Numerous Topics Eventually Leading to a Return to the Brownson/Homosexuality Discussion

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:33

and greetings welcome to the dividing line I guess we completely forgot to turn the monitor on in here since I have no idea what's going on there it's completely black so I hope we're on I can't tell but what well it's not on in here it's uh see that it's uh it's just black it's incorrect so it is on but it's incorrect that it's right off right oh okay it's coming it's coming on now good all right thank you appreciate that I would have maybe noticed that if I wasn't rushing so much

01:12

I completely lost track of time as to when we're getting started today I had a bunch of stuff going on and then look the clock like that and barely got some stuff queued up I mentioned over the weekend that I listened to the airmen bass debate and we will get to that I don't have the video here to I'm arguing with myself as to whether it might be worth doing the audio note taker thing which takes a lot of time takes a lot of my time to do

01:49

I don't have anybody does that for me it's all all me myself and but airmen's presentation

01:58

I I don't know how someone tells the exact same jokes at the exact same point in the exact same presentation and still gets laughs that's that's the scary part about it you know like when you're in a debate on the deity of Christ and saying well

02:19

I'm really up against it here obviously because you know the Bible is clearly against me because as Jesus said in John 15

02:26

I am divine and you are two branches and so there you know

02:31

Jesus is divine so why am I arguing it's really how many how many times do you expect that joke to to get a laugh but anyway sure there's a lot of stuff that we've dealt with in the past in in airmen's presentation doesn't mean it's not worth dealing with again because as you know ermine is the primary source for so much of the secular attack upon the

03:04

Christian faith in the Western world today that it'd be worth going over but what was particularly interesting was his accusation that to identify

03:18

Jesus as Yahweh is to engage in the ancient heresy of subalienism patra passionism or modalistic monarchianism it's plainly obvious that Bart Ehrman did not pay a lot of attention in theology class um whether it was at Moody or Wheaton or Princeton um

03:41

I would love to quote Princeton professor um

03:47

Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield in refutation of Princeton graduate

03:53

Bart Ehrman on that one and I would love I mean the only way this will ever happen is if somebody out there wants to lay a big check out on the table just to make this happen because ermine doesn't have any interest in debating me again uh when you post a debate going well this wasn't really my best debate for look for for someone who believes his own press as much as Bart Ehrman does that's a huge admission that's a huge admission that someone went toe -to -toe with you and you know uh anyway but I would

04:35

I would travel to Chapel Hill to debate

04:41

Bart Ehrman on because he said straightforward that I I didn't queue it up but I can play it for you straightforward straight direct quotation

04:51

Jesus is not Yahweh for any of the New Testament writers now what's funny here is remember remember um

05:02

Shabir Ali at Pretoria University well we can't accept this because obviously what what

05:10

Paul's saying here is that Jesus is Yahweh and that's exactly right um it's he accused

05:20

Bass of being a modalist engaging in ancient heresy of Sebelianism by assuming that Yahweh is unipersonal so it would be so it would be it would be an easy debate

05:36

I mean he made the direct statement Jesus is not Yahweh for any

05:42

New Testament writer I'll go to Chapel Hill and debate him in front of his own classes on that uh but the only way that would ever happen only way that would happen is if he walks out of the room with a big fat check in his pocket uh because otherwise ain't ain't gonna happen ain't gonna happen well he might do a you know donate to charity type thing

06:05

I suppose but uh but I'd love to do it because wow but anyways well well

06:11

I'm thinking put that into Audio Notetaker and deal with everything he says because it there were some fascinating quotes that my

06:24

Muslim friends need to hear before they quote Bart Ehrman because they think they understand what

06:31

Bart Ehrman is saying and they don't Bart Ehrman is a naturalist and it's interesting there's a guy on Twitter named

06:40

Andrew Livingston well I doubt that's his name but I think if I recall correctly uh let me see if there's something here author

06:51

Muslim vegetarian that question about Islam you just asked me is one you can already find the answer to in photos and videos or my favorites page

07:02

Fort Smith so that's that's all we've got for Andrew Livingston on Twitter um and for some reason he started popping off there's a young student that I tried to deal with eventually had to block you know you try to deal with someone try to see if they have the ability to engage to reflect to learn to go get past just you know surface level mantra type argumentation and eventually after you know a long time um gave evidence that couldn't pull that off so I guess he jumped in on something along those lines and we just had a lengthy conversation on Twitter about consistency and his big argument against me is you accuse all your opponents of being inconsistent and I go uh well if consistency is what you're testing for in a debate if the purpose of the debate is to test for consistency if the reason you have two positions there is so they can examine each other to test for consistency then your argument is exactly what again and all

08:23

I can do is keep repeating it I mean just as I was as I was coming in here literally a matter of moments ago uh he found another place where I pointed out someone's inconsistency and I said excuse me but if all

08:38

I was doing was saying you're inconsistent and I couldn't document it that would be one thing but I demonstrate what the inconsistency is how can you discuss truth without talking about consistency but the whole thing now is that's just all you do you just that's all you do is you say that we're inconsistent well if I document it that that means you're wrong right um so evidently clear thinking uh not not not real big uh on the internet ever really these days um political process oh give that up um but especially amongst our um some of our muslim friends where consistency is is definitely um sure it's fly anyway it would be awesome to force

09:29

Bart Ehrman to be consistent here one of the things that is that again my muslim friends the connection point

09:38

I was making here is they love to quote Bart Ehrman and one of the things that I just mentioned in passing this led to some of that conversation actually is

09:47

I did a long ride on Saturday so I could listen to the whole debate and do some other things and I've got a long race coming up in a couple weeks in Tucson so you got to get some saddle time so I did a ride the same length and almost the exact same amount of climbing as we'll have down in Tucson for Alternative Tucson which is this huge massive race it's enjoyable but it's also scary and it's only scary primarily because there are over 9 ,000 other people on the roads um not not in cars on bikes and not all of them are as skilled as you'd like them to be and the only time

10:26

I've ever had a bad crash bike damaging road rash giving crash was in Alternative Tucson and it was completely unavoidable it was one of those things where two guys cross tires falls on top of my front room you're that's it so I was out doing 104 mile ride to train for that and I listened to it and I remember

10:51

I was on Cave Creek Road the first time I went oh my goodness Bart Ehrman is channeling

10:56

Ahmed Ddot because he's doing the where did Jesus say

11:03

I am God thing and I'm like wow here here we go again but but when he says it his challenge is different than Ddot's I mean it sounds the same but the where he's coming from completely different perspective because what what he's saying is yeah all the gospel writers believe in the deity of Christ not in the exact same way if you've read his book you know

11:33

John has the highest view and blah blah blah and he has this really weird you know we talked about his really weird theory about Jesus being an angel uh based on Galatians and stuff and when his book came out what was that 2014 early last year sounds about right um we talked about all that at that time so his it sounds the same but he's actually coming out from a completely different perspective so none of my

12:02

Muslim friends want to say well yeah sure all all the writers of the New Testament view

12:07

Jesus as God uh no that's not their argument their their argument is that that that developed much later and so on so forth well it depends on the

12:16

Muslim you're talking to I mean there is no one Muslim argument anymore and there couldn't be because the

12:23

Quran doesn't provide one Muslim argument and the arguments that it does provide a lot of the modern

12:29

Muslims recognize aren't really really good um you know

12:35

Jesus used to eat food his mother used to eat food therefore he can't be God uh you know at least

12:41

I can respect that as a true Muslim argument because it comes straight out the Quran that's obviously the arguments being made by the author of the

12:49

Quran um the problem is it just demonstrates such a complete ignorance of what we believe about the nature of the incarnation the nature of Christ and since there isn't any meaningful interaction at all with Christian theology on that level within the

13:06

Quran that's why I think a lot of modern Muslims try to avoid it uh

13:12

Mr. Livingston seems to be listening um as I expected you repeated yourself and ignored my response not just error you say double standards from everyone

13:24

Mr. Livingston you seem to be logic challenged you seem to have a real problem understanding basics of logic let me try this one more time because I have heard you and your arguments are really really bad and I'll explain to you why you cannot discuss truth claims without discussing consistency consistency is the mechanism by which you demonstrate the validity of truth claims if you say something is true and the next moment say something is false you are being inconsistent if you're talking about the same thing in the same context in the same way it is consistency over time and consistency through the course of an argument that demonstrates truth claims debates demonstrate whether the world view you are presenting and the facts as you're interpreting them in the world view are truthful and the way you determine that is by their consistency and so it is a given that if I am debating against a false worldview and against a false interpretation of the facts that the other position will have to be inconsistent and it is my job to demonstrate the inconsistency there would be no reason for me to do a debate with someone whose position was more consistent than my own because that would mean they're being more truthful than I am so it is an absurdity

15:18

Mr. Livingston to complain that I point out consistency and inconsistency because that's what a debate is about now you can have factual errors in your arguments and I have often demonstrated when my

15:39

Muslim opponents have presented factual errors when Yusuf Ismail presented a factual error regarding Dan Wallace's book

15:49

I pointed it out I didn't say you're being inconsistent I said you're wrong but there is a difference

15:57

Mr. Livingston between having factual errors and being inconsistent in the interpretation of things that are not factual errors so when to use an example that I pointed out just recently

16:15

Yusuf Ismail argues in Durban that the gospels must be word for word reproductions of one another and if there are any differences then they're contradictory and then when we point out that the

16:33

Quran narrates the same events using different words and he says that doesn't matter that is an inconsistency it is an uneven scale it is the use of double standards it isn't an issue of what the facts of what

16:52

Matthew and Mark said or the facts of what surah 7 and surah 29 says it's whether you're applying the same standards to the analysis of both all of that whether you have your facts straight and whether you're being consistent in your application and interpretation is a part of the debate process okay so you're demonstrating your utter irrationality because in the midst of my explaining that you respond you see double standards every opponent of yours is guilty of them and I'm not to think the problem is with you there's no reasoning with you sir you're not listening you you don't have any commitment to truthfulness or to logic or to rationality there's no reasoning with someone like that you you yes sir you're right

17:46

I am absolutely committed to consistency and if you can't hear the rest of it you just demonstrated that you have no commitment to truth and no understanding of even how to recognize truth so there you go we've we've made it as clear as it can possibly be and if you can't see it then it's a either a spiritual incapacity or a willful blindness on your part oh there's only only two options so anyway so back to ermine uh when muslim apologists use bart ermine they don't seem to understand that his objections are based upon a what should be a completely different world view of their own so on the one hand they're willing to borrow the naturalistic world view of bart ermine but they won't apply that to the khalan double standards again