F4F | James Prasch Defeats Army of 666 Strawmen

Welcome to another installment of Fighting for the Faith. My name is Chris Roseborough. I am your servant in Jesus Christ.

This is the channel that compares what people are saying in the name of God to the Word of God. Now, as promised, this is what

I'm hoping to be probably the last installment of the Prash Files because the reality is we've already proven our point.

It's time to wrap up, show you what we were doing, why we were doing it, and then move on. That's really what we're at.

So, you know, be advised that the next video is gonna be a normal installment of Fighting for the

Faith. We're gonna set a course for the Aletheia and head back out to sea and target the

NAR, secret -driven guys, and things like that. So keep in mind that's coming. This was necessary and I don't regret doing this at all, and the reason for what

I am doing was stated in the video that I did yesterday talking about, well,

James Aloysius. Yeah, somebody was telling me that the right way of pronouncing that word,

Aloysius, James Aloysius Prash Jr. and his real ancestry, and in that video explained why we did what we did, why

I was doing what I was doing. Today will be a little bit of a wrap -up. So one of the things I said today's episode is titled

James Prash Defeats an Army of 666 Strawmen, and that's pretty much what he did, but let's walk through this.

Let's take a look at the wrap -up on all of this, and so put together a series of slides, and I will make these also available down below as part of the footnotes for this episode.

Again, I'm gonna reiterate this. I'm not here to think for you. Colt will think for you.

I'm here to show you how to think biblically so that you can learn how to do this for yourself, okay?

I'm not interested in mind control of thinking for you. Now I ask you to come think along with me.

That's the idea. So now for kind of like the bigger reveal. I knew that James Prash was going to attack me.

I knew this. Why? Because of his history. This is a repeated pattern of behavior, and so as part of the links for today's episode, in the footnotes,

I again am going to put a link to the worst reality TV show ever created, the videos created by TBC Kawai, where he chronicles the witch -hunting, the demonizing, the over -the -top rhetoric, the strawman arguments, and all the nonsense that James Prash and his followers engage in, and you'll see that the pattern that we just went through,

I offered a substantive critique of the Prashians. This resulted in me being attacked personally.

Total ad hominem attacks and the subterfusion nonsense that took place follows the exact same pattern that you can see documented in the worst reality

TV show ever. So what I, again, think for yourself.

Watch the episodes put up by TBC Kawai. What happened to me has happened to others, and the fact that it happened to me is proof this is their modus operandi.

So the Prash ministry playbook. What is their playbook? Demonize, misrepresent, slander, and strawman.

These are their go -to things that they do, and so we'll talk about this.

I've likened it to the movie talking about having the burn book.

Mean Girls is the name of it, and I really think this analogy is so fetch,

I'm just saying. But this is what they do. So whenever you see, from now on, service

Prashie, Joshua Lydia Chavez attacking myself,

Doreen Virtue, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Justin Peters, or whoever the next hapless victim is, then you'll note that, oh yeah, the

Prashians have pulled out their burn book again. So predictable.

This is their playbook. So in here, I say I knew full well that I was going to receive the entire cadre of attacks by Prash before I ever criticized him.

In fact, I was counting on it. Totally counting on it. I knew that by critiquing him, out would come

Godzilla. And so I knew this was all gonna happen.

And by the way, I downfall meme. Now James Prash takes issue with this, but we put a video up, and the name of it was

Intercepted Video of a Ministry Strategy Meeting from Cuckoo Banana Land, or Cuckoo Big Banana Land, because John MacArthur is the big banana, you know.

And in here, if you're familiar with the downfall meme, you've got these guys sitting there showing the strategy, and as I laid out, they were laying out the strategy for the destruction of the reputation of pirate

Christian, and they were going to have Lydia try to prove that I was a Jesuit, and all this kind of stuff.

And exactly what I said was going to happen was going to happen, and that is that the predictable thing happened.

I'm a confessional Lutheran, and confessional Lutherans hang on to some very traditional parts of Christianity that much of today's

Christianity has fallen by the wayside. Pastoral uniforms, candles, things like that.

And I'm not going to defend them here, because what James Prash said about me is totally false.

He built a straw man about my theology. For instance, I do not believe Baptism Works ex operato.

That's just completely fallacious, which shows he knows nothing about Lutheranism.

He's not really interested in accurately portraying those whom he's trying to demonize, and so he's painted me as an ultra -Lutheran, as I'm a

Roman Catholic. No, I'm not. Far from it. I don't know if you guys have noticed, historically

Roman Catholics and confessional Lutherans don't get along, and there's reasons for this.

So if anyone wants to know what it is that I believe, teach, confess, I do not hide it.

You can find the doctrines of confessional Lutheranism at bookofconcord .org,

and I always teach them from the Scriptures. I hold on to these doctrines because I believe they faithfully represent and summarize what the

Scripture teaches. So when James Aloysius Prash Jr.

claimed, oh, I don't even teach from the Bible, I teach from Luther's Catechism and stuff, that's total slander, total slander.

So I don't have to answer that. So I knew that this is what they were going to do.

I knew that this is what they were going to do, and in the meme, I make a point of pointing out that they have to make sure that I am considered to be part of the secret agenda of the

Antichrist, you know, to get you to take the mark of the beast, and well, James Aloysius Prash Jr.

has delivered on that point as well. And so I've been cast into the bucket of demonic 666 activity and all this kind of stuff, and this is just slander, misrepresentation, and nonsense.

I predicted it in this meme, and they delivered. Now the only thing I wasn't right about, and I'm kind of bummed about this,

I was really, really, really hoping that they were gonna promote me to being the ten -headed beast.

I was so hoping on that, but alas, they haven't. So that part I did get wrong.

So bummer for me, you know, but the strategy and the tactics and what they were gonna engage in, saw it coming a bazillion miles away before I even spoke a single word, before I hit the record button on the first video,

I knew this was what they were going to do. So, you know, so in the downfall meme predicted it, and you're gonna note then, let me read out what

I wrote, the downfall meme posted on our YouTube account was my prediction of what Prash would say in order to, quote, defend himself.

He doesn't defend himself, he attacks his critics. There's a difference between defending yourself and attacking your critics.

So defending himself against my critiques of him and his teaching. So the goal then, by making myself his target, was so that I can point out his pattern of behavior in real time,

I've already said that, and show that this is part of a repeated, predictable pattern by Prash and his cult followers.

This is how they operate, and yes, they are a cult.

There's just no doubt about it, because the followers are not, they are completely, you know, not allowed to think.

They are told what to think by the ultras, the leaders, and by Prash himself.

And so you'll note that's the case. So let's take a look at the next slide then. Let's see here.

So let's talk about their tactics. So first of all, they deflect by demonization.

That's what they do. So these are ad hominem arguments. Ad hominem is an argument against the man.

They are designed to discredit those offering valid criticisms of Prash's teaching or behavior.

Think of it along the lines of the witch hunt from Monty Python's The Holy Grail. So here's their strategy.

Find one bit of dirt, or some point of disagreement, or something odd or out of place to pin on the critic, and by doing so claim that nothing that that critic says can be true or taken seriously.

This is a well -established, well -established tactic on their part, and I would point to Graham Baldwin of Catalyst as an example.

So deflect by demonization, Graham Baldwin of Catalyst. Prash dismisses all of the valid criticisms offered by Graham by saying that Graham has, quote, no

Christian beliefs and his spiritual abuse counseling group represents homosexuals, lesbians,

Muslims, and Mormons, etc. Now I'm going to note something here. You know, I have a primary care physician here in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and my physician services everybody.

It doesn't matter if you're a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu, an atheist, an agnostic.

It doesn't matter if you're yellow, black, or white, or anything like that. My primary care physician will take you on as a patient, and it doesn't matter who you are.

And I kind of hope that would be the case, because I sure would hate to be, you know, limited in my ability to visit a physician based upon my skin color, or based upon my religion, or things like that.

So you'll note here, this is not a valid criticism. This is not a valid criticism at all if there are any kind of a counseling group, and you're going to note this is a counseling group that specializes in spiritual abuse and spiritual bullying and people who have been victimized by people like Prash.

So what does he do? He demonizes Graham Baldwin of Catalyst. So here's the thing.

In order to help people and counsel them who've been spiritually abused, should we say, no, we can't help you if you've been spiritually abused by Muslims, or spiritually abused by Mormons, or spiritually abused, or whatever?

We can't help you! You know, this is nonsense, and I believe Graham Baldwin practices in Europe, and I don't even think he would have the ability to discriminate who he counsels for.

So, and here's the thing. Even if Graham Baldwin were an atheist, that doesn't mean his criticism is not valid.

That has nothing to do with the validity of what he says. So you'll note, this is what they do.

They deflect by demonization. And so, Grant, you can't trust him. He doesn't have any

Christian beliefs. He counsels people who are sexually messed up. He counsels people from other religions.

Oh, don't listen to him! This is a spiritual abuse tactic, okay?

So, yeah, this is their way of saying, he's in league with the devil, so therefore everything he said, all of his criticisms about Jacob, I'm sorry, he's not

Jacob, James Aloysius Pratt, Jr., all of his criticisms about James Aloysius Pratt, Jr.,

they're completely false because he's in league with the devil. Yeah, that's, you know, deflection and demonization and ad hominem.

That's not any valid way of defending yourself against allegations.

Now, this next one here. Former employee of Moriel, I've blurred him out, so he can't be trusted.

Why? Because apparently he owes money to Moriel, therefore nothing he says can be trusted.

So, by the way, whether or not this fellow owes money to Moriel has zero bearing on the truthfulness of his testimony and the evidence that he has against Prash, okay?

And I would note this, I've seen the documents and I've seen no documentation, none whatsoever, that this fellow owes

Prash any money at all and I would defy

Moriel to produce a loan document because 501c3s, they're not allowed to loan money.

Did you know that? I don't know if you knew that, but, you know, so anyway, but you know, this is deflection by demonization.

He owes us money, so it can't be true. Whatever he says, it can't be true. He owes us money. Yeah, okay, well,

I owe my employees money like every two weeks, so because, you know, we're like a week and a half out until the next payday, does that mean that you can't trust me because I owe money to my employees?

And usually that's the way it goes, by the way. Employers owe money to employees, usually not the other way around.

How'd you work it the opposite way? I'm curious. Anyway, regardless of whether or not he owes money doesn't change the truthfulness of what he says.

That has to be based upon documentation. All right, then getting to me, of course,

I've been demonized. Why? Well, because I'm a closet Roman Catholic. I'm an ultra Lutheran.

You can't trust that Rose, bro, so can't listen to anything he says. He's theologically suspect.

Well, I'll be happy to defend anything, I believe, from Scripture and Scripture alone. Anything.

But you'll note that this tactic, this entire tactic, deflection by demonization, is designed to keep you from thinking for yourself.

That's what it's designed to do. This is how cults operate. The cult has determined these people are not worthy, therefore you can just ignore what they say.

I would note that using this tactic, this cult, there's nobody they would ever consider worthy of offering any criticism to them whatsoever.

Isn't that scary? Which means the only people they're accountable to are themselves.

That's frightening. Now, other tactics. Slander. Resorting to outright lies. Oh, and they do.

Man, they are like gifted in this department. Not only do they resort to outright lies, they seem to be quite the masters at spinning false narratives, and they are amazing mind readers.

In fact, hang on a second here. Ah, yes. Because one of the things I've noticed about them, and I have to do this now, hold on a second, is that James Aloysius Prash can read your mind.

He knows the motives by which you operate, and he can tell the reason why you've chosen to do something.

That's slander, too, by the way. Nobody has the ability to read minds, and so when they say, the reason why

Rosebro's doing this is because, yeah, yeah, they're claiming to be mind readers, and they're not.

That's a form of slander. So we note that. The other thing they engage in, and I'm sorry that my computer is so slow in responding.

I have it doing a lot of things all at once here, but let's get to the next one. The use of straw men.

And straw men is where we're gonna spend a little bit of our time today, kind of deconstructing and offering just a few more counter arguments to some of the things that Prash and the

Prashians have said. So a straw man argument, attempt a deflection of an opponent's argument to a point they weren't defending, you know, and so it's no good when somebody engages in a straw man.

So a straw man, this is one of Prash's most used tactics. It really is. This tactic simply ignores a person's actual argument or criticism and substitutes, substitutes a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of that position.

Case in point, a great example of this, and TBC Kawai put out a video that I would recommend looking at, we'll put a footnote to it down below, where he addresses, you know,

Prash's straw man regarding the republicofsouthafrica .com .net

.org domains that James Aloysius Prash Jr. owns, okay?

On the video, on the three -hour long video of the 666 virtue of Chris Rosebro, James Aloysius Prash Jr.

claimed, and they accused me of embezzling 1 .5 million dollars from, from South Africa.

Nobody accused you of that. That's a straw man. What people have accused you of, and what is documented, is that you purchased the

URLs, the republicofsouthafrica .com .net .org for the purpose engaging in cyber -squatting so that you can sell them.

This is well documented, and the asking price for the three URLs combined came to 1 .5

million dollars US. And so on the, the, the 666 virtue of Chris Rosebro video, three -hour long bowel movement of James Aloysius Prash, he engages in a straw man.

And so TBC Kauai does a fine job in his rebuttal video showing that's a straw man.

No one was accusing him of embezzlement. Nobody. But of trying, attempting to extort, you know, 1 .5

US million dollars out of the, the Republic of South Africa. This is just a fact.

And so you'll know, one of the things that James Aloysius Prash Jr. does, he constantly, constantly sets up these straw men, arguments that people haven't made, knocks them down.

Oh, he's, he's quite the amazing man at knocking down straw men. I mean, it should almost be a full contact sport with him.

I think I would pay money to watch him physically knock down straw men on, on, on like a football pitch or something like that.

I, that would be entertainment. I mean, seriously, I, I think I'd stop breathing because I would laugh so hard.

But pretty much that's what he does. And so you, you get the idea.

So we're walking through, these are the tactics, and we'll demonstrate how all of this works as we work through the rest of the video today.

So what I've done here, by the way, this needs to be addressed here, and I'll address this at this point.

The claim right now, and let me see if I can find it right now, the claim right now, and this is hilarious.

Let me find it though. Oh man, where did I put it? Hang on a second here. No, there it is.

There it is. Okay. So they actually responded today, and this is hilarious. So the claim right now,

Chris Rose Bros running from a live debate. Oh no,

James Frasch, James Aloysius Frasch wants to debate me. Oh, what am I going to do? So, so this is the narrative now, that I'm running from a debate, but it's just so, it's just so predictably stupid.

Okay, so let me just kind of throw this out here. If James Frasch wants to debate me, there's only one topic

I'm willing to debate him on. Only one. And, and the topic is, does the New Testament teach that Jesus is the

Metatron? And here are the rules before I will agree to having this debate. The location for the debate must be

Jerusalem, which means we're gonna have to wait until the pandemic's over. It will be moderated and filmed, and I think each party should film it themselves.

I just don't like the idea of us using our equipment to give it to Moriel. Anyway, the event must be free to the public for them to attend.

Now, if you want to sell the video on the Moriel website, you could. I don't care. We'll make it for free at piratechristian .com.

So the cost for the venue, though, for the venue itself, where the debate's going to be held, you know, so the venue, paying the moderator if necessary, those costs have to be shared equally between Moriel and Pirate Christian Media, and each ministry then is responsible to pay for their own travel, their own food, and lodging.

And here's an absolutely non -negotiable part of the debate. The leaders of the

Hasidic community of Jerusalem will be invited to attend, and they will be given the ability to ask questions directly to each of us as part of the debate format.

This is the only topic I am willing to debate James Prash on, because that's the topic that needs to be discussed.

That's the one, because over and again he keeps engaging in straw men and moving the goalposts and all this nonsense regarding the

Metatron, and so the only topic I'm willing to debate him on is, does the New Testament teach that Jesus is the

Metatron? That's the only one. So, you want to debate me, James? Aloysius Jr.?

You want to debate me? Don't run, man! I'm willing to debate you, so don't run away!

Don't run away from me, man! Those are the terms. So those are the terms.

I'll be happy to debate you. That's the topic. Those are the terms. You agree to that. I'll see you in Jerusalem.

So that's the best way I can put it. So all that being said, what we're gonna do now is we're gonna walk through some of this nonsense and demonstrate the different tactics in kind of soundbite fashion.

So as we kind of do our wrap -up and post -mortem on this nonsense of the

Prash cult. So in this, in the 666 virtue of Chris Rosebra, notice this is an example of demonizing me.

Apparently, you know, I'm all about the virtues of 666. Really? You think so?

Nuts! This is just nuts. Alright, so we're gonna note what he engages in here, and we'll highlight it along the way.

So let's take a look at this first soundbite. Be that as it may, he takes issue with me because of my disagreement with John MacArthur on the

Mark of the Beast. I believe anyone who takes it is doomed.

They've sold their soul to Satan. Whoever takes it, and that's reiterated three times.

Whoever. There are no exceptions. Even if it would have been theoretically possible for somebody to repent because it's not the unforgivable sin, it's not going to happen.

Now I'm gonna note here, aside from quadrupling down, which is what he's doing here, he's wrong.

He's misrepresented me. In my critique videos, I've made it clear that the thing

I'm taking issue with, and this is in the Prash and Bern episode of Fighting for the

Faith, the thing I'm taking issue with is not that he disagrees with John MacArthur. That's kind of silly because even

I disagree with John MacArthur, okay? In case you didn't hear in that episode, I was saying, don't take the

Mark of the Beast. That's exactly my position. That's what I said. I disagree with John MacArthur on this, and I've publicly said it.

The issue is, and the thing I'm taking issue with, is that you have stated that everybody in the cessationist, reformed,

Calvinist camp is the super -secret weapon of the

Antichrist designed to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

That's the issue. I have taken issue with your narrative about them being a super -secret weapon of the

Antichrist. Now I'm now part of that group, by the way, too, apparently, and so the issue here is you are free,

James Aloysius Prash Jr., you are free to disagree with John MacArthur.

I disagree with John MacArthur. What you're not free to do is to say that he's part of a super -secret plan of the

Antichrist to deceive the elect. That is slander.

So here's the issue. The issue is not that you disagree with John MacArthur. The issue is that you're demonizing him and anybody who has even a loose affiliation with him, like myself.

Loose affiliation because I have a friendship with Phil Johnson, have spoken at conferences with him, and invited him to my own conference a few years back.

So that's just nonsense. That's absolute gobbledygook.

That is an example of a straw man. I don't take issue with you for disagreeing with John MacArthur. I take issue with you continuing to beat this drum and then anathematizing anybody that doesn't agree with your position.

People can disagree with you. That's fine. You'll note that eschatology is a tertiary issue.

In Christianity, when it comes to the essentials, there is unity. When it comes to the non -essentials, there should be charity.

And there's no charity on your part when you demonize and accuse people of being a super -secret weapon of the devil when they disagree with your eschatology.

That's the issue, and you have not yet addressed the issue. You just beat up and defeated a straw man.

Let's take a look at the next one here. I think this is the one regarding Todd Friel. Well, you just heard

Mr. Roseborough say, in effect, he disagrees with John MacArthur. He disagrees with Todd Friel.

I do. I'm disagree with their eschatology. And you'll note that I don't go out there and then say, well, if you're not on Millennial, if you're not on Millennial, then you're part of the super -secret cabal to take the mark of the beast.

I give my biblical reasons why I disagree, and I move on.

In the words of the famous Disney movie, you familiar with this one?

Let it go. Let it go. Let it go. You get the idea.

So, James Aloysius, let it go. Man, we know you disagree with John MacArthur.

You don't need to demonize everybody that disagrees with you. But we continue.

He disagrees with Phil Johnson. These things, seven years, three and a half years, etc.,

are all symbolic. Now, when those people he's defending take these things sequential and literal, in a sequential and literal manner, he doesn't mention it.

When I do the same thing, all of a sudden, I'm somehow cultic.

Well, again, the issue here, as I've stated, the problem is not that you disagree with John MacArthur.

The problem is that you say that he's part of a super -secret weapon of the Antichrist to deceive the elect.

And so, you'll note here that, yes, John MacArthur is a premillennialist.

Do you think he believes the same thing you do, that he is an agent of the

Antichrist to deceive the elect? Is that a requirement of premillennialism? You know, if I decided that I was going to switch from being amillennial to premillennial, after going back through the biblical text,

I thought, you know, I've decided I'm going to go premillennial instead. Would being premillennial require me to believe that John MacArthur is an agent of the

Antichrist? I need to know, because that's never been a requirement of premillennialism in the past.

So, yeah, you'll note that that's kind of the... So, I bring this up just because he keeps, like, intentionally refusing to address the issue.

The issue is not whether or not people agree or disagree with John MacArthur.

The issue is the Prash cult has determined that anybody even associated with John MacArthur, that well, they're part of the 666 thing, man.

They're part of the part of the inside secret, you know, thing of the enemy to get you to be deceived, and all this kind of...

This is nonsense. This is nonsense. So, again, these are examples of what we would call straw men.

And so, I think we then talk about John MacArthur derangement syndrome. Yeah, they have it.

MacArthur states directly that it's not only possible, but that people will do it.

Phil Johnson waffles. I don't know. It's hypothetical. Well, John MacArthur was not hypothetical, and he did know.

Yeah, John MacArthur gave this as an answer to a Q &A 30 years ago. Why do you keep trotting this thing out?

So, you see a contradiction between what Phil Johnson says and John MacArthur says.

Do a rewind and watch it for... Do either of them think that John MacArthur is an agent of the anti...

Or yourself. Now, let's go back to Chris Rose, bro, who's defending this.

What am I defending exactly? I disagree with John MacArthur. I've said it. I said it in the video with Phil Johnson.

I've said it in this video. I'm not defending anything that John MacArthur has done. I just...

I've noted. I disagree with what he says regarding the Mark of the Beast. Just totally. So, why do you say

I'm defending it? Because I refuse to say he's an agent of the Antichrist? Yeah, saying that he's an agent of the

Antichrist is cuckoo -bananatown, and that's the problem. The problem is the doomsday narrative you've put together, where John MacArthur is...

He's like your physical, you know, enemy, that he is the physical representation of Satan on earth in your guys' eschatology, which is nonsense.

This is absolute nonsense. You disagree with John MacArthur, you give your biblical reasons why, and you move on.

And he says those who oppose what John MacArthur's teaching have MacArthur derangement syndrome.

Wrong! Those who think that John MacArthur is the agent of the Antichrist have John MacArthur derangement syndrome.

Okay, listen to what he said, because this is a straw man. I want you to hear it again. Let's go back to Chris Rose, bro, who's defending this.

I'm not. And he says those who oppose what John MacArthur's teaching have MacArthur derangement syndrome.

I didn't say that. I said that those who believe that John MacArthur is an agent of the Antichrist have

John MacArthur derangement syndrome. You see, you could disagree with John MacArthur till you're blue in the face.

I don't have a problem with that, until you say he's an agent of the Antichrist, and you know, all this kind of nonsense that you've concocted.

Yeah, that's the problem. The reason why you are attacking him is because of your false narrative about him that he's an agent of the

Antichrist. The reason why you're attacking me is because now I've been snowballed into this, but I volunteered for the job, so I don't get to complain.

I willingly, I willingly decided it's time for me to be, to take a more prominent role in Prashkitology.

I volunteered for this. How? By offering a criticism. So again, this is an example of complete straw man nonsense.

Now we're gonna get on to the topic of, I think, Doreen Virtue. Hang on a second here.

I want to make sure that I'm at the right place here. So in order to get to the right place,

I've got to back that video up just a smudge. It's about right here, so let's talk about Doreen Virtue, shall we?

The factor in the equation. Doreen Virtue is the woman who's famous, some say infamous, for her so -called three -dimensional apparition of Christ, which we'll come to shortly.

Okay. That is promoted, of course, by, among others,

Phil Johnson. So Phil Johnson promotes Doreen Virtue's three -dimensional vision of Jesus.

I would like to know, what vehicle did you use to cross that chasm?

Because Evel Knievel couldn't even jump that gap. I mean, even in his rocket jet car, man, he couldn't do it.

He couldn't do it. So Phil Johnson promotes Doreen Virtue's three -dimensional

Jesus vision. Really? And certainly, Chris Rosebrough, and unfortunately,

Justin Peters. Okay, so myself, Phil Johnson, and Justin Peters all promote

Doreen Virtue's three -dimensional vision of Jesus. How do you figure?

Now, I'm gonna go to another portion of the video here to kind of make the point, you know, yet again, because I think it's worth noting here, this is lunacy.

This is lunacy and slander, so is the best way I can put it. Do the same things.

Mmm. There's Doreen Virtue's curly -haired Jesus without the stigmata. Do I promote this?

No. By the way, I've publicly stated I don't think this was from Jesus.

I've said it, in fact, when I had Doreen on Fighting for the Faith, and she talked about this,

I told the story of the vision I had and told her it was not from God, it was from the devil. Okay, so how do

I know? How do I know whether this vision of Jesus from Doreen is from God or not?

You want to know the answer? The answer to the question is, I know it's not a vision from God because it claims to be a vision from God.

The thing is false on its face. Okay, so I think of it this way. Do a little bit of homework, okay?

The 70 weeks have already been fulfilled. The 70 weeks of the book of Daniel, they've already been fulfilled.

As part of the promises of the 70 weeks in Daniel chapter 9 is the sealing of prophecy and vision.

So at this point, if anybody comes to me saying, I've had a vision of Jesus, I know for a fact that the vision that they had isn't from Jesus.

It's not from God. So, and by the way, I've even told Doreen privately that that wasn't from God, and here's the best part, she's publicly stated that.

Okay, so on Doreen Virtue's Instagram, all right, on her Instagram from July 2nd,

Doreen Virtue writes, perhaps when I saw that vision, the Holy Spirit was simultaneously helping me understand the biblical and orthodox truth that Jesus is the eternal

Son of God. So here in this, she talks about her vision of Jesus, which isn't Jesus, okay?

And here's what she says, before I was Sata, I had a vision that I was certain was Jesus. She was confident that it was, because it pointed me to read the

Bible and to leave the New Age. During the vision, I also came to know that Jesus is the Son of God, who died for our sins, and that the

Bible is true. At first, as a new Christian, I loudly broadcasted that I had absolutely seen

Jesus, but the more that I studied the Bible and talked with mature Christians, I had doubts about who or what

I had seen that day. So recently, when a disparaging video about me was released,

I was so blessed to receive counsel and support from Justin Peters Ministry, Chris Rosebrough, Warren and Joy Smith, David Guzik, Don Vinnoit, Mike Moore, and the list goes on and on and on, okay?

And so you'll note that some of these brothers and sisters helped me see that my vision may have been demonic.

I told Doreen that to her face, that there is no way that that was a vision from Jesus, it had to be demonic, not to trust it.

And so for James Aloysius Prash Jr., that's his real name, claim that I support,

I endorse her vision of Jesus is just nonsense. It's a slanderous lie.

Why is he slanderously lying about me and Phil Johnson and Justin Peters?

Well, to demonize us, so that you don't listen to us. You cannot think for yourself.

You must listen to what their cult says. The cult has determined that Chris Rosebrough, he endorses and he promotes this vision of Jesus.

Show me the video where I promote and endorse this vision of Jesus. It doesn't exist.

I've never promoted it, and when Doreen on my program first mentioned it, I told the story before that, before we even got to that, of the vision

I had, and how it was from the devil. I do not believe in ongoing dreams and visions,

I believe prophecy and vision have been sealed with the closing of the 70 weeks, with the complete destruction of Israel, and with the kicking out of the

Jews of the Holy Land back in the first century. So yeah, so sorry, but you know, this is just complete slander and falsehood on the part of James Aloysius Prash, Jr.

Sorry, yeah, Aloysius, yeah, that's right, Aloysius. But so let's keep going here.

Crawling from his chest, he has his sacred heart. This is Catholicism.

No, it's New Age. He was a New Ager at the time. You know, it kind of looks like Jesus the Care Bear to me, with the curly hair thing going on.

It's creepy. It's Catholicism! No nail marks. He was never crucified for our sin. Right!

Yeah, see, that's how he knows. You want to know how he knows that's not Jesus? Because there's no stigmata.

I know it's not Jesus, because it claims to be a vision of Jesus. It ain't. Doesn't look like the

Jesus described in Revelation. No, clearly not. There's no sword in his mouth. His face isn't...

What kind of argument is this?

The hair's not white, but he's got a heart popping out of his chest.

Like a Care Bear, I know. This is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is you think that myself, Justin Peters, and Phil Johnson promote and endorse this.

This is delusional religiosity. Yeah, delusional religiosity falls into the lines of you think that I and Phil Johnson and Justin Peters promote this.

It's mysticism. I agree. She was a New Ager at the time. Duh! We're told not to take your stand on a vision in Colossians.

I agree! So, yeah, completely agree. But she does. Yeah, she's still working through her experiences.

And she's, as a Christian disciple, learning her Bible, and now is having serious doubts and questions as to the source of it.

We're told not to do that. Oh, I agree. I agree. And Chris Ross Brough endorses it.

Poop stink. Poop stink. The worst argument that you can come up that teaches you not to think.

Poop stink. Poop stink. This is an example of the poop stink theory of separation. I do not endorse this.

This is ridiculous. In effect, so does Mr. Johnson.

So Mr. Johnson, man, he endorses and promotes this vision of Jesus. No, he doesn't.

At all. And certainly Justin Peters. Show me where Justin Peters endorses this vision of Jesus.

You will never find it. It doesn't exist. You don't know what you're talking about. This is just slander.

This is utter slander. Misinformation designed to demonize.

That's what this is. This is how this cult operates. All right, so all of that being said, we have a little bit of work that I want to do as it relates to his other teachings here.

Hang on a second here. I've got to find...I put notes together. Oh, yeah, the Metatron. All right, we'll kind of end on the

Metatron stuff, but I've got to get to the right spots in there, and then we'll read this out because I think it just is a perfect example.

All right, so in the Metatron teaching, I need to go to 156 .19. Here we go.

This will be where we kind of pick things up, and we'll debunk some of the nonsense he said regarding Metatron too, by the way.

Let's understand what he's saying. Please. The first thing Mr. Rosebrough says is, my spelling was wrong because I said

Metatron. Yeah, talking about the article. Yes, that's correct. Metatron, that's how it was written.

Let's double check here. Let's see. Here's the article. Yeah, the Metatron. Yeah, that was what the article was titled, and all throughout it, it's

Metatron. All right, so yeah, I pointed that out. That's correct. D -R -O -N -E in English.

Correct. I was using the Latinized spelling that is used in Europe and Britain. You were?

Okay, let's check something here. So if I were to type in the word

Metatron into Google and just hit return, I'll do it again here so that you can see the screen refresh, it comes up.

Did you mean Metatron? And you're going to note something here is that the band, the heavy metal band

Metatron shows up. They've been active since 1998, and that's your thing here, but you know that Google sits there and goes, you meant

Metatron, right? Apparently Google isn't even familiar with this spelling unless you're looking for the music group.

So keep that in mind. It is the Latinized spelling that is in vogue and in popular usage today.

Could you show me the people, the academics that are using this in Europe, the

Latinized in vogue version, Metatron? Because of you, I've had to read quite a few academic articles on the

Metatron. Boyeran, by the way, oh man, he doesn't agree with the position that you put forward in your video.

I just wanted to make a note of that. And you can find, Boyeran reads out much of the article that you reference in your response video, by the way.

He reads out much of that article in a lecture that he gave, and you can find that on YouTube.

And man, his article is really interesting. You know who Boyeran says the

Metatron is? Boyeran says the Metatron is Michael the Archangel.

Yep, he does. I'm just saying, just want to point that out. I'm here at Sephardi.

Okay, so let's keep going here. I suppose partially because of the so -called

Christian rock band called Metatron. They're ecumenical, I don't like their music and things.

So he was, man, he was just being relevant. Google says, did you mean

Metatron? Yeah, it's like right there. You meant Metatron, right? So what does he do to defend himself?

Well, I went with the popular usage, Metatron, you know, because, you know, the rock band Metatron. But they sing

Hebrew songs as Christian music. I've never listened to a single song by Metatron.

They have one called, I think, Aleph Dalet Men, and they do things like Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin with supposedly

Christian lyrics. I don't like their music, I don't like their ecumenism, I don't like this band.

They're probably in league with Rick Warren, you might want to demonize them. They're popular in Europe, and they take the name

Metatron the way Metatron is normally spelled today. If it's normally spelled that way, why does

Google say, did you mean Metatron? Google's confused, man!

Google doesn't recognize Metatron as like the normal way people talk about the Metatron today. So, yeah.

But what do I know? It was not spelled that way by academics, but it's the way it's spelled today in popular usage, and I was writing and speaking for the average

Christian person. The Latin -ized spelling puts an E on the end.

The next thing that Mr. Rolls -Royce takes issue with is the angel of the

Lord rescuing with Jacob. All right, now, before he gets anywhere, this is a perfect example of a strawman argument.

Okay, so I'm going to show you again the article, all right? And again, this is the article,

I downloaded it, they haven't been able to change it, the highlight's the same, and so here's the introduction, it reads

Genesis 32, 24 -31, and we're going to look at what the article says.

This is what it says. The femur is the strongest bone in the human body. That's how the article begins after the biblical text.

And in a healthy adult male, it will not break under the weight of a Volkswagen. God dealt with Jacob's human strength by dislocating his femur.

This has a double meaning. It illustrates the dark night of the soul experience, which happened to Jacob and happens to every believer at some point in his life, but it also foreshadows the great tribulation, the time of Jacob's trouble.

This was the patriarch Jacob's trouble when he went through this dark period to the end of the night.

Similarly, the true body of Christ will be taken out of the tribulation while the unsaved

Jews go through it. He sees God face -to -face at Peniel, which means, come out, in Hebrew, okay?

So real quick, just fact -checking, which word according to this article means, come out, in Hebrew?

Da, da, da, da, da, da, da, oh, I see that hand, that's right. Okay, yeah, that's correct.

What is Peniel? So you'll note the article itself says that he, referring to Jacob, sees

God face -to -face at Peniel, which means, come out, in Hebrew.

What word means come out, in Hebrew, according to this article? Peniel. But Peniel has only one meaning in Brown, Driver, and Briggs, and that one meaning is the face of God.

So you'll note the article then continues, on our holy land tours we take people to the popular brook where this occurred, the brook of Jabbok, Peniel, where Jacob wrestled with the angel of the

Lord. So in there, also, he references the brook of Jabbok, which in Hebrew kind of means to pour out, it's kind of a water thingy.

But anyway, all of that being said, does he say what the word

Jabbok means here in the article? No. He says

Peniel means come out, and he says he takes people to the Jabbok, Peniel, where Jacob wrestled with the angel of the

Lord. That's what the article says. This is why

I brought up this fact, because Peniel means the face of God.

It does not mean come out. It doesn't mean that at all.

So now you can see, all right, so we've gone back through. This is exactly what my argument was.

This is why I brought it up. And now watch this. This is going to be another example of a straw man, and he's going to try to make me look stupid.

Oh man, Roseboro, man, there's something wrong with him, something wrong with that guy. I don't know why he brought this up, you know, if he had just read the article, you know.

So let's watch what he does. I point out two Hebrew terms, Peniel and Jabbok.

No, you point out one Hebrew term, and you mention the Jabbok. Let's take a look again, fact -checking here.

All right, so he sees God face -to -face at Peniel, which means come out in Hebrew.

On our Holy Land tours, we take people to the particular brook where this occurred, the brook Jabbok, of Jabbok, Peniel, where Jacob wrestled with the angel of the

Lord. You do not offer here in your article any explanation as to what the word

Jabbok means. So what you're saying is not true. You are engaging in a strawman, but also you are engaging in lying, okay?

You're misrepresenting what I said, and I think you're doing it on purpose. So let me back this up. Listen again.

I'm with Jacob. I point out two Hebrew terms, Peniel and Jabbok, Jabbok or Jabok, as the place of liberation where he was set free, where you're set free.

When Jacob finished wrestling with the angel of the Lord, who we believe to be an

Old Testament apparition of the Messiah, Jesus. Indeed, yes. Jacob wrestled with Christ.

I totally believe that. He was set free at Peniel. Peniel comes from Panav Elohim, the face of God.

Correct. It does. But your article says, he sees

God face to face at Peniel, which means come out in Hebrew. That's what your article says

Peniel means. I pointed it out because that ain't what Peniel means. Now you say it means face of God.

Interesting. When you see the face of God, it means set free.

I was using a simile. Hang on, backing that up.

Elohim, the face of God. When you see the face of God, it means set free.

Where does it mean set free? Where? Where does it mean when you see the face of God it says set free?

You just made that up. I would like to see the reference, please. We never get to see your footnotes, man.

So I'd like to know where you got that. I was using a simile. Oh.

Well, I don't think... Simile and metaphor, you know, I'm familiar with those devices. But let's take a look here.

Let's go back. Here's the article. Okay. He sees God face to face at Peniel, which means come out in Hebrew.

Nope. That was... You were just giving us what you claim was the definition of Peniel. And the definition you gave for Peniel is come out.

You did not offer the definition of the word Jabbok, by the way. On our Holy Land tours, we take people to the particular brook where this occurred.

The brook of Jabbok, Peniel, where Jacob wrestled with the angel of the Lord. Yeah, so yeah,

I'm not sure why you're saying these things, but it doesn't check out. Not with the facts.

The geographical reference was Jabbok, the brook of Jabbok. Yeah. And now he's pulling up from Biblestudy .org.

I think that's where this is from. One of their tools. What is this? Oh, yeah. It's Hitchcock's Bible names and stuff like that.

Decent work. Okay. Jabbok means evacuation. Yeah. Getting out of a mess.

Getting out of a bad situation. Okay. It kind of means pour out, but okay.

When Jacob saw the face of Jesus, he was taken out of the bad situation at the brook of Jabbok.

Actually the etymological root of Jabbok has to do with water flowing out. Water flowing out.

But it's translated evacuation by Hitchcock and by other

Hebrew linguists. I mean, I appreciate that extra information, but again, the article said

Jacob sees God face to face at Peniel, which means come out in Hebrew. Don't you think it would have been easier to just say something to the effect of, ah, you know, we went to press on this article a little early and I forgot, you know, we missed this in our edits and sorry for the confusion, but you're going to know it.

He never can ever be wrong. Is that weird? Never can be wrong. So yeah, it's just weird.

And so rather than saying, ah, you know, I totally messed up there. Sorry. You're right. Peniel means face of God.

And I meant to say that the Jabbok means come out. But notice he's making it sound like any fair reader of the article would have known he was referring to the

Jabbok when it comes to come out. Let me again, read it again. He, Jacob, sees

God face to face at Peniel, which means come out in Hebrew. That's one whole sentence right there.

I've highlighted the sentence. It's a complete thought. So, his damage control here, he's lying and engaging in obfuscation.

That's some pretty bad stuff to do, by the way. We continue. It also is related, oddly enough, to the

Hebrew word for wrestling, wrestling. Yavesh is cleansing, but the word for wrestling, it's etymologically related, but the word itself means evacuation.

Check the dictionary for yourself. Yeah, we did. And we know that the error lies with your sentence.

The error lies with you, not with me for pointing it out. But then again, you know, I am an agent of the

Antichrist. I'm one of the super secret weapons designed to deceive the elect, if it were possible. So, you know,

I can totally understand why you can't give even an inch here, you know, that the fault lies with you.

We continue. Yeah, okay. So, he's going to go on and talk

Hebrew for a little bit here. By the way, he's not bad at his Hebrew. He actually speaks it pretty well, you know.

So, you know, I would say, I would say he's far better skilled in Hebrew than I am.

And I have no problem saying that. But the next part, it's just bad.

So, let me see if I've gotten past this part. Okay, hang on a second here.

Yeah, yeah, we got it. You speak well. Yeah, again, we know that you should know what

Peniel means, but again, the article said that he sees

God face -to -face at Peniel, which means come out. Okay? The error lies in your article, and if that's inaccurate, all you've got to do is issue a retraction and say, ah, you know, that sentence was incorrect, and the truth is this.

So, you know, sitting here and stammering on in Hebrew, which is actually pretty good Hebrew, does not make your point at all.

I didn't. I didn't take it out of context. I just read it like five or six times here. Again, the error lies with your article.

But let's let that go. Yeah, let's let it go, man. Let it go. Now we get serious.

All right, we're going to get serious here. Okay, now, a little bit of history on this one, okay? Because I want you to know what it is

I said, and you can go back and fact check me if you want, because again, I'm not trying to think for you.

I'm trying to teach you how to think. In this article on the Metatron, there is a statement that he makes.

All right, and here's the statement, and it's here for us to review because we'll have to review this a couple of times.

He says, the Lord our God, not Elohim, there is no Hebrew word for God, only gods.

There is an abbreviated form, El, but there is no Hebrew word for God in the singular.

Now, in my response, I said, that's weird, because according to Brown Driver Briggs, El is definitely a singular, and it's, you know, sorry, but arguably one of the base words for Elohim.

Now, Brown Driver Briggs does have a note on this, that there is dispute as to whether or not

El is the singular of Elohim or Eloha. Eloha, whether or not that's the right one.

But you'll note that that's kind of neither here nor there, because the point is, that I made, is

I took issue with his claim that there is no singular Hebrew word for God.

Let me read it in context. There is an abbreviated form, El, but there is no

Hebrew word for God in the singular. This is going to come back to bite him hard, because that's what

I was taking issue with. My point was not whether or not El is the singular.

The point is, is that there is a singular in the Hebrew for God, and it's El. And I know full well that there is an alternative.

Now, let's take a look at some resources here, because I think this will help before we let him kind of spin this out.

So if you were to do a search, all right, and go to Google and just say, what is the

Hebrew singular word for God? All right, you would get this, and it says

Elohim, singular Eloah. All right, now watch this. I'm going to open up the

Britannica article, Winston Churchill, one of my favorites, and watch what the

Encyclopedia Britannica says. Elohim. This is

Hebrew God, Elohim, the singular Eloah. So let me ask you a question.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, is there a singular, a Hebrew word for God that is singular?

The answer is yes. The singular word for God is Eloah. All right, so let's take a look at the article again.

Okay, there is an abbreviated form El, but there is no

Hebrew word for God in the singular. The article claims there is no word for God in the singular.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, there is a singular word for Elohim, and it's

Eloah. Now, we're going to take a look at a couple more resources. This is the Hebrew for Christians website, and the

Hebrew names of God, and here we have the word Elohim. Hebrew name for God, Elohim, and I want you to see what these

Hebrew people put together. The word Elohim is the plural of El, or possibly

Eloah. Now, why does it say or possibly Eloah? The reason why is because Brown, Driver, Briggs, the note on Elohim and Eloah and El make it clear that there's scholarly debate regarding what is the singular for Elohim.

Some Hebrew scholars say it's El. Some say it's Eloah. So, you'll note the

Encyclopedia Britannica, where do they fall in this debate? The Encyclopedia Britannica falls that the singular for Elohim is

Eloah. What do the people who put together the Hebrew for Christians website say? They say that the word

Elohim is the plural of El, or possibly of Eloah.

They side with the El group. All right? So, you'll note there's debate.

But the one thing that nobody's debating Nobody's out there saying, well, there is no singular for God in Hebrew.

Nope, nope, nope, not one. Nobody's arguing that. The argument is whether or not

El is the singular for Elohim or Eloah. The argument is not whether or not there is or is not a singular.

Everybody knows there is. But the question is, which one really is it? Is it El or Eloah? All right?

Now, by the way, another site, the Blue Letter Bible, this is a common Bible study place that people go to.

And what does it say regarding Elohim, the term Elohim? Well, the singular form of Elohim is what?

El. The singular form of Elohim is El. So whoever put together the Blue Letter Bible resource, they've sided with the scholars who say that El is the singular of Elohim.

So you'll note that if you read out Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Brown, Driver, and Briggs makes it clear there is debate regarding which one it is.

Is it El or Eloah? Some say El. Some say Eloah. Both sides recognize that either one, that's singular.

El is singular. Eloah, singular. What did Prash's article say?

There is an abbreviated form El, but there is no Hebrew word for God in the singular.

Sorry. Brown, Driver, Briggs disagrees with you. The Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees with you.

Other Bible study resources disagree with you. There is a singular form of Elohim, and it's either

El or Eloah. Now, all of that being said, what happens next? What James Prash does next is ridiculous.

It's so bad. Because he refuses to actually address the real issue.

He's created a straw man, and the whole point of this little exercise is to school me.

Oh, Rosebro, ataivrit loko kaktov.

He's going to school me. You are such an idiot, Rosebro. Don't listen to him.

He's stupid. That's the whole point of this, of what he's doing. But in the process, I'm not making this up.

In the process, Prash is going to inadvertently admit that Eloah is the singular of Elohim.

I'm not making this up. I'm not making this up. You can't make this stuff up. So let's go back now to James Aloysius Prash and his argument here regarding the singular.

He's not representing my argument accurately at all. And this is to school me, to let me know that my ivrit is loko kaktov.

It's not good. Listen again. Instead of the geographical location, which is the Book of Jabbok. I don't know why he did that, but let's let that go.

Now we get serious. Yes, serious. He keeps claiming that he gets his

Hebrew from the well -known book Briggs. I use

Briggs regularly, yes. Brown Driver Briggs is my go -to. But it's not my only one.

It is my go -to Hebrew lexicon, for sure. I suggest he read it again.

I did. I did. A six or seven -year -old child in the first or second grade in a school in Israel.

Yes, school me, man. Correct me, dude. A little child. Little ones, yeah.

Or a six or seven -year -old yeshiva boy. Yeshiva. Yeah, that's right.

Even the six -year -olds know this, man. Yeshiva boy in a yeshiva. What do they know exactly? Would know that what

Chris Rosebro says is absolute nonsense. Absolute nonsense, man.

Total nonsense. A Hebrew for Christians website, what they say is absolute nonsense. The note in Brown Driver Briggs, if you read it, is absolute nonsense.

A six -year -old knows that it's nonsense. What's nonsense, by the way? Because my original argument was that there is a singular for God.

He argues that Elohim is the plural of El.

Yeah, there are scholars who say that. I showed you websites and resources that agree with that statement.

God, El. This is rubbish. Okay, so you disagree with the

Hebrew scholars that say that El is the singular of Elohim. Well, that's great.

Okay, but that's not the issue. The issue is you said there is an abbreviated form

El, and there is no Hebrew word for God in the singular. That's the thing

I challenged. That was my argument. What you're doing is engaging in a straw man for the purpose of making me look silly, stupid.

I mean, even children know. Of course. Please, continue to school me, please.

A little kid could tell you it's rubbish. Right, right. So have them throw tomatoes at me next time

I'm in Israel, would you? Elohim is the plural of Eloha.

There it is. What was that,

James? I want to hear that again. This is rubbish. A little kid could tell you it's rubbish.

Elohim is the plural of Eloha. Right, Eloha is singular.

You in your article said there is an abbreviated form El, but there is no Hebrew word for God in the singular.

By admitting that Eloha is the singular, or that Elohim is the plural of Eloha, you have inadvertently just contradicted yourself.

Da da da da da da da. James Prash. James Aloysius Prash has just defeated

James Aloysius Prash. So therefore, James Aloysius Prash, how do you explain what you just said?

That there is an abbreviated form El, but there is no Hebrew word for God in the singular, when you just quoted the singular

Eloha as being that Elohim is the plural of. Do I need to belabor the point?

He just proved himself wrong. How did he do, how did he manage to do that? Because he's engaging in a straw man.

My argument is that there is a singular for God. If you would just listen to the actual criticisms, and address the actual criticisms, you wouldn't do that.

So there we go. Okay, so there is a singular word, a

Hebrew word for God. Oh, okay. So you were wrong when you said there wasn't. Got it.

And it's not El, it's Eloha. Got it. Okay, I can live with that. Okay, so let's get back then to, you know, the screedle thing that was left for me.

All right, so Moriel, this is signed J .J. Prash.

It should be J .A. Prash Jr. You are James Aloysius Prash Jr.

All right, so let's pay attention then to the techniques that he's going to use. And we can talk about lies, we can talk about straw men, we can talk about slander, we can talk about ad hominem, all the different things, but this is their response, and we'll respond to their response.

In public reply to Mr. Roseborough, support of John MacArthur's position on accepting the mark of the beast and still being saved in league with Doreen Virtue, Phil Johnson, I extend to him a willingness to debate these issues he's raised on livestream.

I don't support John MacArthur's position and I'm not in league with him. This is straw man nonsense and demonizing on his part, and there's only one topic

I'm willing to debate you on, and that is whether or not the Metatron, Jesus as the Metatron, is taught by the

New Testament. That's the only topic. That's the only one I'll debate you on. He says, I also expressed my willingness to bring my

ID and DNA report if he was interested. Now I'm going to note this here. He claims that he has

DNA that proves that he's Jewish. There's only one person, actually three, there's only three people

I would trust regarding DNA as it relates to the Prash family, and those are

James Aloysius Prash Jr.'s siblings. If his brother or his sisters are willing to have a

DNA test done, I'd be happy to pay for it under the circumstance that the DNA collected is collected in a way that ensures that there's no funny business.

And then if their DNA shows that you guys are as Jewish as all get out, then

I'll be willing to say, yep, that's what the DNA shows. But I will not accept any

DNA evidence given by James Prash, and the reason why is because of the false documents that he put forward that shows that he's not above forging documents and lying about what they are.

So if he'd like to arrange for me to make it so that one of his siblings, either one of his brother or one of his sisters, because they all have the same parents, would be willing to have a

DNA report done, I'd be happy to pay for it. Happy to pay for the collection that guarantees that the

DNA sample isn't tampered with, and if you could show me from one of them that you're

Hebrew, then we'll talk. Until then, I'm not accepting nothing from you. Alright, so although this was not the issue,

Mr. Rosebro embarked on a frantic, did I look frantic? On a frantic tirade.

Frantic tirade. Man, I gotta do better at my frantic tirades because I don't remember being frantic or in a tirade.

A frantic tirade. First, insisting people ignore my opposition to his promotion of Doreen Virtue and her bogus

Christophany. I don't promote Doreen Virtue's vision.

I openly say it's from Satan, and I told her that to her face, and she's even affirmed that in writing, publicly.

And his defense of the John MacArthur 666 teaching. I disagree with John MacArthur and his 666 teaching.

I disagree with his eschatology altogether. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with John MacArthur.

But saying that they're in league with Satan, that I have a problem with. You know, you get the idea.

So, which they regard as false. The source of these cult allegations was an agency professing to have no

Christian beliefs. By the way, he's referring to Graham Baldwin, and so this is an example of him demonizing

Graham Baldwin, engaging in an ad hominem for the purpose of people not listening to what he says.

So, you'll know this is the tactic I told you about. All right. By the way, no, the source of the cult allegations, oh, it's because I'm actually trained in counter -cult apologetics.

Yeah, I'm formally trained as a Christian apologist. Formally. I actually have a certificate in apologetics from the international group that John Warwick Montgomery sits on.

So, I am formally trained in counter -cult apologetics by Bob and Gretchen Pasantino.

So, the reason I think you're a cult is because that's my expert opinion, and I'm a trained expert in the field.

That's why I think you're a cult. And all of your tactics fit with cult -bullying tactics.

So, claiming that, oh, the reason why I think you're a cult is because of Graham Baldwin, that's a lie.

That's a total lie. But here's the thing. Just because Graham Baldwin offers help for those who've been spiritually abused, regardless of their race, religion, doesn't mean that what he says is false about James Pratch.

So, this is demonization. The evidence we provided undermined his claims that he suddenly dropped yelling cult.

I suddenly dropped yelling cult? I did? Bummer. I don't know why I did that. I should've been yelling cult the whole time, but I've been saying it a lot today, right?

And shifted to attacking the evangelistic teaching on the Metatron. No, I offered you a biblical critique on your teaching on the

Metatron and showed that your claim that the Metatron is found in Revelation 5 is completely bogus!

So, you'll note here that now he's ascribing to me motive.

I'm frantic. If I'm frantic, why don't I look it? I'm frantic and I'm trying to hide things now and running around like a chicken without a head.

This is nonsense, right? So, his attacks are likewise demonstrably devoid of foundation.

That's weird. I seem to always dot my I's and cross my T's and give you footnotes and give you the ability to research yourself, right?

Next, he attacked my ancestry with lunatic video mixing baseless rubbish with elements of truth.

So, which were the rubbish parts and what were the truth parts? Could you document that for me, please? Because the genealogy

I went through was actually put together by your family members. Yeah.

So, are you saying that the genealogy that your family put together is rubbish?

Yeah. Why would your family put together a rubbish genealogy? Which part wasn't true? Which part?

Because I identified you as James Aloysius Prash, Jr., the son of James Aloysius Prash, Sr.,

and son of Maureen Prash with James Aloysius Prash, Sr.

That's true. And I walked through your paternal grandparents, great -grandparents, great -great -grandparents, all the way back to the 50s.

Which part was the rubbish part, by the way? Can you provide the evidence regarding which part was the rubbish part?

Because I dotted my I's and crossed my T's and I provided documents after documents, right?

So, and then the pie chart that he designated, it's not my DNA. Well, again,

I'd be happy to look at the DNA of one of your siblings because you have the same DNA, you have the same parents.

And I have no ancestors I've ever heard of with the name of Gray. Well, your family members made it clear that you have a paternal great -great -grandmother named

Sarah Gray. That's just the truth. You know? So, you taking issue with that?

Take issue with your family members who put your family tree together, okay? What I do know is that my own

DNA confirms that I'm not even 1 % German, although I had ancestors who lived in Germany.

Yeah, in Bad Orb. Okay, they were not ethnic German. He seems to try to mislead people by using civil national identity as if it were ethnic.

He engages in Wikipedia genealogy. Isn't that great, right? I engage in Wikipedia genealogy.

No, actually, I engaged in genealogy from probably the world's foremost tool on ancestry, and that's the website called

Ancestry .com. Okay, that's not Wikipedia. And that family tree that was put together?

That was put together by your family members. So, just as he does Wikipedia theology, we all know that anybody who looks at Wikipedia, ooh, they're stupid, man, you know?

And he admits, my original family name is Brash. Yeah, actually, I showed you that from your family's genealogy, the genealogy your family put together for you.

And that it's Jewish. No, actually, it's not. See, the

Brashes of Bad Orb historically would never have been Jewish because of the issue of Jewish emancipation, which took place in the mid -1800s.

Okay, prior to that, Jews wouldn't have been permitted to live in Bad Orb. That's not where they were allowed to live.

Okay, you pointed to a document which was a birth certificate of Adolf Brash, the son of Wolf Brash, in 1905, and clearly those

Brashes are Jewish. But the Leipzig Brashes, you haven't shown no connection, none whatsoever, to the

Brashes of Bad Orb. Yeah. I mean, just because the name sounds the same doesn't mean you're on the same genetic tree at all.

So, and that I had a forefather named Jacob. Yeah, you did. That's the guy who came over from Germany.

Anglicized to James upon immigration to the United States. No, actually, Jacob kept his name as Jacob.

He was not anglicized. The documents that your family provides in your family tree, we actually have his immigration papers, and it's

Jacob Preash, P -R -E -A -S -C -H, that they wrote down.

But he kept his name Jacob. It wasn't anglicized to James at all. You have no documentation of that. So reverting to Yakov, or Yakov, when

I immigrated to Israel, as I documented, somehow he tries to determine that because my ancestors arrived in the

U .S. from one place and not Leipzig, the Brashes that you are related to were from Bad Orb.

They were not from Leipzig. That's just a fact. That's historical, genetic, generational, ancestral fact.

Where there were a number of Jews named Brash. Yes, there were quite a few Jews back in the day, even before Jewish emancipation, named

Brash, who were in Leipzig. This is true, but you haven't demonstrated that you're related to them. Alright, so the name does not apply to me.

This, of course, is ridiculous, since he likes Wikipedia and all it needs to do is

Google Brash on Wikipedia to find prominent Jews of that name in Britain, Germany, and the

U .S. I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that there are Brashes who are Jewish. You're just not related to any of them.

That's what the documentation shows. Also, he makes a big deal of intermarried and assimilated people want burial with their spouses.

This is very common and means nothing. No, actually, here's the thing.

What we have documented in your family history, on your paternal side, yeah, lots of baptisms.

And not only baptisms, but burials. In not only Roman Catholic cemeteries, but prior to burials, full -on requiem masses being held for your family.

So you're going to know, this is just complete obfuscation on his part. He's provided no documentation.

So I put something together along these lines, and we'll end kind of with this thought.

And let's see here. I want to go... Ah, here we go. There's my thing.

So we talked about the debate. So a little bit of a note here. So I'm going to ask you this question.

Who's eligible for immigration in Israel? Who's eligible? How do they determine who can be eligible?

Well, this is established, very well established. In fact, I got this information, just so you know where I got it from, and I'll put a link to it down below in the footnotes, so you can check my work.

All right, so Aliyah for family members, immigration for non -Jewish nuclear families. So immigration to Israel for non -Jewish family members.

This is from the website Cohen, Decker, Pesh & Brosh. This is a law firm that specializes in immigration to Israel.

And so you'll note here that the law of return, which goes all the way back to 1950, is considered one of the foundational laws of the state of Israel as a

Jewish democracy. The law of return establishes the legal basis to the ideological

Zionist project that allows Jews and their non -Jewish family members to immigrate, make Aliyah, to Israel.

In this article, advocate Michael Decker, an Israeli immigration lawyer at the law office of Cohen, Decker, Pesh &

Brosh, will explain who is eligible to make Aliyah to Israel and receive

Israeli citizenship, focusing on Aliyah for family members of Jews, Messianic Jews, and members of other religions.

So section 1 of the law of return determines that every Jew shall be entitled to immigrate to Israel. So that's part of their law.

It goes back to 1950. And obtain immediate citizenship. So section 4b of the law of return defines a

Jew as an individual who has a, quote, or as a convert to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.

So a little bit of a note here. James Aloysius Prash Jr.

claims that he is genetically Jewish. He claims he is genetically Jewish via his father.

Is he eligible for Aliyah in Israel? No. He's not.

He's not eligible for Aliyah in Israel. Not because paternally, this does not, you know, his paternal

Jewish ancestry that he, I don't even think exists, that paternal Jewish ancestry does not qualify him for Aliyah.

It doesn't. So then how can he have gotten immigration documents? Because he is a member of another religion,

Christianity, and he is. And he's not a convert to Judaism. He isn't.

And he does not have a Jewish mother. The answer is, the only other way is by virtue of the fact that he is married to a woman who is either a citizen of Israel or is qualified for Aliyah.

Yep. So the law of return then states a family member of a Jew can mean a child or a grandchild of a

Jew or of the spouse of a Jew. So a family member could be considered a spouse of a

Jew or a child or a grandchild to a Jew. The law does not provide for the immigration of other family members such as siblings or half -siblings and grand -grandchildren.

So section 4A of the law of return permits non -Jews to immigrate to Israel if they are family members of Jews as defined above.

So let me ask you this question. Since James Prash does not have maternal Jewishness, he doesn't have paternal either.

The record shows that. But even if he had paternal Jewishness, would he qualify for Aliyah?

No. So then how could he have immigration papers? Answer. He has to be married.

He has to be the spouse of somebody who is a citizen of Israel. And you know who he married?

He married a woman who is the daughter of Holocaust survivors and she's a citizen of Israel.

So he's qualified then for immigration not by virtue of Jewish ancestry.

He's qualified for immigration by only one thing. He's married to a woman who is a citizen of Israel.

The end. Okay, so all of that being said, coming back to my keynote then, so here's the cold hard truth.

James Aloysius Prash Jr. is not eligible for immigration to Israel because of his mother because his mother is 100 %

Irish Catholic. Prash himself is not a convert to Judaism and is a confessed member of the Christian religion.

The only way James Prash could have acquired immigration papers, the ones he lost and reapplied for, is because his immigration was based on his marriage to a citizen of Israel.

So all of that being said, so you're going to note here, he makes a big to -do here.

So the absurd and obvious lie of Mr. Roseborough, however, is that a legal

Israeli government document I presented on video to show I have three names was a form to report and replace my misplaced

Israeli ID. That's correct. I pointed out that that document that he held up, it is not an

Israeli ID. It is an application for getting a replacement for lost

Israeli ID. I stated on the video that the form was not the certificate. If somebody reports a lost license or passport, it automatically proves there is an original one.

Again, you said, and let's review the tape on this, shall we? We might as well, since we're here.

Let's go back and let's review the tape and let's see what he said regarding this document.

I have Israeli ID that says I'm Yaakov. He has an

Israeli ID that he says is Yaakov. This is not Israeli ID. This is an application for lost ID. The photos you will see is me at quite a younger age.

Yeah, 1983. That's a long time ago. I was in high school still. But it is an immigration certificate.

No, it's an application to get a lost immigration certificate resent.

I have something called a Teuda Ole that says I'm of Jewish descent. That's not this.

You didn't show us your Teuda Ole. And the thing is, is even if you had one, your immigration in Israel would not be based on that because your claim to being

Jewish is through your father, not your mother. So you're lying all over the place on this.

That's not Israeli ID. That's an application for a lost ID. Your immigration papers were given to you because you're married to a woman who is

Jewish and is a citizen of the state of Israel. That's how you got your immigration papers.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you're Jewish because the laws of Israel make it clear that a

Leah has to come through your maternal Jewishness. You do not qualify to be an immigrant of Israel because you claim your

Jewishness through your paternity and you're a member of the Christian religion.

You don't qualify at all. The only way you can get immigration papers is being married to somebody who's a citizen of Israel.

That's the only way. That's just the facts. So, yeah, let's listen again.

But it goes with this. Let me read what it says. So what did he say went with that? And I have something called a

Teuda Ole that says I'm of Jewish descent. And then present it.

That's not this, but it goes with this. Let me read what it says. So that's what he said about the document, and let's see what he says in his response.

He says, if somebody reports a lost license or passport, it automatically proves there is an original.

I never doubted there was original immigration papers. This is common sense. Mr. Roseborough idiotically states that it is an application for an

Israeli immigration certificate. I didn't idiotically state that. I just stated the facts.

That is what that is. It is an application to get a replacement for a lost immigration certificate.

The application process for immigration called Aliyah takes about two months, okay, and requires vetting, etc.

The Saknut Jewish Agency, which legally determines Jewish identity for civil nonreligious purposes, issued me an immigration certificate stating

Jewish identity. No, they didn't. They wouldn't. You're claiming your

Jewishness through your paternity. And the law, the law of Aliyah, according to these immigration lawyers,

Section 1, the law of return, which was written in 1950, determines that every Jew shall be entitled to immigrate to Israel and obtain immediate citizenship.

Section 4B of the law of return defines a Jew as an individual who has a Jewish mother. You don't.

Or as a convert to Judaism. And you're not. And who is not a member of another religion.

And you are. Okay? Section 4AA of the law of return permits non -Jews to immigrate to Israel if they are family members of Jews.

And you are. And a family member of a Jew can mean only a child, can mean a child, a grandchild of a

Jew, or the spouse of a Jew. So your claim to having a certificate of immigration of Aliyah to the state of Israel based upon your

Jewishness is a lie. You are a member of the Christian religion, unless you converted to Judaism, and we don't know about it.

And your claim that you're a Jew, that you have Jewish blood in you, comes to your claim that you are

Jewish on your father's side. So your claim here, in your response here, that the

Sakhnut legally determines Jewish identity for civil non -religious purposes, issued me an immigration certificate stating

Jewish identity. You haven't produced that, and I seriously doubt they would give you that, because if they did, you engaged in fraud.

Totally. Because your mother is an Irish Roman Catholic, and the law says

Jewishness is determined based upon your mother. So I was legally declared Jewish because I did not discuss my faith.

Again, how'd you pull that off? The definition legally in Israel of being declared

Jewish is if you have a Jewish mom. Your mom, Maureen, was a proud

Roman Catholic Irish lady. She was not Jewish. He said it was like him applying for a pilot's license and stating he can fly.

That's correct. Pointing out that you filled out an application and signed it is not the same as being issued the

ID. You didn't show us your ID. This is lunacy, he says. No, it's not. What's lunacy is you trying to claim that that paper actually is your

Israeli ID, and it's not, and that's what you said. So a legal ID form to report a lost immigration certificate requesting it to be replaced is not an application to obtain one.

Yes, it is, and it's an application to obtain a lost document.

That's what that is, okay? As usual, he is irrational. Nope. Being very rational here.

Dishonest. Nope. Being completely honest here. Always backing up what I say with facts. And only trying to avoid debate on the actual issues.

Nope. I'll be happy to debate you on whether or not the Metatron is found in the New Testament, in Israel, in Jerusalem, with Hasidic Jews in the audience so they can cross -examine your statements.

And he is running from, I'm not running from nothing, alright? If he wants to examine my

ID and DNA reports as I've offered, all he needs to do is show up to the debate. I'll debate you on the

Metatron being in the New Testament, in Israel, but I won't look at any of your DNA reports.

The only ones I'll accept are DNA reports from your siblings. So his genealogy diversion, his

Metatron diversion, and his cult leader diversion all prove that he is afraid. To debate.

And I... Yeah. This is just nuts. So how do we wrap this up?

Alright, so this was a pretty long work through all this nonsense, but here are the facts.

James Aloysius Prash, Jr. Here are the facts. I provided proof from Maureen Prash's obituary that Mr.

Prash's name is James Aloysius Prash, Jr. By the way, that obituary tying him to her was confirmed by an ex -Mauriel employee as well as one of James Prash's siblings.

He is therefore named after his father, James Aloysius Prash, Sr.

He is not named after his paternal ancestor, Jacob Prash. This is most certainly true. I went into the public family tree for the

Prash family, created by James Prash's relatives, contributed by his siblings, including his siblings, and walked through Mr.

Prash's paternal ancestry, going all the way back to the 1500s. Not only was there no evidence of Judaism, there was an abundant evidence of practicing

Roman Catholicism going back to the 1840s. Infant baptisms, funeral masses, burials in Roman Catholic cemeteries, you get the idea.

All of that is just factually documented, and I've shown you how you can also access those exact same documents as well.

You can check my work. Then I demonstrated that James Jr.'s paternal patriarchs all lived in Bad Orb in Germany.

This is true. His paternal ancestors changed their name from Brasch to Prash in the late 1700s.

This is also true. I also demonstrated that neither of the documents that James Jr. held up were what he claimed that they were.

This is also undisputably true. The first, rather than being an Israeli ID, was instead an application to get another copy of his immigration papers, which he also had lost in England in August of 1983.

The second, rather than being a government certification of his family tree, which is what he claimed it was, turned out to be a copy of the birth certificate for Adolf Brasch of Leipzig in August of 1905, and the copy of that birth certificate was certified by the

Nazis in June of 1939. This is just a fact. It wasn't what he claimed it is, and so this is just the facts.

In all of his rhetoric, all of his attacks, all of his claiming, this is Wikipedia! Wikipedia genealogy!

That just doesn't hold any water at all. So we continue. James Jr. has not produced his birth certificate, nor can he, because his birth certificate says that his name is

James Aloysius Brasch Jr. All of this is obfuscation.

Produce your birth certificate, dude. Let's see it. So James Jr. has not provided any genealogical proof that he's related to either

Adolf Brasch of Leipzig or his father, Wolf Brasch, nor can he. I've been through his entire family tree.

There's no connecting points here. The fact is that his paternal family tree is known, it is documented, as far back as the 1500s, and he has no documented relatives named either

Adolf or Wolf. Therefore, James Jr. is not related to the Brasches of Leipzig, who were

Jews. This is just a fact. James Jr. has not addressed the historic reality that all of his paternal ancestors with the surname of Brasch lived in Bad Orb.

They lived and died there until Jacobprash. And they lived and died in Bad Orb prior to Jewish emancipation in the mid -1800s.

Jews would not have been permitted to live in Bad Orb prior to Jewish emancipation. No way.

The closest Jewish ghetto was a substantial distance from Bad Orb. Therefore, the

Brasches of Bad Orb were not Jewish. Again, this is just a historical fact.

So, what do we make of all of this? Well, now you know why

I've done it. And you know why I subjected myself to his attacks. So that you can see it,

I can comment on it in real time. The Braschians are a cult. They are a doomsday cult.

And rather than telling the truth and bearing the fruit of the Spirit and preaching the Gospel, they engage in lies, deception, forging of documents, and demonizing of men and women who are brothers and sisters in Christ.

They should be avoided like the plague that they are, and they need to repent. Because at this point,

I've got just a great body of evidence that they are liars, deceivers, slanderers, and guilty of all the things that Scripture says that we are not to do as Christians.

So, that's the end of that, and I plan on moving on from here because nothing they can say, nothing they can say can undo the facts that I've laid out, and you have access to it, all of it, and you are able to fact -check me, and I welcome you to do so.

So until next time, may God richly bless you in the grace and mercy won by Jesus Christ, and His vicarious death on the cross for all of your sins.