Papal Disunity, Historical Anachronism, Challenge to Provisionists, and More

Greetings and welcome! We are demonstrating clearly that Rich is reaching that age where reaction time is slowing down a lot.

I'm just sitting here. Okay, that's the time in the song where something's supposed to be happening,

I think. Yeah, okay, all right. You're still driving, right? Driving, okay. Sorry.

Hey, you know, you can either complain about getting old or you can laugh at it. One of the two. You know, you might as well have some fun at it.

Anyway, welcome to the program. Got a lot to cover today and probably won't get through all of it, but hey, we'll give it a shot.

I don't want, you know, we did two programs last week on the, uh, on Roman Catholicism, Mary, Co -Redemptrix,

Co -Mediatrix, and, you know, we're looking at Mark Muir Valley stuff and all the rest of that stuff.

So I want to start off with a development in that area and then we're going to talk about David Allen and First John 5 -1 and we've got some other stuff we might get to, might not.

I've got it up here on the screen, whether we'll get to it this program or next, I don't know. I really need to wrap up right at the hour mark today.

In the Yes, Rome is Completely Unified About Everything file, I saw a article, excuse me, an article titled

Bishop Athanasius Schneider Responds to the Vatican's New Doctrinal Note on the

Marian Titles Co -Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces. Then the subquote, uh, this is by Diane Mantagna, the saints, doctors, and the ordinary magisterium of the church could not have been mistaken.

And, um, you can probably, if you, if you search for Diane Mantagna, M -O -N -T -A -G -N -A, uh,

November 10th, it was yesterday. I think this was in Substack, as I recall.

Um, fascinating stuff, fascinating stuff. Um, yeah, okay.

Uh, it is in Substack. So one of the things that was mentioned here, uh, after it quotes from the text, what's interesting, there's been a change in the, in the, uh, in the document, at least the

English version, a change. Um, when it was released, note 22 of the

English text read, it would not be appropriate to use the title

Co -Redemptrix to define Mary's cooperation. However, this passage was later changed to read by the

Vatican, it is always inappropriate to use the title

Co -Redemptrix to define Mary's cooperation. And then when they look at what, what's interesting here is, um,

Vatican spokesman, Matteo Bruni said today, he believes the English was corrected to better reflect the original

Spanish, the original Spanish. And so as siempre inopportune, well, they sort of messed it up there, inopportuno al, don't claim to speak

Spanish. Um, siempre though, sounds like always, so that would be, uh, and sempre is the

Latin, of course, closely related. Um, so that's, check this out, at its

November 4th presentation held the Jesuit headquarters in Rome, that tells you something, DDF Prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Tucho Fernandez, specified that Mater Populi, Populi Fideli, the document, in Latin, of course, had been written during the pontificate of Pope Francis, and that Pope Leo XIV had made some modifications to the text.

Isn't it interesting that the document very specifically says that Francis was opposed to the use of this language?

Is this just sort of cleaning up a mess that didn't get dealt with during his pontificate possibly?

Um, but it's interesting. Um, so, and then it says, it is unclear why the word inappropriato was chosen in the

Italian text rather than inopportuno, especially as the latter term has historically been used in theological debate.

The official English text seems to follow the Italian. Interesting, always.

Now, there have already been people, they, they even had the mumbler on, um, who had the mumbler on?

I think Matt Fratt had the mumbler on. Um, Mr. Albrecht, uh, that was what we called him long, long, long ago.

I mean, we knew about him when he first started a long time ago. Um, they even had him on to talk about this stuff.

And so all these people, they're trying, the Pope's planning is taking place in high gear.

And, you know, they didn't, didn't really deny any of this theology. That it's just, you know, a slight correction, always inappropriate.

Interesting, interesting. Well, uh, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, they could not have been mistaken.

The voice of the saints, doctors, and the ordinary magisterium of the church in affirming Mary as co -redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces.

He's saying, no, you got it wrong. You have, you have blown it.

You've missed it. And what was fascinating, I mean, again, I told you, um,

Mark Mill Valley, I think, makes a considerably stronger argument, uh, that the trajectory that has brought us perpetual virginity, queen of heaven, uh, immaculate conception, bodily assumption, all the rest of leads rather naturally, um, to the use of these other terms.

Uh, that seems much more organic than this sudden tapping of the brakes. And I, I really think it could be a temporary tapping of the brakes, to be honest with you.

We'll, we'll see what comes of that. But what was fascinating is

I'm reading through what Schneider says and, you know, there's all these quotes.

And again, most of the quotes starting in the late 1800s from popes. We already talked about that in the previous programs, but what really got me was, uh, right at the end, we have this, uh, and St.

Ephraim the Syrian, a fourth century doctor of the church. Now the term doctor of the church is anachronistic.

Of course, there was no terminology like that at the time. Um, but St. Ephraim the

Syrian fourth century, so middle of the three hundreds who is very venerated by the church as the harp of the

Holy spirit prayed thus. And then we have this quote. Now listen to this quote, my lady, most

Holy mother of God and full of grace, thou art the bride of God through whom we have been reconciled after the

Trinity. Thou art the mistress of all things. After the paraclete, thou art another comforter. And after the mediator, thou art the mediatrix, the whole world, the salvation of the universe after God, thou art all our hope.

I salute thee. Oh, great mediatrix of peace between men and God, mother of Jesus, our Lord, who is the love of all men and of God to whom be honor and benediction with the father and the

Holy ghost. Amen. Three hundreds. Immediately.

I knew that's another forgery. The Roman Catholics are at it again.

We've got a bishop coming up with a quote. I look it up. Yep. Came from the 16th century or maybe 17th.

Might have been 17th century. Long after Ephraim was dead and gone, we're going to cram some words in his mouth.

And it's so anachronistic. This is what we're running into. And I may get to this.

I don't think I will today. But there's another context in which massive anachronism, a couple context in which massive anachronism is being thrown at us.

And people who have internet education are going to be completely subject to being bamboozled by this kind of stuff.

Because internet education, and you might say, well, we're listening to you.

Yeah, but you notice something? We don't use a bunch of fancy graphics and CGI. We're not trying to get your emotions going.

You're just watching me talk. So this would be the same as if I'm in a classroom.

This is not a program of entertainment. This is a program of education.

We actually invite our audience to think and to actually concentrate for more than 16 seconds at a time.

So we're not doing the internet education, colorful ways of using graphics and lighting and stuff like that to create mood and all the rest of that stuff.

I mean, next week, I'm going to be wearing a Coogee sweater for crying out loud. I mean, you have to actually fight past it to get to the message.

Rich is just sitting there going like that. You're going to be ill next week at this time?

Okay, great. You just wait till I buy you your own. And then you're going to feel so guilty.

You're going to wear it. You will. But anyway, that's not what we're trying to do.

Internet educated people are impressed by how something is said, by the presentation, by the context, the music, the lighting, the graphics, so on and so forth.

And as such, someone could just stand there and as long as they seem sincere, they'll be believed no matter how utterly out of context and absurd what they're saying is.

Okay, so let me give an example. Mormons. The Mormons are all over the net all of a sudden.

I don't know if they've always been there and the algorithm just discovered them or just what, I don't know.

But they're all over the place. And one of the things that I'm seeing, when we talk about the Book of Mormon, we go back and the

Book of Mormon talks about the Nephites and Lamanites having battles and wars on horses and chariots and they've got bows and arrows and armor and they're drawing their swords and chopping people up and all the rest of this kind of fun stuff.

People in Mesoamerica didn't have any of that stuff. They didn't have horses and chariots and steel swords and all the rest of this stuff.

And years ago, I'm in a little cramped radio studio, KTKK in Salt Lake City, Utah, on the

Martin Tanner Show and I'm taking on two BYU professors, key figures in farms,

Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. And I bring up this issue and here's one of them, he has literally said in his writings that what's really being referred to, because he recognizes, yeah, they didn't have swords back then.

And the Book of Mormon has a guy pulling a sword out of its sheath and it glints in the light. We all know what that is.

He tries to say that that was a war club with obsidian rocks embedded in it because they did have that.

And that's an example of, first of all, anachronism in the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith didn't know what they had in the ancient world. He wasn't a prophet. He didn't know what he was talking about. He's making it up as he's going along.

He's assuming things happened here that happened in the old world and that they had the same kind of metallurgy and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

So he just did a face -plantingly bad job. He got the money system completely wrong and what was precious here and what was precious in the old world, gold, silver, and so on and so forth.

They did barter with jade and cocoa beans. But anyway, he's trying to find a way to fit this in.

Now, the Book of Abraham, I'm looking today, here's this guy, claims to have a

PhD in something, saying, you know, we found a new way to read hieratic

Egyptian. Oh, a new way to read an ancient dead language that we can somehow use to try to come up with Joseph Smith actually being accurate about something.

I mean, it is so obvious that here in this Roman Catholic bishop, he has his finished goal, and that is merry as choreodemtrics and comediatrics.

History is just simply Plato in his hand. Saint Ephraim, cram any words into his mouth you want.

Does he know this is a fake citation? I don't know. He should. Maybe he doesn't.

Maybe he was just, you know, there's all these, you know, do you really think that Alphonsus Liguori was careful with his sources and double -checked all his citations?

I don't think so. Nope. Nope. If it says merry's something, use it.

Great. We're fine. So this is the kind of stuff you see. You see it in Mormonism.

You see it in Roman Catholicism. And right now, I'll just mention this in passing. We'll get to another point.

There's a film, a video running around on YouTube less than half an hour long. A book that came out last year.

Self -published book. It's not a work of scholarship. It has not been accepted in scholarship. It has not been reviewed in scholarship.

It's not peer -reviewed by any stretch of the imagination. And what they're trying to do is there is a writer whose works had a really deleterious effect upon what called itself the

Christian Church at the time, broadly. And he's known as Pseudo -Dionysius.

Dionysius, of course, is Dionysius the Areopagite from Acts chapter 17.

Remember, Paul preaches. They shut him up when he talks about the resurrection. But it says some people listened and followed

Christ, and one of them was Dionysius there from the Areopagus. So he's called Dionysius the

Areopagite. Well, everybody knows that what happens for hundreds of years in Christian history is that people would take any name, any name in the

New Testament, and would write books in the name of that person. There's pseudo -everything.

There are pseudo -Ignatian epistles. I mean, despite all the argumentation about the different recensions of Ignatius, there's other stuff that everybody agrees clearly is demonstrated it had nothing to do with the time of Ignatius and was written in a much later period of time.

There are literally hundreds of books that were produced that they've written hundreds of years after someone is dead, and they slap their name on it to try to get sales, basically, is what they did.

Well, Pseudo -Dionysius is written somewhere around the year 500. So it's in the middle of the that is deeply influenced by a particular kind of Greek philosophy, especially the works of Proclus, who lived a matter of decades before that.

And everybody's agreed about that. I mean, Roman Catholics and Protestants and the people who have written the studies that have demonstrated that Pseudo -Dionysius was written around the year 500.

Most of them do not have a dog in this fight. They're just scholars.

They're getting their PhD in a certain subject. They're not trying to prove one thing or another thing. They're not trying to disprove that or promote that.

It's just a field of study for them. Now we've got this video floating around.

And we've got some guys, they've put out this book. It's not peer -reviewed. It's not being used in academia. But they say, new research.

There's no new manuscripts. There's nothing like that. All they're doing is attacking what everyone else has said.

Well, we clearly see that it's borrowing from this. It's borrowing from this. It's extremely dependent on Proclus.

Proclus wrote at this period of time, so it has to be after that since it's dependent upon that. They are literally trying to promote the idea.

And they're dead serious about it. That this body of literature, and it's a substantial body of literature, is actually written by Dionysius, the person mentioned in the

New Testament, its first century. This would be the biggest body of first century

Christian writing ever found outside the New Testament. It would revolutionize the entire view of church history.

It would. But no one believes it, except these guys. And now this movie, this film, is running around, and the

Eastern Orthodox are promoting it. Because it has veneration of images, or at least a kind of veneration of images.

And they are desperate, desperate to find what has become the central defining aspect, in light of the

Second Nicene Council, of Eastern Orthodox worship in the first century. I'm astonished.

The level of anachronism that is required to come up with this kind of argumentation.

You would think someone would go, wow, this would be revolutionary. I'm sure all of the

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox scholarship, Protestant, even the secularists, they all must be going, wow, this is amazing.

No, they're not, because nobody takes it seriously. But there are people believing it, and they don't care.

Oh, those academics, what do they know? We're not going to worry about the fact that it's obviously absurd.

I mean, Pseudo -Dionysius is taking the categories of Proclus, and he's translating them into a semi -Christian context.

Proclus, the idea that Proclus was borrowing from Dionysius, when he has no interest in the

Christian faith, or anything like that, it's just, it's stultifying.

You're just left going, come on, guys, think. If this guy, who tradition says became

Bishop of Athens, if this guy produced this massive body of literature, where's the references to it by Tertullian?

I mean, Justin Martyr, the man who wore a pallium, the

Greek philosopher's pallium his entire life to his death, you don't think he'd be all over that, quoting it right, left, and center?

Of course he would. Where's the references in the 1st century? Where's the references in the 2nd century?

Where's the references in the 3rd century? Where's the references in the 4th century? Well, Eusebius mentions, yeah, he mentions the guy in Acts 17.

He's not, there are no quotes at all in that time period.

It just all of a sudden disappeared, only to reappear 500 years later, 400 years later.

I mean, you're just left going, guys, this is utterly indefensible. Don't you realize that by promoting this kind of stuff, you're saying to the whole world, we don't actually have anything solid to give you.

So we're just going to make stuff up while we're at it. And that's, yeah, just something there, something there.

Yeah. And that's exactly what this quotation of St. Ephraim the Syrian is. It's made up and anybody who reads it should recognize that's advanced

Marian dogma that did not exist. Even Rome's own scholars have admitted this for a long, long time.

It's just, yeah. Okay. It's pretty amazing, but internet education is not the same as in -person scholarly education.

It's just not. So there you've got stuff going on.

All right. Shift gears here. I, for some reason, cannot get any camera views from anything today.

I have no idea why that is. I have attempted numerous times and it's just like, nope, I'm not going to work today.

So I may find that both of our vehicles are gone by the time we get out of here. But because you're not watching, that's the thing that bugs me.

I mean, oh, good. All right. That's good. I'm glad you're watching. I was watching it and it never puts them at the same place.

It's just maddening. All right. I brought it back up. We'll see how long it lasts. Okay. I wanted to, well, where'd it go?

There it is. A number of weeks ago, we addressed, well, actually

I was on the road. I remember I was on the road. I had stopped.

I remember I was at Chewy's in Amarillo. There's a

Chewy's on I -40 in Amarillo. That's when I'm staying at the Amarillo KOA, I run over there and I love

Chewy's. I mean, Chewy's chips and salsa is just awesome.

Somebody gave me a gift card there once as part of my honorarium and I thought that was just awesome. Anyway, I remember being at Chewy's and I was, this was, remember what happened.

David Allen went on the webcast with the guys from Trinity Seminary and they were talking him up and he's just the best at this and the best at that.

And first John 5 -1 came up and, oh man, no one can answer all this stuff. You've written a commentary on this.

And they're just patting him on the back and all the rest of the time. So I remember writing to Rich and going, hey,

I think this is the commentary. It is available electronically. Could you grab it for me real quick? And he sends me the link and I grab it and I'm reading through it.

And there was an article. You wrote this article and I tracked the article down. I read the published stuff he's done at Chewy's because it's not long and it's not in depth.

The first John commentary is purely devotional. It is not exegetical. It is not critical.

It's just purely devotional. And I noticed something.

The Potter's Freedom came out in 2000, I think.

And so it's been out for a quarter of a century. And if you read the

Potter's Freedom in first John 5 -1, I present an argument. I've presented that argument many times on this program.

I have presented it in writing. I've presented it in published works. And I'm not the only one that's presented it.

I didn't come up with this on my own. But for some reason, David Allen does not seem to be aware of the argument.

And so I presented it again a few weeks ago on this program responding to his appearance on the webcast.

And we walked through it again. No answer. I don't expect answers from David Allen because I don't believe he can provide answers.

And I think he knows he can't provide answers. And his followers should know he cannot provide answers.

And so no answer was forthcoming. All right. So a few days ago, he says, some

Calvinists have been upset about my comments about first John 5 -1. Here's some more comments. And what does he do? Continues to ignore the refutation that has been offered.

Now, do I believe that he listens to anything that I say? No. No. I've come to the conclusion that David Allen's one of those guys, there's been a lot of these guys

I've met down through my life, when they know they're whistling in the dark, when they know they are punching way above their weight, the way they deal with that is they just don't listen to the answers.

They don't listen to the criticism. They just, it's the classic whistling in the dark as you walk by the graveyard type thing.

I don't hear anything, no refutation, no. So when we did Romans 8, we had his books stacked right here.

I'm quoting them and I'm demonstrating the errors. And you would think that if someone's doing that, you're going to respond.

Nope. Whistling in the dark as you walk by the graveyard. So just a matter of days ago, he does it again.

And I'm like, okay, all right. I'm going to do this segment of the program. I'm going to put this graphic up on X.

I'm going to tag him and I'm going to challenge all provisionists. Are there any of you that have got the guts to stand up and be counted, to quit hiding in the shadows and to engage this argument?

Because so far, nobody has. Layton Flowers hasn't. To my knowledge, of course, Layton Flowers will do four hours in response to 10 minutes on the program.

But Layton Flowers does not have the academic train to engage this. He has demonstrated that clearly.

He will run to somebody else. Alan will run to somebody else. But I don't think he will.

I think he will just don't say anything. Don't say anything. Let it slide. It'll go away. And six months later, he'll repeat the same stuff again.

That seems to be the provisionist methodology. So let's put this up on the screen.

And that works fairly well to have me down there in the corner. Doesn't cover anything. That's good. Okay. First John is a single unitary document.

I don't know of anyone that theorizes that it was written in different parts or anything like that.

And so when you are looking at a particular construction, let me give you a parallel.

And I may have given you this parallel before, but I'll repeat it now. When we look at second

Peter, and we look at his use of what's called the Granville Sharp construction. In second

Peter 1 .1, where Jesus identified as our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, there are four of the

Granville Sharp constructions in second Peter. And they're all translated our

Lord and Savior. No one questions that. So what that means is if you're going to be consistent in a documentary context.

So within the context of a document. So context has different, you have the immediate close context of the verse itself, the sentence itself.

And then you have the paragraph. And then you have conceptually what we would, we might call a chapter.

And then you have the document. And then you have the author. And then you have, say, epistolary literature in the

New Testament over against gospel or apocalypse or things like that. So you've got widening context.

So you've got the entire New Testament and you've got the entire Bible. This is an examination of 1

John 5 .1 in the context of 1

John itself. You will notice what Alan does is he doesn't do it within 1 John. He runs off to John chapter 3.

Well, that's the gospel. Stay with the near context. The near context is 1

John itself. There are two parallel passages, grammatically and syntactically.

Construction is identical in 1 John. So you've got 1 John 2 .29 and 1

John 4 .7. So for those of you who aren't familiar with this debate, 1 John 5 .1,

everyone, pas hapistuon, hati Iesus est in hac Christos, ectha you gegenei ta.

Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God.

Okay? So the issue is pas hapistuon.

Now that, you don't have to read Greek. You don't have to be able to hear Greek and interpret it.

You've heard that one before because we do have that in John chapter 3.

And it's everyone believing. But as you know, in English, very often that is rendered as whosoever or whoever.

But it's literally pas, everyone, hapistuon. Hapistuon is a substantival participle, the one believing, present tense.

Now tense is diminished in participial usage, especially with the article, which is what we have here.

But it's still there. So it's everyone believing that Jesus is the

Christ has been born from God. It does not say everyone believing that Jesus is the

Christ will, as a result of so believing, be born of God. It is saying that being born of God is the foundation of why anyone is, right now, believing that Jesus is the

Christ. That's supernatural faith. That pastuon comes from being born of God.

Now, they say, no, no, no, you're reading way too much into it. No, the normal, it's everywhere else, it's believe and then have life.

Well, there's a difference between having life and what it means to be gegeneitai, reborn, regenerated.

But before we get into all that, let's look at the other two passages. Let's look at the parallel passages in 1

John and ask ourselves some questions. So 1 John 2 .29. Now, these are not the entire text.

You can go look at them. Nothing that I have not put on the screen impacts the syntactical analysis of the relationship of gegeneitai to the present participle.

And if you say it does, prove it. Don't just assert it, prove it. Demonstrate you know what you're talking about.

Okay? So, kai pos ha poion, tein te kai sunen ex autu gegeneitai.

So, and everyone doing righteousness, poio, poion is the present participle of poio, the one doing righteousness, working righteousness, from him has been born, has been born of him.

So, ex autu would be directly parallel to ectu theu in 1 John 5 .1,

born by him and then born of God in 5 .1.

Gegeneitai is identical, genao, to be regenerated, born, and the participle is ha poion, the one doing.

So, if our provisionist friends are right, that the one believing that Jesus is the

Christ has been born from God and that the believing is what results in being born of God, then we have in 1

John 5 .1 a situation where the action of the participle, it's a substantival participle, so it's describing what somebody is doing, in this case being a believer, results in something else.

So, their assertion is yes, that believing results in being born of God.

Okay? So, 1 John 2 .29, the one doing righteousness has been born from him.

So, to be born again, you must do what? You must work righteousness.

The result of working righteousness, is there a reason you're holding on there? Yes, it is. I really think, given the folks that you're talking about, and two here, you have a pointer on the screen.

I really think you need to point at the words so that they understand where it is that you're, here's the word we're talking about and this is what it means.

The entire response to this entire program will be based on Rich Pierce's condescending attitude toward provisionists.

You just watch. You just watch. You got a point, man. You gotta show them. Yeah. Okay. All right.

So, everyone doing righteousness has been born from him.

So, if the believing results in being born of God, then doing righteousness is what you must do to be born again.

Right? That's your position. I mean, they are syntactically identical.

Same author, same book. Now, there are people who believe this. Roman Catholics go, yep, yep, you got it.

There are lots of Roman Catholics going, there you go. But that's the position you're in.

And that's not what provisionists believe. At least that's not what they say they believe. They may adopt it just simply to get out of this,

I suppose. I don't know. But we're not done. 1 John 4, 7, I don't like putting my thing in the way.

It's all your fault. I'm getting it out of the way now. I'll use the pointer later. So, here's gegenetai.

See, there's gegenetai, gegenetai, and gegenetai. Same verb to be born. All right?

And ek -tutheyu, ex -altu, and ek -tutheyu of God.

God's the one that's done it. The only difference is ex -altu. The only reason this is an x instead of ek is because this starts with a vowel.

It's the same phrase. So, everyone loving has been born from God.

So, you are born again by loving, right? Right?

That's what it says. So, there is some kind of special loving that you have to produce to be born again.

There is some kind of doing of righteousness that you have to do to be born again. And hence, there is some kind of believing that you have to do to be born again, right?

Congratulations. You would have been accepted at the Council of Trent, okay?

But, provisionists say that that's not what they're saying. They say we're saved by faith, and faith alone.

They try to say sola fide. I don't really think they believe it, but they try to say it. But, if you're going to be consistent, show me these same constructions.

Anywhere else in 1 John, it says something else. There aren't any. So, the one doing righteousness has been born of him.

The one loving has been born of God, and the one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. And I simply say to you, if you believe what the

Bible teaches, that we need a heart of flesh rather than a heart of stone, that we need to be made free by the

Son, that those who are in the flesh cannot please God, then all this makes perfect sense.

Why is anyone doing righteousness? Because we've been born of God. Why is anyone loving? Because they've been born of God.

Why is anyone believing that Jesus is the Christ? Because they've been born of God. We see that last one, the provisionist, is unwilling to even consider.

And therefore, this is why, in my opinion, David Allen, maybe he's just completely ignorant of it.

Maybe he just totally shuts everything out. Maybe he doesn't read any other perspectives. I don't know.

I really don't know. But, he's written commentaries on 1

John. He's written articles on 1 John, where he's addressed 1 John 5 .1. He's on webcasts.

He's our guy. He's our scholar. And he has never responded to this.

So, real simple, Dr. Allen, there it is. There it is on your screen. Tell us.

Tell the world, why is James White wrong? But the only way you can do that is to engage the language.

Engage what I've said. Engage the concept of context. Specifically, the context of this specific book itself.

Don't sit there and start quoting this and quoting that and quoting this. Deal with the text, sir.

You don't do that. It's maddening. You don't deal with the text. You throw quotes to avoid the text, not to deal with the text.

I think you know that in your heart of hearts. That's why you won't debate. You would never want to have to answer these questions in a debate with the cameras running.

No, you're not going to do it. I know you're not going to do it. But there's your challenge.

Put it out there. But I think everybody in the audience needs to understand what kind of response is required here.

And it needs to be on the same level as which I've given the challenge. And everybody knows what that is.

Everybody knows that, right? Okay. There you go. Thank you for putting that up there.

And like I said, a little pointer thingy, thingy, thing of a bobby bobber.

Anyway, yeah, it's going to help them a lot. Sure it is. Okay. All right.

It got in the way of my reading is what it did. But anyway, yeah,

I'm going to have to make reference to this. Two nights ago,

David Wood did a six plus hour marathon video thing.

I would never sit in front of a webcam for six hours. How do you do that? I'm in my 60s.

I can't sit in front of a camera for more than two hours without just going, we're going to take a break now.

No, ain't going to happen. So I don't know if they took breaks or not, to be honest with you.

Maybe they did. Anyway, I have worked with David in the past.

I think, yeah, David moderated the debate I did with Nadar Ahmed.

We've disagreed about stuff. We disagreed about the Jesus and Muhammad stuff and how that was being handled and the approach there.

We've gotten together. We've run into each other at conferences and stuff like that.

He's a brilliant guy. I thought his conversion video about his life, he attempted to murder his dad with a hammer, prison conversion, um, really well done.

Uh, he's a, he's a sharp guy. We disagree on method methodology on a lot of things. We really do.

So we haven't worked together in a while and I don't keep up with what he's doing and I don't expect him to keep up with what

I'm doing. Um, you know, I see stuff once in a while popping up in my feed and I know he's still out there doing his thing.

So as everybody knows, um, number of years ago,

Sam Shamoon started attacking and he would come after me. And what happened initially is it happened two or three times and I would forgive him and we would reconcile and we'd have a good conversation and things would be good for a while.

And then here it comes again. And it wasn't like we were having conversations in the side where things go south and it became public.

No, it was, it would always just be all of a sudden, hey, did you hear what Sam Shamoon said about you? Two hour harangue about how you're the worst thing on the planet.

So eventually, you know, I had told him very clearly that his pride, his anger, his arrogance, and his utter incapacity to control his tongue would destroy his ministry.

And it has complete, I mean, nuclear fireball type destroyed his ministry.

It's done. Gone. To anybody with any kind of discernment at all. And he admitted all that stuff back in the day.

I know, I know I'm a wretched sinner. Pray for me. I know, I know. And he still says stuff like that. Still throws it out there.

Well, for a long time, he piled around with David Wood. And I was like,

David, you know, because he was just getting nastier and nastier and nastier. And initially he was just nasty toward Muslims.

Just, just so far beyond any kind of meaningful Christian behavior that it's not even funny.

And he'd always defend it. Well, you know, the prophets use harsh words and, you know, you know how that works with these folks.

And I was always like, David, man, you got to, you got to pull the plug on this.

I mean, this guy's going to take you right down. Well, a couple of days ago, as I said, I think it was two days ago,

I, someone forwarded me or it showed up in my feed, I forget. But David posted about a six minute video.

I cannot play this video on the program. The language is far beyond anything that I, I, I suppose

I could have edited in bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep, bleeps, but I'm not going to take the time to do that.

It is just a simple collection of citation of, of, and I'm sure it could be expanded immensely, but it is a representative sample of the kind of behavior that Sam Shamoon engages in all the time now against anyone that he feels has slighted, disagrees with him.

He will attack with a level of vile, satanic language that would make anyone blush, except him.

And now he's going after David Wood. Evidently, and I don't know all the details. I watched some of it.

I listened to some of the six hour, I, I, I didn't, I listened to 10 minutes of it, but I listened to some of the six hour thing that David Wood did with,

I think it's apostate prophet AP. And I guess AP is getting a divorce or something.

And Sam Shamoon felt that David Woods should disassociate with him. And I'm like, Sam Shamoon said that, but with his background, he's what, you're, you're kidding me.

Um, and so first, so they did the six hour thing.

And then he put together this like six minute video with just this, again, satanic nastiness flowing from his mouth, just, just uncontrolled.

And what was interesting was David even said, he says, you know,

I've done worse in my life. David wasn't sitting there saying I'm pure as the driven snow.

He was saying I've done worse in my life, but at least I admit it. Sam won't admit it.

He's just, he's losing his mind and he is, there's no question about it.

He's just lost all, all self -control whatsoever. There's, there is no fruit of the spirit whatsoever in man's life.

It's just, it's gone. And he was warned of this. He was told about this. So we have in years past, uh, worked with Sam, the man knows

Islam very, very well, an encyclopedia of knowledge, but it doesn't matter what knowledge you have.

It doesn't. When, when you will, when you simply refuse to control your anger and to control your tongue, this is what has happened.

And of course the Muslims think this is great. Muslim, the people engage, the Da 'i, the people engaging in Da 'i, they think this is the most awesome thing ever to watch this cannibal show going on.

But it's really not that. I mean, they've got their own guys who have done interesting things.

Um, none of this has anything to do with the truth of the Christian faith or even a lot of the criticisms that Sam Shamoon has made of Islam in the past.

It's just the freak show of the internet. Sadly, it really is. And so if, if people, one of the main reasons

I bring this up is not that this is something new for Sam. It's, it's a new person he's attacking. I can't imagine he has any friends left.

You know, he's done stuff with Jay Dyer and then he attacked him as gay Dyer and went after him.

He did all sorts of stuff for years with David Wood. And now this, he's got to be a very lonely person, really does, because you don't want to be his friend.

If you know anything about his history, you know, he will turn on you. He will come after you.

There's nothing you can do about it. If you have an independent thought, okay, that's other than his, you're, you're done.

So he must be a very lonely person. But what amazes me is that there are people defending him.

When I retweeted David's tweet with this six minute video on it, man, people came after me just immediately.

It's like a little cult group just dipping at your knees, you know. It's sad to see this kind of thing.

And this was the main thing. If you watch that video, I'm not suggesting that you do, but you can find it easily enough.

There are so many times that Sam is sitting there. He doesn't care what the background looks like.

He doesn't care what the lighting is. He just likes to hear himself talk in his apartment someplace. And here he is, and he's railing at people and talking about, she is raping your mom and homosexuality and all that.

It's just, it's just vile. And there it's a split screen. You know, what's on the other side of the screen?

A Bible verse. He's talking about a Bible verse and using this kind of language.

One of them was first, one of them was Romans 5 .1. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ. It was there on the screen while he is railing insanely.

And you just go, what, what happened?

What happened? It's, it's a sad thing. Okay. I'd like you on X two more real quick things here.

Um, whenever I see Augustine stuff, I throw it to, uh,

Namor on X, uh, for, for purposes of, of, uh, transparency.

I, I think it should be made known that Namor on X is

Chris, who is the vice president of Alpha Omega Ministries. Okay. Doesn't live here in the

Valley, lives elsewhere, but he is our vice president. And I think we're pretty privileged to have him.

Solid guy, solid, solid guy. And he just reads Augustine voraciously and remembers it.

And so when people throw silly stuff out, I threw this one at him from this, uh,

LDS guy, this LDS guy, Dr. Jason PhD. Looks like he's about 22, but Dr.

Jason PhD. Uh, Augustine literally says he can't join the church because Christians believe

God has a body. Augustine Confessions 6 .3 .4 to 4 .6.

And then he gives CCSL 2776 .77. So I threw that screen cap into our ministry chat channel.

And, um, I said, here, Chris, one for you. I'm sure you're salivating for this one.

Short time later, he's got a series in response to Dr. Jason.

And I, I don't know that he even responded. Um, demonstrating that what

Augustine was actually saying is he didn't want to join the Christian church because he thought the

Christian church taught that God had a physical body and that he was wrong. He was deceived and he had to be educated.

And once he learned, then he realized the error that he'd had before. This is the kind of stuff that you're seeing on X right now.

I mean, the Mormons, they will throw anything. Um, there's a guy

I've been trying to converse with and last night he sent me something. It looked like he is actually willing to converse and hopefully

I'll get back to him tonight. But he threw this thing out about the council of Nicaea that was just horrible.

I mean, it's just filled with fables and myths and it's just blah. And this is the kind of stuff that they're throwing out there all the time.

It's, it's bad, bad stuff. Just, just be aware of it. Um, basically don't believe it.

It's, uh, yeah. Okay. One last thing. Uh, let me, let me go ahead and put this up if you want to see it real quick.

Someone sent this to me. This is from the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation. It is a note that has been inserted.

I do not know when it was inserted. I would be very interested in knowing when it was, uh, because when

I was doing a lot of reading of, of the Watchtower literature, this was not there. But this is now on the, uh, um, website as a footnote for the

New World Translation at John 1241. Why is this important? Because I have taught people for a long, long time.

Go to John 1241. Well, just, just go watch the debate with, um,

Dale Tuggy on Is Jesus Jehovah? And you'll see, I'll walk through John 12 and demonstrate this is where John's identifying

Jesus as the Jehovah who was seen. Or if you want to go to the sermon that I did at G3 a few years ago on this subject as well, did the same thing there.

Anyway, here's the note. Isaiah saw his glory. So what they're doing, they know this is out there.

They've had enough people writing to them. They've decided to try to give an excuse to Jehovah's Witnesses.

And here's what it is. Isaiah saw his glory. When Isaiah saw a vision of the heavenly courts where Jehovah was sitting on his lofty throne,

Jehovah asked Isaiah, who will go for us? Now, Isaiah 6, 1, 8 through 10.

Notice, actually, they're skipping apart. This is, this is after Isaiah has says,

I am undone. This is after cleansing of the, of the prophet's lips. Um, and the focus remains on Jehovah who's lofty and lifted up.

He says, who will go for us? Well, the divine plural is used throughout the

Old Testament. It's, it's regularly used. So notice this, the use of the plural pronoun us indicates that at least one other person was with God in this vision.

Really? Do they apply that throughout the Old Testament? No, they don't.

It's just for here. Oh, there was someone else in this vision looking at this that God's talking to.

So it is reasonable to conclude that when John wrote that Isaiah saw his glory, this refers to Jesus's pre -human glory alongside

Jehovah. John 1, 14. What? Oh, okay.

So Jesus, so wait a minute. Are you saying Michael, the archangel? Who, who is, what is

Jesus's pre -human glory? Was pre -human glory speaking with Jehovah?

Is this the us? Or are you saying it was Michael, the archangel? And then what

Jehovah was saying, who will go for me and Michael, the archangel? I mean, the

Mormons are going, hey, we've heard this someplace before. If you're not familiar, in the LDS temple ceremonies,

Elohim, God the Father, sends Jesus, Jehovah, and Michael, in company with Michael, down to organize the earth.

Okay. So that's what's going on there. This refers to Jesus's pre -human glory alongside

Jehovah. This harmonizes with such scriptures as Genesis 1, 26, where God said, let us make man in our image.

So we're made in the image of the pre -human glory of Jesus? Is, is that what you're saying?

John adds that Isaiah spoke about him, that is, the Christ, because a large portion of Isaiah's writings focuses on the foretold

Messiah. Well, that may be true, but the citation from Isaiah 6, there's only one person in view, and that's

Jehovah. And they're totally skipping over the fact that it says he saw his glory.

And whose glory did Isaiah see in Isaiah 6? It wasn't Jesus's pre -human glory.

According to Isaiah 6, 1, it is the glory of Jehovah. So this is another example of how the

Watchtower Society provides excuses in its study notes for its people to try to keep them in darkness.

I truly feel for whoever wrote this, because they know what it says, and they're purposely keeping people in the dark, deceiving people in what they're saying.

But someone sent that to me, I said I'll take a look at it, and hadn't seen it before, and wanted to respond to it on the program.

Okay, hey, we're out of time. Thank you so much for joining us on the program today. Hopefully, it has been of assistance to you,

Lord willing. I think everything's cool for Thursday. We'll find out when we get there.