Marcus Rodgers Video Reviewed, Jacob Prasch Attacks Again, ISIS Attacks the Cross

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:37

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line on a Tuesday afternoon. I think on Thursday I may have some pre -debate commentary to offer.

00:49

We have debate Friday evening in SoCal, Southern California, on the subject of Calvinism and once again, well, it's,

00:58

I'm sorry, the subject of Romans chapter 9. I would really really like it to be on Romans chapter 9.

01:07

But I, I harbor doubts that it will stay focused upon the text.

01:15

Not only have I done debates on Romans chapter 9 before that didn't stay on the text and almost never got to the text, actually, when you think about it.

01:26

But this morning I was listening, I, back when this debate was originally scheduled for June, I had put together a number of clips from Steve Tassi, the gentleman that I'm going to be engaging with there in Southern California, about an hour and a half's worth of videos.

01:50

Now my hope is, my honest hope is, that since these videos,

01:59

I think were from around 2009, my, my, my hope is that things have sort of changed since 2009 because there was just a truckloads, truckloads of this guy just on fire everywhere.

02:25

And so my, my hope is that that has changed and that we won't be inundated with lengthy discussions of Calvinism is fatalism, the

02:41

Calvinistic God is Satan, some strange constant repetition of some objection to limited atonement that I never heard fully explained.

02:57

But just a tremendous amount of redefinition of Reformed Theology.

03:05

Hopefully that will, that's been cleared up and is no longer a part of the conversation.

03:12

I've only heard a small amount of discussion of Romans 9 and, and basically it was nations and dispensationalism.

03:22

If that's still the perspective, great. Hey, as long as we're in the text, as long as we're just looking at the word, then hopefully something very positive can, can come out of that.

03:34

But that's what we're going to be doing on Friday evening. And so I may play some of those and again, in the hopes of helping the conversation along, shall we say, on Friday evening.

03:47

Speaking of conversations, I have two videos to cover today. Very thankful that and, and the only thing he asked for his time was a shout out to Drew Kohler.

04:02

Okay, Drew? Drew is the one that had responded to, well, a couple people, you know,

04:09

Paula Ghia did too, but I think they only did audio. But we just couldn't find

04:16

Marcus Rogers' video. I had seen it. Oh, I had seen part of it anyways. We had people turning

04:22

Facebook upside down and going to archive sites and everything else. He had pulled video and I guess

04:31

I heard someone say that somewhere he'd made a comment that he didn't want to debate. Anyway, we did track down Marcus Rogers' video where he addresses me.

04:45

And so we're gonna take a look at that first. Some of you may recall that a number of months ago, evidently,

04:52

I don't know a lot about the gentleman, but evidently he's been promoting a form of oneness modalism and we had responded to him then and this is his response.

05:08

And so we'll take a look at the arguments. Are these the best arguments out there?

05:15

Not even, no. But in our day, it's actually, there's even more incumbent upon us today than there has been in the past.

05:28

You need to know the best arguments and be able to respond to them, recognizing that you will rarely run into them.

05:37

But if all you know are the bad arguments, when you encounter somebody with the good arguments, then you're not going to be prepared.

05:43

And if you know the good arguments, then you can allow that to sort of prioritize and improve your arguments, even against the bad arguments.

05:57

So in other words, there are bad responses to bad arguments. I know, you know, going way back, you'd hear bad

06:07

Mormon arguments and then I'd hear bad Christian responses to bad

06:13

Mormon arguments. And if you, if you are prepared for the best, then hopefully the responses you give to lesser arguments will still be consistent.

06:29

So if you're, you know, one of the things that would happen to us a lot up in Salt Lake City or out in Mesa or something like that during the

06:36

Easter conference, Easter pageant, would be you'd have a whole group around you.

06:43

And one of the things we learned early on was you never really knew who was out on the fringes, you know, just just listening in.

06:54

And some of the best conversations we had were with people who had been impressed by the answers we had given to others.

07:04

And they themselves were more advanced in their understanding of Mormonism, and they could tell that we were accurately representing

07:11

Mormonism, even in giving our responses to lesser Mormon arguments.

07:17

And so they were impressed by that and that gave us opportunity. So I think it's always important, you know,

07:26

I think especially internet warriors, and I know there's,

07:34

I know given the age we live in, we have to interact with people in that context.

07:41

We have to, you know, I get it. But the reality is that those those conversations can sometimes be extremely taxing on the spirit and and when that personal aspect is not there.

08:06

Sometimes that's where the the nastiness comes from, the lack of love and everything else.

08:11

But I'm not gonna get into that right now. I don't have time for it. Anyway, point is that Marcus Rogers' arguments for modalism are extremely poor, extremely shallow, simplistic.

08:24

It's very plain. This is not meant to be offensive. It's a simple observation. It's very plain.

08:30

He has never listened to the other side, has never done any serious study of these issues, has never even sounds like even listened to a meaningful debate on any of these, you know, read books, nothing like that.

08:41

It's, you know, the Spirit told me this and God told me that, and just a general misunderstanding of Scripture as a whole.

08:53

But that's the kind of stuff you run into a lot. Now, it's good to know how leading oneness advocates argue their case so that you can be consistent in your responses, but most of the time you're not going to be taking on, you know, the leading representatives of the particular movement that you're dealing with.

09:17

You're gonna be dealing with more with someone in Marcus Rogers' position. So, let's take a listen to what he had to say and give a brief response and then after that Jacob Prosh is back and I don't enjoy dealing with with Jacob Prosh, but, you know,

09:40

I've decided that at least once again, what we're doing is we're illustrating how synergists like Prosh can be completely controlled by their tradition.

09:57

But with Prosh, what you get is, and this is really common in sort of the Dave Hunt, Prosh spectrum of stuff.

10:07

You get this, well, Prosh always sounds like he's screaming. You know, it just, maybe it's just him.

10:17

Maybe this is how, you know, he talks to young children, too, and they go running and screaming to their parents in terror, but he just he abuses language.

10:31

He can be very abusive. Someone sent me a graphic where they had strung together a bunch of stuff and if I wanted to invest the time, didn't want to,

10:39

I could have put together a bunch of, you know, ad hominems, vituperative language, just from this one video, just way over -the -top stuff, but that just seems to be, you know, his followers seem to want to have that kind of thing.

10:53

To be honest with you, he's a little bit like a certain political guy right now in national politics in the

10:59

United States, just always over -the -top, always saying things that really aren't overly defensible.

11:06

So anyway, what he does is he accuses me of doing the very things he himself is doing, and so it is illustrative that after all these videos now, he still refuses to get into 1st

11:27

Timothy 2 and recognize the issue of the intercessory work of Christ. Doesn't touch it. It's just like it's not even there.

11:33

It's just like anything I say about it just just goes right by. There's a filter in the way.

11:40

But then there's some other stuff, and really the abuse of church history, and did you all know that my ministry is called

11:46

Radio Free Geneva? Did you know that? I didn't know that. I figured most people recognize that Radio Free Geneva is a feature on our webcast.

11:56

The webcast is called The Dividing Line, has been since about 19... yeah, okay, 87 -ish, you know, 30 years or so, and that the name of the ministry is called

12:10

Alpha Omega Ministries. I thought that was sort of clear, but there's a whole lengthy section about how foolish and irrational

12:17

I am to name my ministry after a city where I would have been killed.

12:24

Which is certainly... Okay, all right, but we'll get to that one a little bit later.

12:31

Let's, if I can find the cursor here... You have four monitors, and it's on the farthest one out.

12:38

You got to do the... and the hands working again, isn't that great? The body is a wonderful thing, and though,

12:46

I didn't tell you this, I started thinking about it yesterday, and I got up at 1 .30

12:52

this morning. I was gone by 2 .10, just under 101 miles, and that's a, that's a ride, especially with how warm and humid it is.

13:03

That was getting toward the end. It was, ugh, but I was getting a little nervous about running into another one of these stinging insects things out there.

13:15

Well, no, because I had a pharmacist tell me that, basically say, have you been getting more and more severe reactions each time?

13:24

And I'm like, yeah, well, then that's just gonna keep happening, and it's gonna get bad. So, guess, guess who now has an

13:33

EpiPen with him when he, when he rides? Yep, yep. I hate to have to drag that thing along, but you know, when you're going down a hill at sunrise at 25 miles an hour, you just don't even see them.

13:48

You know, they're, they're in your glasses before you even know it. You know, it's just nothing you can do about it, so I did see, again, some interesting stuff.

13:56

There are a lot of coyotes in the city, in the city, and, and a lot of them are not afraid of a guy on a bike.

14:08

They, they, they don't. I have seen a coyote walk down the middle of my street and just look at people in their yards as if, yeah, no big deal.

14:18

I'm just going my way. Yeah, nothing, no fear whatsoever. Yep, yep, definitely.

14:26

I mean, I've not seen any of them in, in, in my neighborhood, thankfully, or my cats would, would be munchie toys, but I do recall one time when

14:36

I was your next door neighbor seeing a roadrunner, a, oh yeah, sure, a two -foot -tall roadrunner.

14:43

Oh, yeah, going down the middle of the street. That was the only time I ever saw that. My mom loved roadrunners.

14:50

Anyway, I don't know if it had anything to do with Wile E. Coyote or not, but she loved roadrunners.

14:56

All right, is this what you were looking for? Someone just posted a picture of the

15:03

Apostolic Father's Lightfoot Harmer, Holmes. I'm not sure what you mean looking for it, but I have that.

15:10

That's what I use in class, but anyway. All right, let's get to Marcus Rogers here, because the, the hour goeth byeth.

15:19

Said, hey, Marcus, when are you gonna respond to a Dr. James White in the videos that he's made about you being a false teacher?

15:25

I didn't really feel the need to because the Bible says he who has an ear let him hear, and I feel that, you know, he's so much older that he wouldn't really hear anything that I would have to say.

15:33

Well, Sonny, well, Sonny, it's just because you talk so fast.

15:39

I can't under, no. Hey, I get that, you know.

15:45

I suppose what he's, you know, referring to is there is a tendency, you know, if he's a young guy, what does he know, right?

15:54

Well, but it goes both directions, Marcus. The fact of the matter is, if you would, if you're really serious about what you believe, you might want to think about the fact that there have been people who have been teaching this before you, and there has been interaction before you, and have you taken the time to consider the responses that have been provided to individuals such as yourself?

16:24

This is not a new teaching, and from what

16:30

I can hear from your presentations, you don't know what the answers to your arguments are.

16:36

You really have not given them meaningful consideration whatsoever. It's always easy to go, well, you know, he who has ears to hear.

16:44

Well, you know, I can say the same thing about you, and then there would be no conversation whatsoever, but You hear the

16:50

Word of God, all right? I believe that he loves God according to what he knows, and maybe he has good intentions, but just like this

16:55

Buddhist temple right here, they have good intentions, too. They come here every week, and they worship, and they pray to their

17:00

God, you know, when they're faithful, and they're dedicated. But the thing is, their God is not real. Well, okay,

17:08

I could utilize all sorts of examples. I could walk by a mosque, and so on and so forth. The difference between us being,

17:14

I've actually debated in those mosques, in various places, and in the case of your teaching,

17:23

I know exactly where you're coming from, and I think the majority, and the majority never determines truth, but I think the majority of fair -minded people who would listen to the debates that we've done on the subject of the

17:40

Doctrine of the Trinity versus a oneness, Pentecostal oneness, Jesus -only movement, would generally say that the other side has not fared well.

17:48

Now, you might say, well, it's just the people you were debating. Well, okay. But they presented the perspective.

17:57

Have you taken the time to listen to those things? Have you taken the time to interact with those things? Only one God, there's only one way, there's only one truth, and that is

18:04

Jesus Christ. Now, the Bible says in Revelations chapter 22, I'm going to... Now, Marcus, let me just just mention it really, really quick to you.

18:12

It's, it's Revelation. It's, it's this one Revelation. Read, read the first couple verses, and you'll see there's one

18:20

Revelation. It's not Revelations. And we, we do know about this text, and I'm gonna have to correct your misuse of it.

18:29

Keep this video short. It says no one can add to the Word of God. No one can take away from the Word of God. And anyone who tries to add to, and anyone who tries to take away from the

18:38

Scripture, they will have no part in eternal life. That's what... Okay, but there's a context to that, and I think any meaningful exegesis of that text has to first admit that it's speaking about the book of Revelation specifically.

18:57

Now, I know a lot of folks say, well, but God knew it was gonna be the last book in the canon. Well, of course,

19:02

God knows everything, but there's a leap from saying God knew it was gonna be the last book in the canon, in the order that was adopted, and saying that, that it was

19:14

God's intention that it be interpreted as the last book. We don't know it was the last book written.

19:20

It may have been, but we don't know. And the order of the books,

19:29

I can't affirm that that's a, some type of a divine revelation in and of itself, because, for example,

19:39

P46, papyri P46, which contains Paul's epistles, has a different order.

19:46

Hebrews is right after Romans. So, the early Christians didn't think that there was a mandated order that was part of divine revelation or something.

19:56

If you're gonna, if you come up with that idea, then you've got divine revelation after Scripture, after the Apostles themselves, contained in the very order of the canon of Scripture or something like that.

20:06

So, the first utilization of the text is in regards to the book of Revelation and altering the prophecies and the content and the, of what's in that book, the book of Revelation.

20:21

If you want to try to make a larger application, you need a little larger text. The Bible says, if you look at the

20:28

Bible, and you read it from the front, and you read it to the back, and you look at the middle, all right, you will not see the word

20:33

Trinity anywhere in the Bible. Now, this is without a doubt one of the most simplistic objections.

20:43

You'll encounter it over and over again. And the problem is, once you've encountered it for about the 5 ,000th time, it's difficult to remain patient with someone when you have recognized just how bad an objection this is.

20:58

But remember, you can't, you can't know, and I would imagine with Mr. Rogers, he has, in fact, heard answers to this over and over again.

21:05

With many of the people you're talking to, you can't know whether they've actually heard a meaningful response to this. Many people pointed out, as soon as they saw this, it was one of the first responses

21:14

I saw, was the word Bible is not in the Bible either. You've been using the word

21:19

Bible. In fact, none of the words you're using right now are in the Bible, because you're speaking

21:24

English, and English didn't exist when the Bible was written. So, if you really want to go there, the issue, of course, is the accuracy of the words description of biblical teaching, not whether the word itself appears there.

21:36

And none of that would be relevant to the text in the Book of Revelation, which is talking about the denial or removal of material from the prophecy of the

21:46

Book of Revelation. None of that would have anything to do with whether you're using accurate words to teach the substance of Scripture, whether those words are found in Scripture or not.

21:54

This is a rather blatant, simplistic error of thought.

22:00

It's a, it's a category distinction error, basically, where you're conflating things together that shouldn't be conflated.

22:08

I promise you, you will not find it. So, right there, anyone who's teaching Trinity, all right, and they're putting that word, all right, into their sermons, they are adding something that is not in the

22:17

Word of God. None of us are saying that the words in the Bible, so we're not adding anything to the

22:23

Bible. We are saying that if you allow the Bible as a whole to teach, it teaches that there is one true

22:30

God. It identifies three divine persons, does not confuse them ever, Marcus.

22:36

It distinguishes between them without question, and then teaches their equality, not with an equal sign as in the same person, but their equality is in their participation in the divine being.

22:50

So, we believe all of what Scripture says, you just reject a portion of it, specifically the clear distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit.

23:00

So, using a word that describes the whole essence and teaching of the

23:07

Bible concerning the nature of God is not trying to add something to the Scripture. In fact, it's safeguarding against people like yourself who deny elements of biblical teaching and then hide that under this type of argumentation.

23:20

What does that say? I think it's pretty clear. Revelations is pretty clear on that. Revelations 22, it says they will have no part in eternal life.

23:28

That's not Marcus. That's not Marcus Rodgers' type of thinking. That's Bible. You cannot add to the

23:34

Word of God. Now, why did they come up with the word Trinity? The reason they came up with the word Trinity is because people are trying to understand

23:40

God, but we can never understand God in our feeble minds, all right? God exists out of time. God exists out of space.

23:46

Time and space cannot contain God, all right? Now, by the way, do I really need to point out that what you're saying there is your attempt to describe biblical teaching, which is exactly what the word

23:58

Trinity is? Those specific phrases are not found in Scripture. So, are you contradicting yourself?

24:05

Or have you just not thought through whether your objections are actually valid? Because you're contradicting them.

24:11

I agree that God is outside of space and time, but that is a conclusion drawn from biblical text just as the

24:20

Trinity is. And I disagree with you that we cannot understand God.

24:26

If what you mean by that is human beings as creatures can never fully comprehend the infinite

24:31

God, that's one thing. But we can understand what God has revealed about himself.

24:37

That's so plain and obvious. I mean, the very fact that we are not to worship false gods means that we must be able to have some level of understanding of who

24:46

God is, or we couldn't be able to tell him from the false gods. We have to be able to tell the true God from the false gods, so we do have to understand

24:53

God, right? So, there is a divine revelation. It is understandable. And the doctrine of the

25:01

Trinity does come about from the fact that we are simply trying to be honest with all that the

25:07

New Testament reveals, not just parts. We can't get rid of the parts that we don't like, all of what the

25:14

New Testament is saying. I'm gonna let this ambulance come through. It's probably coming for some of the people who believe in the

25:20

Trinitarians right now. They just passed out just now. God bless you. I love you. But I've said this many times before, all right?

25:31

John chapter 1, it's very clear. It says that God became flesh, all right? It says, in the beginning was the Word. If you look at Genesis chapter 1, then it will back up.

25:41

Yes, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the

25:49

Word was God. So, you have the Logos, eternally existing, then the

25:56

Logos in eternal personal relationship with Theos, and then the

26:01

Logos being as to his nature deity. So, you have a distinction between the

26:08

Logos and Theos, which then becomes absolutely clear in John 1 18.

26:14

When it says, no one has seen God any time, the monogamous Theos, the one, the unique God, who is in the bosom of the

26:24

Father, so distinguished from the Father, he has made him known. So, the one who became flesh, the

26:30

Logos, has made the Father known. There's a clear distinction between them, Marcus.

26:36

You can't conflate them together, or you can't say that the Logos is just an idea in God's mind.

26:43

Again, totally extra biblical concept there. You have to recognize that the

26:50

Gospel of John plainly distinguishes between the Father and the

26:56

Son. Two divine persons who have eternally existed as divine persons.

27:04

That's clearly what you have in John chapter 17, when the Son speaks to the

27:11

Father while identifying himself, the Son, as eternal and as glorious in the presence of the

27:18

Father before the world began, John chapter 17 verse 5. There's no way around. There just is not any way around the distinction that is drawn there.

27:30

You have two divine persons right there. No escaping it. That's how God created the heavens and earth with his word, and then later, in John chapter 1, it says that word became flesh.

27:41

That word became Jesus. When we go and we stand before the throne in the end, we're not going to see three people up there.

27:47

There's only going to be one. Okay, so in that book of Revelation, what do you have in chapter 5,

27:58

Marcus? What did John see? What did the 24 elders see?

28:05

What do living creatures see? They see him who sits upon the throne, what's the other one?

28:13

And the Lamb, standing as if slain. At the end of chapter 5, all creation, every created thing, worships he who sits upon the throne and the

28:24

Lamb. That's the same book you were just quoting from.

28:30

Have you ever considered the distinction that it draws between the Father and the

28:35

Son? Question. God is Jesus Christ, and his spirit is a part of God living in us.

28:41

That's God's DNA living inside of us. That's God's DNA, and you're objecting to the term Trinity?

28:48

You're objecting to the term Trinity, and you just described the Spirit of God as God's DNA. You don't find that to be just, like, really majorly inconsistent?

28:58

It's not by his, our power, our strength. It's by his power and strength. That's what the Holy Spirit is. Jesus said,

29:03

I will send you a comforter. I know. Yeah, but who is the comforter, and who is

29:10

Jesus? See, I'm not sure, I'm not sure what brand of modalism you're, you're promoting.

29:20

If, if you're promoting sort of the UPCI version, where Jesus is two persons, the

29:28

Father and the Son, and where you actually deny that the Son has eternally existed, or whether a more classical modalistic, monarchianistic perspective from antiquity, as a sort of a

29:42

Sabellian perspective. I can't necessarily tell, because you're talking very quickly, you're not going very in -depth, and you're sort of doing the,

29:53

I will impress folks with the speed with which I do this type, type of thing, but which, which perspective are we, are we going with here?

30:06

Do you believe that the Son has eternally existed as a divine person? The Bible teaches that.

30:14

How would you explain, what is, what is the, what is Jesus's role today?

30:21

Is he just the Spirit? Then, when the Bible says that Jesus is interceding before the

30:28

Father, and that Jesus and the Father send the Spirit, how do you deal with all these things?

30:36

You see, Christians don't, don't have the luxury of just putting those things aside. We've, we've got to, we've got to deal with them.

30:44

Who is the Son appearing before? In Hebrews 7,

30:51

Hebrews 9, places like that. What, what is the Son's role? And if the

30:56

Son has not eternally existed, then what is, what is his role going to be in, in, what is his role now?

31:05

And what is his role going to be in the future? Is he a, is he a creature? What? These are questions that I think need to be answered.

31:13

I don't want to debate, you know, and, and, and I just want people to have the truth, man. And I am confident people can call me a false teacher, they could call me a false prophet, but all

31:21

I'm, all I'm gonna preach to you is the Word of God in the Bible. And I, I know that you think that that's what you're doing, but you, you need to understand, you're, you're not preaching the

31:30

Word of God in the Bible, you're preaching your, what you've been taught is the formulation of those things.

31:41

And the only way for you to really teach the Word of God in the Bible is to handle it in such a way that your own traditions do not become the filter by which you read the

31:53

Bible. If, if all you see in Scripture is what the lenses of your tradition will allow through, then the

32:03

Scriptures can only ever teach what you think they should teach. You can never be challenged. Your traditions can never be examined.

32:10

Do you realize you have traditions? The most dangerous position to be in is to be a person who is convinced the

32:19

Bible's Word of God and yet don't realize that you have your own traditions, and hence you don't examine them.

32:27

You know, the, the infamous exchange between myself and Dave Hunt, lo, those many years ago now, where, when talking about John chapter 6, he dismisses what

32:42

Jesus is saying in John chapter 6, and I said, Dave, that's, that's just your tradition speaking. What was his response?

32:48

James, I have no traditions. And anybody who says they have no traditions is the absolute slave of their traditions.

33:00

They have no way of examining them. They have no way of changing. They have, they have no way of verifying. They have no way of being able to honestly say their traditions are true.

33:08

Certain traditions are true traditions, but the only way to be able to verify that is if you're able to actually look at things and and look at things in a meaningful fashion.

33:20

Anyone, you know, who they say, hey, he's not of God. I know what I have with God. I know the relationship that I have with, uh, with God.

33:25

I know the time that I spend with God. You know, I feel like Elijah with the prophets of Baal. Well, that's nice,

33:31

Marcus, but you know, uh, what if, what if you're, while you're walking along in front of the Buddhist temple there, uh, some more missionaries come along, and with tears in their eyes, they testify to you the truthfulness of the

33:41

Book of Mormon, and how often they pray, and visions they've had, and all sorts of stuff like that. What do you do now?

33:47

Or what if the Jehovah's Witnesses come along, and they do the same thing, and they've been going door -to -door for longer, and you've been been breathing air?

33:54

Uh, all your emotions, all your feelings, all your, your dedication means nothing.

34:02

Either you're going to actually ground yourself on the Word of God, which you're not doing, or your emotions, and your feelings, and your experiences, and things like that.

34:11

You put them, put the two of them together the way you are, and it's, it's difficult to deal with.

34:17

To your church, and you know, I will preach, and I will show you that the Spirit of God is living inside of me, because I have no doubts.

34:24

I spend time in my relationship with God. I spend time in the Word of God, and I just want people to have the truth.

34:30

I just. And see, anybody, any Christian who thinks that sincerity is the measure of truth, is going to be impressed by this.

34:40

I mean, the man can speak quickly, and fervently, and he's got the cadence going, and stuff like that.

34:47

And if you've only been in a church where that is the essence of what is communicated, it's the, it's the mechanism rather than the substance.

34:58

Well, this can be extremely, extremely impressive. But you need to realize every religion on the planet has people like this.

35:06

And if sincerity equals truth, then there is no way of knowing objective truth at all. None, whatsoever.

35:13

None. People to be on fire for God. I just want people to be unashamed. I am unashamed for Jesus.

35:19

I will stand on this street and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to this whole world. I'm going out to Chicago.

35:25

I'm going out all across the states, and I'm about to tell people Jesus is coming soon. It is time to repent. Well, I do wonder what your gospel is.

35:34

I would, I would like to know what that gospel is, because my gut feeling is it's, it's probably going to differ a little bit from the

35:42

New Testament, unfortunately. At least that's been my experience in talking to most one -nosed Pentecostals.

35:49

I'd be interested in how you define it. I've never heard you define it. But again, it sounds, sounds great, sounds wonderful.

35:55

But what Jesus are you, are you preaching? Where is that Jesus today? What's he doing?

36:00

What's his role? I don't, I don't, since the gospel is Trinitarian, there's going to be a problem someplace, because you deny the

36:08

Trinity. I'm telling you, I'm fired up. I'm unashamed, and people wanted to know, hey, aren't you worried about all these people, you know, who are accusing you of being a false prophet?

36:16

I'm not. You know, why do you use the term accusation? I mean, if you're going to put out there, you, you know that you deny the central doctrine of what unites

36:27

Christians down through history, which is the definitional doctrine of the Christian faith, aren't you accusing us of misrepresenting the truth?

36:36

I mean, it's really easy to, you know, start using terms of accusation and things like that. Look, you, you put it out there, and we have the right, and in fact, the responsibility to respond.

36:46

We need to respond truthfully and with a true desire that you would repent and, and believe.

36:55

But it, it's not like there's something wrong. You're accusing me of things. Well, you know, that story goes both ways.

37:30

That's singular, not names. Name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost, all right?

37:36

Marcus Rogers, I'm a father, I'm a son, and I'm a soldier, all right? But if I went to a bank, and they asked me to sign a check in my name.

37:42

Okay, now you may remember, uh, this was part of the video that we, this presentation was part of the video we responded to.

37:49

I don't even remember when we did this. This was months ago. That's why I was really surprised when I found out that he had done this, was it had been a long time ago that we had reviewed his, his thing.

38:00

And he uses this, this modalistic concept. Uh, my name is

38:06

Marcus Rogers, not da -da -da -da, and he, he takes father, son, and spirit, makes them roles.

38:13

Except, um, how many times did Jesus address the father? For example,

38:20

Abba Father. Um, that is an intimate relationship name.

38:29

It's not Abba Bob. It's Abba Father. And the son.

38:38

Jesus uses that, not just of his function, but the very, the

38:43

Jews said, we have a, have a law, by that law he had to die, because he made himself out to be the son of God.

38:51

Not just a function. Something much more than that. So, the implicit idea that, well, these are just, these just roles, and then there's the name, and the name is

39:00

Jesus. Well, the name of Jesus is highly exalted. There's no, no question about that. But you've, you've missed what it means to be baptized into the name of the

39:11

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You say, well, according to Book of Acts, that's just the name of Jesus. You're missing the, the nature of Christian baptism.

39:20

Yes, Jesus' name is extremely important. It's the name that people suffered for and everything else.

39:27

But to be baptized into a name, and it is singular, there's no question about that, to be baptized into the name in that culture, at that time, has much more significance.

39:41

We don't, we don't attach significance to names the way that significance is attached to names in scriptural context at all.

39:49

That's, most people pick that up just reading through the Old Testament. But it is taking on, it's being baptized into and taking on.

39:58

It's very similar to the covenant, entering into covenant, in, in the

40:04

Old Testament, the various covenant forms that were, that were found there. But this is why some

40:11

Oneness people try to attack Matthew 28. They try to say, this isn't how the early church functioned.

40:18

So they, they really try to, to say at the Didache, for example, which clearly demonstrates that in one of the earliest extra -biblical writings, this is exactly what the baptismal formula was.

40:30

They try to push that as far back as possible. But this is why

40:35

Oneness folks are always trying to say, well, yeah, you're given the specifics here, and what, but what they don't want to admit is that all that's being said in Acts is those were specifically

40:46

Christian baptisms. So you've got the one where the baptismal formula is given to you. You want to push that out of the way and turn the vague statements of simply

40:57

Christian baptism into the formula to get rid of this because of what it means. Because it makes that distinction, that clear distinction of Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

41:05

Anyway. Wouldn't sign Father. I wouldn't sign Son. I wouldn't sign Soldier. I would sign my name

41:10

Marcus Rogers. So when you get baptized, the name, singular, singular name, the name of the

41:16

Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is Jesus. Never, ever, ever is the name of the

41:22

Father Jesus. Nowhere in scripture. You cannot find me a single example where the name of the

41:28

Father is Jesus. Not once. Now I can show you over and over and over again the clear purposeful distinction that is drawn between the

41:37

Father and Jesus. Personal communication between them. But you are doing right here, plainly, what you accused us of doing earlier in, but again,

41:52

I don't think that Revelation passage had anything to do with any of this. But anyway. One. Pray about it.

41:59

This thing. Pray about it. No. No. Study. Think. Pray. Yes. But this idea of pray about it reminds me of the

42:07

Mormon missionaries. You know, they hand you the book and pray about it. Pray about it. You need to study.

42:13

You need to use the mind that God has given to you and not give in to this emotional well, you know,

42:24

I think I like the way that guy looks better than that guy over there or this guy has a better cadence and that's not how you determine.

42:32

That's how you determine Christian truth. Revelation from God to understand. I love you guys. Be blessed. I love

42:38

Jesus just like that motorcycle's roaring. I'm out here proclaiming the name of Jesus to the whole world, man. I'm excited.

42:44

I'm fired up. I'm never discouraged, man. Stay in the fight. Stay encouraged. Be blessed in Jesus name. All right.

42:50

So there's Marcus and you know, you got to admire his zeal, but the fact of the matter is you'll find just as zealous Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh -day

43:00

Adventists and all sorts of folks out there and just as zealous Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and the amount of zeal isn't the issue.

43:12

It's a shame to see someone who has been given false teaching who is so zealous that false teaching and unfortunately to this point,

43:21

I don't know who's going to be the one to be able to communicate to him, but it sure would be nice if someone could because if he is teachable at all it would be wonderful to see him won for the truth because it's sad to see someone so zealous for something that's falsehood.

43:45

Now, wow, quarter till. Yeah, right.

43:53

Jacob Prosh posted another response and it's hard to listen to.

44:01

There are just so many, it's one of those situations. I remember the first time

44:07

I encountered a person who engaged constantly in the practice of projection.

44:12

And what do I mean by that? Projection is where you project onto your opponent all of the logical fallacies and false forms of argumentation that you yourself are constantly using and it's almost like you know you're using them and so you've discovered that it's best to hide your inadequate arguments by accusing the other side of these things and just hope evidently that your audience is such that they're not really good at analyzing such things.

44:44

Most of you will recall that we did a Radio Free Geneva, which is a feature of The Dividing Line, which is a webcast and this is

44:57

Alpha and Omega Ministries, that we did a Radio Free Geneva where we responded to a video that he put out attacking

45:07

Calvinism as a whole, but specifically we focused in upon one of the big three, one of the big three,

45:15

Matthew 23, 39. We have Peter's, you know, 1 Peter 3, 39, and then we have 1

45:21

Timothy 2, 4, and he focused in on the all men passage.

45:28

And so what we did is we took the opportunity to once again engage in exegesis by pointing out that the foundational assertions that were made did not flow from the text, but were traditionally derived and we demonstrated that the context before and after 1

45:52

Timothy chapter 2 that this was not supportive of his position.

45:59

Well, anyway he we haven't gotten into the other,

46:08

I don't know if he'll eventually get around to the other of the big three. It'd be interesting to hear what he says about Matthew 23, 37 or 2

46:17

Peter 3, 9, but then again, maybe it wouldn't be after I play some of this.

46:24

It gets a little hard to listen to. Now what he's done, what

46:30

Prosh does is he brings in all sorts of other issues whether purposefully or not to inflame emotion and again to appeal to a particular kind of audience.

46:45

He's not really concerned about as wide an audience as we are.

46:51

And by the way, guess who picked up on this video? I saw this morning that Yaya Snow, and again it doesn't, see

47:04

Yaya doesn't care that the reason that we have been engaging this is to illustrate the necessity of doing fair and meaningful exegesis.

47:13

That's irrelevant to him. It's irrelevant to him that we've even tried to get people to be fair in their handling of the text of the

47:20

Quran and things. That doesn't matter. He, the whole reason he does what he does is to inflame emotion, degrade conversation, degrade the interaction between Christians and Muslims.

47:37

The man is just truly needs to be, I would love to see honest -hearted

47:44

Muslims rebuking this man. I just don't expect to see it happen. I just don't unfortunately.

47:51

There is no level too low for, no level too low for Yaya Snow.

48:00

There's a lot of words that end with the O sound that could actually be brought here and utilized in this situation.

48:06

But anyway, and it does make me wonder what Jacob Prosh thinks of Muslims using his rather untoward language.

48:17

Anyways, we pointed out that he ignored the entire issue of the intercessory work of Christ, which is the continuation verses 4 and 5 in 1

48:33

Timothy chapter 2. Even in this video, he continues to ignore. It's like he just can't even hear it.

48:39

It's just like it just goes right past him. He cannot recognize the centrality of this and that his exegesis, which he calls, you know, he likes to talk about asegesis, whatever in the world that is, uh eisegesis, eisegetically removing this particular section from 1

49:01

Timothy 2 sort of destroys the entire flow of the text. Won't even hear it. He just wants to hammer away.

49:09

Now he basically wants to build a wall between verses 2 and 3 of 1 Timothy chapter 2.

49:15

And then he jumps over to 1 Timothy 4 and wants to hammer away on a text that isn't even talking about intercession or anything like that at all.

49:28

And then continues to misrepresent my very first response where I talked about how once we established 1

49:37

Timothy 2, 4, and 5 and the intercessory work of Christ, the sacrificial work of Christ, then

49:44

I talked about other texts, whether it be John chapter 11 or Revelation chapter 5 that talks about men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

49:53

It's the salvific sacrificial work of Christ in Revelation chapter 5. So his responses have been ad hominem filled.

50:05

You have bogus doctorates. So in other words from Mr. Prosh's perspective, who to my knowledge, I don't know,

50:12

I don't take my time to dig into stuff like this to try to, I would prefer to deal with his arguments than attack his person.

50:19

These types of folks would rather attack the person than actually accurately represent the arguments. I have taught in both credited and unaccredited schools and I have studied in both.

50:32

And I have taught Greek, Greek exegesis, Hebrew, Hebrew exegesis, church history, systematic theology,

50:37

Christology, development of patristic theology, and all sorts of apologetic stuff in both realms.

50:43

And there are fine schools. And in fact, depending on what happens in November, or okay

50:48

January, something tells me in light of what's happening in California that the whole issue of quote -unquote accreditation is going to be thrown into the stratosphere.

51:02

Because if you're following what's going on in California and if you've listened to people like Hillary Clinton, then you know that governmental, that the provision of governmental funding in the form of student loans and everything else is going to be tied directly to the affirmation of an ungodly worldview and ungodly activities.

51:28

And every smart college and university president, Christian college university president, is right now trying to figure out how, you know, some have already done this.

51:40

Some have already said, you know what, we see this coming, so you cannot, we will not accept.

51:48

But the problem is in California, they've already skipped over that part. They've already said, we will open you up to lawsuit if there's anybody on your campus who feels discriminated against by the teaching that you're, that you're presenting in your school.

52:05

And hence, just to destroy them financially. Anyway, it's coming. And so there is going to be a tsunami, but there are already fine schools.

52:15

Whitfield Theological Seminary. There are a number of people that you know who have degrees from Whitfield and they are blessing the

52:25

Church of God. According to this guy, they're all frauds. They're all frauds. Doesn't matter how many years they've taken, what books were produced, what, evidently from this guy's perspective, scholarship is something you purchase, not something you do.

52:39

It's something you buy, not something you prove. And the fact of the matter is, that man cannot stand and debate the people that I have debated on the subjects

52:49

I've debated. He can't do it and he knows it. So if I'm a fraud, then what kind of educational system gave me the ability to do what you can't do, sir?

53:00

Maybe you should rethink your educational philosophy for once. Maybe you should have an educational philosophy that's focused upon what it produces, rather than some kind of system that guarantees, well,

53:13

I'm not even going to get into that right now, but, um, what? What?

53:18

Stop preaching? Is that what you're saying? Oh, it's rigged. Well, I know that. Anyway, so he, in this video, he criticized me.

53:27

He doesn't respond to anything. That's because it's, it's a bogus argument. I mean,

53:37

I, I just, I just point to the body of work and go, you haven't done this.

53:43

So if your educational system can't, if your, if your perspective can't produce this body of literature, these debates, this kind of research, maybe you've got the wrong idea, man.

53:56

Um, maybe since I can handle history accurately, where I learned to do that might be where you might want to go to accurately do that and not make the wild -eyed connections that you make that any serious historian would, would truly laugh out of the room what you do in this, in this video.

54:17

Anyway, the reason I didn't go after all that stuff was because we wanted to be focused and the focus was to illustrate the degradation of exegesis in light of holding traditions at a higher level.

54:36

That's what I want to try to remain focused on here as well. Because we have an agreed upon text.

54:44

We, we, we have it in the original languages. And so, was the original assertion made by Jacob Prosh sustainable or not?

54:57

Yes or no? And it's amazing to me that now in a third video, he still does not seem to be able to recognize what the thrust of the argument actually is.

55:11

So, let me repeat it. In 1st Timothy chapter 2, in the first two verses, you have categories of individuals presented.

55:24

Now he says, but the word genius doesn't appear. Who cares? That's, that's as bad as Marcus Roger saying, but the word trinity isn't there.

55:32

Doesn't matter. The phrase basileon is plural, sir.

55:40

And therefore, you have multiple kings in a group.

55:46

There's no way around this. The, the more you, you ignore this and, and bluster and yell and use insults and stuff doesn't, all it proves is you were caught red -handed mishandling the word of God.

56:03

It's right there. And now you want to argue, oh, but that doesn't matter.

56:10

Uh, that's not soteriological. It becomes soteriological in verse 3. Irrelevant.

56:16

Any serious exegesis of the text is going to note that the introduction, verse 3, your transition, this is good and acceptable in sight of God, our

56:28

Savior, who desires all men. In this video, and I may not even get around to, I'm just, may not even get around to playing it because I'm, it may actually be better and more focused to summarize the argument.

56:41

You can all go watch it. Uh, you can, it's easy to find Jacob Prosh's videos. You can go watch it.

56:48

But I really want to demonstrate that despite all the ad hominems and the accusations of absurdity and, you know, all the name -calling and, and I'm, I'm just irrational and, and foolish and, you know, it might actually be best to leave all that stuff off to the side and focus upon this.

57:10

Where do you get the idea, exegetically speaking? Give me some critical commentaries where the all men of 2 -4 is not to be in any way, there is a absolute wall drawn between verses 2 and 3.

57:32

Here's your problem, sir. Tuta. Tuta, kalon, kai, tuta.

57:39

What is, what is tuta at the beginning of verse 3? It has to have an antecedent. There's no wall there.

57:46

This is good. The offering of prayers for all men, all kinds of men, and that becomes the very essence of verse 4, and you yourself admit it's soteriological.

57:59

You can't get away with this. I'm sorry. If, if you, if we were to arrange a formal debate and if you could demonstrate that you would actually be able to stick to a topic and, and behave yourself, there would not be any possible way for you to escape if we just simply put the text in Greek up on the screen and said, that's all we're going to do, right there.

58:26

You could never get away with it. You'd never get away with it. I think you know that. I really do think you know that.

58:33

So, the point is, this is good and acceptable sight of God, our

58:38

Savior, who desires all men to be saved, to come to knowledge of the truth. That was the verse you yourself quoted. And so any meaningful exegesis of this text is going to recognize the sentence that came before it and the connective use of tuta in verse 3.

59:00

That's all there is to it. You can, that, that, this is an indisputable fact. It's indisputable.

59:07

And then you, I guess, since you won't get around to doing it, will not deal with the fact that verse 5 continues the thought of verse 4.

59:23

Are you going to, are you going to assert that there's some huge wall of separation, the context completely changes and, and everything else?

59:32

The problem is you have Pontos Anthropos in verse 4, then you've got

59:39

Anthropon in verse 5, then you've got Huperpontone in verse 6.

59:46

No one can possibly argue that there is not a line of reasoning and thought and argumentation in this text.

59:55

So what you have to deal with, here's my challenge to Jacob Prosh and to his followers.

01:00:03

Drop all the ad hominem, sir. Quit talking about, you know, get your facts straight, realize my ministry is not called

01:00:13

Radio Free Geneva. Get your facts straight and realize that I, for years, in talking about church history, in presenting on church history, have said to people,

01:00:30

I would have been minimally banished from Geneva. How many times, how many times do

01:00:37

I say? Decades, decades. It's a given, it's a fact,

01:00:44

I know it, and the difference between me and you, Mr. Prosh, is that I can know that and still appreciate what

01:00:51

God did in John Calvin and in Geneva. You cannot. You must simplify church history into something where nothing, you, you cannot see the intricate web of relationships that existed in past situations.

01:01:08

Everything's black and white. There's, there's, there's nothing else. And I refuse to dishonor the work of God in history the way you do all the time, even in this video, where you, you just, you just made abjectly absurd statements about history, just beyond anything.

01:01:29

Okay, so here's, here's my, my challenge to Jacob Prosh. Put aside all of the ad hominem and everything else.

01:01:39

Focus like the proverbial laser beam. This text, this text, the one you raised, the one we criticized, you ran off to other, other things.

01:01:52

I say it's because you cannot stay in this text and substantiate your position. You used verse four to make your point.

01:02:02

I say your point was invalidated by any contextual reading, before and after.

01:02:10

So, Mr. Prosh, there is one God and one mediator also between God and man, the man

01:02:19

Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

01:02:27

Mr. Prosh, what is the nature of the term mesetes?

01:02:36

What does a mesetes do? And for whom is

01:02:42

Jesus functioning as mesetes? What does it mean to be a mediator?

01:02:50

How is this related to the phrase intercessor and the function of intercession laid out in the book of Hebrews?

01:02:59

Because it's clearly, there's clearly a connection. For whom does

01:03:05

Christ intercede? And can you differentiate between the audience of his intercession and the audience of his death?

01:03:18

Because here in Paul's text here, the two are one the same, because in the

01:03:24

Old Testament for the high priest, they're one the same. If you want to make this universal, then you're going to have to say that the son is interceding for all men.

01:03:39

Is that what you're saying? Are you willing to embrace what that means? Because you seem to in 1st

01:03:45

Timothy 4 .10 be willing to embrace the idea that Jesus is a savior who does not save. That is the ultimate end of your, you reduce the term soter to a hypothetical term rather than an accomplishment term.

01:04:04

That's what you have to do. Unless you're a universalist, and I know you're not. So put all the other stuff aside.

01:04:13

Stop using the cheap debating tricks. Put it all aside.

01:04:19

Focus like a laser beam on the text. Why have you ignored what comes after verse four?

01:04:27

Why have you falsely attempted to build an inviolable wall between verses two and three?

01:04:36

Deal with the text, sir. If you're just going to keep posting videos filled with invective, filled with ignorant stuff like,

01:04:51

I can't believe this man's so foolish. He'd name his ministry after Geneva. There's all, one more video like that and it's like case closed, facts proven, move on.

01:05:06

So it's up to you. Can you do so? I'll be honest with you.

01:05:13

I've never seen you not utilize that kind of argumentation. So it would take a tremendous amount of discipline not to do it.

01:05:20

But there's my invitation. Let's see what you can do. Because I think people deserve to see who is able to handle the text in a consistent fashion and who cannot.

01:05:34

And I will utilize the exact same exegetical methodology in responding to you that I would utilize in responding to other

01:05:45

Arminians who have different views than yours. People are going to get an interesting opportunity.

01:05:53

This Friday night, when I debate in Southern California on the same topic of the debate a year ago in Dallas, because the understanding of Romans 9 between the two

01:06:04

Arminians or the two Synergists that I'm debating is completely different. Will my presentation be different as a result or will

01:06:12

I be consistent in my presentation and in how I defend that presentation even against different perspectives?

01:06:19

And when I debate Roman Catholics, which you have actually commended me for, when

01:06:26

I debate Roman Catholics, do I utilize the same exegetical methodology? How about in responding to the criticisms of Muslims?

01:06:35

Do I use the same exegetical methodology? That's the question. That's the question.

01:06:41

By the way, as we wrap up here, I was directed by This freaked me out,

01:06:52

I'll have to admit. I'm not even sure. You know what? I'm not going to tell you who did this because I haven't asked him if he could, if I could, sorry.

01:07:04

I was directed by a fairly well -known individual in Twitter.

01:07:17

If I mentioned the nick or the ID, what do they call that? If I mentioned it,

01:07:24

I bet a lot of you follow this person. It's a humorous person.

01:07:31

There's a lot of humorous persons, so don't automatically assume that you know.

01:07:39

Why isn't this coming up here? There it goes. But I was directed to issue 15 of Dabiq.

01:07:50

Dabiq is the online super schnazzy, very super schnazzy magazine of ISIS.

01:08:04

I mean, these guys, they got money, and they've got graphics people. And I don't know when

01:08:13

I'm going to be able to get around to it. But let me see if I can, let me see if I can give this to you real quick.

01:08:26

Look at this. Break the cross.

01:08:35

You've got folks pushing a cross over there from a church, obviously. And you've got this.

01:08:44

This says, Sufis imitating Christians by celebrating the prophet's birthday. So this is an inter -Muslim thing there.

01:08:54

But there's a portion of the Torah, church. Yeah, this one's called

01:09:01

Filipino Christians parading their deviance. And there's just a tremendous amount of argumentation here.

01:09:15

Yeah. In the end, we challenge all the arrogant Christian disbelievers with a challenge presented by Allah for those who lie against Jesus.

01:09:22

As the Lord said, verily, the example of Jesus according to Allah is like that of Adam. He formed him of earth and then said,

01:09:27

Be. So he became Alemran 59. The argumentation here is all, it's identical to the stuff that we are constantly hearing from the

01:09:43

Muslim Dawagandists, the Muslim apologists, like Paul Blau Williams and so on and so forth.

01:09:50

It is the exact same stuff and here in its militant form being used as the foundation for literally the murder of Christians all around the world.

01:10:03

So in other words, when we're responding to this stuff, Our response has a wider audience.

01:10:18

There are Muslims who use this type of false argumentation against the

01:10:28

Christian faith who do not believe that I should be killed for believing these things, but there are others.

01:10:35

Here's the example. Here's ISIS. Utilizing this kind of, it's the same it's the same kind of thing where Muslims will quote sources that they should never, if they have any concern for consistency whatsoever, any concern about truth, they should never be quoting these things.

01:11:01

But they do anyways. And it doesn't matter whether they are the

01:11:06

Muslims who don't want to kill me or the Muslims who do. I can understand why the

01:11:13

Muslims who want to kill me are not concerned about truth, but the other ones should know better.

01:11:22

If you have murder in your heart, that's one thing. And so it's going to be hard to do, but I feel like taking a paragraph at a time or something like that and going through this because you know, it says right here, page 47, falsehood should be rejected because it is false, just as the true should be accepted and followed because it is true.

01:11:46

It is not a matter of tradition for the Lord is or that all nations be called to his worship. Well, it's nice to say that, but man, you ain't living it.

01:11:54

Not by a long shot. Not by a long shot. Important stuff in here.

01:11:59

I've got someone whining in Twitter, Oh, I send you

01:12:05

Dabiq. I get ignored. Famous person does it and gets a shout out. Sarcasm, by the way, not mad.

01:12:10

Ha ha. Well, I don't remember you sending me the Dabiq thing, but you, you know this, how do you know you're not famous?

01:12:16

I won't mention who it is, but um, but no, I didn't, I don't remember getting it from you, but I did get it from this other famous guy.

01:12:26

Um, anyway, it's uh, it is, it was fascinating to read and because I was reading at the same time

01:12:35

Paul Blau Williams in this, in this email exchange. I keep getting copied in on it.

01:12:42

you know, doing the exact same kind of thing. Just total disregard for the consistency of the use of sources.

01:12:48

No interest whatsoever. None. It's um, well, it's the essence of, of Islamic apologetics in, in the vast majority of instances, unfortunately.

01:13:00

Um, so yeah, break the cross. Think about that.

01:13:05

But God forbid that I should glory except in the cross the Lord Jesus Christ, for whom the world's Christ is crucified in me and I into the world. Muhammad had no idea what the

01:13:17

New Testament taught about the cross. The depth of the holiness of God, the wrath of God, and the love and mercy of God in the cross.

01:13:26

He had no idea. None. It's obvious. There is, there is not the least bit of meaningful interaction on the part of the

01:13:33

Quran with any kind of meaningful understanding of the cross. No one could have foreseen so long ago what the result would be today.

01:13:48

But there you have it in this picture of these ISIS fighters, uh, pushing, pushing a crossover.

01:13:57

Break the cross. Um, anyway, uh, fascinating, uh, fascinating article.

01:14:04

Hope to try to find some time to spend some, spend some time in it and respond to stuff. But we have so much stuff coming up.

01:14:13

Um, you know, we're going to be gone, uh, starting September 11th, uh, up in, uh,

01:14:18

Alaska. Have no idea, uh, what to expect weather -wise. And I'm going to be speaking a lot on many things, uh, for that, that week.

01:14:30

Um, I think this first time I've been the only speaker. And that's a, that's a lot.

01:14:37

It's just, that's like preaching multiple times a day. Uh, so, um, but, uh, then end of October, early

01:14:47

November. Uh, we are going to be down in Brisbane, Sydney, and you know what city?

01:14:56

Uh, in New Zealand somewhere. Uh, I'm not sure which city yet. We're working all that stuff.

01:15:01

We, I want to try to, if, if we can, uh, arrange some meaningful debates, uh, down in that area, if, if, if at all possible.

01:15:10

Uh, Jeff Durbin's going to be down there at the same time. We're going to be, I would, what I would really love to see happen would be for Jeff and I to, uh, team up on a, on a debate with a secularist, with some secularists or something like that.

01:15:24

That would be, that'd be really enjoyable. Um, maybe, maybe if we didn't mention it publicly, we could get some

01:15:33

Mormons to debate, but the chances of that are very, very small, very small indeed.

01:15:41

Um, it would be fun. It would be enjoyable. Uh, there's, there's only slightly more of an opportunity for that than there would be to get

01:15:49

Jehovah's Witnesses to do something. But, um, but we'll see, we'll see what, uh, what works out, uh, down there.

01:15:55

So, a lengthy trip at the end of, uh, October, beginning of, uh, November, and then, yes, tradition continues on.

01:16:04

We'll be in St. Charles the first weekend in December for the 16th time. Uh, I think,

01:16:10

I, I'm starting to lose track. Uh, I think they are too, but, uh, we'll be doing that, uh, again as well.

01:16:15

All right. Well, it's a weird time, but I went over because I, I just went over and, and, uh, sorry about that.

01:16:24

But, um, we will be back, as I said, on Thursday, Friday night, the debate in Southern California as well.