Well, thanks, Sarge. Well, I really also want to echo what Anne Foster-Sterling said about Art Arnold. He was very helpful to me in my progress toward writing that book on the sex chromosomes, very open-minded, and helped me make sure the science was right in the final version. I really wanted to take this opportunity to engage with the question of the conference, this notion of it being a critical moment and an opening to discussions around plasticity in the biology of sex and gender. So what I'm going to do is put on my historian and philosopher of science hat and go really hard at the concept of sex that we're using in our combined research efforts. Let me start with two widely divergent views. Here's Charlotte Perkins Gilman, the feminist intellectual philosopher who was writing in an era of the late 19th century, when the distinction between primary and secondary sexual characters was clearer than now and also in which sex was a much quesier topic of investigation. And she's known for her quips. And she said, in one of them, the brain is not an organ of sex, might as well speak of a female liver. Well, today, people are speaking of female livers. So here's a very, very, very different view from Janine Clayton of the Office for Research on Women's Health. Every cell has a sex. She says, each cell is either male or female, and that genetic difference results in different biochemical processes within those cells. And she would certainly say, a liver has a sex. So we're entering into a really transformative moment in the biology of sex and in the historical sweep of things as art already began to relate. We're moving out of an era in which we focused very much on a hormone-centered concept of sex, differentiation, and development into a more genomic-centered one. We're now molecular, and it's become more normalized to see sex everywhere at the molecular level. Cells have sexes, genomes have sexes, livers have sexes. But I really want to ask some questions, some provocative questions about this emerging model. Whether the concept of sex that it embodies is one that we truly want to accept. So I want to interrogate the concept of sex in contemporary biological explanation. And I want to suggest that the prevailing view that in the sciences of sex, we are going to eventually apprehend and discover sex itself in nature is actually a naive one. And the overarching goal of my talk is to encourage a kind of reflection on the oddity of sex as an explanatory category in the life sciences. So my intellectual trajectory is through looking at the history of the genome and attempts to locate sex in the genome. And this started with the discovery of the sex chromosomes at the turn of the 20th century, which instigated a historically novel understanding of the biology of sex differences rooted in this visually compelling binary of the X and Y chromosomes. So there was this notion as art related that the essential male and female processes would be determined and controlled by genes on the X and Y chromosomes. So the X came to be, as I document in my book, Sex Itself, the X came to be referred to as the female chromosome and the Y as the male chromosome. And they were even attributed with masculine and feminine traits.  And as art said, this 20th century model is now beginning to be challenged. This notion that the X, X and X, Y gene complement are only relevant in this early moment of sex determination and then then on come the hormones. Instead, we have a more whole genome notion of sex determination in which these genes are also interacting dynamically with hormones. So for example, you have a lot of genes implicated in important sex determining processes that are not located on the X and Y chromosomes. So rather than this picture, we need something a little bit more like this. Okay, so if we're embracing the idea that there is a whole genome, there's a sexome as art has said, then do we wanna say something like a genome has a sex? And this is something that in the initial heady days of thinking about whole genome sexes, some really provocative claims came out about differences between male and female genomes and I won't play this clip from a TED talk by Y chromosome researcher, David Page, but he is among those who has made very strong claims that there are different male and female genomes, that we have a problem with the notion of a single human genome that is provoked by findings of sex differences in the genome. He has even suggested that males and females are as different as just a clip from that same TED talk as humans and chimpanzees. So has Huntington Willard at Duke University. In this moment, he claimed human males and females differ by quote 2%, kind of quantitative notion of sex genomic sex differences, greater than the hereditary gap between humankind and its closest relative, the chimpanzee, and that there is not one human genome, but two male and female. Well, this led me to make all sorts of charts and go through in a bit of detail. Why? Why? That's just a very foolish way of thinking that you're actually comparing apples and oranges there. So, and if you're interested in my larger argument about why males and females are not like humans and species, take a look at this paper where I work through that somewhat silly argument. But, you know, my argument there are rested on an older notion of the genome. Rested on a notion of the genome is nearly made up of sequence so that what you can't do is just count up sequence differences and make species or sex differences. But that notion of the genome as art related, I'm really glad my talk follows on his, is changing itself. So, today we're undergoing a major shift in the way that sex is conceptualized in the human genome away from these more essentialist and reductive approaches. Over the past decade, basic research on sex, gender, and sexuality has increasingly moved toward examining how hormones and genes interact dynamically and throughout the life course to regulate sex differentiating processes. And Art Arnold has called this notion the sexome. And I just wanna, I can follow very quickly on what he already laid out for us. But look at some of the key terms here. Complex intersecting causal pathways, gene networks pulsating with activity, dynamic nets of interactions, the totality of sex bias factors in the network comprising the sexome. So this, and here's a nice image. This concept of the sexome suggests the presence that is of sex specific processes and pathways throughout the genome, not restricted to genes or chromosomes conventionally linked to classic reproductive traits. So we're back to livers having sexes. And epigenetics is a key element of this sexome model. So here in this model, X and Y chromosomal genes and hormones and other cofactors are visualized as producing long lasting and sex specific epigenetic modifications during early developmental stages which results in gender A and gender B. All right. So let me give an example of an exciting finding in this field from this year. A recent study from Margaret McCarthy's lab, Brain Feminization Requires Act of Repression of Masculinization via DNA methylation. McCarthy and colleagues examined the epigenetics of gonadal steroid action in the sexually differentiated pre-optic area of the brain. The study, the conclusions of which are summarized in this figure, found reduced activity of DNA methyltransferase enzymes in the male rat pre-optic area, suggesting that the quote unquote masculine phenotype of the pre-optic area is produced by demethylation or releasing masculinizing genes from epigenetic repression. And then the study also showed that inhibiting these DNA methyltransferase enzymes with a drug or knocking out these methyltransferase created a masculinizing effect in adult female rats. OK, here's what you need to know about the provocative findings of this study. It can be read as challenging received understandings of sexual dimorphism in the brain at several levels. First, in contrast to a view of male and female brains, as organized and hardwired during early development, the study authors conceptualized this epigenetic finding is showing that the neuronal DNA methylation methylome is highly modifiable with rapid demethylation and de novo methylation occurring in response to changes in excitability, particularly in genes associated with neural plasticity. Second, rather than viewing the female condition as the passive default in the absence of masculinizing factors that overlay or repress feminization, the authors flip the script. They interpret the experimental manipulability of male or female phenotype via alteration of methylation as confirming that feminization is an active and ongoing repression of masculinization and thus reversible. So without methylation, a masculine phenotype can emerge in female rats even in adulthood. Hence, they conclude that feminization is the active process of suppressing masculinization by a DNA methylation. And further, that this finding is, quote, evidence for the duality of the brain with some arguing for the simultaneous presence of male and female circuits or phenotypes. Third, the authors suggest that methylation is on balance a means of preventing far greater sex differences in the brain. So only 70 genes of all those that they screened showed sex differences with 34 of those more highly expressed in females and 36 in males. Methylation assured equal levels of gene expression in the 381 other genes, which the authors called convergence genes. OK. Now I want to step back and talk about this moment in terms of the theme of the conference around plasticity. So of course, feminist science studies scholars, such as myself, are keenly interested in models of how gender, the social norms, and expectations associated with masculinity and femininity is corporealized in the biological sexed body. With its emphasis on the reactivity and responsiveness of the body to social and environmental influences, epigenetics offers a potentially rich and provocative theoretical frame for understanding sex and gender at the level of the body. Feminist intellectual traditions have long conceptualized gendered minds and bodies as deeply conditioned by their historical and social context. Charlotte Perkin Gilman's again in that 1898 text famously argued that the social conditions of subjugation had created, quote, rudimentary female creatures weak in body and servile in mind. Gilman contended that sexual inequality between the sexes was produced and maintained by social factors working in interaction with body and biology. And she argued that with greater equality, women would grow physically larger, stronger, and more agile. Three quarters of a century later in the genetic age, Joanna Russ, in her famous feminist science fiction classic The Female Man, followed this with an elaborate feminist parable, making very much the same point. The book features a meeting between four women with identical genomes and from different time periods brought together in a time traveling scientific experiment. And it shows them interacting with each other and having different stances and postures and ways of being in the world conditioned by the different gender environments in which they find themselves. And most recently, the BBC America science fiction series or Fin Black, any fans in the room, praised for its scientific acumen and feminist vibe, features a single actress who plays eight different versions of a contemporary woman with identical genomes. So the television show is a gender-bending phantasmagoria showing the clones living wildly different lives from my favorite, the Brainiac scientist, Cosima, to the uptight, straight-laced soccer mom, Allison. So the show's writers actually regularly include epigenetics as a kind of explanation for the kinds of differences between these women. I raise this because these compelling visions of gender plasticity form an imaginary that has historically animated feminist intrigue with plasticity affirming biological theories of all sorts. And attending to the materiality of gender plasticity in the body, it is thought, might ultimately help to promote greater social tolerance and acceptance of marginalized forms of gender expression. Now that said, I think we have to be realistic about what the science can do and what it has been able to do so far. Let's return to the paper that I just discussed by Margaret McCarthy's lab. Moving epigenetic processes, such as methylation, to the center of action, McCarthy at first appears to be proposing a thrilling and intellectually challenging rewriting of long-held paradigms of profound and fixed differences in the biology of sex and gender, right? But here, I guess I wanna say that the curiously, McCarthy and her colleagues do not presently fully embrace this vision. The public discussion that followed the publication of her study made this clear. The field received the study as showing how epigenetics works to over-determine and fix in place sex differences in the brain. So here's pure degrees quoted saying, our understanding in light of the study, our understanding that the female state of the brain is default still stands. What changes now because of the study is our thinking as to how that default state is preserved.  So it says it concluded taken together these latest findings suggest that there may be more sex differences in the rodent brain than previously thought, quite in contrast to the narrative of marvelous fluidity and plasticity, flexibility of brain phenotype in response to methylation. Here, maleness and femaleness are proposed to be antagonistic and programmed processes. And the lead study author herself, Bridget Nugent, said of her paper, my hope is that these studies have taken us one step closer to fully understanding how and why males and females are so different.  So what I wanna do is draw attention to the ironies, the way in which programming and plasticity are two sides of the same coin in this new science. And I want to draw out three themes, the canalization of maintenance of sex, the focus on plasticity, but plasticity that is sexually dimorphic and the argument that sex is ubiquitous in the molecular architecture of the body. So first, in this emerging systems network epigenetics based science of sex, plasticity and complexity is not opposed to programming, rather epigenetics is positioned as a powerful and over determining agent in the canalization and programming of sex differences, not despite, but because of its plasticity. Okay, so the central explanandum of epigenomic research remains to stabilize and over determine binary sexual dimorphism in the brain. Second, male and female epigenetic plasticity in response to the environment itself is theorized to be sexually dimorphic. That is inquiry is focused on epigenetics as a source for the elucidation of the biology of sex specific responses to the environment. Okay, so there are sex, there are male responses and female responses to the environment, right? Not on how, what it might be, which is how environmental exposures create variation in sex stereotype behavior in males and females. It might be, it might go there one day, but it is not empirically there right now.  So epigenetics does not merely mediate sex specific processes at the interface of sex steroids and the genome in early development and possibly throughout the lifespan, but it postulates sex as much more broadly part of the substructure of the gene environment interrelation.  So in the epigenetics paradigm, every gene network, cell and organ is seen as having a sex in the sense that is mediated by sex epigenetic processes. Let me draw this out a little bit more because I think it's relevant to some really core contested issues at this moment. So what I've shown so far is that on the one hand, this sex home framework represents a significant reformulation in the conceptualizing core processes of sex determination and development and it renders the genome as a dynamic product of its milieu and problematizes an essential understanding of sex. It looks like from this perspective, sexual processes can vary, they can be mosaic like and over time from cell to cell and from body to body in ways that might deviate from talking in those old ways about a male genome and a female genome. At the same time, in the sex home model, the whole body is imbued with networked processes that are sexed. So conceptualizing any process that involves genes and hormones as sex, this model greatly multiplies what I call the signs and signifiers of biological sex at the molecular level. So for these reasons, the movement of epigenetics to the center of sex difference research in the brain presently appears as poised to reiterate and even amplify essentialist and thoroughgoing notions of biological sex differences as to complicate and soften them. So why does this matter? I think there's a relationship between the growth of this model, which I'm calling the omnirelevant concept of sex, the notion that it's everywhere in every cell in every organ organ and the recent drive for more basic preclinical molecular sex research. Most of you will be familiar with this major 2001 report, which is part of an effort to bring to the fore a history of androcentrism in research and to encourage looking at more sex variables in basic preclinical research. The Society for Women's Health Research again has been a major mover in this area. And of course, just last year and into this year has been the development of new NIH policy following on EU policies, Canadian policies, and so on, encouraging even in some cases, mandating consideration of sex as a variable in preclinical research, meaning tissues, cells, animal models, okay. Does every cell have a sex? Let's return to this question. That is, is sex omnipresent? So as we engage the hypothesis of omnipresence, it's worthwhile, I think, to revisit some of our core conceptual resources in this field. Foucault's admonition, for example, that the signs of sex do not speak for themselves as matters of fact, outside of history and discourse. So that sex does not refer just to the act of sex itself, but also to the biological and anatomical signs, symbols, and markings on the body that signify its sexuality, and that this concept of sex has tended to create an artificial unity in order to give more force to notions of sex differences within politically formed moments. If you're not one for critical theory, how about the analytic philosopher Sally Haslanger, who's a social oncologist and gives us some tools for approaching this question from another perspective? She says, you know, if we want to know about a concept and what it's doing for us, we want to define it, extensionally make lists of what it might be, but we also want to know what we might want it to be. That is, considering the pragmatics of why we want this concept and what scenarios explanatory and otherwise a political that we might want to think in this omnirelevant way about sex or not. With limited time, let me just toss out some possible candidates for how we might think about sex biologically. With no presumption that we all have to agree on one, but just to drive the point that we don't always know what we're talking about when we say sex, and we might implicitly have different conceptions, and this can lead to misunderstandings. One, very narrow conception of sex, but very successful conception of sex if you want an essentialist definition would be a gametic definition of sex. All those things that have the larger gamete are females and all those things that have the smaller gamete are males. But most people are going to reject that definition because it does not do the explanatory work that they want. Looking just at gametes to understand sex would not get at the kind of functional explanations whether they're evolutionary or physiological that most workers in the sciences want. And that is to define those things as sex that are functionally related in a coherent way to reproductive differences between individuals. Note that this kind of concept of, a functionalist concept of sex need not reify male-female sex differences because if we take very seriously reproduction, then we could have many sexes based on different reproductive life histories. For example, we could have pregnant persons, lactating persons, menstruating persons, infertile persons, and so on. And then we might have this more omni-presentist concept of sex. And that is an attributional conception of sex in which we reason synagogically so that all parts of the whole also have the sex of the whole. So that if a cell is in a male body, it is a male cell. And that is the kind of very broad conception of sex that I see emerging in this moment. So Sally Haslinger poses some questions to us. When we're doing this kind of conceptual work, we have to think about what the point of having these concepts is. She says, is this an effective tool to accomplish our legitimate purposes? And it's not just a question of descriptively finding out what everyone thinks sex is, but also she says a stimulative element to these kinds of projects. We need to say this is the phenomenon that we need to be thinking about. In other words, we're in a plural space where we can make choices about the words we use and the concepts we use and the end that we invest in. Now there are some good reasons that we might want to say that every cell has a sex. We might want to bring awareness to sex-related variables so as to expose androcentrism in science and thereby counter it. We might want to capture the full range of biological diversity. I think these two are probably pretty good reasons. The next two, I think are less good reasons to mobilize gender justice discourses to compel or direct resources in a competitive research environment or to address women's health disparities. And on number four, I have a forthcoming piece in PNAS laying out my reasons for thinking that's not a good approach to health disparities. But so I guess I want to say that I, my own view is that the claim that a cell has a sex represents an extreme instance of cynically ascribing sex to the factors and parts of the body. It contributes to a notion of sex as a ubiquitous or pervasive sign or signifier and to a conception of bodies as divided in a thoroughgoing way into maleness and femaleness. So hence, I think there are ethical and political and social dimensions to our decisions about how to operationalize sex in the current research environment. But I also think that it's empirically under-determined and conceptually unsophisticated and hence likely to lead to conceptual confusion and muddle. So what I've tried to do in this talk is to encourage reflection on the ethics of our ontologies of instantiating sex at a molecular level. I've suggested that this is a critical or contested moment as the concept of the genome itself is transforming to magnify the signs and signifiers of sex. And as new discourses of plasticity emerge, I've also suggested that we need to remain critical and analytic. Plasticity and programming are not necessarily opposites but two sides of the same coin. Our conception of sex is not determined by our empirical findings. It is also shaped by our pragmatic and explanatory aims, including biomedical platform building, social justice goals, and opening funding avenues. We should be aware of the overuse or expansive use of the category of sex and be aware that it's part of our social ontology as well as our biological ontology. We should use the concept critically, conditionally, and reflexively and work to innovate terminology to leave open the possibility of a totally different ontology. Thank you.


and I work at the Long Beach Public Library. I'm excited that you could join us for a story time about martial arts. This is part of our Asian Pacific Islander Heritage Month series that runs from May 1st to May 29th. This series is highlighting Asian and Pacific Islander culture, food, stories, and more. Now, do you know where different types of martial arts began? Well, some of the types of martial arts that you might have heard of are karate from Japan, waitai from Thailand, kung fu from China, bogeotor from Cambodia, arnese from the Philippines, and tekwondo from Korea. And the book that we are going to be reading about is about the martial arts, tekwondo. And a lot of people pronounce it taekwondo, but the appropriate pronunciation is tekwondo. And our book is called Let's Go Tekwondo, a story about persistence, bravery, and breaking boards by arm Kim. Hana, I'm ready. One, two, three, me too. Are you ready? Let's go tekwondo. Grandma takes Yumi to the dojang today. Her brothers, Jun and Yuhn, are already there. Can you find them? Yumi bows as she enters the room. Then she bows to Master Cho, and her classmates Gabby, Ravi, and Alejandra. First, Yumi and her friends meditate. Then they run and jump. Older kids help them with their forms. They count their kicks in Korean. Hana, du, set, net. Yumi and her friends are getting ready to take the test for their yellow belts. Master Cho brings out boards. Yay, says Alejandra. Ha, yeah. Everyone looks at Yumi. Let's go Yumi. Do it, Yumi. Yumi looks at the board. The more she looks, the bigger it seems to get. Oh no, that doesn't look like a nice board. Don't think about hitting the board, Master Cho says. Try reaching through. But Yumi is thinking about hurting her hand. It's not about strength, says Master Cho. It's about focus. Yumi tries to focus. She reaches out. But at the last moment, Yumi pulls back. Don't worry, says Master Cho. You can try again tomorrow. The next day, a new student joins the class. His name is Caleb. Master Cho asks Yumi to help him. Yumi shows Caleb how to bow and show respect. Yumi and her friends show how they kick and punch. But when it's time to break the board, break, break, break, break, thud. That night, Yumi can't sleep. Oh, what is she dreaming about? It's that mean board. Next day, Yumi tells Grandma, I'm not feeling well and I can't go to Dojong. Okay, says Grandma. The day after that, she tells Grandma, I have too much homework so I can't go to Dojong. Okay, says Grandma. The next day, Yumi tells Grandma, I'm quitting Tae Kwon Do. Okay, Grandma says. Oh man. Let's see what Yumi does next. This computer. Oh no. Yumi was startled to hear Grandma shout. I want to call my sister Misook in Korea. But I just can't do it. Just keep trying, Grandma. Yumi says. You'll figure it out. Yes, I will, Grandma says. I'll try this and this. No. I'll try this and this. Misook, it's you. Anyong. Hello. I'll keep trying too. Yumi breathes deeply and focuses. She imagines a board. Hana, dual, she whispers. Set. Yumi slashes through the imaginary board. Through Grandma's favorite rice crackers and almost the paper towel roll. The next day, Yumi changes into her dough book. I'm ready. She tells Grandma, at the Dojong, everyone is waiting. Yumi demonstrates her punches, Hana and kicks, dual. Are you ready? Master Cho asks. Yumi's heart pounds. She breathes and then everyone cheers. Hurrah! The best. Great job. Look at everyone celebrating. Yumi did it. Especially Grandma. Look at Yumi's yellow belt. And that's the end of our story. And here on this last page, we have more information about Tae Kwon Do and where it began. So some fun facts are that it is practiced by all age groups and it is actually an Olympic sport. And it is practiced in more than 190 countries worldwide. And here we have the national flag of South Korea. And it is displayed outside of Tae Kwon Do Dojong. And we also have the obang sek here, which are the original colors that come from the Tae Kwon Do belts. Now there are more colors, but these were the original ones. And if you want to learn how to count up to 10, you also have the pronunciations here. All right. And that's the end of our story time. And you can go ahead and check out this book if you would like. And check out any of our other books. And our next story time is May 20th, if you would like to see that one as well. And if you missed any of our videos for this series, you can check them out on our Facebook and Twitter pages. All right. See you next time. Bye.


Okay. The recording is on. Welcome everyone to BC 106 course on interpreting scripture. We are now in the last lesson of this course and we will, we should be finishing soon. Then we'll do a full review of the course so that we can put everything together. Let's take a moment to pray and we'll start. Let's pray together. Father we thank you for this day. Thank you for another opportunity to get together and study your word and receive your word. Thank you Lord that you open our hearts and minds by your spirit to your truth that you give us wisdom and understanding God and you teach us your ways and you show us Lord how to correctly handle your word so that we could apply it correctly in our own lives and also as we minister to others that we can strengthen them and lead them right. Thank you Father. Thank you for the covering of your Holy Spirit upon us in Jesus name. Amen. All right. So today we start off our last topic. It's just called difficult topics. So I just picked, you know, I'd rather put together a collection of topics that generally people have questions with in which I thought was useful but it's not everything. Of course there are a lot more topics, a lot more questions that might be of interest to us but it's not necessarily here in these notes that I've shared. So what we're going to do is I'm going to go through some of these topics, explain them and then if you have any additional questions just feel free to ask you can write them on a piece of paper and give it to me and I will keep adding to this list or you can just ask in class. The plan is that by April 11th, sorry April 4th, that is next week we'll finish this. April 11th will be our last class. We'll do a full review of everything then you'll have the next two weeks to do your assignments. Okay, so I'll put the assignment up shortly after by April 15th then you'll have two weeks to do it. Basically you have to go through the whole notes one more time, study it together, study it and then you answer the questions. Okay, so hopefully if everything goes well as planned April 11th we should finish everything. I mean if you need to we can always have another class but I think by April 11th we'll finish everything and then you'll have time to do your final assignment. Just one assignment, it'll cover the whole thing. Okay, it'll be open book, open Bible so you don't have to memorize something but you have to understand. You need to know where to go and look. Right, so that's why you have to study. It doesn't mean you can't study, you have to study and the exam will be online on Google Classroom so you just finish your exam there. I just have to work independently. Right, so let's begin with some of these questions. First one the question is, is Jesus God and it's important for us to know this because even within the Christian when I say Christian I would of course these would be referred to as cults that means they're not true to the main Christian faith. For example Jehovah's Witness. Okay, they call themselves Christians. They have the name Jehovah with Jehovah's Witness but they will come and say Jesus is not God and they'll be carrying a big Bible with them. So you think what is this? They're carrying Bible, opening the Bible, reading it. They have all these books but they're saying Jesus is not God. Right and they'll try to convince us Jesus is not God and then of course you have people from other faiths who will also say show me where Jesus said he is God or why do you say Jesus God? He's only a prophet. He's only a good man. He's only a teacher. Just another human being and they would equate Jesus to another religious leader. Right, so we need to be very convinced. And so there are three things to this. One is that the Lord Jesus himself said he is God and I've given you the scriptures. In John 8 58 Jesus said before Abraham was I am. See, clear statement. I was saying before Abraham that is almost 2000 years before and then he uses the title of God. I am. That's very big. Did Jesus say he's God? Yeah, one example. Another example is in John chapter 10 verses 32 33. Jesus said he's talking about the Father. He's talking about himself and he says I and the Father are one. I and the Father are one. Then immediately the Jews take up stones and they're ready to stone him. Then he asks why are you going to stone him? I mean what wrong did I do? Then they say because you're blaspheming, because you made yourself equal with God. So the statement I and the Father are one in the mind of the Jewish people, his audience. He said same as saying I am equal with God. That's how they understood it and they were ready to stone him. So did Jesus say he is equal with God? Yeah, I and the Father are one. Then when you go in John 17 verse 5, when Jesus is praying high priestly prayer, he prays to the Father and he says Father glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was. So he's praying to the Father and he said Father the glory I had with you before even creation. The same glory I shared with you with the Father. Give it to me. And so John 75 shows he was co-equal with the Father. He shared the same glory even before creation. Revelation 1.8 Jesus refers to himself as Almighty. I am the first the last and he says I am the Almighty. Not small mighty, Almighty. That Almighty is the title of God. You're not second or third, but he's Almighty. So did he say he's God? Yeah. Then another thing is the phrase Alpha and Omega first and last. That phrase is only used by Almighty God. So in the Old Testament in Isaiah many times God says I am God. I am the first and the last. That means I'm there at the beginning. I'm there at the end. God is outside time. He's first and last. So he's seeing the beginning and the end at the same time. He has no time or he doesn't dwell in time. He dwells outside of time. So God says I am first and last. New Testament Revelation, many times Jesus says I am Alpha and Omega and the first and the last. Jesus is using that same phrase. I am the first and same phrase which Almighty God, God the Father used. So we can put all this together and say, many times Jesus said that he is God. Then in the Old Testament, at least in two places, it's clearly referring to Jesus as God. Isaiah 9.6 is referred to as Mighty God. Mighty God. In Micah 5.2 about Jesus it says he is the one who was from everlasting. Out of Bethlehem will come someone who's going to be ruler. He has been there from everlasting. That means he's been there from before time. Micah 5.2. New Testament, we know many scriptures. John chapter 1, the word was with God. The word was what was God. Romans 9 verse 5 Paul writes, he refers to Jesus as God. Philippians 2.6, we know, though he was in the form of God or he was by nature God, he emptied himself and became became a man. 1st Timothy 3.16, God was manifested in the flesh. So there's a Bible called Jesus God. Yeah, all these scriptures. Okay, so from the scriptures, we can show that the Lord Jesus, Jesus is God. He said it, Old Testament says it, New Testament says it. So no doubt. Any questions?  So this is again, challenging, is difficult to understand. Not easy to understand, I should say, but in many places, right from Genesis to Revelation, but the Bible is still talking to us about God. We see that's what God, Almighty God, God the Father, we see God the Son, we see the Holy Spirits, the triune God. And we have the phrase in Romans 1 and verse 20, the Godhead, the Godhead, referring to God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, the Godhead. So we say, when we say Godhead, we mean God, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. So one God, three persons. And we see pictures of this or we see this throughout the Bible. I've mentioned some references in Daniel chapter 7 verses 9 through 14. Daniel has a vision of heaven. He sees the ancient of days seated on the throne. So we sing the song ancient of days. So that's God the Father, ancient of days seated on the throne. And then he sees the Son of man. He comes before the Father. And to him, all the kingdoms, all the dominions, all the authorities given. So the phrase Son of Man is actually taken from the book of Daniel. So when Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man, he was referring to Daniel chapter 7, the vision of Daniel. And of course, in Daniel chapter 2 also, never goodness, he says, I see one like the Son of Man, the fourth man in the fire. The fourth man. But this title, Son of Man is from Daniel. And Jesus uses it for himself, the Son of Man. Acts 7, 55 to 56, when Stephen is being stoned, the Bible says Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit. He saw into heaven, he saw the Father, and he saw Jesus, the Son of Man standing at the right hand of the Father.  Book of Revelation, you see, when the when the when the logists start speaking to John, Revelation 14 and 5, he says, this is from the one who was the first and the last, that's God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus, from the one who was slain, and from the Holy Spirit. You see the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus in the book of Revelation. The Holy Spirit is often referred to as the seven spirits of God, seven spirits. Okay, that doesn't mean there are seven different spirits, one Holy Spirit, but referred to as the seven spirit or the seven-fold spirit. The word, the number seven means perfection. So it's talking about his perfection, seven spirits. So in the book of Revelation, God is speaking through pictures and images. And so the Holy Spirit is referred to as the seven spirits or the lamp, which has a seven limb, so seven spirits or seven lamps. So that way the Holy Spirit is represented. So you see in the book of Revelation also, Revelation chapter one, Revelation four and five, the Father, the Spirit, and the Lamb of God, the Lion of the Tribal Children. What we must know about the Trinity is this, they are co-equal. The Father is God, Jesus is God, and Holy Spirit is God. They co-equal. Understanding that means the Father is fully God, and he fully represents the Godhead. Similarly, Jesus or the eternal Word is fully God, and he fully represents the Father and the spirits. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is fully God, and he fully represents Jesus and the Father. The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Father or the Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of Christ. Why? Because the Holy Spirit fully represents the Godhead. So each person of the Godhead can fully represent the Godhead. So the Holy Spirit is not one-third God. Jesus is not one-third God. Right? See, many times we make a mistake when we say the first person of the Trinity, second person of the Trinity, third person of the Trinity, we say like that. But actually that's not right. Father, Son, Holy Spirit are co-equal. It sometimes gives us the idea Jesus is half God, Holy Spirit is one-third God, because you're third person of the Trinity. We shouldn't actually, you know, that's not biblical. It's just language that people use. But he must understand that each person of the Godhead can fully represent the Godheads. So Jesus said, who is he? If you've seen me, you've seen the Father. Okay? And so when we worship one person of the Godhead, you're worshiping the Godhead. If you say, Jesus, I love you, it means you're saying, Father, I love you, Holy Spirit, I love you.  Or if I say, Holy Spirit, I love you, Jesus will get jealous. Or if I say, Jesus, I love you, or Father will get jealous, not like that. You worship one person of the Godhead, you're worshiping the Godheads. Triune, they're co-equal there together. So they work in unison. They do everything together. But it's one God, three persons. And we need to understand that. Now, sometimes people use some examples from earth to try to explain the Trinity. It is okay, but I don't think there's anything that can fully explain the Trinity. Now, usually people use the example of water, right? They say ice, water, water vapor, you know. So they say one God, it's the same compound, it's water. But it's in three states, solid, liquid, gas. So gas, Holy Spirit, liquid, Jesus, solid. I don't think that's a good example, actually, because it's not communicating the fact that there are three persons, distinct persons. It's just talking about different forms. And it doesn't mean God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit are in different forms. No, they are God, they have the same glory, they have the same nature. So this analogy of water and ice and vapor and liquid is not a good analogy. But you'll find that written in many theological books and all that. But I don't think it's a nice analogy. It's not a good analogy. So don't even use it. Just explain, this is God. In that analogy, it doesn't even describe a little bit about the triune God. This is one God, co-equal, having the same essence, same glory. They are not in different forms. They are in the same form. But they do things. Jesus, you know, God the Father sent the Son. The Son came to be a redeemer. The Holy Spirit comes to empower us and work in our lives. So they're doing different functions, but it's one God working together. So this analogy of water is not a good analogy, but some people use it. Okay, so while it understand eternity is challenging, yet I think we can be very clear about it. Like I'm clear in my mind, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, one God, three persons. It's clear for me. Because you see it in scripture, throughout scripture. There's no confusion about it. But sometimes people find it difficult to understand, but if you think about it, it's clear. One God, three persons. Okay, let me see. I think maybe there's a question on the chat. Okay, any questions from those online? Feel free to ask any time. So having explained a little bit about the Trinity, the triune God, the incarnation, and then that will lead us into the titles for Jesus Christ. So what happened in the incarnation? So imagine this, the Godhead, the triune God, God the Father, the eternal Word, and the Holy Spirit, one God, three persons.  And so God, when we say God, we're talking about this triune God, in his mind, he decides to create, bring things into existence. So at some point he created angels, and there's heaven, there's all of the intelligent beings. And this God decided to create the universe, the world as we know it, the universe as we know it. And in his mind, he planned to create everything. He planned to create man. In his mind, he knew man will sin. In his mind, he also worked out the plan of salvation.  He had to redeem him, and the only way he can redeem him is through Jesus going in there. So he created angels, at some point there was rebellion, and then there was the whole creation of man. We have to go redeem him. Are you ready? Is something going to do it? Yes, we can. Then we will have new heavens and new earth, everything. So Hebrews chapter 4 verse 3 says, that God finished his works before he began. Prince, what does it mean? God finished his works before he began. What does it mean? Hebrews 4-3. He finished his works before he began. How you can finish before you start, right? How did God finish his works before he began? In his mind, everything was done. He saw the end from the beginning in his mind. He saw everything. That's why the Bible says Jesus was the Lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the, even before he could start creation, Jesus was already slain. That means in the mind of God, it was already done. The book of life was written before the foundation of the world. What does it mean? Even before he started creating, in the mind of God, everything was done. Your name was there. Bimal, Prince, Ren, Francis, every book of life was written before the foundation of the world, before he started. God saw you, Nikhil, before he started creating Adam. Before he created Adam, he saw you. Think about it. Before the foundation of the world, he finished his works before he started. So when Adam sinned, God didn't go, what do we do now? He didn't do that. He knew what to do because the Lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world. The book of life was written before the foundation of the world.  God knew I'll keep a kingdom and these are the people that have come, they'll be part of my kingdom. He knew that. You're understanding now? So then time began, time began. That means creation and creation started, talking about the universe that God created. Time began as we know it is. But for God time means he compressed everything one second or one millisecond, whatever that took. He created everything. That means what we think will take billions of years took less than a millisecond. He created everything and then came Adam and then came all of these things happened. But everything happened in time. But in the mind of God, it was already done. It was already finished. So let's talk about the incarnation. In the incarnation, the eternal work, Jesus Christ, part of the Godhead, he became a man. He became a man. He laid aside the glory of the deity because he was in by nature God. He was omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. He laid that aside and he came as a man, born as a human, walked from the earth. So that we call as incarnation, God becoming a man. And to this man are given titles, names, the son of God, good shepherd, bread of life, light of this world. A lot of titles describe different things. So in the same way, there are some titles that are a little difficult to understand. Like first born, only begotten of the father, first born of the father, first born from the dead, the beginning of creation. So these titles, and I just put them here and these are the four main things that are sometimes confusing. The beginning of creation, the first born of creation, the only begotten of the father, the first born from the dead. I've given you all the references, but I just want to explain that. So to this one, Jesus, he's referred to as the beginning of creation. Now that doesn't mean he was the first person to be created. It means all of creation began in him. Got it? Because Jehovah's Witness, they will take Revelation 3.14. They say, look, Bible is saying he's the beginning of creation. That means he was the first person to be created, not like that. Beginning of creation means creation began in him, through him, for him, by him. He got it? So they turn it around the other way and say, hey, he's the first person to be created. No, no, no, no. It means all of creation began in him and that is consistent with other scriptures. John 1, all things were made by him. All things were made by him. So when Jesus was born and when he walked on the earth, and Jesus refers to himself as beginning of creation, all creation started in me, in Jesus. When he's referred to as the only begotten of the father or the first born of creation, it does not mean that he did not have life before that. He was eternally God. But because in the incarnation, he took upon himself the form of a man. This man is referred to as the only begotten of the only one who came from the father. That's what it means. Adam was created. Jesus was not created. But he came from the father. So he's the only be called. He's given the title only begotten of the, doesn't mean when he was born on the earth, that was the time he was created. No, he was always there before. So similarly, we understand the title first born of creation. So people, again, these Jehovah's Witnesses and others will use that title. Ah, see, Jesus was created. No, no, no. In all of creation, in all of created things, creation means created things. This was the only one who came from the father. So it's the same understanding as only begotten of the father. Same understanding, first born of creation, meaning it all created things. This was the only one who came from the first born. That's why he's called first born. So in the Bible, first born means first child who's born, the family, they call first born. So in that sense, he's the only one in creation who came from the father. Everything else was created by him. So we shouldn't use this title or these titles to imply that Jesus was created or had a beginning. No, it's a title given because of the incarnation or what happened in the incarnation. Similarly, there is a title given to Jesus because of the resurrection. He's referred to as first born from the dead. So because of the incarnation, there are certain titles that are given only begotten of the father, beginning of creation or first born of creation. Because of the resurrection, there's another title given to Jesus, first born from the dead. That means he is the first one to be raised from the dead who's going to live eternally, he will live eternally after that. First one to come with this glorified spiritual, glorified body, first human. So from that context, he's given this title, first born from the dead. Doesn't mean he's a human being that excludes the fact that he was always God before that. In his humanity, he died on our behalf, he was buried, he rose up again, he's given this title, first born from the dead. So understand that these are titles given because of the incarnation and because of the resurrects. Okay, so be very clear in your mind about this. Now I've put all the scriptures here. You know, we obviously don't have time to go look up all these, but wherever these titles are mentioned, I've put down these scriptures so you know these are the places. But I've tried to, you know, in a very brief and concise way explain to you what are these main titles, what does this mean in the light of the incarnation and resurrection? Okay, are you all with me so far? Is it getting difficult? It's okay. Follow me. Okay, so in the incarnation and in the resurrection, certain titles are given to Jesus, but we must not misinterpret the titles because everything has to be interpreted in the light of the rest of scripture. What else does the Bible say about Jesus? The Bible says he was always there. He was eternally God. He was from everlasting. He was always there with God. So we cannot take these titles to mean he was created by God. No. Okay, so now we will change our focus a little bit. So these first three points were about God, about Jesus, about the incarnation. Now I just pick up a few examples about what are seemingly contradictory stories in the gospels. Right? That means Matthew, Mark and Luke, they record the incidents, but they seem to tell the story a little differently. How do we explain that? Right? So example, if you look at and we look at a couple of examples. And so people say, hey, look, look, look, this cannot be inspired by the Holy Spirit because, see, these stories are different. So Matthew, so here's a particular incident where the Lord Jesus is going across a lake into a region called Gurgazines. And there he meets two demon-possessed people, men. So Matthew 8 records two demon-possessed men. Mark 5 records one, Mark 5. Mark says there was a man. Luke 8 says there were two men. So this is Luke 8, 26. Sorry, Luke also says one man. Okay? The rest of the story is very similar. So Matthew says two, Mark says one, Luke says one. The location is the same. How Jesus goes there? He goes there across the boat, he gets there, this man is by and he's in the tombs and all of that. So everything about this, everything else about the story is the same.  But the problem is Matthew says two, Mark says one, Luke says one. How can you say this is inspired by the Holy Spirit? So how should we explain that? Everything else about the story is the same. This is the problem. Were there two men or was there one man? And why is there this difference?  Suppose there are, suppose there's a football match. We like BFC playing, some other, okay. It's a two teams of play. There are three reporters watching the game, right? And suppose one forward, he comes, he passes the ball and the person shoots the goal. There are three reporters reporting how that goal was scored. One person says so and so he dribbled past everything he came and he set the whole thing up and he passed it and then this person kicked it in the net. So he's explaining it like that. The other two are saying, wow, how wonderful. He kicked it inside the net and they're only saying person B kicked it in the nets. They're not talking about person A who actually passed the ball. So next morning newspaper, one newspaper says person A did an amazing job and he set it up and to help score the goal. Other two newspaper, person B kicked the ball in on the floor. Who's right? All three are tolerate. But one newspaper, one reporter is focusing on what person A did, the brilliant work he did to get the ball all the way there and pass it. The other two reporters are focusing on the fact that person B kicked it in. So all three are correct, but the focus shifts depending on how that whole incident is presented. So how do we resolve this? Very simple. It's very likely there were two people as Matthew reports, but Mark and Luke focus on the reaction and the interaction of Jesus with one of them. That doesn't mean another person could not have been there. Could have been. There's nothing wrong with that. But Mark and Luke are focusing on the interaction that Jesus had with one of them and they're reporting that. This is what happened. But in reality, there were two men and both got the limits at that moment in a similar way, which is what Matthew's reported.  And we don't see it as contradictory. We just see it as perspective, how it is being narrated, how it is being communicated. That's all. There's nothing contradictory in these three stories. Other than Matthew says two, Mark and Luke says one. But they were all delivered the same way. Everything else happened the same way. So if people bring something up like this, say, look, I can explain it. No worry. You give an example. It's very common. Another one, Matthew chapter eight and John chapter four. Can you look at both these passages and then can you tell me are these the same or are these two different incidents? Matthew chapter eight, five to 13 and John four, 46 to 54. Are these the same incidents or are these different incidents being reported? We'd like to hear from you. Those of you in the online class as well. Okay. All right. I see one question from Nina, the scripture to show that he finished everything. So we refer to Hebrews chapter four, verse three, Nina, Hebrews chapter four, verse three, where it says the works were finished from the foundation of the world or from before the foundation of the world, Hebrews four, three.   The book of life was written from before the foundation of the world. The kingdom was prepared for us before the foundation of the world. So we look at all of these scriptures and we can include that God planned everything before the foundation of the world. Okay. All right. So please look at these two passages, Matthew chapter eight and John chapter four. And please tell me, are these the same incidents or are these different incidents? So you have to look at it very carefully and compare where did these incidents happen? First, where did Matthew chapter eight happen? Which city was Jesus in? Capernaum. John chapter four, where which city was Jesus in? Kena. John four, what is six? He came to Kena of Galilee. Cities are different. John eight, who's the man? Sanctuary. Sorry, Matthew eight, I'm saying John eight, Matthew eight. John four, who's the man? Noble man. Matthew eight, he came on behalf of a servant. John four, he came on behalf of his son. So city is different. The person who came is different and whom they came for was different. Also, the Sancturian came with faith. He said, speak the word only. The noble man said, please you come to my house before the sun, my son. Then the response of Jesus to the Sancturian is, as you have believed, that it will be done. I've not seen so great faith. To the noble man, he says, unless you see signs, you won't believe.  So he challenges him to believe. The Sancturian came with great faith. Noble man didn't seem to have great faith, but Jesus challenged him to have faith. And so we can say very clearly, these are two different incidents. Now, what might be confusing is if you compare Matthew chapter eight and Luke, where this is in eight, where Luke also records this. And, okay, I'm sorry, I'm the kind of can't get this. Okay, one minute, Luke seven. Because in Luke, yeah, yeah, correct, correct. So Luke seven, right? Luke seven versus one to 10. Luke records this as saying, the Sancturian didn't come himself. He sent some servants to Jesus. So how Luke records this story compared to Matthew eight, Luke seven, so he's a little different in Luke seven versus one to ten. It's about the same Sancturian, but he says, the Sancturian sent some servants to Jesus. So how will we explain that? And I'll just quickly mention it. I know the time is up. The way we will understand it is there's nothing wrong because many times, at least in those cultural contexts, sending a representative is as good as that person coming. So if I send somebody to, you know, hey, go, can you go and get this done for me? And if that person says, Ashish requested that I do this for him, it is true. Now I may have sent somebody to remake that request on my behalf, but I am the one who's made, who has made that request. So if that person says, Ashish requested me to do this, it is correct. But I've done it through somebody representing me. There's nothing wrong with that. So Matthew eight, Luke seven, Luke says he sent some of his servants to Jesus. Nothing wrong with that. The request was coming from the Sancturian and it was the Sancturian's faith that Jesus commends. He says, I've not seen such great faith in all of Israel because he says, Lord, you don't have to come just speak the word. My servant will be fine. So let's take a break and let's get back in 10 minutes. We'll go look at other incidents. Thank you.


One of the most common questions I get asked is, you know, how do I start day trading? So what me and my mentor about it for our viewers on YouTube is create a free mentorship course that reveals our 12 secrets that every single brand new day trader should know before they get started. But please take note that there is limited seating every single week. So please reserve your spot at myinvestingclub.co. Link is in the description. What's up guys, it's Harry House here. And today I'm just gonna be kind of going over another weekly recap. You know, some stuff that I've learned. I'm gonna talk about, I know this is a recap of last week, but I'm also gonna be talking about like a bit of the action this week, how I've been kind of finding it. I'm gonna be talking about how I kind of beat over trading and how I kind of got over that hurdle and that mindset that is very, very difficult to beat. It's not an easy thing. When you're very stressed out, when you're just over trading so much, so much, so much, you make a little bit and then you end up giving it all back. I've been getting some DMs about that on the long side and how I've been able to kind of beat that, how I've been able to kind of navigate through those kind of, I guess those kind of paper cut phases of my trading and how I've really been able to kind of grow, right? So again, let's get right into it. So how I kind of beat over trading. Number one, the number one thing that I did to kind of beat over trading is say to myself, okay, I am going to set a max number of trades per day and stick to it. This will make you very, very picky and selective if you can actually stick to it. If you say to yourself, well, there are some people who like to trade in different ways. I know some people who like to have a max number of trades on a ticker, some people who like to have a max number of trades on a particular idea, and some people who like to have a max number of trades throughout the day, right? And so I guess for me, what I found was kind of like helpful for me is because when you're a long trader, obviously it's the same market as shorting, but there's a lot of things that can just pop up and die. And it's very easy to get into the trap of like trying to long everything that pops up, right? So for me, what I kind of did is I said to myself, okay, well, I'm gonna be more selective on these tickers. So at first I limited myself to five trades per day when I was first starting to do this, I think about three years ago, because I found that I was over trading a little bit. And I said to myself, okay, I'm just going to limit the number of trades I have to five trades a day. That's it. I'm giving myself five ideas and any more than that, I know that I'm going to be emotional. I know that I'm going to get on a tilt. And I know that that is also not good for my account as well. So I said, okay, I'm going to set a max number of trades. And what would happen is that, you know, you hit the max and you'd find that there's always another opportunity that would pop up. And sometimes that opportunity would be really good, other times, not so much. Hey guys, my name is Tosh Bradley. I'm one of the head mentors of my Investing Club. If you have any questions about getting started in the trading, getting started in the MIC, MIC in general, text me at<PHONE_NUMBER>. This is not a robot, it is me directly on the other end of my business line and we'll get you in the club. We also have special promotions going on that I can get to you depending on your trading needs. Hit me up, back to the video. I think if you have five really, really good selective trades, you don't have that problem of wanting to continue with the opportunity to continue trading. But if you do, you know, five kind of sloppy, you know, subpar trades, you know, you're gonna wanna keep trading to try and make it back, make it back, make it back, make it back because that's just human nature, right? And so I think, you know, kind of like something, like this is definitely something that you can incorporate into your process but I think that, you know, you need to really have the discipline to say, okay, you know, I've hit my max number of trades for the day and accept the result. I did really good or I did really bad. Again, this is just one strategy, you don't have to do it. But if you are going to do it to prevent kind of the over-trading, I would definitely recommend that, you know, you do stick to this number, right? Because it's gonna grow discipline and if you don't stick to it, then really for the most part, I guess like you're kind of screwed, right? Trade the process and not the P&L. I think this is a big one because this kind of comes in terms of chasing where what you can do is get into the habit of just trying to say, okay, you know, everyone is here for the money, I mean, that's obvious but you know, in the trading world, sometimes the amount of time you spend at the desk does not equal the amount of money that you're going to make, right? So I guess for me, it's really always been about the process, you know, support and resistance. It's been about the volume, stuff like that. You know, it's like it's like it's a video game where you get paid for making good decisions and once you make a bad decision, once you do something wrong, you know, you end up paying for it in real life, right? So you really need to focus on the process and not the P&L. The P&L should be a score of good process and it should be a good score of just doing the right thing over and over and over again, like we teach, right? I mean, you can always get in the habit of seeing a couple of green prints go on the tape, you know, going along chasing, having no particular plan, having no particular strategy and then to losing on that type of trade and that's something that can be very, very easy to do. So what you always want to try and do is say to yourself, okay, you know, if you have a plan to buy a 5-3, you know, take it at 5-3, but if something completely random happens, if something completely insane happens and you just jump right in without a plan, without any context, you know, you're gonna probably end up losing on something like that, right? And a lot of the times these kind of unprocessed trades or these non-P&L, you know, these focusing on the P&L trades, they end up having like almost like another stressor underneath them, right? Thank you so much for watching our video. If you want to see more of our videos, please subscribe to our YouTube channel by clicking the button here. We do our best to post a new video every single day. If you have any questions about MIC or any general trading questions, please text Tosh using the number here. Also, stay up to date by watching some of our most recent videos right over here.