust, then fashioned his wife from his side.There was no wife there to say, "Well, that's why she's also an image of God."So, whatever image means, if it means visible, then the woman, just as much as the man, looks like God.To want to say the Father, I believe it's the Trinity, but let me make it simple and say God the Father.Well, God the Father doesn't have breasts.God the Father doesn't have a woman who gets pregnant.So, obviously, whatever image it is will be limited and defined by the context, right?That's why even when you say Jesus image of God in Colossians 1:15, it says the image of the invisible God.
Now, that's a paradox.How can someone be an image of someone invisible?Because the same Paul in Ephesians 4:24, Colossians 3:10, talks about what it means to be in the image of God, to be restored and recreated to reflect the righteousness and the holiness, the moral character of God that weare called to mirror God's moral perfections and his sovereignty, not what he looks like.If I just let Paul define what he means by image.Even in 1 Corinthians 15 that you cited, the only reason why I know that Jesus is not just a spirit is because Paul told me that Christ has been raised in the flesh.So, whatever he means by life-giving spirit does not preclude him being in glorified flesh as a life-giving spirit.Just like when he said Adam was a living soul, I know he doesn't mean that Adam doesn't have a body, because that's a statement from Genesis 2:7, when after God fashioned the body, Adam was called a living soul.
But I do not know that about the Father.All I know is he's spirit.And even when the term spirit is used of angels, Hebrews 1:7, says he makes his ministers flames of fire, angels winds or spirits.I don't know what Mormons believe, so I'm not going to ask you.Whatever these angels are, even as spirits, they don't have physical bodies, but they are spirits nonetheless.So, even if I were to grant God being spirit has a body, it's not a physical body.It would be just a body like the angels, even though I don't think he has a body, but I'm saying even if I were to grant your assumption, his body would be spiritual like the angels' bodies are spirituals.Now, to even show you someone in early church history who thought God had a body, Tertullian thought God had a body.
That's This is after the apostasy.
Okay, well, all right.So, I was going to help you use him to help you, but okay, you can All right, Tertullian.Hey,
can't help him here, buddy.So, even all of all of these passages, as a Trinitarian who reads them contextually, can come up with a different explanation the way from you.Now, notice what you did and I do that.We all bring in a tradition.When I said it says the female is created in the image of God, your tradition came in.I'm not saying it's wrong or right.That's a future debate.
Oh, and his wife.You see what happened there?So, we went beyond the text.We brought in our interpretive grid, our tradition, to then understand the text.We're all guilty of it.So, I'm just saying, but I don't share that tradition.So, when I see the text, it's God, and Yahweh God, who came down.There was no wife with him in Genesis 2:7.4:7.He fashioned the man, blew in his nostrils the breath of life, became a living soul.He made the woman.So, that means they both bear the image of that one Yahweh God.And if I want to be you know, biblical, who's depicted as a male.So, this is how I would be forced to read it if I'm trying to be as fair as I can to the overall context of the scriptures.Now, I can read my tradition into it, but I'm trying to avoid that.
Trying to stay as biblical as possible.And then it's impossible.We're not going to do 100% job or perfect job of doing that.But, I'm trying to be as cognizant of my tradition and try to push it in the background and just do exegesis.So, you gave me your opinion, but when I showed you that the female is also created in the image of God, your tradition came in.But, we don't share that tradition.So, we have to put it aside and let the text then determine what traditions are acceptable and what traditions are not.So, that's how I decided to respond to you.
The debate turns to whether God the Father has a body and how to interpret anthropomorphic passages. They compare biblical images, angelic appearances, and manifestations of God to argue over literal versus symbolic readings.
But, I think you have more time.
I think it's the position you have to take when you don't have a living prophet.Because the conversation we're having is very similar to a conversation we might expect with a first-century Jew and a first-century Christian.Where the first-century Jew might refer to the text.The first-century Christian might refer to Peter and Paul.Exactly.
So, that was my point to you last time.I said, "The only way to end up accepting Mormonism is true is to show that Joseph Smith is a true prophet."Remember I said that in our last conversation?I go it comes down to that.
Yes, it does.
Once if it's if it's proven he's a prophet, you have to accept what the prophet says.So really for the Mormon, what I would recommend for the for you guys trying to convince a Christian, you got to make a case Joseph Smith is a true prophet.
Yeah, yeah.I'm prepared to make that case actually.
Uh set up man.One
Do it right now.That's that's a good topic if you want.Yeah, yeah.One thing I want to address is when you when we see the scriptures say that that
when God is the invisible God
Yes.
we call him the invisible God because after the fall of Adam and Eve, we're no longer in his presence.Now we can't see him.That's what that means in context.It doesn't mean it's not a metaphysical claim.
Well, I mean you remember we're trying to keep our traditions outside as much as I we can.
Mhm.
Notice again, you're saying it's a result of the fall, but the same scriptures say even after the fall, God's presence does manifest and God's presence is localized in the temple.And yet when God's presence was localized in the temple, it wasn't physical.So when you say after the fall, then how do you explain all the passages where God's presence is appearing in a visible manner and it's not a physical body in the sense that in the temple, God says helives there.His presence will be there.His name is there, but there's nothing physical.
Uh well, I disagree.I mean imagine on Sinai
Sure.
Yeah, so we saw that the Lord's feet were standing on sapphire.
But remember what I said about angels and spirits?That doesn't mean he has a physical body.Even angels have are spirits, but in our view
believe that the angels have bodies.Bodies of spirit.
But do physical flesh bodies?
It depends if they've been resurrected yet.
Okay.So these angels from the scriptures, if I go to Hebrews and I go to Psalm 104, they're spirit creatures with spiritual bodies.So I grant that.But the spiritual bodies is not a physical body from the dust.So even if I grant that when God appears in a physical form, if you want to say that's his body as opposed to manifestation, just like in Revelation, Jesus can appear as a lamb, but he's not a lamb.Seven eyes, but he doesn't literally have seven eyes.Sure.And the spirit So, when do we determine whether an appearance of God is simply a manifestation like Jesus appearing as a lamb, seven eyes, seven horns?We know he doesn't really look like that.Or the spirit appearing as a dove, and when it's really him.See, this is also something we can't just bring our tradition into.
If only we had a living prophet.
Say, "Hey, well, hey."Say that on 1 versus 12.
If you want, um
How many more minutes he's got to talk?
10.
Okay, good, man.Keep
I'll I'll make a case for Joseph Smith.Is that all right?
Uh I mean, I'm not here to be responding to that, yeah, cuz I'm here for the Trinity and the Bible.So, it's up to you.I don't know.Trinity and the Bible, you want to make a case for
It's up to you.
I'm not Yeah.You're talking to a guy who hasn't studied much about Joseph Smith.That's what I'm saying.
So, yeah.So, stick with the Trinity.
Yeah.I don't I don't want to cuz I'm not just, you know,
Okay.
I You want me to pretend I'm James White that I know everything?I got myself in trouble on that one.
He ran pretend.
That's it.That's why I haven't studied those issues yet.So, I don't mean, you know,
Right.Right.So, we look at the same passages of a scripture and we interpret them differently.And we can each make a case for it.So, I think we're here It's just a We just shake hands and say, "Well, you know, I I we understand this differently."This is the problem of the apostasy.Is now people are discussing the same scripture
Brought up apostasy again.But I again, like I said, cuz I don't want to address it because I'm going to go off topic.
Yeah.
Uh if I follow the scripture seriously, if I do, and I know you're not committed just to the scriptures.You're also committed to another set of scriptures and prophets who speak.The reason why my I myself did not say Protestant is because of the problem scriptures that I do not believe can be nullified.Because you mentioned it twice, so I just want to real quickly go through it.When I look at Matthew 16:18, "I will be building my church."John 14:26, John 16:12-13.The spirit will remind of all things all things I've said and he'll guide the true church into all truth.Then I find 1 Timothy 3:15 saying the church is a pillar and foundation of the truth.Then I add other passages like Acts 20 17 to 35 or 2 Timothy 1:13-14 or second and I'm not trying to These are passages where God has sworn there will be wolves but not to fear because God will
raise up bishops that were directly trained by the apostles and they were to train others qualified.That's 2 Timothy 1:13-14, chapter 2 verse 1 and 2 to preserve the deposit of faith by the power of the Holy Spirit in them that was in the apostles to ensure that when a heresy arose these men ofGod would then check it.And this is a promise that God gave from the time Christ ascended to a promise that will not be null and void according to scriptures till the end of the age when Christ returns.So if I'm committed to the authority of scriptures, I cannot believe in an apostasy.Because every time a heresy arose, right away we find a man of God calling it out and exposing it like even in Revelation.John is there to warn five of the seven churches they're falling away and Christ will remove them.
So this is the pattern I see how God works.You That's why you have to reject that pattern obviously because if the church did not become apostate, then the truth has always been preserved.
Yeah, and I have to be fair as a moderator.If like we got to get back to the Trinity.
Sure.Okay.
Cuz he didn't prepare for for
No, I mean I'm not qualified but I can study if he wants me to.I mean I can then
It's up to you cuz
I can take my busy life as it is and study 6 months of why they believe in Joseph Smith add more stress to my life.I mean one I can't but I mean I can't I would be unfair to him.I haven't studied Joseph Smith.
You want to use the Bible to disprove the Trinity?
That's why brother I was surprised that he had to good with you.
verses I used to talk about how God the Father has a body, I think that disproves the Trinity.
Can you give me your strongest case?
Yeah.
Which one?I didn't hear cuz I was listening.
The make it again.
Which case was it?
that God the Father has a body.
Yeah, I I mean, even if I grant, like cuz I was trying to mention Tertullian.
Mhm.
Tertullian believed, I know you say it's apostasy, he believed God, cuz he was a stoic, has a spiritual body.And that when Jesus came out, like Eve came out of Adam, Jesus took part of God's spiritual body and clothed himself.That's how we could see he's a distinct person from God.So, there's a Trinitarian that wasn't condemned for his Trinitarianism that thought God had a spiritual body.So, even if I grant that these appearances of God, God has a body, it's still a spiritual body cuz he's spirit, like angels are spirits with spiritual bodies.Now, the reason why I don't accept that God has a body is because we have a difference cuz we talked about it last time.I believe, because I accept the larger canon, I accept Maccabees, 2 Maccabees 7:28, and early Christians used that to show that God made everything you see from nothing.
Mhm.
So, if I believe God did that, then God is a type of being that doesn't need space, place to exist, because a body is spatial.It has mass and size and volume.So, if God is creating matter and space, then that means he doesn't need space and place to exist, and therefore he is bodyless.This is a logical inference from what I accept from scripture.
Mhm.
So, even if I grant you're right, cuz I'm sure there were Jews who thought God had a body as well, but it would be a spiritual body that they would see as contrasted from the body of the flesh,from dust.So, still we don't get to God the Father having a physical body.Now, people may be wondering why I keep saying that, cuz we did have a discussion, you do believe God the Father has a physical body of flesh.
Yes.
Cuz people
be wondering why I keep making that distinction.
Yeah.So, I see that in the Bible it talks about God having feet, hands, face, back, all these all these different anthropomorphic body parts.Are we uh
No, you're good.You're good.
Okay.So, when I see all this, to believe that he doesn't have a body, you have to explain away all these Bible verses.To to say that Jesus is in the image of the invisible God, which I understand means he's just not visible to us because we're fallen, but he's still visible to the son.It means that he's in the image of him.Just like you see Paris Hilton, right?You see an image of Christ.He's in the He's the image of the father.They look the same.Adam and the father look the same.So, wh- it's your approach, the pan-canonical approach.
Yes.
To take your view into the Bible, you have to explain away certain things.You have to take Maccabees 7:28 and interpret it as a metaphysical verse rather than a verse of a mother comforting her son.You have to change this view.
Wh- Which one?
Maccabees Second Maccabees 7:28.
things from nothing.
But the context of that is a mother comforting her son while he's being tortured.So, I don't think at the time he's being tortured she's talking about metaphysics, right?
No, she's What it is is she's assuring him that the God who brought all things into being from nothing is the same God who can then recreate that body.Cuz if he created from nothing, it's easier for him then to resurrect it.
Mhm.
So, that would be the message of hope.
Yeah.Yeah.
But that's what she's saying.She's saying, "Look, son, the God who was able to create all this from nothing, now that your body exists, how easy it is for him to recreate it, meaning resurrect it?"So, it's not an argument that she's pretty much giving you hope.Don't fear that if you're physically killed, that God is not able to resurrect your physical body.After all, he brought all this into being from nothing.Then wouldn't it be {quote} {unquote} easier for him to take something already produced and just revive it?So, that's the argument.But anyway, finish your point.
I see your point.So, I guess in my conclusion is the Trinity uh the 4th century church is these things, but we can't find Bible verses.
We can't find the Bible teaching these things.We see that they were invented afterwards.So, that's why I cannot hold to the Trinity.I I think it's an indefensible position to be in.
I like Oh, so you want to respond I don't know cuz we still have a
Yeah, we have a minute.
So, okay, do you want which part you want to respond to the Father body again?You're saying cuz you're saying I have to explain all these away.
How about I mean, you've got your lists.
Yeah, can I just address why I'm not explaining these passages of God having a body?Why I want to illustrate why I don't know if we can use these to show that God has a body in the sense you have.Let me use Jesus again.If you go to Revelation by the way, do that tonight if you guys get a chance.If you read Revelation 1:12-18, Jesus is depicted as looking like the one like the Son of Man, Daniel 7:13-14.But then he appears as the Ancient of Days.So, but in Daniel 7, the Ancient of Days Son of Man were distinct.Then he's depicted as that divine being that appeared to Daniel in Daniel 10:5-6.Then he's depicted as the glory of Yahweh that appeared to Ezekiel as a man in Ezekiel 1:26-28.Now, if I read all of those chapters, these are all separate manifestations that are not identical.
They don't look the same.The way God is appearing in these chapters, they're not identical.And yet then I see Jesus appearing as all of them in the same vision.But then if I take this the way you're taking it, that means that Jesus is now taking all these different appearances of God that were not the same, and now he subsumes them in his own person.But then what happened to his physical body?Cuz in those uh appearances, it's not a physical body per se.It's these different manifestations and forms of God that he now combines into his own person, but then where's the physical body with the holes in his hands?He doesn't appear that way in that scene.But then Revelation 5, he appears as a lion and a lamb.So, which of these images are telling me what God's body is actually like as opposed to God appearing in a form, and these forms will differ depending on the point he's trying to communicate.
Like when he appears as Ancient of Days to show that he's very old and therefore very wise.But does God really have white hair?Well, in other So, this is what I'm saying to then develop a theology on God's body on a diversity of passages where the form of God are not the same.Even Revelation 4, the way God the Father appears, is different from the way he appears in Daniel 7:9 to 10.So, which of these manifestations can I say, "Oh, that's God's body."So, it's not I'm explaining the way.I'm trying to do justice to how to harmonize all these appearances because I don't believe they contradict.That's my position.
Yeah.Right, right, right.I think that's a really fair position to take.If if we're only using the Bible, how do we decide which ones are metaphysical claims, which ones are literal, which ones are metaphorical.Yeah, it's a it's That's why we have so many different denominations.
why you say to a prophet.
Yes, sir.Well, great.Thank you so much.
The speakers examine Augustine, Nicene language, and the idea of one substance shared by the divine persons. They also revisit whether scripture explicitly teaches the Trinity or whether later theological language is needed to systematize it.
You did good.
Thank you.The Trinity is not biblical.And so,
I've never not heard that before.
So, my my brief argument for this will be that if we define Trinity very loosely, then there's a lot of things that could be included under the umbrella of Trinity, right?But I think we should probably stick to since you're Roman Catholic, kind of the Latin Trinitarian view.
churches, you mean?
Uh sure.
Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox?
well, I I think there's a difference between the Orthodox and the Latin journey.So, I think as Augustine says, there's one God because there's one Trinity.But I'd say the Bible says there's one God because as as Paul says, for us there's one God the Father.And so, I think that the Trinity as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas put it is not in the Bible because the Bible equates the one God with the Father.
But even Augustine believed the Son was eternally generated and the Spirit was eternal spirated.So even when he says the one God is a Trinity, it's because the Son and the Spirit possess this very same nature of the Father cuz the Father still the source even for Augustine because he believes the Fatherbegets the Son
Mhm.
and spirates the Spirit through the Son.So he doesn't deny what came before him.He doesn't deny that Jesus is God of God.He affirms and subscribes to the Nicene Creed, the Constantinople Creed.How do you say that five times fast?Constantinople Creed.So Augustine is a firm believer in the creeds that say God of God, light of light, true God of true God.Well, that right there talks about the monarchy of the Father.So Augustine could say the one God is a Trinity by virtue of the fact that the Son and Spirit possess the identical nature of the Father, but he can also affirm what the Nicene Creed says, for us there'sone God the Father.So it's not either or for Augustine.So that's what I'm saying if I take Augustine in its historical context, Augustine, die-hard affirmer of the Council of Nicaea.
There's no way he would be a saint if he goes against and I mean that's just common knowledge.No, he can't.He wouldn't.He'd be Anyone who rejects the Council of Nicaea, the Creed, for us there's one God the Father, he's a heretic.
So even I'm saying
I understand he he affirms it, but I think in kind of I think there might have been some kind of some discrepancies because again, I think if if you're just talking about in the identity sense, the Father isthe one God and then the Trinity is the one God.I think that's where the the problem arises.And so I think I think Augustine is just not consistent is what I'd say.
you can accuse him of that.I He's a great theologian.I don't Again, I got to be careful cuz I'm not on his level.He was a brilliant man, but there's things I don't accept of Augustine.Maybe cuz I'm too stupid.Maybe I can't see what he sees.Honestly.I got always keep that in mind.Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean it's because you're wrong.Maybe I'm just too stupid.So maybe it's because I'm getting old.I'm starting to think this way.The same who's 20 years old thought he had it figured out.So I have to be careful when I say disagree with someone.Because Augustine is a theological giant.There's a lot of things people that don't like what he said.Nonetheless, he was not a joke.He was not an idiot.He was a brilliant man of God.There are things I have troubles with, too.
But I do know that Augustine does not disagree with the Nicene Creed or the
how it's formulated.That word kills me.Constantinople.Say that five times five.Five times five.Anyway.So point is he still would affirm one God is the Father, Jesus is God of God, light of light, true God from true God.And even affirms Son is begotten of the Father, and Spirit is spirated from the Father and Son.But let's put that aside you want to scripture.
You said the one God is the Father.If we take these statements in isolation, it would end up proving too much, which is what I was trying to show the Unitarians.Because the same Bible that says the one God is the Father says that Jesus is the one Lord.Yet I know of no Unitarian that denies that the Father is the one Lord and the Spirit is the one Lord.Well, they probably would say the Spirit being the presence of the Father.So the Father is the Spirit.But nonetheless, if the Spirit is the Father, then the Spirit would be the one Lord.It's like me taking Jude chapter 1 verse 4.Now, what version of the Bible you guys like?I forget.You guys also
We feel like King James We feel like King James is the swaggiest, but we don't We don't think it's the most correct.
Okay.So It doesn't matter the Bible, okay?
Let me say that.
I say that because there's a variant reading.If we go with the King James, it's for believers there is only one sovereign God and Lord of us Jesus Christ.That's the majority reading.Literally, it's the
Yeah, the
only sovereign God and Lord of us Jesus Christ.That's literally if you go with the King James, the text of the Septuagint majority text.Earlier witnesses say our only sovereign and Lord Jesus Christ.Despotis Kyrios, right?Despotis is a very interesting word.That's the word that's often used to translate the word Adonai.So, if you find the phrase Adonai Yahweh, it'll be rendered Despotis Kyrios.So, now I don't know of anyone, not even Jehovah's Witnesses, who their Bible reads the only master and Lord of us
Yeah.
Jesus Christ that would deny that God the Father is master and Lord.So, this is how the Bible uses language.It will say of one person that is identified as God he is the only of this kind.Restrictive language without excluding the others who are God as well.So, when it says one God the Father, amen.But not to exclusion of the Son, especially if Paul affirms elsewhere Jesus is God using the term Theos, which I never got into with the Unitarians.But we can talk about that.
No, yeah, I definitely would agree that Jesus is Theos by predication.But in terms of, you know, as you know, the New Testament only uses like with the definite article Ho Ho Theos to refer to the Father.
Used of the Son as well.
What's that?
Ho Theos is used of the Son.
And where's that?
Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Matthew 1:22-23, John 20:28.
Ho Theos is used of the Son.Yes.
Well, then that seems to me that that that would lead to modalism.But that's that's
Bible does indeed deal with identity statements.That's an argument of Gregory William Lane Craig that I agree that the Bible these are not identity statements.They are statements of predication.So, this is where I agree with Craig.
Well, yeah.But, without identity statements, how do we get to the constant consubstantiality of the Trinity?
Well, if you're talking the Father's only true God, and the Son's only true God, Spirit's only true God, and this is you're saying that's what they are.Well, what they are then leads to who they are.Who is the only true God?Yahweh.
But, it seems I mean like an atheist listening to this is just going to say, "Yeah, you've just brought up contradictory verses and then say, 'Hey, since they contradict, it's the Trinity.'"
world of metaphysics, then you bring in my buddy Mike here, and then you bring in Dale Tuggy, and you bring Then they go into the metaphysics of how you can make that sound coherent.
Cuz the reason this matters for us, you know, as Latter-day Saints, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we dedicate our lives to Jesus Christ, to making disciples of all men, striving to following his teachings,right?To have true faith in him.But, this conversation, and you're right, a very metaphysical conversation, is what Christians use It's what Christians use to push us out of the bounds of Christ's grace.So, Christians say, "No, you guys are destined to eternal hell because you don't have the right conception of these metaphysical principles, right?"Cuz we've already established that we believe in the three divine persons.We believe that they are one God.We disagree on what that oneness is, right?
Yeah, but that's that's what's going to come down to.
So, I mean, maybe looking at Nicaea, right?It's a very common experience for a Mormon missionary to go out, and they get asked, "Well, do you believe that um the three divine persons are one substance?"And we're like, "Uh what is that word from?"Cuz we don't even recognize that from scripture, right?And of course, it's from Nicaea.Um and so, I guess just looking at that, I mean, what Is that required to be a Trinitarian, to believe that they are one substance?
See, now you're asking me a term, substance, again.We're using language outside of the Bible to try to understand the Bible.If I were to try to and you can't avoid it, you're going to have to come up with that term as long as faithful to scripture.If I were to answer your question this way.If Yahweh alone is the supreme uncreated God, only him, no beginning, no end, Yahweh.And then Jesus is identified as that Yahweh.The Father is identified as that Yahweh, meaning they're not three uncreated gods out there.Yahweh, I'm saying from the scriptural perspective.Mormons have their own beliefs, but I'm talking from a Trinitarian perspective.If Yahweh alone is uncreated, no beginning, no end, and that the Father is said to be that God and the Spirit is said to be that God and the Son is said to be that God, and yet they're
not Father's not the Son, Son's not the Spirit, Spirit's not the Father, then I have to come up with away of expressing this truth without contradicting any of those statements.So, if you're saying to me, "Must I believe there's only one almighty God, infinite, uncreated, and yet this one God is not just one person.Father's that God, Son is that God, and Spirit is that God, but they're not the same relationship because the Father loves the Son, Son loves the Spirit, Spirit loves the Father, and I must affirm that."Of course, I'm going to say, "You must."Because this is what I believe the Bible teaches.You see, so biblically, I can only go with what the Bible says, and even the language I bring in cannot contradict the Bible.Cannot override exegesis.
Sure.
You can use language to understand the Bible, not override it, and distort it, misinterpret it, which is what I believe others do, like Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses, but not Trinitarians.
Yeah, so I think maybe the what I push back on is that I think we're both in agreement that there's three persons that are predicated of as God in in the biblical text.The ultimate sense, right?
That's Yahweh.
But I think the the problem is if you're if you're saying that personhood doesn't also entail being as in like a distinct center of consciousness.That seems to be the plain reading of the text.And so if you don't have that qualified explicitly in the Bible, then you don't have trinity in the Bible.
What's not qualified?
The idea that it's not necessary that personhood entails different
Yeah.
that that personhood is being used in a in a special sense.It's different than being.
I I don't I don't expect the Bible to use the same categories and language other generations were forced to come up with.
Yeah.
Right?Because I don't expect Old Testament prophets to be arguing along the lines of Greek philosophical categories.I don't expect fishermen or even Paul as early as was to engage in those categories because if they did, I'd find them in the scriptures.So what I have in the scriptures is the raw data.How do I systematize it?So when I go to scripture, when you're talking about for example God, there is the word ousia, but it's used to deny there are gods by nature.Galatians 4:8 tells us that these pagans used to worship those who are by nature not gods.And the word there is ousia.So there we have the term ousia used, but it's a denial of these gods being gods by nature.Well, then what is the assumption?There is one who's God by nature.Well, who is that?Now this goes back to the divine council motif.
If these gods are the gods of the nations, and that's what Paul says, the gods of the nations are what we'd call the sons of God, right?Deuteronomy 32:8-9.If we go with the reading that the nations were divided according to the sons of God, and these are the members of the divine council, so the gods of the nations are the members of the divine council, whatPaul calls them demons, 1 Corinthians 10:20, and says they're not gods by nature.Well, then where do you place Jesus and the spirit if all these other so-called gods are not gods by nature?What does that make Jesus and the spirit?They must be God by nature.
Yeah, but then would don't we have three gods by nature?
you presupposing there's only Yahweh?
Because only Yahweh would then be God by nature, according to the Old Testament.That's my point.
Mhm.And I think we'd say Yahweh is properly can probably be understood as as the name of the Father.And so
Not according to New Testament, it's also Jesus.
Well, right, but I I think
contradiction.It's not like a
know if it is, because even in the Old Testament, you have references whoever that Yahweh is, you'd be hard-pressed to show me it's the Father.
You're saying in the Father alone?
Say it what?
You're saying the Father alone?
he just said that Yahweh is the Father.
Yeah, but we're not saying that.I guess our question is how
Cuz that's what he said.
Why does the use of ousia in the New Testament in that sense in Galatians, why does that mean there can only be one um being who shares in the divine nature?
Yeah, yeah.
I'm going with the divine council motif.If the divine council, these gods, are the gods of the nations, which according to Deuteronomy 32:8-9 as Heiser and others read it, Deuteronomy 32:8-9, as well as Psalm 82, that's the other one.Well, then Paul says the gods of the nations are demons, and then he says they're not gods by nature.So, we're only left with one who's God by nature, and that would have to be Yahweh.
But can't
So, then what does that make Jesus and the spirit?
The Jesus and the spirit are persons who have the divine name predicated onto them.They would also be divine by nature.
predicated?
The name of Yahweh.
So, what does it mean to have the name of Yahweh in that
Yeah, so I think back to um like Philippians 2:9, it speaks about Christ and how he was super exalted by the Father and given the name that's above all other names.
Yes.Which would be Yahweh.
Not all other names, it says all names.
Yeah, yeah.And so, and so it seems that Christ is given the name Yahweh in virtue of who he is.And so, I think it it just seems it seems to me that the biblical text speaks of Yahweh as I mean the name can be used of all three, right?Because in in the ancient context, a messenger could go in the name of the king, right?And and we see that in Revelations where where John starts to worship the messenger, the angel, and then he says, "No, no, no, I'm not I'm not I'm not actually God.I'm just here speaking on behalf
angel of the Lord doesn't do that.
Is that the Old Testament?
So, that actually works in my favor.
Well, I I I would say
I want to go back to the point you're saying.Make your point.
No, but yeah, I'm just saying that that by by identity, we could say Yahweh is the name of the Father, which he he gives to the Son and the Spirit because they are also God by nature.
to Philippians 2:9 to prove that, right?
Sure.
We got a problem then because already in Mark chapter 1, Matthew chapter 3, Luke chapter 3, if you read Matthew chapter 3:1-3, Luke 3:1-6, Mark 1:1-3, and John 1, if you read 23, you guys can fact-check me.I'm not making it up.All of them quote Isaiah 40:3 in reference to John the Baptist being the agent sent to prepare for who?Yahweh, our God.
Mhm.
Yahweh, that means the one coming is already Yahweh, and he's Israel's God.Read all of those accounts and Acts 19:4, the Yahweh, Israel's God, who's coming and who comes in the flesh according to these accounts, is Jesus.So, how can he be given a name at his exaltation, the name Yahweh, which I already explained how, but I'm going I'm going with what you're saying, when we're told he's already the Yahweh that is going to comeand appear and whose glory will be seen.
Yeah.
So, he's already Yahweh.
Mhm.
So, but you went to Philippians 2:9 to show me he's given the name.
Yeah.
So, then I would ask you, when was he given the name if he already had it before his resurrection exaltation?
Yeah, I think I think pre-mortally
Okay, so
Jesus is God, but but yeah, then he
But you went to Philippians 2:9.I'm just
Well, yeah, but but we agree with that.He could be both.
Well, we agree with Christ emptying himself.
Yeah, but so I mean because the argument I'm just going this argument Philippians 2:9 was See, he's given the name here.
Yeah.
Implication?The Father has it by nature, but he confers it on the Son.That's not what Philippians 2:9 is saying.
And I think these verses, I think all of us were we're just dancing around this question of when that when I was on my mission as a young Mormon missionary.And they say, "Hey, do you believe in the three divine persons?"And I say, "Yes."And they said, "Do you believe in three divine beings?"And I say, "Well, what's the difference between a being and a person?I've never seen this language in the scripture."
Yeah.
And what what would you say to that young missionary?
Yeah, push the shove.The Bible doesn't just come out and say there are three persons, right?
No.
But we still use that language.
But we're happy to say there are three beings.
Yeah.So, that's why a Trinitarian would be happy to say, "Well, being would be a mode of existence.Something that exists have being.So, God has existence, so he's a being.But then, if he's only one God, but there are three persons who are God, they can't be three gods.So, how do we So, this is an attempt of trying to harmonize with the Bible teaches.If the Bible then teach this, I'm not going to be here debating on the Trinity.Why waste my time?I'm convinced the Bible teaches this.I'd have to find evidence to the contrary that it doesn't.Then I'll change my position.
this, you just mean the Trinity?
That the Father is the the true God Yahweh.
Yeah, I understand that.
Son is the true God Yahweh.The Holy Spirit is true God Yahweh.And only Yahweh is the true God.There are no other gods.Even by nature, if I go to Galatians 4:8,
Mhm.
but the Father is not the Son.Son is not the Spirit.Spirit is not the Father.But they can't be three uncreated Yahwehs.So, what language must I use to come up with to harmonize and systematize this?Well, the best language thus far to many Trinitarians, I'm just saying,
Yeah.
God's being is one, but God's being is not limited to one person.Whatever logical problems you may come up with that cuz any system, every system is going to have holes in it.This is simply an attempt and no matter how much we try, God is still going to be uh beyond our ability to fully synthesize.So I'm trying to be faithful to the text.But go ahead.
The discussion broadens to Latter-day Saint beliefs about the Godhead, divine progression, and how Christians judge Mormon salvation. They compare differing theological systems while emphasizing that faith and Christ's judgment ultimately matter most.
I want you guys to
I was going to say just hearing you describe this, it sounds like our belief of the Godhead, right?We use the New Testament term the Godhead to refer to the three divine persons.Sounds like the Latter-Day Saint view would be within your definition of the Trinity.
That God is uncreated and infinite and yet this one God who created me as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are
I don't know where your Book of Mormon went that we gave you, but
What am I going to tell you?From the first page of the Book of Mormon, I mean if that's what you believe, then hey, come on home to the Eastern Orthodox Church or Catholic
But you guys believe in millions of gods?
Because they believe in a council, right?I mean we're all Yeah, I mean it's it's kind of a
No, no.Like the New Testament calls us the offspring of God, but that doesn't mean there's millions of gods.
Okay, so you guys don't believe that you could become a god?
No, we believe in the sure.They might be It's a one versus 12 on their concept.Let's keep it in trending.Remember
But no, what what would Why would that not be the osis to become like God?
Uh I don't want to get into it yet.
Let me moderate this.I'll moderate the uh
Are you moderating this now?
You can bring them on.I swear.I want them to put me on the hot seat.
Maybe some some of you
they keep saying Yeah, I know they're trying to share
We're trying to find the difference
Why are we not
That's all I'm saying.Why is Trinity not be compatible there?
Yeah, but I don't know.
I know, but I'm saying that
Yeah, I think the little g God versus capital G God.
Because it's not like there's there's disagreements that are permitted within the Christian tradition.I mean, Christians have various different views of the Eucharist, for example, right?But for some reason, we're trying to find out what is the difference between our position and yours that's so big that we cannot receive Christ's grace.Cuz most Christians believe that we will not receive Christ's grace because we don't understand this question of the Trinity.
Well, from the popular presentation, and I don't want to misrepresent your views, so I'm saying what I was taught, and I was taught by people.
No, go ahead.
So, I can't tell you.That's why I asked you guys up there to take your position.What I was taught growing up, and I didn't spend much time with it, because I'm hearing it from people who are apologists and ex-Mormons.
Okay, now obviously sometimes an apologist won't do a good job representing the other side.I know that full well.I see the Trinity misrepresented every day of the week.
oh.
Here's what I used to be taught, and I used to repeat as a mantra.Now, don't get me wrong, I'm butchering it, please.
Take your time.Let's hear it, and then we can work off it.
What God is, man shall be.How did this go?What man is, God was.
Something like that.
Yeah.
As man is now, God once was.
Yes.
As God is now, man will be.
Okay, so now that's what I was So, God was a man.And then the planet Kolob, said it's way I don't want to go into Yeah, I don't want to go into it, because
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
No, that's what I was
base Kolob.
Yeah, no, that's what I was taught, honestly.I'm just telling you.
No, yeah.
And so, maybe maybe So, yeah, the last the last president of the church to weigh in on that on that statement you said, said he he affirmed the the the part of it that says we will become gods,but he said he's he's not sure we don't really teach the other part that God was once a man.
do in the incarnation, certainly.God the Son became So, and Tertullian, you've mentioned this yourself.Isn't it Tertullian who who uses this?Or is it Athanasius?Athanasius says the same couplet about God became man so that man may become God.
Yeah, so maybe the maybe to focus in on the difference.Like our scriptural texts speak of the Father, Son, and and Spirit as one God.
Yeah, I've seen that.
Right, yeah.And so, we we reconcile it a certain way, but I'm I it's I guess to to nail down on the debate, it seems to me that the way that you guys reconcile it is not explicitly found in theBible, right?And I think it comes down to the personhood not entailing being.
Yeah.But it depends what you mean by explicit.I don't want to cut you off.
Right, right, yeah.I hear you.
If you mean that the Bible does not explicitly teach that the Father is the true God, Yahweh, it does.
No.
The Son is the true God, Yahweh, it does.I know the Unitarians over there are going to say, "No, I'm going to stone you."That's okay, but the Holy Spirit is the true God, Yahweh, it does.And does the Bible teach the Father is not the Son, Son is not the Spirit, Spirit is not the Father?Absolutely.
Sure, but yeah, I see that.
is explicit.Well, if you're talking about the formulation
Yes.Yeah.
Well, again, it comes down to how do we accurately systematize the language without contradicting scripture?So, what I was saying about the Mormon cuz I want you to see why someone like me, until there's clarification, what what I was told to say that God was a man who became God, then that means theFather hasn't always been God.But in the last conversation we had, he I'm pointing as if they know he's over here.He is over here.The last conversation,
Uh-huh.
they were talking about, "No, there is now an understanding that no, he's always been God."So, this where most of people that Mormons are going to be confused and say cuz we don't know what is the teach I don't
Well, there's a lot of misinformation out there.That's not a recent I mean, you can see yourself, Book of Mormon, that's the first LDS text, 1830.But
man?
Yeah.
But then I read one Is it Joseph Smith's uh translation of Luke uh 10:22 where he says, "Then that you will know that the Father is the Son, the Son is the Father."Go, "Oh, modalism, what's up here, bro?"
Yeah, and that that yeah.And I'm aware of that, and I I think it's not
I wrote a post on that, in fact.
Sure, yeah.And I I think uh you know, our our theologians argue pretty convincingly that that's not modalism.And I but yeah, I I think that's
that means I don't mean to cut you off.You guys have to come out
Yeah.
and do a session for the Trinitarians.What exactly you believe about the Father?Has he always been God?What is this about the flesh?I mean, for people that me growing up in the '90s, your God was a man who became God and
Well, what you're referencing is a film produced what 40 years ago by Evangelical Protestant Christians called The Godmakers, right?And in this is a cartoon, right?Yes, it's called The Godmakers.Today on YouTube you can find this section of the movie under a title called The Band Mormon Cartoon.
Oh, really?
And that title makes it seem like
advertisement for a brochure?
no, people need to know about it.
Is he trying to get people to I'd like to get back to the topic here.
Oh, yeah, yeah, we will for sure.But it's just important people to realize that people watch this band Mormon cartoon, they think it's a Mormon production that claims, oh yeah, God had these spirit wives and he was once, you know, a fallen man like youand I and he had his own savior and planet called Kolob.I don't know.It's a shame and all they would have to do is open the Book of Mormon to the first page and they would see right there the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to convince Jew and Gentile thatJesus is the Christ, the eternal God.But these apologists that write these books about Mormonism, they don't even make it to the first page and you have two centuries of misinformation that they're we're working off of.
Yeah.
But
There's a bunch of different teachings that but let's get back to the
That's what I'm saying.That's what I have a session to talk about cuz I because I want to cut off your turn and I want you to put my man hat so you can
Yeah, so I think essentially what it what it what it comes down to is that the the the Bible doesn't make explicit the later Trinitarian formulations.And so I think by abduction, by inference to the simplest explanation, the the the Mormon position or to for for the purposes of the debate, we can say the non-Trinitarian position is the simplest reading of the text.So like for example, right when when Stephen sees Christ at the right hand of God, it seems to more strongly imply different being, right right?And of course we're saying Christ is God and the Father is God, but they're they're not one God in the same way that the Trinitarian formulates it, if that makes sense.
Even Acts 7 is one of my favorite texts to show that Jesus is Yahweh, because in 59:60 he says, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."That language echoes Psalm 31:5."Into your hands I commit my spirit, O God of truth, you have redeemed me."Right?It's talking about Yahweh.So, even there I see Stephen praying to Jesus as Yahweh, who's now incarnate.Who's not God the Father, which is what Trinitarianism teaches.And then he says to Jesus, "Lord, do not hold this against them."Because they murdered him.So, what I'm seeing is here we have Jesus again, who's Yahweh.Yeah, who's uncreated.And Yahweh is the true God.In fact, if I go to Jeremiah 10:10-11, he's the true God, the everlasting king.And if you go to Psalm 95:3, he is the true God, the everlasting king.So, when I read statements, Yahweh is the true God.
And Jesus identified as the true God.Then he cannot be any other than that one supreme uncreated God.But then there's the Father next to him.He can't be some other God, because you can't have a higher God than Yahweh, or a lower God than Yahweh.So, when you say the simplest explanation, well, the only way I can get to that explanation to make it simple is if I ignore these other statements that go out of its way to show, "Hey, Jesus is notthis God that he's next to."And this God he's next to is the Father, but Jesus is just as much Yahweh.And if he's Yahweh, he's the true God.
Okay, so So, the Father is Yahweh.
Yes.
And Jesus is Yahweh.
That's the according to the scripture.
But the But the But the Father is not the Son.Right?And I think the way that you reconcile that is not like there in the Bible, if that makes sense.
I don't know in how else you want me to reconcile it.If Yahweh again, there is the only true God, Yahweh.Everlasting, everlasting.You are God.Psalm 90:2.Psalm I mean, if I go through all these statements with you guys, no.
No, we get it.
Yahweh, okay, even if you say predicate.So, what's predicate of the Father, Son, and Spirit?
As in we get it.
Oh, I thought you were saying
I was saying the reconciliation LJ's referring to.The reconciliation is that they're the same being, but different persons.
That's language I'm forced to use not to contradict scripture.So, is there any better way to articulate that without contradicting scripture?What's if you say three beings?
I think there's going to be three gods.
I think we'd be more comfortable
Right?
Yeah, and and I think many of the early Christians spoke that way, right?Origen in his dialogue with Heraclides, he's asking him
say that you can say two gods.
Yeah, and so I think I think our we're we're comfortable saying there's two or three gods.Um whereas I think the Trinitarian position is very uncomfortable saying that.
Yeah, whatever.
Because it can miscommunicate.But even Origen, when he says that, he goes, because to a Christian who understands that language, he's not positing two gods per se, cuz he also says we can call them one God, and even says it's only thenature of the Trinity that's beyond time, beyond ages, beyond any use of any temporal language, and the nature of the Trinity is uncreated.Same Origen says that.
Yeah, so you're comfortable saying there two or three gods?
Well, not today I'm not.
I'm getting closer to try it.
No, not today.I know you guys have the misunderstanding
Yeah, so so I say I say Yeah, I say since we're comfortable saying that, it seems that our reading of the biblical text is just as the simpler reading.
Yeah.
Depends on what you mean simpler.If you Even if you're saying this, I know we're going repeating the same point.I know you were trying to tell me Okay, but I just want to say the Bible is simple if you're saying that I am affirming, just I'm saying yes, that all three of them are the one infinite uncreatedYahweh God.It's not like the Father is some other God and the Son is some other God and Spirit in that sense that that not all of them are Yahweh who is the only true God, uncreated God.But we're going to use the language to express it in our way.If that's what you're saying, that they're still the supreme one, infinite, uncreated Yahweh God.All right, then.Have Have at it.
Hey, we appreciate it.
I mean?You You're saying because I If you're saying what I'm saying, but you want to use different language
Yeah.
that they're all the one Yahweh, uncreated, infinite
Yeah, not by by predication, not by identity.Because I think if you go by identity, then you're modalist.And then if you're saying modalism's in the text, obviously it's not trinitarianism.But I think I think that that either has to bottom out of modalism or something like tritheism.And so I think we're just more comfortable with that with with with with saying things.
Let me ask you one question.So, would you have a problem here because we've kept saying by identity.I agree.If you say identity, it's you know, the same self, you end up with modalism.But here's how even name can function in Bible.Adam in Genesis 5, which you mentioned earlier.Genesis 5:1-2, it says he named them called their name, male and female, called their name Adam in the day they were created.So, we have male and female.And Genesis 5:2 says, he called their name Adam.Not his name.They're all Adam.And then it says in Genesis 2:24, they're one flesh.
Mhm.
So, here you have one flesh
Yeah.
male and female.They're both named Adam.But then we find that the male is not only Adam by predication, but even the term Adam functions as his personal name.
The Adam and Eve were not the same being.Yeah.
Yeah, well, because they're physical, temporal, finite.We understand the analogy breaks down.But the Bible still says
think it's a good analogy for the way we understand the Godhead.
For you guys, maybe, but it
Here's why I say that is because they For us, a physical being limited to time and space, obviously, will not be identical to the way God exists.
And I think that's the frustrating thing is we are these finite beings trying to comprehend the mystery of God.Yet, as Latter-day Saints, we're told that because we don't comprehend that mystery, we don't have a true relationship with Jesus Christ.And to me, it feels like Christianity has really leaned into what I call salvation by theology alone, right?What matters most is your theology and not your faith, right?And And we're
here to say that faith alone saves.
right?Cuz no one has perfect theology.So, you're not going to get a argument from me that you have you have to have correct language and perfect theology to go to heaven.Yeah.Because if I'm consistent with myself, if I believe that what I believed 20 years ago was wrong, then that guy who died would have been under God's wrath.
Yeah.Yeah.
But the good thing is I don't lose sleep over it.Do you know why?Here's what's going to come down to.And I know we have one more.At the end of the day, it's what Jesus says of me that counts.See, this is what I'm trying to communicate to people.I will tell you what I believe, and I'll argue for it passionately, but at the end of the day, I know that when I stand before Christ, he's going to determine my salvation, not someone's opinion of me.
Amen.
So, even if the world thinks you're not Christian, you are.Don't lose sleep over it.
Yeah.
Amen.
That's great.
No, I mean, honestly, I don't lose sleep over it.No, I mean, I'm not getting for the applause, man.I'm just saying.
I want to talk about something everybody believes in on your side, even the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Muslims.
That's interesting.
Which is a I know, what could it be?Which is actually, I think, a key fundamental presupposition for the Trinity that is not actually biblical.And that calls into question the biblical nature of the Trinity as expressed by the Catholic Church, for example.
The speakers shift to creation ex nihilo and whether Genesis teaches creation from nothing. They debate the Hebrew text, ancient context, and scholarly interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2.
So, the the topic is creation ex nihilo.
Oh, yeah.
The idea and you actually with David recently on a YouTube video when he asked you to explain the Trinity, you said, "Well, we start with God creating everything out of nothing."That's how you started it.I don't think that's true and I don't think that's biblical.That God created everything in the whole world out of pure nothing at all.So, where do we want to start?Probably Genesis, right?
Genesis and no.
Not Genesis.
Second Maccabees 7:28.
Okay.Let's get to Can we get to that one later and start with Genesis because like in the chronology, if we're talking about this, Genesis is one of the first text first teachings that we come out with, yeah.And people use this as kind of like the knockdown drag out punch against the idea of creation from existing material.As they say, "Well, in the beginning God created heaven and the earth."And so it's creation out of nothing.What they skip though is that then it talks about the waters of chaos, the tohu va-bohu.And the the milieu in which this text is produced in is in all these creation stories where there is this preexistence prior to the gods not created by them chaos waters that they have to overcome.And what Genesis is doing is it's and this is a I'm talking about a biblical scholar consensus right here.
This is not my own personal interpretation.People can go look at this, yeah.I'm sure you're aware of this.Is that Genesis is existing in that milieu and so it's adopting these other stories and it is using a similar pattern with them.What it refutes in a way is the idea that God needs to conquer some force that's opposing him that that challenges his power.What Genesis does is it does away with that.God just speaks and everything comes into being.It also does away with the the idea that there's like bad creation or bad matter cuz God is calling everything good.So, it addresses these points in these ancient creation myths but it never addresses the pre-create or the uncreated matter point.You would expect it to do this if it was trying to teach creation ex nihilo, but it doesn't.It leaves the chaotic waters pre-creation there in the story, and then God is creating everything else.
All the days of creation happen after the description of those waters.So, let's start with that first.We can go to Maccabees and stuff, but I'm just creation ex nihilo I don't think is in the Bible and I think that really puts a dent in the Trinitarian formulation of God.
I know you think that.But anyway, even
even if I go
Well, you said it.I I started by quoting you.
Yeah.Even if I go with your interpretation, when you said that it's the chaotic waters, even if I go there, you're commenting on Genesis 1:2.So, what the crux of the matter is how we interpret Genesis 1:1.Is it in the beginning when God was creating the heavens and the earth?And then at that moment, when he's creating the heavens and the earth, he takes what is now in being cuz even you said something interesting.I don't know if you caught it.He goes, "He spoke it into being."
Well, he commanded.
Yeah, so
And it didn't happen.Well, if it's coming into being, well, if it's coming into being, it wasn't in being prior to it coming into being.So, I was listening to you very carefully what you said.So, even the way you argue that
Don't artists like singers sing a song into being and it doesn't mean the air was not
No, it's all right.I'm I'm just saying even what he said was music to my ears.
Well, I see what you did there.I see what you did there.I see what you did there.That that he brought
that he brought creation into being.So, what it had been creation before.So, creation was brought out of nothing in the sense that there was a prior creation he was working with.But in terms of pure chaos that was pre-existent that he's creating chaos
up in verse two and it's the chaotic waters of the earth.
So, that would have to assume that what you're saying, that chaos the chaotic waters was there wasn't created, but if you follow the flow, which is what we're trying to get you to follow follow.He creates heaven and earth and then we find the chaotic waters of the earth, but we're told already that earth is one of the things that he is creating.
Mhm.So, so I would go to um uh John J.Collins' introduction to the Hebrew Bible.
I can call down the scholars.I can call down McLellan.
Well, and and this is the consensus.That's why I'm saying, sure there can be other views, but
No, I know that.
Yeah, we find our Latter-day Saints find ourselves in an interesting position of being actually on the side of the majority of the scholars on this topic.
talking about, Willis?
Yeah, it's crazy, right?
The consonantal text of Genesis 1:1 can also be translated as quote, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth."
That's how I said it.
If the opening words are translated as a temporal clause, it is clear that we are not speaking of creation out of nothing.Already when God set about creating the heavens and the earth, there was a formless void, tohu va bohu, and the wind or spirit of God was hovering on the waters.
Yeah, that's why I translated that way, cuz I know that's how they translate it.Like, "In the beginning when God created heavens and the earth."Now,
Yeah, in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth
beginning God created."I said, "When God created" cuz I know I know where you're going.I know, John.That's my dude right there.I got his commentary.So, I I've read these commentaries.Now, obviously, I'm not trying to do what's called the genetic fallacy because even liberals can speak the truth a lot of times.
Because what he's assuming is obviously that Genesis is not written by Moses.It is a patchwork of contradictory conflicting traditions, like Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1.It was then edited later on, and that it arises out of polytheistic pagan beliefs.So, even this view is informed by a worldview that I don't share.So, I don't share that worldview.
Mhm.
Right?So, that doesn't mean he's right.It doesn't mean he's wrong.But, like you went to John J.Collins, who's telling you that if we interpret it the text as in the beginning when God created heavens and the earth, then that doesn't mean creatio ex nihilo.I don't even see that if we interpret that way, he's correct.Because when he's creating heavens and earth, it's talking about that there was a stage in which he creates heaven and earth.And now we're at the stage where now the waters of the earth are chaotic.And now he's going to now bring order.
but this would be like saying when I went to the movies, I packed my such and such and such.It wouldn't it be I packed the candy bars that I was going to sneak in after I went to the movies, even though the way that I said that sentence was when I went to the movies, I gotsome candy bars and stuck them under my sweater.And so, that's what he's arguing is the construction of the verse.And And again, we have to go back to the context that it exists in.And it's dialogue with other pagan creation myths, it does address the idea that God has to overcome the chaos.And it refutes that idea, but it's not refuting the presupposition of not creation ex nihilo that exists in those texts, which we would expect to find if it was trying to teach that.
He's too sweet, that's why I'm smiling.Because the reason why your analogy is not analogous to what I said, because notice what's missing in your analogy.Repeat your analogy again.
Of the the candy bars at the movie theater.
Yeah, yeah, just do it.I'm going to show you what what's missing.
When I went to the movie theater, I grabbed some candy bars and stuck them under my jacket and got in the car.
That's not at all analogous to that, because notice what's there.When God created the heavens and the earth, created the heavens and the earth, then it mentions the watery deep of the earth.So, your analogy isn't
analogous to this point, because we're already told earth is created.So, the waters are part of that earth that's created.Read the verses again, you'll see.Genesis 1:1 and 2.
I did before, but I want to just make my point clear that even the analogy you gave is not analogous point.John J.Collins is, you know, entitled to his opinion, but even with his translation, it's still earth being created and the heavens being created.
So, there is no watery deep prior to the earth being created cuz it's the watery deep of the earth.And you were just told in verse one, the earth is created.So, you can't have waters before the earth.When the earth is created, it's at this stage that it's still a watery mess that he's now going to fashion and fill in form.So, I can even agree with that reading and it doesn't lead to the conclusion it's not creatio ex nihilo.
Well, the the the waters are above and below.
Yep.
It's all water.The whole thing.
in that context the waters above would already have become into being cuz it says he created the heavens and the earth.
Well, well, they wouldn't have come into being in John J.Collins' translation cuz he explicitly says it does not talk about creation ex nihilo.
that's his commentary, but read the verses the way you quoted it.
Uh from Collins?
Well, the read just his translation without his commentary.
Okay.In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth.
Gosh.That what Where's verse two?He didn't mention it.
Well, it's it's not in the quote that I have.
So, that's what I'm saying.Even his translation That's his commentary.That's not the text.I'm even using I'm even taking his translation.
Mhm.
In the beginning, in fact, we'll bring up Genesis 1 and 2 and I'll read it his way.I'll show you what I mean.So, the heavens and the earth are created, then we find the watery chaos.
I I'm disagreeing with the heavens and the earth already being created because
His translation, brother.I'm just going
Well, I know, but you said my example is not analogous, but I said when I went to the movie theater and it would be like you would be assuming, okay, he's already gone to the movie theater and thenI'm talking about grabbing the candy bars.So, oh, he must have grabbed the candy bars after the movie theater and I'm showing that in that construction, it doesn't necessitate that having happened
Yeah.
before the other thing.And again, even if it was create like we agree that the creation happened, it was it's just a matter of whether it was out of nothing or not.
So, that's the question.No, that's a different question.The reason why I say this is analogous because the candy bars, right, are not an essential part of whether you go to the movies or not.You can go to movies, not eat candy bars.
Yeah.
But in this context, the watery deep is a component of the earth that was already said to have been created.So, you can't separate the
I see what you're saying now.
You see my point now?Yeah, okay.So, what I'm saying, that's the difference.The dis- disjunct.That the waters of the earth cannot be separated from the earth that's just been mentioned as having been created.So, if I read his translation, I'm going to read it the way he translated it, but I'll read verse two.In the beginning, when God created heaven and the earth, the earth was formless and void.So, that means when he created the earth, at that stage, it's still formless and void.Now, he's going to fashion it and shape it.So, I don't see that it's a necessary conclusion to what John J.Collins is saying, even if I accept his translation.
Mhm.
Now, you went to Collins.That's why I was going to 2 Maccabees 7:28 because here's an ancient commentary that at least shows those reading Genesis took it as creatio ex nihilo.
Mhm.
But I even if I put that aside, for me, John is definitive.Now, if you want to make I don't want to keep talking.I don't know Yeah, yeah.Cuz John Not John J.Collins, I mean John the Gospel.Go ahead.
I will go I will go to J.R.Porter as well, Creation in Oxford Guide.
Well, yeah.Well, I'm I'm just trying to demonstrate
agree with you on the scholarship.
Yeah.
A Greek word is not
think a lot of viewers are aware like how strongly
on YouTube, have they?
How strongly the the scholars are on our side on this one.
Yes.I know.Yeah, I know that.
Although the watery chaos is still there in Genesis 1, there is no conflict between it and God as an ancient myth.God creates it God creates in unfettered freedom by his word or command and creation is brought about by the separation of the elements of the universe, which produces an ordered and habitable world.Hence, creation is not so much dealing with absolute beginning creation from nothing as with the world order as perceived by human beings.
Yeah, but notice that even qualified it.Read read that last part again.
Yeah, that is not so much dealing with
but he's saying that's not its main emphasis even in his commentary.
Yeah.So, we try to go to it.So, could we agree that Genesis 1 1 and 2 is not a proof text for creation ex nihilo like many unitarians?
You asking me the trinitarian?
Yes.
Who believes in what the church teaches?Uh-huh.No.I can't concede
Surely from the Bible though.The Bible does not say that.
teaches currently you'd have to you'd have to concede that the ancient church was at best divided on this.
They continue discussing Genesis, Pentateuch authorship, and how modern scholarship compares with traditional readings. The conversation also covers how early Christians and later scholars understood creation, matter, and divine action.
Say it again.I can't little bit
said you you said I'm supporting what the church teaches well, you would have to concede that this is not what the ancient church univocally taught.
on create text on a halo?
Yeah, I mean
No, it is yeah, as far as we can go back from the Christians like Origen, Shepherd of Hermas, they all
It was an it was an early argument, but I don't think straight out the gates you can defend
anyone who's commented on it taught create create out of ex nihilo.Not everyone commented on it.I even had to write a post on it because I was anti not you guys.I was anticipating I'm going to deal because it is true the consensus of a scholarship today has gone the extreme opposite.That doesn't mean it's wrong.It's right.
what what's what's made them develop that consensus other than studying
Because they believe Genesis I don't mean to cut you off.Sorry.Uh they because they think Genesis is simply a rehashing of pagan polytheistic world views.And it's being done in a way
I don't think they're that cynical.
Well, yeah, because they think that
Maybe a couple.
Well,
John J.Collins?
Dan McClellan?He also subscribed.The point is, they think that the Pentateuch is simply a work of Jews that arrived at its final form when they came out of Babylon.So that they were influenced heavily by Babylonian myths.And that's why they'll even say the story of Moses and the
And the epic of Gilgamesh, and why we have no flood, and so on and so forth.
And just for your information, and to kind of concede a bit that their Latter-Day Saints are have an ability to be open to those kind of views of the first five books being a compilation or
You got it easier than us, man.
various stories in them.
You got it easier than us.
Also, along with the biblical scholars
Just come home to mama.
Because I believe and I you guys believe the New Testament, I you have to.I mean, you know what I'm saying?When you believe it's properly interpreted.I have to take Jesus' view and the apostles' view of the Pentateuch.I can't take a contrary view.I've actually wrote an article where I showed every book of the Pentateuch Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy is attributed to Moses in the New Testament.
Well, what's your strongest argument that Jesus himself supported Krauss and Nieto?
That Well, you can go to Matthew 19:4-6 where he's attributed with saying Genesis itself.Oh, Genesis Okay, I thought you said just the Pentateuch in general.If you go to John 7:22-23, in fact, if you read 20-23, he says Moses gave you the circumcision.He didn't.It was Abraham.That's Genesis 17.But he says Moses gave it to you.When did Moses
Meaning the Jews.So John 7:20-23 What you What you laughing at, Willis?
Well, we definitely wouldn't say that the first five books are purely a compilation or cobbling together.
All of them?
Oh, yeah, I'm not I'm not saying we're we're on the J.
So we We share their world view.
Yeah, so but we allow for a little more human now.We allow for a little more human interaction with the text than I think a purely biblical sound
that the Bible has to go through editing.
Yeah.
I'm editing but because obviously the form we have the Pentateuch wouldn't be exactly the way Moses had it.So we've gone through stages where we believe you and I believe that two prophets came would have updated it, edited, changed it, right?So that the form we have it today it's not identical to the way Moses had it.In fact, there's a tradition that says the form we find of it today goes as far back as Ezra.There's a tradition of Ezra the prophet.So I'm aware of that.So my thing is believe me, if it wasn't for Jesus, I could care less for the Old Testament.I'm I'm being honest.Let me be honest, sir.It would make my job so much
of Solomon doesn't do it for you?
Shir Hashirim, baby.No.It would me make my job
That was pretty awesome.That was really cool.
What's wrong with you?You don't like me dancing, bro?Here's your name.
The Old Testament is the hardest book for Christian to defend because of all the wars, all the rules, and even having to find extra-biblical archaeological confirmation like they'll say the Exodus didn't happen.So why am I stuck with it?Cuz Jesus.Because I believe when gospels quote Jesus, they're giving me Jesus' words.
And if Jesus quotes it, you're saying you believe it.
Um no,
I'm stuck with it.I'm stuck with it.
Yeah, and
Believe me, I believe the Bible is the Bible.
And we're not fighting you.We love the Old Testament as well.I just Just so the audience knows, big Old Testament stand right here.
Yeah, because you even have uh Book of Abraham, right?Talks uh has a version of Genesis account of creation.
Which which does actually talk more about a separating or organizing of
not rejecting I I can completely understand.What I'm saying is with me I can only have so much freedom to operate with how much of critical scholarship I can accept without being unfaithful to Jesus.So, even with the Adam and Eve, and I know we go off tangents, but I want to make just one more point.Like you have a William Lane Craig who says Genesis is mytho-history.There may be some historical elements, but it's purely myth.And that Adam and Eve were not created the way Genesis says.Might have a problem with that because if I go that route, Jesus holds This is again Jesus putting me in a position where I got to defend the historicity of Genesis.
I don't think we're making a specific claim that because ex-scholar who we may disagree with on another tangent over here said it, it's got to be true.I think the point that Luke's making is if you look at the width and breadth of the scholarship of people who have studied this subjected their work to peer review and we've basically established as the truth of ourtime as seen through the lens of those that are supposedly the most knowledgeable.Um it's overwhelming overwhelmingly on the side of LDS and Latter-day Saint doctrine.I agree that if that's your position, yeah.If that's your position, to say oh, because William this or because Dale that.We're trying to say the overwhelming width and breadth of the scholarship supports the Mormon view.
is your view then officially.Just want to cuz I'm learning Uh that meaning that the way they interpret Genesis 1, you'd say that's the Mormon view.
It
Cuz I know you do believe that God fashioned out of pre-existing matter.But you're saying even your interpretation of Genesis 1:1 is a view held by modern scholars.
Uh are we talking about secular scholars now or Mormon scholars?I'm sorry.I've gotten lost here.
John J.Collins is not a Mormon.These scholars.Yeah.So, you believe You're saying what they're articulating about Genesis 1, that it's not creatio ex nihilo.Nihilo.Is that that's agrees with Mormonism.
Yeah.
Okay, that's all I wanted because now
Now, you did want to go to 2 Maccabees 7.
Before I go, I want to mention Jesus.Now, why am I mentioning Jesus?
Okay.
John 1
Mhm.
clearly is an echo of Genesis 1.It's in Greek.En arche begins the same way.But there John distinguishes that which comes to be from that which always is.And he contrasts that with two the use of two verbs.In the beginning was the word.Ain, imperfect tense.I'm not trying to impress you with Greek and that.I'm just saying you sometimes got to go into language, yeah.There that's continuous past action.Now, the context will determine how continuous the action extends into the past.So when he talks about the Logos, he says he's already existing.Already was.But when he talks about the things that come into being, he uses again eta, came into being.So John is now giving me a commentary on Genesis 1.We know Genesis 1 because it's the same motif of light and darkness.
Mhm.
So if I go with John, the word has always been, but creation hasn't always been.It was brought into being.
Well, I would agree that creation hasn't always been because you're talking about creation then.So that is what's described in Genesis 1:1.But as I believe and the scholars are on my side, that Genesis 1:1 says is that those things that creation is made out of were not created in Genesis 1:1.Genesis 1:1 is a description of God.
Yeah, because here it says
Creation is creation.
Yeah, but creation said it was you yourself in an earlier argument with these guys said you want to know what people are saying in the definition of their own words.
Yes.
And I think that oftentimes people change what they mean by creation
Yeah.
to suit a much more ex nihilo interpretation than I think the ex materia interpretation that many of the earliest Christians believed.
What I'm referring to is the genus God heavens and earth means not just space because in Genesis 2:1 it talks about he created the host of the heaven and the earth.Well, that word host, yes, if you go to Genesis 2:1, it says it says host.
Sure.
Cuz he looked at me and then And if you go to Nehemiah 9:6, the host of the heavens are the angelic hosts as well.Unless we believe well, yeah, you may believe that, too.So, I got to be careful what you believe.Anyway, coming Yeah, forget So, the host in Genesis 2:1, the host of the heaven and all their hosts, heaven and earth, elsewhere when they're looking back to this, Nehemiah 9:6, they tell you what the host is.It's the host of the heavens who praise Yahweh and worship Yahweh.So, it's not just the stars and constellation.It's also spirit creatures.So, the heavens and earth means angelic sentient beings, animals, humans, you name it.And then John 1 tells us those are the things that came into being.They weren't already there.
Would you put this Would you put the the sons of God
Yes.
in those hosts?
Yeah, because in Job 38, it's not about the the earth.It's not talking about them being there when the heavens are created in Job 38.It says when he laid the foundation of the earth, the sons of God rejoiced.Yes, they were there while God was fashioning the earth, but they were not there before the heavens.Doesn't say it in Job 38:4-7.
Okay.
You can look at it and see
Also, just to be clear, when you mention these sons of God, you're seeming to take Michael Heiser's view of the sons of God, not the ones that don't get you in trouble online, right?
Well, no, the sons of God in the Bible clearly are angels.I mean, in these passages we're referring to Job 38.
not saying council in heaven.
No, there is a heavenly council.I never denied council in heaven.What I denied was that they have divinity in the sense that they're gods by nature.Why?Because Paul for me settles it when he says in Galatians 4:8 that these gods were in heavenly council members, they're not gods by nature.Doesn't mean they don't exist.
Um
So, whenever you want to use the term God, it wouldn't mean that they're gods in nature.They are wrongly viewed as gods or are gods in a functional sense, not ontologically, because of Galatians 4:8.This is how I take who they are.They are beings that exist who've given authority, but they're not gods by nature.
I get that.I guess I was just trying to say that it seems like
Trinity, though.
No, no, because he's I'm just saying
Yeah, it is off the Trinity, but I was just saying like it seems like in order to preserve
preserve an orthodox definition, you have to be be able to be willing to meander into unorthodoxy from what is seemingly the orthodox position online, but you're right.This is a rabble.
Well, there's a lot of Christians that think they are gods, so they're Trinitarian.So, it's a things What was consensus before may not be consensus today.Things are changing.
Okay.So, Maccabees, okay, some people don't consider it to be in the Bible, so I might get yourself in a little hot water here, but talking about creation ex nihilo being in the Bible, you would say 2 Maccabees 7.
Funny.And it's not just me.It's even the liberal critics that I cited.And I have an article where I cite them.So, yeah, this is a clear passage of creation from nothing.I mean, I can read them for you if you want.
Yeah, but as as you talked about before, is that the context of 2 Maccabees 7 is the mother grieving the child and speaking in the context of God bringing him back from the dead.
Exactly.
So, the context she's speaking to is not a creation of something out of nothing, even though it it does say What is the specific I mean, you can bring it
tied in.Asaph 10, yeah.
Yeah.And so, when she's talking about God bringing stuff out of nonexistence or creating something from nothing, it's in the context of the son being brought back to life, which would not be it would make sense more for itto be a relativistic term of For me, there is my son is not here.It's It's absolutely nothing, and then being resurrected, now he'd be here.He'd be brought back out of that nothing.And if if you're going to include 2 Maccabees, the problem is you're also going to have to include Wisdom of Solomon.
where you're going with that, but I know
Yeah, and that would be from your all-powerful hand which created the world out of formless matter.
Sure.But then now again, no one denies that when God created heavens and the earth, you had matter that he then fashions and it becomes the cosmos that we live in.
Yes, so you're kind of doing what William Lane Craig did in his book arguing against the Mormons cuz you're
So
Yeah, it I wouldn't recommend it, but You're you're dividing you're dividing Yeah, there was a creation out of formless matter, but then there was a creation of that formless matter also, and you're kind of trying to shove adouble creation.
No, that's because of Genesis 1 where
I want to say that scholars disagree with that though.
fine, but I'm trying to explain to you what without appealing to them why I see it this way cuz you're asking me.
Okay.
Cuz Genesis 1 tells me heavens and the heavens and earth created, but then when the earth is brought into being, it's formless.So then he fashions it to make it a habitable earth.So that's why I see nothing inconsistent
I I don't think that people would agree that that's
Remember I'm we're not arguing with you.
the simple reading or
my position.
the the simple reading of it.It seems like we're we're trying to read ex nihilo into that in a way that is is forcing a square peg into a circular hole.
I mean we can say that because of assumptions.Remember, you're asking my interpretation.Whoever they are, that's their interpretation, but he's asking me how I interpret these texts.So I'm aware of critical scholarship, but I'm also aware of the scholarship that would be considered conservative that would push back on what the critical scholars say.But that's why I'm not appealing to scholars.Because you can bring one scholar like I said I was going to read I said what's the point?I can now read commentaries on 2 Maccabees 7:28 and there are liberals that say yes, this is a clear statement of creatio ex nihilo.I didn't make it up.But when he I'm trying to address him how I'm interpreting his verses without appealing to scholarship cuz he's asking me.He's not asking Craig.But if you want I'll call Craig.Now coming back so I can answer your question.
Number one, as I said, the argument of the child coming back from the dead is not a denial of that statement being created ex nihilo.It's actually simply illustrating if God is able to create this massive creation from nothing, then how simple is it for him to bring a dead body back that it already exists?So you're reading it one way.The context is is trying to assure this woman who had her seven sons killed, "Don't be afraid.Your bodies will come back to life."If she didn't believe in you know, immortality of the soul because the way you read it's like he sees us to be.Right?But you know, there are strands that believe that the soul leaves the body.But
Well, and I will agree with you and I I've seen them going through this that there are you call them liberal scholars or critical scholars.
No, I don't Liberal meaning No, what I mean by liberal I just want to be clear.They don't believe the Bible is necessarily historically accurate and errant.That doesn't mean they're right or wrong, but that's what liberal means that in a way it's liberating yourself from how the church and Jews believe these books were written and whether they are in error or not.I mean, let's be honest and I don't want to go off tan- tan- tangents.Up until the 1700s, it was the virtually the unanimous position of Jews and Christians Moses wrote the bulk of the Pentateuch.
Yeah.
Daniel wrote Daniel.Today, the consensus is there may not have even been a Daniel to write Daniel or a Moses who to write Moses.So you see what I'm talking about liberation theology.That's why it was called liberation theology.
I I would possibly Yeah, I would distinguish those two from each other.A number of them do
The final exchange summarizes the disagreement over creation ex nihilo and its theological consequences. They close by reflecting on how these interpretations shape broader Christian doctrine and the problem of evil.
say that Second Maccabees is when the idea comes in.The problem is is even though they're giving you your point on that one, they're saying that's when it comes up.Way later and half of Christianity would say that's not even in the Bible that it shows up.Um, but in its fully developed form today, this is James Hubler.He says creation ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the 2nd century CE.The doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by the revered tradition either in the biblical text or the early Jewish interpretation of them.Justin Martyr famously did not believe in creation ex nihilo.
would dispute whether he did or not because he's commenting about matter that God created, but
Oh, so you're separating it out.
No, no, what I not separating.What I'm saying is when you find someone talking about God fashioning matter, you you got to be I'm not saying you, I'm saying like someone like me biblically illiterate not to know that's in the Bible.Genesis 1:2, I keep saying it.Even when it says he created man, we know he didn't create man from nothing, even though the verb create would be used, he created him from existing matter.So, those kind of statements are not reflective of Justin Martyr denying creatio ex nihilo.He's not addressing it.But when the it is being addressed like Origen and Shepherd Hermas, when they want to address it because they're trying to contrast what the pagans believe that matter's eternal, that's when they're saying no, it's not.For example, the most I don't know if it's popular maybe if you don't know church history.
Tertullian is writing against Hermogenes who's arguing that matter's eternal in order to refute what he sees as the Christian rejection of it.That's in Tertullian.He says, "How can God be Lord if matter's not eternal?"Because what is he Lord over?That's his argument.That's where the statement comes in that God wasn't always Lord and he wasn't always a father.He goes, "Like matter, God brought into being and he becomes Lord, so too the Logos becomes the Son, so he wasn't always the son and the father wasn't always his father at his nativity when he summons him tobe the light to energize us the matter he created.So when they are addressing matter, they're dealing with pagans who think it's uncreated.Their response it isn't.
Yeah, close.Last minute.
But so just go to close this thing.
Sure I was going to say I understand that in the 2nd century there was people fighting this argument and so on and so forth and there somebody may have been leveraging it for their heretical or their orthodox position,all right.That doesn't actually change
Heretical but wait wait orthodox you're good.
Yeah, but but
you're bigger than me dude.
Yeah, it's in one way.
Yeah, that's the same thing right.
But the uh Yeah.
Thank you very much Sam.Thank you.Um but that doesn't change whether or not that actually is what happened the truth the theological truth and also also whether or not the ancient Jews and the early Christians actually believed and was intended in the writings thatthey put down.It seems to me through my study of creation ex nihilo that this is another example of I don't want to use bastardization cuz that's way too graphical of a word but a corruption all right of the original intentionthat came out of the creeds and it creates Christianity's biggest problem that creates the biggest amount of atheists which is the problem of evil.And so I don't think without jumping into the whole problem of evil that God intended this to end up being the petri dish that we get new atheism out of.Does that make sense?
Cool.You want to close?
No, that's right.Thank you man.
That was awesome.Good job guys.That was awesome.