Road Trip DL from Golden Again

And welcome to the Dividing Line Road Trip DL. Beautiful day here in Golden. Not seeing much in the way of storm development. Well, there's some back there. We'll get some later in the day. Just lots of puffy clouds right now, but sunny, breezy, beautiful day here in Colorado.

I'm gonna be doing a pretty major ride tomorrow. Well, major for me anymore is two hours to two hours and 15 minutes. I'm not gonna sit on a bike seat that long anymore. So I don't go as far, but I will tell you this.

There's this climb. It's called the Hogback and it's closed to cars. So it's just walkers and bikers. Just two days ago, I decided to climb it and go ahead and push it hard. And I only got up to like, for a second or two, I got up to 142 beats per minute.

It was mainly just a 140 effort. And that's not a high heart rate. Of course, you get to my age and you're getting... It's a higher heart rate. I just take 220 minus your age and that's what you're supposed to be able to do.

So... 220 minus... Yeah, it's actually to work. It is a high heart rate for me. Anyway, I got to rethink all that stuff after all those years of other things. But anyway, But I remember back in 2023, it was the last time that I tried to PR that, personal record that.

And I just remember I really killed myself back in 2023 climbing it. And so I hit it pretty hard and I came back and I look at Strava, which is, if it's not in Strava, it didn't happen. That's sort of what cyclists say.

And I crushed my PR by 20 seconds from back in 2023. And I remember that effort. I was gassed at the top. I mean, I gave everything. It's only a four minute climb, but I gave everything. I was not gassed.

Which proved a simple law of physics. You can go up hills faster if you're not fat. It's a simple matter of power-to-weight ratios. Really, really is. That's why the little guys in the Tour de France that can climb, climb, climb, tend to be really little.

Tadej Pogacar, not so much. I mean, he's not huge. Tadej Pogacar just has the biggest motor in the sport. Even Lance Armstrong said a couple weeks ago, he's the greatest there's ever been. There's no one that can...

Even, you know, when Lance Armstrong says that Tadej Pogacar would have crushed Lance Armstrong, that's saying a lot. That really, really is saying a lot. And Pogacar just simply has the biggest motor maybe in any sport.

It's just, it's amazing. But anyways, so yeah, I'm going to try to get a good ride. I'm going to try to get a good ride in tomorrow and have some fun with it. Last few days up here, speaking at a small church.

I'll be speaking there Sunday morning on speaking to Roman Catholics and then dealing with secularism and the sermon. And I was there Wednesday night and that was last night. And I had a good time with the folks there.

Very small group and that's perfectly fine with me. You know, I know there are some that think, well, if you're doing that, man, you just might as well give up. And you know what? No, that's not how I view things.

We're trying to be of encouragement to all sorts of different churches and I think we're succeeding in that. Anyways, lots of stuff to look at here. New St. Andrews has been posting some stuff about from Jeff Schaefer.

The Anti-Human Effects of Supreme Court Decisions

Now, I have not had the opportunity to listen to this. I'm going to try to download it, maybe listen to it on the ride tomorrow. But what caught my attention was he's talking about Supreme Court decisions and how these decisions have been fundamentally anti-human.

They're anti-Christian, obviously, but they're anti -Christian worldview. They're anti-human. They're destructive to a biblical understanding of male, female, family, children, everything. And the first time I saw it was there was a comment made about the basis upon which the Obergefell decision had been written in 2015.

Now, that was 11 years ago now. And I remember very, very clearly I had been at a conference, a Reformed Baptist conference in Flagstaff that I really enjoyed being at. I would never be invited back now, not because anything happened then, but because of developments since then amongst Reformed Baptists.

But anyway, I had gone up to Utah to do some riding and stuff up there. I'm not sure if I did the loop where I did. I think I probably did go up to... I don't remember how I did it in 2015. I'd have to go back and look at my records, my riding records and tell me.

Anyway, I downloaded and listened to the entirety of the Obergefell decision. And it was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. May his name live in infamy. It literally was, but children of same-sex marriages, which of course weren't born of the same-sex marriage, might be mocked because they have different parents.

So we need to acknowledge that as equal to marriage. It was pure emotionalism. It was childishness, absolute childishness. It was so vacuous, so empty. I mean, that's why I say, may Justice Kennedy's name live in infamy.

It was horrific. And yet, as I said on Twitter this morning, 99 .97 of the American population has never and will never read that decision. I wonder what percentage would even be able to bring any type of critical analysis to even something like that anymore.

Western Cultural Suicide and Mass Migration

Once public education became required, it became the tool for the undoing of the West. Which leads me into my second thing. There was a video I saw this morning of this massive number of people, thousands of people, invading somewhere in Europe, across the ocean.

Just thousands of people. It reminded me of what the southern border looked like during the Biden regime. Just massive numbers of people invading. It's an invading army. If you can't see that, you're an idiot.

Your common sense has been ripped out of your mind. It's an invading army. And the traitors already in those nations, in Spain or Italy or any of the nations that border the Mediterranean, those traitors have already made it very clear that if you can get there, they will give you money.

They will give you a place to live. They will give you free health care. They'll give you free indoctrination. Not education, but indoctrination. And they won't do that for their own people. And they will take their own people's money to do that for you.

That's why they're traitors. And that's why the Democrats in the United States are traitors. When they open the border to an invading army, you're a traitor. That's all. There is no other way. There is no better way to define traitor than doing that.

And that's what's happening here. And I had seen a comment. I mentioned something about this, I think a couple of weeks ago. In high school, in an advanced seminar thing I was taking, our teacher assigned to us, was it Jean Raspail?

Was that the name? French guy. It was back from, written like 73. Yeah, here, wait a minute. Yeah, Jean Raspail, 1973. Yep. Camp of the Saints. It was a depressing book to read. And I didn't really like it all that well, because it was a depressing book to read.

But it was about Europe being invaded across the Mediterranean by the third world. And how Europe lacked the commitment to its own self-existence to fight it. There were some amazingly prophetic books written in the 1970s.

This Perfect Day, and Camp of the Saints. Some people could see trends. And maybe they just lucked out, and they followed the trend that worked out. Hindsight makes that work. You forget about all the people that followed the wrong trends, and it didn't happen.

But still, Camp of the Saints was a depressing book. It was a rough book to read. But it's happening. It's being fulfilled. I'm watching video of it. It's amazing. The Western world is committing suicide.

Because the Western world has decided that it itself is evil because of the colonial period or whatever. And it's deception. I think from a Christian worldview, we have to go, this is a very effective means of judgment.

These nations murder children. They profane marriage. They mutilate born children. They kill the elderly. They are greedy. Everything. And so, judgment is here, and we're watching it. And some of you go, well, but we need to fight all this.

Well, yeah, okay. With the tools that have been given to us in Scripture. But what's happening now is there's just so many Christians that want to fight these things with worldly tools and ignore Scriptural standards in how they do these things.

And that's why we have the entire Christian nationalist movement and NXR and rest of that idiocy. In fact, one of my fellow elders linked to a diatribe from that guy, whatever his name is, the young guy that's so disgusting.

But he was, Nick Fuentes, sorry. He was ripping and shredding on the NXR type guys, even though he'd been on NXR. I'm sure he was paid to do that. But he was basically just ripping all these people that are saying, oh, Hitler was great.

Hitler was a Christian. And of course, he's dropping F-bombs all through this, so I won't link to it. But he's just like, who cares? You people are idiots. And he would say that in a more colorful way.

But just ripping and snorting on them. And a lot of what he said about how stupid what they're saying is true. He was saying, do startups and get into tech. Yeah, it's the best he's got to offer. He doesn't have anything.

He can't address the human situation in any way. So, yeah, it is an amazing day to live in. No two ways about it. Let me... It's about the resurrect. Oh, hold on a second here. I may not have my sound being sent to the right place here.

Just realize that. I'm hoping it's that. We'll find out here in a second. I wanted to play just a little clip. Someone sent this to me. And I mean, yeah, it would be worthwhile to do the whole thing. It's Bart Ehrman, quote unquote, fact checking Wes Hough.

Bart Ehrman's Naturalistic Materialism and the Resurrection

And for those of you who may be a little bit newer to the program, I don't remember what the time frame was, but probably more than 10 years ago, we would play entire debates between Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace or other people.

And we would you know, work through the fundamental issues. I debated Ehrman in 2009. Can't believe that was that long ago now. And Bart's not looking real good these days, I'll be pretty honest with you.

He's pretty much retired as far as I understand. But, you know, he still does his blog and webcasts and stuff like that. And I suppose you can still subscribe to his stuff. Maybe that's how he keeps an income coming in.

I don't know. I'm sure his books provide some there too. Anyway, for a long time, we have pointed out that Bart Ehrman is a naturalistic materialist. He is trapped in that world. He cannot escape that world.

He defines everything by that worldview. And he cannot critically analyze it. And unfortunately, many of the people who have debated him have just let him get away with that. They're not presuppositionalists.

In fact, they're anti -presuppositionalists. And so they won't deal with the foundational issues that give rise to his entire position. And, you know, I was criticized for not going after that in our debate, but that's not what our debate was about.

We were not talking about how to do historiography or anything like that. We were talking about New Testament manuscripts. We were talking about, you know, factual stuff you can put your fingers on. And, you know, we have, by the way, we did, I forget how many years ago it was.

It was like six years ago maybe. I'm not sure if it was before 2020 or after. But we did try to get him to do another debate, this time on the stuff that he claims regarding the Trinity. He doesn't understand the Trinity.

I mean, it's shocking being a historian of the early church that he would not have an accurate understanding of the difference between, let's say, Nicene Christology and patrapassionism or something like that, because he accuses anyone who identifies Jesus as Yahweh as a modalist or a patrapassionist, which is just absurd.

It'd be indefensible in debate. We did contact him, and if I recall correctly, we were told that, you know, minimally that would, the starting price was $25 ,000. And we were just sort of like, yeah, we can, there's other things we can do with $25 ,000.

And he's not a very pleasant man to deal with. He really isn't. He's very condescending, very arrogant. Not a happy man. Definitely not a happy man. That was definitely the conclusion I came to in 2009.

Anyway, I just happened to click into the video and immediately ran across the fundamental issue that will always be the fundamental issue with Bart Ehrman for as long as God extends his life on this earth.

And may God have mercy on him in the time he has left. But here it is. So, I think I have this up. I think I have the audio right. We'll find out here in a second. Let's take a listen.

The response is that it's, and I view it as an historical question. We talked about this briefly before, but in what sense is the resurrection an historical question? And where do historians hit a wall when they're discussing it?

Well, it depends what you mean. And I think what he means is that he thinks it's something that actually happened in the past. And since it's something that happened in the past, we can use historical methods to try and figure out if it happened or not.

Okay, so I think that's what he means. I think the problem is that the past is not actually history. And it's real hard to get people to understand what that means. But the past is everything that's happened, and most things that have happened cannot be demonstrated.

They can't be shown to be historical. So, if you mean by history, things that could be shown probably to be historical, then the resurrection wouldn't be history in that sense, even if it happened in the past.

There are roughly 20 trillion, trillion, trillion things that we cannot show happened in the past. So, they happened, but we can't show they happened. And so, to call it a historical question, I think I agree with that.

It's a historical question. But the question is, can you use historical methods to show it? And if he thinks that he's giving historical evidence to show Jesus was raised from the dead on the basis of some people saying they saw him afterwards, I would say that's not good enough for a historical demonstration.

Because if you say Jesus got raised from the dead, you're saying that God intervened in history and brought him back to life. But once you start talking about what God is doing in the past, you're not talking history anymore.

It could have happened, but it can't be demonstrated. As I think I said on the podcast once, you can't demonstrate that God raised Jesus from the dead any more than you can demonstrate that God is the reason the Allies won the Second World War.

You can...

Okay, all right. Interesting illustration, because the resurrection is a prophetic fulfillment. So, that would be...unless you're going to try to argue, I suppose some people might, that there was some kind of prophecy about World War II or something like that, that they would be in different categories.

But, you know, we listened to a lot of resurrection debates that Bart Ehrman did, and over and over and over again, the same thing of necessity came up, that as a naturalist and materialist, God can't have anything to do with history.

You know, he scoffed at the idea of me being a historian or a studier of history or things like that, because, well, you're a theologian, you're an apologist, and that's automatically not qualifying from his perspective.

And so, he begins with the presupposition that the only things that can be called historical are things that can be demonstrated without reference to anything outside of the natural realm. And I understand that it's important to differentiate between religious dogma and religious belief and serious historical study.

You know, when I see the Mormons trying to rescue the book of Abraham with some of the most, well, insane, wild-eyed attempts to make connections between things where there's nothing in what Smith said about what he was doing that's supportive.

Everything's contradictory, but they're doing it. Okay, they may say they're doing history. No, they're definitely doing religious dogma, and they're trying to make it look like history, just as Joseph Smith was.

And people can go, well, if you can do that with the Mormons, then you have to do it with everything else. Well, the problem is the Book of Mormon and Mormon theology and teaching has had no impact on the past.

And our documents are ancient. Mormonism arose in 1829, 1830, and off to 1844-ish. They're not ancient, even the ones that claim to be ancient. The Book of Mormon is not an ancient document. Again, wishful thinking is not the same thing as meaningful argumentation.

So, I'm not disagreeing that there has to be serious thought put into the analyzing of claims. But what Barth does is he makes his naturalist materialism the starting point. And when he does that, he fundamentally closes off any kind of fulfillment.

So, you can't have prophecy. You can't have Scripture being unchanged over time. He's always well, misquoting Jesus, all the rest of that stuff, even though in the debate, when I challenged him to, where have we lost the original?

It comes up with something that's utterly irrelevant, from 1st, 2nd Peter, whichever one it was, that has no impact whatsoever. He has to be admitted. We know what the Old Testament is about. We know what the New Testament is about.

He's more of the New Testament guy. So, anyway, it's sad to see someone as they're getting older. I've aged just as much as he has, but still completely entrapped in that. Like I said, when I met him prior to that debate, during the debate, I didn't see him afterwards.

Just not a pleasant man and not a happy man. Definitely not a happy man at all. His apostasy did not bring him joy. He's lived his life substantiating that apostasy. I think a close look at his books, especially his popular books, the only explanation for the topic range is it's an extended apology for his abandonment of the Christian faith.

That's just all there is to it. So, it's a sad thing. But yeah, it would be useful if I had the time to do it, but I should say this as well. I've been talking about this article I've been working on.

The Dionysian Corpus and the Dating of Its Historical Sources

I've finished it, submitted it today. Craig, if you're listening, we will, of course, get a copy to you once the seminary accepts it for publication. I've given it to a few people, just friends, family, for a quick read-through, stuff like that.

It's about 9 ,000 words, about twice the length of the seminary's normal size. They've asked if it could be cut in half, and I'm like, no. I just don't see how it could be done. They may come up with a way that's okay.

You know, I'd rather not. In fact, the Nicotopoulos Trulia articles were cut in, well, there are two of them. So, you had to be looking at two different PDFs when you were citing stuff, which did lead to some confusion a few times on my part.

But yeah, I'm hoping it'll stay as one, and I've requested that whenever they feel it's appropriate to do so, that it be available for download directly from the journal website. Because I can't prove this because I worked on the article for so long, but I almost think that at some point I had PDFs from the journal and PDFs that were being circulated separately in a different pagination.

I can't tell you how much time I wasted figuring out which ones I was going to use as the standard, and then repaginate, you know, checking the references to get the proper page reference. And I may still mess some of that up, but not like it impacts the argument very much.

But anyway, so, Craig, I, Mr. Trulia, sorry, we'll figure out how we're going to refer to each other when we get to the debate. I'll be sending you the finalized version that's been accepted so you can have that.

You yourself have said you don't think that that's going to be a major part of the debate in October. And yeah, I mean, that would have to be a debate unto itself. And I I suggested that once. I think I suggested doing whether the Dionysian Corpus is 1st century or 6th century as one debate, and then the Nicaea II thing as a second debate.

But you felt it would be better to just focus on Nicaea II. And that's fine. Even as it is, you know, I've sent this to a couple people, and I sort of had to explain that they might want to take some no-dos before they start reading something like that.

Some people might say, hey, you know, you spent all this time and all this, put all this effort into something that very few people are going to read. And obviously, at some point, I'm going to do a program where I use the article as the basis of the program and just sort of, you know what I'll probably do?

I'll probably give the article to Claude and say, give me a visual presentation. Make it something that an audience of people that aren't going to be spending the hours I spent doing TLG searches, Thesaurus Linguae Grecae searches, would find interesting and understandable.

I think that's what I'll probably do. See what it comes up with. I was using Claude. I'll tell you, I used Claude. I could never have kept, there's one 640-word footnote. Now, there are articles that are less than 640 words.

So, there's a single footnote that's 640 words long that has references to 1 ,400 results of the TLG database searches that I was doing. We've maintained a TLG subscription for years and years. We had the TLG CD-ROM back when they did it that way, back in the 90s.

And I could never, ever have kept the math because it's how many searches turned up this and how many searches turned up that with this grammatical form and that grammatical form. Putting all that stuff together, I would have given up.

I'm not going to be able to keep track of that many data points. It's not something I can do. Claude can and does a very good job of it. And I think I mentioned last time that once I finished the article, because I've used two different word processing programs, thanks to Apple wanting to get greedy, it was a mess.

There were so many different kind of paragraph functions and fonts and spacings and font sizes. Oh, it was horrible. But you put it into one format, give it to Claude and say, here's the seminary's style sheet.

This is how they want it. Fix it. And it was not instantaneous. It was not instantaneous. I think it took 10 minutes, maybe. And in the report, it said there had been like 18 different styles. It's just blank spaces and just all sorts of stuff like that.

Just artifacts and cutting and pasting from a PDF and from a Word document and from an HTML file. It's just a mess. But anyway, it took care of all that stuff and made it appropriate and proper. And that's the way it should be.

So I'll get that to you. And hopefully it'll be a useful contribution to the conversation about the Dionysian corpus and where it came from. And my assertion is that the historical documentation is inarguable.

It was unknown as a body of writing before the year 500. It was not known to Gregory. It was not known to Jerome. It was not known to origin. Those are not citations. The two that you all came up with.

It goes against the normal pattern of both Gregory and Jerome and how they cited those that came before them. And the Eusebian silence and some other things that I came up with in my search of the TLG, I think make it just impossible to substantiate your theory.

But I did say, and I will say this now, my hat's off to both Nikotopoulos and Trulia. They put a lot of work into this. A lot of research. It's well written, well argued. I think it fails. That's my assertion, is that it fundamentally fails.

A Respectful Scholarly Exchange Versus Online Slander

But I maybe, I'm being super optimistic here, but maybe, given the stuff I'm seeing online right now. Did you all see? I almost, I didn't want to advertise this stuff. But I mean, there are literally groups of people, Roman Catholics and Orthodox, getting together to attack other people.

And they're doing five, six hour videos. I don't know. Do these people have jobs? Do they have families? Do they have children? I don't know. And they're accusing people of being rapists. And the only thing I haven't seen is serial murderers.

But pretty much everything else is being thrown out there. I mean, the slander and you're just like, what is going on? I want nothing to do with any of that. And I don't think Craig Trulia does either.

And so I think he made a comment recently that I interpreted as being, let's show how this can be done differently. And I'm like, yeah, let's. And my hope is that you'll be able to take their articles and my article response.

And I should have done a word search on theirs as to how long each one was. I didn't. I could easily. They're still up on my screen. But, you know, I'm sure there are two articles are still longer than my one article.

But in any case, I hope people will look at that and go, OK, here's a scholarly, respectful exchange on an important historical theological topic that did not involve accusing the other side of being rapists or murderers or something, because it's getting insane out there.

I mean, truly. I don't even know what to say about it. All I all I can say is if that's the kind of stuff you're into, I can see why you don't have any interest in what we do here, because we're never going to know.

We'll close up shop and go home if that's what's required to to get the clicks and the support and stuff like that. Yeah, not going to do it. And I just I just want to say to those involved in this stuff, get out of it.

That's that's battery acid for the soul. Nobody can survive that. I don't care what religion you're a part of. You can't survive that. One last thing, and then you go to this video. Finally, I've taken a lot more time than I thought.

Anthony Fauci, Pandemic Accountability, and Divine Justice

I did want to I just had to comment before everyone forgets about because everyone will forget about it. This will no one will remember this a month from now. But the Anthony Fauci Fifth Amendment pleading 111 times.

I am astounded, honestly, at how quickly this nation, this world has forgotten what was done to us in 2020 and 2021 and 2022. The forced inoculations, the suppression of free speech, suppression of thought.

The people that said that those of us who refused the inoculations, refused the shot, you know, should be rounded up. We should be forced to take the shot. Shouldn't be allowed to buy food. You know, these people are still still have jobs today.

And the people who were behind this, the people who planned this, it was the pandemic. It was planned. We now know this. The documentation is overwhelming. And they Pfizer, Moderna, they all knew that these mRNA vaccines were not safe.

And the thing that I learned today that just stunned me, Fauci had an embolism after he took the Moderna shot. He had an embolism. And they kept it quiet. The guy telling all the rest of us to do this had what they already knew was a great danger happened to him.

And they don't say a word about that is that that is criminal on a level that is astonishing. Nothing will ever happen. Nothing will ever happen. Not just the auto pen thing. Look, we know Biden was a complete mental vacuum for four years.

We all knew that he was being run by somebody else. He was he was the Manchurian candidate. We have been run by the Manchurian candidate for four years. It was it was treason. Every senior Democrat that met with him knew that they're all traitors, every single one of them, not Americans are traitors.

It's all there is to it. And so, you know, I'm giving pardons to all these people because they knew they knew the people behind the auto pen, which was not Joe Biden. He's not he hasn't been with us for a long, long time.

The people who ran him that propped him up. What was vacation with Bernie? Is that what it was? You know, the dead body they would prop up in front of things. Yeah, same thing. That's how our nation was run for four years.

Astonishing. They knew. And so they've got their pardons. And could it be argued that those are invalid? Sure, it could be argued. But will it happen? No. No, there's there. There are not enough people committed to justice in the government United States to do anything about it.

We can't even we cannot even secure our own elections. So the government is a failure. The government that was envisioned by the founding fathers was inhabited by people who would work for the best of the nation.

That is no longer the case for at least 50 percent of the people in government. They work for the destruction of the nation. No nation can survive them. Weekend at Bernie's. Thank you. OK. What I say, vacation at Bernie's or something, I've never seen it.

I've seen, you know, clips and stuff like that, but I that's not the kind of movie I necessarily watch. I think the only time I ever see movies like that is like I've had surgery or something and I'm laid up in the hospital.

I can't reach the remote. You're stuck, as happened a few times. Anyway, last time I was in the hospital that long, it was on that channel that plays all the old Andy Griffith stuff. At least that was enjoyable to watch.

All right. So, yeah, the Fauci stuff, he's he won't he's going to die fat, dumb and happy. But I can see the faces of people who died in that pandemic, and he will be held accountable and all the people that did it with him.

Um, there will be a day of justice, not in this life, not in this life, but there will come a day. There will come a day. I have to believe that. All right. Cameron Bertucci, capturing Christianity, likes to, um, likes to claim he's coming up with new arguments when the reality is, um, some of you will remember when he first started playing footsie with Roman Catholicism, I tried to warn him, I tried to point out, boy, he doesn't seem to really understand what he believes as a non-Catholic, um, doesn't seem to have any real exegetical capacity, certainly no confessional foundation, none of this kind of stuff.

So, in other words, makes the perfect convert to Roman Catholicism. And so, since his conversion, the stuff he's been putting out, you know, he likes to say it's a new argument. He came out, last year he did some, something with a never before thought of argument, and all it had to do was something about the popes, as I recall, it was, it wasn't new at all.

It was just, well, I'm going to put a spin on it that will make sense in social media type stuff. And I don't get the feeling that he even has read a meaningful amount of Roman Catholic apologetic material from the past, you know, a Bellarmine, the sales, stuff like that, the classical stuff from the Counter-Reformation period.

Or he wouldn't be claiming that this stuff he's coming up with is new, because it's not new. And, you know, we've done programs here, and I think I did one with Eli Ayala, in response to his, some of his stuff on Sola Scriptura.

So, it's standard stuff coming from him. So, a couple months ago, Westhoff put out a article, no, it was a video, it was a video. What was it, six reasons why I'm not a Roman Catholic? Something like that.

And so, there's been a lot of responses to that, because West got a huge hit from the Joe Rogan stuff. And West is a whole lot better looking than I am, that's for sure. I think I had something to do with getting him interested and excited about sexual criticism and things like that.

But anyway, there's a lot of overlap in our ministries now. And so, Capturing Christianity, Cameron decided to do a response, not to all the points, but to what he feels is the one question. So, let's see how this gets presented, and then we'll respond to it again.

I told you last time, I'm in a pretty short slot. Most of them here are pretty short. I mean, this is an older RV park. It's in a nice location, that's why I come here. Well, there's a biker bar right there.

I can see the stage from here. So, especially Friday and Saturday nights, they are allowed until 10 o 'clock. So, you do have to put up with that, but they do always stop at 10 o 'clock, and after that it's nice.

So, some of the bands are good. They had a really good band last week. I mean, a lot of the people were sitting out on lawn chairs here in the RV park listening to the band. But then sometimes they have bands that aren't all that good, and then there's nothing you can do about it, other than close your windows and turn your music up loud.

Anyway, I've got a long unit. It's 40 feet long, and the truck's 21 feet long. And so, when I'm not hooked up, if it's a 60 footer, I'm sort of sticking out. And so, when you see me doing this thing, it's because a car or an RV or something is passing within inches of the back here, and I'm just always thinking, man, what if they do not plan correctly?

Anyway, let's listen to this presentation. Well, this is 20 minutes long, but I can listen to that. Just the first minute or so to give you a taste of how you can take an old objection that has been refuted, responded to in published form, in video form, in audio form.

It's an argument that requires him to ignore what's going on in his own communion. It's an argument that requires him to assume things about Roman Catholicism that's simply or not true. He could never defend.

I think he knows he could never defend them, but he's never going to put himself in the position of having to do so anyways. But this is, again, how you get clicks. It's sad, especially when he's a convert, still in the honeymoon stage, I guess, or maybe just trying to convince himself.

I don't know. But here's the beginning of it. This is Wes Hough.

If you don't know Wes, he's a Reformed Baptist apologist, probably the internet's favorite defender of the Bible right now. He went viral on Joe Rogan, showing that the New Testament is the preserved book of the ancient world.

And honestly, he's 100 right about that. The manuscripts are incredible. I have zero interest in fighting Wes on manuscripts. But two months ago, Wes released a video called Six Reasons Why I'm Not Roman Catholic.