← Digital Social Hour
Digital Social Hour
1 Muslim vs 10 Christian Apologists | DSH #2099
03:45:50
Can Christianity defend its hardest passages and can Islam prove its view of God without relying entirely on the Quran? In this episode of Digital Social Hour, Sean Kelly hosts Jake Brancatella, also known as The Muslim Metaphysician, as he debates multiple Christians on some of the biggest disagreements between Islam and Christianity: whether parts of the Bible are morally defensible, whether Jesus had to die for humanity’s sins, whether the Trinity actually describes one God, and whether Islamic monotheism can stand through reason and revelation. The debates quickly move into difficult passages from the Old Testament, including the Amalekites and Deuteronomy 22. Jake challenges Christian interpretations of those texts, while his opponents argue from biblical context, church tradition, original sin, divine justice, and the distinction between civil, ceremonial, and moral law. One exchange becomes especially intense over whether newborn babies can be considered guilty of sin. CH...
Loading summary
Transcript903 lines
- [00:00]
Jake
The first prompt is the Bible is evil.
- [00:03]
Christian Apologist 1
I would say that one day old babies deserve to go to hell. That we all deserve this because all of sin and fallen short of the glory of God.
- [00:08]
Christian Apologist 2
You can go read historical takes on these things. And they do not advocate for the same level of ethics that you and I would. Your ethics come from the Bible. The modern world ethics come from the Bible.
- [00:20]
Jake
The west and the Christian church are absolutely the worst when it comes to murder, when it comes to alcoholism. I don't respect somebody who's trying to. Trying to tell me the most absurd thing I ever heard, which is that Islamic monotheism is true as a prompt. Has to do with whether or not Christ was crucified.
- [00:41]
Moderator
Jake, all I did was sit here and give you. Oh, my God.
- [00:46]
Christian Apologist 3
All right,
- [00:56]
Jake
All right. The first prompt is the Bible is evil.
- [01:00]
Moderator
Okay, Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake. I'll hand it to you.
- [01:03]
Catholic Theologian
Yeah.
- [01:04]
Christian Apologist 2
So I'm gonna make a by their fruits you shall know them argument, which is that by the fruits of Christianity, you shall know the Bible is good. And I think that Christians invented the university, they invented the widow home, they invented the orphanage. They invented the concept of caring about people that you will never make meet or interact with, and brought that out into the Roman and Christian world. Some of these ideas came out of Second Temple Judaism, which I think is. Christianity is a successor to that religion. And some of these ideas, certainly all of these ideas were popularized to the world through Christ and through the Bible. And do you think these. So my question would be, do you either think these ideas didn't popularize through the Bible, or do you think these ideas aren't good? Or what would you think that doesn't prove that the Bible is good? Or what would your objection be? Along those lines, before I get into further proving any one of those points,
- [01:50]
Jake
I think that some of those things are true and that some of them come out of the biblical tradition, which I don't have a problem with, because I, as a Muslim, believe in the prophets of the Old Testament. I believe that Jesus was a prophet of God. So I believe that there can be aspects within the Bible which are true, which are beneficial, which could have good effect on society. But nevertheless, I don't think that that means. And when I. When we say, and what the prompt is, the Bible is evil. To be clear, I'm not saying that the entire Bible is evil, nor am I saying that, you know, every single aspect within it and all of its teachings that Christianity wound up taking up are evil. But there are, I think, key elements that are evil. And we've gone through some of those examples. So I don't know if, I mean, your argument is okay insofar as it goes, but I don't think it solves the problems in the Bible that we've been going through which there seems to be immorality and evil in. I mean, especially the Old Testament. But I can go through, even as we've gone through before, the example of Jesus dying for our sins. I don't think that that is something that makes sense morally of God's justice and mercy, that he would require a blood human sacrifice in order for us to be forgiven for our sins. So I would be interested more so in the examples that I gave or I could even give new examples of some of the evil in the Bible because I don't think just because some parts are good that excludes or proves that none of it is evil.
- [03:34]
Christian Apologist 2
Well, yes, there are distinctions between ceremonial law versus the moral law versus the what's the third one? Civil law. And as to whether these passages are fulfilled or followed or what's happening with them, there are historical differences and there are reasons why these lines were added to the Bible. But what happens out of the Bible, what the book of the Bible teaches is Christianity and what Christianity does with that is then will tell you how the Bible is. And so what Christians believe is what the Bible says. The interpretations that out of that you may disagree with the interpretation. You may say, well, I interpret the Bible as meaning this. And then all of the people who believe in the Bible, you are not going to find Christians who say we should go kill all these babies, who we should walk into a place and we should stab them or we should suffocate them or whatever. That is not what any standard organized Christian church is going to teach. I'm a member of the Episcopal Church. There are other members of the Catholic Church, of the Presbyterian Church, of the Lutheran Church, of the Orthodox Church. None of these churches teach this, this idea. And so you can try to get into the quibbles of the translations about whether the, what the word seized means in that translation, about whether that was a civil law or a moral law or ceremonial law, whether it's the eternal law or whether it's a law that applies to a specific moment. But what you can see is the interpretation of the Bible outward, not quote mining particular ideas, not pointing to a single thing that I think is good and you maybe agree or single thing that you think is bad. And then we could debate for hours about a particular Quote or, or a particular line about it. What I'm talking about is the Bible as a whole, whether the Bible is an evil document. And to that again, I say, by their fruits you shall know them. And I would say that the, the moral tradition that is brought out of Christianity is far superior to the moral tradition that is brought out of any other tradition. The scientific tradition that is brought out of Christianity is far superior to that that is brought out of any other tradition, the developmental tradition. Every single measurement that you could develop a society along. By their fruits you shall know them. The Bible has crushed evil where it's appeared. And the Bible has brought to an enormous degree, almost all of the standard goodness that we see in the world is a direct result of the Bible.
- [05:43]
Jake
So you keep appealing to Christianity and saying that Christianity comes from the Bible. Yes, but the problem is that
- [05:53]
Catholic Theologian
some
- [05:53]
Jake
of the examples that I brought up, which you just kind of lightly referenced, are from the Old Testament. The New Testament is not necessarily affirming all of the laws in the Old Testament and saying this is what we're going to institute for all time going forward. The problem is that some of these commands and laws are actually still being used today. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu explicitly referred to the passages related to Amalek in the Bible, 1st Samuel 15, 3, which says, to completely wipe these people out, all men, women, child, infant, sheep, camel, donkey, all of them are to be wiped out. And he is using this as a dog whistle to get his base riled up. And this is from the Bible. You cannot divorce Christianity completely from the Old Testament. Yeah, it still exists. And those commands from the Old Testament are being used today to justify a genocide which is taking place in Palestine. So how would you respond to that? Because if it's by your fruits, you should know them, even though you're going to say, oh well, these are the Jews. The point is you need to show that they're interpreting those commands or laws in the Old Testament incorrectly. And I don't think they are. I think they are interpreting them correctly and they're being used to justify killing babies in Gaza.
- [07:23]
Christian Apologist 2
So I don't know the context of what Netanyahu said or didn't say. I'm not up on the Israel Palestine conflict, presuming, sort of taking everything that you just said as fact, which totally I don't know. But if I assume we got the fact checker. Yeah, assuming it's all true, I'm not going to question it at all. That would be a disgusting thing and I would be extremely Opposed to. To Netanyahu saying that. And I would say that that is not what the Bible says. Use this idea of intertextuality where you have to read particular books of the Bible in light of other books of the Bible. You can't take. You can't quote one particular line. You can't even quote my particular book. The central theme of the Bible has to be read in light of the rest of the Bible. And so the Old Testament is wholly inadequate and incomplete. And even a lot of Jews will admit this is why they have the Talmud, which is why they have a huge number of sort of explanations afterward where you have references to Christ that they have to explain some other way, where they have lines that seem really disgusting. And we have the distinction between the moral, the civil, and the ceremonial law, which is able to help differentiate those. We have a church structure. We have a traditional structure, you know, the Episcopal Church. We believe in the threefold idea of reason, scripture and tradition all being utilized to build out what is happening there. You know, the. This idea that somebody has misinterpreted the Scripture. And if Netanyahu is saying what he's saying he is, which he very well may be, I don't know. Assuming that he is, that would be a disgusting misinterpretation. And you should never use the Bible to support genocide. The Bible is not a genocidal text. The Bible is an extremely pro. Love thy neighbor. Love, even though love thy stranger. You can go read Bart Ehrman, who is a secular atheist scholar about this, and we'll talk about how the Bible is the. The central text that invented the idea out of the teachings of Christ and out of the teachings of Old Testament Judaism, which again, is very different from Rabbinic Judaism. But these. The idea that you could love thy neighbor and love thy stranger, that you would care about people who you've never interacted with, who you never will interact with, who are not like you. You can go read Aristotle's Nicomedean ethics. You can go read historical takes on these things, and they do not advocate for the same level of ethics, and that you and I would. Your ethics come from the Bible. The modern world ethics come from the Bible. And to the extent that NETanyahu doesn't have that is to the extent that he isn't following the teachings of Christ because those are what those teachings are.
- [09:38]
Jake
Okay, so basically you're saying Netanyahu and anyone who interprets that passage in the way that both he and I are getting it wrong are misinterpreting it.
- [09:49]
Christian Apologist 2
Yes.
- [09:49]
Jake
So give us the correct interpretation in 1st Samuel 15:3. And there are other verses in Joshua, Deuteronomy, etc. Where God is commanding. And the literal words, there are infants, babies to be killed. If, if that's what love your neighbor means, then I guess that's a bit crazy because that doesn't seem to me like loving your neighbor. So if this is the incorrect interpretation, what is the correct interpretation of this? And are you telling me that God commanded this to the army and historically none of the armies actually went out and killed any babies at all? Is that what you're saying?
- [10:26]
Christian Apologist 2
Well, I think a lot of the. So I have to look into the specifics of this story. But for example, I think all of the stories of the Old Testament that take place in the, in the Bronze Age are allegorical or are metaphorical or are in other ways like sort of myth or legend. The stories take place in the Iron Age are almost all accurate, but are exaggerated with theological points to them. And so as to whether you're reading a historical text or whether you're reading a theological text, the Bible very quickly jumps between different genres. You have to be extremely careful in deciphering which genre that you are that you are looking at at the time. And so as to what the church teaches on Samuel, I don't know, but I know for a fact, for an absolute fact, that there is no standardized church that teaches that it is okay to kill babies. And so the interpretation that has been come out of this, which I couldn't tell you the exact words, that someone like Thomas Aquinas, that someone like Samuel Rutherford, that's somebody like any one of the different traditions that you might want to try to follow out of this, whether you're looking at Tertullian or whoever it is, I don't know what they would say about it. But I do know that nobody has interpreted this scripture within the Christian tradition the way you are, which means that the tradition that you, the interpretation that you're going with is just not the way anyone read it.
- [11:37]
Jake
Okay, so good.
- [11:38]
Moderator
Do a response, Jake, and then we'll close. Okay?
- [11:40]
Jake
Okay, so just a quick kind of yes or no question. Would you say that it's the same thing when it comes to what I brought up earlier about the marrying your rapist passage in Deuteronomy 22, verses 28 to 29? Am I also misinterpreting that and that nobody in the church has interpreted that way either?
- [12:00]
Christian Apologist 2
That one, I'm not certain about what would happen with that. What I Do know for a fact, actually. So that one, there is a difference between different kinds of laws. And at the time, what that one is actually doing is it's a hardening of the heart priority problem. And so you had the issue where when a woman would be assaulted, often societies would throw her out. They would say if she's not a virgin, no one wants her. And you have a serious disaster in that scenario where a woman has first suffered one tragedy and now her family has disowned her. And so in order to, rather than solve that problem all at once and command a particular thing that isn't pragmatically going to be followed by, because this is a barbaric and historically evil time, God commands a slight improvement over that, which is to give her a protector. And also one way that many people have interpreted this is that this is better for her than to be completely disowned in a world where she cannot work, in a world where she cannot be productive, in a world where not because of anything she's done, but because of what has happened to her. And so to give her a home and to give her a thing, but might be less barbaric, might be less evil than the alternative, that was a standard in the society. There are also interpretations of this scripture who I try to advocate that the word seized doesn't actually mean in the original translation. And as to whether that's the case or not, I don't actually know. I don't know what the standard interpretation has come out from. That is. What I do know is that the church does not teach that victims have to go marry their husband. Go marry that person as their husband. The church doesn't teach that. There's no standard Christian body that teaches that. And so that is not the interpretation that is coming out of the Bible. What is coming out of the Bible, which is the good coming out of the Bible, are the widow homes, are the charities, are the orphanages, are the universities, are modern science, are the ability to have this conversation online that develops directly out of the Christian west, out of the Christian tradition. This, what you're talking about now, of forcing women to marry their rapists does not come out of the Christian tradition. It's not in the Christian tradition.
- [14:02]
Moderator
So quick response and then we'll close.
- [14:04]
Jake
If the biblical tradition is part of the Christian tradition, then it comes out of the biblical tradition, which is the passage that we're talking about.
- [14:12]
Christian Apologist 2
This isn't part of the moral law. This is part of either the civil or ceremonial law.
- [14:15]
Jake
Okay, but it's It's. It's okay. Is anything that God commands to happen, is it moral or immoral?
- [14:23]
Christian Apologist 2
Well, that depends on whether he's commanding it in the moral law. Whether he's commanding.
- [14:27]
Jake
He's commanding this to take place. Was this the best option at the time to force somebody to marry their rapist?
- [14:33]
Christian Apologist 2
At the time, it may very well have been.
- [14:34]
Jake
Okay, well, there you go.
- [14:35]
Christian Apologist 2
Now it's disgusting and evil and shouldn't happen, and it shouldn't be the case that that is what happens. But at the time, the people were doing more barbaric and more evil things. And so God can take a pragmatic position and command you to do something less evil in either the ceremony or the civil law. He would never do that in the moral law. The moral law is universal and exists at all times for all people, always. The ceremonial and the civil law do not. The ceremonial and civil law are often pragmatic or exist in response to other evil things. And so again, whether or not she's even commanding her to do this is unclear to me whether that's what that word seized actually means in the original translation. But if I were to presuppose that you're right, then the interpretation has to be this other way. Christian church doesn't teach this. The Christian church doesn't teach this.
- [15:20]
Moderator
Jake, do you have a quick response to that and then we'll move to your closer.
- [15:23]
Jake
Okay, no, he could close and then I'll just.
- [15:24]
Moderator
Okay, fair enough. Go ahead, Jake.
- [15:26]
Catholic Theologian
Okay.
- [15:27]
Christian Apologist 2
Doesn't want me to be able to respond to his response in my closing, but fair enough. No, and so, you know, I think we kind of sidestep the by their fruits, you shall know them argument, because I think that he. I think it's extremely difficult to. To presuppose that the outgrowth of the Bible is evil, given that the outgrowth of the Bible is almost by definition the measurement by which we compare what is and isn't good. The west is the central foundation of goodness in what is going on. When you look at the civilization, when you look at the amount of good that's produced by the Christian west, it's been produced by Christendom, that's been produced across the world. It's not even remotely comparable. You cannot look at any other tradition, whether it's Buddhism, whether it's Hinduism, whether it's Islamic, whether it's Rabbinic Judaism, and pretend that these civilizations have produced even remotely close to the amount of good that the Christian tradition has. The Christian tradition has produced the very concept of loving thy stranger and brought it to the world. Of loving thy neighbor and brought it to the world. And again, you can read secular atheist Bart Ehrman on this. This is his whole book, Love thy Stranger, where he concedes that the Christian tradition is what created that. Or he concedes that the Christian tradition is what created the modern orphanage, where he concedes that it's what created the modern university, where he concedes it's what created all of the great things that you would think about, all of the standard institutions that you would think about that produce a life, that make it so that the poor can survive, that make it so that way you have a system of producing goodness for your fellow man all comes out of that Christian tradition. And so you can quote my particular verses that I may or may not have the correct church interpretation on right now, but I can tell you the church has explained these. The church has explained this. Given the fact that no one believes them the way you do. No one does. There is no Christian tradition, there is no Christian leader, There is no Christian church within the mainline Protestant, even in the Evangelical Protestants. And Evangelical Protestants have far less tradition within themselves. But even them, they don't teach this. There is no standard major Christian group that teaches this. And so it's clearly not the correct relation for the Bible. By your fruits they shall know them. What the Bible created is good. What the Bible has done is good. What Christians have done is good. And, and I defy you to claim that that is evil.
- [17:30]
Catholic Theologian
Thank you.
- [17:30]
Jake
Okay, so you keep making a claim about how the west and which you think is built upon Christianity is so great. But if you look in all of the major categories, the west and the Christian church are absolutely the worst when it comes to murder, when it comes to, when it comes to alcoholism. The west in all of the top 10 countries, in all of the major categories of crime are all the top 10, all of the countries that you would advocate for. So if by their fruits you shall know them, it's the exact opposite. Because the west has produced in its society the most amount of criminals that are murdering, raping, that are addicted to alcohol, etc. Etc. And not only that, we see that the west is failing in terms of passing down its religion to its own children. Now you say, well, yeah, Christianity teaches, love your neighbor and this kind of what I would call care bear Christianity, which is not true at all. But in actual fact, what we find is the result of that is secular liberalism. Out of Protestantism, you have the outgrowth of separation between church and state, you have secular liberalism, which is the dominant ideology in the west, not Christianity. And you. And pretty much, I think all the other Christians here do have a secular liberal mindset. And because of that, that's the reason why we have gay marriage in the US because love is love. Love your neighbor. Okay, well, then two. Two people of the same sex can love each other. Now, I just want to add one last point here, which is that you keep making the claim that no person has ever interpreted the passages that we discuss in this way. You mentioned Tertullian specifically. This is what he says. For in the Gospel of Matthew, he says, who whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the for case of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. Matthew 5:32. He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery. Who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, not. Does not put asunder what he himself joined together. The same Moses in another passage, enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel should thenceforth not have it. Should not have it in his power to put away his wife. Deuteronomy 22, 28, 29. Listen to what his argument is. Now. If a compulsory marriage, meaning one that's forced, contracted after violence, shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement? So Tertullian is using the argument that in the New Testament you cannot get divorced unless for the case of adultery. And he's using the Old Testament law to justify that, to say that even if someone gets married in a case of not agreeing, in the case of being as a result of violence, if God had that, to where you should never get divorced, how much more to where there's an agreement? So you're just factually incorrect that no Christian father or writer has interpreted the biblical passages in this way. And I don't see how you've removed the idea that the Bible is evil. In fact, you just said, oh, this would be the best option for God to force the victim to marry.
- [21:01]
Christian Apologist 2
You made so many new claims there.
- [21:02]
Catholic Theologian
You can't.
- [21:03]
Moderator
We'll come back to it later.
- [21:05]
Christian Apologist 4
No, no, wait.
- [21:07]
Moderator
Well, hold on.
- [21:08]
Jake
You made a claim that nobody ever said this, so I'm refuting your claim.
- [21:12]
Moderator
Shake hands, gentlemen. We can come back to this later if we have time.
- [21:16]
Host
Hey, guys, you know I don't do promos for just anybody. The only reason I'm talking about legends right now is because they completely flipped the script. Look, the reason I know it's different is because I actually met the team in person in Las Vegas. Vegas. I trust these guys. And how they run the site changes everything. Legends is a premium US Sweepstakes casino. It's free to play and when you win, they feature lightning fast redemptions. They have a massive game varity, hundreds of premium slots, sports and live tables. You can play entirely for free. Stop dealing with platforms that lock up your funds. Hit my link right now and go see why Legends has earned its name. Hit the link below.
- [21:54]
Catholic Christian
Ready?
- [21:54]
Catholic Theologian
Ready.
- [21:55]
Moderator
And Sam, take it away.
- [21:57]
Christian Apologist 1
All right. So Jake, you've made several claims and brought up different passages of scripture here claiming that the Bible is evil. And I just want to start off there with that Deuteronomy chapter 22 passage. And if you're okay with it, I'd like to read a little bit of the context here.
- [22:11]
Jake
Go ahead.
- [22:12]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so Starting in verse 25 of Deuteronomy 22, it says this. But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, the man forces her to lie her and lies with her. Then only the man who lie with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman. There is in the young woman no sin deserving of death. For just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so this man, so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside and the betrothed young woman cried out, and there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give the young woman 50 shekels of silver and she shall be his wife. Because he has humbled her, he shall not permit, be permitted to divorce her all of his days. That word their seize and then that word earlier preceded their forced are two different words actually in the Hebrew here. And so if we're reading this, just an understanding, what is the context saying, what is the Bible actually saying? It actually gives a going and saying that the rapist should be put to death. That's actually the justice, that's actually the law that's given there. And then the seizing here is a different word. And this is just merely a fornication because otherwise there would be an immediate contradiction between these two that are here. And then it's your claim isn't necessarily that the Bible is evil, but the Bible's of confused.
- [23:39]
Jake
Okay, is there another difference between. Because you're talking about in verse 25 of the same passage and verses 28 and 29, that there would be a contradiction because they're talking about the same thing.
- [23:53]
Christian Apologist 1
No, no, no, not. Sorry, say that again.
- [23:55]
Jake
On my interpretation, you're claiming that both of them would be talking about. And the result or punishment or what is meted out is different. So on my view, it would be contradictory.
- [24:06]
Christian Apologist 1
No, no, no, I'm saying. Well, yes, I would say that if. If they are both the same thing. If they're both. I'm saying the second one is not.
- [24:14]
Jake
I understand that, but you're making the claim. One of your arguments is that I can't interpret this accurately because they. They would be contradictory because the first case of 25 is talking about rape, correct?
- [24:27]
Christian Apologist 1
Yes.
- [24:28]
Jake
So if the second one is also talking about rape, then why are they giving different punishments? Yes, that's the argument. Okay, good. So is there another difference between these two contexts? Verse 25 and verse 28,
- [24:44]
Christian Apologist 1
is there a different context?
- [24:45]
Jake
Is there a. Is there another difference between verses 25 and 28?
- [24:49]
Christian Apologist 1
Yes. Yeah. The actual Hebrew word there in seized, and the one enforced is different.
- [24:53]
Jake
Okay. Besides that.
- [24:55]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah. Well, okay, that's pretty main difference.
- [24:57]
Jake
No, I'm gonna get to that point in a second. But I. I want you to answer. Is there. Is there. What is different about the scenario in 25?
- [25:06]
Christian Apologist 1
You're talking about the betrothal.
- [25:07]
Jake
Yeah. It seems like you're just avoiding that. The fact.
- [25:10]
Christian Apologist 1
Sorry, I wasn't trying to avoid that.
- [25:11]
Jake
It's not the. It's not the same case. The difference is in the case of the first one, but if the man finds the girl who is betrothed. So the difference is who the victim is. Both cases are a case of. One is in a case where the woman is already betrothed, then that man is died because is supposed to be killed because he.
- [25:31]
Christian Apologist 5
Her.
- [25:32]
Jake
The second one is in a case where the woman is not betrothed and then they're supposed to get married. So that's the difference. So there is no contradiction on my interpretation.
- [25:41]
Christian Apologist 1
No. So there is still the difference between seize and forced with this. And though. Though there is the difference in the betrothal that's given there. That's not the main difference. That. That's being.
- [25:50]
Jake
I'm saying that that is the main difference and that. Do you accept that two words can be used to convey a similar meaning?
- [25:57]
Christian Apologist 1
I think that would be highly unlikely to be doing that when you're talking within the same passage. Why would we go and do that?
- [26:02]
Jake
That's because if you. If you look Up. The word that's used in verse 28 every single time. It's talking about a physical season. It's not talking about an abstract season. It's talking about a physical seizing. If you look it up, you'll see that it literally describes where a woman is moving away from a man and he goes. Or I think it may be the reverse. The woman grabs his garment. So it's talking about a physical seizing. The same word can be used to convey a similar meaning. So just saying it's a different word doesn't prove that the meaning is not the same.
- [26:37]
Host
Yeah.
- [26:38]
Christian Apologist 1
So both me and you are married men, right?
- [26:40]
Jake
Yeah.
- [26:41]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so when we. When we go and have a good time with her wife here, we're gonna. There's gonna be some grabbing that's involved, correct?
- [26:49]
Jake
Yeah.
- [26:49]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so would that also count as the word seize? Would that be a. A, an interpretation there?
- [26:56]
Jake
Not in the comments.
- [26:57]
Christian Apologist 1
Your wife.
- [26:57]
Jake
What's that?
- [26:58]
Christian Apologist 1
You don't seize your wife?
- [26:59]
Jake
Not in the context of these verses. So verse 28 says, if a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her.
- [27:07]
Christian Apologist 2
Yeah.
- [27:08]
Christian Apologist 1
Forces her, though.
- [27:08]
Jake
Hold on. Seizes her and has sexual relations with her and they are discovered. I mean, in some translation, it literally says the word. Okay, I don't know if you're aware of that.
- [27:17]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, it's a wrong translation.
- [27:19]
Jake
What's that?
- [27:19]
Christian Apologist 1
It's a bad translation.
- [27:20]
Jake
Yeah. That's your claim. So I gave an early church father, or if you don't accept, he's a church father. Church writer, Tertullian. And so we'll give a chance, because Jake was upset I brought this quote at the end, so maybe you can respond to it, because the earliest examples within the Christian church interpret the passage in the exact same way that I am. You cannot find a single early church father to interpret the passage in the way that you claimed.
- [27:46]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah. So first of all, I think the scripture interprets scripture with this. I'd be more on that. On the fundamental side of things when it comes to this. Just so that you kind of know where my background is coming from there.
- [27:57]
Jake
What do you mean fundamental?
- [27:58]
Christian Apologist 1
So, fundamentalism.
- [27:59]
Jake
You're. You're. You're a Protestant.
- [28:01]
Christian Apologist 1
Yes. Yes.
- [28:02]
Catholic Theologian
Yeah.
- [28:03]
Christian Apologist 5
Okay.
- [28:03]
Christian Apologist 1
So it's. So looking at that, although I will say Tertullian does say a lot of good things, I would say that he's bad and wrong on this issue here. But I don't think that there's any authoritative claim within what Tertilian is saying as Opposed to the Scripture. That's why I appealed to the Scripture.
- [28:17]
Jake
The authoritative claim is that there is no early witness, not just Tertullian. I have. I've given a positive witness that interprets the passage in the same way that I have. You don't have. You can't point to a single example of anyone who interprets the passage in the way that you do.
- [28:34]
Christian Apologist 1
I just interpret it the way that you.
- [28:36]
Jake
But that's just, that's just assuming the argument. If I just said to you, oh, well, Jake, my evidence is that I'm the one who's interpreting this way.
- [28:45]
Catholic Christian
Who cares?
- [28:45]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, but that becomes a circular. It becomes. Yeah, but you're committing the same thing when you're going and saying, okay, what is, what is the popular view in going and looking at this? What is the bandwagon?
- [28:56]
Jake
I'm not saying, just not merely the popular view. I'm saying there is no other view of this text in early Christianity where the Christian church is interpreting that word in the way that you are.
- [29:10]
Christian Apologist 1
Nobody. I'm sitting here saying that there are two different words and there is a reason for this. And clearly here through the translations, because it's not always translated as there. When we look at that, that would also be on the same side that there is a disagreement of scholars on what that word means.
- [29:27]
Jake
In looking at this, is there any classical scholar that says what you say?
- [29:32]
Moderator
I did get a, I did get a red flag on the. Where'd it go on the word seas, where it was saying that the Deuteronomy didn't just necessarily mean physical taking. It was to like take or obtain. I just had it. I froze it and then it disappeared. But yeah, it can. It says the understanding was to be take or obtain, not necessarily a physical grabbing.
- [30:02]
Christian Apologist 5
Yeah.
- [30:03]
Jake
What's the evidence?
- [30:05]
Moderator
It was. I lost it now. I just had it up here. I was just trying to. Wait. Wait for your.
- [30:10]
Jake
Yeah. In any context. In any context. This is the claim I'm making. In any context where a human being is the object of the action, it always is. Talking about a physical seizing. It's not some metaphor. Anyway, go back to. Going back to your, your point here or, or my point. I'm not just saying that Tertullian is a witness to this. I'm saying there's no counter witness to this as a classical interpretation. And I'm saying why is that the case if you think it's so clearly teaching what you're claiming?
- [30:45]
Christian Apologist 1
So obviously I'm going to, going to come out and say Given my, my background. And this is not necessarily, you know, positive on my side, but the church history is not necessarily the strong suit here. And so I'm not going to come out here and say that I agree that. No, that no one from church history has that. But I will say I don't know, but that's not a defense. I understand that.
- [31:08]
Jake
But if that were the case, would that be evidence against your position?
- [31:11]
Christian Apologist 1
It would be evidence, I believe, that they're interpreting it wrong because I would say that the scripture interprets scripture wrong.
- [31:16]
Jake
Until the 20th century.
- [31:19]
Christian Apologist 1
Well, I think this is interpreted this way before the 20th century.
- [31:21]
Jake
Okay. Until when? Whatever, whatever the earliest person is, it wasn't interpreted this way in classical Christianity, that's what I'm saying. And traditional Christianity, it was not interpreted this way.
- [31:32]
Christian Apologist 1
So, so, and I would say I, I disagree, although I know you're going to say, okay, then, who's your source? But do you want to go to one of the other.
- [31:39]
Jake
We can go ahead.
- [31:40]
Christian Apologist 1
Once it's up to you which one you want to take. Propitiation or the.
- [31:45]
Moderator
I would say pick one and move through it quickly.
- [31:47]
Jake
Go ahead, you pick, because I'm here all day.
- [31:49]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, absolutely. So let's, let's go. You also brought up the I love. You're talking about the slaughtering of the Amalekites in 1st Samuel.
- [31:57]
Jake
It's one passage.
- [31:58]
Moderator
Yeah.
- [31:58]
Christian Apologist 1
Yep. Yes. Is one passage as to why the Bible is evil. And when we're looking at this, I think we need to consider the fact of what is evil, what is innocent. So when God is giving this, this judgment, he's giving it in a cosmic sense when he's going and saying this. So in Romans 3:23, it says, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In Romans 6:23, it says, for the wages of sin is death. Now it continues on. It says, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. So in this here, God is telling us that we are all guilty, everyone is guilty. And so the reason that all of us are not slaughtered immediately is just an act of mercy that's coming out. And this is a command for a cosmic justice. I, I don't know what you had claimed earlier about, about Netanyahu going in and using this verse. I would say he'd be using it out of order because only God can give a cosmic justice. He does give us civil justice. Just like we looked In Deuteronomy, chapter 22, where it goes and talks about putting the rapist to death. He does give us civil justice, but here is the cosmic justice that he is going and pouring out on the Amalekites. And so that's where there's a difference. And so I'd say that you're viewing the innocence wrong in this idea.
- [33:07]
Jake
So you're, you basically, to sum up your argument is that the babies were not innocent.
- [33:12]
Host
Correct?
- [33:13]
Christian Apologist 1
Correct.
- [33:13]
Catholic Christian
Okay.
- [33:14]
Jake
And what were they guilty of?
- [33:15]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, sin. I believe that we're all guilty of sin. For all sin and function of the God.
- [33:19]
Jake
How does a one year old baby commit sin?
- [33:21]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, simple.
- [33:23]
Jake
One day old. Sorry.
- [33:23]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah. I would say first of all, obviously comes from this idea of having sin nature, that sin is imputed to us, but also in this concept of crying out in such a way of, of desiring things more than God even that in itself is a sin.
- [33:40]
Jake
So the babies were guilty of sin by what? A sin that they committed or that somebody else committed that was imputed to them the second.
- [33:48]
Christian Apologist 1
So no, no. So I, I believe, I believe that we're, we are all individually sinners.
- [33:53]
Jake
Yes, but how did, how does a one, how, what sin did the one day, one day old baby commit? What sin did he commit?
- [34:00]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, so I believe that there's, there's all kinds of sins. So there's sins, first of all physical sins that we might go and do.
- [34:06]
Catholic Theologian
Right.
- [34:06]
Christian Apologist 1
Stealing something, sin.
- [34:07]
Catholic Theologian
Right.
- [34:08]
Christian Apologist 1
But understand this concept.
- [34:09]
Jake
One day old baby.
- [34:10]
Christian Apologist 1
But then there's also sin sins when it comes to the concept of what is the desire of our heart. So then we're going against what is wrong. So covetousness would also be a sin that's listed in scripture. And so in looking at these kinds of things here, it comes down to the wrong misordered desires.
- [34:27]
Jake
So a baby, a one day old baby has wrong disordered desires and is guilty of sin and therefore it's justified that they be killed.
- [34:40]
Christian Apologist 1
I'm saying that cosmically, yes, we all deserve hell. That's what I'm saying. Now are you making an argument that we're innocent?
- [34:46]
Jake
I believe that a one day old baby is innocent. I don't believe he's a sinner. That is, it's justified to kill and murder a baby? No, I don't believe that.
- [34:55]
Christian Apologist 1
No, no, I don't think that it would be justified to murder a baby. But I don't think that's what's going on here.
- [35:00]
Jake
Yeah, because you're saying that the, you're saying that the baby is not innocent. You're trying to convince me and the rest of the audience that babies, one day old babies deserve to be killed. That's your statement?
- [35:12]
Christian Apologist 1
I would say that one day old babies deserve to go to hell. That we all deserve this because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
- [35:18]
Jake
Okay, so I'm saying that that's evil. That a one day old baby, it is not guilty of sin, does not deserve. Hold on a second. Does not deserve to be killed and to be put in eternal hell.
- [35:31]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so how are you defining evil?
- [35:33]
Jake
Evil is a privation of good. It's something that moves away from the good.
- [35:36]
Christian Apologist 1
It's something that moves away from the good?
- [35:38]
Jake
Yeah.
- [35:38]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay. Do you believe that all men have moved away from good?
- [35:42]
Jake
I believe that all adult human beings have committed sins.
- [35:48]
Christian Apologist 1
What age?
- [35:49]
Jake
It could be different depending on who it is. But I don't believe that a one day old baby commits sins.
- [35:55]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so are you saying then that we are born perfectly good?
- [36:01]
Jake
I believe we are born in a state of goodness, yes. I don't believe that we are born sinners because I don't believe that when a baby comes out of its mother's womb that it committed a sin by crying or. I don't even understand. You explained what you think the sin is by some physical sin or disordered desire. I don't understand what disorder, desire, or sin a one day old baby is committing. I just don't understand.
- [36:29]
Christian Apologist 1
So if we hold a perfect goodness within us, how are we supposed to move away from that perfect goodness?
- [36:36]
Jake
What do you mean how we.
- [36:37]
Christian Apologist 1
So you're saying that we're born with perfect goodness?
- [36:39]
Catholic Christian
We're.
- [36:40]
Jake
We're born good, we're not born sinners?
- [36:42]
Christian Apologist 5
Correct.
- [36:42]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so. And it's a confirmed, it's, it's not an unconfirmed disposition. It's a confirmed disposition. We're born good. Good. There's a difference between being born in a sense and being born good.
- [36:53]
Jake
Yeah. We're born in a state where we're good in the sense that there's no evil.
- [36:58]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so there's, there's, there's an absence of evil and there's an affirmation of good.
- [37:02]
Jake
Right.
- [37:02]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so why would we move away from that good if we're perfectly good?
- [37:07]
Jake
Because we eventually we move in a direction that we're all. First of all, from the state of the baby to when it reaches adolescence or adulthood. Okay. There are many different things which happen along the way. Their parents, who are already sinners, are the ones who are teaching them to do things that are evil. And over time, a baby copies Other traits that it sees around it, whether it be siblings or whether it be parents. And it does things which are not good, which are evil.
- [37:42]
Moderator
All right, tight, tight in a bow on your closing. I know you want to respond tight into your closing. And then.
- [37:47]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, absolutely. So what you're going and saying here is that we have this goodness that's, that's within us and for some, and no evil that's within us, and yet we still somehow choose evil. That, that doesn't correlate. You see, I would go and say that the Bible is good and not evil, and it actually gives an account for this. When we see Adam and Eve, they have an unconfirmed disposition of good or evil. They're. They're not good, they're merely innocent. And they actually go and use their free moral agency and they choose to sin. And because of that, it does give us a disposition of sin. And that's where it comes from. But this leads to all of us then committing sin. It tells us in Romans 3:23, and it says, for all of sin fallen short of the glory of God. And then it says in Romans 6:23, for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. And that gives us that. I wish we'd had time. Maybe somebody else would get to it here to talk about the propitiation as to why it's necessary for Christ to actually take our place. Because when we just merely repent without that, the issue is, is that we have, we have nothing that's actually making right the wrong that was done when we violated God's character. And God's character ultimately is the grounding place for where his word is. It's tells us this in John 1:1. And so, Jake, I would really, you know, challenge you to consider this idea of where goodness comes from, where innocence comes from, where evil comes from. When you're, you're looking at this.
- [39:14]
Jake
Okay, so this is my closing. Yeah. So I would say that I think you're representing a different view than maybe even some of the other Christians in the room, because I don't think that Catholics and orthodox and many Christians believe in this idea of imputed guilt and imputed sin that is given from Adam to the babies in general. That's the first thing. Second thing is you're making the claim that it's necessary. Every other person before you didn't say that it's necessary. They said that it was the way that God chose it, but not that it was absolutely necessary. That Jesus needed to die in order for us to be forgiven. And I think the biggest claim of all is that you're saying that babies are not innocent. They deserve to be killed, and they deserve eternal hell. And I just think that that's a very tough pill to swallow. I don't think that that is representative of God's justice and mercy.
- [40:16]
Moderator
Beautiful. Shake hands, gentlemen, and we'll move it on forward.
- [40:20]
Host
If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, it helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much.
- [40:30]
Catholic Theologian
All right, so with the previous debaters, you talked about the case of the Israelites killing the babies in Samuel. That's right. So I wanted to ask you. Who decides what is just.
- [40:46]
Jake
I believe that God's commands decide that. That he gives just commands.
- [40:52]
Catholic Theologian
Okay, so is it. And who. Who gave. Who gave the command to the Israelites to kill the.
- [41:02]
Jake
Well, I don't believe that God did, but I think according to the Christians. Yeah, Well, I think you, although, I don't know, Jake, seemed to think that it wasn't really a true story. But I would say. Yeah, traditionally you would say God, right?
- [41:15]
Catholic Theologian
I think that's right. And who created the Israelites and the Amalek in that story?
- [41:21]
Jake
Oh, God.
- [41:23]
Catholic Theologian
So do you think that God owes it to them to keep them alive, or do you think that because he created them and because he is the one that decides what is just, he can give them life or take their life away?
- [41:39]
Jake
I don't believe that God, just because he's God, would command something which is evil and then call it good.
- [41:47]
Catholic Theologian
But you're calling it evil. If God commanded it, wouldn't it by definition not be evil because God commanded it?
- [41:54]
Jake
No, because I think it's evidence of the fact that God didn't command it by the fact that it is evil. If you don't have any independent moral intuitions or ideas about what is good or not, then you could just say, well, God could command absolutely anything, and then it would become good.
- [42:14]
Catholic Theologian
Well, it seems like you keep presupposing that it is evil, and then you're saying, well, God couldn't command that because it's evil, but if God commanded it, then by definition, it would not be evil because he commanded it.
- [42:26]
Jake
Okay, so let me ask this. Could God. Let's say, could God lie?
- [42:34]
Catholic Theologian
No, I would say that would be against. That would be against his nature.
- [42:38]
Jake
Okay, so that's against his nature. But I'm talking about, okay, could God command people to lie?
- [42:46]
Catholic Theologian
I don't think he could.
- [42:48]
Jake
Okay, he couldn't. Why?
- [42:50]
Catholic Theologian
Because in any circumstance, or at least according to Catholic theology, lying would be, would be wrong in every circumstance. But killing is, for example, is different from murder. So so obviously if you just out of malice kill somebody, that would be murder and that would be prohibited. So God would never command somebody to do that. But killing in some other like self defense or something like that would be permissible.
- [43:16]
Jake
Okay, so lying, do we know that it's immoral in every instance apart from scripture and tradition?
- [43:28]
Catholic Theologian
I would say how we know that it's immoral in every case is from scripture and tradition.
- [43:33]
Jake
So are there any moral facts that we can know in terms of what is good or evil independent of scripture and tradition, or it's solely only known through there?
- [43:45]
Catholic Theologian
I would say we could know some things from the natural law.
- [43:47]
Jake
Okay, so that's my point, is that if there are things that we can know from what you call natural law, then in principle there's nothing inherently wrong with my claim of saying that I could know that something is evil, like commanding that human beings kill babies. I can say that I can know that independently of what the Bible or biblical tradition says.
- [44:13]
Catholic Theologian
Well, do you think though, according to natural reason, we could see that there is a difference between killing and murder?
- [44:21]
Jake
Yeah, I mean, murder is just defined as an unjust killing.
- [44:26]
Catholic Theologian
Okay, and do you think, well, do you think from our reason we can, we can think of scenarios that would be, that would be just killings?
- [44:36]
Jake
Yeah, in the same way that I can think of scenarios where it would be just to lie to somebody. I mean, the famous example is that if the Nazis came to your door and you were hiding Jews in the basement, would it be moral or just to lie and say that they're not there?
- [44:55]
Catholic Theologian
Well, I would think from, I would say from Revelation we would know that lying is always wrong. But I'm saying that.
- [45:01]
Jake
But why would that be wrong? Why would it be wrong to lie to save somebody's life?
- [45:07]
Catholic Theologian
I would say just because we know it from Revelation. I'd say that's not something that we arrive at from natural reason.
- [45:15]
Jake
So it doesn't, because to me it doesn't make any sense. Why would it not be just to lie to save one person's life or 10 people's lives? You're making the claim that it's always wrong to lie, and I'm bringing up a counter example. And you're just saying, well, scripture or tradition says that it's always wrong to lie. Well, that's the very thing that's in question.
- [45:37]
Catholic Theologian
Well, if it's, if, if lying is in every case a mortal sin, according to Catholic theology, there would just be no way, there would be no mitigating.
- [45:46]
Jake
Why is it you're just repeating the claim, but why is it actually wrong when you could save somebody's life?
- [45:52]
Catholic Theologian
Well, I would say because you would be contradicting one of the things that we identify with God, which would be truth. And I think that would be, I think from, from that we could, we could know that speaking anything, doing anything which is untrue would be, would be wrong. But I want to get back to the, I don't want to go, go off course with, with the, the, the case of killing. Do you think that self defense is, is a justifiable reason to kill somebody?
- [46:25]
Jake
Yeah.
- [46:25]
Catholic Theologian
Okay. And do you think. Okay. And do you think that even, even in the case of somebody who's trying to kill you in. But they're not malicious, let's say, you know, somebody has a, somebody has like a mental illness or something and they get a gun and they're, they're gonna come and kill you and you know, your friends or something. You think that would be you can
- [46:46]
Jake
protect yourself and your friends? Yeah.
- [46:48]
Catholic Theologian
And would God know the future? Absolutely.
- [46:52]
Jake
In my idea, yeah.
- [46:54]
Catholic Theologian
Yeah. And my idea as well too. So do you think that. Because if he knew perfectly that the Amalek would go and make war against the Israelites and eventually destroy them, do you think that that would be a case of self defense? Even though would be maybe, you know, maybe wouldn't happen right then, but it would happen maybe 10, 20 years from now, and he would know perfectly that that would occur.
- [47:21]
Jake
No, because. Great. Why would that make any sense? Because God, if he knows everything from the beginning, eternally, then there are so many atrocities that have taken place that God would know about. So why is it the case that he would want certain babies to be killed and not others?
- [47:39]
Catholic Theologian
Well, I think we see this very particular example and we don't have, we don't have, I don't think we have any other examples of God commanding this. And I think the reason why this is, this particularly is commanded is because it ensures that the plan of salvation will occur. So Christ will be born from the Israelites. So if the Israelites are all wiped out, then that sort of foils the whole plan of salvation, which would be the most important thing. So if he's going to in any case, sort of destroy a civilization preemptively it would be in this case because it would be the most. The most consequential.
- [48:24]
Jake
Okay, so the baby. The babies of Amalek that were killed, do you believe, like the previous speaker, that they were guilty?
- [48:34]
Catholic Theologian
Yes, but I don't think that that is the. I don't think that that is the primary reason or justification for.
- [48:42]
Jake
For what? Were they guilty of original sin?
- [48:46]
Catholic Theologian
Okay, so I don't think this is relevant. I don't think that's relevant to the discussion.
- [48:50]
Jake
It is relevant because what is the justification? You're saying the justification is that these babies would eventually do evil things.
- [49:00]
Christian Apologist 5
Correct.
- [49:01]
Catholic Theologian
Well, I'm saying that is that sort of. Sort of was my second point. My. My primary point is that God gave. Gave every created thing, its life or its being, so he can take it away whenever he wills.
- [49:14]
Jake
And so can God command whatever he wants?
- [49:18]
Catholic Theologian
Yeah.
- [49:19]
Jake
Okay, so God. Could God command. Could God have commanded those soldiers to the babies before they killed them?
- [49:30]
Catholic Theologian
I think he could have, but I think he. There would not be a reason for him to do so. I don't think he would. He would. There would be. I don't think he would ever will that. There would be no reason for him to will that.
- [49:40]
Jake
Yeah, you're saying that there's no reason. But the problem with this kind of view of divine command theory in a very extreme sense is that merely anything in the abstract God could command and it would good. God could command idolatry, and that would be good because God commanded it. God could command rape and it would be good because what is justice is what God commands. So you wind up in this slippery slope that pretty much anything in the abstract God could command. And potentially there's a possible world in which he commanded those babies before they were killed to be r ped and then murdered. And that's just absurd.
- [50:21]
Moderator
And Cody, if you have a major point to get to, now's the time to do it.
- [50:24]
Catholic Theologian
Yeah, I don't think he could command something that he has previously sort of bound himself to. Like he's already given them the Ten Commandments, so he could not. I don't think he could command them to idolatry because he would have already sort of bound himself in a way to that. And I think that this example is not a case of murder. It's a case of killing. And it would be due to God's foresight. He would see that this would be self defense. And also because he is God, he gave them life and he can take it away.
- [51:03]
Jake
Okay, so why didn't God have Hitler killed as a baby?
- [51:09]
Catholic Theologian
Well, I think that saga was not as consequential as keeping the Israelites alive. So Christ could be born and save the whole world.
- [51:18]
Jake
So Christ could be born and saved the whole world. And you're saying that's much more important than 6 million, if you accept the official narrative, Jews being killed. So God has less of a problem with a complete genocide taking place than he does of Israelites being wiped out. Where God could. Conceivably, he could set it up in such a case that Jesus was born from a different lineage, and he could have promised that without necessarily needing to wipe out all of these babies.
- [51:57]
Catholic Theologian
Well, I think he certainly cares more about the plan of salvation, of the possibility of salvation for all men than a genocide, because, I mean, if millions of people die and they can't go to heaven, then that's sort of not great.
- [52:14]
Jake
So you don't think that there was another possible option for the Amalekite babies, that God could have put them in a scenario or willed it in such a way that they didn't need to be wiped out as babies?
- [52:30]
Catholic Theologian
I think it's possible, but he also. He bound himself to the. He bound himself to the fact that Christ would be born from the Israelites already.
- [52:42]
Jake
Okay, but conceivably he could have done it in another way, and he could have done it in another way such that he didn't need to order the babies of the Amalekites to be killed. So why couldn't he do it that other way or why didn't he?
- [52:58]
Catholic Theologian
Well, I think at that time in the world, there. I mean, there was a lot of conflict, and I mean, civilizations were clashing. And I think that we are not the ones to question the way in which He. The people in which he chose to have his son born to. So I don't think that argument.
- [53:25]
Jake
And you think it's the same thing. I just want to be clear. Clear, because we've talked about other things with other guests. Do you think it's the same thing with Deuteronomy 22 of forcing the woman to marry her, that that's a good thing in that scenario because God willed it?
- [53:41]
Catholic Theologian
No, I think you're. I think you're misreading that passage because what the previous debater said is true, that the passage that you brought up does say seizing, and that's it. And what the Latin saints will say about that passage is that they will interpret it as seduction, like basically a man seduced a woman, and then in that case he would have to marry her and give the dowry. And that's the position that the Latin fathers take, especially St. Thomas, which is the doctor of the Catholic Church.
- [54:11]
Jake
Can you show where Augustine interpreted that way?
- [54:14]
Catholic Theologian
I think he did as well, actually. Yes.
- [54:16]
Jake
You don't have the reference, so we'll have to check that later because I think he said exactly the opposite. But what about Aquinas? Where does he say that?
- [54:24]
Catholic Theologian
He says that in the summa.
- [54:26]
Jake
Okay. You don't have the quote.
- [54:28]
Catholic Theologian
It's in. Oh, I don't have the exact quote. But when he's talking about. When he gives the example, when he's talking about seduction and whether that's a species of lust, he uses that passage as an example of seduction, that exact passage you brought up. And he refers to that law as talking about a man's suggestion, a woman.
- [54:49]
Jake
And you mentioned Latin specifically. Wasn't. Wasn't Tertullian essentially the father of Latin Christianity?
- [54:57]
Catholic Theologian
That may be the case, but St. Thomas is the. Is the priority.
- [55:02]
Jake
As for you as a Catholic.
- [55:04]
Catholic Theologian
Yeah. And that's the true Christianity.
- [55:06]
Jake
Okay. But is it conceivable that God could have ordered the law to be in the way that I, I said, and that it would have been just that God could have said that you have to marry your.
- [55:21]
Catholic Theologian
Well, I think we're talking about the Bible, not hypothetically, what's in the Bible.
- [55:27]
Catholic Christian
So I don't know.
- [55:27]
Jake
But the reason why is because I'm demonstrating that your theory. Either you're going to be consistent with it and you would say yes to that, or you would be inconsistent, as I think you have at numerous times here in the discussion, where, oh, we know certain things are unjust independent of Scripture. We know that it's always wrong to lie, even if it's to save hundreds of thousands of people. But we don't know that it's always wrong to kill babies because they're guilty or would be guilty of a sin at some later point. I just don't see how that.
- [56:05]
Moderator
And this is a good time to move to closers if you want to. And you can tie your response in with that.
- [56:10]
Catholic Theologian
Do you want me to look at that camera?
- [56:12]
Moderator
No, just your closing statement.
- [56:14]
Catholic Theologian
Okay. Yeah. So in closing, about the Israelites killing all the people of the Amalek, I would say that first to know whether something is evil or not is really whether it accords to the commands or the laws of God. And if God is giving the command, then by definition it cannot be evil. And further, I think that there is an argument to be made that God in his foreknowledge knew that if the Amalek were not destroyed, then they would conquer the Israelites and foil his plan of salvation. And then on Deuteronomy, which he also discussed, I think interpreting that verse 22:28, saying that it is about violence is not correct because the Latin Fathers have interpreted a different way. The word is different from a previous passage where it says that if there is violence, that the man should be put to death. And this is the view that St. Thomas takes and saints, St. Augustine takes. Who will be who are the most eminent theologians in the Catholic Church.
- [57:31]
Jake
Okay, so on the last point, I don't think Augustine ever mentions this. I think in actual fact, there's a text which hasn't been translated to English, which I can give after this, where he says the exact opposite and says something very similar to Tertullian. That's the first point. Second thing is, I'll have to check the equivalent Aquinas reference. But even if that's the case, Aquinas is coming much, much later during the medieval period. And then I think the most fundamental point is this idea that you're representing of divine command theory, that God could just will anything. And because whatever God wills is just, is absurd, because it leads to the absurdity that God can will and command for anything to happen. He can command for idolatry to take place. He could command for, let's say, murder and all that to become good just because God commanded it. So I think that if a religion requires, in believing that a holy book commands at certain times, people to kill babies in the crib, I think that's evil.
- [58:37]
Moderator
All right, thank you, gentlemen. A nice little handshake and we'll move on.
- [58:42]
Host
If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, it helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much.
- [58:52]
Jake
Islamic monotheism is true. Let's see.
- [58:55]
Moderator
All right, Jake, go ahead.
- [58:56]
Christian Apologist 2
Cool. So I want to rest my claim on the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, not necessarily the resurrection. We can get to that if we want to as well later. But on the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and so I know the standard Islamic teaching and, you know, within the Quran and the hadiths and whatnot, is that that never happened. How do you justify that ever happened in light of all of the earliest sources ranging from Christian to Jewish to Roman, all citing that he was crucified.
- [59:24]
Jake
I mean that's an interesting question, but I don't see what that has to do with the prompt because specifically Islam, Islamic monotheism, or what's called Tawhid, that being true or false, I don't see how that has to do with whether or not Jesus was crucified historically.
- [59:41]
Christian Apologist 2
Yeah, so the central claims of the Quran cannot be trusted if they make such a clearly historically inaccurate statement of this. Like it calls into question the entire, the idea that the Quran is transcribed by either Muhammad or by scribes, that Muhammad is not speaking to that given to the Prophet by Allah and then from him now to scribes who have then written it down. If you get such a central fact incorrect about it, then the entire book cannot be trusted.
- [60:16]
Jake
Again, I'm still failing to see the connection. We're talking, for example, in the last prompt we talked about the Trinity. Now if I were to mention that another part of the Bible gets a historical error when it comes to the pharaoh and what time he was living in, I don't see how at all that would establish that the Trinity is false. And the same way that I don't see how even if I granted for the sake of argument that there was a historical error in the, in the Quran, I don't see how that would make Islamic monotheism false. Or the idea that there's only one God worthy of worship who is not to share any properties or attributes with creation or anything other than himself. I don't see how that would be false.
- [60:59]
Christian Apologist 2
Yeah, so a, I think it's a false equivalency. If there is a historic inaccuracy in particular genres of non historic genres of the Old Testament, that wouldn't call into question the religious claims that are made throughout the Bible. Because the Bible is not written to be a historic truth. It's not written in the same way that say the Quran is. The claims about the accuracy consistently throughout. Whereas the Quran is centrally built around the idea that Allah directly gave these words to Muhammad and then Muhammad directly gave the correct words to the scribes who then wrote it down and then is maintained in exactly the current way that it is. And so if there is any historic inaccuracy in this book, particularly of a central claim of the book that one of your main prophets wasn't crucified, whereas we say that that prophet who is God was crucified, that would call into question the entire accuracy of the Quran, whereas a minor historical inaccuracy and say The Old Testament, Bronze era. Bronze Age era does not call into question the truth claims of the entire Bible. And so what I'm saying is that the Quran is not an accurate source for any amount of theological truth.
- [62:15]
Jake
Honestly, this is very interesting because it has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. There's no connection between a supposed historical inaccuracy and the idea of Islamic monotheism or God being one. You're not, he's not going to convince me that there's any connection between those
- [62:35]
Christian Apologist 2
whatsoever, between the accuracy of the Quran and then the truth claims about the biblical. I mean, of the Quranic God.
- [62:43]
Jake
No, the Quran could be wrong about one point, but that doesn't mean that, that one point means that everything in the Quran is false. That doesn't make any sense. No, it means that the Quran is
- [62:52]
Christian Apologist 2
not a reliable source.
- [62:54]
Jake
And so now just because it's not
- [62:55]
Christian Apologist 2
Quran for any evidence for the model doesn't follow.
- [62:58]
Jake
That's a non sequitur. It does not follow from the claim that merely one historical accuracy entails that all of its theology cannot be trusted. That's a non sequitur. There's no, there's no arguments that's made.
- [63:12]
Christian Apologist 2
It does mean that the Quran cannot be the reason that you trust it.
- [63:17]
Jake
So it's like if I take a test and I take an exam and I get one question wrong on the exam, does that mean that I can't be trusted to try to get the other answers on the exam right?
- [63:30]
Christian Apologist 2
No, you can try to get the other. It doesn't mean that you got them wrong, but it does mean that I can't cite you as an infallible or obviously correct source for the other questions. No, if I take a hundred question test and say I get one wrong or a thousand question test and I get one wrong, this proves that I am not an infallible source direct from God. Which means now you cannot use me as proof that my other answers are right. My other answers may still be right, but you cannot use me as proof for that. And so what I'm doing is I'm starting by establishing that you cannot use the Quran as evidence for anything in this way because of the fact that they make substantial historical inaccuracies and therefore cannot be trusted as the word of God to be accurate.
- [64:12]
Catholic Christian
Right.
- [64:12]
Jake
And I'm saying your argument is literally a logical fallacy. It's a non sequitur. It does not follow at all from the claim that there's supposedly one historical inaccuracy in it. That that means that nothing in the Quran can be trusted.
- [64:26]
Christian Apologist 2
I never said that nothing in it can be trusted.
- [64:28]
Jake
That's what you keep saying.
- [64:29]
Christian Apologist 2
What I said I said that you literally. What you keep saying the tape back. What I said was that you cannot use the Quran as a reason to believe something.
- [64:37]
Jake
Is the argument the Quran could be right about lots of things. Is the prompt. Is the prompt. Is the Quran or Islam infallible? That's not the prompt. The prompt is Islamic monotheism is true. I. I'm waiting for your argument against it. You have provided absolutely zero argumentation for that claim.
- [64:56]
Christian Apologist 2
First, I've established that the Quran cannot be a trusted source. And now if we agree on that, then we can go into purely logic. But I can't go into purely logic. If you're going to have an infallible source that you're trying to cite or that you might use to cite, or that is the justification for your belief in this. I have to go at the actual reason for why you have this belief or which is that you believe that the Quran is an accurate, reliable, infallible source.
- [65:22]
Catholic Christian
No.
- [65:23]
Christian Apologist 2
And I'm saying it's not.
- [65:24]
Jake
No. I never made any of those claims whatsoever. I never said I never.
- [65:28]
Moderator
Can you steel man his. His prompt?
- [65:32]
Catholic Theologian
Sure.
- [65:33]
Christian Apologist 2
Yeah. I can still man his prompt. Yeah. So I think that you believe that Islamic monotheism, which is the idea that there is one God and exactly one God in one person, is a true statement, and that you would use as evidence for this both logic and the Quran. And you believe that your belief in this is based on a belief in the Quran and belief in Islam. And if you were convinced of Hinduism or if you were convinced of Christianity or if you were convinced of Judaism or whatever, then you wouldn't believe in Islamic monotheism. So if you were convinced of Hinduism, you would still believe in Islamic monotheism.
- [66:09]
Jake
No. Wrong. You're wrong on the point that I had this belief before I was a Muslim and before I even read the Quran. So my understanding of there being only one God, not three gods like we saw in the last prompt, who is worthy of worship is not dependent upon the Quran. The Quran affirms what I had already believed and knew to be true prior to even reading the Quran or being a Muslim. So again, the prompt is not, is. Is Islam or the Quran infallible? Okay. Such that all of its teachings are correct and infallible. That's not the. That's not the prompt. The prompt is, is Islamic monotheism true? If you need a definition of What Islamic monotheism is. Monotheism is. I can explain that. But all we mean by Islamic monotheism is that there's only one God, not three gods, there's not three divine persons at all. These different. Well, I don't want to say parts, although some people believe in that. The point is there's only one God who's worthy of worship, who is represented by the Quran. That's true. But nevertheless, we are not saying that every aspect about Islam and the Quran is on this prompt. Because if that were the case, then when we said that the Trinity is false, we could have been saying, oh, I could have just kept going back to the Bible as evil prompt and said, oh, well, because the Bible has these inaccuracies or falsehoods in it when it comes to moral claims or even historical claims or even other theological claims, could even be other theological claims apart from the Trinity has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the Trinity is true or false.
- [67:55]
Christian Apologist 2
But it does have bearing on whether that the Bible is a reliable source for citing the Trinity. And so if you could explain to me why the Bible is unreasonable or infallible or I mean, or deeply fallible or whatever, then from there I couldn't use the Bible as evidence for why I believe in the Trinity. And so what I'm saying is like, if the Quran was false, but I know you don't think so, but if the Quran was false, you're saying that your belief in Islamic monotheism has nothing to do with the Islamic State.
- [68:22]
Jake
I would still believe in the same conception of God even if I weren't a Muslim, in the same sense of one God with multiple attributes and being all knowing, all powerful, etc. Not multiple persons within God, not multiple beings, not one God with lesser divine beings and lesser gods, I would still believe in the same conception of God, I think.
- [68:45]
Moderator
Okay, so we grasp there's no Trinity in Islam. Islamic. Yeah, all of that. There's no Trinity there. And I think the question is, then, what do you utilize to believe in a monotheism? Aside from I just have faith.
- [69:04]
Christian Apologist 4
Right.
- [69:05]
Moderator
What, what items provide this to you? This information of monotheism?
- [69:11]
Jake
Yeah, well, for me, Islamic monotheism, yes. Yeah, for me, I think we have good, independent, rational arguments for the existence of God. I'd have to debate Sean or somebody else on that another time because we both believe in God. But I think that there are good, independent, rational and logical arguments for the existence of God with the qualities that I would ascribe. And I think that Islam Is, and this is part of the unique claim that I would make in addition to that, is that I think Islam is the only religion that uniquely, actually portrayed, portrays God in terms of his uniqueness, in terms of him not having any partners, in terms of him not sharing his attributes with creation or other lesser divine beings. That is the unique claim that Islam makes. Whereas the Trinity is the exact opposite, whereas Hinduism is the exact opposite, whereas other religions that make claims about who God is don't actually fit the bill with what I already know independently from reason or from what we would call in Islam the fitra, or the innate disposition to know and believe that God exists.
- [70:26]
Christian Apologist 2
Got it. Okay, now I understand your claim and I just, I think this is silly. The idea that you could innately or just purely by logic know the attributes or characteristics of God. Like you're not citing any revelation from God, you're not citing any claims that God told you about it. You think you can just by your own knowledge know all these things about God? Is that, is that what you're saying?
- [70:48]
Jake
I'm saying that we can know that God is one. We can know that He's a creator.
- [70:51]
Christian Apologist 2
How can you know God is one without him telling you that?
- [70:55]
Jake
Okay, so let's be clear. Do you believe God is one?
- [70:58]
Christian Apologist 2
Yeah, because I think he told me that. Okay, how do you think God is one without.
- [71:02]
Jake
Okay, good. So you don't think that we could know that one God exists apart from revelation? We would be confused whether or not there's one or more than one God.
- [71:12]
Christian Apologist 2
Yeah, of course. How would you possibly know that there is? Like, to me, that seems so unbelievably obvious that I assumed you were getting this from the Quran. But you're right. That was an assumption I made. And so now it's.
- [71:22]
Jake
Yeah, it was a very silly.
- [71:24]
Christian Apologist 4
No, no.
- [71:24]
Christian Apologist 2
Okay, so explain to me how you can possibly know without revelation, just purely by logic, the attributes of God, that there are exactly one and that there isn't the Trinity, that there isn't other persons that you could know.
- [71:38]
Jake
Well, we're now going. If you want to go back into the Trinity. The reason we know that the Trinity is false is because it claims to be one God, but it very clearly is three gods. If you want to go, if you, if you want me to go down knocking it down, every other religious claim, whether it be Hinduism, Buddhism or whatever else, I can do that purely by logic.
- [71:57]
Christian Apologist 2
Don't go after Hinduism. Explain exactly how you know there's one God who.
- [72:00]
Jake
I will, I will. If you be Quiet. And let me actually talk and explain this to you because it's surprising to me that you as a Christian, don't know how there's one God. So here's an argument as to how we know that there's one God. If there were multiple gods, as we see in certain polytheistic traditions like the ancient Greeks, Romans, etc, then we would not see uniformity in nature which we experience. We experience a genuine design and uniformity in nature which points back to the fact that there's one creator and that there's one God. If there were multiple gods and multiple creators, then there wouldn't be what we call necessary agreement. For example, if you had the scenario that there were two gods, how could two gods be. In order to be God, would you agree that God has to be all powerful?
- [72:50]
Christian Apologist 2
I think that I don't know how you would know that, purely logically.
- [72:53]
Jake
So you don't know that God is all powerful.
- [72:56]
Christian Apologist 2
I do know that.
- [72:57]
Jake
But you don't know that. You don't know that. You don't know that independent of revelation.
- [73:02]
Christian Apologist 2
No, of course not. You don't even know causation independent of revelation. Like what?
- [73:06]
Christian Apologist 4
No, no.
- [73:07]
Christian Apologist 2
This is.
- [73:07]
Jake
You don't know that cause and effect exist apart from revelation.
- [73:10]
Christian Apologist 2
Absolutely. You do not. This is the. Actually one of the big problems with secular philosophy. I mean, have you read Hume? Have you read any basic philosophy?
- [73:17]
Jake
Like, one of the problems is I actually have two degrees in it.
- [73:20]
Christian Apologist 5
Do you?
- [73:20]
Christian Apologist 2
I know I don't.
- [73:21]
Jake
Okay, so I've read a lot more than you have.
- [73:23]
Christian Apologist 2
Excellent. I'm glad you've read a lot. So explain to me why Hume's critiques
- [73:28]
Jake
of so, so now we're going into. Now we're going into. In order to try to prove that Islamic monotheism is false or not true, we have to doubt whether or not we even exist. We have to doubt whether or not cause and effect really exists.
- [73:44]
Christian Apologist 2
You have to explain.
- [73:45]
Jake
We have to doubt. We have to. We have. We have to. We have to doubt whether or not When I'm speaking into this microphone, whether or not I'm expecting for the audience to hear me and whether I'm not expecting for you to hear me and respond. We don't really. We can't really tell for sure whether or not there is genuine cause and effect apart from Revelation.
- [74:05]
Catholic Theologian
Yes.
- [74:05]
Jake
How does Revelation help us guarantee that there is genuine cause and effect?
- [74:11]
Moderator
I think what Jake is asking you. Jake.
- [74:14]
Catholic Theologian
Which is.
- [74:15]
Christian Apologist 2
Yes, we got a lot of Jake's.
- [74:16]
Moderator
What, like how do you know what sources are you utilizing what rational arguments. Right.
- [74:23]
Christian Apologist 2
Rationally. Explain to me cause, effect then.
- [74:25]
Jake
Right, right, exactly. But he's jumping from point to point.
- [74:29]
Moderator
Hold on. You're both maneuvering just fine. But I, I think you're also like, rationally.
- [74:36]
Jake
Exactly. Now he's asking me to rationally explain cause and effect when the prompt is Islamic monotheism is true. You don't see that that's a complete deviation from the topics on this?
- [74:48]
Christian Apologist 2
No, it's not deviation at all.
- [74:49]
Moderator
Because. Well, because we started with, like you said, it's not the Quran. I can't say it properly. You said, it's not that. He said, okay, fine, I'll move on. Right. And then you said, revelation, logic, so on and so forth. He said. So he's. Now he's walking through that. And now we've moved to cause and effect because you said the causation. Right. So I think he's walking you through all of the things that you keep giving him. He's walking through them with you. He's trying to. But then you keep pushing the goalpost to something else.
- [75:20]
Jake
Okay, respectfully, what you're saying is absolutely delusional. How this started off and how the entire prompt is going is that he started off telling me that in order to prove that Islamic monotheism is true, I need to prove every single claim of the Quran. First, starting out with. Hold on a second. First. First, starting out with, I need to prove why his claim about a specific historical claim in the Quran is actually correct and not incorrect. Now I need to explain to you why cause and effect relations exist completely separate from revelation.
- [75:55]
Christian Apologist 2
No. So hold on.
- [75:57]
Moderator
Stop. Let me work through this with you. He made the presumption. It was a poor presumption, but he made the presumption that you were going, your ideology is based off of the Korean.
- [76:08]
Jake
It's partly, but not totally. Okay, so I believe in one God. I believe one in one God in the way that I just expressed, completely independent of the Quran, and the Quran confirms that same belief.
- [76:22]
Moderator
Okay, but here's. Yeah, he asked you that earlier and you said it has nothing to do with it.
- [76:28]
Christian Apologist 2
I went to the second prong, and now we're on the idea. Respectfully, Revelation.
- [76:32]
Jake
Respectfully saying.
- [76:33]
Christian Apologist 2
How do you get any of.
- [76:34]
Jake
Respectfully, you're confusing two things. You're saying that I said it had nothing to do with it. What I said had nothing to do with it is a specific historical claim in the Quran that has absolutely nothing to do whether or not Islam's conception of God is true.
- [76:51]
Moderator
Hold on.
- [76:51]
Christian Apologist 1
Because the whole premodern postmodern thinking, it's. You're going ontology. He's asking an epistemology logical question.
- [76:58]
Jake
Yeah. I already explained to you. The epistemology has nothing to do with every nook and cranny historical claim that's
- [77:06]
Christian Apologist 2
made in the ground.
- [77:07]
Moderator
But you completely negated it.
- [77:08]
Christian Apologist 2
Yeah. So.
- [77:09]
Christian Apologist 5
Right.
- [77:10]
Jake
I'm negating that aspect.
- [77:12]
Catholic Theologian
Wait.
- [77:12]
Christian Apologist 5
Yeah.
- [77:12]
Jake
The aspects that are relevant are the theology in terms of who God is as a creator with his essence and his attributes, and that it's not. Has nothing to do with his.
- [77:23]
Moderator
What he was asking was, how do you know?
- [77:24]
Jake
All right, here's what I'm gonna do. Here's what I'm gonna do.
- [77:27]
Moderator
Hold on a second. I'm sorry. I think I'm running this right now. And I'm trying to talk to you.
- [77:30]
Jake
Yeah. And you're being.
- [77:31]
Moderator
I'm trying to talk to you and.
- [77:33]
Jake
And what you're doing.
- [77:34]
Moderator
I'm trying to talk to you.
- [77:35]
Jake
You can talk, and I'll just ignore what you say.
- [77:37]
Christian Apologist 2
Go ahead.
- [77:37]
Moderator
Okay. Then we can just shut it down and everybody can go home.
- [77:40]
Jake
Fine with me.
- [77:41]
Moderator
Okay. If you're gonna be like that and you're not gonna respect the moderator.
- [77:44]
Jake
I don't. I don't respect. I don't respect somebody who's trying to tell me the most absurd thing I ever heard, which is that Islamic monotheism is true as a prompt. Has to do with whether or not Christ was crucified. It's absolutely retarded. And the fact that you're trying to defend that as a moderator means that
- [78:05]
Moderator
you're not defending that. What I am doing right now, right here, is telling you where he was going. He was trying to take nowhere to the actual prompt. God damn it. I'm here to talk. I'm here to help you. What do you want me to do?
- [78:18]
Jake
You're not helping. You're actually making it more difficult by making claims that have nothing to do with the problem.
- [78:23]
Moderator
But, see, you said it had nothing to do with it. He said, oh, I apologize. I made that presumption. So he maneuvered and that now, and
- [78:31]
Jake
he went to something else.
- [78:33]
Christian Apologist 2
Oh, my God.
- [78:33]
Moderator
Can you listen for one second?
- [78:35]
Jake
Okay, I'm not.
- [78:35]
Moderator
He maneuvered and then you said, oh, no. Why are we moving to this? Then he maneuvered and then you said, oh, no, why did we do this?
- [78:44]
Jake
We'll go to the next person who actually wants to debate whether or not Islamic monotheism is true or.
- [78:50]
Christian Apologist 2
I think I've been doing that though
- [78:51]
Jake
you haven't at all.
- [78:52]
Moderator
The thing of it is, is I've been trying to his arguments to make
- [78:55]
Jake
and his argument I'm responding to and explaining how it has nothing to do with the prompt.
- [78:59]
Moderator
All you're saying is that has nothing to do with it. Move on.
- [79:02]
Jake
No, I explained why it had nothing to do with.
- [79:06]
Christian Apologist 2
Got fired.
- [79:07]
Jake
I explained why it had nothing to do with the prompt. The fact that you think it's legitimate, that it has.
- [79:12]
Moderator
It is. Is.
- [79:13]
Jake
Okay. So did I give reasons for why it has nothing to do with the prompt?
- [79:17]
Christian Apologist 4
Yes, I did.
- [79:18]
Moderator
Sat here and said, oh, you're delusional if you believe this, blah, blah, blah. Yes, I'm giving you the translation and the description. What is happening?
- [79:25]
Jake
You're defending. And you literally give a.
- [79:27]
Moderator
What his claims are.
- [79:28]
Jake
You literally did. You literally did.
- [79:31]
Moderator
Oh, my God.
- [79:31]
Jake
We can play the tape back. What his claims are.
- [79:34]
Moderator
We can play the tape back to what I'm saying.
- [79:37]
Jake
We can play the tape back. He can play it back where you literally said that what he's saying does have to do with the prompt. Exactly.
- [79:46]
Christian Apologist 3
All right.
- [79:47]
Moderator
Yeah, I'm gonna go take a little break. Good, you can step in. That's ridiculous.
- [79:53]
Christian Apologist 2
So what I wanted to do was to attack the idea of Islamic monotheism by saying it has to come from either reason or from revelation. I first tried to attack it from revelation by attacking a central historical claim about the Quran to say that it cannot be a historical reliable sense of revelation. And he tries to cite this idea of like, take an exam, and if you get one question wrong, then that doesn't mean you're wrong about everything else. And I agree, that wouldn't make the Quran wrong about everything else. But it does mean that that exam that has one question wrong on it can't be the answer key. And so the Quran cannot be the infallible revelation that you've received. And so I'm first attacking the idea that you cannot get Islamic monotheism from revelation from the Quran. Then he says, I don't get it from revelation. I got it from reason. To which then I say, I don't think you can get it from reason either. I don't think you can get it purely from reason. And he starts talking about how he thinks he can reason to there being just one God because of the fact of, like, the creation and the contradictions between these two gods, if there were two gods and all of that. To which I say that you're talking about a cause and effect. And I don't think Purely from reason alone, you can get the idea of cause and effect. And I try to cite Hume and I would make arguments from Alvin Plantinga and other similar thinkers to say that you need revelation. As he would even point out in one of the previous debates that a lot of the Western church tradition has said that you need revelation to understand the full attributes, the full details of God. And so I say, do you get it from revelation or do you get it from reason? And I think as the moderator was trying to point out, he kind of hopscotched between the two and thought that neither of my attacks on it were reasonable. Because when I say I'm attacking the concept of revelation, I'm saying this is an unreliable source of revelation. He says, it's not relevant, I get it from reason. Then when I'm attacking the idea that you can get it purely from reason, he starts going back to the Quran and then he kicked the moderator out. So that, to me, that's what I thought happened and I didn't disagree.
- [81:55]
Jake
Moderator left. Right. So that was a lie. Pretty much like half the other stuff you said. But I'll respond. So you said that. First of all, the prompt, guys, for everybody listening, the prompt is islamic monotheism is true. So I'm trying to argue why it's true. They're supposed to argue why it's false. Providing an argument to why the Quran is not infallible or why the Quran makes according to him a mistake, a historical inaccuracy or mistake is not an argument against Islamic monotheism being true. You saying that? Oh, just because it has a historical accuracy, that means that we cannot trust it in terms of what it says about God doesn't follow. That's a. Literally a non sequitur. I hope for people who actually have studied philosophy can know and understand that. And it seems that you haven't, because you mentioned Alvin Plantiga when he says the exact opposite of what you say. His whole. One of his major contributions to Christian philosophy is that you can know and that you can believe and be justified in that knowledge and belief of God apart from revelation. That's actually what Alvin Plantica's position is. So you couldn't be any further from the truth. Now trying to throw out Hume and cause and Effect and philosophical language to make it seem like to the audience, you know what you're talking about. Anyone who knows anything about Alvin Plantica is now going to laugh at you because they know that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Now secondly, when it comes to revelation, even if the Quran is supposedly wrong about a particular point, it does not mean that therefore it cannot be relied on in any sense, including for its knowledge of theology of who the Creator is. Secondly, I didn't think I was debating an atheist, but if I were, I would be providing arguments independent of revelation to get to the truthfulness of there being one God, to get for the truthfulness of God having attributes like power, knowledge, etc. And if I had enough time, I would do that. But that's not what the prompt is. The prompt is, is Islamic monotheism true or Islamic monotheism is true? And a discussion on that. I think both in terms of revelation, that Islamic monotheism is supported by revelation number one and number two, that Islamic monotheism can be known apart from Scripture, whether that be Quran, Bible, etc, in a similar way that Alvin Plantinga says through knowledge, that that is not dependent upon Scripture. So once again, I think you've shown that you're. This doesn't relate to the prompt. And even when you try to relate it to the prompt, you don't understand the conversation. But thank you.
- [84:41]
Host
Okay. If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, it helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much.
- [84:52]
Jake
No, Jesus was not crucified.
- [84:58]
Christian Apologist 1
I would disagree with that, but not here. What, what it brings you. So, Jake, you're the, you're the Muslim metaphysician, right?
- [85:06]
Jake
Some people call me that, yeah.
- [85:07]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay. I was kind of hoping you're gonna wear the hat. Won't lie.
- [85:11]
Jake
I wore a different hat.
- [85:12]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, but it's interesting because you often go and criticize Christians and go say basically that ontologically the Trinity doesn't exist and that's. Or you can't prove it ontologically. Excuse me. I would say that Allah, in the way that Islam presents him, is ontologically insufficient. And we can't, can't prove in that way. So first of all, a little bit where we, where we'd find some agreement. Though you might not agree that I'm a monotheist, I'm monotheistic, and I think ontologically that's very important to look at this, because if you have more than one all powerful being. Well, first of all, it's a contradiction. You can't really have more than one all powerful being.
- [86:00]
Jake
I know, I wanted to actually give that argument, but the other person kept going away from the prompt. But yeah, I would give the same argument. You can't have more than one all powerful being.
- [86:10]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, right. If we did, then we couldn't have objective morality because the laws would be constantly be competing, all of these kinds of things. I, I kind of briefly go over this a little bit in my book Five Steps to, to kill a Nation on that. But we would, we would agree on monotheism. Where we would disagree is unipersonalism on this. And where I think this is important is that while unity is certainly in ontology, I think, think we have to have that in seeing it. I don't see how we can see the world in any other way. It just wouldn't be the reality that we have. We don't only have unity, we also have, we're persons, there's interpersonal relations, we reason together, we communicate truth, we love others, we make promises or covenants, we recognize justice and duties between other persons. And when we see this, I don't see this as an eternal attribute of Allah. And so I don't see how you could relate relations, how we're even having this kind of a communication in this kind of a debate inside of the reality in the ontology that Allah actually presents.
- [87:26]
Jake
Okay, so let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. So, because you said a lot, but I think the main part is what you were trying to say at the end, which is that the Trinity, and I'm saying it my own words, the trinity is relational. Right.
- [87:43]
Christian Apologist 1
And interpersonal.
- [87:44]
Jake
Yeah, yeah. Okay, so it's interpersonal and relational eternally. And Allah or the God of the Quran and Islam is not because he's only one person. So because of that, that fails to account for the interpersonal or relational experience that we have as human beings. Am I getting you correctly?
- [88:09]
Christian Apologist 1
Yes. I mean obviously I think we could go far into that, but I think that's, that's the general premise there. I don't think you're saying anything, I would say more, but yes.
- [88:17]
Jake
Okay. Yeah, I'm just trying to understand the main crux of the argument. So sometimes this is called the argument from love or you know, it's expressed in a slightly different way that you know, you have multiple divine persons who love each other and within God in Islam there's only one person. So you don't have this interpersonal connection or love and therefore God can't, or God in Islam cannot ground that. Once again, I don't think it's a good argument, but I appreciate that it is on the prompt and, but the response is going to be that it's an inconsistency because it seems to favor one way that you understand God's attributes versus others. I'll give you an example. God is typically, both in Christianity and Islam understood to be merciful and eternally merciful, but usually at least in the way that you're understanding it, the argument basically is in order for God to have a character trait or attribute, in order for him to possess something, he must express it. And I don't believe that that's the case. So what do I mean by that? God could be eternally merciful even if he doesn't eternally express his mercy. Now if you accept that, then the same could be true about God's love, about God's relation or with others, he could have the ability to do those things. And in virtue of having the ability to do those things, he can be said to possess those attributes without necessarily eternally expressing it. So I guess the hang up for me is why would we favor God's attribute of love or relationality and say that in order for to possess that you must eternally express it. But when it comes to God's mercy, which typically would require someone to commit a sin in order to provide mercy, which presumably nobody in the Trinity is eternally sinning, so God is not expressing his mercy in that way or forgiveness. And so but yet you still would say that God eternally possesses mercy and is eternally merciful even though he didn't eternally express it. So basically my argument is in order to possess an attribute, you don't necessarily need to express it.
- [90:41]
Catholic Theologian
Why?
- [90:41]
Jake
Am I wrong?
- [90:42]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, so when it comes to mercy, mercy can't really be understood outside of the context of justice. And God is eternally just. Of course, when it comes to this, there is no sin. And so there would be no way to go and express it, but there actually is people that he has communication relationships with inside of. And so then it's that relational, that relationship that is broken and violated when it comes, that activates there that justice. And then of course also then along with it that mercy, when we look at this, when it comes to something that's love, that's completely different when it comes to this, but it's also community, just even communication in real, in relation to one another. The ontology that I would see from Islam, if we, if we look at this and play it out, which I actually do think we see this so in, in certain degrees when people are following Islam and that is a completely vertical relational aspect. So you'd have Allah is here. He creates someone. And there is no one that. There is no one that he has a horizontal. That's, that's not a great philosophical word. Don't kill me on that one. Because this isn't about the Trinity there. And so there would be no one horizontally in that sense for that relationship to happen. And I think that we do see this. So when it comes to following. So, So I do do work in Nigeria. And in Nigeria, I'm not going to go and say that you are agreeing with all the stuff that's happening in Nigeria. If you want to say that you can.
- [92:13]
Jake
But I mean, I don't know enough about it to say anyway, but go ahead.
- [92:16]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so you have the Fulani ethnic militia that's in Nigeria and you have someone like Leah Shribo and she was one of 190 that were kidnapped. She was the only one that said that she was a Christian. The other 189 or whatever it was, were let go and she was forced into.
- [92:39]
Jake
But what were the other 189?
- [92:41]
Christian Apologist 1
They were Muslim. Okay, they were Muslim, Yep. Or at least proclaimed to be.
- [92:45]
Christian Apologist 5
Yeah.
- [92:46]
Christian Apologist 1
And so she was forced into a, a, essentially a marriage relationship there. And so it was under. And of course the, the citation comes from like Surah 4:24. With what your right hand, those whom your right hand finds things of that nature. The Fulani ethnic militia, when you look at this, they are, they also are attacking it. You've got jihad that's, that's coming in. And they're following Surah9 here on this because I assume that you would, you would call Christians polytheists and that as
- [93:28]
Jake
well in the Quran, they're distinct from the pagan idolaters at the time of the Prophet. Yeah, yeah, but go ahead.
- [93:36]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay. And so they're, they're using passages like Suriname in order to attack Christians and to, to advance Islam and doing these things, which of course is then either subjugating them or killing them with that in, in whatnot. I don't need to explain Jesuit and whatnot to you. I'm pretty sure that you are well aware of what these things are. But in looking at that, that would be consistent with the ontology of a being that has no relational, eternal relational aspect. So therefore then when he creates, he is over. And there is no horizontal obligation.
- [94:16]
Jake
Okay. If you mean by horizontal, in the way that I'm thinking about it, that there's nothing sharing with God in terms of him as a creator, in terms of his divine attributes and those things and yeah, there's nothing horizontal or equal to him or on a level playing field from that perspective. But if you mean horizontal in the sense of merely God loving creatures and creatures loving God and having a loving relationship, then I wouldn't agree with that. The Quran says that Allah subhana wa ta' ala is Al Wudud which means the loving and mentions it two times also every through every single surah except for Surah 9 which I can get to if you want. Starts off saying that Allah is the most gracious, the most merciful, so he does have a relationship with his creatures according to the Quran. Now whether or not you say that. Well Jake, yeah, I understand that the Quran says that, but it doesn't really make sense rationally or philosophically I think is what you want to say or I don't know, maybe you would even deny the textual part. Textual part, but that's clear because Allah is called al Wudud or the loving is that I don't see any problem with it because God could be loving or merciful or relational in the sense of having the ability to do that and then when he creates he can relate to those creatures. I don't see any requirement for why God must be multi personal such that when he creates and post creation if he wasn't multi personal before that, it's like now he wouldn't know how to relate. It's like, like somebody being. And it's an analogy. Of course nothing's comparable to God but it's like if I were stranded on an island. Just because I'm stranded on an island doesn't mean I don't have the ability to relate somebody that once I'm acquainted with that person I can relate to them. So God has that ability to relate to people, give mercy, show love, etc. Even without having another eternal divine person. I just don't see any good reason why there would need to be another divine person. Now you went into this Nigeria thing and something that's going that, that would be a whole nother subject for another time about right hand possession and subjugation. But no, historically the people of the book, including Christians and Jews were allowed to live in Muslim societies. They did have to pay a certain tax, but in fact the actual tax that they were supposed to pay was less than the zakat which was required as a tax for Muslims. Now we can, we can go into those points if you want, but I think that would really take us far afield. The point is I just still don't see why in order For God to be relational when creation exists, why he needs another divine person in order to know how to do that eternally, I just don't see it.
- [97:15]
Christian Apologist 1
So it was all as love then? Excuse me? Who's the eternal object of all his love?
- [97:21]
Jake
Well, I mean, there's multiple ways that you can see this. Sorry. To go all the way back to Mark. That sounds like. Feels like a really long time ago. In the sense of God knew everything in advance. So he knew what he would create and the creatures that would exist, and he knew what his relationship with them would be. So in that sense, you can say that they were an eternal object of God's love, but in the sense of them existing alongside him as a physical being or physical entity, they didn't exist because God is the only true eternal being.
- [97:59]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so to clarify on that, are you saying that they did exist there eternally with God?
- [98:07]
Jake
Only in the sense of God's plan and forethought in mind.
- [98:10]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so you. So is this love actual or potential?
- [98:14]
Jake
It would be potential if. If by you mean the love being expressed to the individual. And that individual, I don't want to say in kind of funny language, but feeling it or experience. And of course he can't experience or feel that love from God unless he exists, which he doesn't exist concretely at the time.
- [98:35]
Christian Apologist 1
So. So are we created? If we existed in God, God's mind ahead of time, are we actually created?
- [98:42]
Jake
No, no, not in the sense of what I explained.
- [98:44]
Catholic Theologian
Yeah.
- [98:44]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so you say you think that we're eternally existence in eternal past.
- [98:48]
Jake
No, no, no, no. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying we only are an idea or plan within God's mind, but we don't exist. There was no physical human being that exists in eternity.
- [99:00]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so it's not actual law.
- [99:01]
Jake
This is not.
- [99:02]
Christian Apologist 1
I'm not.
- [99:02]
Jake
I'm Muslim, not Mormon.
- [99:04]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, yeah, no. Well, yeah. And I'll ask you, because the way I was understand, it's like, boy, this is strange. I did not expect you to say that. So. No, no, yeah, you're. But so therefore the love is not
- [99:14]
Jake
actual, it's potential in the way that I explained it. Yeah, yeah.
- [99:19]
Christian Apologist 1
See, so. And I think that the problem with potential love as opposed to actual love is that how do we go from potential to the actual. Where. Where does that actually come into play then?
- [99:29]
Christian Apologist 2
Because.
- [99:29]
Christian Apologist 1
Because it's not real love that's possessed by all that he has, because he doesn't have an object to love at that point on a relational Aspect.
- [99:38]
Jake
Well, when. Sorry, I don't want to cut you.
- [99:40]
Christian Apologist 1
Go ahead, go for it. Go for it.
- [99:42]
Jake
Yeah. So how do we get it? Or how does it convert from potential to actual? Is that God, when creation exists, he knows the difference between when creation doesn't exist and when it begins to exist, and when creation begins to exist. And especially the type of consciousness creation, like human beings that can have relationships, then he can express his love and have interpersonal relationships with creation. So I don't really see. See anything too strange about that. It seems obvious that once creation begins to exist, God can begin to relate to creation.
- [100:18]
Christian Apologist 1
Certainly, obviously he can't relate to creation before it's there. But I would say that you're describing a God that doesn't actually have. Have that love. He'd be creating that love. It wouldn't be part of him. When it comes time, I don't see
- [100:28]
Jake
why he would have to create it. If it's something. If it's an. Do you believe that all of God's actions are uncreated?
- [100:34]
Christian Apologist 1
All of God's actions are uncreated. Not necessarily all of his actions, but certainly all of his attributes are uncreated.
- [100:40]
Jake
Okay, but is his act of creating created or uncreated?
- [100:44]
Christian Apologist 1
Is his act of creating created or uncreated? I would say it's. It's uncreated because it's an attribute of God. He is a creation, and his is
- [100:53]
Jake
God's attribute of loving creation. Is that created or uncreated?
- [100:58]
Christian Apologist 1
I think that it is a reflection of his eternal attribute, which is obviously like. I know I'm trying to stick to the prompt here, but I'm trying to
- [101:06]
Jake
get to the point.
- [101:07]
Christian Apologist 1
I would say that the.
- [101:08]
Jake
My, my, my. The reason why I'm asking these questions is because I believe as a Muslim that all of God's attributes and actions are uncreated, including his actions which are directed at creation. So if I believe in three things. You have the agent or the doer of the action, which in this case is God, then you have the act itself, which is also uncreated. And then you have the effect of the action or the recipient of that action, whether whatever it is in creation and that itself is created. But God and his actions are uncreated. I don't believe that God creates his own actions. I don't think that that makes any sense. Okay, so including God's act of love being directed at creation, it's uncreated love. It's directed at creation. And he begins to love creation in that way when he has the ability to do so when creation actually exists.
- [102:05]
Catholic Christian
Yeah.
- [102:06]
Christian Apologist 1
See, I think you're collapsing time when it comes into this and you're trying to. To convert the potential into actual night. I don't think that you have a grounding to do that.
- [102:14]
Jake
How am I collapsing time? I don't understand that.
- [102:16]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so is God's love actual, then, and eternal?
- [102:22]
Catholic Theologian
No, no.
- [102:23]
Jake
God's love in the way that I'm representing it. Okay. And to be clear, there are different views, but I'm just trying to go along with this for the sake of argument. Is that in the case that. That God existed alone by himself and then he created something and creation existed, that his love towards creation doesn't get expressed until creation actually exists. So it goes from potential to actual in virtue of the fact that now there's a recipient for that love on the other side. That God can then express that towards the individual.
- [102:56]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah.
- [102:56]
Christian Apologist 4
So.
- [102:56]
Christian Apologist 1
But then in order to hold that you'd be saying that we were. When you said that we were in eternity past. Okay. That we're. We're in eternity, sir. In eternity with God.
- [103:04]
Jake
No, we're not in eternity with God. We're only eight.
- [103:07]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, so God is loving somebody who doesn't exist. That. That's not there. No, the object of his love isn't. Isn't there? No, I'm saying he has no object to love.
- [103:16]
Jake
Exactly. Why I said several times now that God begins to love creation or express his love for creation at a particular moment in time. I've said that clearly.
- [103:29]
Christian Apologist 1
Yes.
- [103:30]
Catholic Theologian
Right.
- [103:30]
Christian Apologist 1
Now, when it comes to this, though, you also said that we as. As human beings were. When you reference Mark, are you.
- [103:38]
Jake
I'm only. Listen, the only thing I'm saying with Mark and what I was saying is that the only sense in which you can say that we exist is that God knew that we would exist, but we didn't exist.
- [103:50]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay, okay, so I got you now. So we have potential people. I think that's. We can agree on that.
- [103:56]
Catholic Christian
Yeah.
- [103:56]
Jake
They're not create. They going. They're going from that to being created.
- [103:59]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah. Okay, so potential people, potential love is what you're saying then God and does
- [104:05]
Jake
not express his love to those people until they exist. It's like.
- [104:08]
Christian Apologist 1
And so therefore you would have a potential attribute as opposed to a real attribute.
- [104:13]
Jake
No, because this assumes what I said from the beginning. The assumption is that the possession of an attribute, in order to possess an attribute, God must express it. I don't believe that that's true. I think you can possess an Attribute without expressing it in the sense that you have the potential to be able to do something. In this case, love, or, for example, speak. We could just. We could say the same thing with speaking. I can say that God has the potential to speak from eternity, but then when creation begins to exist, he actually speaks to them. I don't think that in order for God to have the power or ability to do something that he needs to actually do that thing from eternity. I don't think that that follows.
- [104:54]
Christian Apologist 1
Yeah, so I don't. I think that you're conflating ability and attribute in those, in those two things. But it could be a. A difference of you. I understand that, but I think that those two things are collapsing when you're saying that and you're using them on one side of ability and an attribute, because this is part of his divine essence of love. If Allah is the loving, if we see that there, then he would. He must be actually loving in eternity past. And I don't think that you've shown that he can be loving.
- [105:26]
Jake
I don't think that I need to show that in order for God to be loving that he needs to eternally express his love to another individual. And no disrespect, but especially in the case of the Trinity, which I don't, to tend, take to be monotheistic, I don't think that God needs to express his love to another God in eternity past in order to justify him possessing the attribute of love. I don't believe that. And I don't think that there's any good argument for that. No more do I think that God can be merciful in the sense that he has the ability to show mercy to creation when it exists, even if he doesn't have a sinner in his presence, even if he is not expressing mercy to somebody in eternity past, even if he's not forgiving somebody in eternity past, he still can have that ability and then express it when creation begins to exist.
- [106:17]
Host
We got five minutes, so let's wrap this up and get into closing statements.
- [106:21]
Christian Apologist 2
Sure.
- [106:22]
Christian Apologist 1
All right. Well, I still think, Jake, that what you've presented. I think that there's an ontological gap that's here. And I do think that the Trinity actually does fill that ontological gap, which is a grounding of relationships, which, hey, I think we probably didn't think that we're going to convince each other and change each other's minds when we came into this. So I understand that there's a disagreement there, but I believe that we do need to ground our relationships. I do think we do need to ground our love. I do think that we do need to ground our. Our duties of justice and all of these things to one another. And I think the only way that we can do that is through an interpersonal God, which of course the Trinity holds that. That ontology. I don't think that the. That the monotheistic view of Islam, which has a unipersonalism, is able to fill that ontological gap. And so I think that's where Islam fails when we look at it ontologically. But I think that's pretty much my opening statement too.
- [107:17]
Jake
Okay, so, yeah, I would say that in closing, that I don't believe that you've provided a sense of successful argument. I do appreciate that it has been on the prompt. There you go once again. But nevertheless, I. I don't think that the argument is any more successful than the last one. I think that this argument from love, which even many Christian philosophers and theologians today don't accept as a good argument for the Trinity or this idea of relationality. So you don't even have to be Muslim or a non trinitarian to reject this argument because many think that it's not a good argument. For example, the last person, I don't know whether he knows this or not, but Aquinas doesn't believe that you can establish a Trinity through reason or independent argument. It's only through revelation. So I think that I'm not alone in thinking that this argument doesn't necessarily prove or necessitate the idea of the truth Trinity or even multiple persons. And I don't think that God needs, in my view, another God to talk to as if he's bored and that he needs to relate to in order to know how to do that when creation exists. But I do appreciate the. The argument. At the very least, if you learned
- [108:34]
Host
anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, it helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much.
- [108:44]
Catholic Theologian
So in the Islamic monotheist view, is God simple?
- [108:49]
Jake
Simple in what sense?
- [108:51]
Catholic Theologian
Because as in, as in the. God is God is one. One thing, One being.
- [108:57]
Jake
He's one being. Yeah.
- [108:58]
Catholic Theologian
Okay. And then do you think that God is composed of parts?
- [109:02]
Jake
No.
- [109:02]
Catholic Theologian
Okay. And is he the only. Is he the only thing which is uncreated?
- [109:09]
Jake
It depends what you mean by that.
- [109:11]
Catholic Theologian
Is there. Is there things that are really distinct from him that are uncreated?
- [109:16]
Jake
I think God has multiple, real distinct attributes that are all uncreated, which are
- [109:21]
Catholic Theologian
really distinct from his essence and each other. Okay, you know, how many, how many there are? Or is it how many, not how many?
- [109:31]
Jake
I don't think it really matters. There's multiple, so it doesn't really matter.
- [109:34]
Catholic Theologian
Okay, so in the. In the Islamic view, does God have a shin?
- [109:40]
Jake
He has multiple attributes, including what's called a sock. Yeah.
- [109:44]
Catholic Theologian
Okay. And then also two. Two right hands and a face, which are all really distinct from each other and the essence.
- [109:52]
Jake
They're all divine attributes that are distinct, but your representation of them is not entirely accurate, but we'll go ahead.
- [109:58]
Catholic Theologian
Okay, and then are those, Are those metaphorical? Like, like, you know, if I, if I say just. The only example I know is from the Bible, but like, when it says God is a lion, that would be metaphorical because, like, obviously God is not a lion. You know, he's not. We wouldn't describe him as like, that's like one of his qualities or something. So is it metaphorical in that way? Or is it.
- [110:23]
Jake
Well, I have a different theory of language. So I don't think that calling. I don't think that calling a human or in the context of God, let's say, I don't think calling God a lion is necessarily a metaphor because I think that meaning is determined by the context and the intention of the speaker. So, for example, if the word lion is just written on the board, I don't think that it necessarily has a meaning in and of itself. It has to be in a specific context and application. And then the context of calling God a lion, it has another meaning other than an animal. But if that's what you mean, that animal is the primary meaning, and that other than that is metaphor, then sure, but I don't hold that theory. But it doesn't really matter.
- [111:12]
Catholic Theologian
Okay, so these attributes that he has, you would say that these, these, these do not compose God. Is that right? But, but that the essence.
- [111:22]
Jake
What do you mean by composition or. Yeah, composition.
- [111:26]
Catholic Theologian
That he is. That he has. He has parts.
- [111:31]
Jake
What do you mean by a part?
- [111:34]
Catholic Theologian
I guess that these, these things come together to. To, I guess, not create, but create the whole or cause the whole. Okay.
- [111:47]
Jake
No, because I believe that the idea of causation or composition in the way that you talk about coming together requires temporality or a necessary before and after. And I believe that God with his essence and attributes is eternal. So there is no before and after in that sense. In the sense of him getting his, let's say, attribute of power or knowledge. So there Wouldn't be any composition or causation in that way.
- [112:17]
Catholic Theologian
And are these attributes really distinct from God but sort of being possessed by him?
- [112:29]
Jake
For example, let's say God's knowledge is not identical to his essence, nor is his knowledge identical to his power or wisdom or mercy or other attributes. So they're distinct in the sense that they're not identical. And yeah, they really are multiple attributes.
- [112:49]
Catholic Theologian
So if, so if these. I guess I know you wouldn't say this but like body parts would. Are not the essence and they're not some sort of accident that like adheres to God and they're still uncreated. How, how is it that God can be. God is. God is simple and he's still the one God while he is really distinct from other uncreated things.
- [113:19]
Jake
If you mean by simple in terms of absolute divine simplicity or the doctrine of divine simplicity, that would be held by some in the. I think inconsistently, but let's grant it for the sake of argument. Some in the Christian tradition or in the so called Islamic tradition like Ibn Sina or Ibn Rushd and others, then no, we. I don't believe in that and neither does traditional Sunni Islam. So traditional Sunni Islam makes up roughly around 90% of Muslims around the world. There are three main theological schools I adhere to one, but the Asharis, the Matrides and the Etharis. And all three of them, although they may differ on exactly how many attributes they are, all of them agree that there are multiple distinct attributes within God that are not identical, which are discernible from each other and are not identical to the essence. So if you mean in terms of divine simplicity, that God is absolutely simple in the sense that he doesn't have real multiple distinct attributes, then no, I don't believe in that.
- [114:30]
Catholic Theologian
Well, by that I just meant that God is one. When I'm saying simplicity. Now that's what I mean.
- [114:36]
Jake
I mean there's one God, sure. Well, I believe that.
- [114:40]
Catholic Theologian
My confusion is how is there one God when we have the essence of God but we have his uncreated attributes which are the shin, the hands, the face.
- [114:52]
Jake
Well, it doesn't matter what attribute could be any. I think those are just knowledge, power, will, etc. They could be whether or not I don't believe the others are body parts as you're calling them, but it doesn't make a difference whether it's hand or knowledge, power will. If they're distinct, as the argument is intended to run, that there's going to be some type of problem. But you haven't demonstrated that there is.
- [115:15]
Catholic Theologian
So is the essence of God not powerful?
- [115:20]
Jake
God is powerful through his attribute of power.
- [115:24]
Catholic Theologian
But so then what is the essence?
- [115:27]
Jake
What is the essence? The Quran and Sunnah don't explicitly say what the divine essence is. Just as in Christian thought, the divine essence is unknowable in some sense.
- [115:38]
Catholic Theologian
Okay, so I'm still having trouble here that there's these. There's these many things which are really distinct from each other.
- [115:48]
Jake
Yeah.
- [115:50]
Catholic Theologian
Which are the attributes of God.
- [115:54]
Jake
Attributes. Yeah.
- [115:55]
Catholic Theologian
But. But you would still say there. But you're still saying there is. There is one God, but there's many uncreated things which are really distinct from each other.
- [116:05]
Jake
The argument assumes. Which you haven't made clear. So I'll make it clear for you and the audience. The argument assumes that uncreatedness is necessary and sufficient for being God. And I would deny that merely something being uncreated is not sufficient for it to be God.
- [116:23]
Catholic Theologian
Well, it seems to me that God would be sort of insufficient. Then there would be. He would be broken up into these many. These many attributes which would be his power, knowledge, face, hands. But. But they would not be the same thing. They're really distinct from each other. So it doesn't seem that there is a. There is the same thing which is all powerful and all and all knowing. These are things which adhere to something else.
- [116:59]
Christian Apologist 3
Yeah.
- [116:59]
Jake
They subsist within a divine essence. But there's one thing in the sense that there's one God that has this divine essence and attributes in the same way that there is in other Christian traditions. I believe that you're more so of a Thomas. Correct. So it's very similar in the thought of John Duns scotus, the Scotus camp, which affirms multiple real distinct attributes which each are not identical to each other and are not identical to the essence. And the Catholic Church has not definitively defined, as far as I know, anyway. Has not definitively defined divine simplicity. Yes. You're supposed to affirm that God is simple, but nowhere in Catholicism does it say that Aquinas view of divine simplicity, which is a rejection of real distinct attributes, is the necessary position to hold. So if my position is totally incoherent and you haven't said it, but maybe idolatry or whatever you think it is, then the same would have to hold true for John Duns SCOTUS and the other scholastic schools within Catholicism. So. But I don't think you would say that, would you?
- [118:16]
Catholic Theologian
Yeah, well, I don't think. I don't think the topic of the debate is, is what the Catholic Church believes. I think they can be incorrect, just
- [118:26]
Jake
as you're incorrect, but it's pressing for consistency. On your point, do you think that anyone who. Do you think that anyone who affirms multiple real distinct divine attributes is guilty of idolatry?
- [118:38]
Catholic Theologian
No, I think it's just incorrect.
- [118:40]
Jake
Okay, so what's incorrect about it? Maybe. Go ahead.
- [118:42]
Catholic Theologian
I think what's incorrect about it is that God cannot be one if his. If his attributes are really distinct from each other, because then there is not. There is not a. There is not one thing which is. Has all the power and knowledge.
- [119:07]
Jake
So there have. What is the one thing that's supposed to have all the power and knowledge would be gone. Yeah, well, I believe that there's one God that has all of these attributes and not in an identical way, but just as an analogy so people can understand what I'm saying. I'm one human being, even though I have different attributes. I have knowledge, I have power. Nothing comparable to God, of course. I'm not trying to say that. But just because I have multiple attributes doesn't mean that I'm multiple human beings. So if we're in agreement that there are, you and I are two human beings sitting at this table and yet we have multiple attributes, then having multiple attributes doesn't make you more than one human being or more than one God.
- [119:58]
Catholic Theologian
Well, if I had a, if I had a certain quality, it would be outside of me. It would be something outside of me, adhering to me. Like if, like I would say my, like skin color adheres to me like my essence, but it, and it's distinct from my essence. And we wouldn't say that, wouldn't say that. Then me properly, that I'm this color. We would see that this external attribute is applied to me. But I wanted to get to what you talked about earlier. You said that these, what did you say about the subsisting? And how is, can you explain that, Explain what you mean by that?
- [120:43]
Jake
I mean that the attributes are distinct in that they're not identical to the essence, but they're not separate from it. They don't exist outside of it, you know, floating in space. They're. They are attached to or adhere or subsist with the essence.
- [120:59]
Catholic Theologian
So when you, so when you say God, what are you referring to then?
- [121:02]
Jake
When I refer to God, I'm referring to him in total, in terms of his essence and attributes together.
- [121:08]
Catholic Theologian
Then when you're saying God, wouldn't you be talking about the Essence. The essence and parts. God would be composed of essence and his attributes.
- [121:16]
Jake
Not parts in the sense that a part in the way that I understand it is something that can be parted with. So it would have to be separable from God. But these attributes are inseparable from him, so they're not parts.
- [121:30]
Host
I guess, getting to your final point here.
- [121:32]
Catholic Theologian
Okay. Yeah. I think that then you would. Then you would have to agree that then there is. There is composition.
- [121:42]
Jake
Is that a question or. Well, you want it to be the final.
- [121:47]
Host
Final point and then close statement. Yeah.
- [121:49]
Jake
Okay.
- [121:49]
Catholic Christian
Okay.
- [121:50]
Catholic Theologian
Gotcha, Gotcha or final question.
- [121:52]
Host
Yeah.
- [121:52]
Catholic Theologian
Okay. Yeah. So would that take composition?
- [121:55]
Jake
I would say that. No. In fact, I have an entire article on the subject, if anybody's interested, on my academia page, where I go through what's called. What I call sometimes called in literature, Ibn Sina's argument from composition, which is the exact point that you're trying to make. And I show that pretty much all the argument is, is, hey, let's use these dirty words or words that would be. Seem like they're negative when applied to God and say, oh, your God implies xyz. But there's really no actual legitimate rational argument behind it. Now, if you mean by composition, as you initially stated, multiple things sort of coming together to compose God, then I believe that in terms of comparison, composition or cause and effect, that cause and effect are necessarily temporal relations. They're not synchronic relations. They're what's called diachronic relations. We know this even in modern physics and modern science, that cause and effect are diachronic. They're not synchronic. So there is. God is not caused by anything. He is eternal with his essence and his attributes. And I don't see anything problematic with that at all.
- [123:07]
Christian Apologist 3
Cool.
- [123:07]
Host
Closing statement.
- [123:08]
Catholic Theologian
All right, so in closing, I think that in the Islamic view, they would affirm that God is one, and they would say that he's not composed and that he is uncreated. But they also affirm that there are these things which are really distinct from each other in God, which would be his attributes. Saying that God has a shin, two hands, a face, but they're still holding that God is one, but they're saying he's not composed, but they're saying he has these things in him which are really distinct, which I think logically does not make any sense.
- [123:47]
Jake
Okay. So, yeah, the reason why I mentioned Catholicism is because it's a consistency argument. There are multiple schools within Catholicism that hold that God has multiple, real distinct attributes. Vatican II Explicit. Explicitly says that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. So you have to hold to that. And if you want to say that we have an incorrect understanding in terms of the attributes of God, that's fine for you to. To make the point. But I don't. And I at least. At the very least appreciate that this is actually. This discussion has been on the prompt, as opposed to the last one, which had absolutely nothing to do with the prompt whatsoever.
- [124:26]
Christian Apologist 1
So.
- [124:26]
Jake
So this was actually a faithful attempt at trying to criticize Islamic monotheism. So I do appreciate that, because you had enough sense to know that me, or at least general Muslims, do affirm multiple distinct attributes. You're trying to explain why you think that that's problematic. I'm not convinced. I don't think that the argument from composition is actually a good argument. And I would say that really, as a Trinitarian. Any trinitarian Christian cannot actually faithfully hold to a strong doctrine of divine simplicity in which there is or there are no multiple real distinctions within God, because within the Trinity, there are real distinctions within God. It's just on the level of persons rather than on the level of attributes in your particular case. So, anyway, I don't. I'm not convinced. I'm very well aware of the argument from composition, but I do really appreciate that it has been on the prompt.
- [125:22]
Host
Awesome.
- [125:22]
Catholic Theologian
All right, thank you.
- [125:24]
Host
Last but not least, we got 25 minutes. If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, it helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much.
- [125:36]
Christian Apologist 4
Yeah, I'm ready. What's up, man? Nice to meet you, Ezekiel. All right, so I kind of want to talk about what the previous guy was talking about. Well, first off, let's start with Jesus's atonement being wrong because he was innocent. So, I mean, both Islam and Christianity, we both believe Jesus is just right. I mean, God is just. I'm sorry. Yeah, well, I know you guys don't believe that Jesus is God, but, yeah, we both believe that God is just correct.
- [126:02]
Jake
Yeah.
- [126:03]
Christian Apologist 4
Okay. So I don't know if you've heard this explanation before, but this is what I've personally seen. Why Jesus had to be brutally beat the way that he was going to the cross, why he had to be crucified. So we look at the narrative of. In Abraham, in Abraham's time, in Genesis 15, if I'm not misquoting it. So we see that God establishes his covenant with Abraham and the way that God does it, is that the way? I guess, I don't know. I knew the name of it, but I don't know the type of pack that is called. Where they were lay the, you know, the dead animals on the side of a walkway. And in order to do the pack, they have to walk through between both paths where the, you know, mauled animal was and represent, representing obviously that if you break this pact, then, you know, you're gonna die. This is the way you're gonna get, you know, treated. And so when Abraham is walking down the aisle, we see that God puts him in the deep sleep. And as he's in his deep sleep, we see that God is actually the one that puts himself for the person who's gonna be mauled if the pact is broken. So my explanation of why Jesus was brutally hurt is because one, he's God. Two, he put himself in that pact. And we do see in Jeremiah where God does say that I will establish a new pact. So in order for that pact to be broken, you know, one of them obviously had to die in order to break the pact that God made with Abraham. So my assumption of this is that Jesus had to take that beating. Jesus had to die the way that he did in order for the new pack to come in that he already promised us in Jeremiah. I don't know if you heard that perspective before, but that's something that I've seen in my personal study, I guess.
- [128:01]
Jake
Yeah. So what you gave is an analogy or going back to the Old Testament with a narrative that you think explains why Jesus is doing this in the New Testament, right?
- [128:13]
Christian Apologist 4
Yes.
- [128:13]
Jake
Okay. So I mean it. To me, it just pushes the problem back one step further. Why is it the case that God, or let me ask you question.
- [128:23]
Host
Sure.
- [128:23]
Jake
Can God forgive without shedding blood?
- [128:27]
Christian Apologist 4
I believe he can.
- [128:28]
Jake
Okay, so why didn't he?
- [128:31]
Christian Apologist 4
Like I said, because of that specific pack that he made with Abraham. They couldn't break it any other way because like I said, the, the, the way the pack was formulated was that if one of you breaks the pack, you will die a bloody death. I mean, that's the symbolism behind the mutilated animal that was put it into pieces in the walkway. So in order for us to enter that new pact, I think that God had to respect, you know, the pact because we know the scripture says that God is not a liar or a man that can lie. So I believe that he had to go through that in order for us to come in into the new pact which Jesus established.
- [129:11]
Jake
Yeah, but the, the original, what you're calling the original pact. Why didn't God set up a system in which he could forgive people without an innocent person dying for their sins?
- [129:23]
Christian Apologist 4
Yeah, I see your point of view, but like I said, I mean, I'll fall back to where God is not a liar. You know, all throughout Scripture we see that God is faithful to his, to His Word. And so in my point of view, do I think God could have, you know, said, oh, you know, let's, let's not do it this way, let's do it a different way. I think he could have. But then we would come to the argument where people would say, well, he lied, he said this, but now he's switching it up.
- [129:49]
Jake
Yeah, but I'm saying he could have said something different from the beginning, which I think that Ezekiel, what's your name's Ezekiel, and Ezekiel chapter 18, it says that the, the sons are not to, not to be put to death for the sins of the father and vice versa. So, but in this situation, that's exactly what's happening. And I'm saying that's evil, that's immoral, it doesn't make any rational sense. And I think that the correct perspective is that someone that is sincere, has a sincere heart, recognizes his sin, that he did something wrong, makes what we call toba, or repentance to God and turns as Ezekiel chapter 18 says. And I recommend that you read this again, that he who turns from his wicked ways, God will not leave him stranded. God will forgive him for his sins. And I think that that is the correct sense of God's mercy and justice that doesn't have this evil understanding that an innocent person is dying for our sins.
- [130:52]
Christian Apologist 4
Yeah, I, I completely understand your point of view. But again, I'm just going to continue to fall to the point where God is faithful to his promises. And since we believe Jesus is God, in order for us to enter the new pact, the new covenant, God had to go out the way that he said what would happen to Abraham. Because, I mean, you know the story Israel was not faithful. I mean, many times we see in the Old Testament where God compares Israel to a wife that, you know, going through a divorce. And so, yeah, I just feel like God, God's word is so faithful that he cannot break out of it. He cannot break his own word. When he says I'm loving, he's going to be loving. When he says I'm just, he's going to be just. And in the same sense, I don't believe God is capable of breaking his own word. And I just feel like, yeah, he had to go through it. He's faithful.
- [131:44]
Jake
Okay, so what about the first story that we talked about before, me and the previous guy about God commanding babies to be killed? Do you think that that's okay?
- [131:58]
Christian Apologist 4
I think in my personal, human, finite understanding, I'll be honest with you, I don't think that's okay. But I'm. I'm in the belief that who am I to question God? And for me, I'll fall to the examples. For example, in. In Genesis, one of the few chapters in the end where God speaks to Abraham in the dream, right? And he tells Abraham, hey, I'm gonna. Your people is gonna go through slavery, through 400 years of servitude in another land. And he also tells him that in those times as well, that his descendants, I believe he said, in the fourth generation, they're gonna wipe out the Canaanites when their sin comes into fulfillment. And so we see this, you know, happening with, I believe, Joshua, where he takes out all the Canaanites. So in my understanding is that God did this to bring justice to those people. Again, I mean, I don't condone killing babies. I don't condone killing innocent animals, obviously. But I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that I understand God's reasoning. But because of sin, I do believe that God allowed these things to happen, and these things came into fruition because of the sins of those people.
- [133:11]
Jake
Yeah, but see, this is just another example in the reverse of what we were just talking about. It seems like God in the Old Testament, which Jesus, I think you believe is God, I'm assuming.
- [133:21]
Christian Apologist 4
Yes, I do.
- [133:22]
Jake
So God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, if you want to call him the Son, that's fine, are commanding that babies be killed for the sins of their parents. Let's say that they're the worst human beings. But to me, I mean, I just don't see how that makes any sense that God would command these babies. Not just that he was commanding it, he wanted it to happen for these babies to be killed in a very brutal way, which I described earlier. It doesn't make sense to me why God would allow that to happen. Even if he wanted to wipe out the parents, why not keep the babies, bring them to be raised by good people. They can be adopted. Why does he have to command them to be murdered?
- [134:08]
Christian Apologist 4
Yeah, again, that's going to be something where. I'll tell you straight up, I don't know. I don't know exactly. God's Reasoning. But I'll show you another example. For example, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I think in the Quran it does talk about it. Not specifically Sodom, but I think it does mention Gomorrah. Do you not think that there was children there when God decided to destroy the city?
- [134:29]
Jake
Yes.
- [134:30]
Christian Apologist 4
Or Allah ordered, you know, for the city to be destroyed.
- [134:33]
Jake
Yeah, but I think that there's a difference between a, let's say in, in a modern context, an earthquake or a so called natural disaster taking place in which of course we believe God is behind everything. But there's a difference between that and commanding human beings to go into small dwellings in ancient times and literally stab or suffocate a baby. I think that there's a big difference between those two. You don't see the difference?
- [135:03]
Christian Apologist 4
No, I do, I clear, I do see the difference. But.
- [135:07]
Jake
And also I think the result is the same.
- [135:10]
Christian Apologist 4
But the way that they, you know, take out for example in Samuel and in Sodom and Gomorrah, the, the method might be different but ultimately I think the results the same. And for me if the results the same, in my personal opinion the way it's done, it's not that much big of a difference because at the end of the day everybody was eradicated, you know, and I don't know God's infinite plan. I don't, and I don't know why specifically he ordered them to die that way. But if we do believe in the just God like you know, as in Islam for sure I know does and as Christianity does, I'm going to fall to the argument that I don't know. But since he is just, I trust what he is doing.
- [135:52]
Jake
Okay, let me give one last example that I haven't given before. In Deuteronomy, chapter 22, verses 28 to 29. And I'm paraphrasing, I'm basically explaining what the law is. It says that a, a man that has sex with a woman who is not betrothed to another man and not just that he has sex with her, that he her, that he violently seizes her, that she is supposed to marry that man and 50 shekels is supposed to not be given to her but to her father. So how would it be just for a woman who did not consent to the sexual affair, who is to be forced to marry the man and she cannot divorce him and they cannot get divorced for all time going forward? How is that not evil?
- [136:37]
Christian Apologist 4
Sure. I think that's more of a prescription for like justice I guess. You can say. But in the same sense I would. And tell me if I'm wrong. I mean, I've never fully read the Quran. I mean, I'm barely started getting into this. But if I'm not mistaken, there is a order from Allah during wartime, if a man rapes a woman, he's supposed to marry her. Correct.
- [137:00]
Jake
No.
- [137:01]
Christian Apologist 4
Or how does that go?
- [137:02]
Jake
No, there's. You're not allowed to. A woman.
- [137:05]
Christian Apologist 4
Okay, then I apologize. I misspoke.
- [137:07]
Catholic Theologian
Yeah.
- [137:08]
Christian Apologist 4
But, yeah, okay.
- [137:11]
Jake
And it would not be rewarded with marrying the woman.
- [137:14]
Christian Apologist 4
Okay, I got you. So, yeah. So, yeah. The only thing I can tell you is that it's just a prescription appropriate to that time frame. I mean, I can't. In my, in my mind, in this 20, you know, first century that I live in, I can truly say that I don't know why that would be fair. But again, when we look at the Bible, we got to look at the historical context and the way things were done in that point in time, which I really, truthfully don't really know. And I would have to go based off that. But, yeah, I couldn't tell you why or if it's fair or not, to be honest.
- [137:45]
Jake
So you could see from my perspective why that seems evil to force a woman who is to get married to her and they can never get divorced, and then her father is awarded 50 shekels instead of her. You agree with me. You can see how that seems wrong
- [138:02]
Christian Apologist 4
to a certain extent. I could. I could definitely understand why somebody from the outside can say this isn't fair, but at the same time, I do see that God's putting his judgment in play. And obviously in those times, I mean, you know, back in the old times, it was the father who would receive a war, a type of form of payment for his daughter's hand. And, you know, God's making things that were wrong, maybe not completely right or righteous, but so it can help them out a little bit.
- [138:31]
Moderator
Last response, and then we'll move to close.
- [138:33]
Jake
Yeah, I just think that the, the better thing to do would be to punish the racist and not reward him with marrying the woman that obviously he wanted to have sex with because he. I just think that that's wrong, but I'll let you go ahead.
- [138:48]
Moderator
Move to a closer.
- [138:49]
Christian Apologist 1
Okay.
- [138:50]
Christian Apologist 4
Yeah, all. All I'm going to say is that. Well, sticking to the topic, I don't believe the Bible is evil. I do believe that the Bible is just. And in. You know, we've all heard the saying that the Bible is de. Descriptive, where we do see the sins and the evilness and the wickedness of the world, but it's very descriptive so that we can see why we need God. And so I don't think in that, from that point of view, I do not believe the Bible is evil.
- [139:20]
Jake
Okay, Yeah, I believe that the Bible, not in totality, but certain key parts of it are evil. I think that the key message of Christianity, of an innocent person dying for our sins, I think that that's evil. I think that there's a much better way which Islam provides and I think even traditional Judaism allows in Ezekiel 18 and other texts where God can forgive you if you're sincere, you have a sincere contrite heart, and you turn from your wicked ways and you repent. I think that that's a much better option. I can think of plenty of other better options. Rather than requiring God to command an entire army to kill massive amounts of babies by hand, they could be adopted. There's several other solutions to the problem. Even if judgment is going to be brought down on their parents and that warfare is going to be committed against them. And then the marry your rapist rule, I mean, you could literally type it in on Google, the marry your rapist law, and it'll come up on Wikipedia. There's a whole discussion about this. So those are just some examples. And I don't think that I've heard very good, many very good responses to these problems.
- [140:30]
Moderator
Sure. Thank you, gentlemen. A nice little handshake and we'll move on.
- [140:36]
Host
If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, it helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much.
- [140:46]
Christian Apologist 4
Alrighty. I guess my first question is, would you say that nowhere in the Old Testament do we see any type of signs of the Trinity?
- [140:56]
Jake
I don't see that there. And I would make the same point that I made to mark the last speaker, which is that if the Trinity is clearly and explicitly taught in the Old Testament, then we would. We should expect to have some Jews who believed in the Trinity or something very, very similar prior to the New Testament and the advent of Christ. And not only do we not see that, we see the complete opposite of that. We don't see anything. So you could bring up certain Old Testament passages and try to convince me or the audience that it teaches the Trinity. But the hang up and the thing that I'm going to keep coming back to is who were the earliest Trinitarians or those that interpreted the passages in the way that you would like to or other Christians would today. And I just don't see that coming until much later on.
- [141:51]
Christian Apologist 4
Okay, as to your point about the Jews, I mean, I can't for sure say about that, but I think there's no way that you can specifically rule out that the first Christians didn't believe that. Because one, we do know that prior to the third century, if I'm not mistaken, Christians were heavily persecuted. So what they truly believed, I mean, we don't have many. And this is the dilemma where, you know, the earliest Bible that we have I think is from the third or fourth century, which Muslims always try to use in their defense. But Islam and Christianity, I think both of us have one teeny tiny little similarity where we both believe in progressive revelation. So I will say that from the Old Testament, I don't believe that we see the full context of maybe the Trinity, but I think we do see pieces of it. And for example, in Genesis 1:1, which, well, before I even get into that, I do want to say the Trinity. I think nobody can comprehend it. 100 I agree. 100 if I or any of the Christian says that I can explain it definitively, I think they're lying. Because for me, the Trinity is a mystery. It's not an enigma in the sense where we can never like even grasp it. I think we can grasp a piece of it, but not all of it. And I defer to the Scripture where it says in Deuteronomy 29:29 that the secret things belong to the Lord. So we're not meant to know everything, you know, and God's infinite self cannot fit in my finite brain. Just like in Isaiah where it says that just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so his thoughts are higher than mine. So for me to even try to tell you I know the Trinity, I, I do not. I understand parts of it, which I think that's maybe what God wanted us to understand, but the totality of it, I do not. And even starting for me, I see the Trinity literally in the very first verse of Genesis. And we don't even have to get super far away where it says in the beginning God, which you already know, it's using the pronoun Elohim, which is not a singular noun, but it's, you know, it can be used as multi personal. And it says in the beginning God created the heavens and earth. Elohim, multiple. And literally in the very next verse we see and the Spirit of God hovered above the waters and in those very first two verses, we're already seeing the Trinity coming alive, in my opinion. And this ties into John 1:1, where John says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. So this is the second Elohim that I'm putting two and two together, that Jesus was literally the beginning. And John clarifies it in verse two where he says he was the Word was with God in the beginning. And just in the story of creation, in those very first two verses, I already see a. Maybe not the full understanding, but we're already seeing a little piece of the Trinity.
- [145:05]
Jake
Yeah. So it's interesting you mentioned the word Elohim, which is a plural noun, as you were saying. But that same word, Elohim is actually used for singular persons. Including Moses in Exodus is said that he is made to be a God to Pharaoh. And we know that Moses is not multiple persons. So the point of that is to say that it doesn't necessarily follow from plural referring terms that it's referring to multiple people because Moses is literally called Elohim and he's only one person. That's the first thing. Second thing is that's fine if you can't come and come up with an example of Trinitarian Jews, I don't think that they exist. You made a comment about early Christians being Trinitarians. Again, shameless plug. But I just wrote a book on that topic called the Making of the Trinity. And I go through literally on that topic, the first 400 years of Christianity. And I argue that prior to the 4th century there were no Trinitarian Christians at all. There were some people who had. I mean, there were a wide variety of mainly three different Christologies that existed. There was the modalist view, in which Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just different modes of God. But that's deemed heretical. Then you had what's called, sometimes called Logos, Christology or subordinationism, that Jesus was God in a sense that Mark seemed like he was saying before with the lowercase g, that he was a God, which is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. If you look at their translation of John 1:1, it says in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God in the indefinite sense. So there were Christians who believed that Jesus had some type of divine pre existence prior to his human birth, but he was not the most high God. And then the third view, which is somewhat commensurate with Islamic Christology, the Ebionite view, or sometimes it's called today Biblical Unitarianism. The idea that no, Jesus was a prophet, he was a Messiah, but he did not have any divine pre existence whatsoever. So you see that these three views exist in the early Church, but conspicuously absent from them is the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the first 300 years of the Church. All of the major church fathers, from Justin Martyr up through origin, all the way up to the 4th century, none of them believed in the Trinity. So if it. Again, I would make the same exact argument as if the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly taught even in the New Testament, then why don't we see any Trinitarians early on? We don't see any Trinitarian Jews, we don't see any early Trinitarian Christians. And once you even grant that and you get to that point where even if I say, okay, you found somebody who was a Trinitarian, we get to the 4th century at that point, the doctrine still doesn't make any sense. If the Father's God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit's God, they're each three fully divine persons and they're distinct from each other, then it would seem like they're three gods in the same way that Peter, James and John are each human, they're each man, and they're distinct persons, they're not the same man. So they would count as three human beings. And I just don't see how we get around this problem of there seemingly being three gods.
- [148:37]
Christian Apologist 4
Got you. Well, multiple things. I think when you reference Moses being called Elohim, that's the majority of maybe scholars or I mean, not even just Christians, but even Jewish, they do adhere that Elohim in that sense. When Moses was called Elohim, it was singular, not plural. And the same argument, I would say for Genesis 1:1 where in the Elohim in based on the context of the, of the verse in the original Hebrew, it's plural, it's not singular. And you did say, talk about the early Trinitarians. I don't think anybody can say definitively that there was no trinitarian belief or doctrine prior to the 4th century. And no disrespect, but you can keep that.
- [149:28]
Christian Apologist 5
You should read it.
- [149:29]
Christian Apologist 4
Thank you.
- [149:31]
Moderator
I did get a lot of red flags on that one by. On that claim.
- [149:34]
Jake
Of course. Yeah, there's going to be red flags that they're going to claim that, you know, they're going to let me keep. Yeah, I will read it. I appreciate it, yeah, no, no, I'm sure. Anyways, red flags of people claiming that. Because there are all sorts of claims that there were Trinitarians. But I provide arguments against that. But I'd be happy to. We can take a look if you want, after you're done talking.
- [149:56]
Christian Apologist 4
Okay. Yeah, yeah. So. So, yeah. So again, so to say that other branches or maybe other little groups of Christianity had their different beliefs. To be honest, to me, that, that to me personally, it doesn't really matter because as you know, I mean, even in, within the Muslim community there were also heretical and, and you know, Muslims that believed their things. But obviously the, the more scholarly and the, you know, the better, the better Muslims with a better understanding refuted these ideas. And you know, and that's what we come to, the Council of Nicaea where, you know, they all got together and we all came into agreement that, that Jesus is God and that, you know, that's when we first start getting more into the Trinity. So the thing for me that it doesn't, I guess, sit with me as when they try to use the term because when you're telling me that there's three gods or that the way the Trinity is explained as three gods to me is just telling me that the basics of the Trinity is not being represented clearly. Because what us Trinitarians believe is, I mean, you already know the argument is that God is one being with three different persons. So it's the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. And they all share the exact same nature, the same will, but they each have their own different personalities. So again, to someone that maybe doesn't, you know, want to adhere to this belief or someone from the outside they can say, doesn't make sense. I understand it. Like I said, the secret things belong to the Lord, like in Deuteronomy says. But yeah, no, we don't. I don't adhere that the Trinity in any sense could even be seen as three separate gods.
- [151:43]
Jake
Right. So help me out here. Where am I going wrong? Okay, so Father is God.
- [151:50]
Christian Apologist 4
Yes.
- [151:51]
Jake
Son is God, Holy Spirit's God. The Father is not the Son. The Father is not the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. How do we not conclude from that there's three gods if we have three? Three persons which are distinct, they're not the same. It's not like, for example, my name is Jake Brancatella. Sometimes people call me the Muslim metaphysician. It's not like the Father and Son are Jake Brancatella and the Muslim metaphysician. Two names that just refer to the same person. Or Superman and Clark Kent. No, it's like Jake and his brother Michael.
- [152:26]
Catholic Christian
Right.
- [152:27]
Jake
We're two different persons. We each have the same human nature in that we're all created in God's image and have a human nature, but we're not the same man. Why? Because we're different, my brother. I mean, of course in the case of the Trinity, they're all supposed to exist at the same time, but classically speaking, and which is another mind bending doctrine which to me doesn't make any sense, is that if you ask what was the difference between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before they created, what would you say?
- [153:01]
Christian Apologist 4
What was their relationship before they created?
- [153:03]
Jake
Yeah, like, okay, and would you agree that in order to say that the Father and Son are not the same person, there has to be something different between them? And if so, what was the difference between the Father and Son before creation?
- [153:18]
Christian Apologist 4
I couldn't really answer that question, to be honest with you, because Scripture doesn't tell us anything that happened before creation. The only thing that I do know is that God was, is, and will always be there. But what I will say to that is that if the Trinity isn't explained as who God is, then some of his attributes wouldn't make sense. For example, love. How can you love somebody if you're not sharing it with somebody else? And other other qualities as well. But the only thing that I can think of is that, you know, like when Jesus said, father, glorify me like before, like the glory that I had even before creation. And they were just there. I don't know what they were doing, but I know they were there.
- [154:03]
Jake
Yeah. So the traditional Christian doctrine which is represented in the Nicene Creed is something which is called the eternal generation of the Son, which is that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. This is the expression that's used in the Nicene Creed, which is another mind bending doctrine, because typically the term begotten means something that's born or has a beginning in time, and yet it's eternal. So how is he eternally begotten? The way that the Church Fathers have described it is that the Son is eternally caused to exist by the Father, which that means he's eternally dependent on the Father. And if God, in order to be God, is supposed to be independent, then how could the Son and the Holy Spirit be God if only the Father is unbegotten and uncaused and independent and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not that's another very problematic doctrine with the Trinity because the Church Fathers, they needed to come up with something. Once they had the idea that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God and they exist eternally, they needed to come up with a difference between them. And this is the doctrine that they came up with. But I don't think it's clearly represented in Scripture Number one. And number two, I don't think it makes any sense because then it says that causation can be eternal. There's no before and after relation to being begotten, which I don't think makes any sense. And even if you do grant it, it means that the Son is eternally dependent on the Father in a way that the Father is not dependent upon the Son and the Holy Spirit. So it seems to cause sort of division or hierarchy in which the Father would be greater because he's not dependent on the Son and Spirit for his existence. But they are. That's the second point. And then the three Gods point. I still don't see how we don't have three Gods, because if each one is God and they're each fully God, they're not parts of God like Optimus prime or like a skeleton is part of a cat, who. One Christian theologian or philosopher did actually say that, which is William Lane Craig. If, if they're not parts of God, they're each fully God, I just don't see how we get around the three God problem.
- [156:17]
Christian Apologist 4
Yeah, again, I think it's more to the argument where we can never truly understand the Trinity, but for me it makes sense. And it's, for example, like the sun.
- [156:31]
Moderator
Right.
- [156:33]
Christian Apologist 4
The sun is the generator, but it generates light, you know, and it brings that warmth of light. For me, that would be a great descriptive of, like, I'm so sorry, a good descriptive of God where God of the Father is the actual Son, the light that it produces is the sun. And so are we going to say that the light is not part of the sun? Are we going to say that the, the warmth that it brings is not part of the sun because it all comes from the Son? And that's the best way that I can describe maybe to your misunderstanding of how God begets Jesus. And, and Jesus was always there because we, we also see Scriptures say that, that Jesus is the exact imprint of the Father. So everything that the Father has, the Son has it as well. And when you're speaking about hierarchy, there is a hierarchy between the Trinity, but it's authoritative. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Son can't Do what the Father can do, the Spirit cannot do what the Father can do. All of them can do the exact same thing. But yes, the Father is the authority when it comes to the Trinity.
- [157:47]
Jake
Can the Son and the Holy Spirit cause another divine person in the same way that the Father caused the Son and the Spirit?
- [157:56]
Christian Apologist 4
No, there's no biblical. We don't see in Scripture any part where we don't. We see that the sun can send the Spirit, we've seen that God can send the Spirit and the Son, but there's nowhere in Scripture where we see that the Son can send the Father or the Spirit can send the Father either.
- [158:14]
Jake
So then that means that the Father can do things that the Son and the Spirit can't. Which you just said doesn't happen.
- [158:21]
Christian Apologist 4
Not necessarily. Because you're thinking you're seeing it through a lens of, like, human understanding that the big boss is the one in charge and he's gonna, you know, be greater than his workers and stuff like that. That's not the way the Trinity works. Everything that, that the Son can do, the. The Father can do, the Holy Spirit can do. But obviously in the Trinity, like I said, there is a hierarchy of authority where Scripture is very clear that the Father is the One who sent the Son into the world to die for us. He is the one that sent the Holy Spirit here on earth after Jesus ascended up to heaven.
- [158:57]
Jake
And yeah, but it's not just mere authority, because this action is an eternal action. The Father eternally begets the Son. It's not a matter of authority. It's a matter of ontology and the reality of their being. And the Son does not cause the Father is not the One who produces the Father, The Father produces the Son. The Son is caused to exist and dependent upon the Father for his existence in terms of him being a divine person, not just merely in his human nature later on. And then it's the same thing with the Holy Spirit. There's a distinction between the Eastern and Western churches, which is one of the reasons why they split over which is a doctrine called the Filioque, which Latin refers to and the Son. The original Nicene Creed said that the Holy Spirit was from the Father and the Western Church. The Catholic Church, which eventually split from the east in 1054, officially, anyway, added the phrase and the Son. So in that case, you have two options that you either take the Western view, the Catholic sort of mainstream Protestant view, which is accepting the filioque that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son. But nevertheless, even on that view, the Holy Spirit doesn't cause another divine person. So it seems to be an inequality not merely in terms of authority, but the Father uniquely is unbegotten, uncaused, completely independent. Or in Islamic terminology, we would say asamad. And therefore he is greater in status and rank, even in his divinity. Because a major part of what Muslims, Christians and general theists take to be God is that God is independent. Everything is dependent upon God, and he's dependent upon nothing. Yet the Son and the Holy Spirit are uniquely dependent upon the Father to be begotten or spirated or proceed from the Father. So there seems to be an inequality that's not merely based upon authority.
- [160:59]
Moderator
Let's move into a closing from there. I know that was a lot to kick back off of, but I think. I think we're kind of go ahead at the tail end of that. So go ahead and hit your closing.
- [161:08]
Christian Apologist 4
Okay. I guess for my closing, I would say that the Trinity is biblical. I do see it all over Scripture. We do see that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each one independently was involved in the story of creation. Even like as I referred back to Genesis 1:1. Even if we maintain in the same chapter, when we see God create man, God said, let us make man in our image, speaking again in the plural sense. And even if you want to tie it up with other verses, we can go back to John where, you know, he says that everything was made through Christ and creation. It comes from God. If you're, you know, if you're trying to say that Jesus is not God, I mean, Scripture is clear. Everything that was made could have not have been made without Him. So, yeah, I would say that the Trinity, it wasn't fully, you know, revealed at first. I believe that Jesus was the, the, the full revelation of who God is. And we could even see this in First John, chapter 5, verse 20, where he says, and we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, and his Son, Jesus Christ, he is the true God and eternal life. So Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and God of the Father is God, and which all share the same essence. And that is the definition of the Trinity.
- [162:49]
Jake
Okay, I appreciate that. I mean, you added a few things there, which is fine. But the prompt, the Trinity is false. I still think it's false because I don't think that the Old Testament clearly and explicitly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. You seem to kind of be agreeing with that, but you're saying it hinted at it. Even in the passages that you say suggest a plurality, there's a difference of opinion from Jewish scholars as to what exactly that means. But even those in even Second Temple Judaism, like Philo of Alexandria, who did interpret it in a similar way in that he accepted it referred to a plurality of beings being present at the time of the creation of the rest of the world. And sometimes this is called two powers in heaven ideology. But the second power was always understood in Jewish thought to be not co equal and co eternal, with the Father, to be a lesser sort of divine or angelic being, a being that had some type of divine pre existence, but was not of the same status as God the Father or the Most High God. And then the second point is that even if I were to grant that supposedly the New Testament teaches that Jesus is God or even the Most High God or fully the doctrine of the Trinity, we just don't see Christians interpreting the Bible this way in the first three centuries, which I've mentioned several times, my book actually goes through in detail to refute that. And then last, even if we did grant both of those, that the Old and New Testaments do clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity, I, as a Muslim or somebody who I think does understand the Trinity, I would not believe in the Trinity. Even if it said in bold black letters on every single page of the Bible that the new, that the Trinity is true, I still would not believe in it because. Because it doesn't make any sense. If you say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each God, they're fully God and they're not each other, then by the normal way in which we count, there would be three Gods, not one. But Trinitarians tell us for sure. Trust me, trust me, it's only one God. Even though if we can't tell you how, and I just don't find that intellectually satisfying. But thank you.
- [164:59]
Moderator
Beautiful. Shake hands, gentlemen. All right, and we're going to move on to the.
- [165:03]
Host
If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, it helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much.
- [165:13]
Jake
All right, we're starting with the next prompt. The Trinity is false.
- [165:18]
Moderator
Go ahead, Mark.
- [165:19]
Christian Apologist 5
All right, before I make my case, I want to remove a little bit of ambiguity here with this idea of God and who he is. So we're talking about the essence of one with three distinct persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not a fourth person, as is often referred to and confused. So it's not a fourth, it's actually one. And so as I talk about the one, it's unique in the idea that we can think about a God who can sympathize where we are as human beings. He can feel what Mark feels, He can feel what Jake feels. And he can help us through the processes of good and evil and try to understand the world the way it is. I think we'd agree the world is messed up right now, a bad place. I don't understand what's going on half the time. But I do know God can understand. And I'm grateful for the Trinity. In the fact of a look at the Trinity, it's bigger than we can understand from a human standpoint. We tend to question it. I know you're a very smart guy and I've been very impressed with your well read, very studied up. The problem with it is there's also wisdom that's beyond that. Wisdom goes beyond all knowledge. Wisdom is bigger than this world. The whole idea of the Trinity has got to be centered around the idea of eternity, because eternity always has been and always will be. For example, right now I don't know where I am in eternity, but I know I'm in a different place. But I'm also here at the same time. In other words, what's happening right now is also happening in a different dimension outside of us in space and time. We could be having this conversation in heaven one day and I hope you're there. If you're not, I'm going to be brokenhearted. But the bottom line is this. Even in my own wisdom, my own knowledge, that's limited. God's wisdom is not. And sometimes we don't understand everything. So trying to understand the Trinity with the explanation of mankind's knowledge, literally not going to happen. We have to have God's help to do that.
- [167:12]
Jake
Okay, so Trinity is false. I have a few reasons why I think that Trinity is false. One, I don't think it's clearly taught in Scripture or in the Bible. That's the first thing. I don't think it's supported from a historical perspective. I don't think, for example, early Jews believed in the Trinity. I don't even believe that early Christians believed in the Trinity. And I just. Shameless Plug just wrote a book on that exact topic. And then third thing is kind of what you seem to be focusing on or moving around about. I don't think that the Trinity makes Any sense. And it seems like you kind of agree in the sense that you don't think that it could be explained, but this is one of the main reasons why I left Christianity or left Catholicism, was raised in a Catholic family, is because to me it just doesn't make any sense. How you can say that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit's God and they're distinct from each other.
- [168:15]
Christian Apologist 2
Right.
- [168:15]
Jake
The Father is not the Son, they're different persons. I just don't see how by the normal manner in which we would think about these things and count how they wouldn't be three gods. So maybe you can help with that or maybe you're basically telling me that you can't. But that's kind of one of my biggest hang ups is that Trinitarians claim that they believe in only one God, but it's seems like there's three gods.
- [168:40]
Christian Apologist 5
I'd love to help you with that because I've been down that road a few times. First of all, the word Trinity, that's some kind, that's of a modern day explanation of God and his whole essence of who he is, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So we kind of affix that the whole idea of the triune God, the Trinity and that gets us kind of confused. So I can understand where you're coming from on that. And I can understand, for example in Catholicism, well, that's confusing because you're still going to a priest to confess, which makes no sense to me if Jesus died for us. And I think you would agree with that if you believe in Christianity that Jesus died once and for all. So what's the priest for? So I can see why you left that because it makes no sense to me either. The bottom line is when you understand God and think about this, Jake, from the standpoint where I'm talking about God is so above us, he's so beyond us, he's so bigger than we are and so much higher than we are. And his understanding, he made you, he made me, he made this day. Why?
- [169:35]
Jake
I don't know.
- [169:36]
Christian Apologist 5
He knew we would be here today having this conversation, which I think is fascinating and I'm grateful for you and I love you as a human being and I'm glad you're here vigorously defending, you know, what you believe is true, that's a gift from God. But God in himself made the Trinity so unique for us because he didn't just send us a prophet that could tell us where to go, how to go, how to do it. To live good, though I don't disagree with that. We should live good, right? He sent us someone to take our place, the very essence of a person, part of himself to come to earth, to take on the form of humanity, to feel what we feel, all the pains, the confusion. And that's good. That's a good God. And when Jesus died, that person, he felt. A lot of people argue the idea that when Jesus was crying out in the garden, you know, father, take this cup from me, and he was on the cross. Why did you turn your back on me? And I've looked at that many times myself. But that was the humanity, the human person of God, the thing that feels how we feel, the person that feels. And that's why God is so big. That's why the Trinity is so necessary, because he doesn't want to leave us where we are, so we don't have to be stuck in the ideas we've heard other debaters come up with. All of sin and fall ashore of the glory of God. I know you've talked about that correctly, which we all made mistakes. So what is it that fixes that separation problem? That's only God himself. And that's only because the Trinity. Because without the Trinity, there would be no salvation, there would be no hope, there'd be no. No thought about having an eternity that we could live in a place called heaven.
- [171:14]
Jake
So basically you're saying in order for us to be saved and to be in communion with God, we need the Trinity, we need the Son who is God to become a human being, to experience our human experiences and to die for our sins. But again, I mean, I grant that for a lot of people this is comforting. It sounds. It may be even intriguing to people. They think that, oh, this is an idea of a loving God coming down to die for our sins. I don't want to go back to what we talked about before in the previous prompt, but still, that doesn't make any sense to me either, how an innocent person is dying for the sins of all the guilty. But even if I grant that there's another peculiar problem with God becoming a human being, which is that traditional Christianity, and I don't know if this is your view, but traditional Christianity, in the way that I was taught, taught, is that it's not just that God became a human being, like a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly, it's that he was both at the same time that he was fully God and fully man. And I just don't understand how that works or how it makes Any sense how a single individual could be fully God and fully man at the same time? Because God has certain qualities that humans don't have and vice versa, right? Like God we typically think of as being all knowing. He knows everything. He's all powerful. But man is ignorant of things and man is weak. So it, to me, it complicates things. It sounds like a nice story. I grant it, right? At least to some people it would. But to me, it's complicated when we think about it at a deeper level. How is it that Jesus, a single person, was fully God and fully man at the same time? How could he be all knowing and ignorant? How could he be all powerful and weak at the same time? And to me, it just doesn't make any sense.
- [173:15]
Christian Apologist 5
Well, let me kind of explain it for you. When Jesus was in the garden, his manhood was crying out. Is there another way? Is there any other way that I could do this other than go on the cross and die for Jake and die for Mark? Is there any other way? He prayed three times while his buddies were sleeping all by himself. But then he finally said, yet not my will, but yours be done. And he died so that we could have that payment. We've talked a lot about in the previous debate about the Old Testament. And I realized that we don't understand all that stuff, and I'll grant you that. But when the world fell, you know, mankind lost his way, her way, etc. So sin entered the world. And I don't understand why bad things happen all the time, but I do know the Trinity is necessary. From your part being confused about that, I totally understand that and I hear you. My encouragement for you is to keep asking and keep seeking, like you're doing right now. I think that's awesome because the more you ask and the more you get sown, guess who tells you that it's Holy Spirit. The part of God that speaks to your heart. You know, the part that maybe says, I'm walking down an alley and it's dark and I probably need to get out of the alley now. You know that feeling you get? That's the essence of who God is. And he's speaking to us all the time. You know the time when you maybe have a little bit too much to drink and you're at the bar and you shouldn't get in the car.
- [174:34]
Jake
I haven't done that in a really long time.
- [174:37]
Christian Apologist 5
But you know I'm talking about, right? It's those little intuition and that's God telling us what not to do. You talk a lot about, you know, making mistakes. We all do, you know, as adulthood, sin, whatever want to call it.
- [174:48]
Jake
Yeah.
- [174:48]
Christian Apologist 5
But the bottom line is, what is it that differentiates in us as human beings that that's even wrong? That's God. That's that thing that's in us. And is it hard to understand? Yes. And to your point about being two people at once, as I sit right here, I'm an eternal being. I really am. When I get done with my time here on Earth, I'm going to go right back where I came from in eternity. But while I'm here, I'm aware of time. So how can I be two people at once? I'm human, but I'm also eternal. And guess what? You are too. So you actually make the same argument. That's wonderful for me.
- [175:27]
Moderator
I told you that, Jake. I would be mindful because we're tapping into what I would consider sermon talk versus debate talk. Right. So I think Jake is looking for actual arguments. And you're giving kind of like what would sound like a great sermon. And it's beautiful. I love it. I'm sure most Christians in the room would love it, but it's not really giving him arguments to work with. It's not tangible in word of debate. But I'll hand it back to you, Jake. I just wanted to throw that out there.
- [175:50]
Jake
Yeah. I think that he made a very interesting comment and I'm struggling to understand this one, so hopefully you help me with this. When you said that we're eternal, do you mean that we're past eternal? That we always existed?
- [176:06]
Christian Apologist 5
Yes.
- [176:08]
Jake
So do you believe we're created?
- [176:10]
Christian Apologist 5
Yes.
- [176:11]
Jake
How are we created if we always existed and we're eternal? I don't understand that.
- [176:16]
Christian Apologist 5
Before we were formed in the womb, God created you.
- [176:22]
Jake
But did he create Me at a certain point in time or was I always with God?
- [176:27]
Christian Apologist 5
You were always in God's mind to be created as a human being.
- [176:31]
Jake
Okay, I'm always in God's mind. But did I exist as a person from eternity past?
- [176:37]
Christian Apologist 5
Yes.
- [176:38]
Jake
I just don't understand that. Maybe I'm just missing it. But can you explain that?
- [176:43]
Christian Apologist 5
Sure. Yeah. Before the beginning of time, the earth was nothing. Mankind didn't exist. Right? Correct.
- [176:49]
Jake
I thought so.
- [176:50]
Christian Apologist 5
Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So who put it in God's mind to create all humans? Because if we agree that God's eternal.
- [176:56]
Jake
Yes, I do.
- [176:57]
Christian Apologist 5
Then how could he look at the world and not see the world from eternity? So he saw every single human being that would ever exist. So my point is this, that in God. You were there, I was there. Everybody in this room, everybody listening right now was there. That's the point.
- [177:12]
Catholic Theologian
Right?
- [177:13]
Christian Apologist 5
And so even though we don't understand that, how is that even possible? It is, or we wouldn't be sitting here today.
- [177:21]
Jake
So we. Okay, but I want to be clear. Did we exist merely as a plan, in the mind of God, in the knowledge of God God, or did we actually exist for God in a real sense of us sitting here type of thing?
- [177:34]
Christian Apologist 5
In a human form, probably not. Okay, but in an eternal form, yes, we did. Now, what is eternity and what is the form look like? I don't know, man. I haven't been there. But in the scope of eternity, I suppose we'll know one day.
- [177:49]
Jake
Okay, maybe we can kind of slide to something else in. Do you think that the Trinity is. Let me ask you this. Other than the reason you talked about with salvation, do you think that the Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible, in Scripture?
- [178:08]
Christian Apologist 5
Yeah.
- [178:08]
Jake
Okay.
- [178:09]
Christian Apologist 5
When. When Jesus is in John, obviously Jesus says, you know, the Word. John says the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
- [178:17]
Jake
Yeah.
- [178:17]
Christian Apologist 5
And the Word was with God, the beginning, the Word was God.
- [178:19]
Jake
Right.
- [178:20]
Christian Apologist 5
And we also hear references, is about, you know, God being with God or Jesus being with God in the beginning and he created everything. Right. So. So, yes, I agree with you.
- [178:27]
Jake
Okay, so, but in that's New Testament, John's Gospel, chapter one in the Old Testament, do you think it's clearly taught or do you think the Trinity wasn't taught until the coming of Christ in the flesh?
- [178:39]
Christian Apologist 5
Yeah, I think the word Trinity, as I stated in my opener, is often misused and confused. I think that's the confusing term. I think the real issue is, does God exist as a whole and can he exist in three persons? Three distinct persons. The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit? My answer is yes.
- [178:56]
Jake
Okay, but. But it's not clear to me because you're saying that the New Testament definitely teaches it, but do you think that the Old Testament taught it? Because the confusion that I have, Mark, is that if the Old Testament clearly taught the Trinity, and I don't mean just a word, I'm not saying where's the word Trinity? I'm saying the idea, the concept, if it was clearly taught in the Old Testament, then wouldn't you agree that we would expect to find not all, not all, but at least some Jews who traditionally believed in this doctrine? And I just don't see any. I think it's ahistorical. And that's what gives me Pause to believe that it's actually in the Old Testament because if it was clearly taught, we would expect. Expect some people to interpret it correctly and believe it. And I don't see any Trinitarian Jews.
- [179:43]
Christian Apologist 5
No. I think the Jews are still looking for, you know, the real Messiah as a general rule. But the bottom line is your question about the Old Testament. I do not think it's clearly taught under the word of our. Under the thought of the way we think about teaching. Do I think God is able to do what he says he's going to do? And did exist the Trinity in the Old Testament? I do, obviously. But what was the Old Testament situation in itself? That was mankind's failure, and that was mankind continuing to fail. God destroyed the world and through Noah brought about again, more people.
- [180:16]
Catholic Theologian
Right?
- [180:17]
Christian Apologist 5
And over the course of time, that was the Old Testament, and there was something that was missing. There was no ability for us to pay for sin. We're still killing cows and pigs and birds and things of that nature, sacrificing animals at that point. So that's when the New Testament came up. So God in his oneness, sent his Son, part of himself, distinct person within a New Testament. It was taught in the Old Testament there's a person that's going to come down the line of Moses, a prophet like Moses to, you know, set the people free and govern. And that was the prophet about Jesus.
- [180:54]
Jake
So. But you would agree with me that no Jews believed in the Trinity.
- [180:58]
Christian Apologist 5
I don't know about no Jews. I just know that the Jews don't really look at Jesus as a general rule, as the Messiah.
- [181:05]
Jake
Okay. Because the problem that I have, again is that for me, if I was a Christian, which I'm not, but even considering it, I would expect God to be clear about his revelation and who he is. And if he's not clear about that or the claim is that, well, he kind of seems like he's saying it, but not really. To me, that's problematic. If the, if the Old Testament is supposed to be clearly teaching the doctrine of the Trinity, why doesn't. Why doesn't it? And it just seems to me that it doesn't because nobody understood the Bible or the Old Testament in those terms.
- [181:42]
Christian Apologist 5
No, I don't think the Old Testament quote unquote teaches the Trinity at all. As I stated before, it's not a disagreement we have.
- [181:49]
Jake
But why doesn't it? Why do you think God chose not to teach it there?
- [181:52]
Christian Apologist 5
I don't think we're looking at things the same manner. Because what is Teaching, it's instruction. Did God instruct his people? Yes. Did they disobey? Yes, over and over again. So when God looked at his people, he didn't want to leave those people there. He didn't want to leave me there, leave you there, leave the Jews there. So he did something to make them have a way. And it was always prophesied through his teaching and instruction that he would make a way. And that person he sent was Jesus. So from a overall teaching standpoint, it was taught, it was modeled, it was predicted. The New Testament is a fulfillment of that.
- [182:30]
Jake
Okay, and then kind of the last point that I want to make, which I was saying earlier, but I just want to be clear. Would you agree with the statement that the Trinity is a mystery?
- [182:43]
Christian Apologist 5
It's a mystery for those that don't understand who it is or what it is. I agree with that. And the mystery is clear and clearly understood. When a person is able to understand with the heart and the head connecting those two things. And that's only because the Trinity, that we can understand the Trinity without the Holy Spirit of God as part of that, there's no understanding. Because when Jesus came, died and left, he said, I'm going to leave you the comforter that will tell you all things. And all things include revelation of who he is and even the concept of God being three persons.
- [183:18]
Jake
Because before it seemed like you were using the example of eternity to say we don't really understand eternity. And so that's, you know, an example that even Jake would accept. So shouldn't really have too much of a problem that we don't understand the Trinity. So I guess I'm confused. Do you, Mark, as a Christian believer, believer in Christ, do you think that you understand the Trinity? Do you think you have a good understanding of who God is in his trinitarian nature?
- [183:49]
Christian Apologist 5
I will never say I understand everything. I will say I wake up every day and ask God to help me do it again. As a matter of fact, I wake up every day and realize I don't know much. And so I try to learn again. And I ask God to help me every morning to help me understand more of himself.
- [184:05]
Jake
Because I'm saying that for the life of me, I can't understand how three divine persons who are each fully divine, each fully God, they're not parts of God like a skeleton is part of a cat or something. Like they're each fully God. Right? They're each fully God and they're distinct. It seems to me that they would the normal way in which we would count things is that they would count as three gods. And I just can't solve that problem. I have never seen any good response to this.
- [184:36]
Christian Apologist 5
Well, this might help you. There's one God, big G. There's three little bitty gods that you're saying. And so you're right. Under mankind's concepts, that doesn't make sense. But under the big G God, it would make sense. So the idea is to understand there is a big God, and then in our. Mankind's ways in which we sort of look at things, we want to define it in mankind's eyes, and that just doesn't work.
- [185:03]
Jake
So you would. You would agree that there's three little G gods?
- [185:06]
Christian Apologist 5
No, I think there's one big G God that's got three big Personas. Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
- [185:13]
Jake
So who is like, who is the one big G God? Because if it's not individually, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is it like Optimus prime, kind of all them together type of thing?
- [185:23]
Moderator
I'm not.
- [185:24]
Jake
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but
- [185:26]
Moderator
I think I see what Mark is saying. What he's saying is from our understanding, because we are not God to understand it in his concept. Right. But we as humans, this is the only way we can interpret it, that we understand it. That's how he's saying it. But I'll let you take it from there, Jake.
- [185:41]
Jake
Yeah, no, I just. I just don't see it. I mean, even if you look at the way, and I'm not saying that you endorse this, but even if you see kind of the images that portray the Trinity, it seems like three different individuals, three different gods. And even the one example that I would use is in the Gospel narratives, when Jesus is baptized at the baptismal scene, you have God who is. And it's slightly different, but in the narrative, you have God speaking from heaven. And it's meant to be the Father who says, you are my Son, in whom I am well pleased. And then in, in Luke's narrative, you have the dove that is meant to represent the Holy Spirit descending and literally says in bodily shape, like a dove. And then you have Jesus on earth. So we have three things. We have a dove, which is meant to represent the Holy Spirit, which is supposed to be God. We have the Father calling out with a voice from heaven, and then we have the Son on earth being baptized. And I just don't see any way to conceptualize that or get it out of my head that that's not three Gods,
- [186:52]
Christian Apologist 5
you're not going to get that out of your head, but you might get it in your heart, because to understand that, as our moderator was saying, it's. It's bigger than us. It's like we can think, we can speak, and we can feel. That might be three separate things. I might be thinking something, feeling something, speaking something different right now. But I'm the same person. And I mean, well, in all I do, but I'm. I'm the same person. So you're talking about three distinct persons of God, but he is one God.
- [187:22]
Jake
Yeah, but the analogy that you gave is one person with different aspects or feelings or desires or whatever. That's not analogous to the Trinity because it's literally three distinct, different persons. You know, So I just. I understand that you seem to be kind of admitting to the struggle in a sense, that it is difficult to conceptualize in the mind. But my heart isn't there.
- [187:52]
Catholic Christian
Right.
- [187:53]
Jake
As you said, maybe your heart can feel it. My heart isn't there, and I just can't get that out of my head. So, I mean, I don't really have anything else.
- [188:01]
Moderator
Yeah, I was gonna say that would be a good one to set if you want to give a final statement. And then to Jake.
- [188:06]
Christian Apologist 5
Yeah, I appreciate your thoughts and even your concern about not getting that. And that's the point. But I think that made my point because people that have accepted that through the idea of faith. Where does faith come from? Faith is not something we can generate on our own. It's a gift from the same God that allows us to understand that. And so when I ask God to help me understand things, I believe he will. And this is not a sermon. This is for anybody listening. This is. If we want to understand the Trinity, Father, Son, the Holy Spirit as one, we should ask God to show us, because it's his responsibility. It's not Mark's responsibility to convince anybody, and it's not Jake's responsibility to not convince anybody. It's God's responsibility, if we both agree he's God, to really instruct everybody on his truth.
- [188:55]
Jake
Right, yeah, you mentioned faith. So the Bible says that faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God. And when I hear the supposed word of God, number one, I don't see the Trinity there. Number two, I don't see early Jews or early Christians interpreting the Bible along trinitarian lines. And the last but not least, the final thing is I don't. I still just don't see how we don't have three gods on the Trinity, and yet Christians tell us it's only one God, but they can't really explain to us how. So it's mysterious, I think, to me, as it is many people in the audience, and I just can't believe in something like that. That, to me, fundamentally doesn't make any sense. But I thank you for the discussion.
- [189:42]
Moderator
Thank you, gentlemen. Nice little handshake and we'll move on.
- [189:45]
Christian Apologist 5
Appreciate it.
- [189:47]
Host
If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, it helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much.
- [189:57]
Jake
All right, the first prompt is the Bible is evil.
- [190:01]
Catholic Christian
All right, so from my knowledge of mainstream Islamic teaching, the books of the Torah as well as the gospels of Jesus Christ are accepted in Islam, from my knowledge. And Jesus is actually accepted as a prophet. I know you guys refer to him as Issa, which is ironically my name. So I want to know, why do you believe this, if not the whole book is taught to be evil in your religion?
- [190:23]
Jake
Well, we don't believe that. We believe that the original revelation that was given to Moses and Jesus respectively, was true. Correct. Everything in it was perfectly normal, no evil whatsoever. However, we don't believe that the Bible is a faithful representative of those teachings. And therefore, there's many things in the Bible that we would consider as evil. For example, you have commands in the Old Testament for God is actually commanding armies to go into places and murder infants. So to me, that's. That's something very clearly evil. I can give numerous other examples as the evil in the Old Testament, for example, being forced to marry your. Or I don't know if we're allowed to say that word, but. So, yeah, we don't believe that the whole Bible is the authoritative word of God. And I'd just like to know from you, do you think that it is evil to murder innocent babies?
- [191:24]
Catholic Christian
Of course.
- [191:25]
Jake
Okay, so why did God command the Israelites to do that? In 1st Samuel 15:3, it says to kill everyone, and it lists a bunch of different categories, including animals, which is kind of strange. I don't know why you'd have to kill the donkeys, but as well, they're. They're told to kill infants.
- [191:42]
Catholic Christian
Well, as a Catholic myself, I would say the Bible overall is the inspired book, is the inspired word of the of God. Right. We also believe that Jesus fulfilled the law of the new of the Old Testament when he came. So we. I personally look at the Old Testament more as like a historical book. Not something that you have to live by. For example, we don't have to now eat kosher, for example. We don't have to acknowledge the Sabbath if we don't want to. We don't have to circumcise our sons. Right. These are optional things. You could still do them. Many Christians in the United States still do these things. But it's not a requirement, right? The biggest requirement today of Christianity is baptism, communion, confirmation and confession. Those are the main aspects now of Christianity. Not circumcision, not eating kosher. Obviously, again, some people still do those things. It's not a requirement. Just like, you know, historically in this country we've had wrongs done here, but I would say you don't inherit the, you don't inherit the, the sins of your father. If your father commits a crime, kills someone, does something horrible, you don't go to jail as well just because you're his bloodline. Same thing with the Bible. I, because we trace everything back from Judaism. We don't. Just because the book says X, Y or Z. Like you mentioned the story from. I forget what you said, Dan. Was it Daniel?
- [192:58]
Jake
Which Samuel.
- [192:59]
Catholic Christian
Samuel. I've heard that story as well and I've heard that argument as well. Again, that's a story in the Bible that's was put in there to fulfill the law which the Jesus fulfilled the law down the line. And there's a couple examples that in the Bible I'm sure you're going to say that contradict each other. Like there's a couple stories on creation of man. There's a couple of stories in there of how Jesus was born. So I get all that, right. I get that there's contradiction. The Bible, it was written in Greek, it was written in Aramerica, was written Hebrew. So obviously that was translated to Latin, right, by the church. And then on top of that, every, every country in the world basically get a copy of the Bible. It could be in Portuguese, it could be in English, it could be in Spanish, it could be, you know, etc, So I get where you're coming from there. But overall, I would say the Bible itself, including with the, the religion of Christianity, has overall been a net positive for the world. It's, it's. We've gone all over the world, everywhere, whether that's North, South America, all throughout Asia, Europe, everyone knows the name of Jesus Christ. Obviously you don't have to accept that. We don't force it on people. Historically you might say, hey, the Spanish Inquisition or the case may be. But today. Or it's not like a. It's not a religion that's forced on people. It's, hey, we're here. This is the truth. This is the truth We. We accept. But if you don't believe it, we're not going to harm you.
- [194:14]
Jake
You said you're a Catholic, right?
- [194:16]
Catholic Christian
Yes, sir.
- [194:16]
Jake
So you believe Jesus is God?
- [194:18]
Catholic Christian
Yes, sir.
- [194:18]
Jake
And he's the God of the Old Testament?
- [194:20]
Catholic Christian
Yes, sir.
- [194:21]
Jake
Did he command in 1st Samuel 15:3 for an army to go into villages or places and kill, murder babies, not himself?
- [194:32]
Catholic Christian
Maybe it was God the Father, maybe it was the Holy Spirit.
- [194:34]
Jake
Well, aren't they all saying the same thing?
- [194:36]
Catholic Christian
Well, they're.
- [194:37]
Jake
They all make the same commands, don't they? It's not like the Father and Son disagree with each other, do they?
- [194:46]
Catholic Christian
Oh, that's a good question, because I. Like I said, Jesus did fulfill the law. So if it was maybe up to God the Father, maybe Jesus wouldn't have been crucified. Maybe all man would have been damned. But Jesus came as a human being to die for our sins.
- [195:01]
Moderator
I think Jake's going into the Trinity argument here. Yeah, I think that's what he's tapping into.
- [195:05]
Jake
I'm saying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the Trinity, from what I know from traditional Christianity, they don't disagree with each other. So whatever one commands, the other one agrees with. There's no, like, oh, the Father saying this, and the Son saying, no, no, no, that's not good. That's. That doesn't happen. So, but even let's grant for the sake of argument, that the Father is the one commands it. The Father is God. So how is God commanding that infants be murdered? And also, we have to keep in mind this isn't in the context of modern warfare. This is in the context of, you know, to get a bit graphic, going into a small dwelling and seeing a baby in a crib and essentially suffocating him or stabbing him with a sword. So how would that not be evil? What context would that not be evil? And also just the last point is I agree with you fundamentally that Even Ezekiel, chapter 18, reiterates or echoes what you said earlier, that the. That an innocent person isn't supposed to be punished or receive, let's say, retribution for the sins of somebody else. But that's exactly what's happening here, because wouldn't you agree that babies are innocent? And so if they are, why are they being punished? Why are they being ordered to be killed, even if their parents were the worst of human beings? I agree with you that the Innocent should not be killed for the guilty. So why is God commanding that these innocent infants or babies be killed?
- [196:41]
Catholic Christian
Honestly, I can't answer that question. That's something I'd have to ask God himself. When I presented, when I'm in front of him one day, that's something I actually struggled with. Two of my faith parts of the Bible I don't understand. The response I typically get is you understand it when you meet God. Right. That's what I could go based off of. I've not. I've studied other religions. I've studied a little bit of Judaism, I've studied a little bit of Islam. I've actually been to a couple Middle Eastern countries. I've been in mosques and such. Personally, I feel the biggest connection with God himself when I'm entered into a Catholic church. Specifically, I don't really feel it anywhere else. But you might say that the feelings argument, it's not really a logical argument. It's a, it's a feelings argument, not a logical argument. So that's where I'm more coming from. But I've also studied the religion and I just, I just come from the school of thought of the correct book of the the correct. Not that the whole Bible is incorrect, but that the parts that we focus more on are the New Testament, even though we do recite the Old Testament in mass and etc. We study both books. I've read the Bible multiple times in different languages and that is one of the books that I. One of the stories in the Bible specifically that I have struggled with. So I can't really give you a straight answer to that. I wish I did.
- [197:53]
Jake
So you could see from my point of view or an outsider's point of view, which, by the way, I was raised Catholic, but. So you can see from an outsider's point of view why this story seems evil and immoral.
- [198:07]
Catholic Christian
Yeah, I could see that.
- [198:08]
Jake
Okay. I mean, I can go on to other examples if you want, but I mean that's essentially just making my case because, you know, no disrespect, but you don't have any good answer. I personally have searched. I've spoken to many people. Maybe the other people here will have an answer, but I haven't seen any good answer to this problem.
- [198:27]
Catholic Christian
And you've been searching that problem for how long now?
- [198:30]
Jake
I mean, for the past 15 plus years.
- [198:33]
Catholic Christian
Okay, well, no disrespect and I would never say that, I would never say this directly, but the people have said that the Quran is wrong from stories from either Muhammad or. Or whatever. I wouldn't say because also I haven't studied the book in its entirety. That because there's a story of Muhammad doing X, Y or Z that the book is corrupt and. Or much less the religion is corrupt.
- [198:53]
Jake
I'm not saying it's. Well, I am saying in a sense it's corrupt because it's evil. I don't believe that God commands evil things. I don't believe that he would command or actually want it carried out for innocent babies to be murdered. I don't believe that. Do you believe that God would do that?
- [199:12]
Christian Apologist 1
No.
- [199:12]
Catholic Christian
I already said no.
- [199:13]
Jake
Well, if you don't believe God would do that and it's in the Bible, then that would mean that it is corrupted and somebody else wrote it, which is what my position is.
- [199:20]
Catholic Christian
Yeah, but to be fair, too, you guys believe that the Quran was all written, I believe, by Muhammad. Right. And it was all written in Arabic.
- [199:27]
Jake
We don't believe it was written by the prophet. We don't believe he could read or write.
- [199:30]
Catholic Christian
But it was all written in Arabic in one language. Correct?
- [199:32]
Christian Apologist 5
Yeah.
- [199:32]
Catholic Christian
Yeah. Or like where I'm coming from too is the Bible is written in multiple languages, then translated. So that's why there's some disparities at times. Or if you read them, maybe the original Greek, the original American, the original Hebrew, you might get different translations that you do. Will do today.
- [199:48]
Jake
I don't think that's the case with this story. There may be differences, for example, in the Septuagint or the Greek version of the Old Testament and the Hebrew Masoretic text, but I'm not aware of any relevant difference in any, whether it be whatever translation of the Bible that tells the story differently, it comes across exactly the same whether it's in English, Hebrew, Greek, whatever it is. So I just don't see that. I can understand that. That can be the case in some instances, but not in the case of this story. I just don't see any relevant difference.
- [200:25]
Catholic Christian
I got you now, speaking respectfully, do you speak Hebrew, like, pretty firmly. Do you speak Arabic?
- [200:30]
Jake
No.
- [200:30]
Catholic Christian
No. So how do you know what you're reading is correct if you're not, maybe can't understand?
- [200:34]
Jake
Well, you appeal to experts and I haven't seen any expert, whether it be traditional Jews, those who study the Scriptures and maybe coming from a more skeptical perspective. Nobody. I haven't seen anyone make an argument about, well, there's a translation problem or a misunderstanding of the words.
- [200:53]
Catholic Christian
Now, do you hear where I'm coming from, though? That there are probably Stories in the Quran that some people might have a. I'm not going to speak to them just out of respect. But that people might have a problem with. You would say at the same time, just because maybe someone has a problem with that story or that book or whatever the case may be, that doesn't corrupt the whole text?
- [201:09]
Jake
No, I don't. Well, I don't believe that the entire Bible is corrupted, but I believe the places in it that clearly teach falsehood are corrupted. And I think that this is one example.
- [201:21]
Catholic Christian
I got you. Well, in mainstream Christian thought today, what parts do you think that are that we believe in today, in 2026 that
- [201:27]
Jake
are corrupted in what? Like the New Testament, for example.
- [201:31]
Catholic Christian
Oh, like day to day. Like church. Church belief. Whether that comes from the Catholic Church or another one.
- [201:37]
Jake
Oh, for. I mean, I don't. For example, I don't believe that Jesus taught the idea of transubstantiation, that the bread and wine that are given in communion are, are actually his literal flesh and blood. I don't believe he taught that. I don't believe he taught many that
- [201:54]
Catholic Christian
verbatim on the Last Supper.
- [201:56]
Jake
Even though it's quoted in the Bible. Yeah, I don't believe that.
- [201:59]
Catholic Christian
But where does this disbelief come from?
- [202:02]
Jake
Because it doesn't agree with my religion.
- [202:05]
Catholic Christian
Oh, so because it contradicts like your. Okay, okay.
- [202:08]
Christian Apologist 5
Yeah.
- [202:08]
Catholic Christian
But that's all it comes from. Just like.
- [202:10]
Jake
Well, there's. You can make historical arguments. I mean, I don't think that there are good independent reasons for believing the gospel narratives in general.
- [202:19]
Moderator
If you have any strong points, I would get to them.
- [202:22]
Catholic Christian
Okay, so although. So all the gospels where they were written by Mark or whoever, who, like, because I, from my knowledge, from mainstream Islamic thought. You guys don't believe that Jesus was actually crucified, correct?
- [202:39]
Jake
Yes, correct.
- [202:40]
Catholic Christian
So where did that come from when there's so many witnesses to this, to this, not just the crucifixion itself, but the resurrection?
- [202:48]
Jake
Well, I don't see how this deals with the topic of whether or not the Bible is evil, but I'll answer.
- [202:54]
Catholic Christian
The story of the resurrection and the crucifixion are both in the Bible.
- [202:57]
Jake
Yeah, but how. What does that have to do with the Bible being evil?
- [202:59]
Christian Apologist 5
I don't understand.
- [203:01]
Catholic Christian
Well, if that's part of the Bible. But you believe the Bible is evil.
- [203:04]
Jake
I don't. Just because I said the Bible is evil doesn't mean that every single aspect of it is evil. But if we do take the example of Jesus being crucified, there is a animation Very important sense in which it is evil. Which is the same point that you mentioned earlier. Do you believe that Jesus was innocent of the crimes that he was accused of?
- [203:23]
Catholic Christian
Of course.
- [203:23]
Jake
Okay, so just as you said earlier, and I really do appreciate this point, why would an innocent man be punished for the sins of all the guilty?
- [203:33]
Catholic Christian
Because the. Was it the Sadducees requested him to be crucified against instead of crucifying Barnabas?
- [203:41]
Jake
Yeah, but isn't God saying that this is a good thing, that this is the way for salvation? You get salvation through knowing, believing and trusting in the fact that Jesus died for your sins. But if that's fundamentally immoral, why would anyone believe that, including you?
- [203:55]
Catholic Christian
He would have to fulfill the law of Moses. So you can't just like he was. He didn't come to like, hang himself. Like, that's wrong. That's a sin as well. So he had to die. And in those times.
- [204:04]
Jake
But why did he have to die
- [204:06]
Catholic Christian
to fulfill the law of Moses, which is what? What law? When you sin, you have to do a sacrifice to God. So at the time, it was usually a, A sheep or a goat or something. Those contexts. Right. Which is why we referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God. And because the sin that of. Of mankind at the time, and I would say it's even gotten worse, was so gr. Egregious that to only fulfill the law, it had to be God himself would have to die.
- [204:31]
Jake
Well, can God forgive without the shedding of blood?
- [204:34]
Catholic Christian
If he wanted to.
- [204:36]
Jake
Okay, but why? You're saying if he wanted to. But Hebrews chapter nine says that he can't, that there is no forgiveness.
- [204:43]
Catholic Christian
My personal belief. I'm not saying.
- [204:44]
Jake
Okay, I'm saying Hebrews chapter nine says that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. And you're in agreement with me, which is actually the traditional Islamic position, which is that no, each person is accountable for their own sin, and they're not going to be accountable for their neighbor sin, their father or somebody else. But in Christianity, it's exactly the opposite. We went through the example of the story with the babies. Now we're going through the story of the fundamental. One of the fundamental doctrines within Christianity, which is the atonement of Christ, in which both Muslims and Christians believe that Jesus was innocent of whatever they accused him of. And yet Christians are telling us the only way to be forgiven and to make it to heaven is to believe in an idea that God sent his only begotten son, who was innocent, to die for the sins of all the guilty that wouldn't be accepted in any courtroom or, you know, situation which there's being justice meted out anywhere today. So why would we accept that?
- [205:43]
Catholic Christian
Wrongly punished and executed more in the past, but historically speaking. So what do you mean?
- [205:49]
Jake
Yeah, but that doesn't cover, for example, if I am, and this is a hypothetical, because we talked about hypotheticals before this, uh, I'm going to use my. Myself as an example. If I committed a crime and I was in a courtroom and I admitted to the guilt, I said, yeah, Judge, I did it. You know, I'm. I'm admitting my guilt. We come back the next day or whenever for the next proceeding, which is basically going to be the punishment that the judge is going to give me. And right before the judge slams down the gavel and says, okay, Jake, you're getting 20 years, my brother stands up in the back of the courtroom and says, judge explains who he is. Said, I have nothing to do with this. I had no knowledge of my brother committing the crime, but I want to take his punishment and I want to go to jail for him. Now, not only would the judge not accept that, they'd say, bailiff, get this guy out of here. He'd probably be sharing a cell with me by the end of the day. But for interrupting the courtroom, not for actually my punishment, so that it's not accepted. Right. And it just doesn't make any sense. Why an innocent person, why God would say, the epitome of justice is for an innocent man to die for the punishment or the sins of the guilty. It doesn't make any sense.
- [207:09]
Catholic Christian
I get that perspective. But there's people all the time, historically, that are living conspiracy theories of people that didn't do something, like whether that's Lee Harvey Oswald, the gentleman's name that killed Charlie Kirk, that didn't actually do the crime that someone else did the crime. They're just kind of falling on the sword. So there's precedence on that. And at the time of the worst example. Yeah, I know. Well, I'm saying there are. There's President. Just the two that came to my mind, but I'm saying there are.
- [207:42]
Jake
So you're not with the official narrative of trying.
- [207:44]
Catholic Christian
No, I'm not. I'm saying there's. There's precedents.
- [207:46]
Christian Apologist 3
I'm saying.
- [207:46]
Christian Apologist 1
Are you.
- [207:47]
Catholic Christian
Are you with the official narrative of Lee Harvey Oswald?
- [207:50]
Jake
I'm not sure what happened or exactly,
- [207:52]
Catholic Christian
but I'm just saying there are situations where people say, oh, I like. Or like, my sister did this. My brother did this, whoever did this, especially a time before there was DNA evidence, I'm just going to fall on the sword. And then. Because at the end of the day, people just want someone's head.
- [208:05]
Jake
Yeah.
- [208:06]
Catholic Christian
Especially 2,000 years ago.
- [208:07]
Jake
But do you think accepting guilt for something you didn't do and being punished for that.
- [208:12]
Catholic Christian
He didn't accept, Bill. He said, I, he said, are you the son of God? He said, if you say. Say that I am. He never admitted guilt to anything.
- [208:20]
Jake
I'm not saying he was guilty in terms of him committing a crime, but that was the analogy that you used. You were using an analogy where people were accepting guilt for something that they didn't do. So that's why it's not analogous. But the, that's one reason anyway. The second point is he accepted the punishment. I'm saying, is it just to accept the punishment for something that you didn't do and that you don't deserve to be punished for?
- [208:44]
Catholic Christian
I would say from a human perspective, I would say 98, if not 99% of human beings would be in agreements that they're not going to do that. Most people will not die for a good person. Right? Most people wouldn't. Maybe you would die for your child. Maybe you die for your mother or your father, even if they're horrible people. But some people wouldn't do that. But you can't really speak to what God has in his mind. Why would God die for us? Why would God make us if we're a flawed human, flawed individual?
- [209:09]
Jake
I don't believe that God would die for some people committing evil acts. I just don't believe that. That's my whole point.
- [209:16]
Moderator
Let's go ahead and move into a final closer on this and then, and then we'll move along.
- [209:21]
Catholic Christian
Yeah, I got you. So my closing would be. I overall don't think the Bible is a good. Is not a. You almost got me.
- [209:29]
Jake
That's a Freudian. That's a Freudian slip, folks.
- [209:31]
Catholic Christian
I, I personally don't believe the Bible.
- [209:34]
Jake
You just became a Muslim.
- [209:36]
Catholic Christian
I, to be honest with you, I'm not. I've still not fully studied it and I've had my mind open. I, I've in the past been more negative towards Islam just because if I, I don't know if it was being raised in the west, what the case may be, but studying like the Tates and other individuals like that, I do, I do leave that door open because if there's truth there, I want to see. I would never speak badly about the Prophet Muhammad. I. People Always make these arguments about his past or whatever. I'm not gonna speak badly of someone, especially if I didn't live at those times. That's kind of idiotic. It's like when people bring up slavery in the United States, we didn't live 200 years ago. Like, that's like you're being holier than now. But back to what I was saying. I don't believe the Bible is an evil book. I think there's lots of good in the Bible. Obviously, that was written by many different scribes, many different individuals and men in different languages. It's been translated, it's been corrupted by people that read it and gotten their interpretation. Just like the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. People read that all the time and decipher, even though it's in plain English. Oh, well, the founding fathers met X and it's in plain English and they're deciphering in the same language.
- [210:37]
Christian Apologist 2
Now.
- [210:37]
Catholic Christian
You put it to switching that from ancient Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, to today, you're opening up a can of worms. But overall, I think it's a good book. I'm also believing other books, like the Catechism, for example, but overall, I don't think it's a bad book. And I think overall, Christianity has been a positive for the world, just like I would say Islam has been. Overall, I would say Christians, Jews, Muslims, we're all believing the same God. We honor him in a different way. We may see him in a different way, but at the end of the day, if I believe there's a one God, you believe there's one God, A Jewish man believes there's one God, we all believe in the same God. We just see him in a different perspective. Whether you agree with that statement or not, that's just my two cents there.
- [211:14]
Jake
Right? So the original prompt was, is the. Or the Bible is evil. That's what I'm making the claim. I tried to substantiate that with a few different examples. First of all, God commanding babies essentially to be murdered or infants to be killed. I think that that's evil. You seem to kind of agree, and which is fine. I, I appreciate your honesty that you don't really have a good, clear answer to that and that that's bothered you. It's, I think, bothered many Christians for some time. And I think it does deserve an answer. But maybe even more importantly, I think also the second topic that we talked about, which is Jesus, an innocent person being punished for the sins of all the guilty, and that God can't forgive you without the shedding of blood. I just think that's totally immoral and evil. But I do appreciate the conversation.
- [212:00]
Catholic Christian
Yeah, I got you.
- [212:01]
Moderator
Thank you.
- [212:01]
Catholic Christian
Christ is king.
- [212:02]
Moderator
Nice little handshake and we'll move it along.
- [212:05]
Host
If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, it helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much.
- [212:15]
Christian Apologist 3
Could you remind. Do you mind repeating the prompt real quick?
- [212:18]
Moderator
The Bible is evil.
- [212:19]
Christian Apologist 3
The Bible is. All right, all right. So I'm trying to figure out from a Christian's point of view, I mean, the Bible, and I'm specifically referring to the New Testament because the Old Testament for Christians is not like the most recent word of God. I'm talking about the. The teachings of Christ, love thy neighbor, kingdom of God is within you. You know, not many acts of violence. The only time you ever got violent was with the money changers. And I would argue that if this world was actually following teaching of teachings of Christ right now, we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in if we're actually following the word of Jesus Christ. So I'm trying to figure out what is so evil about the teachings of Jesus Christ.
- [213:03]
Jake
Well, I think if you are a traditional Christian and believe that Jesus Christ is God, then he not only is the one who inspired the New Testament, he also is the one who inspired the Old Testament. And much of what we've been focusing on, not completely limited to, but much of what we focused on, are Old Testament laws and Old Testament commandments, which if Jesus is God, he likewise commanded them. Now you can't just simply brush that aside and say, oh, well, the New Testament is the newest law and love thy neighbor and whatever else. Well, love thy neighbor is also mentioned in the Old Testament, which Jesus actually appeals to in the New Testament. And yet it doesn't really seem very loving to love your neighbor in the way that you command babies to be slaughtered. Maybe you have a different point of view. Like many of the other people that have come on and are defending the view that, well, no, God can just will whatever he wants, so he can simply will for babies to be slaughtered. I think that's evil. And I don't see how just simply saying that Jesus came with these New Testament, you know, kind of care bear Christianity laws that. That is going to remove the evil that's in the Old Testament.
- [214:19]
Christian Apologist 3
Well, the Old Testament is the Torah. I mean, you're really talking about Judaism. You're not talking about Christianity. And Christ was very clear that the New Testament was a New Testament of God because there's so many contradictory things. You can't say both things at one time. And it was for that we can't say, okay, just because J. A lot of people think that Jesus was God. He was also responsible for the Old Testament because it's very clear that this is a New Testament, this is the new way and those are the new laws. And a lot of the things in the Old Testament were null and void. So I mean, yeah, you could play both positions and say, you know, contradictory things from the Old Testament and the New Testament. But you have to choose the most recent Testament, which is the New Testament. In New Testament it's all about loving thy neighbor, turning the other cheek, you know. And in fact the one time that there is violence mentioned is when children are hurt, harmed, you know, you tie a millstone to their feet, throw them into the ocean, basically mafia style murder for that kind of evil towards children. So that would contradict the Old Testament.
- [215:20]
Jake
Do you think that the Old and New Testament contradict each other?
- [215:23]
Christian Apologist 3
Yeah, there's contradictions for sure.
- [215:25]
Jake
So how as a Christian do you believe in the Bible as a whole if it contradicts itself?
- [215:31]
Christian Apologist 3
Well, I, I believe in the teaching teachings of Christ and the teachings of Christ are the New Testament. That's why, that is why what I believe because in the words of Christ that is what Christians are supposed to follow. They weren't called Christians at the time, but that was the teachings that they were supposed to follow. And within that there's really not much violence, there's passive, there's passiveness like turn to other cheek which is very difficult. But I don't see Christ teaching any, anybody to be violent, to harm children, to kill children.
- [216:04]
Jake
Do you believe that Christ taught those passages in the Old Testament that mention God commanding, killing children?
- [216:11]
Christian Apologist 3
That is way above my intelligence level. I have no idea. All I know is I'm very specific about what the teachings of Christ are. There was some other points you brought up and I'm not trying to defend the Old Testament, but in terms of babies, you know, is it a island, a baby, a sinner? And I feel like we look at this stuff through human eyes often where the world is non linear for God. And the best comparison that is there was a movie called Arrival where these highly intelligent beings come to earth and they see the past, present and future. Meaning I could look at you as a one day old child, but if I could see your whole Past, present and future, I could see the sins that you will commit. So theoretically, the. Because we're looking at this stuff through human goggles, that does us, does us a disservice. We know 3, 4% of what we see in the world is the maximum that humans see. We don't see other dimensions. We don't see past, present and future. We don't operate in a non linear fashion. We. So we're not obviously gods. But if you are, yes, you could see that a child who cane's born today without sin, one day old. But Cain ultimately, ultimately became a sinner. And if you're seeing the past, present and future, you know this knowledge.
- [217:21]
Jake
Now. Do you think it's just to punish someone before they commit a crime just for a supposed thought or desire, even if they didn't do it yet?
- [217:30]
Christian Apologist 3
I mean, you're assuming that the punishment is coming from God. Is that, is that what you're assuming?
- [217:34]
Jake
Well, that's what the Bible says. It says that.
- [217:36]
Christian Apologist 3
Old Testament. Yeah, Old Testament. I'm talking about the New Testament.
- [217:40]
Jake
In the Old Testament, okay, you believe Jesus is God?
- [217:44]
Christian Apologist 3
Yeah, I believe in the Trinity.
- [217:45]
Jake
Okay, so if Jesus is God, do you believe that God commanded that in the Old Testament? Did you believe that God commanded 1st Samuel 15:3, which tells the army to go out and kill people, including infants?
- [218:02]
Christian Apologist 3
That again, it's one of those things that I could never. All I know is Christ, when he came to, came to this earth, he gave us a very specific set of laws based upon love, peace and letting vengeance be God's, not ours. So that's what I follow now in terms of what that was supposed to mean. Was that misinterpreted in the Old Testament? Was it done for political purposes? I have no idea. But I know exactly what Jesus Christ was teaching us.
- [218:30]
Jake
Is it possible that a man could have written that for his own purposes and it's not from God?
- [218:36]
Christian Apologist 3
Which part? The part about killing? That is very possible. I would think that a love all loving God, the, the Christian God would not, would be speaking like Christ is in terms of loving our neighbors and living in peace.
- [218:50]
Jake
I would think so too. And that's why some early Christians, although they were considered heretics, like Marcion, believed that the Old Testament God and the New Testament Testament God were not the same God because they said such things were. What's that?
- [219:04]
Christian Apologist 3
Potentially. Potentially, I don't know.
- [219:05]
Jake
So it's, it's possible for you that the, and you already said you think that the Old Testament and New Testament do contradict each other and that they could actually be different gods, contradicting each other potentially.
- [219:18]
Christian Apologist 3
All I know is that the teaching of the Christ is what resonates with me as a Christian. And I tried not to confuse the issue because it's very clear about what, what we need to do as human beings on this earth.
- [219:27]
Moderator
If you have a major point to get to, I would say now's the time to get to.
- [219:30]
Catholic Theologian
But yes, I would argue that the
- [219:32]
Christian Apologist 3
other religions are actually, you know, I'm a Romanian descent. I'm like Armenian Orthodox. I would argue that Islam is actually, you know, the Armenian genocide where they killed about 75, 80 of the Armenian population, was done as the first jihad of the 20th century. They justified the killing of infants, of women, threw a bunch of women into the harems. In fact, nowadays people in Turkey are getting blood tests done, realizing that there's no such thing as a Turk. And it's really all Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, all the people that they murdered. And as a Christian, I know what happened during the Armenian genocide, which was that a lot of people were willing to die for their Christianity, willing to die for their love of Christ. And they were given the option to convert to Islam or die in perish. Perish and have their women stolen and taken the harems. And a lot of them chose to die for the love of Christ.
- [220:21]
Jake
Okay, so speaking of dying for the love of Christ, because that would be a whole other topic on whether or not the Quran or Islam is evil, which we could debate on another topic, but now we're discussing, is the Bible evil?
- [220:33]
Catholic Christian
Right.
- [220:33]
Jake
So even if, which I don't grant, but for the sake of argument that the Quran is evil, that doesn't make that the Bible is not evil. Now the point is what you mentioned about dying for Christ, you believe Christ died for all of us.
- [220:46]
Christian Apologist 3
I do, actually, yes. I do believe he died for our sins.
- [220:49]
Jake
Okay. And so, but more so I believe,
- [220:51]
Christian Apologist 3
I believe he died to show us that we could circumvent death, that there is life after death, that that's what I think Christ's message is.
- [220:58]
Jake
Okay, so you don't think that he took the penalty for our sins? Because the way that the Bible seems to present itself, the New Testament, is that Christ died for our sins. But if Christ was innocent, how is that not evil to punish an innocent person for the sins of the guilty?
- [221:15]
Christian Apologist 3
I think he was giving us an example. These are a lot of the Bible, especially in New. You know, there's a lot of parables in the Bible to teach us not Very smart creatures, the eternal truths of our world and universe. And I think there was no other way of showing us stupid, stupid humans, which I think we are compared to God. I mean, I'm talking generally nothing personal, all of us, I think there that he had to teach us that there is life after death, that you could conquer death, which is the big message of Christ that we all need to take in.
- [221:49]
Jake
Okay. So it's more of an example and a foreshadowing of what's to come. That we basically. That there will be a general resurrection, that there's an afterlife.
- [221:59]
Christian Apologist 3
If you believe in Christ, if you believe in the laws of Christ. Yes, I do believe that that is exactly what's. And kingdom of Christ is or kingdom of God is within you. You know, that's, that, that's the big lesson there.
- [222:11]
Jake
So this is the last question that I have before we wrap up is so, but you can't, it seems like you do agree with me and that you do see it from my point of view that if those things that I mentioned in the Old Testament Testament are true and that God did command it, you could see why somebody like me would say that that part of the Bible is evil or wrong.
- [222:32]
Christian Apologist 3
I don't know if I call it evil. I definitely call it something that I don't agree with. In terms of you can't, Some of the stuff is definitely stomach churning. If you are a believer in Christ because of certainly a different message to our, you know, kind of stupid human minds. You know, like I said, we, you know, we're not as evolved, I think, as Christians as we'd like to think we are. And I don't know how. Yeah, I, I, I, I don't, I think we just, there's certain things we, we can't comprehend as humans that would be very hard to get into the mind of. What was God thinking at that time? Was there an ulterior motive? Again, I come back to the teachings of Christ. Christianity is very clear. You got to follow the lies of Christ. And that is the New Testament, not the Old Testament.
- [223:14]
Jake
I don't have anything else else.
- [223:15]
Moderator
Okay. Did you want to move to a closer?
- [223:17]
Christian Apologist 3
Yeah, no. I mean, I, I kind of see your point. If you're reading the Old Testament like I said, when I read it, sometimes there's things that don't make sense to me that sound kind of horrific and violent. That's why I try as a Christian, as an Armenian Orthodox, I try not to complicate the issue. And I follow the teachings of Christ, which I think are very clear. I think, you know, 99.9 of people, if they read the New Testament, they're not going to say Jesus Christ, a bad guy, teaching us bad things. And I think if our world followed the teachings of Christ, right now would be a much better humane world.
- [223:49]
Jake
I agree that the, the, the New Testament does seem to get rid of a lot of the violence that's in the Old Testament, as you mentioned several times, turn the other cheek. I do see that. But from a traditional Christian perspective, in which many people. And the prompt is the Bible, not just the New Testament, you know, a lot of people do see what you said and what I see and you know, that it is, it does seem problematic and it does worry people when you read certain passages like that in the Old Testament. So.
- [224:21]
Christian Apologist 3
Well, one thing I would say is also the Torah and, you know, Old Testament and Quran also have lots of acts of violence and horrible things being done. You know, it's like I've had relatives that know how to read Arabic fluently. There's certainly stuff about the infidel and the lot, you know, and Ottoman Empire rules, by the way. Armenians were 2/3 human. All the Christians were 2/3 human. That came right from the Quran. I don't think that's a humane idea.
- [224:45]
Moderator
This was your closer.
- [224:47]
Catholic Theologian
So if you wanted to finish out, respond to that.
- [224:48]
Jake
It's nowhere in the Quran that disbelievers are 2/3 human. It's nowhere like that in the Quran.
- [224:54]
Christian Apologist 3
Or I'm talking about the laws that influence the.
- [224:56]
Moderator
It's his closer. Vems. Sorry.
- [224:58]
Jake
There's nowhere like that in the Quran or authentic Hadith, which is the standard for Muslims. What some Ottomans did or said is irrelevant. We're dealing with what scripture says. And I think that scripture, or what you consider scripture the Bible, or maybe you don't maybe think that it was interpolation, which is what I say. I say that those passages in the Old Testament which do seem evil are not from God. And I think that's the correct position.
- [225:23]
Moderator
All right, thank you, gentlemen. Nice little handshake.
- [225:26]
Host
All right, that's a wrap, guys. Comment below your thoughts. We'll link everyone's social media handles as well as this book in the video. Thanks for coming on, guys.
- [225:34]
Christian Apologist 3
Peace.
- [225:35]
Host
Thanks for staying all the way to the end, guys. It means a lot to me. If you could please leave a review on Apple that helps us climb the charts, it helps us get way more guests and it helps us continue growing the podcast and the team. So it would mean a lot to me if you left a review on Apple or wherever else you're listening. Thanks so much.