 Good morning, good evening, good afternoon, depend upon wherever you are on the globe. Sometimes I forget that we've got smart Christians literally on every manned continent. That's just how awesome the chats are. I want all of you guys, I want all to the greatest set of moderators ever on the planet. I think if haven't had to choose some moderators, he probably, God probably would have started off with the disciples first, but then after that, these moderators would have been next in line. So thank you guys for being here. I wanna cover topic, something that we talk about. I wanna talk about it from a different standpoint because we talk about it a lot that Jesus is God. Now for the record, myself as well as Rick Caldwell, who gonna be my guest, we both believe that Jesus is God. We also both believe that Jesus is not the father, but, and there's a big but because some folks say, well, hey, I believe in the Trinity, but my view of the Trinity is a little bit different than yours, I believe that Jesus is God, but also believe that he's a father. Well, what does that mean? What sort of implications might there be with that? So without further ado, I wanna go ahead and bring in my guest, Mr. Rick Caldwell of Caldwell Apologetics. Rick, how are you doing today? Thank you, brother. Thank you for inviting me to have this important conversation. There's no problem, no problem. Listen guys, we're gonna go ahead, just like all of our guests who happen to be males, we're gonna pray that now they can keep the beard and they can keep the mustache. No problem with that, but we all know that bald is better, so we're gonna pray him in in the spirit. You all touch your screens and agree with me. So anyway, Rick, this is a interesting topic because if you look on YouTube, you don't see a lot of people having the discussion about he's not the father. Now we talk a lot about the Trinity, we talk a lot about whether Jesus is God. That's really the main sticking point of a lot of people, or if he's in these different modes and so forth. But this issue about him being the father, and so I wanna go ahead and roast that and so, what would that mean if he were the father? Does it change anything and so forth? So one, before we get into it, go ahead and tell everyone who might not know who you are about yourself and then we'll go ahead and jump into it. Yeah, I'm your local neighborhood apologist online. My name is Rick Caldwell. I defend the Christian faith on a channel called Caldwell Apologetics. Many of you are already subscribers and familiar with me. If you're not, haven't been initiated before, I've been on Corey's channel before and we've talked, I think the last time we talked, Corey, it was about, I think I talked about the doctrine of perseverance. That was a while ago. You might recall that. Yeah, you did. Yeah. Yeah. So recently, I've kind of thrown my hat in. I've been talking a lot about the law of God, which is, I think, we talk a lot about the gospel, right? This should be central, but there's a lot of confusion about the law of God, especially lately, if you've been following a lot of the conversations on Twitter and conversations around Christian nationalism and theonomy and things of that nature. Really a hot button topic right now. So I've been kind of throwing my hat in the ring and really discussing various aspects of the law of God. And many of you have been right in the front seat as I've been having those conversations. So once again, thank you, Corey, for inviting me on so we could have this very edifying conversation. Amen. So what we're gonna do, guys, this is gonna be kind of different. I'm gonna play both sides of the fence. I'm gonna play the, as we say, for lack of better way of putting it, the devil's advocate, the other side, but then also the other side to add support, but we'll let Rick do most of the driving here. And so I've got some questions that I wanna ask from both standpoints. And so addressing this issue, where would you start off in trying to guide someone on this issue first, Rick? Yeah, because one of the things I need to help people understand right away is that the issue, this is really the issue of the Trinity, doctrine of the Trinity. When we're talking about whether or not Jesus is the father or not, and we both affirm that Jesus Christ is not the father, it really boils down to the doctrine of the Trinity and fundamentally more than that, really, the gospel. This is where I think a lot of people struggle because you often hear people say that I believe the gospel, but I deny the Trinity. The thing I need to let people know right away, we're gonna look at a text that kinda help set the foundation for this is the gospel is Trinitarian, ladies and gentlemen, because the God of the gospel is Triune. So that, when you start denying the Trinity and at the very same time say I received the gospel, you're actually rejecting the gospel of scripture. And for a lot of people, it may be unbeknownst to them that that's what they're doing, okay? Yeah. And so I wanna look at a text that kinda set the stage and I'm gonna kind of ask questions to the audience. I mean, it's kind of the questions they don't necessarily have to answer, but just to kind of get them thinking about this issue, I wanna start looking at 1st John chapter four, beginning at verse eight and you have that pulled up on the screen and you're gonna see why this is in fact a gospel issue that you can't separate the Triune nature of God from the gospel. So you're gonna see right here, it says anyone who does not love does not know God because God is love. I wanna pause right there before I continue to let everybody know that love is an essential attribute of God. You know, if God doesn't have love and he's always had this attribute even before creation, which opens, gets us thinking about some things, right? Like if God had love, the question I wouldn't actually ask is how did he express that love and who did he express that love to? We'll get to that later, but just some thoughts, right? But then let me continue, verse nine in following, those words says, in this, the love of God was made manifest among us. All right, and the question is how? That God sent his only son into the world so that, we got the henna claws there, we got that, you know, I know Corey's up on that Greek, we got that purpose claws there, so that we might live through him. And this is love. That we, not that we have, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent. There it is. And sent his son. So you have one person sending and one person coming. I'm using that language deliberately, but I want you to see that in the text, that he loved us and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins. This is the very heart of the gospel here. I mean, this language of propitiation, the sending of the son, verse 11, beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another, no one who has ever seen, no one has ever seen God, right? If we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. And that is true, because in context here, back at verse 12, before I continue, is that when he's referring to no one has ever seen God, is referring to God the father, that we realize that John, the individual who wrote first John also wrote the gospel of John, and he uses this very same language in John chapter one. So we don't have to go there. I would highly recommend that you go look and read in its entirety, John chapter one. But let me continue, verse 13. By this, we know that we abide in him and he is in us because he has given us of his spirit. And we have seen and testified, what's the testimony here? That the father, that's one person, has sent his son another person to be the savior of the world, right? Then it goes on to say, whoever confesses that Jesus is the son of God, God abides in him and he in God. And that's what we have here is the essence of the gospel message right here in Trinitarian language. So to my very first proposition that I laid out at the very beginning of this conversation is you really don't have the gospel without the God who is triune. And so what people are trying to do, and sometimes people just ignorantly, right, are separating the gospel from the God of the gospel. But the God of the gospel is triune, ladies and gentlemen. It goes hand in glove together, okay? And so I need to establish that because one of the kind of the dichotomies and the arguments I get all the time, well, I believe the gospel, but I did not at Trinity. So what's the problem, right? Well, this is the problem. I'm showing you the problem right here because the very gospel as presented in the text of scripture is Trinitarian, okay? So I wanna start there. Any thoughts or questions before we move on? Corey? Well, so let's say, now here I am, I'm playing the other side of the fence. And so I'm gonna be throwing, what I'm also doing is someone has to make the fonts bigger, so I'm making the font a little bit bigger. So what I wanna do is, because again, we can have these conversations here, but what happens when we go outside the room and someone says, I disagree. So if, excuse me, if I were to say that Jesus is the Father as well. And so a lot of this, what we're hearing is just him speaking kind of one in his subjugated role coming on the earth. And so he sent him because he's not actually a son because the language is used of him being a son. He's not a son in the sense that we know of, but he's used that he's called a son so that we can kind of identify the different who's who, who's acting in what regard. And the Father is not actually a father in the sense that he birthed us, although some might say differently, but clearly Jesus isn't a son the way I'm my father's son or your father's son or your mother's son. So is that a possibility? Is it a possibility that he is the son in the sense that he was sent, but that he's also the father in terms of when he goes back, he takes on the fullness, his full glory. How would you, how would you respond to someone who would come to you that way? Well, first of all, you have to one, when someone says that, there's a lot of theories that people bring to the Bible, right? My question to them is like, what text would you go to to substantiate that? Okay. Well, obviously, you know, we do that two times. Why does it change something like that from the text? I heard you mentioned something that sounded like John, John 17, right, type language that sometimes people will run to John 17 three. Then I say, well, look at John 17 five because they talked about the divine consciousness of the son and divine consciousness is the attribute of God that God has alone. So that right there throws out the argument a lot of people try to make for John 17 three. And it has both of them there, right? This is everlasting life to know the true God, right? And the son, I'm paraphrasing the language, but then it goes on a few verses later to just tell you that, you know, he looks forward to having the glory that he had with the father before the world was. And that is talking about divine glory. Well, who only has that? God and God alone has that. So right there, if you just go a few more verses, it just shoots that argument straight in the foot. So I guess my question, that's where I'm going Corey, is like, where would you go? Where would somebody try to go to begin to substantiate something like that? Probably two passages and we can go look at them, Isaiah nine and then John 14. So let's go there, Isaiah nine. And guys, let me know if the font is, I know Sheila mentioned it, let me know if this font is a little bit bigger. I raise it just a little bit more if that's good enough for a child, for, I'm sorry, for a child will be born to us. By the way, which version are you reading out of? I'm reading out ESV, the elect standard version Bible. Okay, so yeah, so this is why, this is why they get on all these Calvinists. This is why, I mean, the first, listen, the next time you find a Calvinist, that's not even ESV, it'll be the first. No, I'm kidding, I'm kidding, I'm kidding. But anyway, let's go back to it. I'm coming out of the NASB, but what I'll do is after this, I'll go to the ESV so we can read along together. By the way, let me just say this to you guys, don't be bothered by the ESV and ASB, King James Version, New King James Version, whatever. We have the proper context, and so no passages that we're going through today are going to be altered because of the translation. So anyway, that being the case, so for unto us, here I am, I'm reading the ASB, but I'm actually quoting the New King James Version for a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest upon his shoulders. We take that to be true, and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor. We take that to be true. His name will be not literally as anyone walking around calling him Wonderful Counselor, but still mighty God. We believe that he is God, and then here's where the problem comes in for some people, eternal father or everlasting father, Prince of Peace. We believe that he is the Prince of Peace. We believe he is mighty God, but what do we do with this text, with this portion of the text right here? He is everlasting father. How do you handle that, sir? Yeah, so one of the things that I think we all can be guilty of, all of us, so let me just say up front, is bringing our questions to a text that the text is not addressing. And then when we bring our question, we already have our answer there with us, right? And so this text, I'm gonna say right away, doesn't disprove the Trinity and doesn't affirm a oneness view of God, right? So right away, let's just take that off the table because here's the thing, you can never develop a doctrine based on one verse, right? Especially because we all have presuppositions. I have presuppositions. The people who are listening, you have presuppositions. And let me qualify that. What do I mean by presuppositions? We all have fundamental ideas that undergird the conclusions that we have, right? And many of those can be non-negotiable, right? Fundamental ideas and layman's terms. So we all bring those to text of scripture. My caution is to check your presuppositions of the door. So I'm checking mine at the door because it's so easy for me to kind of go in a certain direction when I look at this text, but I shouldn't do that. The other thing we need to understand is that our doctrine of God, here's the thing, our doctrine of God is based on the entire revelation of scripture, right? Not one verse here or one verse there. It's the complete revelation of God, right? In the text of scripture. So with that being said, you can't use this verse to try to nullify what we just read in 1 John chapter four and other verses that we're gonna look at. You can't do that, right? The other thing here is that somebody might say, well, Rick, that's all fine and dandy. So explain what this means. So one of the things that I want us to consider here that this text may mean is that this son, the son is being prophesied about here, Messiah, is referring to father of eternity, right? In creation, that this may be talking about how he is the God who creates, right? That's one idea. Another idea is how he actually eternally expresses the nature and character of the father. So these are different ideas and both of those ideas can be held up and at the same time, never nullify the doctrine of the Trinity. So the thing I'm trying to express with those two thoughts there is the fact that just because you see a word in the text doesn't mean that you can start to embed all your theological presuppositions into that one word, right? To my point, you have to allow all of the text of scripture drive our conclusions and that ultimately tests our presuppositions because let's say, I didn't have any other text of scripture, right? An argument may be made, right? But we do have more than just with this one verse. So you can rely on that one verse to settle this issue. So what happened then, because we've covered this before, if the people who read this text and they're supposed to gain the truth out of this text because they didn't live during any of the period and so they heard what Isaiah is saying. Right. And they never got a chance to live to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, for that matter. They died. Yeah. So would they have died not getting the full truth or is this the truth? Well, the truth of God is progressive throughout the Bible. That is, it's not that there's truth that didn't exist and now exists in the future, is that God is revealing through redemptive history more of himself to man over time, right? So I mean, you see, that's the trajectory of scripture that you see all throughout from Genesis to Revelation, right? God and the culmination of that revelation is the person in the work of Jesus Christ. That's what you see in John one, right? John one talks about the fact that no one has seen God at any time, but it is Christ who exegetes, who reveals God, God the Father in the context, right? He's the one. He is the final revelation. Hebrews chapter one also speaks that point as well. So who was the epistle to Hebrews written to, right? It was written to people who are very familiar with the Tanakh and the Old Testament scriptures to say you had the prophets and God spoke to them in various ways, but the fullness of that revelation is now in the person of the Son. So you see this idea of progressive revelation also first Peter chapter one verse 10 speaks to that. He says he talks about this rep, this salvation that even angels long to look, but this salvation that was being prophesied through the prophets is to benefit the readers, the hearers and that present time, right? So you have various texts. That's the point I'm trying to make that talk about how even through the prophets, they had truth that was being conveyed, not lies, but the culmination of that truth was in the personal work of Jesus. I recall listening to some, and when I say scholars, I mean like actual scholars, that anyone that you may or may not agree with them, but these were big brains, PhDs or PhDs, they don't have very many of those offered in seminaries now, PhD, doctorate of theology, but this is really the same thing as a PhD, but that being the case, just listen to have this conversation. All of them believed, I think all of them believe that Jesus is not the father. Well, first of all, the question is, well, what does this mean? And so one, how did they take this? How would the hearers at the time have understood this? The Jews then, even Messianic Jews, even Christians today would take this that or should take this that. Remember, languages have different genres as well. And so here we have, the Jews understood this to be an idiom, an idiom meaning that if you take the words and take them literally, they don't say what they actually mean if you take it literally, like if I say, hey, we can explain this will be easy, won't be a problem, it'll be a piece of cake. Everything that I said, you understood, you took literally until I got to the point, piece of cake. The piece of cake was idiomatic, meaning that it's just a figure of speech. You don't mean that it's literally some cake mixed together with some icing on top of it. And so they would take this idiomatically meaning that he would be called, going back to the passage, he would be called and some of these things we would take literally. The government will rest upon his shoulders. That will happen, this is my take on it, literally a son would be given. By the way, I think there's also a play on that too. A son will be given because when he calls himself son one, he's a literal son that will be born. So he's gonna be born. And then this term that he's son of God, the Jews understood what that meant. And I mean the same to us today, because here we are 2,000 years removed and again, we have the word son, we think of the only thing we know of a son would be. But to then to call yourself son of God is making yourself to be God. And so then we get to this point where he's wonderful counsel, well that's what he literally is. And then this mighty God, we take that true. But then everlasting father, that's the part that the Jews even then took to be idiomatic, meaning that it was a figure of speech that he would, in other words, what does this idiom mean? That he would be fatherly like a father to us, but not that he would be the father. Now, in listening to their conversation, here's what the conclusion is. By the way, this is kind of how I got started on this conversation with Rick because I wanted to have a conversation with this online that one of, or maybe two of them would say that, and I won't say who the Vays were because some of you might note some of these people, but a couple of them would say that we believe that Jesus is not the father. But if we were to discover that he is the father, they said and argued, well, what would that do with the doctrine of the Trinity? What would that do with our beliefs? And just to hear them rattle about, there really was no big difference in terms of they said, well, okay, well, that destroys everything. Now, again, everyone believes just like here that Jesus is not the father, but if we found out what would that change? Would it mean that, okay, I've got to deconstruct my doctrine? I've got to re-understand everything? No, because again, we are trying to, it's the hard part about trying to get the identity of God, trying to describe him if we had a police sketch artist, trying to describe his deity, who he is, that's hard to do with our language. It's limited. We can't try to describe it. It's almost like saying write out a doctrine of dissertation with just half of the alphabet. And so therein lies the problem. And as Rick says, we can find out that this is to be taking it immaculately when we read the whole of the scripture. So you know what? Yeah, that makes sense. So another passage that we've got to go to that folks will run to will be John 14, starting verse 8. I don't think we have to read all of it, but 14, 8, Philip said to him, Lord, this is Jesus getting ready to depart. He's preparing them, John 14, 15, and 16. Lord, show us the Father. And Jesus said, I'm sorry, he says, and it is good for us, good enough for us. Jesus said, have I been with you so long with you and yet you have not come to know me? Philip, he said, I'm sorry, he said, he who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father's in me? So how do we take that passage? Yeah, well, I mean, here's the thing, like I said before, the problem with those who take a oneness view of God is that they isolate passages. You know, the gospel had a prologue in the beginning. Remember, I made reference to that. You have it right there at the beginning. And can I read that? I'm gonna read that very quickly because it lays out and tells you exactly what Jesus means in the beginning of this gospel. So the very beginning of the gospel, you have these words presented here around verse 14 and following. And the word of God became flesh and dwelt among us. And the word became flesh. Where are you heading? John chapter one verse 14. Oh, one, okay. Yeah, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we have seen his glory, right? Glory as the only son from the Father. So you got a clue right there. I mean, if what people are saying is that in John 14.9 that Jesus saying, I am the Father, and notice he doesn't actually use those words, well, you can just follow along at the prologue as to the incarnation or the revelation of the Son right here in the text that explains what is being met in John 14.9. It says the full of grace and truth. So one of the things that you see in this points back, I believe to Exodus chapter 34, I might be where the notion of Moses, Moses said, came to Yahweh and he wanted to see the glory. Show me your glory, right? And when you see, I believe in Exodus, you can go Exodus chapter 34 is where I believe you see that is you get the attributes of God, right? On display, a long suffering full of compassion and mercy. You know, there's a list that's iterated there. I don't have that text pulled up, but I think you're familiar with it, that text. You have the same thing analogous here in this text where it says full of grace and truth. Verse 15, John bore witness about him and cried out, this is he of whom I said, he comes after me, he who comes after me ranks before me because he was before me, right? It's interesting language. For from his fullness, we have all received grace upon grace. And then notice what it says here. It says, for the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Now this phrase grace and truth is really important, especially I wanna target on the truth. It's not that the law of Moses was falsehood. When John uses the word truth here, he's talking about the fullness of revelation, that this is the full revelation here, came through who? Jesus Christ, no one has ever seen God. The only God who is at the father's right side has made him known. And that Greek word there, I know you're better at the Greek than I am, Corey, but that Greek word there is what I believe for known is where you get that word exegesis explains, has made him known, right? So when you go to John 14.9, this is the point that Jesus is making. If you wanna see the father from my character, my behavior, all of that demonstrates the character and nature of the father. If you've seen me, you have seen the father. Not that I am the father in person, but my behavior and my character is in unison with the nature and character of the father. It is Jesus who reveals who is the ultimate revelation. Throughout Old Testament scriptures, you've had the revelation of God. He's just like I brought up Exodus chapter 34, but the ultimate revelation is in the person of Jesus Christ. Okay. Okay. So, I'm sorry, I was looking at something else. So your statement of when you say you see the father, put that in a first grader can understand it. We're a first grader can understand it. What they are seeing is exactly what John 1 is saying. They're seeing the attributes and the character of God, the father and the person of Christ. As he interacted with the disciples, as he interacted with the people, they see his attributes, his mercy, his love, his grace. All those things are on display in the person of Christ. If you see Christ, you see the father in that sense. So, and here is gonna be the problem. Rarely, I shouldn't say rarely, I shouldn't say rarely, but it's difficult, especially if a person is really trying to kind of intently wrap their head around the identity of God, the identity of Christ, the identity of the Holy Spirit, how this works because there's just nothing on the planet, nothing in history, nothing that we can think of that's like, that's wow. Every analogy that we can think of would actually, would just fail at some, at some point, whatever analogy that you want to give for the Trinity would fail because there's just no such things you can point to. And so we do the best we can, but we know this. According to scripture, Jesus is God. According to scripture, obviously God is God. There's only one God. We obviously all, we would all believe that the Holy Spirit is God. Trying to get this thing wrapped up, which is what we're trying to do, trying to make this night nice and tidy. We're not gonna make it nice and tidy. We can get it nice and close to tidy, but make it a nice and tidy. That's gonna be, because somebody's gonna still walk away. Now, so that, which leads to this question and we'll get back to this, but what happens if a person can say, yes, I believe that Jesus is God, but I don't believe like you do. I believe that he's also the father. What would happen? Does that, does that change that person's, would we say that person is not saved, could not be saved? All right. That's why I started where I started at the beginning of this conversation. Cause I knew that would come up. That's why I started where I started because what you see is that the gospel, when I repeat this again, it's Trinitarian. This, this is why when people try to make this dichotomy between the gospel and, you know, trusting in Christ or believing Christ, that's problematic. One of the verses that I pulled up and we might get to that is Matthew 16 verse 16 through 18 where Jesus asked, who do you say that I am? Right, text. You know, that's the classic text, right? You have it pulled up right there, right? And so the thing is the faith that we have is not a shallow faith. It's an informed faith. That is when you words have meaning and that's why I went to John four and, and showed you that the gospel, you had the, you had the father sending the son. So right there, that's the gospel, right? That's the gospel message that, you know, people, you know, people want to focus on the son, but you have the father sending the son, the son willingly come, you have two persons there. You have at least two persons you have to deal with there in that text, okay? And so for someone to say that they receive the gospel and yet reject what the gospel says, you ultimately are receiving a false gospel. That, that's the conclusion because the gospel, we are informed about the gospel from God's revelation. In fact, I don't have the text pulled up right now, but in Romans chapter one, it begins with the language of the gospel of God. It's God's gospel. So the question is, who is that God? Is this the God? Is he an alien overlord on the plant Xenu? If I said that, that's who God is, am I saved? No, because truth, we don't throw propositional truth out the window and say our faith is not informed by facts. Our faith is informed by the facts of scripture and they go hand in hand. I think part of the problem, especially in the religious world, not even picking on the oneness people, but just in general is everybody says Jesus, but who is Jesus? And that's why Jesus and Matthew 16, I think an apropos text said, who do you say that I am? I know people, some people say I'm this person or that person, but who do you say I am? And what we believe about Jesus matters. That's the point I'm trying to make. So okay, let's say, now I may have a slightly different tech. Tell me if you agree with what I'm saying. I have told people in the past that what is of utmost importance, one, that you believe that you are fallen, you need to be saved. You can't do it on your own. And that Jesus' blood on the cross is what saves you. Jesus is in fact, the one who saves you is God. So because I believe what the Bible, Jesus has himself, unless you believe that I am he or I am, then you shall die in your sins. I think that's important that you confess that he is Lord and not just a Lord, but the Lord is the only Lord. Okay, can you stop right there? Where does that mean? See, that's where I'm getting at. That's the point I'm getting at, Corey. Like when you say confess Jesus Christ is Lord, what do we mean by that? Well, here's what I mean. Or here's what I'm trying to say. If a person, let's say we've got a 10 year old, who wants to place their faith in Christ? And then they do so, but they can't wrap their head around that Jesus is not the Father, but they believe that he is God. To that person, I would say yes. That person, that's a safe person. Because my contention is, how much of the truth do you have to know to be saved? Now, I think that you need to know the truth. And I think over time, I think the Spirit's gonna work in you. But what happens if right now, or if ever, you never come to the, it's still foggy with you. But it is securing you that you do, except that Jesus is God. I know for a fact there is no passage where someone calls him Father. We do have passages where he's called God. And so I think of utmost importance is that he is, he is who he has always been from the beginning. He is God. He is the Lord. He is, he is I am. And I do believe that he is, that there's a distinction that needs to be made between him and the Father. But what if a person's not clear on that? But they understand this, a 10-year-old, a nine-year-old. Can that 10 or nine-year-old not be saved until they get the fullness of the Trinity? I don't think they have to get the fullness of the Trinity, but knowing that Jesus, I'm sorry, go ahead. No, you go ahead. I didn't want to interrupt. I thought you were at the end. Go ahead. I am. So I think you break up a valid point, right? And here's the thing, here's what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that you have to have a perfect theology in order to be saved. That would be ridiculous. None of us have that, right? But the thing is, I think to your point is that there, here's why I'm not trying to go. I'm not trying to go down as a road of, what is the irreducible minimum? Because the thing is, as we're the word and the spirit, we're as people and dwell by the spirit informed by the word of God, we are growing in our knowledge and understanding of who God is every day, right? And the point I'm trying to make is that this, you can't be a person who rejects what the scripture teaches about God. You may not, you may have a shallow understanding that will eventually grow over time, but here's somebody that's indwelled by the spirit of God. They're not going to do. They're not going to reject what the scriptures teach about the God of scripture. That's the point I made. So I wanna be clear with that. If somebody's trying, someone, I don't wanna give anybody the impression that you have to have this perfect crystallized understanding of the nature of God and all the boxes have to be checked. If you don't have all those boxes checked and you're in trouble, where you get in trouble, and this is kind of where a lot of times I hear people do, they take the statement you made and then they abuse it, a lot of people. So what they will say is, well, it doesn't really matter who God did is them. Because I checked that little box you gave me, Corey, that 10 year old box and I'm good. And I'm saying that if you go around with that attitude, that's problematic. It is. Where you're rejecting the revelation of God, where people are showing you, because the thing is we're growing in the knowledge and the grace of the Lord. That's the character of the believer, right? So that is true and it's not a special believer. That's true of all believers. Then you start to know who it is that has redeemed you, right? We're talking about as you become a believer, what you believe, what you know, should be enhanced and should grow. So if you've been a Christian for a year, that's 365 days that you are responsible to grow. Now, to what degree, obviously people grow faster and learn more than other folks, we get that. But as he says, Paul says, grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. And so we are not children, we're not gonna be on milk, but start eating solid foods. And so there are times where we, you know what, this might be difficult, but it doesn't mean it's impossible to understand. It doesn't mean that it's an excuse for me not to study it. And so you want to get a clear understanding of one who he is, not, I don't want to almost say it to you because that would be wrong, but who he is and look back over your life, how he's shown himself to be what we see in Isaiah nine. Matter of fact, let's go back to Isaiah nine. I pulled up exit 34, that's what you're talking about, but let me go back to Isaiah nine. And I wanna show how he's been all of these things in our lives. He has been, I won't say that, so the government part, that part hadn't happened yet, but he has been a wonderful counselor. This is what he will be called. And so what he will be called, I think that's kind of the where, if you notice the, how this was written, this passage, it talks about the what is the, as we would say, the show enough, but then we get to this part and his name will be called. His name will be called. So this is what he will be called. This is how we can know that when we get this other passage, and I'm pointing to the screen, like y'all can see my finger touching the screen, but when we get this passage here, this eternal father or everlasting father, this is how we can end up seeing that this is idiomatically because, and it can be applied to us. Has he been a wonderful counselor in our lives as a believer, where everyone has to say, if you're saved, yes, he has been. The nights that I needed him, the days that I needed him when I was distraught, no, I didn't get a miracle. I didn't get a new card in the front yard. I didn't get all the things that some of these folks in church that I was gonna get, but he's been a wonderful counselor to me. He's certainly been that to the believer, mighty God, without question, without question has he been mighty God to me? Has he been fatherly to me? Yes, comforting, yes, a prince of peace without question. And so if you notice the way the sentence is written, after the government will be upon his shoulders, then it says what he will be called. So if I can, it's almost like I can call, I can call Rick, give him a title, a name that also is applicable that applies to him, right? So I can say, you know, Rick the man, right? Rick the ruler, whatever, whatever I wanna add to or subscribe to him, he will be that. Not that I will literally verbally call him, hey, wonderful counselor, how are you doing? Won't do that, but that is who he is to me. Oh, I don't know if that's making sense. And so that's just something that also needs to be brought out about this particular technique. This is not necessarily the indicative if I could use it that way, but this is saying who he will be called. We'll call that to who. But I think it is important to know as much as we can about him. But there is a bottom line of something, just a base of what you have to know who he is. This is why the Bible is clear. The first time that we start seeing him talk about God and how he's interacting with us, or not us, but in their lives, previous to his incarnation, he was called the Lord. He was called the angel of the Lord. He was called Yahweh. He was called I am. And so that part is important. So as we see him developing his identity through the scriptures, when we get to the New Testament, or we get to even this passage, it's still in keeping with how God has revealed himself all along anyway, because he has always been to those fatherly. He's always been to those accountants. He's always been mighty God. He's always been a prince of peace. And so I just kind of wanted to go there. So now. You see that in the chat? Please refrain from giving your guest pet names. No. No. You said that. Lisa Akin. Oh. Or Akin. I hope I'm pronouncing the name last name correctly. Now, let me ask you this. And this is where I think we're gonna go to the scriptures even more so from your point. Are there other passages that make it clear distinction that he is not the father, that if we had Mori Povage on the show, that he would say these passages show that you are not the father. I get that from, I saw K. Dev's post. Somebody's gonna make a clip of you, Corey, saying that it's not gonna be me though. So what passages would make it clear of this distinction? Yeah, I mean, it's all throughout the New Testament. This is the point that you see all throughout. I mean, we could go to John 8, for example. John 8, verse 16 through 18. You got it pulled up? Pulled up? If you look at that, I mean, it makes it very clear here. Verse 16 through 18. So one of many texts here, if you look at this text, I got it pulled up here. It says, yet even if I, so you got these personal pronouns, that's one thing, a lot of the oneness people like to talk about those personal pronouns, right? Well, guess what? You got a personal pronoun right here. I, who's identifying a person, even if I do judge, my, got a possessive there, talking about himself, my judgment is true, for is not I alone who judge. But we got a conjunction here, the father, I referring to one person and the father who do what? Who sent me, sent me. So you have, again, the same language we saw similar to first John chapter four where the father sends the son. And here, right here in this text, there's a distinction of persons, clearly right here. And he goes on to say, referring to the law of Moses in verse 17 in your law, it is written that the testimony of two people is true. So let me ask you something, just on that alone, just looking at that. Well, let me keep reading because I have a kind of a follow, let me read verse 18. I am the one who bears witness about myself, got one person there, and the father who sent me bears witness about me, another person. But here's the thing, is Jesus a liar? I messed that, that's kind of a rhetorical question here. Is Jesus lying? Cause he even appeals to the law of Moses whereby the testimony of two or three witnesses, we know about that, got two people, at least two witnesses, right? Do we really have two witnesses? Well, from the one's perspective, you know, you really only have one witness who kind of changes roles, it kind of takes off one hat, puts on another hat, right? So the fact that Jesus even appeals to the law that clearly lays out two distinct persons in view means that what must be in view here is two distinct persons. So clearly Jesus is not the father. So to answer the question, if you want to use that povich thing you're trying to do, you are not the father, Jesus. That's clearly what's being articulated here in the text. Okay, what else you got? What else I got? What more, how much time do you have? So we could also look at Galatians chapter four, the good text. And here's the thing, notice a lot of the texts I'm going to are connected to the gospel. I could pick a lot of text, but the text I'm picking have gospel implications, okay? Galatians 4-4 says, but when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his, got the possession, son didn't say sent forth himself, sent forth his son, born of woman, born of the law, and to do what? To redeem those who were under the law so that we might receive adoptions as sons. This is the very hard of the gospel here in these two verses, making a distinction between the father and the son. Man, and I know that there are, there are gonna be some people who are like, man, this is, you know, we're in the weeds. Now, this, admittedly, this can be kind of hard to follow. Sometimes it can be maybe not as simple as, but there are times where we have to just kind of just get into it. But the gospel is simple. There is a simplicity to the gospel. That is that God, God required a debt to be paid. And the debt was paid by who? God the son. That's right. I understand that it can be a little bit difficult, maybe even intimidating in some regards, but that's the main point. Now, as we're drilling down, we're just answering some questions that sometimes might be asked or maybe thought of. And so this is all we're doing here. And so I think Rick is in the camp with me that, if you believe, well, I think, I know he's in the camp on this point, that if you believe that Jesus is God, then you can be safe. If not, then no. But on this issue, this is where some growth, as a matter of fact, some intentional desire to grow is needed on this issue about him being the father. Neither of us believe that he is the father. But again, understand that it can be difficult, hard to follow, I'm not quite tracking, I get that. And so what do we do? If we're not tracking, we keep reading, we keep studying, amen. So what else you got, Rick? Yeah, I want to inject a point before we get to another chapter, another verse, is that the gospel that saves us is the gospel we continue to proclaim to ourselves. And why is that important? Because I think it speaks to the point I was trying to make earlier, is that as we, these verses are gospel-centric verses, these passages I'm bringing up, is because even if someone is like, hey, I don't quite get this whole Trinitarian business, it's in the gospel. And so we, as those who profess faith in Christ, need to be constantly feeding the gospel to ourselves. That gospel message that saves us is the same gospel message, someone in the chat was mentioning sanctification. Well, the gospel that brought us in through our justification is the same gospel that we should be proclaiming to ourselves even in our sanctification. And it really is about sanctification, quite frankly, as we're growing in our love and knowledge of the God who has saved us. So I wanted to make that point and I can go to another verse. Amen, yeah. So we can look at, for example, John 10, no, actually not John 10, we can look at Philippians two, Philippians two. Okay, all right. And this, the hymn to Christ, beginning at verse five. And notice what it says here. It says, have this mind among yourselves which is yours in Christ Jesus, who though he was in the form of God, that's a Morphe Theos, I believe, Morphe there, the form of God. It's talking about the fact that he always was God. So you have the deity of Christ in view here did not count himself equal with God, a thing to be grasped, right? And so one of the things I wanna bring up, not trying to get into the weeds, but oftentimes in the epistles, when you have Christ or the Son, in conjunction with Theos in a verse, typically Christ is referred to as Lord and the father is referred to as Theos. I mean, you tend to see that pattern throughout scripture. So this is referring to the father here when it says equal with God, a thing to be grasped, but into himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men and being found in the human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death in the cross. I'm bringing up another gospel-centered passage. It was the Son, not the father who died on the cross. That's important that we get that, right? Therefore God, referring to the father, highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under earth and every tongue confess, Jesus Christ is Lord. So earlier somebody was making reference to Romans chapter 10 and I asked Corey, kind of thinking of what that person was putting in the chat, what does it mean that Jesus Christ is a Lord? Like it's pregnant with meaning and that's why it's important that we look at texts like this, to the glory of God, the father. So now referring to God that we've saw in various verses before as God, the father, a distinction between Jesus and God, the father, right? The son and God, the father are being distinguished here in this text. All right, I wanna ask a couple of these questions too as we're going. This is interesting, someone asked, isn't he speaking of Jesus sitting on the right at the right hand or on the right hand of the father? Who, you talking about this text? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Some of the questions that were going up and I don't wanna go too far without answering some of the questions that were brought up. And so the question someone would say, hey, okay, so I'm hearing you speak, wait a second, but isn't Jesus sitting on the right hand of the father? How do you, now I don't know if they're asking that in agreement or, Yeah, it's kind of like, is it a rhetorical question? Isn't Jesus sitting at the right hand of the father? Yes, I mean, we have various texts that speak to that. I believe Psalm 110 speaks to that language right there in Psalm 110 and other places, speak to that. And what does it mean? It's really emphasizing seated in the position of power and authority, right? That's kind of what's being emphasized there. Not necessarily a literal position, but you see language even in the Old Testament about the right hand of God, referring to the might and power of Yahweh to accomplish His purpose. So you have that language in the Old being referred to in the New, so. Yeah, he's not literally, God is sitting right here. Yeah, exactly. He's sitting right here, like Joseph Smith was. But anyway, Michelle asked a question, she says, so God didn't get into the body, it was really Jesus and not God? Well, here's the question. I think that the argument assumes something. Jesus is God. And so back in what John won and I think you've probably done a live on this before kind of going through John one, a couple of verses at the beginning of the chapter and explaining the Greek there about what's going on in those first three phrases. And the beginning was the word and the word, it was with God and the word was God. Like what does all that mean? But the bottom line is that what's being emphasized there is that the word is of the same character nature as God and God being referred to as God the Father, Theon is being referenced to God the Father. So it isn't that he's not God, it's the being who is God, the second person of the Trinity who has the being of God. I know this may sound complex. He is everything that God the Father is as far as being, right? As far as essence takes on a human nature. And that's what we just read when Philippians chapter two verses five through 11 is where you have in the form of God. So it clearly states that Christ has always existed as God takes on a human nature in the incarnation. He doesn't cease being God. He always is God, but he takes on a human nature and theologians. I know it's a technical term called hypostatic union, really technical term, but all it really means is that the one who always subsisted from all eternity, the second person of the Trinity who always assisted as God just simply took on a human nature as he entered into our human history in order to redeem mankind. That's all it means. So he didn't cease to be God, he didn't stop being God. He was always God for all eternity and he just took on a human nature without ceasing to be God. Now I heard someone do this before and so I'm gonna throw this at you. I'm praying. Can I pray to Jesus? Of course, we're told, yeah. But he says to pray to the Father in my name. So how does it work? And if I'm praying, while I'm praying, what if I happen to say, call Jesus Father? I mean, out of an accident, I mean, when you mean you say I call him Father because I think you're the Father, I'm trying to follow your question. So you'll hear someone praying, I was asked this question, so I'm praying and I call him, can I call while I'm praying, can I call Jesus Father? Thank you, Lord Jesus, for all that you've done. Thank you, Father, I thank you so much. So I'm going back and forth, I'm making the words interchangeable. So what if I'm doing that? Can I pray to him? I'm supposed to pray to Jesus. He says, here's a model prayer, but then we pray in his name. So what if I, so can I pray to Jesus? Can't clarify. So see, even I've done this, I've seen it. So you read various passages, right? Like in Matthew, right? Where Jesus teaches them how to pray, right? He talks about that. So we have the example prayer right there in Matthew's gospel, but all authority in heaven and earth has been given to the Son, right? So we have that at the end of Matthew's gospel and affirmed in other places as well. I think I've mentioned some of those passages. So to pray to him, because he is our intercessor, right? There's various passages that speak to the fact that he is our great high priest. He is our intercessor. So we can pray to him and that's okay. But I think one of the things that needs to be clarified is that is someone calling him the Father or you're praying to the Father and praying to Christ on behalf of that. I think those are two different things. Yeah, I have told people if you're praying and you make a mistake, God didn't just sit there with the pencil marking off. No, I tell you, you know what? I almost heard your prayer, but you said this is the wrong way, this and that. And I hope people here, I'm not saying that either. I guess what I'm saying is that in prayers there, the prayers, God is trying in God, right? So I think where we wanna show some level of grace is to show that, hey, the Father is involved in that, but it's through the work of the Son, right? That we make those partitions. Now, does somebody have to get that right? Like are they, if they're consciously thinking through that, like we would, hopefully you would, but maybe you're not. And I wouldn't brow beat somebody over the head if they said the wrong word at the wrong time or you might have thought they should have said this word. I think sometimes we can be too critical. I think at the end of the day, my thing is, it's always been this, our faith needs to be an informed faith. And that means that we should understand we should hopefully strive to understand what the gospel entailed as far as how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have worked together in order to redeem mankind. So that's really the ultimate goal. And so someone says a prayer and say, Father, and I'm not looking for the long knives to come after anybody, so. Yeah. Again, I think the most important thing is, and there's a reason why we, there's this, some people do this. I know one is will do this. This misunderstanding of what it means to be in his name. And so Jesus tells him to go and baptize the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And there's some sort of conflict with acts where, and then the other actual physical water baptism happened to be a company with in Jesus' name. And they think that there's a problem there, not realizing what it means to be in his name. And so that can be, that is the reason and so that can be, that ends up being an issue because I think they don't realize who God is. And I think it's vitally important, vitally important. Remember early on, we see God and we see him interacting what we call either these theophanies or Christophanies. We see him interacting with man, interacting with Hagar. She calls him God. We know she calls him God because Moses tells us that she calls him God. We know Moses is right about what she said because he wasn't there. God told Moses that she called him God. Same thing with Jacob, same thing with actually Abraham, actually with Isaac, with Gideon, with Joshua. We see these people coming in contact with God and Moses makes a statement in Deuteronomy 4 that the Lord is God. And all throughout scripture, we're seeing the Lord is God. And there's only one Lord, only one God. He shares his glory with no one and we beheld his glory, that glory of God, the Father. And we see him manifest it as, and I hate to use that term manifest it because somebody might take that and run with it before I can get away. Yeah, there's only one and I glad you brought that up. And that was one of the texts I brought up is what is that, 1st Timothy. There's only one instance in the New Testament where the word manifest is used as a relationship to the incarnation, right? It's not the Father being manifested, it's not the Holy Spirit being manifest. That language doesn't exist. I just want to, I think later everybody knows that. When they go to the pastors, they misinterpret that word, growth. But Jesus, but the Lord is God. There is no other Lord. There is no other God. And so, and we see the Lord being called God in Exodus 3. Now, Moses can say firsthand because he was there and it's the Lord, it's the angel of the Lord, it's God. Those are the names that are used there. And then we see, I am that I am from the first person standpoint. And then when you say it, I'll get from the third person standpoint, this I am. And so we know what it is. And we know that Jews know what he means when he says I am because they want to pick up stones and kill them. And then Paul says, here's the heart of the gospel guys, Romans 10, where he says that unless that you confess that Jesus is Lord, well, it's not the Lord. But then you read a little further that whoever confesses or calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. It's the same Lord, there's only one Lord. And so that's what you must do. That's what salvation has to be. That's what it's based upon. A God, not like a Muslim God who wants you to do your very best to possibly earn salvation without any real guarantees. Rather, we have a God who will give us a guarantee of salvation because he pays the debt. The debt is paid by God the Son that's owed that no one else can take away, can nullify, they cannot discount the payment. And so God the Father will not come back and say, I'm sorry, you're a few shekel short. No. And so he makes that, that's the fullness and the completeness of our salvation because we had a God who says, according to Leviticus 1711, that he himself is going to provide the blood on the altar. That's the interesting thing about it. And so I think if you don't come away with anything else, God is, let's say God is, Jesus is God and our salvation is secure because of that. But it's just this, and I think, even if guys, we've got some time left but even if you still walk away confused, guess what? Another reason for you to read and study some more, right? So you had, you had some passages, I think we definitely get to, that is one. I don't know if you want to go to it right now, if you have another passage, but Colossians 2,9, I think it's perfect. Oh yeah, that's the one, that's the one. That is definitely one that gets used a lot. And here's the problem, remember what I said earlier, people come to a text with a question and an answer already, they come to a verse. Goodie, goodie, I got the question and the answer. All right, you don't even have to even read, why even open your Bible, right? Because there's a four there in verse nine. You see, is there a four in your Bible? Yes, it is. Well, there's a hot tea because, or before, it could be for a hot tea. So that, that's because. A hot tea clause right here. So here, got the Greek guy here. All right, so it can, it's continuing on for something that he said earlier, I'll pick up at verse six and just read down. He says, therefore, as you receive Christ Jesus, the Lord, so walk in him, or some translations say, continue to walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught a bounding and thanksgiving. Right, that's important. See to it, this is the point, see to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ. And I think that's the heart of the issue there is because during, in this time, in the ancient world, you had, you know, the growth of prognosticism and things like that going on, different ideas about what it meant to be spiritual, especially a lot of these Gnostic ideas. And I believe that even Colossians, in chapter one, even in chapter two, is a polemic against some of these Gnostic ideas, right? And so you get into verse nine, where you have four, connecting everything you have in the previous verses, in him is the whole fullness of deity, dwells bodily, right? And so in some translations, I think the KJV, it says the Godhead, right? Does it use the word Godhead? Yes, yeah. And so then the doll is, oh, see, that means that something came into Christ, right? He, the father is inside of him or something of that nature. No, all that's really being expressed is, whatever makes God God, as far as attributes, is essential attributes, is divine attributes, that's who Christ is. He is truly God, right? And this is on the heels of what we just read in verse eight about not being led, taken captive about philosophy and empty deceit, because the whole idea, especially from an Gnostic perspective is, what makes one truly spiritual, right? Well, people are looking to all kinds of things in order to grab on to what it means to be spiritual. But the critique here, or the polemic here, rather, is that you don't have to go anywhere because all that makes God, God is in the person of Christ, right? He is truly God and truly man. And I'm using the words deliberately, not fully God or fully man, truly God. He is truly God. Whatever God is, Christ is, right? He's lacking in nothing. And I can hear some people proud in the background thinking about, what about that verse over there? Well, he said he didn't know the hour. I already know some of the, I know the verses that people wanna run to, but this is what this text means. You gotta deal with the meaning here. So that's the point of this verse here, Colossians 2.9. Amen. Amen. I know you also brought up, well, you definitely brought up 1 Timothy 3.16. Did we cover, yeah, we covered, we just covered Philippians. Yeah, we talked about it brief about the manifestation. That's kind of the thing I wanna emphasize there. How, everybody's talking about all these manifestations and I'm like, how many manifestations do you really see? There's only one manifestation is referring to the incarnation of the person, the sun. That's what we're referring to in that text there. And this part of the variant there, I think in this verse, I think you're aware of that as well, right? Say that one more time. There's a textual variant. Let me pull it up in May and let me go see whether the, excuse me, the textual variant is. Hold on one second. Y'all see this little white cause I'm going to do my quick little research to find this textual variant. Here we go to the sigla. Turn this up. One, two, three, four, five, six. Get rid of that. Textual variant would, oh, here we go. Textual variant with this. Homilagomenos, menos, mega x10. So there's the variant there. Oh, okay, that is. Oh, this is one that we may, okay, whether it is subjunctive or not, I believe that's where this subjunctive, then we have another textual, we've got a few textual variants here. I think what people get thrown off is that in the KJV, it says, doesn't it say God who revealed in the flesh versus he? Well, it's this haas, which is. Okay. And so there, let's see, the textual variants there are those that say, let's see. That yeah, yeah, the God. If y'all can't see what I'm looking at down at the very, very bottom, this shows what other manuscripts or codexes or paparite might say, how they're written. But the textual variants, as a matter of fact, let me put this other one back up. Let me see what this one says. I'll hold on one second. One, two, three, four. Y'all forgive me, I'm being a nerd. Okay, so I don't know why I pulled that back up. Oh, you know what? Wait a second, wait a second. Let me go to, this is me just overkill, but let me go to the KJV text. Yeah, you'll see the difference. This is where people. Let me find it. I've got a ton of different texts. So I'm looking, there it is. Texas receptors. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. All right. So, okay, yeah. Oh, there it is, there it is. There's a difference here. So in the KJV, it just has got, but then here, it just says he, who's right if that's it. Or actually the word is better translated rather than manifested. The word is better translated as revealed. Revealed, yeah. And so that, I think the manifested part is the part that gets certain people in trouble where it's just, he revealed himself in that way. You don't think that, okay, he became another form or something. And so anyway, but does that, that's the text you're referring to? Yeah, I'm referring to that. Okay. Yeah. So what will happen is the kind of presupposition is that you run to the KJV, you see God manifest and say, well, that's the father because you've already made that the idea that you want to bring to the text and then you assume that that's what that's teaching that Jesus is really the father. Yeah. Someone said, I want to go ahead and address it because like you didn't hear what I said. But yes, Corey, you're confusing people. Jesus is God, but not the father. Isn't it what I'm saying? We've been saying that. Everybody, Corey, what conversation we've been having, man. I think we've been making that clear from the beginning. Yeah. None of us, you didn't even start your intro. We both believe that Jesus is not the father. So I try to be somewhat clear. In fairness to Bernard, I did say earlier that I would be playing quote unquote, the devil's advocate. I'd be playing both sides and so forth. Yes. So maybe that's what it was. And so I'm going to, I'm going to give both sides but then try to answer or be a part of the actual one. But I'm just messing around though. But yeah, what you believe, Bernard is what I believe is also what Rick believes as well. So. Can you look at one more text and just one more? And I think this is the one. John, 1030. John. Because this is the one, 1030. Because this is the one, I mean, if you read it, it says, I and the father, I mean, it's a lot of things going on here. Let me actually go back and start burn here. Yeah, a lot going on. So if I started verse 20, 25. 25. We can end on this one. Okay. Verse 25. Where's 25? I just type in 25, but I'm too lazy. There it is. Right. And it says, Jesus answers them. I told you and you do not believe the works that I do in my father's name bears witness about me. So I mean, you then let's establish that we, what we've already been seeing in various texts, especially here in John's gospel is a distinction between the father and the son. You have it here in verse 25. The works that I do in my father's name. Why is he, you know, if he's the father, the works that I did, he doesn't have to say in my father's name, I did these works myself, but he says in my father's name bear witness about me. Because let me bring something. This is probably worth another conversation maybe in the future is that what they believe, a lot of people believe the son is, is only the physical body. So a lot of times the way people try to get around this is to say, well, the father's in the physical body and the physical body is the son, right? We clearly have looked at other verses that show that that's just false, false, patently false, but that's the presupposition that people have. And they can look at that verse and say, well, Rick, I can handle that verse just fine because the son is the body and the father's in the body. So he's, you know, that's how I can reconcile that. And that's really not really a good way of dealing with the text. But anyway, based on all the biblical evidence, but I want to keep pushing forward. Verse 26, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me. Ooh, I've heard that verse mentioned recently. Hmm. I'm avoiding this verse for, I'm taking a vacation from 10, 27, 28 and 29. Oh my goodness. It's like deja vu, what's going on here? Okay. Yeah. I give them eternal life and they will never perish and no one will snatch them out of my hand. Let's see. So you see these personal pronouns? I, my hand possess of my hand, right? My father, notice this. Now here's the thing. You have the possession used up another person. So if you deny, if you reject the doctrine of the father being a different person, you also inadvertently deny who the son really is. Because in this verse, in verse 29, he says, my father, right? Who has given them to me is greater than all. So that that's where people get tripped up. Like they're greater than all. And no one is able to snatch them out of my father's hand. I and the father are one, right? So a couple of things here in this text, I've already established earlier that we're dealing with two different persons. We've looked at other texts that style set. This is one more for the argument, but where people get tripped up here is this greater than all statement here. And where people get tripped up and is the fact that we're talking about the incarnation. And we already read earlier, Philippians chapter two, verses five through 11, where the theologians, I'm not trying to get you, fill your head with a lot of theologian terms, but they refer to it as the condescension, right? Or the humiliation of Christ, where he enters into humanity, right? Becomes the bond servant, right? Comes in, right? Well, in that text, you saw that he desired to not have equality with God the father because he took on in his role of redemption, the role of servant to obey every word that the father gave him to say and work that he gave him to do. So in that sense, the father is greater than the son, but not an essential greatness, not a greatness in as far as his essence, greatness as far as its function. And I think this is where people get confused. It's a difference of function, not a difference of essence. That's what he's referring to when he says greater than all. But at the very same time, what you have to also see here in this text is that no one can snatch, if people will just forget what they just read, no one can snatch them out of my hand. Who's the my? That's the son. And equally, no one can snatch them out of the father's hand. So in that sense, they're the same. That's interesting, isn't it? Right? And that's why you have in verse 30, I and the father are one because everything that precedes that verse informs us what that verse means. It's not talking about an ontological thing where the father is the same as the son, right? In the sense that the father is the son, right? It is referring to their one and purpose and redemption. No one can snatch them out of my father's hand. You're securing the father's hand and you're securing the son's hand. We are one and the redemptive purpose in salvation. That is what's being brought there. But it does bring up an interesting question because only God can save. And we see that all throughout even the Old Testament scriptures. In Isaiah, Isaiah 43, 10, it says, God or Yahweh is the only savior. So Yahweh is the only savior and Christ or a son here can securely say without wavering that no one can snatch them out of my hand, who is the son? Just case closed. So even though it's not saying that verse 30 is not affirming that the father and the son are the same person, by implication about how they function and what they do, you would have to conclude that they are all the same being, that they're, in that, in essence, they are both God. That's the point. Amen, amen. I have to tell you a lot of angry comments because of that last thing that you said, but it's true. And you can reject it. Matter of fact, you can reject it, not really paying attention to what was just said, but let me go back to that. Where's the passage at? Yeah. Oh, go on it. What did I just, I think when I do that, I just had the thing up and I moved, I moved my cursor somewhere. Let me click on it, it's not there. No, that's not it either. What did I do with it? What did I just do with the passage? Because someone's gonna have a problem with what you just, there it is, have a problem with what you just said about him being God. Here's the problem though. You don't take my word for it. You don't take Rick's word for it. You can just say, we totally discount what you think he meant. That's fine. You know who else thought that Rick and I meant the same thing or said the same thing? That Jesus is God and equating himself. The very next verse, verse 31. There we go, there we go, I keep reading. The Jews picked up stones like, hey, wait a sec, wait a sec, wait a sec. Why is that? And so no one can say, yeah, those two guys, you know, yeah, they say that, but forget them. But the Jews felt the same way. And then when I asked what you're storming me for, why do you wanna storm me for what good work? And they said, because you are blasphemy. You being a man, make yourself out to be God. Jesus said, hold up, wait a minute. That's not what I said. It's okay, and then Jesus left. But so I think it's vitally important, guys. Again, that however we come to our understanding, whatever we, if it doesn't quite make sense, you know what you all don't wanna do? Do your best to help it make sense. If it doesn't quite make sense, make it make sense. Study. It could be that everything that Rick and I said was wrong and I'm pretty sure someone will say, yeah, everything both of you said was wrong, which is fine. Go and study for yourself, but you better come to at least the conclusion that Jesus is God, that he died for your sins. And I'll just go ahead and throw it back in there that if you have placed your faith in Christ, well guess what? You are secure for ever. No, no, no, no, no. That's not a drop the mic moment. I can't drop the mic just yet, because I gotta guess we only drop the mic when I'm here by myself. So anyway, Rick, this was wonderful. Do you have any last words that you wanna make sure? Hey, I wanna make sure that you all get this and understand this or just anything else in general? Yeah, I think you made the point clear, Corey, at the end, so I'm not gonna reiterate that. Again, all I will say is that the God of the scriptures is true. He presents truth, the culmination of his true revelation of himself is in the person of Jesus Christ. And my plea to all of you is get to know who Jesus Christ is. And that is the one who's revealed in Texas scripture. Any other Jesus that's outside of what the scripture teaches is a false Christ and only the true Christ can say. That's all I have to say. Hey, man, now listen, I've said this to Rick, I'll say this to you guys as well. First of all, go over there and check out his channel. Matter of fact, let me put it on the screen. Thank you, monkey moves. Over to Caldwell apologetics. Also, the link is in the description and it's right there as well. Dinah's putting up. Rick is thorough in his teachings. And so you cannot listen to his broadcast and come away with saying, you know what? If only he only covered a couple of scriptures, no, he covered enough. And I told Rick, I said, I don't know what's gonna happen. I said, man, listen, I went back and looked at Rick about what's about two years ago. I said, Rick, somebody made Rick angry. Rick, this Rick, matter of fact, let me say it this way, Rick. This dispensation of Rick. Oh, there we go. There we go. He is, listen, I'm talking about, he starts off at 10 and ends at 10, maybe nine and a half. But thoroughly, thoroughly enjoy. Well, you'll get to the end of his broadcast and you'll swear if you just clicked on, it's the beginning. Just excitement all the way through because that's the passion that he has in going through the scriptures. So that being the case, make sure if you have not done so go over there and check out his channel. Matter of fact, better check it out. Go ahead and subscribe for the rest of you guys. Make sure, matter of fact, let me give another channel a plug. Let's, I wanna go ahead and plug in the other channel, Smart Christian Life. May change the name of that channel. May change the name of that channel, but go ahead, if you haven't not also done so, subscribe to the Smart Christian Life channel. That's where we, that's the new fun channel. That's the channel where I'll get a lot of my stuff that I would like to say here. I'll say it over there. But anyway, that being the case, Rick, thank you so much for being here. I appreciate this. We are going to definitely have Rick back again. There's some things that I want to do regarding folks like Rick in the future, not just here, but also for the website that will drop within the next few days, guys. I've had so much problems with this, with this dog on things, but that been the case. Guys, I love you so much. Again, as I've always said, we've got the best, I'm sorry, Rick, to say this, but this is, listen, this is just the YouTube them that has been blessed with the chat here. This is the best chat family on YouTube, the best moderators on YouTube. I'm sorry, Rick, you all can fight for a second or third, but this is number one. Anyway, guys, God bless you, and I will see you all again on tomorrow.