Provisionist Mythology Refuted with Full Documentation

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. We're coming to you from the big studio with the

Electrical cords and stuff in the back wall I want to zoom in a little bit on that We have rearranged everything in the big studio

We do have some Things that you know, I need to have Jason Wallace on to talk about Simon Licaris and I'm talking with some

King James only guys about Possibly doing something and by the way

Dr. Tuggy heard about what I said on The Dividing Line a few last week sometime and he's interested in Doing the prologue of John stuff, which would be really good.

I think that especially would be an Excellent debate to do in here

Not that he'd be in here. But in other words start getting some online Debates done

Utilizing the the wonderful facilities that we have here that we'll be using today

Program today. I refuse to allow this program to And I'm getting a feedback someplace.

I'm getting a echo. I'm not sure what that is but I refuse to allow this program to become

Focused solely upon, you know one little topic and one little group no matter how loud they are and boy they can be loud

And At the same time You know, my goal always is to make things

Understandable To try to clarify things to take opportunities for teachable moments and so I announced late last week that we'd be doing this program here in the revamped big studio with the new

You know Rich started working on this stuff once I left It's a little bit like my my wife at home.

I get home. I can't find anything anymore Almost all evidences of my existence are wiped out It takes me months to find my stuff and I leave and rich just starts playing and starts going

And so you can see the you know, the pretty cross back there he made and this so, you know, he does all that stuff and I could show you

I have in boxes someplace some of the stuff that I made back and you know, junior high school in Shop class or something like that and pretty bad stuff.

Let me tell you know, I have had to learn to repair a few things And and we may be talking a little bit in the future about Making some changes in regards to how we're traveling a little bit not flying.

But just I've you know the RV life you You learned how to how to repair stuff as best you can

It's just sort of necessary. But yeah, I don't do stuff like this staining dying

Making I would just be dying and a different different spelling of the word so this

This setup we have here would be perfect for doing some you know have Jason on over there and we can talk about Simon Licaris and then

Set up some of these debates we can use the the same material we have up there right now Which is my accordion to set up and so we'll see we'll see what comes of all that But like I said,

I refuse to Allow the program to be hijacked by other topics and one of the reasons last night.

I Preached at apology at church You know you come home on Thursday and Sunday you're preaching

Pretty quick turnaround, but I sort of had the feeling that Jeff could use the use the time

He's just as busy if not busier than than I am and so I Got to church about half an hour early a lot of people do and I Don't know maybe 15 minutes for the the service started a woman came up to me with her mom and they're visiting

Her mom at least is visiting from Minnesota. I don't know if she was and I'm just I'm sorry.

I've just plopped down on there's this one littles place that I sit over on the side

So am I hi nice to meet you how you doing and She tells me that Her husband

Always listened to the dividing line, and then she says when he was in hospice

He put his phone on his chest To be able to listen to the dividing line

Obviously indicating to me that He had gone on to be with the Lord not because he was listening to the fighting line and so we recognize that we have a

Responsibility with this program to Reach out to a wide audience and so we want to continue to do that so We're not going to be talking about Provisionism and Layton flowers and all the rest of the stuff over and over and over again

What has happened? Since that debate about what 11 12 days ago is

Really a study in how to create fictional narratives I noticed over the weekend the mainstream media

Was creating a fictional narrative about something that former President Trump said and He had said something in one very clear obvious context

He's talking about the auto industry is talking about Mexico is talking about China. He was talking about you know moving materials through from China to Mexico in the

United States things like that and He's he was he said

Unless I am elected there's going to be a bloodbath and he was talking about the auto industry.

He was talking about where things can be coming from and the destruction of the

American auto industry and It was very obvious to anybody who's who cares to to listen to what's being said

Don't get me wrong there are times when Trump does that to other people too, so I get it But the the collective creation of a completely false narrative that I can guarantee you

There are millions of people United States today that think that Donald Trump said unless I'm elected.

I'm calling for a bloodbath a revolution I'm surprised there already hasn't been a

Supreme Court justice someplace That's kicked Trump off of the ballot for leading a new insurrection based upon that very thing

That's the point that's the that's the issue that you can create fictional narratives and So the fictional narrative that is now being promoted by the rather desperate

Provisionist playground as I call it Excuse me Has to do with my errors about Greek in the debate and So I I first heard

Something about this as I was getting ready to leave Houston so it was

After the Dale Tuggy debate Which I've heard next to nothing about I finally for the first time saw today a video of a debate review with Dale Tuggy and somebody and So it's been pretty quiet there very quiet amongst the

Catholics for the Trent Horn stuff but it's been the provisionists who

From the Jason Breda debate through the latent flowers debate It's just been

Incessant even Phil Johnson has had to make reference to the silliness of what's going on So I had

I heard about a Review where a Greek scholar corrects my

Greek and so as I said on a previous edition of the dividing line while we were still on the road

I Downloaded now I use a particular

I've used a number of downloading programs over the years and They all seem to stop working

Something new comes along and you have to buy it and probably the same company just getting you one way or the other anyway

The one that I'm using now which works the best for me gives you an option of downloading video or Downloading it and converting it to mp3 audio

Well, I decided I was gonna listen to this while driving so better to do audio

You know I could just I don't know I would sort of scare me to you know plop your phone up on the on the

Dashboard I've I think I've seen some people do that to be very honest with you a little little scary

Right now I'm 51 feet long when I'm going down the down the road at about 17 ,000 pounds grand total

So yeah, not not good to be watching TV while doing something like that. So anyway, I downloaded it as Audio and I told the story on the dividing line.

I started listening to it and I got 15 16 minutes in and I Started hearing things that clearly demonstrated to me that the individuals doing this

Did not understand what the point of the debate was. They misrepresented what

I was saying and I actually have I have that I have taken the time to track these things down and so We will we will do our first test

We're gonna we're trying to make a bunch of stuff work here and We'll we'll do we'll do the best we can but I could just see all of this crashing and burning badly

What? Rich is going. Hey now Well, let's let's I if I were him if I were him

I wouldn't be saying that until I hit a button and we find out whether this works. That's that's what I would do but here's

This is about 10 minutes 42 seconds into this particular

Review now again, I didn't see this. I only heard it and I was explaining on the dividing line why

I just reached up and Turned it off And so here's here's

Around the time period where I eventually gave up. So let's let's Listen in talking before So well,

I'm gonna mention this now and then I'll mention it again later on when it becomes apparent again which is

James brings Greek into this debate a lot I don't doubt that real quickly,

I Listened to the entire debate Saturday morning Just to double -check one thing and That is did the term heiress ever appear in the debate and it didn't

And what Surprised me was how little Greek there was Now, yes,

I was when when I was cross -examining Leighton. I had the Greek in front of me and that's what

I was using But there was there was very little actual discussion of Grammatical forms or syntax or anything like that the main discussion

And this does come up eventually The main discussion was on the

Semantic domain of Okuo and Manzano to hear and to learn in light of being taught by God and So I'm pretty sure

I did mention The genitive form of Theyu I think you know

And in fact if someone had wanted to criticize me and nobody did at least not that I've heard.

I Referred to and we're gonna we're gonna put all this up on the screen So I referred to when it says they shall all be taught of God Theyu of God is a genitive and I called it a genitive of Means as I recall, it's genitive agency

Part of that was because I was taught the 8 case system. I studied syntax in an 8 case grammar and so you had instrumental of means

Was one of the one of the categories But this is a genitive and the agency is a better term because it emphasizes the personal so you could have criticized me for that It's not that it

Means anything what I was saying it doesn't change the meaning at all But at least you would have had something of substance to say which so far

No one has been able to find anything substance of substance say anyway So there is actually very little

Greek in this debate in comparison to what there could have been

If many of the standard Ways around John 644 were used so for example

I've talked to many provisionists and this doesn't seem to be flowers his position anymore if it ever was but I've talked to many many people about John 644

Where they have inserted a division No one could come to me unless the father sent me draws him.

That's one him and I will raise him up in the last day is a totally different him they somehow in only two or three words

You completely change who's being referred to and so if that had been presented as many people have over the years to me we could have had a discussion of Alton and you know which

Alton is going with why we could have gotten that we didn't so there is actually very little

You know discussion of The original language even though that was you know

When I would when I would do the rebuttals and things like that I basically I just had my Greek New Testament, I'm just but I didn't

Didn't have to make note of that I'm just going from that and so It just wasn't nearly as much as I expected there to be or as was just mentioned here

James Can read the New Testament to some degree in Greek How are now by the way,

I have no idea who this man is I don't know what gives him the capacity of somehow

Because when because he admits when he's doing this initial review. He's not ever read a single book I've read

I doubt he's ever heard a Sermon that I ever preached as far as I know all he knows all all he knows about me

He knows about listening to one from one debate and given the stuff. He said about debate.

He wasn't listening well So I I don't I'll be honest with you,

I don't know how you come to conclusions about people on the basis of tiny little snippets,

I don't get it I I I Hope that he doesn't get treated this way in the future, but something tells me what goes around comes around And when it does he's gonna have no basis for complaining because he's been willing to make these types of Character assessments and scholarly assessments off the basis of almost nothing at all

It's disturbing and troubling and I hope I hope he'll think about it because he would not

This young man would not want to be treated by others the way that he chose to treat me

And why he did so I I don't know. I'll be really kind when I say this but It is quite apparent

That James Appears to have a rather superficial knowledge of how language works or as particularly how

Greek works Because he mentions things and he'll say things and here he talks about the present tense participles of looking on the

Sun and believing in him and so I guess and I didn't even didn't even remember this but when

I Went quickly past verse 40

In my running through the context in in my opening statement I I Mentioned in passing the one looking the one believing and For Probably most of this young man's life.

I have been preaching sermons Where I have emphasized that especially in the

Gospel of John the Emphasis upon the present tense participle hoppest you on the one believing every single time that's used

It's used of saving faith, that's what brings eternal life that would that's what brings you to resurrection by Jesus himself and It's never in the

Gospel of John anyways and in fact it only appears if I recall correctly well, well, let's

Let me say I wonder if this will pop I don't think it'll pop over it. Oh, it did look at that I think

I have this here Yeah, there you go. All right good. I'm the search is still up there

Let me oops Let me Come on there.

It's a little bit easier to see Here are all the places in the

New Testament Where the present tense participle Substantival participle hoppest you on so Now this did come up.

I just I just remembered something this did come up in the debate because Layton accused me of redefining the word whosoever and I corrected him because he was wrong.

I wasn't redefining anything I was talking about Pass hoppest you own you can see that in John 3 15.

Hannah pass hoppest you on and out. Oh Okay, so Wayne I onion in order that everyone believing in him might have eternal life

And so and by the way just It's a subjunctive that doesn't mean it's well might we don't know might fail that's not what it's talking about It's it's a

Hannah clause and a lot of people don't understand Hannah clauses and I've explained them for years

But it as it may pass hoppest you own the one believing in him him eternal life.

Okay and then of course John 3 16 The very very next reference there

Hannah pass hoppest you on ice out on may apolatai All okay is the way in Ionian so that one believing in him should not perish but have eternal life

Probably among the most best -known verses in the New Testament John 3 18 hoppest you own ice out on Ooh, couldn't

I the one believing in him is not judged Ha de may pissed you own the one not believing

Has been judged already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God now I suppose someone good at all.

There's there's a there's a use of hoppest you odds. It's not it's false faith No, it's not false faith. It's it's negated

May negates it. It's the one not believing has been judged already Then John 3 36

The one believing the Sun has eternal one eternal life the not believing in the

Sun one Shall not see life So that's ha a python the not believing one

But the wrath of God abides upon him John 6 35 now we're into chapter 6

And This is now part of the context of the debate

So ha air common offs process ma the one coming to me will not hunger

Kai hoppest you own ice ma the one believing me will never thirst So now you have the two being put together

Yes, I like that The two being put together hey, I can do that in the rig

So, you know don't don't sit there looking all all all fancy Nancy back there He's still looking fancy Nancy back there just not stop

Got it. Sorry go like this so I can't see you know the smug look on the face. It's amazing anyway

So again the one believing Will never thirst that this is true faith present -tense some type of parcel

John 6 47 right in the middle of our context. I mean, I'm in Lego who mean hoppest you own a

Kai's the wayne I own you on there's a textual variant there in me Doesn't show it there, but we'll see it later on we throw it up there

So these are Have eternal life John 731 the one believing in me just as scripture says

Of his innermost being will flow river water John 1125 Gia said to her a go

I me hey anastasis. I am the resurrection Kai's away hoppest you own ice and may con a path on a

Zasatite the one believing in me once again true saving faith using

The Substantival present -tense participle John 1244 Jesus cried out and said the one believing in me

Is not believing in me, but in the one who sent me as if There's no there could be no separation

You can't believe in the Son, but not believe in the Father who sent him, but it's again true saving faith

John 1246 The light of the world has come in or that pass hoppest you own

Everyone believing in me will not remain in darkness Katia Saving faith it's right there

John 1412 Hoppest you own ice and may ta erga ha ego poyo kakainos places and Mides on it this one actually came up and this is another thing we need to discuss on the program

Which I'll try to remember to get to it, you know, maybe later this week or something like that But this came up in the roundtable discussion

Justin Peters Michael Brown Sam storms and the gym.

Sorry Jim name escaping me at the moment. Don't have all this in front of me Did and I listened to on to drive back to Phoenix from from Houston This came up this verse came up there and again the one believing in me, this is true eternal life

Then we go out of John and it looks to me as I just look at his this

This is the only use of hoppest you own outside of John that's not a scriptural citation

Everyone believing will be justified Max 1339 because you'll notice

Romans 933 hoppest you own is in italics, which is the

That's y 'all in 28th edition way of indicating Citation of the

Old Covenant scriptures normally the Greek Septuagint So hoppest you own in 933 and hoppest you own in 1011 1st

Peter 2 6 hoppest the one believing in him shall not be confounded or put to disappointment

Which again, these are all Old Testament citations and then we jump back into John not the

Gospel of John, but first John Pass hoppest you own everyone believing that Jesus is the

Christ has been born from God. This is a rather important now this one's an important one because If we had time and we don't this program is going to go much longer than it needs to anyways

But if if we were and we have you can look this up Everything I've taught for 25 years

Okay, 20 Yeah, 20 actually coming up on 26 years

Is pretty much available on our website now So you can look at first John 5 1 we have done entire discussions of and explained the relationship of Participles such as hoppest you own to controlling verbs

Gegeneitai because participles are

Controlled by the main verbs and how you understand them and how they relate syntactically to everything else in a sentence

It all has to do with the relationship of the main verb and so There's a lot that can be said about first John 5 1 from there, but it's the one believing it's it's true faith

Who is the one who overcomes a verse John first John 5 5 the world I may hoppest you on hot

Easy as to how we asked with you. So who is the one overcomes world? But the one believing that Jesus is the

Son of God That's how you overcome the world and the last first John 5 10 the one believing in The Son of God has this testimony in himself

So here's you know, what what how is all this relevant? Well, it's all relevant

Now here's gonna be the real trick can I bring the video back? Oh Hey, that's working better than I expected it to What happened when

I commented on what we're looking at right now What's easy

I don't think he really understands the language and you know, no no, no, no, no

No, all based upon his saying that it was strange that I would mention That the participles in verse 40 the one looking upon Believing in the

Son our present tense participle. So there's an entire history behind that. I would challenge

This gentleman, dr. Kurt co to show me a single place in the

Gospel of John where the present tense parcel of bestial is not talking about true saving faith and I'm well aware of that and I have preached again for probably as long as the gentleman's been alive

That this is highly significant to the anti Lordship.

I Don't like the term free grace. I called cheap grace Tip your hat toward God and You're you're going to heaven

Wilkin coming out of the of Dallas Theological Seminary Perspective I've opposed that stuff for a long long time.

I've preached against that stuff and One of the clear evidences and I'm sure if you go back to the debate

I did with Wilkin I undoubtedly talked about this. I didn't take the time to go back and look but I'm sure that I did

That these descriptions of saving faith are ongoing in Comparison I should have left this should have left this up In comparison and I didn't

I didn't grab these but you know, we're we're doing this let me give you a comparison in Gospel John chapter 2

Verse 23 now when he was in Jerusalem the

Passover during the feast many believed I stopped on my out to in his name

Now a pissed you son is An heiress you see that Sigma Alpha and you've got the

Epsilon reduplication at the beginning It pissed you son is heiress

Many believed in his name Okay But then notice so it says not because they knew who he was

Not because they recognized their own need not because they were looking to him for spiritual substance

They are rune tests Which again Is a participle and So you'll notice is translated in the

LSB When they saw his signs or seeing his signs, but again

Especially and this is a it's not a substantive a participle These types of participles are even more dependent for their translation on the main verb

In the sentence or at least if you have complex clauses, it can get even really messy

And so they saw the signs he was doing but notice what happens.

I'll toss day. Yes, ooh Ooh Epistuen now, it's interesting notice the

LSB, but G is on his part was not entrusting himself To them, but it's the same.

It's the same root word and so they believe heiress in him and The heiress is just the most basic simple way of expressing an action

It can Refer to a past action, but it can also just be the action taken as a whole

And You know present tense can emphasize ongoing action if the context indicates that that's what is being communicated, but the reason you have

You know gnomic Statements in the present or Narrative Historical presence which are almost always translated as past tense and in the

Gospels is it like that is because that's not always what's going on? but here But G is in his part was not entrusting literally believing himself to them

So they've expressed a kind of faith toward him because they've seen what he was doing

But he doesn't reciprocate this isn't saving faith and Jesus knows it and He demonstrates it.

He knows what's in man, and he knows that Epistuse on Isn't saving faith.

That's not that's not hoppest you wrong There's another example and it's a striking example actually

John chapter 8 verse 30, you know, you know the text as He was speaking these things

Palloy and if I recall Craig it wasn't that what yeah, that's what John to said too. So it's more of a

We're going with the crowd Palloy a pissed you son. I saw

Tom So there's your heiress Many believed in him But what happened?

What happens you should know this one? Therefore Jesus was saying to those who had believed in him

The Jews are believing him if you remain in my word You will truly be my disciples and you shall know the truth.

Hi. Hey, Aletha. Yah l you there Rosi Who moss?

Oh Ouch. Oops. Jesus wasn't trying to make friends You will know the truth and the truth will free you and what's their immediate response us

We don't need to be free man. Does man become angry when you say he's enslaved and by the end of the chapter

They're picking up stones to stone him They believed but that's a real fickle kind of belief so Here's here's what

I'm saying You can find You can demonstrate that the especially ha

Pistebon is Only referring to true faith in the

Ohanian corpus and then you can find key texts where the heiress is clearly referring to false faith and And so I have said and they even at one point in the late in flowers

Put up a quote from a book. They didn't bother to say which book it was from So I don't even know which one it was from or when it was written or what it was even talking about that particular point in time but in the quote

I said is almost always placed in The present or for false faced almost always placed in the heiress almost always is not a rule

I'm not saying there's something about the heiress What I'm saying is you can make a pretty strong case that John is

Trying to communicate something and I've just given you the evidence for that now

That never came up in the debate it's irrelevant Completely irrelevant to any debate review and anyone who brings it up as part of that is obfuscating the issue purposefully, but what happened was

Dr. Kuritko Decided to say it was strange and use it as a part of his coming to these amazing conclusions

About my lack of understanding of the Greek language that I would mention the present participles

He admits that at this point in time he had never read anything I had written nothing

So he doesn't know That when he was a child I was preaching on this passage and emphasizing these very things against the idea of A tip -of -the -hat faith toward God being sufficient to actually bring about eternal life

That's why I say I do not understand why anyone would do what he was we would do if you're a scholar and someone comes

To you and they want to steal your scholarship to obfuscate issues. You should say no

That's not my place. I'm not going to do that I'm certainly not gonna do it without doing the homework to be able to do it, right?

So this was this was what we were talking about Right here, okay, so and so he's noting the grammatical forms

He doesn't really give you what he's trying to mean by that. He's saying I had

For decades in print and the man

I'm debating has written two books Stealing the titles of my books to change them around and I explained it in both of them.

So I didn't need to sir. I didn't need to and You're literally gonna tell people this is something people do and they're trying to pretend there's secret messages and the

Greek and all the rest of stuff How many times how many times have I said?

Have you heard me say people will come up and note to me and they'll go so what does this text say in the

Greek and My response is the same thing it says in English How long have

I been saying that? As long as you know me Does dr. Krikko know that no, so why does he lie about me?

I don't know. I don't know Don't get it

How can you be so brash? As to do this kind of I don't know. I Don't get it.

I Don't get it. It's sad, but I don't get it things about grammar And he's not he's never quite

Clear exactly his exegetical point. He's making and he's gonna do this again at the end But he he's reading a lot into what into the into just basic forms of Greek A participle doesn't really mean much in and of itself and you okay

When I just went through all the uses of hoppest you own did I explain what the significance was and Then when

I contrasted it with John 2 and John 8 did I did I explain? Yeah, had

I done that 30 years ago? Yeah Could anyone who wanted to know that have found that information out for themselves?

Yeah Why doesn't he don't know I don't know his motivations

I don't get it. I Really don't he's a former Calvinist. Does that mean that that that's the explanation?

I don't know. I can't say all I can do is provide you the evidence that his statements are just There's no reason to accept them.

In fact, there's every reason to reject them as having any validity at all You can say things in multiple ways in Greek and mean the exact same thing

So unless you're going to explain what you mean by why a present tense participle is important here I Don't know who you're signaling group speaking to Are you just trying to signal that somehow you have this you know, the

Greek and there's some hidden meaning in the Greek or something? like that Okay. Can you see why?

I'm like you got to be kidding me Now, I'm I actually need to play a little bit more of this

Don't want to because we haven't even gotten to the stuff you do with Leighton Flowers yet but When he then talks about the 10 to 12 second statement in the middle of the

Q &A section after the final statements of the debate and This is the only thing people have focused on one thing

Not the arguments in the opening statement not the arguments in the rebuttal Because they can't

They can't deal with that because that's where the debate took place Instead it's this other thing and that's what we got to look at yeah, and so I'm gonna stop on this one because he actually brings us up again right near the end and It's it's pretty problematic because he he critiques

Leighton saying that Leighton Exegesis is faulty because he didn't realize there were present tense particles and not finite verbs and Anyone who knows

Greek and can read it and so you didn't really introduce me that much but I read Greek So I'm a substituent scholar kind of by trade

Among other things that I work in and so I read a lot of Greek all the time And so if someone said that I'm kind of getting ahead of the game here

So we maybe can cover it a little less later. If someone says there's a huge exegetical weight that's between Parsifal like I'm walking and a finite verb.

He walks That that almost never would happen in language and especially in Greek that there's somehow an argument fall apart based on that and So James doesn't explain it later on nor here what he means by citing

Greek grammar He doesn't explain it because it was a 10 to 12 second statement in the

Q &A where I only had 30 seconds Okay, and I had explained it if you had listened to the debate

You didn't even represent what it was about. You didn't even get it, right? We're gonna play it.

Let's go ahead and play it. Let me let me take this down I've got a lot of stuff up here these things.

Oops, but if you know Greek you're gonna go Okay. Well, he goes on to again make some more insulting and condescending statements

Well, that's not it Where did

I put oh, no, that can't be it. Oh Here it is

Okay, yeah, you know by the way This is the first time I have used the clip

Function now, I didn't see a clip function another thing, but I saw it said clip and I'm like Might as well try

You can make little clips out of videos on YouTube. I didn't this little it's probably been there for 10 years

And I didn't know it. No, I'm sure it has But here's what happened during the debate, but you need to know you need to understand something

The first thing I'll show you is from latent flowers closing statement

So this cannot be even slightly relevant

To the main argumentation of the debate Because it's it's in a closing statement and he's bringing up an assertion that he did not make during the debate now

That's technically a violation of the rules You're not supposed to bring up stuff like that. But okay,

I Have theorized one of two things. It's just a theory. I'm allowed to theorize about things.

Okay, and Here is my this is what I've figured

He gets up there. He's talking really fast. He's getting really emotional and He decides to throw out a statement

About the terms in John 645 the one hearing and the one learning Now one of two things either he opened up logos or whatever is he uses blue letter

Bible. I don't know And he clicked on the term and he saw that it said active and So he goes with this statement or I think more likely

Someone in his group Probably from the seminary Sent him a text and said hey

He's all wrong about what he's saying because those are active not passive Forms in John 645.

Now. What was my what was it? I was saying and this is what? We're gonna look at some other guy.

I don't know is what his name is Someone sent me this brief little clip. This guy's talking 100 miles per hour It must be being played at 1 .5

times or something. I know when no one ever talks as fast but he's ripping along and The at least he knows what part of the argument was one of the things that I said in the debate

And we're gonna look at this when we when we go over to John 6 here Well, well, well here

Might as well make Rich start earning his pay over there. He's getting paid a ridiculous amount of money sitting back there

I mean, you know the Union people it's just it's just ridiculous what they get paid So Where did my

Disappeared again There it is All right, so we're looking at 645

It is written in the prophets and they shall all be taught they shall all

Be taught of God there's your genitive Genitive of agency this is an adjective so God is doing

God is the one who is acting here and They all are

Taught they are made to be taught ones They ooh by God God is the one doing this, okay?

Now I'm gonna argue Well, let's you know, I'll argue right now. We'll go ahead and point out

What you have going on here is in 644 no one is able to come to me

Unless The father and then hapens us may the one who sent me unless the father draws him and I will raise him up on the last day

Okay So My Presentation in the debate is just this simple the act now by the way

I as far as I can tell from what Leighton said none of this is relevant today

Jesus isn't drawing anybody except maybe Jews to Jesus Now it's

Jesus doing all the drawing so this is all irrelevant this is and And I don't know if Kuritco believes that I'm sure the critical would realize that there aren't very many people who do believe that but anyway

This is all just at this time period because God's hardening Israel to bring about the crucifixion so right now

The only way to believe is if the father who sent him draws him and I guess he only does that for 11 people or something like that during the ministry of Christ, but Anyway so you have this action on God's part of drawing and apart from that drawing

Who dice do not I know one is? Able L fine to come to me now, please notice.

Please notice that that term there To come to me to come to me

Why is that important because look at the end of verse 45 ericotype

Ross ma So you want to see here's come to me? English Then you look at the end of verse 45 everyone who has heard and learned from the father comes to me

Okay, so no one is able to come to me

Unless something happens that is the drawing of the father and everyone drawn by the father is

Raised up on the last day by Jesus. That's eternal life. That's how you have eternal life

Okay So John 644 makes an amazing statement remember this is

Jesus saying stop grumbling amongst yourselves Stop grumbling amongst yourselves.

No one's able to come to me and Let's the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day

You want biblical evidence of this you want to know where this comes from in Scripture Okay, it stands written in the prophets

Here's my reference here, I'm going to give you a biblical foundation For what

I'm saying about what the father does now Here is where?

The rubber meets the road. This is where the debate should have taken place. It's where the debate still needs to take place is

Verse 45 and Intimately connected to and continuation of The assertions of verse 44 or do we need to build a wall here?

To our 45 exists unto itself and we don't have to worry about what was in 44.

I Think that's obviously ridiculous But I really think that's where sinner just have to go why it's real simple

It stands written in the prophets They shall all be taught of God What is

This there's there is an action here. They shall all it's not so much as on time, but it's the genitive again of agency in say you

They shall all By God be taught they shall be taught ones and God is the one doing this this being taught by God is

What this is? Right here drawing and Jesus is saying the scriptures

Prophesied this the prophets spoke of this And he said they shall all be taught by God Isaiah 413

Jeremiah 31 they shall all be taught by God who all Everyone drawn

Everyone drawn No one's able economy The father here's the father he draws.

Here's God Teaching there it is. There it is You have to sit here and go.

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. No, that's that's not let's not look at that. No, no, that's Commercial commercial break.

Yeah, you got to do something because it's right there It's right there.

Let's look at it in English if you don't want over there. So here here's the there's the father

Draws, here's the father he draws and Here, here's

God and they are taught by God and this is that There it is

There it is Now how then is this relevant?

to these terms ha a kusas and My phone

Well, let's make all the pretty stuff go away for a second

Here is here are so all of a certain group

I say The only way to understand this is to recognize that it is those drawn by the father in verse 44

Otherwise, you're just disconnecting the text years It's the exegesis of egg of agnosticism.

Well, we don't really know what it says. It might mean there's might mean that blah blah blah No, it's very clear All is referring to those who are drawn it's the hymn right there

All right so every Ha akusas

Now it's interesting. I don't it's not up here. But if you're wondering with that little thing, it's textual variant.

It's oon So in some manuscripts it says

They shall all be taught of God Therefore the one hearing from the father and learning is coming to me

So if you're wondering why in the world that's there now this one article is

Functioning both for a kusas as well as my phone. They're both

Substantival participles and they are heiress active participles Here was my argument that Layton certainly didn't understand or he would not have made the statement that he's going to make that I'm going to play for you

He would not have made the statement and evidently again. My theory is this was sent to him by somebody else

It's just a theory for crying out loud But if someone else said to him they didn't understand either the reviews

Just right over almost everybody's head What I said

Is that hearing? and learning Semantically In the realm of meaning

Semantic domains Are when you look at the meaning of a word some meanings have

Very small semantic domains. They're very specific and technical others have huge semantic domains

Logos, oh my goodness used in so many different ways Okay, so what

I'm what I have said is that hearing is a

Passive Action in its very definition. I just stopped

And it got quiet in but I still could hear one thing

It wasn't Rich's stomach either. It was earlier, but it's not anymore Rich is getting ready to start doing funny things with knobs to get back at me

It got quiet in here. And the other thing I heard the air conditioning now.

Did I create the sound of the air conditioning? No to hear is a passive action now

I Understand that someone could you know somebody could argue I'm gonna trip over this thing and we're gonna have a great YouTube video as a

Result of that as he just falls out of the not gonna. I'm not gonna do that. Don't do that Well, if we if we monetize it, we'd be doing great

But I keep I keep hitting this this this one's sticking out front and we're gonna have to spin that in the back or I'm gonna

End up on the ground. Anyway You Could make an argument

That you need to be able to see so seeing John chapter 9 is One of the you know

You know people who can see are blind people who are blind can see okay Yeah, but that's still passive reception the reception of what's outside you in the world.

Your eyes are receiving impulses When you hear you're hearing things from outside The same thing with learning

Okay, it comes to you This information comes to you from other sources.

I said, yeah, but you have to work at learning and so that okay You might want to say that But you can't work at learning if there isn't something to learn

You're still taking something in and the problem is the synergist

Who wants to go well, they shall all be taught of God as just everybody or Layton said all of Israel and now he's saying something else.

I guess I don't he admits He's got to change his book already. So I don't know exactly what it is.

He's changing, but he says Kurt Coe has Convinced him that he doesn't have to do that because in the debate

He made a distinction between Pontus and Pause and I I pushed that in the cross -examination

Because I was just trying to figure out where he's coming from. What what how do you? You're not you're not just walking through this thing.

You've got external stuff Oh, well, you know the hardening of the Jews and so this doesn't really matter anymore

Once you get to John 12, that's how it's gonna be in church age and all the rest of this kind of stuff that he's

Putting on this all the time saying that I'm the one using my presuppositions and all the rest anyway

The issue is the synergists Want to say but this is a capacity to hear and so you choose to hear because everyone's taught but it's only the ones who choose to hear and Choose to learn and so they are taking these and making them capacities and abilities active capacities and abilities then using that to turn the whole text on its head and Say it's not that the father gives a certain people to the son and they come to the son

No, no the father gives the son those who've already chosen to come to the father because they have the ability to hear and learn and They jump down to verse 45 and read it back in and just turn the whole thing upside down That was the whole point that was the whole point and so when we get to What Leighton does in his closing statement is he says yeah, but he no

No, these these would have to be passives. He will he will make the statement that for my position to be true

These would have to be passive inform not active inform and that means he doesn't have a clue

What I'm saying and ninety nine point nine percent of the people on Twitter Throwing dust in the air don't get it either because they won't stop to listen

They won't stop the listener here. They're not doing a kuzos All right.

So that's what he's gonna say. He's gonna say these are actually active forms and for dr

White's position to be true. They'd have to be passive which means Leighton at the end of the debate still had no idea

What I was talking about and still doesn't to this day I don't think okay

There's there's the issue there's the issue so Have I already gone an hour well, that's some

Yeah So, let's see if I can get this to work now, I'm a little scared to Try to oh

That's not gonna let me do that. Oh Well, okay.

Well if you say so I like purple though, it's sort of pretty So hopefully that's nice and visible

I'm not sure which colors work best on the Feed into the stream, but let me see.

Oh that will work. All right So I'm a little worried to make this go full screen

I'm not sure why But it's this clip thing. And so I'm just not sure how it Will behave.

Oh Sorry, let me get this out of the way to Yeah, I haven't been in Phoenix for a while what you're talking about Yes, this just appeared on My screen no backups for 853 days

Yeah, this is not the one I back up. Okay, so here is

Layton's statement. All right. So this is this is the His closing statement, so I've already made my closing statement

This is now Layton's closing statement He also keeps on talking about the passive realities again bringing his presupposition into the text

But yes, I can quote from mounts I could quote from his friend Michael Brown all of them talk about in matter of fact in the

Greek These are these are not active verbs and they're there that they've happened previously and they're passive verbs in order for them

I'm, excuse me. They're not passive. They're active. They're listening and learning so they would need to be passive in order to support.

Dr White's view but they're not passive. They're active verbs And so just to assume he also keeps on okay, so there's the clip to catch it

First he says it backwards okay, first he says these are passives and Not actives and then he goes no, no,

I'm sorry they are Actives not passives and then he says for my position to be true

He says as he slides right off the chair into the next room for his position to be true they'd have to passives

No, they wouldn't Has nothing to do with it. How come all you smart

Greek reviewers aren't all over him for that? How come? Might there be a prejudice on your part?

Maybe you're not really trying to just review you're trying to promote a narrative possibly sort of like NBC and CBS Yeah, y 'all are acting like the mainstream media sadly because he was wrong and He and So that's in his closing statement.

I don't get a chance. I don't there's no rebuttal. So you'll see me

Looking down at my iPad and I'm like is he talking about The participles does he know what a participle is?

Does he know what a circumstantial participle is? Does he have any idea and Why isn't he interacting with my actual argument which would require him to actually be dealing with a kuo and Manzano?

Not talking about active and passive forms because I never said they were anything but actives their participles for crying out loud

It's POS ha a kusas everyone doing this action. That's where the circumstance. That's why the participles important It's not just a verb and dr.

Crick. Oh, you should know that You read this language That's why

I just don't understand You know better.

I Just don't get it. Where's the prejudice coming from? Why are you so unfair? Why are you missing such obvious things?

I Don't get it so that was where Leighton did his thing and so now

Here is what I said and once again This is in I Have exactly 30 seconds and So what

I chose to do is I had already answered everything that he had just said in his 60 seconds.

So I'm like, ah Let's go ahead and comment on what what he said earlier.

I Do not have time to go by the way Leighton still doesn't seem to understand semantic domains.

He doesn't understand why I say Akua and Montano This is taking in this is this is these these participles are being governed by the genitive of Agency in the scriptural citation.

They shall all be taught by God God is the one doing the action making them did octoy that's the fulfillment of the drawing of verse 44 and therefore everyone

Who is the recipient of that action? hears learns and Comes to Christ.

That's the consistent reading of the text and not one of you Greek geeks

Can dispute that you can try to throw shade you can try to cut things up But all you're gonna be doing is giving us the exegesis of agnosticism.

It's not really that clear G is what G is wouldn't be that clear right, so I have 30 seconds and All I've got time to do is throw out

He said they were active verbs they're actually participles and he is wrong about Understanding semantic domains.

I don't have time to go through all that. I You not you know, it's funny. I can't think of a single one of these people putting out videos

That's ever done a debate themselves They don't know what it's like To try to make coherent statements in 30 seconds, it's so easy to sit around afterwards going

You should have said this and you should have said that well, I'm looking forward to the day when you try doing it

Then I'll get to sit back and sit in here and do my debate reviews and that'll be enjoyable so here is

Is this the right clip and it says clip? So yeah, this clip is all of 20 seconds long 20 seconds long.

Here we go Once again, verse 45 is being turned upside down and I will just simply we've already covered all this but I will just correct one

Error in a dr. Flowers closing statement. He tried to identify hearing The one hearing and learn learning.

He doesn't seem to understand. Those are participles. They're not finite verbs And so he was in error about his application at that point

Once again, that's it And I just looked at the time thing by the time I got to actually saying what the issue was 10 seconds 10 seconds

Now i've had the luxury now of being able to explain to you very fully exactly what that is

But what I said was correct What I said was right and I did not sit there and say oh see

I've now refuted Layton flowers. This is in the q a at the end of the debate

You want to know where I said? I refuted Layton flowers. Listen to my closing statement Where I never mentioned heiress

And I and I couldn't have mentioned this because he hadn't made the statement yet Where he first said they were passives then said they were actives

And said they would have to be passives for my point to be true, which means he didn't understand my point

So you guys out there doing your reviews if you haven't figured all this out And if you haven't put your finger on that, you don't know what you're talking about Or you know what you're talking about and you don't want to talk about what needs to be talked about You don't want to deal with what's actually being said

That's the problem that's the problem now after all of that Believe it or not

We're just now getting I was I was going to do this earlier on but um uh now

We can do this and sort of Start wrapping up even

I do have one other video that one other guy who I again don't have a clue who it is Um Here are so after Kuritko was on the what your pastor doesn't tell you thing again.

Don't know anything about it, but And I explained why I didn't listen to the whole thing because they

Were completely misrepresenting what the debate was about they weren't dealing with the debate. They were dealing with silly uh arguments that I didn't make um that I allegedly uh make all these uh uh

Dogged rules about the heiress. In fact, is that uh

Yep. Yeah, that'll come up in this. Um All this stuff that just doesn't have anything to do with what actually happened in the debate

So i'm like why am I going to waste my time? I've got better things to be doing even while driving Uh than to to do that.

So He gets hold of Kuritko Leighton flowers does And now that all he does is teriology 101

I imagine we are going to I I don't know if youtube has the capacity

Uh to keep up with what's going to happen as a result, I really really don't

Uh, I think we're going to have you know, 18 hours a day Uh of stuff coming from from Leighton flowers um, but here is uh

Oh, wait a minute. There we go Okay, here's a few clips that I wanted to play from the interview

Then we'll look at the other guy and we will wrap all this up maybe in 90 minutes I don't know we've made our point um if any of you

Have a serious bow in your body What you're going to do Is you're going to take the section?

Where I just looked at john the relationship of john 644 and 645 And I make the assertion that drawing by the father

Is the teaching by god That both result in coming to christ and therefore ha accusas and mathon homophone hearing and learning

Are those people who are as a result of? The action of god

I remember I played this on a previous dividing line Leighton admitted

That if hearing and learning Are the result of the action of god

Tulip is true If you're going to actually pretend to review this debate

Then deal with that put the greek up there and explain

Tell us all how you um Disconnect verse 45 from verse 44

Uh change the topic Change it to where those are taught by god

It's something completely different than who are drawn by the father because they're both resulting and coming to the son

You've got to explain that if you cannot explain that give it up just admit it

Just say my theology does not allow me to believe what is said here Just admit it

But if you don't deal with that Don't waste your time You're you're just you're

You're You're just spouting the narrative. You're not actually dealing with anything. Okay, let's hope this works because we have not used this program yet um, so let's uh, and boy, i'm not sure

I want my There we go Uh, all right. Here we go One thing dr.

White critiques me of quite regularly that I agree with him about um, is that I am not a linguistic scholar I'm, not a church historian.

I I cite from those people Whenever I make a point in my book or my broadcast because I know that's not my area of expertise

Okay, so Um number one Uh He's going to uh admit

On the third clip that he took two classes In his master's degree program evidently none for the d -men um in biblical languages

And then he just said I I don't do church history Okay, then why not just admit

That when you cited clement you cited the wrong clement Why not admit?

um That you couldn't comment on clement of rome first clement

Because you don't know the difference between that and the later clements from hundreds of years later um

Just a question I have I appreciate the admission uh that you're making uh, but I There you go.

All right, we continue on Okay And what you were showing me through your conversation with zach and what

I heard from dr Al garza who's also another linguist was it pretty much explaining? You didn't need to do that layton.

You didn't need to you didn't need to make that distinction The all can still be referenced to the everyone because you're referring to all who belong to god

The question of the debate is whether they belong to god because they're unconditionally elected Or because they freely believe and that's not even addressed in that question

And so you could have just conceded. Yes The first pontos is the same as the second pos it is referring to all who belong to god

And okay now here's the problem um Is he admitting now?

That he was wrong to say They shall all be taught by god is only israel um is

He didn't attempt to stat. Well, he said well paul said that Okay, that's It's bad enough to jump six chapters ahead in john.

You have to jump out of john completely Um the immediate context

It stands written in the prophets Look at how that is used in jesus's argumentation in john

He is now providing a prophetic foundation from the tanakh

For what he just said No one has the ability to come to me

Unless the father who sent me draws him. And by the way, if this is just about jews Is the sending of the father of the son just about jews, too?

Of course not Of course not this isn't just about jews So this is jesus providing

The scriptural basis For the amazing assertion he just made no one can come to me

Unless my father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day

That's what verse 45 is about. That's why you can't read it backwards You can't insert your synergism into it and then make it the first verse in the chain, but that's what he did

And that's what I said he was going to do in my opening statement So he admits here.

He's got to change his book. I'm, not sure what that's going to mean Because if all shall be taught by god is the all who are drawn by the father if you let the text stay together

Then the all Who hear and the all who learn are the ones who are taught by god?

And you already admitted if that's all what god does that tulip is correct

So what are you going to do? I don't know I don't know, but we just we just point these

These things out Okay, third clip. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and that's why and that's why you're here.

That's why you're here I I said come back somebody because I said conjugating verbs

Or conjugating nouns, I got one of them wrong you do one to the other and Yeah declining versus conjugating.

I got it wrong and because I took I took languages 20 years ago and and I took two classes just like you're required to to get your your you know

Your doctorate and well your dbn I was doing my master's at the time And so, um, and so people say well, you don't know greek and you don't know this

I said, yeah, duh I know that that's I don't I yeah I can get the tools out and I can still remember some of my vocabulary and go through it

But it's like people who took you know spanish back when they were in high school. Do you know some spanish words still? Yeah, but if you're going to speak the language, aren't you going to get somebody who actually knows, uh spanish fluently?

Of course you are. Um, and so that's i've never claimed to be a greek scholar The fact that white makes big hay of that what fine he's he i'm drooling on my keyboard as we speak as I say

I that doesn't it does not change The point of up for debate as far as i'm concerned now I know why he likes to focus on greek because he's taught very recently and he knows greek and so he can speak the language

A lot more fluently and so he makes a lot of points in my estimation That have really nothing to do with our points of contention.

I think they're red herrings for the most part I think that doesn't mean there's something valid points that you can make with regard to greek

But again, that's why I appeal to the scholars not to myself as the scholar. Um, and so Okay Um, I took my first greek class

In 19 It was either 83 or 84

I think I think it was 84 Okay, so that was 40 years ago

You know why I still remember it layton Because I use it every day every day

Now I use greek Far more than I use hebrew My greek is much better than my hebrew

And all of the and both greek and my both greek and my hebrew are better than my arabic I'm, not sure where german fits in there

Um Um, but when I was teaching over in germany and i'd be around germans um

It would get a lot better um And and my french is worthless

I took it and german blew it right out of the water. I use latin but only for reading

And like I said my arabic's gone down so but you see the reason that I continue to know greek is um

Last night when I preached from first corinthians three Second corinthians five and romans four at apologia.

The only thing I had in the pulpit was my messiah on 28th edition No notes, no translations Nothing, it's because I use it

And so you're saying well, you know, I was a long time ago Which means you've not been using it and the problem is you're teaching from translations based upon it

And insisting that those translations have certain meanings Dr. Krikko, you know what i'm saying is true, you know it

Why didn't you stop him Why didn't you stop him, you know what i'm saying is true, okay um

Just a few more clips here. Oh, wait a minute. That's not right.

Oh, yeah. No, it does. Okay. It's close enough Where you where I click it's a neat program.

This is the one's thrown us a curve a few times Um, wherever you click and what you wrote in your notes is where it goes to Yeah, I mean today that's kind of the point of contention though is that he did appeal to greek as a

Claim that you were wrong in your argumentation and conclusions And so he did appeal to that as the indicator and what we're going to see is that it just doesn't hold up what he was saying

Okay So we just played what I said Did I refer to greek

In my closing statement as the reason why his arguments were wrong 10 second reference

To his closing statement insertion About the the verbs not the participles the verbs would have to be passive for my position to be true

Kuritko knows I was right He knows I was right, but he won't admit it instead you get this stuff

Why I don't get it I don't get it, you know, dr. Kuritko You know

What i'm talking about when I talk about Akua Montano because you later on you said well in the old testament, you know Montano takes efforts like that in John 6 in this text

You know what I was talking about, you know Leighton doesn't know what I was talking about and still doesn't know what

I was talking about. So why the obfuscation? Don't know

But he does say this And I think it's important That is what I care about I care about what does the text say?

How do we know what it says and that's where I stand or fall like that's the hill i'm willing to die on and so, um, yeah if What data can you present to me to show me that this is what the text says?

What data? Can you present to me? I just did and I did in the debate and you ignored it

You ignored it why Why did you focus on My response in the dividing line where I was well i've talked about The present participles because of this i've just now given you that information

You want to show me a place where hapus feudon is used in john. That's not about saving faith You can't you know it

You can't you know it So I don't get any of this I just want to know what the text says

Well, I would say it would be good if you're going to review debates You might want to adopt a new one. I want to know what the debate was actually about That'd be a good idea that'd be a really good idea two more

Done that work. Uh, I have not read james white's books. Um, and I actually have now read some of it.

I have Okay matter of fact Just so people know real quick joel before you continue because I know

The average layman watching this may or may not follow what that what he just said And so here's here's a clip from his book.

And so let me kind of Re -emphasize what he's saying He says that the the use of the present tense indicating an ongoing living faith versus a false false faith

Which is almost always placed in the heiress tense Catch that Catch that now again, it would have been nice.

They'd bothered to put up what book this was from I've written more than 20 of them. So it'd be nice to know But it's a little bit small here.

John as his custom refers to christians as the believing ones twice pustu usin

English translations norley missus and port noble of john's gospel contrast between truth saving faith, which is almost

Almost. Oh, does that say almost? Oh, it says almost look at that Almost always expressed through the use of the present tense indicating an ongoing living faith versus false false faith which is almost

A -l -m -o -s -t. Do we know what this word means? It's not a greek word almost

Always placed in the heiress tense, which by the way, we just demonstrated for you a few minutes ago Making no statement about his consistency or vitality

It is literally even to those who are believing in his name or the believing ones who believe in his name The term believing is the present participle number two the verb born

Uh, this has got to be This has got to be potter's freedom Because I don't think

I would have addressed this in drawn by the father or maybe god's sovereign grace. I don't know anyways, um

Agony, they saw is in the heiress passive form In its context not just because it's an heiress in its context

It is plainly said to be an act of god. All human agency is denied So that's what's up on the screen

Um was any of this in the debate No Did any of this come up in the debate?

No, did the term heiress appear in the debate? No Then what's this about?

When I gave a brief explanation on the dividing line about why I stopped listening

I mentioned in passing that I had said present participles Because in john you have this thing going on With hoppist you own and then you've got john 2 john 8 the heiress used a false faith

And they turned this into me making dogged rules. I didn't make no dogged rule and you know it

And you know it that's what I don't get Well, I do get it on Layton's part, but I don't get it on the other guy's part at all

All right. Last one. This is his longest thing. Here's where Okay, here's where I get corrected on the greek

And i've already seen people Talking about my embarrassing errors on the greek and you know, they don't have a clue what they're talking about But they're gonna believe it

And I guarantee you five years from now I'll get into a conversation with somebody and they're gonna repeat this stuff and they don't care if it's been refuted

They don't it doesn't matter as long as you get it out there It provides you cover.

That's why this is happening That's why this is happening It's sad

But that's that's the way it is. So, um this is Uh over three minutes, so I may have to stop it once or twice, but let's here's the big argument

So there are there are multiple there are many factors and i'm just giving you two ideas here There are lots of factors that go into deciding when things are conceptualized in one way or another

And this is a feature of the greek language. So there's a lot of talk there. I I understand that Um, but i'm giving you just an idea of what we're talking about when we talk about tense here

This is a very flexible thing um, and you're not typically Going to find um

Kind of like these these dogged, uh rules, uh, like like james is saying here, okay

That's a lie Prove it Where did I ever give you a dogged rule?

I gave you no dogged rules at all The quote on the screen puts the word almost in it.

No dogged rules complete misrepresentation Complete misrepresentation. Dr. Kuriko.

I hope no one ever does this to you But you're guilty of doing it to others why we don't know

But I presented no dogged rule. I had never told anyone that the heiress because it's an heiress means false faith

I've said in john There seems to be a contrast and here's what it looks like.

I've already given you the examples of it And that was all

I as I was all I said because you're the one that made the unkind unfair Prejudicial statement in the preceding

Quote unquote review which wasn't a review That it was strange and then you used it.

Well, that's probably indication of you know, secret meanings in the greek bunch of baloney bunch of baloney

You could have saved yourself this embarrassment if you had done your homework first, but you didn't And now it's like well

You're making the accusations We've got to we got to show the other side Okay, so hopefully that's somewhat clear

Now what what he was saying to layton in the debate? Was very specific.

So, uh, even if all that didn't make sense to you, please follow right now. Okay He's okay.

Please follow right now. Here's here is dr Kuritko's understanding of what

I was saying in the debate And anyone who's watched the debate Knows that what

I was saying is john 644 and 645 Are understandable as long as you continue the narrative?

Drawn is defined by jesus from his old testament citation as being taught by god and that therefore everyone hearing

And learning that is not some assertion of ability on their part But it's the result of the agency of god in making them didocto

That's the argument of the debate And if you're an oxford -trained scholar, well, that doesn't mean anything today

It's the woke school that should be irrelevant to christians anymore But if you're an oxford -trained scholar, you should at least be able to figure out what the point of the debate is

Right Okay, here we go Ed and what I critiqued was john 645

Layton is wrong in his application of the that verse because uh of Because in the original debate he said because uh, he he mistook that they're they're they're part

They're participles and not a finite verb. So layton assumed it was a finite verb and not a participle.

Therefore. He was wrong in okay We just watched this didn't we

When did that 10 second moment take place over halfway through the q after the closing statement

If you can be so blind as to think That this was the argument made in the debate itself

I give up I give up How can you do that?

I don't know I don't know. I hope people don't read your articles like this.

Dr. Kurt come I hope they don't just completely ignore what actually you wrote

What the context was or anything else I really hope that doesn't work that way Because you're gonna have you you can't complain if somebody does it to you

You really can't this is Correction now what to me he said because eris

Um, the eris tense and then eris participles here refer to false faith and that is what we have here on the screen for you however, um, that is not what's on the screen by the way

This is about a different passage As far as I can tell that's probably from john chapter one

Different book different passage not part of the context not part of the debate I don't understand how people can be so blind

And so confused and so completely disconnected. That's why i've had to theorize a few times in my own life

He didn't actually want in my own experience. He didn't actually watch the debate He was given this information by somebody else it would at least explain the level of confusion

Where you can take a 10 second statement? In the q a and turn it into the fundamental argument of the entire debate and layton flowers sitting there.

Look at his face He doesn't know what's going on either and he sat there. He knows better layton.

You knew That what he was saying wasn't true You knew it And you just sit there and let him go

Yes, sir algo says that what's on the screen is from the potter's freedom page 185 in the kindle edition.

Thank you algo, uh who is an ai generated bot who

That in real life fixes machines in puerto rico, but um, he's actually a ai generated bot

Says that what's on the screen is the potter's freedom page 185 in the kindle edition.

Can you tell me was I right? Is this a discussion of john chapter one? Uh, because this isn't about john 6

Not as far as I can see um So and I don't have the part of freedom here.

It'd take me too long to pull it up in Kindle and stuff like that, but I had a feeling you know It's not in this.

I don't think it's in the section on john's on john 6 We will see what the algo bot says, uh, by the way, he's a former

Oh, he says he's a former ai bot. Okay, so He has advanced into humanity now or or Been deleted did hillary get him, you know,

I really don't know So i'll be interested in finding out i'll let you know what you get there.

But the point is what's on the screen Has nothing to do with the debate

Nothing at all And i'm not making rules there's nothing dogged this is pure misrepresentation

And I don't understand it, but it's easy to document I I don't know.

I don't know. All right, we'll continue on and find out what the algo bot says hear this John 6 45 has two participles the one hearing the one learning

They are both aorist participles therefore What he said makes no sense uh in in Trying to contradict layton because he would be stating based on his argumentation

That the one hearing and learning from the father that's saying false faith if the air is whole aorist thing stands

So Here we have an oxford scholar Confusing A statement at the end of the debate about layton not understanding

What akuo and montano mean semantically and there are semantic domains

That they these terms do not mean these are um inherent capacities of all people

But they are the result of god Teaching which is the drawing both result in coming to the sun

So I Make reference to his error in his closing statement.

So we're not talking about the debate anymore. Here are we? Nope, we're not talking about the debate anymore Because now he wants to pretend and it's pretense

It's falsehood That i've made an an argument because he even said because we added a twitter exchange

He even said on twitter that I presented an argument. I gave nothing to him

I was explaining why I stopped listening to the original review because The person was making silly statements and that was him

And now we have the assertion that I am teaching That if it's in the heiress, it's false faith that is a lie li e with a capital l and a capital e

Never said anything like it anything The algo bot went offline.

I don't know. Oh, okay It could be It reminds me of that scene in um galaxy quest

Where they they need this information now to save the ship And the kid who's trying to give them the information has to take the garbage out because his mom's telling him to Mom, you have no idea how important this is

And he that they show him throwing the garbage into the into the into the thing and running back to continue providing them with their

Needed information that algo's undoubtedly taking the trash out right now So anyways a little light levity here in the midst of documenting so many falsehoods, uh coming from the provisionist side

So i've never ever ever ever ever said that the heiress

You got it. We've got answers. He says this is regarding john 1 12 through 13 john 1 12 to 13

Has nothing to do with john 6 Good. I I saw it, you know when I saw Born, I i'm like, yeah, that's that's that's john chapter 1.

Yeah. Yeah, so the what they have on the screen Didn't appear in the debate They have on the screen says almost

It's not a dogged rule. I'm simply being lied about It's mate and switch

Kuritko is just as confused as the day is long and layton just lets it happen

Just lets it happen I'll let you provisionists deal with this

Because there are some of you they're honest enough to go. Oh my goodness. What a mess this is How did you get us into this

Yeah, it doesn't by the way. Oh, okay. I'm sorry So he's saying so he should know that Akusas and Mothone are heiress and therefore he's contradicting himself.

I never made anything close to that argument not once I don't even know how someone could be so confused as to think that I was

I and I corrected him on it on twitter. You can go look But he's dogged you made this as an argument.

I never made it as an argument not once not once Yeah, and he's still getting there

But that he would bring that up in the debate and say i've got you layton because of this And that's apparently his argument

He's actually catch that he brought up in debate and that's his argument in a q after the closing statements

That's all that's all you need to know That's all you need to know The the credibility gone nothing left i'm gonna play 33 more seconds and we're gonna go to the other

One which is only a minute long And we're gonna wrap this up shooting himself in the foot because he's then saying

That the hearing and the learning are false faith If this whole heiress thing stands and so This is why in my original commentary with zach on what your pastor didn't tell you

I went I don't think I don't think he understands. Um The kind of the ins and outs of the greek language i'm sure he can read the greek new testament

I'm sure that he can he has a he has somewhat a knowledge of of it. But um this statement

Is just incorrect and so you Okay, this statement is mythology on dr.

Gritko's part Um, it has no connection with reality has no connection with the debate Uh has no connection with the book has no connection with subject

Refuted 100 nothing left. I mean there is no way of saying well, it might be that.

No, there's no might here this is utter misrepresentation

Utter misrepresentation, it's um, it's astonishing. It really is Um, let me see here

Oh come down come on down, there you go. All right Okay, that's enough for critco, um one last thing to do because I said on twitter, um

That um I would do this and so i'm going to do it and Here is this

Odd video that was sent to me Um, not really high quality

I don't know who this is The name the face looks slightly familiar to me

If if the algo bot knows I I would I'd I'll be glad to tell everybody um

But you can tell this is very low quality. You can't read any of the Any of what's up there?

Um, but to start off This must be have been played

When the recording was made at 1 .5 or above the guy's talking it's a chipmunk thing and he reads the greek and again, it's so fast that I I don't know um but So there's all of a minute and Less than 30 seconds here

Of where it actually actually gets into The critique of me so let's let's

See what there is to hear issues. Those are white's words Unfortunately, though this seems rather disingenuous not only to flowers but to the grammarians of ancient greek and scholars of ancient greek as well

Additionally white seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of greek aspect the text in john's six verse. I get the feeling that this was sent out as the meme

Um, we see this You know the left does it all the time they send out the you know the talking points

And so the thing is I don't know anything about aspect now, okay Taught it many many times, but I don't think about it.

So this is the thing you're supposed to be repeating um is Aspect aspect aspect.

Okay. All right. So what what what's what's wrong with whatever it is? I said 44 and 45 reveals active participation at the hands of the agent and if they are man

Is there some way to slow this down? It's it's hard to even understand from those speakers over there.

It's not very loud But it's so fast I I the only thing I can figure is they had to try to cram this all into whatever you can post on twitter um and I Hold on a second.

Let me see. Ah playback speed

Okay, I don't have much of an option here Uh, i'm gonna the only thing i've got is half

Half Okay, it'll take a little bit longer but at least it might be understandable now forming an action outwardly hence the active voice moreover

Akuo The verb to hear and montano the verb to learn are heirs participles in the indicative active voice

Which is nothing more than a fancy grammar rule for past tense

That is to say that they are not In the passive which would have been in the middle slash passive voice

Additionally, the only verb in the middle slash passive voice is the verb air choma

Which means to come and it's in the infinitive Which means it's in the middle voice and not the passive So it is rather bizarre that white would argue that Though the verbs are in the active the agents are passively receiving the action which in this case is hearing and learning

It's very puzzling furthermore Dr. Koretko has revealed recently in another video on what your pastor doesn't tell you or didn't tell you uh and he states

That the words akuo and montano to learn or to hear and to learn have a distinction

And the latter to learn Requires more output from the agent which is to say that the agent must do

More when learning as opposed to hearing in other words

The agent is doing more than passively taking in info making the actionaire in john 645 active

Koretko buttresses his argument by using polybius from his work entitled histories in book three in which polybius himself notices the distinction between the words there akuo and montano

Explicitly stating that there is more work involved for the agent

Dr. Koretko also rightly points out though white should have supported his assertion with a source

Which is what you do in debates and scholarship Which seem to be lacking in his open remarks concerning this claim in john 6

Um, sorry, okay, um, this is what happens when you um

Have one confused person Putting out videos that confuse others

So here's some guy don't know who he is And he's following what Koretko says But we've just documented that Koretko has no idea what

I was saying in the debate And he's not dealing with what was in the debate at all So what is interesting is that he talks about?

um Finding references, which again if you have really good bible software if you have um

You know, I I i'm a big accordance guy. I think it's it's great but accordance logos um

They all have modules that you can buy uh to where you know, you you've got b dag and you you've got uh

Lo and nita you've got various lexicons that you can Utilize and look up references and then there are modules you can get that will give you fuller examples from Secular sources and things like that and it's always fascinating to look at background usage

Though of course simply finding something outside the new testament doesn't mean it has anything to do

With what's going on in the new testament. You have to prove that from the initial context

And the point is that in john 6 45 The one hearing and the one learning are both doing the same thing

They're coming to jesus which in 644 is the result of being drawn So it is irrelevant to argue that it takes more effort to montano than to a kuo

What in 645 is even talking about these individuals doing anything? Feu Is the genitive?

God's the one acting Stick with the text people They can't

Because they're synergists And so in essence, they don't believe what the text is saying So that's why they don't stick with it.

They're going to run someplace else So you've got one uh guy causing confusion for another guy who just follows what he's saying

And then because he can read greek real fast or again, I don't I don't know if it was recorded that speed or whatever else he just rips it out there

He's the one doing the see I can read this real fast type thing Um, but then doesn't seem to understand what the issues are either

And so again, he he's confused He makes he made the same mistake that layton flowers did this would have to be in the passive Okay, i've already explained that one 10 000 times on this program we're not going to need to repeat it again

Uh, let's just let's just point out. Um the argument It's really bad really bad.

Okay Now that was nearly two hours worth of material.

All right We have gone through the text we have played video we have demonstrated

That the provisionist playground is cranking out all sorts of stuff

That simply requires you to not have watched the debate What I just before you finish up.

Oh uh, I have a question because Layton and company have also made a basically saying you failed to prove the thesis

Oh, and and it's like but wait a minute If the only one acting

Is the father and the son Reacting Okay But there's no motivation there's no

Uh, it's not what we do. That is the basis of the condition therefore the condition

Is unconditional it's in godly with the father right and the fact that they can are

How did they miss that? Well, I have ears to hear And I have ears to hear they have that's the part that scares the daylights out of me when

I yeah Yeah, I know I know Yeah, if you didn't hear it, uh rich was talking about the the fact that they're going well, that doesn't prove unconditional election

Hey, you know if you want to prove unconditional election Go read the potter's freedom

I gave you every every reference I can think of uh demonstrating unconditional election. The point was that john 644 uh teaches

That god draws a particular people and I knew That Leighton flower's current theory on that is to do the end around by going down to 45 inserting human capacity and ability

Into hearing and learning and then reading it backwards all the way up to verse, uh, 37

And so I headed that off at the pass Uh, but it didn't make any difference because that's all he's got so it's not like he can shift gears or Delve into the text and come up with something else.

There's nothing to get there's nothing to delve into the text to get Um, it's it's clear it's compelling but look

All I can do is present it And the the joyous thing about being reformed

Is it and you see this? You see the behavior of the provisionist playground right now

The childish memes i've seen my face in so many childish memes

Because they're threatened by what happened Their great leader

For the second time in a row had to be all over the map

Because it doesn't matter what the text is His whole argument is these specific this this calvinism.

There can't be a decree of god There just can't be that's That's And these are not happy people

These are not content people I went on from this to the night two nights later

Defending the doctrine of trinity against a unitarian I'm going to be taking on jimmy aiken in louisiana at the end of next month lord willing um

And i'm starting to work on Um setting up a debate for later in the year

That will be absolutely epic And will be fairly new for us, but very important at this particular point in time in history

And I don't care if the provisionists keep making stupid memes The only people who are listening are the people in the playground

I want to do this program so we could point at someone and say look You want a response here it is watch the debate

Watch this program There's nothing more to be said there's nothing more to be said

We've we've dealt with it with the help of the algo bot Uh, which is which is nice to which is nice to have

Okay. Well, uh, thank you for putting up with us for two hours today

I'm, thankful the stream survived, uh that long And rock solid good. Uh, and uh, i'm this is monday.

So i'm not sure when we I need to get hold of jason wallace Uh and see if we can't arrange to have him on we can do it in here have him up on the screen uh and talk about um some important stuff in regards to eastern orthodoxy, so We'll be going that direction.