Road Trip Dividing Line from Salt Lake #2

Keep doing that. Why do I keep doing that? I don't know why I Haven't had that problem in the past.

Hi again coming to you live in Salt Lake City, Utah I'm not gonna worry about editing all that out. Nobody cares There's just one little red button

I've got to push down there to to make the microphone work and Never had any problems that before but guess out of sight out of mind.

I'm looking this direction not over there. Anyway Might get some rain tonight Um, did you know that it can rain pollen?

There was a gust of wind today and it looked like a dust storm in Phoenix but it was pollen.

Oh All I can hope is that this evening when it rains It rains enough to wash it off Because if it just rains a little bit it just becomes like pollen glue,

I mean I Can't imagine that my my we have two solar things up on the roof

There they've got to be covered You should I could I couldn't even see out of the window the front window of my truck I got into it a little while ago.

I had to run up to the office pick something up and Yeah, you all live with this stuff

That we get a little bit of pollen once in a while in in Phoenix, but not like this this is

Wow Absolutely amazing. Anyway, it's got a lot to get to today. So I don't have time to be talking about all this stuff

Okay, first of all Supreme Court eight to one decision today one of the longest lasting

Legacies of the illegitimate Biden regime and that stolen election and everybody knows now that's not even beyond question

It's not even debatable anymore All the evidence is plain the hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes that have been documented now

That turned that election there. There was no way that Daughtering old man in his basement won that thing

Anyway, one of the great legacies of that stolen election is Justice Kajan Kadanji Brown Jackson, whatever

She was the one dissent Even the ideologues and the other liberals in the court are ideologues even the other ideologues

Wouldn't go there. Have you seen the chart? They have a chart the number of words spoken by each justice in asking questions during the actual hearing of the case before the court and They have a chart how many words each one said

Thomas is always the least it doesn't talk Guess who's the most her that the chick that doesn't know what a woman is

And they threw out the obvious absurdity of the Colorado law

Where you couldn't counsel people on transgenderism and stuff like that they checked it out the door as they needed to But she was the one descent

And when you read her dissents that this woman is not bright. I Mean you can at least make the case that the ideologues are intelligent women

But this woman is not an intelligent woman she is not bright by any stretch the imagination she is the biggest

DEI hire ever and I really wonder if there's any way it's not never gonna happen.

Never gonna have the Look the the Senate the house corrupt

Dead I think our system of government's pretty much dead to be proven. Honestly, I Can't see how when you have two completely different nations living within one border

The Constitution United States can function it was designed for a moral and godly people and There's very few moral and godly people left

At least in the context in which that phrase was used originally so I Just we're stuck with her.

We are going to beat our head against the wall at her insane dribbling

For the rest of my natural life. That's for sure and One more crazy election and There you go

Pack the court with those folks Wow, amazing Then let me see here

Phil Vischer Phil Vischer of VeggieTales fame Was that the

Holy Post podcast or something like that? I don't know a week and a half ago and I said

I would talk about it and I forgot I'm not gonna bring the thing up but He did this thing

Where basically he was saying hey as long as you do the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed You're good

You're Christian Nothing else matters. And so that's mere

Christianity on steroids and It would be interesting to press why those statements

You know Introduce him to some nice Unitarians and see how long he holds that position.

He's probably doesn't know any yet But You know, my immediate response was

So the Judaizers were good Because there's no indication whatsoever

That there had they had a Christological issue that they denied the Trinity or the resurrection

The Judaizers whole thing Was soteriological it was gospel oriented.

It was an understanding of the covenants entering into the covenants faith justification So evidently,

I guess they would have been good And that was the only thing I commented on Initially was

I just I sort of make a made a statement on X So I guess the Judaizers would be good and I don't know if anybody responded to it

But he responded to other people I don't think he'd ever respond to me but he responded to other people and The whole thing was where does the

Bible give you a list of defining doctrines? And we've talked about this before we have talked about the concentric circles.

We've talked about Defining doctrines vitally important doctrines secondary doctrines adiaphora the things that don't matter

We've talked about how in fundamentalism you don't make any of those distinctions even the adiaphora matter

You know, we've talked about people who? You know Steven Anderson After that interview we did years and years and years ago.

When did we do that interview? That was a long time ago Wonder what year that was now

I think about it but After that interview he was doing something they were packing up their equipment or something.

It was we did it in my office and He made some statement about somebody forgot who it was

But he says something along the lines of they were

Mid tribulation people and so we know they're not Christians So so I mean there's the very essence of the spirit of fundamentalism

Everything's a gospel issue Everything defines the faith. So if you disagree with me on anything you know, that's how they that's how you end up condemning everybody, but people who look exactly like you to hell and so Yeah, you've got those folks but then on the other side, you know, you've got the the

Liberals really liberals the leftist There's nothing at all that is definitional you just Just say

Jesus three times and it doesn't matter what you think he is or who he was or what he did

So in answer to Phil Fisher No, there's not a it's like You know when people say well the word

Trinity is not in the New Testament Yeah, but you can't understand the New Testament without the doctrine of the Trinity it explains how the authors can easily go from spirit of the

Lord the Spirit of God the Spirit of Jesus and and Can give you the

Trinitarian benedictions, you know the grace Lord Jesus Christ You know the love of God the

Father the fellowship the Holy Spirit be with you all and How father son spirit can just be thrown together

Which would make no sense if they were ontologically separate and Subordinated persons or beings

So if he's looking for the simplistic well, here's the list, you know, this is the chapter of defining doctrines

Something like that sure but the fact the matter is you look at what the disputes were the things that the

Apostles warned the early church about and There you're gonna get your list of doctrines so Galatians Romans Gospel is there.

That's why the mere Christianity stuff fails and will always fail Without the gospel you don't have the

Christian faith and that's why the Judaizers weren't good and Didn't get into the fellowship of the church and were called pseudo

Delphi so for Paul the gospel is an issue of whether you are in a

Delphi a brother or not and There were people who claimed to be a

Delphi But They were pseudo false they snuck in and That's why

People like Barry Lynn remember remember the debate with Barry Lynn. That's how you people like Barry Lynn do not like the book of Galatians because Well, how did

Barry Lynn put it? Yeah in Galatians Paul really was over the top. Mm -hmm over the top.

That's what he that was a term used I still remember it anyway Of course

I'll go remembers it and could quote you the sentence before in the sentence after I Can't do that.

So anyway In answer to Phil Fisher then It's not here's the verse with the

Doctrine names in it. It's here is us Honestly dealing with the text and Recognizing that Paul separated people in the fellowship of church for these issues preaching a false

Jesus the pagans and their false gods and the people who had a false gospel and so as Uncomfortable as it is for many people the gospel is very much part of that and You'll never make it you'll never get invited to the big ecumenical conferences and I'm telling you mark my words within the next

You know, it's about seven years from now You've got about seven years And you go seven years for what?

2033 and What's in 2033? 2000s anniversary of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Traditionally I'm not gonna sit here and have a big argument about what year

Jesus was born and what year this happened and all the rest that Stuff somewhere between 30 and 33 most people say 33.

Okay, fine, whatever. I think that's how it's going to be observed primarily is 2033 and mark my words there is going to be some big major ecumenical

Movement Accomplishment breakthrough something between Roman Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy, I could see something like that literally fracturing the

Eastern Orthodox, which is under strains right now anyways The Ukraine war put a lot of strain on that there's always been strained between Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox and stuff like that Both sides you're gonna have to really give a lot to get anywhere that could cause

That could cause an issue. But anyway keep an eye on 2033 and I Think you'll see some fascinating things going on there

Okay, so we've did the Katanji Brown Jackson stuff. We did Phil Vischer one other thing and then we're gonna start looking at the cross -examination with Avery and and Jacob in a debate they did recently, which

I'm glad I got a chance to see it because Friday it's gonna be interesting

Friday Fridays could be like trying to nail jello to a wall because Jacob Hanson makes it up as he goes along Jacob Hanson does not believe today

What do you believe four years ago and I can guarantee you he would not believe four years here four years So now what do you believe today? in many ways, he's like Joseph Smith just a lot smarter than Joseph Smith and A lot better much better read than Joseph Smith but he just pulls from any source and cobbles this thing together that no one before him has ever believed and That doesn't seem to bother.

In fact, that seems to be attractive to him that he's the only one who's ever thought this up before and We'll see that as we listen to the cross -ex

It helps if you listen to the rest of the debate but most of it's still understandable the the court thing and and all the rest of stuff

But it Friday is gonna be interesting Friday's gonna be interesting before we get to that Um Yesterday I You see here that one there

Yesterday I ran across capturing Christianity Posted I'm actually looking for a

Protestant that is willing to debate a Catholic on Eucharistic miracles the Catholic is Ethan Muse no idea who he is and probably never find out but I looked at this there are 79 responses to it and I Responded yesterday by saying will you be debating

Muslim miracles associated with Laila al -qadr or hajj as well? Mormon miracles seen in their temples perhaps

Wild stuff from Hindu history as well. Just wondering now. Let's just stop for a second.

Was I making a point there possibly? maybe Um Obviously, I was attempting to make a point and The point is that every religious system including those that we would that even

I and Roman Catholics would agree are far removed from anything close to Divine Revelation or anything like that Um Miracle stories are a dime a dozen and When you look at all the

Alleged miracles that have been Foisted upon Roman Catholics Marian apparitions and you know,

I I love showing the picture of the Image of Mary in the ugly duckling car building in Clearwater, Florida back in the 90s

And how people start, you know, I start having mass there and people start having visions there you know a

Marian group built bought the building for over a million bucks, which you know the 90s that was What you know money had more value in the 90s before the?

Government decide you value everything that you own and steal it from you, which is what they did both sides together in in cahoots, whatever anyway, and Then one night somebody with a really powerful slingshot from a gas station nearby demarion eyes the building smashed the window and And You know, it's still there and there it

I went in there when I was there the first time I visited Clearwater Maybe a second It was creepy well, how is creepy there is this room where there would be

Marian apparitions and all this stuff But you know Those are a dime a dozen and the number of those that the church has actually recognized as having validity it's a little bit like when

You look at the Hadith Then the number of Hadith is like 680 ,000 and the number they've been accepted as sahi going back to Muhammad is

Like it's an it's 90 to 95 percent all fake

They they're rejected Same thing with the Marian apparitions stuff like that the vast majority the church says man

No, don't see they're not saying it didn't happen. They're just simply saying well, you know

This doesn't have enough evidence. That was that we will recommend it to the faithful and things like that So when you come to Eucharistic miracles, okay, remember remember?

was that my Members that is the debate with Pacwa or the debate was in genesis.

I think it was a debate with some genesis. I Quoted from the famous passage.

There's a there's a section in shafts history of the church Where he narrates some of the wilder examples of the first centuries of Eucharistic miracles because as he pointed out

Once the doctrine of Transubstantiation became established all of a sudden there's this explosion in Eucharistic miracles the first millennium.

You just don't have the same type of thing at all because we have the doctrine of transubstantiation And real presence of transubstantiation are not the same thing though Rome tries to say that anyway

So You know you you have you start getting bleeding hosts and you know stuff like that and Then you the most famous one,

I think it's one that I read in the debate was where a farmer stole a host a consecrated host and so in Roman Catholic theology of the day and This is still technically true though.

I get the feeling the vast majority of Roman Catholics are not quite as focused upon these things as they once were but The theology is that once the host is consecrated it is changed it's

Transubstantiated in the body soul blood and divinity of Jesus But Using Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance so Transubstantiation has changed the substance but the accidents is what it still looks like.

So the bread still looks like bread The wine still looks like wine tastes like one doesn't taste like blood doesn't look like blood if you test it.

It's not blood Which is which has always made it weird when claims are made that well they tested this and it actually ended up being human blood and But that's means it

That's not what transubstantiation is. That's not substance and accidents the

The testing would be the accidents not the substance and so you wouldn't have bleeding hosts that really is actually a denial of the

Concept of transubstantiation or at least a violation of the category Anyway, this farmer takes a

Consecrated host and He thinks Hey if I put this out in my beehives then the bees will be blessed and they will create more honey and they'll pollinate more of my crops and it'll be great and So he puts the consecrated host in the beehive and And The bees stop doing anything

He goes out the next day to get honey, and there's there's no honey And so he starts checking and finally he finds that the bees have taken the consecrated host

They've put it. It's one place. They've built an altar to it I mean he looks in the bees are bowing down to the altar where the consecrated host is and Then they chase him off Because they knew he stole it and so he has to go get a priest and the priest goes in procession the bees allow the priest to take the host and take it back to the church and Okay, so there's a

Eucharistic miracle, right? I'm sure it happened I'm sure everybody today believes that happened because they're everybody back then believe that it happened, right?

And So so this is what we're talking about Eucharistic miracles and so I'm sitting here going so my whole my whole point in making the comment

I did is Everybody has this stuff. It's not a valid Debate topic.

I mean, how would you even debate it? What kind of evidence? I mean They're not gonna accept the evidence of Hindu miracles, right and I Bet on Saturday When I'm standing outside the general conference the

Mormon Church for the first time in a number of years actually Used to do it all the time. I Bet I could run into folks that could narrate miracles in the

LDS temples There's lots of stories inside the temples of visions and miracles

And How do you debate that? I mean if if a

Mormon were to challenge me debate Debate the the visions of the dead and The redemption of the dead that are common amongst

Mormons in the temple How do you do that? Well, the only logical way to do that is to demonstrate that Christians don't have temples the

Mormon temple is a pagan temple and What goes on in that pagan temple? Could definitely result in visions

But their visions of something other than heaven and Prompted by beings not coming from heaven and So you'd have to deal with Mormonism as a system and the claims of Mormonism as a system that would be the only way to to meaningfully address the subject and so in the same way, the only way to meaningfully address the subject of Eucharistic miracles is to deal with the doctrine of the

Eucharist and We've done that a number of times. In fact, I need to mention this I Saw some guy make a comment yesterday

He said that I haven't debated any Catholics since Joe Heisman and I'd have to go back.

I mean that was wasn't that long ago That was only a year ago, I think

So, I'm not sure if I have or haven't but Because he did so poorly and I'm like, you know what

I won that today. I Couldn't substantiate that And I'm thinking about going back and demonstrating that because the only thing that's ever been said about it

Was about the Ignatius stuff And everything else, you know, he he demonstrated the use of the term sacrifice by early church fathers

But he his attempted biblical response was incredibly vapid

It was weak the vast majority of my presentation Was left completely untouched and The verses that he did use like the

Hosea verse and stuff like that, you know the offering being made you you actually spend the time to go into the context and And I did in the debate.

I felt I felt that I Crippled his use of those texts in the debate But no one ever talks about that part

Honest analysis of debates is Not something most people were actually trained to do

Anyway, but we might do that. I think that would be worthwhile especially to go through The Old Testament passages that were presented because you know,

I have to do that in rebuttal So it has to be fairly quick do it a little more slowly and you get to read the whole context and go that's it's not what we're talking about here and So anyway, well, we'll do that.

But what we would do To debate Eucharistic miracles debate the

Eucharist You know debate the development of the priesthood our

Presbyter's priests now, you know Mitch Packer when we debate the priesthood he made the assertion that That was the path of development from presbyter to priest, okay,

I Get the admission But I don't think there's a single

Roman Catholic Who is at all familiar with the original languages or church history

That would try to defend the idea that presbyter as used in the New Testament has reference to a sacramental priesthood

I Just can I cannot imagine and Joe Heschmeier wouldn't do that He has to recognize the the development that took place so you have to have

The sacramental priesthood for the sacramental Eucharist but there was no sacramental priesthood in the

New Testament and Many Roman Catholic historians have admitted that But there always is a massive chasm between Roman Catholic historians and Roman Catholic apologists and People would make the same accusation against Protestant apologists being a professor of church history,

I would probably dispute that but They they will make the same accusation

So All after this so so the response

What was are you throwing your hat in to debate Ethan? And I'm like, um, of course not

Said did you read what I wrote? It sort of spoke to the reality of topic didn't it? And he says if you think the evidence for those is equally comparable,

I would love to have you debate with Ethan I'm like, it's not the amount of evidence.

It's the presuppositional nature see this this young guy you know,

I I Took the time

Back when he first started falling into Rome, you know, we we did we did a program and we

You know talked about Sola Scriptura You know, we did the things that You would do to try to help somebody, you know when

I heard him talking with Matt Fradd about John 6

I'm like, um, come on, dude Let's let's let's think about John chapter 6 let's look at this, you know,

I tried to do what I could he still converted Nothing overly surprising about that but then

And I'm not sure this is interesting I'm not sure why Didn't have a big huge following.

Um Then once he started attacking his

Sola Scriptura and stuff like that Eli Ayala and I did a program where we just Devastated his

Sola Scriptura stuff And I actually just realized I asked him if If he ever responded and I you know,

I didn't see my I don't even see my

Responses here that I don't know where that went It is one of the problems with with X if you if you don't follow stuff that day, it can just simply disappear

Anyway, the the threat explodes and he responded a bunch of times said some rather Strange things in the process and Sort of exposed his motivation but The the the reason you don't debate

Eucharistic miracles is because not only is it not a first -order topic that Would be just pure emotionalism.

There wouldn't be any I mean, you can't go back and ask these people things. It's sort of like when he did the thing about the

Marian apparition down in Egypt. I think it was Zaytun and it's like he literally said there was more evidence for that than for the resurrection and And you're like man, how do you fall that fast?

well Because as a non -catholic he had no foundation. Anyways, he didn't have any idea what he actually believed

He didn't know why he was a Protestant he was not a Protestant conviction He didn't know soul scripture.

He didn't know any type of serious theology. He should never have been involved in doing apologetics

Apologetics is only for those who are theologically grounded. Well, at least it should only be for those are theologically grounded and So it wasn't shocking whatsoever that he converted and all the rest that stuff but we've never had the same epistemology even when he was a

Non -catholic. He was a William Lane Craig style evidentialist. And so he already had a

Romanist of a Romanist apologetic of epistemology to begin with well apologetic sort of along the same lines, too and so he still holds those things he's still a mixture and That it just so clear when you see his responses

That he doesn't understand first order versus second order he doesn't understand the necessity of presuppositions like I said his soul scripture stuff was amateurish best and So he he

I'm sure he'll get this debate to happen Somebody will wander out there and it'll be a massive waste of time

Because it won't be dealing with the only thing that actually matters and what actually matters is

Did the Apostles the Lord Jesus Christ? deliver teaching that the

Eucharist Involves transubstantiation involves priestly sacrifice priestly consecration and They see a modern

Roman Catholic theologians admit. Oh that developed long time later That's why they've made John Henry Cardinal Newman a doctor the church

But historically that can't work. It's it's a joke and The apologetically minded guys understand that If you know they try to you know, what's one of their big arguments against all scripture?

Well, it has to be true at all times. There can't be a giving of the scripture There can't be a period where the scripture is being given and written and distributed

They just assume no no, I was gotta be true at all times. It's an absurd It's just as absurd as the

Muslims saying would you just have to say I'm God worship me for him Anybody believe in the deity of Christ the same kind of ad hoc silliness that the that the

Muslims That and they use that and they'll say hey, so all scripture has to be true at all times

So does the papacy have to be true at all times does? Priesthood have to be true at all times does transubstantiation have to be true at all.

Oh, no, no, no, no John Henry Cardinal Newman Inconsistency is a sign of failed arguments.

So the it's really hypocritical For modern

Catholic apologists to Constantly and I don't know how they don't see they do this they constantly

Pat the faithful on the back for their 2 ,000 years of consistent teaching and then when ever pressed on these subjects

All of a sudden they slap some Newman on it and they think all is well, I don't know how they can't see it

It's self -deception, but there you go That's that's what happens.

So no, I have zero interest whatsoever in wasting my time on foolish debate topics

Eucharist in the New Testament The Atonement New Testament. Sure. I mean not this year

He probably doesn't know that I'm debating the seventh ecumenical council right doesn't care but I do and Therefore not going there.

All right took a lot more time there than I Should have but here we go

So What I did here is I was sent this

Clip and I like I said, I started listening to the debate itself and then this is just one portion one half of the cross -examination section and Since we have debate coming up This Friday With Jacob Hansen, I felt it'd be useful to at least get started on this and we probably won't finish it until after the day but I smell rain

It's a nice smell something. You don't smell a lot in Phoenix these days. We sure could use a whole lot more

But Hopefully everything's gonna work here and I will be able to present this to you

And I'll stop and start I may do picture -in -picture to keep from hitting all the wrong buttons here, but it was fascinating to listen to and I'm just telling you right now.

I know what's coming on Friday and No, I don't know if it's to be live -streamed. I doubt that it will be

I doubt that the church We're gonna be out has that capability. I could be wrong So I might do it on Facebook or something

I I'm frequently surprised The debate I did on This past Saturday is already online.

I Posted on X about an hour ago or so with should be

Ali you'll be able to see that Shabir was Shabir. I had forgotten Shabir had some weird views like on sur4157 and stuff like that I had actually it's been so long that I I literally forgotten that he takes a very

Small minority view on certain things But yeah, there is one huge parallel between Jacob Hansen and Shabir Ali They just love grabbing hold of Quotes from Whoever they quote is the greatest

Christian scholar of the age as long as The quote helps their side, you know

So, we'll see if this comes up in the debate I'm not gonna discuss it right now But there's one quote he uses in this in this debate from a philosopher

That you know is Exactly The kind of tactic that the

Muslims use and the Unitarians use These guys don't have any concern about borrowing stuff from It doesn't matter if this

Person they quote will completely contradict the next person. They quote that doesn't matter to them It's as long as the quote is useful for the narrative and in this instance

We're gonna hear Jacob Hansen specifically denying the 1916 statement

Okay, specifically tonight. He doesn't quote it But he knows about the 1916 statement the first presidency of the

Church Jesus Christ Latter -day Saints on the relationship of the Father and the Son in which

The father is identified as Elohim And the

Son is Jehovah now Statements like that don't just exist in a vacuum there had been it.

It's easy to document that Joseph Smith was not consistent on that subject and probably

Did not actually hold that view Again if Smith had not been murdered in 1844, there would be no

Mormonism His Theology was evolving and changing so fast that I don't think anybody could have made heads tails out of it in just a couple more years

And I could probably say the same thing about Jacob Hansen too But So it you can make the argument that Smith identified the father is

Jehovah Look Smith just didn't know much about it. And he despite his

Protestations he could not read the original languages. He was not a prophet. He did not have some kind of special ability

It's embarrassing the stuff. He says about German and Greek and Hebrew in 1844 in the

King Follett funeral discourse and the Sermon of the Grove the stuff that he says is just Face plantingly bad

So he wouldn't know That over 500 times

Yahweh Elohim is a Singular name That it specifically says in the scriptures

Yahweh he is Elohim he is hot Elohim he is the Elohim the guy He Avery does bring up one of those verses from my

Nehemiah 9 But there are numerous other ones and so By 1916 there needed to be a definition and See, here's the thing that you need to understand.

I may never get any this place. Here's the thing need to understand statements like the 1916 statement from the presidency don't just float around in the ether there was a context and part of that context was the development and standardization of the

LDS temple service and This used to be

A more sensitive Area than it is now but The LDS temple ceremonies identify the father's as Elohim and the son is

Jehovah and Elohim sends down Jehovah in company with Michael the Archangel so if that has any meaning and And it really seems to me that in the new

Mormonism because Mormonism is unraveling It's unraveling from the inside The Authoritarian doctrinal system that once held it together has collapsed

The days of Bruce R. McConkie and Mormon doctrine are past and when you listen to Jacob Hansen, man

I cannot imagine a single Mormon that I talked to the 1980s that would recognize his

Brand of Mormonism as Mormonism in the 1980s at all. Not a one. They would have gone.

What are you talking about? Huh? And so in this conversation you will hear him saying well

Each of the divine persons father son spirit can bear the divine name Yahweh, which is of course

Jehovah tell that to the millions of Mormons who have gone through the

LDS temple ceremony and Seen Elohim sending

Jehovah down in company with Michael to organize the earth Tell that to anybody who's read the 1916 statement now how many

Mormons have read the 1916 state? I don't know. It's still on the LDS church website it's still considered a binding document on some level

But when oh The cash is full

Uh -oh To do

I'm asking rich.

Oh, so it's still going Well, oh, I see what happened.

I See what happened It's been a roller coaster, huh? Well, I'll just have to finish recording it but I'm wondering here honestly

Oh It won't show me this Yep.

How did that happen? Guess what, Rich? Hyperdeck high. Hyperdeck high.

How could that happen? I have no earthly idea. We got to get that fixed. We got to get that fixed.

For those of you wondering what in the world we're talking about, it's a setting in the software we use, and it all of a sudden starts throwing this massive data rate out, which the system can't handle.

And it crashes us. So we're recording here locally.

Yep. We're recording here locally. So I'll get this upload to Rich as soon as possible, because this feed will die in a short period of time.

So my apologies. I don't know. Rich has beaten his head upon it, and so have

I. We thought we had gotten it fixed, found a way to stop it, and it's trying to do 36 .1

megabits per second. And a cellular signal can't handle that. It just can't pull it off.

So I'll just record it. We'll get it uploaded. In fact, you know what?

I'll just go off air and just record it and upload it, because I'm sure it's just hiccuping all over the place.

We can't pull that kind of a thing off. We know exactly what it is.

Whether we'll be able to fix it or not, I don't know. It worked last time. I don't have any idea why it didn't work this time.

So anyways, let's just go ahead and jump into this. We'll record it and go from there.

Been good for a long time, you bad, bad man. We have heard the entire audio. So well, too late.

There you go. It jumped into it here.

Let me ask you this question, man. Who do you believe Yahweh is? You're talking about a who?

You're talking about a what? Who is he? Who? Out of the persons, is the father

Yahweh? Each one of them can hold the divine name. So in Exodus, for example, it talks about my name is in him.

The angel of the Lord? Yep, to the angel of the Lord. So any one of the three persons can hold the title or name of Yahweh.

So in the ancient world, there was a concept of the king sending a messenger that would bear his name and who would actually speak as if he were the king.

In Revelation, John sees an angel who comes to him and begins to speak to him, literally saying like,

I am the Alpha and the Omega. And he falls down and starts worshiping him. Okay. All right.

A number of people have caught this and Avery caught it as well, thankfully.

But there's a bunch of things here. Again, let me go back over here. This is not how a

Mormon would speak. Not if the doctrinal statements of the LDS church are your authority.

So the problem Mormonism has is Joseph F.

Smith and his first counselors, in 1916, claimed to be a prophet of God and apostles of Jesus Christ.

Speaking in that office for the church, they define that the Father is

Elohim and the Son is Jehovah. Now, the problem is if you function with the idea of latter day revelation, is there going to be consistency in that revelation over time?

That would be one of the greatest evidences of the truthfulness of the claims. But if there is inconsistency, that would be one of the greatest evidences of the lack of truthfulness of those claims.

And so what you're getting in the new Mormonism is, well, we should believe what the current prophet teaches.

Well, shouldn't the current prophet be in perfect harmony with the preceding? Well, there's development. Oh, we've got

John Henry Cardinal Newman moving to Salt Lake City. Even if there was development understanding, there can't be contradiction.

But that's the problem they're facing. And so the new Mormonism comes along, and even though, you know, they have all these different doctrines, strange doctrines, like the concept of the priesthood, which only they hold, their form of the priesthood.

Most of the people living today trace their priesthood back through Brigham Young, and yet they've thrown

Brigham Young into the bus. Blake Osler says Brigham Young's theology was a disaster for Mormonism.

And yet he was prophet of the church, and priesthood authority flows through him.

And remember, I mentioned when I played the Hashemeyer -Hanson debate, it struck me there was so little discussion of priesthood authority from either one of them.

But I would have thought it would have been central to Hanson if he was an old -time

Mormon. Well, he's the new -time Mormon. And when you listen to what new

Mormonism is, the only thing that I can really emphasize about it is it's not

Mormonism. I don't know what it is. They need to come up with a new name. They need to come up with some way of differentiating it.

It's not Mormonism. It really isn't. And so whatever this new

Mormonism is, it is very fluid. It hasn't been defined yet. It's being defined, and I think it can just sort of morph and change over time.

So if that's where he's coming from, and if he continues coming from that direction on Friday evening, which he has to, it's going to be a really challenging debate because my position is established and has history.

His position is not established, and as far as I can tell, he's the only person that's ever believed what he believes. You could have said the same thing about Joseph Smith during his life.

Exact same thing. That's why I see real parallels there. But how do you debate something like that?

There's no objective standard to hold it to because it's just redefining and can draw from any source you want.

Just grab anything, and all will be well. So then the other thing that a lot of other people already caught disappeared, and I forgot to bring this up, so I will grab it real quick since I stopped it there.

In Revelation chapter 19, I believe, oh stop, I really wish the

Accordance would fix this. Here is, here is, this is the marriage supper of the

Lamb, and early in 1906, then

I heard something like the voice of a great crowd, and like the sound of many waters, like the sound of mighty peals and thunders saying hallelujah, the

Lord our God, the Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give glory to him, for the marriage of the

Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready, and it was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

Then he said to me, write, bless are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb, and he said to me, these are the true words of God.

So there is the angel who's been showing John these heavenly visions, says, write, bless are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the

Lamb, and he said to me, these are true words of God. Then I fell at his feet to worship him.

Verse 10, now that's proskuneo, proskunesis, this will come up a lot in the debate in October.

Is there a difference between proskuneo and letruo? This goes back into the

Greek septuagint, we're getting into all that right now. But he falls at his feet to worship him, and you can use proskuneo in a non -religious context, to show obeisance to someone, to show honor to someone.

You know, a Roman soldier might proskuneo the centurion, or the leader of the legion, or something like that.

But this is in heaven, this is in a religious context. In a religious context, proskuneo is worship, and that's what it says.

Then I fell at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, do not do that. I am a fellow slave with you and your brothers who have the witness of Jesus.

Worship God. And if you look at verse 10, it's totheo proskuneson.

So, you are to worship God, and that's full worship.

You're not to give proskuneo to a fellow slave, to a creature. You are to worship

God for the witness of Jesus in the spirit of prophecy. So, I don't know where Jacob came up with this reading in Revelation chapter 19, and what he said here, because it doesn't make any sense.

Because the angel didn't say, I am the alpha and omega, or anything like that at all.

That's just not there. But you'll notice what he's doing. If you're familiar with the stuff from the

Unitarians, going all the way back to, what was that, 2010, 2011, when Michael Brown and I debated

Anthony Buzzard and Joseph Goode, what was their primary argument? Jesus is the sheliak.

He's the representative. And so, what Hansen's doing is he's, and he's not the first one to do that.

He's become rather expert at it. Modern Mormon apologists, after BYU sort of breaks out of Utah, and you start interacting with us in the rest of the world, you do what the

Muslims did with Itzhar al -Haq in 1864. You go get the Christian liberals, and you use them to attack

Christianity, to make room for your own claims. And that's what you're doing here.

You're going, well, I mean, Brigham Young didn't come up with this stuff.

They didn't think of any of this stuff. So these people, the new apologist knows more than apostles and prophets did.

And they would actually defend that they could. They'd defend that idea. Again, Mormons of the 80s and 90s would be going, oh, no, you don't.

Priesthood authority and all, but things change. Anyway, so they're using this representation thing as a mechanism to help them create a non, and in fact, anti -Trinitarian reading of the

New Testament. And, you know, Mormonism didn't bother with a lot of this for a long time because they had

Latter -day Revelation. So they had the

Doctrine and Covenants of the Pearl of Great Price, and now, to be honest with you, I think they're embarrassed by the Pearl of Great Price, even though there's some online, oh, it's

Divine Revelation, and they do the most amazing things, Egyptology, to come up with that.

But it is fascinating to see this conglomeration of different perspectives being put into a new religious expression that, in its sources, is 1000 % incoherent.

So here's the point, real quickly. We hardly got started here, but here's the point.

If your sources are incoherent at the start, they're never going to become coherent. So you're never going to have a foundation.

So your system will always be built on sand. Whatever this religion, this new

Mormonism that Jacob Hansen's presenting, or Blake Osler, or whoever else, it's all over,

I understand, down in Provo. If it starts with incoherent foundations, those don't heal themselves.

It'll always be incoherent and inconsistent. And hence, we'll never go anywhere. So we'll see what comes of that in the future.

We only got 48 seconds. Sorry about that.

But we will pick up with that. Maybe that's all we'll have to deal with next time around.

So we might get a whole lot farther in. It would be good, because if we do it on Thursday, then that'll be right the night before the debate.

So it'll be fresh on my mind that way. So anyways. All right, kids. Thanks for watching.

Sorry about the technical stuff. We do know what it is. We'll find some way of dealing with it. We'll see you next time on the program.