First off.. I would like to thank everyone here for what they do and their overwhelming contribution to the many arguments for the belief in God, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What Inspiring Philosophy does well is welcome all faiths and ideas to have a serious dialogue that leads us further to seeking the truth.. Now by no means am I at the stage of my theological journey where I can give you a decade of church history, arguments for Gods existence, right off the top of my head. I am still learning. But something new that I have truly come to face is something more important than any argument for Gods existence, or Atheism, but my own personal salvation.. For all my life I have shut off any denominational bickering and thought that we needed to be more united than set apart as a body of christ, and I think most would agree with that statement. However.. I cannot ignore this true problem that I believe every Christian needs to answer. If Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one gets to the father but through him, is it not of utmost importance, and just, that he would make his message clear for salvation, for ALL generations to understand, and there be NO disagreement within the church body on literally the most important question of christianity, "How am I saved"? Now the last thing I need to hear is, "well it's very clear, Jesus paid for all your sins and there is nothing more that you need to do", or, "well it's very clear, we receive salvation but it's with repetitive actions that you keep it"... What I am trying to say is that there is disagreement on not something minuscule, but VERY important. And instead of focusing on that issue, I feel like the discourse just tends to lead too, "well MAYBE your saved but only God knows" or "Just join the true church and you will be fine". Why can't we just all be right? This makes me think, I can never fully understand the truth because one person studies for decades and is a Protestant Christian, and the other a Catholic Christian, both claiming truth, both with different ideas on salvation.

On our main IP channel I will be having a video coming out soon on the Shema. Specifically, muslims, jews, unitarians, etc. in general like to cherry pick deut. 6:4 as an anti-Trinitarian argument. They'll say things like "The Shema clearly states the Lord is ONE not THREE". In the spirit the video coming out soon. I wanted to see what you guys think of this objection. How would you about this?

Hey guys, I heard on the last call that there were concerns about some mythicists called Christ before Jesus. All of their arguments in the book are the standard mythicist arguments save for their stylometry. Believe it or not, I worked with a statistician and together we reached out to the authors to get their code, the raw data, etc. that they used to run the tests. Unfortunately, the authors were not forthcoming to us, and it was fairly difficult to get them to give us their material so we can test and see if we can duplicate their results. That being said, below I review of the stylometry that Jason Wilson (the statistician I worked with) and I put out. You can also find this on their Amazon page for the book under the reviews. If you guys want this converted into a video to help others let me know. THE REVIEW- The purpose of this review is to provide a response to the stylometric analysis of chs. 7-8 of Christ Before Jesus by Matthew Britt & Jaaron Wingo. The reason for focusing exclusively on chs. 7-8 is they form the central supporting evidence of the book’s thesis that the biblical Jesus never existed. I will point out problems with the stylometric method employed that are substantial enough to invalidate their analysis, and therefore the primary support for their conclusion. Britt & Wingo state their thesis very plainly on pp. 1-2, "Evidence shows that Jesus, as presented by the Gospels and New Testament books, never existed. Despite Christianity’s claim of Jesus living during the first three decades of the first century CE, the character was actually a second-century construction." "Christianity, being defined as the belief in Jesus is both the Jewish god Yahweh and a historical human who was crucified and resurrected, did not emerge until the second century. It evolved from earlier Jewish and Greco-Roman cults, and developed the narratives for its books from previous works. The stories of a first – century Jesus movement, his disciples, and Paul are all part of a “creation myth” from the second century when the religion began to come together."

Following up on this post here. I recently watched a Jordan Travis vid where GodLogic asks him about the filioque: curious if Sijuwade's model is able to account for the filioque or if it ignores it? Also, if he addresses this already, then please show me as I may have missed it... I notice the language of "eternally generates the son" and "eternally proceeds from the Father," yet Jordan Travis identified that the Holy Spirit can also proceed eternally from the Son since the Son does what the Father does and thereby makes the Son and the Spirit demonstrably relationally distinct. Really interesting to me. If anyone has pushback or clarity then please, by all means. Curious to know if you have thoughts here @Liam Moore since you mentioned you read up on this recently.

Yo guys, Michael will be hosting the Q&A tomorrow! Bring your questions! As you can tell via the picture below, Mike is VERY excited :)