A Jumbo Mega Dividing Line—If That Makes Sense

Well, greetings and welcome. Oh, I don't like that shot. It just looks so cluttered. There we go. 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.

I mean, yeah, it's good to be home, but really, really, really enjoyed my time away. It was a long, long time away. And Colorado's beautiful. That's just all there is to it. We had, at my evergreen home, and someone's going to say, he's got multiple houses.

Well, no, I don't, but it is home away from home. At 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.

Then we sort of went in and said, ah. But I had a great time up there. I had a great time in Santa Fe with the church there, Paul's Casa Fava. And then in Salt Lake City, the dialogue and everything there at the Christ Presbyterian Church and great time there.

And 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. And 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 Colorado, what doesn't go up to 9 ,000 feet? So here in Arizona, that's sort of unusual, but spent a lot of time cranking away 10, 11, 12 ,000 feet above sea level.

Yeah. Yeah. That's too much fun. And if you didn't catch my Facebook article last Saturday, I did the Mount Evans Hill Climb and a top 40 finish in the Grand 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. It's a new skill. You should try it. Get your heart rate right up to the anaerobic threshold and then witness. It's a find out that the guy who's sitting on your tail is a Jewish doctor who is Jewish in practice observance, but basically an atheist.

I guess there's a lot of folks like that. Sadly, that's descriptive. But we had a fascinating conversation. 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 anyone at that point in the climb, which I still climbed it faster.

Who knew? I'm sort of wondering if the bike this year... I rode a different bike. It has disc brakes. Of course, that's irrelevant going uphill, but maybe it's just fits me better. I don't know, but I'm getting close to 80 ,000 feet this month, vast majority of it at altitude.

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. 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. 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 six.

It's a shame that Hebrews chapter six is primarily, in most people's minds, the first part of the chapter, the warning stuff. 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, I think, end up reading the first 10 verses and almost never get to the last part, which is so amazing.

It's beautiful. Thanks to everybody who made that possible. Thanks to Vocab Malone for coming in and doing those two programs. I listened to the first one twice. I only listened live to the second one.

I think I missed some stuff. But thanks to Rich for throwing all these pictures and stuff up on the screen. I'll be honest, I didn't follow all of it. It got pretty in-depth as to the history, but it's fascinating stuff.

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. All I know is somebody on Twitter sent me something, and that's when I made the comment on Facebook that even 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.

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. I was going to queue up. I even made sure it was in Dropbox. Sorry. Somebody was interrupting me before we got started.

But I was looking at a GOCC video exposing my pseudo-scholarship and all the rest of this stuff, and it was based primarily upon misreading Wikipedia stuff. It's just like, oh my. But I do want to play a section about why we shouldn't trust J .B. Lightfoot's scholarship, and it'll just illustrate really what you're up against when trying to reason with the.

Hebrew Israelite folks. Yes? I was going to say, we have had some encouraging contacts that I have passed on to Vocab. But didn't pass on to me? No. Oh, okay. 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. Oh, yeah. There just seems to my impression, it seems like the theology of each of the groups really is almost individual.

Oh, yeah, yeah. And so there were some people basically saying, no, I remember it this way or I remember it that way, and wanting to talk. No foul language, no hostility. I received a very encouraging phone call from one of them, and he was a very nice gentleman.

And so I'm hoping that Vocab will be able to reach out to these people and continue the conversation. Well, I'll tell you one thing, they sure are.

Listening. The stuff 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? I don't think they quite got that message.

But anyway, we'll talk about that next time when I can cue that up. What I do have cued up, long drive home yesterday. It's a long drive from Denver to Phoenix when you just go straight through. And fortunately, I wanted to finish just one particular book and the file on my iPod got corrupted, and so I couldn't.

So I was listening to a few other things. And I had heard the day before, or was it the day before that? 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.

The primary, I mean, 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.

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. 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 and to substantiate that type of thing requires meaningful historical argumentation.

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.

There was, you know, we did discuss some of that. But what was the heart, the most meaningful part of the Radio Free Geneva? Well, we went to the scriptures and he cited 1 Timothy chapter 2. And so, I went into 1 Timothy chapter 2.

We talked about what it was talking about and then the context and the flow. And so, my thought was, you know, did he try to respond to that? Well, guess what? He did. And in doing so, provided us with, I think, one of the most classic examples of misdirection and false argumentation that I've ever seen.

And so, what this allows us to do, what I should have done, if I had been thinking, is I should have queued up the discussion from the Radio Free Geneva of 1 Timothy chapter 2, then played his response.

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, 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. And the form of argumentation that Prosh is going to use here violates numerous rules for meaningful argumentation.

In fact, I've got a pile of books here that I was going to recommend to our 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 Logical Fallacies, Nonsense, Red Herring, Strawmen and Sacred Cows, How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language, Being Logical, A Guide to Good Thinking, With Good Reason, An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, Logic Made Easy, How to Know When Language Deceives You, Informal Logical Fallacies, A Brief Guide, 76 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. Well, what we're going to get from Jacob Prosh is an excellent example of how someone who is using the Bible can combine that with numerous logical errors so as to avoid the weight of actually having to do exegesis.

And he'll use, see what's confusing I think to a lot of people is that he will use the same language that I did. He talks about exegesis and eisegesis and he accuses me of eisegesis. 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. 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, I've failed.

Just stop watching. It really, one of the things that bothers me is when 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.

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. You know, I've given the story many, many times.

I'm, you know, I'm not big on study Bibles. I figure, carry a Bible and if you want a commentary, carry a commentary. Why should I carry both at the same time? You know, it's just, I've never figured that part out.

And I just, 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. 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.

One of the reasons to become educated is so that you can critically interact with commentary literature. 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.

He was youth minister at a very large church. And he came to me, this was years ago, knew that I had studied 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. I'm sort of going, hmm, never heard that before, but that doesn't mean anything. I haven't heard that one before. And he says, I hadn't either, so could you check it out?

Because it's pretty cool, but I need to check it out and see if it's really valid. And so I took the time, read commentaries, read that commentary, translated the passage. And the conclusion I came to, and I wrote up about two pages, but it was 10 point, single space.

It wasn't a short little piece, but I wrote something up for him. And basically, there wasn't anything to it. It was just this one commentator's wild hair thing that he had seen, and it really was not a valid argument.

There was strong evidence against it. And you'll find that in a lot of commentaries. You'll find that in me. I have my traditions. I have my things. That's why you can't follow any one person. That's why I hate the term followers.

I don't want followers. I don't want fans. It's not about me or any of the rest of that stuff. Eventually, they're going to pull the plug on this thing, and you may never hear me again. 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?

Anyway, so I give this to this fellow, and I say, sorry, but it's bogus. It doesn't fly. Well, the next Sunday was Sunday he was preaching. And I was there. In fact, I was part of that church, and I was in the media ministry.

And so I actually ran a television camera. And so I was actually watching through a TV studio quality television camera. And you know what he did. He preached it. He preached it. And he preached it in such a way that it showed that he didn't, he wasn't trying to respond to the criticisms.

He wasn't trying to. 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. 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. The problem is what you're saying is what it actually says isn't good enough. 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 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.

Give me my food for the day. You have to get kicked out of the nest. You have to learn to start doing things on your own. There's a level of maturity here. And it really concerns me when people say, well, he said this, and you said that.

Well, okay, use what you've been given, and who's being consistent, and who's utilizing the information? Yeah, 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.

If you'd like to have illustrations of this, watch TV the next couple 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.

Accuse, and both sides do it. Accuse the other side of everything you yourself are doing. That is the best way to create confusion in the minds of people, 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.

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 1 Timothy chapter 2. Obviously, if you want to pick up the Potter's Freedom, this is part of the big three, so this is not something new for me.

I've addressed this text exegetically numerous times before in print. Listen to what he said. Listen to my response. In my response, I went into the text, and I pointed out I didn't spend a tremendous amount of time on it, but I pointed out 1 Timothy chapter 2.

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. Now, we have to decide whether this is to be taken extensively or generically.

Extensively in the sense of, in behalf of all men. So, you need to be praying for every Amorite king who has been dead for centuries, and you need to be praying proleptically for people in the future.

Oh Lord, whoever is going to be the king of such and such a country in 200 years from now, we pray for them. 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.

Or are we talking about kinds? And I point out that you have huper panton anthropon, in behalf of all men, and what's the very next phrase in verse 2? Huper basileon, huper basileon, huper basileon, huper basileon, huper basileon, huper basileon, huper basileon, huper basileon.

So, who are these people? Who are the kings? Who are those having authority? Well, these are kinds and types. These are types of people. 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.

There would be a tendency to, since they're persecuting us, since they're persecuting Christians, need to be reminded they're human beings too. 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. So, I point out the context itself introduces kinds of people. 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 4, hos pontos anthropos thelisotheni, that that means individualistically, you're going to have to explain why you have categories in verse 2 and you've gotten rid of the categories by verse 4.

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. Right? Okay. And then I pointed out that the context continues into the possible hymn fragment beginning of verse 5, for there is one God and one mediator between God and men.

And so, if the anthropon continues, same group here, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself an antilutron, a ransom, hu per ponton, in behalf of all, the testimony, his own testimony given at the right time.

So, the question then becomes, what is the function of the mesites, the intercessor, the mediator, and for whom does Christ mediate? And I spent a fair amount of time discussing, you know, drawing the connection between here and Hebrews and, and the, the beautiful harmonious revelation from Paul, and that's why I can say Hebrews too.

I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews, but I think his is the theology of Hebrews. This biblical theology of intercession, mediation, presence in the, in, before the throne of God, the lamb slain in, in Revelation chapter 5, the anchor, forerunner, through the veil, the Hebrews chapter 6, put all of this together and you have a consistent reading contextually that fits what Paul is saying to Timothy with everything else Paul teaches and the New Testament teaches concerning the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

This is, for those who want to truly say that when I believe what the New Testament says, I'm actually believing all the New Testament, that's how you do it. That's how you do it, right? So, is that, how did Jacob Prosh respond to that?

Well, I think this is very, very educational. Let's, let's listen to it.

You've not responded to the issues. Your unfortunate, your unfortunate mishandling of scripture was rather hideous. You point to the big three. I made citation of 1 Timothy chapter 2 verse 4. God who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Somehow you asegetically, not exegetically, but asegetically determine this to mean all kinds of people, as in different tribes and nations. This is ridiculous. Let's look at the text in context. The term genus, kinds, or no case ending variation of it, appears anywhere in the Greek text.

Neither does the word ethnon for ethnic nations, neither does the term phule for tribes. These terms don't even appear there, given that there's no chapter divisions in the original Greek canon. We look and see, I want prayers to be delivered in a treatise and tuxas in Greek, intercessions, on behalf of all men.

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. Let's read further in the same epistle.

1 Timothy chapter 4 verse 10, the same epistle. For it is for this we labor and strive, because we fixed our hope on the living God, God who is the savior of all men, especially of believers. Those of the faith, especially those of the faith.

Superlative adverb. All men. Text, context, co-text within the epistle itself. Your exegesis is not exegesis, it's asegesis. It's ludicrous. Therefore, you have to resort to what amounts to philosophical instead of exegetical arguments, extrapolating all kinds of things, diverting into differences between the Islamic view of God and the Calvinistic view of God.

That was not the issue.

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. Now notice, what's the difference between the two of us?

I play him. He summarizes very inaccurately me. 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. 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.

Now, one of the things to keep in mind is one of my handicaps, I have many handicaps. One of my handicaps is that I want what we do here to be useful to the widest possible audience. And in some senses, I'm not overly nice to my followers.

Because like I said, I don't like the term followers. I'm a big fan. I don't like that stuff. I figure if you like watching this program, then you understand when 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. I'm not looking to draw followers after myself or any of that stuff. I'm not interested in that. Don't primarily to get your people all excited, then this is the kind of rhetoric you're going to get.

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. 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. All you did was dismiss what he said. You didn't interact with it. And you're the one doing the eisegesis. You jumped from 1 Timothy 2 to 1 Timothy 4. You skipped the entire thing about the intermediary, the mediator, the intercessor.

You didn't even seem to recognize it was there. It's just like it just disappeared. So who was ignoring context? Well, he was, obviously. But you catch that kind of argumentation and you realize that, unfortunately, there are people who find, and sadly, like a lot of young people, who find confidence and bluster convincing.

That's one of the big problems I have with so many 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. 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.

Let's understand this even further. You've not responded to the issues. You are unfortunate. You are unfortunate. Mishandling of scripture was rather hideous.

Hideous. Hideous. That's an interesting term. All right. So what would it take to demonstrate that what 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.

Was it offered? And if it's not, you put a circle there, failure. Failed to substantiate assertion. Used inappropriate language to create emotion and did not substantiate. This is how you analyze these things.

This is why I don't know if I'm going to do it before the election. I've been thinking about 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.

But that's why it's very difficult for me right now because when 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.

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. But one particular candidate, in particular, when asked questions, I've always said this individual is that deep, that deep.

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. And that's what you get in here. If you think critically and listen to what's being said.

You point to the big three. Now, do you notice the big three? That makes me go, I mean, I use that terminology. I'm not sure if he realizes that's a chapter in the Potter's Freedom and it's an issue we've dealt with over and over and over and over.

Matthew 23, 37, 1 Peter 3, 9, 1 Timothy 2, the big three. Maybe he just took that from what I said. I don't know.

I made citation of 1 Timothy chapter 2, verse 4. God who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Somehow, you exegetically, not exegetically, but exegetically determined this to mean all kinds of people.

So, exegetically. So, once again, you point out huperpanton onthropon in behalf of all men and the very next word. Remember, there are no verse divisions in the original. And hence, I could pull up Sinaiticus or whatever and point out that it's an unbroken string of letters in the magisterial text of the early manuscripts of the New Testament that the very next phrase, after all men, is in behalf of kings.

And what are kings? Kings are all people kings. Is every individual human being a king? Or is Paul talking about kinds of people? Now, I made that claim. It's right there on the surface of the text. If you don't respond to it, you circle that and go, failed argumentation.

Twice now, failed argumentation. 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. Analyzed, failed. As in different tribes and nations. Now, where did that come from? Did I say that 1 Timothy 2 was specifically talking about tribes?

I connected when I started talking about kinds of men and I started talking especially about the intercessory work of Christ. 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. 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.

It's right there. But that was at a later point. Just demonstrating that when the Bible talks about the atoning work of Christ, it does so in the very same context, the very same language that we have here.

This is ridiculous. Let's look at the text in context. The term genus, kinds, or no case ending variation of it appears anywhere in the Greek text.

I never said that it did, so this is a red herring. This is raising a point that I did not make. He could not have done this if he had played me. If he had actually played my argumentation, he couldn't mix up the sections.

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.

The problem is the other person never made an argument upon that, so it is an empty point. It's irrelevant. Circle it. Failure. So we had a third use of inappropriate language. 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.

Four places where inappropriate, illogical argumentation, violation of the fundamental rules of argumentation being utilized in defense of what? Of a human tradition. That's really what this is all about.

Neither does the word ethnon for ethnic nations, neither does the term fule for tribes.

And where are those all from? Revelation chapter 5. Did I say Revelation chapter 5 is how you interpret 1 Timothy chapter 2? 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. That's what I did. When I provided the exegesis, that would be the only way for him to respond. He doesn't even mention it. Doesn't even mention it.

Just flies right over it.

Don't even appear there. Given that there's no chapter divisions in the original Greek canon, we look and see. I want prayers to be delivered in a treatise and teuxas in Greek, intercessions on behalf of all man.

Not only is there now, what should, what must be the very next statement?

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.

I have said that it does in any meaningful reading of the text. To respond to me, he must deal with it. What does he do? Skips it. Skips over that, skips over the very next words. That's called ignoring context.

That's called eisegesis. This is the very essence of what eisegesis is. And remember, he's already made the assertion. He's already made the accusation. I'm doing it. But when we stop and let his own words testify, who's doing the eisegesis?

He is. That's by the way, he's over on that screen for me. The guy over there in the corner, I don't know. He's doing the eisegesis. I'm doing the exegesis. One of us can defend our position. One of us cannot.

And now, instead of going on talking about what one God, one mediator, nature of mediation, all right there in the context, boom, off into 1 Timothy chapter 4. So this is capitulation. This, to anyone seriously wanting to know who can actually deal with this text, Jacob Prosh has just said, if someone can, it ain't me because I'm out of here.

I'm going to throw some smoke bombs. I'm going to prove some points that were never disputed. 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.

I can't do it here. So any meaningful analysis, failure, failure, failure, failure,.

All the way down the road, all the way down the road. Of any inference of what you say that it is all kinds of men, but reading in the context of the epistle fundamentally disproves your.

Contention. 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.

He skipped them. He had just listened to what I had said before he started this. That's where he got the big three thing from. So he knows I've made the statement and he's purposely avoiding it. 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 and in the very period where the other side is to be responding to those facts, they are skipped over.

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. That is a valid conclusion to be drawn. You would write the assertions of the one side and when the other side is in response, if no response is given, then you circle it.

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. And hopefully you're seeing that. And hopefully you would then apply the same standards to anyone, myself included.

You have to learn to think logically in analyzing whatever argumentation is being put forward. Let's read further in the same epistle. So there's the abandonment of the context. It's done. Nothing more is going to be presented.

No counter-exegesis has been offered. No explanation of the kinds. Assertion was made that I provided no basis. That's a false assertion. I did. And he failed to respond to it. 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. Utterly ignored. So who's he trying to impress? Who's he trying to argue for?

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. And as I said, one of my drawbacks is I'm not willing to do that.

I can't do that. That's not.

That's not appropriate. Okay, so. First Timothy chapter 4 verse 10, the same epistle. For it is for this we labor and strive, because we fix our hope on the living God, God, who is the savior of all men, especially of believers.