Mary was a Jew, and Bad Unitarian Arguments

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m'n m

d'Ahaj, s'nastel fokalai hv기� Why is he not counting on this kind of color?

they stopped making this color for a while

and so I said well we'll just wait

and it came back in

and so I have a triceatra on the front

which is the only thing that I paid for

I asked for triceatra I said I would not have one

I did not have the way to imprint that

and I said well is a cost

and so I just bought him a triceatra thing

so if you get a triceatra on a future

I don't know if you're going to try Central on a future I pay for it, but it's this father's son spirit on the spine and it's this beautiful feel I guess you'd call it turquoise leather with the it's the gold you can see the gold but then you can see underneath it is the is the blue so you can see the blue page edging he did that I I actually can do that but he's better at than I am and so I wanted to see this this is the baby I'm going to be carrying with me

that is that's a preaching Bible right there and it's actually the font is actually large enough for me to preach out of it so I wanted to show off that beautiful Bible from Jeffrey Rice he does such a great job and

want you to see that it's it's it's beautiful really is

then I was going to be jumping into immediately some response to Dustin Smith and the Unitarians who are just acting really strangely

I mean I think it'd be worthwhile still to have future debates I'm just going to not expect much as far as adult behavior

I mean he he made a fine he behave fine during the debate great and that's all it really matters if someone wants to go off and act really weird afterwards

okay I think that says a lot about what you how you think the debate went but all right fine but before we do that and we're going to do that we're going to dive into that

and hopefully get through that fast enough to be able to still press on with some of the cross examination finish up the cross X from the Hanson Heschmeier debate

but something popped up like five minutes for the program started and you're just left going what and here's

and you know the sad thing is the the reformed podcast championship is going on I don't pay attention that stuff anymore

but NXR has been invited be part of that and they're winning each of their rounds can you imagine if these folks these folks who interview

neo-Nazi apologists and white boy summer creators and it's the Jews it's the Jews it's the Jews every you know every the sentence Nick Fuentes these type of folks can you imagine if they win the reformed podcast thing I think it's a time to resign from being reformed podcast in anyway

I have to say I've been really surprised that the provisionists and others have not taken opportunity to broad brush us on that and say you know this is a reformed thing it's where reformed leads to etc

and because they they they couldn't make the argument that it is what it leads to it's well they don't make all they don't make the argument on so many other reasons why stop here

yeah no I I I would be surprised by them but so here's here's what came up you know hold on just a second here's what came up and you know Joel Weben is doing his Joel Weben thing and I don't know this guy this Jake shields I have an clue who he is no earthly idea he clearly doesn't have a clue about the Bible or anything else either which is interesting

but I only got sort of got to this point and you just got to hear this I'm not going to I'm not going to waste my time trying to expand it and bring it over and do all the rest of this I already

did like Christianity they even would go so far as to say Christianity is a Jewish side up to be a big push against that right now there is a lot of white people I'm talking to

me guys and trying to tell them like for you you're not going the right approach just say he's not Jewish like son of God how the son of God and you this is okay no way of it okay

again I don't know this guy and it's very evident to me just really just said that I don't know he's ever cracked the spine of a Bible or knows anything about it all okay

but what how how can the son of God be Jewish it's called the incarnation okay it's the eternal logos who became flesh

in John 114 and it's painfully self-evident that the person who wrote John 114 was a himself Jewish and B was saying that Jesus became flesh of Israelite stock he truly became flesh

and unlike what the quote unquote biblical Unitarians you know who tried to get rid of the personal reality that the logos was they have to deny that of course

it's self-evident to anybody who just reads the Bible and doesn't allow all sorts of other strange things to overwrite the pages scripture

that the emphasis of the testament is on the Jewish lineage of Jesus you have these things called genealogies that both Matthew and Luke provide tracing things back through the Jewish people

and John's whole point he came under his own his own received him not his own what I mean

okay this guy again I don't know who he is but he doesn't think about Christianity but immediately Joel Webbin should be oh no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no how about now is that we get

it's like I don't think the Bible ever says Mary is Jewish does it?

did you hear that I don't think the Bible ever says Mary was Jewish does it again sorry dude don't know who you are

ddolna hoi ar

hirz this is called a Bible

uhum

while it's a lot will by one for you'd like read it

learn something about it

clearly don't know anything about it

echel or you have it i don't have any idea

but he just said the bible doesn't say

many was jewish does it

and he stops

and now dual weapon has to respond

what is the only response you can give here if you have a responsible both

left in your body

well of course it says she was jewish

and that's what he said right

uh... i you know

it's called genealogies are very complicated

you know you have root you have ray have you have different people in the

genealogy of christ that weren't israelites

uh... and then it gets into like well how do you define jude as it means you

day in you know what what what was it just stand in you know synonymous for

a he bro

uh... so

to me it's like

yeah i i i i know the guys you make uh... the arguments about uh... with the

jews were he might see no where there's some sort of argument but i refuse to

say jesus is jewish i'm just not i don't have that i think that's i'm just

not going to say they can make the argument but i'm not going to say jesus is

jewish right

yeah that's fine

i don't i don't have a problem

yeah king of jesus

uh...

you know i said by the end of the year

uh...

actually i've been hearing stuff

that the big question now is when does the when does

jole convert

that's that's

that's really the next question really

but when you get to this point

this level of under compromise you just like

how did that happen so fast

it didn't happen all that fast it was happening

when it was being denied

uh...

i

i don't want

but after listening to that my next question to you is

uh...

convert to what

oh he's he's

look he

i have a close-up place i'm not sure if i'd

bother to say that

where he was talking about

how the catholics have the doctrine of gods so so perfectly down they've

just got all right and they've got all the

they know all this stuff and you know he's he's

switched from being

that the first the only time i was ever on his webcast

we were talking

about the tomistic resourcement and he was on my side

okay now he's on the other side

now i'm sorry

jole weapon doesn't have a

blue

but the tomistic resource is about

he doesn't know

anything about the subject he is completely untrained

he's just going with steven wolf

steven wolf satomas so

i'm to miss now

he didn't need ten thousand hours to

to learn all that stuff which he's

plenty needs to learn to find out about the holocaust stuff like that

so look the way the way he's

jumping around

he has no reason to to stay at her own

right but maybe i'm naive here but

i've never heard a room to say that

say what about the jewish thing yeah

maybe i just don't know no no no no no no you're on that one

sorry they have their wacko anti-semites too

they've got their wacko anti-semites too

they're they're all they're

anti-semitism it's the jews it's the jews it's the jews for some reason

does not

follow borders

and of course

Roman Catholic leadership

uh...

i mean

Roman Catholic leadership says that

we adore the same god is the muslims so okay there there

you know their compromise on

they're massively compromise and all sorts of the ass

ask bobson genus about the Roman Catholic leadership and the jews

you'll get an earful on that one

uh...

but

the point is

uh...

it

what what

keeps a person out of roman Catholicism

is a solid commitment and understanding to the

fundamentals of the gospel

scriptural authority

and that narrative and with the the crisis nationalist

that's all coming apart

they're willing they're willing to adapt so as to get

as to get clicks

get the followers

you know and you just heard that right there

there is only one answer that question from that guy there is only one thing

he has said

and the joe weven i knew

two three years ago and spoke at one conference said

he would have been able to answer that question

just like that

the very fact that he sat there

stuttering and stammering and he and hawing

is just

by all it's just disgusting it's it's compromise it it's

unbelievable

so anyways that just popped up

uh... and then somebody sent it to me after i started looking at going

uh...

okay

there you go

uh...

wow

just amazing

alright totally changing uh...

suffix now

sorry took the first quarter the program

with that

insanity

marry with you as

he was

and if you think you can sit around today and play games about how to describe

you wish

uh... just go

just stop pretending

unbelievable

then some interesting stuff going on

it's been what about a month now

since we had uh... the debate

in the Dallas

and

you know for two weeks after that it was like

what's going on here

uh... because doesn't smith behave well during the debate

he didn't break the rules

uh...

i mean okay

i don't respect the

closing statement graphics scoreboard silliness

there are some childish in us even in the presentation okay i suppose we do

need to be

honest

and you know i i just simply say it look

you look at debate you listen to the debate

did i demonstrate that he uses a different x ex ex eccling and her political

method

deny the trendy

that he would use to defend

i mosaiship of jesus or the resurrection like that i think i demonstrated that very very clearly

and inconsistencies assign a failed argument therefore his argument fails his position fails okay

i like to leave that to the audience to to determine and it seemed very very clear to me that

the audience saw that at the time but i don't have to go on the air the next day and go

you know starts trying to spin stuff and that's what they've been doing for a month now

so someone actually posted a video that someone put together where they just hacked

up all my statements removed all the contacts and just hacked it all up to make it look

silly and you can do that with anybody i i i don't have time to and i'm not going to ask

somebody else do that it would have been simple to do that to dust and smell it's childish

and it means you know you lost and you lost badly when you do that kind of thing

it also says if you're if you're putting that kind of material out the only people that you are

concerned about accepting your perspective is your people you're worried about losing them

you're not even trying to get to people on the other side to hold your position because

if they go and look at the debate they're going to realize you are as dishonest as day is long

so that tells me there's panic amongst these people that they're going to lose their own people

they've got to try to get their own people excited and and and do this kind of stuff i don't

have to do any of that i i even have to give it a second thought but it does give us an opportunity

to look a little bit more closely and like what what did we do what did we do when we looked at

the christian schmacht first christian's eight spend a whole program we didn't have to spin

we just put the text on the screen here it is look here's the words here's the original language

you know that's supposedly what he's all big about well then just do it quit with the spin man

and tell your people to quit with it you know i think you could do that i think if you just

went out there i don't know of anybody i haven't seen anything online

from someone taking the video of this and spinning it the other direction i haven't seen anybody it

would be on my side doing anything like this at all because they don't need to they know what happened

in the debate i mean i am more than happy go watch just watch the whole debate listen to all of

it follow the arguments and when he gets up there with a score board what did i do

what did i do when i made my closing statement did i have a presentation did i bring anything with me

to the podium notes anything at all nothing because what was i doing i was summarizing the actual

debate itself when you have your statement already done that means the debate was irrelevant to you

he didn't care what was actually said you're just going to present what you think but you predicted

what happened and then put that silly little scoreboard of this childish now if if he wants to do that

if he if he wants if we want he wants to debate specific texts we do a debate where we do

ties to 13 second computer one one um where where we dive into collations one we do the

Carmen Christie whatever i'm absolutely confident in what i've written on those subjects and what

Christians have believed for many centuries on those subjects um and if he wants to get up at the

end and put up a silly scoreboard more power to him we're not debating for the same people

anybody impressed by that is not someone i'm trying to reach anyway i'm only trying to reach

honest people people with integrity um people who are serious uh adults okay so if you want to if you

want to go after clickbait or whatever do your thing um find me anyway so a couple things have come

up and i thought you know what i had downloaded when i when the video became available i downloaded it i

transcribed it the nice thing about that man this is so we've got things easier now than we used to

have them not very long ago um because you got to you got to understand okay yeah i'm an old guy

and i'm getting it i'm smacked out running right into my middle middle 60s all right so not

ancient i think i've still got i think i still got a good 12 years in me for debates and stuff you

know if if if the memory just goes completely then you got to do other stuff but right now it's

still working most of the time i'll i'll miss names once in a while uh they'll come to me later on

i'll do it on the program uh a couple weeks ago i tried to come up with david alan's name

and it's just and yes guy keep going you know you do you do what you have to do um but yeah

i remember what it was like to do debates with jerry matatix for example in the 1990s

and you you wouldn't even get to people wouldn't even get to see it until they bought a vhs tape of it

and then fairly shortly after that you know we started burning dvds and you could you could see it

that way but a transcript how how would you get a transcript there was no way to do a transcript

now i can simply download in a matter of a minute the whole thing and i have a program and there's

there's all sorts of programs you can do it online but i have a program on my mac rather than this one too

uh main macs at home um and i've got a transcript in five minutes and it's amazingly

accurate can it miss stuff sure you know especially when it stops being recorded live uh but

boom it's right there and and it's timestamp so you can just search for stuff go straight there um

i have to do stuff like that i don't have anybody to do this for me okay so when i look this stuff

up today that's how i did it i use this transcription program it's there to look up time stamp

go from um so anyway i just just a commentary from someone who remembers what it was like

when you couldn't do anything like this at all and a reminder that in some ways being able to do

this so quickly oh that's exciting that's great we can get this stuff that's wonderful

but it also feeds into the fact that especially when it comes to theological

debate um there was something about the fact that in the past those debates took a lot of time

i mean the big theological debates even over the past 400 years sense of reformation

you had to print stuff you had to send stuff there was time to read stuff and then the

response had to come back and you'd have time to thinking about that um do you think that

our theological the level of our theological debate and dialogue today it's gotten a little

shallow yeah big time big time you're just not supposed to be able to process stuff this fast

and so there is there's advantages and disadvantages really really are um for all this stuff okay um

so what what i want to do is i wanted to um here's actually transcript get the transcript out of the

way i wanted to play a couple of these sections and that's not what i wanted uh where did i oh it's

this there we go all right i wanted to play a couple of these sections and look at the scriptures

i'm the more i'm looking at this more i realize we're never going to give back to the cross-ex today

unless we do a jumbo edition of the program today which wouldn't be bad to do um

there are the the first section you play is when i'm asking questions

and so i'm doing the cross-ex so i'm guiding it at this point and we looked at revelation chapters

four and five and we actually agreed on some things about it but then i want you to hear

how the unitarian um overthrows the testimony of scripture for the sake of their presupposition

and they they get angry and jump up and down and we don't have any presuppositions or we're not

assuming unitarianism yes you are you are just absolutely blind to it

and we're not gonna stop pointing it out no matter how angry you get just because you can't see it

sorry it's there it's in every argument you make you assume certain things

and you limit what the bible can say about it on the basis of that assumption you just do it over

and over and over and over over again and it just becomes such a mantra with you you just can't see

it so here's the section i think i'm where i need to be here um let me all right so let's just

see how this goes so the lamb is a part of the creation that is singing to himself okay that's

not where i want to be uh let's go a little bit for that that he is a line of the tribe of Judah

and the shoot of David indicating that he's a biological descendant of Judah and David

and you know that traenitarians believe that Jesus took on human flesh he had not eternally

been incarnate and therefore that entire argumentation which you repeat adnazium has nothing to do

is what we believe about Jesus i don't know that i think that's an inconsistent argument

but but you need okay let me just make sure you understand what we were talking about there

uh he thinks the fact that Jesus is the biological descendant is somehow relevant to what we believe

why because he doesn't believe the logos is personal so he doesn't believe in an incarnation

um Jesus embodies but does not incarnate certain aspects of attributes of God

but there is no personal logos so when when Jesus says i was glorious in your presence before the

world was those are attributes speaking that doesn't make a lick of sense it's completely impossible

but they're stuck with it that's all they can do why because unitarianism is fundamentally rationalism

it's fundamentally a rationalistic system it's anti-supernatural in many ways

and so what they do is they limit what scripture can possibly say i can't believe it says that

because that violates my presupposition which is there is only one being

one person sharing the one being of God um and there can't that there can't be anything

beyond that because that that's not part of reason i cannot reason to that well yeah you can't

because it's divine revelation so um when they point to and this is what this is why when i

got up i said 90% of what you just heard after his opening statement 90% of his irrelevant to the

doctrine training they believe that the demonstration of the incarnate state that Jesus is

distinct from the father that he has been sent by the father that he submits to the father

that he is the descendant of at least he understands Mary's Jewish

oh

oh it's just it's just amazing how does

anyway um they believe that that means since the father didn't become incarnate the son did

that means since since God has to be unitarian that proves unitarianism it's a tight circle

it is a really tight circle i get it but that's where they are and so that's what i'm saying here is

okay yes we Jesus the the man Jesus was the descendant of David yes he was Jewish yes he's the

king of the Jews all that's true but none of that changes the fact that the person of the son

is eternal and that that eternal person is distinguished from the father but the one being of

God is shared by that father son spirit or distinguished one another one being three persons this

is what the bible is teaching us and since that goes against their perspective then all of a sudden

you get this different exogetical methodology being being utilized so that's what that's what i'm

talking about here is he was saying well yes he's physical offspring therefore

well therefore he's not the father not therefore he's not God see see see how that works

um how Jesus is distinguished from the father as he is very plainly in the pages of the New

Testament becomes an argument against the deity of Christ um that's that's what we're that's what

that's that's what that was what that was about but that's not where i really wanted to go

just need to acknowledge that when we talk about the lamb we believe that the divine

element of the lamb because we believe he became flesh so you have the human he was they crucified

the lord of glory you can't crucify the lord of glory and takes on it unless he's taken on a human

body yes that's the term you can crucify the lord of glory yes Jesus the glorious lord the second

lord at the right hand of God right but but the lord of can you crucify Yahweh no because Yahweh

can't die okay so the glory of okay a bunch of stuff's going on there i was quoting for Paul

when he said that you know if the rulers this age no they would not have crucified the lord of glory

and that that statement is a shocking statement because this is the lord of glory not a second lord

next see see what he did there there's nothing in that text we're Paul saying it's a secondary

lord but that's that's their system kicking in because the point is crucified the lord of glory

now if you just saw that phrase the lord of glory and you just ask who is that okay those are

terms of deity those are terms of deity you can't crucify he just said yeah you can't crucify Yahweh

okay they will look upon me from their parents but hey again we can't allow those things to

stand because our presuppositions will keep getting knocked over so i'm just point to the fact that

crucify lord of glory lord of glory is deity crucifixion incarnation that's who Jesus was that's

the foundation of Paul's functioning on that's why he can interchange spirit of God spirit of

lord spirit of Christ he's he's a trinitarian he's speaking as a trinitarian so the glorious lord

from the Old Testament would be Yahweh but he was crucified because he took on human flesh is not

what John 114 says no because John 14 is not talking about so much in verse 1 so just just

to show you here and this isn't my focus i'm just so you understand what he's saying um John 114

is not talking about someone in verse 1 yes it is yes it is demonstrate that in the debate with

Dale tuggy no question about it none whatsoever um that that this is this is scripture twisting right

in front of you uh by someone who should know better but when you're committed to it that

particular system and he'll say the same thing about me but you can find out by testing for

consistent okay so the lamb in Isaiah chapter 5 it is said specifically there's no

lamb and i say it chapter 5 i'm sorry revelation chapter 5 the lamb all of creation in heaven earth

under the earth all sing in praise yep to the lamb to he who sits upon the throne and to the lamb

that's right so the lamb is a part of the creation that is singing to himself i think that's

reading too much into the text i've already demonstrated that Jesus was brought into existence

in the birth narratives as now catch that catch that that is not an answer

that's not even close to an answer that is that is a dodge dodgeicus maximus in Latin

bod幾us maximus if we want to hey if i want to do the memes if i want to do the videos

we can do the memes in the videos here's dodgicus maximus i'm not going to bother okay

um i have already demonstrated the gs came into existence in the birth narratives no you didn't

the incarnation is in the birth narratives but john one john seventeen make it very clear

d'Avainson pre-exist is Incarnation.

So what does that have to do with the fact that the Lamb is the object of the worship of all creation?

If, if the text drop, drop that out.

If the text, I'm waiting for you to drop that out so I can show something.

There we go.

Here's, here's the text.

You maximize this out.

Okay, here's the text.

Let's not rush past this stuff.

It's sad that for a lot of people, the book of Revelation is primarily just about trying to figure out how around in Iraq and the United States fits into what's going on right now.

And the theology of Revelation is much deeper than all that.

And remember, chapter and verse divisions are editorial.

After you remind people of that, the verse divisions came about 1551 or so.

Chapter divisions were during the medieval period primarily.

And so chapters 4 and 5 of the book of Revelation, we separate them mentally, but that's an editorial thing.

It's one scene.

And it's the heavenly scene.

So you've had the letters to the churches in the first three chapters.

Then chapter 4 begins with the heavenly scene.

And 4 and 5, 5 is not really a very long chapter.

The only reason there is a visionary is because the Lamb appears at the beginning of chapter 5.

It's still just one scene, one heavenly scene.

It's the outflowing, it's the accomplishment of redemption.

And so it's self-evident that Revelation chapter 4 is based on and is pulling from and restating Isaiah chapter 6.

And Isaiah chapter 6, of course, is calling it Isaiah, but it's the temple vision.

And just a reminder that the one who's seen in that temple vision is identified by John as Jesus.

Now, these Unitarians try to get around that, but again, they have to use different extradical methodologies.

They have to try to say, well, no, you know, Isaiah 53.

Yeah, where was the glory of Yahweh seen in either Isaiah 6 or Isaiah 53?

In the very words that John uses, they can't escape it.

They have, they have, again, it's a, it's a dodged mechanism.

Try to get around John 12, 39 to 41, specifically identifying Jesus as Yahweh.

So they've got their way, it doesn't work, it's inconsistent, and therefore inconsistencies assigned to a failed argument, which was what we were debating.

But, so you put that aside.

In Revelation chapter 4, you read Isaiah 6, then you read Revelation chapter 4 and go, oh yeah.

Okay, all right.

So Revelation 4, 8, and the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings or full of eyes around them within and day and night, they did not cease to say, holy, holy, holy.

Where have we heard that before?

This is directly quoted out of Isaiah chapter 6.

Holy, holy, holy is the Lord, God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.

Okay, that little expansion from the Greek Septagent of Isaiah 6, but very plainly that's where it's coming from.

And when living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne, to him who lives forever and ever, the 24 elders will fall down before him, who sits on the throne, and will worship him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne saying, worthy are you,

are Lord and our God to receive glory and honor and power for you created all things and because of your will, they existed and were created.

Now, look at verse 11, I'm going to have to scroll it up here because I'm in the way on the screen there.

Hati Su, and since they are big into pronouns, oh, the unitarians, singular pronouns mean everything.

They actually mean nothing if you actually understand what the argument is, but for them, that's the be all an end all, that's singular pronouns.

Okay, for you singularly created tapanta, and through Su, your will, they were created.

They were, they existed and were created.

This out familiar?

Yeah, I'm not going to take time to go over there right now, but there's this little text called Colossians chapter one.

And in talking about the sun uses the very same language.

It can't be.

It's a singular pronoun.

Which demonstrates that you should have realized that argument is utterly flescious long time ago, and it would be really better if you stopped using it.

But I know you're using it for your people.

You're not using it for people who actually know the dark of the Trinity to be convinced that you're right.

That's the weird thing.

For you singularly created all things.

Well, it was through the master worker, and you know, it's your, you got the relative worship stuff.

You got relative prayer stuff.

Now you got relative creation stuff.

So the singular pronoun thing works for them when it's their verses, but when it's shot back at them.

Wow, that's really.

So you had this word, this worship of the one who sits upon the throne as a creator of all things.

Then I saw in the right hand of him who sits on the throne, a scroll written inside on the back, sealed up with seven seals.

Then I saw a strong angel proclaim with loud voice who is worth it to open the scroll and to break its seals.

And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll to look into it.

Then I was crying greatly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.

Well, the elder said to me, stop crying.

He's holding the line that is from the tribe of Judah, the root of David has overcome.

So it's open the scroll and it's seven seals.

And I remember what he's going to say is, see, that means he was a human and we go, yep, he was.

That's not all he was.

And that's where your rationalism comes in.

That's not all he was.

Unitarianism limits the scope of God's revelation.

It artificially lamps it down since it can't say anything more than this.

So when they do the, when they do the stuff about the intertestamental stuff where you use all those sources in the intertestamental period.

And this is, and he's even written a book on this and hyzer did the same thing, by the way.

When you look to those extra biblical sources, what they're, what they're fundamentally doing is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy in the Tanakh.

It cannot be greater than the categories we insist upon.

Just listen to them.

Just listen to them.

And the categories of fulfillment seen in the intertestamental writers are not sufficient for what the New Testament teaches.

So you're going to have to end up twisting the New Testament if those are the artificial constraints you're placing upon.

And that's what Unitarianism does. That's what this form of Unitarianism, that's what they're doing.

And you'll see it over, over, over, over, over again.

And don't get frustrated when you point it out and they can't see it because you can't make them see it.

You can be an instrument, you can be used, you can't make them see it.

You can't make them see it.

Then I saw the myths of the throne, the four living creatures, and the myths of the elders, a lamb standing as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

By the way, every time they say, there's no holy spirit.

Hello, what's this?

Um, and he came and took the scroll out of the right hand of him who sits on the throne. And by the way, just let me explain that for 30 seconds.

This, I think, is directly relevant to John 14 through 16, and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

Notice it says, seven horns and seven eyes, which are seven spirits of God.

What?

Sent out into all the earth.

Same author, he wrote John 14, 15 and 16.

And who sends the spirit?

Father and son?

Get it?

You know, there's, this is supposed to, there's supposed to be connections here that you're, you're drawing and going, ah, thank you, John for saying these things.

And he came and took the scroll out of the right hand of him who sits on the throne.

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and 24 elders fell down, where?

Before the lamb.

Before the lamb.

Remember of the last chapter four?

Just a few sentences earlier.

They fell down before he sits on the throne.

And now they fall down before the lamb, each one having a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are what?

The prayers of the saints.

Um, this is obviously symbolic of something.

Prayers don't fit in bowls, okay?

But the point is the object of prayers is always not.

And now they are presenting these before the lamb.

Why?

Because as the incarnate one, he is provided for the salvation of the saints through their union with him.

Now that's, that's not being, that's not said here.

That's assumed.

That's said elsewhere.

Our union with Christ, things like that.

And they sang a new song saying, worthy are you to take the scroll and open its deals?

Why?

Because you were slain.

So what you have in Revelation four and five is, you do have the connection back to Isaiah six, but Isaiah six is before the incarnation.

Isaiah six is before the coming of Christ.

And so now Christ has come and you were slain and purchased for God with your blood, people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

So now we're looking at after the accomplishment.

So now the lamb stands as if slain in the heavenly courts.

And so he is worthy because of what he has accomplished.

Echoes of Philippians chapter two in the Carmen Christie.

And you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God and they will reign upon the earth.

And they go see our God.

That's that's the way different.

Right.

Father is not the son.

You can prove that over and over again.

And in fact, there are a couple times I forget two or three times, maybe more during the debate.

He accused me of modalism.

That's modalism.

No, not modalism.

Revelation challenges us.

The only way to walk the revelation is to be absolutely balanced because the modalist quote book of Revelation because of the incredible unity that is presented.

Between Father and Son.

The Unitarians quote it.

To try to distinguish and thereby on the basis of the assumption of Unitarianism, denigrate the deity of grace.

Neither one works.

But both sides try it.

And unfortunately, a lot of Christians who haven't.

Thought through all of the ramifications of their ownitarian belief.

Struggle very much to express themselves accurately when it comes to this text.

And by the way, I was going to be in Revelation chapter 21 about 35 minutes ago.

But there you go.

So then I looked and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and living creatures and the elders.

One of them was myriads and myriads and thousands and thousands, saying with loud voice,

worthy is the lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.

I need the same terms used to the worship of God in Revelation chapter 4.

And here's the phrase.

Here's the phrase.

I need to scroll this up so we can see.

This is mypanthismah, every created thing.

Which is in the heavens and upon the earth and under the earth and upon the sea.

And all things in them, panta, all things in them, I heard sang.

How can you be any more exhausted?

What was Smith's response?

Well, I'm already demonstrating that Jesus came into existence in the birth narrative.

He didn't.

You alleged it.

He didn't demonstrate it.

And you're seriously saying the birth narratives override this?

Every created thing.

Everywhere.

All things in all of creation.

I heard saying to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be the blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever.

That's why I said so you have the lamb singing to himself.

And his only answer was, I already demonstrated that he was created in the birth narrative.

Do you think that's an appropriate answer?

Do you think that really deals with this?

It clearly does not.

The four living creatures kept saying amen and the elders fell down and they worshipped.

And by the way, you can do relative worship all you want.

That's prosky to oath.

And humans can be worshipped and it can be used in a relative sense and military context and stuff like that.

But when it's used in the religious context, it means worship.

And you don't get any more religious than the picture of heaven itself with the 24 elders falling down.

The four living creatures saying amen and the elders falling down and worshipping.

And who did they worship?

He sits on the throne and the lamb.

And the Unitarian says that's just because he is always mighty representative.

Tell it to the elders.

Tell it to the elders.

They weren't Unitarians like you.

So that was that part.

Now let me.

So then what happened during his cross X?

Let me see if I can you take that down for the moment.

During his cross X.

He went to Acts chapter 17 first.

And then jump to Revelation chapter 21.

Both of these again are this fast-style simplistic argument that a singular pronoun demonstrates the trendy's false.

So in Acts 17.

You have the assertion specifically the God who made the world and all things in it since he is lord of heaven and earth.

Does not dwell in temples made with hands nor is he served by human hands as though he needed anything since he himself gives to all people life and breath and all things.

So.

Now, I want you to see this up here who made the heavens.

The world if you wanted to translate that way.

Cosmon made the world.

And all things in them.

He is lord of heaven and earth.

So this one this one here's earth here's heaven.

And so he's differentiating between cosmon and case normally that has something to do with physical versus the.

Like spiritual realms.

Anyways, he made the world and all things in it.

He did it.

Now, where have we seen this before?

Where have we seen Panta before?

Washington chapter one.

Washington chapter one.

Or how about the schma the Christian schma where all things are for the father from him through the sun.

Same terminology being used there.

So.

The God who made the world and all things in it does not dwell in temples made with hands and so.

What he wants is so.

How can this be the Trinity?

Who toss is the demonstra here is is singular masculine.

The God who made the world and all things in it.

If it's singular, then this is just one person.

And I go.

Are we allowed to look at all the New Testament or are we just going to determine things based upon single verses that are isolated from the rest of the New Testament.

And.

I will admit right now the doctrine of the Trinity requires the fullness of scripture.

Well, there's a shocking one.

You actually you have to believe solar scripture and total scripture.

Believe doctrine is right.

No question about it.

And I do therefore I do.

So.

However, again, I said to him there are many times when God is simply referenced in scriptures where there is no distinction being made between fathers and spirits.

If the New Testament writers make a distinction.

If there are places where they.

Site the same text but use it of father in one place and spirit at the son of another place or especially when it comes to creation.

Clearly, there is a distinction may between father and son, but both are identified as being central to the actual act of creation itself.

The one does not do that without the other.

There are places where you can identify.

In light of New Testament revelation, what an Old Testament text was about, but the vast majority of them.

It is not the intention of scripture to even address this.

So the Unitarians want you to answer questions that the Bible doesn't even raise.

The Bible doesn't even say this is what we're talking about here.

So they want to force you to answer these types of questions when the text they're looking at has nothing to do with it.

And so that led to a discussion about revelation chapter 21.

Fairly quickly.

Related to 21.3 and I heard a loud voice in the throne saying behold the tabernacle of God is among men.

And he will dwell among them and they shall be his people and God himself will be among them.

Now there's a textual variant they're not going to get into that right now.

But God himself using Autosk the intensive behold the scanner the tabernacle the tent of God will be with men with men.

And he will gain a amongst them he will tabernacle amongst them and they shall be his people and he will be their God.

So who is that is the question it was asked and so it's a fair question in the sense that.

Okay, but but here's the here's the thing that got me all hyped up about this somebody.

And I did respond to it on Twitter and I don't believe that specifically it was Smith.

I just saying it is it was a another of their group.

I think Simon knows who it was.

He deals with these guys more than I do and he was looking at this.

But let me see where it went.

I've got all this to Largo stuff.

No, I don't see it in that.

Basically what it said was James White says he doesn't know who God is.

And I did respond.

I've written too many responses and therefore I can't find this but I did respond to somebody under my replies.

And I basically said why are you so dishonest because I never said any of that.

None of the words that were.

Asserted to me.

We're in the video.

I didn't indicate anything like that.

I didn't.

Nothing.

And.

It's too much stuff on Roman Catholicism and stuff like that here.

Anyway, sorry about that.

I should have had that up.

But it was just so.

There it is.

Right as I gave up.

So this is Unitarian Christian alliance.

Unitarian Christ puts up part of what we're about to look at and says James White says I'm not talking about it.

That's simply unacceptable in a debate format.

I never said I'm not talking about it.

I said God wasn't talking about what he's asking about but I didn't say I'm not talking about it.

They don't listen very well.

And then the title on the YouTube video is James White does not know who God himself is.

And my statement to them was who are these folks trying to impress with this kind of childish video short?

I never said I don't know who God is.

I said the text is not addressing the question.

And I never said I'm not talking about it.

Why this level of obvious dishonesty?

Did it go so badly that this group has to throw sand in the air to cover it up?

And then I linked to the fact that last Sunday I preached out of revelation.

And I address these very issues and provide the link.

So let's take a look at the video.

Let me pull this down from full screen and go back here and hopefully.

Oh, that's right.

I need to be around 122.

This should be good enough.

I hope to catch most.

Let's see if we got it.

Okay.

Let this dish be good here.

So is Paul evangelizing Higgins, the triune God in his Acts 17 sermon where he says.

The God who made this world and all things since he's the Lord of heaven earth does not dwell in temples made with hands.

Nor is he served with human hands.

He did anything since he himself.

Gives to all people life and breath and all things.

And Paul describes God with he himself is he evangelizing the triune God to pagans.

I don't know what evangelized in the triune God is supposed to mean, but one thing that is.

Yeah, I don't.

I'll be honest with you.

What I think he's probably trying to say is he trying to teach the Trinity to pagans or something.

He's evangelizing the triune God is supposed to be some kind of language they use in their own little group.

I guess.

We don't use it.

Very clear is the New Testament identifies the father in creation.

The son gives life.

I'm asking the question about John 17.

Can we please stay on that?

I think you mean Acts 17.

Yeah.

I apologize.

Well, my answer to your act see we both missed a reference in the cross examination.

Asking a general theological question.

I'm giving a general theological answer.

And that is the apostle who said those words identify as Jesus as the creator of all things in Colossians chapter 1.

The giver of life as he does the father in the spirit as well.

It is the ability to interchange these terms that is such demonstration of the fact that the early Christians were trainitarians and they thought in this way.

So the intensive use of the third person pronoun how many persons does that refer?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah.

So you hear what this is?

Intensive use the first person.

How many persons?

What if it's not identifying person?

What if the whole point is he's talking to pagans who have false gods.

He's introducing them to the one true God.

But he's not giving them the entire revelation that you find in Colossians chapter 1.

Can we allow Colossians chapter 1 to speak here too?

Or do you have to go nope, nope.

You've got it.

You've got to answer this only on Acts chapter 17.

You can't let the same person who's speaking define more fully what he's talking about in any other context.

Every context has to be the fullest context possible.

No one reads the Bible that way.

He doesn't read the Bible that way.

That's not how you demonstrate the massage of Jesus, fulfillment of prophecy, anything like that.

And what was my whole point in the debate?

Who's going to be consistent?

Who's going to use the same methodology of interpretation?

And he doesn't.

What's the conclusion?

What are you referring to?

Okay, I read it in Acts 17, 24 and 25.

He himself off those v-thus.

Okay.

Intensive use of the third person for instance.

He himself.

Okay.

The one true God.

How many?

No, no.

It's a singular pronoun.

How many persons does that pronoun refer to?

Again, it's not even addressing the subject.

So it's the one true God who created all of mankind that Paul is proclaiming to the people.

The unknown God is the one he's proclaiming to them.

The creator.

If you want to know who is involved in what aspect, then the Bible gives us.

Plotions 1.

It gives us John 1.

But I am asking about action.

And you're asking.

You hear this?

You need to hear this.

But I'm asking about this one text which we need to isolate from everything else this author said.

Can you see how this is?

Issa Jesus.

We're proving it right here.

The man's on the screen.

You're watching it.

You see?

I wasn't going to do this.

But they keep putting videos out that are simply dishonest.

And all I've got to do is go back.

And do you see what he is doing?

I'm sitting here going.

Let all of scripture speak.

No.

I want just this verse isolated from the rest of the Bible.

You can't use all of divine revelation.

It's rationalism.

It's rationalistic perspective.

Because underlying it is.

And you know, he wouldn't agree with this.

But the earlier Unitarianism.

Unitarianism has never been able to maintain a high view of scripture for a long period of time.

I mean, look at the Unitarian Universalists.

Okay.

All right.

That's pretty bad.

But the assumption that I'm working on is the divine consistency of all of scripture.

If you can cut scripture up and say, no, it all has to be right here.

You're no longer allowing scripture to speak as God's voice.

That's not how Jesus viewed Old Testament scripture.

That's not how he used scripture.

That's not how the apostles use scripture.

That says a lot.

You're asking about something that Paul does not identify in Acts 17.

So I have no answer to it.

Because it's not something he talks about.

Okay.

Just be clear.

You have no answer.

It's not something he's talking about.

If you asked me what his favorite football team for the Super Bowl was,

I couldn't tell you either because it's not talking about it.

Okay.

Do you see that?

I think that was a fairly clear response.

That's not what he's talking about.

You're demanding that he talk about it.

But that's not what the subject is about.

And how many places could we turn this around on him?

How many places could we turn this around on him?

We could do it over and over again.

Revelation 21.3 where it says,

he will dwell among them.

They will be his people.

And God himself will be among them.

Is the pronoun himself in the phrase God himself?

Singular plural.

That would be singular.

Okay.

So God himself refers to how many persons?

It would depend on the context.

And what specifically is being said within them?

I just read it in there.

Well, I just read it.

Well, it's sort of childish, wasn't it?

I just read it.

And so here's where here's where Revelation 21 comes in.

And I'm not going to repeat everything that I said

in the Sunday sermon a week ago on Sunday,

which was still shorter than Jeff's sermon this past Sunday.

But there is there is the context.

Of what takes us to Revelation 21.

And I only just note a few things.

And I heard a loud voice from the Throne saying,

behold, the tabernacle of God is among men.

John chapter 1, the same author.

If it is the same author, I realize there is some dispute about that.

They could be held by Orthodox people.

But I believe the same author uses the language of tabernacling

of the incarnations though.

That he tabernacled amongst us is John 114.

And Titus chapter 2, very plainly identifies Jesus

as redeeming a people unto himself using the same language.

They shall be his people, et cetera, et cetera.

That, by the way, is right after the Granville Sharp construction,

where Jesus identifies our great God and Savior.

And they shall be his people, and God himself will be among them.

And he will wipe away every tear from their eyes,

and there will no longer be any death.

There will no longer be any mourning or crying or pain

for the first things have passed away.

Now, the citation is from Isaiah chapter 25.

Let me see if I can do this without moving to my other window.

Well, yeah, I can.

But I can't give the context.

Yeah, I can't give the context.

All right.

There's probably a way to do it.

The importance is amazing.

There's probably a way to do it.

But let's, let's go to Isaiah chapter 25.

And...

To do, to do, to do.

There.

Six.

And Yahweh of hosts will prepare.

Oh, I need to load this up.

That's good enough for now.

And Yahweh of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet

for all peoples on this mountain.

A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow.

Oh, that might be choice meats.

Well, yeah, didn't I?

I'd completely lost you.

I'd mentioned choice meats.

A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow,

and refined aged wine.

On this mountain, he will swallow up...

No, no, watch this.

On this mountain, he will swallow up the covering,

which is over all peoples.

Even the veil, which is stretched over all nations.

What is that veil?

He will swallow up death for all time.

And Lord Yahweh, interesting phraseology there, Lord Yahweh.

I deny Yahweh.

And Lord Yahweh will wipe tears away from all faces.

And he'll remove the reproach of his people

from all the earth for Yahweh has spoken.

And it will be said in that day,

behold, this is our God in whom we have hoped.

And he would save us.

This is Yahweh in whom we have hoped.

Let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.

You know when it talks about saved us?

Yes, you are.

You know that Jesus' name is Yahweh in salvation.

Yahweh saves.

Right?

And how is it that this veil, which is stretched over all nations,

this death, he will swallow up death for all time.

He will swallow up death for...

First Corinthians 15 maybe?

How does this happen?

In the death of our resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So you can be a unitarian and constrict fulfillment

or you can be a biblical trinitarian

and allow for the fullness of fulfillment.

To be able to see that what happens in the incarnation,

death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ,

the union of the people of God with Jesus.

You'll look at Ephesians chapter 1 in him, in Christ,

over, over, over, over again.

It's only in him you receive from Christ

what he has eternal life, forgiveness ascends.

You can allow all of this to sing in harmony and concert

as an orchestra to the fulfillment of the gospel

or you can stick with the one man band of unitarianism

and ignore all the fulfillment.

That it's in Jesus that death is swallowed up.

It is in him that the tabernacle of God is amongst his people.

It is in the Father and the Son and the Spirit

working in perfect harmony.

You don't have to get rid of this verse,

get rid of that verse.

So we've just got our little, our little unitarian bubble.

You can allow the entire orchestra to play

and hear all of it.

But if you adopt this perspective,

you've got a one string banjo,

one man band,

because you've already determined that

from where you're going to start the whole conversation.

So there's a lot more we can get into

in Revelation chapter 21.

Like I said, I did a whole sermon on it.

We...

I don't know, just pause a second.

You know, Jerusalem comes down out of heaven.

There is all the really cool stuff about giving...

And I will give to the one who thirsts

from the spring of the water of life without cost.

Where have we heard that before?

Oh, John 6.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

All the Father gives the Son.

Come to the Son.

Never thirst.

I mean, I'll be his God.

He'll be my son.

And we can have lots of singular pronouns in here.

It'll mess everything up, I suppose.

And then the description of Jerusalem and the walls

and all the rest of that kind of fun stuff.

But then you have...

The city has no...

And I saw no sanctuary in verse 22.

And I saw no Na'an.

It's in the accusative,

but Na'as is the lexical form.

I saw no Na'as in the new Jerusalem.

Sanctuary or Temple.

For the Lord God Almighty,

Ha-Gar-Kuryas-Hathayas,

Ha-Pantukrator,

the all-powerful one,

is its Na'as-Kaita-Arniyah.

For the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb

is singular.

It's singular Na'as.

Oh no, it's singular

with a plural subject.

Is its temple.

See, if you want to play games,

we can play games.

What you're seeing is that the author of Revelation

who has already told you in Revelation chapter 5

that all of creation sings to the Lamb.

You shouldn't be confused by this point.

It makes perfect sense that you can conjoin the Lord God Almighty

with the Lamb as the one temple and not get confused by it.

It's there.

The city has no need of the Son of the Moon to shine on it

of God has illumined it and its lamp is the Lamb.

It was the light of the world, according to John.

And the nations will walk by its light

and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.

Boy, we could do a lot of stuff with that.

Eschatological speaking.

And its gates will never be closed by day

and there will be no night there.

And they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations

into it again.

Massive fulfillments of Isaiah 49,

see all these things being brought together.

And nothing defiled.

And no one who practices abomination and lying

shall ever come into it.

But only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

This is John giving us this apocalyptic vision

of the fulfillment of all things.

And if you try to cut it all up,

it will not make any sense.

You have to allow the full fulfillment to take place.

When you do, you can understand without hacking stuff up

without having to hide things.

I have to constrict stuff down to that pitiful little small thing

that is initarianism.

So, anyway, did not even start to get back to anything else.

I should have known that by now after all these years.

But there you go.

See if I hadn't done the Joel stuff at the beginning.

Maybe I would have gotten done a little bit closer on time.

But that's life.

Yes, sir.

So I did notice something there in Revelation.

Was it five there?

The lion of Judah.

Oh, Judah.

Yes, yes, yes.

I think Joel might need a refresher.

What do you think?

Uh, yeah.

Yeah, you would think.

You would think.

You would think.

Oh, it's interesting.

Just got a thing here.

I'm not sure this is even going to come up.

Yeah.

Oh, life site posted this.

Now, life site used to be this big thing.

This big pro life thing.

They're getting into all sorts of other stuff.

It's definitely Roman Catholic thing.

But, um,

Father Ripperger.

Ripperger?

I don't know.

If a Protestant is saved,

they are saved by mediation of the Catholic Church.

That's consistent with.

Well, that's interesting.

Then you click on it and the.

The story isn't about that.

It's Father Ripperger.

Abomination of desolation refers to Catholic Church being compromised.

The book of Daniel refers.

The abomination of desolation has tied up with the abolition of a public daily sacrifice.

Oh, well, that's interesting.

Oh, he's an exorcist.

Ah.

Okay.

Um, interesting.

Father Ripperger explained the reference in an interview with podcaster and former US Navy SEAL Sean Ryan,

while refuting Protestants who mistakenly believe that the book of Daniel's reference to the temple,

in which the abomination of desolation will stand at the time of the anti-Christ is the Jewish champ.

Ah, okay.

Wow.

Getting into some wild stuff there.

I'll take a look at this.

Maybe it'll be worthwhile catching, um, next time around.

But yeah, I just popped up and I'm like, what?

Uh, where did that?

Where did that come from?

Um, but it seems to be sort of on.

Something else.

Uh, I'm not sure what it has to do with the Protestants here.

I don't see.

Yeah.

Okay.

Anyways, well, maybe we'll look at it next time.

Maybe we'll be worthwhile taking a look at it anyway.

Okay.

Um, this might be it for this week.

We'll see.

I mean, if we did another one, that would be three in one week.

Um, that's fair amount.

But we've probably got things to do.

Yeah, Rich is going, come on.

Don't, don't make me do that.

Um, because once we pick up the new, new, new unit,

then the neat thing about this, I've told you before,

what attracted both of us to it.

As soon as we both saw the floor plans like, ooh,

it has an entire office in the back, the back of it.

I mean, lots of storage and this really cool desk that goes,

that goes up and down, and it's firm.

I mean, that thing, that thing's like a rock.

Uh, if it was something flimsy, that would be a little bit,

because you're in the back of the thing.

And the back, the back end of an RV bounced around a lot.

Though this RV has an incredible suspension,

says the best we've ever had by a long shot.

Um, but we both saw that.

And it's like, yeah, I could just sit down there,

plug the computer in, and we could be on the air so fast.

Um, no more dragon bags out, putting stuff up,

and oh, all this kind of stuff.

Yeah, go ahead.

So one of the problems that you have with a flimsy table,

even back in the early days, the grand design,

you would be at the kitchen table.

Yeah.

And you're typing on your laptop.

If the camera, yeah, exactly,

this thing is so rock solid, you can be tapping away,

and it ain't going to vibrate at all.

I can move it all.

Um, I can be spending a lot of time in that, that thing.

And it has its own air conditioning.

Separate from the one, uh,

we'll see.

Um, there's, there's different ways of running it.

Talking about that with them.

But anyways, um, hey, during the summer, I don't care.

Uh, it needs, needs to be cool.

Um, but anyways, the point being,

when we park it and store it,

because we have a covered storage spot for it,

this thing has a second door.

I've never had a RV that had two doors.

And it goes straight into that office,

which means we don't have to put the slides out to get into it.

And while it's parked, even with a unit right next to it,

um, Rich will be able to get in there.

And he's got all sorts of wires to run,

and things to mount,

and everything else.

And with that inverter system we've got,

you'll probably even have power back there to be able to test them,

even when it's plugged in.

So, yeah, so Rich has started like,

yeah, let's not overdo it here.

I've got work to do.

And, uh, so that'll be,

that'll be cool.

That'll be a whole lot of fun.

So, uh, the program will go on.

And, uh, hopefully you all will appreciate that.

So, with that, um,

probably next week,

we will get to see you.

And obviously,

our intention is,

once we park this to prepare it for the trip to Utah,

we will want to be doing the program from inside it

to shake out the bugs to find out

where there are going to be issues and things like that.

So, be looking forward to that.

Thanks to everyone who made this possible,

and who supports us as we're going out on the road.

Even now, as diesel fuel is going through the ceiling,

cost-wise,

I don't think that's going to last for a while.

But, um,

thank you for your support for that.

We'll see you next time,

whenever that is.

God bless.