So let me move on then. I think we cover that. Since Jesus said the Father is the only true God in John 173, then if that is so, what kind of God is Jesus? A false God? Some other kind of God? Or did He not really mean only when He said only in John 173? No, he meant only because there's only one true God. Again, the first where we hear again is where we have to read more than one sentence at a time because not only has he referred to his father and again I view Jesus Christ here as the God man. That's what John describes him as in the sense of the law, God has become flesh. He is praying to his father. He's differentiating himself from the father. He was not a polytheist and so he believed there was only one true God and he said this is true and eternal life to know you the only true God and the one whom you have sent Jesus Christ. So to know eternal life is to have a joint object, the father and the son and right after this somebody punctuated as one sentence. He says glorify me together with the father, the glory we had before the world was the father, the only true God for Jesus Christ certainly for you in the sense that Jesus meant these words. Yes. And so the father is the only true God in the sense of Jesus meant it and what sense is that? So as I just explained, there is only one true God. There cannot be more than one true God. And that's the father. And that is why in Revelation chapter 22 verse 3, the word for service and worship in the temple is used of both the father and the son. A singular pronoun referring to both of them because of the close relationship that exists between them. So... Well, that's an assumption that it refers to both of them collectively and not one individually. The point is though, is Jesus correct that the father is the only true God? We all know what only true God means. Is he correct in when he said that the father was the only true God? I've already answered this question. Is there a point you want to make? I would never say that Jesus was wrong in a statement. So obviously it's what we understand that to mean. Jesus as the incarnate word would never refer to false gods. To false gods is a true God. The question is, it seems that you're engaging a category error to say that if Jesus, the father is the only true God, then Jesus, who is glorified with him, cannot be identified by someone else as the true God, as Thomas did when he bowed before him and said, my Lord, and my God. Well, but that's the question. If the father is the only true God, then what kind of God is Jesus? Again, you assume a differentiation, not only in the fact that the nature of God cannot be shared between two divine persons. They repeat an assumption of unitarianism. But also, it's again a category error that you are not different, you are not different, you are between person and being. I assume there's one category of true God. I assume there's one person in that category of the father. That's what Jesus said. Do you agree with it? No, because you just assumed unitarianism. You don't agree with it. You just, no, I don't agree with your second statement, which was you assume there is only one person in the category. That's where your error comes in. How many persons do you assume in a statement? Well, obviously, since he goes on to talk about being glorified with his father before the world was, that would not... That's a different statement. ...delimit. Well, it's within the same paragraph. That's again the difference between us and ex-Ageesus. The category we're talking about is the category of true God. How many persons did Jesus place in the category of the true God? Well, again, you are assuming that when Jesus says you are the true God that he was a unitarian. And I say to you, in light of verse 5, which I allow, I like to read entire paragraphs. I'm sorry? I'm not assuming any such thing. I'm just assuming that Jesus was meant what he said. And did he also mean that he used to be glorified with the father, with the glory he had with him before the world was? Absolutely, but that's... I'm sorry. You were asking before I asked you. Well, he got me back on the word. Let's call you. So, again, I'm still not quite clear. We have a fairly simple statement made by Jesus. The father is the only true God. We have a category, true God. We have a member, father. So, are any other members to the category of true God according to Jesus' statement in John 17-3? No, in John 17-5. Are there any other members in the category of the true God other than the father, according to Jesus in John 17-3? Well, if you want to only look at verse 3... No. So, in verse 5, it says, what about the true God and who being a part of it? It says he exists alongside him. The angels exist alongside him, according to Job 38-7. The existence is different from being classified as a particular type of being. So, I have no problem with Jesus' existence alongside the only true God. My question is, who is identified as the only true God, according to Jesus in John 17-3? Well, we've already answered that question, and my point in going to 17-5 was that for any creature to pray the words of John 17-5, again means that we have no idea who God is. We have no idea how to worship Him. You're making a statement, I'm just trying to respond to it. You're making an argument at a different point. My point is that in John 17-3, we're talking about the only true God, monotheism. Who is identified as the only true God? The father. No one else. Excuse me, is that a question? It sounds like you're making a statement. I'm practicing my question that I've asked several times. If the father is the one identified as the only true God, and that's monotheism, on what basis do you change the category of the true God? Because I do not read into Jesus' words, the implicit unitarianism that you read into everything that He says. In light of what He Himself says in verse 5, and in due to the fact that, as I believe we've pointed out, you have as a presupposition the fact that Jesus, that no incarnation could ever take place. How would the incarnate one address God? Would He be an atheist? He can address God all day long, but to call Him the only true God, in the Holy Spirit, it's not quite incarnate, is it? No. That's the average of the asking questions. That one I hold against you. The point is that even Jesus and an incarnate can tell the truth. And if the father is not the only true God, this is a preface to my part of my question. If Jesus can tell the truth as an incarnate person, then He can certainly say that the true God is more than one person. He didn't. Do you accept His statement or not? I do not accept your statement that He didn't. How about His statement that the father is the only true God? Mr. Stafford, we're spinning wheels here. I have automatically, I have said from the beginning, I believe what Jesus said, I do not accept your disassembling of the text. I'm just quoting it. Well, but you're not quoting all of them. What part am I missing? Well, you seem to forget the verse 5. That's a good idea. Well, we're getting the same result with each question. What is the name given to Jesus in Philippians 2.9 through 11 that is above every other name or every name? Well, some people feel that it's the name of Yahweh. I don't think that it is. I think that it is the name Jesus personally. So the name Jesus is above every name? I believe so, yes. Even Yahweh? I believe that is how Yahweh has revealed Himself, yes. So, but do we have to be above it? To protect Jesus. Because it's above every name. I believe so, yes. So Jesus is the highest name in the universe, even above the tetragramidant. I believe that if we accept what this passage says, that to confess Jesus is to confess that He is Yahweh. So we are doing both, yes. So essentially, then, the name Jesus is the equivalent of Yahweh. Only in the sense that it's accepting the incarnation of Yahweh, that Yahweh has become Emmanuel, God with us. So how could Jehovah be given the name that is above every name? As I said in my opening statement, that assumes the fundamental error of what you called in a previous debate, something that's bogus. And that is exactly what I talked about here from Philippians chapter 2. The fact that Jesus has two natures. Is his human nature given the name above every name? No, Jesus is one person that has two natures. And as a result of his obedience and his humiliation, verse 8, and then his obedience in also in verse 8, even death on a cross, then he is given that which he voluntarily had already given up to enter into human flesh. So, if the human, so did he still possess this name in some sense while he was on earth? What do you mean, possess this name? Well, if he was given it, he either had it or didn't have it prior to receiving it. Well, obviously, when it says given the name in verse 9, this is in regards to, as you can see, the verb follows right after, highly exalted him. So the context has to be within the context of exaltation. That's my point. So, if the name is the equivalent of Yahweh and it's given to the exalted nature of Christ, which would have to be his human nature, how could that human nature be given the name above every name? Where did you get exalted human nature? I just said he's one person. Well, we'll be exalted if not his human nature. He's one person, he's the God-man. Yeah, I know. But you can't exalt God any higher than he already is. But he's one person, you're trying to divide him up. Because he has accomplished what the Father willed for him to do, then as the God-man, he is highly exalted. And so that the name of Jesus, every knee, bows to the glory of God, the Father. It is a joint fulfillment of Isaiah 45.23. I'm sorry, what was that? That was last question? It's 10 seconds. Oh, okay. I'll just go ahead and end it on that point, because we went up time for a significant follow-up. Thank you.