I was able to post the Facebook again the st. Nicholas smacking area. So I'm excited about this one But as I was telling John, I'm a little bit scared because I'm actually defending areas in some areas today. So That's a heretic. But like we looked at last week. I'm like they don't set out trying to Do this so we're gonna look at areas Arianism There's even some semi Arianism. We'll get into that when we get to the contemporary thought process of that. And this whole thing is Christ is a created being. So we're gonna flesh that out a little bit. Arius was a presbyter, he was a teacher, priest, whatever biography you're looking at. He was in the faith, he was teaching, he was under another bishop or a presbyter in Alexandria area, responsible for putting the curriculum out for the students. So he got quite a bit of his information from him. Of course, we'll see what that looks like as he started formulating his theology. We're going to look at the Nicene Council and the Creed because we have to when we're addressing this particular heresy. And I got Athanasius. It's the Athanasian Creed, but he's Athanasius is his name. He was a bishop in Alexandria. And then we're going to discuss the Trinity. So I will ask some questions today and you will get some of them wrong because it's set up that way. But there's a definition of Arianism, and this is just one area of it, this Arian controversy. And it's important because what we looked at before with that Unitarianism versus Trinitarianism, and the church had you know, big numbers on both sides. This is going to be another area. In fact, it ends in a, it doesn't end in a riot, but it culminates to a riot. So there is, while this council is taking place, you know, get your followers out there. And the other side, no, get our opposition out there. And there's a riot over this, this controversy here. And my dude Athanasius is the forerunner of sound doctrine of orthodoxy against this heresy. And I've got his little biography right there. And what I love about him, too, is the majority of his time serving as the bishop in Alexandria, he was exiled. So he was like almost 50 years. as the bishop there, but he spent less than 20 in Alexandria because he kept getting banned. But the church in Alexandria was like, we're not replacing him, so our bishop is still Athanasius. Yes, he's up in Europe now, but he's our dude, so. I like him for that. Some good stuff, and I said my first time coming to read on Athanasius was one on John Piper's books, just talking about these defenders of the faith throughout history. So that's when I realized that I love history, I love theology, and they paired up and made it an interesting topic for me. And again, you're going to see as we're going over the incarnation of Christ and the Trinity, I have to go back to John 1. That's just a powerful selection of verses there. And this particular first three verses are going to be instrumental in both Arius' understanding as well as the Orthodox understanding. So here we're going to see three verses and how people use them to formulate their idea in context with other scriptures they're looking at, but how they come up with these different ideas. So, I'm going to ask Mary to read John 1, 1-3-3. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without him was not anything was made. That's a beautiful set of scriptures, but we're going to see here, like I say, I'm going to try not to defend Arius, but it's going to be difficult because He was a educated man. He was grouped in with, like I say, he was a presbyter in the Alexandria area. He was grouped in with those that wanted to emphasize, and I have it over there, Christ's humanity. And if you remember, all these different heresies we've been looking at, they're like Dostatism, where Christ was spiritual. The Gnostics, where it's spiritual. The humanity part is the corrupt part. So this group wanted to emphasize his humanity. That, again, is not a bad thing. They're trying to refute these talks of it's all spiritual. They wanted to focus on his humanity. Doesn't mean that it was wrong or right, but that's going to lead to this other understanding. Something else, he argued against modalism and adoptionism. And I don't remember who was here last week, so forgive me. But last week, we looked at modalism, which was Sebelius. And who remembers what modalism was? Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, but it's never all the same. It's only one at a time. At a time, yep. The different hats. Who remembers Adoptionism? I briefly went over that, but see if you can take a guess at Adoptionism. So, when we look at this particular moment in time, the Incarnation, when the Word became flesh, they look at a different approach where this man is born, And then when he is baptized, he is now adopted by God to be his son. So that's adoptionism. Does it sound ridiculous to you? Yes. It sounded ridiculous to Arius as well. So he was definitely against that. So he's against modalism. Kudos. He's against this adoptionism. All right. And by that understanding, also partialism. Who remembers what partialism was? Or as Connell and Donald say, like the first season of Voltron, where the five lion cars form into one giant robot. So he's against these He's against these misunderstandings of God, arguing against modalism, arguing against adoptionism. He argued against some other ideas. So these were very, especially in Greek philosophy, these are big things. And again, we've joked about this, the impassibility of God. There's some very big books out there, and even the small books are tough. But immutable, impassable, and then this monotheistic understanding of God. And we will break that down again. I'm not trying to just throw these big words out there so I look smart. These are important understanding of church history and us now. So immutable. Who knows what immutable means? Okay, God does not change. This is a point that Arius would not compromise on. God does not change. He cannot change or he is not God. What about impassable? This one's a little bit more difficult because we think of how we would use the word. All right, this is more without passion is what that's gonna mean. So in his understanding, to have God suffer makes him You know, with these passions, these emotions, suffering is not in line with a God, an infinite sovereign God. So to him, he's trying to defend immutability of God, which does not change, and the impassibility. God does not change and he could not suffer, is what Arius was trying to protect. So this is what he was looking at. So in order to do that, though, now he's going to start stepping into the heresies. To get that, Christ had to be begotten. Okay, so he's gonna use that begotten, not the way that scripture uses it here, you know, but in the sense that he was created. So where I had the adoptionism, where at the birth of Christ and then his baptism. All right, so I'm just gonna put zero right there because we got AD and BC. And I love it, just for ironic sake, the new historians trying to change this. What is it now, before current era? And current era, they use the exact same event that we used in BC and AD. So I'm like, you're still giving a event that you want to ignore the focal point on history. But anyway, so this is where adoptionism is taking place in that birth of a man and then being adopted at his baptism. But Arius is going to say way back here in eternity past, we have Genesis 1 here and that Christ was created here. That way, what does the scripture say in John 1 there? Sorry, in verse 3. Jesus was made, but he can say that he's still following scripture here because nothing was made that wasn't made through Christ. So if you have Christ created, a created being before, then he's able to fit this scripture there, so we can say that he created everything. So Christ is the first supreme creation, and then all other creation was made through him. Again, this is not Jim. This is, I'm trying to educate you on what Arius is thinking here. And he's not the only one. As I said, there was a riot, so. Okay, so unlike the adoptionism, this takes place in eternity past. Because Genesis says in the beginning, Christ was made right here before that. We'll get to that. Yes. We'll get to that. Because there's a lot of scripture you have to hurdle over to get your point to fit what you want. Very good pick up. So this is how they get that though. In the beginning. He was created right before that in the beginning or at any point in eternity past. Okay, so in his understanding, though, is God is the only eternal. God the Father is without beginning. Christ is the first creation, and they even argued in the streets as the author of that other book was saying, you know, there was a time when Christ was not. And again, I would say that's absurd, but they're trying to defend these other points. So early church creation. This is in the 4th century. Now we're looking in the 300s AD. Churches still building. You saw those other heresies that they've had to battle, refute, and make a defense against. Well, they're still trying to defend. No, here's what the word of God says. So we want to make sure that we're giving God the proper reverence that he deserves. We're describing God property. Again, it's easier to say what it's not than what he is. And I got Trinity over there, which is basically just the it's the nature of God. That's what it encompasses. But Tertullian, we mentioned a couple weeks ago, was the first one to start using that phrasing. But this is still a early concept, not saying that You know, Trinity is clearly taught in Scripture, I would say, but it wasn't able to be vocalized until much later. And this particular heresy is going to give us a great springboard for better defense of the Trinity. And this is a great one here. If you like languages especially, Christ was of similar substance of God, not the same substance. Okay, so. And this is why even though Sibelius used the analogy of the sun, all right, emitting heat and light in his modalism, Arius is like, no, but you're onto something there. I disagree with your modalism, but here's the sun and it is creating heat and light. Okay, so whereas the sun is now a creation, It should have been light, that's the sun. And then the other thing is the force, the Holy Spirit is just God's action. So he still has one God protecting monotheistic nature of God, the one God, but now he's creating. So that's where the sun analogy is now considered Arianism. It's no longer, it is a form of modalism, but the way Arius took it and chose to use it, it's Arianism. Again, some of it is kind of close together and you can see some overlap. But these words there, that they use in the Greek, and I know he didn't want to overcomplicate it, and I'm probably going to mess this up, but I believe that it was actually Arius first, that second word there, that homoiousis, you notice that those words are identical except for an I. But that similar substance, what he was saying was, so you have God and his substance, his essence, and it's similar, not the same. All right, so that's why he's divine-ish and he's God in name only, Tyson, is where they start saying this, that he was the visible of what God was trying to do since he's the first created, so he's God in name only. And we're gonna get back to why that's just a ridiculous concept as well. But yeah, homoousius versus homoiousius, same substance versus similar substance. Again, he was refuting civilianism, understanding God in different modes, and he also wanted to keep from two deities. So if you have God the Father, but now you have God the Son, and if they're equal, He sees that it's not modalism. You're not saying that it's one God in different forms. You're saying, existing at the same time, making them equal, two Arius and his followers. That's not saying you have two gods. If they're of the same essence, the same thing, it's two gods. So again, you see how trying to explain what God is and how these persons look, you're stepping into heresies. Would we say that the father is equal with the son? I see everyone's like, I'm not answering any of Jim's questions, because I know he's setting us up. Would anybody say that the father is equal with the son? Yes. In godness. In godness? Yeah. In godness. These are all trick questions. You have to say yes. I need to qualify. Do you mean God the Father is God the Son? No. Do you mean that they are equal in glory and majesty? Yes. So again, how did we come up with that understanding though? It was because of fights like this. It's because of the discussion having to be had. So he wanted to keep from believing in two deities. Christ was God in name only. So what you see was God in name only. and had a large following, like I said. I get a lot of historians trying to say that Constantine is responsible for this and that. You have to remember the Roman Empire is split into two, a west and an east. So you have Rome in the west and you have Constantinople in the east. And because of this battling between the bishops and the different understanding of God in this church, yes, I can see even politicians say, you guys need to fix that stuff. So they got together all these different clergy to discuss this. And of course, I want my followers out there now pumping it up. So if they're out there, then the opposition comes and they start fighting. There is a riot over this. What they end with, though, is the Nicene Creed. And that is, yeah, if you look at your page three and four, I just gave you that for reference. We can look at it in a minute, but what they did was they took the Apostles' Creed and said, we need to add in to clarify some differences because there are a lot of people who can affirm the Apostles' Creed, but when you start getting into questions like this, that's where you start seeing a breakdown. All right, even to the point where some people are like, we want you to refute this heresy, but I'm not heretical. I agree with what you just said there. Will you affirm this? Yes. Okay. So then people say, wait a minute, flesh that out some more, explain that. You just said that they're equal or not equal. What do you mean by that? To try to get an understanding. So what they did, and you can see it right there, which we will go over in a little bit, especially on the part of Jesus. If you look at number two on page three there, in the Apostles Creed, it's, you know, and in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord. But in the Nicene Creed, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made. And I bring that up because that's a homoious versus homoious Constantine's son is a senator's grandson. They were still fighting. So I was just compromise. Let's just change it. Change that word right there. Similar substance. It's close enough to the same thing. And my boy here and others like, no, we're not compromising on that. We're not compromising on that. So, and Athanasius is going to make his own creed and solidify that a little bit more, which I like his creed. I love the Nicene Creed, which solidifies the beliefs in the Apostles Creed, but I also love the Athanasian Creed. So, Athanasius and others responding to Arius. I know, back on page two, sorry. I just want to show you that I do have the Apostles Creed on the left and that's one of the received forms. I got that from Schaff's book as well, but then the Nicene Creed and where they added and the westernized words because it is translated from translated from another translation. So I think it's from Latin, from Greek, or combination. But anyways, Jesus claimed to be God. So if he's God-like, he claimed to be God. So we already have a problem there. If he's not God, he's claiming to be God, we have a problem. Of course, well, he's God in name only, so he can claim that because he's representing, so that's what it means. not buying that. That's what they discussed at the Council of Nicaea, Athanasian, very faithful against this heresy. In fact, they even say, you know, saved from God by God. Only Christ could bridge the gap to reconcile us to God. And because He's truly God and truly man. Only God the Creator can recreate. The Father and the Son are one. And just a point that would have been baffling to most of them, though, is if Christ is not God, the Church is guilty of idolatry. Because in this time, the Church was worshiping Christ. So if you're trying to be faithful to the word of God, you're worshiping Christ who you say is not God, you have to go back to you're in sin for worshiping a false god. Idolatry. And the son of the Holy Ghost? Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, the three persons of the Godhead. Yep. So, look how ridiculous your argument is. You're guilty of idol worship now then. The Son is not God, you're worshiping Him, you're guilty of idolatry. So I'm gonna lead you guys into some heresies here. I did get these from that web page we were talking about though, in fact. So you probably know some answers, so be quiet. How many gods are there? One? Anybody disagree? How many gods are there? They say, rein it in. It's got one person. It's got three beings. You had to pause there a second, huh? I changed the word on you. All right, would you say God is three persons? All right, is God the Father eternal? Yes. When was God the Son created, at His incarnation or in eternity past? Neither. Oh, Killianism does it again. Trick question! I told you, I was intentionally going to lead somebody into answering. That's why they do this. But just to show you how difficult it is, you're trying to defend your faith and it's easy to misspeak. Or a misunderstanding. A lot of this was in defense of trying to be orthodox. But that's all heresy, and we see the orthodox position. Not because the council decided it, but because scripture led these men to defend and put up parameters on, no, this is it. So correct. God the Son was not created. Is Jesus half human and half divine? Neither. He's neither? So he's a third type? He's fully human and fully divine. So he's human and divine. 200%. Truly God and truly man. So they mix together or it's 200%? Yes. Is it two persons equal Jesus? But you see what I'm saying though? How do you explain that now? And I'm rattling you intentionally because... This is, as we're going to see, an upcoming where people are going to start trying to defend the Incarnation. How does that look like? Alright, well, He was human, but he had a divine soul and they mixed together. And we're going to see a lot of different heresies trying to explain that. So don't worry, we're all stepping in it and it's not new. They've stepped in it before. Alright, have the three persons in the Godhead, I don't like the way I wrote that, but have the three persons in the Godhead always related to one another as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? No, well, I'm confused about this question. That's okay. Do you mean have I always played those roles? Have those hats always been in their wardrobe? Have they always related to each other? Okay, we've already seen, and this is, we're just walking through this here because this is, again, I know this is a little bit deeper than what most people expect or want, but we say there's one God, one God, three persons equal in power and glory, right? Co-equal in majesty. So have they always related to themselves, related to each other as Father, Son, and Spirit? You can say yes. They've always related to, the Godhead has always been, they're all eternal, this is how they relate to each other, Father, Son, and Spirit. Immutable. Immutable. Yeah, because they've always related that way. But you have to think about that, like, wait a minute, because, and this is where a lot of the early church is gonna mess up, well, the son, was he the son though before he was incarnate? Which is where we get adoptionism. Was the son always subordinate to the father like we see in the incarnation? Which we're gonna get into that as well. Because I believe that... I love this game. I believe that some that would try to embrace even semi-Arianism, it's like, well, Yes, Christ has always been subordinate to the Father now, so he's a lesser being that was never created, but always a lesser being. So, again, you get into this polytheistic, and that's not it, which is why that same substance, not similar substance. Yeah, so, God, baptism, they were... Yep, and we see that in the baptism. I thought she was asking, like, what they were always, like, what they were called, for 32 minutes. Well, if that's what they're called, because that's how they relate to each other, so it's okay to say that. You can say yes to this question with confidence. So, when the three persons of the Godhead have always been eternal, and then the Incarnate Son came and He wasn't created because He always has been, What kind of body, or is that a dumb question, what kind of body did Jesus have before? Or is there no body? That's a good question. You're asking a really good question, which was also asked. Now we're moving into dosages. How did Jesus' spirit go into the child? Well, if you look at the Heidelberg or Ketcher's Catechism coming up this week, it's what is God? So we're looking at God. What is God? God is spirit, infinite, all-powerful, all these things. So yes, so the Son, before incarnation, you have to attribute all those characteristics of God to all three persons of the Godhead. Spirit, infinite, all those things co-equal in glory and majesty and power. This is what's going to get crazy coming up though when we start looking at these other heresies. And I forgot to print out that sheet again. Can you remind me to print out that sheet on the incarnation especially. But yes, so how does it look? And that's why I was asking him, was he half human and half divine? Because then you get into what the Greeks understood in their mythology and other groups of the demigod. So your question was when the sun became incarnate or something like that. Yes, in flesh, yes. In meat, yes. Flesh, the word became flesh. And I'm sorry, I'm going to start doing this here too though because When you see Word, and I love that the Confession hashes that out there in all of them, but the Word, also called the Son, that that is one of the persons of the Trinity, so how they relate, but it's also the Word. We see that in Lagos, and it's where Arius gets into a lot of his explanation, too. Well, Lagos, yes. We still have the Lagos. He is still this. you know, this being that we see introduced here, but he's still not God, he's God in a moment. I do want to plug for Greek. Yes. So Tyson, the question you asked was, says, and the word was God? Grammatically in Greek, there's no, there's no definite like that. And when you read a Jehovah's Witness Bible, it will say, and the word was Ahab, with a little G. And so that's a grammatical question that you're, that you need, that's the way we do it. But if you ever pick up a Jehovah's Witness Bible, it'll make you step back and really translate it. And grammatically, you can translate it that way, but it's wrong. It's wrong. You know who does a great job explaining that? Connell and Donnell. Seriously, it's done in satire, but it's, It's a good job and it makes sense. Yeah, I don't, I say I have trouble with English sometimes. I'm very thankful for programs like Grammarly, so I can throw it in there and it's like read everywhere. Glad I looked at that first. But yeah, so right there. And, spoiler alert, but that's going to be one of them anyways, if you're listening to what Arya is taught, it is Jehovah's Witness understanding. If not completely, because he did have a little bit different understanding on some aspects, but modern day Aryanism is very visible in the Jehovah's Witness for sure. There are others, but... Let me go back. Let me ask some more questions here to make you guys not like me anymore. I love you. Is God the Father the same as the Holy Spirit? No. No. They're not the same substance? They are not the same person. Not the same person. Very good. Very good. It's in the wording, but yes. Is God the Son eternal? And that right there refutes this understanding because if only God the Father is eternal and they make another being, you're getting into heresy. Which I still love that. Well, you're worshipping Christ. If he's not God, you are in idolatry. So you're not even being consistent. If you are consistent in that, You know, like, I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses, they pray to God. I think that Jesus is still a mediator, that they pray through Him somehow, but not as in a divine. And anyways, it gets a little crazy with these different ideas and understandings of this. Does God the Son have the fullness of God's being in Himself? Does God the Son have the fullness of God's being and himself. I'm talking about God the Son. Does God the Son have the fullness of God's being and himself? We're talking about a lot of stuff. Don't look at my facial expressions for an answer. I'm doing the great poker face here. It's smiling because if you get it right, I'm happy. If you get it wrong, I'm happy. This is the intent. He did? He did? So you're saying that God the Son had the fullness of God's being in Himself? What if He didn't? All right, see how all these are starting to connect a little bit though so even in trying to look that wording sounds wrong think it out if Jesus doesn't have the fullness if and again, I like that Jesus is what we call the incarnate Son of God the Son of God always existed Jesus is in the flesh. This is the hypostatic union, the incarnation. So, if I say that interchangeably, forgive me, but I'm speaking about the Son of God, the Word, has the fullness. If He did not have the fullness, it would be a part. He had a third of God's being in Him, and then we have that partialism. We have Boltron again. Okay, so yes. So then, does the Holy Spirit have the fullness of God's being in Himself? All right? Yes, it sounds weird when we're saying that, but we know what the Trinity is not. So trying to formulate these is why it gets very difficult. And I'm sorry, nobody, if they claim they do, they're a liar, but nobody is gonna have full comprehension. We have what they call apprehension. We can apprehend this concept, but we cannot comprehend the Trinity and the way it is actually, you know, the way it is, the way he is. Is the Holy Spirit fully God? Yes. Yes. And here we go. Are the Son and the Spirit... Wow, I just butchered up my English there, huh? I'm using the Jehovah's Witness questions here, I guess. I'm going to add in extra verbs and words and stuff. Question. Are the Son and the Spirit subordinate to the Father in their essence or nature? That's a good question. You have a father, right? And I have a son. You are his son, okay? There's a hierarchy, if you understand what that means, where there is this subordinate and a, so think of it like, leader and then his followers as it were. I'm using the military understanding of that though. So the father has a son. The son is subordinate to the father. That's the way we do it. Do you tell your dad what to do? No. Does your dad tell you what to do? No. Okay, bad example. Thank you Tyson. Thank you Tyson. for ruining my example. You're asking some good questions there, huh? I don't have the Athanasian Creed on me. I like the way he throws that out there a little bit better. And that's why there are some that when they don't even apprehend this, like, you guys are crazy. You're worshiping three separate gods. Okay, so that's why we get that hurled at us, that accusation that's thrown at us. Because it is difficult for us to explain, and as someone said, we'll explain it. They're asking, they're doing what I'm doing to you right now. They're asking questions to make you step on yourself. Okay, that's, it's very difficult. They are equal in power and glory. There's going to be some phrasing and he's going to get the Athanasian Creed. I had it on a couple of sheets ago in the Connell and Donnell video to explain it, but it's how it works. And there are some words that show the relationship in their roles, but not in taking away their deity, their co-majesty. So, yeah, sorry bro, I appreciate it. I'm sweating if you want the lumber guys. Yeah. And we look at a lot of scripts, so I and the father are one. But then it says, the father gives me. So you start, in our human understanding, we're like, well, if the father's giving, that's two, but they're one. So this is why these conversations happened. What we're discussing right now is not new. And it probably wasn't as fun as we're having right now. But like I said, they got in fistfights. The son is of the father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. So again, we're using this word, begotten, but not made. So that's where a lot of arguments, well, begotten means made. He's the firstborn, don't use another, I think that's in Colossians, the firstborn. So, you see, he was born, he was the first, so he was created, no. And then the Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds out of the Father and the Son. Can't comprehend that, right? But we can apprehend that they're equal yet distinct. And that's where it gets crazy. What do you mean by distinct? What do you mean by equal? So we have to be very careful in not saying what we don't mean, but yes, it gets fun. Yeah, so there is one father. So, we know what it's not, trying to explain what it is has been the problem. So the answer to my question, in their essence or nature? The triune nature of God, so think of it like that, so correct. However, in roles and functions is where we start getting into a little bit different stuff. Well, what about the son and his human nature, would that be subordinate to God? That is the one. Very good question. So what did you say, though? The sun what? The sun's human nature, would that be subordinate to God? This is why, what you're asking right now, is why, and we're gonna see coming up, it is so important that our Savior is truly God and truly human. Okay, these are the questions that are asked. Well, how can, you know, salvation is meaningless under Arius, it really is, that you can't be saved. This is what biblically is required, what we can see, that it has to be divine, yet he has to be like us. And then again, they're going to mix it up by saying, well, these two, either he's 50-50, or it's mixed up into a third type of essence. So we get these other heresies. They're trying to be faithful and explain this. He has to be truly human. And thus, he is subordinate to the Father. That's where this idea of what they call eternal subordination, meaning that he's always been subordinate, okay? And that's a whole other thought process that Christians are arguing about today. Again, it's one of those things, is it relevant? If you're trying to dig into the weeds, yes. If you can apprehend some basic concepts that the creeds and the confessions teach like that, and you can see it in scripture, and you see that we're inadvertently misspeaking anyway, so it doesn't matter. Especially when Jim sets you up like that. Home run! So, an essence in nature. That's that homoious versus homoious. Isn't that crazy too? How one, seriously, one little letter, one little letter changes that. Have you ever heard the expression, I won't give in, not one iota? That's where it comes from. In Greek letters, every i is an iota. And that's what Athanasius said. Yeah, and serious. So when Arianist followers started to rise up more and be more vocal, they were like, well, maybe we should rewrite this Nicene Creed then to favor Arianism. And even, like I say, the church leaders were like, no, we're exiling Athanasius. Alexandria, you need to come up with a new leader. Nope, he's our guy. So I think he was exiled four or five times and continued coming back and faithful to defending this orthodoxy. So that's going to bring us to contemporary examples. Thank you guys for playing my game. You were great sports. And yes, there will be more of this in the weeks to come. So I'm sure I lost some of them. Seth's like, I'm not saying another word. What you should have done was said, it was the woman the Lord has given me. They're all equal in power, glory, majesty. So you're talking about nature being versus persons, right? So you're talking about what versus whose. So in the what, they're all God, with all the properties of God. But in the whose, they have relational dynamics, right? The father is always the father. In order for the father to be the father, he has to have a son. And the sun is always the sun relates to the planet, and the spirit relates to the planet and the sun the same way. There are three different persons that have three different functions. So there are unique attributes to each of those persons that are not overlapping with each other, but their essence is the same. They have the same being. So that's why we can say one God, three persons. And to be very careful that I don't step into a heresy here, just to show you an example of what the subordinate looks like without losing that, as you say, being on par. And that's just a way to understand it. So is it like this? Or is it like this? Yes. But I'm thinking Casey's thinking, why doesn't he answer that? I'm sorry, or... Or is that another option? Is it like this? Or another option is Chimera. What's behind door number three? See, and though my wife's not here, she will listen to this, so I'm not answering this one. My wife's not here, I'm not fearing her. I'm the man. You are correct, and you have not said anything that will get you smacked. That's exactly right. What's up? Do you understand what I'm sharing here though? They have, it's not, and there's some other big words that go around there too, completarianism, egalitarianism, but the created order was the man, then the woman. That is not give a lording over, but there is a subordination. There is the woman, subordinate, yielding to, deferring to the husband, which is why the curse says this is what your desire is going to be, and we see this other stuff. That's not a good example of the Trinity, but so you can see the subordination, you can be subordinate but not losing out on that position, and this is not even close to the relationship between the father, the son, and the spirit. But again, just to give you an idea that subordinate doesn't always mean like, again, I'm military, the captain is yelling at the, you know, the E7 who's yelling at the scrubs, so that's not how this works. All right, contemporary examples of Aryanism today. Where do we see this today? I already gave you one. Yep. The J-dubs. Yeah, Watchtower Society, yeah. And yes, be careful on that because I know I grew up Jehovah's Witness, that was a familiar term, but then I started getting material and it was from Watchtower Society. Oh, I know what this is. Wait a minute, this sounds very similar to something that I used to read before. All right, you can repackage it, but it's the same thing. The JWs, what's another? current religion that has some of these ideas that you see here. What does that mean? That's Jehovah's Witnesses. That's a whole other discussion because even within certain teachings and understandings of Catholicism and how that's changed throughout history, it's a convoluted understanding, but they do have a Trinity understanding. They're just going to add some other stuff, so that's not an example. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you are wrong in this case, but I'm not saying it in a mean way. So the Father created the Son. We got them. The Father created the Son. Nope, the Father created the Son. What's the name of your planet again, brother? Mormon. Alright, so is Jesus God in the Mormons. And to be fair, that's a good point to bring up too, because even in the early Church Fathers who are defending this, their understanding of salvation is so that we can be God-like. Not to be confused with a God or equal to God, but that phrase, to be God-like. We are being redeemed, reclaimed, we're the image-bearers of God, so they use that phrase, God-like. And there will be some that are like, see, you guys are going to be like God. We're using that same language as you. Not so fast there, Mormon missionary. We're not saying the same thing, and I'm not going to give Babaroni or Shnepville or whatever planet I want. But that's the same thing. A God has created Christ has created Jesus, and his brother Satan, and more craziness. That's another one. Any other examples you can think of that illustrate this teaching or this point? I think the only other close one that's not even a religious denomination, but it is very religious, is humanism. The creature being God, the created being divine, and this is what humanism is teaching. You're your own person, you decide all this stuff, you're responsible to nobody but yourself. Beholden to none, you are responsible for all this and that. So, though it's not the same thing on par with the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, it is humanism that is very much, you can see on that. Again, not where you can have all this crazy theological discussion like some of them had, but And actually this was a big one for Athanasius too. You guys need to be consistent. If you're going to say this, be consistent in your idolatrous worship. The Nicene Council, I believe what I have in your book though is the 381, which is the revision of the one that was, was that 325 I think was the first one. And so just a little bit modified. And in between that is when the emperor wanted to revise it to stop some of the, You know, the infighting, like, let's change it. Just lean this way. Just put that eye in there. And I say, am I dude athanasia? She's like, nope. Keep on banning me. I'll be back. All right. So anybody have any other questions or comments? And again, I am very, very happy that you guys were good sports about this today. I'll have, we'll have all the creeds next week. I think you can get them on the church site, but I hated that I, I knew I was gonna need that, and I didn't grab it, and I put that one in there, because it compared, I was like, I'm awesome. So let me get this right. So the son gets a little bit of the father, and then the spirit gets a little bit of the father of the essence. Is that the way it works? No. Why not? I mean, it's begotten, proceeding. But I mean, if the son is, so that means the father has all the essence, right? And he just gives a little dab over here to the sun. He gives a little dab over here to the spirit, right? Well, no, because they're all one essence. That's partialism, Andrea. So yeah, so the reason that's important is because of the Athensian creed that the essence is not divine. It's one essence. How that works, biggest mysteries in the world with traps. I have no idea how that works. It's true. That's all I know. When you have in 2022, men who are studying the word are still referring to this because that's the best way that you can model that explanation without going left and right and stepping into heresy. And this was not something, this is like say 300, almost 400 years in the making to get this explanation out there. So. Good stuff. I'm serious. I love you guys. That was awesome. I don't trust Jim anymore. Is it raining outside? Why are you asking me that? I don't know. Jim, you haven't yet apprehended. I'm apprehensive now. Anything else? Do you understand the importance of this, though, as we are desiring to know God more, why this is important? I think it's on that same page, though. Is it important to understand the Trinity for proper worship? I think so. I think so, yeah. Does everybody understand the Trinity right out of the gate? So you can have both. You can say that I don't expect you to understand all this, but a proper understanding of the Trinity is vital for proper worship of God. I don't think we have to have a perfect understanding, but I think we have to have a biblical understanding. And even that though, if you're given faith, you're redeemed, sometimes it's a little bit more difficult to understand. Everybody is being sanctified and learning at a different pace. And some people get a lot of this understanding before God redeems them, and so they already have this understanding, and that's why I am very big on what we're doing here. Again, I remember, don't teach your kids about God until they're old enough to decide for themselves. Garbage. But I'm going to pray that God is speaking to His people through the teaching, through the Word, through what's taking place, and trust God to do what is right, because He is God. Anything else?