More Post Debate Discussions

Welcome to Apologetics Live. We're here to answer your questions and challenges about God and the Bible. Meet your hosts from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport, Dr. Anthony Silvestro, and Pastor Justin Pierce.

We are live, but not our normal time. This is again another bonus episode. We tried this once before, but it didn't work so well because, well, we were like at midnight in the Philippines. We wanted to get those in the Philippines to be able to come in and share.

So that kind of makes it difficult. So let me invite Pastor Justin in. Welcome, sir. Good morning. Yes, it is morning for us here, but we did this specifically for those in the Philippines, which it's now about eight or nine o 'clock at night there, I think nine o 'clock.

And we're trying to make it at a time that they're available. We got several pastors that are in the backstage are going to come in. So let us bring folks up to speed with what we're doing, why we're doing it real quick.

We had a debate on Apologetics Live about a week and a half ago with a gentleman by the name of R .A. Fuentes. I think if I pronounce it right, the guys in the Philippines will correct me, hopefully. But I've been trying to work at it because I'd like to make sure I pronounce names correctly.

And so we did this debate with someone who clearly should not be debating. We'll discuss that. We'll also discuss a new article that just dropped at Striving for Eternity. This is a gentleman who wanted to challenge folks.

Actually, anyway, he claimed that no one, no Calvinist pastor is capable of debating him. And so, yeah, well, that was the claim. You know, from my understanding, some people tagged myself and James White and a couple of others and challenged us to debate him.

And I did. I said, I'll debate him. James White said he's not worthy of debating. Exactly. Let me read his exact words. Actually, James White said, R .A. Fuentes Apologetics, first, your thesis statement is a nonstarter.

Now, keep in mind that the thesis statement that he was talking about was that Calvinism is useless and dangerous. This is a post that said that the God of Calvinism is the same as the God of Islam. And so you'll notice that he starts with a thesis statement and then refers to the original post.

That becomes important because you're going to when you watch the behavior of Mr. Fuentes, he will talk about the fact that James White was referring to the original post, but he makes a distinction here.

So he said, first, your your thesis statement is a nonstarter. If you understood scholastic debate, you would know that. Secondly, what qualifies you to engage in meaningful debate in this field? Further, if you came up with a statement above, notice that difference.

If you came up with a statement above, the one that the one that shows such ignorance of both R .A. reformed theology and Islam, why should anyone waste their time? That was Dr. James White. Now, notice the aspects of it.

First, he's saying that the claim Calvinism is useless in debate and dangerous is a it shows a lack of scholastic understanding. So right off the bat, that's he recognized. Second, he points out that, you know, ask the question, what's what is, you know, Mr. Fuentes claims he's done 100 debates.

We're going to question whether that's really the case in as far as real debates. Then the third thing is, he says, you know, if he's agreement with the original thing, it's he shows ignorance. And so we got a new member, actually, I just see this popping up.

So Casey Beaver, welcome to this is a new member to our YouTube channel. So it's a way of supporting Striving for Attorney, which I should have mentioned at the beginning is who hosts this. So this is put on by Striving for Attorney.

You can always join Apologetics Live. Typically, we do this at eight o 'clock to nine o 'clock New York time Thursday nights. So in the Philippines, that'll be Friday morning. We do a live show. You can come in and ask any question.

And we'll leave throw this challenge out. Also, anyone that is watching that happens to know Mr. Fuentes, you are more than welcome to send this to him, send him the link so he could join. This is a difference you're going to see between his behavior and our behavior.

Yeah, he'll block you. Well, he blocks us. He will do shows about us misrepresenting us. But what you don't see him, willing to do is actually join us and discuss these things that tells you a lot about someone's character.

And that's something to note. So just also real quick, just for folks that are, you know, watching, I did put out a Christmas sale on the book. What do we believe for really for more of the I guess the Americans?

I mean, we guess we could ship the Philippines is really costly. We're doing a half off sale for Christmas till the end of the year. You could use Christmas 21 as the coupon code at striving for training .org.

You can get what do we believe at half off. Pastor Nilo has been asking me to get this going in to get it onto Amazon so that we could print it there in the Philippines. I am trying to work on that. I will try to work on it this week.

I do have a busy week. I'll try. But we are also talking about doing some trainings there, at least virtually to the Philippines. So Pastor Nilo was talking, we're going to try and do maybe through him work on some doing some stuff with hermeneutics, how to interpret the Bible, something that Friantes would learn a lot from because he displayed he doesn't understand that in the debate.

Another thing to point out would be that we are working with someone who would like an evangelism training. So we'll try to do that online as well. So that's something that we're going to try to do to help folks out there until we can actually get there and visit.

So with that said, let me talk about a new article that just dropped at striving for eternity. And what I mean, just dropped it. We finalized it this morning. This is an article I plan to write for last week.

I had it written. Something happened. We don't know what and it got deleted. So because of that, I had to rewrite it. And anytime you rewrite an article, it's never as good as the first one. So with that, I wrote this article.

And if you go to strivingforeturning .org, the name of the article is RA Fuentes Apologetics Exposed. And so what this is, and I'm actually going to share the screen real quick before we bring folks in, just to share.

Okay, so here's the article. And what this is, is this is going to explain some of what the purpose of the debate was, how it came about, some of the things that happened prior to the debate. And this is because Mr. Fuentes has made many claims.

And those claims have been hard to prove without evidence. So I say in here that we don't have anything to hide. And that's why we're going to release this. So what I did is explain some of what was going on prior to the debate.

Here's the full debate if you wanted to watch it. We explained some of his behavior during and after the debate. This is some things he said after the debate. Excuse me, I had to cough there for a second.

But he's made many claims. And those claims are hard to understand. Now this was a link to the post discussion that we had. Here's a link to some other articles, including why in the world are we debating RA Fuentes.

This is an article that Pastor Justin wrote, an article that explains, walks you through the whole debate and some of the errors in his logic and what he did. But here is why we're doing, why we put this out.

If you see here, I released all of the communications between myself and RA Fuentes. This is all out there. And so up top, I've explained what you're going to see and all, I think about 30 screenshots here.

They're all there for everybody to see. Now why would we do that? For a very simple reason. We have nothing to hide. This is how we do things. When you have nothing to hide, you can do this. He has made claims throughout.

For example, at one point he claimed that I blocked him. And I released all the communications we had up to that point so people could see he blocked me. He then proudly said that he blocked me because I asked to be blocked.

You'll be able to see that. And you'll see that he actually mentioned that he was going to block me, threatened me with it, and then did so. You will see that he calls me a coward and that I'm trying to get out of the bait like four or five times.

He was saying that I was the one trying to get out of the debate, that I was scared of him and he understood, he understood that I couldn't handle it. Several times I had to tell him we were doing the debate with or without him.

If you watched the debate, you saw that I put up an empty chair when he came in and then left. I was ready to debate an empty chair. If he wasn't going to show, I personally think, Justin, you can tell me if you think I'm wrong, I think I could have provided a better argument for the anti-Calvinist than he did.

I could be wrong, but his argument was so bad. And this isn't a dig on him. It's the point of the argument. It was so bad that I think that I know many people that aren't even Christians that could probably make a better argument than he made because, I mean, anyone that understands debate would pick up that that was, it was, James White said, it's a non-starter and it really was.

So, with that said, why don't we start bringing some folks in that we have backstage here? We'll first bring in, in order that people came in, and what we want to do with this is we wanted to hear from those in the Philippines.

Why? Because you guys are the ones that are local and are having to deal with this man and what's going on. We're just being the facility, kind of the big platform that's being used, in a sense, to help expose this man.

And when we say the big platform, I don't think he's very happy right now. When we did the last post show, we mentioned that we were going to make sure that anyone that searches for him is going to find our articles.

We have about four or five, actually now five or six articles out about his, from the debate, how he interprets incorrectly. The article that Justin wrote on why we were debating him in the first place and going through that, the article I just mentioned, these are starting to rank above everything that he puts out there.

They're ranking above YouTube and Facebook. Why? Because we have content-rich articles that are naming him by name and key for SEO, tied to a website that has a large internet presence. And because of that, it's topping out.

So anytime people search, our goal is to make sure that when they search, these are the things that they find. And a good way to make sure that keeps happening is continue to share, especially Justin's article on why were we debating RA Fuentes.

So go to strivingforturning .org, go to under articles, find that article and share that one a lot. The more that one gets shared, the more people are reading it, the more that's going to stay on top.

And what we want to do is make sure that anybody searching for this guy, this is what they find so that they can do the research and hear the other side and go, Oh wait, I shouldn't be listening to a guy like this.

So with that, let's start with Pastor Nilo. He was the first one in. Welcome Pastor. How are you? So let's see if we can unmute you. No, I think you have to unmute yourself. Good morning. Good evening and good morning.

So, I know we talked last week when we tried to do this and you were the only one that could come in because everyone else was sleeping.

Yeah, we had you up to what, two in the morning? Yes, I woke up accidentally and then before I put myself to sleep by reading some articles and then the chat message showed up and I said, okay.

Yeah, well, we're glad you're there. It was a good conversation.

What he neglected to say is he was reading articles from, you know, Ray Fuentes and that. No, no, no. He was actually reading my sermons is really what he was reading. So, down there in the Philippines, we got to talk to you a little bit last time.

So I do want to try and get others in, but real quick since then, has anything, any new developments that you've seen, any concerns you can share with folks who may not know too much about this individual?

Well, I also, when I started to talk to him about this debate, he was always talking about Calvinism. I talk about Philippians 129 without saying a word about Calvin or Tulip, but they always insert it.

And so he was already giving your God is a monster like this. So I don't want to listen anymore. So I blocked him also.

So you blocked him. Here's a comment that we got, R .A. Fuentes, am I pronouncing it right? Fuentes, right? Yeah. Okay. R .A. Fuentes is simply parroting and even distorting other sources. That's why he's incoherent and often disconnects with what you're saying.

It's actually very sad and pathetic. And this is a good point being made that we ended up seeing in the debate. I think what he's trying to do, and I think we talked about this before we went live, he's trying, I think, to parrot an American, Leighton Flowers.

Now I've debated two followers of Leighton Flowers and neither of them, and I've talked to Leighton about this, saying, look, you got to, at least if you're going to have a thing where you're trying to disciple people, train people, do a better job because they're not understanding the issues.

They're trying to take what he says and what he does. And they think it's, look, Mr. Fuentes proved that in a monologue, he sounds great. Yeah. And that's the problem. Everyone sounds great in a monologue.

Yeah, because nobody's to correct you. Correct. And what he's doing is he's trying to parrot what I think Leighton does. Leighton is an American here. And I say that because I even said that during the debate because Leighton has the same habit of, and Leighton is someone I know personally.

So it's not that we talk, we disagree, but Leighton has a habit of using illustrations as if they're doctrine. And he tries to interpret scripture through illustration as we saw during the debate. But Leighton at least understands what the arguments are.

And that's what we didn't see with Ray. Ray does not understand the arguments. And that's why I want to

The technical terms, it's not Filipino friendly. Well, and the thing is, if you think about when.

We're having this discussion, there's two terms that I've not heard him bring up yet. And I didn't bring them up because I didn't want to give him the ammunition and because he's going to go look it up and try to figure it out.

That's like when we were doing the debate at the end of it, I asked him and Andrew to define the term necessary. If you'll go back to that discussion, he did not want to answer it. He wanted Andrew to answer it first because he couldn't answer his own argument.

And that's why I kept saying define necessary, define necessary. I was trying not to make too big of a deal of it, but I wanted everybody to see it. He couldn't answer for that question. And when Andrew pulled up the dictionary, that's when I knew because he was like, he kept on saying, well, we'll let Pastor Andrew go first.

We'll let Pastor Andrew go first. We'll let Pastor Andrew. And he didn't want to answer it. Now, the question would be, is to ask this guy, you have to catch him off guard. What do these terms mean? What is monergism?

What is synergism? Can you explain the differences? Can you explain what these things are? What is the technical terms and lay them out for him?

Well, one of the things you would see, Justin, you'll see it in the article that just was released in our communications, is the fact that the first thing you do in pre-debate is define terms. That article will expose, one, he didn't want to define terms.

He actually thought defining terms meant that I was trying to get his argument out before he gives it. Which was like, no, I'm just asking you to define the terms. The second thing is he didn't even understand the difference.

And this is why I question whether he has, as he claims, over a hundred formal debates. He's had online debates, just gotten people and they have an argument back and forth. But when it comes to formal debates, and Justin, you saw all of the comments back and forth.

When it comes to formal debates, there's a difference between a rebuttal and a cross-examination. He didn't understand those two. He wanted to start with the opening statements, cross-examination, then rebuttal.

A rebuttal is a rebuttal to the opening statement. So you have an opening statement, you then have the opposite and rebuts your opening statement. And then the cross-examination is a question answer time between the two of you.

He thought the questions were during the rebuttal section. And he wanted to put the rebuttal section after cross-examination. That tells me that he really is not the expert debater he claims in formal debates.

And this is, now note, I understand that he's going to say this is an ad hominem attack, which by the way, exposes he doesn't understand the term. He accused me of doing ad hominem attacks during the debate.

Let me define that for folks who may not know. I noticed we're losing some people in the backstage. So I don't know if it's too late there and they're dropping off, but I hope that those pastors come back in because we're going to get to you guys very soon.

The thing with an ad hominem is when you take, someone makes an argument and you reject the argument, you never answer the argument by, and instead what you do is attack the person personally. So that's what an ad hominem is.

Did I do that during the debate? Well, no, because I actually addressed his issues and we, the debate was a debate that was focused on the issues up until the last like 10, five minutes of the, of the 10 minute closing.

And during the last five minutes, I addressed him and why he should not be debating and exposed him. Now that had nothing to do with his arguments. His arguments had been answered. So I wasn't avoiding the answer of the argument by making a personal attack.

And one thing that's kind of interesting with it is he's claimed that I've been lying and saying things that are false and I have challenged him and his followers just produce for me one thing that I said that is not true.

Just one. I've been asking that now for the two weeks or week and a half, however long it's been since the debate. One thing I said that's false and we haven't had that yet. And the reason that I, I see that, hold on one second.

You need this. Sorry. So, so what you end up seeing is with a, you know, when he claims that I'm saying things, I'm slandering him and things like this. Slander is when you say something knowingly false to damage one's reputation.

So if I'm saying something true and my goal is not to damage his reputation, it's not slander. And so what we end up with is very simple. What I said is true. And I show that in the article. There were many people that contacted me and told me that he was not a pastor.

In fact, here's someone saying this. He is angered when someone called him a fake pastor, but the qualifications on first Timothy three will disqualify him. He's not worthy of being called a pastor. I would say that would be the case because he constantly wants to fight.

He wants to fight with everyone and a pastor should not.

Be a brawler. You know, and you think about it when you, when you portray yourself as, as a minister of the gospel or a pastor. And I, and I mean, I think we're talking to pastors, you know, in this conversation, when you say you're a pastor, your, your first go-to is not to call, you know, I don't agree with you on your understanding of the scripture, which is not definite, definitionally heretical.

So since you don't say something like, um, your, your God's not the God of the Bible, your God's not Christian, you're not a Christian, things like that. You don't talk like that. There, there would be, I hope nobody in this conversation would be, uh, talking that way.

That would be my desire that, that nobody in this conversation side would be saying, uh, just because you're an Arminian or just because you don't believe in all five points, you know, and, and that that's, that's proof of where you're at in your understanding, uh, doctrinally, theologically, and as a Christian.

Well, in their side, it's the norm.

It's the norm to call your God, a small letter G, the God of the Calvinist or your God is like this and like that. And it's a blasphemous, uh, assertion. Yeah. And it is kind of funny that I'm.

Going to try and bring some guys in backstage, uh, from the backstage. Um, it is kind of interesting because he was the one during the debate that, that wanted to, um, he wanted to ask the question whether I thought he was unsaved.

Yeah. He said that multiple times. Yeah. And, and I was not willing to say that someone just because they disagree with Calvinism is not saved. Yeah. Then what did he do? He, he then claimed I wasn't saved based on my view.

I said that several times too. And the irony is he said it, he said that I wasn't saved because I was a Calvinist and Justin, you know that I don't go by that term. So, uh, but let's bring in brother Irwin.

Uh, how are you, sir? Yes. Good evening. And good morning,.

Pastor Justin and Pastor Andrew. Yes. Happy to be here. And you, you were trying to set this up for.

Us the last time. And so glad that we were able to get this to work out. I, I knew you, we got backstage, uh, Don, who you, you had, who's in Guam. Uh, he, he, he woke, he woke me up last night though.

We were have to see, he called me at one in the morning, my time. Oh, well, that's good for you. Yeah. I went to bed early and he gave me a call. So, so you're familiar with this, this gentleman, you saw the debate.

Uh, what, what are you, what are your concerns? What are your thoughts? Um, I just want, I'm just going to open it up to you and I see that you have your screen that you want to share. So, you know, it sounds like you had something you want.

To, you want to play as well. Yeah. Uh, yes, I know this guy. Uh, I think, uh, one year, one year now I, I contacted him after I watched his debate, one of his debates in YouTube. So that's, that's how I, that's how I know this guy.

And then, um, perhaps by God's grace, we, we became acquainted and we actually went together in podcast, in his podcast, dealing with the Seventh-day Adventist because I was a former Seventh-day Adventist.

And then, the, and that time he was, uh, debating the SDAs. That's why I, I, a chance to, to know him. Sure. And I did follow him, you know, then, um, before anything else, please pardon my English because this is not my native language.

Doing well. So yeah, then, then, uh, we were together for many months, you know, we, we've been, uh, exposing the, the, the errors of Seventh-day Adventism and it's, it's in my, it's in my interest to, to do that.

And I was, I was happy because, uh, I have someone like him who, uh, and I believe so that, uh, he, he, he knows the gospel and he knows the, what the new Testament is saying. And that's why I was happy.

And then, uh, all of a sudden in the middle of our, you know, these efforts of evangelizing the Seventh-day Adventist, I was surprised to see his post attacking the Calvinism, even though he's fully, he was fully aware of that.

I am Calvinist. In fact, we were discussing about our differences in our views during our private exchanges. So he was fully aware that I was a Calvinist. And then all of a sudden he started attacking Calvinism.

And that put me into some, you know, I was put into unbalanced situation because how, how, how would I handle this, this situation? We are evangelizing, uh, people who we think, who we thought that are unsaved by giving them the gospel.

And then all of a sudden he's, he's attacking me. So I was lost.

Could I, could I ask you a question, pastor? Um, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Uh, brother, one thing that I received a lot of information from several people, uh, uh, pastor Nilo, I believe even you and I talked about this, um, his, uh, uh, Mr. Fuentes is pastor, former pastor, um, from what I've read is a Calvinist and, um, uh, and believes in the doctrines of grace, uh, and that Mr. Fuentes was saved at a church that, that proclaims to be Calvinistic.

Is that, is that as well? Yeah, I'll give you the, the best information that I have. Pastor Gisalva of Katipunan, Dr. Gisalva, he is really a medical doctor. I knew him since 1979. Okay. So he is, he is really what we will call a freewill, whosoever will, proponent, but he has no attacks or maybe he said he has written some attacks about the doctrine of grace, but he's not prepared to say, uh, that the Tulip people who is also his friends who are also his friends are heretics.

They work together from the Bible practice fellowship and his mentor, an American named Bob Hughes was a Calvinist. And he's the one responsible for teaching the pastors in the Philippines, the Bible Baptist pastors about Calvinism.

And the Bible Baptist, uh, uh, his name is Noel Smith. If you know him, he's the, uh, editor of Baptist Tribune. He's the one whom we always go. And it is confirmed that he said, God is the greatest failure in the universe because he tried to save all, but he failed to save all he prayed.

He can save only some and he's compensating that. The Pope said that too, by the way. Yeah. From this, uh, background from Bob Hughes, he chose somebody who is not really a full-fledged Calvinist. He drove the church to a freewillism and then his son is now the pastor.

This is the background of the Bible college where, uh, R .A. Fuentes came from. Okay. So, so he did go to Bible college, you're saying? Uh, everyone knows more. Okay. Yeah. I can say that.

Okay. He, in fact, he is just as high school graduate. Okay. So he has no, he has no training.

Yeah. No. Uh, I couldn't, I could not say he doesn't have a training. Yeah. No, I cannot say that. What I'm saying is he doesn't have a degree. Yeah. He doesn't have a college degree.

So he has no formal type training. Go ahead, Andrew. So Erwin, this is the thing you asked.

The question, how does someone kind of get here? Right. Um, how do you go from working with Calvinists to, you know, this is something he put up recently. Calvinism is not only cultic, but it is also demonic, anti-Bible, anti-Christo, uh, have another gospel and attack the character of God.

So it's like, how do you go from working with Calvinists to something like that? Right. You know, you, you knew him from what I understand. He, he started off debating Muslims, uh, and, and people, he kind of got a name for himself, people from what I can gather.

He, people felt he was doing very good with that. Uh, you came in touch with him after he started to debate on the topic of Southern day, seven day Adventism. And he, he gathered, got a name for that.

And one of the things, and I know you said, you think he, he, he knows the gospel. I, I, I kind of, I, I'm going to have to disagree only to in the extent of when he was asked to explain the gospel in the debate, he couldn't really do it.

It looked like he was reading something. He's like, well, I would explain this. I would explain that. I would explain, I would point a point B it's, it looked like he was reading an outline, not really explaining like you, I challenge anybody to go listen to how he shared the, he would share the gospel with people, not that aren't believers in how I did and ask which one of us was sharing the gospel and which one of us was just making, I, uh, uh, you know, reading a semester outline, but here's, here's how someone gets this way.

And, and pastor dress and I've seen this in America a lot. You get somebody who gets, they make a name for themselves, however, it is debating Islam. People start following them. And, and then it kind of, they're, they're marked.

There's no one left to debate. No one's, no one in those circles are paying attention to you anymore. And so what do they do? They find someone else to go after. And so maybe seven day Adventists, if that's popular there, you get a, you get an audience again.

And those that said, Oh man, this guy was solid on, on Islam. Cause, cause there, even though you may disagree within Christian theology, you're agreeing that Islam's bad. So what do you do? You agree with, you agree with them and think this guy's really good now, seven day Adventism.

Oh, well he's really good on that because again, we, we agree on that. That's bad. And then he starts going with the Calvinism. Yeah. Why does it to be able to do this? Because what happens is when people, and I don't know if this is Mr. Fuentes his heart, cause I can't judge that even though he judged my motives.

I don't go doing that. I'm explaining a general behavior that we see with people. And it seems that he fits that behavior. That behavior being is when people sit there and they, they they're trying to find someone else to go after, to get attention for themselves, to, to draw attention to themselves, make a name for themselves, get clicks or, or likes or views on, on social media.

When they're doing things like that, they're doing it specifically because they want to get attention. And so they'll keep going after other people. They're going to keep attacking, keep it. So if he doesn't get enough attention on Calvinism, that if that dies out, he'll find someone else.

Probably. Now, here's one thing I want to add to that for you, for, for you guys to think about this. Andrew and I've talked about this many times before, and I just want to lay this out publicly when we're going to debate somebody.

And Andrew will, will, will affirm this. You want to use the very best debaters with the very best arguments. I don't want to use somebody that's weak-kneed that just goes to ad hominems that always goes to the lowest hanging fruit.

Oh, your God is this, your God is that. Now here's the thing. When you are, when you have somebody that's with you or in your camp that is parroting these low hanging fruit, it sounds really good. Even with Islam, you got people saying, Oh, you know, their God's a monster and their God's this and their God's that.

And, and it sounds good to you. So you're like, Oh, he's a good guy. He's a good guy. No, listen to what he actually said about Islam. I don't know. But if you go back and you listen to what he actually said about Islam, ask yourself, is this what the Muslim believes?

And is this what the scholar believes? Because if you're going to have a debate and an argument with Seventh-day Adventist, Muslims, whoever else, Buddhist, Hindus, Christians, Calvinist, Armenians, whatever position, use the very best arguments.

Because I mean, even if, even if they're wrong and you believe they're wrong, don't go for the easy stuff. Yeah. Go for the stuff that actually requires some thought and so that you can learn and you can defend Christianity from the very best of the arguments, not from the way he does this.

You know, let, let me say something to that for folks that, to, to, to note is, you know, one of the things that I, when I started to get into, I became a Christian and started to get into apologetics is I had a rabbi that had, was trying to convert me back to Judaism.

And he asked me to review a bunch of cassette tapes. Yes, that tells you how long ago it was. Some of you don't know what a cassette tape is. I understand. Just go, go, go on DuckDuckGo, do a search for cassette tape and you'll, you'll, you'll figure that out.

But, but I had, I had hours and hours of cassette tapes of this guy, Ravi, sorry, not Ravi Zacharias, of how now I'm trying to think of his name. Yeah, I'm trying to, I'll think of his name. But, but there's a rabbi who debate, he basically is known for arguing against Christianity.

Okay. Tovia Singer. I knew if I stopped thinking about it, I'd remember. So Tovia and I spoken to Tovia, he challenged me to a debate. He actually made a banner saying that we were going to debate. And he's, he's never been willing to set that debate up.

But the, the reality is what I noticed is as someone who understands Christianity, he speaks to an audience of Jewish people that do not know Christianity at all. And he is seen to be an expert on Christianity.

In fact, the rabbi told me when he gave me the cassettes that, you know, that this rabbi, Tovia Singer knows his, his New Testament as well as he knows his Tanakh, the, what we call the Old Testament.

Right. And I listened to him and I realized he was confusing Mormonism and Catholicism. But to his audience, they don't know any better. Yeah. Yeah. The audience doesn't know Christianity. And so his audience thinks he's brilliant.

And I have said publicly that I, I've, and I offered the rabbi, I will debate Tovia Singer anywhere, anytime. Now, this is a guy who actually is a good debater. He, he does do debates. And so it would be a much better debate.

And he's, he accepted it and actually, you know, tried very much to get in touch with me and to do the debate. And then I think when he found out how I debate and you know, my arguments, we've never set that up.

And so, I mean, the challenge is still out there because the reality is when we stand on truth, we don't have to worry about playing games, like, you know, misrepresenting people and things like that.

And this is the thing with, with a proper debate. And that's why, you know, I'm glad I saw some folks that were offering to, to Ray and his followers to come in here. I have no fear. Why? Because I, I'm standing on the truth of God's word and the truth of what I've said.