Full-Preterism is Dangerous, Orthodox Eschatological Views, and Israel w/ Anthony Rogers PT.2

1 Corinthians 15 and the Firstfruits of the Resurrection

I just want to encourage the audience, the context is pointing back to Jesus being the firstfruits. So this could not possibly be talking about an old covenant Israel paradigm, their resurrection. I mean, that abuses everything.

I mean, everything is being grounded in Adam. And so this has a bearing not only on covenant Israel, but this would also have an effect on the Gentiles as well. And so like later in the text, it references the man of dust, Adam, because he was made from the dust and he returns to dust.

But we are being renewed into that image of the man of dust.

Yeah. So I don't know if there's more of this. There's obviously more in the text. I don't know if you wanted to look at more. There's another passage I want to bring up eventually.

So 1 Corinthians 15, when you go down to verse 35, we'll read it from your translation.

Good choice. Good choice. I'm glad that you freely, I'm coerced, decided to come over to the NAS.

Yes. So verse 35 is kind of a response to verse 12 about, you know, some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead, that this, you know, in the Corinthians mind, it's being perverted by the Stoic and Epicurean philosophy, I think you can make a case for.

And then he says, but some will say, how are the dead raised and with what kind of body do they come? This is the same conversation that the full preterist are having now. And Gary DeMar mocks the idea of having a future bodily resurrection.

And so I'm just saying this is all of what was being discussed here at Corinth with Paul.

So has DeMar spoken on his view of Christ, his view of the resurrection of Christ, the current nature of Christ? Has he addressed that or has that been ignored?

No. I mean, he's sound in terms of Trinitarian theology and his Christology, but there's a disconnect when we start talking about eschatology.

But because of the inextricable link between Christology and eschatology, that's why I'm wondering, because like I said, my experience with JWs who redefined the second coming, they also had to do something with the nature of Christ as resurrected.

There's other ways you could try to deal with that, but the way they did it, they jettisoned the true glorified humanity of Christ. And I've known other hyper-preterists that do that. I've mentioned my own experience with people who say he wasn't physically raised.

You mentioned how it's very common among them after the Ascension to say something wonky and basically deny that he is a real flesh and blood human being, or a real physical human being. So I'm just wondering how he deals with that sort of thing, because if Christ is a physical human being and he's the paradigm for our resurrection, and you redefine the resurrection, well, then you would also, I think, logically be bound to redefine Christ's resurrection.

Which he doesn't. He just basically says, look, I've been studying this for four years and I'm still asking questions, which I think is so disingenuous, personally, because... Four years. Yeah. I mean, I think he said 40, maybe it was 30.

But his whole point is, I've been at this a long time, and you think you have the answers when I still have questions? And so, because he affirms the bodily nature of Jesus's resurrection, but he has questions because, like you said earlier, the way that he interprets Mello, he's convinced that this is something imminent at 70 AD, and the problem is in Acts 17, it's talking about the resurrection, right?

So he's kind of in no man's land because he won't affirm those essential things of eschatology. He just asks questions, what verses are you going to, and then he shoots them down identically like the full preterist would.

And so, Jesus is the firstfruits, right? His resurrection is a promise to the kind of resurrection we will have, and so Paul's kind of ticked off. I mean, he's kind of like we are today, dealing with full preterists, but some will say, how are the dead raised, and with what kind of body do they come?

Well, this is Paul, Paul's bringing this up in a mocking tone, and we feel his frustration, you fool, because it is foolish to doubt Christianity 101, those people that are bringing up objections as though it's an impossibility, and yet these are the same people that embraced Jesus in his bodily resurrection.

So he goes on to say, that which you sow shall not come to life unless it dies, and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps, of wheat or something else. And so, this right here, other translations say a bare kernel, a bare grain, goes into the ground so it can be raised up.

And so, Jesus and his death and being buried in a tomb, once again, is the paradigm. Jesus resurrected and came out of the tomb, and so our bodies go into the ground like a kernel, only to come out of the ground and be transformed.

Well, preterism abuses this analogy because we go into the ground, and then we are to go into heaven as a disembodied spirit, and so they view that as their future. And so, it's totally, it's like saying you got a seed over here, and then we're being raised up somewhere else, right?

And so, Paul is being very intentional of saying this Adamic, sin-cursed body must die so it can be raised and be transformed, right?

Continuity, Transformation, and the Meaning of “Spiritual Body”

Yeah. So, let me underscore something here. So, Paul makes it clear that there's a continuity between what rises and what went into the ground all throughout this context. He says, that which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

So, it's what dies that comes to life. Just grammatically, that's unavoidable. He goes on in 37 to say, that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or something else, but God gives it a body just as he wished and to each of the seeds, a body of its own.

So, again, throughout the context here, he's certainly talking about something more glorious, a transformation, something new, but not in the sense of a fundamental discontinuity of what was and what will be, right?

Whatever will be is a transformation of what was. Yes. You see what I'm saying? So, I'm saying this because in the comments, and I've heard this elsewhere too, but it was mentioned, B 'nai mentions, Paul's saying that the resurrection is not of the earthly body, we get a new one, right?

So, the word new in scripture sometimes means something brand new, right? Something that didn't exist before, but sometimes it just refers to something that was being renewed or perfected, or in this case, glorified, right?

Because in fact, as Paul goes on to say later in the text, there's something here that I know is abused as well, but he says, so also is the resurrection of the dead, it, notice, is sown a perishable body implied, it is raised an imperishable body.

Notice, it's the same it, right? It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Now, we've already commented, this is where the big objection, I think, comes in, at least at this point in the context, spiritual is said to be immaterial, right? It's supposedly consistent with the high prophet's view that this all happened in AD 70, it was an ethereal event or whatever, but spiritual is not used by Paul to mean immaterial, right?

In 1 Corinthians 2, like I said, it's the same, the reason I keep going to this as the go-to text is because it's the same epistle, right? Paul has already used the term this way, so there's precedent for this, but he speaks of the fundamental contrast between the unbeliever and the believer.

The unbeliever is a natural man, the believer who has the spirit is a spiritual man, and so when Paul speaks of the resurrected, glorified body as no longer perishable, dishonorable, weak, but rather as imperishable, glorious, and powerful, right?

And then goes on to say it's no longer a natural body, but a spiritual body, he's not saying it's immaterial, right? He's talking about it as a body that is—there are different ways that people have explained this.

The basic idea is that it is completely subject to the spirit. Yeah.

I just want to encourage the audience, the context is pointing back to Jesus being the firstfruits, so this could not possibly be talking about an old covenant Israel paradigm, their resurrection. I mean, that abuses everything.

I mean, everything is being grounded in Adam, and so this has a bearing not only on covenant Israel, but this would also have an effect on the Gentiles as well. And so like later in the text, it references the man of dust, Adam, because he was made from the dust and he returns to dust, but we are being renewed into that image of the man of heaven, essentially.

So, yeah, this chapter, I just want to once again encourage people, this gives—Full Preterist just fits—I noticed the one gentleman in the chat said he's not ashamed of this chapter, but my experience with the Full Preterist is they have to leave 1 Corinthians 15, the book of 1 Corinthians, to say, well, when we go to Ephesians 2, we were dead in our sins and our trespasses, right?

But God, right? His rich mercy come to saving faith in Him. See, that's a type of spiritual resurrection, or they'll appeal to John 11, where Jesus says, I'm the resurrection and the life, you know, and by believing in Him, you too can have basically a resurrected life.

And I don't doubt that there is, you know, that spiritual understanding, you know, of seeing the light, being regenerated and born again. That's not the argument Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 15, and so that's important to not let them go elsewhere, that where there is good context, you know, Ephesians 2, but keeping in mind that this has a context and it's grounded in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.

Yeah, in fact, for Paul, the spiritual resurrection, regeneration that he certainly taught, that was something that was true of Christians before 80, 70, right? That's why, and you've mentioned it, they have to explain this some other way, right?

Like something to do with the nation of Israel or something like that, right? But let's address some of these questions, and then there's another text that I want to look at. I'm sure you've heard this, seen it used in favor of hyper-preterism, but Joshua Springer says, is it true some manuscripts have 616 instead of 666, and they both work for Nero, depending on Greek versus Hebrew gametria, do you believe a human antichrist?

Revelation, Nero, and the Number of the Beast

So I don't know if you want to go first, or I'm happy to address that, but.

Yeah, I'll go first, I'll do brief. So I'm not in favor of gametria, I'm just not, but you know, it was an actual thing. So yeah, I'm aware of the manuscript differences there. The context, I think that's Revelation 13.

I would just encourage people, go look what's going on, this kind of war between the system of the world versus those that are living their life for Christ. And so the second part of the question about an actual human antichrist, I have not made it my mind.

I think it makes sense that if God wanted to have the man of lawlessness be a real man in this type of eschatological context, he can do that. I know in the premillennial paradigm, that's crucial. But I've also heard good arguments for this is kind of just the spirit of the age, the man of lawlessness, just being those that are in opposition to God.

So those are hills for me to dial in, and so I think those are good conversations now.

Yeah, so first of all, 666, that's I think the right reading, that's the original reading, but there is a variant represented in the textual tradition that is 616. Some people jokingly say that 616 is the neighbor of the antichrist, right?

666 is his actual address, 616 is his next door neighbor or something like that. I don't know who said that. I don't know if it's a good joke either, but that is at least how some people have tried to make light of it.

But it is interesting for the reason that the questioner asked that it ends up working for Nero either way, and not so much in terms of Greek Hebrew issue, but Greek Latin. So in other words, let me back up a step.

When Paul talks about the beast in the book of Revelation, he mentions a seven-headed beast, and you don't always get in the book of Revelation the interpreting angel telling you what these different visionary things are all about, but occasionally you do.

So John is being shown certain things by Christ's angel, an angel Christ sent to him, and sometimes he'll stop and he'll explain things to John. In this case, you get an explanation, at least for what this seven-headed beast represents, and what's interesting is it's got a two-fold referent.

So normally I would say it would be irresponsible for somebody to give things two or three different meanings, but the angel in this case explicitly says that this seven-headed beast has reference to two things.

On the one hand, he says it refers to seven hills on which the woman sits, and then he says on the other hand it refers to seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, he must remain for a little while.

So this is interesting because everybody in the first century, certainly everybody situated in the Roman Empire where John is writing from, he's in Asia Minor, subject to Roman rule, he speaks of seven hills and a woman sitting on it.

Well, everybody knew Rome to be the city of seven hills. It was founded as a seven-hilled settlement. I don't remember the name of all the little hills, but Capitoline, I mean there's a bunch of names, they all have different names, and even on Roman coins you would see seven hills and then a woman, the goddess Roma, seated atop those hills.

Now, that doesn't mean I think that the woman in the Book of Revelation refers to that, but you do have this imagery being used for Rome. I mean, I'm just saying that the woman doesn't necessarily refer to the goddess Roma in Revelation, there's a good case to be made for….

The woman's not Mary, according to Sam Shimon?

Well, the woman in Revelation 12 supposedly is, right? No telling why she's…. Well, anyways, I'll get to that on another occasion. There's a hundred problems there, but there, in that case, the Old Testament is usually the place you need to turn in order to disambiguate otherwise uninterpreted apocalyptic elements in the Book of Revelation.

It all comes out of the Old Testament. There's pre-established meanings. That's one reason why the angel doesn't have to interpret a lot of these things, because they already have an Old Testament background.

So, for example, a woman being clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and a crown of 12 stars on her head, that's Old Testament imagery that refers to Israel, not Mary, right? If you look at Joseph, he has a dream with the sun, the moon, and 11 stars bowing down to him.

It was a way of referring to Israel, and it's just never used to refer to Mary, so that's entirely artificial. That idea comes along much later in church history, and there's other problems as well. Now, this is talking about a different woman, right?

You've got more than one woman in the Book of Revelation, right? The church is portrayed as a woman coming down out of heaven, like a bride beautifully adorned for her husband. You have a woman who's full of blasphemies, right?

She's portrayed like a harlot, and she's going to be stoned with 100-pound stones from heaven. So, there are different women, but here, what I'm pointing out is just that the vision that is presented to John of a beastly figure with seven heads is interpreted in a two-fold way.

First, it's referring to seven hills, which any person in the first century would have thought of as Rome, and then he says it also represents seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is. Now, this is significant because it tells us something about when the book was written, because John tells you it was written during the time when that sixth king was ruling.

And when you look at the emperors of Rome, counting as the Jews did from Julius Caesar, the sixth emperor is Nero, right? And it was Nero who inaugurated the imperial persecution of the church. The first persecution of the church by Rome was inaugurated with Nero.

Prior to Nero, Rome was actually a help to the Christians, right? Paul could constantly appeal to Rome to defend him against those caustic Jews that at every turn were trying to stir up trouble, right?

Until we get to Nero. Once we get to Nero, who was, by the way, referred to by his countrymen as a beast. That's how his own countrymen referred to him. He was referred to as a lawless beast. He was the man who would dip Christians in oil and then light them up on fire to serve as candles for his garden parties.

That's why the apostle John was on the island of Patmos, because he was dipped in oil. But as the tradition goes, he wasn't killed and he was banished to Patmos. And that's where he gets the content of the book of Revelation.

My point is just to say that there's a lot of elements here and they all do fit, right? And I don't think that a Christian needs to deny these sorts of things in order to support the more exciting idea that all of this is grounds for speculation, which is what a lot of people want to do, or in order to deny the hyper-preterist position that everything has been fulfilled.

Just because a text could refer to something that's now in our past, but was for them in the future for John and his audience, it doesn't mean that the conclusion follows that hyper-preterism is true.

So moving to the number of the beast, it does tell us it's the number of a man. And while I would agree with Jeremiah, Gamma Tria, we're not supposed to run around the Bible trying to engage in mathematical codes.

Here, John does explicitly say that this is a matter that calls for wisdom. And he does tell you that he's using numbers here significantly. So there is warrant, at least at this place, to ask what this stands for.

It's the number of a man. I have a question.

You may be able to shoot this down really fast, but I remember I watched a video a long time ago, and someone that was saved out of Islam apparently looked at the manuscript and thought it was like two swords and the name of Allah or something like that.

And I always thought, what in the world?

Yeah, so John explicitly says it's not the shape of the letters or the way it looks or what have you. He says this is the number of a man, 600, three score, and six on the standard reading. And the numerical value of Neron Kaiser in Hebrew is 600, three score, and six.

If you do his name in Latin, it's 616. So there's a remarkable correspondence there between Nero and the other elements of the passage. So it's not Arabic. Yeah, it has nothing to do with Islam. Now, I will say that the reformers, the Protestant reformers, they referred, and I don't dislike this use of terminology.

I'm not saying it's necessarily eschatologically true or what have you, but they would refer to the Pope as the Antichrist of the West and of Muhammad as the Antichrist of the East. So for whatever it's worth, I don't think that that's not my final position on these things.

But of course, Muhammad was Antichrist if we're using the term Antichrist to mean somebody opposing Christ. And the Pope identifies himself as the Vicar of Christ, which ends up being very interesting because the term translated Antichrist, one could interpret that either in the sense of in the place of Christ or against Christ, right?

Either one of those is a legitimate way of understanding that. And the Pope fits the bill in both cases, right? Because he is somebody who styles himself to be Christ on earth. He's an alter Christus.

He's in the stead of Christ, in the place of Christ. But we think he opposes Christ in doing so. And so he fits both ways of viewing the word. But I don't think that's what John is talking about. Well, one thing I would say about John's terminology of Antichrist in that language is only used in 1 John.

And in 1 John, he speaks of many Antichrists having already come and of the spirit of Antichrist being at work in the world. But he takes this as proof that the Antichrist is coming. And so the term Antichrist has broader application, but that doesn't rule out a specific individual.

The question that people should wrestle with is whether what John refers to as the Antichrist is to be identified with some figure in the book of Revelation. I don't think that's out of court. I'm just saying you have to make the connection some way beyond the terminology because that term is not used in Revelation.

So again, I'm not saying it's out of court to say this is to be identified as the beast or the image of the beast or the false prophet in the book of Revelation. I'm just saying that there has to be another way of connecting them beyond that terminology, because there are people who would make a distinction.

Some would point out that the beast in Revelation seems like more of a political figure, whereas Antichrist in John's first epistle seems like more of a theological figure. And then when you look at the man of lawlessness, again, the terminology is different, but could it be referring to the same figure?

How does that all work out? I'm just saying there are issues here that need to be worked out, and Christians are on this issue in a lot of different places on it. All right, so Roman says, great stuff, guys.

What if someone uses Colossians 3 .1, if ye then be risen with Christ? So he gives us part of the verse, and he's basically asking, what if they use this to prove that the resurrection has already occurred, hence hyper-preterism, full-preterism, and so forth.

Colossians 3, Romans 8, and the Already-Not-Yet Resurrection

Yeah, so this is what they do, because you got to get at—remember 1 Corinthians 15. To me, that's the wheelhouse. They can't escape, and they're going to try to. That's why the quotations of Hosea, they think that gives them the backdoor to run somewhere else and make a strict definition and read it in.

And so that's what they're doing when they go to Colossians 3. Ephesians 2 is kind of the go-to for them, because you see, we're dead in our sins and trespasses, but now we're made alive together in Christ.

But let me ask you this.

When was Paul writing this, Jeremiah? Talking about Colossians? Yeah. I mean, I don't mean what year, but just give me a very general idea. Was it before or after 8070? Before. So it's obviously not referring to 8070, is it?

So when Paul, in these same epistles, speaks of the resurrection as something future, it's obviously not this thing that he's talking about. It's something else. So it is true. Scripture—here's the thing.

So Scripture speaks of certain future realities. Future realities that are in store for us. But because Christ our Savior has gone ahead of us and we are united to him through faith, there's a sense in which we participate in those things now, even if not in their consummated form.

And so, for example, sometimes Scripture speaks of eternal life as a present possession of Christ's people, and then elsewhere it'll speak of it as something we are awaiting, something that's yet future, right?

This gives us an already-not-yet character, right, of eschatology. So we can think of right now that we have eternal life, we have fellowship with God, but our fellowship with God is not as glorious as it's going to be in the future, right?

Jesus said in John 17, 3, he defines eternal life not merely as life that is of endless duration, but it's a quality of life. This is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God, right, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

So eternal life in the ultimate sense is that intimate fellowship and communion that the believer will have with God. We already experience that in part now, but there's a yet future, more glorious way in which we're going to experience that in the future, at the resurrection, at the renewal of heaven and earth and so forth.

And in as much as, well, it's future, but it's also something we experience to some degree now, and so Paul can speak, just like Jesus did, of eternal life as present and eternal life as future. He can speak of us being raised up now and speak of us being raised up later.

But notice how Paul makes a distinction in various places in his writings. The same Paul in Romans talks about people being raised up, but then he also talks of something yet future, namely the resurrection or redemption of our bodies, right?

In Romans 8, Paul, after talking about believers receiving the spirit, what Paul has in view here in Colossians 3, right? The spirit is poured out upon us. He renews the heart. He makes us new creatures in Christ Jesus.

That's what he means by being raised up with Christ. The same thing is in view in Romans 8 when Paul says that God has sent forth the spirit of his son into our hearts, right? But then he goes on to talk about something that we're still waiting for, namely the redemption of our bodies.

And so, again, this is another example of how their methodology works, right? They see a word that has one meaning somewhere, and then they say it has that meaning everywhere, right? But it doesn't. Being raised up doesn't always refer to the final resurrection or to this.

You quoted Romans 8.

We know also there that there's going to be a restoration of all things. The world has been subjected to futility, right, but is longing for the restorations of the sons of glory. So, yeah, I just want to encourage the person to ask the question.

Yeah, I mean, there is something that we participate in now, this kind of spiritual, knowing Jesus, right, being united together with him. You know, we call that raised, like Paul says in Colossians 3.

And then, yes, we anticipate that future bodily resurrection. Remember 1 Corinthians 15, each in his own order. Jesus' bodily resurrection was first, and then at his coming, all those who belong to him, which this is talking about, you know, in our future when we will be raised bodily to be with him for all eternity.

We will be with him face to face.

Don Preston, Hyper-Preterism, and the Limits of Eschatology Debates

Yeah, very good. So, Federal Theology, thank you so much. And I saw this question. I didn't know who was asking it. I didn't notice it before. I actually know Tony. I believe it's the Tony from, well, you know where you're from, Tony.

We actually know each other, and I want to thank you for super chatting that same question twice. You are the man. You could ask me a third time just to sweeten the pot. He said, please don't miss it.

Yeah, yeah. So, do you know anything about Don K. Preston?

So, like I said, I haven't focused a lot on eschatology in the past decade or so. This is something that I spent a lot of time reading about back in the 90s, the early 2000s. I mean, if you were here, in fact, you can, of course, come up anytime you want.

I know that Arkansas is not all that close, but you can come up anytime you want and have access to the library. I've got books galore on hyperpreterism. Here's one just sitting here. This is James Stewart Russell's book, The Parousia.

But yeah, I've got loads of literature. But even though I studied the issue, I've been out of the loop for at least 10 years. Yeah. I don't think I'm especially the guy for this job. I think there are people that focus on it.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to. From what I understand, I assume Don Preston is considered a good representative of the position, right? So, he'd be a competent...

He just did a debate on Donny's channel with, I think, a pre-millennialist. But they were talking about, has the resurrection already occurred? You could actually click on that to see who Don K. Preston is.

But he's Church of Christ. Surprise, surprise. A lot of the full predators are trying to get airtime. They're trying to debate Doug Wilson and Jeff Durbin. I think those men are being so wise by not handing those people their microphone to their audiences.

But I do think it's worth having... For one, it's worth discussing and warning people because some people have questions and they are formulating arguments that catch a lot of, we'll just say, lay Christians by surprise.

They don't even know how to continue the conversation. So, that's why these things are really beneficial. But Dr. Sam Frost, I mean, he has extended the invitation to all these guys to debate and they're just not satisfied with him.

So, they're trying to get somebody with more clout or a bigger fan base. Satisfied with who? So, Don K. Preston, I believe him and Sam Frost have actually done a radio debate before, but they don't want to interact with Sam Frost.

They want somebody with a bigger audience. Oh, I see. I see.

So, let me say this. Tony, good name, of course. Tony and I, in fact, I could probably pull up... I won't pull up a picture. He probably doesn't want his picture seen, but I'm pretty sure it's the Tony that I know from up north.

But it's not off the table. So, stay in touch maybe and watch the channel and stuff because maybe at some point I'll say, yeah, I got some time for this. But that's not my focus, right? So, most people know that I have done a lot to engaging Muslims and engaging Unitarians and I've already got a full plate for the next many months.

One of the things I'm working on is a upcoming discussion with Khalil Andani, who's a Shia Muslim. I haven't interacted publicly or formally with Shia Muslims before. And this one is especially interesting to me because it is a theological divide, right?

I've had trouble getting Muslims who want to debate the doctrine of God. They like to just take their Unitarianism for granted. And yet Khalil is a different kind of Muslim, not just in the sense that he is a Shia, but in the sense that he's interested in having those sorts of debates.

So, that's one thing that I'm focused on. There are a number of other things that I'm doing. And since this just isn't something I focus on, apart from Jeremiah needling me into this, I think there's probably other people that are better people to go to.

This is a day coming when me and Dr. Frost, we're going to be doing some two-on-two debates with this stuff.

We've got to. Yeah. See, one thing is, this is just how I work. Every position, it's sort of like I always liken things to fighting sports because there's an interesting correlation. Did you play any sports?

What's that? Did you play any sports? Did I? Oh, so when I was younger, the only sport I ever liked were fighting sports. I did play baseball as a kid. I used to speed skate. I grew up racing. And so we did a lot of stuff related to that.

I did a lot of training outside of a skating rink for that. We would run. We did some crazy stuff to become better at different things. I was a basketball player. Oh, okay. Yeah. I think I've seen some things about that.

But I always loved fighting sports. I loved boxing, watched boxing with my dad growing up. I loved martial arts. Back in the 90s, I had a friend that was really big into MMA, and so I started watching a lot of that.

But one of the things you know when you look at these guys is they study their opponents. They do a lot of stuff to make themselves familiar with this person's particular style. And it's not just subject matter, right?

Obviously, you don't want to get into a debate if you don't know the subject matter, but there's more to it when it comes to debating. People have their own idiosyncrasies, and it pays to know those sorts of things, right?

So even though, for example, in fighting, there's an orthodox way to throw a straight punch, right? Not everybody is orthodox in their style. Some people throw wild punches, and that's the sort of thing that you want to know something about.

I've debated my fair share of people that wildly flail about that I'm kind of not interested in that. So I've sort of limited some of the challenges that I've had lately because it's some of.

These guys I still want to see the debate between you and Albrecht.

Yeah, I don't know if that'll ever happen because for one, I mean, they just lied so much that it's like He got scared though. Huh? Oh yeah, he absolutely got scared. The guy was mortified, right? So, and it has to be said since you brought it up, the guy that put him out there in front of him was even more petrified, right?

So there was William the front man, the fall guy, and then there's the guy way back behind him like a hundred miles, right? So that was but see, they lied so much and it was like, you know, I will it's like now it's

I just think, you know, do I want to get back into that whole thing again? It'll just be more of the same, right? All right, so it's not entirely off the table, but not right now. I see Donnie in the chat.

Shout out, Donnie.

Hey Donnie, good to see you. So Joshua says Roman numerals of Vicar of Christ add up to 666, so I wonder if he's talking about or what language he's talking about. Yeah, so one of the things that people say in or with reference to all that stuff in Revelation is so it's interesting that John encodes things in a sense, right?

He's not just coming out and saying certain things, and this would make sense if he's writing in a context where he's trying to inform Christians about something but not tell everybody else what he's saying, right?