A Jumbo Mega Dividing Line—If That Makes Sense

12 views

July 26, 2016

Three sections to today’s 2 hour, 20 minute long program: first, we responded to Jacob Prasch’s reply to last weeks Radio Free Geneva. But unlike Prasch, we played his comments not just once, but twice, carefully analyzing his entire response as a classic example of a complete abandonment of proper forms of argumentation and logic. Very helpful for those who wish to consider how to analyze argumentation. The second section included a complete review of a video put out by the Deen Show featuring Joshua Evans titled, “Ten Reasons Why Jesus is Not God.” Definitely a section you will want to share with your Muslim friends. That took us to a full two hours. I added an “appendix,” a 20 minute response to JD Hall’s most recent unhinged Polemics Report. I played a few clips and made a few comments.

Comments are disabled.

00:34: Well, greetings and welcome. Oh, I don't like that shot. It just looks so cluttered. There we go.
00:41: That's a little better. Good to be with you. Good to be back here in, well, it's sort of good to be back here in Arizona.
00:49: I mean, you know, yeah, it's good to be home, but really, really, really enjoyed my time away.
00:58: It was a long, long time away, and Colorado's beautiful.
01:06: That's just all there is to it. We had at my evergreen home, and someone's going to say, hey, he's got multiple houses.
01:16: Well, no, I don't, but it is home away from home, my evergreen home. They have a, we have a hummingbird feeder on the back deck, and on the deck, and watch the thunderstorms going, except for the one where the lightning was like right on top of us, and the rain started going horizontal.
01:35: Then we sort of went in and said, yeah, but I had a great time up there.
01:41: I had a great time in Santa Fe with the church there, Paz Cazafava, and then in Salt Lake City, the dialogue and everything there at Christ Presbyterian Church, and great time there.
01:55: Of course, as most of you know, this is my month of, you sort of cycle the crazy away, you know, and this is sort of the month where I do that.
02:10: I'm not done yet. I've still got some big climbs, but they're going to be at primarily low altitude. I'm going to do one climb that does go up to 9 ,000 feet, but when you're
02:18: Colorado, what doesn't go up to 9 ,000 feet? Here in Arizona, that's sort of unusual, but spent a lot of time cranking away 10, 11, 12 ,000 feet above sea level.
02:28: Yeah, yeah, that's too much fun, and if you didn't catch my Facebook article last
02:36: Saturday, I did the top 40 finish in the Gran Fondo, and yet that shocked me that I did that well, because for eight miles, eight miles up that mountain, it was in the lower part from Idaho Springs up to Echo Lake, I was in this extended witnessing conversation at oxygen deficit.
03:02: It's a new skill. You should try it. Get your heart rate right up to the anaerobic threshold and then witness.
03:14: Find out that the guy who's sitting on your tail is a
03:19: Jewish doctor who is Jewish in practice, observance, but basically an atheist.
03:30: I guess there's a lot of folks like that, sadly. That's descriptive, but we had a fascinating conversation.
03:36: I hope he contacts me. He hasn't yet. I hope he still does. I'd be happy to send him some material and things like that, but it's really interesting to try to discuss the offering of Isaac by Abraham gasping between breaths and then still take six minutes off your time from last year, where I was not witnessing to anyone at that point in the climb, which
03:59: I still climbed it faster. Who knew? I'm sort of wondering if the bike this year,
04:06: I rode a different bike, it has disc brakes. Of course, that's irrelevant going uphill, but maybe it just fits me better.
04:13: I don't know, but I'm getting close to 80 ,000 feet this month, the vast majority of it at altitude.
04:21: Let's just say that I got a lot of little red blood cells running around right now, and I'm going to use them over the next week.
04:30: I've still got some big climbs to do. Anyways, got a lot of things to do on the program today. Just, again, appreciative of everybody.
04:38: I was speaking at a Presbyterian church in Denver on Sunday, did a sermon on the anchor that goes within the veil and sure and steadfast in Hebrews chapter 6.
04:52: It's a shame that Hebrews chapter 6 is primarily, in most people's minds, the first part of the chapter, the warning stuff.
05:01: That's a shame, because there's so much more to it. The encouragement part at the end of the chapter is one of the most amazing texts in all of Scripture, and yet most people,
05:13: I think, end up reading the first 10 verses and almost never get to the last part, which is so amazing.
05:21: It's beautiful. So thanks to everybody who made that possible. Thanks to Vocab Malone for coming in and doing those two programs.
05:30: I listened to the first one twice. I only listened live to the second one. I think I missed some stuff.
05:37: But thanks to Rich for throwing all these pictures and stuff up on the screen. And I'll be honest,
05:45: I didn't follow all of it. It got pretty in -depth as to the history, but it's fascinating stuff.
05:52: And Vocab has sort of fallen down the job. He hasn't sent me any links to any of the responses, so I don't know what the response has been.
06:00: All I know is somebody on Twitter sent me something, and that's when I made the comment on Facebook that even
06:06: Google itself is not going to be able to keep up with the number of videos being posted by Hebrew Israelites in response to yours truly.
06:17: And that's what I forgot to do. I knew there was something I was forgetting to do. Maybe I'll do it next time.
06:23: I was going to queue up. I even made sure it was in Dropbox.
06:29: Sorry. Somebody was interrupting me before we got started. But I was looking at a
06:36: GeoCC video exposing my pseudo -scholarship and all the rest of this stuff, and it was based primarily upon misreading
06:47: Wikipedia stuff. It's just like, oh my. But I do want to play a section about why we shouldn't trust
06:56: J .B. Lightfoot's scholarship, and it'll just illustrate really what you're up against when trying to reason with the
07:05: Hebrew -Israelite folks. Yes? I was going to say, we have had some encouraging contacts that I've passed on to vocab.
07:14: But didn't pass on to me. No. I don't think you would have understood them. No, I didn't. But he did, and there's hopefully some conversations that can take place.
07:31: My impression, it seems like the theology of each of the groups really is almost individual.
07:41: Oh, yeah, yeah. And so there were some people basically saying, no,
07:46: I remember it this way or I remember it that way, and wanting to talk. No foul language.
07:53: No hostility. I received a very encouraging phone call from one of them, and he was a very nice gentleman.
08:01: And so I'm hoping that vocab will be able to reach out to these people and continue the conversation.
08:08: Well, I'll tell you one thing. They sure are listening. The stuff
08:15: I've seen, all the pictures of me with horns and pitchforks and in flames, and it's like, wow, could we have a little discussion about how ad hominem is an invalid argument?
08:28: I don't think they quite got that message. But anyway, we'll talk about that next time when
08:34: I can queue that up. What I do have queued up, long drive home yesterday.
08:42: It's a long drive from Denver to Phoenix when you just go straight through. And fortunately,
08:48: I wanted to finish just one particular book and the file on my iPod got corrupted. And so I couldn't.
08:54: So I was listening to a few other things. And I had heard the day before, or is it day for that?
09:05: Anyway, Jacob Prosh responded to the Radio Free Geneva we did. And so I listened to the response, desperately seeking substance outside of ad hominem.
09:24: It must have been at least the first half was a very one -sided and not overly in -depth discussion of the subject of accreditation issues that we've dealt with many, many times before.
09:39: And obviously, he hasn't bothered to even engage that. My brief response to all that always will be and always has been scholarship is something you do, not something you purchase.
09:50: But I was looking for, because if you recall the Radio Free Geneva, there was some of the stuff like Rome got this from the
10:01: Muslims. And to substantiate that type of thing requires meaningful historical argumentation.
10:10: You can't just simply say, well, it looks like that over there, and it looks like that over there. Therefore, they must have borrowed. That's the kind of argument that's used against Christianity all the time.
10:20: There was, you know, we did discuss some of that. But what was the heart, the most meaningful part of the
10:28: Radio Free Geneva? Well, we went to the scriptures, and he cited 1
10:35: Timothy chapter 2. And so, I went into 1 Timothy chapter 2.
10:40: We talked about what it was talking about, and then the context and the flow.
10:46: And so, my thought was, you know, did he try to respond to that? Well, guess what?
10:52: He did. And in doing so, provided us with,
10:59: I think, one of the most classic examples of misdirection and false argumentation that I've ever seen.
11:13: And so, what this allows us to do, what I should have done, if I had been thinking, is
11:21: I should have queued up the discussion from the
11:26: Radio Free Geneva of 1 Timothy chapter 2, then played his response.
11:33: So, you could, well, actually, just what he initially said, my response, and then this, because that would be the best way to illustrate, you know,
11:43: I think this whole response on his part spoke to me as someone who made some really bad, shallow arguments, was called on it by someone who can call bad arguments, and it's how to try to do damage control when you really can't defend what it was you were saying in the first place.
12:08: And the form of argumentation that Prosh is going to use here violates numerous rules for meaningful argumentation.
12:21: In fact, I've got a pile of books here that I was going to recommend to our
12:26: Hebrew -Israelite friends. These are just some of the books I had put together. A Rulebook for Arguments, Logically Fallacious, The Ultimate Collection of Over 300
12:36: Logical Fallacies, Nonsense, Red Herring, Straw Men and Sacred Cows, How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language, Being Logical, A Guide to Good Thinking, With Good Reason, Introduction to Informal Fallacies, Logic Made Easy, How to Know When Language Deceives You, Informal Logical Fallacies, A Brief Guide, 76
12:54: Fallacies. These are just, there are lots and lots and lots of books out there on the subject of logic and bad argumentation that don't get read by a lot of people, unfortunately.
13:09: Well, what we're going to get from Jacob Prosh is an excellent example of how someone who is using the
13:17: Bible can combine that with numerous logical errors so as to avoid the weight of actually having to do exegesis.
13:28: And see, what's confusing I think to a lot of people is that he will use the same language that I did.
13:36: He talks about exegesis and eisegesis and he accuses me of eisegesis.
13:43: He accuses me of everything that I accused him of. So, for a lot of folks, it's like, well, you just got two smart people accusing each other and stuff.
13:51: Who's to know? Well, folks, if you watch this program or you listen to this program on a regular basis and you can't come to a conclusion as to how to determine who's right and who's wrong,
14:06: I failed. Just stop watching. It really, one of the things that bothers me is when
14:15: I see people say, I've listened to you forever, but this person, they just posted this thing and they said this and I just don't know how to respond to it.
14:23: And I just want to go, I'm trying to give a model so that you don't have to be blown about by every wind of doctrine and you don't have to follow somebody all the time.
14:39: I've given the story many, many times. I'm not big on study
14:44: Bibles. I figure, carry a Bible and if you want a commentary, carry a commentary.
14:50: Why should I carry both at the same time? I've never figured that part out. I'm concerned when folks, one of the reasons that you do education and you don't have to go to school to get education.
15:07: These days, you can be educated so well, in fact, better in many ways by just being diligent in your personal study and utilizing the huge number of resources that are available to us today.
15:23: One of the reasons to become educated is so that you can critically interact with commentary literature.
15:33: And I told the story, remember, I've told the story many times but I wasn't planning on doing this, but I told the story of a really good communicator.
15:43: He was youth minister at a very large church. And he came to me, this was years ago, knew that I had studied
15:51: Greek, so on and so forth. He said, hey, I'm planning on preaching on this one particular passage. And this one commentator said this, and he gives me this interpretation.
16:03: I'm sort of going, never heard that before, but that doesn't mean anything. I just, I don't,
16:09: I haven't heard that one before. And he says, I hadn't either. So could you check it out?
16:15: Because it's pretty cool, but I, you know, I need to check it out and see if there's, you know, if it's really valid.
16:21: And so I took the time, read commentaries, read that commentary, translated the passage, and the conclusion
16:31: I came to, and I wrote up about two pages, but it was 10 point, single space.
16:37: It was, it wasn't a short little piece, but I wrote something up for him. And basically there wasn't anything to it.
16:45: It was just this one commentator's, you know, wild hair, you know, thing that he had seen.
16:52: And it really, it really was not a valid argument. There was, there was strong evidence against it.
16:59: And you'll find that in a lot of commentaries. You'll find that in me. I have my traditions. I have my things.
17:06: That's, that's why you, you can't follow any one person. That's why I hate the term followers. I don't want followers.
17:12: I don't want fans. I don't want, it's not about me or any of the rest of that stuff. You know, eventually they're going to pull the plug on this thing and you may never hear me again.
17:22: And if I haven't done something to teach you to have a solid foundation, then why did you waste your time anyways, to be perfectly honest with you?
17:29: Anyway, so I give this to this fella and I say, sorry, but it, it, it's bogus.
17:39: It's, it, it doesn't fly. Well, the next Sunday was Sunday he was preaching and I was there.
17:46: In fact, you know, I was part of that church and I was in the media ministry. And so I actually ran a television camera.
17:52: And so I was actually watching through a TV studio, quality television camera.
18:00: And you know what he did? He preached it. He preached it. And he, and he preached it in such a way that it showed that he didn't, he wasn't trying to respond to the criticisms.
18:11: He wasn't trying to, he just, he just felt like it preached better. And I ran into him after the service and he sort of looked down and he looked a little embarrassed.
18:20: And he said, I know, I know. He says, but it preaches so good. And that's the attitude a lot of people have today.
18:29: The problem is what you're saying is what it actually says isn't good enough.
18:35: I needed to improve it. And the reason that we learn to do exegesis and the reason that we get a foundation and the reason that we, we become educated so that we're trying to be able to interact rather than just being, you know, well, a little bird in the nest.
18:56: Give me, give me my, give me my food for the day. You have to get kicked out of the nest.
19:01: You have to, to, to learn to start doing things on your own. There's a level of maturity here. And it, it really concerns me when people say, well, he said this and you said that.
19:10: Well, okay, use what you've been given and who's being consistent and who's utilizing the information.
19:18: Yes, someone will turn around. One of the most common forms of argumentation is to turn around and to use the exact same accusations against someone else about what you yourself are doing.
19:27: If you'd like to have illustrations of this, watch TV the next couple of nights, if you know what I mean. Okay. For those of you watching this later on, you won't get that, but a certain political party is having their convention right now.
19:42: Accuse and both sides do it. Accuse the other side of everything you yourself are doing. That's, that is the best way to create confusion in the minds of people.
19:50: And that's what Prash is doing here, is utilizing the same language, saying my exegesis is horrific and then not touching and saying, and you skipped all the meaningful stuff.
20:03: So let's find out who did and didn't. Okay. You can go back. You can listen to his initial comments, brief comments for first Timothy chapter two.
20:16: Obviously, if you want to, you know, pick up the Potter's Freedom, this is part of the big three. So this is not something new for me.
20:24: I've addressed this text exegetically numerous times before, in print. Listen to what he said.
20:31: Listen to my response. In my response, I went into the text and I pointed out,
20:38: I didn't spend a tremendous amount of time on it, but I pointed out first Timothy chapter two.
20:44: First of all, then I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be made on behalf, huper panton anthropon, in behalf of all men.
20:58: Now we have to decide whether this is to be taken extensively or generically.
21:06: Extensively in the sense of, in behalf of all men. So you need to be praying for every
21:11: Amorite King who has been dead for centuries. And you need to be praying proleptically for people in the future.
21:19: Oh Lord, whoever is going to be the King of such and such a country in 200 years from now, we pray for them.
21:28: Is that what, do you really think that that's how Timothy would have understood? That we're talking about individualistically, every human being currently alive who has ever lived or ever will live, because that of course is the universal atonement of, the universal theory of the atonement.
21:46: Or are we talking about kinds? And I point out that you have huper panton anthropon, in behalf of all men.
21:57: And what's the very next phrase in verse two? Huper basileon, cai panton ton en huperache anton.
22:09: So who are these people? Who are, who are the Kings? Who are those having authority?
22:16: Well, these are kinds and types. These are types of people.
22:23: And I pointed out that probably the reason that they especially are pointed out to Timothy is that there would be a tendency not to pray for them.
22:33: There'd be a tendency to, since they're persecuting us, since they're persecuting Christians, need to be reminded they're human beings too.
22:44: And my, what a blessing when they themselves are converted. And so for Kings and all who are in authority, so we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
22:55: So I point out the context itself introduces kinds of people.
23:02: If you're going to respond to me, then you're, and you're going to try to establish a universal reading so that when you get down to verse four, has pantos anthropos thelisotheni, that that means individualistically, you're going to have to explain why you have categories in verse two and you've gotten rid of the categories by verse four.
23:30: It's going to take some serious exegesis on your part. You're going to have to show that you're driving your belief from the text rather than forcing it onto the text.
23:39: Right? Okay. And then I pointed out that the context continues into the possible hymn fragment, beginning of verse five, for there is one
23:54: God and one mediator between God and men. And so you, if the anthropon continues, same group here, the man,
24:05: Christ Jesus, who gave himself an antilutron, a ransom, huperpanton, in behalf of all the testimony, his own testimony given at the right time.
24:19: So the question then becomes, what is the function of the mesites, the intercessor, the mediator, and for whom does
24:32: Christ mediate? And I spent a fair amount of time discussing, you know, drawing the connection between here and Hebrews and the beautiful harmonious revelation from Paul.
24:48: And that's why I can say Hebrews too. I think his is the theology of Hebrews. This biblical theology of intercession, mediation, presence before the throne of God, the lamb slain in Revelation chapter five, the anchor, forerunner, through the veil,
25:11: Hebrews chapter six, put all of this together and you have a consistent reading contextually that fits what
25:20: Paul is saying to Timothy with everything else Paul teaches and the
25:25: New Testament teaches concerning the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is for those who want to truly say that when
25:34: I believe what the New Testament says, I'm actually believing all the New Testament. That's how you do it.
25:40: That's how you do it, right? So, is that, how did Jacob Prosh respond to that?
25:47: Well, I think this is very, very educational.
25:54: Let's listen to it. You've not responded to the issues.
26:05: Your unfortunate, your unfortunate mishandling of scripture was rather hideous.
26:13: You point to the big three. I made citation of first Timothy chapter two, verse four,
26:23: God who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
26:29: Somehow you asegetically, not exegetically, but asegetically determine this to mean all kinds of people as in different tribes and nations.
26:44: This is ridiculous. Let's look at the text in context.
26:52: The term genus, kinds, or no case ending variation of it appears anywhere in the
26:58: Greek text. Neither does the word ethnon for ethnic nations, neither does the term fule for tribes.
27:05: These terms don't even appear there. Given that there's no chapter divisions in the original
27:14: Greek canon, we look and see, I want prayers to be delivered in the trees and tuxes in Greek, intercessions on behalf of all men.
27:29: Not only is there an absence of any inference of what you say that it means all kinds of men, but reading in the context of the epistle fundamentally disproves your contention.
27:41: Let's read further in the same epistle. First Timothy chapter four, verse 10, the same epistle.
27:50: For it is for this we labor and strive because we fix our hope on the living
27:56: God, God who is the savior of all men, especially all believers.
28:09: Those of the faith, especially those of the faith.
28:18: All men. Text, context, co -text within the epistle itself.
28:29: Your exegesis is not exegesis, it's asegesis, it's ludicrous.
28:36: Therefore you have to resort to what amounts to philosophical instead of exegetical arguments, extrapolating all kinds of things, diverting into differences between the
28:47: Islamic view of God and the Calvinistic view of God. That was not the issue.
28:53: Okay, then he goes off on to other things, I guess. I hope, and I'm going to go back through it now, but I hope you saw that and listened to that and went, wow, he skipped over everything you said.
29:11: Now notice that what's the difference between the two of us? I play him, he summarizes very inaccurately me.
29:21: That's the difference between us, is I can play his whole section there and I can go back through it point by point and refute it.
29:30: When you're starting off with the kind of language that he uses, absurdities and all the rest of this stuff, that doesn't fly when you're actually playing what someone is saying.
29:45: Now one of the things to keep in mind is one of my handicaps,
29:51: I have many handicaps, one of my handicaps is that I want what we do here to be useful to the widest possible audience.
30:06: In some senses, I'm not overly nice to my followers.
30:12: Like I said, I don't like the term followers. I'm a big fan, I don't like that stuff.
30:20: I figure if you like watching this program, then you understand when
30:27: I say I don't want followers, I want you to be standing on your own, I don't want you to be dependent upon me, any of those types of things.
30:35: I'm not looking to draw followers after myself or any of that stuff. I'm not interested in that, don't want it.
30:43: But if you do programs primarily to get your people all excited, then this is the kind of rhetoric you're going to get.
30:56: You're not going to be concerned about whether you're actually going to be impressing the people who know what the other side said and going, well, he really provided a meaningful critique of that.
31:06: Because if someone knows what I said and they listen to that, they're going to go, huh? That was just a bunch of bluster.
31:14: All you did was dismiss what he said, you didn't interact with it, and you're the one doing the eisegesis.
31:20: You jumped from 1 Timothy 2 to 1 Timothy 4. You skipped the entire thing about the intermediary, the mediator, the intercessor.
31:32: You didn't even seem to recognize it was there. It's just like it just disappeared. So who was ignoring context?
31:40: Well, he was, obviously. So, but you catch that kind of argumentation and you realize that unfortunately there are people who find, and sadly a lot of young people, who find confidence and bluster convincing.
32:05: That's one of the big problems I have with so much of politics today, is there was a day when people recognized that when you start raising your voice it probably means you don't have much of an argument at this point and you're just trying to get emotions going.
32:20: That doesn't seem to be the case today. So let's listen again and then compare it with the reality and note all the various errors.
32:35: Let's understand this even further. You've not responded to the issues.
32:47: Your unfortunate, your unfortunate mishandling of scripture was rather hideous.
32:55: Hideous, hideous. That's an interesting term. All right, so what would it take to demonstrate that what
33:04: I asserted was hideous and does he provide that? You see, the critical minded person is going to catch this strong language of Gingham and say, okay, using very strong language, therefore strong documentation will be required.
33:19: Was it offered? And if it's not, you put a circle there, failure. Failed to substantiate assertion.
33:27: Used inappropriate language to create emotion and did not substantiate.
33:34: This would be, this is how you analyze these things. This is why I don't know if I'm going to do it before the election.
33:42: I've been thinking about, you know, having a program where I go, look, this is just me. Let's talk about where I'm standing on these issues and then move on from there because people keep asking me.
33:53: But that's why it's very difficult for me right now. Because when
33:58: I listen to politicians, this is how I listen to them. And I can tell when somebody is giving me bluster rather than something that comes from meaningful thought.
34:13: And which is why I can't hardly even turn the television on right now without being driven insane because I don't know of anybody on any side that's doing anything other than giving bluster.
34:27: But one particular candidate in particular, when asked questions,
34:33: I've always said this individual is that deep, that deep.
34:41: Nothing more there. It's just, that's all there is to it. You could walk across this person's worldview in sandals and not get your feet wet.
34:52: And that's what you're getting here. If you think critically and listen to what's being said.
35:01: Now, did you notice the big three? That makes me go, I mean,
35:06: I use that terminology. I'm not sure if he realizes that's a chapter in the
35:12: Potter's freedom. And it's an issue we've dealt with over and over and over and over and over. Matthew 23, 37, 1
35:17: Peter 3, 9, 1 Timothy 2, you know, the big three. Maybe he just took that from what
35:23: I said. I don't know. I made citation of 1
35:29: Timothy chapter 2, verse 4. God who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
35:38: Somehow you exegetically, not exegetically, but exegetically determined this to mean all kinds of people.
35:50: Isogetically. So once again, you point out huperpantonanthropon in behalf of all men and the very next word, remember there are no verse divisions in the original.
36:05: And hence I could pull up Sinaiticus or whatever and point out that it's an unbroken string of letters in the magistrial text of the early manuscripts of the
36:16: New Testament that the very next phrase after all men is in behalf of kings.
36:24: And what are kings? Kings are all people kings. Is every individual human being a king or is
36:32: Paul talking about kinds of people? Now, I made that claim. It's right there on the surface of the text.
36:39: If you don't respond to it, you circle that and go failed argumentation. Twice now, failed argumentation.
36:46: If we are examining Jacob Prosh on the basis of everything you'd find in all these books and many, many, many more that I have in my library on how to do argumentation, how to debate, two times, we've barely started, failed argumentation.
37:02: Analyzed, failed. As in different tribes and nations.
37:09: Now, where did that come from? Did I say that 1 Timothy 2 was specifically talking about tribes?
37:16: I connected when I started talking about kinds of men and I started talking especially about the intercessory work of Christ.
37:25: Then I went to other texts to demonstrate the consistency of this theme throughout Scripture. I did not say, well, in here we'll find these words.
37:34: What I said was when you look at the intermediary work of Christ, when you look at the atoning work of Christ, that's when you can look at key texts that address this issue such as Revelation chapter 5 where by your death, you redeem men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.
37:51: It's right there. But that was at a later point. Just demonstrating that when the
37:59: Bible talks about the atoning work of Christ, it's, it does so in the very same context, the very same language that we have here.
38:09: This is ridiculous. Let's look at the text in context.
38:17: The term genus, kinds, or no case ending variation of it appears anywhere in Greek text.
38:24: I never said that it did, so this is a red herring. This is raising a point that I did not make.
38:30: He could not have done this if he had played me. If he'd actually played my argumentation, he couldn't mix up the sections.
38:38: And then now what you do is this is using an appearance of wisdom. You bring up a point, you bring up something about genus here, and then talk about a case ending or something like that, and it's not in the text as if you just made a point.
38:52: The problem is the other person never made an argument upon that, so it is an empty point. It's irrelevant.
38:58: Circle it. Failure. Okay? So we had a third use of inappropriate language.
39:04: Now raising an issue four times that any teacher of logic would fail this man, and I don't think we've gotten 60 seconds in.
39:12: Four places where inappropriate, illogical argumentation, violation of the fundamental rules of argumentation being utilized in defense of what?
39:23: Of a human tradition. That's really what this is all about. And where are those all from?
39:36: Revelation chapter 5. Did I say Revelation chapter 5 is how you interpret 1 Timothy chapter 2?
39:41: No. If he wants to be exegeting the text, what should he be talking about now? He should be talking about kings and all those in authority.
39:50: That's what I did. When I provided the exegesis, that would be the only way for him to respond.
39:59: He doesn't even mention it. Doesn't even mention it. Just flies right over it.
40:07: Don't even appear there. Given that there's no chapter divisions in the original
40:15: Greek canon, we look and see, I want prayers to be delivered in a treatise, and teuxas in Greek, intercessions on behalf of all men.
40:31: Not only is there - Now, now, what should, what must be the very next statement?
40:37: If this is a serious interaction with what was said, the absolutely, the next thing that must be is an explanation of why the very next phrase is in behalf of kings, and that that does not have any delimiting force upon the interpretation of anthropon.
41:01: I have said that it does in any meaningful reading of the text. To respond to me, he must deal with it.
41:10: What does he do? Skips it. Skips over that, skips over the very next words.
41:16: That's called ignoring context. That's called exegesis. This is the very essence of what exegesis is.
41:24: And remember, he's already made the assertion. He's already made the accusation. I'm doing it.
41:29: But when we stop and let his own words testify, who's doing the exegesis?
41:35: He is. That's, by the way, he's over on that screen for me. The guy over there in the corner,
41:40: I don't know. He's doing the exegesis. I'm doing the exegesis.
41:46: One of us can defend our position. One of us cannot. And now, instead of going on talking about what one
41:56: God, one mediator, nature of mediation, all right there in the context, off into 1
42:06: Timothy chapter 4. So this is capitulation. This, to anyone seriously wanting to know who can actually deal with this text,
42:17: Jacob Prosh has just said, if someone can't, it ain't me. Because I'm out of here.
42:24: I'm going to throw some smoke bombs. I'm going to prove some points that were never disputed.
42:32: And I'm going to use strong language. And then I'm boogieing someplace else to try to prove my point someplace else, because I can't do it here.
42:44: I can't do it here. So any meaningful analysis, failure, failure, failure, failure, failure, all the way down the road, all the way down the road.
42:53: ...of any inference of what you say that it means all kinds of men, but reading in the context of the epistle fundamentally disproves your contention.
43:03: To say to fundamentally disprove a contention would have required him to deal with both the existence of categories of men in verse 2 and the nature of intercession in verses 4, 5 and following.
43:22: He skipped them. He had just listened to what I had said before he started this.
43:28: That's where he got the big three thing from. So he knows I've made the statement and he's purposely avoiding it.
43:34: The only conclusion I can draw from that, and it would be a valid conclusion for you to draw from that, in light of the fact that if we in the very period where the other side is to be responding to those facts, they are skipped over.
43:56: It is valid in the analysis of debate for you to give the point to the side who presented the facts in light of the lack of refutation from the other side.
44:06: That is a valid conclusion to be drawn. You'd write the assertions of the one side, and when the other side is in response, if no response is given, then you circle it.
44:21: Fail to respond. Fail, fail, fail, fail. So far, there's nothing but a long column of failure in regard to argumentation in regards to this response.
44:34: And hopefully, you're seeing that. And hopefully, you would then apply the same standards to anyone, myself included.
44:43: You have to learn to think logically in analyzing whatever argumentation is being put forward.
44:52: Let's read further in the same epistle. So, there's the abandonment of the context.
44:58: It's done. Nothing more is going to be presented. No counter -exegesis has been offered.
45:04: No explanation of the kinds. Assertion was made that I provided no basis.
45:10: That's a false assertion. I did. And he failed to respond to it.
45:15: Nothing about intermediation. In other words, the exegesis offered and the exegesis that had been published 16 years ago would have been available to him.
45:27: Utterly ignored. So, who's he trying to impress? Who's he trying to argue for?
45:35: He's not playing me and giving his audience an opportunity to hear that. No, no, no, no. This is the way that you argue when you only have a concern for one core constituency.
45:50: And as I said, one of my drawbacks is I'm not willing to do that. I can't do that.
45:57: That's not that's not appropriate. Okay, so. First Timothy, chapter 4, verse 10, the same epistle.
46:06: For it is for this we labor and strive, because we fixed our hope on the living
46:11: God, God who is the savior of all men, especially of believers.
46:26: Those are the faith, especially those of the faith. Here again, attempt to, there was no reason to throw in all the extra because I had not even addressed
46:47: First Timothy 4 .10 in my comments. I did, however, provide an entire appendix on First Timothy 4 .10,
46:58: including lengthy citations from George Knight III's excellent, probably the best commentary on the pastoral epistles.
47:10: And I also quoted from William Mounce in his commentary, likewise on the same text.
47:19: If you have the current edition of The Potter's Freedom, you will find a discussion of First Timothy 4 .10,
47:27: beginning at page 365 and extending all the way until 370.
47:35: So, there's about five pages of commentary, lengthy citations, in regards to the meaning of malasta and the application that is found there.
47:49: In fact, I think if I recall correctly, yes, what did
47:54: I do with the, I left them all the way over there. Be right back, just a second. Like I said, my distance vision is improving, my close -up vision, not so much.
48:07: Here is Marshall and Towner, who are nowhere near reformed.
48:15: Adoption of the traditional translation of malasta, Titus 1 .10 note, as especially so most scholars, leads to some strained exegesis.
48:23: The usual solution is to distinguish between the all to whom salvation is offered and the believers who accept the offer.
48:30: Kelly distinguishes between believers who have assurance of salvation and others who may obtain salvation. Easton 1 .46
48:36: is forced to regard the phrase as addition to original formula. These problems disappear if we accept the other possible translation to be precise, namely,
48:45: I mean. That's what Skeet was suggesting. All is thus limited here to believers, citing
48:51: Knight again, but the universal emphasis remains, all people are potentially believers. So, even
48:57: Arminians recognize that the application, that you're pushing malasta into a meaning that in the papyri, for example, it does not bear.
49:09: I would simply direct you to the extended citations that I did provide at that point.
49:15: But again, in this situation, he's abandoned the field of battle.
49:20: The field of battle was 1 Timothy 2. The field of battle was the subject of what specifically is being indicated when it says, who desires all men to be saved.
49:38: He's ignored the context, ignored the counter -argumentation, and yet made accusation that the other side was doing that.
49:46: In each one of these instances, any serious knowledgeable analysis would have to put failure, failure, failure, all the way down the list.
49:54: It would be a long list of failures on his part. All men, text, context, co -text within the epistle itself.
50:08: Your exegesis is not exegesis. It's asegesis. It's ludicrous.
50:14: Okay, it's ludicrous. Has a foundation been given for that kind of language?
50:20: None. None. Therefore, when you give as a summary, the accusation of your exegesis is ludicrous when it is you who have failed to the nth degree to even begin to interact with what you just listened to.
50:43: What's really going on? We really at that point have to ask the question, how can you be so vacuous in your argumentation?
50:51: How can you be so blind to the force of the argumentation that you're allegedly attempting to respond to?
50:58: And my answer to that is, it's called tradition. It's called tradition. And just as Dave Hunt said to me so long ago,
51:07: James, I have no traditions. It seems that the Jacob Proshes of the world do not recognize the overriding presuppositional character of the traditions that determine their own understanding and create eisegesis on their own part.
51:25: And that's exactly what you had here. I hope that that was useful to you. We can go ahead and take that down because it really does illustrate the many, many false types of examples, false forms of argumentation that are out there.
51:42: You'll want to catch the next video feed that I'm giving you and get it cued up for you there.
51:49: Now, put the clutch in. Oh my goodness. Is it really 1152? Sorry. No.
52:02: What? It may end up being that way. It may end up being that way. I've been gone for a while.
52:08: I'm sorry. But it's good. It is good to be back. What's that?
52:15: Pull the mic closer to me. What are you going to do now, Rich? What are you going to do now?
52:20: Huh? We're having a little bit of disagreement today.
52:29: Anyway. All right. Another thing I listened to. And I thought about doing a radio -free
52:38: Damascus and stuff. We will have to sort of... Is it possible to put a bookmark once this is fully rendered?
52:51: Can you put a bookmark into the comments that would allow a Muslim to go straight to this part of the discussion?
53:00: I mean, we can do it. We can do it with our debates. I would assume that once it's rendered and stored, that it's bookmarkable at that point.
53:09: Tell Dave to do it. Huh? Okay. All right. Well, I'm not sure when he's going to get around to it.
53:16: So, I would like to be able to do this. The Dean Show.
53:22: The Dean Show. If you have listened to this program, you know that many, many times
53:27: I've interacted with guests and people that have appeared on the Dean Show. Now, Dean in Arabic means religion.
53:33: The faith, the religion show, but sort of like more like... We call it the faith. Not I mean, but Dean is the religious things that you do.
53:43: It's your religion. So, the Dean Show does not represent, in many instances, the best of Islam, but it very often represents the most common in Islam.
54:00: And once again, you know, today, more evil. Two Muslims go into a
54:08: Roman Catholic church in France, slit the priest's throat. 84 years old. That's brave. Yeah. Good.
54:14: Yeah. A terrible thing. And the reasons for that are many.
54:24: And again, I just repeat the fact that within Islam, the sources from which they draw,
54:29: I just, I just, I can't see how they can produce reformation. But we can't allow that to stop the conversation and the reaching out and witness because the only, you know,
54:49: Paul stood there watching the first Christian martyr Stephen's blood flow from his wounds.
54:57: And it'd be very, very easy for us to hate Paul, but God had purposes. God had purposes. Now, those men who did what they did today, they're dead.
55:05: They have no hope. They will, they already know that there are no, there are no 72 virgins and that they are standing before a holy
55:13: God clothed in their own filthy rags of sin. And they did not have a sin bearer. That's a great tragedy of Islam.
55:21: But we must continue the conversation. We must continue to reach out in love to the
55:30: Muslim people. The Dean Show is a, is a well done program.
55:38: The host is engaging, not critical, and they repeat the same errors over and over again.
55:47: It's frustrating. I understand that that's just part of the nature of this is that we have to be patient, but they've had this gentleman on before and he's, he's made the same presentation to pass and I've responded it to a past.
55:59: I remember specifically recording a response to this in a hotel room somewhere.
56:05: I don't remember where it was, but on one of my many, many, many trips. Top 10 reasons why
56:11: Jesus is not God. I'm sorry. Yeah, it was years ago, years ago.
56:18: Well, they've, they've come out with a new version of it, a much more you know, before it was just him sitting in a chair, you know, now they realize you do it graphically.
56:30: And once again, what we will do is we will play it and we will respond to it.
56:37: We will let you hear the other side, have the context, respond to it. My response is going to be as brief as I can make it because I could, of course, go much, much deeper.
56:50: We've done that many times before, but I want this to be a segment that Muslims can watch and go, well, the
56:57: Christians can respond straight, straight up. And in fact, this fellow in making his presentation is demonstrating that even though he claims to,
57:09: I believe, I could be wrong about this, but I believe if this is Joshua Evans, he claims to be a former
57:15: Christian. And it is simply that the level of error that the deans show as a whole, and especially their allegedly former
57:28: Christian guests, the level of error in their misrepresentation of the other side just does not speak well for the program.
57:38: I'm sorry, it just doesn't. I have, we have documented this over and over and they've had Dr. Brown on and these, these, there just isn't a lot of interest in accurately representing the other side.
57:50: There really, really is not. And that's, that's, that's a shame. But let's, let's go through it and let's respond to these assertions in top 10 reasons why
58:03: Jesus is not God. Top 10 reasons, working our way to the number one most important reason.
58:22: The first reason, beginning at the beginning that Jesus cannot be God. And the reason why we're going over. Okay. Now this is
58:28: Joshua Evans and he, he did, he claims to have been a youth minister.
58:34: Well, okay. All right. That could explain the many misunderstandings that Joshua Evans has of the subject that he's addressing, but we have tried to contact him.
58:46: We have tried to invite him to do dialogue and debate. Doesn't seem to be interested in doing it. He just wants to do monologues.
58:51: And there are a lot of people like that. Because it's an issue of salvation. We want everyone to be saved. And this issue is a very important issue for Christians, Muslims, Jews, why
59:00: Jesus cannot be God. And I have to agree with this. This is a vitally important issue.
59:05: This is why we're talking about it. Because if Jesus truly was God, not the father, which you confuse it with, you, you don't understand the doctrines of trinity.
59:14: Obviously never did, which, which again, you know, if, if I claim to be a former Muslim and I did not understand what
59:22: Tawheed is, how much credibility would I have? Just honestly, how much credibility would you give a person who claims to be a former
59:30: Muslim that could not give you a meaningful definition of Tawheed? It comes from Wahat, to make one, the oneness of Allah.
59:39: There is no other God besides Allah. Tawheed in his names and attributes,
59:44: Tawheed in his Lordship, Tawheed in his worship. I know the categories of Tawheed and shirk, but I'm not a former
59:50: Muslim. If this man has credibility as a former
59:56: Christian, shouldn't he be able to accurately represent what we believe? I mean, honestly, shouldn't he? I think so.
01:00:02: I think so. Number one reason is that God cannot be born. God did not come into existence.
01:00:08: Now, of course, no Christian has ever, ever, ever said that God came into existence. And the incarnation has never, ever, ever said that God came into existence at the time of the incarnation.
01:00:23: The doctrine of the trinity is sorely misunderstood by so many
01:00:28: Muslims. There's no reason for it, except that there doesn't seem to be much meaningful interaction between our communities.
01:00:38: It shouldn't be that way. That's why we want to have meaningful, respectful conversations.
01:00:44: Why I was so disappointed that I was just up in Salt Lake and the Imam chose not to come for the dialogue. It would have been so useful on this very topic to hear both sides and hence to be able to correct misapprehensions when they exist in the presence of another person that can do so.
01:01:01: We do not believe that God came into existence when Jesus was born.
01:01:06: We don't even believe that the son came into existence when Jesus was born. The father, the son, the spirit have eternally existed as God.
01:01:14: God was not created. There is only one God, Yahweh. That's what we believe.
01:01:22: He's existed. He did not come into existence from non -existence. He was not born. He was not created. He has always been before there was even a thing called time.
01:01:31: And we, as we all know, Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, was born. Because we believe that God, who created the entire universe and called it good, has the ability for his own purposes to enter into what he himself created.
01:01:50: He does not cease to be God. The incarnation is the second person of the
01:01:56: Trinity taking on a perfect human nature. He created it and then in his condescension and in his demonstration of love for us and in the way that the father, son, and spirit have decided to bring glory to the one true
01:02:12: God, he entered into his own creation. He had eternally existed.
01:02:17: He didn't cease to be God. He didn't become a demigod where you mix stuff together. One person with two natures.
01:02:25: That's what we believed. I know that your Quran doesn't understand that. The author of the
01:02:30: Quran did not understand that. Never provided an apologetic against it. But that's what we believed even in the days of Muhammad.
01:02:39: I can prove that. Anybody can prove that. You can prove that. You can go back and read the words of Christians who lived a hundred years before Muhammad and they'll say what
01:02:51: I'm saying in regards to who Jesus Christ was. That's the fact. He was born without a father.
01:02:57: Yes, indeed, that was one of his true miracles. But he was indeed born. He was in the womb for nine months and he was born.
01:03:04: So that by its very nature shows that he does not have the same quality and characteristics that God has.
01:03:10: That shows that the incarnation of the son is not the incarnation of the father of this or the spirit.
01:03:18: But you're assuming that there's somehow a change in the divine nature.
01:03:25: Remember long before Muhammad came along, John 1 .14. John 1 .1.
01:03:30: In the beginning is the word, where is with God, the word was God. John 1 .14. And the word became flesh.
01:03:38: Ha lagas sarx agenata. The word became flesh and dwelt among us. We beheld his glory.
01:03:43: The glory is of the only begotten father, full of grace and truth. He took on human flesh. He did not cease to be the lagas.
01:03:49: He did not cease to be that second eternal person of the divine trinity. But he took on a human nature.
01:03:56: You're rejecting what we believe about the incarnation and then making an argument against that.
01:04:02: That makes no more sense than my rejecting what you teach about Tawhid, what you teach about the prophethood of Muhammad, changing your fundamental beliefs and then using an argument against a straw man as evidence that you're wrong about everything else.
01:04:19: You can't do that. Joshua Evans should know better than this. He really should.
01:04:26: I'm, I'm serious. You need to call the Dean show to a higher standard.
01:04:33: This is really well done. I mean, this is just graphically, it's better than what
01:04:38: I do. Okay. I'll give you that. But that doesn't make it truthful because the
01:04:44: Mormons do really good stuff too. And they're polytheists. Okay. The atheists can do really good stuff.
01:04:50: And, and can we agree to my Muslim friends, the atheists out to lunch, but they can make pretty audio and pretty video and stuff like that.
01:04:58: Right. Can I be born? Jesus was born. God cannot be born in his nature.
01:05:05: We're not saying he was, but this is the fundamental issue. And this is why it'd be nice if maybe we could put a link to the debate
01:05:11: I did with Abdullah Kunda on this, because you're assuming something that you've not proven. And that is that the
01:05:16: God who created everything cannot enter into his own creation. Why? If he made it, why can't he enter into it?
01:05:22: Not, not by ceasing to be God. We don't believe he ceased to be God. We don't believe that he, his nature changed.
01:05:28: It wasn't the father who became incarnate. It wasn't the spirit became incarnate. It's only the second divine person, the
01:05:34: Trinity who entered into human flesh. So why is that impossible? You assume it, you've been taught it.
01:05:42: I'm challenging you. Why? If he made it, why can't he, for his own purposes, not forced into it.
01:05:49: Jesus voluntarily took on human flesh, but why can't God do that? Why can't your God do it? My God can't.
01:05:59: Those two people cannot do it.
01:06:05: You're assuming Unitarianism to prove Unitarianism. That, you know, we just, we're just talking about invalid arguments.
01:06:11: You're assuming Unitarianism to prove Unitarianism. We are not saying that the father became flesh.
01:06:18: We differentiate between the father, the son, the spirit, and we are distinguishing between the eternal person of God, the son, who's eternally existed as a son, and the human nature that he takes on.
01:06:31: So he's one person with two natures. That human nature had not eternally existed.
01:06:37: No human nature has eternally existed. So if you're going to argue against our position, at least argue against what we're actually saying, rather than against something else.
01:06:48: And all that just to get to number nine. Now, God, when he speaks of things, when he talks of his own characteristics and who he is, he is very, very explicit.
01:06:58: For instance, in Isaiah 46 and 9, God says that I am God, and then there is nothing else.
01:07:04: It doesn't say there is nothing else. There is none else. It's personal. I know they're just giving the text there as to what
01:07:13: Joshua Evans himself was saying, but there is none else. That is a statement of monotheism.
01:07:19: We believe all those things. The problem is the very same prophet Isaiah, Jesus quoted from Isaiah 43 .10,
01:07:26: applied to himself. The apostle Paul quoted from the same chapter of Isaiah, and then from chapter 48, applied it to Jesus.
01:07:33: Why is it that the earliest Christians and Jesus himself are applying these passages that are about the one true eternal
01:07:41: God to Jesus? You've got to deal with that. You've got to interact with it. And there is none like me.
01:07:49: Also, the verses that Jesus quoted, he said, Hear O Israel, which is one that is quoted in the Jewish synagogues every time they have service.
01:07:56: Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is but one God, and then there is none else. Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh Echad.
01:08:04: Yahweh is the one God of Israel. So, why is it that Jesus identifies himself as the
01:08:11: I Am who is Yahweh? Quotes from Isaiah 43 .10 where it's
01:08:16: Yahweh speaking, applies to himself, and his early disciples do the exact same thing.
01:08:24: If you're going to be quoting from the Bible, then be fair with it.
01:08:30: Listen to all that it has to say. Don't take this offensively,
01:08:36: Mr. Evans, but it's quite probable, given the background you had, that you never were taught these things. You didn't go deep enough in the faith to know these things.
01:08:45: Well, I think you should be fair about that. I really do. I think you should just come out and say, you know what?
01:08:51: I profess to be a Christian, but I didn't know much about my faith, and so I shouldn't be viewed as someone who's an expert on these things.
01:09:00: That's the only fair way to do it. It really is. All know the verses. You can go through the Old Testament and read about God's characteristics when he describes himself.
01:09:09: It is always explicit. Now, there are some verses in the New Testament which can be implicitly interpreted as Jesus having claimed some type of divinity.
01:09:18: Now you're trying to insert this idea of explicit versus implicit.
01:09:23: What part of John 20, 28 is implicit? Thomas answered and said to him, my
01:09:31: Lord and my God. Don't give me the, my Lord, my God, absurdity. That is impossible in the original language.
01:09:40: You should never use that argumentation. Anyone who used that argumentation has automatically destroyed any credibility that they ever could have had.
01:09:48: The language will not allow for that. That is a fact beyond dispute, beyond argumentation.
01:09:56: I've never seen a single person who could come up with anything. How is that not explicit?
01:10:02: How is John 1, 1 not explicit? How is John 12, 39 through 41 not explicit when citing passages about Jesus that are quoted of Yahweh in the
01:10:14: Old Testament? How is Titus 2, 13 not explicit? Our great God and savior,
01:10:19: Jesus Christ. How much clearer, do you have anything clearer than that regarding Muhammad being the final prophet in the
01:10:25: Quran? Which, you know, you want to talk about explicit, implicit?
01:10:33: These are pretty explicit statements, aren't they? They are. But if that was such a big characteristic, if it was such a big deal that Jesus was
01:10:43: God, if this was the way to salvation, that he was God in the flesh come to sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity, then that is something
01:10:49: God would have been explicit about because it is an issue of salvation. So when Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, writing to the
01:10:55: Corinthians, takes the Shema, which you yourself just a few moments ago said was quoted in every synagogue, he takes the
01:11:03: Shema and he expands it to include Jesus and uses one of those terms, which is the
01:11:10: Greek term kurios, which was the translation, transliteration, not even transliteration, but the rendering of the divine name in the
01:11:18: Shema, Shema Yisrael, Yahweh, kurios. He applies that to Jesus.
01:11:24: He expands the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8. That's, that's the faith of the early
01:11:31: Christians. And you're saying it just, well, they didn't really say much about it. When Paul identifies the church at Corinth before that as those who epikaleo, call upon the name of the
01:11:42: Lord Jesus, epikaleo means to pray to? That's not explicit? The name that they suffer in is the name of Jesus?
01:11:50: That's not explicit? Hmm. Seems pretty explicit to me. God does not beat around the bush about these types of issues.
01:11:58: When it comes to who he is, he is very clear with the children of Israel. I am God. There's none like me. Do not worship anything else, period.
01:12:04: And Jesus came and quoted the same very verses. So if it would have been an issue of salvation that he was God, he would have very clearly stated,
01:12:12: I am God. Isn't it interesting that modern followers of Muhammad can be much clearer in their argumentation than Muhammad was?
01:12:24: I really hope that my Muslim friends think about this. Why is it that your arguments against the
01:12:30: Trinity are significantly more advanced than the Quran's arguments? Because if it comes from God, you would expect that the best arguments would be
01:12:40: God's arguments. But these aren't the arguments of the Quran. The author of the Quran doesn't understand that in 1
01:12:48: Corinthians chapter 8, Paul expanded the Shema so that you have the father and the son, because he never read it and never heard about it.
01:12:58: He doesn't understand, the author of the Quran doesn't understand the Granville Sharp Rule, Italians 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1.
01:13:04: He doesn't understand the citation from Isaiah that is found toward the end of the Karmic Christian, Philippians 2, because the author of the
01:13:12: Quran was ignorant of these things. God's not ignorant of any of these things. That's why I can't accept the
01:13:17: Quran as a divine revelation. If your Quran is going to tell me, I'm going to hellfire for saying three, it better be accurate as to who the three are, because it comes afterwards.
01:13:29: Right? Important issues. You're the one that said, Mr. Evans, if you ever should watch this, you're the one that said this is a matter of salvation.
01:13:38: I agree. I agree. It is a matter of salvation. A lot of people don't agree with that.
01:13:44: But I agree it is a matter of salvation. That's why we have to talk about it and talk about it meaningfully and respectfully.
01:13:50: I am God. He would not have told the Jews when they said that you call yourself God, he said, you say that I am. He would have very clearly said, yes,
01:13:57: I'm God. And I'm here to save you from your sins. Well, the Jews said, who do you make yourself out to be?
01:14:08: And he said, And they picked up stones to stone him.
01:14:16: Why skip that, Joshua, Mr. Evans? That's John chapter eight. Why skip that?
01:14:23: Isn't that sort of important? Isn't that rather explicit? Straightforward? Fulfilling the exact categories that you say it should fulfill?
01:14:31: And doesn't? But it's right there. Never stated that in anywhere. And it's never referenced in any scriptural text of any religion whatsoever.
01:14:38: So therefore, if God is so explicit about his nature, why, when it comes to him becoming a man, why did he not explicitly state so?
01:14:45: But we've already shown you text after text after text that you've ignored. That fulfill exactly that.
01:14:54: So why do this? Who are you trying to convince? Well, again, with all due respect, it seems like you're trying to convince the same kind of ignorant nominal
01:15:06: Christians that you yourself were. Because if you really knew the biblical testimony to the deity of Christ and the
01:15:14: Trinity, none of these arguments would have ever had an impact upon you. So are those the only people you're trying to reach?
01:15:20: See, from my perspective, I want to reach the most convinced, knowledgeable Muslim there is. Now, I want to reach the
01:15:26: Muslim who doesn't know his faith too, but I'm not going to use a different form of argumentation that's not as truthful for him.
01:15:33: That's, you know, I know not all Christians follow that. Line of reasoning and argumentation, but we should.
01:15:40: We're not all consistent. The Bible says by God's own word that no one has ever seen
01:15:46: God at any time. This is very clear in John 1, 18. It says no man has seen
01:15:52: God at any time. In first John. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Well, back it back up the truck, brother.
01:15:59: Why did you only quote a part of John 1, 18? What, you know, you just, we can't disrespect each other's scriptures in this way.
01:16:14: I don't believe that the Quran's word of God and you don't believe the Bible has been fully and accurately transmitted to us.
01:16:20: Okay, we can have that dialogue and debate and we have and we'll continue to do so. But I would,
01:16:26: I would just feel so guilty if I were to use text from the
01:16:34: Quran like that. I just quote a portion of the verse when I know that the rest of the verse is directly relevant to the issue.
01:16:42: Don't you know the rest of the verses directly? No one has seen God at any time. Ha managanes theos, the unique God he has exegeted, who is in the bosom of the father.
01:16:57: The unique God who is at the father's side in a place of intimate personal relationship.
01:17:07: He has exegeted him. He has made him known. The whole point of John 1, 18 is the exact opposite of what you just made it.
01:17:19: And you just ignored the rest of the text. It, I don't even know what verse of the
01:17:27: Quran I could give an example of where you just, you just quote the beginning and then just ignore the rest of the verse which actually makes the point and you try to make it look like the
01:17:35: Quran is saying the exact opposite. This should not be done. It's dishonest. And dishonesty in the service of any religion is an affront to God.
01:17:46: Can we agree with that? Can you, can you, can we agree? I really hope we can. No man has seen
01:17:52: God at any time. Even Jesus' own statement in John 5 and 37. Jesus says, and the father himself which has sent me, hath borne witness of me.
01:18:01: And you have neither heard his voice nor seen his face at any time. And Jesus was standing right there amongst them.
01:18:06: So had he been God, why would? Had he been the father? You see the error you just made? You are assuming that the doctrine of the
01:18:15: Trinity is modalistic. And you probably believed that. You are assuming
01:18:21: Unitarianism and then you are assuming we are talking about the father. He didn't say that. He said you have not seen the father.
01:18:27: You have seen the son. And the son is the perfect revelation of the father. And Jesus knew that people had seen
01:18:34: God in the Old Testament. Isaiah saw Jehovah sitting upon his throne. The point was that was Jesus. That's what John 12, 41 tells us.
01:18:43: See, Mr. Evans' arguments are just based upon a fundamental ignorance of the
01:18:49: Christian faith. And that as a quote -unquote former Christian. You have never seen
01:18:54: God at any time. You understand? This is what I'm talking about. This is clear cut. You have never seen God.
01:19:00: If he would have been God, he would have said, you're looking at God right now. You want to see God? Look at me. You have seen him.
01:19:06: And there are some verses in the Bible someone can... Now, see, he knows. He knows that he better try to find a way around this one.
01:19:13: Because Jesus did say things like... Peter Radin said, okay, we said anyone who has seen me has seen the father.
01:19:19: Remember? Show us the father. And if you've seen me, you've seen the father. What's his point?
01:19:25: That he is the perfect revelation of the father. He's not claiming to be the father. And if you continue to misrepresent the doctor, the trinity, as if that's what we're allegedly saying, well, that's called straw man argumentation.
01:19:35: And you fail all those logic books over there we talked about before. If you've seen the father, then you...
01:19:41: If you've seen me, then you've seen the father. Or, you know, I and the father are one. Now, that's a different context.
01:19:46: John 10, verse 30 is in the context of bringing salvation to God's people. And he says,
01:19:52: I and the father, we are one. He uses a plural verb. Now, it is vitally important because no mere human being could say what
01:19:59: Jesus was saying. No prophet would have ever said that I give eternal life to God's people.
01:20:05: The father gives eternal life. I and the father, we are one in bringing about the eternal life. That is blasphemous in the words, in the mouth of anyone.
01:20:13: Now, you're going to do the standard purpose thing here, but still not hearing what it is that Jesus was actually saying there in John chapter 10.
01:20:21: You know, and when you... But if you read the context of those verses, rather than just taking a sentence out, if you read the context of four or five different verses, you...
01:20:28: Now, I just have to point out, you're the one that took the first few words of John 118 and then skipped the rest of the verse that totally changed the meaning you applied to it.
01:20:37: So, be careful with, you know, the glass houses rock thing. He was speaking of being one in purpose.
01:20:44: Even in the one where he said, I and the father are one, he was speaking about just as no one can pluck the children of God out of God's hand, no one can plug them out of my hand because I and I father are one.
01:20:53: Meaning that we are one in purpose. We have the same exact mission. I am coming as God's message bearer to humanity.
01:21:00: We are one in the same. Yeah. Did you notice what he just said? Humanity. Now, a little bit later on, you're going to contradict yourself.
01:21:08: And you're going to say he's only sent the Jews. And you're going to misrepresent Matthew again. Like seemingly all
01:21:14: Muslims do. But yeah, that is what he said. All humanity, not just the
01:21:22: Jews. And what we want from you. I am God's representative. Anything that he wants is my will.
01:21:28: So, if you understand them in that light explicitly, then you understand that. Does anyone else notice this?
01:21:35: What is that? That's a stone rolling away from the tomb. You don't believe in that.
01:21:41: Remember Surah 4, verses 1 to 7? You don't believe there is any burial and any resurrection. What are you doing here?
01:21:50: I'm just now seeing this for the first time. I listened to this while I was driving yesterday. But I hadn't seen that before.
01:21:57: No man has seen God at any time. And this is also in the Quran. Moses asked to see God in the Quran. And he said, look at the mountain.
01:22:04: If the mountain can see me, then if it can bear my sight, then you can see me. And we know that when God showed himself to the mountain, it crumbled into pieces.
01:22:11: And then Moses repented and said, I'm sorry. God is not something that can come in the form of a human being. I mean, you cannot contain
01:22:16: God's... Notice, God cannot come in the form of a human being. Why? Why?
01:22:23: He can create the human being, but he can't enter into... So, you have a limitation that my
01:22:28: God doesn't have. And if you say, well, because he can't see his being God... Didn't say that he did. If he created it, why can't he enter into his own creation?
01:22:37: You've got to answer that question. Since inside of a physical form, that is to lessen God beyond extent.
01:22:43: Why? Why is it less than God? Why is it less than God that he would be so loving and so condescending that he would provide the only perfect way of salvation and peace of himself?
01:22:52: Why is that less than God? The only way you can make that argument is if you're saying that God's nature changes as a result.
01:22:58: And we're not saying that that happened. To put him inside of a physical form. He's too great to be put in any form, in any dynamiters, in any parameters, in any dimensions, any box.
01:23:06: You can't put God inside a box. This concept was not taught by Jesus or his disciples, nor was it believed in by his followers and the early followers of Christianity.
01:23:17: As we see when they found the Dead Sea Skulls in Qumran, we see that the early Christians... Excuse me, but there weren't any
01:23:25: Christian documents. Qumran is before the time of Christ. So I really lost you at this point because you've got some historical problems here.
01:23:38: Maybe you're trying to refer to the Ebionites, but you've mixed your centuries up and your sources up. And we've already demonstrated the early
01:23:45: Christians did believe this. I can read to you from Ignatius. I can read the earliest writings of Christians outside the
01:23:53: New Testament. Very plainly used language of Jesus that could never be used of a mere prophet. So it's right there.
01:24:00: And Qumran, not relevant at all at this point. We're still a part of Judaism.
01:24:06: For instance, if you read the Book of Acts, when Jesus Christ had departed from this Earth, the disciples still daily attended the synagogue.
01:24:16: They still daily went to the Temple of Jerusalem and worshipped as the Jews worshipped because this is what
01:24:22: Jesus Christ brought. He brought the renewal of the laws of Moses. I don't remember that phrase, renewal of the laws of Moses.
01:24:30: I remember fulfillment. And I remember the Sermon on the Mount. But I don't remember that phrase anywhere.
01:24:38: So if the disciples were running around teaching people that Jesus was God, they would have been banished out of the temple the day they walked in.
01:24:45: You mean like in the Gospel of John, where even before his crucifixion, they were kicked out of the synagogue?
01:24:50: Remember the blind man, John chapter 9? His parents were afraid of what? That they're going to be kicked out of the synagogue because anyone who was confessing that Jesus was the
01:24:58: Messiah was what? You skipped that part again, huh? They would have started their own church, but neither did
01:25:05: Jesus. Jesus went to the temple himself. He did not build his own church anywhere and say, worship me.
01:25:10: He went to the temple and worshipped God in the same way that Moses worshipped God, the same way that Abraham worshipped God, the same way that David worshipped
01:25:16: God, the same way that Zechariah worshipped God. You know, he did the exact same thing and his disciples followed him.
01:25:21: And if you look at the first, second century Christians, they did the same thing. The people of Qumran, the first disciple who wrote the
01:25:29: Dead Sea Scrolls. Again, oops. Dead Sea Scrolls are pre -Christian.
01:25:35: Hello. Hello. They were also a part of Judaism. They considered themselves Judaism, practicing
01:25:41: Jews who followed Jesus as their prophet. No, no, they didn't. You must be talking about the
01:25:47: Ebionites. You must be confusing the Essenes and the Ebionites. That's all I can say. Both start with E, I guess. But major historical fail here.
01:25:56: So we see that nothing had changed. This whole concept of Trinity did not come about until the third century of the church and it was not formulated as a doctrine that must be believed in until 325
01:26:08: AD. Now, again, very common accusation, very common assertion, but no serious person can make these arguments.
01:26:18: I mean, you just really have to abandon all meaningful discussion of the early church fathers, the presence in Ignatius of incredibly high
01:26:32: Christology. I know the internet's filled with it, but the internet's filled with all sorts of silly stuff about the
01:26:40: Quran too. And you don't believe that. We need to get past this kind of Akhmed Didat level stuff.
01:26:47: I can't imagine what Didat would have been like if you had the internet. That would have been really bad. The Council of Nicaea, when all of the bishops and the scholars of Christianity, which started to form into Christianity after Paul, came together and said, okay, this is a doctrine that we must believe in.
01:27:01: And the first person to expound this doctrine was Paul, who never saw Jesus Christ himself, never walked with him, never talked to him.
01:27:07: Now notice, here comes the anti -Pauline stuff. But if you apply the exact same standards to Muhammad that you're now applying to Paul, you would have to reject
01:27:15: Muhammad. You say he never saw Jesus. He said he did. Well, in a vision. Well, how many things did
01:27:20: Muhammad see in a vision? Do you believe he went to heaven on a winged horse? Again, I just don't understand why
01:27:30: Muslims will be supernaturalists with Muhammad and naturalists with Paul.
01:27:36: It's unfair, it's inaccurate, and it's just... I never ate with him, never learned from him.
01:27:43: It was something that he formulated off a vision that he said he had while he was on the road to Damascus to actually persecute
01:27:49: Christians. So he was the first person to ever come up with this title of Christian, ever come...
01:27:54: Paul didn't come up with it. They were called Christians first at Antioch. Title of Trinity, ever come up with the God... He never used the term
01:28:00: Trinity. Jesus Christ or only begotten. Well, at least he came up, at least he admits that Paul taught the deity of Christ.
01:28:08: And only begotten son, of course, is John, unless you're going to say that John got it from Paul. All of these things came with Paul the apostle.
01:28:18: Jesus ate, slept, and prayed. He ate, slept, and prayed. And we know God by his very nature is self -sufficient.
01:28:24: So this is a Quranic argument. And again, it's a Quranic argument based upon an ignorance of Christian theology.
01:28:30: This is the argument from Surahs 4 and 5. And we could have destroyed Jesus and they ate their daily food, and we make our signs clear.
01:28:39: And this is fundamental to the Quranic argument. But again, it shows a complete ignorance of what we believe the incarnation was.
01:28:46: And it's applied, interestingly, in Surah 5 to Mary as well. Um, no one is denying that God is self -sufficient.
01:28:54: What we're saying is if he chooses to do so, he can humble himself and enter into his own creation. You're not arguing against our position.
01:29:01: And strawman argumentation shouldn't be what you're relying on. He does not need anything to continue his existence.
01:29:08: God does not need to eat. God does not need to sleep. God does not need to pray. God is not in need of anything.
01:29:15: Because if he was in need of something, then he would not be God. He would need something else other than himself to exist.
01:29:20: That would therefore not make him, that would take away his God -ship. And we know that Jesus Christ was born.
01:29:26: We know that he ate. We know that he slept. And we know that he prayed. Had he not ate, slept, or drank any water, he would have died.
01:29:33: Therefore, he was not self -sufficient. He needed something to continue his existence. Therefore, by his very nature of not being self -sufficient, and God being self -sufficient, those two things can't mix.
01:29:43: You can't be self -sufficient and not self -sufficient all at the same time. And then Jesus prayed. He was in need of prayer.
01:29:50: Anytime he had an issue, he would pray. He would tell the disciples, I need to go pray. Wait here while I pray.
01:29:56: Wait here while I pray. He would go to the temple, pray, prostrating on his face on the ground. This in his very nature showed that he was in need of something greater than himself.
01:30:03: Because that is the essence of prayer. It's showing that you're in need of someone who is greater than you. Even people who worship idols, they believe that idol is greater than them.
01:30:11: Therefore, they pray to it. So, if Jesus was God, why was he in need of his prayer? He would have been telling people to pray to him.
01:30:18: So, again, showing ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Spirit have been in eternal communion with one another.
01:30:27: And so, if the Son enters into human existence, he's going to stop communing with the
01:30:32: Father. If Jesus is a perfect man, don't perfect men pray? So, if God becomes man, he has to be an atheist?
01:30:41: I mean, none of these things make any sense. You are taking assumptions that are counterfactual to what you're actually arguing against and making application that, again, it's just pure straw man.
01:30:54: There's no substance to it. It may sound good to your audience, but there's no substance to it. You need to pray to me.
01:31:01: I don't need to pray to anyone. So, therefore, by his very nature of necessity of him being in need of something else, he cannot be
01:31:07: God. Number five reason is that Jesus claimed that God's knowledge was greater than his.
01:31:14: When he was asked about the hour, the day of judgment, he said, of that day knoweth no man, nor the angels in heaven, nor the
01:31:22: Son. I don't know this. It could have been a distraction or whatever.
01:31:29: But I just often wonder when Muslims use this argument, whether they, there's not just a tinge of guilt.
01:31:37: Guilt on their part. Why? Because you don't believe Jesus ever said these words. Because you don't believe
01:31:44: Jesus could ever describe himself the way he described himself here. Because he makes a clear distinction. No one knows, no man, nor the angels, nor even the
01:31:55: Son, but only the Father. So where is the Son? You don't believe Jesus ever called himself the Son like that.
01:32:01: You don't believe he ever put himself above all the angels into a position only below the
01:32:07: Father and that in his incarnate state. We believe that certain aspects of Jesus's preexistent glory were hidden during the incarnation.
01:32:20: Obviously on the Mount of Transfiguration, for example, his glory shines forth. But Jesus didn't walk down roads glowing at night.
01:32:27: These were things that were essential part of his being that were voluntarily and for the purpose of fulfilling his ministry limited, including the knowledge of the final hour.
01:32:35: But in other places, Jesus claims all authority has been given to him.
01:32:41: He makes claims that no human being could ever make. But you ignore those and only focus upon this.
01:32:49: And in the context, recognize that you'd have to go, well, he never said this.
01:32:55: Because he would never describe himself as the Son, who is above all the angels and above all of humanity.
01:33:01: Right? You don't really believe he said it. But only the Father has knowledge of that hour.
01:33:07: So, if he would have been God, he would have known that. How could God, if the
01:33:13: Trinity was indeed true, and God was God, Jesus was God, the Holy Spirit was God, they're all the same person.
01:33:18: Catch that. Catch that. I'm glad I stopped. No, leave it up. Leave it up. Put that up. See that? The Holy Spirit is
01:33:24: God. They're all the same person. This is a fundamental misrepresentation of the
01:33:31: Christian faith. We do not believe Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person.
01:33:37: We distinguish between person and being. There is one being of God, three divine persons.
01:33:43: This is a misrepresentation. I call upon the Dean Show to stop misrepresenting other religions.
01:33:54: If you constantly call upon us to accurately represent you, and as Christians, we should.
01:34:00: And I, for one, you can go ahead and put that down in the box. I, for one, have taken heat for calling people to accurately represent
01:34:09: Islam. I've taken heat for writing against people who were misrepresenting
01:34:15: Yasser Qadhi, for example. Then I have a basis for being able to say, you all need to stop doing this very same thing.
01:34:25: You don't like it when you're misrepresented. Neither do we. Stop it, please. Thank you.
01:34:31: That means that how does one not know the same information that the other one knows if they are the same person? If God knows the hour,
01:34:38: Jesus should know the hour. The Holy Spirit should know the hour. They should have all known that thing. But even Jesus said in another verse, in John 14, 28, he said, the
01:34:45: Father is greater than I. He admitted the Father is greater than I. And when you look at John chapter 14, 28, he said, when he was telling his disciples that he was going back into the presence of the
01:34:56: Father, they should have rejoiced that he was going back into the presence of the Father. Why? Because the
01:35:01: Father is greater than I. His point was that in the incarnate state he was in now, he was going to be leaving that and going back into the presence of the
01:35:09: Father. That greater is a positional situation that he voluntarily left to bring about our salvation.
01:35:16: And then he's entering back into the presence of the Father. Read John 14 in its context.
01:35:22: Don't isolate a single phrase and then ignore the rest of how it functioned in what Jesus said.
01:35:28: They are equals. How can one be greater than the other? If they are both in the... Because equals can do different things.
01:35:35: The son became incarnate, not the father. How could one be greater than the other?
01:35:40: So showing that Jesus did not have the exact same knowledge that God has, how could he be God? You see, these are statements that are very explicit.
01:35:47: And if you weigh all of these statements against the ambiguous ones, which ones are going to weigh out more?
01:35:53: Point -blank, explicit, to -the -point statements, or statements that can be interpreted this way, that way, by anyone who walks and wants to give them an interpretation.
01:36:01: Now notice, this is how you try to get around the fact that you're not really dealing with the meaningful presentation of the
01:36:09: Christian faith, or you don't really even understand it. You're not dealing with the primary text. You say, well, you know, all those other verses just could be interpreted in many, many different ways.
01:36:17: And yet we provide contextual interpretation, and you're only giving little snippets and ignoring like the rest of the sentence.
01:36:24: Not, not the way to do it. These cannot be interpreted any other way than Jesus was not God. He was some...
01:36:29: Jesus was not the father, which is what we believe. Less than God. Number four is that Jesus explicitly states that he is not
01:36:39: God. Now we think that Jesus... Okay, explicitly. Let's, let's, let's see, let's see how explicit this is.
01:36:46: Let's see how we're using the terms explicit and implicit here. Implicitly states that he is God. There are some ambiguous verses, but what about where he explicitly states that he is not
01:36:56: God? For instance, in John 17 and three, he said, and this is life eternal. This is the way to eternal life that they may know you, the one true
01:37:05: God, one true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent as a messenger.
01:37:11: He said, this is the, in a nutshell, what I have come to teach that they may know you, the only true
01:37:17: God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. Why don't you actually read the whole thing?
01:37:23: Because he says, this is eternal life. How is it eternal life to know Jesus? Do you know Jesus in a way
01:37:28: Jesus was talking about there? Do you believe it's necessary for you to not just know about Jesus, but to know
01:37:34: Jesus intimately the way he's talking about in John chapter 17? And why not go on down to verse five, where Jesus talks about the reality of the fact that he was in the presence of the father, glorious in the presence of the father before creation itself.
01:37:50: This is because again, you don't believe he ever said these things. And once again, you're assuming that if you're assuming
01:37:56: Unitarianism, you're assuming that if God became man, he would be an atheist. There would be no prayer. There'd be no communication.
01:38:02: You're ignoring the distinction between the father and the son. And hence, you can't make heads or tails out of John chapter 17.
01:38:07: But again, verse three in isolation from verse five. Can I do that to the
01:38:13: Quran too? I could make the Quran say some really amazing things if you'd let me do that. But you see, truthful people can't do that.
01:38:20: And anyone who is a Muslim, that statement makes very, very, very good sense.
01:38:26: Because it's even a part of our faith where you would say, La ilaha illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah wa Isa Rasulullah. Which means that there is no
01:38:32: God, but one God. Muhammad is his messenger and Jesus is a messenger. Which means they are ones who were sent.
01:38:38: And that's a tenet of our faith. To believe in the one true God and Jesus Christ who was sent. Very simple, very explicit.
01:38:44: And then also he told, after he was in the Bible when he ascended to God, he told them, he said,
01:38:51: Jesus saith unto her, he's speaking to Mary Magdalene, I ascend unto my father. Now, wait a minute. You don't believe he said this.
01:38:58: You don't believe he used the term father. The Quran denies this. There was no crucifixion.
01:39:04: This is, these words are all placed in the context that you reject.
01:39:11: Your father, my God and your God. He very clearly equated her
01:39:17: God and his God as being the one and same God. He didn't say, I'm going to ascend to myself. And of course, we don't believe that.
01:39:25: You see, you're assuming Unitarianism. You're assuming modalism. You're misrepresenting the doctrine of Trinity.
01:39:31: The son ascended in the presence of the father. They're distinguished from one another. They're not the same person.
01:39:37: This is just simply fundamental ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is something the
01:39:43: Dean Show does all the time. And I really believe that if you're a Muslim and you're a
01:39:49: Muslim who is concerned about truth, you should contact the Dean Show and say, guys, you need to accurately represent what other people believe.
01:39:57: If you're going to say it's wrong, if you're going to say we're going to hell fire for believing it, don't you think there's some, you know, reason why you should maybe accurately represent what we say?
01:40:08: And to your God and to me. You know, this doesn't make any sense. If even if somebody would have said that, this man is a fool and a half.
01:40:15: If he's saying I'm going to ascend into myself, your God is me and I'm going to myself. I hope you realize this is all just misrepresentation.
01:40:21: All these things are not, but he very, very clearly stated the one true God and I am ascending to my God and your God. Point blank clear.
01:40:28: Those things can't get any more simple. And that same John 20, 28, same John chapter 20 you just quoted from my
01:40:36: Lord and my God. How can that get any more explicit? So you just want to pick and choose.
01:40:42: You won't deal with all the data. Number three is that even when you get to the title, son of God, even when you get the title, only begotten son of God, this is not an exclusive title to Jesus.
01:40:55: Tons of sons. Think there are many, many, many, many instances where the word son of God is used.
01:41:02: And if anyone would study Jewish culture, especially ancient Jewish culture or Orthodox Jewish culture, to be called a son of God is a title of esteem and a title of prestige and honor, even being called
01:41:13: Lord. Someone would come to their rabbi and they would refer to him as my Lord. This is something that is known by Western, by Eastern Europeans also.
01:41:20: They refer to people as Lord. So this title is not exclusive. And Jacob in...
01:41:25: Okay, just a couple of things. Jesus is the son of God. The Jews themselves in John chapter 19 say that he should die because he made himself out to be the son of God.
01:41:36: So they understood that Jesus' use of this term was not in some generic sense of the child of God or like David was the son of God.
01:41:43: They recognized in John chapter five, John chapter 19, that his utilization of this term far transcended this.
01:41:51: It's the same thing in Mark chapter 14. When Jesus quotes from Psalm 110 and Daniel chapter seven makes application to himself.
01:41:58: So it is simply a very unfair, easily refutable abuse of the
01:42:04: Christian scriptures to make that argumentation. Secondly, the term kuriosit is used of Jesus. Yes, it could be used of any person who is in a position of authority until you start making application of the term kurios as it's used of Jehovah God in the
01:42:20: Old Testament. And so these are very lame excuses. They cannot stand up.
01:42:26: I think it's maybe why Joshua Evans does not do debates. They cannot stand up in any type of meaningful situation where you'd be forced to actually make application of these types of assertions to the biblical text itself.
01:42:38: The argumentation would simply fall apart. And Exodus are called sons of God. Ephraim and Jeremiah, Adam is called son of God in the
01:42:44: New Testament. Common people are called sons of God in the New and Old Testament. So these are not something that is an exclusive title as son of God.
01:42:52: And I had a discussion with a pastor about this. He said, yes, but Jesus was the only begotten son of God.
01:43:00: And I said, okay, what gives him that exclusive title? What is the characteristic that gives him that exclusive title?
01:43:07: He says, the New Testament says, yes, but there must be a reason why he has this exclusive title. He says, because he was born miraculously without a father.
01:43:15: That is not why he's called monogamous chaos or monogamous chaos. That's not why. The pastor was wrong, whoever it was.
01:43:24: But that terminology is used of his person in eternity past. The uniqueness of his relationship to the father in the prologue of John.
01:43:32: So the rest of this argumentation will be irrelevant. And in Jewish culture, your lineage was from your father's side.
01:43:40: You would be the son of your father, of his father. That's how your lineage was traced, not through the mother.
01:43:46: So therefore, since his lineage stopped in Mary, he had no father. Therefore, God must be his father.
01:43:51: I said, okay, that makes sense. That would make sense to an average human being. I said, but if that is the characteristic for his exclusive sonship, that he has no father,
01:44:03: I said, what about Adam and Eve? They had no father nor mother. They were fashioned, as God says, by his own hands out of dirt.
01:44:10: So if anyone has the exclusive title to be the only begotten son of God, it should have been Adam. Because not only was he not have a father or mother, he was the first creation.
01:44:18: Therefore, why does he not have that title? Why are we not worshiping him as the exclusive son of God? And he had no answer to that.
01:44:25: And he had no answer to that because it's a really bad argument, first of all, because the Bible doesn't teach anything about it.
01:44:30: And secondly, because he had been wrong about what makes Jesus the unique son of God in the first place. Not to bash him, it was just to say that this is not an exclusive to say, oh, because he has no father, he is
01:44:40: God's exclusive son. This was the extreme miracle that was exclusive.
01:44:45: One of the exclusive things for the children of Israel to Jesus, about Jesus Christ, was that he had no father.
01:44:51: He had no father at all. He came directly from a virgin who had never touched another human being.
01:44:58: And that was his miracle. That was, if you read the Quran, it explains it very clearly. When Mary brought the child, they accused her of adultery.
01:45:06: But the miracle was that God made Jesus speak. He made him speak as a baby and said that I am the messenger of God.
01:45:13: Ironically, before the Quran was written, that story was Jesus spoke from his cradle and said he was a prophet of God.
01:45:21: In fact, I think he said he was the son of God in the Arabic infancy gospel. And then that gets utilized and put into the
01:45:27: Quran, which is interesting. Are you surprised that God can do this? God can do anything.
01:45:33: That's why Jesus was giving more miracles than almost any other prophet. He was giving physical miracles to soften the deadened heart of the children of Israel at that time.
01:45:41: That's why he was given such great miracles to heal the blind, to heal the sick, to bring people back to life from the dead, being born of a virgin.
01:45:49: All of this was because this was one of God's last message. He was the next, the last messenger to be sent to the children of Israel and they rejected him.
01:45:58: That's when God decided to send Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, as a mercy to all the worlds. Because we even know that Jesus was not sent to all the world.
01:46:05: He was sent to the... You said that earlier, that he was sent to all humanity, but I guess we've changed it now.
01:46:11: Even in his own statements, he said, I am not sent, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Okay, again, this is a misrepresentation of Matthew.
01:46:20: It is unfair to quote from Matthew chapter 15 and ignore Matthew chapter 28, where Jesus sends his disciples to all the world and he says all authority has been given to him.
01:46:31: Stop misrepresenting Matthew. It is unfair. It's inaccurate. It's untruthful. It's unworthy of anybody who calls himself a follower of truth.
01:46:39: Just, I know it's common. I know you do it all the time, but you need to stop. It's a falsehood. Every time
01:46:44: I hear a Muslim saying that, I hear a Muslim saying, I don't care to accurately handle your text.
01:46:50: I'm just going to repeat what I've been told. And that massively diminishes your dawah. It does.
01:46:58: He's not a prophet for everyone. He was a prophet that was exclusively for their people, as was every prophet before him.
01:47:05: Every nation was sent a messenger. Children of Israel were sent more than anyone. But finally, God decided to send one for the blanket of humanity.
01:47:13: And that was prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who even said that Jesus Christ spoke of him. God cannot change.
01:47:22: In Malachi, God himself, this is an explicit statement that is directly attributed to God, whether it's from God or not, who knows.
01:47:30: But this is a statement that is attributed directly to God. God says, I do not change.
01:47:36: Therefore, the sons of Jacob are not consumed. He was stating that I do not change in my nature.
01:47:42: I don't be happy one day, sad the other day, angry the next day. I don't, his nature does not change.
01:47:50: Therefore, God cannot be subjected to the same laws which he created. For instance,
01:47:55: God created time. Therefore, he cannot be subjected to time. He does not pass through time.
01:48:01: He doesn't get old. He doesn't get tired. He doesn't get sleepy. He doesn't go through the same stages of time that we go through.
01:48:07: He created air. Therefore, he doesn't need it. He created the sun. Therefore, he doesn't need his warmth. He doesn't get hot.
01:48:12: He doesn't get cold. These things do not happen to God. God cannot put himself into a human body.
01:48:19: So there you go. Again, there's the assumption. He cannot put himself into a human body.
01:48:26: He can't do it. Our God can't do it. That's what the Muslim is saying. And I'm saying God created it.
01:48:34: He can enter into it without changing. My God must have more power, more ability. Because that's exactly what says he did.
01:48:42: And the writer of your book never gave me a meaningful argument against it because he never understood it. That's really where we are.
01:48:50: Come on this earth. Be subjected to time. Be subjected to hunger. Be subjected to tiredness. Be subjected to being whipped and beat and hurt.
01:48:57: These are things that God cannot by his very nature be. Some people say that God can do anything.
01:49:04: And that is not a correct statement. Because God can do anything that is permeate to his nature.
01:49:11: For instance, God cannot go to hell. God cannot die. God wasn't born. God doesn't eat.
01:49:16: There are certain things he cannot do because it would be against his nature. And you have to prove that entering into human existence would be against his nature.
01:49:25: And since you assume you misrepresent the Trinity and you assume that what we believe is that he became a demigod or his nature changed.
01:49:33: You've yet to produce a meaningful argument against the actual reality of our position.
01:49:39: Certainly not in this video yet. Be against his godship. It would make him less than God. So God can do anything except that which would make him less than God.
01:49:48: And that's why in Islam he has attributes. Clearly laid out attributes which keep him as the title of God.
01:49:56: Any attribute that can be attributed to human beings is something that cannot be attributed to God. But things that are attributed to God like mercy can be attributed to us.
01:50:03: But anything that is attributed to us cannot be attributed to God because it would make him less than God. The most essential reason why
01:50:11: Jesus cannot be God is that God is the essence of worship. God is the object of worship.
01:50:17: God is the person whom we worship. No matter what religion you follow, whoever they call God is their object of worship.
01:50:24: It's who they give their devotion to. It's who they make their prayers to. It's who they make their sacrifices to. It's who they pay their charity in the name of.
01:50:30: God, whatever God they call him, whether they call it Krishna, whether they call it Buddha, whatever is their
01:50:36: God, that's who they give their worship to. So had Jesus been God, he would have told people to worship him.
01:50:42: But in fact, in Matthew 15 and 18, he did the exact opposite. He told people, in vain shall you worship me, predicting the future.
01:50:52: Now this is a particularly bad argument. I mean, to make this your number one argument, what he's talking about is he's teaching sola scriptura.
01:51:06: Remember in Matthew chapter 15, the Korban rule? And he's saying to the
01:51:12: Jews, here you have this tradition which you claim has been passed down outside of scripture.
01:51:20: And you break the scriptures for the sake of your traditions, and you have many of them. And then he applies the word from Isaiah, in vain do you worship me.
01:51:28: That's actually talking about God. It's talking about Yahweh. Jesus isn't making application to himself at that point.
01:51:35: But teaching his commandments, the traditions of men. He's saying that God warned that there would be this time when the word of God would be subjected to the traditions of men.
01:51:44: Has nothing to do with any of this. But Jesus did accept worship. Did you skip that part?
01:51:51: That same book of Matthew you just got done misrepresenting twice, actually. You just misrepresented it again.
01:51:58: Because at the end of the book, the disciples come and they worship him. Some doubt it, but they worship him.
01:52:07: And maybe you skipped the book of Revelation, where in chapter 5, the lamb slain, standing as a slain is before the throne.
01:52:16: And every created thing in heaven or in earth, under the earth and all things in them, worship he who sits upon the throne and who?
01:52:26: The lamb. Did you skip that part? Why misrepresent this?
01:52:34: Why not recognize that Jesus is clearly worshipped? I don't understand that.
01:52:42: You have to be honest in these things.
01:52:49: Or those of us who know our faith, you're making your dawah reprehensible to me.
01:52:55: You're telling me that you, sir, are not serious about what I believe, and yet you want me to believe what you believe.
01:53:02: Why should I do that? What's the idea? Insha 'Allah you worship me and teach as doctrine the commandments of men.
01:53:10: Not of me, not of God. You will teach as doctrine the commandments of men. That means you will teach as doctrine the commandments of a trinity, which come from man.
01:53:19: You will teach as doctrines that I am God, which will come from men. You will teach in doctrines that throw away the law of Moses and the law of God, which will come from men.
01:53:27: But the worship you give to me shall be in vain. And we all know what the word vain means. It will not count for anything. We will go before God on the day of judgment, having worshipped
01:53:35: Jesus 20, 30, 40, 50 years. And on the day of judgment, Jesus will deny those people. It is already stated when
01:53:41: God asked Jesus in the Quran on the day of judgment, did you command anyone to worship me? And Jesus will say, no, you know,
01:53:48: I would not do anything. Now, wait a minute. I know the Quran enough to know that that's not what surah 5, 1, 16 says.
01:53:56: You skipped a part there, didn't you? And why did you, Joshua? I just got to ask you, why did you? Because what surah 5, 1, 16 says, did you teach people?
01:54:06: Did you command people to worship you and your mother as deities apart from Allah?
01:54:13: Allah, Mary, Jesus. There's your three. That's why you skipped that, isn't it? Maybe not. I'm sorry.
01:54:20: Maybe you were just trying to go quickly. Maybe you had a time limit as I do. And I need to move on really quickly.
01:54:26: And we may actually go over mega. I'm sorry. But maybe that's, maybe that's, I don't know. But that's not what surah 5, 1, 16 says.
01:54:35: And you know it. And we've now demonstrated beautifully done video, really enjoyable to watch, but not a single meaningful argument against the doctrine of the trinity was placed in there.
01:54:49: Not one. Not a bit. And that's, that's tragedy.
01:54:55: That really is a tragedy. It shouldn't be that way. All right. Now, we have gone for two hours.
01:55:06: And I hesitate to do this, but I will be very, very brief. I need to do this.
01:55:14: And we're shifting, shifting topics here. Shifting topics. If you're a Muslim, you've been watching this.
01:55:22: The rest of this isn't gonna be relevant. It's, you're not even gonna understand why we're talking about it, to be honest with you. But I need to very,
01:55:30: I'm gonna try to keep this brief. But I need to address controversy. So that, maybe, maybe so that, you know, it just won't get any bigger until we can finally get around to it, to actually addressing it fully.
01:55:48: I posted on Facebook yesterday that Pastor Hall had become unhinged.
01:55:55: And I stand by that. We added a link to a polemics report that I believe was unhinged.
01:56:08: But I have said before, I'll say it again. What Pastor Hall seems to have ignored is that both
01:56:18: Jeff Durbin and myself, and Jeff is at the center of this because it has to do with things that happened at Apologia Church and ReformCon.
01:56:26: And by the way, we should differentiate. ReformCon is not a worship service of Apologia Church. So, you know, it's funny, at other places, we would make that distinction obvious.
01:56:37: But evidently, we have to state it here. But Pastor Durbin was in Hawaii with his family.
01:56:46: And then he went to Kauai, where they're working on the church plant, which has become so central to all of this.
01:56:52: And he just got back a couple days ago. I've been out of town. There was a reason why vocab was sitting here and I wasn't.
01:56:59: That's pretty unusual. That's only going to happen when I'm not here. I went to three different states,
01:57:05: Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. And these are things that have been planned for many months.
01:57:14: And evidently, Pastor Hall seems to believe that unless we drop everything we're doing and address his inquisition against us, that we are refusing to engage.
01:57:27: So you'll debate anything, it's a drop of a hat. Actually, I won't. That's an untrue statement as well. But this all started right before I left on the trip.
01:57:38: And I'm not going to change my plans just because Pastor Hall believes that there needs to be a discussion about these things right now, especially because I've discussed them so many times before.
01:57:48: And everybody who watches this program and has an honest heart knows that I have. One of the most important programs
01:57:54: I did back in December that got some of the greatest response was on this very issue. So it's not like, well, you've never talked about it, and we've now challenged you and you're running away.
01:58:02: Well, you may want to make that sound that way to other people, but people recognize that's not the case.
01:58:11: And in this last polemics report, there were, well, let me just back up.
01:58:18: Pastor Durbin and I are going to get together and we are going to video record a response to the accusations and to the things that have happened.
01:58:29: Jeff is available this week. I am not. I simply can't. I've still got some things out of town.
01:58:35: I've got the next two weeks of sermons. I've got a webinar on Saturday. I cannot take the time to put the audio from Pastor Hall and get it, everything marked up, put all the information together.
01:58:56: I can't do it. I hope to be able to do it next week. We will do it when it's appropriate to do it and do it right.
01:59:04: And the only reason we want to even do this is not so much for self -defense, but these are important issues.
01:59:12: And approaching them in a proper way may be edifying to a large number of people to actually get the truth out there, get past the yellow journalism and the half stories and the memes that have been created that have no meaning to them.
01:59:34: But what I wanted to do today, first time back in the studio, and I've spent two hours on other issues because that's what we do on this program.
01:59:42: This is sort of just an addendum. It's an appendix to address some of the things that are being said.
01:59:50: I have here, and I, oops, I had left that at 1 .6 speed. I'm going to go ahead, I'm going to go, I'm going to speed this up just a little bit so we can get done a little bit quicker.
01:59:57: I'm going to use 1 .2. I always tell people that. I'm not sure why, but I do. There are a couple of things that were said in the last polemics report that I just simply feel need to be pointed out.
02:00:11: One of them was an email from someone that I'd like to respond to.
02:00:18: And here is, here is that. Per radio station is what it costs. JD, I've been listening to your podcast about four months now.
02:00:25: As a stay at home mom with little ones, I find your show very edifying and love that I can turn to it while I do some of my mundane mom stuff.
02:00:32: Thank you. Anyway, I've been keeping up with the back and forth going on between you and Apologia and James White. Just want to say thank you for not being a respecter of persons and not being afraid to call people with ministries of high esteem into account for actions.
02:00:43: It's very grieving to see men with public ministries such as Apologia, who I know talk much about giving a defense, not being able or willing to biblically defend their own actions.
02:00:51: Jesus said to whom much is given, much is required. I pray that men and women in public ministries would understand their influence and be wary of stumbling blocks.
02:00:59: Unlike Apologia, ministries in the public eye, hold on a second. Unlike Apologia, ministries in the public eye should be ready and welcoming of scrutiny and criticism.
02:01:07: Thanks again for not showing partiality. It is very refreshing and I believe what is needed in the fight for truth and reformation,
02:01:13: Christian liberty is an important thing to discuss no matter what James White says. Keep fighting the good fight.
02:01:19: Thank you, Lindsay from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Now here's an example where J .D.
02:01:24: Hall's falsehoods have caused Lindsay to err in her understanding of things.
02:01:30: As we will demonstrate, Jeff is more than willing to provide a defense and to give an answer.
02:01:38: We live in a day where if you don't do it on somebody else's timetable, then somehow you are in sin or you're unwilling to do these things.
02:01:45: They clearly are. And if someone wanted to be fair in their criticism, you might ask the question, well, they had really an opportunity to do so yet.
02:01:54: You know, in the olden days, you'd expect someone to respond with a book or a paper or something like that a couple months down the road.
02:01:59: Now, if it's not done by the next week's podcast, well, you're a chicken or you're hiding or something. But did you catch that last statement?
02:02:06: The reason I wanted to say it is because it's just so unfair. No matter what James White says.
02:02:12: What's the falsehood there? Well, J .D. has lied about me. He has borne false testimony. He has misinterpreted, even though I've corrected it.
02:02:18: He will not. The problem with Pastor Hall is he seemingly feels that he's infallible in his own mind.
02:02:25: When I was contacted by the publisher of Christian News about my participation in ReformCon, I declined the interview.
02:02:35: Now, what J .D. has said is, I don't want to talk about Christian holiness. That is so absurd. I don't even know how to say it. I don't know how to respond to it.
02:02:42: That's like saying, I don't want to talk to Mormons. I don't want to talk about the deity of Christ. I don't want to defend the Trinity. It's just so absurd that it's hard to even know how to respond to it.
02:02:51: As I have said, I could easily determine by the way I was contacted that this person wanted to talk about the tone of the conference.
02:03:01: And I said, I'm talking about Hyper -Calvinism and Hupa -Calvinism. If you want to talk about that,
02:03:07: I'll be glad to do so. Because that's what I'm addressing. But I'm not going to get into these tone issues. And that's the terminology that I used.
02:03:14: I wasn't speaking about issues of Christian liberty. I wasn't talking about alcohol or body art or anything else.
02:03:20: I was talking about Calvinism. And so I said, if you want to talk about, I extended to him, if you want to talk about that, fine.
02:03:26: He didn't want to. And Pastor Durbin has posted the screenshots of his entire conversation with the exact same individual that makes it very clear.
02:03:37: He was wide open to talking with this individual about those very things.
02:03:42: He didn't want to. And so by lying about it, by saying, oh,
02:03:48: James White doesn't want to talk about holiness and things like that. He's just avoiding the whole thing. I've preached on it.
02:03:53: I've done programs on it. We are going to do it. We're just going to do it in the proper way.
02:03:59: We will not be rushed into it. We will not be rushed into it because we've been lied about or personally attacked.
02:04:04: We will do it for the right reasons. But here you have someone who now disrespects me, who misrepresents me based upon Pastor Hall's misrepresentation.
02:04:16: He will be held accountable for that. That's why you have to be accurate about these things. When you try to change, and that's what
02:04:24: JD has been doing. He's been changing what the real issue is about. When you change that and then say, oh, they're doing this and they're doing that.
02:04:30: He's trying to promote this and he's trying to. When you do that, there are consequences. And that's why we want to be more careful about it than Pastor Hall has proven himself to be many, many times.
02:04:42: A couple of other clips here. Okay. One last one. Okay. Now here is allegedly answering emails.
02:04:53: What this actually is. Seth from Georgia. I'm pretty certain it's Seth Dunn. And Seth Dunn wrote an article for the
02:05:00: Pulpit and Pen that was pulled from Pulpit and Pen. We're not exactly sure why. But it has appeared elsewhere in the internet.
02:05:06: And it was a shot at me. It's a very poor article. People have linked it to me and said,
02:05:13: I can't believe someone wrote this. But it is what it is. And fundamentally, the argument is that Pastor Durbin is disqualified for being a pastor because he's a theonomist.
02:05:26: And so this is the Seth Dunn we're talking about. And this is
02:05:32: J .D. This is part of the unhinged stuff. This particular program, the previous program that I wanted to focus on more, there was some restraint.
02:05:45: There was some holding back. You sort of had to dig a little bit to see what he was really saying. The insults were a little bit more veiled.
02:05:52: They were still there, but they were veiled. Here is J .D. allowing Seth Dunn to have a free shot in the most disrespectful, unworthy way of Christians.
02:06:03: And if J .D. can't see this, if Seth Dunn can't see this, well, here it is.
02:06:10: Okay. One last one I'll see here. Seth from Georgia says, Dear J .D., there's been so much controversy over the apology at Church Beer and Tattoos.
02:06:18: Hold on a second. I better read this. Okay. So yeah,
02:06:26: I have a listener suggesting that a fundraiser for apology at Church for their church plant in Hawaii may be making homemade aprons for Dr.
02:06:35: White, behind which Jeff Durbin can hide. Now, when
02:06:43: I think of the young people who are doing crafts and things to raise funds for their own families to move, to lay up a solid foundation for a church, when
02:07:01: I think of the fact that Seth Dunn could no more take on an atheist the way that Jeff Durbin does than he could survive an
02:07:08: MMA match. Same thing with J .D.
02:07:15: That's, I don't even know how to, disrespectful is not an appropriate term.
02:07:21: It's not strong enough. It's absurd. It's unhinged. And it's just reprehensible.
02:07:28: It's just reprehensible. Then we have the fact that Pastor Hall is exceptionally proud of his
02:07:36: Alexa ratings. There's a gentleman.
02:07:42: Yeah, he's in the chat channel right now. As far as I know,
02:07:49: I've only gotten to know him recently. And, you know, my apologies to him if we've known each other for years and I just didn't recognize it.
02:07:59: But the reality is that I've come to know him because he has really impressed me.
02:08:06: He's taken textual criticism with Dan Wallace and he has some great cred when it comes to resources that he's linked to and insights that he's shown and things like that.
02:08:19: I don't know anything about the rest of his background. I just know that, okay, you know. And so I've been pretty impressed.
02:08:26: And so he wrote an article about how
02:08:32: Christian News wrote an article based upon what had been said was going to happen at this
02:08:38: Together 2016 thing. And then it didn't happen.
02:08:46: And yet they still presented the article as if it actually had. And there was a problem. And even JD admits there was a problem here.
02:08:55: And so JD, the discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart, posted an extremely immature, childish, snide comment on this gentleman's blog.
02:09:09: And here's some sections about that particular instance.
02:09:16: Because you're one of Dr. White's groupies. That's why. And you got an axe to grind with Christian News Network. I told the guys at Pulp and Pen, I said,
02:09:24: I'm just going to speak freely in this episode. I'm going to say what I think. Actually, I think you're just angry, JD.
02:09:30: I'm not sure why. I'm not sure what happened. Maybe you just felt that Jeff and I should have just dropped everything we were doing.
02:09:36: Jeff should have flown back from Hawaii. And I should have driven home from Colorado and abandoned all the stuff that I was doing and just dealt with you.
02:09:44: I don't know what else could result in this. Because when I think of the programs that I did up there, I did a
02:09:50: Radio Free Geneva in regards to Prash. And I think the week before that, I dealt with Ignatius and the
02:09:55: Hebrew Israelites. I'm sorry that I felt those things were more important than pandering to your jihad,
02:10:04: Pastor Hall. But I did. And I'm going to stand by that. And I'm not going to be forced by you into abandoning those things just because you think that this has to be done right now.
02:10:16: I'm not going to do that. But you sound very, very angry.
02:10:21: And I think you know you have anger issues. And I think you gave into that. I'm sick and tired.
02:10:27: Sick and tired in this debate. Excuse me, it's not a debate because one side doesn't want to have a debate because they refuse to address it at all.
02:10:34: So again, evidently, there's an unwritten rule someplace that there is a time frame that has to be done in.
02:10:42: And if you don't announce, you know, I'm going to do it by such and such time, then we're just not willing to discuss these things.
02:10:50: We have discussed these things in other contexts many, many, many times. And people realize that.
02:10:56: But we continue on. And so here someone is. He's one of those individuals that I've been aware of for several years.
02:11:03: Which means evidently that Pastor Hall knows Garrett a lot better than I do.
02:11:10: Discernment groupie. Discernment groupie. Let me tell you something about blogging, a little secret.
02:11:16: I've discovered a few things about blogging over the years. Being the founder of the Rolex of polemics blogs, which by the way is doing fantastic work.
02:11:26: I would really like to suggest that for a couple of reasons, that you not use that terminology in the future.
02:11:36: In fact, my daughter pointed out, what was it that she said?
02:11:46: She pointed out that Rolex, yeah, the
02:11:53: Rolex of polemics blogs. I don't think JD realizes that Rolexes are associated in my age group with used car salesmen and slimy lawyers.
02:12:03: Now in our day, Rolex was pretty cool. Um, you know, it's sort of hard to not detect a little arrogance here.
02:12:17: Your fascination with Alexa ratings and how many reposts you get and shares and stuff, you know,
02:12:24: I don't even pay attention to that stuff, to be very honest with you. And, you know, maybe that's just a big thing with you.
02:12:31: I don't know. But about 3 ,000 shares so far in that article from the
02:12:37: Dallas police officer. I hope you see that. Fantastic article. Jeff's doing a bang up job over there.
02:12:43: I've learned a few, I picked up a few things. Running a blog that can post an article and have several thousand shares in just a few moments.
02:12:50: Just a few moments. Okay, maybe that's why we should have just dropped everything and just immediately responded to you.
02:12:57: Because by the way, people like this individual were perfectly fine with Christian News Network until they disrespected the
02:13:03: Golden Calf and then no longer. Disrespected the Golden Calf. There's this meme that's now developing in Pastor Hall's thinking that this is just all about you can't talk about anyone in the reformed camp and stuff like that.
02:13:18: That's never been my argument. My argument has been that there has been gross inaccuracies in what has been said.
02:13:26: And those will be documented. But it's best to do that in the appropriate proper way rather than just, it may not get us 3 ,000 shares instantly and stuff like that.
02:13:37: But anyway, and then we've got this. Let me ask the question here.
02:13:44: As you say, I'm not interested in perpetrating the food fight. I leave a comment on a blog that no one reads. It doesn't even rank on Alexa.
02:13:50: No data. No one reads this blog. Like this guy and his mother and two people on Twitter. Do you see why
02:13:59: I said unhinged? Is that argumentation? Should that even be recorded?
02:14:08: I get 3 ,000 shares. There's not even any data. It's only written by him and his mother and two people on Twitter.
02:14:15: OK. And JD. I hadn't thought about that.
02:14:21: Stop that. We're almost done here. Yeah. Mauricio Arroyo says, why doesn't
02:14:27: JD ever talk about gluttony? This is Dr. White's thread. He could delete that if he wants to. He didn't. Andrea Lev, Josh Ford, Tim Matskey.
02:14:34: Looks like. Sorry, I don't mean to pronounce your name, but you're kind of a jerk. Why doesn't JD get it? Because JD's fat, right?
02:14:40: So you shouldn't talk about gluttony because you're fat. And it's Spurgeon. Spurgeon shouldn't have talked about sin and blasphemy because he's fat.
02:14:47: R .C. Sproul. He shouldn't talk about sin because he's fat. This is the type of juvenile, sophomoric, intellectually stunted, people with whom
02:15:00: James White is spending his time. I don't know who the gentleman is.
02:15:10: Rich is confused because my material on Facebook is set.
02:15:18: And you just checked the settings. Yeah, I checked it this morning. Allegedly, only my friends are allowed to comment.
02:15:26: And how many friends do I have? I have less than 200, I think. Right. Yeah, we try to keep that. You actually know.
02:15:32: And people get offended by that all the time. Yes. But we don't know how that individual was able to.
02:15:41: Well, there's at this point I've found two, and there may be more, that I've got to go into your settings and try to figure out what's gone wonky with Facebook where folks are suddenly able to post that are not on your friends list because your settings are accurate.
02:15:55: I don't know either. But that issue aside, I don't know the individual.
02:16:02: B, number two, let's go with numbers. Number one, don't know the individual. Number two,
02:16:08: I do not sit around policing my Facebook stuff.
02:16:15: In fact, to be honest with you, after about 24 hours, I turn off any notifications because if there is any comments going on, especially did this when
02:16:25: I was in the Reform Pub and I'm not any longer. It's just they end up going off into all sorts of weird, wild, crazy stuff that I don't have time.
02:16:37: I've resisted getting into Facebook for a long, long time because I kept saying, I don't have time and I still don't.
02:16:44: But it is a very effective way of seeing videos of my grandchildren. So that really was what eventually got me through that.
02:16:52: But what did you want to say something? To be fair, it is my job to do that.
02:16:58: It is my job to police that. You've never put that on me, but I'm the one that drug you kicking and screaming into Facebook.
02:17:06: So that was part of my promise to you. And given the fact that we had your settings locked down so tight,
02:17:14: I felt some freedom to be able to look away. Had I seen that post that he objects to,
02:17:22: I would have deleted the post and I would have investigated what's going on earlier. So that's on me because I don't tolerate that.
02:17:31: But I didn't put on you because, look, here's the real issue. To even suggest that these are the kind of people
02:17:44: I'm hanging around with, that this is somehow damaging my reputation.
02:17:49: Because one person on a Facebook post said something mean about JD. It is so childish and so ridiculous that the damage to the reputation,
02:18:02: I think, Pastor Hall, you need to think about it. It's actually yours, not mine. When I saw that,
02:18:07: I didn't even realize it was on something I had written. I just look at the notification thing, whether it's something I wrote or it's something that somebody
02:18:13: I'm following. I don't know. I don't care. I don't follow it. How many times
02:18:19: I've been criticized? Because on YouTube, what do we do on YouTube? Can you comment on YouTube stuff? Nope.
02:18:26: What do I call comment boxes? Internet ignorant aggregators. You want to know who
02:18:33: I'm hanging? See, here's the real problem is that what he doesn't like is that I do hang around with someone like Jeff Durbin.
02:18:44: And now that doesn't mean that we actually get to hang around much. We don't. Once in a while,
02:18:49: I'll do something for them. He came in and we did that video response. Remember in the Coogee sweaters last year to the
02:18:56: Atheist? That's the real issue. But this idea that, well,
02:19:02: I'm just hanging around with these. You know what? I hang around with a lot of folks. And if I can be a positive influence on them, if I can be an encouragement to them.
02:19:14: See, here's the problem. I'll actually be encouraging to people who do not look and act exactly like me.
02:19:23: I will. I plead guilty. Because I happen to know that by doing that down through the years, we've really had a really positive influence on a lot of people.
02:19:36: Really have. So this hanging around thing. See, Pastor Hall's thing is he thinks that I'm wanting to just promote the stuff that he thinks is so destructive.
02:19:50: When the reality is, is that I recognize that there are Christians who don't believe everything that I believe and vice versa.
02:19:58: And I think the best way for me to influence them is by not being a jerk.
02:20:05: But by actually emphasizing what we share together and then maybe opening a door to hear why
02:20:13: I believe the things that I believe. And maybe by the way I live, demonstrating that Calvinists don't have to be cold -hearted people that bash people over the heads with the multiple volumes of Calvin's commentaries each and every day.
02:20:32: And in the final analysis, I'll stand before my Lord about that.
02:20:38: And I'm thankful that I don't stand before Pastor Hall on any of that.
02:20:45: So as I said, Lord willing, sometime next week, I hope. That's what
02:20:50: I'm shooting for. Sometime next week, if at all possible. And it may be after that.
02:20:57: It may be the week after. It all depends. There's a lot of things going on that I need to be doing first.
02:21:05: Pastor Durbin and I are going to get together and we're going to talk about a lot of this stuff and bring stuff out that would have been known to the
02:21:14: Christian news folks if they had bothered to take up Jeff's invitation, which is now documented. And I just think it's devastating to those who have attempted to use this as a weapon to promote their own agendas.
02:21:32: But my hope is that that investment of time will be like the program we did here.
02:21:40: We'll help people to really think through these issues without all the acrimony and nastiness.
02:21:47: It's going to be hard because if we play stuff like this, that's where the acrimony and nastiness is coming from.
02:21:53: But we'll have to be really careful about how we do that. All right. Two hours and 22 minutes.
02:22:01: Sorry about that. Didn't plan on that. But hey, I was gone for three weeks. What can
02:22:06: I say? Lord willing, we'll be back on Thursday. We'll see you then. God bless.